925 réponses à ce sujet

[estebanus]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Reorte wrote...

estebanus wrote...

I refused simply because of what it represents: Freedom.

If you choose refuse because of the consequences, I'm not sure that would be a good choice.

It represents death. The freedom of the grave is massively over-rated. Is it better for everyone else than the freedom they have with the Reapers gone in Destroy? Sure, believe that Shepard gave in to the enemy to achieve that but then he's sacrificed his integrity for the sake of everyone (other than the geth) if that's what you think it means.

You're once again mixing consequence and representation up. It represents freedom because of what Shepard says.
If it would represent death, then Shepard would have said that s/he isn't making a choice because s/he wants to see everyone die.

So...it's okay that everyone gets killed/reaperfied as long as Shepard makes some idealistic speech first?

...Gotcha:mellow:

Again, consequence is different from meaning and representation. You're mixing them up.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Forgive me for choosing an option that doesn't result in everyone dying.

[3DandBeyond]

Even if you are metagaming and all it's not such an easy choice. But that is why people are asking you all to consider what you are being asked to do morally. If you act and kill people, no matter what you have committed murder. If you fail to act and people will die, even if you are 100% certain you could have prevented that, you are perhaps negligent, but if the way to save them involves committing a crime of some sort, you wouldn't even be legally or morally guilty of negligence.

A lot of people are fond of calling others cowards for choosing refuse and they do this to stir up emotions and not to honestly debate the issue. Well, it actually would take a truly courageous person to face certain death if they don't murder someone else and save other people. The harder choice is no choice, because it doesn't involve an easy yet unsatisfactory quick outcome. Even if Shepard knows it will mean fighting and dying, the future is horrible and extended over maybe 100 years of tragedy. If you think that's cowardly then I don't think you are truly getting what it all means. Refuse is not some easy way out and it would take a truly amazing person to not hit a "destroy all reapers" button and decide to face fate head on. The cost of EDI and the geth may only make the decision slightly easier, but not at all easy. And Shepard wouldn't be jumping for joy at doing it. But choosing to exterminate a race because it's the easy way out for everyone else is not ever a moral choice, even if it is the "right" choice.

I don't have the moral right to sacrifice you to save someone else. That would mean I'm placing your value at something lower than the life of someone else. Sure, I might choose to do it based on the circumstances, but some types of Shepards would not. I said this before that my Shepard said, "you don't sacrifice someone over here to save someone else over there." I didn't write that, the writers did. Another thing my Shepard said is, "you don't condemn a race to extinction base on what might happen." Something that has not yet happened is not a certainty. It is something that might happen, so my Shepard that says this must weigh killing the geth (extinction) and EDI against what very probably will happen, but since it has not yet happened it still only MIGHT happen.

Just like other things people say you can't refute or ignore-you can't ignore that. That's a value Shepard has.

[robertthebard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

robertthebard wrote...


3D talks about videos and dialogs where people are surprised that Refusal was a loss, but I'm going to postulate that those people figured they could refuse and get a conventional victory, totally ignoring what's been happening to the galaxy up to the point they get to make their choice.  It's like they think they're making that choice in a vacuum, and none of the events of the past matter.  When I look at the galaxy map, getting ready to go to Earth at the end, and it's completely Reaper dominated, that tells me that despite whatever my EMS is, and mine is never all that high, although if I could play MP worth a crap, it could be higher, but somebody that does play says it doesn't matter, despite the Galaxy at War saying the Reapers are being pushed back on some fronts, they are still winning.  We then take the bulk of our forces, and concentrate them on one goal, delivering the Crucible(I'll touch on bad ending is bad), we're going to lose even systems where we might have been managing some kind of real resistance.

snipped

Sure it's possible some did think they could try and get a conventional victory.  And there's nothing wrong with thinking that.  I don't care what the game says at places, at other places it says you have good chances of winning, so it's contradictory.  A person could reasonably have assumed (based on the other games and things said in ME3) that some type of actual fight, not fully conventional could win.  I don't want to argue about it-the writers said it was impossible in some places, but said it might be possible in other places.  Sure, it proved impossible.  I understand that.  But, when you first play the game, if you actually read everything and paid attention to all that you were shown, it was possible to conclude that with some luck and hard work, refuse would make it possible.  We saw that was not true.  If you didn't have high enough EMS then you never saw one big sign that said it was possible-on the war assets screen.  Chances of winning are even.  That does not mean it's impossible.  But ok it was.  But that was not the main thing people thought would happen if they shot or refused the kid.  They repeatedly asked for a refuse that shut off the kid and the choices and made the crucible work as it was supposed to. 

