178 réponses à ce sujet

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

remydat wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

Yes because there would be organic life again. Destroying the reapers is worth any price.

It makes me laugh that people thinks Destroy is an easy decision for people who choose Destroy. I dunno about about other destroyers but a big part of the reason I choose Destroy is because I don't have a better choice, Control and Synthesis are abhorrent choices.

So you destroy Reapers and all organics to preserve life but think you are not a Reaper then, lol.  That is the same logic that the Reapers arrived at, lol.  Look fine at least you are consistent in your argument that your solution no matter what is to kill Reapers. 

I prefer to disregard the Reapers whole idealogy that Synthetics and Organics can't get along by either choosing Control or Synthesis which means Organics and Synthetics are around and can co-exist.  To each his/her own.

I never said it was a good choice, but it is the best choice I am presented with.

[DarthRic]

Modifié par DarthRic, 23 mars 2013 - 09:31 .

[remydat]

Aaleel wrote...

One question I've always had is that after you've spent the entire game telling TIM how dumb and horrible the idea of control is to the point of making him suicide himself because he can't let go of the idea. What happened in the literally 5 minutes between that and seeing the Catalyst that convinced people that control was now a good idea?

Star Kid explained that TIM wouldn't have succeed because he was indocrinated and Shepard who is a better person and a hero can because he isn't.  Furthermore, choosing Destroy or Synthesis have their own moral quandaries like wiping out an entire sentient race or re-writing DNA.  When faced with those sh*tty options, Control is by comparison a reasonable choice.  Point is circumstances change and decisions are not static.  Shep was right not to trust TIM in his indoctrinated and selfish desire for control but his situations is different.

AlanC9 wrote...

I've never quite understood this compulsion some Destroy fans have to just make up bad stuff about the other endings.

It's because deep down in their heart of hearts, they know it doesn't feel right morally so they have to justify it by either

1.  Wiping out the Geth before they have to make the decision.
2.  Just saying the Geth and EDI are just toasters anywhere.
3.  Trying to find reasons to invalidate the other endings so it looks like Destroy is the only option.

Here is a thought, the Game gives you 3 choices or you can opt for refuse.  Just pick the choice you like instead of trying to hate the fact the game gives you choices.  If you don't like any of the choices then guess what, life sucks kid and sometimes none of your options are going to be desirable.  That's kind of what separates people ie how they handle things when all the choices have moral issues.  I can't MEHEM in real life whatever that means.

[ManiacG]

AcidwireX wrote...

MEHEM.

Because Bioware doesn't respect their own plot, so why should I?

So much this.

[Aaleel]

The best way to decisively and definitively deal with the reapers is destroy. If the Geth and EDI didn't die, I figure probably 90% of players (And that's probably low balling) would chose destroy.

The only reason most people pick one of the other two is because they trying to figure out the choice that allows them to leave with their hands having the least amount of dirt as possible on them, even if it means not definitively dealing with the threat.

For me it doesn't even have anything to do with Synthetics vs Organics, if the Catalyst had told me that the discharge from firing the crucible in destroy would scorch part of the Earth's surface and kill people, I still would have picked it

Why? Because it's the best way to decisively and definitively deal with the reaper threat once and for all. It's the only choice where you're guaranteed to never have to worry about a reaper again, EVER. The others you pick and hope for the best.

Modifié par Aaleel, 23 mars 2013 - 07:51 .

[Wayning_Star]

This is Commander Shepard and I justify my choice.

[remydat]

ScriptBabe wrote...

I pick destroy for all the reasons stated above and because I was annoyed that what could have been the greatest game created thus far was damaged by the ending.  I was, by god, going to do the job I was told from game one on that I had to do -- destroy the Reapers.  

I've been in a writer's room where suddenly one of us grabs the "Dumbstick", and says -- "Hey, wouldn't this be awesome and artsy and just cool, and really mess with everyone's heads?"  And then because you are in a writer's room with a lot of other creative minds somebody(hopefully) says, "Whoa, cheer down, that's a terrible idea that violates our characters and our core themes for these reasons," and you set down the dumbstick and back away slowly, and are saved from making a terrible plot choice.  My suspicion is that this did not happen in those final days when they were making the final decisions about the game.  And indeed if this had been a novel I would have had no problem with going for something radical and startling.  It's the author's prerogative.  But this is a new form of media, and I think the players are an essential piece in all of this.

