287 réponses à ce sujet

[Wayning_Star]

3DandBeyond wrote...

shodiswe wrote...

Everyone on that ship better be prepared to die, ... correction everyone in the galaxy better be prepared to die on some level, thoguh they shoudn't just give up ofcurse. Things don't look too bright tbh.

Ha, being prepared to die or being sent into battle and dying is a lot different from your commander pointing a gun at your head and killing you because the enemy says it's one solution to his own problem.

haven't practiced much global politics,eh?

[Funkdrspot]

Why is the geth dying somehow pointless? They were warriors in a war and the reason for heir death ties in perfectly with the story and and the ending. Soldiers die, it happens.

I picked destroy b/c I. Didn't metagame. I remember going through 3 Mass Effects, seeing how the reapers work, how they manipulate and control people and what happens to people who start working with the reapers. I remember the creepy dreams, the way TIM was trying to indoctrinate you and the way the catalyst was trying o manipulate your emotions by choosing the form of the boy. How do you trust the words of an enemy whose primary MO is deception and manipulation?!

So I choose to believe he was telling the truth about the very basics of the choices ( go right=destroy, etc) but if I was really shep, I couldn't risk the lives of a trillion people on a hunch that the catalyst was telling the truth about the aftereffects.

[Wayning_Star]

simfamSP wrote...

Reorte wrote...

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.

Depends on what that moral is. Some Shepards might feel that it is unethical to play God.

Nah, I tried it, snapped my fingers several times and the story wouldn't submit... damn it all to Hella

[CronoDragoon]

Reorte wrote...

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.

In actual fact Reorte, you are only championing the views of one type of morality, namely consequentialism. I happen to side with consequentialism more than any other ethical system, but Refusers aren't "immoral" because the consequences are the worst of the four: they are deontologists through and through.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 17 janvier 2013 - 08:34 .

[Wayning_Star]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Reorte wrote...

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.

In actual fact Reorte, you are only championing the views of one type of morality, namely consequentialism. I happen to side with consequentialism more than any other ethical system, but Refusers aren't "immoral" because the consequences are the worst of the four: they are deontologists through and through.

oh crap! more reading.. alas  for my old bird brain to peck on. Deontological Ethics

[Iakus]

 I am reminded of that scene in Serenity, when Mal was facing off against the Operative:

The Operative: Are you willing to die for your beliefs?
 Mal: I am...
::Mal proceeds to shoot at the opertive:: 
.Mal: 'Course, that ain't exactly plan A. 

Fighting for your survival?  Perish the thought!

[ME859]

I was thinking today that an awesome alternate version of the ending would have had Edi saving Shepard and being the one to activate the crucible either through Destroy or Control. Edi's choice would be based on Shepards response to a seemingly innocent question she ask about Sheps views on the Reapers before the Priority Earth mission.

Of course there's a lot of details and shifting in between but I was just thinking of how amazing the payoff would be to have Edi telling Shepard "thank you" shortly before choosing destroy.

[Funkdrspot]

simfamSP wrote....

[]

Depends on what that moral is. Some Shepards might feel that it is unethical to play God.

i take issue with this argument. i find it to be incredibly ignorant to equate power with godhood. The argument makes the user sound hokey, ignorant, backwater and overly religious to the point that you could be a crazy albino monk beating yourself with a whip. having power over whether someone ives or dies is not playing god anymore than raising a kid or being a dictator. The problem lies with your religious view that somehow to have a measure of power over another is against what your god teaches. morality is not whether or notyou have power, its what you do with it.

[Argolas]

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).

Modifié par Argolas, 17 janvier 2013 - 11:28 .

[Wayning_Star]

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).

once the crucible put the decisions making in Sheps corner, it's all Sheps responsability. There's no double talking/rationalizationing out of it. Any of the four choices are choices, and all of those are ther due to the catalyst and Shep being there to figure out what to do about the cycle/harvest. Also,the Leviathan hold the biggest responsibillty for being so selfish as to alter nature to protect its interests on a galactic scale. Even refuse sets the current cycle of harvest directly on Shep. He took the job, got the supposed supers weapon, hooked it up and...decides.

Otherwise,there'd be no decisions to make. Nature developes the intellects need for tools to exist within nature. We cannot blame nature for being, we can only find better ways to survive, better yet, live. (and probably stay on the 'good side' of our tools, sentience depending...)

