925 réponses à ce sujet

[ghost9191]

yeah i get choosing all options, and prefer refuse and control over synthesis, really hate that choice, dislikes have been said before so will avoid them, nothing i love more then a dystopia that completely goes against what you have be fighting for. buut i digress

wasn't really trying to say it was wrong or anything , just putting my view on the crucible and it's purpose

[Jackums]

There is no justifying Refuse. It's a selfish choice and nothing more.

It's consideration of only your own morals and views, whilst disregarding the well-being of the rest of the galaxy.

[ghost9191]

what is the cost of those morals, to save them would you sacrifice all known life, or would you sacrifice your morals to save life

funny thing is destroy is right along the lines of my morals so whatever, sacrifice the few to ensure happiness of the many

[robertthebard]

Isichar wrote...

PanzerGr3nadier wrote...


Choosing refusal is a selfish act. Period.

So is using the crucible.

And if you think this is just a troll thread, then why feed it? If you don't believe its even possible for someone to like refuse other then just to ****** others off then your wrong.

Let's examine these statements.

1.  Choosing Refusal is a selfish act:  Based purely on the motivations for choosing it presented in this thread, including my own, I might add, it is.  It is selfish because the chooser believes that choosing anything else is doing the work for the Reapers, or, as in my case, because the chooser believes that the galaxy isn't worth saving, and my opinion is more important than anyone else's in the galaxy.  The logical fallacy in this is that destroying the Reapers isn't doing their work for them.  Nor do I see Control as doing their work for them, since it's possible, although not shown, that you could Assume Control, and fly them into the suns of each system they are in.  Synthesis is outlined as the "ultimate solution", but the Catalyst's previous "ultimate solution" just wasn't very good.  Why would I think that this one would be any better, based entirely on what Shepard knows during this conversation.

2.  Using the Crucible is a selfish act:  If my logic tells me that I'd be cooperating with them, by choosing to control or destroy them, then yeah, I can see that.  I can't see how I would get to thinking that killing them is serving them, but if I could twist the logic around enough to get there, I could see thinking using it was a selfish act.  However, and this is key, we built it to use it, so using it is what is expected to happen.  This is why so many people gave their lives trying to make sure somebody got to the beam, and to the Citadel to open the arms, because we intended to use it.  We did not expect the stuff we got once we did it, but we did expect to use it.  So I submit to those that feel that using it is selfish, that we are doing what we set out to do once we "decided" to build it.  We are, in fact, following orders.  There is nothing selfish about that.  Yes, atrocities have been commited with the excuse of "I was just following orders", and I want to throw this out before it gets brought up, because the context in those situations is vastly different than what we face.  In this context, we are going to literally save trillions of lives by acting, no matter which action we take.  Even if one does kill millions, or billions of life forms.  That is balanced out by the trillions we are going to save.  If we asked the trillions of survivors if they thought granting them life was a selfish act on the part of the person that may well "die" giving their lives to them, do you think they'd say "Yes"?

[LiarasShield]

Well settle this with everyone has their own version of what they see as right and we will leave it at that

[shodiswe]

ghost9191 wrote...

what is the cost of those morals, to save them would you sacrifice all known life, or would you sacrifice your morals to save life

funny thing is destroy is right along the lines of my morals so whatever, sacrifice the few to ensure happiness of the many

That was also what Hitler and his great political thinkers and speech writers thought, that sacrifising a few missfits would make the world a better place, no jews, no israel, no conflict, just get rid of the few missfits and everyone else will live happily. Unfortunately for them a lot of people won't approve of that as a good solution. Especialy since there are other options that wont kill millions or billions.

That said Refuse is worse than Destroy since it kills even more people, if no other option exists then destroy saves more people than lettign the reapers harvest everyone to extinction.

Modifié par shodiswe, 16 août 2012 - 01:26 .

