225 réponses à ce sujet

[themikefest]

destroy all the time every time

destroy--no more reapers
control--reapers are still alive
synthesis--reapers are still alive

[Steelcan]

BD Manchild wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Not my fault you can't see things from a renegade point of view.  And reported

And it's not my fault that you can't see things from a paragon point of view.

. I can.  It's just irrelevant to this conversation.  You said killing everyone isn't how to end a conflict. But that's precisely how conflicts end.  Rachni wars, ended by exterminating them.

[Steelcan]

Guanxii wrote...

Reapers are only servants of the pattern... they are not it's true master. You might have defeated the reapers but the pattern will get you in the end.

. The pattern doesn't exist.  There is no organic/synthetic inevitability of war and organic destruction.  It just isn't true.

[MASSEFFECTfanforlife101]

You have chosen....Poorly....

Modifié par MASSEFFECTfanforlife101, 14 mars 2013 - 02:49 .

[Zazzerka]

MASSEFFECTFANforlife101, I love you. You have passion.

I mean this seriously.

[cerberus1701]

Guanxii wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

BD Manchild wrote...

And no, you don't win in Destroy because, by choosing it, you're agreeing that slaughtering entire races - races that are supposed to be allies, no less - is an acceptable means of ending a conflict, just like with Control you're justifying how the Reapers control and indoctrinate others, and in Synthesis you're justifying their pursuit in making others like them. No matter which ending you pick, the Reapers' values override your own, which automatically means that they win. Doesn't matter if they're dead; they're laughing at you from beyond the grave. They've made you into one of them.

But **** it, it's all a moot point anyway as it sounds like you wanted the Geth to die anyway. If that was the case why not let them die on Rannoch and be done with it?

"Friendship and morality do not matter, your allies are merely tools to use against the Reapers."  And yes, killing people does end conflict.  That's how conflicts end.  There can't be a reaper war if all the reapers are dead.

And that's hardly a "reaper" value.  Shepard could have exterminated up to 5 species by then.  Its always been an acceptable strategy for Shepard.  maybe not paragons though.  

The Reapers aren't laying they are dead, we are not.  We won.  They haven't done anything to me, I just beat them.

Reapers are only servants of the pattern... they are not it's true master. You might have defeated the reapers but the pattern will get you in the end.

Who says?

The thing that's willing to, say, nudge the Rachni, into a frenzy to "prove the pattern?"

Yeah. He's a reliable source.
 

[BD Manchild]

Steelcan wrote...
I can.  It's just irrelevant to this conversation.  You said killing everyone isn't how to end a conflict. But that's precisely how conflicts end.  Rachni wars, ended by exterminating them.

You're missing the point I was trying laboriously to make. I never said conflicts don't end by killing everyone; stop putting words in my mouth. The point I was trying to make was that you're ending the conflict on the Reapers' terms, which automatically means their values are precedent. That's fine if your values sync up with theirs, but if they don't it feels like you've let the Reapers win regardless of what choice you make. It's a hollow victory at best, a flat-out betrayal of everything you and everyone else stood for at worst.

Modifié par BD Manchild, 14 mars 2013 - 02:56 .

[MASSEFFECTfanforlife101]

HIGH EMS Destroy, to Me, feels like the "TRUE"  Ending. Everything Else feels like "Alternative"  Endings.

Modifié par MASSEFFECTfanforlife101, 14 mars 2013 - 02:53 .

[Steelcan]

BD Manchild wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
I can.  It's just irrelevant to this conversation.  You said killing everyone isn't how to end a conflict. But that's precisely how conflicts end.  Rachni wars, ended by exterminating them.

You're missing the point I was trying laboriously to make. I never said conflicts don't end by killing everyone; stop putting words in my mouth. The point I was trying to make was that you're ending the conflict on the Reapers' terms, which automatically means their values are precedent. That's fine if your values sync up with theirs, but if they don't it feels like you've let the Reapers win regardless of what choice you make.

. No it doesn't.  Destroying is not a "Reaper Victory" in ANY sense.  They die, organics live.  Game Over.  I'm ending the conflict on my terms.  The Crucible is not a Reaper device, using its intended function is not helping the Reapers.

