748 réponses à ce sujet

[KwangtungTiger]

Bfler wrote...

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

 While personally I like this idea, Bioware has made it clear there isn't going to be a canon ending.

 More than likely its going to happen in a different galaxy or maybe an alternate universe to get around the endings without having to make one canon.

[Spartas Husky]

Marauder shields is my cannon. Plus the music Koobismo the creator adds to it... it has made me feel the same way as when Mordin and Legion moments. Whatever story draws feelings of mine like that, is definitely worth being cannon. ANd Marauder shields hits my brain and heart in one go

[Reorte]

Absaroka wrote...

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.

Ditto, but I'd have probably been just as annoyed if I was. However it would've made a little more sense (still has problems but more easily handwaved away although having the Citadel conveniently shoved over to Earth means it would still seem contrived) .

Modifié par Reorte, 10 mars 2013 - 06:22 .

[cerberus1701]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

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.

Star Trek IV:

Spock: Humans often make illogical decisions.

[KBomb]

shodiswe wrote...


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.

Okay, you can step off your soap box now. Debating the moral implications is quite different than insulting someone because of the choice they made. I think you know that. What I find completely ridiculous are those who get annoyed, angry and down right self-righteous because someone didn't make a decision that seems "moral" enough. What is ridiculous is needing a video game to judge your moral worth in the first place and people are wielding such nonsense to make themselves seem superior to others. I think you know this, too.

At the end of the day it is a video game. People say it's a video game because that's what it is. It's relevent to the discussion because that is the point: it is a video game. A product to which the consumer uses their hard earned money to purchase. By all means, discuss the moral implications "if it were real", but when you start insulting someone's morals and ethics, it stops becoming a debate and starts being petty, childish and downright fatuous. That's just my opinion, though. If you need that kind of discussion to make yourself feel "just and moral", then by all means: continue.

Edit: Again, I am not addressing the ones who are debating the choices availble. I am addressing the ones who are throwing around words like, holocaust, genicide, etc. You know, the silly ones.

Modifié par KBomb, 10 mars 2013 - 06:30 .

[cerberus1701]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

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.

What world do you live in? "Rights" are traded all the time. After 9.11 "rights" were traded. Eminent Domain trades your "rights" for 'the greater good.' 

"Rights" are malleable social paradigms. Once, for example, your creditor had a "right" to have you put in debtors prison.

It's not a "shady backroom deal" when the Federation Council approves of the operation, which it did.

That's like equating something Congress is aware of and approves to to a CIA operation performed by a dozen guys with no oversight.

[frozn89]

Because they're robots, granted sentience or not. I value organic life over synthetic. Also, Shep is alive, so I can headcanon that the crew finds him/her; happily ever after.

[PainCakesx]

Pakundo wrote...

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.

It doesn't matter if everyone is "better" in Synthesis. This forced creating of a new master race is the very foundation of countless atrocities committed throughout human history. It's not your right, my right, nor anybody's right to force someone to undergo genetic manipulation. It's violating one of the most basic rights that anyone can have. It's flat out wrong.

In terms of Control, it doesn't change the fact that everyone is under the control of one man. It doesn't matter if he's benevolent, history has shown that giving one man absolute power almost always results in corruption. And even if Shepard does the unthinkable and manages to rule over the galaxy (benevolently) for millenia, that still effectively destroys the galaxy's free will. Do what he thinks is right and just, or face total and complete annihilation. 

I've seen where that road leads. Not interested. 

Modifié par PainCakesx, 10 mars 2013 - 08:22 .

[shodiswe]

KBomb wrote...

shodiswe wrote...


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.

Okay, you can step off your soap box now. Debating the moral implications is quite different than insulting someone because of the choice they made. I think you know that. What I find completely ridiculous are those who get annoyed, angry and down right self-righteous because someone didn't make a decision that seems "moral" enough. What is ridiculous is needing a video game to judge your moral worth in the first place and people are wielding such nonsense to make themselves seem superior to others. I think you know this, too.

At the end of the day it is a video game. People say it's a video game because that's what it is. It's relevent to the discussion because that is the point: it is a video game. A product to which the consumer uses their hard earned money to purchase. By all means, discuss the moral implications "if it were real", but when you start insulting someone's morals and ethics, it stops becoming a debate and starts being petty, childish and downright fatuous. That's just my opinion, though. If you need that kind of discussion to make yourself feel "just and moral", then by all means: continue.

Edit: Again, I am not addressing the ones who are debating the choices availble. I am addressing the ones who are throwing around words like, holocaust, genicide, etc. You know, the silly ones.

I still think people should be able to use those words, if it's relevant then it's important to allow open discussions.
Also im not going to claim I'm the most moral or anything else guy in the world. Though I like to think of myself as fair.
Also, i'm not sure how it matters if it's a game or not. I think it's an interesting discussion, even if people seem to have been stuck on it for months.
Some people claims Control has to spawn a space emperor no matter if it's paragon or Renegade, there for it's not good. As if Shepard didn't affect a lot of people while being alive without being an emperor or anything, not even an admiral. Synthesis is a bit sketchy but it would seem that it isn't brainwashing people so then it's not that bad, they are still pretty much the same people.
Most importantly all endigns seem to agree that the Reapers arn't a threat anymore except in peoples headcannons.
Some people would also say that I support dictatorships because I choose control, or slavery or whatever else. That's just as ridiculous. I just buy the arguments given to us by Bioware, keeping it simple.

