748 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Delacruz wrote...

Since ME1 my goal was to get rid of the Reapers, in the end of ME3 i was given the option to destroy the reapers once and for all, so that's what i chose without hesitation. Losing the geth and losing EDI was sad. yes but... You won't win a war without sacrifice.

What is war for, if not for the ones you defend? And you utterly failed in your defense of the geth; a far more worthy and less onerous sacrifice is your own preconceptions.

[KwangtungTiger]

o Ventus wrote...

KwangtungTiger wrote...

I see alot of people on here saying that "we could rebuild the Geth", but why the hell would you. Synthetic's are what got us into this problem in the first place. There's no cons other than the quarians having to take awhile longer to acclimate to their home world with the Geth gone.

... What? 

So it was the geth's fault they were genocided upon by the quarians?

So it was the zha'til's fault they were forcibly enslaved by the Reapers?

So it was the Luna VI's fault it gained sentience in the middle of a live-fire exercise?

So it was the Citadel AI's fault that it's partner was killed?

 This doesn't make sense?  The Geth you destroyed can't come back the same. Any Geth you create at this point will be different (They may come to a totally different consensus about organics).

 Then there's the chance we prove the catalyst right by creating more synthetic's that could possibly destroy all organics.

[o Ventus]

Xilizhra wrote...

Delacruz wrote...

Since ME1 my goal was to get rid of the Reapers, in the end of ME3 i was given the option to destroy the reapers once and for all, so that's what i chose without hesitation. Losing the geth and losing EDI was sad. yes but... You won't win a war without sacrifice.

What is war for, if not for the ones you defend? And you utterly failed in your defense of the geth; a far more worthy and less onerous sacrifice is your own preconceptions.

War can just as easily be about dominance and conquest. Ask Alexander the Great or Atilla.

And he also didn't say anything about the geth, other than that they are a sacrifice.

[KwangtungTiger]

o Ventus wrote...

KwangtungTiger wrote...

I see alot of people on here saying that "we could rebuild the Geth", but why the hell would you. Synthetic's are what got us into this problem in the first place. There's no cons other than the quarians having to take awhile longer to acclimate to their home world with the Geth gone.

... What? 

So it was the geth's fault they were genocided upon by the quarians?

So it was the zha'til's fault they were forcibly enslaved by the Reapers?

So it was the Luna VI's fault it gained sentience in the middle of a live-fire exercise?

So it was the Citadel AI's fault that it's partner was killed?

 Also to answer your question........Yes, it was their fault. Who else do you blame?

[Xilizhra]

o Ventus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Delacruz wrote...

Since ME1 my goal was to get rid of the Reapers, in the end of ME3 i was given the option to destroy the reapers once and for all, so that's what i chose without hesitation. Losing the geth and losing EDI was sad. yes but... You won't win a war without sacrifice.

What is war for, if not for the ones you defend? And you utterly failed in your defense of the geth; a far more worthy and less onerous sacrifice is your own preconceptions.

War can just as easily be about dominance and conquest. Ask Alexander the Great or Atilla.

And he also didn't say anything about the geth, other than that they are a sacrifice.

Ah, right. I was assuming war where you were on the heroic side, which I suppose is not a guarantee for all Shepards. Which is why, I suppose, Destroy is red.

[Delacruz]

Xilizhra wrote...

Delacruz wrote...

Since ME1 my goal was to get rid of the Reapers, in the end of ME3 i was given the option to destroy the reapers once and for all, so that's what i chose without hesitation. Losing the geth and losing EDI was sad. yes but... You won't win a war without sacrifice.

What is war for, if not for the ones you defend? And you utterly failed in your defense of the geth; a far more worthy and less onerous sacrifice is your own preconceptions.

First of all, what i wanted was the Reapers gone for good, only one option allowed it. also i'm not sure i follow what you're saying, correct me if i'm wrong but are you saying that all my efforts are in vain because 1 race perrished despite i saved trillions of lives?

[Xilizhra]

Delacruz wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Delacruz wrote...

Since ME1 my goal was to get rid of the Reapers, in the end of ME3 i was given the option to destroy the reapers once and for all, so that's what i chose without hesitation. Losing the geth and losing EDI was sad. yes but... You won't win a war without sacrifice.

What is war for, if not for the ones you defend? And you utterly failed in your defense of the geth; a far more worthy and less onerous sacrifice is your own preconceptions.

First of all, what i wanted was the Reapers gone for good, only one option allowed it. also i'm not sure i follow what you're saying, correct me if i'm wrong but are you saying that all my efforts are in vain because 1 race perrished despite i saved trillions of lives?

For the first one, you're focusing on the wrong target; the Catalyst and the cycle were the problem, the Reapers were just the Catalyst's tools. Focusing on destroying the Reapers is like... if you were attacked by a mercenary company wielding Avengers, you'd try to destroy every single Avenger out of revenge. For the second, your efforts were certainly in vain for the race you wiped out.

[o Ventus]

KwangtungTiger wrote...

