288 réponses à ce sujet

[MegaSovereign]

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

I chose Destroy for Anderson and never regretted it.

I'm proud of you.

[Samtheman63]

because you destroy the reapers, you know, those things that have killing trillions of people?

the only people telling you to pick the other 2 are the reapers, the ones you are trying to destroy

derp

[BatmanTurian]

" Hey Shepard, I know you want to Destroy us, and I'ma let you finish, but Synthesis and Control are the best options to create peace between organics and synthetics of all time. Of. All. Time."

[clennon8]

Samtheman63 wrote...

because you destroy the reapers, you know, those things that have killing trillions of people?

the only people telling you to pick the other 2 are the reapers, the ones you are trying to destroy

derp

Everyone else is stupid, you see.  You should listen to the Reapers.  They aren't monsters, they're just misunderstood. Give the Reapers a hug.

[MegaSovereign]

clennon8 wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

because you destroy the reapers, you know, those things that have killing trillions of people?

the only people telling you to pick the other 2 are the reapers, the ones you are trying to destroy

derp

Everyone else is stupid, you see.  You should listen to the Reapers.  They aren't monsters, they're just misunderstood. Give the Reapers a hug.

I don't see how enslaving them and using them as tools to repair the damage that they caused is the same thing as giving them a hug.

Unless you're talking about Synthesis.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 14 octobre 2012 - 07:40 .

[Sonashi]

jtav wrote...

There's nothing immoral, let alone socoipathic, about the ending choices. The death of the geth/EDI is tragic. But if you believe that destroying the Reapers is the only way to end the Reaper threat, then they become justified collateral damage. You aren't targeting them. You're targeting the Reapers, with allied deaths being a foreseeable side effect, but not the goal itself. Basic just war theory.

According to this we can assume that destroying the Reapers is similar to destroying the Alpha Relay in the Arrival. And somehow people are ok with killing 300k + Batarians. Don't tell me that Shepard had no choice because if you didn't play Arrival he wouldn't kill those people. Some Alliance spec group took care of this.

Modifié par Sonashi, 14 octobre 2012 - 08:12 .

[jtav]

Essentially, yes. The only difference is we have an emotional connection to the people harmed.

[Jvolikas]

Destroy will always be the most positive for MY SHEPARD because the Reapers are dead.  EDI was willing to die for them, and so were the Geth.

[Iakus]

Sonashi wrote...

jtav wrote...

There's nothing immoral, let alone socoipathic, about the ending choices. The death of the geth/EDI is tragic. But if you believe that destroying the Reapers is the only way to end the Reaper threat, then they become justified collateral damage. You aren't targeting them. You're targeting the Reapers, with allied deaths being a foreseeable side effect, but not the goal itself. Basic just war theory.

According to this we can assume that destroying the Reapers is similar to destroying the Alpha Relay in the Arrival. And somehow people are ok with killing 300k + Batarians. Don't tell me that Shepard had no choice because if you didn't play Arrival he wouldn't kill those people. Some Alliance spec group took care of this.

The thing that's "wrong" or "sociopathic" is that the geth and EDI have no voice in the matter.  They might be prepared to die to defeat the Reapers in some abstract, hypothetical sense.  But it's when the moment has arrived that you really see how prepared one is.  Like Mordin at the elevator.  t

And if differs from the Arrival scenerio in that Shepard at elast has the option to try to warn the colony.  It fails, of course, but paragons can at least take comfort in the fact that they tried.  There is no option to warn the geth or EDI.

[Sonashi]

An emotional connection should be irrelevant when it comes to killing a thousands of people. Were they less important than EDI or random Geth? I just don't understand people who say that Shepard is a genocidal monster because he chose Destroy. Even if he has committed genocide before. I can't take them serious anymore.

Edit: @Iakus You can warn EDI, just not straightway. I'm talking about their conversations on the Normandy. You can prepare her mentally for unpredictable death. This is war after all.

Modifié par Sonashi, 14 octobre 2012 - 08:33 .

[StarcloudSWG]

Destroy eliminates the Reapers. It eliminates their periodic galactic genocide. It eliminates the flawed AI that uses the Reapers as tools to commit galactic genocide. It *ends* them.

It frees the current galactic civilizations to follow their own paths, and while it temporarily eliminates synthetic life in the form of the Geth and EDI, it does not stop the Geth from being restored from backup or being reprogrammed. It does not stop the natural progress of people and technology. It does not prevent Synthesis from happening later, on the galactic society's own terms when they're culturally and philosophically ready for it.

