...Dogg...dreman9999 wrote...
This is a war that billion are already dieing. Saying because doing it your way with out comprimising your morality is moralily conflict goes ageints the point of moral conflict. If you took the conentional victory route to avoide moral conflict, the result would not be moraly conflicting be of the satifaction of doing it your way.
KENNY4753 wrote...
RustyMcBlade wrote...
*Sigh* This guy always post the dumbest stuff on these forums...
You don't see that the reaper arenot tryin gto kill us off right?Maxster_ wrote...
Yeah, this nonsensical mumbling somehow reminded me of ME3 plot.dreman9999 wrote...
Most people who ask this don't realize that the trap is there so the reaper don't kill us. Normal reaper forces kill more organics then the trap. They are atacking directly because theyare forced to.Maxster_ wrote...
If they are so strong they don't need entire citadel trap and shutting down relay network.
And that was hilariously illustrated in ME3, when they didn't even bother to come to a Citadel, and when they got it, they don't even bother to shut down relay network.
Translate, please.
I was talking about Dreman not you. idk who the person I quoted was talking about though.LucasShark wrote...
KENNY4753 wrote...
RustyMcBlade wrote...
*Sigh* This guy always post the dumbest stuff on these forums...
Explain?
I'm bringing up specific dtails which were specifically underlined in previous games, and then ignored in ME3, how is this not a legitimate issue?
Modifié par KENNY4753, 03 octobre 2012 - 06:55 .
Still awaiting a response.Random Jerkface wrote...
Going to ask this question again:How is allowing billions of people to die in the face of an alternative not a moral compromise?
And how is becoming a god overlord or the galactic Christ lamb more potent a sacrifice than living with the repercussions of one's decisions?
And why does Shepard need to "sacrifice" anything at all? S/he has lost plenty already. Senseless death is not profound. It is idiotic.
Modifié par Random Jerkface, 03 octobre 2012 - 07:10 .
dreman9999 wrote...
This is a war that billion are already dieing. Saying because doing it your way with out comprimising your morality is moralily conflict goes ageints the point of moral conflict. If you took the conentional victory route to avoide moral conflict, the result would not be moraly conflicting be of the satifaction of doing it your way.grey_wind wrote...
How is this not a moral compromise???
You're choosing to sacrifice billions for the sake of your ideals, when there are perfectly viable alternatives that would cost far less.
And if you're really so hellbent on Shepard needing to die, conventional victory can also include a slow, painful end for him. Happy now?
And the only reason anybody says we sacrifice our morals in Synthesis is because the fans thought about it more than Hudson and Walters. It's clearly intended to be the best ending as it has no drawbacks (other than Shep dying), is endorsed by the author avatar (StarJar), and its unfortunate implications are downplayed as much as possible.
Modifié par grey_wind, 03 octobre 2012 - 06:57 .
I say it so you understand.Random Jerkface wrote...
...Dogg...dreman9999 wrote...
This is a war that billion are already dieing. Saying because doing it your way with out comprimising your morality is moralily conflict goes ageints the point of moral conflict. If you took the conentional victory route to avoide moral conflict, the result would not be moraly conflicting be of the satifaction of doing it your way.
What in the Google Translate hell is this?
Dude I'm not Maxter's biggest fan but I'm pretty sure the Reapers are trying to kill us.dreman9999 wrote...
You don't see that the reaper arenot tryin gto kill us off right?
You want a conventional victory so your do things you way with out comprmise. The death you see doing this would only be nessiary cassualties of doing things your way. You're not going to feel guitly doing it your way because of the nature of war. In war there are loses. More loses is not going to be morilaly conflicting for you. If it was, you would have no problem picking the destroy option.grey_wind wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
This is a war that billion are already dieing. Saying because doing it your way with out comprimising your morality is moralily conflict goes ageints the point of moral conflict. If you took the conentional victory route to avoide moral conflict, the result would not be moraly conflicting be of the satifaction of doing it your way.grey_wind wrote...
How is this not a moral compromise???
You're choosing to sacrifice billions for the sake of your ideals, when there are perfectly viable alternatives that would cost far less.
And if you're really so hellbent on Shepard needing to die, conventional victory can also include a slow, painful end for him. Happy now?
And the only reason anybody says we sacrifice our morals in Synthesis is because the fans thought about it more than Hudson and Walters. It's clearly intended to be the best ending as it has no drawbacks (other than Shep dying), is endorsed by the author avatar (StarJar), and its unfortunate implications are downplayed as much as possible.
Da fuq?
