925 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

Goneaviking wrote...

I didn't realize you were asking a question.

I never shot the catalyst kid because as much as I dislike these kind of arbitrary choice endings, it seemed petulent and impotent gesture. Was I surprised at the EC change? Mildly at most, although that was a metagaming response and with an interactive AI I doubt I'd be surprised if it took umbrage at the insult.

However that changes nothing. There is no meaningful difference between the AI turning off the Crucible because you've obviously decided not to trigger any of the device's functions and it simply not firing because you've refused to trigger any of the device's functions.

The meaningful result of not activating any of the options is that the Reaper's continue their work. 

Regardless of what any of us thought about the "cannot win conventionally" storyline, we knew the score well before we rushed the pillar of light in London. Any other outcome is the province of headcanon; I will not begrudge anyone that privilege but it doesn't change content in the game.

Refuse is not deciding to not use the crucible.  It's deciding that the choices may not be a part of the crucible, but that they are a part of the kid-that even if he didn't make them, they are there because of them.  Refusing is saying you don't want to make those choices and don't trust the kid.  In fact, you could reasonably think refusing them would get rid of the kid and the choices and allow you to use the crucible as it was intended.  Other than psychic ability, how would Shepard know refusal or shooting the kid would shut down the crucible?


And sorry but you missed the other part of my question--did you ever refuse the choices?  And if so, without prior knowledge, did you know what doing that would do?  Or, were you surprised?

I have watched a ton of youtube videos on this and if you google it, people were totally surprised at what shooting the kid or refusing the choices did.  They were surprised first of all that they did anything at all and then they were shocked and surprised that they meant insta death for the galaxy.

Understand what I am saying-Shepard is refusing the choices and rejecting the kid, when you choosed that dialogue or shoot the kid.  Only after you do that do you see what happens.  Shepard does not know (and the player doesn't know the first time doing it) that it's an instant win for the reapers.

[ghost9191]

@3DandBeyond

i haven't touched my copy of me3 for awhile now, and haven't been on forums much so might have missed it

but as i said it seemed to me that control and destroy were what the crucible was made for, synthesis was only possible because of the catalyst

but if the catalyst was not there, or part of the game but the crucible was, wouldn't we still have the destroy and control option?

i mean the catalyst isn't the one that brought shep up to the platform so shep would've been able to arrive at the two choices either way

i am just wondering about it, like i said haven't been on the forums much so might have missed something

[LiarasShield]

ghost9191 wrote...

@Liarashield

stopped right before the "Or by destroying my own allies" thing

stand by my question, just a question

no need to answer my question with a question

by quoting that , you made it seem you would rather save "soul" over the lives themselves,

i would rather save lives and let my soul burn then condemn them to death just to satisfy my ego

that was a joke by the way, the ego part and what not

but still just a question

Basiclly you didn't read my entire post you made a incomplete reply that is awesome and makes me no longer take you serious have a nice day

Modifié par LiarasShield, 15 août 2012 - 01:08 .

[lillitheris]

@3DandBeyond: you’re ferociously attached to the actual (crap) mechanics in the game, so we’re probably talking past eachother to a degree.

Like, let’s take the shooting the Catalyst example. Realistically, that shouldn’t lead to auto-Refuse. This is why you can go ahead and reload, pretending that it never happened.

This is a long way of saying that we’re not completely at the mercy of the idiocy of whoever wrote that lazy garbage. We can imagine that it doesn’t happen.

3DandBeyond wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

No. I don’t shoot at everything that moves. Kids, particularly.

Well it isn't a kid.  And if you never shot it to see what might happen, then you are rare.

Looked like a kid. Then it looked like a holoprojection. There’s no point shooting at either, so I didn’t. I suppose I may be rare.

Did you refuse the choices to see what would happen?

In the game, no.

And I didn't have to imagine anything.  Shooting him does something.  This isn't about feeling better. It's just that people think shooting him or refusing the choices makes no sense, but many were surprised at what happened when they did it.  Many people thought that BW had actually made an ending toward victory in some way.  But they were just surprised it did something.

I’m going to say ‘so what?’ here, but in a positive way. So what? Just reload the game and ignore the whole shooting thing.

Modifié par lillitheris, 15 août 2012 - 01:21 .