And it stamps a big fat F on the Starbrat's 'galactic studies experiment.'

[Asch Lavigne]

I always kill the Geth and I was against EDI in my ship in 2 and even more against her as a squadmate in 3 so killing her is icing on the cake. Honestly, I choose destroy because as much as the appeal of getting the knowledge of those who came before (synthesis) is, the idea of playing friendly with Reapers makes my stomach queasy.

And while Organics and Synthetics might not fight again, what do Controlled or Synthesized Reapers do when races inevitably start fighting each other again? The Geth/Quarian truce won't last forever, eventually they'll start fighting again too, synthesized or not. Only this time it'll be race vs race and not organic vs synthetic. Yeah, Destroy has Starbrat saying people will create synthetics again, but where is it written that they won't if you take the other endings? Just because they may be part organic and synthetic doesn't mean someone won't create another robot race to do labor or whatever. And those newly created robots won't be part organic. So there's the problem back at square one.

Modifié par Asch Lavigne, 14 octobre 2012 - 08:41 .

[Sonashi]

iakus wrote...


And if differs from the Arrival scenerio in that Shepard at elast has the option to try to warn the colony.  It fails, of course, but paragons can at least take comfort in the fact that they tried.  There is no option to warn the geth or EDI.

Also...can Shepard take comfort from the fact that he tried to save Tali when she was falling from the cliff? Even knowing that he deliberately sided with the Geths? I don't think so.

[Iakus]

Sonashi wrote....

Edit: @Iakus You can warn EDI, just not straightway. I'm talking about their conversations on the Normandy. You can prepare her mentally for unpredictable death. This is war after all.

That takes place hours before the ending.  And again is just a nebulous possibility of death in battle that everyone faces.  I'm talking about Shepard trying to get a signal through to the colony that the relay was about to rupture so get out fo the system asap.  A chance to warn EDI, so she could prepare for death, maybe say goodbye to Joker, would have been both much more emotional, and in a sense, much more cathartic.  Like Mordin's "Had to be me.  Someone else might have gotten it wrong"

[Iakus]

Sonashi wrote...

iakus wrote...


And if differs from the Arrival scenerio in that Shepard at elast has the option to try to warn the colony.  It fails, of course, but paragons can at least take comfort in the fact that they tried.  There is no option to warn the geth or EDI.

Also...can Shepard take comfort from the fact that he tried to save Tali when she was falling from the cliff? Even knowing that he deliberately sided with the Geths? I don't think so.

I don't know, haven't experienced that scenerio.  So I guess...maybe?  If there's no way to call a truce and Shepard has to pick a side, Shepard can at least try to save tali.

[AdmiralCheez]

Positive outcomes of Destruction:

1. The Reapers are no longer a threat, period.

2. By choosing Destruction, you are proving to the Catalyst that your will is too powerful to be manipulated. You won't go back on your goal just because Sparklechild made changing your mind sound prettier.

3. You made a promise that you'd finish the Reapers off all the way back in ME1. Time to keep that promise.

4. CANON CONSISTENCY! Destruction requires the least amount of convoluted explanation to fit within the narrative.

5. Shepard lives!

6. You get the opportunity to go all "screw you and your cuttlefish friends" without getting a game over screen.

7. You get to go out shooting. For a lot of my Shepards, this is important.

8. I can activate my headcanon powers and assume that the Catalyst is a lying turdbag; EDI and the Geth are actually fine and waiting for you to show up at the after-party.

9. As an alternative, if I DON'T activate my headcanon, Destruction is the only ending that actually involves making a sacrifice. That, to me, makes the other options sound especially suspicious. In addition, it adds more narrative weight, if you're into drama and gritty grimdark and stuff.

10. Red is the color of Wrex. Wrex is awesome. Choose red, and choose awesome.

[MegaSovereign]

iakus wrote...

Sonashi wrote....

Edit: @Iakus You can warn EDI, just not straightway. I'm talking about their conversations on the Normandy. You can prepare her mentally for unpredictable death. This is war after all.

That takes place hours before the ending.  And again is just a nebulous possibility of death in battle that everyone faces.  I'm talking about Shepard trying to get a signal through to the colony that the relay was about to rupture so get out fo the system asap.  A chance to warn EDI, so she could prepare for death, maybe say goodbye to Joker, would have been both much more emotional, and in a sense, much more cathartic.  Like Mordin's "Had to be me.  Someone else might have gotten it wrong"

Yea, something like that would have been nice. At least the EC put in EDI as one of the flashbacks as you aer choosing Destroy.