Again this is a meta argument.  All you are doing is saying I hate the game so I will find reasons to object to the ending they appear to consider the preferred ending.  I don't care about meta arguments.  I am discussing the morality if you were actually Shepard.  That is not being mean but it is not really a topic that interests me all that much.

[remydat]

DarthRic wrote...

remydat wrote...

DarthRic wrote...

Destroy, kills the Geth and EDI.
Synthesis, kills every being in existance.

How does synthesis kill less people again?

Also, seriously? You're comparing giving someone an iphone to having your DNA altered at the base level so you arn't what you were before but something completly different (which is why I consider it murder, if you change who I am at such a fundamental level I'm not the same person as before, i'm someone else in the same body, the person I was before is gone, this opinion is even expressed in a way by Samara during Legions loyalty mission.)

I am pretty sure I saw EDI and company walking around.   Pretty sure I saw the old man with his kid in the future.  You rather physically kill a sentient race to impose your debatable opinion that synthesis is killing something that still breates and walks after it is around.

So basically synthetics have to die because you arbitrarily decided that synthesis is killing life despite the people it allegedly kills walking around smiling.

If you take every atom in my body, melt me down, then reform them into another human being with memories etc, and they then go on with their life happy and smiling, am I dead or alive?

That is head cannon.  The fact Joker looks like Joker and EDI looks like EDI means their DNA has not changed in the manner you describe.  You are just interpreting what happens in a manner that then allows you to support your opinion.  Now if you have facts from the game or interviews from the writers saying that these people die and are not really the same people then present them and I will consider them.

[Redbelle]

Aaleel wrote...

One question I've always had is that after you've spent the entire game telling TIM how dumb and horrible the idea of control is to the point of making him suicide himself because he can't let go of the idea. What happened in the literally 5 minutes between that and seeing the Catalyst that convinced people that control was now a good idea?

Bad gas can literally result in a good idea being blown out the airlock.

The other answer is..... "I'm Commander Shepard, and I'll do what I damn well please on the Citadel. Especially when an avatar of dead kid I've been having PTSD dream's about tell's me it's a good idea".

Honestly, I think it was an oversight. The narrative may have been able to rehabilitate the notion of control as a viable outcome. But it wasn't and like you said. Much of the game's narrative about control is geared towards destroying the idea of control thanks to your allies and the institution's Shepard belongs to being pro destroy.

Perhaps they should have looked more closely at the end of Deus Ex and realised that one character cannot adequatly give voice to the 3 possible path's ahead. Tong, Morgan and...... was it Helios? All argued their cases with JCD. Each character had been an aid, rather than an obstacle in JCD's path to reach the end game. With none of them being a villian the weight of their argument's could be given equal consideration.

The one Catalyst, who is arguably not the Catlayst, because the narrative lean's towards Shepard being the Catalyst on account that he is the decision maker, hopelessly fails in giving equal weight to describing the decision and consequence each action will take. A fact demonstrated by the creation of the DLC where these consequences were included after the choice is made.

At the end, the game failed critically in one aspect. Choices were no longer portreyed equally with the player being the deciding factor. Paragon/Renegade choice became moot as all choice's can be percieved as bad. Yet the game tries to convince us that Synth is the best choice, not only through dialoge but the fact that as a player we have to meet certain criteria to attain it. Yet synth, like the other choice's fails to impress on it's merit's which are viewed as detraction's. The core one's being. Who is Shepard to violate people's right to self on the grounds that a crazy AI with logic gate issues tell's him it's a good idea? And.... How is making everyone the same genetically pushing the message found in every ME game to date that diversity and acceptance of difference's is a strength?

It's going down in my book as an oversight that was badly written and entrenched. Still. Citadel shows they can still write good scripts. I'll let them off this one.

But only because I'm keeping the faith that ME4 will not fall into the trap ME3 did.

Modifié par Redbelle, 23 mars 2013 - 07:59 .

[Aaleel]

Oh, I forgot to address refuse in my last post. I don't consider refuse an option over destroy because anyone that dies as result of destroy is going to die as a result of slow, methodical reaping. So you're really not saving anyone by picking this, you're just adding everyone else to the death total.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

remydat wrote...

