225 réponses à ce sujet

[ruggly]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Well, I'm only saying that Joker has a limp in canon. We see that limp in ME2. In the Synthesis ending I don't see him doing the doubled over limp.

Therefore, his limp is cured and thus Synthesis is a cure.

It may be, but I still have my problems with it.  It's your preferred ending, and I'm not going to tell you that you can't choose it.  But it doesn't fit my Shepard's universe.

edit: I swear I know how to type.

Modifié par ruggly, 14 mars 2013 - 10:17 .

[DeinonSlayer]

Bill Casey wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

Well, I'm only saying that Joker has a limp in canon. We see that limp in ME2. In the Synthesis ending I don't see him doing the doubled over limp.

Therefore, his limp is cured and thus Synthesis is a cure.

I guess Destroy and Control cure Joker's limp too then...

Yeah.

Synthesis (exactly 12 minutes in):


Destroy (12:05):


Control (12:20):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5J-QDTM8Zk

Coming down out of the Normandy, the same animation is used in all three endings - only in Synthesis, EDI and Joker have their "Adam and Eve" moment.

The accusation of lying is pretty rich coming from a guy who claims that biotics die, the Quarians go extinct without the Geth, and the clone is seen breathing in the rubble (what, after lying at the base of the tower he smacked into at hundreds of miles per hour for weeks without medical attention?) in Destroy, and Synthesis is optional. Post-ending headcanon is fine; if you want to believe Joker is cured in spite of the limp that's your business - I'm merely making an observation about what we see. But when you attack anyone who doesn't think the same way (pointed glance at Auld Wulf's sig)... that's something else.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 14 mars 2013 - 10:46 .

[spirosz]

So we're back at hating each other?

Much love!

[Steelcan]

spirosz wrote...

So we're back at hating each other?

Much love!

. When did we stop?

[spirosz]

Steelcan wrote...

spirosz wrote...

So we're back at hating each other?

Much love!

. When did we stop?

Whenever I post.  

[Steelcan]

spirosz wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

spirosz wrote...

So we're back at hating each other?

Much love!

. When did we stop?

Whenever I post.  

. I remember way back when we first ran across each other in Jade's thread.  First, and only, time a LI discussion was entirely amiable

[spirosz]

I HATE JACK.

[Sideria]

Oh, You didn't say that !

[DDG4005]

spirosz wrote...

DDG3595 wrote...

In my opinion Destroy is the only choice not Synthesis or Control.  It's what Shepard sets out to do from the first game and it's understood that by the third game not everyone is going to live.  EDI's and the Geth's deaths are regrettable  but I wouldn't call it genocide.  Shepard does not purposely seek to wipe them out when he chooses Destroy and you don't get the other two choices unless your EMS is high enough (2800 or higher I think).

I don't to derail this thread so I just leave at that.

Regardless if Shepard wanted to or not, that is still a form of genocide. 

And war makes genocide, while reprehensible, sometimes necessary to achieve the goal in this case: destroying the Reapers.  Control borders on hubris of the third kind in that it implies Shepard, in his insubstantial state, can control genocidal sapient constructs that have annihilated technologically advanced races throughout the galaxy for the last 37 million years.  And Synthesis suggests a happy, touchy-feelly state of existence where organics and synthetics finally get one another but both of these endings leave the Reapers in tact and fully aware in the case of Synthesis.  I'd rather they be dead and no longer a threat at all.

[Argolas]

This whole genocide talk again...

The only possible way to defeat your enemy that is trying to wipe out all life in the galaxy has the destruction of Synthetics as a result => COLLATERAL DAMAGE

"Let's go and kill all Synthetics for no other reason than them being Synthetics", THAT would be genocide. If there is any genocide involved in the Destroy ending at all, it is genocide against the Reapers.

Modifié par Argolas, 15 mars 2013 - 02:05 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

@OP:

Anderson: A good leader is someone who values the life of his men over the success of the mission, but understands that sometimes the cost of failing a mission is higher than the cost of losing those men.

[NCommand]

Argolas wrote...
If there is any genocide involved in the Destroy ending at all, it is genocide against the Reapers.

You monsters! All they wanted was to harvest all living beings and slaughter them brutally

How can Shepard live with himself?!

[Argolas]

NCommand wrote...

Argolas wrote...
If there is any genocide involved in the Destroy ending at all, it is genocide against the Reapers.

