314 réponses à ce sujet

[Krunjar]

Don't confuse all gamers with the whiney entitled tribal minded xenophobic douchebags that make up the majority of this forum.

[AlanC9]

LegacyOfTheAsh wrote...
The Catalyst provides no proof, no visions to support its claims. For all I know, this THING is malicious and treacherous in nature. I have spent half a decade fighting enemies that's primary weapons are fear and deception. I cannot trust this new entity. So I chose to destroy. If EDI and the Geth die, I will live with this pain for the rest of my life, but my cycle is safe and I would continue to tell myself that there was no way I could have trusted the Catalyst. If I survive...

Huh? If you don't trust what he's saying about Synthesis and Control, why do you trust what he says about Destroy?

Nevermind, we've got another thread for that question.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 août 2012 - 07:37 .

[Ranger Jack Walker]

AlanC9 wrote...

Huh? If you don't trust what he's saying about Synthesis and Control, why do you trust what he says about Destroy?

Nevermind, we've got another thread for that question.

They've already decided what ending they were choosing. Using the claim that the Catalyst is lying is just a weak attempt at justifying their choice because they might possibly be insecure about the ending they chose.

Why else would the Catalyst be lying about everything except their favourite ending?

I'm not saying that all Destroyers are insecure or anything but those who use the "Catalyst is lying" claim as a cover certainly come across as such.

[Jassu1979]

Krunjar wrote...

Don't confuse all gamers with the whiney entitled tribal minded xenophobic douchebags that make up the majority of this forum.

Oh yeah, it's TOTALLY xenophobic to hold the Reapers responsible for murdering billions in the name of some insane "solution".


(I know, I know: don't feed the trolls. It's just that I'm highly allergic to stupidity, and just cannot leave it alone when I detect it.)

[ld1449]

Krunjar wrote...

Don't confuse all gamers with the whiney entitled tribal minded xenophobic douchebags that make up the majority of this forum.

And aparently we have another ****ing idiot.

[Tacoking85]

Baa Baa wrote...

"Destruction leads to a very rough road but it also breeds creation"

Id advise against listening to a junkie when deciding the fate of the galaxy.

Great album though 

[Rhayak]

Krunjar wrote...

Don't confuse all gamers with the whiney entitled tribal minded xenophobic douchebags that make up the majority of this forum.

This is pure gold

[Ieldra]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...
And speaking as someone whose mindset you find despicable, I'd like to clarify that the reason for wanting Destroy to be the only option goes a little beyond a simple revenge fantasy, into catalyst-removal territory. This would in fact save  the Reapers from the undignified idiocy BW subjected them and us to. You congratulate yourself on your open mind and desire to learn. Well, we all did learn. It starts with "Yo dawg..." It's all there is. Fascinating stuff, huh?

That's a completely different problem. I dislike the Catalyst and wouldn't mind its removal one bit. But I like the final choice and its three options.

Or don't you think finding some sort of Crucible manual instead of having to speak with the Catalyst would've saved quite a lot of complaints?

As for the desire to know, that's why I play these games. Deciphering ,my fictional universe, right along with interacting with its characters, is why I read, play or watch sci-fi stories. Without that, they would be boring and shallow. I fully understand why people want to destroy the Reapers, but I hate the mindset that (a) says we don't need to know (insert anything) and ( the mindset that there shouldn't be any other option available. Don't we have enough of those stories in games already? Stories with some super-evil super-boss we need to kill to save the world? Kill X, save the world? Is that what stories in games come down to these days?

I'd personally be interested in other kinds of stories, yes. But BioWare decided to focus on the Reapers in Mass Effect. And once they hammered home the standard operating procedure of these things, it certainly became imperative for me to get rid of them. And in some extreme cases, trying to understand a point of view may well only serve to corrupt one's own thinking. I guess that means I have no absolute confidence in objective reason, but them's the breaks.

Do you think that there is a state of mind that' sacrosanct, that should not be changed even in the face of opposing evidence? That would be choosing ignorance out of a misguided notion of mental purity. As I see it, there is no such thing as "mental corruption" by mere exposure, no invading "meme of evil" that takes over whenever you get into contact with it (as opposed to something like indoctrination which is a *deliberate* attempt to forcibly change minds). If I know the mind of a serial killer, does that lessen my determination to remove him as a threat to society? I'd think not. What it may do is lessen the reflexive call for the death penalty, but that's a good thing IMO.

You might regret the loss of innocence, the loss of the belief that the universe is basically a decent place, that comes with such understanding. but I'd rather lose my innocence than stay ignorant.

Ultimately it comes down to the Reapers being anti-life, and since living is the essence of our being, we are unable to take an authentic position of understanding outside these parameters. 

