748 réponses à ce sujet

[HiddenInWar]

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with some of these comments? Jesus christ you guys need to calm down.

[Wowky]

I can accept the loss of all synthetics because 1) the galaxy can always just build more, 2) every single I connected with in the series supported Destroy, and 3) it was the best of the 3 options IMO. I don't see much point in saying "I would pick something like MEHEM" since it's not there in the game. We got what we got, and I chose what fit with my personal feelings most.

Modifié par Wowky, 10 mars 2013 - 10:25 .

[Pakundo]

PainCakesx wrote...

shodiswe wrote...

ZeCollectorDestroya wrote...

Because the Geth can be rebuilt. For example, EDI's memories can be backed up. The Geth don't have any feelings, except for Legion.

You can't do that with a human. Geth>Space rats.

And how do you know the other Geth havn't got "feelings" but Legion has them? I guess you must know a lot of them.

It's hard to say anyone who's shoting at you, like those mercs or pirates or whatever has feelings, they chertainly arn't showing it.

Killing the geth and rebuilding them would be like shooting a random human you don't know, then clone them and claim everything is ok.

So you're okay with the alternative? A galaxy forever under the shadow of its overlord (Shepalyst) or forced genetic manipulation on a galactic scale?

Plenty on BSN think even the paragon control ending involves some sort of dictatorship, or Shepard acting as some sort of evil-ish overlord.
But as far as I recall from the control ending, Paragon Shepard is going to use his control over the Reapers to help rebuild and help protect, and never did he show intentions of doing anything negative to stop the Galaxy from growing and becoming a better, happier place.

Forced genetic manipulation, I guess you're right on that one, but remember that according to what we see in the Synthesis ending, everyone is supposedly... "Better."
These slides only show great works of construction, and the same kind of post-war happiness and hope.

[Alien Number Six]

I killed off everyone who is anyone in Mass Effect. Some I have killed off in several ways. One character always dies (Jacob) because he is my "Kenny." You killed Jacob! You bastards! Everyone take a deep breath then smoke a big bag of weed. P.S. I killed off Liara, James, and Javik with low EMS just for the laughs.

[Dr_Extrem]

cerberus1701 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Aris Ravenstar wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...



so much wisdom

Counterpoint.

made irrelevant by star trek 3

The point made is not irrelevant.

it is made irrelevent, because the many (the crew) are risking their lives and carrers, to save only one person (spock).
its the theme of the entire movie.

[Argolas]

I chose Destroy because it was the first and probably last chance to rid the galaxy of the greatest threat it has ever seen. The death of all Synthetics, if it really happened, is unfortunate, but this is the terms that Starbrat dictated, so their death is on it.

I don't use MEHEM because it is not canon.

[Alien Number Six]

In fact my personal favorite was watching Samara kill herself then shooting her daughter in the face. Good times.

[Dr_Extrem]

cerberus1701 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Astartes Marine wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

so much wisdom

...


I closed that immediately after I read the title of it.  Did you really have to use a hypocritical speech from such a horrible movie as an example?

yes .. because it shows how easily ethics and morals a thrown over board, if the number of affected persons is low enough.

it does not matter that we kill xxx-people ... the end justifies the means.

in the process, we loose, what we are fighting for. we cross the line.

Crap example, dude.

In the case of the Ba'ku, we're talking about relocating...not killing...relocating 600 people in return for basically eternal life for everyone else in the galaxy.

...600 people who were squatters in the first place.

But if we were talking about killing those 600 to save the galaxy?

No problem.

It's not as if Picard is the moral authority he thinks he is anyway. He let the Reapers (Borg) cull hundreds of races by not even attempting to stop them when he had the chance ("I,Borg")

All because hims made a fwend wif one dwone.

Cold comfort for the inhabitants of every world that the cubes sliced up since.

the 600 people would be relocated, because the son'a want this planet for their own persoanl goals. they fool admiral dougherty with false promises.

and violating the rights of 600 people to grant "eternal life" to the rest of the galaxy, does not undo the violation of the rights. this is double standard.

[GoldenPersona]

I chose destroy. It's not like millions of Humans, Turians, Asari, Krogans, Salarians, and hundreds of other smaller species didn't make sacrifices, the death toll of the war is easily in the billions. I don't need any other justification other than it's war and sacrifices need to be made to win.

My Shepard didn't choose Destroy so she could live...because she didn't know what would happen outside of synthetic casualties. Hell, Space Casper says that Shepard is partly synthetic so she wasn't expecting to live at all. That's the ending that satisfies me the most.

