748 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr_Extrem]

Reapling wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Reapling wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Reapling wrote...

You guys don't pay attention, do you? Admiral Hackett specifically says that EVERYTHING that was lost can be REBUILT... and MORE. Once again, the catalyst states that synthetics can and WILL be rebuilt by future generations. The term genocide cannot be used here because it is reversible and is not intended. This is a dire situation, put yourself in Shepard's place and face the uncertainty of the future of Control and Synthesis. He may lose control over the reapers to the catalyst AND, like Thane says during the invasion of the heretic station in Mass Effect 2, it is better to die than to force a belief down someone's throat (re-writing the Heretics), which is exactly what synthesis is.

And we still have people of Jewish faith today...does that make the atrocities of WW2 any less disgusting?

No it doesn't, but that's the reality of warfare.

stop right there ..  the jews (and all the other victims) were not casualties of war. they were killed, because an (disgusting) idiology did brand them as "worthless life". thats a huge difference.

Yes, you have a point. However, who's to say that, in the long run, this new "Shepard AI" won't come to the same conclusion and deem that the cycle must begin anew? Instead of the eradictation of ONE species, you'll lose ALL OF THEM.

genocide has nothing to do with warfare - thats my only point. i dont care what the shep-ai does or not. 

the atrocities commited by the regime, thats not to be named, were done, because they wanted to eradicate them (jews, communists, social democrats, roma/sinti, disabled, homosexuals - and all the other groups). those people did not get between the frontlines or were hit by ricochets - it was the intent to kill them.


branding this as "the reality of warfare" is just wrong (i dont want to ****** on your leg - my education got the better of me).

[wright1978]

Xilizhra wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
What I mean is that you make the active and deliberate choice to kill the geth just as much as you do the Reapers.

Incorrect, because your intent in making the choice is to kill the Reapers, not to kill the geth. This is easily demonstrated by analyzing these hypothetical scenario:

Destroy kills the Reapers but not the geth. Do Destroyers still pick it? Yes.
Destroy kills the geth but not the Reapers. Do Destroyers still pick it? No. (unless you are RP-ing an AI hater).

Thus intent can be identified.

Irrelevant. You can choose to not kill the geth and still stop the Reapers, but you refuse to do so.

Only by perpetuating an even worse atrocity.

[Xilizhra]

wright1978 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
What I mean is that you make the active and deliberate choice to kill the geth just as much as you do the Reapers.

Incorrect, because your intent in making the choice is to kill the Reapers, not to kill the geth. This is easily demonstrated by analyzing these hypothetical scenario:

Destroy kills the Reapers but not the geth. Do Destroyers still pick it? Yes.
Destroy kills the geth but not the Reapers. Do Destroyers still pick it? No. (unless you are RP-ing an AI hater).

Thus intent can be identified.

Irrelevant. You can choose to not kill the geth and still stop the Reapers, but you refuse to do so.

Only by perpetuating an even worse atrocity.

Not even remotely.

[Reapling]

Hexley UK wrote...

shepard1038 wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

shepard1038 wrote...

^Control isn't slavery.

ask the reapers who are still under the control of the new catalyst.

And by proxy everyone else...cause if you don't do what the Shepreaper says who knows what could happen.....

The Reapers don't have free will. They are two different versions of control.

Reapers only don't have free will because it was taken from them by force...by your logic you could enslave slaves and they would not be slaves anymore....because they were already slaves?

They were never given free will. They were designed with a sole purpose: the harvest of advanced civilizations.

[Gedgehog]

I sometimes pick control and sometimes destroy.

In destroy, the Geth can be rebuilt - what's to stop people from extracting a memory unit and rebuilding what was stored inside it somewhere else?

As for control, what's stopping Shepard (with access to Reaper genetic engineering now) from creating a new body / avatar for himself, or even cloning himself in some form, imparting all his digitalised memories into the new clone?

[Dr_Extrem]

Hexley UK wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

shepard1038 wrote...

^Control isn't slavery.

ask the reapers who are still under the control of the new catalyst.

And by proxy everyone else...cause if you don't do what the Shepreaper says who knows what could happen.....