 This doesn't make sense?  The Geth you destroyed can't come back the same. Any Geth you create at this point will be different (They may come to a totally different consensus about organics).

 Then there's the chance we prove the catalyst right by creating more synthetic's that could possibly destroy all organics.

The only change between the new and old geth is individuality. The geth are a gestalt intellect anyway. Individuality shouldn't even be at all possible for them. They also won't come to a "new" consensus about organics if they are remade. Thy wont have any prior knowledge of anything. It would be the exact same as when the first geth were created, only this time without the quarians attempting to exterminate them.

I won't sugarcoat it. If you legitimately believe that the Catalyst has any credence, then you're an idiot. 

[o Ventus]

KwangtungTiger wrote...

 Also to answer your question........Yes, it was their fault. Who else do you blame?

You blame the organics or the Reapers for instigating the hostilities.

Before quarian aggression? The geth were perfectly docile.

Before Reaper aggression? The zha'til were perfectly docile.

Before C-Sec aggression? The Citadel AI was perfectly docile (other than stealing credits).

EDI was the only one that came out hostile, and that was because she was "born" in combat.

[KwangtungTiger]

o Ventus wrote...

KwangtungTiger wrote...

 This doesn't make sense?  The Geth you destroyed can't come back the same. Any Geth you create at this point will be different (They may come to a totally different consensus about organics).

 Then there's the chance we prove the catalyst right by creating more synthetic's that could possibly destroy all organics.

The only change between the new and old geth is individuality. The geth are a gestalt intellect anyway. Individuality shouldn't even be at all possible for them. They also won't come to a "new" consensus about organics if they are remade. Thy wont have any prior knowledge of anything. It would be the exact same as when the first geth were created, only this time without the quarians attempting to exterminate them.

I won't sugarcoat it. If you legitimately believe that the Catalyst has any credence, then you're an idiot. 

 First and foremost I dont believe anything the catalyst says. Calling me an idiot makes you look childish. 

That said, why create more synthetics after seeing the utter hell the catalyst caused?

Modifié par KwangtungTiger, 09 mars 2013 - 04:47 .

[o Ventus]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ah, right. I was assuming war where you were on the heroic side, which I suppose is not a guarantee for all Shepards. Which is why, I suppose, Destroy is red.

What the f**k? What are you harping on about?

[o Ventus]

KwangtungTiger wrote...

 First and foremost I dont believe anything the catalyst says. Calling me an idiot makes you look childish. 

That said, why create more synthetics after seeing the utter hell the catalyst it caused?

I didn't. Go back and read.

As much as I despise the Catalyst, it still isn't the Catalyst's fault it was programmed poorly and with no parameters for what constitutes "life". Again, fault on the organics.

[Xilizhra]

o Ventus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ah, right. I was assuming war where you were on the heroic side, which I suppose is not a guarantee for all Shepards. Which is why, I suppose, Destroy is red.

What the f**k? What are you harping on about?

A heroic Shepard would not be fighting for dominance and conquest.

[Gerudan]

The Destroy option is simply genocide, pure and simple. Even if you already killed the geth, you're still wiping out the reapers, without it being necessary. May be if you play jerk shep, it is an option, but for everyone else, it really shouldn't be one.

[Aaleel]

It was the only way to definitively stop the reaper threat for good. Only way to be certain is no more reapers.

Control: All you did was replace one all powerful entity with another and just hoped for the best this time. The entity isn't even human anymore, so it's just operating on numbers, statistics and probabilities just like the Catalyst was. I'm sure the Catalyst had good intentions in the beginning too.

Synthesis: Just because everyone has the same DNA doesn't mean you'll have utopia. There still may be a hierarchy that forms, and we all know who is going to be on the top of that.

Refuse: Anyone who dies as a result of Destroy, will die as a result of slow methodical reaping as the cycle is continued so I wouldn't be saving anyone by choosing this, just adding to the body count.

I never wanted to have to deal with the threat of reapers ever again. Only way to be sure of that is if each and every one is dead. That's basically the bottom line for me.

Modifié par Aaleel, 09 mars 2013 - 04:54 .

[Uncle Jo]

Xilizhra wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ah, right. I was assuming war where you were on the heroic side, which I suppose is not a guarantee for all Shepards. Which is why, I suppose, Destroy is red.

What the f**k? What are you harping on about?

A heroic Shepard would not be fighting for dominance and conquest.

Says the guy who has an army of Reapers at his command.

[o Ventus]

Xilizhra wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ah, right. I was assuming war where you were on the heroic side, which I suppose is not a guarantee for all Shepards. Which is why, I suppose, Destroy is red.

What the f**k? What are you harping on about?

A heroic Shepard would not be fighting for dominance and conquest.

And I never said Shepard does. 

Yay?

Modifié par o Ventus, 09 mars 2013 - 04:52 .

[DeinonSlayer]

Xilizhra wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ah, right. I was assuming war where you were on the heroic side, which I suppose is not a guarantee for all Shepards. Which is why, I suppose, Destroy is red.

