374 réponses à ce sujet

[saracen16]

DISCLAIMER: this is a thread about REFUSAL. This is NOT a thread about destroy, control, or synthesis. There are plenty of threads out there for each ending.

Realist
re⋅al⋅ist [ree-uh-list] –noun 
1.a person who tends to view or represent things as they really are.
2.an artist or a writer whose work is characterized by realism.
3.Philosophy. an adherent of realism.–adjective 
4.of or pertaining to realism or to a person who embodies its principles or practices: the realist approach to social ills; realist paintings.  

Idealist
I⋅de⋅al⋅is [ahy-dee-uh-list] –noun 
1.a person who cherishes or pursues high or noble principles, purposes, goals, etc.
2.a visionary or impractical person.
3.a person who represents things as they might or should be rather than as they are.
4.a writer or artist who treats subjects imaginatively.
5.a person who accepts the doctrines of idealism.

Let me be clear: this is not an insult to idealism. Idealism drives most of our ambitions and dreams, and also drives our conflicts. However, idealism itself is not practical when real solutions are needed. Idealism never stopped the countless wars in our history, and never stopped the actions of those infamous leaders who committed atrocities and genocide. Refusal itself is based on idealism: sacrificing trillions of lives in the galaxy for the sake of pride, for the sake of not using the Catalyst and Crucible to end the cycle, for refusing to do what it really takes to end the Reaper cycle and repeat the same mistakes of the past, refusing to sacrifice your life for the sake of the many. The ruthless calculus of war, a fact of modern military conflict, has been bent because one refuses to sacrifice his/her life and his/her pride so that many could live. There is a fine line between idealism and realism. There is a limit to practical idealism: one can not simply aspire to higher goals and pay a hefty price for it, especially if it means the continuation of the Reaper cycle and the murder of countless species... the genocide of countless species. It is simply not practical as a solution. We already know the Reapers can not be defeated otherwise. To choose conventional warfare would be to lose and go down as just another footnote in the history of the Reaper cycles.

No one in history has been judged for sacrificing morals more than one has been judged for sacrificing lives. When lives hang in the balance, morals and ideals have no weight. The ruthless calculus of war, to sacrifice some lives so that many more could live, can not be ever more correct. The weight of a person is by his/her actions, not his/her beliefs. To refuse means you regard life, all life, as insignificant, as just more fodder for Reaper production, as another inevitability in the cycle. To refuse would be to capitulate to the Reaper's goals: to harvest all life so that tech singularity may be averted. To refuse is to commit murder, to accept responsibility for the genocide of every single species. Refusal is a choice and not a choice at the same time: it is Shepard's fault if he/she refuses, but it is not a valid choice in light of realistic goals.

The reality of the ME3 ending choices is that you can not beat the Reapers conventionally, and you need the Crucible to win. You don't have enough time to make a choice because the Reapers are attacking the Crucible and its attendant allied force. You can either destroy the Reapers and all synthetics, control the galaxy as a despot, or homogenize all life into a questionable form. One of these ways will end the cycle.  There is wisdom in harnessing the strengths of your enemy, an enemy that would otherwise be rendered almost irrelevant by the Crucible. To stop the cycle is our goal. To stop the Reapers is the key. Their control over the galaxy spans countless cycles and eons, and ending it can not come without cost as it is right now. To end an inevitability can not come without sacrifice. This is not about what the galaxy wants. This is not a democratic choice. This is about stopping the Reapers and choosing a new future for the galaxy, and which future is worth its price for ending the Reaper cycle.

Discuss.

Modifié par saracen16, 22 août 2012 - 01:27 .

[Goneaviking]

May want to fix the colours in your text. [fixed it pretty quickly]

Modifié par Goneaviking, 22 août 2012 - 09:56 .

[Hannah Montana]

Synthesis is worse.

Modifié par Hannah Montana, 22 août 2012 - 09:57 .

[saracen16]

Care to give a more substantial reply, Hannah?

