287 réponses à ce sujet

[BleedingUranium]

You're using waaaaay too may "what if" scenarios.

[3DandBeyond]

Aaleel wrote...

Iamjdr wrote...

@Aaleel
Thank you that's exactly what I'm trying to say ,even if we won on earth conventionally we wouldnt be able to stop the reapers on every world and do you know how many more would die trying that? Even just on the planets we can't defend while we are fighting "system by system" the reapers arnt stopping the harvest to fight us we will battle till we or the reapers bleeds us dry slowly but surely

And every planet they take they replenish their resources and have the people to replenish their ground forces at a rate faster than we can because they're using our own people, turning our loses into their gains.  There is no way to win a war of attrition at all.  The longer it goes on the worse it gets for Organics.

Blow the citadel and sacrifice Earth.  Target that huge non-weapon attached to the citadel.  Once the kid says he controls the reapers.

However, it's thinking that fighting needs to be conventional that is the problem. 

[3DandBeyond]

BleedingUranium wrote...

You're using waaaaay too may "what if" scenarios.

Who is using "what if" scenarios?

[BleedingUranium]

3DandBeyond wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

You're using waaaaay too may "what if" scenarios.

Who is using "what if" scenarios?

Half the stuff you're saying is things you think the game should have done differently.

[thehomeworld]

She says she'd die for Joker and Crew, the geth say they'll die for the Quarians so they both do that in destroy there is no conflict.

[Iamjdr]

Turians fighting alongside krogan is unconventional so is a unified galaxy when was the last time that happened? Did that help you shoot the reapers to death? What do you think everyone is doing while sheps out gathering forces and building the crucible twiddling there thumbs no they are fighting the reapers any way they can and losing. they are trying every trick in the book I'm sure, every race has been throwing there best moves at the reapers and in the en everyone ends up throwing resources at the crucible because it's obviously not working

[MegaSovereign]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Iamjdr wrote...

@Aaleel
Thank you that's exactly what I'm trying to say ,even if we won on earth conventionally we wouldnt be able to stop the reapers on every world and do you know how many more would die trying that? Even just on the planets we can't defend while we are fighting "system by system" the reapers arnt stopping the harvest to fight us we will battle till we or the reapers bleeds us dry slowly but surely

And every planet they take they replenish their resources and have the people to replenish their ground forces at a rate faster than we can because they're using our own people, turning our loses into their gains.  There is no way to win a war of attrition at all.  The longer it goes on the worse it gets for Organics.

Blow the citadel and sacrifice Earth.  Target that huge non-weapon attached to the citadel.  Once the kid says he controls the reapers.

However, it's thinking that fighting needs to be conventional that is the problem. 

Blowing the Citadel up isn't an easy task when you have Reapers firing at you.

And if you're willing to sacrifice Earth just to kill the Reapers you might as well pick Destroy....

[MegaSovereign]

thehomeworld wrote...

She says she'd die for Joker and Crew, the geth say they'll die for the Quarians so they both do that in destroy there is no conflict.

I'm sorry, that piece of dialogue must have went right over my head when Legion flat out said "I'm sorry--we regret the deaths of the creators, but we see no alternative" as he was uploading Reaper code to all Geth.

[BleedingUranium]

thehomeworld wrote...

She says she'd die for Joker and Crew, the geth say they'll die for the Quarians so they both do that in destroy there is no conflict.

This is exactly why this thread shouldn't be 11 pages long.

[Chiggy]

It is one thing to make the choice to sacrifice yourself for others, but it's another thing all together when someone else chooses to sacrifice you

[BleedingUranium]

MegaSovereign wrote...

thehomeworld wrote...

She says she'd die for Joker and Crew, the geth say they'll die for the Quarians so they both do that in destroy there is no conflict.

I'm sorry, that piece of dialogue must have went right over my head when Legion flat out said "I'm sorry--we regret the deaths of the creators, but we see no alternative" as he was uploading Reaper code to all Geth.

That's because the Quarians wouldn't stop attacking, it makes perfect sense to me.