They did just that.  If you refuse the kid, it shuts him up, and kills the choices.  This is exactly what Refusal does.  The problem with that summary is, killing the choices turns off the Crucible, as it was already working as intended, good bad or indifferent doesn't matter any more, as Refusal has removed the kid, and the choices, just as requested.  It's not so much a middle finger as be careful what you wish for. 

Shepard could figure that using one of those choices is a gamble that could indeed make things worse.  People ask how death in time due to reapers could be made worse, well how about all that built up power being used for an instant harvest or to annhilate the galaxy by releasing a huge amount of dark energy at once?  Some say the kid wouldn't do that.  Well I disagree.  He already has a warped idea of how to handle an exaggerated, all but imaginary problem, and he carries it out in the most abhorrent way.  He seeds the galaxy with reaper tech so that organics will develop and be ready to harvest every 50k years.  He harvests them at the point where they can make synthetics that he thinks will kill them.  He does all that to avoid a conflict.  He is capable of doing anything to avoid that conflict.  His goal isn't saving organics, he is to prevent a conflict.  So the choices could do anything.

I don't see this, because quite frankly, looking out into the space immediately surrounding the Citadel at this point, the only way it could be much worse is if I hadn't gotten to that point.  I mean, unless they moved to another galaxy too because of some choice, then trillions of people that I've never even conceived of die.  However, the trap within a trap within a trap scenario doesn't come off as logical, it comes off as paranoid.  At this point, you have absolutely nothing else to lose, since it's pretty obvious that Sword is getting hammered, and Hammer got hammered.  These were your last ditch, totally desperate(along with totally contrived) chances, and they aren't working.  Losing is pretty evident, and final.  So really, it can't get much worse.  I don't think it could get any worse, looking at it for the first time, w/out considering what nifty video I'm going to get when I choose.

I didn't read these forums until after I'd played all three games.  Although I did post in the ME forums because I couldn't register ME, and I couldn't get the DLC to work.  I knew there was a controversy, but since I don't do shooters as a rule, and ME looked like a shooter, I didn't even look at it until May or so, and I started with ME, so that I could judge whether or not to buy ME 2, and then played that to judge whether I bought ME 3.  I've already made purchase decisions based on this community, and regretted it.  So I didn't read these forums and jade my decision, or spoil myself about what all the fuss was about.  So I made my first decision blind to what would happen, with a relatively low EMS.  Low enough that Synthesis wasn't even offered, and I failed to save the Geth anyway.  I still saw Refusal as just what the name implies, refusing to use the Crucible.  If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice, and looking at the galaxy map when I traveled to Earth, not using the Crucible was going to be infinitely worse than using it.  So I used it. 

[robertthebard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Even if you are metagaming and all it's not such an easy choice. But that is why people are asking you all to consider what you are being asked to do morally. If you act and kill people, no matter what you have committed murder. If you fail to act and people will die, even if you are 100% certain you could have prevented that, you are perhaps negligent, but if the way to save them involves committing a crime of some sort, you wouldn't even be legally or morally guilty of negligence.

A lot of people are fond of calling others cowards for choosing refuse and they do this to stir up emotions and not to honestly debate the issue. Well, it actually would take a truly courageous person to face certain death if they don't murder someone else and save other people. The harder choice is no choice, because it doesn't involve an easy yet unsatisfactory quick outcome. Even if Shepard knows it will mean fighting and dying, the future is horrible and extended over maybe 100 years of tragedy. If you think that's cowardly then I don't think you are truly getting what it all means. Refuse is not some easy way out and it would take a truly amazing person to not hit a "destroy all reapers" button and decide to face fate head on. The cost of EDI and the geth may only make the decision slightly easier, but not at all easy. And Shepard wouldn't be jumping for joy at doing it. But choosing to exterminate a race because it's the easy way out for everyone else is not ever a moral choice, even if it is the "right" choice.

