287 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

BleedingUranium wrote...
snipped

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.

This is something that people often state in order to insult the poster.  In fact, it is one of the most ridiculous of statements.  Since when did choosing to fight and do the difficult thing, rather than making a fairly easy decision (because you get it all over with quickly and use cold calculus rather than your heart and your brain) ever equal the lack of courage.

It is extremely different from deciding to so something at the collector base and that is a fallacious argument.  I have no idea how you can even compare the two.  One is about killing a lot of allies and you can pretty that up and say it's not about them being synthetics-it is about killing a lot of people that may well be your friends and best allies. 

Except in part your comparison could be true, if the choice is to give up and do what the enemy wants and shoot your friends, or choose to stand and fight.  There's nothing cowardly about choosing to stand and fight especially if the odds are against you, and that is exactly why I think that Destroy or any of the choices is actually more of an easy way out. 

It's like creating a computer to decide a war.  The computer calculates the casualties and those people must submit to extermination chambers to be killed.  That's a Star Trek episode.  It's also what is so wrong about making a choice.  The casualties are decided for Shepard, the cost determined by a flip of the switch.  But war is supposed to be ugly and should be lived through, even died through, in order for war itself to always be something that is despised and avoided.  A war with the reapers is still the same thing, because the kid is providing the computer that decides what will be sacrificed in order to end the war or solve his problem-take your pick.

I ask you to again take a look at what real people determine to do in their own lives.  They could sit back and live under dictatorships or despots or idiots and have no freedom or free will, or they can choose to fight and even die and even lose.  Shepard said, in my game, that it isn't just about surviving and real people are proving that right now in the real world.  They are not willing to sacrifice anyone to do what their enemy wants them to do.  They choose to fight.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 18 janvier 2013 - 06:48 .

[BleedingUranium]

By not ensuring the destruction of the Reapers, you're directly responsible for every single death that then occers, other than the Geth and EDI. And that's including all future cycles as well. If just one survivor is left standing at the end of a war, then the fight was worth it.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 18 janvier 2013 - 07:44 .

[Sejborg]

Most parents are also willing to die for their children. But why kill the parents when you don't have to?

[djspectre]

essarr71 wrote...

Its irrelevent how EDI feels. She's a crew member during war. She goes wheres shes ordered. Its Shepards call to make. I doubt anyone WANTS to die. Its a war.  

The point is that she said that she was willing to DIE FOR JEFF out of love. That is the key and why if her death meant saving him, she would do it. That is what my point was and how, in this light, it doesn't make Destroy as bad as it seems. (only mildly so because the geth are still dead)

[BleedingUranium]

djspectre wrote...

essarr71 wrote...

Its irrelevent how EDI feels. She's a crew member during war. She goes wheres shes ordered. Its Shepards call to make. I doubt anyone WANTS to die. Its a war.  

The point is that she said that she was willing to DIE FOR JEFF out of love. That is the key and why if her death meant saving him, she would do it. That is what my point was and how, in this light, it doesn't make Destroy as bad as it seems. (only mildly so because the geth are still dead)

And they already said the same thing as well, that they'd die to see the Reapers defeated. As did every single other person who came through the Sol relay with us, and everyone who's fighting in other parts of the galaxy.

By choosing to fight, they say that they are willing to die.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 18 janvier 2013 - 09:49 .

[djspectre]

Everyone, once again, you all have taken my post and decided that its about whether killing people in destroy is ethical or not.

THAT WAS NOT MY POINT.

My point was that previous people (in other threads) have rationalized that killing EDI was tantamount to stabbing your friend in the back. However, during this conversation with EDI, she openly says that she would be willing to die for Jeff.

It's misleading that Shepard responds to that declaration of love with "Welcome to the Crew, EDI." The game is full of these nonsense responses by Shepard, but it doesn't remove the fact that EDI is the only synthetic willing to die for a specific purpose of love. Legion dies but to save his people, not to save one particular person.