Modifié par GoldenPersona, 10 mars 2013 - 10:44 .

[KBomb]

HiddenInWar wrote...

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with some of these comments? Jesus christ you guys need to calm down.

Choices you make in video games are srs biz. Don't you know whatever you do in a video game reflects your real life? Once I played this game, then I had an intense urge to bludgeon this rich guy in the library with a candlestick. This other time I played a game called Battleship, but I lost because my steadfast morality and shining ethics wouldn't allow me to sink any ships because that would be boaticide! Instead, I reformed them and proceeded to sling insults at my partner for not doing the same.

On a serious note: Some of these people take it way too seriously. I honestly think they believe EDI and the geth are for realz.

Modifié par KBomb, 10 mars 2013 - 10:46 .

[GoldenPersona]

I don't get involved with this ending war. It's amazing how much hate the ending gets and yet we sit around debating it to the point of questioning everyone's real life morals. You all fell for Bioware's genius trick.

I enjoy things like family and friendship, romance and all that cheesy goodness. But because I chose destroy apparently I'm actually a heartless monster...lol.

Modifié par GoldenPersona, 10 mars 2013 - 10:46 .

[Alien Number Six]

I chose destroy. I am a Mass (Effect) murderer.

[Ruadh]

Eating sugar can cure hiccups.

[Alien Number Six]

Thanks Dave I will try that next time.

[shodiswe]

KBomb wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with some of these comments? Jesus christ you guys need to calm down.

Choices you make in video games are srs biz. Don't you know whatever you do in a video game reflects your real life? Once I played this game, then I had an intense urge to bludgeon this rich guy in the library with a candlestick. This other time I played a game called Battleship, but I lost because my steadfast morality and shining ethics wouldn't allow me to sink any ships because that would be boaticide! Instead, I reformed them and proceeded to sling insults at my partner for not doing the same.

On a serious note: Some of these people take it way too seriously. I honestly think they believe EDI and the geth are for realz.

Their non-existance in reallife is non consequential. It's not about how real they are or the mass effect universe, because im pretty sure everyone knows it's a game. What were discussing is the moral implications of such a choice.
The question is, when given the choice to kill billions or at least millions of innocents to strike at your nemesis, is it right to do so? The destroyers say yes! YES! So if there was one person on the northamerican continent that "anoyed" me it would be ok to send a huge space rock at the continent which completely wipses it off the planets surface and throws the rest of the planet into a century long iceage?

People who say: It's a videogame, killingbillions is just fun since it's not real, wouldn't do it in real life... Well they arn't part of the debate. It's a discussion about the moral implications of such a choice if it had been real. People saying it's just a game are trolling the discussion because that's not relevant.

Modifié par shodiswe, 10 mars 2013 - 11:52 .

[Dieb]

I wanted to just silently back out for good, but this is really hurtful.

Gerudan wrote...
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? 

Absolutely right. In their opinion, it was a cleansing. In fact, the ****s even did acknowledge the Jews to be valid living beings, had no necessity to act aggressively and still went through with it. In my opinion, that's horrible. And I believe, in yours, too.  But the only fact here is, that many people were killed.

So to add to your unproductive and impolitely patronizing attitude, you play that card? For the sake of others wanting to continue this thread, please don't make this personal.

I will say it again, as far as I am concerned, synthetics are not "alive". And you still stand to undeniably proof the assumption that they are - besides insisting it's a fact because "it was stated". Which, by the way I do not, since I never claimed to have anything more than an opinion on the matter.

Modifié par Baelrahn, 10 mars 2013 - 12:01 .

[JacquesDS]

I really liked EDI and the Geth but I hate Reapers, Husk, Marauders and BANSHEES
So I chose destroy!

[StElmo]

I do what must be done, destroy the reapers, every friendly character in the game supports it and I believe they would all choose the same thing given the risks of adopting the enemies tactics.

If I had a month to decide with a lot of diplomatic discussion and debate, I might have chosen different.

[cerberus1701]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

cerberus1701 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Astartes Marine wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

so much wisdom

...


I closed that immediately after I read the title of it.  Did you really have to use a hypocritical speech from such a horrible movie as an example?

yes .. because it shows how easily ethics and morals a thrown over board, if the number of affected persons is low enough.

it does not matter that we kill xxx-people ... the end justifies the means.

in the process, we loose, what we are fighting for. we cross the line.

Crap example, dude.

