925 réponses à ce sujet

[memorysquid]

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

Thinking about it as a real life choice, I would probably go with Destroy simply because the other three leave me with more questions than Destroy does.

With Destroy, I know that there is a chance to stop the Reapers once and for all. I don't really know what Synthesis will do long term, and I have an inkling that the long term consequence of Control is that I eventually become the soul-less machine that comes back to destroy everything. With Refusal, I know that we're back to fighting a conventional war, which I've been told repeatedly we cannot win.

I have different Sheps that choose different endings, but that's pretty much my run down on my own thoughts of the endings.

As for the 'genocide' of the Geth, I have a couple of runs where I can't make peace due to events in ME2, and I have one that chooses the Geth and one that chooses the Quarians. For the one that sees the decimation of the Geth before the end of the game, Destroy is actually made that much sweeter (I can handle only losing EDI).

The essence of Paragon Shepard throughout the series is that he'll do the potentially impractical thing to avoid moral atrocity.  You don't really know what destroy will do long term either.  Maybe you've just saved the organic galaxy to doom it to a new race of synthetics or an ascendent Krogan race.

[Omanisat]

Isichar wrote...

Omanisat wrote...

Isichar wrote...

What I find funny is that pro enders always turn this choice into "So you would rather let billions die rather then..." as if I am the one holding the gun to the galaxy's head. People are so quick to forget the reapers have destroyed many lives, and will continue to do so if you do not justify what they have done and submit to its reasoning.

You did not fire the crucible to make the galaxy a better place, you did so because when the reapers took the galaxy hostage, the people you cared about, suddenly everything else they had destroyed became expendable. People died, had their lives destroyed without even knowing why, because 1 AI decided to play god, not because Shepard decided not to fire the gun.

There are so many comparisons I can make for this to real life, most of which would probably get me banned from the forums, but people are trying to make Shepard out as been the trigger puller on the galaxy in refuse when it was always the catalyst. The catalyst killed those people, not Shepard, the Catalyst is the one who will continue to kill those people, not Shepard.

I refused to choose because it was never a solution to begin with. IDC if a 5 minute epilogue says "and then everybody lived happily ever after"

Infact I think its pretty sad the whole choice comes down to "Do you want the people your player cared about to live?" rather then an actual moral belief surrounding the choice your making.

Yet no one actually talks about how the reaper wiped out TRILLIONS of lives without a second thought, infact the best answer I have to address that so far is: Oh well, deal with it.

To clarify, what ending are you talking about?

'Cause I pick Destroy specifically to make sure the reapers aren't going to continue the kill trillions of innocent people.

And you destroyed a race because the catalysts logic demanded it in result.

Ask yourself this: Why is the Catalyst ok with destroy but not refuse?

Yes, I killed the geth/EDI. It's terrible and i would galdly sacrifice shep if it meant they could live. So, I killed one race to end the reaper threat.

You kill ALL the races, for nothing but some ill defined concept of "morality."

[Isichar]

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

Thinking about it as a real life choice, I would probably go with Destroy simply because the other three leave me with more questions than Destroy does.

With Destroy, I know that there is a chance to stop the Reapers once and for all. I don't really know what Synthesis will do long term, and I have an inkling that the long term consequence of Control is that I eventually become the soul-less machine that comes back to destroy everything. With Refusal, I know that we're back to fighting a conventional war, which I've been told repeatedly we cannot win.

I have different Sheps that choose different endings, but that's pretty much my run down on my own thoughts of the endings.

As for the 'genocide' of the Geth, I have a couple of runs where I can't make peace due to events in ME2, and I have one that chooses the Geth and one that chooses the Quarians. For the one that sees the decimation of the Geth before the end of the game, Destroy is actually made that much sweeter (I can handle only losing EDI).

I originally picked destroy for this reason to. When faced with an unknown it is best to stick with what you know best. I could say I know synthesis is the best so that is what I will pick, but Shepard does not know this, and in reality has no reason to actually believe that, so is very unlikely to choose it (unless your Shepard for some reason feels different, obviously not all Shepards are the same )

You could argue refuse is the most likely to get everyone killed, but that would be speculation (even if it is ultimately correct) but I can't help but people saying they would never choose refuse because of the results as been a metagaming choice since it is usually done with the knowledge of how that choice will play out, which is arguably worse then any other choice.