(righteous) lazor-beam to da face ...

[B.Shep]

Because it's a even bigger atroccity to let the Reapers live.

[DeinonSlayer]

Xilizhra wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
What I mean is that you make the active and deliberate choice to kill the geth just as much as you do the Reapers.

Incorrect, because your intent in making the choice is to kill the Reapers, not to kill the geth. This is easily demonstrated by analyzing these hypothetical scenario:

Destroy kills the Reapers but not the geth. Do Destroyers still pick it? Yes.
Destroy kills the geth but not the Reapers. Do Destroyers still pick it? No. (unless you are RP-ing an AI hater).

Thus intent can be identified.

Irrelevant. You can choose to not kill the geth and still stop the Reapers, but you refuse to do so.

Only by perpetuating an even worse atrocity.

Not even remotely.

In your judgement. Ours differs. 

[Reapling]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Reapling wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Reapling wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Reapling wrote...

You guys don't pay attention, do you? Admiral Hackett specifically says that EVERYTHING that was lost can be REBUILT... and MORE. Once again, the catalyst states that synthetics can and WILL be rebuilt by future generations. The term genocide cannot be used here because it is reversible and is not intended. This is a dire situation, put yourself in Shepard's place and face the uncertainty of the future of Control and Synthesis. He may lose control over the reapers to the catalyst AND, like Thane says during the invasion of the heretic station in Mass Effect 2, it is better to die than to force a belief down someone's throat (re-writing the Heretics), which is exactly what synthesis is.

And we still have people of Jewish faith today...does that make the atrocities of WW2 any less disgusting?

No it doesn't, but that's the reality of warfare.

stop right there ..  the jews (and all the other victims) were not casualties of war. they were killed, because an (disgusting) idiology did brand them as "worthless life". thats a huge difference.

Yes, you have a point. However, who's to say that, in the long run, this new "Shepard AI" won't come to the same conclusion and deem that the cycle must begin anew? Instead of the eradictation of ONE species, you'll lose ALL OF THEM.

genocide has nothing to do with warfare - thats my only point. i dont care what the shep-ai does or not. 

the atrocities commited by the regime, thats not to be named, were done, because they wanted to eradicate them (jews, communists, social democrats, roma/sinti, disabled, homosexuals - and all the other groups). those people did not get between the frontlines or were hit by ricochets - it was the intent to kill them.


branding this as "the reality of warfare" is just wrong (i dont want to ****** on your leg - my education got the better of me).

Yeah, I understand. I didn't say that properly, forgive me But to take this away from WWII and back to ME, consider what I said above about the control ending. There are negative effects to all three choices, and all of it is headcanon from this point on. In my opinion, Destroy is the best option. You're entitled to your own and while I may not agree with it, I respect it.

[Urdnot Amenark]

wright1978 wrote...

shepard1038 wrote...

^Control isn't slavery.

Police state then,same diff. Or we could just all accept that we all have different takes on what makes a particular ending abhorrent.

Not if your Shepard is Paragon. 

[Tom Lehrer]

Auld Wulf wrote...
*snip*

You keep saying its the clone but the clone killed his/her self long before the  ending. Last I checked dead things don't breath.

[Hexley UK]

Reapling wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Reapling wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Reapling wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Reapling wrote...

You guys don't pay attention, do you? Admiral Hackett specifically says that EVERYTHING that was lost can be REBUILT... and MORE. Once again, the catalyst states that synthetics can and WILL be rebuilt by future generations. The term genocide cannot be used here because it is reversible and is not intended. This is a dire situation, put yourself in Shepard's place and face the uncertainty of the future of Control and Synthesis. He may lose control over the reapers to the catalyst AND, like Thane says during the invasion of the heretic station in Mass Effect 2, it is better to die than to force a belief down someone's throat (re-writing the Heretics), which is exactly what synthesis is.

And we still have people of Jewish faith today...does that make the atrocities of WW2 any less disgusting?

No it doesn't, but that's the reality of warfare.

stop right there ..  the jews (and all the other victims) were not casualties of war. they were killed, because an (disgusting) idiology did brand them as "worthless life". thats a huge difference.

