925 réponses à ce sujet

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Ghost1017 wrote...

You actively know there are 3 other ways to stop the Reaper threat but choose not to(or refuse) and what of the people that couldn't make peace with the Geth/Quarians on Rannoch. If the Quarians killed the Geth then Shepard would only be sacrificing EDI who says she would sacrifice her functionality for organics.

But you don't KNOW that the 3 choices will do what the kid says they will do.  Does anyone other than the kid say what they will do?  If not, then everything you know about them is based on what he says.

One Shepard could lose the geth, one could save them.  Neither the geth nor EDI are asked to sacrifice themselves.  They are thrown off a cliff.  If you said you'd die for someone else one day and then a month later that person is about to be shot and grabs you so you get shot and die instead, did you just sacrifice yourself?

You said Shepard is only sacrificing EDI.  Well, that's big of Shepard.  You can't sacrifice one person for another and call it sacrifice as if it's something good.  It's not like sacrificing yourself.  Shepard doesn't own EDI.  It would be up to EDI to sacrifice herself.  If Shepard had the choice of killing your child or possibly seeing a million people die, would you be ok with Shepard killing your child and would Shepard be sacrificing your child?

I can live with killing off the brobots because it ensures the Reapers are destroyed.

If that makes me a monster well SO BE IT.

[Pitznik]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Yes, it's far worse to live on your own terms without surrendering to your enemy.  Read the news headlines and tell anyone fighting against despots to give up now and just die.  It's so much better to live under totalitarian rule or to "win" based on what the enemy is willing to give you so you solve their problem, than to actually fight and try to live.  Even if it is futile, most would want to try and would not want to just give up or give in.

You don't live on your own terms, you are being harvested. That is the whole point. There is no "your terms" with 2 kilometer long machines razing down your city. Your only chance of doing anything on your terms is the Crucible.

Most totalitarian regimes died in a compromise between the rebels and the tyrants - USSR, here in Poland. It is not about "giving up" or "giving in" but about winning with what you have, instead on winning under perfect conditions that might never happen.

How is Destroy "giving in" again? It is against everything Catalyst satnds for.

Btw, you are switching between "not trusting the Catalyst" and "believing Catalyst, but rejecting him". Which of those is true for your Shepard?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The problem with picking refuse was that we knew in advance that there were not going to be any new endings in the EC. Hence, a conventional victory would have been a new ending. That is not something that Mac Walters wanted. It would have been too videogamey.

We can argue the philosophical differences of this all day. The bottom line is that key people got selective amnesia in ME2 regarding the reapers. No one prepared. The council "Ah yes 'reapers.' We've dismissed that myth." if you saved them. But the default start to ME2 was you let the council die and relations were strained. Shepard was a terrorist and couldn't be trusted so that meant despite everything accomplished in the first part of the story, all that was completely discredited. It's what people do. There was a lot of philosophical debate of what to do with technological discoveries made by the axis powers after WWII. A lot of people wanted to bury it because the tech was considered "evil". It got us to the moon, and we fly in it daily.

So by the time ME3 rolls along, no one is ready. Nothing has been done for three years. The admirals have not been formulating any kind of plans at all. I mean what the hell were people expecting Shepard to say? I would have loved to have this line in the beginning:

Admirals: "Shepard, what do we do? How do we fight them?"

Shepard (paragon response -- "get help"): "We're going to need the Council on this, but they dismissed this threat almost three years ago so I doubt their in much better shape. If you want my help I'll need my commission back."

Shepard (sarcastic): "I don't know. Maybe we could sing some songs or something."

Shepard (renegade response -- "why are you asking me?"): "How the hell should I know? I'm just some ex-frigate commander who's been cooling her heels under house arrest for the past six months. You're the geniuses who haven't been doing jack **** for the past three years, ma'am."

None of this "we fight or we die." or "we stand together." crap.