It isn't a "Reaper Value" either because it is expressed by numerous groups besides them.

Modifié par Steelcan, 14 mars 2013 - 02:58 .

[Zazzerka]

Seriously. Can we be friends?

Modifié par GT Zazzerka, 14 mars 2013 - 02:56 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

Guanxii wrote...

Reapers are only servants of the pattern... they are not it's true master. You might have defeated the reapers but the pattern will get you in the end.

. The pattern doesn't exist.  There is no organic/synthetic inevitability of war and organic destruction.  It just isn't true.

Steelcan, the pattern does exist. It's not the nature of organics and synthetics. It's the nature of war. 

Organics vs organics will always happen. As the Geth Heretics proved, synthetics vs synthetics will happen too.

However, that doesn't mean that we can't work things out, like we did with the Quarians and Geth. 

It's on that notion that I believe the Catalyst is false. He and his Reapers aren't the solution. They are the problem.
It doesn't understand the nature of war, the nature of conflict. It might understand the nature of synthetics, but it does not understand the nature of organics. He and his Reapers are false, and in more in just this way. It's why I will destroy. 

[BD Manchild]

Steelcan wrote...

No it doesn't.  Destroying is not a "Reaper Victory" in ANY sense.  They die, organics live.  Game Over.

It isn't a "Reaper Value" either because it is expressed by numerous groups besides them.

Except they didn't know that the cost of victory would be to commit genocide against an entire race, did they?

Oh, **** it, I'm not gonna waste my time with this broken record anymore.

Modifié par BD Manchild, 14 mars 2013 - 02:58 .

[Zazzerka]

I will back you until the end, MASSEFFECTfanforlife101. Simply accept my friendship request.

Modifié par GT Zazzerka, 14 mars 2013 - 02:57 .

[Steelcan]

BD Manchild wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

No it doesn't.  Destroying is not a "Reaper Victory" in ANY sense.  They die, organics live.  Game Over.

It isn't a "Reaper Value" either because it is expressed by numerous groups besides them.

Oh, **** it, I'm not gonna waste my time with this broken record anymore.

. You're the one espousing this lunacy

[BD Manchild]

**** it, I'm done here.

Modifié par BD Manchild, 14 mars 2013 - 03:00 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

BD Manchild wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
I can.  It's just irrelevant to this conversation.  You said killing everyone isn't how to end a conflict. But that's precisely how conflicts end.  Rachni wars, ended by exterminating them.

You're missing the point I was trying laboriously to make. I never said conflicts don't end by killing everyone; stop putting words in my mouth. The point I was trying to make was that you're ending the conflict on the Reapers' terms, which automatically means their values are precedent. That's fine if your values sync up with theirs, but if they don't it feels like you've let the Reapers win regardless of what choice you make.

. No it doesn't.  Destroying is not a "Reaper Victory" in ANY sense.  They die, organics live.  Game Over.

It isn't a "Reaper Value" either because it is expressed by numerous groups besides them.

Steelcan, I suggest you look up the "This is not a pipe argument". Destroy is, to a degree, a submission to the Reapers and their motives. I wish it wasn't, but it is forcibly presented that way since BW wants us to think the Reapers were the good guys all along. Refusal was a tacked on FU to the Retake Movement.

[Steelcan]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Steelcan, the pattern does exist. It's not the nature of organics and synthetics. It's the nature of war. 

Organics vs organics will always happen. As the Geth Heretics proved, synthetics vs synthetics will happen too.

However, that doesn't mean that we can't work things out, like we did with the Quarians and Geth. 

It's on that notion that I believe the Catalyst is false. He and his Reapers aren't the solution. They are the problem.
It doesn't understand the nature of war, the nature of conflict. It might understand the nature of synthetics, but it does not understand the nature of organics. He and his Reapers are false, and in more in just this way. It's why I will destroy. 

. The Catalyst's asstion is that this conflict is inevitable and WILL ALWAYS result on the destruction of organics.  This is proven to be categorically false.  That's why he is wrong.

