166 réponses à ce sujet

[TheGreatDayne]

Nope. I will flick them all off, and yell, "Well, screw you all for choosing me to be the hero! And screw you, Liara, for retrieving my body!! And screw you, Cerberus, for rebuilding me!!!! Now, I am going to jump the beam/shoot the tubes/become the Reaper overlord/sit here and wait just to spite you all! And you guys better tell that to the rest of the Galaxy!"

Yeah, that whole peer pressure thing might just drive my Shepard to that point...

[Solaxe]

PirateMouse wrote...

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.

Destroy is evil to you, while refuse is not? Are you serious?

[GeneralMoskvin_2.0]

Xilizhra wrote...

It seems relatively unlikely. My opinion on the matter is "if you're willing to kill every last geth to avoid a hypothetical future fear of the Reapers, your opinion doesn't matter to me in any case."

You, sir, have summed up the entire discussion. We all know as soon as the ending choices are on the table that Synthetics will be eradicated. Geth are Synthetics. And remember Legion's semifinal words when trying to kill the Geth? "We will not allow you to choose the faith of an entire species."

I consider the Reapers victims of Starbrat. Nothing more, nothing less.

Modifié par GeneralMoskvin_2.0, 12 avril 2013 - 02:29 .

[JasonShepard]

Solaxe wrote...

PirateMouse wrote...

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.

Destroy is evil to you, while refuse is not? Are you serious?

PirateMouse is coming at it from the angle of complete distrust of the Catalyst - in which case, you don't want to do a single thing that it is telling you to do. Thus:  Refuse.

If you are willing to trust the Catalyst, then the only problem with Control is the risk of the future Shep-AI going insane a few millenia down the line (and it's more likely that the Shep-AI would just leave the galaxy at some point and/or have disarmed itself by then). Thus picking Destroy is causing unnecessary casualties compared to Control. That's his point.

I don't disagree with PirateMouse, but I do hold that Destroy is not a bad choice - after all, it does permanently remove the Reaper problem. The question comes down to the risks of a Shepard-AI vs the loss of life for the Geth, EDI and any other Synthetics out there (and the destruction of the best case of organic-synthetic peace in a LONG time). And in that question, I side with Control.

[DeinonSlayer]

I compare the loss of EDI (and the Geth, if they're still around) in the Destroy ending to the loss of the hostages in Bring Down The Sky. It's a price worth paying if it ensures Balak can never hurt anyone again.

[CDR David Shepard]

Every single companion would agree with my Shepard...that Destroy was the best option.

[Steelcan]

I'm pretty sure they'd all jump on board Destroy. The only possible exceptions are EDI and Legion for Synthesis.

[PirateMouse]

JasonShepard wrote...

PirateMouse is coming at it from the angle of complete distrust of the Catalyst - in which case, you don't want to do a single thing that it is telling you to do. Thus:  Refuse.

If you are willing to trust the Catalyst, then the only problem with Control is the risk of the future Shep-AI going insane a few millenia down the line (and it's more likely that the Shep-AI would just leave the galaxy at some point and/or have disarmed itself by then). Thus picking Destroy is causing unnecessary casualties compared to Control. That's his point.

I don't disagree with PirateMouse, but I do hold that Destroy is not a bad choice - after all, it does permanently remove the Reaper problem. The question comes down to the risks of a Shepard-AI vs the loss of life for the Geth, EDI and any other Synthetics out there (and the destruction of the best case of organic-synthetic peace in a LONG time). And in that question, I side with Control.

You perfectly summed up my point, yes.  Thank you.

Refusal can be taken as simply not believing Starbrat, and if you don't believe the brat to begin with, then choosing Destroy makes no more sense than choosing Control or Synthesis.  Any of those three choices is just a choice presented to you by an entity you've chosen not to believe.

Between Destroy and Control, it comes down to a question of whether we choose to destroy an entire class of sentient beings now out of the fear that "something bad" might happen later if we don't.  The Destroy choice at the end of the game is essentially the same choice as killing the rachni queen in ME1 -- you're committing deliberate genocide to eliminate a possible (but by no means guaranteed) future threat.  "The ends justify the means."  It's the ultimate Renegade option ... which ironically, despite being Renegon to the core, I refuse to choose.

Then again, I also refused to kill the rachni queen.

In fairness, the fear implied in choosing Destroy could be justified.  Maybe Shepard AI will go insane down the line.  To me, though, committing genocide out of fear of what "might" happen in the future is simply unacceptable.  To be so ruled by fear that we begin committing atrocities that may never have been necessary at all ... that way madness lies.

Modifié par PirateMouse, 12 avril 2013 - 04:19 .

[robertthebard]

jds1bio wrote...

...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?

No, because so long as I have to swallow the survival of Harbinger's laser, I won't get that far.

[Han Shot First]

PirateMouse wrote...

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.

Not only do you not know the definition of genocide, but you apparently don't know what murder is either.

Lets say you're the victim of a home invasion. An armed criminal is in your home, and your life is potentially in danger. You shoot the man breaking into your home but a bullet happens to pass through him, exits through a window and strikes an innocent bystander on the street. You're aren't going to be charged with assault (or murder, if the bystander dies) because you didn't intend to hurt the bystander. You also had a right to defend your own life.

