748 réponses à ce sujet

[o Ventus]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

And later when that leader goes insane and dies from the indoctrination?

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...

Then why bring it up if you know t would make people unhappy (not that you seem to care, judging by the way you describe your actions)?

[DeinonSlayer]

Barquiel wrote...

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)?

I'm in line with what Jack says in Heretic Station. "Kill me as me."

[o Ventus]

Gerudan wrote...

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.

Sentience doesn't equal life. Otherwise ants, bees, and an other hive-minded organism in existence aren't "alive".

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.

This is bullsh*t.

Modifié par o Ventus, 09 mars 2013 - 05:24 .

[Uncle Jo]

Xilizhra wrote...

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

I was hoping that your intervention would restrict itself to, let's say, another Space Chtulus invasion, but it seems that you're indeed going to meddle with the galaxy matters. Good luck with that.

Conflicts and their causes were never that simple. Using binary thinking never helped anyone. Just take a look at what's happening around the world.

You're going to be dragged in dirty wars in which you can only use brute force to get out of and you'll end up causing more damage than solving any problem. Not to speak about the grudge a lot of people/races will hold after that. People also don't like to have a sword of Damocles constantly hanging above their heads.

And then, one day, you'll have the whole galaxy races united for just one goal: kick you and your pals out of the galaxy.

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

because i always follow javik's lead 

[Xilizhra]

And later when that leader goes insane and dies from the indoctrination?

In the interests of preserving the greatest amount of life possible, we have this as a possibility.

Then why bring it up if you know t would make people unhappy (not that you seem to care, judging by the way you describe your actions)?

I was never going to do mass indoctrinations to begin with.

I'm in line with what Jack says in Heretic Station. "Kill me as me."

Maybe it's me, but I'm not terribly inclined to consider the personal wishes of murderous warmongers as a high priority.

You're going to be dragged in dirty wars in which you can only use brute
force to get out of and you'll end up causing more damage than solving
any problem. Not to speak about the grudge a lot of people/races will
hold after that. People also don't like to have a sword of Damocles
constantly hanging above their heads.

What I intend to do is use the potential of brute force to stop wars while other investigators and the like can sort out the causes and come to a solution. I suspect that relatively few people will be stupid enough to actually go through me. As for the sword... I don't see it as significantly different from the threat of any punishment for breaking a major law.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 09 mars 2013 - 05:28 .

[Iamjdr]

To the op i find the loss of synthetics an acceptable sacrifice when it's the only way to free ourselves from the influence of the reapers. This was one of the first conversations I had with legion, we want to chose our own path not the one the reapers give to us. The galaxy has proved we are strong enough to forge our own future without the help of the reaper police. I mean do you honestly expect everyone you know to just drop everything and play nice with the reapers just cause shep controls them now? Would reaper shep kill the people who couldn't accept the reapers as there new "eternal overseers"

[Astartes Marine]

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

I distinctly remember Saren uttering something about having fusing tech and organic having no weaknesses and just strengths and how that was how organics would survive in the final encounter...

Xilizhra wrote...
The
epilogue makes it quite certain

The epilogue where I still see EDI with Jeff?  I don't know either that's a bug I kept seeing or I was right and the Catalyst was just being a Skynet and lying it's ass off to save it's own skin and remove Shepard as an obstacle.

Xilizhra wrote...
and you have to trust the words of an
enemy to go for any of the endings at all

Like I said, it can't stop Shepard, only persuade him/her to do things how the Catalyst would prefer.  Using the form of that one child that has been the source of Shepard's nightmares is another example of it just toying with Shepard's soul.

I personally found it offensive and wished to blast the AI for using the form in such a cheap tactic...but then I'd get the forced overblown game over screen.

Xilizhra wrote...
It's entirely possible the
Catalyst would be using reverse psychology in order to get you to pick
Destroy.

Are you implying that the Catalyst wanted to die?  Presenting the most logical choice as the most horrible and despicable...and yet wanting you to choose that one? 

