256 réponses à ce sujet

[SNascimento]

Damn it CosmicGnosis. Destroying the reapers gain us nothing!

[Han Shot First]

Destroy is the only ending where the civilizations of the galaxy have triumphed over the Reapers.

Refuse is an outright defeat.

Control and Synthesis are at best stalemates.

[SNascimento]

Han Shot First wrote...

Destroy is the only ending where the civilizations of the galaxy have triumphed over the Reapers.

Refuse is an outright defeat.

Control and Synthesis are at best stalemates.

.
If you consider a lesser civilization destroying a superior one as a triumph, I guess you're right. 

[Han Shot First]

SNascimento wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Destroy is the only ending where the civilizations of the galaxy have triumphed over the Reapers.

Refuse is an outright defeat.

Control and Synthesis are at best stalemates.

.
If you consider a lesser civilization destroying a superior one as a triumph, I guess you're right. 

The Reapers aren't a civilization.

[ElSuperGecko]

Han Shot First wrote...
The Reapers aren't a civilization.

Quoted for truth.  A truth that people seem to forget far too often (indoctrinated...?

[SNascimento]

You are short sighted!

[crimzontearz]

Destroy saves Shepard and that is all I care about

oh wait....I have to headcanon it....carry on

[Necrotron]

Eh, all of the endings invalidate key themes of the series, so what's the point really in any? They are just contrived anyways.

There only purpose seems to spur controversy and speculations, because they were never really that fleshed out to have a clear purpose.

Modifié par Bathaius, 06 novembre 2012 - 11:14 .

[Han Shot First]

SNascimento wrote...

You are short sighted!

Civilization:

An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.

Definition of Civilization


The Reapers have no art, no culture, do not keep records, and do not have complex political or social institutions. They do not even have free will.

By any definition they are certainly not a civilization.

Mordin had a great quote about the Collectors that could just as easily be applied to the Reapers.

 "No glands, replaced by tech. No digestive system, replaced by tech. No soul. Replaced by tech. Whatever they were, gone forever. Understand now? No art, no culture. Closer to husks than slaves. Must be destroyed."

Modifié par Han Shot First, 06 novembre 2012 - 11:21 .

[andy6915]

I wanted to kill the Geth once, so that I wouldn't have to feel guilty with killing them with the Crucible later (destroy is my only ending, I will never pick anything else). It feels mean to betray them like that. But when I saw the war assets afterward... I was dangerously lower then when I make peace. Like 300 less points, and I wasn't going to get the best ending. So I reloaded, killed the Reaper again and made peace.

Maybe it is a betrayal, maybe I do feel guilty. But the fact is, I NEEDED the Geth, AND the Quarians. There was simply no way around it. If I have to make peace only to kill them later, so be it.

[KingZayd]

if destroy is pro-organic, then synthesis and control are clearly pro-Reaper.

[Doctoglethorpe]

Destroy validates a lot of ****ed up ****, no need to pick at that scab any more

*sigh*

[anillee]

Han Shot First wrote...

Destroy is not a war crime.

Destroy is the only ending that truly guarantees that the Reaper threat has been ended for all time. As such, is the only ending that guarantees the survival of every organic space faring civilization for the foreseeable future. Even it comes at the cost of losing the Geth (which is collateral damage at best), it falls under the umbrella of military necessity.

Military necessity is a legal concept used in international humanitarian law (IHL) as part of the legal justification for attacks on legitimate military targets that may have adverse, even terrible, consequences for civilians and civilian objects. It means that military forces in planning military actions are permitted to take into account the practical requirements of a military situation at any given moment and the imperatives of winning. The concept of military necessity acknowledges that even under the laws of war, winning the war or battle is a legitimate consideration, though it must be put alongside other considerations of IHL."

http://www.crimesofw...tary-necessity/


The Geth also can be rebuilt. Even if individuals are lost, their civilization isn't.
 
In a war where billions of lives have already been lost and with extinction looming for humanity and every other sapient space faring species in the galaxy, should Shepard really waste time worrying about the loss of individual Geth? Unlike with organics, death is not necessarily final for them.

Sound reasoning, and seeing as Shepard is military, it's logical to assume this would be the Commander's choice.  There's a point where Shepard even says something along the lines of "I'm not a politician, I'm a soldier."  A good soldier at the end of the day will always complete their objective.  That's what comes first.  Shepard's objective is to end the reaper threat therefore the choice is clear:  DESTROY.

[wright1978]

Destroy is pro freedom that's all i care about.

[Fixers0]

Who's to decide what's good and what is not?

[Steelcan]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Javik hates synthetics. Javik wants to kill synthetics. Destroy kills synthetics. Javik would be proud.

If you believe that synthetics are equal to organics, this is not good. It's one of the main reasons why I find Destroy so contemptible. You might argue that synthetics are just collateral damage, and that there is no deeper meaning inherent within their deaths. I can't accept that interpretation. To me, it seems clear that Destroy affirms the freedom of organic life and invalidates synthetic life. This is represented by Shepard's survival; his organic aspect survives the destruction of his synthetic aspect.

