748 réponses à ce sujet

[DeinonSlayer]

Steelcan wrote...

Well Jayne refusing makes a bit of a monster

He shot the brat out of spite - he didn't mean to shut off the Crucible. :innocent:

[The Elite Elite]

I pick destroy because that has been the goal since ME1. I'm sorry such useful tools like EDI and the Geth get destroyed in the process, but we can create new tools. Destroying the Reapers is more important than avoiding a minor inconvenience of rebuilding some computers.

[Xilizhra]

Hexley UK wrote...

I can accept the loss of all synthetics in destroy because slavery or forced mindrape/eugenics on that scale is worse.

Don't get me wrong though...all the endings are morally abhorrent.

MEHEM is okay...but it's not canon and therefore I have a hard time accepting it....I don't really know why.

Ah, yes, because (alleged) slavery of your kind of people is taboo, but (actual) genocide of others is totally fine and dandy. I'd say it was funny, but it's more depressing.

[Reorte]

Xilizhra wrote...

Only because I rather suspect that they'll never even raise the issue (the same being true whatever choice is made). Besides, stories making the absurd acutally happen is something I'll instinctively reject unless they come up with very good explanations that I haven't thought of. Keep failing with the explanations and I'll evetually just abandon the entire story as being hopelessly written.

So in other words, you have nothing to back up your position that my Shepard is doomed aside from being bitter that the story wouldn't meet your expectations for inevitable corruption.

Go back and read a post I made a little while ago. I explicitly pointed out that I'm not saying inevitable and I get annoyed by people who seem to think that considering something a high probability is the same thing.

To the point of not being the same person. Everything we can logically infer suggests an accurate Shepard is very, very unlikely. The EC Control epilogue even backs up that whatever it is it isn't Shepard as he was (I thought that the EC voiceover got the tone of Control spot on - even Paragon it's downright creepy).

Subjective; I didn't consider it creepy at all, nor do I consider it that far removed from Shepard in motivation or actions, only perspective (which won't lead to anything bad).

Fair enough; I guess it depends rather a lot on your Shep.

Ditto. Everything tells me that Control will probably go terribly wrong, not definitely. If it doesn't then it's unarguably the best choice. Should you take a gamble that big? Personally I think not, but I do get worried when people seem to deny that it's even a gamble.

It's not a gamble, because the outcome is still roleplayed by me and under my control.

No it is not. "It won't turn out bad because I say it won't and there won't be a later story to contradict my headcanon" is not a sensible response. You don't know what happens later (and probably never will). Headcanon isn't canon. You are the player, not the author. If you're deciding everything to turn out the way you want it then you've shifted from roleplaying Shepard to roleplaying god.

[Reorte]

Xilizhra wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

I can accept the loss of all synthetics in destroy because slavery or forced mindrape/eugenics on that scale is worse.

Don't get me wrong though...all the endings are morally abhorrent.

MEHEM is okay...but it's not canon and therefore I have a hard time accepting it....I don't really know why.

Ah, yes, because (alleged) slavery of your kind of people is taboo, but (actual) genocide of others is totally fine and dandy. I'd say it was funny, but it's more depressing.

There's a rather hugely signifcant difference in scale between the geth and every single living thing in the entire galaxy. Don't you think that that's a rather important factor to consider?

Modifié par Reorte, 08 mars 2013 - 05:26 .

[Xilizhra]

Go back and read a post I made a little while ago. I explicitly pointed out that I'm not saying inevitable and I get annoyed by people who seem to think that considering something a high probability is the same thing.

In any case, you have no grounds for dictating my own playthrough.

No it is not. "It won't turn out bad because I say it won't and there won't be a later story to contradict my headcanon" is not a sensible response. You don't know what happens later (and probably never will). Headcanon isn't canon. You are the player, not the author. If you're deciding everything to turn out the way you want it then you've shifted from roleplaying Shepard to roleplaying god.

I'm roleplaying my Shepard as the Catalyst, just as I roleplayed her beforehand. Perhaps something horrible will happen later on to destroy her, I don't know. But as she's still my character, moral corruption is my own choice to make, and I won't choose it.

There's a rather hugely signifcantly difference in scale between the
geth and every single living thing in the entire galaxy. Don't you think
that that's a rather important factor to consider?

