925 réponses à ce sujet

[LiarasShield]

We see things different we go through our lives differently not one ending is better then another

[3DandBeyond]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

That's the worst logic I've ever heard.

But do you buy the kid's logic?  Hmmm.

[Timusafa]

LiarasShield wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Timusafa wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Timusafa wrote...

So since this whole discussion is based on making a choice, I pose a question for thought.

Would you stop someone from making a choice? Say Anderson made it to the crucible with you, and he turns to you and says, "I'm gonna go blow this s--- up."

Would you let him choose, or do your morals dictate that you make a choice by stopping him from choosing?

What's the precise context? Are we in the Catalyst's room, with Control, Reject, and Synthesis still open as options? Sounds kinda similar to the Mordin scenario, which was a great sequence.

Yeah, that was a great sequence.

I was envisioning all of the options still open.  You are up with the Starchild and Anderson, have just heard the starchild give you your options, and Anderson decides to choose the destroy option.  Remember, he is your superior as well as your friend.

Do your morals push you to stop him?  For the sake of this argument being easier say he is decided on destroy and his mind can't be changed by arguing with him.

Thought experiments! Gotta love 'em. I think it comes down to which option my Shepard is gunning for. In my first playthrough, I didn't hesitate to shoot Mordin (Yes, I'm terrible). If he's really intent on destroy without even listening to other viewpoints, I might just go ahead and bite the bullet.

It is ultimatle your belief against someone elses doesn't make any of the endings better

Yeah, I'm not saying it makes the endings better but I'm just curious.  Do you see your choice as being more right then another characters?

For example, if anderson was up there and was going for, instead, the synthesis choice, and he couldn't be convinced otherwise, I wouldn't hesitate to usurp him because I believe that the synthesis ending destroys humanity's identity, and that of the rest of the galaxy.

But that's just my opinion on this situation, I think in this case my choice is to preserve humanity while anderson's was to destroy humanity.

Thought experiments! Gotta love 'em. I think it comes down to which option my Shepard is gunning for. In my first playthrough, I didn't hesitate to shoot Mordin (Yes, I'm terrible). If he's really intent on destroy without even listening to other viewpoints, I might just go ahead and bite the bullet. 

By bite the bullet I assume you mean you'd let him choose?

Modifié par Timusafa, 16 août 2012 - 04:42 .

[LiarasShield]

Timusafa wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Timusafa wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Timusafa wrote...

So since this whole discussion is based on making a choice, I pose a question for thought.

Would you stop someone from making a choice? Say Anderson made it to the crucible with you, and he turns to you and says, "I'm gonna go blow this s--- up."

Would you let him choose, or do your morals dictate that you make a choice by stopping him from choosing?

What's the precise context? Are we in the Catalyst's room, with Control, Reject, and Synthesis still open as options? Sounds kinda similar to the Mordin scenario, which was a great sequence.

Yeah, that was a great sequence.

I was envisioning all of the options still open.  You are up with the Starchild and Anderson, have just heard the starchild give you your options, and Anderson decides to choose the destroy option.  Remember, he is your superior as well as your friend.

Do your morals push you to stop him?  For the sake of this argument being easier say he is decided on destroy and his mind can't be changed by arguing with him.

Thought experiments! Gotta love 'em. I think it comes down to which option my Shepard is gunning for. In my first playthrough, I didn't hesitate to shoot Mordin (Yes, I'm terrible). If he's really intent on destroy without even listening to other viewpoints, I might just go ahead and bite the bullet.

It is ultimatle your belief against someone elses doesn't make any of the endings better

Yeah, I'm not saying it makes the endings better but I'm just curious.  Do you see your choice as being more right then another characters?

For example, if anderson was up there and was going for, instead, the synthesis choice, and he couldn't be convinced otherwise, I wouldn't hesitate to usurp him because I believe that the synthesis ending destroys humanity's identity, and that of the rest of the galaxy.

But that's just my opinion on this situation, I think in this case my choice is to preserve humanity while anderson's was to destroy humanity.

Thought experiments! Gotta love 'em. I think it comes down to which option my Shepard is gunning for. In my first playthrough, I didn't hesitate to shoot Mordin (Yes, I'm terrible). If he's really intent on destroy without even listening to other viewpoints, I might just go ahead and bite the bullet. 

By bite the bullet I assume you mean you'd let him choose?

If any one person tried to use the crucible in order to alter everything or everyone I would not kill them but I would knock them out or incapcitate them so that they can't do it

[BaladasDemnevanni]

3DandBeyond wrote...