[shodiswe]

Though I must say I liked the comment about Renegade AI shepard helping out planning wedings! That would make for a good laugh.

[Sidney]

Destroy is the only "safe" option. There is collateral damage but in this war you expect a LOT of collateral - at least I did. I sacrifice EDI and the Geth to save trillions of current and future lives.

To control the Reapers is to wield a terrible power and goodness knows what the conversion to be able to control them would leave of who I was and whatever morality I had. Yes, the starchild says they'll do what I want but my question was what would the sort of being I would be with almost infinite power want...maybe I'd want what the starchild wants.

Synthesis doesn't solve the problem. We create synthetics to make our lives easier. Even if everything is a cyborg there are going to cyborgs that don't want to mop the floors. You will get new synthetics and they'll go bonkers right?

[DeinonSlayer]

Sidney wrote...

Destroy is the only "safe" option. There is collateral damage but in this war you expect a LOT of collateral - at least I did. I sacrifice EDI and the Geth to save trillions of current and future lives.

To control the Reapers is to wield a terrible power and goodness knows what the conversion to be able to control them would leave of who I was and whatever morality I had. Yes, the starchild says they'll do what I want but my question was what would the sort of being I would be with almost infinite power want...maybe I'd want what the starchild wants.

Synthesis doesn't solve the problem. We create synthetics to make our lives easier. Even if everything is a cyborg there are going to cyborgs that don't want to mop the floors. You will get new synthetics and they'll go bonkers right?

"Gee, these crates are heavy. You know, we ought to make a robot that can - I HAVE A BLOCK WHICH PREVENTS ME FROM PURSUING THIS COURSE OF ACTION." *cough* "Sorry, what was I saying? Right, back to work."

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 10 mars 2013 - 08:39 .

[ThatDancingTurian]

If I got my hand stuck in a trap that I could not break and my only option was to cut off my arm or die of starvation, I'd cut off my arm. I may feel its loss for the rest of my life, but better my arm than my whole body.

Modifié par Aris Ravenstar, 10 mars 2013 - 08:40 .

[MrCousland99]

I think what Adam jensen said can justify my choice of destroying synthetics, "Technology offers us strengh, strengh enables dominance, and dominance paves the way for abuse."...and I wanted Shep to live

[Sibu]

Because is the only option that isn't permanent. Machines can be rebuild.

There is no coming back from Control or Syntesis, and that last one is a ****ing abomination and disgusting spit to self determination.

[shodiswe]

Sibu wrote...

Because is the only option that isn't permanent. Machines can be rebuild.

There is no coming back from Control or Syntesis, and that last one is a ****ing abomination and disgusting spit to self determination.

The death of billions does seem fairly permanent to me, but I guess it depends on perspective.

[Sibu]

shodiswe wrote...

Sibu wrote...

Because is the only option that isn't permanent. Machines can be rebuild.

There is no coming back from Control or Syntesis, and that last one is a ****ing abomination and disgusting spit to self determination.

The death of billions does seem fairly permanent to me, but I guess it depends on perspective.

Krogans, Turians, asari, salarians... everyone is dying.

Death is inevitable, even you will die someday so there is no point in running away from it. But Synthesis... its a bad change for everyone and i don't know what kind of future it can bring (considering not everyone will be happy to see friends being brainwashed).

Synthesis... is... rape

[Spartas Husky]

Maurader Shields... is the safest option

Control... yeah two beings already tried it... not counting countless previous cycle and they all failed. We certainly can... because the star brat says so. very nice logic.

Synthesis, so much for choice, even legion understood why individuality is paramount. We get to synch all of our brains and sing cumbaya... until of course a reaper size brain decides its more powerful than the rest of the galaxy.

Destroy... we destroy all synthetics... because the star brat says so. Last time I check it was meant to target the reapers...Anything and eveyrone with an implant would die.
Ships VI
Biotic implants meaning every biotic would be rendered a vegetable from the jolt... most likely meaning every asari in the galaxy.
The geth are very different constructs than ordinary Mechs, but they die... because the star brat has says so, he has absolutely no reason to lie, he definitely told TIM that he could not control them.

So to sum it up based on star brat logic... all reapers die, plus every being with the slightest implants linked to delicate systems i.e:
biotics
quarians
asari

not to mention Wrex, half of garru's face Aria to name a few good faces,

2 and a half games... actually 2.9 games we've been showered with proof after proof... Synthesis leads to them liquifying us... control leads to them liquifying us... destroy and they ....dont liquify us. There is absolutely no way the star brat would lie in the event we try to go for the latter. I mean what reason could the star brat have to lie?

Marauder Shields comics to the end!!!