If it's between actual genocide and what could only be considered slavery by the heavily paranoid and possibly entitled? No, I don't consider it an important factor in the slightest.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 08 mars 2013 - 05:26 .

[Alraiis]

Because there are no "civilian" synthetics in this situation. The Geth, as a whole, are on board with the war, as is EDI (she makes it clear in conversations that she would rather become non-functional than let the Reapers win). Losing, or even sacrificing, those that have committed to the war is a tragedy, but it's an acceptable price to pay for victory.

Paying that price is even easier (though still a hard choice) considering two other factors: synthetics can be rebuilt quickly and synthetics do not suffer or grieve. While it is true that even a rebuilt EDI would never be the same individual, nor would rebuilt Geth be the same, synthetic life can still be produced at a quicker pace than repopulating an organic race. Furthermore, the emotions of synthetics are different. Garrus speaks of the "calculus of war" with a great deal of remorse, but to someone like Legion, such decisions would carry no burden of grief. Their perceptions are simply different, neither more valid, but that difference is crucial in evaluating their willingness to sacrifice.

[Taboo]

Because the Geth are already dead.

Curse those meta-gamers!

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 08 mars 2013 - 05:29 .

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
I have to trust the Catalyst to take any ending.

Indeed.

However, the level of trust you place in the Catalyst escalates dramatically with each ending choice.

Destroy - you're trusting that the Catalyst is being honest, truthful and correct when it states that activating the Crucible in this manner will cause it to perform the function every War Asset working on it intended it for.

Control - you're trusting that the Catalyst is being honest, truthful and correct when it tells you that you can Control the Reapers where TIM could not, that you will be able to do so despite being physically dead and that the irrevocable changes that are visited upon yourself will not alter your perceptions or conciousness in any meaningful manner.

Synthesis - you're trusting that the Catalyst is being honest, truthful and correct when it assumes that a technological singularity is inevitable, and that it's "new solution" will prove more effective and less horrific than it's original one, that the process will actually work, will not negatively impact the races of the galaxy in any meaningful way and that the irrevocable changes that are visited upon every living being in the galaxy will not alter their perceptions or conciousness in any meaningful manner.

So, in short:

With Destroy, you're trusting the Catalyst insofar as it is confirming the Alliance's plan will work.

With Control, you're trusting the Catalyst insofar as it is confirming the Illusive Man's plan will work, despite the reservations you had less than 5 minutes previously and despite the apparent contradiction that you, yourself will control them despite being phyiscally dead.

With Synthesis, you're basically trusting the Catalyst completely, and handing the fate of the galaxy back into it's hands by accepting it's premise of a new, heretofore unconsidered possibility and solution.

I prefer to minimise risk where possible, so:

Destroy > Control > Synthesis.

[Reorte]

Xilizhra wrote...

Go back and read a post I made a little while ago. I explicitly pointed out that I'm not saying inevitable and I get annoyed by people who seem to think that considering something a high probability is the same thing.

In any case, you have no grounds for dictating my own playthrough.

Where am I doing that? Saying I find your choices foolish and your reasons unsound isn't saying that you can't make whatever choices you want.

No it is not. "It won't turn out bad because I say it won't and there won't be a later story to contradict my headcanon" is not a sensible response. You don't know what happens later (and probably never will). Headcanon isn't canon. You are the player, not the author. If you're deciding everything to turn out the way you want it then you've shifted from roleplaying Shepard to roleplaying god.

I'm roleplaying my Shepard as the Catalyst, just as I roleplayed her beforehand. Perhaps something horrible will happen later on to destroy her, I don't know. But as she's still my character, moral corruption is my own choice to make, and I won't choose it.

Only because you've accepted as facts things that you've no reason to treat as facts but you've shifted from roleplaying into writing fanfic there, even if it's only in your head.

[CronoDragoon]

Xilizhra wrote...
In any case, you have no grounds for dictating my own playthrough.

I'm not trying to dictate your playthrough. I'm just giving you reasons for why I didn't choose Control in MY playthrough.

Calling Destroy genocide also doesn't help. It's no better than calling Synthesis genetic rape or Control tyrannical. If you want to have an actual conversation we should avoid hurtful generalities.