So instead of preparation we get "The Crucible" because the reapers have been doing this thing for over a billion years and we don't have jack **** with which to fight back. In other words. It's the Harlem Globetrotters vs. the Washington Generals. Guess who is the Washington Generals? We're going to get the crap kicked out of us without The Crucible.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Individual sacrifices are heroic.

Someone sacrificing everyone to preserve their own morality is monstrous.

[Pitznik]

@ SkullStrife

Who is closer to be a slave - someone who lives in constant fear of the Reapers, or someone who destroyed the Reapers?

And for heaven's sake, do NOT say Che Guevara is your idol. Or read about marxism and how it works in practice. Realizing some crazy idea at the cost of thousand of lives - that is what actually both Reapers and communists do.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Individual sacrifices are heroic.

Someone sacrificing everyone to preserve their own morality is monstrous.

^^^ self-righteous. Ask the dead if your personal honor matters to them. Their silence is your answer.

[Dharvy]

Pitznik wrote...

In case like this Shepard would just call Starkid out again, or just follow with his (Crucible's?) instructions. You can't do it ingame, but you can reload. In fact, that is what should happen, refusing should just leave you barely alive in an empty room, with your ems counter slowly going down, showing how your friends and allies die one by one, all the way to zero. With all three crucible "interfaces" still usable. Maybe then you would grow a pair and make a choice, when shown what you have done by talking everyone into Crucible plan and then not using it.

I skipped the part when you twist Catalyst's goal into something that it is not. No point discussing your headcanon. If you are in fact scared that you destroy the galaxy by using the Crucible, then maybe indeed refuse works for you. My Shepard can't believe that Crucible even could do it (or can't believe that synthesis can even happen, for that matter).

Actually I would have loved for something like that to happen in game for all the people who  become indecisive or just flat out refuse.

Modifié par Dharvy, 14 août 2012 - 08:19 .

[SkullStrife]

Pitznik wrote...

@ SkullStrife

Who is closer to be a slave - someone who lives in constant fear of the Reapers, or someone who destroyed the Reapers?

And for heaven's sake, do NOT say Che Guevara is your idol. Or read about marxism and how it works in practice. Realizing some crazy idea at the cost of thousand of lives - that is what actually both Reapers and communists do.

Well...I´m a marxist myself, I read marxism and read some history too, so don´t worry I hate stalinism... I support political projects such as the Paris Commune, The Sandinist Revolution in Nicaragua (which was killed by the contras btw), the town of Marinaleda in Spain, Salvador Allende in Chile, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and of course the cuban revolution, among others... Che Guevara was part of a revolution that overthrew the US-backed government of Batista... the revolution was made by the peoples of Cuba he just was one of their leaders....

I support democratic and participatory ways of socialism so do not worry about me.... also, killing thousands for a political idea is mostly a currency of capitalism... (I don´t deny the crimes of stalinism or maoism, I think that they were traiotors...) remember the "Doctrine of National Security"?? supported by several presidents and the secretary Kissinger.. that doctrine costed thousands of lives too (torture included), remember Pinochet? Condor plan? guess who supported all the dictartorships in south america... (this is not about a country I don´t have anything against US, I´m just pointing out that political crimes where done by pro-capitalist governments too...)

let´s stop the political debate, they will close the topic if we continue xD
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

as I already said I think that refuse ending is a good choice and I agree with the OP... still I understand that the best solution (metagaming) is Destroy..... BUT I as just trying to point out (like the OP tried to do) is that in a real life situation if you hold to your ideas you would choose reject...

[Pitznik]

SkullStrife wrote...

as I already said I think that refuse ending is a good choice and I agree with the OP... still I understand that the best solution (metagaming) is Destroy..... BUT I as just trying to point out (like the OP tried to do) is that in a real life situation if you hold to your ideas you would choose reject...

People are more important than ideals.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Pitznik wrote...

