393 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Destroy is perfectly in character for my Shepards

Really, it's in character for all Shepards. There are some traits about Shepard you can't change.

I really think that if Destroy had just played out when the Crucible docs the ending complants would have been reduced to, can we see war assets in action?

[Rip504]

ThaDPG wrote...

No,I am sure some can feel this way.

Modifié par Rip504, 17 décembre 2012 - 10:55 .

[Steelcan]

Dysjong wrote...

And if i destroy, then the geth will die, making legions sacrifice a joke.

And how would legion react then? Sacrificing himself and his race? I don't think. No one would choice to sacrifice there own race. Just look at legacy of kain.

Im fine with the endings. Each one of them has it's pros and cons.

Who cares what Legion thinks?

[MegaSovereign]

I don't see Control or Destroy being compromises when all the Catalyst is doing is telling you what they do. Synthesis could be seen as a compromise: momentarily sacrifice your principles to permanently solve an alleged problem.

I'd pick Refusal in some of my playthroughs if I actually got to see my war assets make a last stand. But with the way it is now? Destroy is the ultimate refusal.

[DeinonSlayer]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

I like this human. He understands! To add to that, synthesis is directly undermining Legion's sacrifice. Legion was the one talking about not accepting the reapers' gifts. He wanted us to build our own future, not have the reapers give it to us. He would never pick synthesis. In fact, he would almost certainly chose destroy. "No more compromise with the Old Machines."

Moreover, EDI stated that she would rather become nonfuntional than let the reapers survive, because the reapers are repulsive. In addition, all of the geth (by nature of their consensus) are soldiers. Soldiers willing to sacrifice themselves to accomplish the mission. I don't like that they die, but the morals there are infinitely better than control or synthesis...

To be completely fair, using the Reaper's Pinocchio Code at all was a violation of Legion's previously-established code of ethics. After what happened with the IFF, I'd trust that code about as far as I can throw Heretic Station.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 17 décembre 2012 - 10:59 .

[BansheeOwnage]

You could see this as a giant gamble.

- Destroy is a sure way to destroy the reapers, but you will kill synthetics.

- Refuse has a chance of destroying them but with an unknown number of casualties. Maybe you won't lose entire species.

Alternatively, you could see them as 2 different versions of the same choice, since their end goals are the same.

- Refuse is simply the paragon version of destroying the reapers.

- Destroy is more ruthless and calculating, but in a sense more effective.

[MegaSovereign]

Steelcan wrote...

Dysjong wrote...

And if i destroy, then the geth will die, making legions sacrifice a joke.

And how would legion react then? Sacrificing himself and his race? I don't think. No one would choice to sacrifice there own race. Just look at legacy of kain.

Im fine with the endings. Each one of them has it's pros and cons.

Who cares what Legion thinks?

Legion's sacrifice was always a joke. Rannoch's ending was a contrived false dilemma.

[Wayning_Star]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Dysjong wrote...

No, refuse is one choice out the total you can make. I respect it, because it does have some moral merits but it's not because it's in line with what Shepard would do. Why? Because my shepard is very different from yours.

My Shepard? Upon hearing what Destroy does, he'd start in that direction. More options, you say? "Talk fast - I'm moving."

Also not understanding your objection to Control and acceptance of Synthesis. We're not ready to use the Reapers' tech... but we're ready to have it spontaneously grafted into us? Not reasy to use it, but ready to have them "give" it to us?

No. We build our own future. At least in Control, Shepard is the only person being violated.

I like this human. He understands! To add to that, synthesis is directly undermining Legion's sacrifice. Legion was the one talking about not accepting the reapers' gifts. He wanted us to build our own future, not have the reapers give it to us. He would never pick synthesis. In fact, he would almost certainly chose destroy. "No more compromise with the Old Machines."

Moreover, EDI stated that she would rather become nonfuntional than let the reapers survive, because the reapers are repulsive. In addition, all of the geth (by nature of their consensus) are soldiers. Soldiers willing to sacrifice themselves to accomplish the mission. I don't like that they die, but the morals there are infinitely better than control or synthesis...

no, it doesn't, as Legion didn't actually sacrifice anything. Legion merely does what Geth do, consensus. Legion actually replicates synthesis, via it's 'joining' with the heritics/other geth platforms. IN synthesis, all beings gets to communicate on another level, not dis similar to Geth concensus. But this is only on the surface, as most 'ideals' of such are only hinted at.  Geth are not soldiers, as organic soldiers have more to risk, not only their lives, but the lives of their families loss in their absence. This is not a trick of the pen for kudos online. Geth never actually are destroyed in battle by the way, they merely return to the concensus. Their mobile platforms are lost.