[TsaiMeLemoni]

memorysquid wrote...

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

Thinking about it as a real life choice, I would probably go with Destroy simply because the other three leave me with more questions than Destroy does.

With Destroy, I know that there is a chance to stop the Reapers once and for all. I don't really know what Synthesis will do long term, and I have an inkling that the long term consequence of Control is that I eventually become the soul-less machine that comes back to destroy everything. With Refusal, I know that we're back to fighting a conventional war, which I've been told repeatedly we cannot win.

I have different Sheps that choose different endings, but that's pretty much my run down on my own thoughts of the endings.

As for the 'genocide' of the Geth, I have a couple of runs where I can't make peace due to events in ME2, and I have one that chooses the Geth and one that chooses the Quarians. For the one that sees the decimation of the Geth before the end of the game, Destroy is actually made that much sweeter (I can handle only losing EDI).

The essence of Paragon Shepard throughout the series is that he'll do the potentially impractical thing to avoid moral atrocity.  You don't really know what destroy will do long term either.  Maybe you've just saved the organic galaxy to doom it to a new race of synthetics or an ascendent Krogan race.

Two things: 1) I don't play as a Paragon. 2) Morality is a very subjective thing. What goes against the grain of your morals may not go against mine.

Anyway, my Shepard is trying to focus on the threat of the here and now, which are the Reapers. I think my Shepard has faith that after the **** ups of the Geth and the whole Reaper situation that a future synthetic vs organic issue would either be minor, or not be present at all.

I have yet to cure the Genophage, so I doubt the Krogan will be a big issue in any of my Sheps futures. Besides, there will always be a future threat; no reason to make that possibility completely determine your response to a present crisis.

Modifié par TsaiMeLemoni, 14 août 2012 - 04:49 .

[Isichar]

Omanisat wrote...

You kill ALL the races, for nothing but some ill defined concept of "morality."

Did i now? Here I thought that was the reapers and catalyst doing the killing, I must have missed something.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Isichar wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Yet no one actually talks about how the reaper wiped out TRILLIONS of lives without a second thought, infact the best answer I have to address that so far is: Oh well, deal with it.

That's because no one needs to talk about it. What the Reapers did is bad. We pick a solution that lets us stop them from doing it again. You refused to pick one of those solutions and were therefore left without the power to stop them from doing it again. That's what it comes down to. Not justifying anything the Reapers have done, but stopping them through whatever means is available at the lowest possible cost.

That is easy to say when you can save and reload and see what your choices have done. You dont actually know if firing the crucible would even stop the reapers until you actually fired it.

Given that my alternative is not firing it, which definitely doesn't stop the Reapers from killing more people, I'm prepared to take that chance.

[The Spamming Troll]

id have found someone to write it differently.

[TsaiMeLemoni]

Isichar wrote...


You could argue refuse is the most likely to get everyone killed, but that would be speculation (even if it is ultimately correct) but I can't help but people saying they would never choose refuse because of the results as been a metagaming choice since it is usually done with the knowledge of how that choice will play out, which is arguably worse then any other choice.

I will concede that point....after having seen refuse I have decided not to choose it again primarily out of knowing that it ends the galaxy, which I dont want. I guess I have been metagaming ME3!

I certainly did in ME2 just so I could see what would happen with ME3.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Isichar wrote...

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.

lol.

By what abortion of logic does one conclude that stopping the Reapers equates to justifying their actions?

The victor is the one that will be writing history. If you win, nobody cares what the Reapers did or thought about their actions. One way or another, they've been stopped.

But by refusing and losing the war, Harbinger just adds your cycle to the long list of those that couldn't stop them, only helping the Reapers re-affirm their beliefs on how worthless those puny organics are.

Sacrificing your morals >>> Sacrificing the galaxy.

[Omanisat]

Isichar wrote...

Omanisat wrote...

You kill ALL the races, for nothing but some ill defined concept of "morality."