SkullStrife wrote...

as I already said I think that refuse ending is a good choice and I agree with the OP... still I understand that the best solution (metagaming) is Destroy..... BUT I as just trying to point out (like the OP tried to do) is that in a real life situation if you hold to your ideas you would choose reject...

People are more important than ideals.

It is better for one person to sacrifice their morals than for everyone to be killed by the Reapers.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Pitznik wrote...

SkullStrife wrote...

as I already said I think that refuse ending is a good choice and I agree with the OP... still I understand that the best solution (metagaming) is Destroy..... BUT I as just trying to point out (like the OP tried to do) is that in a real life situation if you hold to your ideas you would choose reject...

People are more important than ideals.

^^^^ This. Whatever my ideals may be when it comes to the end this is what matters most. One is rarely in a situation where one's ideals can fully apply. Usually one has to make compromises.

[SeptimusMagistos]

SkullStrife wrote...

as I already said I think that refuse ending is a good choice and I agree with the OP... still I understand that the best solution (metagaming) is Destroy..... BUT I as just trying to point out (like the OP tried to do) is that in a real life situation if you hold to your ideas you would choose reject...

I'm sorry, which of my ideals goes against brain uploading?

Or am I supposed to feel bad because the Catalyst is the one inviting me to do it? Because if so, I don't care. If impressing the Big Bad so much he offers me his job is how I win then that's how I win. I'm not obligated to agree with anyone's morals just because I accept their offer.

[SkullStrife]

Of course, that´s why metagimg I would choose destroy.... still in Destroy I kill a lot of people... (Geth are people now...) in Synthesis I transform all the people without asking... that´s why I believe that in a real life situation you would try to fight until the end...

[SkullStrife]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

SkullStrife wrote...

as I already said I think that refuse ending is a good choice and I agree with the OP... still I understand that the best solution (metagaming) is Destroy..... BUT I as just trying to point out (like the OP tried to do) is that in a real life situation if you hold to your ideas you would choose reject...

I'm sorry, which of my ideals goes against brain uploading?

Or am I supposed to feel bad because the Catalyst is the one inviting me to do it? Because if so, I don't care. If impressing the Big Bad so much he offers me his job is how I win then that's how I win. I'm not obligated to agree with anyone's morals just because I accept their offer.

Brain uploading? you mean CONTROL??? well I think that Shepard was trejecting the idea of controlling the reapers during all the game... except if you are the Illusive Man = end justifies the means...

[SeptimusMagistos]

SkullStrife wrote...

Of course, that´s why metagimg I would choose destroy.... still in Destroy I kill a lot of people... (Geth are people now...) in Synthesis I transform all the people without asking... that´s why I believe that in a real life situation you would try to fight until the end...

No. No I would not.

There are negative consequences to some of the endings, but they do not outweigh the negative consequences of not choosing. In real life I would consider this.

SkullStrife wrote...

Brain uploading? you mean CONTROL???
well I think that Shepard was trejecting the idea of controlling the
reapers during all the game... except if you are the Illusive Man = end
justifies the means...

Yeah, that's mostly because he didn't think it could be done.

Apparently it can and it solves the problem without killing anyone else or forcing change on anyone other than Shepard so...yay?

Modifié par SeptimusMagistos, 14 août 2012 - 08:54 .

[Pitznik]

SkullStrife wrote...

Of course, that´s why metagimg I would choose destroy.... still in Destroy I kill a lot of people... (Geth are people now...) in Synthesis I transform all the people without asking... that´s why I believe that in a real life situation you would try to fight until the end...

Maybe you would. I can respect that. But you're making a decision on behalf of the whole galaxy. They trusted you and you took that responsibility. You're a soldier with a mission to destroy enemy facility. There are innocent civilians inside. You know if you destroy it, they will die, there is no "maybe". They don't want to die, they're hostages. But you know if you don't destroy it, you will lose the war, and many, many more people will die, soldiers, civilians, thousands.