Synthesis isn't a compromise with the 'old machines' it's their redemption and a chance for their cargo to remain in the MEU, not lost to folly of destruction of something intangible as an idea. Lore and the codex reflect that the return of the cycle will occur if the reapers are destroyed. As organics demand their presence to exist in the MEU. Destroy will only delay the harvest/cycle, not end the cycle of organics build and synthetics destroy the competition. Organics builds there tools too well, it appears.

[BansheeOwnage]

MegaSovereign wrote...
I'd pick Refusal in some of my playthroughs if I actually got to see my war assets make a last stand. But with the way it is now? Destroy is the ultimate refusal.

Can't help but agree with this.

[ThaDPG]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...
I'd pick Refusal in some of my playthroughs if I actually got to see my war assets make a last stand. But with the way it is now? Destroy is the ultimate refusal.

Can't help but agree with this.

Ditto.  this would put refusal way above destroy for me.  As of right now though, I'm 50/50 on refuse/destroy as is.

[andy6915]

So you voluntarily pressed the cancel button to turn the Crucible off. You realize that it's not the Catalyst you're speaking to, but the Crucible after taking control of the Catalyst and using it as a mouthpiece, right? That's the Crucible telling you your options while allowing the Catalyst to give you a third option he wants you to take, and it doesn't let him bring up that option until he says the options the Crucible wants first. He's at your mercy, the Crucible's mercy, having to do stuff and explain stuff he doesn't want to. Using him, it explains the options... And you chose to cancel. Smooth move genius (sarcasm).

I might just have to make a thread about this. So many people just don't get it, and honestly think refuse is in any way, shape, or form... The smart choice. When really, it's the dumbest thing you could possibly do.

[estebanus]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...
I'd pick Refusal in some of my playthroughs if I actually got to see my war assets make a last stand. But with the way it is now? Destroy is the ultimate refusal.

Can't help but agree with this.

Me too. I'd liked to have it play out like a short fan fic about refusal I wrote a while ago...

Then again, my opinion is biased on that, of course.

[Dysjong]

ThaDPG wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...
I'd pick Refusal in some of my playthroughs if I actually got to see my war assets make a last stand. But with the way it is now? Destroy is the ultimate refusal.

Can't help but agree with this.

Ditto.  this would put refusal way above destroy for me.  As of right now though, I'm 50/50 on refuse/destroy as is.

i can accept it but i would have a very hard time to do it myself (even though i shot the catalyst accidently the first time after EC)

[Steelcan]

Finn the Jakey wrote...

How can you claim to be fighting for 'everyone' when everyone but Shepard wouldn't stand there like a lemon while the Reaper king is practically handing you victory?

The Geth and Edi are going to be killed by the Reapers anyway, so why not just go with destroy?

Because of those stupid things like "morality and ethics"

[ThaDPG]

andy69156915 wrote...

So you voluntarily pressed the cancel button to turn the Crucible off. You realize that it's not the Catalyst you're speaking to, but the Crucible after taking control of the Catalyst and using it as a mouthpiece, right? That's the Crucible telling you your options while allowing the Catalyst to give you a third option he wants you to take, and it doesn't let him bring up that option until he says the options the Crucible wants first. He's at your mercy, the Crucible's mercy, having to do stuff and explain stuff he doesn't want to. Using him, it explains the options... And you chose to cancel. Smooth move genius (sarcasm).

I might just have to make a thread about this. So many people just don't get it, and honestly think refuse is in any way, shape, or form... The smart choice. When really, it's the dumbest thing you could possibly do.

It's only dumb if you metagame.  Otherwise it seems in line with most paragon playthroughs

[Rip504]

If the Geth would not have accepted the Reaper code upgrades.(Choosing to keep them installed.) Would the Geth have still been killed by the Crucible? The Crucible did not destroy all cpu equipment,nor did it destroy the Mechs. One can safely assume Destroy ending only destroys Reaper Tech. If the Geth would have chosen to clean themselves of such Reaper filth,they may have lived.

Or No?

"When the Crucible's energy interacts with the Charon Relay, the relay's core is shown breaking up, but the rest of the relay remains intact and later scenes show the mass relays being repaired."
"If the Destroy ending was chosen and the player has a high enough EMS rating, however, the Commander's name is not actually shown to be placed on the wall. This, coupled with the cutscene of Shepard breathing in the rubble,"
masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Mass_Effect_3:_Extended_Cut


"A fourth option is provided to the player as an alternative to the original three. Shepard can now refuse to activate the Crucible,either through dialogue or by shooting at the Catalyst. This dooms the galaxy to another successful Reaper purge."

