348 réponses à ce sujet

[JeffZero]

Sneaking into Mordin's wildest dreams...

[The Angry One]

Subject M wrote...

xxBabyMonkeyxx wrote...

Saren and The Illusive Man approve this thread.

Yes, and Adolf was supposedly a vegetarian.

Enough with the false attempts at association fallacies.

Synthesis are control are not "Oh well TIM and Saren liked them therefore they're bad".
It's WHAT THEY WANTED. It's THEIR GOAL.

Synthesis represents Saren/Reaper philosophy, control TIM's. Don't like it? Tough.

[JeffZero]

Quite so. /continues to support those endings

[Subject M]

Rommel49 wrote...

Subject M wrote...

While control does not "free" the Reapers it does stop their aggression. Its unclear if the Reapers even have a concept of "freedom" in the same way that we do, and a military effort is rarely a democracy to begin with and if on loses a war, paying war-reparations is expected.

Changing leadership and directing them to stop attacking and instead helping instead is not exactly a harsher fate then killing them all off. And it provides means and data to further understand and analyse the main problem and why the harvest was thought up as a solution to begin with. If a new solution long term solution can be found as suggested (if the catalyst was right and everyone eventually will synthesize, but it is done willingly) then the Reapers will no longer be needing someone "laying down the law" to them in some supposed dictatorial fashion they are not "confortable" with.

That's exactly it though; the Reapers have always effectively been shackled to the old catalyst - they never had the option to say "no" and do anything else; that's the difference. If you believe synthetics are alive, that applies to Reapers, if the Reapers are alive, they're basically slaves - all Control does is shackle them to a new catalyst, just because the new slave driver might be more benevolent than the old one doesn't somehow make it not slavery.

The Geth can't make that claim as they willingly allied with the Reapers twice; first the heretic split, then the Battle for Rannoch. Indeed, the more I think about it, the less sorry I feel for the Geth as collateral damage... attacked by the Quarians or no. The Geth themselves set the tone when they willingly chose to join an enemy whose objective was the extinction of all advanced organic life.

When it comes to destroy and Control, the choice is basically between killing all the agressive "slaves" or take control over them to build a new future. Its only through control an synthesis that a new including future can be built.

The Geth sided with the Reapers in order to survive or simply, to buy themselves more time. It would not have happened if the Qurians had not destroyed the Super-structure (or if they simply had protected it better) They know that it was not a long term solution as they would end up being harvested too. People often to horrible stuff to stay alive.

[Subject M]

The Angry One wrote...

Subject M wrote...

xxBabyMonkeyxx wrote...

Saren and The Illusive Man approve this thread.

Yes, and Adolf was supposedly a vegetarian.

Enough with the false attempts at association fallacies.

Synthesis are control are not "Oh well TIM and Saren liked them therefore they're bad".
It's WHAT THEY WANTED. It's THEIR GOAL.

Synthesis represents Saren/Reaper philosophy, control TIM's. Don't like it? Tough.

Synthesis would probably have been much more popular if it did not include forced synthesis, for the problem is not synthesis itself. Saren and the Reapers were villains because what they did to others and what their specific plans was all about. (Saren was indoctrinated to believe that there was a way out and to save the galaxy by being "useful" through cybernetics and managed to do a lot of damage in pursuit of his delusional dream. The reapers harvesting process has very little to do with the type of synthesis being offered in the end).

As would control if it had not been associated with TIMs extreme methods and general megalomania.

 

Modifié par Subject M, 08 septembre 2012 - 02:18 .

[Ranger Jack Walker]

It's amusing to see Refuser decry the Crucible endings for their supposed negative moral implications.

[Subject M]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

It's amusing to see Refuser decry the Crucible endings for their supposed negative moral implications.

It would have been nice if Refuse did involve a hidden multiracial colony that survived, guarding Liaras Archive on the crucible and the war.

[N7L4D]

None, even taking what's happening as true(I can take it anyway you want it, we just had a journey moment) listen, through out the game, the series destroy is the answer(I'd also refuse as my second fav) every character that has supported shep, told her, kill the reapers, and EDI and the geth have said they are willing to die, if it need be, to destroy the reaper threat once and for all, so you really want to betray sheps friends by picking something TIM(control) or synthesis(saren) would want rather than be Anderson(destroy) who I'd consider mister f'n paragon lol, but everyone has their tastes, and whatever suits it, it's cool by me

[seitani]

Edited OP to include destroy and refusal choices.

Modifié par seitani, 08 septembre 2012 - 04:04 .

[N7 Lisbeth]

pirate1802 wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

Synthesis? I dunno. It just seems like a big gamble, changing all life in the galaxy without knowing whether it's truly for the better.

