439 réponses à ce sujet

[remydat]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Actually if the Geth are dead you just kill the Reapers and EDI.

Problem?

Umm yeah you still prove the Reapers right.  If th Geth are dead then that means you simply choose to exterminate them before the end game.  Conflict was inevitable according to you so you eliminated them earlier than you had to, lol.

So you are merely a more efficient Reaper that just jumped the gun a bit, lol.

[knightnblu]

I assume you prefer a bulleted list and so I shall refrain from any explanation.

I chose destroy because:

1. It guarantees neutralization of the Reapers
2. It provides justice to past and present victims of the Reapers
3. Synthesis is an abomination
4. Control doesn't provide a guaranteed finish to the Reapers
5. I have no reason to trust the Catalyst and that makes Destroy the optimal choice
6. It's what Anderson would do and he hasn't steered me wrong yet
7. Number 6 is also supported by Hackett
8. Of the three options, Destroy is the most true to Shepard's character
9. I will be damned if I will follow TIM or the Catalyst to their preferred solution
10. The Catalyst's logic is fatally flawed

[Nole]

remydat wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Actually if the Geth are dead you just kill the Reapers and EDI.

Problem?

Umm yeah you still prove the Reapers right.  If th Geth are dead then that means you simply choose to exterminate them before the end game.  Conflict was inevitable according to you so you eliminated them earlier than you had to, lol.

So you are merely a more efficient Reaper that just jumped the gun a bit, lol.

Maybe the reapers were right, maybe not. I don't care. I chose Destroy, and Shepard and I thought it was the correct decision. .

[Taboo]

remydat wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Actually if the Geth are dead you just kill the Reapers and EDI.

Problem?

Umm yeah you still prove the Reapers right.  If th Geth are dead then that means you simply choose to exterminate them before the end game.  Conflict was inevitable according to you so you eliminated them earlier than you had to, lol.

So you are merely a more efficient Reaper that just jumped the gun a bit, lol.

It actually shows that Organics are capable of defeating them.  Synthetics will not always Destroy organics. The Catalyst fails to mention this AND he also fails to mention the Protheans turning the tide in their Synthetic war.

The Catalyst already presents an appeal to probability which is fallacious.

Note this doesn't DISPROVE him either though. 

[Aaleel]

@ remydat

You did not create a weapon to kill all synthetics, you created a weapon to kill reapers. Finding out there was going to be collateral damage at the last moment does not mean you dislike all synthetics. You may have a point if I would have made a different choice if the collateral damage were organic, but I wouldn't have.

Synthesis doesn't leave people to work things out for themselves. You're forcing change on everyone who knows about synthetics as well as any race who has yet to even find a relay because you're saying they're incapable of having peace as is. And the fact that you would write anything about someone being consulted about something in your post and then talk synthesis is comical.

You're trying to make it seem like anyone who picked destroy hated all synthetics or intended on targeting all synthetics when building the crucible which is patently false.

There will be more synthetics in the future and I (my Shepard) feels that we'll be fine getting along on our own as long as the reaper influence is gone.

[Steelcan]

Taboo-XX wrote...


It actually shows that Organics are capable of defeating them.  Synthetics will not always Destroy organics. The Catalyst fails to mention this AND he also fails to mention the Protheans turning the tide in their Synthetic war.

The Catalyst already presents an appeal to probability which is fallacious.

Note this doesn't DISPROVE him either though. 

. An but it does.  He makes an absolutist claim "synthetics would destroy ALL organics" destroying the geth proves this absolutist statement wrong.

[remydat]

Aaleel wrote...

@ remydat

You did not create a weapon to kill all synthetics, you created a weapon to kill reapers. Finding out there was going to be collateral damage at the last moment does not mean you dislike all synthetics. You may have a point if I would have made a different choice if the collateral damage were organic, but I wouldn't have.

Synthesis doesn't leave people to work things out for themselves. You're forcing change on everyone who knows about synthetics as well as any race who has yet to even find a relay because you're saying they're incapable of having peace as is. And the fact that you would write anything about someone being consulted about something in your post and then talk synthesis is comical.

