166 réponses à ce sujet

[jds1bio]

...you got to discuss and hear what your companions thought of the Catalyst and the options it presented Shepard?

Now, I'm not talking about what they think of Synthesis or Control or Destroying the Reapers in general.  I'm talking about them knowing that Shepard has to make this choice on behalf of the entire galaxy, and has to do it now.

Because after months of thought, deliberation, and reflecting on discussion, I think this was what was missing from the last part of the ending - the squadmate relationships and conflicts, the bedrock of the series established in the first game, cemented in the second game, and mostly carried through to resolution in the third game.

How WOULD Joker react to Shepard choosing the Destroy option?  Would Ashley respect for you if you chose Control?  Could Garrus handle Synthesis knowing what Saren tried to do?  Would they all stand behind you if you simply refused the Catalyst?

I think that what the companions think of the catalyst and the "final solution" to the Reaper threat is even more compelling about the story of Shepard than whether he/she lives or dies, or (if the galaxy survives) who goes on to have whose babies and such.

So, would your ending choice be different?  And would your feelings about it be different?

Modifié par jds1bio, 11 avril 2013 - 06:10 .

[PirateMouse]

No, because given the scenario and the choices offered, there are only two rational choices: Refusal (if you don't believe Starbrat) or Control (if you do).  Synthesis is crazy, and Destroy while a non-genocidal option exists is unacceptably evil.  Refusal makes sense in the context that Shepard has absolutely no reason to believe Starbrat, but unfortunately it ends in what is effectively a Critical Mission Failure (even though you don't actually get that screen).

Therefore, Control is the only truly viable and acceptable canon choice.

Modifié par PirateMouse, 12 avril 2013 - 02:47 .

[Zan51]

No, because my job was to destroy the Reapers, not merge with them and become Super Shreaper, not to become Cyber Shep, but to Destroy.

Refuse, if it hadn't killed me so I could carry on fighting the Reapers, told my buddies and Command about the Citadel and the need to blow it out of existence, would have been an option, but it wasn't so Destroy was my only one.

[Han Shot First]

Nope!

I'm certain the vast majority of them would be Destroyers as well. The only possible exceptions would be Morinth (helped Samara kill her anyway), EDI, and Legion.

[Spartas Husky]

Liara would say Destroy the suckers

Javik Would hold me at gun point to destroy the suckers
Garrus would say remember "virmire survivor"
Tali would say, remember what they did to Legion
James.... shoot!
EDI... they are repulsive destroy them
JOker... really we are actually considering listening to the overlord child here?
Ashley.... ummm why are we stalling?

On a side note:
Wrex, would shoot before I finished my sentence
GRunt would headbutt the tube
Samara... well that is a given
Zaeed...given
Kasumi...would say something funny before ramming her overloaded omnitool into the tube
Jacob...who cares about Jacob
Mording... they are a stale species, no cultural advancement stagnation, shepard keep up, we spoke about this before.
Geth: since legion is dead.... legion sacrifice himself for our individuality, we will not give it up.
Morinth... who the hell cares about Morinth...

[PirateMouse]

You know, you can have your preferred choice without needing to project your genocidal wishes on your crew and believe they'd all be just as quick to murder friends and allies as you despite having other options.

I'm sure Destroy would be the choice of the much "darker" members like Zaeed and Jack, though.

[Spartas Husky]

Yeah, our crew members jumped at the opportunity of trying to communicate with the collectors.

[KingZayd]

No. Destroy is the only option that brings a definite end to Reaper vs non-Reaper conflict.

[kalasaurus]

No, but I'd have liked to see some kind of interaction before making the choice. I'm guessing some of the closer squad mates (like LI's) may try to take Shepard's place or stop him/her in the "self sacrifice".

[Han Shot First]

PirateMouse wrote...

You know, you can have your preferred choice without needing to project your genocidal wishes on your crew and believe they'd all be just as quick to murder friends and allies as you despite having other options.

I'm sure Destroy would be the choice of the much "darker" members like Zaeed and Jack, though.

Destroy isn't genocide.

Also nearly the entire crew would support it. It has been the mission from the beginning It it is the only ending choice that guarantees that galactic civilization will be safe from the Reapers for all time.

It would be a replay of the Collector Base decision, where nearly everyone voices support for Destroy.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 12 avril 2013 - 05:13 .

[kalasaurus]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

PirateMouse wrote...

You know, you can have your preferred choice without needing to project your genocidal wishes on your crew

Who's projecting? I destroyed the geth back on Rannoch and the majority of them praised the decision. Those "genocidal wishes" are very much already present in the squad.

This.  EDI was the only one who disapproved of the decision, and even Joker was defending Shepard's choice.