[Pitznik]

shodiswe wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

what is the cost of those morals, to save them would you sacrifice all known life, or would you sacrifice your morals to save life

funny thing is destroy is right along the lines of my morals so whatever, sacrifice the few to ensure happiness of the many

That was also what Hitler and his great political thinkers and speech writers thought, that sacrifising a few missfits would make the world a better place, no jews, no israel, no conflict, just get rid of the few missfits and everyone else will live happily. Unfortunately for them a lot of people won't approve of that as a good solution. Especialy since there are other options that wont kill millions or billions.

This is the most stupid post on BSN I ever seen. Really, it is more stupid than "gooby pls".

[Comsky159]

shodiswe wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

what is the cost of those morals, to save them would you sacrifice all known life, or would you sacrifice your morals to save life

funny thing is destroy is right along the lines of my morals so whatever, sacrifice the few to ensure happiness of the many

That was also what Hitler and his great political thinkers and speech writers thought, that sacrifising a few missfits would make the world a better place, no jews, no israel, no conflict, just get rid of the few missfits and everyone else will live happily. Unfortunately for them a lot of people won't approve of that as a good solution. Especialy since there are other options that wont kill millions or billions.

Look up Godwin's law. Once you mention Hitler, you lose the argument

Just saying...

[Quething]

Comsky159 wrote...

Look up Godwin's law. Once you mention Hitler, you lose the argument

Just saying...

Actually, no. Godwin's Law merely states:

"As the length of an internet conversation increases, the probability of somebody mentioning Hitler approaches one."

It says nothing about "winning" or "losing" said argument.

:insert "the more you know" rainbow: 

[SeptimusMagistos]

ghost9191 wrote...

my shepard , if it was my shepard in the last 10 mins,. i mean i don't choose refuse as my "canon" but the way shep acts in doing it, well up to standing there doing nothing, he sounds like the shep i molded , anyways my shep would go find a avenger rifle ,and blow that fu*king citadel up from the inside, i mean you just find out that the thing leading the reapers is on the citadel, oh let me think for a minute. so the leader of the reapers, controller of machines that harvest, lives on the citadel   


let's blow this fu*ker up ( takes off sunglasses )

Blowing up parts of the Citadel, huh? So you did pick Destroy after all! Good for you!

[Dharvy]

My opinion? Anyone that can realistically choose refuse for some moral/philosophical/idealistic purpose or whatever reason isn't a Shepard that can realistically get to the point to make such a decision. They would have been dead or hung up on so many other decisions that lead you throughout the ME series.

I view the 3 choices as simply this, (destroy) execute the enemy, (control) imprison the enemy and put them on a work detail, or (synthesis) pardon the enemy and insure some kind of peace.

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
Life at any cost is not always life worth living.  And nowhere is there any indication that Shepard would know in refusing the choices that s/he was refusing the crucible's use until we are shown that. 

Were players really confused by that? Were you?

Where is there proof before choosing to refuse the choices that the crucible will shut off and can't be used for it's supposed purpose-to destroy only reapers?

Well, you can stand there without choosing and watch the Crucible do lots of nothing while Alliance starships are blown up trying to protect it. I don't know if this animation loops forever post-EC -- pre-EC the Catalyst would be destroyed eventually -- but you can always get out of it by picking one of the options, including shooting the kid IIRC.

And did you choose to refuse before knowing what it was and instantly know that it would mean the galaxy was destroyed?  Or did you choose it without foreknowledge and get surprised by what happened?

Refuse leading to total galactic defeat was about as surprising as the sun coming up in the morning. Which is why I've never actually picked it with any of my Sheps. Next playthrough I'm planning to, though -- I'm going to play a Shepard who's so distrustful of the machines and so committed to rejecting everything about them that he'll refuse to have anything to do with what the Catalyst's proposing, and so will doom his cycle. A classical tragedy, more or less.