No. You are *unwilling* to take an authentic position that accepts the Reapers as valid life forms. Their creation process is horrific and should never have happened, but once it has happened the Reapers are as valid a life form as any other. The way an entity comes into being carries no taint over to that entity itself. There are no such things as abominations, and normative concepts of what is natural are delusions.

The Reapers are entities that need to be stopped if we want to survive in our present form. That's the start and the end of it. It's a subjective stance. I understand people who say "Destroy is the safest option", even though it means rejecting the reasoning of an arguably super-intelligent "AI god", but people who base their decision on denying the Reapers' validity as life forms are just fooling themselves.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 août 2012 - 09:16 .

[Zan51]

I do not play games to destroy anything, I play them to win against an evil that threatens what I believe in. I play to make a difference in the game world. Anyone who thinks that people bent on only destroying and killing in a game played through all 3 of the Mass Effect games really needs a visit from the Clue Fairy!

All throughout the series I helped the Geth and the Quarians patch up their differences, I helped broker peace between all the species. And some of you out there think I let the Geth and EDI die because I thought they were expendable, worth less than organics? Think again!

We know the choices. I do not trust Star Brat one inch, let's get that out of the way now. Let's also get out of the way I am NOT providing a solution to the VIs problem. That is not my mission.

I can singlehandedly choose to SYNTHESIZE everyone, make them all part Reaper, part what I have been ordered to destroy to stop them killing all advanced life in the Galaxy every 50k years. We know from the game that using Reaper tech leads to indoctrination, so I am going to take that risk for EVERYONE?

Think of what happened when the Krogan were uplifted with more knowledge and technology than the experience of their culturally young species could handle. That worked so very well, didn't it? We could turn on each other as the Krogan did. Not just that, if we know everything, what is there to strive for, what's out purpose in life as individuals? We'd stagnate as people very quickly.

Javik said that what doomed his cycle was that they imposed their culture on everyone, eradicating the differences and diversity our cycle has between our species. And how can I tell that the Reapers won't finish us all off anyway? We just made it easier for them. Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Nope. Not doing it.

I can CONTROL the Reapers. Well, we know how THAT worked so well with TIM and others in the game trying to do that! How do I know that I am not being even more indoctrinated and won't start the cycle over again? Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and history has taught us that again and again. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Nope, not doing it.

REFUSE. Nuff said, we all die, not an option but I wish it had a conventional victory in there as I would have taken that option if it had.

That leaves DESTROY, my original mission - destroy the Reapers. There is only one way to do that. The Geth don't want to be enslaved to them, EDI has said she is prepared to die to prevent them winning. It is the only choice that lets the majority of sentients live, and there is always the chance the Star Brat was lying about the Geth and EDI dying.

Out of all the bad options, this is the only one that lets the majority of all the species live free of the Reapers, of indoctrination, of control by an omnipotent VI, and continue to grow and evolve on their own, making their own decisions, We're constantly told through the game we can't save everyone. I wish I could.

[shodiswe]

D24O wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

My probelm withthe destory ending is that it does not have enough emotional impact. Control does. What happen is synthesis is obvious and is open enough for the player to speculate...But not one mention of EDI  and the geth in destroy? WTH.

Yeah, that's pretty f***ed up, one of my bigger problems with that particular ending.

Especialy if you allied with the Geth or both the Geth and Quarians.... That's a pretty major thing, no mention about it though. I really think Hacket should have mentioned it when elaborating on the costs. Billions of "allied" geth die and noone says a word about it. Since EDI isn't there then she must have died, the Geth probably died, though noone gives a damn.

Modifié par shodiswe, 13 août 2012 - 09:34 .

[Jassu1979]

Ieldra2, the thing that turns Reapers into abominations is not what they *are*, but what they *do*.
They are not born guilty, but each of them (except for Leviathan, maybe) becomes a willing agent of a galaxy-wide genocide that makes the holocaust look like a walk in the park.

Unless you present me with a Reaper that does not stick people on spikes to turn them into techno-zombies (who will then prey on their former friends and relatives to demoralize them even further), does not erect death camps where people are encouraged to betray each other for the "gift" of being allowed to live a little longer, and has no part in the systematic and deliberate mass murder of countless sapient civilizations, your point is a moot one: a morally bankrupt stance built around the flimsiest of relativistic stances.

[KiwiQuiche]

For a second I thought this was about the fact there are only two Reapers in ME3...Harby not included.

[AlexMBrennan]

Gee, what a totally novel perspective on gaming. You should write a news column or something.

As to why the overwhelming majority choose destroy... well, firstly, it's been the plan all along. Where were you when ME1 came out, and why didn't you complain back then that Shepard should have been able to seek a diplomatic solution?

A related point is this: You bought a game where you play a soldier. Whilst soldiers have a wide range of roles it is a fact of life that violence is not always avoidable. You have to use violence in the game because that's what soldiers tend to do when they encounter a hostile military force that is unwilling to surrender.
If you don't like that... why did you pick up ME?