Did i now? Here I thought that was the reapers and catalyst doing the killing, I must have missed something.

Your Shep was told over and over that conventional warfare was a dead end. Your Shep had the choice and ability to stop the Reapers and choose not to act. By failing to act you allowed the Reapers to act and kill the races of the galaxey. That is your Shepard's fault. 

My Shep's actions killed the geth. He didn't walk out and shoot every single one in the head, but they are dead reguardless. Your Shep's actions killed the entire galaxy, by failing to act.

[Isichar]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Isichar wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Yet no one actually talks about how the reaper wiped out TRILLIONS of lives without a second thought, infact the best answer I have to address that so far is: Oh well, deal with it.

That's because no one needs to talk about it. What the Reapers did is bad. We pick a solution that lets us stop them from doing it again. You refused to pick one of those solutions and were therefore left without the power to stop them from doing it again. That's what it comes down to. Not justifying anything the Reapers have done, but stopping them through whatever means is available at the lowest possible cost.

That is easy to say when you can save and reload and see what your choices have done. You dont actually know if firing the crucible would even stop the reapers until you actually fired it.

Given that my alternative is not firing it, which definitely doesn't stop the Reapers from killing more people, I'm prepared to take that chance.

A completely valid point. Although in this case it becomes you weighing 2 unknowns against each other. In terms of how the story actually plays out you are correct too, though I would be willing to bet that when you originally made this choice you would have considered refuse much more then you would have after seeing the choices been made.

[Hackulator]

ITT: OP fails his moral theory class.

[ediskrad327]

so you think it is better to just let the reapers live? just let them exterminate us? no. letting them win is the selfish choice. MILLIONS died so that we could have the chance to destroy them and you just refused to. if anyone is IGNoring their sacrifice it is you.

[Bill Casey]

Isichar wrote...

Ask yourself this: Why is the Catalyst ok with destroy but not refuse?

Because he is ****ing with you...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 14 août 2012 - 05:04 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

Isichar wrote...
I would be willing to bet that when you originally made this choice you would have considered refuse much more then you would have after seeing the choices been made.

Not exactly. You see, I listened to all the people telling me that the Reapers cannot be defeated through conventional warfare. Our choice was always to either fire the Crucible or to take as many Reapers down with us as we could. I fired the Crucible.

[AlanC9]

Isichar wrote...
You could argue refuse is the most likely to get everyone killed, but that would be speculation (even if it is ultimately correct) but I can't help but people saying they would never choose refuse because of the results as been a metagaming choice since it is usually done with the knowledge of how that choice will play out, which is arguably worse then any other choice.

Since nobody in the game thinks the war can be won without using the Crucible, it's hardly metagaming to think that the war can't be won without the Crucible, wich means that Refuse is guaranteed extermination. What gave you the idea that the war was winnable?

[Isichar]

Omanisat wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Omanisat wrote...

You kill ALL the races, for nothing but some ill defined concept of "morality."

Did i now? Here I thought that was the reapers and catalyst doing the killing, I must have missed something.

Your Shep was told over and over that conventional warfare was a dead end. Your Shep had the choice and ability to stop the Reapers and choose not to act. By failing to act you allowed the Reapers to act and kill the races of the galaxey. That is your Shepard's fault. 

My Shep's actions killed the geth. He didn't walk out and shoot every single one in the head, but they are dead reguardless. Your Shep's actions killed the entire galaxy, by failing to act.

First of all Hacket is full of crap and I dont care what he says. Reapers are killable with conventional means, whether or not we are likely to win a war that way is a different story.

If blaiming the victim for the actions of another is how you want to view it then by all means go ahead.

I will say it again: The reapers killed those people, not Shepard.

Some people would rather fight and die then submit and live.

Dont agree with the morals? fine. At least I could keep my morals FLIMSY AS THEY MAY BE. I argue anyone firing the crucible compromises those morals just because they are afraid to die.

The reapers lost the moment the crucible was created and was able to be passed onto another cycle, not the moment it was fired.

Modifié par Isichar, 14 août 2012 - 05:18 .

[The Twilight God]

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.

*cough* indoctrinated *cough*

[Isichar]

AlanC9 wrote...