[Reorte]

Xilizhra wrote...

There's a rather hugely signifcantly difference in scale between the
geth and every single living thing in the entire galaxy. Don't you think
that that's a rather important factor to consider?

If it's between actual genocide and what could only be considered slavery by the heavily paranoid and possibly entitled? No, I don't consider it an important factor in the slightest.

You are insane.

[Iakus]

Who says I accept it? I may consider it the "least bad" option, but by no means to I find it an acceptable outcome.

[Leliana]

Originally I picked Synthesis but when I learned about the Indoctrination Theory I went with Destroy.

[Auld Wulf]

@OP

It's a selfish act borne of narcissism and vanity. The breath scene (which is most likely just the clone, anyway) is worth the loss of all synthetics to them. It's just that most people are petty, and this shouldn't surprise you. Most people would see most others die if they got what they wanted out of something, that's human nature, and it takes an exemplary person to not fit into that psychological profile. Most humans aren't exemplary. Most just want their own fantasies fulfilled at the expense of everything else.

So, the chance that Shepard might have survived (even though it's just the clone, we all know this) is enough to sacrifice EDI, the geth, all enhanced people (likely including the quarians), and anyone linked to them. That breath scene is worth ruining Joker's life. That's how selfish they are. I mean, Joker has been learning to love life and tolerate his sickness via EDI as his coping mechanism; he's been able to stop focusing on how he's somehow a 'lesser person,' he's less obsessed with his inferiority complex, and for the first time he's started to live. Narcissistic Destroyers take that away from him.

I mean, you're taking Joker's coping mechanism and only love away, you're going to break the man. That's how selfish they are. Joker's likely going to commit suicide in the Destroy ending because everything that matters to him has been taken away from him. Do Destroy fans care? Do they give a damn that they're completely effing up Joker's life? Nope. They just want their little breath scene. It's sad, to me, that most people are just so petty and pathetic.

I'm on a high horse here because I deserve to be. I've seen some ridiculous excuses and justifications for Destroy, all of which involve fallacies and intellectual dishonesty, none of them actually stand up to scrutiny. Destroy is just a purely selfish thing, and I consider anyone who picks it to be less of a human for doing so. Far less of a human than I am, anyway. To be human is to try and overcome instinct and selfishness, otherwise you're just a biological automaton.

To be that selfish, narcissistic, vain, and shallow? That doesn't make you a person in my book. I can barely recognise such people as sapient entities. They have no sense of ethics, no empathy, and just a hole filled with sociopathy where the more advanced aspects of humanity would otherwise occupy. Empathy is important to us as a species, as is selflessness. Without those things, we wouldn't have come half as far as we have. The best people embody intelligence, empathy, and selflessness.

Butt here you go, it's a sliding scale and you have to know where you are on it. Most people seem to be at rock bottom and are happy to be there. Some of us? Some of us want to be more than selfish, petty, empty biological automatons. Some of succeed. Some of us don't. Some of us pick Synthesis or Control, and some of us pick Destroy.

[Xilizhra]

Only because you've accepted as facts things that you've no reason to treat as facts but you've shifted from roleplaying into writing fanfic there, even if it's only in your head.

Indeed, insofar as every single personality detail of Shepard not specified in the game itself is writing fanfic.

Calling Destroy genocide also doesn't help. It's no better than calling Synthesis genetic rape or Control tyrannical. If you want to have an actual conversation we should avoid hurtful generalities.

It is not a hurtful generality to acknowledge the complete annihilation of a species for what it is.

[DeinonSlayer]

[quote]Xilizhra wrote...

[quote]That's one interpretation.[/quote]
The canon one.[/quote]Yours.

[quote]Xilizhra wrote...
[quote]I'll assume you're asking about the second point. The Reaper was already there. The Geth facility it was housed in was already there. The Quarians entered the system and began their attack, after which the signal began broadcasting - do you suggest it snuck past both fleets undetected after the attack was underway? It "made an offer" to the Geth, which they refrained from accepting until it was evident that they would lose.[/quote]
The Reaper entered after the geth accepted its deal and entered that facility while the geth dreadnaught tied up the quarian fleet.[/quote]It's never clarified. It makes more sense to me that it was there before instead of a facility to house it conveniently existing and nobody detecting it as it entered the system behind the Migrant Fleet. It didn't come to the Geth's rescue after the attack, it floated a devil's bargain which the Geth shelved until they were left with no options.