[Steelcan]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Steelcan, I suggest you look up the "This is not a pipe argument". Destroy is, to a degree, a submission to the Reapers and their motives. I wish it wasn't, but it is forcibly presented that way since BW wants us to think the Reapers were the good guys all along. Refusal was a tacked on FU to the Retake Movement.

. It is in no way submission.  Synthesis is submission.  Destroy is not.

[Ieldra]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Synthesis... the only way different beings will understand and be at peace with each other is to forcibly remove their differences (here making them of the same nature). Hell of a message.

It's not removing their differences so much as removing their limitations, and that's a fantastic message.

I've said this before and I'll say it again; as a person with a debilitating illness which severely limits what I'm able to do in day to day life, I find that Synthesis is the only ending I can personally relate to. In a way, I see Joker as me in the Mass Effect Universe, somewhat more capable and less ill, but a good proxy. He suffers with brittle bone disease and he feels limited in what he's able to do because of that.

The small victories he's achieved were dictated by what his body could do. It was a bittersweet note in Citadel that Joker dances the same way as Shepard, and that this is why he hadn't wanted to dance. EDI had to coerce him, and when I saw that it just tugged on my heartstrings. In a way, people like Joker are my people, because I understand how frustrating life is for them when they have an illness that medical science has no cure for.

I felt that, according to my own perceptions, the Destroy ending was selfish. Did I want Shepard to live? I guess, but what's the cost? Another person here mentioned the currency you're paying for a potential continuation of Shepard. That price included the geth and EDI as nothing more than currency, without actually considering how it would affect the Universe. In my Universe, the geth were helping the quarians adjust to their homeworld again, and I could see how EDI was helping Joker to cope with day to day life. I know how it's like to have someone who helps you deal with how frustrating life is when you have a debilitating illness from first-hand experience.

Trust me when I say that if I had my coping mechanisms taken away from me, I would end up feeling very suicidal. I know Joker would be the same way. So why would I take EDI from him? Why do that? I couldn't be that selfish. Maybe others can, but I couldn't. It's just not in me, I can't do that. I wanted a better Universe for everyone, so I examined the other endings. Control is a good option and I have nothing against, but I just felt that it didn't go far enough, quick enough. I felt people had suffered enough.

By picking Synthesis I could allow quarians to remove their suits that day. By picking Synthesis I could allow EDI to experience true emotions that day. By picking Synthesis I could present Joker with a cure that day. By picking Synthesis I could create lasting galactic empathy that day.

What Synthesis does (as stated by the Catalyst) is remove limitations of organics and synthetics. That's not removing differences -- unless you have a very hierarchical mindset that perceives the only differences between people as 'better people' and 'worse people.' So no, people still have choice. A carpenter will still be different from a politician. An artist will still be different from a pilot. A turian will still be different from a krogan. You can clearly see that differences are still present in the ending, but limitations are gone.

With limitations gone, I was happy. It sat well with me, EDI and Joker could live a full life, now. EDI was able to understand love and Joker no longer had brittle bone disease. There was freedom in this. Joker could now choose his future, he wasn't shackled and oppressed by nature, he had the right now to choose his own destiny. And he could learn how to dance it up with the best of them if he so desired. That made Synthesis right. That made Synthesis just. If you have ever experienced suffering beyond a broken shoe or a hangnail, suffering as I have, then Synthesis is good for the soul. And provides happiness for the soulsick.

I don't expect everyone to understand this perspective, but it is my perspective. It's the perspective of someone who isn't the same as everyone else.

I hope one day people will understand why I'm so passionate about it rather than seeing that I'm not just "in it to win it" as some are. I have my doubts, but I always have my hopes.

Wow....I must say I didn't expect this from you. I'm not in the same position, but yes, I justify Synthesis on a similar reasoning. I don't feel comfortable about making the choice for the whole galaxy, but in the end, what is lost is inconsequential compared to what is gained. Some may disagree, but whatever you do, every decision affects the whole galaxy, and every decision has a price, so you might as well go for the best outcome.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

BD Manchild wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

No it doesn't.  Destroying is not a "Reaper Victory" in ANY sense.  They die, organics live.  Game Over.

It isn't a "Reaper Value" either because it is expressed by numerous groups besides them.