Just because billions are dyng does not make it alright for Shepard to sacrifice billions more. And just because I, as an individual, would choose a conventional victory does not make it any less of a moral compromise than the other endings already are: I`m causing far more death and destruction in the galaxy than is necessary to win for the sake of idealism.
Modifié par dreman9999, 03 octobre 2012 - 07:05 .
and by preserving us they kill us so therefore they are trying to kill us because they think by killing us we can be preserved. No matter how they process us they are still killing us.dreman9999 wrote...
The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact. And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do should be seen in that light.
If they want to perserve us, then every action they do is about the long term goal of perserving us.
LucasShark wrote...
Plain and simple: up until Bioware had to force the crucible into existance or relevance, the Reapers were never as strong as they claimed. Period.
Where can I support this? Right back in ME1 where all this started.
YES: Sovreign was the most powerful ship in the known galaxy at the time. Yet: Vigil makes particular note about how even it could not storm the citadel on its own. The battle of the citadel consists primarily of a battle against a massive Geth armada Sovreign brings along. Yes Sovreign has a big gun, but that's about it.
The weakness of the reapers is also demonstrated in their grand plan and tactics: it is based on suprise and isolation, not outright warfare (which apparently got retconed somewhere). The whole `we will darken the skies`quote was a BLUFF! Yes they could do it litterally: but by attacking system by system, one or two at a time. How do we know thisÉ The Prothean campaign took centuries, CENTURIES! Not the weeks or months that the currrent one does. They are also implied on being dependant on their `farmed`civilizations not getting too far along, or taking their own technological path, as that would make them a threat.
Cut to ME2, and we find still more evidence to them being far weaker then they claim. We both reverse engineer a weapon from Sovreign, and then use it to KO a reaper-built ship (the collector cruiser) in 2 shots. And that`s a frigate versus a super-cruiser. We see the Leviathan of Dis, which was killed in 1 shot from a planet-based weapon, a conventional planet-based weapon.
The Reapers got a massive shot of power-roids sometime at the start of ME3, and apparently some stupidity pills right along with it. Their new tactics make no sense: why are they stomping about on planets godzilla styleÉ All they are doing is making their own job harder.
Even within ME3, Reaper invulnerability faulters whenever it is required for dramatic effect, most notably use of a single shot from a Cain to destroy the `Hades canon`, which IS a reaper destroyer.
Davik Kang wrote...
Dude I'm not Maxter's biggest fan but I'm pretty sure the Reapers are trying to kill us.dreman9999 wrote...
You don't see that the reaper arenot tryin gto kill us off right?
Davik Kang wrote...
Dude I'm not Maxter's biggest fan but I'm pretty sure the Reapers are trying to kill us.dreman9999 wrote...
You don't see that the reaper arenot tryin gto kill us off right?
KENNY4753 wrote...
and by preserving us they kill us so therefore they are trying to kill us because they think by killing us we can be preserved. No matter how they process us they are still killing us.dreman9999 wrote...
The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact. And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do should be seen in that light.
If they want to perserve us, then every action they do is about the long term goal of perserving us.
They make us into a new form and perserve our minds in a reaper body....KENNY4753 wrote...
and by preserving us they kill us so therefore they are trying to kill us because they think by killing us we can be preserved. No matter how they process us they are still killing us.dreman9999 wrote...
The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact. And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do should be seen in that light.
If they want to perserve us, then every action they do is about the long term goal of perserving us.
Modifié par dreman9999, 03 octobre 2012 - 07:05 .
dreman9999 wrote...
Davik Kang wrote...
Dude I'm not Maxter's biggest fan but I'm pretty sure the Reapers are trying to kill us.dreman9999 wrote...
You don't see that the reaper arenot tryin gto kill us off right?
The reaper, if hey wanted to kill us off can do a much effectively then send reaper force in.
They have the omega virus
The bomb our planets to hell and back.
They can drop massive astrodes on us and we would not be ableto stop it.
The can send near endless ammount s of husk forces to take us down.
The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact. And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do should be seen in that light.
If they want to perserve us, then every action they do is about the long term goal of perserving us.
If you still don't understand click here....
Point is, if they were trying to wipe out organic life they would use much more effective way to do so.
I never cared whether Shepard lived or died. In fact, I expected her to die because I rightly predicted that I would be beaten over the head with the tired ass notion that "heroism" is dying atop an altar and gladly twisting the knife oneself.dreman9999 wrote...
You don't like the ending because Shep would die or conprimise his morals tostopthe reapers.
