188 réponses à ce sujet

[Eterna]

Baa Baa wrote...

Refuse seems the most Paragon to me. It's not the ending that's best imo, but it seems like an absolute Paragon to me.
Synthesis is just.... it shouldn't even be there

"The right choice is usually not the easy one" -Shepard

"Yeah, did you know that before you joined the N7?"- James

"Yes, that's why I was asked. And that's why they asked you. There is not a single N7 that hasn't sacrificed themselves or their Soldiers at some point. " - Shepard

Refuse is wrong and Shepard says it best.  A hero is not a hero unless they are willing to sacrifice a part of themselves in order to make the choice that is ultimately right for everyone. 

Refusal spits in the face of this ideal,  an ideal that Shepard outright states he/she believes in. You are not a hero for picking refusal, you're a selfish coward who was unable to make the right decision when it mattered most.

[daecath]

Neither. It's stupid.

[tanisha__unknown]

Neither. It's just stupid.

EDIT:
LOL. Just saw what my foreposter did.

Modifié par Jinx1720, 15 septembre 2012 - 11:58 .

[Comsky159]

I consider it the most intrinsically evil option available, to the point that it transcends paragon/renegade labels.

[Ieldra]

Comsky159 wrote...
I consider it the most intrinsically evil option available, to the point that it transcends paragon/renegade labels.

????
That's just crazy. Care to explain why? 

@Eterna5:
I agree. Refuse is the most selfish option of all.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 septembre 2012 - 01:39 .

[jtav]

Destroy: Renegade. Kill your enemies and some allies and end the threat of the Reapers once and for all. Doing the safe, expedient thing is traditionally Renegade.
Control: Neutral. Changes depending on Shep's past decisions.
Synthesis: Paragon. Sacrifice all that you are to redeem your enemy. Very Paragon. Paragons have also overridden consent in the past, so the difference is one of scale.
Refuse: Also Paragon. Refusal to abandon principle and commit evil despite the consequences.

[JamieCOTC]

BW made a horrible decision giving Krogan and Turians and everybody else "Village of the Damned" eyes in technicolor green. Science fiction 101 - glowing eyes = bad. And so many, many players naturally assume everyone is brainwashed. I know they are not, but think what you will.

As to the question, it is neither paragon nor renegade. It's both. Shepard sacrifices herself so that all the galaxy can be free of the Reaper threat and possibly attain peace, but it is a thing forced upon everything and everyone changing them forever whether they like it or not.

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 15 septembre 2012 - 02:47 .

[Rommel49]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Comsky159 wrote...
I consider it the most intrinsically evil option available, to the point that it transcends paragon/renegade labels.

????
That's just crazy. Care to explain why? 

Issues with consent, for one. It'd be like going in for open heart surgery to save your life and the surgeon decides to give you breast implants or a nose job in the process - it's arguable if you're actually better off, and god forbid, somebody might actually like who they were beforehand.

The consent was with destroy; that was the goal - "We destroy them or they destroy us", "Dead Reapers is how we win this", both from the good Commander's superior officers. Likewise for Javik saying the war can only be won by making the Reapers extinct rather than subjugating them, etc. They all implicitly understood there was a risk of death involved. Just like when I or anybody else enlists we understand there's a risk of death, yet, nowhere in my oath of enlistment did I agree to let Uncle Sam implant me with glowing green junk.

None of the characters describe a desire to be synthesized. In fact, the examples we have tend to be negative; the general reaction to Reaper troops (which are effectively synthesized creatures, as are the Reapers themselves), Ashley on Mars after finding the Reaperized Cerberus soldier on Mars "For all I knew, that's what Cerberus did to you". hell, ironically enough even Joker describes it as a negative; if the Commander tells him he's okay "The hell you are, you're like half-robot now and it's my fault".

Choosing Synthesis is basically the equivalent of saying "Well, the galaxy might've wanted different... but look at how she's dressed, she was really asking for it".

[o Ventus]

Chaotic neutral.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Rommel49 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Comsky159 wrote...
I consider it the most intrinsically evil option available, to the point that it transcends paragon/renegade labels.

????
That's just crazy. Care to explain why? 

Issues with consent, for one. It'd be like going in for open heart surgery to save your life and the surgeon decides to give you breast implants or a nose job in the process - it's arguable if you're actually better off, and god forbid, somebody might actually like who they were beforehand.