[Goneaviking]

I dislike refusal because it isn't a solution. It's nothing more than a refusal to utilise a solution, and by doing so condemning the entire cycle to extinction and forcing responsibility for ending the cycle onto the next cycle who will likely have to suffer and bleed needlessly for a threat that they never needed to face.
Refusers annoy me because so many of them refuse to acknowledge that Shepard is responsible for the consequences of his decision not to use the Citadel.

[Hannah Montana]

saracen16 wrote...

Care to give a more substantial reply, Hannah?

It's what the Reapers want and it is not the our future, it is the catalyst's future.
Surely you will not the different between Saren's synthesis and the Catalyst's synthesis.

The catalyst said it what we will reach anyway and as such it is wrong.
The difference betweem the Catalyst's synthesis and the synthesis will reach by ourselves is greater than diference Saren's synthesis and the Catalyst's synthesis.


And as such it is wrong.
There is other moral issues but that will take time to write.

Modifié par Hannah Montana, 22 août 2012 - 10:05 .

[Dysjong]

That really depends on who you are asking.

[ATiBotka]

Refuse is critical mission failure. You let everyone die.

[saracen16]

Hannah Montana wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Care to give a more substantial reply, Hannah?

It's what the Reapers want and it is not the our future, it is the catalyst's future
Surely you will not the different between Saren's synthesis and the Catalyst's synthesis.

The catalyst said it what we will reach anyway and as such it is wrong.
The difference betweem the Catalyst's synthesis and the synthesis will reach by ourselves is greater than diference Saren's synthesis and the Catalyst's synthesis.

And as such it is wrong.
There is other moral issues but that will take time to write.

Fallacy by association. The fact that Shepard chooses it for the galaxy makes it our future as much as theirs. Refusal, by your logic, is no different, because the Catalyst fulfills his programming either way.

And this thread is not about synthesis. There are plenty of synthesis-bashing threads out there. This thread is about refusal and why it is a wrong choice. Therefore, the onus is on you to defend it.

[Hannah Montana]

saracen16 wrote...

Hannah Montana wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Care to give a more substantial reply, Hannah?

It's what the Reapers want and it is not the our future, it is the catalyst's future
Surely you will not the different between Saren's synthesis and the Catalyst's synthesis.

The catalyst said it what we will reach anyway and as such it is wrong.
The difference betweem the Catalyst's synthesis and the synthesis will reach by ourselves is greater than diference Saren's synthesis and the Catalyst's synthesis.

And as such it is wrong.
There is other moral issues but that will take time to write.

Fallacy by association. The fact that Shepard chooses it for the galaxy makes it our future as much as theirs. Refusal, by your logic, is no different, because the Catalyst fulfills his programming either way.

And this thread is not about synthesis. There are plenty of synthesis-bashing threads out there. This thread is about refusal and why it is a wrong choice. Therefore, the onus is on you to defend it.

Simply one person choosing something does not make it our future nor will it.
We achieve it by ourselves the right way, if it is handed to use then it will be the death of us.

- Look at the Krogan, they were uplifted the same way synthesis does.
- Look at the Geth, they tried to achieve their own but eventually were trapped by the Reapers until freed

They were not ready.
The pattern repeat themselves in this galaxy. 

The catalyst doesn't fulfill his programming in refusal.

[Dysjong]

Actually he does.

"so be it" the cycle continues

[Hannah Montana]

Dysjong wrote...

Actually he does.

"so be it" the cycle continues

Actually he doesn't.
I suggest you look up the definition of "fulfill"

[fchopin]

There is nothing to discuss my friend, i just shoot the tube.

[Isichar]

Synthesis is the same as submission, you admit the reapers logic is right and that his interference is needed to break the cycle.

And a synthesis supporter starting a thread talking about realism is a little hypocritical.

[Hendrik.III]

Once more, there is no wrong ro right choice.

It's messed up, all of them.

[Oransel]

Refuse is right choice, because it is a) most realistic thing most of the Shepard's would do without meta-gaming; It is a way to show Bioware how bad their game is; c) Despite numerous claims, I believe conventional victory to be possible. Refuse the Catalyst and go fan-made ending.

[Apocaleepse360]

Goneaviking wrote...