[BleedingUranium]

Nature isn't a living thing :/

[3DandBeyond]

iakus wrote...

 I am reminded of that scene in Serenity, when Mal was facing off against the Operative:

The Operative: Are you willing to die for your beliefs?
 Mal: I am...
::Mal proceeds to shoot at the opertive:: 
.Mal: 'Course, that ain't exactly plan A. 

Fighting for your survival?  Perish the thought!

When in doubt that which you know is what you rely upon, whether it's to your peril or not.  People choose to drive cars and fear flying.  Flying is far safer than driving a car and has far fewer casualties than driving.  But people believe they can control the car because they are driving it  or because it is so common place.  They fear airplanes far more often because they aren't controlling them and flying is not as common place.  So, given the choice of the gun at your side and some hugely unknown set of circumstances that form the basis of a solution to your enemy's needs, the gun seems far more logical.  It may fail to do what you need it to do, but you know what it will do.

Refuse doesn't seem like it would be such a critical failure when first playing the EC, because the game sets up certain things that imply a win is possible and it is heavy handed when saying it's not.  The joke came when for once BW really intended impossible to mean it was not possible.

[Bill Casey]

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?

[Aaleel]

"Saving everyone only happens in vids. There will be sacrifices, and being in command is making sure they serve the greater objective. That's a reality for all soldiers in command and on the ground."

Spoken by Shepard. Couldn't have said it better myself, Destroy all the way baby.

[3DandBeyond]

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).

The problem is with all that that Shepard chooses to act and then is killing EDI by acting.  If it happened some other way then Shepard wouldn't be responsible in the same way.  If someone dies because you did nothing, that might be negligence.  If someone dies because you act and know that that act will kill them, you committed murder (there are different types of murder), but basically it's your fault.  Shepard doesn't even have to choose Destroy or anything at all, so it's an intentional act.  S/he's not forced to do it which is another thing altogether.  The kid may be holding a gun to Shepard's head, but he is not saying that Shepard must pick Destroy.  He's not even telling Shepard to make a choice.

I agree that it's the catalyst's fault for all of this.  It's also Leviathan's.  Leviathan created the stupidest situation and response to a problem for such a supposedly intelligent race.  Their main feature is enthrallment (control) and they wanted to stop killer synthetics by creating a killer synthetic that is not under their control (that they could have at least kept from killing them).

The kid is the most warped AI ever.  And you point out another of his problems.  He says the reapers (his solution) no longer work, but he keeps using them.  If he's a logic device, he wouldn't use something that does not solve his problem, but he does.  So, sure, go ahead make a choice that he gives you.

[Iamjdr]

@3D
So Which things exactly are set up to imply a win is possible in refuse? Cause even if you took back earth then what? Gonna take what's left of the combined fleets to take back Tachunka and thessia now? What about the galaxy map that filled with reapers at that point? Every fleet pulled from there home system which was being destroyed by reapers to pool resources on the crucible a device that you yourself refuse to use because you don't know what it does but the whole galaxys working on it.....but your gonna win by overwhelming force right? Oh what tutians said that was there tactic and the reapers were already beating them at there own game.....

[3DandBeyond]

Aaleel wrote...

"Saving everyone only happens in vids. There will be sacrifices, and being in command is making sure they serve the greater objective. That's a reality for all soldiers in command and on the ground."

Spoken by Shepard. Couldn't have said it better myself, Destroy all the way baby.

Shepard also said you don't kill some over here to save others over there.  You don't condemn a whole race to extinction based upon what might happen.  Synthetics and organics don't always have to fight.  It isn't always about just surviving.  Shepard says a lot of things.  And much of that is ignored at the end as are the geth and EDI, so it seems fitting that the very synthetics that decided to use their free will to become alive and who learned not to kill organics that could become their friends, are the ones Shepard (who helped them determine to be alive) must kill in Destroy.  How appropriate that the very things that refute the kid's logic are the things Destroy is supposed to target.

[CmnDwnWrkn]

When I was quickly scanning the main page, at first I thought it said "EDI says she's pregnant."

Carry on.

[3DandBeyond]

Iamjdr wrote...