I don't have the moral right to sacrifice you to save someone else. That would mean I'm placing your value at something lower than the life of someone else. Sure, I might choose to do it based on the circumstances, but some types of Shepards would not. I said this before that my Shepard said, "you don't sacrifice someone over here to save someone else over there." I didn't write that, the writers did. Another thing my Shepard said is, "you don't condemn a race to extinction base on what might happen." Something that has not yet happened is not a certainty. It is something that might happen, so my Shepard that says this must weigh killing the geth (extinction) and EDI against what very probably will happen, but since it has not yet happened it still only MIGHT happen.

Just like other things people say you can't refute or ignore-you can't ignore that. That's a value Shepard has.

You can no more assign a value to one of my Shepards than I can assign one to yours.  My Paragon Shepard saw killing the Geth and EDI as acceptable losses to prevent galactic genocide, not to mention the other choices, bleh.  Every time I read these conversations, I think about Goblin talking to Spiderman about the virtues of being a hero, sooner or later, somebody comes along and forces you to make a sadistic choice.  This is one of those instances.  You don't have the option to have a conference call about it, which is, quite frankly, logical.  The longer you delay, the more people die.  You don't have to be morally bankrupt to decide that saving trillions is worth killing millions, or billions, or to believe that ending the threat forever is a good thing.

You don't have to be morally bankrupt to decide that killing everybody is ok, but it sure helps.  Again, this does not require precognition, or metagaming, but simply remembering what the galaxy map looks like when you travel to Earth, and the definition of refuse.  You cannot use metagaming as a basis to prove that you shouldn't metagame.  What this refers to is saying "How are you supposed to know that refusing won't let you walk around the platform before you decide like all the other choices do?", as that is metagaming.  If you're going to metagame that, then you may as well metagame the rest, because once you do it, it doesn't matter how you use it.

[Isichar]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Even if you are metagaming and all it's not such an easy choice. But that is why people are asking you all to consider what you are being asked to do morally. If you act and kill people, no matter what you have committed murder. If you fail to act and people will die, even if you are 100% certain you could have prevented that, you are perhaps negligent, but if the way to save them involves committing a crime of some sort, you wouldn't even be legally or morally guilty of negligence.

A lot of people are fond of calling others cowards for choosing refuse and they do this to stir up emotions and not to honestly debate the issue. Well, it actually would take a truly courageous person to face certain death if they don't murder someone else and save other people. The harder choice is no choice, because it doesn't involve an easy yet unsatisfactory quick outcome. Even if Shepard knows it will mean fighting and dying, the future is horrible and extended over maybe 100 years of tragedy. If you think that's cowardly then I don't think you are truly getting what it all means. Refuse is not some easy way out and it would take a truly amazing person to not hit a "destroy all reapers" button and decide to face fate head on. The cost of EDI and the geth may only make the decision slightly easier, but not at all easy. And Shepard wouldn't be jumping for joy at doing it. But choosing to exterminate a race because it's the easy way out for everyone else is not ever a moral choice, even if it is the "right" choice.

I don't have the moral right to sacrifice you to save someone else. That would mean I'm placing your value at something lower than the life of someone else. Sure, I might choose to do it based on the circumstances, but some types of Shepards would not. I said this before that my Shepard said, "you don't sacrifice someone over here to save someone else over there." I didn't write that, the writers did. Another thing my Shepard said is, "you don't condemn a race to extinction base on what might happen." Something that has not yet happened is not a certainty. It is something that might happen, so my Shepard that says this must weigh killing the geth (extinction) and EDI against what very probably will happen, but since it has not yet happened it still only MIGHT happen.

Just like other things people say you can't refute or ignore-you can't ignore that. That's a value Shepard has.

I actually find it kind of funny. I suggested earlier to someone in this thread that destroy can been looked at in the same light he was looking at refuse in, he went into complete denial. Its much easier to look at choices in black and white and say "I am right and your wrong" then it is to realize its not always as simple as it looks.

When choosing how to end the game you ask what is important to you and make a choice the leads to the best solution based on that. Its funny to talk about my beliefs and have it completely ignored so that they can bash me based on how they view my choice.

Theres a reason the game had choices, and a reason the game let you customize your Shepard. But then again some players feel like there should be less choices, rather then...yknow just choose not to make it. Thats what I love about mass effect, so open to many viewpoints, even if the fans tend to be close minded asses.

[Pitznik]

estebanus wrote...
Again, consequence is different from meaning and representation. You're mixing them up.

