287 réponses à ce sujet

[jfeth713]

simfamSP wrote...
Because the war stopped. Sure there would be protests, maybe even riots. But the war is done. How many people would be grateful that it's over? Many.

The same goes for control and destroy too. Only a select few millions out of the trillions within the galaxy would be arrogant or senseless to completley throw away the peace given to them.

"He killed my mother, so he deserves to die." A fair point. After all, 90% of the ME universe holds the "eye for an eye" view-point close. So yeah, there would be an ethical problem, but the means to self preservation of the known galaxy should far outweigh the problems that come with this moral issue.

It supposedly ends the conflict between organics and synthetics. What about future conflicts between the krogan and turian? The genophage was created for a reason. What happens down the road if the Rachni decide they want revenge for being driven to extinction? What happens if the geth do get that better  understanding of organics and decide they don't like it? They're individuals now so only a small splinter group needs to break off and start building more geth. The new geth won't need souls to kill.

While I agree that most wouldn't throw away the  peace having just survived the reaper war, if given the the choice I do not think most would agree to becoming partially synthetic if they knew there were options for peace. One person should not have the ability to say "I know what's best for you" and force radical changes on everyone like synthesis would force. I'm a destroyer myself, picked it before the EC, with control in second and synthesis third. For me the distance between me picking control or synthesis is much greater than between destroy and control.

[essarr71]

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.  

Modifié par essarr71, 17 janvier 2013 - 02:00 .

[BD Manchild]

Reorte wrote...

No, you don't. The Destroy ending is the only one that gives a non-coerced chance at every getting along without being bullied or mutated into it, even if it'll need some more being built first (although all the Destroy being being able to float around and delete specific software is a completely idiotic idea). Most people who chose it do so not because it's siding with the familiar but because it removes the one big threat to everyone; the other options leave it there without providing remotely convincing proof that the problem won't continue, and one of them has a massively more unethical "solution" thrown in to boot.

Only in Destroy do you remove the confines that allow the galaxy to strike out on its own terms. That's hardly siding with familiarity.

You're still basically saying that it's okay to use the Reaper's own methods, and you're still playing into at least one of the Catalyst's twisted visions for the universe. Think about it; why does the Catalyst even offer you the choice of destroying him and his cronies in the first place? When we think about what exactly we're dealing with here, it's got to play into its overall plan somehow.

And what happens afterwards, if new synthetics are built further down the line? What do you think will happen when they find out that organics willingly sacrificed synthetics to save themselves? The results of that do not look pretty in my eyes, and would ensure that the Catalyst would be laughing at us from beyond the grave. Admittedly that's speculation, but think about it; the Geth were willing to wipe out the Quarians when the Quarians showed they'd exterminate the lot of them given half the chance.

The foundations for post-Reaper civilisation are irreversibly stained, no matter what the choice.

Modifié par BD Manchild, 17 janvier 2013 - 02:48 .

[Iamjdr]

Why do people always try to hate on destroy? I'm sorry I played through all 3 games to see the reapers fall and They do every time,and Edi has been helping me fight to destroy the reapers the whole game why would she not pick destroy especially after she tells you she would rather die then be taken over by the reapers....I feel the bsn cares more about the Geth then the entire MEU.I mean I really like the Geth but to go on and on about how it's genocide to pick destroy, according to who? Cause everyone gives shep a hearty pat on the back if you wipe out the Geth over rannoch.

[crimzontearz]

Yeah I doubt EDI would like to know her survival hinged on imposing synthesis on the universe or turning Shepard into the big brother of the galaxy

[Reorte]

BD Manchild wrote...

You're still basically saying that it's okay to use the Reaper's own methods, and you're still playing into at least one of the Catalyst's twisted visions for the universe. Think about it; why does the Catalyst even offer you the choice of destroying him and his cronies in the first place? When we think about what exactly we're dealing with here, it's got to play into its overall plan somehow.

That's simply the route to paranoia. If what he wants gets him and his cronies eliminated then that's fine by me. The simple fact is that with them gone the galaxy is free to progress however it likes. Besides, the only way you can avoid that at all is with Refuse and that doesn't produce a better result for anyone other than the Reapers. FWIW my opinion is that the Catalyst mentions Destroy because it's there anyway and he can't actually stop it from being activated (so it isn't really part of his plan) and that lies and traps always work best with a bit of truth thrown in. Shepard would be too suspicious if there was no mention of what the Crucible was supposedly built for.