@3D
So Which things exactly are set up to imply a win is possible in refuse? Cause even if you took back earth then what? Gonna take what's left of the combined fleets to take back Tachunka and thessia now? What about the galaxy map that filled with reapers at that point? Every fleet pulled from there home system which was being destroyed by reapers to pool resources on the crucible a device that you yourself refuse to use because you don't know what it does but the whole galaxys working on it.....but your gonna win by overwhelming force right? Oh what tutians said that was there tactic and the reapers were already beating them at there own game.....

The game has many instances of people that were creating new weapons and ways of fighting the reapers.  There was also the codex "Reaper Vulnerabilities" that clearly showed they were vulnerable.  The game also said in many places that "I" was winning in key areas, and that my chances of winning were even.  BW also set this up as standard fare in the MEU; they say something is not possible and Shepard proves it is.  That was the internal promise of ME stories-the hero wins despite the odds.  ME1 was like that all along.  Hackett was constantly surprised that Shepard pulled off the impossible.  And defeating Sovereign and Saren was impossible.  And in ME2, Shepard died but did the impossible and came back to life.  The Suicide Mission was an impossible mission that they would likely not return from but they could complete the mission, save the crew, and everyone could survive-the impossible was not so and it was possible.

Then, in ME3 itself I never had the idea that this was fight that could not be won.  A lot of it had to do with the idea that they tried too hard to keep saying it was impossible and really stupid dialogue that was contradictory (even in the beginning).  But with the EC it seemed like they might actually have listened when they included Refuse.  It was what a lot of us wanted-refuse to go along with the kid and maybe the crucible could be used as the Dark Energy weapon it was meant to be.  Not for an easy kill of all reapers but to level the playing field so they could be fought and defeated.  And, it might go along with reaper vulnerabilities (especially the effects of lowered mass on the reapers-it weakens their kinetic barriers).  And then the kid shows who he truly is-he loves all 3 choices because he clearly does not like Refuse.

[BleedingUranium]

Aaleel wrote...

"Saving everyone only happens in vids. There will be sacrifices, and being in command is making sure they serve the greater objective. That's a reality for all soldiers in command and on the ground."

Spoken by Shepard. Couldn't have said it better myself, Destroy all the way baby.

That's a great line! When was that though, I can't place it.


@3D
I understand the idea of not making a decision when you don't know the consequences, but by your logic Shepard wouldn't have done most of the things you have to do throughout the series, since you're not using any metagaming. The difference here is that this is almost the only time in the entire series you're given the option to opt out, and it was only added because fans demanded it.

[BleedingUranium]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Iamjdr wrote...

@3D
So Which things exactly are set up to imply a win is possible in refuse? Cause even if you took back earth then what? Gonna take what's left of the combined fleets to take back Tachunka and thessia now? What about the galaxy map that filled with reapers at that point? Every fleet pulled from there home system which was being destroyed by reapers to pool resources on the crucible a device that you yourself refuse to use because you don't know what it does but the whole galaxys working on it.....but your gonna win by overwhelming force right? Oh what tutians said that was there tactic and the reapers were already beating them at there own game.....

The game has many instances of people that were creating new weapons and ways of fighting the reapers.  There was also the codex "Reaper Vulnerabilities" that clearly showed they were vulnerable.  The game also said in many places that "I" was winning in key areas, and that my chances of winning were even.  BW also set this up as standard fare in the MEU; they say something is not possible and Shepard proves it is.  That was the internal promise of ME stories-the hero wins despite the odds.  ME1 was like that all along.  Hackett was constantly surprised that Shepard pulled off the impossible.  And defeating Sovereign and Saren was impossible.  And in ME2, Shepard died but did the impossible and came back to life.  The Suicide Mission was an impossible mission that they would likely not return from but they could complete the mission, save the crew, and everyone could survive-the impossible was not so and it was possible.

Then, in ME3 itself I never had the idea that this was fight that could not be won.  A lot of it had to do with the idea that they tried too hard to keep saying it was impossible and really stupid dialogue that was contradictory (even in the beginning).  But with the EC it seemed like they might actually have listened when they included Refuse.  It was what a lot of us wanted-refuse to go along with the kid and maybe the crucible could be used as the Dark Energy weapon it was meant to be.  Not for an easy kill of all reapers but to level the playing field so they could be fought and defeated.  And, it might go along with reaper vulnerabilities (especially the effects of lowered mass on the reapers-it weakens their kinetic barriers).  And then the kid shows who he truly is-he loves all 3 choices because he clearly does not like Refuse.