Except they didn't know that the cost of victory would be to commit genocide against an entire race, did they?

Oh, **** it, I'm not gonna waste my time with this broken record anymore.

It's what the price of destroying the Reapers is. I don't like it, but I'm not going to hesitate with it. I pick destroy, not because synthetics are the problem, but because the Reapers are the problem. I honestly don't believe anything this little brat is telling me. It's trying to justify its existence. I see no justification for it or the Reapers. They claim to preserve, but they exist only to destroy.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Wow....I must say I didn't expect this from you. I'm not in the same position, but yes, I justify Synthesis on a similar reasoning. I don't feel comfortable about making the choice for the whole galaxy, but in the end, what is lost is inconsequential compared to what is gained. Some may disagree, but whatever you do, every decision affects the whole galaxy, and every decision has a price, so you might as well go for the best outcome.

Just remember that not everyone shares your vision of best outcome.

In destroy we can rebuild. We can remake the future. And synthesis (a better version, one not presented by the Reapers, and one not filled with plot holes and mystic crap) can be achieved eventually, this time embraced voluntarily by the galaxy and for the right reasons (advancement, new foundations for the future, etc.)

[BD Manchild]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

BD Manchild wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

No it doesn't.  Destroying is not a "Reaper Victory" in ANY sense.  They die, organics live.  Game Over.

It isn't a "Reaper Value" either because it is expressed by numerous groups besides them.

Except they didn't know that the cost of victory would be to commit genocide against an entire race, did they?

Oh, **** it, I'm not gonna waste my time with this broken record anymore.

It's what the price of destroying the Reapers is. I don't like it, but I'm not going to hesitate with it. I pick destroy, not because synthetics are the problem, but because the Reapers are the problem. I honestly don't believe anything this little brat is telling me. It's trying to justify its existence. I see no justification for it or the Reapers. They claim to preserve, but they exist only to destroy.

Well, if you don't believe anything he's telling you, why on Earth would you believe that Destroy actually does what he says it does?

Yeah, I know, it's a strawman argument, but it seems odd to me that you'd choose not to believe him yet do the very thing he says will destroy his kind. Kind of a contradiction there, don't you think? For all you know, he could be goading you into sabotaging the Crucible.

Modifié par BD Manchild, 14 mars 2013 - 03:08 .

[Sideria]

Steelcan wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Steelcan, I suggest you look up the "This is not a pipe argument". Destroy is, to a degree, a submission to the Reapers and their motives. I wish it wasn't, but it is forcibly presented that way since BW wants us to think the Reapers were the good guys all along. Refusal was a tacked on FU to the Retake Movement.

. It is in no way submission.  Synthesis is submission.  Destroy is not.

Synthesis is a Win/Win.

[CronoDragoon]

CosmicGnosis wrote...
Of course, I could be wrong. I have struggled to settle on a canon ending for a year. When it comes down to it, each ending carries both positive and negative themes. For me, Synthesis happens to carry some very important positive themes.

Good to see a reasonable thread on the endings. One thing I will say is that I don't have a problem with EDI dying in Destroy. By the end of ME3 her character arc is completed and does not depend on her survival to have meaning. That is why even her cute scenes in Citadel DLC don't sway me away from Destroy. The geth are another matter, but that hasn't changed post-Citadel one way or another.

To some degree you could say the urge to live for your LI depends on the LI. When I romanced Liara I had less of a problem sacrificing myself. There's always been a hint of tragedy in the Liara romance considering she'll have to live for hundreds of years after Shepard dies. This combined with The Gift scene, which I took to be an eternity's worth of memories compressed into a few seconds of endless-horizon gazing, leads me to be content with a Shepard sacrifice as far as LI goes.

If you do the Tali romance, however, and get scenes where she pleads for more time with him, and then expresses her feeling that being on the Normandy with Shepard is more of a home to her than being on Rannoch with her race? That makes a sacrifice pretty heartbreaking.

Of course, none of this decides the ending for me, but given a certain ending I think there are various interpretations of what the sacrifice means for the characters.

[DJ CAVE SLAVE]

I choose blue every time.