You have the right and duty to do your job, even if both your soldiers and civilians inside will die. Even if it will be you, who will kill the innocents.

You don't have the right to abort the mission and let all of your people die, along with the hostages. Even if it won't be you, who will kill everyone.

Tell me, what do you think, in case of this soldier making it and surviving the war, in which situation he will get a medal for bravery and in which situation he will be court-martialled? (he will have nightmares til the end of his days in both).

Modifié par Pitznik, 14 août 2012 - 08:59 .

[Dharvy]

I think some people are playing Shep as some kind of civilian. He's become a leader, and the galaxy's life rest in his/her hands. Regardless of everyone trying to get all philosophical with whatever is the purpose of the catalyst and trying to reject it so you don't condone or appear to justify its atrocities. With the weight of the galaxy on one's shoulders as a leader and refuse is maybe seem "morally" justifiable but being as morals are subjective it is very illogical to chose to try to win a war that seems all but lost against the very weapon you built to give you edge in the war.

And for people heralding the impossible, the Crucible is your impossible. Using the Crucible is like actually doing the suicide mission in ME2 versus refuse which is like sitting back and rather dying nobly trying to find another way than let the choice of risking the lives of your crew in venturing on the Suicide mission into the omega 4 relay.

[Goneaviking]

flanny wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

flanny wrote...

 I always think of Rorschach from the Watchmen, he is similar to my Shep he's a full renegade who doesn't take authority well, but is uncompromising with his morals. It is better to die and fail than to live and succeed if it means compromising yourself. That is why Rorschach proved to be the greatest hero of all of them.

'it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees'

I also think it come down to the fact without metagaming trusting the catalyst is foolish. It also depends on what you think your chances are of defeating the reapers without the crucible (no it is not impossible)

Also, the greatest villain.

At least when Ozymandias committed his mass murder it was with the intent of 'saving the world'; when Rorschach blows him off it's not for any perceived greater good, it's just an unwillingness to bend to meet the circumstances.

you are missing the point, he compromises everything he is for the supposed 'greater good' this is what makes him a villain. 
Rorschach knows he can't win but would rather die then compromise who he is, this is the sign of being a true hero.

Same with Shep except Shep actually does have a cahnce to win, he is just betrayed by ME3s writers quest for spite.

No, it's the sign of a zealot. A hero is someone that swallows his pride and does what is necessary to achieve the greater good.

In Mass Effect 3 that equates to choosing one of three options, refusal can only lead to the total extinction of all advanced organic life. In Watchmen it means letting a mass murderer go because expose him means putting the world back on the course to nuclear war and thwarting the likely period of international cooperation - of course it doesn't fully explain why they couldn't have killed Ozymandius and dumped him body in a Manhattan mass grave...

Modifié par Goneaviking, 14 août 2012 - 09:37 .

[JBPBRC]

Goneaviking wrote...

No, it's the sign of a zealot. A hero is someone that swallows his pride and does what is necessary to achieve the greater good.

For T'au! For the Greater Good!

[robertthebard]

Garrus: Now I understand why the galaxy needs cold hearted dictators every once in a while.

Shepard: They get things done?

Garrus: They don't give a **** about the consequences.

It is better to rule in hell than serve in heaven. Or, in our case, it's better to possibly have the oil of one life on my hands than the fate of the deaths of the tech advanced members of the galaxy. I always did love the logic of it's better to let everyone die than just a select few though. Especially since Shepard can die either way.

[flanny]

Goneaviking wrote...

flanny wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

flanny wrote...

 I always think of Rorschach from the Watchmen, he is similar to my Shep he's a full renegade who doesn't take authority well, but is uncompromising with his morals. It is better to die and fail than to live and succeed if it means compromising yourself. That is why Rorschach proved to be the greatest hero of all of them.

'it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees'

I also think it come down to the fact without metagaming trusting the catalyst is foolish. It also depends on what you think your chances are of defeating the reapers without the crucible (no it is not impossible)

Also, the greatest villain.