As Legion said to Admiral Koris in ME2 when the Quarians thought they had the upper hand, they attacked 100% of the time, and that while the Geth would like peace, they have no evidence to suggest the Quarians would.

[BleedingUranium]

Chiggy wrote...

It is one thing to make the choice to sacrifice yourself for others, but it's another thing all together when someone else chooses to sacrifice you

They're soldiers, and when you're a soldier there is no difference between the two. You agree to it by signing up.

[GreyLycanTrope]

MegaSovereign wrote...

thehomeworld wrote...

She says she'd die for Joker and Crew, the geth say they'll die for the Quarians so they both do that in destroy there is no conflict.

I'm sorry, that piece of dialogue must have went right over my head when Legion flat out said "I'm sorry--we regret the deaths of the creators, but we see no alternative" as he was uploading Reaper code to all Geth.

You weren't meant to comprehend it, it's machine logic, it's just too deep for you

[fiendishchicken]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Chiggy wrote...

It is one thing to make the choice to sacrifice yourself for others, but it's another thing all together when someone else chooses to sacrifice you

They're soldiers, and when you're a soldier there is no difference between the two. You agree to it by signing up.

Sorry man. That's the military for you. BU is correct. The mission is more important than anything, quite literally here.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Iamjdr wrote...

I'm pretty sure the dlc events are cannon for mass effect but not shep. Liara still becomes shadowbroker with out lotsb installed and arrival still happens it was just an alliance military team
That blew up the relay.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 18 janvier 2013 - 06:15 .

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Blow the citadel and sacrifice Earth.  Target that huge non-weapon attached to the citadel.  Once the kid says he controls the reapers.

And un-controlled Reapers do....... what?

This could have been a fun alternative to Refuse. Bio could have implemented all sorts of random Reaper actions ater the Catalyst and Earth blow up. Do they continue the cycles anyway? Exterminate all organic life? Rule the galaxy benevolently? Farm organics to reproduce but deny them all tech? Break into factions? Simply die?

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 janvier 2013 - 06:15 .

[Iamjdr]

@ shotgun Julia
Hmm never seen that one, that's actually pretty funny

[Argolas]

Iamjdr wrote...

@ shotgun Julia
Hmm never seen that one, that's actually pretty funny

They're pretty easy to make.

[Argolas]

Bill Casey wrote...

Argolas wrote...

While there are discussions about ethics here, I think I have to point out one more fact: EDI's death and the extinction of Synthetics is plain and simply the Catalyst's fault and not Shepard's. If the Catalyst was honestly ready to offer Shepard a Destroy option, it could do so without any more casualties, for example by sending the Reapers into the next sun. However, it does not do that, it doesn't even call off the attack for a single moment as one would expect from someone who is ready to negotiate, practically holding a gun at Shepard's head and thus forcing a decision right now.

The only thing that Shepard can be made responsible of is his/her decision: Destroy the Reapers, Control the Reapers or synthesize the galaxy. Every other consequence and side effect of these decisions is the result of the Catalyst pushing Shepard and thus it is the Catalyst who is to blame for them (not to mention it is its fault that there is a problem here to begin with).

Principle of Double Effect?

I'd say not really since the extend of the sacrifice Shepard has to make for that is dictated by the Catalyst alone (in the sense that it could be avoided if it was cooperating like it was claiming to be), it is not in any way part of the nature of Shepard's decision. If Destroying the reapers would, by definition, mean killing all Synthetics and there is no particular one who is to blame for that, that'd be more like Double Effect.

Modifié par Argolas, 18 janvier 2013 - 08:00 .

[3DandBeyond]

BleedingUranium wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

You're using waaaaay too may "what if" scenarios.

Who is using "what if" scenarios?

Half the stuff you're saying is things you think the game should have done differently.

