80611 réponses à ce sujet

[mrgc]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Restrider wrote...

I was bored at work and made this. I think it is something the BSN really needed.

Voted 4+5

Me too.

[Davik Kang]

demersel wrote...
If EDI and the Geth survive destroy choice - they are welcome to punch my Shepard as many times as they want. 
I see no reason not to punch Han Garrel. 

Sure, I agree.  I don't like the guy at all.

I'm just saying that being in the position to make those kinds of calls isn't easy.  I agree with you lot about picking destroy - remember I think the Destroy choice is real, and would still pick it 1000 times over.  

The whole ME universe is filled with tough choices, and brings out the difficult nature of these choices beautifully.  We can't say things like "lol literalists / synthesists don't get it" and then ignore when certain things may confront our own choices, or conflict with our views.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 15 novembre 2012 - 04:47 .

[spotlessvoid]

byne wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Suit yourself. Personally, I like Gerrel. 

Why, exactly?

I don't believe it.

[IronSabbath88]

byne wrote...

IronSabbath88 wrote...

Anytime Han Gerrel gives you crap, just make fun of his ship name.

I believe you're thinking of Zaal'Koris vas Qwib Qwib, who is actually a pretty decent guy.

Han'Gerrel's ship is the Neema.

Oh right. My bad.

[Davik Kang]

starlitegirlx wrote...

Actually though, Gerrel, while his actions are ruthless is a perfect example of destroy and maybe where destroy within the hallucination comes into play. Until now, I hadn't really seen an example of destroy in the game that caused casualties and an ethical dilemma as it is presented in IT destroy option. But there it is. It represents the ruthless calculus of war. It represents destroy as the best option because despite that shepard and crew are on that ship, it HAD to be destroyed. I doubt anyone thinks otherwise. We're just sided against it because gerrel didn't care that shepard and crew were on it. But his choice foreshadows destroy as the only option. Had he not destroyed that ship, it would have led to the destruction of the quarians being the monster it was. And yet, most of us hate what gerrel did, which is quite interesting since it had to be done.

Gerrel's actions are foreshadowing destroy perfectly. A horrible decision one has to make but clearly the right one. There will be casualties. We've got that ruthless calculus of war issue again, but those few dead are symbolic of aiding the fleet toward saving it, however, there were several more missions to complete before saving it (the server, saving koris, and final rannoch mission). Now, I'm wondering if this foreshadowing (which to my recollection is the ONLY foreshadowing we have of destroy option in action rather than just dialogue) is hinting toward there being more to complete the destroy option as in there is more to follow the destroy choice in the chamber. The chamber was like the dreadnaught. But there were other things that had to be done to complete the destruction. Taking out the dreadnaught did some damage just as choosing destroy in the chamber. But at that point on rannoch it was far from over and if you look at the symbology, the wrap up of it was the destruction of the reaper after some other missions. I wonder if, for those of us following the symbolism and foreshadowing - is rannoch how things will play out via future DLCs?

Yeah I think the same about this choice too.  When the stakes are that high, you gotta make a choice quick and it's gotta be the right one.  As far as Gerrel's concerned, if he screws up, the consequences are catastrophic.  That makes the lives of individual soldiers less important ultimately.  It's a sad point but these are the kinds of decisions he must make.

There is a similar choice, don't forget, at the end of ME1.  You have to decide whether soldiers will die or the Council will die.  The language used in that scene leads us - one of the options is "Let the Council die", which strongly leads us away from such a choice.

But language is power here.  Imagine if the dialogue option had said "Destroy the Reaper!"  In other words, focus less on the Council and more on the common goal.  A whole lot more of us would've chosen that option if it'd been worded differently.

This is just an observation btw, there's no particular agenda I'm aiming for.

[spotlessvoid]

EDI would risk non functionality. I think EDI would choose destroy to make sure the Reaper threat is actually gone. Unlike when, you know, they're still there. The Geth....I think Legion would probably choose destroy, don't know bout the others. I know my Shepard would rebuild the geth. Not the same I know, but it would be the best way to pay tribute.

[spotlessvoid]

I'm surprised the synthesis crowd hasn't started a romance Legion thread, since they hate organics so much.

[IronSabbath88]

spotlessvoid wrote...

EDI would risk non functionality. I think EDI would choose destroy to make sure the Reaper threat is actually gone. Unlike when, you know, they're still there. The Geth....I think Legion would probably choose destroy, don't know bout the others. I know my Shepard would rebuild the geth. Not the same I know, but it would be the best way to pay tribute.

Legion stated in the past that we should create our own future, not take once that is given to us.