[quote]Xilizhra wrote...
[quote]Also, pay close attention to Legion's dialogue. Shepard asks if the Geth believed him about the Reapers, to which Legion replies in the affirmative. Legion says the Geth were preparing for war, but never specifies against whom. He says the decision to side with the Reapers "would have been unnecessary" were it not for the Quarian attack (the VI merely laments that the interface was "unproductive."). Legion never suggests the Geth were going to leave the Veil and aid the organic war effort. He never even says that the Geth would have opposed the Reapers, just that they were "preparing." [/quote]
There's also no reason in particular to disbelieve that the geth were going to be opposed to the Reapers, which they already were in thought in ME2.[/quote]Back then, Legion was opposed to Reaper tech, too. He advocates keeping the Collector base before chastizing you for doing it. They let the Heretics run about for two years before doing anything about it (when they, themselves, were threatened). He commits an act of espionage aboard your ship (loyalty confrontation).

[quote]Xilizhra wrote...
[quote]Bottom line, the Geth plan before the Reaper invasion was to ride out the war in isolation, as they. have for the last three centuries. Their only concern was their own survival (which, to them, was worth becoming a bludgeon to be used against every other race before being disposed of themselves).[/quote]
Their own survival, like every single other race in the galaxy? The only reason humans reached out to anyone else is because they got hit first.[/quote]This is more on par with refugees in Reaper internment camps selling each other out in exchange for a stay of execution.

[quote]Xilizhra wrote...
[quote]I... sorry, the arrogance on display here is astounding. It's your playthrough, your decision, but still...[/quote]
Arrogance born of necessity. Synthesis is too vague and Destroy's cost is far too high. My own Shepard is a better person than I, clearly, and I trust her in this matter.[/quote]It's when you say things like "I will fix it" that I get worried.

[quote]Xilizhra wrote...
[quote]PerfectShep is boring. ParagonShep is boring. I roleplay human characters with their own strengths and flaws and see more of the game for it. You, admittedly, do the exact same thing and romance the same person every single time, only changing your class from one playthrough to the next. That's your right, but it doesn't make you right. Difference is, I acknowledge my Shepards have flaws. That's half the fun. JayneShep (the most renegade of the bunch) is an absolute troll, but that doesn't make him a monster. [/quote]
Obviously my Shepard has flaws, otherwise she'd have been able to win on Thessia, bring TIM back into the fold, etc. I just don't consider her to be sufficiently flawed as to go irrevocably hostile as the Catalyst.[/quote]Fair enough. I don't view Shepard the same way, and by extension, my Shepards don't either. They acknowledge their flaws (most of them). The only Shepard of mine to choose Control did so to sit on Wreav after curing the genophage (couldn't bring herself to shoot Mordin).

[Hexley UK]

Xilizhra wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

I can accept the loss of all synthetics in destroy because slavery or forced mindrape/eugenics on that scale is worse.

Don't get me wrong though...all the endings are morally abhorrent.

MEHEM is okay...but it's not canon and therefore I have a hard time accepting it....I don't really know why.

Ah, yes, because (alleged) slavery of your kind of people is taboo, but (actual) genocide of others is totally fine and dandy. I'd say it was funny, but it's more depressing.

All the endings are depressing and morally abhorrent as I stated...I just feel that destroy is the least disgusting of all the disgusting options.

And all the endings are idiotic crap anyway...none of them deserve the discussion and thought people have put into them....they're just crap nothing more.

Modifié par Hexley UK, 08 mars 2013 - 05:37 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

I don't accept the loss of synthetics, I choose the less abhorrent choice, and I'd still choose it if it were Humans instead of synthetics that had to die.

Modifié par DinoSteve, 08 mars 2013 - 05:38 .

[Auld Wulf]

Reorte wrote...

You are insane.

Years ago, I would have thought the same. But they're not.