[ghost9191]

LiarasShield wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

@Liarashield

stopped right before the "Or by destroying my own allies" thing

stand by my question, just a question

no need to answer my question with a question

by quoting that , you made it seem you would rather save "soul" over the lives themselves,

i would rather save lives and let my soul burn then condemn them to death just to satisfy my ego

that was a joke by the way, the ego part and what not

but still just a question

Basiclly you didn't read my entire post you made a incomplete reply that is awesome and makes me no longer take you serious have a nice day

wait what, by the way you are responding to a simple question makes me not take you seriously, but i read your post , as i said and stood by my simple question

no need to get all upset over it though, was just curious

when i said that was a joke and what not, i meant it was a joke, the fact that you answered my question with a question jsut had me answer your question with a joke, and then at the end saying that it was just a question that i was hoping for a answer to

Modifié par ghost9191, 15 août 2012 - 01:16 .

[lillitheris]

3DandBeyond wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Outright not believing the Catalyst is not part of the game. It’s a terrible omission, but there you go. Somehow you’re convinced that the options offered are genuine at least to the extent of the Catalyst’s own knowledge, perhaps subject to its interpretation and preferences…but still there.

My semi-headcanon is that Destroy is saying no to the Catalyst’s plans, and destroying the equipment that is preventing the Crucible from firing normally.

snipped

Outright not believing the catalyst is part of the game-that's why a person refuses or rejects him and the choices.  A great many people have constantly said they can't find it possible to believe him without metagaming. 

I would not be convinced the choices are genuine..

That’s fine, but the game wasn’t written to accommodate that, not really. It’s asinine, but it is what it is.

Or, if you wish to espouse an alternative view: if you choose to disbelieve the Catalyst, it just kills you by snapping its fingers, and you never have a chance to do anything else. End of story.

And what you think Destroy does is what I think people see Shepard thinking refuse would do.  It destroys the kid and the choices (and destroy is one of the choices).

Well, that’s too bad, because that’s not the case. The writers wrote Refuse as ‘I will have nothing to do with any of this, we will lose conventionally instead’.

You can disagree with the decision to write it like that, but that’s what it is. The Destroy option is the actual rejection of the Catalyst.

[LiarasShield]

Ok I will post this again BUT FOR THE LOVE OF THE UNIVERSE READ THE ENTIRE POST BEFORE REPLYING thank you.

Well I'm not willing to sacrifice the soul of our species to beat the reapers I will stick to what I feel is right even in the most hard and painful of situations

My shepard wants everyone to make their own choices and is willing to let herself and her forces fight to the end even if they do die because she does believe in freedom and does believe that everyone being wether organic or synthetic should be able to choose

And even if she failed the next cycle finds a solution and my headcannon is they found another way to beat the reapers without the crucible or was able to use the crucibles for new choices that were not provided in shepards generation


And You're willing to alter every single lifeform in order to save them in my eyes you would be no better then the reapers thank god that me3 isn't real because if you did try to use the crucible to save people and tried to alter every being or thing in our universe I would be forced to stop you or knock you out so that you wouldn't do it

Yes I would die with my freewill intact I may be killed by the reapers but I wouldn't submit to their choices and I would die a noble warriors death which you may or may not understand


Better to die free then


Become A rogue Vi or ai that causes the reapers to attack organics again in the future And you think their is absolutely nothing wrong in this ending you're wrong if you helped the geth it doesn't matter you control them as well as the reapers the geth don't retain any free will or did you not see the geth side by side with the reapers in one of the slides?

Then splicing peoples dna to make them the same to establish some twisted paradise of peace by making everyone the same

Or by destroying my own allies to kill the reapers no

You think were monsters for letting everyone make their own choices even though we do die or fail well friend altering every creature or thing in the galaxy doesn't put you that much above us


And Yes I chose the moral high road and I don't regret it at all

[ghost9191]

my original question stands, i am curious because at teh cost of keeping your soul , you lose your species. so in my eyes it is better to save the species at the cost of your individual soul then to let the species die

or something liek that

i do not think ppl that choose refuse are monsters, my shep is not really a "monster" for picking destroy, but it is pretty callus of him

do agree on your position with synthesis, seems to much like a dystopia

control is a better option then synthesis to me, but still wrong,

but as i ssaid i stand by my question, it is not to start a argument i was just wondering what the cost of the soul would be. save your soul and let everyone die or whatnot of sacrifice your ideals to save most.

just what are your ideals worth to you is basically what i mean. not which choice is right or wrong because in the end they are all wrong


there went into more details

[Goneaviking]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

I didn't realize you were asking a question.