What the f**k? What are you harping on about?

A heroic Shepard would not be fighting for dominance and conquest.

You clearly have no idea what Destroy is really about.

Besides, the Collector base blows up red, and Paragon Shepard (who I assume you view as heroic) advocates Destroy at the end of the Rannoch arc (Renegade Shepard announces "organics are taking control").

[Xilizhra]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ah, right. I was assuming war where you were on the heroic side, which I suppose is not a guarantee for all Shepards. Which is why, I suppose, Destroy is red.

What the f**k? What are you harping on about?

A heroic Shepard would not be fighting for dominance and conquest.

Says the guy who has an army of Reapers at his command.

Girl. And the point isn't to conquer anything; I'm not going to interfere in political decisions, the Council can handle that. I'm here to defend.

Besides, the Collector base blows up red, and Paragon Shepard (who I
assume you view as heroic) advocates Destroy at the end of the Rannoch
arc (Renegade Shepard announces "organics are taking control").

I keep the Collector base as my one major Renegade decision, and I choose the neutral, questioning option on Rannoch.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 09 mars 2013 - 04:54 .

[Dieb]

Gerudan wrote...

The Destroy option is simply genocide, pure and simple. Even if you already killed the geth, you're still wiping out the reapers, without it being necessary. May be if you play jerk shep, it is an option, but for everyone else, it really shouldn't be one.

That is your way of seeing it. I don't value synthetics as equal forms of life, compared to organics. It's tragic, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make, in order to save my own kind.
"You love your dog, but if you were attacked by a bear, you'd leave it behind."

[Delacruz]

Xilizhra wrote...

Delacruz wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Delacruz wrote...

Since ME1 my goal was to get rid of the Reapers, in the end of ME3 i was given the option to destroy the reapers once and for all, so that's what i chose without hesitation. Losing the geth and losing EDI was sad. yes but... You won't win a war without sacrifice.

What is war for, if not for the ones you defend? And you utterly failed in your defense of the geth; a far more worthy and less onerous sacrifice is your own preconceptions.

First of all, what i wanted was the Reapers gone for good, only one option allowed it. also i'm not sure i follow what you're saying, correct me if i'm wrong but are you saying that all my efforts are in vain because 1 race perrished despite i saved trillions of lives?

For the first one, you're focusing on the wrong target; the Catalyst and the cycle were the problem, the Reapers were just the Catalyst's tools. Focusing on destroying the Reapers is like... if you were attacked by a mercenary company wielding Avengers, you'd try to destroy every single Avenger out of revenge. For the second, your efforts were certainly in vain for the race you wiped out.

Well if all the reapers are dead how will the catalyst harvest all the races? imo you're analogy is flawed because if i destroy all avengers, yeah sure the mercenary company can just buy other weapons but's not like the catalyst can just visit" space walmart" and buy a new legion of reapers. so destroying the reapers will render the catalyst powerless imo ofc. secondly yes, from geth perspective, my effort against the reapers will have been in vain because they will all be dead, but you can't get around the fact that i will still have saved trillions of lives and destroyed the reapers, which was the main goal of my Shepard. Ruthless calculus yes, but it brought a victory to my Shepards galaxy (except for the reapers and the geth)

Modifié par Delacruz, 09 mars 2013 - 04:56 .

[Xilizhra]

Baelrahn wrote...

Gerudan wrote...

The Destroy option is simply genocide, pure and simple. Even if you already killed the geth, you're still wiping out the reapers, without it being necessary. May be if you play jerk shep, it is an option, but for everyone else, it really shouldn't be one.

That is your way of seeing it. I don't value synthetics as equal forms of life, compared to organics. It's tragic, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make, in order to save my own kind.
"You love your dog, but if you were attacked by a bear, you'd leave it behind."

And I and many others do not do that.

[KwangtungTiger]

Gerudan wrote...

The Destroy option is simply genocide, pure and simple. Even if you already killed the geth, you're still wiping out the reapers, without it being necessary. May be if you play jerk shep, it is an option, but for everyone else, it really shouldn't be one.

 For you to make this argument, I need YOUR definition of life.

 To me the geth are nothing but a bunch of programs (software) combined togethor. Their not individually self aware. Again, to me they are not alive but more akin to upgraded toasters.

[o Ventus]

Xilizhra wrote...

Girl. And the point isn't to conquer anything; I'm not going to interfere in political decisions, the Council can handle that. I'm here to defend.

So later on when 2 species get into a fight and CatalystShepard has to break it up (presumably by threatening them with death by Reaper), which side are you defending?

[wright1978]

Gerudan wrote...

The Destroy option is simply genocide, pure and simple. Even if you already killed the geth, you're still wiping out the reapers, without it being necessary. May be if you play jerk shep, it is an option, but for everyone else, it really shouldn't be one.

No jerk Shep would choose Control or synthesis.
Destroying reapers and freeing the galaxy  was imminently necessary.