Yes, I can see them willingly sacrifice themselves, but the thing is Shepard never is given the chance to ask.

However, being logically based I do think they would have a problem with the kid's assertion that they will always want to destroy organics (since they don't) and that to achieve peace you create war, to avoid conflict you initiate it, and to stop the reapers you are given 3 choices with only one possibly resulting in finally stopping them, since the other 2 leave them alive.  I can see them weighing the logic of believing that a being that has been involved in so much destruction and deceit is now being authentic about such choices and I see them being conflicted as to the validity of the choices-the choices fail Occam's Razor "test" and require too many leaps of faith, and faith in a killer.  I can see the geth positing that the quest for the crucible itself was a fool's errand, and nothing the kid has said makes it sound like it was a great idea.

It's actually a really funny turn of events, when you think about it.

Having enough faith in synthetics that we don't have to keep killing each other would mean destroying them and EDI.

But choosing synthesis, which maintains that organics/synthetics must always come into conflict, means that Geth/EDI survive.

Some dark humor, right there.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Timusafa wrote...

By bite the bullet I assume you mean you'd let him choose?

Sorry. Bite the bullet as in kill him. Not to say I'd be happy, mind you. I was pretty close to tears when I shot Mordin in the back. Which says alot either about my mental stability or the potential of gaming to achieve something greater.

[LiarasShield]

It is your belief to think what ending that you like is right or not not one ending is better then another tims got the idea

[BaladasDemnevanni]

LiarasShield wrote...

If any one person tried to use the crucible in order to alter everything or everyone I would not kill them but I would knock them out or incapcitate them so that they can't do it

Well, so much for all your talk about how Hackett can just send someone else to activate the Crucible, last page. It seems we all have to die with you.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 16 août 2012 - 04:51 .

[LiarasShield]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

If any one person tried to use the crucible in order to alter everything or everyone I would not kill them but I would knock them out or incapcitate them so that they can't do it

Well, so much for all your spouting about how Hackett can just send someone else to activate the Crucible, last page. It seems we all have to die with you.

hmm well it depends did the person hacket send get a vote from everybody and what choice they would want him or her to pick?

This also decides wether or not I knock him or her out

[Pitznik]

3DandBeyond wrote...

And consider what sacrifice means.  I have no right to throw you off a building to save the lives of others.  I used this example before.  Say that one month ago you say you'd die for me.  You might mean one thing by that.  If then you and I are walking down the street and someone is about to shoot a gun at me, I pull you in front of me to save my own life, it's not the same thing as you jumping in front of me to save my life. 

Sorry for cutting your post, but I would like to answer some specific point.

First, I kind of agree with you that kid is great unknown, and that shooting him or verbally refusing him brings some unforeseen consequences. But let's assume you know what happens, so decision is about morals alone.

Let's say you and me are on the roof, with other 50 people. Let's say some funny guy strapped the bomb on me, and timer is nearing 0. You are the only person close to me, others are aware of the situation, but slightly away. All you can do is throw me off the building, to save yourself, and those other 50 people. To make it harder, I don't really want to die, so I beg you to spare me (which doesn't make sense, since I'm dying anyway, but I panicked). When bomb explodes, we all are going to die, you, me, and those other 50 people. If you throw me off the building, to an empty backyard, noone will die.

Do you think you have the right to do it, or not?

Modifié par Pitznik, 16 août 2012 - 04:57 .

[3DandBeyond]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...


Yes, I can see them willingly sacrifice themselves, but the thing is Shepard never is given the chance to ask.

However, being logically based I do think they would have a problem with the kid's assertion that they will always want to destroy organics (since they don't) and that to achieve peace you create war, to avoid conflict you initiate it, and to stop the reapers you are given 3 choices with only one possibly resulting in finally stopping them, since the other 2 leave them alive.  I can see them weighing the logic of believing that a being that has been involved in so much destruction and deceit is now being authentic about such choices and I see them being conflicted as to the validity of the choices-the choices fail Occam's Razor "test" and require too many leaps of faith, and faith in a killer.  I can see the geth positing that the quest for the crucible itself was a fool's errand, and nothing the kid has said makes it sound like it was a great idea.

It's actually a really funny turn of events, when you think about it.

Having enough faith in synthetics that we don't have to keep killing each other would mean destroying them and EDI.

But choosing synthesis, which maintains that organics/synthetics must always come into conflict, means that Geth/EDI survive.