Well in that case I would be more than happy to oblige the abomination.

[wright1978]

Iamjdr wrote...

To the op i find the loss of synthetics an acceptable sacrifice when it's the only way to free ourselves from the influence of the reapers.

Yep

[o Ventus]

Xilizhra wrote...

In the interests of preserving the greatest amount of life possible, we have this as a possibility.

Again, this is somehow less reprehensible?

This is why you aren't a public figure.

[Xilizhra]

I distinctly remember Saren uttering something about having fusing tech and organic having no weaknesses and just strengths and how that was how organics would survive in the final encounter...

Yes, he'd been fed complete lies.

Like I said, it can't stop Shepard, only persuade him/her to do things how the Catalyst would prefer. Using the form of that one child that has been the source of Shepard's nightmares is another example of it just toying with Shepard's soul.

Actually, it can stop Shepard; it can turn off the Crucible and let Shepard die at any time.

Are you implying that the Catalyst wanted to die? Presenting the most logical choice as the most horrible and despicable...and yet wanting you to choose that one?

No, I'm saying that if you don't trust the Catalyst, the Destroy decision might have been completely false. Perhaps shooting the tube does nothing at all; perhaps it'd only destroy the allied fleet.

Again, this is somehow less reprehensible?

This is why you aren't a public figure.

Yes. It is less reprehensible to kill one person if it's the only way to stop a larger war, but I don't anticipate this will be necessary on a regular basis.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 09 mars 2013 - 05:32 .

[adayaday]

Thanks for reminding me why destroy is the lesser of three evils.

Modifié par adayaday, 09 mars 2013 - 05:37 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

The problem with the destroy option is the genocide of both the reapers and the geth. On the other hand it is the end of the cyclic genocide of all races in the galaxy that went on for about a billion years. Leaving the reapers alive one way or another leaves the chance of that happening again.

That's obvious with control where the infrastructure of cyclic genocide is kept intact for the time when undead reaper dictator Shepard decides to use it again. With synthesis it is debatable, but the reapers are still very much alive and that goes as well for their reproduction method: ascension through destruction.

If one believes that the synthetic threat is hypothetical then the only problem are the reapers themselves. The reapers have proven to be a danger for all life time and time again. They have also proven that they cannot be trusted. Their systematic indoctrination of organics and setting up species against each other clearly show that. Also the way synthesis is supposed to achieve peace is highly suspect. It's not a goal of anyone, except the reapers. It's, like their cyclical genocide, involuntarily and thus violates the right of self-determination. The synthesis end result also smells like utopia driven by mind control. And if there is no mind control driven utopia then it shouldn't behave like one.

In those cases the only way to secure the future is taking the reapers from the equation. Unfortunately that destroys the geth.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 09 mars 2013 - 05:48 .

[Iamjdr]

Why is killing the Geth genocide? Isn't it collateral damage, they were never the intended target. I mean as cool as the Geth are why are they even fighting if they arnt willing to die? They know just as much as everyone else the if we lose this war there will be nothing left. No Geth no asari no krogan no salarians nothing! Just more reapers that will fly back into darkspace and be forgotten till the next cycle. They must die here and now not when shep realizes he actually can't control the reapers or that making everyone genetically the same doesn't stop wars.

[Astartes Marine]

Xilizhra wrote...
Yes, he'd been fed complete lies.

And yet the Reapers do exactly that; fuse organics with lots of tech and have few weaknesses but many strengths.  Heck even the Saren boss creature looks like an early Marauder.  However he was wording it in such a way that made the implanting seem a lot less horrible and freakish much like the Catalyst's attempt at persuasion.

Xilizhra wrote...
Actually, it can stop Shepard; it can turn off the Crucible and let Shepard die at any time.

That's assuming it has any real control over the Crucible's systems.

Xilizhra wrote...
No,
I'm saying that if you don't trust the Catalyst, the Destroy decision
might have been completely false. Perhaps shooting the tube does nothing
at all; perhaps it'd only destroy the allied fleet.