The consent was with destroy; that was the goal - "We destroy them or they destroy us", "Dead Reapers is how we win this", both from the good Commander's superior officers. Likewise for Javik saying the war can only be won by making the Reapers extinct rather than subjugating them, etc. They all implicitly understood there was a risk of death involved. Just like when I or anybody else enlists we understand there's a risk of death, yet, nowhere in my oath of enlistment did I agree to let Uncle Sam implant me with glowing green junk.

None of the characters describe a desire to be synthesized. In fact, the examples we have tend to be negative; the general reaction to Reaper troops (which are effectively synthesized creatures, as are the Reapers themselves), Ashley on Mars after finding the Reaperized Cerberus soldier on Mars "For all I knew, that's what Cerberus did to you". hell, ironically enough even Joker describes it as a negative; if the Commander tells him he's okay "The hell you are, you're like half-robot now and it's my fault".

Choosing Synthesis is basically the equivalent of saying "Well, the galaxy might've wanted different... but look at how she's dressed, she was really asking for it".

Gooby pls. You said this before and I responded to it. Go back two pages.

I know, it's hard to let go of diatribes, but ignoring HYR's intelligent rebuttals don't just make them go away.

[o Ventus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I know, it's hard to let go of diatribes, but ignoring HYR's intelligent rebuttals don't just make them go away.

If your rebuttals were intelligent, you wouldn't have to be telling us.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

o Ventus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I know, it's hard to let go of diatribes, but ignoring HYR's intelligent rebuttals don't just make them go away.

If your rebuttals were intelligent, you wouldn't have to be telling us.

False statement: retroactive determinism.

[Rommel49]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Gooby pls. You said this before and I responded to it. Go back two pages.

I know, it's hard to let go of diatribes, but ignoring HYR's intelligent rebuttals don't just make them go away.

Didn't see it (likewise, as o Ventus said, patting yourself on the back for "intelligent rebuttals" usually means they aren't), and it also doesn't actually address the point; the fact remains that Destroy is the only option with implied or explicit consent. That was the stated objective of the war; to destroy the Reapers, which means it was also the goal of the people who joined the war effort and aided in building the Crucible.

None of the Commander's superiors or allies advocate trying to control them or live peacefully with them; which is somewhat ironic considering you try to appeal to the "man in charge" about changing the mission objectives... the guy in charge was Hackett, and he made it clear "Dead Reapers is how we win this".

Everybody knew there were risks to using the Crucible to destroy the Reapers; the possibility of it wiping out everybody if it was used was considered a potential risk (Anderson and Hackett say as much) - the races that joined the war effort built it anyway - that was its stated purpose, a weapon designed to kill Reapers and hell, even the Reaper-upgraded Geth assisted in its construction.

Modifié par Rommel49, 15 septembre 2012 - 04:42 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Rommel49 wrote...

Didn't see it (likewise, as o Ventus said, patting yourself on the back for "intelligent rebuttals" usually means they aren't),

Cripes. I already responded to that. This statement is fallacious: retroactive-determinism.

Repeating falsehood doesn't make it true.

and it also doesn't actually address the point; the fact remains that Destroy is the only option with implied or explicit consent.

There is no implied/explicit consent for genocide. Otherwise, the krogan wouldn't have cared for a cure. And Legion would not have tried to kill you for recruiting the quarians instead of his people.

Genocide is the fate that everyone is fighting to save themselves from.

There is also no consent involved for destroying our own technology and synthetics. There are synthetics and people not involved in the war that will be affected by that. Also, that there may even be people who would prefer something other than Destroy if they knew what the choices at hand were.

That was the goal; to destroy the Reapers, that was the stated goal of the people who joined the war effort and the purpose behind building the Crucible.

Destroying the Reapers was the only known goal, as people assumed it was what the Crucible would do. So, they were all basically riding on the Crucible. In some instances, Control can be its only function. That's the way it goes. They've basically consented to it saving their asses, however the hell it does so.

Also, Shepard has no orders from Hackett apart from simply winning the war. Hackett saying something =/= it's an order.

He tells Shepard to recruit the quarians, but he can choose the geth instead and Hackett really doesn't care (though he clearly trusts them less). Genophage arc: he defers to Shepard's judgement on the cost of the salarian support being too high. If Shepard sabotages the cure, he prefers not to know what Shepard did to get both sides' support.