ScriptBabe wrote...

I pick destroy for all the reasons stated above and because I was annoyed that what could have been the greatest game created thus far was damaged by the ending.  I was, by god, going to do the job I was told from game one on that I had to do -- destroy the Reapers.  

I've been in a writer's room where suddenly one of us grabs the "Dumbstick", and says -- "Hey, wouldn't this be awesome and artsy and just cool, and really mess with everyone's heads?"  And then because you are in a writer's room with a lot of other creative minds somebody(hopefully) says, "Whoa, cheer down, that's a terrible idea that violates our characters and our core themes for these reasons," and you set down the dumbstick and back away slowly, and are saved from making a terrible plot choice.  My suspicion is that this did not happen in those final days when they were making the final decisions about the game.  And indeed if this had been a novel I would have had no problem with going for something radical and startling.  It's the author's prerogative.  But this is a new form of media, and I think the players are an essential piece in all of this.

Again this is a meta argument.  All you are doing is saying I hate the game so I will find reasons to object to the ending they appear to consider the preferred ending.  I don't care about meta arguments.  I am discussing the morality if you were actually Shepard.  That is not being mean but it is not really a topic that interests me all that much.

I don't understand how you can think Control or Synthesis is more morally correct than Destroy both those former choice are abhorrent and have more negative consequences.

[remydat]

Aaleel wrote...

The best way to decisively and definitively deal with the reapers is destroy. If the Geth and EDI didn't die, I figure probably 90% of players (And that's probably low balling) would chose destroy.

The only reason most people pick one of the other two is because they trying to figure out the choice that allows them to leave with their hands having the least amount of dirt as possible on them, even if it means not definitively dealing with the threat.

For me it doesn't even have anything to do with Synthetics vs Organics, if the Catalyst had told me that the discharge from firing the crucible in destroy would scorch part of the Earth's surface and kill people, I still would have picked it

Why? Because it's the best way to decisively and definitively deal with the reaper threat once and for all. It's the only choice where you're guaranteed to never have to worry about a reaper again, EVER. The others you pick and hope for the best.

But that is the point.  Killing the Reapers has a cost and are you willing to sacrifice an entire species because of you desire to kill Reapers.  All you have decided is to become your own little Reaper.  The Reapers thought conflict was inevitable and that the only way to solve it was to kill it.  It removed the choice of synthetics and organics working out their own issues. Even if Synthesis and Control are not 100% dealing with the threat it gives EVERYONE  the opportunity to live for thousands of years potentially and guess what they can find a way to prove that conflict is not inevitable.  But like the Reaper, no you don't want to give people a chance to work out their own issues, you want to sacrifice Reapers so just like them you can arbitrarily decide to solve the problem by eradicating a species.

Further the only ending that states clearly it may not deal with the threat is Destory as Star Kid states killing this round of synthetics doesn't prevent organics from creating others who will eventually wipe them out.

So again, all you have done is basically pick and choose what elements of the story you want to believe in order to make the decision you want.  By this logic then I might as I will say I know for a fact in my head cannon that everyone is happy with synthesis so I choose synthesis.

[Wayning_Star]

Harvest preserves doesn't flat out "kill" so that's an incorrect assumption.

see: Lore.

[DarthRic]

Modifié par DarthRic, 23 mars 2013 - 09:31 .

[remydat]

DinoSteve wrote...

I don't understand how you can think Control or Synthesis is more morally correct than Destroy both those former choice are abhorrent and have more negative consequences.

Star Kid says Destory doesn't guarantee that organics will still not create other synthetics who without the Reapers won't ultimately destroy them.  Even if he didn't say it, that can obviously be understood as a threat by simply logic as every f**king cycle has created synthetics.

So basically I after being able to make peace between organics and synthetics decide to eradicate synthetics and basically agree with the Reapers that the only way to solve the problem is by harvesting but unlike them I choose to harvest just synthetics.

So once again, Control or Synthesis is more morally correct to me because whatevrer the risks it applies those risks to EVERYONE EQUALLY and it gives EVERYONE the chance to figure out how to resolve their issues without the Reapers or Shepard deciding they are the only ones who can solve it by harvesting sentient species.