[Kataphrut94]

They'd all go for Destroy apart from the obvious ones like Joker, EDI, Tali, etc. The problem with the Collector Base decision in 2 was that everyone apart from Zaeed supported destroying the base, which skewed people in favour of blowing it up as opposed to forming their own opinions. Let's also not forget that weird business in 1 where Garrus would slyly suggest destroying the Council could put humanity on top if you brought him with Liara or Kaidan, but beg you to not to if you brought him with Ashley or Wrex.

Besides, an external rational viewpoint doesn't quite fit with the surrealism of the final decision. Those quotes above me of all the characters going "shoot the tube" and "why would you listen to the Reaper overlord?" over the comm highlights exactly why they shouldn't be involved; it would just be underlining the absurdity of the situation, which is the last thing you want to do in your big resolution.

You know what? The fact that the characters aren't physically present or able to communicate doesn't change the fact that the choice we make is defined by them. Do we honour the wishes of Legion, or Javik? Anderson, or the Illusive Man? Do we sacrifice everything we have for the good of our love interest, or take the option that offers some slim comfort of seeing them again? Was watching the relationship between EDI and Joker develop worth choosing her life over the Reapers? Those influences are what really matter, not calling them all up and asking them to validate your decision to shoot a big red control panel.

[Asch Lavigne]

jds1bio wrote...

Could Garrus handle Synthesis knowing what Saren tried to do? 

Saren had nothing to do with Synthesis. Synthesis is about making peace between organic and synthetic life. That's now what Saren was doing. He wanted organics to bow down to the Reapers and thought if organics proved useful they would be spared.

[PirateMouse]

Han Shot First wrote...

Destroy isn't genocide.

You can tell yourself that if it makes committing genocide feel better.

[Clayless]

Han Shot First wrote...

PirateMouse wrote...

You know, you can have your preferred choice without needing to project your genocidal wishes on your crew and believe they'd all be just as quick to murder friends and allies as you despite having other options.

I'm sure Destroy would be the choice of the much "darker" members like Zaeed and Jack, though.

Destroy isn't genocide.

Also nearly the entire crew would support it. It has been the mission from the beginning It it is the only ending choice that guarantees that galactic civilization will be safe from the Reapers for all time.

It would be a replay of the Collector Base decision, where nearly everyone voices support for Destroy.

It is genocide.

And 5 crew members say keep the base. 5 say destroy it. 2 are neutral.

[Spartas Husky]

PirateMouse wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Destroy isn't genocide.

You can tell yourself that if it makes committing genocide feel better.

It is genocide, but as legion puts it:

Do not doubt yourself, they have chosen a path that prohibits coexistance. They wont feel any remorse for what they are doing to us, thus I see no reason to give them what they are seeking to give me.

Modifié par Spartas Husky, 12 avril 2013 - 05:40 .

[PirateMouse]

Spartas Husky wrote...

PirateMouse wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Destroy isn't genocide.

You can tell yourself that if it makes committing genocide feel better.

It is genocide, but do not be sorry for it, the reapers chose a path that denies our right to exist, hence I see no reason not to deny them that which they sought to take from me.

And the geth and EDI and all other synthetic life did this thing to you as well? Is that why you mercilessly slaughtered all of them as well?

Choose what you like, but don't pretend it's the moral high-ground.  Destroy is cold-blooded genocide, and make no mistake about it.  You had an alternative, and you preferred to murder an entire people who'd done you no offense instead.

The fact that most people seem to choose Destroy in spite of this does however offer some interesting and perhaps rather chilling insights into what people are really like.

Modifié par PirateMouse, 12 avril 2013 - 05:42 .

[Han Shot First]

PirateMouse wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Destroy isn't genocide.

You can tell yourself that if it makes committing genocide feel better.

Sorry sport, but the results of destroy do not meet the defintion of genocide. You either don't know what genocide is, or you're ignoring facts for the sake of spewing out some over-the-top hyperbole.

The United Nations' Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, defines genocide as an act commited 'with intent to destroy, in whole or part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.'


The intent of firing the Crucible in the red ending is to annihilate the Reapers, not to destroy the Geth. That was never the goal in Mass Effect 3, whether during the Crucible's construction or during its use. That it is even a possibility isn't even revealed until shortly after Shepard has attempted to activate it. The Geth are merely destroyed in a horrifying example of collateral damage. It is an unintended consequence of destroying the Reapers. Collateral damage doesn't meet the legal defintion of an act of genocide, as genocide requires an "intent to destroy." Without intent, there is no genocide.

Furthermore the destruction of the Reapers, a hyper-advanced fleet of A.I. warships that have caused the mass extinction of countless sapient space-faring species for billions of years, and were currently in engaged in attempting to annihilate the current galactic civilization, constitutes a military necessity even if it comes at the cost of the Geth.