You're trying to make it seem like anyone who picked destroy hated all synthetics or intended on targeting all synthetics when building the crucible which is patently false.

There will be more synthetics in the future and I (my Shepard) feels that we'll be fine getting along on our own as long as the reaper influence is gone.

Shep doesn't know this because he did not design the Crucible.  Do you honestly think all the organic races that worked on it over all these millions of years did not know it would kill all synthetics?  You are being naive.  It is likely the people who designed and developed it understood it could possible kill synthetics.  They just didn't care.  What organic race in the game cares about synthetics prior to Shepard?  You think the Protheans cared if it killed all synthetics.

And saying you do the same if it killed organics is hard to believe.  Refuse would be more humane beause the Reapers would only reap advanced organics leaving the non-advanced organics alone.  So be honest here, if it killed organics you would not choose to wipe out ALL advanced and non-advanced organic life just so synthetics could live.

No I am forcing change on everyone EQUALLY because the alternative is prejudicially deciding to exterminate the very group I claim to want to co-exist with.  It is illogical.  Did you consult synthetics when you pick destroy.  The fact is some people will like synthesis and some will not.  Joker might like not having to worry about breaking a bone from a simply hug.  In any event, whether they agree or disagree they can tell me about it.  I suppose you are lucky because the people who disagree with Destroy aside from Joker due to EDI are all dead so you don't have to be confronted you forcing that decision on them.

No I said it is a Reaper like decision.  The Reapers don't hate organics.  They do what they do because they deem it necessary.  That is what you did.  All you are saying here is you don't want to decide for organics that they should accept synthesis so instead you decided for synthetics they must be eradicated.  You have a prejudice towards not want to make decision for organics but are fully willing to make decisions for synthetics.

So make no mistake, all the choices require you to impose your will on someone.  In Synthetics and Control you impose your will on EVERYONE equally and they all live to tell you whether they agree or disagree with you.  In Destroy you impose your will on Synthetics and any organics who would have preferred synthetics live (Joker and Quarians like say Koris) but you have the luxury of having killed just about everyone who would disagreed with you, lol.

[Enhanced]

Steelcan wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...


It actually shows that Organics are capable of defeating them.  Synthetics will not always Destroy organics. The Catalyst fails to mention this AND he also fails to mention the Protheans turning the tide in their Synthetic war.

The Catalyst already presents an appeal to probability which is fallacious.

Note this doesn't DISPROVE him either though. 

. An but it does.  He makes an absolutist claim "synthetics would destroy ALL organics" destroying the geth proves this absolutist statement wrong.

When does he claim that? I've only heard him say "The created will always rebel against their creators" and  "chaos is inevitable".

Modifié par Enhanced, 09 avril 2013 - 06:57 .

[remydat]

Taboo-XX wrote...

It actually shows that Organics are capable of defeating them.  Synthetics will not always Destroy organics. The Catalyst fails to mention this AND he also fails to mention the Protheans turning the tide in their Synthetic war.

The Catalyst already presents an appeal to probability which is fallacious.

Note this doesn't DISPROVE him either though. 

No it doesn't.  The Geth were created before the Harvest so they are not the true synthetic threat the Catalyst speaks of.  The true threat comes years later because now with the harvest defeated, organics will advance and create more advanced AI.

Same with the Protheans.  That war occurred before the Harvest.  The whole point of the Harvest is for the Reapers to come  BEFORE the advanced synthetic is created that would destory organics.  So organics defeating a synthetic race before the harvest simply suggests that synthetic race was not advanced enough to destroy their creators completely because the organics were not advanced enough to create that true synthetic threat.

And furthermore, the Catalyst says conflict is inevitable.  He also says synthetics will destroy organics.  Those are two separate statements.  The first does not need the second to be true for it to be true.  Conflict regardless of who wins can still be inevitable.  So all you did is ignore the statement I was discussing (ie the first statement) to tell me something about the second statement which was not the statement I was referring too.

