374 réponses à ce sujet

[Village_Idiot]

I agree entirely Saracen. The great irony of Refusal is that despite many touting it as being morally correct, it's probably the most amoral choice of the four. It's a decision based on petty pride, not logic. Regardless of "the Catalyst could be lying, making other choices is meta gaming" arguments, surely anything is preferable to the utter annihilation of all intelligent life?

Modifié par Shadrach 88, 22 août 2012 - 11:46 .

[saracen16]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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.

To surrender to them would mean allowing the cycle to continue. His original programming as it is right now is to stop tech singularity by harvesting advanced civilizations and storing them in Reaper form. The only way to end the cycle is to use the Crucible, and those are the options in front of me. I am willing to do what it takes to stop the Reapers. In essence, I'm being very realistic.

You are also not an idealist for violating the right of self-determination by infecting your allies with synthesis against their will.

Better to violate their right to life, then, right? Either way, I impose my choice on the entire universe, just like I imposed my choice on the rachni and the krogan before them. I did it because I was in a position to do so, and refusing to make the choice would be worse for every party involved. We made these tough choices throughout the trilogy. This is no different.

[Hannah Montana]

Shadrach 88 wrote...

I agree entirely Saracen. The great irony of Refusal is that despite many touting it as being morally correct, it's probably the most amoral choice of the four. Regardless of "the Catalyst could be lying, making other choices is meta gaming" arguments, surely anything is preferable to the utter annihilation of all intelligent life?

Yet the galaxy never experienced utter annihilation of all intelligent life.
Which is another problem with using Synthesis, you attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist. 

[Oransel]

saracen16 wrote...

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.

Do you really believe Bioware to be of some kind of gods? Who are always right and whatever they say is truth and reality? That is screwed perspective of the world. 

a) No, Shepard's mission is to stop the Reapers, not activate the Crucible which is one of the ways to stop them.
I do not submit to anything, pal.
c) I do not accept this story.

[saracen16]

Hannah Montana wrote...

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.

As I said before, if you want to discuss synthesis, discuss it elsewhere. I'm no more in denial about synthesis than you are about refusal, which involves the continuation of the cycle... the continuation of the Reaper's plan.

[Hannah Montana]

saracen16 wrote...

Hannah Montana wrote...

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.

As I said before, if you want to discuss synthesis, discuss it elsewhere. I'm no more in denial about synthesis than you are about refusal, which involves the continuation of the cycle... the continuation of the Reaper's plan.

And the Reapers plans end due to the effort of the Protheans and this cycle.
I'm sure everyone would gladly die to end a billion+ year old threat to the galaxy.

[Village_Idiot]

Hannah Montana wrote...

Yet the galaxy never experienced utter annihilation of all intelligent life.
Which is another problem with using Synthesis, you attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist. 

I'm not personally a supporter of Synthesis (picked Destroy), but I'd still choose it over Refusal. I'd sooner spare a person's life, even if it does mean changing them irreversibly. At least they are given the chance to exist.

[saracen16]

Oransel wrote...

Do you really believe Bioware to be of some kind of gods? Who are always right and whatever they say is truth and reality? That is screwed perspective of the world.

The game's story is the lore. You argue outside the lore, you lose every time.

a) No, Shepard's mission is to stop the Reapers, not activate the Crucible which is one of the ways to stop them.

In Mass Effect 3, his mission is to stop the Reapers with the Crucible, which has been touted from the beginning as the only way to stop the Reapers. You fight conventionally and the Reapers bleed you to death. Even Hackett, who is actually IN the Mass Effect universe.

I do not submit to anything, pal.

Whoa, man. You got me there. Seriously, to let the cycle continue is submitting to the Reapers. Keep singing lalalalala and shut your ears if it makes you feel better.

c) I do not accept this story.

Then it's your loss.

[Isichar]

saracen16 wrote...

Hannah Montana wrote...

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.

As I said before, if you want to discuss synthesis, discuss it elsewhere. I'm no more in denial about synthesis than you are about refusal, which involves the continuation of the cycle... the continuation of the Reaper's plan.

Says the guy who made another thread regarding refusal right after posting in mine

So you want to bash refuse but not have your ideals challanged by those same beliefs? Ok well I will just leave you to that...

[saracen16]

Hannah Montana wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Hannah Montana wrote...

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.

As I said before, if you want to discuss synthesis, discuss it elsewhere. I'm no more in denial about synthesis than you are about refusal, which involves the continuation of the cycle... the continuation of the Reaper's plan.

And the Reapers plans end due to the effort of the Protheans and this cycle.
I'm sure everyone would gladly die to end a billion+ year old threat to the galaxy.

And what right do you have to condemn them to extinction?

[saracen16]

Isichar wrote...
Says the guy who made another thread regarding refusal right after posting in mine

I was going to write this thread anyways.

So you want to bash refuse but not have your ideals challanged by those same beliefs? Ok well I will just leave you to that...

In another thread, yes, but this thread is about refusal.

[Goneaviking]

Apocaleepse360 wrote...

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).

Complaining about what might have been is a futile exercise, much less entertaining than debating what actually was.

[Village_Idiot]

Goneaviking wrote...

Complaining about what might have been is a futile exercise, much less entertaining than debating what actually was.

Hear hear. It seems every time a half intelligent debate starts, it ends up being derailed by the laments of people who are dissatisfied. There's hundreds of threads devoted to that already.

Modifié par Shadrach 88, 22 août 2012 - 12:06 .

[Isichar]

So you knowingly made another thread discussing the same topic because you don't like what I said in my OP? ok.

Well in regards to everything you said about refuse...

I disagree.

[Hannah Montana]

saracen16 wrote...