Big risk. But the priiiize!

Hah. I unromanced Jacob the moment he said that. (Literally. Ctrl-alt-del and save edited romance flags to off. I didn't intend to romance him, all the nice dialogue options just led to it, like Rome.)

Modifié par N7 Lisbeth, 08 septembre 2012 - 04:10 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

Synthesis? I dunno. It just seems like a big gamble, changing all life in the galaxy without knowing whether it's truly for the better.

Big risk. But the priiiize!

Hah. I unromanced Jacob the moment he said that. (Literally. Ctrl-alt-del and save edited romance flags to off. I didn't intend to romance him, all the nice dialogue options just led to it, like Rome.)

Haha, yes I remember doing a similar thing. My femshep hooked up with jacob and Garrus both, I made a checkpoint and decided to do both and keep the one that I like. That line there just pissed me off. Never talked to jacob since, playing as femshep, in any playthrough. xD

[DirtyPhoenix]

Subject M wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

It's amusing to see Refuser decry the Crucible endings for their supposed negative moral implications.

It would have been nice if Refuse did involve a hidden multiracial colony that survived, guarding Liaras Archive on the crucible and the war.

There probably was, certainly with Asaris. That stargazer grandma seemed to have headfringes similar to asaris. And the asari councillor, after the fall of Thessia talks of "plans, to be set in motion for the continuity of the race..".

[Bill Casey]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

It's amusing to see Refuser decry the Crucible endings for their supposed negative moral implications.

Refuse is the most moral choice...
But morality and reality don't match up here...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 08 septembre 2012 - 05:20 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

Rommel49 wrote...

The Commander's orders from his C.O.'s were to destroy the Reapers actually, not just end the war. "We destroy them or they destroy us", "Dead Reapers is how we win this" - both of those quotes came from the guys higher in the chain of command, both of whom the Commander reported to. That was his mandate, not to simply end the war. Seriously, by that reasoning, intentionally ensuring an Allied loss would've been within his mandate too (hey, it would've ended the war).

It's also noteworthy that Destroy is the only option in which he can potentially be held accountable for the decision, for better or worse. He conveniently can't or doesn't have to answer to anyone for with the other two options.

Shepard doesn't take orders from the Alliance. As a Council Spectre he's authorized to do whatever he deems necessary to preserve the peace in the galaxy while giving equal consideration to the interests of all races. More importantly, as the person on the spot and the only one with all the facts, he's the one who makes the decision.

[Rommel49]

Subject M wrote...

Rommel49 wrote...

Subject M wrote...

While control does not "free" the Reapers it does stop their aggression. Its unclear if the Reapers even have a concept of "freedom" in the same way that we do, and a military effort is rarely a democracy to begin with and if on loses a war, paying war-reparations is expected.

Changing leadership and directing them to stop attacking and instead helping instead is not exactly a harsher fate then killing them all off. And it provides means and data to further understand and analyse the main problem and why the harvest was thought up as a solution to begin with. If a new solution long term solution can be found as suggested (if the catalyst was right and everyone eventually will synthesize, but it is done willingly) then the Reapers will no longer be needing someone "laying down the law" to them in some supposed dictatorial fashion they are not "confortable" with.

That's exactly it though; the Reapers have always effectively been shackled to the old catalyst - they never had the option to say "no" and do anything else; that's the difference. If you believe synthetics are alive, that applies to Reapers, if the Reapers are alive, they're basically slaves - all Control does is shackle them to a new catalyst, just because the new slave driver might be more benevolent than the old one doesn't somehow make it not slavery.

The Geth can't make that claim as they willingly allied with the Reapers twice; first the heretic split, then the Battle for Rannoch. Indeed, the more I think about it, the less sorry I feel for the Geth as collateral damage... attacked by the Quarians or no. The Geth themselves set the tone when they willingly chose to join an enemy whose objective was the extinction of all advanced organic life.

When it comes to destroy and Control, the choice is basically between killing all the agressive "slaves" or take control over them to build a new future. Its only through control an synthesis that a new including future can be built.

The Geth sided with the Reapers in order to survive or simply, to buy themselves more time. It would not have happened if the Qurians had not destroyed the Super-structure (or if they simply had protected it better) They know that it was not a long term solution as they would end up being harvested too. People often to horrible stuff to stay alive.

A new future can be built after any of the endings, and really arguably only in destroy can the survivors build their own - an idea that even the Geth value.