You didn't quite answer my question. Were you confused by these dialogs? When you went through the Refuse dialog, were you expecting to be bailed out by the Crucible firing anyway? By an impossible conventional victory? Or not at all?

I was surprised that refusing the choices (you aren't refusing the crucible) shuts off the crucible.  The choices are as I see it an extension of the kid and his programming.  The crucible didn't actively change him-because it existed he changed.  That's different. 

And thanks again for the subtle inference that if one has a different interpretation than you then they are stupid or confused.  I am saying there is nothing to indicate that refusing or shooting the kid will cause the crucible itself to shut down.  I had no idea that shooting the kid or refusing would do anything.  I thought refusing him might make him try to convince me to make a choice. 

And I am not the only one.  I've looked on youtube and read countless posts on here from people who were just as surprised.  It's easy for you to now go back and say it was foreseeable when it wasn't.  Most people will admit they had no idea what would happen if you hit refuse for each choice or if you shot at the kid. 

I don't get what you're trying to say about standing there and doing nothing.  I was talking about refusing the kid's choices.  Once you are told you could pick destroy, you can say you don't like it.  He describes the other 2 and you can say you don't like them.  He seems to try to dissuade you with one statement, but so what?  That does not have to mean the crucible will shut down.  After you tell him off, and I did this because he's just a nasty little boy, you have no idea what will happen the very first time you play it, unless you had already been told what would happen.

And there was no way of knowing that shooting at the kid would do this either.

I am not now confused about what it does, but I'm talking about the very first time you arrive there-that's the POV of Shepard.  Shepard doesn't do this repeatedly, so Shepard has no idea what any of this will do.

And it's still part of the point, that no one knows what the crucible will do.  Only the kid does.  So, all of it is open to question to Shepard without player knowledge.

You never chose refuse, which indicates you couldn't have chosen it blindly.  I posted the question to people who had chosen it blindly.  So, it would have helped if you'd stated that straight away.  My question is not for you. 

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 16 août 2012 - 02:15 .

[LiarasShield]

For me for standing up for what you believe in and wanting everyones choices or ideals to count is why my shepard chose refuse


Everyone has a reason for picking the particular ending that they like but if you keep trying to say which ending is better then another then you're asking for a flame war and one I will not back down from cause I could easily explain the flaws or issues that can plague the other ending and why any of the three choices are not signifigantly better then refuse just a different choice and believe of what we all feel for our shepards

[Isichar]

JackumsD wrote...

There is no justifying Refuse. It's a selfish choice and nothing more.

It's consideration of only your own morals and views, whilst disregarding the well-being of the rest of the galaxy.

And there is no justifying trillions of deaths, but your doing that by using the crucible to give the catalyst what he wants. Both destroy and control are selfish and synthesis is simply unacceptable. Sacrafice has been a key theme since square one, but it seems people feel what they are willing to sacrafice is more morally justifiable then what others are.

This may come as a shocker to you and I am sure you will argue it to the death, but I dont see the use of the crucible as been what is actually best for the galaxy, infact I have yet to see anything from the catalyst that has not been a complete disaster for all partys involved.

[Isichar]

LiarasShield wrote...

For me for standing up for what you believe in and wanting everyones choices or ideals to count is why my shepard chose refuse


Everyone has a reason for picking the particular ending that they like but if you keep trying to say which ending is better then another then you're asking for a flame war and one I will not back down from cause I could easily explain the flaws or issues that can plague the other ending and why any of the three choices are not signifigantly better then refuse just a different choice and believe of what we all feel for our shepards

Its funny how when you question others beliefs and what they sacrifice everything becomes justified, but when I make a choice for what is important to me, then all of a sudden those same people tell me I have no justifiable reason for choosing that.

So much for the double standard.

For example:
I dont understand how someone who made the choice to kill EDI and the Geth knowing there was a solution that could get everyone out alive can tell me that its wrong to needlessly sacrifice others.

Modifié par Isichar, 16 août 2012 - 02:21 .