And that is destroy in a nutshell.

[byne]

I just think Gerrel wanted Tali dead.

My thoughts on Gerrel are basically like this:

He has always been super obsessed with attacking the geth and retaking Rannoch, and never interested in peace.

Only two admirals voted against the war and wanted to try for peace.

Of those two admirals, only Tali doesnt have a fleet under her command. Since Tali commands no ships, her death wouldnt hinder the war effort much.

Only Tali has been in contact with a geth. She, more than any other admiral, understands peace should be possible.

When Gerrel saw the geth dreadnought's shields were down, he saw a chance to take out a political enemy and strike a major blow against the geth at the same time.

Hell, he probably could have used the loss of an admiral as evidence that no peace is possible.

[Rifneno]

starlitegirlx wrote...

Actually though, Gerrel, while his actions are ruthless is a perfect example of destroy and maybe where destroy within the hallucination comes into play. Until now, I hadn't really seen an example of destroy in the game that caused casualties and an ethical dilemma as it is presented in IT destroy option. But there it is. It represents the ruthless calculus of war. It represents destroy as the best option because despite that shepard and crew are on that ship, it HAD to be destroyed. I doubt anyone thinks otherwise. We're just sided against it because gerrel didn't care that shepard and crew were on it. But his choice foreshadows destroy as the only option. Had he not destroyed that ship, it would have led to the destruction of the quarians being the monster it was. And yet, most of us hate what gerrel did, which is quite interesting since it had to be done.

Gerrel's actions are foreshadowing destroy perfectly. A horrible decision one has to make but clearly the right one. There will be casualties. We've got that ruthless calculus of war issue again, but those few dead are symbolic of aiding the fleet toward saving it, however, there were several more missions to complete before saving it (the server, saving koris, and final rannoch mission). Now, I'm wondering if this foreshadowing (which to my recollection is the ONLY foreshadowing we have of destroy option in action rather than just dialogue) is hinting toward there being more to complete the destroy option as in there is more to follow the destroy choice in the chamber. The chamber was like the dreadnaught. But there were other things that had to be done to complete the destruction. Taking out the dreadnaught did some damage just as choosing destroy in the chamber. But at that point on rannoch it was far from over and if you look at the symbology, the wrap up of it was the destruction of the reaper after some other missions. I wonder if, for those of us following the symbolism and foreshadowing - is rannoch how things will play out via future DLCs?

I believe you have Garrel confused with someone who made a decent decision at some point.  Garrel is the one who screams "belay the order!  continue attacking!" after Shepard tells the fleet to stop firing before it gets wiped out.

Garrel is a ****** whose mindless belligerence literally gets his entire race wiped out.  The only thing he's an example of is Darwinism.

[spotlessvoid]

IronSabbath88 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

EDI would risk non functionality. I think EDI would choose destroy to make sure the Reaper threat is actually gone. Unlike when, you know, they're still there. The Geth....I think Legion would probably choose destroy, don't know bout the others. I know my Shepard would rebuild the geth. Not the same I know, but it would be the best way to pay tribute.

Legion stated in the past that we should create our own future, not take once that is given to us.

And that is destroy in a nutshell.

Would you pick destroy if it just wiped out all humans?

[demersel]

starlitegirlx wrote...

Actually though, Gerrel, while his actions are ruthless is a perfect example of destroy and maybe where destroy within the hallucination comes into play. Until now, I hadn't really seen an example of destroy in the game that caused casualties and an ethical dilemma as it is presented in IT destroy option. But there it is. It represents the ruthless calculus of war. It represents destroy as the best option because despite that shepard and crew are on that ship, it HAD to be destroyed. I doubt anyone thinks otherwise. We're just sided against it because gerrel didn't care that shepard and crew were on it. But his choice foreshadows destroy as the only option. Had he not destroyed that ship, it would have led to the destruction of the quarians being the monster it was. And yet, most of us hate what gerrel did, which is quite interesting since it had to be done.

Gerrel's actions are foreshadowing destroy perfectly. A horrible decision one has to make but clearly the right one. There will be casualties. We've got that ruthless calculus of war issue again, but those few dead are symbolic of aiding the fleet toward saving it, however, there were several more missions to complete before saving it (the server, saving koris, and final rannoch mission). Now, I'm wondering if this foreshadowing (which to my recollection is the ONLY foreshadowing we have of destroy option in action rather than just dialogue) is hinting toward there being more to complete the destroy option as in there is more to follow the destroy choice in the chamber. The chamber was like the dreadnaught. But there were other things that had to be done to complete the destruction. Taking out the dreadnaught did some damage just as choosing destroy in the chamber. But at that point on rannoch it was far from over and if you look at the symbology, the wrap up of it was the destruction of the reaper after some other missions. I wonder if, for those of us following the symbolism and foreshadowing - is rannoch how things will play out via future DLCs?