Which is exactly the point; the Geth willingly allied with the Reapers to save themselves - hell, they potentially could've just abandoned Rannoch itself and rebuilt elsewhere. When one signs up to join an enemy whose mission is the extinction of the other dozen or so space-faring species to guarantee their own future, to me that implies consent at the idea I may do the same to them to guarantee the futures of those species in turn.

[seitani]

I chose control ending. Theres two different control endings depending your paragon or renegade points or at least his speech is different

Modifié par seitani, 08 septembre 2012 - 11:45 .

[The Twilight God]

Bill Casey wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

It's amusing to see Refuser decry the Crucible endings for their supposed negative moral implications.

Refuse is the most moral choice...
But morality and reality don't match up here...

Yes, being an accomplice to the murder of trillions is very morale....

[Bill Casey]

Refuse Shepard is not an accomplice...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 08 septembre 2012 - 11:44 .

[Pitznik]

Bill Casey wrote...

Refuse Shepard is not an accomplice...

In moral sense he is.

[The Twilight God]

Bill Casey wrote...

Refuse Shepard is not an accomplice...

Yes, he is.

He is agreeing with the cycle and allowing it to happen. It cannot continue unless he allows it. It's his choice rather or not the killing continues or ends and Shepard chooses to let it continue. His decision dooms the cycle and he makes that decision with full knowledge that it will lead to the death of trillions.

So, yes, he is an accomplice. Shepard is responsible for the deaths of everyone he allowed to be killed. You can call it depraved-indifference murder if you like.

 

Modifié par The Twilight God, 09 septembre 2012 - 12:47 .

[skate4tacos96]

I'd say Refuse is the full Paragon ending. It's the only ending where Shepard acts the way he does in any other game. Back in the days of ME2, if you had asked me if Shepard would choose an end to the Reaper threat that his own enemy had picked out for him, I would have said hell no! Refuse is the only ending where he decides that he will not cooperate with the very enemy he sought to defeat. That's my opinion anyway.

[xxBabyMonkeyxx]

Subject M wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Subject M wrote...

xxBabyMonkeyxx wrote...

Saren and The Illusive Man approve this thread.

Yes, and Adolf was supposedly a vegetarian.

Enough with the false attempts at association fallacies.

Synthesis are control are not "Oh well TIM and Saren liked them therefore they're bad".
It's WHAT THEY WANTED. It's THEIR GOAL.

Synthesis represents Saren/Reaper philosophy, control TIM's. Don't like it? Tough.

Synthesis would probably have been much more popular if it did not include forced synthesis, for the problem is not synthesis itself. Saren and the Reapers were villains because what they did to others and what their specific plans was all about. (Saren was indoctrinated to believe that there was a way out and to save the galaxy by being "useful" through cybernetics and managed to do a lot of damage in pursuit of his delusional dream. The reapers harvesting process has very little to do with the type of synthesis being offered in the end).

As would control if it had not been associated with TIMs extreme methods and general megalomania.

 

Why are you guys taking this so seriously? It was a joke. Calm down.

[skate4tacos96]

Bill Casey wrote...

Refuse Shepard is not an accomplice...

I agree with you. He is unwilling to decide the fate of the galaxy based on his enemy's terms. While a lot might disagree with his logic and insist that he committed galactic genocide by being uncooperative, I can see why Shepard would pick Refuse.

[The Twilight God]

skate4tacos96 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Refuse Shepard is not an accomplice...

I agree with you. He is unwilling to decide the fate of the galaxy based on his enemy's terms. While a lot might disagree with his logic and insist that he committed galactic genocide by being uncooperative, I can see why Shepard would pick Refuse.

How is Destroy on the Reapers terms?

1. Reapers are dead
2. "The Solution" is finished 
3. Trillions of lives saved
4. Everyone left to self-determinate

That is exactly what the Reapers do not want.

On the other hand, the continuation of the cycle is what they do want and you gave them exactly what they wanted, Mr. Mass Murderer. Shepard is NOT being uncooperative in choosing Refuse. He cooperates with them by supporting the Harvest and validating their solution. 

Modifié par The Twilight God, 09 septembre 2012 - 03:49 .

[Rommel49]

The Twilight God wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Refuse Shepard is not an accomplice...

Yes, he is.

He is agreeing with the cycle and allowing it to happen. It cannot continue unless he allows it. It's his choice rather or not the killing continues or ends and Shepard chooses to let it continue. His decision dooms the cycle and he makes that decision with full knowledge that it will lead to the death of trillions.

So, yes, he is an accomplice. Shepard is responsible for the deaths of everyone he allowed to be killed. You can call it depraved-indifference murder if you like.

 

That's only assumed; as I've noted in the past, there's actually nothing that definitively shows that refusal results in defeat, due to how incredibly vague the ending is.