This is not a philosophy that I support. I will not throw synthetics out the airlock. I will not obliterate an entire "lifetype". I will not suppress a unique perspective on the nature of existence.

Javik's philosophy is loathsome. Destroy validates it. Fans like to speak of free will. All of that brave talk about freedom and self-determination applies only to organic life.

. Javik says that peace between organics and synthetics is impossible.  He seems to be right.  He is even backed up but Glowstick himself.  I don't see synthetics as "alive" in the first place so their existence is not invalidated.  Destroy (to me) affirms all life.  Synthetics just get caught in the blast but their fate doesn't sway me one way or the other.

[Pantegana]

anillee wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Destroy is not a war crime.

Destroy is the only ending that truly guarantees that the Reaper threat has been ended for all time. As such, is the only ending that guarantees the survival of every organic space faring civilization for the foreseeable future. Even it comes at the cost of losing the Geth (which is collateral damage at best), it falls under the umbrella of military necessity.

Military necessity is a legal concept used in international humanitarian law (IHL) as part of the legal justification for attacks on legitimate military targets that may have adverse, even terrible, consequences for civilians and civilian objects. It means that military forces in planning military actions are permitted to take into account the practical requirements of a military situation at any given moment and the imperatives of winning. The concept of military necessity acknowledges that even under the laws of war, winning the war or battle is a legitimate consideration, though it must be put alongside other considerations of IHL."

http://www.crimesofw...tary-necessity/


The Geth also can be rebuilt. Even if individuals are lost, their civilization isn't.
 
In a war where billions of lives have already been lost and with extinction looming for humanity and every other sapient space faring species in the galaxy, should Shepard really waste time worrying about the loss of individual Geth? Unlike with organics, death is not necessarily final for them.

Sound reasoning, and seeing as Shepard is military, it's logical to assume this would be the Commander's choice.  There's a point where Shepard even says something along the lines of "I'm not a politician, I'm a soldier."  A good soldier at the end of the day will always complete their objective.  That's what comes first.  Shepard's objective is to end the reaper threat therefore the choice is clear:  DESTROY.

Destroy all the way.
It's not about sacrificing lesser beings (synthetics) for the benefit of higer lifeforms (organics).
Because then I might wonder if Admiral Hackett considered the second fleet "inferior" when he's sacrificed it to cover for the retreat of the other fleets.
It's sad, it's bad. But it's the only solution that offers the complete and absolute annihilation of the reaper threat. And in my book that's what soldiers are meant to do: annihilate threats.

[MegaSovereign]

While Javik is a racist, you have to consider the fact that he's been through a lot. The genocide of his entire people.

Killing the Reapers brings closure to him. That was actually a pro for Destroy for me.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 06 novembre 2012 - 02:24 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

Yeah, the genocidal machines that have been harvesting the entire galaxy for billions of years should be allowed to live because killing synthetics is wrong!

Stop believing the lies of the Reaper AI.

He embodies the collective intelligence of all the Reapers. Of course he's going to say stuff just to sway you from the one choice that would destroy them.

He's the freaking Reaper AI. That alone should have alarm bells going off all over you.

And don't even get me started on refuse. A Shepard that will doom the entire galaxy because he can't make a choice because he doesn't want to compromise his ideals may have a moral victory of sorts, but in the end it is void because after all you've done to stop it, you give up and allow the cycle to continue. *epic facepalm*

Not trying to godwin this, but if you lived in WW2, and had the opportunity to end the war by blowing up the building in which Hitler was, would you not blow it up because innocents in the building might die? No, you blow it up, because in the end you'll spare more innocent lives by doing so.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 06 novembre 2012 - 02:29 .

[ATiBotka]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...


He's the freaking Reaper AI. That alone should have alarm bells going off all over you.

And that liar Reaper AI helps you, even if Destroy is the only option.

[Obadiah]

"Validates" just means that Shepard or the player had the option on the table. It doesn't say anything about how how the option was weighed or decided. Some people find that having the option on the table is contemptible, but if you're the one stuck making a decision on how to move forward, you can't really decide based soley on everyone else's judgement.

[Xilizhra]

Not trying to godwin this, but if you lived in WW2, and had the opportunity to end the war by blowing up the building in which Hitler was, would you not blow it up because innocents in the building might die? No, you blow it up, because in the end you'll spare more innocent lives by doing so.

And if I take control of that building, I'll save even more lives. And will do so in a heartbeat.

[d-boy15]

Xilizhra wrote...

Not trying to godwin this, but if you lived in WW2, and had the opportunity to end the war by blowing up the building in which Hitler was, would you not blow it up because innocents in the building might die? No, you blow it up, because in the end you'll spare more innocent lives by doing so.

And if I take control of that building, I'll save even more lives. And will do so in a heartbeat.

well, you know how to control the building in a real world, right?