I never shot the catalyst kid because as much as I dislike these kind of arbitrary choice endings, it seemed petulent and impotent gesture. Was I surprised at the EC change? Mildly at most, although that was a metagaming response and with an interactive AI I doubt I'd be surprised if it took umbrage at the insult.

However that changes nothing. There is no meaningful difference between the AI turning off the Crucible because you've obviously decided not to trigger any of the device's functions and it simply not firing because you've refused to trigger any of the device's functions.

The meaningful result of not activating any of the options is that the Reaper's continue their work. 

Regardless of what any of us thought about the "cannot win conventionally" storyline, we knew the score well before we rushed the pillar of light in London. Any other outcome is the province of headcanon; I will not begrudge anyone that privilege but it doesn't change content in the game.

Refuse is not deciding to not use the crucible.  It's deciding that the choices may not be a part of the crucible, but that they are a part of the kid-that even if he didn't make them, they are there because of them.  Refusing is saying you don't want to make those choices and don't trust the kid.  In fact, you could reasonably think refusing them would get rid of the kid and the choices and allow you to use the crucible as it was intended.  Other than psychic ability, how would Shepard know refusal or shooting the kid would shut down the crucible?


And sorry but you missed the other part of my question--did you ever refuse the choices?  And if so, without prior knowledge, did you know what doing that would do?  Or, were you surprised?

I have watched a ton of youtube videos on this and if you google it, people were totally surprised at what shooting the kid or refusing the choices did.  They were surprised first of all that they did anything at all and then they were shocked and surprised that they meant insta death for the galaxy.

Understand what I am saying-Shepard is refusing the choices and rejecting the kid, when you choosed that dialogue or shoot the kid.  Only after you do that do you see what happens.  Shepard does not know (and the player doesn't know the first time doing it) that it's an instant win for the reapers.

No, I never refused to make the choice because the game obviously hinged on what choice I'd make. I didn't understand the mechanics of it the first time I played and was relieved that I'd somehow hit the destroy option which is the one I wanted.

If I'd decided that Shepard assumed the kid was messing with his head and waited, the result I would have anticipated would have been: Shepard and the AI staring at each other until I got bored enough to make a choice. Any other outcome would have been a pleasant surprise.

I think I do understand what you're saying. Shepard maybe doesn't believe that the AI is being honest with him and tries to shoo the illusion away and get to the real solution. It never occurred to me that that was what was happening, it would have seemed very unlikely to me at the time that I wasn't meant to do what the game asked me to do.

Perhaps it's metagaming, but on the other hand Shepard also seems to be in the process of bleeding to death. Complicated and time consuming options don't seem to be in the cards, and in any case she's never failed to act decisively in any crisis we've been privy to so metagaming doesn't disagree with in-character roleplaying either.

Personally I honestly don't care whether it surprised you, or a million other players or no one. Whether the crucible doesn't fire because you shoot the kid and he says "so be it", or because you refuse to make a choice at all the result is that the crucible doesn't fire which is exactly the consequence of the decision I would have predicted.

[LiarasShield]

ghost9191 wrote...

my original question stands, i am curious because at teh cost of keeping your soul , you lose your species. so in my eyes it is better to save the species at the cost of your individual soul then to let the species die

or something liek that

i do not think ppl that choose refuse are monsters, my shep is not really a "monster" for picking destroy, but it is pretty callus of him

do agree on your position with synthesis, seems to much like a dystopia

control is a better option then synthesis to me, but still wrong,

but as i ssaid i stand by my question, it is not to start a argument i was just wondering what the cost of the soul would be. save your soul and let everyone die or whatnot of sacrifice your ideals to save most.

just what are your ideals worth to you is basically what i mean. not which choice is right or wrong because in the end they are all wrong


there went into more details

I believe that everyone should be able to make their own choices and fight for what they believe both synthetic and organic that is why I chose refuse

[lillitheris]

LiarasShield wrote...