Some dark humor, right there.

Absolutely.  It makes your head spin.  I see a lot of it as just that.  It's convenient that the kid ignores the geth conflict-he doesn't even say their name though he knows of them because of Sovereign.  But he through Sovereign shows a hate for them-Sovereign was insulted by the heretics worhip of him.  So, they are "beneath" him.  It leaves you to imagine that there is more behind his motivation than what he says.  He has disdain for lesser synthetics-and those are created by organics.  Perhaps it is this that drives him.  But, man I don't really want to get too far into his head because I might not come back out.  Dark humor indeed-a lot of it.

[LiarasShield]

Cause if he or she got permission from the rest of the galaxy to make a certain choice no matter how grim it is then I would begrudingly accept it

[Pitznik]

Isichar wrote...

I want what is best for the galaxy. Not best for just organics, synthetics, the catalyst, Shepard or any specific group or person, but what is best for the growth of the galaxy as a whole, this is something worth sacrificing an entire cycle for.

Yes I know that sounds absolutely crazy, and I will do my best to explain (Although there are others who can and have worded it much better then me)

Life continues with or without the reapers interaction, and it is always changing. The reapers are like a child stuck on the final fight of a game without any chance to win, they just click reload over and over again and change nothing, their existance alone impedes on the natural evolution of the galaxy in every possible way, and has caused nothing but suffering for both organics and synthetics. Its solution was terrible, no other way to put it. And once the reapers are gone, the problem it was created to fix will still exist, unchanged.

Now it has a new solution, and asks you to choose between sacrificing yourself, or your allys for a cause I don't even agree with, and it uses my motives to do so. To the catalyst even his own destruction and the ability to continue on with our cycles lives is nothing more then a means to an end. And as I have said earlier his goals go beyond simply disagreeing with. It would rather make the universe a static place then risk the chance that synthetics and organics may end up killing each other, and even believes that a husk is a higher form of life despite having no free will.

Others say it is worth the risk to stop the threat, but the reaper threat goes beyond trying to save one specific cycle or group of people for me. If Sacrificing one cycle meant the next would have a chance, and the galaxy would be a better place for it then my Shepard would have done so (and did)

Its not a fun choice to be made but it is one I feel is important. The Catalyst is a poison to the galaxy, its goals are imposed on the natural evolution and because of it there has been more suffering then the problem it was trying to stop could ever cause. And it does not feel sympathy or regret for it, even at the end of its own cycle, it will stay true to the same goal and motivation that led to the start of the cycles.

For me I see the reaper cycle failing before mass effect 1 even started, and I wanted it to fail, not only because I personally don't agree with it, but because it must fail. The crucible may stop the reapers, you may be aloud to continue your lives and eat those yummy grilled cheese sandwiches but you did exactly what the catalyst did, you imposed your will on something that should not have been messed with in the first place. An action can't simply be judged by the immediate effects it has on the people around you, theres more to it then that.

I look at the reapers entire existance, the effect they have had on the galaxy and believe that anything that fits in line with those goals, will only end up causing the same thing.

I want the galaxy to move forward without the influence of the reapers, and you already know what I will sacrifice for that.

Little quiz:

who else than Isichar wants the best of the galaxy, has some great principle in mind, and is willing to sacrifice whole cycles of organic life to achieve it?

[Tazzmission]

Isichar wrote...

Trillions of deaths from the reapers, lives destroyed in the most horrible way possible. By using the crucible you are justifying what the reapers have done to countless organic cycles.

By using the crucible you are justifying that all trillions of deaths were worth it just to save your one cycle. It is selfish and ignores those who died to actually stop the reapers, not submit to them.


Synthesis is the ultimate renegade option, you are saying the ends justify the means.

refusual to me sounds like i would rather sacrificie the galaxy instead of replacing the catalyst

i just beat the game again lastnight and i think it was control where the star ghost says something like i hate the idea of you replacing me

i think the only real true ending is destroy wich i picked btw because whats worse? sacrifise yourself to become the thing you swore to destroy? or would you play god by sacrifising yourself to change the galaxy into a new frame work?

[BaladasDemnevanni]

LiarasShield wrote...

hmm well it depends did the person hacket send get a vote from everybody and what choice they would want him or her to pick?

This also decides wether or not I knock him or her out

A question, to which I ask another:

do you think, in any issue of great importance (military, political, economical), that there is ever universal agreement on a course of action, or even that everyone votes on said issues of great importance? Pure democracy has been shown to be flawed, for a number of different reasons, related to practicality, lack of expertise, amongst others.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 16 août 2012 - 05:03 .