This is what makes EDI's comments, and thus the light it sheds somewhat on the destroy ending, different.

Lots of people feel sorry that EDI had to die to kill the reapers, but when looked at in this light, her sacrifice was entirely willing, even if indirectly.

The only reason I made this post was three things: the explanation above and because this revelation doesn't happen unless you are a full paragon (next to no renegade at all) and to show that the game does in fact reflect your reputation in an indirect, albeit, very very subtle way.

At not point did I want a discussion of morals or riots or state-of-the-galaxy or anything.

This was only about EDI's declaration that she was willing to die to to save Joker.

[djspectre]

BleedingUranium wrote...

djspectre wrote...

essarr71 wrote...

Its irrelevent how EDI feels. She's a crew member during war. She goes wheres shes ordered. Its Shepards call to make. I doubt anyone WANTS to die. Its a war.  

The point is that she said that she was willing to DIE FOR JEFF out of love. That is the key and why if her death meant saving him, she would do it. That is what my point was and how, in this light, it doesn't make Destroy as bad as it seems. (only mildly so because the geth are still dead)

And they already said the same thing as well, that they'd die to see the Reapers defeated. As did every single other person who came through the Sol relay with us, and everyone who's fighting in other parts of the galaxy.

By choosing to fight, they say that they are willing to die.

No, you didn't read my post. EDI's statement is that she'd be willing to die to save Jeff. Her exact words are something like "I would risk termination to protect him". 

This has nothing to do with her being part of the crew (shepards response in this matter is out of place). It's a revelation that she is self-actualizing, something we haven't seen in any AI in the ME universe.

[cyrexwingblade]

I have no doubt Edi is willing to die for the cause. And, in fact, in my personal interpretation, I think she might, in fact, vote 'destroy' as well. Because the Reapers disgust her so much. Not for sure, but possible.

The real point for my Shepard was this: Even if Edi was standing right there, smiling, and saying "It's okay, I agree," it still wouldn't fit right. It wouldn't be justified. My Shep didn't fight through fire and hell for 3 games trying to keep everyone alive just to nuke members of her crew *and a race she fought to save* days prior.

Sacrificing herself and the Reapers is a 'better' (purely by comparison) response, thus my canon Shep chooses Control. Not because she wants to rule the galaxy, but because, as stated by many above, it's the only way to give the galaxy *something like* status quo after dealing with the Reapers.

Synthesis has too many unknowns, and is too obviously *exactly* what the Reapers want for her to trust it. The only 'synthesis' my Shep has seen realistically are Reaper ground forces and Saren. It's not compelling to her.

[BleedingUranium]

And the only people who have ever wanted Control were indoctrinated, along with it never having worked.

[cyrexwingblade]

BleedingUranium wrote...

And the only people who have ever wanted Control were indoctrinated, along with it never having worked.

The main reason my Shep hated the idea. Destroy was just worse to her moral calculation.

If given a chance to talk about it with anyone, Shep would have agreed all three options were awful and/or stupid.

Especially since her mind can be uploaded to 'just the Reapers', but we can't upload a 'turn off and die' command 'just to the reapers'.

But we can blow up one tube to nuke all synthetic life... Because that's easier apparently.

[Sibu]

Eterna5 wrote...

EDI would have accepted death if there was no other choice. But the thing is, there are other choices that solve the problem and don't result in her and every other Synthetics beings death.

You can rationalize it all you wish, EDI would not pick Destroy if she knew of the other options.

Of course she would not... she is a machine.

Mordin on the other hand...

[Iakus]

If EDI's willing to die to stop the reapers she can shoot the pipe herself.

That's sacrifice.

"We start killing our friends, and then war turns into murder"

Modifié par iakus, 19 janvier 2013 - 12:49 .

[Hurbster]

Well I never give her the option as I always pick the best of a very bad bunch of choices - Destroy.