At least when Ozymandias committed his mass murder it was with the intent of 'saving the world'; when Rorschach blows him off it's not for any perceived greater good, it's just an unwillingness to bend to meet the circumstances.

you are missing the point, he compromises everything he is for the supposed 'greater good' this is what makes him a villain. 
Rorschach knows he can't win but would rather die then compromise who he is, this is the sign of being a true hero.

Same with Shep except Shep actually does have a cahnce to win, he is just betrayed by ME3s writers quest for spite.

No, it's the sign of a zealot. A hero is someone that swallows his pride and does what is necessary to achieve the greater good.

In Mass Effect 3 that equates to choosing one of three options, refusal can only lead to the total extinction of all advanced organic life. In Watchmen it means putting the world back on the course to nuclear war and thwarting the likely period of international cooperation.

so a hero comprosises with the reaper overlord?... the person responsible for killing how many people, including Shepard... But standing up to this evil is wrong? Following the choices mean you become part of the reaper overlords retarded plan, you betray everything Shepard stood for. Also without twitter we dont know it leads to extinction, just becuase bioware wanted to spite fans with refuse ending doesn't mean the idea is bad. 

You're clearly a very twisted person...

Also while I'd still refuse even if it was impossible, conventional is possible 

[Goneaviking]

flanny wrote...
so a hero comprosises with the reaper overlord?... the person responsible for killing how many people, including Shepard... But standing up to this evil is wrong? Following the choices mean you become part of the reaper overlords retarded plan, you betray everything Shepard stood for. Also without twitter we dont know it leads to extinction, just becuase bioware wanted to spite fans with refuse ending doesn't mean the idea is bad. 

You're clearly a very twisted person...

Also while I'd still refuse even if it was impossible, conventional is possible 

Coming from someone who openly states that submitting to genocide is a laudable decision I'll take my standing as "a very twisted person" as a sign that my morality is on the right path.

[JBPBRC]

flanny wrote...

Also without twitter we dont know it leads to extinction, just becuase bioware wanted to spite fans with refuse ending doesn't mean the idea is bad.

Its perfectly clear in-game that Refusal leads to everyone dying. Shepard stands there like an idiot just holding his side, quick fade to black and then Liara's capsule telling everyone about how much fail the Crucible is.

[Pitznik]

flanny wrote...

so a hero comprosises with the reaper overlord?... the person responsible for killing how many people, including Shepard... But standing up to this evil is wrong? Following the choices mean you become part of the reaper overlords retarded plan, you betray everything Shepard stood for. Also without twitter we dont know it leads to extinction, just becuase bioware wanted to spite fans with refuse ending doesn't mean the idea is bad. 

You're clearly a very twisted person...

You stand up to evil by letting the evil continue? You see a murderer trying to murder, and you yell "You evil murderer, I could kill you now, but I won't be like you, so instead I'll let you murder this person and let you go!". What his reaction is supposed to be? "OK"?

Please tell me, how Destroy or Control follow Catalyst's plan again?

flanny wrote...

Also while I'd still refuse even if it was impossible, conventional is possible 

I value Hackett's opinion over yours, no offence.

Modifié par Pitznik, 14 août 2012 - 09:43 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Goneaviking wrote...

flanny wrote...
so a hero comprosises with the reaper overlord?... the person responsible for killing how many people, including Shepard... But standing up to this evil is wrong? Following the choices mean you become part of the reaper overlords retarded plan, you betray everything Shepard stood for. Also without twitter we dont know it leads to extinction, just becuase bioware wanted to spite fans with refuse ending doesn't mean the idea is bad. 

You're clearly a very twisted person...

Also while I'd still refuse even if it was impossible, conventional is possible 

Coming from someone who openly states that submitting to genocide is a laudable decision I'll take my standing as "a very twisted person" as a sign that my morality is on the right path.

QFT