You wanta conventional victory so you do things you way with out comprmise.
OH WORD, WHO WOULD POSSIBLY FEEL GUILTY ABOUT CAUSING THE PREVENTABLE DEATHS OF BILLIONS OF PEOPLE.You're not going to fell guitly doing it your way.
By this logic, none of the other choices are moral dilemmas. Indeed, moral dilemmas must be non-existent.The death you see doing this would only be nessiary cassualties of doing things your way.
Modifié par Random Jerkface, 03 octobre 2012 - 07:07 .
So, they are preserving us by killing.dreman9999 wrote...
You don't see that the reaper arenot tryin gto kill us off right?Maxster_ wrote...
Yeah, this nonsensical mumbling somehow reminded me of ME3 plot.dreman9999 wrote...
Most people who ask this don't realize that the trap is there so the reaper don't kill us. Normal reaper forces kill more organics then the trap. They are atacking directly because theyare forced to.Maxster_ wrote...
If they are so strong they don't need entire citadel trap and shutting down relay network.
And that was hilariously illustrated in ME3, when they didn't even bother to come to a Citadel, and when they got it, they don't even bother to shut down relay network.
Translate, please.
The reaper, if hey wanted to kill us off can do a much effectively then send reaper force in.
They have the omega virus
The bomb our planets to hell and back.
They can drop massive astrodes on us and we would not be ableto stop it.
The can send near endless ammount s of husk forces to take us down.
The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact. And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do should be seen in that light.
If they want to perserve us, then every action they do is about the long term goal of perserving us.
1. if they are just killing us.The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact.
And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do
should be seen in that light.
Modifié par Maxster_, 03 octobre 2012 - 07:11 .
They did not use the omega virusLucasShark wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Davik Kang wrote...
Dude I'm not Maxter's biggest fan but I'm pretty sure the Reapers are trying to kill us.dreman9999 wrote...
You don't see that the reaper arenot tryin gto kill us off right?
The reaper, if hey wanted to kill us off can do a much effectively then send reaper force in.
They have the omega virus
The bomb our planets to hell and back.
They can drop massive astrodes on us and we would not be ableto stop it.
The can send near endless ammount s of husk forces to take us down.
The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact. And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do should be seen in that light.
If they want to perserve us, then every action they do is about the long term goal of perserving us.
If you still don't understand click here....
Point is, if they were trying to wipe out organic life they would use much more effective way to do so.
... of the things you listed they did 3.
They make us into a new form and perserve our minds in a reaper body....Maxster_ wrote...
So, they are preserving us by killing.dreman9999 wrote...
You don't see that the reaper arenot tryin gto kill us off right?Maxster_ wrote...
Yeah, this nonsensical mumbling somehow reminded me of ME3 plot.dreman9999 wrote...
Most people who ask this don't realize that the trap is there so the reaper don't kill us. Normal reaper forces kill more organics then the trap. They are atacking directly because theyare forced to.Maxster_ wrote...
If they are so strong they don't need entire citadel trap and shutting down relay network.
And that was hilariously illustrated in ME3, when they didn't even bother to come to a Citadel, and when they got it, they don't even bother to shut down relay network.
Translate, please.
The reaper, if hey wanted to kill us off can do a much effectively then send reaper force in.
They have the omega virus
The bomb our planets to hell and back.
They can drop massive astrodes on us and we would not be ableto stop it.
The can send near endless ammount s of husk forces to take us down.
The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact. And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do should be seen in that light.
If they want to perserve us, then every action they do is about the long term goal of perserving us.
After each harvest there is no one remaining except husks.
At the start of each harvest, there was a big galatic population. At the end of each harvest, there is no one.1. if they are just killing us.The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact.
And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do
should be seen in that light.
In the start of the each harvest we have, for example, 1 trillion of sentient beings.
In the end of each harvest we have no one.
2. if they are "preserve" us.
In the start of the each harvest we have, for example, 1 trillion of sentient beings.
In the end of each harvest we have no one.
Now please tell me, where the difference? Especially in context that they were not needed the citadel trap and turning down relay network, if they were so strong.
P.S. you do understand, that your previous(and that one) post is complete nonsensical mess, do you?
As I said it doesn't matter how they process us they are still killing us.dreman9999 wrote...
They make us into a new form and perserve our minds in a reaper body....KENNY4753 wrote...
and by preserving us they kill us so therefore they are trying to kill us because they think by killing us we can be preserved. No matter how they process us they are still killing us.dreman9999 wrote...