My shepard wants everyone to make their own choices and is willing to let herself and her forces fight to the end even if they do die because she does believe in freedom and does believe that everyone being wether organic or synthetic should be able to choose

And even if she failed the next cycle finds a solution and my headcannon is they found another way to beat the reapers without the crucible or was able to use the crucibles for new choices that were not provided in shepards generation

Refuse is a stupid choice*. Destroy will kill some of your allies, but Refuse will kill all of them.


* Shepard knows that they will lose conventionally. Also assumed that Shepard is (somehow) convinced that Destroy is genuinely an option, and is wittingly refusing to take it.

[Goneaviking]

LiarasShield wrote...

And Yes I chose the moral high road and I don't regret it at all

I read the whole post the first time, I'm glad your happy with your choice.

But does your Shepard acknowledge his/her responsibility for all of the lives that end because of the decision he or she made? 

[LiarasShield]

Goneaviking wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

And Yes I chose the moral high road and I don't regret it at all

I read the whole post the first time, I'm glad your happy with your choice.

But does your Shepard acknowledge his/her responsibility for all of the lives that end because of the decision he or she made? 

Does shepard realize the choice he or she made by becoming the new catalyst and controllnig all the reapers that nearly destroyed our galaxy I'm sure all of the galaxy will be happy about the reapers staying with us right?

now that we finally have peace between the geth and the quarians is it right for you now to control them despite them being your allies and working side by side with you?

And If your Ai Or Virtual intelligence becomes like the previous catalyst in the future and causes the reapers to start attacking organics again do you think everybody is gonna be happy about their once proud hero becoming the very monster that controlled the reapers from the begining and now are using them to attack futuure generations


Does shepard realize that he or she pretty much fuses the dna of organics and synthetics to basiclly alter them or force them to be the same just for their to be peace?

Wouldn't shepard rather die fighting with his or her forces then killing his or her own forces just to beat the reapers I think the previous one is more noble and right.

[ghost9191]

@liarashield

fair enough, think they could've done better with the refusal ending, it was my first option when i played the ec for the first time. purely because i thought hey i can refuse and maybe pull off a victory with high enough ems

but not so much, not my choice but i understand it, my shep is will to sacrifice some ideals ( he knew this war would not end without a cost)

youtu.be/7ZDWOenhaUg put best i think lol

Modifié par ghost9191, 15 août 2012 - 01:32 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

LiarasShield wrote...

Well I'm not willing to sacrifice the soul of our species to beat the reapers I will stick to what I feel is right even in the most hard and painful of situations

Ditto. I just don't feel like any of the ending sacrifices the soul of our species.

LiarasShield wrote...
]My shepard wants everyone to make their own choices and is willing to let herself and her forces fight to the end even if they do die because she does believe in freedom and does believe that everyone being wether organic or synthetic should be able to choose

My Shepard has been delegated to choose on everyone's behalf. We had a big war meeting meeting about it, remember? Plus that's why he's a Spectre.

LiarasShield wrote...
And You're willing to alter every single lifeform in order to save them in my eyes you would be no better then the reapers thank god that me3 isn't real because if you did try to use the crucible to save people and tried to alter every being or thing in our universe I would be forced to stop you or knock you out so that you wouldn't do it

Yes I would die with my freewill intact I may be killed by the reapers but I wouldn't submit to their choices and I would die a noble warriors death which you may or may not understand

I don't consider forcible alteration to be worse than death. Not the best of choices, but one I would pick if there were no alternative.

LiarasShield wrote...
Become A rogue Vi or ai that causes the reapers to attack organics again in the future And you think their is absolutely nothing wrong in this ending you're wrong if you helped the geth it doesn't matter you control them as well as the reapers the geth don't retain any free will or did you not see the geth side by side with the reapers in one of the slides?

Please stop making things up. There is absolutely NO indication that Shepard makes the Reapers attack anyone at any point. In fact the epilogue suggests that even a long time later he has not. And did you ever consider that the geth are side by side with the Reapers because they're friends and allies? They're working together, not being enslaved.

LiarasShield wrote...
Then splicing peoples dna to make them the same to establish some twisted paradise of peace by making everyone the same

I don't think that's quite what synthesis means, but whatever. I find this one somewhat distasteful too.