Consequence is what give the choice its meaning. It doesn't matter what is written on the tin. If Shepard would yell FREEDOM when destroying teh tube, would it be a choice representing freedom? I'm afraid it is you who is mixing them up.

Refusal represents pride, maybe honor, unwillingness to compromise, irresponsibility and selfishness. Also, arrogance greater than even Control or Synthesis.

3DandBeyond - Refusal isn't really cowardly, none of the choices are, since all of them require some heavy risk, and some leaps of faith. But refusal is ultimately selfish - it is the inability to make a hard choice to not get your own hands
even a little dirty. This decision is about Shepard, not about the
galaxy, and it should be completely the other way around.

Isichar wrote...


I actually find it kind of funny. I suggested earlier to someone in this thread that destroy can been looked at in the same light he was looking at refuse in, he went into complete denial. Its much easier to look at choices in black and white and say "I am right and your wrong" then it is to realize its not always as simple as it looks.

When choosing how to end the game you ask what is important to you and make a choice the leads to the best solution based on that. Its funny to talk about my beliefs and have it completely ignored so that they can bash me based on how they view my choice.

Theres a reason the game had choices, and a reason the game let you customize your Shepard. But then again some players feel like there should be less choices, rather then...yknow just choose not to make it. Thats what I love about mass effect, so open to many viewpoints, even if the fans tend to be close minded asses.

It is not about beliefs, you have no right to enforce your beliefs on everyone else. It about weighting damage and risk - synthesis and control are both uncertain risk (imo synthesis is way more risky)/no damage, destroy is no risk/significant damage, refuse is high risk/high damage. Just save those people and let THEM decide what do do with THEIR lives, up to their own beliefs.

[3DandBeyond]

robertthebard wrote...

You can no more assign a value to one of my Shepards than I can assign one to yours. 

--Snipped merely to address this one point.

I'm not assigning value to your Shepard.  I am saying the values of my Shepard are ignored by the game.  That's the problem.  The game was supposed to take into account these permutations of Shepards and it doesn't.  You may have a Shepard that can do certain things (but Robert you even say you don't play to the end because you head canon your own ending and this is not at all authentic to you).  I also don't play to the end, because none of the choices with these outcomes make any degree of sense to me.  I'm not insulting anyone's choice or belief-I am saying they do not hold true with values as I see them.  I'm not asking you to have my values-I am asking you to see that my values are not validated in the game, but they are values that a Shepard could have.

I can also assert that the endings don't allow for all types of renegade Shepards as well as paragons.  In my opinion a certain type of renegade could no more choose control than a certain type of paragon could (or any other choice).  Selfishness could be a renegade trait.  A selfish renegade would ask just what Destroy means, since that Shepard wouldn't know if that means s/he will die or not.  A selfish renegade is doing this all to survive and maybe assure that other humans live on so that the things s/he likes to do also exist.  This renegade (paragons and all Shepards) presumably likes sex.  Well, it's pretty difficult to do that after death or as a gasping torso.  A selfish renegade might like to play video games and like to go shopping.  Well, being reaper commander makes that difficult and being dead doesn't help, either.  People think renegades would all want to control and my renegade might not want that at all, unless control means using a joystick or a remote control.  My renegade likes being alive and might thing godhood sounds cool, but might not like the idea of not being able to enjoy (no emotions) it.  My renegade would gravitate toward destroy, but would seriously want to know just what it means and it is totally unclear.

I may be seeming to ignore your values (I'm not, I'm merely stating mine in my Shepard), but the game totally ignores what are just as valid values.

[3DandBeyond]

robertthebard wrote...

You can no more assign a value to one of my Shepards than I can assign one to yours.  My Paragon Shepard saw killing the Geth and EDI as acceptable losses to prevent galactic genocide, not to mention the other choices, bleh.  Every time I read these conversations, I think about Goblin talking to Spiderman about the virtues of being a hero, sooner or later, somebody comes along and forces you to make a sadistic choice.  This is one of those instances.  You don't have the option to have a conference call about it, which is, quite frankly, logical.  The longer you delay, the more people die.  You don't have to be morally bankrupt to decide that saving trillions is worth killing millions, or billions, or to believe that ending the threat forever is a good thing.