In order for a person to be charged with murder there has to be intent. Likewise genocide, which is a form of mass murder, requires intent.

PirateMouse wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

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.

What guarantee is there with Control that the Reapers won't one day annihilate galactic civilization? The entity that replaces that Catalyst isn't Shepard. It is an A.I. that simply mimics aspects of Shepard's personality. If this wasn't a work of fiction and you were in Shepard's boots, would you really be willing to bet the galaxy's future on Catalyst 2.0?

PirateMouse wrote...

JasonShepard wrote...

PirateMouse is coming at it from the angle of complete distrust of the Catalyst - in which case, you don't want to do a single thing that it is telling you to do. Thus: Refuse.

You perfectly summed up my point, yes. Thank you.
.

I'm honestly surprised that anyone would choose Refuse as their canon ending.

It turns Shepard into a bumbling incompetent who isn't fit to lead a girl scoot troop, let alone an Alliance warship. Refuse Shepard condemns every space faring civilization in existence to extinction, including his own, out of nothing more than stubborn pride. The galaxy ends up being defeated because the simpleton they placed their trust in refused to use the superweapon they spent months and untold resources to build.

Choosing Refuse is choosing to lose the game.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 12 avril 2013 - 04:50 .

[PirateMouse]

Han Shot First wrote...

Lets say you're the victim of a home invasion. An armed criminal is in your home, and your life is potentially in danger. You shoot the man breaking into your home but a bullet happens to pass through him

No, let's not say that.  Because that's not what's happening here.  What you're doing here is deliberately, knowingly and intentionally firing through the person.  For someone fond of claiming I don't know what things are, you apparently don't know how to form a coherent analogy to save your life.

In order for a person to be charged with murder there has to be intent.

I'm glad you agree.  Since we already established that there is intent, you then must also agree genocide is involved.  Thank you.

I'm honestly surprised that anyone would choose Refuse as their canon ending.

Refuse is actually the only choice that makes sense outside of metagaming.  Shepard has absolutely no reason to believe or trust Starbrat.  This is literally the equivalent of having Hitler (sorry, Godwin) say, "You know what? I've decided to give you three ways to defeat me.  All you have to do is do exactly what I say in one of three different ways.  Everyone knows I'm a trustworthy guy, so you should totally do everything I tell you now."

So I admit it; I metagamed.

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

[Dieb]

Genocide. Stop using that word. Please, BSN.

Han Shot First put it brilliantly. The thing you claim to be the flaw in his logic -intention- is actually the only thing to seperate any form of killing. What other is there? That's not nitpicking, it means everything.

Secondly, you cannot accuse people choosing different options of believing in the Catalysts logic, while at the same time picking another one yourself. Given that you cannot trust him at all in Shepard's position, all options are potentially dangerous. In case what he claims turned out to actually happen, Destroy would really put an end to the threat, while Control is a mix of procrastination and high-stakes gambling. "A seemingly omniscient state-of-the-art AI failed, so now let's put a human with the best intentions in charge & see what happens this time."

But actually, my point is really not to convince you of my descision. Just please drop the agressive, condescending tone towards all opposing statements. And stop misusing the word genocide. This is sickening me.

Modifié par Baelrahn, 12 avril 2013 - 05:06 .

[PirateMouse]

Baelrahn wrote...

Genocide. Stop using that word. Please, BSN.

Han Shot First put it brilliantly. The thing you claim to be the flaw in his logic -intention- is actually the only thing to seperate any form of killing. What other is there? That's not nitpicking, it means everything.

I didn't say it was nitpicking.  I instead pointed out that intent does indeed exist here.  If you picked Destroy and then learned after the fact that, as a totally unexpected and unintended consequence, all other synthetic life died ... that would be an act without intent.  Once you already know what's going to happen, you don't get to claim you didn't mean for it to happen anymore.  You knew, and you did it anyway.  So yes, you had intent.

Secondly, you cannot accuse people choosing different options of believing in the Catalysts logic, while at the same time picking another one yourself.

This isn't a particularly coherent statement, but I'll attempt to answer it anyway.  My position with respect to believing Starbrat or not is simple: you either believe the brat and accept what it tells you about the choices, or you do not.  You don't get to cherry pick (not and remain logically consistent).  There's no more reason to believe shooting the Crucible will activate it than there is to believe you can actually control the Reapers. 

If you believe the brat (and here I'll copy/paste from a comment I made elsewhere), it comes down to a question of whether we choose to destroy an entire class of sentient beings now out of the fear that "something bad" might happen later if we don't.  The Destroy choice at the end of the game is essentially the same choice as killing the rachni queen in ME1 -- you're committing deliberate genocide to eliminate a possible (but by no means guaranteed) future threat.  You're letting fear drive you to commit atrocities in response to some hypothetical future threat you believe will occur.  You're basically ... doing exactly what Starbrat did.

[Dieb]

Baelrahn wrote...
But actually, my point is really not to convince you of my descision. Just please drop the agressive, condescending tone towards all opposing statements. And stop misusing the word genocide. This is sickening me.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I picked all the endings, so not really.