See, I agree with all of what you just said (except the bolded), but as an ITer I believe we could still have a victory without the Crucible, and we may have to. But the choices are as simple as destroy the Reapers, or do nothing. Nothing more specific than that matters.

[Aaleel]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

"Saving everyone only happens in vids. There will be sacrifices, and being in command is making sure they serve the greater objective. That's a reality for all soldiers in command and on the ground."

Spoken by Shepard. Couldn't have said it better myself, Destroy all the way baby.

That's a great line! When was that though, I can't place it.


@3D
I understand the idea of not making a decision when you don't know the consequences, but by your logic Shepard wouldn't have done most of the things you have to do throughout the series, since you're not using any metagaming. The difference here is that this is almost the only time in the entire series you're given the option to opt out, and it was only added because fans demanded it.

You must have punched the reporter in ME2

That's the renegade response to the question.  The paragon response is great as well.  When Shepard lists the Alliance ships that were destroyed saving the DA, and says the fifth fleet deserves medals, and the council owes them more.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Iamjdr wrote...

@3D
So Which things exactly are set up to imply a win is possible in refuse? Cause even if you took back earth then what? Gonna take what's left of the combined fleets to take back Tachunka and thessia now? What about the galaxy map that filled with reapers at that point? Every fleet pulled from there home system which was being destroyed by reapers to pool resources on the crucible a device that you yourself refuse to use because you don't know what it does but the whole galaxys working on it.....but your gonna win by overwhelming force right? Oh what tutians said that was there tactic and the reapers were already beating them at there own game.....

The game has many instances of people that were creating new weapons and ways of fighting the reapers.  There was also the codex "Reaper Vulnerabilities" that clearly showed they were vulnerable.  The game also said in many places that "I" was winning in key areas, and that my chances of winning were even.  BW also set this up as standard fare in the MEU; they say something is not possible and Shepard proves it is.  That was the internal promise of ME stories-the hero wins despite the odds.  ME1 was like that all along.  Hackett was constantly surprised that Shepard pulled off the impossible.  And defeating Sovereign and Saren was impossible.  And in ME2, Shepard died but did the impossible and came back to life.  The Suicide Mission was an impossible mission that they would likely not return from but they could complete the mission, save the crew, and everyone could survive-the impossible was not so and it was possible.

Then, in ME3 itself I never had the idea that this was fight that could not be won.  A lot of it had to do with the idea that they tried too hard to keep saying it was impossible and really stupid dialogue that was contradictory (even in the beginning).  But with the EC it seemed like they might actually have listened when they included Refuse.  It was what a lot of us wanted-refuse to go along with the kid and maybe the crucible could be used as the Dark Energy weapon it was meant to be.  Not for an easy kill of all reapers but to level the playing field so they could be fought and defeated.  And, it might go along with reaper vulnerabilities (especially the effects of lowered mass on the reapers-it weakens their kinetic barriers).  And then the kid shows who he truly is-he loves all 3 choices because he clearly does not like Refuse.

And Hacket uses 1781 tactics sending everything in a straight line wearing red, and Anderson uses 1914 tactics on the ground (where was my Brodie? where were the Jerries?). Tactics that are guaranteed to get you slaughtered attacking a force like that.

Refuse: Yes, we'll lose this time, but the reapers? They're so spread out that they're going to take so many losses they're going to get wiped by the next cycle, and the catalyst is never going to get his synthesis.

[BleedingUranium]

Aaleel wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

"Saving everyone only happens in vids. There will be sacrifices, and being in command is making sure they serve the greater objective. That's a reality for all soldiers in command and on the ground."

Spoken by Shepard. Couldn't have said it better myself, Destroy all the way baby.

That's a great line! When was that though, I can't place it.


@3D
I understand the idea of not making a decision when you don't know the consequences, but by your logic Shepard wouldn't have done most of the things you have to do throughout the series, since you're not using any metagaming. The difference here is that this is almost the only time in the entire series you're given the option to opt out, and it was only added because fans demanded it.

You must have punched the reporter in ME2

That's the renegade response to the question.  The paragon response is great as well.  When Shepard lists the Alliance ships that were destroyed saving the DA, and says the fifth fleet deserves medals, and the council owes them more.

Actually it was the latter, the Paragon response, but I think I'll do the Renegade one next time. Punching her is definitely not worth not saying either of those awesome lines.