I dislike refusal because it isn't a solution. It's nothing more than a refusal to utilise a solution, and by doing so condemning the entire cycle to extinction and forcing responsibility for ending the cycle onto the next cycle who will likely have to suffer and bleed needlessly for a threat that they never needed to face.
Refusers annoy me because so many of them refuse to acknowledge that Shepard is responsible for the consequences of his decision not to use the Citadel.

Well it would have been a solution had BioWare made a conventional victory possible. And that would have fixed most of the problems with the ending right there.

- Every war asset gathered would actually matter.
- No Synthetic genocide.
- No Synthetic mind control.
- No diversity genocide.
- A battle with Harbinger.
- No stupid magical beam washing through the galaxy.
- No pointless scenes (except for space grandpa).

Modifié par Apocaleepse360, 22 août 2012 - 11:34 .

[TsaiMeLemoni]

Hendrik.III wrote...

Once more, there is no wrong ro right choice.

This. The reason there are different choices is because they all have their appeal to different people. Doesn't make your choice more significant or more correct.

Me? I have a Shep for every ending so I've actively selected each ending at least once. I may disagree with wanting to choose a particular ending, such as refuse, as second time but that doesn't mean the people who swear by it are wrong for choosing it.

[AngryFrozenWater]

You don't appear like a realist to me by surrendering your allies to the brat and its boys when they systematically committed genocide for the last billion years, saracen16. You are also not an idealist for violating the right of self-determination by infecting your allies with synthesis against their will.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 22 août 2012 - 11:37 .

[saracen16]

Isichar wrote...

Synthesis is the same as submission, you admit the reapers logic is right and that his interference is needed to break the cycle.

Another fallacy by association. Any of the endings can be interpreted as capitulating to the Reapers. To truly submit to them is to let them exterminate you, as refusal does.

And a synthesis supporter starting a thread talking about realism is a little hypocritical.

A mere blanket statement. There are countless threads that debate synthesis.

This is not one of them.

[Isichar]

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

Hendrik.III wrote...

Once more, there is no wrong ro right choice.

This. The reason there are different choices is because they all have their appeal to different people. Doesn't make your choice more significant or more correct.

Me? I have a Shep for every ending so I've actively selected each ending at least once. I may disagree with wanting to choose a particular ending, such as refuse, as second time but that doesn't mean the people who swear by it are wrong for choosing it.

Well your obviously more open minded then most.

[saracen16]

Oransel wrote...

Refuse is right choice, because it is a) most realistic thing most of the Shepard's would do without meta-gaming;

Realistically speaking, Shepard's mission is to activate the Crucible. To refuse it would be to sacrifice every alliance, every resource gathered, and every soldier recruited for the sake of petty ideals. Refusal is obstinacy.

It is a way to show Bioware how bad their game is;

This is not a thread about how good or bad ME3 is. Their plot revolves around the Crucible. If you can't accept it, you are shown what happens to you within the game. The story never submitted to you. YOU submitted to the story.

c) Despite numerous claims, I believe conventional victory to be possible. Refuse the Catalyst and go fan-made ending.

Fanmade ending is fanmade. The story deems conventional victory impossible. Countless cycles have proved that. To fight conventionally would be to repeat the same mistakes of the past.

[Isichar]

saracen16 wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Synthesis is the same as submission, you admit the reapers logic is right and that his interference is needed to break the cycle.

Another fallacy by association. Any of the endings can be interpreted as capitulating to the Reapers. To truly submit to them is to let them exterminate you, as refusal does.

Nope, synthesis is basically as close to submission as you get. Your welcome to disagree if it makes you feel better about your choice though.

[Hannah Montana]

saracen16 wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Synthesis is the same as submission, you admit the reapers logic is right and that his interference is needed to break the cycle.

Another fallacy by association. Any of the endings can be interpreted as capitulating to the Reapers. To truly submit to them is to let them exterminate you, as refusal does.

And a synthesis supporter starting a thread talking about realism is a little hypocritical.

A mere blanket statement. There are countless threads that debate synthesis.

This is not one of them.

Funny the Catalyst is the Reapers and he really wanted Synthesis so much he tried it before.
Don't kid yourself, you submit to Reaper ideals.

There is no fallacy by association, you're just in denial.