The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact. And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do should be seen in that light.
If they want to perserve us, then every action they do is about the long term goal of perserving us.
Death is a the matter of perspective.
The only wrong here is the the reaper are forcing this on us ageist our will.
dreman9999 wrote...
They make us into a new form and perserve our minds in a reaper body....Maxster_ wrote...
So, they are preserving us by killing.dreman9999 wrote...
You don't see that the reaper arenot tryin gto kill us off right?Maxster_ wrote...
Yeah, this nonsensical mumbling somehow reminded me of ME3 plot.dreman9999 wrote...
Most people who ask this don't realize that the trap is there so the reaper don't kill us. Normal reaper forces kill more organics then the trap. They are atacking directly because theyare forced to.Maxster_ wrote...
If they are so strong they don't need entire citadel trap and shutting down relay network.
And that was hilariously illustrated in ME3, when they didn't even bother to come to a Citadel, and when they got it, they don't even bother to shut down relay network.
Translate, please.
The reaper, if hey wanted to kill us off can do a much effectively then send reaper force in.
They have the omega virus
The bomb our planets to hell and back.
They can drop massive astrodes on us and we would not be ableto stop it.
The can send near endless ammount s of husk forces to take us down.
The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact. And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do should be seen in that light.
If they want to perserve us, then every action they do is about the long term goal of perserving us.
After each harvest there is no one remaining except husks.
At the start of each harvest, there was a big galatic population. At the end of each harvest, there is no one.1. if they are just killing us.The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact.
And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do
should be seen in that light.
In the start of the each harvest we have, for example, 1 trillion of sentient beings.
In the end of each harvest we have no one.
2. if they are "preserve" us.
In the start of the each harvest we have, for example, 1 trillion of sentient beings.
In the end of each harvest we have no one.
Now please tell me, where the difference? Especially in context that they were not needed the citadel trap and turning down relay network, if they were so strong.
P.S. you do understand, that your previous(and that one) post is complete nonsensical mess, do you?
Death is a the matter of perspective.
The only wrong here is the the reaper are forcing this on us ageist our will.
Oh, for the love of....dreman9999 wrote...
You want a conventional victory so your do things you way with out comprmise. The death you see doing this would only be nessiary cassualties of doing things your way. You're not going to feel guitly doing it your way because of the nature of war. In war there are loses. More loses is not going to be morilaly conflicting for you. If it was, you would have no problem picking the destroy option.grey_wind wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
This is a war that billion are already dieing. Saying because doing it your way with out comprimising your morality is moralily conflict goes ageints the point of moral conflict. If you took the conentional victory route to avoide moral conflict, the result would not be moraly conflicting be of the satifaction of doing it your way.grey_wind wrote...
How is this not a moral compromise???
You're choosing to sacrifice billions for the sake of your ideals, when there are perfectly viable alternatives that would cost far less.
And if you're really so hellbent on Shepard needing to die, conventional victory can also include a slow, painful end for him. Happy now?
And the only reason anybody says we sacrifice our morals in Synthesis is because the fans thought about it more than Hudson and Walters. It's clearly intended to be the best ending as it has no drawbacks (other than Shep dying), is endorsed by the author avatar (StarJar), and its unfortunate implications are downplayed as much as possible.
Da fuq?
Just because billions are dyng does not make it alright for Shepard to sacrifice billions more. And just because I, as an individual, would choose a conventional victory does not make it any less of a moral compromise than the other endings already are: I`m causing far more death and destruction in the galaxy than is necessary to win for the sake of idealism.
1."No, I wanted a resolution that arose organically. How it came about didn't matter as long as it followed the events of the story."Random Jerkface wrote...
I never cared whether Shepard lived or died. In fact, I expected her to die because I rightly predicted that I would be beaten over the head with the tired ass notion that "heroism" is dying atop an altar and gladly twisting the knife oneself.dreman9999 wrote...
You don't like the ending because Shep would die or conprimise his morals tostopthe reapers.You wanta conventional victory so you do things you way with out comprmise.
No, I wanted a resolution that arose organically. How it came about didn't matter as long as it followed the events of the story.OH WORD, WHO WOULD POSSIBLY FEEL GUILTY ABOUT CAUSING THE PREVENTABLE DEATHS OF BILLIONS OF PEOPLE.You're not going to fell guitly doing it your way.
By this logic, none of the other choices are moral dilemmas. Indeed, moral dilemmas must be non-existent.The death you see doing this would only be nessiary cassualties of doing things your way.
...It isn't very good logic.
Retour en haut