[Isichar]

Pitznik wrote...

who else than Isichar wants the best of the galaxy, has some great principle in mind, and is willing to sacrifice whole cycles of organic life to achieve it?

I have already stated that I think using the crucible would cause more harm then good. It comes down to what I think is best, its not about what I am willing to sacrifice but I hold no illusion that the odds of our cycle is slim. I did not sacrifice those peoples lives directly, just something they put their hopes in that was never a solution to anything.

Modifié par Isichar, 16 août 2012 - 05:04 .

[LiarasShield]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

hmm well it depends did the person hacket send get a vote from everybody and what choice they would want him or her to pick?

This also decides wether or not I knock him or her out

A question, to which I ask another:

do you think, in any issue of great importance (military, political, economical), that there is ever universal agreement on a course of action, or even that everyone votes on said issues of great importance? Pure democracy has been shown to be flawed, for a number of different reasons, related to practicality, lack of expertise, amongst others.

Yet without democracy it leads to dictators that abuse their power and commit genocide or attrocities in their countries and yes the military in this sense would have to get permission from most of its forces before making a choice of this extreme to will alter the whole galaxy at once

[Redbelle]

Perhaps it's better to ask, would you serve in heaven or rule in hell?

Or live life as a slave or die a free man, or........ wait, that last one doens't count. Slaves often lived better in servitude than non slaves out on the streets...... not so sure the Reapers would be benevolent masters.

Anyway. The 3 choices, while valid, are choices that all have a cost to them. If Shepard, i.e. you, does not believe that freedom through R B or G is worth the price then it's time to do a Braveheart and scream "FREEEEEEDOOOOOOOM"!!!! In the little star runts face.

Not that I don't think the SC is going to remain a infamous character for long as BW has let slip that his dialogue is changing yet again in the Leviathan addon......... so basically the ending is a a constant Work in Progress......... to which I still hope they give us the Rambo option of killing everything that moves with a gatling laser.

Because those 'highbrow intellectual' endings, once they got sorted out remind of the ones in Deus EX and to quote Willow from Buffy........ "What?...... No!.... We've done that already"!

Modifié par Redbelle, 16 août 2012 - 05:08 .

[LiarasShield]

Redbelle wrote...

Perhaps it's better to ask, would you serve in heaven or rule in hell?

Or live life as a slave or die a free man, or........ wait, that last one doens't count. Slaves often lived better in servitude than non slaves out on the streets...... not so sure the Reapers would be benevolent masters.

Anyway. The 3 choices, while valid, are choices that all have a cost to them. If Shepard, i.e. you, does not believe that freedom through R B or G is worth the price then it's time to do a Braveheart and scream "FREEEEEEDOOOOOOOM"!!!! In the little star runts face.

Not that I don't think the SC is going to remain a infamous character for long as BW has let slip that his dialogue is changing yet again in the Leviathan addon......... so basically the ending is a a constant Work in Progress......... to which I still hope they give us the Rambo option of killing everything that moves with a gatling laser.

Ahh braveheart I loved that movie and yes and if only I could get shepard to yell freedom at starbrat it would be perfect

[BaladasDemnevanni]

LiarasShield wrote...

Yet without democracy it leads to dictators that abuse their power and commit genocide or attrocities in their countries and yes the military in this sense would have to get permission from most of its forces before making a choice of this extreme to will alter the whole galaxy at once

Pure democracy =/ democracy. Pure democracy is worthless in practice for anything above a village scale. You're essentially asking for consent from over 6 billion humans alone, not counting every other denizen of the galaxy. Again, you would never have made it past Mass Effect 1 by embracing this reasoning.

But you also don't mind forcing down the galaxy down a specific course of action?

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 16 août 2012 - 05:09 .

[Isichar]

Redbelle wrote...

Perhaps it's better to ask, would you serve in heaven or rule in hell?

Or live life as a slave or die a free man, or........ wait, that last one doens't count. Slaves often lived better in servitude than non slaves out on the streets...... not so sure the Reapers would be benevolent masters.

Anyway. The 3 choices, while valid, are choices that all have a cost to them. If Shepard, i.e. you, does not believe that freedom through R B or G is worth the price then it's time to do a Braveheart and scream "FREEEEEEDOOOOOOOM"!!!! In the little star runts face.