And what happens afterwards, if new synthetics are built further down the line? What do you think will happen when they find out that organics willingly sacrificed synthetics to save themselves? The results of that do not look pretty in my eyes, and would ensure that the Catalyst would be laughing at us from beyond the grave. Admittedly that's speculation, but think about it; the Geth were willing to wipe out the Quarians when the Quarians showed they'd exterminate the lot of them given half the chance.

The foundations for post-Reaper civilisation are irreversibly stained, no matter what the choice.

They didn't sacrifice synthetics to save themselves, they sacrifced them (by unconvincingly contrived means) to stop everyone from being killed and most Destroyers would do the same if it was humans or asari or salarians instead of the geth.

[SeptimusMagistos]

It's nice that she's prepared to die, but if I have an option where she dies and one where she doesn't, her willingness doesn't justify anything.

[BleedingUranium]

Reorte wrote...

They didn't sacrifice synthetics to save themselves, they sacrifced them (by unconvincingly contrived means) to stop everyone from being killed and most Destroyers would do the same if it was humans or asari or salarians instead of the geth.

That's a key point that often gets overlooked.

[Maria Caliban]

Eterna5 wrote...

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

I honestly don't think we know enough of EDI's moral philosophy to guess what she'd pick.

[Reorte]

simfamSP wrote...
 And this is why I feel that the Refuse Ending is perfect for those Shepards who just *cannot* make the choice due to their strong sense of morality.

I know you said that you're a Destroyer but I simply cannot understand this view. I do not understand how anyone with a strong sense of morality can set back and let people die when it's within their power to create a lesser evil. Being unwilling to get your hands dirty to prevent a greater atrocity is not moral. Refuse is only moral if you honestly believe that the other choices will result in something worse. Anyone with a strong sense of morality has to pick the least damaging choice, even though we can argue until the cows come home about which one that is.

Modifié par Reorte, 17 janvier 2013 - 03:05 .

[CosmicGnosis]

Iamjdr wrote...

Why do people always try to hate on destroy? I'm sorry I played through all 3 games to see the reapers fall

I didn't play through the trilogy to see the Reapers fall. I wanted to know everything about them. And it turns out that the Catalyst is the "bad guy", not the Reapers, who are just the enslaved avatars of ancient species.

[BleedingUranium]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Iamjdr wrote...

Why do people always try to hate on destroy? I'm sorry I played through all 3 games to see the reapers fall

I didn't play through the trilogy to see the Reapers fall. I wanted to know everything about them. And it turns out that the Catalyst is the "bad guy", not the Reapers, who are just the enslaved avatars of ancient species.

Vigil told you that was a bad idea way back in ME1.

(bolded) Only if you believe the being that calls itself the leader of your enemies.

[Gewehr_fr]

simfamSP wrote...

 And this is why I feel that the Refuse Ending is perfect for those Shepards who just *cannot* make the choice due to their strong sense of morality.

Stand amongst the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters...

Their silence is your answer.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Arcian wrote...

I don't usually type in all caps and then bold it for extra emphasis, but when I do, it's because I am growing exponentially more tired of this retarded "Oh look, I have evidence to suggest destroy is the superior ending"-verbal wankery.

ALL ENDINGS ARE EQUALLY BAD. IF YOU ACCEPT EVEN ONE OF THEM, YOU ARE A SHEEP BEING HERDED AROUND BY A COMPANY WHO DOESN'T CARE ABOUT YOU. ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS YOUR WALLET AND IT'S HYPOTHETICAL CONTENT. DON'T BE A SHEEP. SAY NO TO SHEPHERDS. VIVA LA REVOLUCION.

Dauym son. Ever heard about the word 'opinion'? 

[BleedingUranium]

If just one survivior is left standing at the end of a war, then the fight was worth it. But humans want to save everyone. In this war, that's not going to happen.

[enayasoul]

Argolas wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

Wait, you think she would choose dying pointlessly over being alive + peace + a better chance at understanding organics (what she's been trying to learn) and for synthetics and organics to have their differences removed?