Yes, you have a point. However, who's to say that, in the long run, this new "Shepard AI" won't come to the same conclusion and deem that the cycle must begin anew? Instead of the eradictation of ONE species, you'll lose ALL OF THEM.

genocide has nothing to do with warfare - thats my only point. i dont care what the shep-ai does or not. 

the atrocities commited by the regime, thats not to be named, were done, because they wanted to eradicate them (jews, communists, social democrats, roma/sinti, disabled, homosexuals - and all the other groups). those people did not get between the frontlines or were hit by ricochets - it was the intent to kill them.


branding this as "the reality of warfare" is just wrong (i dont want to ****** on your leg - my education got the better of me).

Yeah, I understand. I didn't say that properly, forgive me But to take this away from WWII and back to ME, consider what I said above about the control ending. There are negative effects to all three choices, and all of it is headcanon from this point on. In my opinion, Destroy is the best option. You're entitled to your own and while I may not agree with it, I respect it.

I agree..destroy is the least of 3 disgusting morally abhorrent evils.

[Dr_Extrem]

Xilizhra wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
What I mean is that you make the active and deliberate choice to kill the geth just as much as you do the Reapers.

Incorrect, because your intent in making the choice is to kill the Reapers, not to kill the geth. This is easily demonstrated by analyzing these hypothetical scenario:

Destroy kills the Reapers but not the geth. Do Destroyers still pick it? Yes.
Destroy kills the geth but not the Reapers. Do Destroyers still pick it? No. (unless you are RP-ing an AI hater).

Thus intent can be identified.

Irrelevant. You can choose to not kill the geth and still stop the Reapers, but you refuse to do so.

Only by perpetuating an even worse atrocity.

Not even remotely.

passivly using the reapers to enforce peace, "plays in the same stadium". nobody will dare to oppose the greatest army in the universe.

in short, whoever threatens someone else, will get a (righteous) lazor beam to the face. this is rule by fear/terror.

[MEGoWH777]

If I remember rightly, the catalyst says all tech will be affected, not just synthetics. Yet Hackett's fleet is fine. to me, this suggests that Geth and EDI are simply damaged by destroy, all reaper tech is completely destroyed and as a result, EDI and the geth lose their reaper code, and the geth have gone back to their dyson bubble idea.

Edi was "hibernating" as she was damaged when the reaper code shut down, and was deactivated by the surge, but not dead. Normandy's crew lacked equiptment to repair her and get her active again as they needed the resources for repairing the ship, so she would only be reactiveated when they docked with alliance engineers.

Modifié par MEGoWH777, 08 mars 2013 - 06:40 .

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Not even remotely.

. In your opinion.  And I've got to say, your opinions are nothing short of revolting

[Gedgehog]

MEGoWH777 wrote...

If I remember rightly, the catalyst says all tech will be affected, not just synthetics. Yet Hackett's fleet is fine. to me, this suggests that Geth and EDI are simply damaged by destroy all reaper tech is completely destroyed and as a result, EDI and the geth lose their reaper code, and the geth have gone back to their dyson bubble idea.

Edi was "hibernating" as she was damaged when the reaper code shut down, and was deactivated by the surge, but not dead. Normandy's crew lacked equiptment to repair her and get her active again as they needed the resources for repairing the ship, so she would only be reactiveated when they docked with alliance engineers.

This is plausable.

And in case noone saw my earlier post amongst a sea of debate:

"I sometimes pick control and sometimes destroy.

In destroy, the Geth can be rebuilt - what's to stop people from extracting a memory unit and rebuilding what was stored inside it somewhere else?

As for control, what's stopping Shepard (with access to Reaper genetic engineering now) from creating a new body / avatar for himself, or even cloning himself in some form, imparting all his digitalised memories into the new clone?"

[zombitologist]

 That's why it's a red/renegade choice, you're making a sarifice to destroy the reapers and possibly get back to those you care about. It's a tough choice, and EDI makes it really difficult because it feels like she's just beginning to enjoy and understand being  alive. That said I think she'd be willing to sacrifice herself to stop the reapers, she even states that they "repulse her". If Bioware did anything right with these endings it's the fact they didn't make them easy choices. Whether it was necessary to add synthesis and the Reaper AI, instead of just choosing to side with the Illusive man or anderson, I don't know.