[robertthebard]

shodiswe wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

what is the cost of those morals, to save them would you sacrifice all known life, or would you sacrifice your morals to save life

funny thing is destroy is right along the lines of my morals so whatever, sacrifice the few to ensure happiness of the many

That was also what Hitler and his great political thinkers and speech writers thought, that sacrifising a few missfits would make the world a better place, no jews, no israel, no conflict, just get rid of the few missfits and everyone else will live happily. Unfortunately for them a lot of people won't approve of that as a good solution. Especialy since there are other options that wont kill millions or billions.

That said Refuse is worse than Destroy since it kills even more people, if no other option exists then destroy saves more people than lettign the reapers harvest everyone to extinction.

This particular arguement is exactly why I posted this:

I wrote...
We are, in fact, following orders. There is nothing selfish about that. Yes, atrocities have been commited with the excuse of "I was just following orders", and I want to throw this out before it gets brought up, because the context in those situations is vastly different than what we face. In this context, we are going to literally save trillions of lives by acting, no matter which action we take. Even if one does kill millions, or billions of life forms. That is balanced out by the trillions we are going to save.

In this scenario, they aren't saving anyone, they are paving the way for their ideal world.  There's a difference.

[Isichar]

Dharvy wrote...

My opinion? Anyone that can realistically choose refuse for some moral/philosophical/idealistic purpose or whatever reason isn't a Shepard that can realistically get to the point to make such a decision. They would have been dead or hung up on so many other decisions that lead you throughout the ME series.

I view the 3 choices as simply this, (destroy) execute the enemy, (control) imprison the enemy and put them on a work detail, or (synthesis) pardon the enemy and insure some kind of peace.

Realism in ME3?

Realistically if you had to figure out how to stop AI's from killing everyone, you would not create an AI to figure things out and then give it the power to turn you into a reaper against your will.

But that happened so...

[LiarasShield]

Isichar wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

For me for standing up for what you believe in and wanting everyones choices or ideals to count is why my shepard chose refuse


Everyone has a reason for picking the particular ending that they like but if you keep trying to say which ending is better then another then you're asking for a flame war and one I will not back down from cause I could easily explain the flaws or issues that can plague the other ending and why any of the three choices are not signifigantly better then refuse just a different choice and believe of what we all feel for our shepards

Its funny how when you question others beliefs and what they sacrifice everything becomes justified, but when I make a choice for what is important to me, then all of a sudden those same people tell me I have no justifiable reason for choosing that.

So much for the double standard.

For example:
I dont understand how someone who made the choice to kill EDI and the Geth knowing there was a solution that could get everyone out alive can tell me that its wrong to needlessly sacrifice others.

Yes seems like everyone on bsn seems to have double standards or try to fight with other players and say their ending is better then everyone elses or saying that the people who chose refuse are all pure evil and so on and so fourth instead of us wanting to fight for freedom and not use the device that is powered by the being that controls the reapers

They all think refuse is the end all evil yet

In destroy you destroy the geth massively damaged the relays without the knowledge of the reapers to repair or rebuild the relays then what everyone is still gonna slowly die in earths solar system or the damaged solar systems around us from the reaper invasion

Synthesis forces everyone to be organic or synthetic against their will and pretty muchs gets everybody to think the same

And In control is the only ending where you do see the reapers rebuild the relays but will most of the galaxy really be happy about shepard keeping the very monsters that caused the galaxy to burn in the first place to now be its protectors I find that extremely hard to believe

And what if the new catalyst eventually goes rogue like the previous one and he or she unleashes the reapers on organics again every 50 thousand years or so and causes the constant destructions of cycle none of the three core choices are ultimately better then

refuse just different choices that we believe or think is best for our shepards

[robertthebard]

Isichar wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

For me for standing up for what you believe in and wanting everyones choices or ideals to count is why my shepard chose refuse


Everyone has a reason for picking the particular ending that they like but if you keep trying to say which ending is better then another then you're asking for a flame war and one I will not back down from cause I could easily explain the flaws or issues that can plague the other ending and why any of the three choices are not signifigantly better then refuse just a different choice and believe of what we all feel for our shepards

Its funny how when you question others beliefs and what they sacrifice everything becomes justified, but when I make a choice for what is important to me, then all of a sudden those same people tell me I have no justifiable reason for choosing that.