LiarasShield wrote...
Or by destroying my own allies to kill the reapers no

Let my own ally blow themselves up with a nuclear bomb. Given no alternatives would do it again. This does nothing to compromise my morals or the soul of my species. I choose Control because it lets me win without doing this, but it's better for some of us to live than for all of us to die.

LiarasShield wrote...
And Yes I chose the moral high road and I don't regret it at all

So do I, friend. It's just that when I do it, the galaxy survives. When you do it, all advanced life dies.

[LiarasShield]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Well I'm not willing to sacrifice the soul of our species to beat the reapers I will stick to what I feel is right even in the most hard and painful of situations

Ditto. I just don't feel like any of the ending sacrifices the soul of our species.

LiarasShield wrote...
]My shepard wants everyone to make their own choices and is willing to let herself and her forces fight to the end even if they do die because she does believe in freedom and does believe that everyone being wether organic or synthetic should be able to choose

My Shepard has been delegated to choose on everyone's behalf. We had a big war meeting meeting about it, remember? Plus that's why he's a Spectre.

LiarasShield wrote...
And You're willing to alter every single lifeform in order to save them in my eyes you would be no better then the reapers thank god that me3 isn't real because if you did try to use the crucible to save people and tried to alter every being or thing in our universe I would be forced to stop you or knock you out so that you wouldn't do it

Yes I would die with my freewill intact I may be killed by the reapers but I wouldn't submit to their choices and I would die a noble warriors death which you may or may not understand

I don't consider forcible alteration to be worse than death. Not the best of choices, but one I would pick if there were no alternative.

LiarasShield wrote...
Become A rogue Vi or ai that causes the reapers to attack organics again in the future And you think their is absolutely nothing wrong in this ending you're wrong if you helped the geth it doesn't matter you control them as well as the reapers the geth don't retain any free will or did you not see the geth side by side with the reapers in one of the slides?

Please stop making things up. There is absolutely NO indication that Shepard makes the Reapers attack anyone at any point. In fact the epilogue suggests that even a long time later he has not. And did you ever consider that the geth are side by side with the Reapers because they're friends and allies? They're working together, not being enslaved.

LiarasShield wrote...
Then splicing peoples dna to make them the same to establish some twisted paradise of peace by making everyone the same

I don't think that's quite what synthesis means, but whatever. I find this one somewhat distasteful too.

LiarasShield wrote...
Or by destroying my own allies to kill the reapers no

Let my own ally blow themselves up with a nuclear bomb. Given no alternatives would do it again. This does nothing to compromise my morals or the soul of my species. I choose Control because it lets me win without doing this, but it's better for some of us to live than for all of us to die.

LiarasShield wrote...
And Yes I chose the moral high road and I don't regret it at all

So do I, friend. It's just that when I do it, the galaxy survives. When you do it, all advanced life dies.

And I didn't make anything up friend the geths eyes are glowing blue they're also being controlled as shown in one of the slides


Also the previous catalyst believed that altering organics or altering the races was the way to save them and we already saw how much damage and destruction that it caused

I rather die not altering anybody or any creature in the universe then to become similar to the reapers in order to beat them

[robertthebard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

I didn't realize you were asking a question.

I never shot the catalyst kid because as much as I dislike these kind of arbitrary choice endings, it seemed petulent and impotent gesture. Was I surprised at the EC change? Mildly at most, although that was a metagaming response and with an interactive AI I doubt I'd be surprised if it took umbrage at the insult.

However that changes nothing. There is no meaningful difference between the AI turning off the Crucible because you've obviously decided not to trigger any of the device's functions and it simply not firing because you've refused to trigger any of the device's functions.

The meaningful result of not activating any of the options is that the Reaper's continue their work. 

Regardless of what any of us thought about the "cannot win conventionally" storyline, we knew the score well before we rushed the pillar of light in London. Any other outcome is the province of headcanon; I will not begrudge anyone that privilege but it doesn't change content in the game.

Refuse is not deciding to not use the crucible.  It's deciding that the choices may not be a part of the crucible, but that they are a part of the kid-that even if he didn't make them, they are there because of them.  Refusing is saying you don't want to make those choices and don't trust the kid.  In fact, you could reasonably think refusing them would get rid of the kid and the choices and allow you to use the crucible as it was intended.  Other than psychic ability, how would Shepard know refusal or shooting the kid would shut down the crucible?