Secondly, it's not my fault that the options are A) Destroy and Retardedness: You either have to trust a Reaper about being able to control the Reapers moments after shooting TIM who had been convinced by the Reapers that he'd be able to control the Reapers, too, or going after synthesis which was never alluded to previously to solve a much bigger problem which you have to reason to think is real and hope that the Reapers are nice and stop killing you (because they might just decide to keep killing after synthesis)

So yes, Destroy is the obvious choice - because it's the only sensible choice we're given. If you want to complain about that, go ahead.

[RiouHotaru]

Believing that people picked Destroy as the easy way out is a fallacy. It was difficult, but I felt that if the cost of obliterating the Reapers and forever ending the cycle because I had faith that the galactic community wouldn't make the same mistakes again was the destruction of the Geth? Then it was a tragic, but necessary loss.

[vixvicco]

Disagree. Pretty much you're trying to push your views onto other people. If no one has chosen what you chose, then they are "uncivilized" (pretty much what you're saying, right?). I have played Heavy Rain and enjoyed it, in fact, I have a platinum trophy from that game. I chose Destroy because, for me, it was the right choice. Not because I have a "barbaric" mind. I don't want the Reapers to go unanswered for the crimes they have committed, not because it was a goal from the beginning or whatever the other reasons people have said. You pretty much give them a free pass in Synthesis and in Control. But that is my opinion, no one has to agree with me.

[Reikilea]

That was horribly said. So because I choose destroy I enjoy violence. I cant even be bad in games. I so wish that games could be considered art and more that they are now, but with the fans like this... As it was said - dont try to push your views onto other people. The art, media film are about interpretation. Everyone has their right to see it how they want it. Some people believe in Synthesis, some in Control. Some refuse.

I only believe in Destroy. So, I pick destroy because I believe in it. I think that galaxy can evolve on its own, without the reapers infuence, come up with their own technology and FTL travel and most importantly learn from their mistakes. This is hope, not violence.

I dont mourn Geth. Definitely dont mourn Edi. Not with that body. Thats just sacrifice, something you need to give up in order to do what you believe in. You cant end war without losing something. And for someone sake - the geth and Edi were equipped with the reaper code - I did warned them not to do it. And I want to get rid of the Reapers. And seeing they are part reaper...

People who say it was intentional and cruel genocide are worse than people who said that Ender Wiggin was the worst human that ever lived. Remember that kid who saved the whole galaxy.. It just the price you have to pay, to save the ones you were fighting for. After you spent three games fighting the geth, who proven to be unstable and even fought between each other.

Modifié par Reikilea, 13 août 2012 - 12:34 .

[Ieldra]

Jassu1979 wrote...
Ieldra2, the thing that turns Reapers into abominations is not what they *are*, but what they *do*.
They are not born guilty, but each of them (except for Leviathan, maybe) becomes a willing agent of a galaxy-wide genocide that makes the holocaust look like a walk in the park.

Perhaps I'm not quite knowledgable enough in the English language, but it always seemed to me that "abomination" refers to an intrinsic property, rather than one acquired by actions. That's the meaning I deny.

[RethenX]

Krunjar wrote...

Don't confuse all gamers with the whiney entitled tribal minded xenophobic douchebags that make up the majority of this forum.

okay your laying it on a little thick there.

[wright1978]

dreman9999 wrote...

No. It says that few people trust the catalyst with good reason.

This

[DirtyBird627]

Clearly the choices we make in an entirely fictional setting really show the nature of who we are. Apparently I'm some kind of mass murderer and don't know it. Really though, its a choice in a video game, no one can say how they would actually react in such a situation because no one has ever faced it. All three endings have their moral quandaries, basically it comes down to "murdering" machines, virtual apotheosis for Shepard, or forcing an entire galaxy's DNA to change like it or not. For the record I chose destroy because that's what I set out to do from the beginning and I wasn't at all convinced by the other options. Control gives too much power to whatever Shepard becomes and who knows how that power will affect him as the eons pass, plus now the Shepard-Reaper has to live essentially forever remembering all the people he cared about and will never see again, immortality is the worst curse I can imagine. Synthesis turns my stomach, it just doesn't feel right to force that kind of change on an entire galaxy without their consent. Refuse is interesting, but not really much of an ending.

[The Heretic of Time]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Yes, I'm a horrible psychopath for killing off the machines that were trying to murder all advanced organics. Truly evil am I.

But you also destroyed all the friendly toasters that BioWare wanted you to feel sympathy for! Don't you have a heart!?!?  Don't you feel any sympathy for the toasters? They're just toasters damnit! They're just the victims in all this! They're victim toasters! And you exterminated them all! You evil bastard!