Steelcan wrote...

An but it does.  He makes an absolutist claim "synthetics would destroy ALL organics" destroying the geth proves this absolutist statement wrong.

See above.  He makes several statements.  The conflict is inevitable and created rebelling against the creators is so far been correct.  The one about synthetics destroying organics is not proven or disproven because no cycle has ever survived past the harvest that was designed to prevent it.  The only way to prove that statement would be if civilization advances further post-Harvest and then creates a synthetic race far more advanced than the Geth because they surived the Harvest.  Only then can we see if a conflict arises and if the advanced synthetic race destroys organics or not.  That advanced synthetic race owing to the more advanced organics who survied long enough post harvest to create them might for example be born with Reaper Code ie as a fully actualized AI unlike the Geth.

Modifié par remydat, 09 avril 2013 - 06:52 .

[Bill Casey]

Enhanced wrote...

When does he claim that?

Here..

www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par Bill Casey, 09 avril 2013 - 06:49 .

[Aaleel]

@ remydat

Why would Shepard think that the crucible was going to target all synthetics. Shepard was under the impression that it was a super weapon that could destroy the bulk of the reaper forces at Earth. Why would Shepard think that anything would have the power to reach every corner of the galaxy at one time from Earth? Please, there is no way anyone would think this.

And why would it be unbelievable that I would sacrifice organics to stop the reapers. I flew an asteroid into a relay and killed a few hundred thousand Batarians. I was willing to make a sacrifice to ensure that reapers would never kill another being in the name of their illogical plan. There was only way to do this, destroy them.

And how can you ask if I consulted synthetics synthesis changes everyone without consulting. They may get to speak their mind afterwards but the act is done. If they didn't want to be synthesized what are you going to Do? Nothing, is the answer they're just stuck to live out their lives in a body they hate. Don't you think some people may have rather died than do this,

But of course you've altered their understanding and their perceptions so they may agree with anything you say who knows,

Also what about the races who haven't found a relay yet. They just wake up one day not knowing what they are, with understanding of things they should have no knowledge of. You're screwing around with peoples evolution just as much as the reapers ever were.

[BansheeOwnage]

Aaleel wrote...

@ remydat

Why would Shepard think that the crucible was going to target all synthetics. Shepard was under the impression that it was a super weapon that could destroy the bulk of the reaper forces at Earth. Why would Shepard think that anything would have the power to reach every corner of the galaxy at one time from Earth? Please, there is no way anyone would think this.

And why would it be unbelievable that I would sacrifice organics to stop the reapers. I flew an asteroid into a relay and killed a few hundred thousand Batarians. I was willing to make a sacrifice to ensure that reapers would never kill another being in the name of their illogical plan. There was only way to do this, destroy them.

And how can you ask if I consulted synthetics synthesis changes everyone without consulting. They may get to speak their mind afterwards but the act is done. If they didn't want to be synthesized what are you going to Do? Nothing, is the answer they're just stuck to live out their lives in a body they hate. Don't you think some people may have rather died than do this,

But of course you've altered their understanding and their perceptions so they may agree with anything you say who knows,

Also what about the races who haven't found a relay yet. They just wake up one day not knowing what they are, with understanding of things they should have no knowledge of. You're screwing around with peoples evolution just as much as the reapers ever were.

Quote for truth. I would sacrifice the whole cycle to stop the reapers. Why? Because it frees potentially limitless future cycles. And synthesis is what the reapers want. It either brainwashes people to make peace, or it doesn't make peace. There is no other option.

[Astartes Marine]

Destroy

• It's the only ending where the threat of the Reapers is well and truly over.  Control and Synthesis allow their continued existence and thus all life is still at risk.
• We take the future into our own hands rather than it be given to us by getting rid of the Reapers.  We break free of their cycle to forge our own path.  We'll make mistakes sure, but they'll be our mistakes to worry about.
• Shepard lives in high EMS ending.