See, it's just base selfishness and pettiness, the kind of horrible personality aspects you find in the worst of the worst. They're not crazy, they're just shallow, empty, petty, vain, and incredibly selfish. This is something you pick up as an understanding over time. I know his excuse for Destroy makes him seem crazy, but that's the kind of delusional pettiness we're dealing with, here.

they'll cook up any justification, any excuse, no matter how ridiculous or fallacious... anything so they won't have to face looking at themselves. So they won't have to see themselves through our eyes - pathetic, sad little creatures built upon greed and narcissism.

[wright1978]

DinoSteve wrote...

I don't accept the loss of synthetics, I choose the less abhorrent choice, and I'd still choose it if it were Humans instead of synthetics that had to die.

Yep or Turians, Asari, Krogan etc.

[Reorte]

Xilizhra wrote...

Only because you've accepted as facts things that you've no reason to treat as facts but you've shifted from roleplaying into writing fanfic there, even if it's only in your head.

Indeed, insofar as every single personality detail of Shepard not specified in the game itself is writing fanfic.

Exactly, although in this case it's also fanfic in pretending that you know for sure that it is 100% Shepard.

Calling Destroy genocide also doesn't help. It's no better than calling Synthesis genetic rape or Control tyrannical. If you want to have an actual conversation we should avoid hurtful generalities.

It is not a hurtful generality to acknowledge the complete annihilation of a species for what it is.

That isn't what the word genocide means.

[Xilizhra]

It's never clarified. It makes more sense to me that it was there before instead of a facility to house it conveniently existing and nobody detecting it as it entered the system behind the Migrant Fleet. It didn't come to the Geth's rescue after the attack, it floated a devil's bargain which the Geth shelved until they were left with no options.

Why wouldn't it land in a preexisting facility if it was a useful place to stay. And why would the quarians detect it if they were distracted?

Back then, Legion was opposed to Reaper tech, too. He advocates keeping the Collector base before chastizing you for doing it. They let the Heretics run about for two years before doing anything about it (when they, themselves, were threatened). He commits an act of espionage aboard your ship (loyalty confrontation).

Regardless, the geth prove their loyalty well enough in the end.

This is more on par with refugees in Reaper internment camps selling each other out in exchange for a stay of execution.

Only a minor quantitative difference.

It's when you say things like "I will fix it" that I get worried.

I have no choice but to fix it, truth be told.

Fair enough. I don't view Shepard the same way, and by extension, my Shepards don't either. They acknowledge their flaws (most of them). The only Shepard of mine to choose Control did so to sit on Wreav after curing the genophage (couldn't bring herself to shoot Mordin).

My flaws are not those that would significantly impede operations as the Catalyst.

That isn't what the word genocide means.

True. It's actually worse than genocide, because genocide only applies to the destruction of racial/religious/national groups within one species. Legion's loyalty mission is genocide, Destroy is vastly worse, but we don't have a good word for it yet.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 08 mars 2013 - 05:43 .

[Alraiis]

Auld Wulf wrote...

It's a selfish act borne of narcissism and vanity. The breath scene (which is most likely just the clone, anyway) is worth the loss of all synthetics to them. It's just that most people are petty, and this shouldn't surprise you. Most people would see most others die if they got what they wanted out of something, that's human nature, and it takes an exemplary person to not fit into that psychological profile. Most humans aren't exemplary. Most just want their own fantasies fulfilled at the expense of everything else.

In my first playthrough, I chose Destroy with no prior knowledge of the breath scene and the full belief that Shepard would die because of her augmentations. In fact, I'm pretty sure I didn't get the breath scene because I didn't have enough assets from single-player alone. It didn't register because, as I said, I wasn't expecting her to live.

And I still felt it was the right choice for that character. I am probably not the only one, either.

Modifié par Alraiis, 08 mars 2013 - 05:42 .

[Terraforming2154]

DinoSteve wrote...

I don't accept the loss of synthetics, I choose the less abhorrent choice, and I'd still choose it if it were Humans instead of synthetics that had to die.

Same here. I keep saying that I that, but some people don't seem to believe that...

When I first played Mass Effect 3, I had absolutely no idea about the breath scene or anything like that being tied to Destroy. Hell, I didn't even get the "Shep lives" ending until the EC.

I picked Destroy because I wanted to end the reapers -- and I thought, and still think, the cost was very high and that is something I feel bad about. But I can't agree with the other endings. I just personally can't.