Not that I don't think the SC is going to remain a infamous character for long as BW has let slip that his dialogue is changing yet again in the Leviathan addon......... so basically the ending is a a constant Work in Progress......... to which I still hope they give us the Rambo option of killing everything that moves with a gatling laser.

Sure gatling laser is cool and all but I will take the Cain instead tyvm

[Pitznik]

Isichar wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

who else than Isichar wants the best of the galaxy, has some great principle in mind, and is willing to sacrifice whole cycles of organic life to achieve it?

I have already stated that I think using the crucible would cause more harm then good. It comes down to what I think is best, its not about what I am willing to sacrifice but I hold no illusion that the odds of our cycle is slim. I did not sacrifice those peoples lives directly, just something they put their hopes in that was never a solution to anything.

I can't see the answer in here, so sorry, no points. Thank you for playing.

The answer is: the Catalyst.

What good causes the Crucible (in Destroy): makes everyone alive free of the Reapers. What harm it causes: damages the technology, kills all the synthetic life.

How is this more harm than good?

[LiarasShield]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Yet without democracy it leads to dictators that abuse their power and commit genocide or attrocities in their countries and yes the military in this sense would have to get permission from most of its forces before making a choice of this extreme to will alter the whole galaxy at once

Pure democracy =/ democracy. Pure democracy is worthless in practice for anything about a village scale. You're essentially asking for consent from over 6 billion humans alone, not counting every other denizen of the galaxy. Again, you would never have made it past Mass Effect 1 by embracing this reasoning.

But you also don't mind forcing down the galaxy down a specific course of action?

Yet we have representatives and we still have the follow most of what the council wants from us and we still did make it with that reasoning at the very least old council or new shepard or the other person from hackett would at least get permission from the races representatives or from each races head leader


Before making a choice of this extreme

Modifié par LiarasShield, 16 août 2012 - 05:11 .

[3DandBeyond]

Pitznik wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

And consider what sacrifice means.  I have no right to throw you off a building to save the lives of others.  I used this example before.  Say that one month ago you say you'd die for me.  You might mean one thing by that.  If then you and I are walking down the street and someone is about to shoot a gun at me, I pull you in front of me to save my own life, it's not the same thing as you jumping in front of me to save my life. 

Sorry for cutting your post, but I would like to answer some specific point.

First, I kind of agree with you that kid is great unknown, and that shooting him or verbally refusing him brings some unforeseen consequences. But let's assume you know what happens, so decision is about morals alone.

Let's say you and me are on the roof, with other 50 people. Let's say some funny guy strapped the bomb on me, and timer is nearing 0. You are the only person close to me, others are aware of the situation, but slightly away. All you can do is throw me off the building, to save yourself, and those other 50 people. To make it harder, I don't really want to die, so I beg you to spare me (which doesn't make sense, since I'm dying anyway, but I panicked). When bomb explodes, we all are going to die, you, me, and those other 50 people. If you throw me off the building, to an empty backyard, noone will die.

Do you think you have the right to do it, or not?

Well, that's not a really good comparison to make.  The geth are not destruct mechanisms.  Given your situation, I have no choice because I can't do anything for you.  It's not the same.  I am not killing you-the bomb is. 

In ME3, what is certain is this in relation to the choices:
Nothing. 

That's not a basis to do anything the kid says.  A lot of people are fond of saying that Destroy proves the choices are not the kid's creation because he wouldn't offer it if they were.  But the reverse could be true.  The fact the kid offers Destroy means it could be a trap or something else.  Refusal merely refuses what could be seen as "his" choices, not using the crucible for what it was thought to be-a weapon.

In making a choice, Shepard is believing the kid.  If you think he's trustworthy you do it.  If you don't then no choice is reliable or necessarily valid.  That is all refusal is saying.  The consequences come after refusing the kid and the choices.

[AresKeith]

Pitznik wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

who else than Isichar wants the best of the galaxy, has some great principle in mind, and is willing to sacrifice whole cycles of organic life to achieve it?

I have already stated that I think using the crucible would cause more harm then good. It comes down to what I think is best, its not about what I am willing to sacrifice but I hold no illusion that the odds of our cycle is slim. I did not sacrifice those peoples lives directly, just something they put their hopes in that was never a solution to anything.

I can't see the answer in here, so sorry, no points. Thank you for playing.

The answer is: the Catalyst.

What good causes the Crucible (in Destroy): makes everyone alive free of the Reapers. What harm it causes: damages the technology, kills all the synthetic life.

How is this more harm than good?

because you cause Genocide of the Geth and EDI