I would have decided on Refuse actually...if Refuse were actually winnable and not be a big slap to the face from the writers.  I like the speech from Refuse, very Babylon 5 Sheridan-like...but again, you get flipped off by the writers for shunning their "art".

[BansheeOwnage]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

You have the best banner ever of all time. *salute*

[BansheeOwnage]

Astartes Marine wrote...

Destroy

• It's the only ending where the threat of the Reapers is well and truly over.  Control and Synthesis allow their continued existence and thus all life is still at risk.
  
• We take the future into our own hands rather than it be given to us by getting rid of the Reapers.  We break free of their cycle to forge our own path.  We'll make mistakes sure, but they'll be our mistakes to worry about.
  
• Shepard lives in high EMS ending.

Those reasons, especially the last 2, are exactly what stories - fiction- are supposed to do. That's what kind of story Mass Effect has always been. And that's why destroy is on the right side. It's the only right choice. Also, refuse is quite cool.

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 09 avril 2013 - 07:12 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

You have the best banner ever of all time. *salute*

Why thank you *bows*

[Jagri]

Destroy ~

1) It was always my objective.

2) Freedom from cycle and influence of the Reapers.

3) To perimently remove the Reaper threat forever.

Modifié par Jagri, 09 avril 2013 - 07:29 .

[remydat]

Aaleel wrote...

@ remydat

Why would Shepard think that the crucible was going to target all synthetics. Shepard was under the impression that it was a super weapon that could destroy the bulk of the reaper forces at Earth. Why would Shepard think that anything would have the power to reach every corner of the galaxy at one time from Earth? Please, there is no way anyone would think this.

And why would it be unbelievable that I would sacrifice organics to stop the reapers. I flew an asteroid into a relay and killed a few hundred thousand Batarians. I was willing to make a sacrifice to ensure that reapers would never kill another being in the name of their illogical plan. There was only way to do this, destroy them.

And how can you ask if I consulted synthetics synthesis changes everyone without consulting. They may get to speak their mind afterwards but the act is done. If they didn't want to be synthesized what are you going to Do? Nothing, is the answer they're just stuck to live out their lives in a body they hate. Don't you think some people may have rather died than do this,

But of course you've altered their understanding and their perceptions so they may agree with anything you say who knows,

Also what about the races who haven't found a relay yet. They just wake up one day not knowing what they are, with understanding of things they should have no knowledge of. You're screwing around with peoples evolution just as much as the reapers ever were.

I am not talking about Shep only.  We agree he did not know.  I am talking about organics as a group.  The organics that developed the Crucible over milllions of years had to be aware of it's potential to kill all synthetics.  The Reapers were a threat to both synthetics and organics but the organics choose to create a weapon that only kills synthetics.

Why would you kill all organics including those races who haven't found a relay yet and have nothing to do with this conflict?  Let's look at your logic for opposing synthesis.  It forces a decision on everyone.  They all live.  You somehow think that is worse than forcing a decision on all organics or all synthetics and the result of you doing so is they all die including people not involved in the conflict?

It makes no sense.  You keep focusing on the fact synthesis forces a decision on people as if Destroy does not do the same thing.  The only difference is synthesis forces a decision on EVERYONE EQUALLY while destroy forces a decision on just a group of people you are willing to exterminate.  They are both morally objectionable decisions but I would choose a decision that EVERYONE has to LIVE WITH instead of one where  I DECIDE to exterminate Synthetics or Organics.

So whether you admit it or not, you are sub-consciously deciding synthetic life is worth the price.  I don't see how if you are concerned about those organics who haven't even found a relay yet that you would basically choose to wipe them from existence if that was the price of Destroy.  Who says, "Hey primitive organic, I don't want to force you to become a hybrid and live so instead I will just wipe from from existence all together just in case you would have not wanted to have a greater understanding of the universe, be free from disease, etc, lol."  Synthesis has both good and bad.  Dead is dead.

Modifié par remydat, 09 avril 2013 - 07:36 .