So much for the double standard.

For example:
I dont understand how someone who made the choice to kill EDI and the Geth knowing there was a solution that could get everyone out alive can tell me that its wrong to needlessly sacrifice others.

Who said I didn't think it was wrong?  Maybe, just maybe, I thought it was less wrong to do that than to risk becoming my enemy with Control, or to alter the entire population of the galaxy, including species that aren't currently involved in the conflict at a genetic level?  When I look at the choices presented, I have to weigh my own morals/motivations, which I have assigned to Shepard.  I then have to act in accordance with what I see as the lesser of 4 evils, since I don't view any of the choices as ideal.  This does not translate to believing that one or the other of them is right, just less wrong than the others.

For example, you are telling us that it is less wrong to kill everybody in the galaxy that's involved in the conflict than it is to kill some of them via Destroy, or to alter them genetically via Synthesis, or to risk becoming your enemy with Control.  You have gone so far as telling us that it is selfish to choose anything but Refuse.  I didn't see if you answered my previous question, and I'll look and edit after posting this if you did, but do you suppose that the people you save by choosing any of the other options would say you were being selfish for saving them?

[3DandBeyond]

ghost9191 wrote...

what is the cost of those morals, to save them would you sacrifice all known life, or would you sacrifice your morals to save life

funny thing is destroy is right along the lines of my morals so whatever, sacrifice the few to ensure happiness of the many

Happiness of the many, eh?  Destroy as it is leads you down a slippery slope which is one of the reasons genocide (besides being murder) is a particularly disgusting targeted form of murder.

It defines some lives as more valuable and others as more expendable.  EDI and the geth are allies that are thrown, pushed, shoved off a cliff.  So, afterward all is light and happy right?  Well, then the question might pop up as to what happened here.  And the Krogan that already feel under-appreciated may see a problem.  They have already been used as fodder and now they see a whole race that has been thrown away.  Others may have believed the reapers were impossible to beat, but the Krogan wouldn't have and would have wanted to fight to the last Krogan.  That's how they were built.  They are warriors first and thinkers somewhere a bit further down the line.  They would not be happy first off in not fighting the reapers.  Secondly, not that they loved the geth, they would see that if one race could be thrown away, who's next?  No one likes them.  No one likes the Batarians.  No one likes the Rachni.  And all of them could see that people at least thought the geth were valuable and Shepard liked EDI.

The Krogan would become protective at least.  The Batarians have always struck out when feeling defensive.  And the Rachni would want to be isolationists but might work to really build up their numbers.

Sure this is speculation but it is logical.  Destroy as it is is no panacea.  And just as the other choices can have awful future results so could Destroy.

Furthermore, there is acting to do something vs. the failure to do something.  Acting to kill the geth is an intentional part of an intentional act based on believing the kid.  Refusing to kill the geth is a failure to act based upon the unknown consequences of acting or not acting.  People see things differently.  But just for fun if you use current laws as a flimsy model, look at how it views things.  Intentional acts are always more serious than negligence is.  If Shepard acts and knowingly kills the geth using this flimsy model, s/he is far more guilty than if s/he just let people die.  It is further mitigated by not knowing for certain that the choices are real and thinking it possible that refusal might get rid of the kid and the choices and allow the crucible to do whatever it is supposed to do.