Then it turns into a gamble as the other two options are still not acceptable.

[eye basher]

Destroy gets rid of the reapers for good and that's the mission as for EDI and the Geth they'll be remembered in the coming empire.

[Xilizhra]

And yet the Reapers do exactly that; fuse organics with lots of tech and have few weaknesses but many strengths. Heck even the Saren boss creature looks like an early Marauder. However he was wording it in such a way that made the implanting seem a lot less horrible and freakish much like the Catalyst's attempt at persuasion.

"Horrible" and "freakish" are subjective and meaningless. The problem is that they're mindless, which I consider a weakness.

That's assuming it has any real control over the Crucible's systems.

See Refuse. It very much does.

Then it turns into a gamble as the other two options are still not acceptable.

With the issue of trust equal for all three, I consider them more acceptable than Destroy.

[Iamjdr]

Refuse was added in the ec, in the original endings there is no proof the catalyst has any control over the crucible.

[Zerker]

If destroy option broke all the refrigerators in the world, I would be sad for the waste of food.

But it broke robots irrelevant to human life, so couldn't care less.

Modifié par Maddok900, 09 mars 2013 - 05:54 .

[wright1978]

adayaday wrote...

Thanks for reminding me why destroy is the lesser of three evils.

Indeed

[AngryFrozenWater]

Maddok900 wrote...

If destroy option broke all the refrigerators in the world, I would be sad for the waste of food.

But it broke robots irrelevant to human life, so couldn't care less.

There is no difference between organics and synthetics. In essence organics are just biochemical robots.

[Iamjdr]

And the thing about losing Geth vs losing other races is the Geth are an entirely militarized race, with no elderly or children and they don't feel pain or fear death. If any one race is the prime candidate for a war winning military sacrifice, it's the Geth. And I'm not saying you have to like it, it sucks ,sacrificing usually does but they arnt dying in vein they are the Saviors of the galaxy and they will be remembered!

[Zerker]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Maddok900 wrote...

If destroy option broke all the refrigerators in the world, I would be sad for the waste of food.

But it broke robots irrelevant to human life, so couldn't care less.

There is no difference between organics and synthetics. In essence organics are just biochemical robots.

You misunderstand.

If necessary, I would gladly destroy every XENO SCUM for the survival of humanity. Toadmen, birds, squids, lizards, robots, no difference.

[Astartes Marine]

Maddok900 wrote...
If necessary, I would gladly destroy every XENO SCUM for the survival of humanity. Toadmen, birds, squids, lizards, robots, no difference.

Oh if only I could thumb-up or like certain posts...

Xilizhra wrote...
"Horrible" and "freakish" are subjective and meaningless. The problem is that they're mindless, which I consider a weakness.

One could also see that as a strength; no fear, no remorse, no regret.  Fueled with only one purpose, one goal.

Xilizhra wrote...
See Refuse. It very much does.

Ahh, "refuse".  We have dismissed that clam. 

It's a ****ty cop-out of an ending, the writers basically laughing in the face of any who don't like their crucible/catalyst plot by saying "hey you actually can refuse to use it...and you LOSE! HA!"

Xilizhra wrote...
With the issue of trust equal for all three, I consider them more acceptable than Destroy.

And I do not.  I consider them traps to sway the player from the true goal and I will not change my stance on that.

Modifié par Astartes Marine, 09 mars 2013 - 06:08 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Maddok900 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Maddok900 wrote...

If destroy option broke all the refrigerators in the world, I would be sad for the waste of food.

But it broke robots irrelevant to human life, so couldn't care less.

There is no difference between organics and synthetics. In essence organics are just biochemical robots.

You misunderstand.

If necessary, I would gladly destroy every XENO SCUM for the survival of humanity. Toadmen, birds, squids, lizards, robots, no difference.

I have understood you perfectly well. You seem to value human life over any other. Hence my answer.