[remydat]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Quote for truth. I would sacrifice the whole cycle to stop the reapers. Why? Because it frees potentially limitless future cycles. And synthesis is what the reapers want. It either brainwashes people to make peace, or it doesn't make peace. There is no other option.

You are not just sacrificing the whole cycle.  You are sacrificing all organic life which includes the primitive races.  Where is the limitless potential if all organic life is dead?

Sorry guys, you can say what you want but there is no logical reason if Destroy killed all organics that you would pick it.  You would be killing all advanced and primitive organics in the entire galaxy.  You only hope for organic life then would be if a planet somehow recreated it from stratch which takes millions if not billions of years or if synthetics appreciate your sacrifice so much that they speed up the millions or billions of years it takes to create organic races.  Only problem is why would they.  We offer no technological advantage really and we will potentially start wars with them.

So let's just be honest.  You choose Destroy because you are fine with killing synthetic life.  Not a big deal, it is what is is.  Trying to pretend you would do the same if it was organics is just silly.

Again what logic is this.  Nope can't let organics live with the benefits and cons of synthesis or control so I will wipe them out and hope that in a million or a billion years evolution will create them again, lol.

Modifié par remydat, 09 avril 2013 - 07:36 .

[S.A.K]

I prefer destroy. Here are my reasons:
+ Kills the Reapers
+ This is what Shepard came to do.
+ Doesn't mess up peoples DNA.
+ Doesn't enslave Reapers and Shepard won't be Catalyst 2.0.
+ Shepard can live.
+ Gets rid of the Geth.
+ Things Hackett said in the end.

Only minus point is EDI dies.

[fr33stylez]

Destroy.

Short answer? It's the least horrible, least nonsensical choice for me.

Long answer? I as the audience cannot grasp the alleged 'singularity problem' the Catalyst describes in the last 5 minutes of the trilogy because A) The preceding narrative doesn't tell this story; The suplots presented in the trilogy even subvert/contradict this story.

If you want to tell a story about a singularity...you have to tell a story about a singularity. ME didn't do this, so a new Catalyst saying one exist 'because I said so' is not good enough, and just terrible writing.

With this in mind, the only choice I can reconcile in of itself is Destroy, even which the arbitrary 'ALL SYNTHETICS DIE' punishment the writers attached in order to artifically balance Destroy with the other 2 choices. Considering I cannot accept the Catalyst's problem exists, I see no need in trying to 'correct' it with Synthesis (which list many mentioned, is explained in magical terms). I also had no random desire to enforce transhumanism to the rest of the galaxy - maybe if I was playing a different game, I'd remotely consider it. Same with Control - I didn't have a sudden urge in the last 5 minutes to control the Reapers while 'guiding' the galaxy under a new found mandate. I just don't see the build up for such a decision to be made in this game - it would've helped if they allowed a hypothetical Shepard to even philosophize about such a choice anywhere in the 3 ME games.

But I'm fine with people that choose these options simply based on the consequences of the choice (i.e. gameplay decision) rather than its appropriateness within the story that was presented; that's just not how I play the game.

Modifié par fr33stylez, 09 avril 2013 - 08:18 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Oh one other reason that I forgot to mention.

Dat Hackett epilogue.

[Adoramei]

tickle267 wrote...

destroy. shepard lives so headcanon goes wild.

Eh heh. My headcanon involves completely erasing the star-child scene, so I didn't have to commit genocide to get Shepard to survive.

[Astartes Marine]

Adoramei wrote...

tickle267 wrote...
destroy. shepard lives so headcanon goes wild.

Eh heh. My headcanon involves completely erasing the star-child scene, so I didn't have to commit genocide to get Shepard to survive.

The "genocide" is not even guaranteed.  Brat was wrong about Shepard dying since Shepard survives (high ems), not ALL synthetics are affected since VIs are still around (even simple doors use VIs), biotics still have their amps, Alliance troops still have their implants, and we are never explicitly shown dead/deactivated Geth. 

Just more speculation for all I guess.