Given that the crucible has much that indicates it is a dark energy device which might be used to weaken the reapers and leave them vulnerable, it is possible to theorize without metagaming that it was meant to be used for that and not for the 3 choices.  So,  the kid could be there to deceive and not even be related to the crucible at all.  Refuse might be thought to be a "shut up, kid" vote.

[Isichar]

robertthebard wrote...

Isichar wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

For me for standing up for what you believe in and wanting everyones choices or ideals to count is why my shepard chose refuse


Everyone has a reason for picking the particular ending that they like but if you keep trying to say which ending is better then another then you're asking for a flame war and one I will not back down from cause I could easily explain the flaws or issues that can plague the other ending and why any of the three choices are not signifigantly better then refuse just a different choice and believe of what we all feel for our shepards

Its funny how when you question others beliefs and what they sacrifice everything becomes justified, but when I make a choice for what is important to me, then all of a sudden those same people tell me I have no justifiable reason for choosing that.

So much for the double standard.

For example:
I dont understand how someone who made the choice to kill EDI and the Geth knowing there was a solution that could get everyone out alive can tell me that its wrong to needlessly sacrifice others.

Who said I didn't think it was wrong?  Maybe, just maybe, I thought it was less wrong to do that than to risk becoming my enemy with Control, or to alter the entire population of the galaxy, including species that aren't currently involved in the conflict at a genetic level?  When I look at the choices presented, I have to weigh my own morals/motivations, which I have assigned to Shepard.  I then have to act in accordance with what I see as the lesser of 4 evils, since I don't view any of the choices as ideal.  This does not translate to believing that one or the other of them is right, just less wrong than the others.

For example, you are telling us that it is less wrong to kill everybody in the galaxy that's involved in the conflict than it is to kill some of them via Destroy, or to alter them genetically via Synthesis, or to risk becoming your enemy with Control.  You have gone so far as telling us that it is selfish to choose anything but Refuse.  I didn't see if you answered my previous question, and I'll look and edit after posting this if you did, but do you suppose that the people you save by choosing any of the other options would say you were being selfish for saving them?

I am not merely about you specifically, infact, I have had quite a number of destroy enders make this argument to me.

The point is what your are willing to sacrifice and whether the cost is worth it comes down to personal ideals, and if people want to question mine, or lack of, then I will do the same, which usually results in them telling me how right they are and how wrong I am.

As for your question, I did not make the choice based on whether or not people would be greatful to me, I made it based on what I believed to be best for the galaxy, and I fully believe that anything to do with the crucible and catalyst is not in the galaxy's best interest. The Catalyst's actions have done nothing but cause misery and suffering to everyone and everything, and I refuse to help it continue its actions even if that means sacrifing my cycle.

And yes I feel just as justified making that choice as anyone who decided to fire the crucible felt.

Modifié par Isichar, 16 août 2012 - 02:47 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Isichar wrote...

And there is no justifying trillions of deaths, but your doing that by using the crucible to give the catalyst what he wants. Both destroy and control are selfish and synthesis is simply unacceptable. Sacrafice has been a key theme since square one, but it seems people feel what they are willing to sacrafice is more morally justifiable then what others are.

Cute. But this isn't about what the Catalyst wants. This is about what the galaxy wants, which is the cycle stopped.

Shepards who don't believe in making hard decisions don't make it past Mass Effect 1.

[Dharvy]

LiarasShield wrote...

For me for standing up for what you believe in and wanting everyones choices or ideals to count is why my shepard chose refuse


Everyone has a reason for picking the particular ending that they like but if you keep trying to say which ending is better then another then you're asking for a flame war and one I will not back down from cause I could easily explain the flaws or issues that can plague the other ending and why any of the three choices are not signifigantly better then refuse just a different choice and believe of what we all feel for our shepards

I understand where you're coming from and as an individual it could be a terribly hard choice. But what some are trying to say is the choice to refuse is not really giving everyone else a choice. You're the only one with a choice. Everyone else choice is basically how do they want to die. They can't choose not to die, they can only choose how to die: fighting, running, or lying down. You're are effectively choosing that they do die, just not how they die.