I'm discussing my opinions.  And you were the one telling me that I'm not considering the whole thing and the stuff that BW has said and put in the games are hints at more to come, that the ending is not finished yet.  That's a huge what if.  You use their own hype (no ABC endings) as some sort of proof that the game is not yet finished in a "real" way and have implied it's all indoctrination.  Again, that's a big what if.  I've stated what I see and at times what could have been done better in my opinion-of course it's about what ifs and what I think they should have and could have done better.  I believe the story would have been more solid and more rational.  As it is, I think the story fails in many ways.  I understand why it appears surreal.  You say IT and I could consider that, if BW had started to show that they at all thought the story was unfinished at the end-nothing they have said indicates that.

I also understand that BW had considered using IT as a main story thread in ME3, if not for the ending.  They
said they abandoned it as it was "too complex".  That may or may not be true and none of us will know their full intent until they call it a day and ME3 is put to bed.  If it's not true, then great, if the ending is affected by it and is fundamentally changed to work for me.  And that's not selfish, that's also opinion-as yet, it does not work for me.  Everyone wants something that they like.  No one is here begging for something to be done that they won't like.  If they do not go with some IT storyline, then well that's fine too-if there is some alteration to the endings (which they said will not happen).  If they decide to go that route, then I will firmly believe it is bad writing at heart.  I will believe it's that and the fact they had started to work on an indoctrination story line and just left in the content they had already created, rather than remake those sections of the game. 

I'd rather in some ways that they did go with some kind of indoctrination idea, but only if Shepard in some way can return to being Shepard and defeat that control, and especially would be nice if then there was some way to actually win this thing.  A way that reaffirms the themes in the story of unity, diversity, redemption, and even self-determination.  As I see it, the endings now completely abandon those ideas (the game does in many ways) by showing near obsessive reliance on an unknown thing and at the end subservience to another set of unknowns-making a choice based upon pure faith in something of unknown origins and that will do something that is not known and has just as much likelihood it will harm as it will do some good.  If Shepard makes a choice, self-determination and self-reliance lose.  Free will means nothing and life itself may mean nothing.  Again, I go back to Shepard's own words that sometimes it's not just about surviving.  Life means more than just eat, sleep, drink, reproduce, lather, rinse, repeat.  All that extra stuff is what makes it worth living.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 18 janvier 2013 - 01:43 .

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Blow the citadel and sacrifice Earth.  Target that huge non-weapon attached to the citadel.  Once the kid says he controls the reapers.

And un-controlled Reapers do....... what?

This could have been a fun alternative to Refuse. Bio could have implemented all sorts of random Reaper actions ater the Catalyst and Earth blow up. Do they continue the cycles anyway? Exterminate all organic life? Rule the galaxy benevolently? Farm organics to reproduce but deny them all tech? Break into factions? Simply die?

We'll never know though probably.  Actually this is one of those ending scenarios I would have liked to have seen-some of that variety I hoped for. 

I also look at some sort of scenario where the geth board individual reapers and attempt to hack their programming or just plant explosives-sure that would only destroy individual reapers, but this kind of stuff could have been fun.

Or, using EDI to explore the QEC nature of the indoctrination signal and attempt to use that against them (or say the kid).  Imagine, using QEC or even some sort of hacking attempt to try and control the kid (if Shepard communicates or say leaves communication channels open).  So, Shepard meets the kid, opens up communication.  EDI overhears and works to decode or understand the crucible signal that changes the kid and she creates an alternate program to change him.

[3DandBeyond]

fiendishchicken wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Chiggy wrote...

It is one thing to make the choice to sacrifice yourself for others, but it's another thing all together when someone else chooses to sacrifice you

They're soldiers, and when you're a soldier there is no difference between the two. You agree to it by signing up.

Sorry man. That's the military for you. BU is correct. The mission is more important than anything, quite literally here.

Actually no.  The military doesn't have a policy of slaughtering a lot of friends and allies (and a whole race of people) in order to appease the enemy.  Death and collateral damage does happen and yes, they do often know it will happen and decide to drop bombs, anyway.  However, they don't meet with enemies and then discuss how the enemy wants to end things and then get told they can slaughter a lot of friends and that will end it all.  Especially not when those friends directly refute the logic the enemy is using as a foundation for the war, and not when those friends are uniquely equipped to better deal with a lot of the situation than your own people are. 