That doesn't sound very likely for an intelligent being like EDI. If there's one thing that would invalidate her journey it's dying pointlessly when there's an option that fits in line with what she's been trying to achieve.

EDIs dialogue suggests more than once that Destroy would be her choice as well. There seems to be no thought that is more disguisting to her than cooperating with the Reapers. I'm not saying "EDI would choose Destroy and everyone who claims something else is stupid", it's just that there are reasons to believe that.

Second, "understanding of organics" is not something you can download, especially not if the source is the reapers. You remember how the Catalyst could not tell the difference between letting someone live or uploading its DNA into a reaper? That is some understanding.

EDI's best bet on understanding organics is spending time and interact with them, she does do that in Mass Effect and she is successful until she tells Shepard that she now feels "alive". There is no short way around that. Synthesis does not help understanding differences, it removes differences at best. Although the result of both can be called "understanding", this is hardly the same- but just the kind of mistake an AI like the catalyst would make when thinking of "solutions".

Yes, I do realize that her death is more than just tragic (I'll just leave the other Synthetics out at this point because it would be OT). I feel especially bad for Joker since he is just the kind of guy that always gets screwed by life: First his glass bones, then the bullying during his studies, then the alliance betraying him, after that possibly losing the whole crew while being left behind completely alone (it may turn out well in the end, but it's still a nightmare of an experience), then EDI's death and he's still to notice what happened to his family yet. But this is the kind of hard decision that everyone told us over and over again we have to be prepared to make. So after all that happened, everything the reapers have done and everything we know about them, there is no way for me to allow them to continue their existence when you get the possibly only chance there will ever be to destroy them. There can be no compromise with the reapers.

By the way, EDI's death in Destroy is the Catalyst's fault, not Shepard's. Just saying.

Argolas says it perfectly!  I agree 100%.  The reapers do NOT care about anyone. They only care about the harvest!

[Ticonderoga117]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Iamjdr wrote...

Why do people always try to hate on destroy? I'm sorry I played through all 3 games to see the reapers fall

I didn't play through the trilogy to see the Reapers fall. I wanted to know everything about them. And it turns out that the Catalyst is the "bad guy", not the Reapers, who are just the enslaved avatars of ancient species.

Nope. Shepard is the bad guy for throwing a monkey wrench into Starbrat's plans to save us all from our evil machines.

[Iamjdr]

Why are the reapers suddenly innocent cause the catalyst said "when fire burns is it at war?" cause fire rarely taunts you while taking direct controlit's first round synthisis rejects or melts people down so they can ascend. When fire burns things get burnt not liquified to make more fire.

Modifié par Iamjdr, 17 janvier 2013 - 03:31 .

[3DandBeyond]

djspectre wrote...

Most people believe that the destroy ending was silly for a lot of reasons. One of which was the utter destruction of the Geth and EDI.

While I can't argue that the death of the Geth seemed somewhat senseless, I do believe that EDI should have died. Here's why. 

I usually do a half/half Shepard. He's paragon to his crew, but renegade to any advisary. This causes me to miss out on certain things (for example a full paragon shepard isn't presented with a Paragon interupt to save Oleg in Omega DLC....Aria has an entirely different speech to him and lets him live automatically). 

So I did a full paragon run this time. And upon doing so, I noticed that all my dialogs with EDI changed slightly for each time she 'had an important question that Jeff wouldn't answer'. 

The last one (after the mission on Horizon) she talks about how Reaper captives refused to give intel to the Reapers even if it would save their lives. The upper right response for Shepard didn't change, but EDI's response did. She mentions that she wants to change her programming to allow her to be willing to sacrifice her life for Jeff.

This evolution in EDI fits perfectly with the Destroy ending and her death and I no longer see her death as senseless. It's something I didn't realize before because the game subtely changes dialogues when you go full paragon or full renegade. 

I just thought I'd share this with everyone to open a discussion as to other nuances people have noticed and maybe how it might change their opinion on various endings.  