You monsters! All they wanted was to harvest all living beings and slaughter them brutally

How can Shepard live with himself?!

But it's true. Shepard used the crucible for the one purpose of wiping out all Reapers out there for the only reason that they are Reapers, so it fits the definition to a certain extend. I wouldn't call it genocide myself for various reasons, but I would accept the opinion of someone who said "choosing destroy is genocide against the reapers". I would not accept the opinion of someone who says "choosing destroy is genocide against synthetic life" because this is not what genocide means.

[NCommand]

Argolas wrote...

NCommand wrote...

Argolas wrote...
If there is any genocide involved in the Destroy ending at all, it is genocide against the Reapers.

You monsters! All they wanted was to harvest all living beings and slaughter them brutally

How can Shepard live with himself?!

But it's true. Shepard used the crucible for the one purpose of wiping out all Reapers out there for the only reason that they are Reapers, so it fits the definition to a certain extend. I wouldn't call it genocide myself for various reasons, but I would accept the opinion of someone who said "choosing destroy is genocide against the reapers". I would not accept the opinion of someone who says "choosing destroy is genocide against synthetic life" because this is not what genocide means.

Well I was mostly just joking, getting fairly tired of people beginning to discuss the differences between just and right, moral and amoral etc etc

[ghost9191]

yeah i did think it was leaning towards destroy. just kinda got that vibe from it. jacks romance line was pretty dead on lol


and well about legion... it is dead so i doubt it will understand much of anything. but yeah the geth would probably understand it . same as edi understands why you have to destroy the geth over rannoch . if you do

[CosmicGnosis]

I should also mention that Destroy renders the Rannoch peace almost pointless. It's another example of how Destroy hinders progress. I do like the fact that Destroy evokes a sense of "We'll rebuild it ourselves", but I really don't care about that if the price is more long-term suffering and the diminishing of synthetic life.

Even one of the older leaked scripts reveals that Destroy is fundamentally anti-synthetic:

Catalyst: The energy can be released as a destructive force. Organics will prevail at our expense. All synthetic life will be destroyed. As will much of the technology your kind rely on.

[Wayning_Star]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I should also mention that Destroy renders the Rannoch peace almost pointless. It's another example of how Destroy hinders progress. I do like the fact that Destroy evokes a sense of "We'll rebuild it ourselves", but I really don't care about that if the price is more long-term suffering and the diminishing of synthetic life.

Even one of the older leaked scripts reveals that Destroy is fundamentally anti-synthetic:

Catalyst: The energy can be released as a destructive force. Organics will prevail at our expense. All synthetic life will be destroyed. As will much of the technology your kind rely on.

Well, the entire MEU is based on the idea that using free stuff is good as long as you can 'get away' with it. No wonder many feel that it's OK to destroy that what you have NO control over. The catalyst clearly states that the chaos will continue if the destroy and create bios isn't upgraded...

[Cagamelo]

The last scene of the Citadel DLC is too emotional to ignore, I want my Shep to go back to his/her LI and live a happily ever after life. If I have to kill a bunch of machines for that, so be it.

[Wayning_Star]

Cagamelo wrote...

The last scene of the Citadel DLC is too emotional to ignore, I want my Shep to go back to his/her LI and live a happily ever after life. If I have to kill a bunch of machines for that, so be it.

the catalyst can say that too?

[Cagamelo]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Cagamelo wrote...

The last scene of the Citadel DLC is too emotional to ignore, I want my Shep to go back to his/her LI and live a happily ever after life. If I have to kill a bunch of machines for that, so be it.

the catalyst can say that too?

Believe it or not, that was actually not intentional, but funny now that I'm reading it again.
The only thing that bothers me with the destroy ending is the death of EDI. The talking toasters can all go and burn in hell for all I care, since I never trusted them.

[Bill Casey]

[CosmicGnosis]

Bill Casey wrote...

I guess EDI can't be trusted, then. We have to kill her.

[Bill Casey]

She can't be trusted because she doesn't like having her body violated?
I guess everyone can't be trusted, then...

Except the reapers, apparently...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 18 mars 2013 - 08:48 .

[CosmicGnosis]

Bill Casey wrote...

She can't be trusted because she doesn't like having her body violated?
I guess everyone can't be trusted, then...

Except the reapers, apparently...

Oh, I see your point now. I thought you were implying that EDI has to be put down because she might become a ruthless synthetic.