You don't have to be morally bankrupt to decide that killing everybody is ok, but it sure helps.  Again, this does not require precognition, or metagaming, but simply remembering what the galaxy map looks like when you travel to Earth, and the definition of refuse.  You cannot use metagaming as a basis to prove that you shouldn't metagame.  What this refers to is saying "How are you supposed to know that refusing won't let you walk around the platform before you decide like all the other choices do?", as that is metagaming.  If you're going to metagame that, then you may as well metagame the rest, because once you do it, it doesn't matter how you use it.

Now to address the rest of this.  I never said others had to be morally bankrupt to do anything-I specifically said other people can view the morals of it in another way.  I am saying my Shepard would have to abandon the values she had in order to do it.  And it's the idea that no one recognizes that that is valid as well.  I never said that quote you attribute to me, so please remove it.  Refuse is not defined unless metagaming as an instant shut off the crucible switch, nor is shooting the kid.  It can be seen as a way to merely refuse the choices offered by the kid.  You seem to be saying that is meta-gaming but it isn't.  Meta-gaming clearly tells you refuse shuts off the crucible.  I've said this as plainly as I can and can only assume you are now arguing the point just to argue it.

I've stated my values and you've stated yours.  I've repeatedly said that you and others like you do have the right to view things that way and the game affirms that.  I've also said that what is so wrong with the game is that it takes great pains to allow someone to come to different conclusions and then ignores all that.  We are all different people.  We have strong opinions.  But, I still see that deciding to save some people by murdering others demeans the quality and meaning of all life.  In ME3, it also ruins in some part the heroic quality of Shepard.  Maybe not yours, because you avoid London altogether for your reasons, but not on purely moral grounds-I'm not saying you are amoral, you just don't like the whole thing for your own reasons.  I avoid London for my reasons, the kid and because I don't see any moral choice for me.  And refuse as shown is a slap in the face.  If something is impossible it's impossible, don't show people things that say otherwise and then mean it's impossible.

[xsdob]

People choose refuse just to be an aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!

Kidding, In all seriousness though refuse is one of my favorite endings because it seems like a nice twist ending to a journey and fits really well with the lore. Probably one of the things I like most about it is that we help the next cycle defeat the reapers, like the protheans did for us, and brought the series full circle, making our own beacons as the protheans did thousands of years before us. It actually felt like the theme of unity came into play in beating the reapers on our terms, though with a much sadder means of doing so, but I can live with that because it fits with a few of my shepards personalities and stories.

Modifié par xsdob, 17 août 2012 - 03:49 .

[Pitznik]

xsdob wrote...

People choose refuse just to be an aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!

Kidding, In all seriousness though refuse is one of my favorite endings because it seems like a nice twist ending to a journey and fits really well with the lore. Probably one of the things I like most about it is that we help the next cycle defeat the reapers, like the protheans did for us, and brought the series full circle, making our own beacons as the protheans did thousands of years before us. It actually felt like the theme of unity came into play in beating the reapers on our terms, though with a much sadder means of doing so, but I can live with that because it fits with a few of my shepards personalities and stories.

You don't know if it is the next cycle, or the next after next or much more into the future. And you don't know if they used the Crucible or not. Refusal ending leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

[xsdob]

Pitznik wrote...

xsdob wrote...

People choose refuse just to be an aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!

Kidding, In all seriousness though refuse is one of my favorite endings because it seems like a nice twist ending to a journey and fits really well with the lore. Probably one of the things I like most about it is that we help the next cycle defeat the reapers, like the protheans did for us, and brought the series full circle, making our own beacons as the protheans did thousands of years before us. It actually felt like the theme of unity came into play in beating the reapers on our terms, though with a much sadder means of doing so, but I can live with that because it fits with a few of my shepards personalities and stories.

You don't know if it is the next cycle, or the next after next or much more into the future. And you don't know if they used the Crucible or not. Refusal ending leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

Yes I don't, and neither do you. You don't know that it isn't the cycle after ours, you don't know that they use the crucible, and that's the point. An open ending means that you can interpruet the ending any way you want to and still be right, so I interpret my ending to be positive and uplifting, which is easy enough to do. You can also interpret it negativly with ease as well, either version can be true for your own personal ending and enough evidence is supported to support either view point.