And sorry but you missed the other part of my question--did you ever refuse the choices?  And if so, without prior knowledge, did you know what doing that would do?  Or, were you surprised?

I have watched a ton of youtube videos on this and if you google it, people were totally surprised at what shooting the kid or refusing the choices did.  They were surprised first of all that they did anything at all and then they were shocked and surprised that they meant insta death for the galaxy.

Understand what I am saying-Shepard is refusing the choices and rejecting the kid, when you choosed that dialogue or shoot the kid.  Only after you do that do you see what happens.  Shepard does not know (and the player doesn't know the first time doing it) that it's an instant win for the reapers.

Actually, if you choose Refuse through dialog, that is exactly what you are doing, refusing to use the crucible.  Now, I haven't played enough MP to have a lot of imported MP characters, in fact, I don't have any, but does having them mean that the galaxy map isn't completely Reaper controlled when you go to Earth for the final mission?  On my galaxy map, when I go to Earth, every relay system is Reaper controlled, and some systems that didn't have relays for ME 3 are too.  This shows me just how ineffectual overall my forces are.  We may be putting up a fight, but we're losing.  It makes no sense, to me, barring examples listed previously in this thread, and others, to just outright refuse to use the weapon I spent all game getting built.  The ironic part of all this would be if it weren't an instant lose, and they pulled a DA 2, and fast forwarded to Shepard either killing themself, or living to a ripe old age having to live with the consequence of allowing their friends and allies to die, simply because they didn't want to pull the trigger.  Some posters have postulated that they would Refuse over Destroy because they didn't want the blood of the Geth or EDI on their hands, ignoring the fact that, in refusing to take action, they are going to have that blood on their hands anyway.  They have justified this by saying "The Reapers did it", but they allowed it to happen.

Either way, they die, and the logic that "it isn't my fault, because they were doing it anyway" doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  The power to stop it was there, and they chose to not utilize it.  As I said, I can see myself choosing to use the Refusal option, but I am under no illusion of it being the moral high ground.  I understand completely that I am dooming the cycle to extinction, and have chosen to for reasons listed previously.  A brief summary would be that I felt like the cycle wasn't worth saving.  I listed reasons for that feeling previously.  SC tells you that if you refuse to take action, the cycle continues.  It's instalose is only because it might take 50-100 years to complete, and BW didn't want to add in the aforementioned guilt ridden, or content with the consequences Shepard dying of old age, or suicide.  The end result is Game Over, and it might as well end there.

[Goneaviking]

LiarasShield wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

And Yes I chose the moral high road and I don't regret it at all

I read the whole post the first time, I'm glad your happy with your choice.

But does your Shepard acknowledge his/her responsibility for all of the lives that end because of the decision he or she made? 

Does shepard realize the choice he or she made by becoming the new catalyst and controllnig all the reapers that nearly destroyed our galaxy I'm sure all of the galaxy will be happy about the reapers staying with us right?

now that we finally have peace between the geth and the quarians is it right for you now to control them despite them being your allies and working side by side with you?

And If your Ai Or Virtual intelligence becomes like the previous catalyst in the future and causes the reapers to start attacking organics again do you think everybody is gonna be happy about their once proud hero becoming the very monster that controlled the reapers from the begining and now are using them to attack futuure generations


Does shepard realize that he or she pretty much fuses the dna of organics and synthetics to basiclly alter them or force them to be the same just for their to be peace?

Wouldn't shepard rather die fighting with his or her forces then killing his or her own forces just to beat the reapers I think the previous one is more noble and right.

Presumably. But I've never seen anyone who picked a colour say their Shepard wasn't responsible for the consequences; this thread includes some who chose refuse and claim that Shepard has no moral responsibility for the rather high number of fatalities that decision entails.

If your Shepard owns his decision then I respect your perspective; if he/she says "Not my fault" then I think it's a cop out.

It's a nuanced distinction, but important.

[memorysquid]

LiarasShield wrote...

And Yes I chose the moral high road and I don't regret it at all

Nonsense like this is why people think ethics is a pointless field of inquiry.  Standing aside and allowing the death of trillions because you are in love with some personal aesthetic is monstrous.  Of all the things the "people of the galaxy" would want, they don't want to die so you can claim you didn't have to make choices for them, as Shepard did CONTINUALLY throughout the ME series.  There is no practical way you control the impact of your own actions on everyone they will affect in ME, much less in reality.