There is a distinct difference between being ordered to run into harm's way and doing that, and being shoved onto a live grenade.  One is a crime and the other isn't.  But, morality aside, it's also a ****** poor way to try and say you won the war.  What then, did you win, really?  You won one more breath for everyone, another day and lost so very much in the bargain.  If you become like your enemy and do things for no clear and really good reason (especially when using people to kill for or to die for you), then you are no better than your enemy and there's a question as to whether you even deserve to win anything.

People in the military will die willingly for a lot of reasons-most of all for their home (country, world, whatever) and their buddies standing next to them.  They'll kill the enemy too for a lot of reasons, some of them not good.  But, there's no way they will actively target and decide to kill friends to serve the enemy's purpose.  The gray area is that part where a military person knows they are targeting and will kill friends and allies and specifically a whole race of people-and would they do it to win a war?  I think that if the best among us (considering the game sets up Shepard to be the best in the galaxy) would do that, then the war is already lost, because we have become the enemy.  It comes down to that age old question-what price victory?  Destroy de-values synthetics.  It says that organic life is more important.  You can believe that it is and that is fine-that's how you see it.  But if you believed that the geth and EDI were alive, had "souls" and all that, then purposely killing them just to end this thing, so that no organics have to pay that price, then you have cheapened all life, especially that of synthetics.

I may say I'd die for you and if you were threatened, I might then push myself into action to do just that.  But again, it's another thing if I say I'd die for you and someone pushes me in front of you to take a bullet for you.  I always have the right to say "no".  But someone forcing me to die for you, takes away that right.  Even in the military, even in war.  What else is left if you have no say in the use of your own body?

[BleedingUranium]

I believe that synthetics are not different than organics in any fundimental way, which is why I can understand that Destroy is not anti-synthetics, just victory through sacrifice, a stated theme of Mass Effect. "10 billion people over here die, so that 20 billion over here can live". You can choose to disagree with Garrus and Javik and everyone else when they tell you these things, but they're telling you them for a reason, and you're not listening. And just because you disagree, doesn't mean you won't have to make a hard choice and it doesn't mean you'll be able to save everyone.

It's not anti-synthetic because it's the only option that shows you don't believe the kid's premise that all synthetics will inevitability kill all organics. You show that you believe that peace is possible, and EDI and the Geth's sacrifices make that possible.

It just happened to be them though, if it had been "90% of all life in the galaxy dies" I'd still do it, because it's the only way to get rid of the Reapers, once and for all. And once they're gone we get to make our own future. Maybe it all goes to hell, maybe it doesn't, but it's our choice, our freedom to find out for outselves.

If you pick control, you believe that such a peace is not possible, and that the galaxy needs to be forced into submission. If you pick synthesis, you believe that such a peace will never be possible, organics and synthetics can never co-exist and we must remove our differences instead of accepting and embracing them.

By refusing to act, you're showing that you don't have the courage to do what is necessary to win. You can pretty it up however you want, but it's no different that getting onto the Collector base and neither destroying nor purging it, just leaving the base there; letting yourself, all your squadmates, and all your crew die, with no reason to think anyone else would ever get the chance to destroy the base. It's a Critical Mission Failure, nothing more.

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...
 The gray area is that part where a military person knows they are targeting and will kill friends and allies and specifically a whole race of people-and would they do it to win a war?  I think that if the best among us (considering the game sets up Shepard to be the best in the galaxy) would do that, then the war is already lost, because we have become the enemy.  It comes down to that age old question-what price victory?  Destroy de-values synthetics.  It says that organic life is more important.  You can believe that it is and that is fine-that's how you see it.  But if you believed that the geth and EDI were alive, had "souls" and all that, then purposely killing them just to end this thing, so that no organics have to pay that price, then you have cheapened all life, especially that of synthetics.

That's an argument for picking Control over Destroy. Leaving Control aside for a moment, is it also an argument for Refuse? The geth die anyway a little later. Is is morally significant that it's the Reapers who kill them rather than Shepard?