I would have loved to have that sort of thing though.

[Xilizhra]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

I compare the loss of EDI (and the Geth, if they're still around) in the Destroy ending to the loss of the hostages in Bring Down The Sky. It's a price worth paying if it ensures Balak can never hurt anyone again.

Of course, Balak winds up being more helpful and probably saving more lives if allowed to live, so... there's one of my reasons, in general, as to why I prefer to avoid killing when there are other options.

[DeinonSlayer]

Xilizhra wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

I compare the loss of EDI (and the Geth, if they're still around) in the Destroy ending to the loss of the hostages in Bring Down The Sky. It's a price worth paying if it ensures Balak can never hurt anyone again.

Of course, Balak winds up being more helpful and probably saving more lives if allowed to live, so... there's one of my reasons, in general, as to why I prefer to avoid killing when there are other options.

And we had cause to believe that would happen back on X57 instead of him running off and killing another colony... why?

Let him go to save the three hostages, and he kills an entire transport of Alliance marines.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 12 avril 2013 - 05:52 .

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

I compare the loss of EDI (and the Geth, if they're still around) in the Destroy ending to the loss of the hostages in Bring Down The Sky. It's a price worth paying if it ensures Balak can never hurt anyone again.

Of course, Balak winds up being more helpful and probably saving more lives if allowed to live, so... there's one of my reasons, in general, as to why I prefer to avoid killing when there are other options.

. After he kills Alliance troops on life support, crashes Allaince transport ships.........  Hope those paragon pints were worth it.

[Xilizhra]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

I compare the loss of EDI (and the Geth, if they're still around) in the Destroy ending to the loss of the hostages in Bring Down The Sky. It's a price worth paying if it ensures Balak can never hurt anyone again.

Of course, Balak winds up being more helpful and probably saving more lives if allowed to live, so... there's one of my reasons, in general, as to why I prefer to avoid killing when there are other options.

And we had cause to believe that would happen back on X57 instead of him running off and killing another colony... why?

Let him go to save the three hostages, and he kills an entire transport of Alliance marines.

And then he goes on to lead the batarian fleet rather better than it would have done without him. How many ships might that have saved?

Also, I never thought he'd attack another colony, as we're now prepared for both that tactic and Balak personally. He's known now and will have a far harder time pulling off something like this, enough that it likely wouldn't be worth the price (especially since his operation doesn't even seem to have been sanctioned, as he hijacked a slave raid to do it).

[DeinonSlayer]

"Prepared for that tactic," yeah... N7: Javelin Missiles Launched

I'm sure the Alliance will screen every band of Batarian slavers entering their space to make sure Balak isn't among them. What was that about Collector attacks?

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

And then he goes on to lead the batarian fleet rather better than it would have done without him. How many ships might that have saved?

. Maybe like two?  He's worth something like 15 war assets.  Hardly a game changer

[kalasaurus]

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

I compare the loss of EDI (and the Geth, if they're still around) in the Destroy ending to the loss of the hostages in Bring Down The Sky. It's a price worth paying if it ensures Balak can never hurt anyone again.

Of course, Balak winds up being more helpful and probably saving more lives if allowed to live, so... there's one of my reasons, in general, as to why I prefer to avoid killing when there are other options.

. After he kills Alliance troops on life support, crashes Allaince transport ships.........  Hope those paragon pints were worth it.

It's better to just arrest Balak and send him to the Alliance.  He still escapes and provides the War Assets in his ME3 appearance, but he's stealing food instead of killing humans.

[PirateMouse]

Using Balak is also a bad analogy.  I killed Balak myself -- I considered him too dangerous to live, and while the loss of three hostages was painful, I accepted it as better than the loss of far more with a terrorist willing to go that far still on the loose.

Destroy is different.  The scale is different, because it's actually genocide.  It's more analogous to killing the rachni queen (genocide against the rachni) in order to prevent a hypothetical bad future scenario (the Rachni Wars all over again).  Instead, you're killing all synthetics (genocide against synthetics) in order to prevent a hypothetical bad future scenario involving Shepard AI turning evil.  Same logic.

It's also precisely the same logic Starbrat uses, incidentally:

"It is inevitable that synthetics will kill organics, so I'll kill all advanced organics periodically first to prevent it."

"It is inevitable that Shepard AI will turn evil, so I'll kill all synthetics first to prevent it."

Modifié par PirateMouse, 12 avril 2013 - 06:05 .

[Steelcan]

GlassElephant wrote...

It's better to just arrest Balak and send him to the Alliance.  He still escapes and provides the War Assets in his ME3 appearance, but he's stealing food instead of killing humans.

. I just killed him.  A message needs to be sent.

[Xilizhra]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

"Prepared for that tactic," yeah... N7: Javelin Missiles Launched

I'm sure the Alliance will screen every band of Batarian slavers entering their space to make sure Balak isn't among them. What was that about Collector attacks?

Yes... that was in the Terminus Systems, not Alliance space. As were the Collector attacks. The Alliance has no jurisdiction and can't really do much in either case.