[Dr_Extrem]

Reapling wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Reapling wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Reapling wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Reapling wrote...

You guys don't pay attention, do you? Admiral Hackett specifically says that EVERYTHING that was lost can be REBUILT... and MORE. Once again, the catalyst states that synthetics can and WILL be rebuilt by future generations. The term genocide cannot be used here because it is reversible and is not intended. This is a dire situation, put yourself in Shepard's place and face the uncertainty of the future of Control and Synthesis. He may lose control over the reapers to the catalyst AND, like Thane says during the invasion of the heretic station in Mass Effect 2, it is better to die than to force a belief down someone's throat (re-writing the Heretics), which is exactly what synthesis is.

And we still have people of Jewish faith today...does that make the atrocities of WW2 any less disgusting?

No it doesn't, but that's the reality of warfare.

stop right there ..  the jews (and all the other victims) were not casualties of war. they were killed, because an (disgusting) idiology did brand them as "worthless life". thats a huge difference.

Yes, you have a point. However, who's to say that, in the long run, this new "Shepard AI" won't come to the same conclusion and deem that the cycle must begin anew? Instead of the eradictation of ONE species, you'll lose ALL OF THEM.

genocide has nothing to do with warfare - thats my only point. i dont care what the shep-ai does or not. 

the atrocities commited by the regime, thats not to be named, were done, because they wanted to eradicate them (jews, communists, social democrats, roma/sinti, disabled, homosexuals - and all the other groups). those people did not get between the frontlines or were hit by ricochets - it was the intent to kill them.


branding this as "the reality of warfare" is just wrong (i dont want to ****** on your leg - my education got the better of me).

Yeah, I understand. I didn't say that properly, forgive me But to take this away from WWII and back to ME, consider what I said above about the control ending. There are negative effects to all three choices, and all of it is headcanon from this point on. In my opinion, Destroy is the best option. You're entitled to your own and while I may not agree with it, I respect it.

oh .. we are on the same side .. i can see your banner in the sig.

i find all endings equally disgusting, because in every ending, i can see the ideology, that ruined my country. because of this crap, we are not known for our great composers, poets and thinkers, we are remembered for  the evil things we did.

the moment shepard chooses one of the endings, he/she bends over to the reapers and becomes the executioner of ther values and views. shepard becomes a reaper and is therefore no loger a hero.the saviour becomes the culprit.

[Reapling]

SwimDevil wrote...

 That's why it's a red/renegade choice, you're making a sarifice to destroy the reapers and possibly get back to those you care about. It's a tough choice, and EDI makes it really difficult because it feels like she's just beginning to enjoy and understand being  alive. That said I think she'd be willing to sacrifice herself to stop the reapers, she even states that they "repulse her". If Bioware did anything right with these endings it's the fact they didn't make them easy choices. Whether it was necessary to add synthesis and the Reaper AI, instead of just choosing to side with the Illusive man or anderson, I don't know.

I don't think that Destroy is associated with Renegade and vice versa for Paragon and Control. TIM is indoctrinated (not my idea of a paragon) and he wanted Control.

[cerberus1701]

Hexley UK wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

shepard1038 wrote...

^Control isn't slavery.

ask the reapers who are still under the control of the new catalyst.

And by proxy everyone else...cause if you don't do what the Shepreaper says who knows what could happen.....

In a similar thread yesterday someone wrote that (paraphrasing) "I'm sure some people wouldn't accept the Shepalyst and the Reapers around.... (Because basic psychology suggests that most people who have lost loved ones to violence tend not to forgive, much less want to work with the murderer or accept it as overlord.)

...but that he'd take care of the rebellion 'one way or another' "

This idea. being not a huge deal to this other person

[fr33stylez]

Xilizhra wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
What I mean is that you make the active and deliberate choice to kill the geth just as much as you do the Reapers.