If you were in a building and a bomb is about to go off and you had no way of stopping it what choice do you really have, but how you're going to die: crying, praying, waiting, screaming, fighting? The person that's able to stop the bomb actually have a choice to live or die. The person that stops the bomb is considered a hero because he just gave life to the people who had no other choice but to die.

Post galaxy with any of the 3 choices a person now has the ability to make a decent choice; how they want to live. With refuse their choice is how they want to die.

No one's choices or ideals count only yours. And you are the only one able to give them true freedom to make their own choices and ideals count. But you have to choice 1 of the 3 options.

Save the galaxy, let everyone choose how they want to live. Make a choice.

[LiarasShield]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Isichar wrote...

And there is no justifying trillions of deaths, but your doing that by using the crucible to give the catalyst what he wants. Both destroy and control are selfish and synthesis is simply unacceptable. Sacrafice has been a key theme since square one, but it seems people feel what they are willing to sacrafice is more morally justifiable then what others are.

Cute. But this isn't about what the Catalyst wants. This is about what the galaxy wants, which is the cycle stopped.

Shepards who don't believe in making hard decisions don't make it past Mass Effect 1.

Once again you think differently but none of the endings are truely better then any of the others beside what the players believes and thinks  for their shepards

Their are many flaws to all the crucibles choices they only really work for metagaming or headcannoning to death

None are truely better then the others other then what ending suits you and your beliefs


How I view this things

In destroy you destroy the geth massively damaged the relays without the knowledge of the reapers to repair or rebuild the relays then what everyone is still gonna slowly die in earths solar system or the damaged solar systems around us from the reaper invasion

Synthesis forces everyone to be organic or synthetic against their will and pretty muchs gets everybody to think the same

And In control is the only ending where you do see the reapers rebuild the relays but will most of the galaxy really be happy about shepard keeping the very monsters that caused the galaxy to burn in the first place to now be its protectors I find that extremely hard to believe

And what if the new catalyst eventually goes rogue like the previous one and he or she unleashes the reapers on organics again every 50 thousand years or so and causes the constant destructions of cycle none of the three core choices are ultimately better then

refuse just different choices that we believe or think is best for our shepards

Modifié par LiarasShield, 16 août 2012 - 02:55 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Dharvy wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

For me for standing up for what you believe in and wanting everyones choices or ideals to count is why my shepard chose refuse


Everyone has a reason for picking the particular ending that they like but if you keep trying to say which ending is better then another then you're asking for a flame war and one I will not back down from cause I could easily explain the flaws or issues that can plague the other ending and why any of the three choices are not signifigantly better then refuse just a different choice and believe of what we all feel for our shepards

I understand where you're coming from and as an individual it could be a terribly hard choice. But what some are trying to say is the choice to refuse is not really giving everyone else a choice. You're the only one with a choice. Everyone else choice is basically how do they want to die. They can't choose not to die, they can only choose how to die: fighting, running, or lying down. You're are effectively choosing that they do die, just not how they die.

If you were in a building and a bomb is about to go off and you had no way of stopping it what choice do you really have, but how you're going to die: crying, praying, waiting, screaming, fighting? The person that's able to stop the bomb actually have a choice to live or die. The person that stops the bomb is considered a hero because he just gave life to the people who had no other choice but to die.

Post galaxy with any of the 3 choices a person now has the ability to make a decent choice; how they want to live. With refuse their choice is how they want to die.

No one's choices or ideals count only yours. And you are the only one able to give them true freedom to make their own choices and ideals count. But you have to choice 1 of the 3 options.

Save the galaxy, let everyone choose how they want to live. Make a choice.

Exactly. Refuse means everybody dies. But there's nothing stopping someone who hates a post-Reaper galaxy from ending their life anyway. It doesn't mean we all have to suffer for it.