For example, with the hologram scene with liara talking about our cycle, she says "we used the crucible but it didn't work." which supports the idea that the next cycle did not use the crucible, at the same time the crucibles blueprints and included in the blackbox, meaning that if you wanted to, you could interpret that the crucible was used. The star gazer scene can be seen as a confirmation either way, and that was the point of it all really, to try and make everyone's head cannon and view on the story right.

It failed but with that in mind I can pretty much like every ending, but control and refuse are still my two top favorites.

Modifié par xsdob, 17 août 2012 - 04:00 .

[Isichar]

Pitznik wrote...

It is not about beliefs, you have no right to enforce your beliefs on everyone else. It about weighting damage and risk - synthesis and control are both uncertain risk (imo synthesis is way more risky)/no damage, destroy is no risk/significant damage, refuse is high risk/high damage. Just save those people and let THEM decide what do do with THEIR lives, up to their own beliefs.

But thats your belief, what my Shepard and what your Shepard believed are two very different things as is the case with anyone. The risks and what your fighting for may not be the same for me. I see your reasoning clearly enough, but that does not mean others wouldn't find the sacrifices acceptable. I do know people who said they could not choose destroy because they felt the loss of the Geth and EDI was unacceptable, even if you don't enjoy making the choice you are still weighing their lives against what is better as a whole.

I would say when you choose to use the Crucible are are enforcing your beliefs on others with all three options whether or not you like it. Thats a compromise most people are willing to make considering the results.

Modifié par Isichar, 17 août 2012 - 04:06 .

[Isichar]

xsdob wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

xsdob wrote...

People choose refuse just to be an aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!

Kidding, In all seriousness though refuse is one of my favorite endings because it seems like a nice twist ending to a journey and fits really well with the lore. Probably one of the things I like most about it is that we help the next cycle defeat the reapers, like the protheans did for us, and brought the series full circle, making our own beacons as the protheans did thousands of years before us. It actually felt like the theme of unity came into play in beating the reapers on our terms, though with a much sadder means of doing so, but I can live with that because it fits with a few of my shepards personalities and stories.

You don't know if it is the next cycle, or the next after next or much more into the future. And you don't know if they used the Crucible or not. Refusal ending leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

Yes I don't, and neither do you. You don't know that it isn't the cycle after ours, you don't know that they use the crucible, and that's the point. An open ending means that you can interpruet the ending any way you want to and still be right, so I interpret my ending to be positive and uplifting, which is easy enough to do. You can also interpret it negativly with ease as well, either version can be true for your own personal ending and enough evidence is supported to support either view point.

For example, with the hologram scene with liara talking about our cycle, she says "we used the crucible but it didn't work." which supports the idea that the next cycle did not use the crucible, at the same time the crucibles blueprints and included in the blackbox, meaning that if you wanted to, you could interpret that the crucible was used. The star gazer scene can be seen as a confirmation either way, and that was the point of it all really, to try and make everyone's head cannon and view on the story right.

It failed but with that in mind I can pretty much like every ending, but control and refuse are still my two top favorites.

I agree, control was my 2nd favorite too since it was the only original ending that made sense to me with the story (Even though I would not pick it).

I thought it would have been cool if instead it went forward into the future and you saw an alien race first discovering the time capsule on some planet, and then you hear Liara start talking and the scene ends, no star gazer or anything just over there. Its pretty similar to what we got though. I am glad they decided to go with the time capsule idea, it made a lot of sense.

[Pitznik]

Isichar wrote...

But thats your belief, what my Shepard and what your Shepard believed are two very different things as is the case with anyone. The risks and what your fighting for may not be the same for me. I see your reasoning clearly enough, but that does not mean others wouldn't find the sacrifices acceptable. I do know people who said they could not choose destroy because they felt the loss of the Geth and EDI was unacceptable, even if you don't enjoy making the choice you are still weighing their lives against what is better as a whole.

I would say when you choose to use the Crucible are are enforcing your beliefs on others with all three options whether or not you like it. Thats a compromise most people are willing to make considering the results.

With synthesis I do, no doubt about it - but they can "refuse" each on their own, so the extent is lesser. With destroy direct effects of my decision concern the Geth and the AIs, the rest is just like they were, truely free. With Control, I don't enforce anything on anyone, actually (well, except for the Reapers, if they have free will at all). I have the ability to enforce, but using it depends only on Shepard in question.

So even if I do enforce something on someone, it is always much less than in refusal.