There are 3 scenarios offered, each of which allows freedom for the survivors, but with different future consequences entailed.  Mind you I couldn't care less about your headcanon, just what's implied and stated in the game. 

Destroy is genocide plus just putting the problem off.  Control allows for freedom under Reaper Shep control which isn't portrayed as a particularly stable arrangement, based on ME history, but also not too bad given that the Catalyst kept a lid on things for billions of years.  Synthesis allows both freedom for everyone and access for everyone to incalculable knowledge. 

What a tough decision!  The thing that absolutely kills me is the writers practically slapped glowy green happy paint all over the synthesis decision and still people can't figure out what is good in terms of the ME universe.  So you disagree with the writers' aesthetic.  Good for you!  But don't demand that their aesthetic be your own or that your's can somehow supplant theirs within ME.  They wrote it, you didn't.

[Goneaviking]

robertthebard wrote...

Actually, if you choose Refuse through dialog, that is exactly what you are doing, refusing to use the crucible.  Now, I haven't played enough MP to have a lot of imported MP characters, in fact, I don't have any, but does having them mean that the galaxy map isn't completely Reaper controlled when you go to Earth for the final mission?  On my galaxy map, when I go to Earth, every relay system is Reaper controlled, and some systems that didn't have relays for ME 3 are too. 
[snip]

The galaxy map is Reapertown no matter how many characters you promote, or how high your rating is.

[LiarasShield]

memorysquid wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

And Yes I chose the moral high road and I don't regret it at all

Nonsense like this is why people think ethics is a pointless field of inquiry.  Standing aside and allowing the death of trillions because you are in love with some personal aesthetic is monstrous.  Of all the things the "people of the galaxy" would want, they don't want to die so you can claim you didn't have to make choices for them, as Shepard did CONTINUALLY throughout the ME series.  There is no practical way you control the impact of your own actions on everyone they will affect in ME, much less in reality.

There are 3 scenarios offered, each of which allows freedom for the survivors, but with different future consequences entailed.  Mind you I couldn't care less about your headcanon, just what's implied and stated in the game. 

Destroy is genocide plus just putting the problem off.  Control allows for freedom under Reaper Shep control which isn't portrayed as a particularly stable arrangement, based on ME history, but also not too bad given that the Catalyst kept a lid on things for billions of years.  Synthesis allows both freedom for everyone and access for everyone to incalculable knowledge. 

What a tough decision!  The thing that absolutely kills me is the writers practically slapped glowy green happy paint all over the synthesis decision and still people can't figure out what is good in terms of the ME universe.  So you disagree with the writers' aesthetic.  Good for you!  But don't demand that their aesthetic be your own or that your's can somehow supplant theirs within ME.  They wrote it, you didn't.

I won't kill my own forces I will allow all organics andf synthetics to be able to to make their own choices in the universe I will not become like the reapers or catalyst in order to beat them the catalyst believed that altering the races or organics to save them was right and by doing the three choices you are altering organics or other races to save them to adhear to the catalyst logic you're becoming like the reapers in order to beat them I would rather die free and know that everyone is allowed to make their own choice then to become like the very monsters I'm fighting in order to win sorry


But it is a no go for me

[Goneaviking]

LiarasShield wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

And Yes I chose the moral high road and I don't regret it at all

Nonsense like this is why people think ethics is a pointless field of inquiry.  Standing aside and allowing the death of trillions because you are in love with some personal aesthetic is monstrous.  Of all the things the "people of the galaxy" would want, they don't want to die so you can claim you didn't have to make choices for them, as Shepard did CONTINUALLY throughout the ME series.  There is no practical way you control the impact of your own actions on everyone they will affect in ME, much less in reality.

There are 3 scenarios offered, each of which allows freedom for the survivors, but with different future consequences entailed.  Mind you I couldn't care less about your headcanon, just what's implied and stated in the game. 

Destroy is genocide plus just putting the problem off.  Control allows for freedom under Reaper Shep control which isn't portrayed as a particularly stable arrangement, based on ME history, but also not too bad given that the Catalyst kept a lid on things for billions of years.  Synthesis allows both freedom for everyone and access for everyone to incalculable knowledge. 