You are free to disagree but if I have to impose my will on someone,  I will do so by trying to make a decision that is fair to all involved and gives them an opportunity to live and solve their own problems.

[Aaleel]

remydat wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

The best way to decisively and definitively deal with the reapers is destroy. If the Geth and EDI didn't die, I figure probably 90% of players (And that's probably low balling) would chose destroy.

The only reason most people pick one of the other two is because they trying to figure out the choice that allows them to leave with their hands having the least amount of dirt as possible on them, even if it means not definitively dealing with the threat.

For me it doesn't even have anything to do with Synthetics vs Organics, if the Catalyst had told me that the discharge from firing the crucible in destroy would scorch part of the Earth's surface and kill people, I still would have picked it

Why? Because it's the best way to decisively and definitively deal with the reaper threat once and for all. It's the only choice where you're guaranteed to never have to worry about a reaper again, EVER. The others you pick and hope for the best.

But that is the point.  Killing the Reapers has a cost and are you willing to sacrifice an entire species because of you desire to kill Reapers.  All you have decided is to become your own little Reaper.  The Reapers thought conflict was inevitable and that the only way to solve it was to kill it.  It removed the choice of synthetics and organics working out their own issues. Even if Synthesis and Control are not 100% dealing with the threat it gives EVERYONE  the opportunity to live for thousands of years potentially and guess what they can find a way to prove that conflict is not inevitable.  But like the Reaper, no you don't want to give people a chance to work out their own issues, you want to sacrifice Reapers so just like them you can arbitrarily decide to solve the problem by eradicating a species.

Further the only ending that states clearly it may not deal with the threat is Destory as Star Kid states killing this round of synthetics doesn't prevent organics from creating others who will eventually wipe them out.

So again, all you have done is basically pick and choose what elements of the story you want to believe in order to make the decision you want.  By this logic then I might as I will say I know for a fact in my head cannon that everyone is happy with synthesis so I choose synthesis.

Sacrifice the reapers??  The reapers are the biggest mass murderers in the history of the galaxy.  At the every least it's self defense, and at most it's just saving the organic races the cost of all those trials and executions. 

Destroy gives everyone the chance to work things out for themselves without the Overlord in the space station with the unstobbale army constantly looking down, never knowing when it's going to intervene or go crazy like the last one when it thought it had an idea that made sense.  I'm sure the last Catalyst had good intentions in the beginning too.

And what choice does Synthesis give the Gazillion people, not just the races involved in the conflict but the races that don't know anything about it who haven't even found a relay yet.  Synthesis is far worse in terms of taking away people's right the choose and make their own way than any of the other endings BY FAR.  It's one person saying you guys can't get along so I'm going to change everyone in the way I see fit to try and make you get along.  How people can say Synthesis and decide for yourself  in the same breath is beyond me.

Modifié par Aaleel, 23 mars 2013 - 08:14 .

[remydat]

DarthRic wrote...

[Its not a fact, its just my opinion that they're not the same people as before. Its really a subjective question because how much can you change a person until they are not the same person anymore?

My main reason for not choosing synthesis is it violatess everyones will and I can't do that.

My main reason for not choosing control is that the possibility exists that the reapers will become a problem in the future again (this is non debatable, the POSSIBILITY exists, and I can't risk the entire galaxy)

My main reason for choosing destroy is it ends the reapers once and for all and allows the galaxy the freedom to choose its future (albeit not without terrible loss).

I would choose destroy even if Shepard died in destroy and lived in control/synthesis, and I regret the loss of EDI and the Geth terribly (I really enjoyed the conversations with EDI and the development of her humanity), but the ending choice isn't about personal feelings, emotion, or sentiment, its about whats best for the galaxy overall, and thats why I will always choose destroy.

Edit: Its also annoying theres not an option to choose control and then fly the reapers into the sun along with the citadel.

It doesn't allow the galaxy to choose it's future.  It allows organics to by harvesting synthetics.  At least the Reapers had the decency to preserve their harvest by creating a Reaper.

Look, I understand where you are coming from.  You can decide however you like but just understand that trying to act like Destroy is the only reasonable choice is just bull.  I don't mean you but others.  You don't see every other thread on this forum being about why destroy sucks because despite my personal feelings on the matter, I don;t have a fanatical need to try and denigrate destory as an option.  The only time I ever discuss it is in threads like this where the but hurt fans want to cry because the game included an option they are not forced to choose.