Hannah Montana wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Hannah Montana wrote...

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.

As I said before, if you want to discuss synthesis, discuss it elsewhere. I'm no more in denial about synthesis than you are about refusal, which involves the continuation of the cycle... the continuation of the Reaper's plan.

And the Reapers plans end due to the effort of the Protheans and this cycle.
I'm sure everyone would gladly die to end a billion+ year old threat to the galaxy.

And what right do you have to condemn them to extinction?

I'm not condeming anyone, if you looked up the definition of condemn you would see this.

[Oransel]

saracen16 wrote...

Oransel wrote...

Do you really believe Bioware to be of some kind of gods? Who are always right and whatever they say is truth and reality? That is screwed perspective of the world.

The game's story is the lore. You argue outside the lore, you lose every time.

a) No, Shepard's mission is to stop the Reapers, not activate the Crucible which is one of the ways to stop them.

In Mass Effect 3, his mission is to stop the Reapers with the Crucible, which has been touted from the beginning as the only way to stop the Reapers. You fight conventionally and the Reapers bleed you to death. Even Hackett, who is actually IN the Mass Effect universe.

I do not submit to anything, pal.

Whoa, man. You got me there. Seriously, to let the cycle continue is submitting to the Reapers. Keep singing lalalalala and shut your ears if it makes you feel better.

c) I do not accept this story.

Then it's your loss.

I'll tell you a small secret - Mass Effect is a fiction. 
If you do not like fiction - you have every right to reject it and say it has not happened.
In several cases, you may say that part of the fiction is canon for you and some of it is not. This is exactly what happened with ME3, which literally spitted in the face of ME1-2 and broken narrative coherence. 

[saracen16]

Isichar wrote...

So you knowingly made another thread discussing the same topic because you don't like what I said in my OP? ok.

No, I didn't, and I argued with you as to why that is on that thread.

Well in regards to everything you said about refuse...

I disagree.

I can picture you crossing your arms and pouting your face. Instead of doing that, care to explain why refusal is just based on petty ideals and not realism? Care to convince me otherwise?

[Pitznik]

Hendrik.III wrote...

Once more, there is no wrong ro right choice.

It's messed up, all of them.

The choice when you lose, ie refusal, is wrong.

The choices when you win, are right. Even synthesis - it is sort of a compromise, but does it stop the Reapers' threat? It does.

[saracen16]

Oransel wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Oransel wrote...

Do you really believe Bioware to be of some kind of gods? Who are always right and whatever they say is truth and reality? That is screwed perspective of the world.

The game's story is the lore. You argue outside the lore, you lose every time.

a) No, Shepard's mission is to stop the Reapers, not activate the Crucible which is one of the ways to stop them.

In Mass Effect 3, his mission is to stop the Reapers with the Crucible, which has been touted from the beginning as the only way to stop the Reapers. You fight conventionally and the Reapers bleed you to death. Even Hackett, who is actually IN the Mass Effect universe.

I do not submit to anything, pal.

Whoa, man. You got me there. Seriously, to let the cycle continue is submitting to the Reapers. Keep singing lalalalala and shut your ears if it makes you feel better.

c) I do not accept this story.

Then it's your loss.

I'll tell you a small secret - Mass Effect is a fiction. 
If you do not like fiction - you have every right to reject it and say it has not happened.

Actually, you don't. The fiction is written by the people at BioWare Studios, and they have the right to it. To refuse it means that you refuse their story, so debating it would be pointless.

In several cases, you may say that part of the fiction is canon for you and some of it is not. This is exactly what happened with ME3, which literally spitted in the face of ME1-2 and broken narrative coherence. 

That's your opinion, whereas in fact everything within it fell within the narrative.

Futile practice you have.

@Hannah: yes, you are condemning them to extinction. By refusing the Crucible, you have deemed all life as meaningless in the face of idealism, and condemned these souls to burn forever just so you can have a short-lived moment of pride. How does it feel to have murdered all asari, turians, salarians, batarians, krogan, quarians, geth, and humans?

[Isichar]

saracen16 wrote...

care to explain why refusal is just based on petty ideals and not realism? Care to convince me otherwise?

Your a synthesis supporter who started a thread about how refusal is the less realistic choice. I doubt I would be able to convince you of much.

[Village_Idiot]

Isichar wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

care to explain why refusal is just based on petty ideals and not realism? Care to convince me otherwise?

Your a synthesis supporter who started a thread about how refusal is the less realistic choice. I doubt I would be able to convince you of much.

Stop insulting our intelligence with petty ad hominem attacks. Either argue rationally or leave.

[Oransel]

saracen16 wrote...

Actually, you don't. The fiction is written by the people at BioWare Studios, and they have the right to it. To refuse it means that you refuse their story, so debating it would be pointless.

In several cases, you may say that part of the fiction is canon for you and some of it is not. This is exactly what happened with ME3, which literally spitted in the face of ME1-2 and broken narrative coherence. 

That's your opinion, whereas in fact everything within it fell within the narrative.

Futile practice you have.

Basic logic > Casey Hudson and Bioware. Sorry, I do not know how to explain it even more simple. ME3 does not fall into narrative. It breaks the basic logic - thus invalid. For me, Mass Effect series ended with Arrival DLC. That's it. Have fun.

[Anacronian Stryx]

When taking Shepherd's perspective the only choice is refusal really - Shepard in that position and without knowledge at what will actually happen later has no reason at all to believe the star child can be believed in anything, In fact he/she has every reason to not believe a word the star child is saying especially after the star child proclaims that it's a representation of the collective reaper mind.

[DirtyPhoenix]

The final achievement which unlocks on picking RGB choice, doesn't unlock on picking refusal amiright?