What a tough decision!  The thing that absolutely kills me is the writers practically slapped glowy green happy paint all over the synthesis decision and still people can't figure out what is good in terms of the ME universe.  So you disagree with the writers' aesthetic.  Good for you!  But don't demand that their aesthetic be your own or that your's can somehow supplant theirs within ME.  They wrote it, you didn't.

I won't kill my own forces I will allow all organics andf synthetics to be able to to make their own choices in the universe I will not become like the reapers or catalyst in order to beat them the catalyst believed that altering the races or organics to save them was right and by doing the three choices you are altering organics or other races to save them to adhear to the catalyst logic you're becoming like the reapers in order to beat them I would rather die free and know that everyone is allowed to make their own choice then to become like the very monsters I'm fighting in order to win sorry


But it is a no go for me

But how long DO they get to make their own choices? And what value does their freedom have if their lives are going to be snuffed out in the next twenty minutes anyway?

Freedom is a nice ideal; but in reality most people will just be happy with a roof over their head, food for their kids and the assurance that their kids will live to a respectable age.

[lillitheris]

memorysquid wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

And Yes I chose the moral high road and I don't regret it at all

Nonsense like this is why people think ethics is a pointless field of inquiry.  Standing aside and allowing the death of trillions because you are in love with some personal aesthetic is monstrous.

I agree with this…

Destroy is genocide plus just putting the problem off.  Control allows for freedom under Reaper Shep control which isn't portrayed as a particularly stable arrangement, based on ME history, but also not too bad given that the Catalyst kept a lid on things for billions of years.  Synthesis allows both freedom for everyone and access for everyone to incalculable knowledge.

…But this is transparently sad. You don’t know what will happen in Synthesis. By definition, it’s explicitly stated.

Anyway, I’ve argued this point time and again…Control is the most prudent choice (because it avoids the abhorrent rights violation that forced Synthesis is, and keeps the option open for the future). Destroy is a somewhat selfish choice, and might be bad in the long term. Synthesis is…well, an abhorrent rights violation.

And Refuse is stupid.

What a tough decision!  The thing that absolutely kills me is the writers practically slapped glowy green happy paint all over the synthesis decision and still people can't figure out what is good in terms of the ME universe.

Epilogue is unknown at the time of making the decision. You, speaking about ethics, should certainly know this means it’s irrelevant to the choice.

(And for the record, no, I don’t agree with their ‘vision’ of the absolute pile of utter garbage that Synthesis is.)

[3DandBeyond]

lillitheris wrote...

Well, that’s too bad, because that’s not the case. The writers wrote Refuse as ‘I will have nothing to do with any of this, we will lose conventionally instead’.

You can disagree with the decision to write it like that, but that’s what it is. The Destroy option is the actual rejection of the Catalyst.

Only if metagaming.

Please tell me from what destroy is described as doing, what it actually does-who all does it kill?  Who doesn't it kill?  It's a garbled mess.

And no I'm not caught up in the mechanics.  I don't like any of the choices nor really reject or refuse as offered.  I naturally must metagame because I can't un-see what I have seen.  But until you choose refuse and see what happens you do not know it means that.  Even if the kid was to say it, he's not that credible a "witness".  He isn't even consistent or very sensible as a speaker.

If meta-gaming, I agree refuse and reject are a finger up to players.  But I can see it making sense in-game, because there is no way of knowing what they would do before actually enacting them.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 15 août 2012 - 01:56 .

[Goneaviking]

lillitheris wrote...

memorysquid wrote...What a tough decision!  The thing that absolutely kills me is the writers practically slapped glowy green happy paint all over the synthesis decision and still people can't figure out what is good in terms of the ME universe.

Epilogue is unknown at the time of making the decision. You, speaking about ethics, should certainly know this means it’s irrelevant to the choice.

(And for the record, no, I don’t agree with their ‘vision’ of the absolute pile of utter garbage that Synthesis is.)

Agree. Happy ending doesn't automatically equate to a moral course of action to get there. Diddling with peoples DNA is bad karma. Do it and you'll probably be reincarnated as a dustmite.

Modifié par Goneaviking, 15 août 2012 - 02:00 .