Changing topic, what you don't like about Control? The price for it seems rather mild compared to every other ending.

[AlanC9]

Pitznik wrote...

estebanus wrote...
Again, consequence is different from meaning and representation. You're mixing them up.

Consequence is what give the choice its meaning. It doesn't matter what is written on the tin. If Shepard would yell FREEDOM when destroying teh tube, would it be a choice representing freedom? I'm afraid it is you who is mixing them up.

Refusal represents pride, maybe honor, unwillingness to compromise, irresponsibility and selfishness. Also, arrogance greater than even Control or Synthesis.

Wait a second. Not every moral system analyses choices by their consequences. Do you get to assign a "meaning" based on consequences to a choice that wasn't about the consequences? Edit: I mean a meaning for the choice itself; obviously you're free to evaluate the consequences.

I don't quite get how someone can actually be a serious Kantian ITRW; but if someone is, it isn't selfish to act according to those precepts. Nor irresponsible.

Modifié par AlanC9, 17 août 2012 - 04:22 .

[D24O]

Jesus, I can't believe this thread is still going on.

[Pitznik]

AlanC9 wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

estebanus wrote...
Again, consequence is different from meaning and representation. You're mixing them up.

Consequence is what give the choice its meaning. It doesn't matter what is written on the tin. If Shepard would yell FREEDOM when destroying teh tube, would it be a choice representing freedom? I'm afraid it is you who is mixing them up.

Refusal represents pride, maybe honor, unwillingness to compromise, irresponsibility and selfishness. Also, arrogance greater than even Control or Synthesis.

Wait a second. Not every moral system analyses choices by their consequences. Do you get to assign a "meaning" based on consequences to a choice that wasn't about the consequences? Edit: I mean a meaning for the choice itself; obviously you're free to evaluate the consequences.

I don't quite get how someone can actually be a serious Kantian ITRW; but if someone is, it isn't selfish to act according to those precepts. Nor irresponsible.

Neither my english nor knowledge about philosophy is good enough to answer you. What is ITRW?

[LiarasShield]

help the next cycle beat the reapers maybe they find another solution other then the crucible or maybe the next cycle realizes that the catalyst is apart of the citadel and then takes out the citadel stoping the reapers or the reaper controller before things get out of hand but everyone has their own reason for choosing the endings they like

[Isichar]

Pitznik wrote...

With synthesis I do, no doubt about it - but they can "refuse" each on their own, so the extent is lesser. With destroy direct effects of my decision concern the Geth and the AIs, the rest is just like they were, truely free. With Control, I don't enforce anything on anyone, actually (well, except for the Reapers, if they have free will at all). I have the ability to enforce, but using it depends only on Shepard in question.

So even if I do enforce something on someone, it is always much less than in refusal.

Changing topic, what you don't like about Control? The price for it seems rather mild compared to every other ending.

I loved watching the control ending, the synthetic Shepard voice was haunting and perfect for its tone. Plus I would like to say it was the most appropriate of all the original endings imo (thematically, not in terms of what I would pick).

Theres 2 main issues I have with picking it. One I don't feel that Shepard 2.0 or anyone should act in the way the catalyst did and I can not help but feel it may become unavoidable over time. Since it is far too easy to let your ideals become the rule of the galaxy. Well destroy presents a risk that things could eventually revert back to the way it was, it is still something that can arguably be avoided (Although I think less likely since the Synthetics who were actually your allys are now gone) but with control the threat of the reapers is still there, even if it feels like less of a threat. But it still feels like potentially it could be the most dangerous assuming all the options worked as the catalyst claimed they would.

And 2nd I think the reapers themselves deserve peace from what is essentially their prison.

Lets pretend for a moment I did not refuse and everyone does not die, then I would like to think I would have left the galaxy in a state that does need the reapers to grow. Having the reapers around could force peace between the races, but that is not exactly fixing anything.

Modifié par Isichar, 17 août 2012 - 04:55 .

[robertthebard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

You can no more assign a value to one of my Shepards than I can assign one to yours.  My Paragon Shepard saw killing the Geth and EDI as acceptable losses to prevent galactic genocide, not to mention the other choices, bleh.  Every time I read these conversations, I think about Goblin talking to Spiderman about the virtues of being a hero, sooner or later, somebody comes along and forces you to make a sadistic choice.  This is one of those instances.  You don't have the option to have a conference call about it, which is, quite frankly, logical.  The longer you delay, the more people die.  You don't have to be morally bankrupt to decide that saving trillions is worth killing millions, or billions, or to believe that ending the threat forever is a good thing.