[Xilizhra]

Sibu wrote...

shodiswe wrote...

Sibu wrote...

Because is the only option that isn't permanent. Machines can be rebuild.

There is no coming back from Control or Syntesis, and that last one is a ****ing abomination and disgusting spit to self determination.

The death of billions does seem fairly permanent to me, but I guess it depends on perspective.

Krogans, Turians, asari, salarians... everyone is dying.

Death is inevitable, even you will die someday so there is no point in running away from it. But Synthesis... its a bad change for everyone and i don't know what kind of future it can bring (considering not everyone will be happy to see friends being brainwashed).

Synthesis... is... rape

Amusing. Not only are the geth synthetic and not doomed to die of old age, they don't even die normally because their programs are all backed up... unless you obliterate them all. You've actually killed off the one race that wasn't guaranteed to have its members die eventually.

This plays right into my theory that Destroy is so popular because the game inures people to killing, which is far more of a familiar thing than taking power or altering other people without killing them.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 10 mars 2013 - 10:40 .

[Auztin]

Unfortunately I did not like MEHEM.Destroying the Reapers is what mattered nothing else.

[cerberus1701]

Xilizhra wrote...

Sibu wrote...

shodiswe wrote...

Sibu wrote...

Because is the only option that isn't permanent. Machines can be rebuild.

There is no coming back from Control or Syntesis, and that last one is a ****ing abomination and disgusting spit to self determination.

The death of billions does seem fairly permanent to me, but I guess it depends on perspective.

Krogans, Turians, asari, salarians... everyone is dying.

Death is inevitable, even you will die someday so there is no point in running away from it. But Synthesis... its a bad change for everyone and i don't know what kind of future it can bring (considering not everyone will be happy to see friends being brainwashed).

Synthesis... is... rape

Amusing. Not only are the geth synthetic and not doomed to die of old age, they don't even die normally because their programs are all backed up... unless you obliterate them all. You've actually killed off the one race that wasn't guaranteed to have its members die eventually.

This plays right into my theory that Destroy is so popular because the game inures people to killing, which is far more of a familiar thing than taking power or altering other people without killing them.

Your theory is nonsense.

Refuse invalidates everything. You may as well have joined Saren.

Synthesis is rape.

Control does nothing but create the Shepalyst who will eventually crusade against the galaxy again once his last tie to it is gone, Even if by some miracle he does not, who would choose to live in the Reaper-controlled police state that would exist?

My choice has nothing to do with enjoying killing.

It has nothing to do with Shep living.

Destroy is simply the least evil of the three choices.

[Spartas Husky]

cerberus1701 wrote...


Destroy is simply the least evil of the three choices.

And given star brat goes the extra mile to touch my heart strings that "so many will die" I take it that is the right one.


When the baddy tells you the X choice will result in buddies dying if you kill him... yeah thats prolly the one where only the baddy will die.

[Xilizhra]

Synthesis is rape.

Oh, person who was calling us out for saying Destroy was genocide, here's your chance to not be a hypocrite!

Control does nothing but create the Shepalyst who will eventually crusade against the galaxy again once his last tie to it is gone, Even if by some miracle he does not, who would choose to live in the Reaper-controlled police state that would exist?

Well, the geth getting to live at all would be nice. And frankly, I think many would be just fine with a potential end to all future galactic wars.

My choice has nothing to do with enjoying killing.

Underestimating the magnitude of killing.

[cerberus1701]

Xilizhra wrote...

Synthesis is rape.

Oh, person who was calling us out for saying Destroy was genocide, here's your chance to not be a hypocrite!

Control does nothing but create the Shepalyst who will eventually crusade against the galaxy again once his last tie to it is gone, Even if by some miracle he does not, who would choose to live in the Reaper-controlled police state that would exist?

Well, the geth getting to live at all would be nice. And frankly, I think many would be just fine with a potential end to all future galactic wars.

My choice has nothing to do with enjoying killing.

Underestimating the magnitude of killing.

Calling you out? I'm pretty sure that wasn't me because:

I accept that EDI and the Geth are alive.

So, choosing for them to be wiped out is genocide.

I'd still choose it. Indeed, you can put Turains or Humans or Asari or whatever else in place of  the Geth and I'd STILL choose it.

Here's the difference between that and Synthesis:

In destroy they all CHOOSE to follow Shep. They collectively choose it knowing that they may not survive. They are prepared to die, if need be, to ensure victory. EDI, in fact, tells you so.

They did not go into this believing that he/she would alter their very being without their knowledge or consent.

Die who you are or live being something you didn't agree to be. Live as something you may not recognize.

 More people than I'm guessing you think would die as they are.

It would be no different than forcing people to transfer their consciousness into an android frame because android bodies are "better" in any number of objective measures.

As for Control? Ask the Geth or anyone else how they feel about Shep-God dictating their lives and their development and their collective futures..

Modifié par cerberus1701, 11 mars 2013 - 05:25 .

[cerberus1701]

Post error.

Modifié par cerberus1701, 11 mars 2013 - 12:37 .