Everybody knew there were risks to using the Crucible to destroy the Reapers; the possibility of it wiping out everybody if it was used was considered a potential risk (Anderson and Hackett say as much) - the races that joined the war effort built it anyway - that was its stated purpose, a weapon designed to kill Reapers and hell, even the Reaper-upgraded Geth assisted in its construction.

And if they accepted the risk of the Crucible's true outcome being a complete unknown, then none of the three outcomes are an issue.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 15 septembre 2012 - 04:54 .

[Unschuld]

Control- Renegade; You "sacrifice" yourself to become the hive mind of an intergalactic big-brother police force to maintain galactic order through force and fear.

Synthesis- Renegade; You sacrifice yourself to impose non-consensual change on the most basic level upon the entire galaxy, in the name of "peace".

Destroy- "Renegade", but only if you believe synthetics are alive and have feelings. Who the heck else besides Shepard is gonna know that he/she was responsible for destroying all synthetics? It was just part of the crucible's function anyway. The reapers are dead, so I don't think there's going to be much complaining regardless.

All the endings seem renegade in some fashion except refuse, where Shepard chooses to almighty imma-gonna-stick-to-ma-morals instead of making some sort of sacrifice where the ends justify the means. Color coding doesn't mean crap.

Modifié par Unschuld, 15 septembre 2012 - 05:04 .

[o Ventus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...


Cripes. I already responded to that. This statement is fallacious: retroactive-determinism.

Repeating falsehood doesn't make it true.
 

I don't think you know what that phrase means.

[wizardryforever]

Unschuld wrote...

Control- Renegade; You "sacrifice" yourself to become the hive mind of an intergalactic big-brother police force to maintain galactic order through force and fear.

Synthesis- Renegade; You sacrifice yourself to impose non-consensual change on the most basic level upon the entire galaxy, in the name of "peace".

Destroy- "Renegade", but only if you believe synthetics are alive and have feelings. Who the heck else besides Shepard is gonna know that he/she was responsible for destroying all synthetics? It was just part of the crucible's function anyway. The reapers are dead, so I don't think there's going to be much complaining regardless.

All the endings seem renegade in some fashion except refuse, where Shepard chooses to almighty imma-gonna-stick-to-ma-morals instead of making some sort of sacrifice where the ends justify the means. Color coding doesn't mean crap.

Who is gonna know that there were other options at all?  No one (not even the Crucible engineers) can say exactly what the function is (since it doesn't work without the Catalyst).  So if you were to choose Synthesis, no one would ever know that there were other options.  This applies to all endings; people assume that Shepard used the Crucible or that it wasn't possible.  No one believes that Shepard would deliberately lose the war and doom the galaxy because he didn't want to get his hands dirty, so Refuse is the only one where the beliefs of the galaxy don't match with Shepard's actions.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

o Ventus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...


Cripes. I already responded to that. This statement is fallacious: retroactive-determinism.

Repeating falsehood doesn't make it true.
 

I don't think you know what that phrase means.

Oops. Labeled it incorrectly.

It should be.... retrospective determinism.

[o Ventus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...


Cripes. I already responded to that. This statement is fallacious: retroactive-determinism.

Repeating falsehood doesn't make it true.
 

I don't think you know what that phrase means.

Oops. Labeled it incorrectly.

It should be.... retrospective determinism.

You're still wrong.

[MegaSovereign]

It's whatever you want it to be baby.

[WhiteKnyght]

Synthesis is both.

You sacrifice your own existence(paragon) to force a change on the whole galaxy(renegade) for a greater good.

Best way to put it is that Synthesis is a compromise.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

o Ventus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...


Cripes. I already responded to that. This statement is fallacious: retroactive-determinism.

Repeating falsehood doesn't make it true.
 

I don't think you know what that phrase means.

Oops. Labeled it incorrectly.

It should be.... retrospective determinism.

You're still wrong.

Nope. You attributed something happening to singular (and false) reasoning. That's the way it works.

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
Destroy: Renegade. Kill your enemies and some allies and end the threat of the Reapers once and for all. Doing the safe, expedient thing is traditionally Renegade.
Control: Neutral. Changes depending on Shep's past decisions.
Synthesis: Paragon. Sacrifice all that you are to redeem your enemy. Very Paragon. Paragons have also overridden consent in the past, so the difference is one of scale.
Refuse: Also Paragon. Refusal to abandon principle and commit evil despite the consequences.

Not sure about Refuse but I agree about the rest.