You don't have to be morally bankrupt to decide that killing everybody is ok, but it sure helps.  Again, this does not require precognition, or metagaming, but simply remembering what the galaxy map looks like when you travel to Earth, and the definition of refuse.  You cannot use metagaming as a basis to prove that you shouldn't metagame.  What this refers to is saying "How are you supposed to know that refusing won't let you walk around the platform before you decide like all the other choices do?", as that is metagaming.  If you're going to metagame that, then you may as well metagame the rest, because once you do it, it doesn't matter how you use it.

Now to address the rest of this.  I never said others had to be morally bankrupt to do anything-I specifically said other people can view the morals of it in another way.  I am saying my Shepard would have to abandon the values she had in order to do it.  And it's the idea that no one recognizes that that is valid as well.  I never said that quote you attribute to me, so please remove it.  Refuse is not defined unless metagaming as an instant shut off the crucible switch, nor is shooting the kid.  It can be seen as a way to merely refuse the choices offered by the kid.  You seem to be saying that is meta-gaming but it isn't.  Meta-gaming clearly tells you refuse shuts off the crucible.  I've said this as plainly as I can and can only assume you are now arguing the point just to argue it.

I've stated my values and you've stated yours.  I've repeatedly said that you and others like you do have the right to view things that way and the game affirms that.  I've also said that what is so wrong with the game is that it takes great pains to allow someone to come to different conclusions and then ignores all that.  We are all different people.  We have strong opinions.  But, I still see that deciding to save some people by murdering others demeans the quality and meaning of all life.  In ME3, it also ruins in some part the heroic quality of Shepard.  Maybe not yours, because you avoid London altogether for your reasons, but not on purely moral grounds-I'm not saying you are amoral, you just don't like the whole thing for your own reasons.  I avoid London for my reasons, the kid and because I don't see any moral choice for me.  And refuse as shown is a slap in the face.  If something is impossible it's impossible, don't show people things that say otherwise and then mean it's impossible.

The bad thing about typing as a medium is that sometimes addressing a quote in one paragraph, and then moving on to other thoughts isn't clearly communicated, especially before 3 or 4 cups of coffee.  You are absolutely correct though.  I can't get myself past the contrivance, or maybe it's space magic  of surviving the laser blast most of the time, regardless of which moral set my Shepard of the moment may have.  It's like the Lazarus Project, it's the purest form of space magic there is, since, if this unit does indeed have a soul, how did they get that back?  This doesn't mean that I can't enjoy these conversations, and challenge view points.  Because, quite frankly, it's both entertaining and educational.  I have had my own view points on some things changed by engaging in conversations on game forums before, including BSN.  I have come to common ground with people that still disagree with me, or that I still disagree with, but can see where each other are coming from.  I may not be argueing to argue, but instead argueing to explore the position, and the best way to get to the root of a postion is to challenge the holder.  I try not to be confrontational about it, which is why I have quit responding to some posters in this thread.  I couldn't see a way to continue discourse w/out becoming confrontational, or seeing that I have started to come across that way.

[AresKeith]

LiarasShield wrote...

help the next cycle beat the reapers maybe they find another solution other then the crucible or maybe the next cycle realizes that the catalyst is apart of the citadel and then takes out the citadel stoping the reapers or the reaper controller before things get out of hand but everyone has their own reason for choosing the endings they like

Bioware said it on twitter that the next cycle used the Crucible 

[Isichar]

AresKeith wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

help the next cycle beat the reapers maybe they find another solution other then the crucible or maybe the next cycle realizes that the catalyst is apart of the citadel and then takes out the citadel stoping the reapers or the reaper controller before things get out of hand but everyone has their own reason for choosing the endings they like

Bioware said it on twitter that the next cycle used the Crucible 

Bioware says a lot of things on twitter. Luckily for me I don't consider twitter canon so....

[LiarasShield]

fortunately twitter isn't apart of the me universe

[Comsky159]

LiarasShield wrote...

fortunately twitter isn't apart of the me universe

Emily Wong died via Twitter canon :/