Well, no your mission isn't to KILL the reapers.
Your mission is to stop them.
I think that in the context of the 3 games you would be justified to mistrust the catalyst.
But, and this is a big but that I cannot lie, in the context of how the last dialogue is written and how the EC plays out you're no longer justified to mistrust the catalyst.
Synthesis is interesting. Thrusting everyone into the technological singularity that creates a seeming utopia seems a better alternative then wiping out a whole species, EDI, and the countless collateral damage from their destruction (on a side note, collateral damage must be the most henious war euphemism ever).
It is the seeming utopia that synthesis creates what I think most people actually have a probl with.
it's just really far fetched. Sure, not everyone would like the change, but hey you can always find small groups of very vocal and loud people to hate something anywhere, so not much of a change.
My only problem is that it's not believable. It really lacks credibility. It's too good to be true.
I think that refuse, control and destroy should be the ones I would take serious.
Nykara wrote...
Reorte wrote...
Nykara wrote...
It actually kind of is genocide when you have 2 other options that don't involve killing off an entire race (like the Geth) but do achieve the goal in stopping the war with the Reapers.
Only if you accept that at least one of the other choices isn't even worse and even then I'm still not sure if knowing about very bad collateral damage and having much less damaging alternatives but saying "sod it, I'm doing it anyway, so what?" counts as genocide. That example would be a very grim crime but the words "systematic" and "deliberate" say to me that the deaths have to be the main purpose of your action for genocide.
You could say that I'm just mincing words here but IMO that's the core issue. The precise definitions are important otherwise it becomes too easy to apply emotive terms to an argument where they strictly don't fit, which I feel is dishonest.
I totally agree with you and what the others are saying. Without knowing and being in a situation like that how could anyone possibly make such a decision really? The answer would be not very well and you would probably take the option that seemed the most likely to suceed ( to me that would be wiping them off the face fo the galaxy ). The other options to me, seem questionable at best, I would feel justified in choosing to risk wiping out the geth to kill the reapers and save everyone else. I can also see how someone may take the other options IF they truely believed those options had no hidden agenda's. For me, far too many IF's. Just kill them all I say.
Of course I would probably take my chances with an all out war ( I dont believe REFUSE is the mission fail it is made out to be, a lot more variables depending on what you consider to be a 'victory' in the long run ). I simply do not trust the catalyst one little bit. I don't trust it to wipe out ALL of the reapers at all, although I do trust that it would kill all of the geth. I sure as hell don't think forcing synthasis on people is the way to go. I don't believe control would work either - seems to me anyone who tried anything like that became indoctrinated themselves. Why would I trust the brat's word for the fact that Shepard was different and could control them? Short answer. I don't.
I trust Shep, her crew and those fighting for survival that in the long run they could just manage to take out the Reapers one by one with skill and unity. It could take years, but the entire war with the Reapers is all about simply managing to survive without being turned in to one of them as a mindless killing machine.
Retour en haut