[JasonShepard]

Aaleel wrote...

One question I've always had is that after you've spent the entire game telling TIM how dumb and horrible the idea of control is to the point of making him suicide himself because he can't let go of the idea. What happened in the literally 5 minutes between that and seeing the Catalyst that convinced people that control was now a good idea?

Short answer: I trust the Catalyst.

Long answer:
Because I didn't spend the entire game telling TIM how dumb and horrible the idea of control is, I spent the entire game telling him that it would be a good idea if he stopped being so uncooperative and started working with the Alliance. Seriously, if he'd shared his info, the war would have been over by about the time I made peace on Rannoch.
He commited suicide because I convinced him that his unwillingness to cooperate was because of indoctrination.

During Sanctuary and Omega you see evidence that Control, of Reaper forces at least, is very possible. (Leviathan also demonstrates it, but that's a bit beyond our tech level.) My Shepard was open to both Control and Destroy as options for dealing with the Reapers, but preferred Destroy up until he learnt about the cost to the Geth and EDI and any other Synthetics out there.

My central problem with Control is that it sounds too good to be true - it is far easier to destroy than to control, and when galactic survival is on the cards, you aim for the easy option. In ordinary circumstances, I'd be suspicious of Control... Except, we're given no choice but to trust the Catalyst, even if you pick Destroy. 
If the Catalyst wanted to kill Shepard, it could have sent a couple of Marauders to shoot Shepard while we lay unconscious next to Anderson and TIM. If it wanted to indoctrinate Shepard, then have the Marauders abduct him and sit him inside Harbinger for a week. If it wants to trick Shepard: why? To what purpose? What would tricking Shep achieve that Indoctrinating him wouldn't?
So yeah, given the somewhat extreme circumstances: I trust the Catalyst.

Modifié par JasonShepard, 23 mars 2013 - 08:17 .

[thearbiter1337]

Pre-EC:Destroy:I needed to stop the reapers

Post-EC:Refusal:Why do you expect me to trust a faulty A.I

[remydat]

Aaleel wrote...

Sacrifice the reapers??  The reapers are the biggest mass murderers in the history of the galaxy.  At the every least it's self defense, and at most it's just saving the organic races the cost of all those trials and executions. 

Destroy gives everyone the chance to work things out for themselves without the Overlord in the space station with the unstobbale army constantly looking down, never knowing when it's going to intervene or go crazy like the last one when it thought it had an idea that made sense.  I'm sure the last Catalyst had good intentions in the beginning to.

And what choice does Synthesis give the Gazillion people, not just the races involved in the conflict but the races that don't know anything about it who haven't even found a relay yet.  Synthesis is far worse in terms of taking away people's right the choose and make their own way than any of the other endings BY FAR.  It's one person saying you guys can't get along so I'm going to change everyone in the way I see fit to try and make you get along.  How people can say Synthesis and decide for yourself in the same breath is beyond me.

The fact that in this entire rant you thought I meant the reapers and not the Geth and EDI is proof enough of you bias.  You just went and on and on about the wonderful oportunities Destroy gives organics without even identifying the synthetics, lol.  Bias much?

[DarthRic]

Modifié par DarthRic, 23 mars 2013 - 09:31 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

remydat wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

I don't understand how you can think Control or Synthesis is more morally correct than Destroy both those former choice are abhorrent and have more negative consequences.

Star Kid says Destory doesn't guarantee that organics will still not create other synthetics who without the Reapers won't ultimately destroy them.  Even if he didn't say it, that can obviously be understood as a threat by simply logic as every f**king cycle has created synthetics.

So basically I after being able to make peace between organics and synthetics decide to eradicate synthetics and basically agree with the Reapers that the only way to solve the problem is by harvesting but unlike them I choose to harvest just synthetics.

So once again, Control or Synthesis is more morally correct to me because whatevrer the risks it applies those risks to EVERYONE EQUALLY and it gives EVERYONE the chance to figure out how to resolve their issues without the Reapers or Shepard deciding they are the only ones who can solve it by harvesting sentient species.

