748 réponses à ce sujet

[DeinonSlayer]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

Fair enough. In different playthroughs, I've saved or destroyed the base, and chosen all three dialogue paths at the end of Rannoch. My canon destroys the base (would have kept it if it could be handed to anyone but TIM), and takes the paragon path at Rannoch.

[Xilizhra]

o Ventus wrote...

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?

I need more details about the conflict before I can take any action.

Also, it doesn't have to be death; the Reapers can do other things that I can threaten, if it'd work.

Fair enough. In different playthroughs, I've saved or destroyed the
base, and chosen all three dialogue paths at the end of Rannoch. My
canon destroys the base (would have kept it if it could be handed to
anyone but TIM), and takes the paragon path at Rannoch.

I initially destroyed the base, but ultimately my hunger for preserving knowledge won out.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 09 mars 2013 - 04:59 .

[Dieb]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

...and it could go on and on.

I was basically trying to say that He says it's genocide, I don't. It's not a fact, it's an opinion. Then I just went on to explain MY opinion along with it. We all have different takes on it, that's why there are options.

Modifié par Baelrahn, 09 mars 2013 - 05:00 .

[Uncle Jo]

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.

Sorry, my bad. I'd be curious to know how you're going to defend and against whom.The council can not solve everything, but if it indeed can, what's the point of having a baby-sitter?

[Gerudan]

Baelrahn wrote...

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."

That is not "one way of seeing it", that is the only way of seeing it.Geths are a lifeform and so are the reapers and if you dismiss other options, then you're comiting genocide, period. 

[Xilizhra]

Uncle Jo wrote...

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.

Sorry, my bad. I'd be curious to know how you're going to defend and against whom.The council can not solve everything, but if it indeed can, what's the point of having a baby-sitter?

I will defend those who face aggression against the perpetrators of that aggression.

[Dieb]

Gerudan wrote...

Baelrahn wrote...

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."

That is not "one way of seeing it", that is the only way of seeing it.Geths are a lifeform and so are the reapers and if you dismiss other options, then you're comiting genocide, period. 

Uhm...uh... okay. Discussion over then, I suppose.
Enjoy your stay!

[Gerudan]

Baelrahn wrote...
...and it could go on and on.

I was basically trying to say that He says it's genocide, I don't. It's not a fact, it's an opinion. Then I just went on to explain MY opinion along with it. We all have different takes on it, that's why there are options.

No it isn't. Not everything is an opinion ,there are facts and it is clearly stated, that the Geths are lifeforms. 

[o Ventus]

Xilizhra wrote...

I need more details about the conflict before I can take any action.

Also, it doesn't have to be death; the Reapers can do other things that I can threaten, if it'd work.

Considering that the Reapers exist for the express purpose of killing people, what else are you going to threaten? Masculinity?

[Gerudan]

Baelrahn wrote...


Uhm...uh... okay. Discussion over then, I suppose.
Enjoy your stay!

Yeah, you don't discuss with someone, who claims one plus one equals three.  

[o Ventus]

Gerudan wrote...

Baelrahn wrote...
...and it could go on and on.

I was basically trying to say that He says it's genocide, I don't. It's not a fact, it's an opinion. Then I just went on to explain MY opinion along with it. We all have different takes on it, that's why there are options.

No it isn't. Not everything is an opinion ,there are facts and it is clearly stated, that the Geths are lifeforms. 

"My opinion is correct and yours isn't!"

[Dieb]

o Ventus wrote...

Gerudan wrote...

Baelrahn wrote...
...and it could go on and on.

I was basically trying to say that He says it's genocide, I don't. It's not a fact, it's an opinion. Then I just went on to explain MY opinion along with it. We all have different takes on it, that's why there are options.

No it isn't. Not everything is an opinion ,there are facts and it is clearly stated, that the Geths are lifeforms. 

"My opinion is correct and yours isn't!"

Don't bother, please. It's alright

[Xilizhra]

o Ventus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I need more details about the conflict before I can take any action.

Also, it doesn't have to be death; the Reapers can do other things that I can threaten, if it'd work.

Considering that the Reapers exist for the express purpose of killing people, what else are you going to threaten? Masculinity?

Indoctrination. But ultimately, I doubt that actually carrying it out will be necessary.; without the Crucible or a united galactic fleet, no single force will be able to usurp me, and they'll all know it.

[adayaday]

Xilizhra wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

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.

Sorry, my bad. I'd be curious to know how you're going to defend and against whom.The council can not solve everything, but if it indeed can, what's the point of having a baby-sitter?

I will defend those who face aggression against the perpetrators of that aggression.

Thats rather vague, you will make an excellent Catalyst.

Modifié par adayaday, 09 mars 2013 - 05:07 .

[Gerudan]

o Ventus wrote...

"My opinion is correct and yours isn't!"

It's not an opinion. 

[Aaleel]

You can call Destroy genocide on the reapers if you want, but the Geth are collateral damage. The only way the Geth would be genocide would be if you built the crucible and deployed it for the sole purpose of killing Geth. That's what genocide it, you single out a single group of people and take systematic steps to wipe out that race.

Finding out the Geth are going to die as part of a military strike at the last minute does not qualify.

[MEGoWH777]

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.

Options: become a machine and control the reapers, but risk going over to the catalysts way of thinking.
              
Leave the catalyst in control of the reapers, but make him part organic, leaving a crazy intelligence  with control over the cuttlefish of doom.
             
Let the reapers win.