It is far different to willingly sacrifice your life for someone than to be thrown onto a fire by someone else.  EDI would die, yes and would sacrifice herself and I believe the geth would too.  But their free will is denied them because they are not being asked to do so, they are being forced to.  They aren't jumping in front of a bullet being shot at anyone, they are being pushed in front of others to take that bullet.  That's a big difference.  If you say you will die to save my life it's one thing for you to face the danger and protect me.  It's another thing for me to see a truck coming at me and throw you in front of it.

You also missed a lot of other dialogue that Shepard says-even in that one conversation.  EDI questions why the others didn't save their own lives by sacrificing others.  That's important as is Shepard's response.  Shepard says that it's not always just about surviving.  This is a very important part of the discussion they have.  Also, later on Earth Shepard listens as EDI says it's because of him/her that she is truly alive.  That means she has free will and would die, but you don't take that and say then it's fair to kill her so others can live.  In fact, in other paragon discussions elsewhere Shepard even says you don't kill some over here to save others over there.  And, you don't condemn a whole race to extinction based upon what might happen.

Yes, EDI and the geth would willingly die in my game, but with Destroy they aren't willingly doing anything.  They are being murdered in order to save the lives of others.  That means they don't have free will and are not see as really people.  They are not as "valuable" as organics are because they are killed so organics can live.

[3DandBeyond]

Iamjdr wrote...

Why are the reapers suddenly innocent cause the catalyst said "when fire burns is it at war?" cause fire rarely taunts you while taking directly controlling it's first round synthisis rejects or melts people down so they can ascend. When fire burns things get burnt not liquified to make more fire.

Yeah, and I don't think firefighters look at fire and say, "that's ok, it's just doing what it must."  They also take a dim view of arsonists.  Even if the reapers are just a "cleansing" fire, the kid is holding the blowtorch.

[BD Manchild]

3DandBeyond wrote...

It is far different to willingly sacrifice your life for someone than to be thrown onto a fire by someone else.  EDI would die, yes and would sacrifice herself and I believe the geth would too.  But their free will is denied them because they are not being asked to do so, they are being forced to.  They aren't jumping in front of a bullet being shot at anyone, they are being pushed in front of others to take that bullet.  That's a big difference.  If you say you will die to save my life it's one thing for you to face the danger and protect me.  It's another thing for me to see a truck coming at me and throw you in front of it.

You also missed a lot of other dialogue that Shepard says-even in that one conversation.  EDI questions why the others didn't save their own lives by sacrificing others.  That's important as is Shepard's response.  Shepard says that it's not always just about surviving.  This is a very important part of the discussion they have.  Also, later on Earth Shepard listens as EDI says it's because of him/her that she is truly alive.  That means she has free will and would die, but you don't take that and say then it's fair to kill her so others can live.  In fact, in other paragon discussions elsewhere Shepard even says you don't kill some over here to save others over there.  And, you don't condemn a whole race to extinction based upon what might happen.

Yes, EDI and the geth would willingly die in my game, but with Destroy they aren't willingly doing anything.  They are being murdered in order to save the lives of others.  That means they don't have free will and are not see as really people.  They are not as "valuable" as organics are because they are killed so organics can live.

This is exactly the point I wanted to make before. Yes, EDI does show that she's willing to die, but in the Destroy ending she and the Geth are not willingly dying for the cause, are they? They're being ritually sacrificed, against their will, and there's a world of difference between that and willingly sacrificing yourself for the good of others.

Modifié par BD Manchild, 17 janvier 2013 - 03:36 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

BleedingUranium wrote...

If just one survivior is left standing at the end of a war, then the fight was worth it. But humans want to save everyone. In this war, that's not going to happen.

But it can. If you're willing to let go of your hate and see the options open to you.

[Iamjdr]

How are you taking there free will? If someone tells you they are willing to sacrifice themselves then isn't there will to be sacrificed if it what needs to be done, if that is what is nessicary to win? Isn't that the point of Edi telling you that before the end happens so when the time comes you know where she stands there's no guessing.

[Enhanced]

Iamjdr wrote...

How are you taking there free will? If someone tells you they are willing to sacrifice themselves then isn't there will to be sacrificed if it what needs to be done, if that is what is nessicary to win? Isn't that the point of Edi telling you that before the end happens so when the time comes you know where she stands there's no guessing.

EDI is a woman. She isn't saying what she really feels. It was a test.