In the case of the Ba'ku, we're talking about relocating...not killing...relocating 600 people in return for basically eternal life for everyone else in the galaxy.

...600 people who were squatters in the first place.

But if we were talking about killing those 600 to save the galaxy?

No problem.

It's not as if Picard is the moral authority he thinks he is anyway. He let the Reapers (Borg) cull hundreds of races by not even attempting to stop them when he had the chance ("I,Borg")

All because hims made a fwend wif one dwone.

Cold comfort for the inhabitants of every world that the cubes sliced up since.

the 600 people would be relocated, because the son'a want this planet for their own persoanl goals. they fool admiral dougherty with false promises.

and violating the rights of 600 people to grant "eternal life" to the rest of the galaxy, does not undo the violation of the rights. this is double standard.

Watch the movie again. I would, but it's terrible and I'm a huge Trek fan. The planet will be rendered uninhabitable after the energy in its rings is harvested. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that the Son'a are being disingenuous when they offer to share that with the Federation in return for assistance.

They kill Dougherty only after he gets in the way.

And squatters are not the same as an indigenous species.

[Bfler]

Maybe they should have included the destruction of earth as downside of destroy instead of dead EDI/Geth. Humankind would then become the successor of the Quarians.

[Dr_Extrem]

cerberus1701 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

cerberus1701 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Astartes Marine wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

so much wisdom

...


I closed that immediately after I read the title of it.  Did you really have to use a hypocritical speech from such a horrible movie as an example?

yes .. because it shows how easily ethics and morals a thrown over board, if the number of affected persons is low enough.

it does not matter that we kill xxx-people ... the end justifies the means.

in the process, we loose, what we are fighting for. we cross the line.

Crap example, dude.

In the case of the Ba'ku, we're talking about relocating...not killing...relocating 600 people in return for basically eternal life for everyone else in the galaxy.

...600 people who were squatters in the first place.

But if we were talking about killing those 600 to save the galaxy?

No problem.

It's not as if Picard is the moral authority he thinks he is anyway. He let the Reapers (Borg) cull hundreds of races by not even attempting to stop them when he had the chance ("I,Borg")

All because hims made a fwend wif one dwone.

Cold comfort for the inhabitants of every world that the cubes sliced up since.

the 600 people would be relocated, because the son'a want this planet for their own persoanl goals. they fool admiral dougherty with false promises.

and violating the rights of 600 people to grant "eternal life" to the rest of the galaxy, does not undo the violation of the rights. this is double standard.

Watch the movie again. I would, but it's terrible and I'm a huge Trek fan. The planet will be rendered uninhabitable after the energy in its rings is harvested. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that the Son'a are being disingenuous when they offer to share that with the Federation in return for assistance.

They kill Dougherty only after he gets in the way.

And squatters are not the same as an indigenous species.

you are missing the point, that rights are not a tradable commodity. you cant undo a wrong, by doing something right. our societies do not work this way. violating the right of even one person, impinges our own rules.

who judges? ... a judge off course. he/she administers justice. this judge is bound to the laws of the society. who makes those laws? the society itself - by electing a legit government. codes of law are the materialised will of the majority of the people. there is a reason, self-administered justice and lynchlaw are not tolerated by our societies.


the federation is only helping the son'a (space scum who uses wmd and supported the dominion with ketracel-white), because the federation needed resources. it would call it a shady backroom deal.

[KwangtungTiger]

Bfler wrote...

Maybe they should have included the destruction of earth as downside of destroy instead of dead EDI/Geth. Humankind would then become the successor of the Quarians.

 It already is (Low EMS Destroy)

[Absaroka]

KwangtungTiger wrote...

Bfler wrote...

Maybe they should have included the destruction of earth as downside of destroy instead of dead EDI/Geth. Humankind would then become the successor of the Quarians.

 It already is (Low EMS Destroy)

If Destroy destroyed Earth instead of killing synthetics in all its variants then I have no doubt most Destroyers would still choose it.  Hell, I would.

[Bfler]

KwangtungTiger wrote...

Bfler wrote...

Maybe they should have included the destruction of earth as downside of destroy instead of dead EDI/Geth. Humankind would then become the successor of the Quarians.

 It already is (Low EMS Destroy)

In current low EMS only the surface is affected. That could be high EMS.  And if destroy is canon ME4 could then be something like Battlestar Galactica. The humans search for a new homeworld.

Low EMS would be the complete destruction of the planet and/or the fleet and Normandy

Modifié par Bfler, 10 mars 2013 - 05:10 .