Military necessity is a legal concept used in international humanitarian law (IHL) as part of the legal justification for attacks on legitimate military targets that may have adverse, even terrible, consequences for civilians and civilian objects. It means that military forces in planning military actions are permitted to take into account the practical requirements of a military situation at any given moment and the imperatives of winning. The concept of military necessity acknowledges that even under the laws of war, winning the war or battle is a legitimate consideration, though it must be put alongside other considerations of IHL.

http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/military-necessity/]Military Necessity[/url]


Destroy is the only choice that doesn't kick the can down the road for future generations to worry about, and unlike Contriol and Synthesis it does not bet the galaxy's future on hope that the Reapers won't one day resume hostilities and annihilate every sapient species in existence.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 12 avril 2013 - 05:47 .

[PirateMouse]

Han Shot First wrote...

Sorry sport, but the results of destroy do not meet the defintion of genocide. You either don't know what genocide is, or you're ignoring facts for the sake of spewing out some over-the-top hyperbole.

The United Nations' Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, defines genocide as an act commited 'with intent to destroy, in whole or part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.'

The intent of firing the Crucible in the red ending is to annihilate the Reapers, not to destroy the Geth.

Disingenuous sophistry.  You may as well argue that if you shoot through someone with the "intention" of hitting someone else, you therefore didn't murder the person you shot through.  I challenge you to try using that as your defense at trial.

The act of shooting through the first victim was quite deliberate and intentional, as was your act of genocide against EDI, the geth, and all other synthetic life.

Destroy is the only choice that doesn't kick the can down the road for future generations to worry about, and unlike Contriol and Synthesis it does not bet the galaxy's future on hope that the Reapers won't one day resume hostilities and annihilate every sapient species in existence.

In Control they can't.  That's the point.

Modifié par PirateMouse, 12 avril 2013 - 05:51 .

[Spartas Husky]

PirateMouse wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

PirateMouse wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Destroy isn't genocide.

You can tell yourself that if it makes committing genocide feel better.

It is genocide, but do not be sorry for it, the reapers chose a path that denies our right to exist, hence I see no reason not to deny them that which they sought to take from me.

And the geth and EDI and all other synthetic life did this thing to you as well? Is that why you mercilessly slaughtered all of them as well?

Choose what you like, but don't pretend it's the moral high-ground.  Destroy is cold-blooded genocide, and make no mistake about it.  You had an alternative, and you preferred to murder an entire people who'd done you no offense instead.

The fact that most people seem to choose Destroy in spite of this does however offer some interesting and perhaps rather chilling insights into what people are really like.

The Geth could be negotiated to exist apart from me to respect my life as I respect theirs.

I never said it was a moral highground, it is cold blooded genocide sort of the overall theme of the third game.

The alternative is to be arrogant enough to delude myself into thinking I am somehow unique and can control them, or be idealistic enough to assume they are right in their path to seek our gooification.

The right choice is seldom the one that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.

People are animals, and when another animal seeks the other's destruction and neither diplomacy nor threats dislodge the other animals from doing us harm we see no reason not to seek their destruction.

Is called Self preservation.

Hell I would not have mind asking the reapers to leave the galaxy and leave us and our bodies intact, but then that is the impasse. Either they survive through our genocide, or we survive through the genocide. Take your pick, dont claim to be a holier than though, I certainly never claim to have the higher moral ground.

[KingZayd]

PirateMouse wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

PirateMouse wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Destroy isn't genocide.

You can tell yourself that if it makes committing genocide feel better.

It is genocide, but do not be sorry for it, the reapers chose a path that denies our right to exist, hence I see no reason not to deny them that which they sought to take from me.

And the geth and EDI and all other synthetic life did this thing to you as well? Is that why you mercilessly slaughtered all of them as well?

Choose what you like, but don't pretend it's the moral high-ground.  Destroy is cold-blooded genocide, and make no mistake about it.  You had an alternative, and you preferred to murder an entire people who'd done you no offense instead.

The fact that most people seem to choose Destroy in spite of this does however offer some interesting and perhaps rather chilling insights into what people are really like.

None of the alternatives do anything to protect the galaxy from Reaper vs non-Reaper conflict.

[PirateMouse]

Spartas Husky wrote...

The alternative is to be arrogant enough to delude myself into thinking I am somehow unique and can control them

Why not? You deluded yourself into believing shooting the Crucible would kill them just because Starbrat told you so easily enough.  Why stop there?

[PirateMouse]

KingZayd wrote...

None of the alternatives do anything to protect the galaxy from Reaper vs non-Reaper conflict.

Control does.

[PwrdOff]

I don't get what the big deal is about Destroy wiping out the geth. You could always just build more.