Or, destroy the reapers at the cost of the geth, and remove a force which has killed all previous species without remorse, and prevent them from ever trying anything again.

In short, the other options are too risky, and the reapers are too powerful to let live (along with not desrving to live) so destroy is the logical conclusion.
               

[o Ventus]

Gerudan wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

"My opinion is correct and yours isn't!"

It's not an opinion. 

Yes it is. 

Where is it proven fact?

[DeinonSlayer]

Xilizhra wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I need more details about the conflict before I can take any action.

Also, it doesn't have to be death; the Reapers can do other things that I can threaten, if it'd work.

Considering that the Reapers exist for the express purpose of killing people, what else are you going to threaten? Masculinity?

Indoctrination. But ultimately, I doubt that actually carrying it out will be necessary.; without the Crucible or a united galactic fleet, no single force will be able to usurp me, and they'll all know it.

I'm sorry, but this is sick. This is absolutely sick. You're describing an eternal terror state.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 09 mars 2013 - 05:11 .

[o Ventus]

Xilizhra wrote...

Indoctrination.

So brainwashing them is somehow less vile than killing them?

But ultimately, I doubt that actually carrying it out will be necessary.; without the Crucible or a united galactic fleet, no single force will be able to usurp me, and they'll all know it.

So you plan on scaring them into peace? It isn't really peace then, is it? Also, like before, this is somehow less reprehensible than killing them?

You're describing an authoritarian dictatorship, not a peaceful galaxy.

Modifié par o Ventus, 09 mars 2013 - 05:11 .

[Xilizhra]

I'm sorry, but this is sick. This is absolutely sick. You're describing an eternal terror state.

As is every state that uses the threat of armed retaliation in order to keep order within their citizenry, which is all of them (and why police carry guns, among other things). The alternative is an anarchist non-state, which may be viable in some locations, but I don't think the risk is worth it over a highly dangerous galaxy.

So brainwashing them is somehow less vile than killing them?

If indoctrinating one figure will stop a war leading to the deaths of many, yes. But again, I don't think it'll be truly necessary.

So you plan on scaring them into peace? It isn't really peace then, is it? Also, like before, this is somehow less reprehensible than killing them?

Well, clearly people would be unhappy if I simply made them be peaceful, though I can do that. If the only alternative is not acting and just letting more destructive galactic wars continue...

[Astartes Marine]

Way I look at it is this:

Synthesis is what Saren and Sovereign wanted overall, and that renders this option unacceptable.  Plus it's overly presumptous to assume that all life in the galaxy would be okay with forcing a change of this magnitude on them.

Control is right out as it is far too much power for one man, even Shepard, to have.  Plus how are we to know we are not being misled much like the Illusive Man?  The Reapers made him believe he could control...what would stop them from using the same lie on Shepard?  To trust the word of an enemy is simply madness and invites failure.

Destroy is the only logical option for me.  The Catalyst presents it in such a horrific light, the loss of EDI and the Geth, that on the surface one might think it's unacceptable.  However one must think, Destroy would not only destroy the Reapers, but also the Catalyst.  Even AIs have a self preservation measure to them.  It cannot physically stop you from choosing it, but it chooses use lies to describe it as the least preferrable and most horrible of the choices so it can survive and the Reapers can either continue the harvest through lying to you in Control or achieving overall victory through Synthesis.


I chose the only acceptable option.  For 3 games the goal has not wavered, the Reapers had to be destroyed.  I was not swayed by the lies of a corrupt AI that turned on it's own creators and fulfilled the prophecy it was designed to stop.

Modifié par Astartes Marine, 09 mars 2013 - 05:16 .

[Xilizhra]

Synthesis is what Saren and Sovereign wanted overall, and that renders this option unacceptable. Plus it's overly presumptous to assume that all life in the galaxy would be okay with forcing a change of this magnitude on them.

It really isn't; they were just going for slavery to the Reapers.

Control is right out as it is far too much power for one man, even Shepard, to have. Plus how are we to know we are not being misled much like the Illusive Man? The Reapers made him believe he could control...what would stop them from using the same lie on Shepard? To trust the word of an enemy is simply madness and invites failure.

The epilogue makes it quite certain, and you have to trust the words of an enemy to go for any of the endings at all. It's entirely possible the Catalyst would be using reverse psychology in order to get you to pick Destroy.

[Gerudan]

o Ventus wrote...

Yes it is. 

Where is it proven fact?

They are sentient beings, have you ever played the paragon way? 

To say, a cow is not a lifeform, might be your opinion, it is still a fact, that it is a lifeform. 

By the way: You don't have to proof, that the Geth are a lifeform, if anything you have to proof, that they aren't. 

Baelrahn wrote...

...and it could go on and on.

I was basically trying to say that He says it's genocide, I don't. It's not a fact, it's an opinion. Then I just went on to explain MY opinion along with it. We all have different takes on it, that's why there are options.

So the holocaust wasn't genocide as well, because some people thought Jews weren't real humans?  I mean it was just their opinon, right? 

[Barquiel]

o Ventus wrote...

So brainwashing them is somehow less vile than killing them?

I always choose destroy...but yes (at least in my opinion).

Let's say we have the cured krogan and Wreav (or someone with a similar mindset) is the Krogan leader. We know Wreav wants to launch another war of conquest in search of "lebensraum". Wouldn't it be better to indoctrinate Wreav than bombing the krogan back into the stone age (or another bloody war between the three old council races and the krogan)?

Modifié par Barquiel, 09 mars 2013 - 05:20 .