Isichar wrote...
You could argue refuse is the most likely to get everyone killed, but that would be speculation (even if it is ultimately correct) but I can't help but people saying they would never choose refuse because of the results as been a metagaming choice since it is usually done with the knowledge of how that choice will play out, which is arguably worse then any other choice.

Since nobody in the game thinks the war can be won without using the Crucible, it's hardly metagaming to think that the war can't be won without the Crucible, wich means that Refuse is guaranteed extermination. What gave you the idea that the war was winnable?

And do these people have anymore reason for believing that the crucible is anymore likely to help them win then conventional warfare? The reapers were a situation with no hope, so people placed hope in something they did not understand because they had no choice. People do this everyday in life too. Sure the crucible may have worked, it could have also been us throwing resources into something that could never have worked too, which would have made the choice to even try it worse then trying to win by conventional means.

Modifié par Isichar, 14 août 2012 - 05:19 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

Isichar wrote...

The reapers lost the moment the crucible was created and was able to be passed onto another cycle, not the moment it was fired.

So...you'd be okay with another cycle using the crucible?

Also, could you please explain why you keep suggesting that picking one of the endings constitutes submission? There isn't exactly a Tell The Reapers To Keep Up The Good Work ending or a Plead For Your Pathetic Life ending.

[AlexMBrennan]

By using the crucible you are justifying that all trillions of deaths were worth it just to save your one cycle

Incorrect. Using the crucible saves the current cycle AND all subsequent ones. Not using it not only dooms us, but also every subsequent cycle to the same grim fate - a fate worse than death for billions every 50k years. This cycle did as well as they did due to a lot of luck (protheans disabling the keepers, Shepard taking down Sovereign, etc). You have no reason to think that the next cycle will do as well (never mind better) than the current one.

The next cycle using the Crucible is an argument after the fact; you cannot use information unavailable at the time to judge a decision.

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

Well, maybe. I find it difficult to properly classify an option that is *that* retarded (Renegade means something along the lines of "complete the task at any cost", yet synthesis is not viable solution to the problem at hand - it leaves the Reaper fleet intact and they might just decide to keep killing us anyway - which means that it can't really be a renegade option)

Regardless, this is nonsense - using the Crucible at all does not mean choosing synthesis.

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 14 août 2012 - 05:29 .

[Omanisat]

Isichar wrote...

First of all Hacket is full of crap and I dont care what he says. Reapers are killable with conventional means, whether or not we are likely to win a war that way is a different story. 

If blaiming the victim for the actions of another is how you want to view it then by all means go ahead.

I will say it again: The reapers killed those people, not Shepard.

Some people would rather fight and die then submit and live.

Dont agree with the morals? fine. At least I could keep my morals FLIMSY AS THEY MAY BE. I argue anyone firing the crucible compromises those morals just because they are afraid to die.

The reapers lost the moment the crucible was created and was able to be passed onto another cycle, not the moment it was fired.

No one said you can't kill the Reapers conventionally. But as they said (and as we've seen) they can't be defeated as a whole.

To me acting, IE: killing someone, is no different than failing to act, IE: not stopping/allowing someone to be killed.

And maybe your morals argument would hold up if it was just Shep who dies in refuse, but the entire galaxy suffers for the inflexibility of one human. Everyone has to sacrifice to beat the Reapers, why should Shep be any different? Maybe breaking/going against his valuse is the price he has to pay. My Shep is willing to do this.

[Master Xanthan]

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.

If you choose refuse, then what was the point of you playing the Mass Effect trilogy? 

[inko1nsiderate]

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

I have different Sheps that choose different endings, but that's pretty much my run down on my own thoughts of the endings.

Different Shepards, different endings. I don't understand anyone who insists on only choosing a single ending.

[Master Xanthan]

inko1nsiderate wrote...

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

I have different Sheps that choose different endings, but that's pretty much my run down on my own thoughts of the endings.

Different Shepards, different endings. I don't understand anyone who insists on only choosing a single ending.

That is a good point. Though the only time I would pick refuse as an ending would probably be in a fail playthrough, and that's only if I don't try to have Shepard die in the suicide mission.