You are free to disagree but if I have to impose my will on someone,  I will do so by trying to make a decision that is fair to all involved and gives them an opportunity to live and solve their own problems.

What? so what if they create synthetics? as the Geth/Quarian conflict proves there can be peace between them, and even if you ignore that there is Edi who is in love with an organic and cares deeply for her crew. The only fair decision is to Destroy the Reapers, Legion and Edi tell you multiple times its the only way. To profoundly change a person against there will is wrong, whether it is good for them or not, which going by what the catalyst and Edi says its not.

[Aaleel]

remydat wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Sacrifice the reapers??  The reapers are the biggest mass murderers in the history of the galaxy.  At the every least it's self defense, and at most it's just saving the organic races the cost of all those trials and executions. 

Destroy gives everyone the chance to work things out for themselves without the Overlord in the space station with the unstobbale army constantly looking down, never knowing when it's going to intervene or go crazy like the last one when it thought it had an idea that made sense.  I'm sure the last Catalyst had good intentions in the beginning to.

And what choice does Synthesis give the Gazillion people, not just the races involved in the conflict but the races that don't know anything about it who haven't even found a relay yet.  Synthesis is far worse in terms of taking away people's right the choose and make their own way than any of the other endings BY FAR.  It's one person saying you guys can't get along so I'm going to change everyone in the way I see fit to try and make you get along.  How people can say Synthesis and decide for yourself in the same breath is beyond me.

The fact that in this entire rant you thought I meant the reapers and not the Geth and EDI is proof enough of you bias.  You just went and on and on about the wonderful oportunities Destroy gives organics without even identifying the synthetics, lol.  Bias much?

So I guess you didn't say this in the response I replied to? 

But like the Reaper, no you don't want to give people a chance to work
out their own issues, you want to sacrifice Reapers so just like them
you can arbitrarily decide to solve the problem by eradicating a
species.

I addressed this line and then went on about how Control and Synthesis aren't anymore giving people more of a chance to decide for themselves than destroy.  I'd hardly call it a rant, and you just ignored the rest of it.

Modifié par Aaleel, 23 mars 2013 - 08:27 .

[remydat]

Aaleel wrote...

remydat wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Sacrifice the reapers??  The reapers are the biggest mass murderers in the history of the galaxy.  At the every least it's self defense, and at most it's just saving the organic races the cost of all those trials and executions. 

Destroy gives everyone the chance to work things out for themselves without the Overlord in the space station with the unstobbale army constantly looking down, never knowing when it's going to intervene or go crazy like the last one when it thought it had an idea that made sense.  I'm sure the last Catalyst had good intentions in the beginning to.

And what choice does Synthesis give the Gazillion people, not just the races involved in the conflict but the races that don't know anything about it who haven't even found a relay yet.  Synthesis is far worse in terms of taking away people's right the choose and make their own way than any of the other endings BY FAR.  It's one person saying you guys can't get along so I'm going to change everyone in the way I see fit to try and make you get along.  How people can say Synthesis and decide for yourself in the same breath is beyond me.

The fact that in this entire rant you thought I meant the reapers and not the Geth and EDI is proof enough of you bias.  You just went and on and on about the wonderful oportunities Destroy gives organics without even identifying the synthetics, lol.  Bias much?

So I guess you didn't say this in the response I replied to? 

But like the Reaper, no you don't want to give people a chance to work
out their own issues, you want to sacrifice Reapers so just like them
you can arbitrarily decide to solve the problem by eradicating a
species.

I addressed this line and then went on about how Control and Synthesis aren't anymore giving people more of a chance to decide for themselves than destroy.  I'd hardly call it a rant, and you just ignored the rest of it.

My apologies.  That line was a typo, I meant to say synthetics there.  I don't care about sacrificing Reapers. The species I was refering to was the Geth.  What I was trying to say is the following and not seeing the typo until you pointed it out I was like WTF is this person going on about, lol.

But like the Reaper, no you don't want to give people a chance to work
out their own issues, you want to sacrifice synthetics so just like them
you can arbitrarily decide to solve the problem by eradicating a
species ie the Geth and EDI.

Modifié par remydat, 23 mars 2013 - 08:35 .

[Wayning_Star]

What does current earthlings have in common with Shepard and/or MEU human citizens?

(hint: not much