Actually, Vermire forshadows destroy perfectly.  Han Gerrel's actions are just plain stupid. 

[spotlessvoid]

I think saving the council teaches you to sometimes to hope for the best, like with risking the quarian fleet to save the geth. Saving the council makes allies, and even though the consequences were mostly irrelevant in game, in real life that's a risk you truly consider taking

[demersel]

spotlessvoid wrote...


Would you pick destroy if it just wiped out all humans?

Would you hesitate picking destroy if it just wiped out all the batartians? 

[spotlessvoid]

demersel wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...


Would you pick destroy if it just wiped out all humans?

Would you hesitate picking destroy if it just wiped out all the batartians? 

I don't understand the question

[byne]

spotlessvoid wrote...

IronSabbath88 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

EDI would risk non functionality. I think EDI would choose destroy to make sure the Reaper threat is actually gone. Unlike when, you know, they're still there. The Geth....I think Legion would probably choose destroy, don't know bout the others. I know my Shepard would rebuild the geth. Not the same I know, but it would be the best way to pay tribute.

Legion stated in the past that we should create our own future, not take once that is given to us.

And that is destroy in a nutshell.

Would you pick destroy if it just wiped out all humans?

I would.

[Davik Kang]

starlitegirlx wrote...
I guess there is a destroy foreshadow in each game. Destroy sovereign. Destroy the collector base. Destroy the dreadnaught. The last foreshadow is not a choice. But we do get a destroy choice in the end. 

Honestly... I think they just wanted us to see that sometimes you have to be a bit renegade to win a war.  They let us get away with being idealist players in the previous 2 games.  But in the third, you gotta use your brain, not your heart,
to do what is necessary.

In the previous scene, you can convince TIM to kill himself, but if you talk to him without just picking Blue (or Red) every time, then you gotta do the Renegade thing (kill him) to save Anserson.  For me, this is the last minute foreshadowing of the final choice.  It's not just pointing out the problems with Control and Indoctrination.  You have to set aside your principles to save Anderson.  If you refuse, he dies, and I think even Shepard can die if you won't defend yourself either.

[spotlessvoid]

Me too byne. Terrible sacrifice to make, but there's a galaxy full of life and the Reapers are pure death.

[estebanus]

byne wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

IronSabbath88 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

EDI would risk non functionality. I think EDI would choose destroy to make sure the Reaper threat is actually gone. Unlike when, you know, they're still there. The Geth....I think Legion would probably choose destroy, don't know bout the others. I know my Shepard would rebuild the geth. Not the same I know, but it would be the best way to pay tribute.

Legion stated in the past that we should create our own future, not take once that is given to us.

And that is destroy in a nutshell.

Would you pick destroy if it just wiped out all humans?

I would.

Yup. The war isn't about humanity. It's about things so much bigger than any one of the races. It's about ending a cycle of mass genocide that has been a recurring galactic nightmare for millions, if not billions of years. 

Humanity seems like a small sacrifice when looking at it that way, I personally think.

[Dwailing]

You know, since we're talking about the quarians, I would say that the thing from the Rannoch arc that foreshadows Destroy is not Admiral Gerrel (He's a jack***, not a symbol of hard choices), but Admiral Koris. Remember the mission to rescue him? You have to choose whether to save him, or his crew. And the thing is, sacrificing his crew is actually the right call. It saves FAR more lives in the long run, and it takes more work to achieve, meaning that it's probably meant to be the best outcome. Now, a Literalist might argue, "But wait, by your logic, Synthesis would be the best ending since it takes the most work to achieve." Wrong. By that logic, Destroy would be the best ending, since there's a version of it (The breath scene version) that takes even MORE War Assets to achieve than Synthesis.

[Mixon]

Back to thread.
Even after EC, last minutes looks not natural to game it self.
+ we are hearing about indocrination from ME1 till ME3 and never tasted it on our owns. Shepard is an ultra hero, but not a superman. Thats why in IT I trust and in Rebirth dlc. We may not play as Shepard in next ME parts, but he can stay alive as Gray Warden.

[Davik Kang]

 Is it coincidence that this thread always goes quiet when we are on posts 20-25?  I.e. the bottom of the page?  I think not 

Damn, point crushed by quickfire posts 

Modifié par Davik Kang, 15 novembre 2012 - 05:25 .