Incorrect, because your intent in making the choice is to kill the Reapers, not to kill the geth. This is easily demonstrated by analyzing these hypothetical scenario:

Destroy kills the Reapers but not the geth. Do Destroyers still pick it? Yes.
Destroy kills the geth but not the Reapers. Do Destroyers still pick it? No. (unless you are RP-ing an AI hater).

Thus intent can be identified.

Irrelevant. You can choose to not kill the geth and still stop the Reapers, but you refuse to do so.

Which is only a valid point if you think the other options are better than Destroy. If I assess the other choices and conclude Control and Synthesis are worse options, your point is moot.

[Reapling]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Reapling wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Reapling wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Reapling wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Reapling wrote...

You guys don't pay attention, do you? Admiral Hackett specifically says that EVERYTHING that was lost can be REBUILT... and MORE. Once again, the catalyst states that synthetics can and WILL be rebuilt by future generations. The term genocide cannot be used here because it is reversible and is not intended. This is a dire situation, put yourself in Shepard's place and face the uncertainty of the future of Control and Synthesis. He may lose control over the reapers to the catalyst AND, like Thane says during the invasion of the heretic station in Mass Effect 2, it is better to die than to force a belief down someone's throat (re-writing the Heretics), which is exactly what synthesis is.

And we still have people of Jewish faith today...does that make the atrocities of WW2 any less disgusting?

No it doesn't, but that's the reality of warfare.

stop right there ..  the jews (and all the other victims) were not casualties of war. they were killed, because an (disgusting) idiology did brand them as "worthless life". thats a huge difference.

Yes, you have a point. However, who's to say that, in the long run, this new "Shepard AI" won't come to the same conclusion and deem that the cycle must begin anew? Instead of the eradictation of ONE species, you'll lose ALL OF THEM.

genocide has nothing to do with warfare - thats my only point. i dont care what the shep-ai does or not. 

the atrocities commited by the regime, thats not to be named, were done, because they wanted to eradicate them (jews, communists, social democrats, roma/sinti, disabled, homosexuals - and all the other groups). those people did not get between the frontlines or were hit by ricochets - it was the intent to kill them.


branding this as "the reality of warfare" is just wrong (i dont want to ****** on your leg - my education got the better of me).

Yeah, I understand. I didn't say that properly, forgive me But to take this away from WWII and back to ME, consider what I said above about the control ending. There are negative effects to all three choices, and all of it is headcanon from this point on. In my opinion, Destroy is the best option. You're entitled to your own and while I may not agree with it, I respect it.

oh .. we are on the same side .. i can see your banner in the sig.

i find all endings equally disgusting, because in every ending, i can see the ideology, that ruined my country. because of this crap, we are not known for our great composers, poets and thinkers, we are remembered for  the evil things we did.

the moment shepard chooses one of the endings, he/she bends over to the reapers and becomes the executioner of ther values and views. shepard becomes a reaper and is therefore no loger a hero.the saviour becomes the culprit.

To everyone else, maybe... but he wasn't given much choice, was he? It's either one of the three, or refusal which is kinda... yeah, umm no.

[CronoDragoon]

Xilizhra wrote...
Irrelevant. You can choose to not kill the geth and still stop the Reapers, but you refuse to do so.

You can't choose not to kill the geth and still destroy the Reapers, so it's completely relevant. The intent is to Destroy the Reapers, along with avoiding the negative consequences of Control and Synthesis.

[Bfler]

The Geth are race of soldiers, there aren't any women or children. Soldiers must be prepared to die at any moment in a war. 

The situation in destroy is like, as if there is a battle on earth, you are the general and your side is losing, but you are able to call an heavy bombardment on the battlefield. For that some of your forces have to stay at the frontline to cover the retreat of your main forces out of the target area. Then the strike happens. The enemy forces are eliminated, also your covering units but their sacrifice has rescued the other troops.

Modifié par Bfler, 08 mars 2013 - 06:46 .

[TheCrazyHobo]

Destroying all synthetics was something the Devs added on so people actually desired to choose another ending. I am not sure if they actually put any thought into "how" this process would actually happens, only that it does. I mean seriously, have you actually thought how the process actually destroys ALL synthetics especially how each of the 3 examples are drastically different?