Modifié par Rip504, 17 décembre 2012 - 11:08 .

[ThaDPG]

Dysjong wrote...

ThaDPG wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...
I'd pick Refusal in some of my playthroughs if I actually got to see my war assets make a last stand. But with the way it is now? Destroy is the ultimate refusal.

Can't help but agree with this.

Ditto.  this would put refusal way above destroy for me.  As of right now though, I'm 50/50 on refuse/destroy as is.

i can accept it but i would have a very hard time to do it myself (even though i shot the catalyst accidently the first time after EC)

Well, when I refuse, I always go out with that brilliant speech, rather than shoot the kid between the eyes, even though thats what he deserves

[Dysjong]

It's a great speech.

Edit: aw man, it was better then i remembered!

Modifié par Dysjong, 17 décembre 2012 - 11:13 .

[Bill Casey]

LastStand
DoomedMoralVictor
DefiantStoneThrow
DefiantToTheEnd
HonorBeforeReason
BolivianArmyEnding
EvilCannotComprehendGood

Child: Your time is at an end. You must decide.

Shepard: No. I'm going to end this war on my terms.

Child: Then you will die knowing you failed to save everything you fought for.

Shepard: I fight for freedom. I fight for the right to choose our own fate. And if I die, I'll die knowing that I did everything I could to stop you. And I'll die free.

Child:

__________________________________________________

Paragon Shepard: We'll fight and win without it. I won't let fear compromise who I am.

Samara: Only your actions will be remembered. May you choose them well.

Illusive Man: That idea is not so easily destroyed.

Child: Tell me another story about the Sheperd.

Modifié par Bill Casey, 17 décembre 2012 - 11:15 .

[M Hedonist]

Finn the Jakey wrote...

How can you claim to be fighting for 'everyone' when everyone but Shepard wouldn't stand there like a lemon while the Reaper king is practically handing you victory?

How do you know everybody else in the ME universe would do that if they were in that situation? Are you an expert on things that never ever happened?
But you're probably right - because most people would still think of the Geth as a threat. But Shepard should know better than that.

The Geth and Edi are going to be killed by the Reapers anyway, so why not just go with destroy?

Maybe they died anyway. Maybe they survived somehow. The ending doesn't actually show anyone die - you're free to your own interpretation. Maybe they survived into the next cycle, kinda like Javik did. Plus, they're machines, meaning they wouldn't need such a convoluted life sustainment system to survive over centuries and thousands of years.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The problem is that Hackett needed to be purged. We needed an imaginative general at the top. Hackett has the brains of George McClellan. Now there was a strategic and tactical "genius." Of course we can't win this war "conventionally."

Try some imaginative tactics and creative strategies. Not a full on frontal assault. That's got all the imagination of wearing red and marching in a straight line.

You did this:

1. United the galaxy
2. The relays are not locked out.
3. You've got the Geth and the Geth manufacturing base. -- let's fire it up and crank out those ships.
4. And let's use drones against the reapers like those occuli.

So who said we couldn't win? Hackett. and of course by default that means Super Mac.

Hence We Win By MEHEM.

[Bill Casey]

"It's difficult in times like these: ideals, dreams and cherished hopes rise within us, only to be crushed by grim reality. It's a wonder I haven't abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical. Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart."

- Anne Frank

[Dysjong]

Sure, you do that. Others take it right into the face and deals with it!

[M Hedonist]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The problem is that Hackett needed to be purged. We needed an imaginative general at the top. Hackett has the brains of George McClellan. Now there was a strategic and tactical "genius." Of course we can't win this war "conventionally."

Try some imaginative tactics and creative strategies. Not a full on frontal assault. That's got all the imagination of wearing red and marching in a straight line.

You did this:

1. United the galaxy
2. The relays are not locked out.
3. You've got the Geth and the Geth manufacturing base. -- let's fire it up and crank out those ships.
4. And let's use drones against the reapers like those occuli.

So who said we couldn't win? Hackett. and of course by default that means Super Mac.

Hence We Win By MEHEM.

True, I would have loved it if the Reapers were instead defeated by some daring, high-risk tactical maneuver. Like getting all Reapers into one galaxy and blowing up the Relays, or something like that.
In fact, the whole Crucible plot could've been saved imo, if it just gave us a fighting chance by crippling the Reapers somehow; that would also mean that the use of the Crucible wouldn't have been the end of the game, which it shouldn't have been.