[Sonashi]

Nice, even AdmiralCheez dropped by for a look.

@Iakus The fact that he tried to save her doesn't change anything. He's still responsible for her death. You can't use excuses like that. I would understand the situation when you saw on a street a murderer, who was about to kill someone. You warned the victim but it changed nothing. THEN you can take comfort from the fact that you tried to save him/her.

[MegaSovereign]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Positive outcomes of Destruction:

1. The Reapers are no longer a threat, period.

2. By choosing Destruction, you are proving to the Catalyst that your will is too powerful to be manipulated. You won't go back on your goal just because Sparklechild made changing your mind sound prettier.

3. You made a promise that you'd finish the Reapers off all the way back in ME1. Time to keep that promise.

4. CANON CONSISTENCY! Destruction requires the least amount of convoluted explanation to fit within the narrative.

5. Shepard lives!

6. You get the opportunity to go all "screw you and your cuttlefish friends" without getting a game over screen.

7. You get to go out shooting. For a lot of my Shepards, this is important.

8. I can activate my headcanon powers and assume that the Catalyst is a lying turdbag; EDI and the Geth are actually fine and waiting for you to show up at the after-party.

9. As an alternative, if I DON'T activate my headcanon, Destruction is the only ending that actually involves making a sacrifice. That, to me, makes the other options sound especially suspicious. In addition, it adds more narrative weight, if you're into drama and gritty grimdark and stuff.

10. Red is the color of Wrex. Wrex is awesome. Choose red, and choose awesome.

Number 4 and 8 I have problems with.

To me Destroy makes the least amount of sense. How does the Crucible distinguish synthetic life from synthetic tech? 

EDI is definitely dead, with the Geth I guess you can headcanon them as alive but I hate headcanoning.

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

iakus wrote...

Sonashi wrote....

Edit: @Iakus You can warn EDI, just not straightway. I'm talking about their conversations on the Normandy. You can prepare her mentally for unpredictable death. This is war after all.

That takes place hours before the ending.  And again is just a nebulous possibility of death in battle that everyone faces.  I'm talking about Shepard trying to get a signal through to the colony that the relay was about to rupture so get out fo the system asap.  A chance to warn EDI, so she could prepare for death, maybe say goodbye to Joker, would have been both much more emotional, and in a sense, much more cathartic.  Like Mordin's "Had to be me.  Someone else might have gotten it wrong"

Yea, something like that would have been nice. At least the EC put in EDI as one of the flashbacks as you aer choosing Destroy.

It's the difference between feeling like you let Mordin go up in the elevator, and like you shot him in the back...

[Iakus]

Sonashi wrote...

Nice, even AdmiralCheez dropped by for a look.

@Iakus The fact that he tried to save her doesn't change anything. He's still responsible for her death. You can't use excuses like that. I would understand the situation when you saw on a street a murderer, who was about to kill someone. You warned the victim but it changed nothing. THEN you can take comfort from the fact that you tried to save him/her.

Not guilty.  But responsible, yes.

But Tali wasn't on the quarian fleet.  She's next to Shepard.  Letting Legion upload the code  (whom both you and tali can warn the quarians about) and the subsequent destruction of the quarians does not endanger Tali.  She kills herself.  And Shepard can try (and fail) to stop her.

in the case of the Destroy ending, the Catalyst tells SHepard that the blast will target all synthetic life.  And Shepard can do nothing to warn EDI or the geth.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

The fact that the Geth and EDI recieved off-screen deaths in the destroy ending is a hint for me on the purpose for their deaths.

Forced drama.

[LilLino]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Number 4 and 8 I have problems with.

To me Destroy makes the least amount of sense. How does the Crucible distinguish synthetic life from synthetic tech? 

EDI is definitely dead, with the Geth I guess you can headcanon them as alive but I hate headcanoning.

Catalyst states that 'Technology you rely on will be affected but your people will have little problem with repairing the damage'.

Which means, it doesn't totally distuingish between tech, as we can see that Ships flying near the relay look seriously torn-up and their lights are flickering like crazy. 

It's just, the Tech is much more fixeable than fully evolved AIs.

[Seboist]

Destroying EDI is one great positive for it. It's too bad you don't get to see the lamentations of that creep Joker though.