935 réponses à ce sujet

[remydat]

Argolas wrote...

Look back at the definition of genocide I posted on page 8. Not every kind of genocide involves killing actual people.

I told you want the suffix means because that is what it means.  Nothing in the definition you provided is metaphysical or figurative.  Which point do you think Synthesis falls under. Certainly not (e) because (e) is literally talking say black kids and giving them to say White people.  That has nothing to do with Synthesis.  I certainly didn't see the Green Wave kidnap Quarian kids and gave them to the Geth.  So again you are taken literally things and trying to come up with some figurative or metaphysical comparison to synthesis.

Modifié par remydat, 12 avril 2013 - 09:49 .

[remydat]

robertthebard wrote...

There is no proof that a Harvest won't happen either.  However, there is absolutely no chance of one in Destroy.  I don't need to distrust the catalyst to see the possibility of another harvest, all I have to do is look up.  What is it that would make me think that if they are allowed to continue to exist, it won't happen again?  Certainly not any dialog I've had with actual Reapers over the course of three games, including Harbinger in Arrival.  Why would I think that understanding would change it's view?  It's old, far older than anyone can really imagine, and it believes we live because they allow it.  How does that position get magically changed in Synthesis?  It's likely it already understands organics fairly well, since it used to be organic.  In Control, there's no way to be absolutely positive that, over the course of a millennia, ShepAI won't reach the same conclusion as it's predecessor.  I mean, it could happen that it doesn't, all things are possible, but, because all things are possible, it's also likely that it will.  We just had a dialog with TIM where we can tell him we're not ready for that kind of power.  Refusal is no kind of option, once you get this far, so buh bye Reapers.

Umm, you don't know what button triggers Destroy.  You are told by the Catalyst.  You choose to trust that he is telling you the truth.

Furthermore, without a harvest there is a threat that an advanced AI will be created and that advanced AI will not be restricted from just nuking a planet or running an asteroid into a mass relay because it it's twisted goal is to preserve and harvest organics so it fights tedious ground wars despite having the firepower to just destroy you from the sky.  So again, all you you doing is cherry picking what you want to believe from the Catalyst.

As for the rest of you post, I have already discussed the logic as to why the Catalsyt ultimately doesn't care about your choice here becuase Shep and the Crucible fulfill its purpose.

http://social.biowar...ndex/16519456/2

Modifié par remydat, 12 avril 2013 - 10:00 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

remydat wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Everyone else dies during a harvest. That was my point, reaper hugger.

But there is no proof that a harvest will occur with the other endings.  The only way to arrive at that conclusion is you in some way don't trust the Catalyst but if you don't trust him why do you believe he told you the truth about destroy?  Only reason would be because it is what you wanted to here ie confirmation bias.

If you think the Catalyst is full of sh*t then I don't see how you trust him enough to believe Destroy.

me= apples; you = oranges

I was talking about during a normal harvest. You are talking about the endings. I was talking about what the reapers normally do. You are talking about what happens during control and synthesis. I'm going by what has happened in the past and what is going on in the story at present and why this influences what I do. You are going by what might happen in the future.

How did trusting the Catalyst get into this?

You twist things around enough to turn someones mind to mush. You can make a slushie out of someone's mind. You are a reaper.

How can I choose destroy? Because that's what the Crucible was designed to do. Control got tacked on according to Javik by indoctrinated scientists or something like that. Synthesis is something new.

My mission assigned by Admiral Hackett was to destroy the reapers. That's my job. That's what my C.O. was counting on me to do. Shepard completes her mission.

I am going to have lunch now.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

remydat wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

There is no proof that a Harvest won't happen either.  However, there is absolutely no chance of one in Destroy.  I don't need to distrust the catalyst to see the possibility of another harvest, all I have to do is look up.  What is it that would make me think that if they are allowed to continue to exist, it won't happen again?  Certainly not any dialog I've had with actual Reapers over the course of three games, including Harbinger in Arrival.  Why would I think that understanding would change it's view?  It's old, far older than anyone can really imagine, and it believes we live because they allow it.  How does that position get magically changed in Synthesis?  It's likely it already understands organics fairly well, since it used to be organic.  In Control, there's no way to be absolutely positive that, over the course of a millennia, ShepAI won't reach the same conclusion as it's predecessor.  I mean, it could happen that it doesn't, all things are possible, but, because all things are possible, it's also likely that it will.  We just had a dialog with TIM where we can tell him we're not ready for that kind of power.  Refusal is no kind of option, once you get this far, so buh bye Reapers.

Umm, you don't know what button triggers Destroy.  You are told by the Catalyst.  You choose to trust that he is telling you the truth.

Furthermore, without a harvest there is a threat that an advanced AI will be created and that advanced AI will not be restricted from just nuking a planet or running an asteroid into a mass relay because it it's twisted goal is to preserve and harvest organics so it fights tedious ground wars despite having the firepower to just destroy you from the sky.  So again, all you you doing is cherry picking what you want to believe from the Catalyst.

As for the rest of you post, I have already discussed the logic as to why the Catalsyt ultimately doesn't care about your choice here.

http://social.biowar...ndex/16519456/2

I do now because I installed MEHEM.

[Phatose]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Phatose wrote...

Guess you didn't get the reference there, huh?

Not having the Geth die I would prefer. But turning the whole ending into an "I win" button? Nah. It's cheap, and if it had been the original ending, I would've screamed.

Start screaming. Join the "entitled whiners".

What do you think the original ending was?

Control = I win. Blue
Synthesis = I win. Green
Destroy = I win. Red

Originally it was like this: you died in all three endings with your choice of blue, green, or red explosions (unless you played the hell out of multi-player in which case you might have gotten a gasp of air in Destroy - Shepard lives), and the Normandy crashed on a planet somewhere. Cut to credits. That's what the endings were.

Control = I sort of win, only now I'm a giant space god who lost all his connection to his friends and family and am now going to spend the rest of eternity as a protector of creatures I have no connection with.  Not really...."I win"
Synthesis = I sort of win, but those things that were killing us and everybody else are now coming to dinner for a chat, everybody and everything is green and I'm not entire sure what I actually did.  Everybody seems ok, except for the ones who are dead, which includes me.
Destroy = I sort of win, only I blew up at least one species to do it, I might've died in the process, and even if I survived I'm now going to spend the rest of my life dealing with the fact that I decided who was disposable and pulled the trigger.

That's a heck of a lot more then "I win" there.  Much more bittersweet at best.

[remydat]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

me= apples; you = oranges

I was talking about during a normal harvest. You are talking about the endings. I was talking about what the reapers normally do. You are talking about what happens during control and synthesis. I'm going by what has happened in the past and what is going on in the story at present and why this influences what I do. You are going by what might happen in the future.

How did trusting the Catalyst get into this?

You twist things around enough to turn someones mind to mush. You can make a slushie out of someone's mind. You are a reaper.

How can I choose destroy? Because that's what the Crucible was designed to do. Control got tacked on according to Javik by indoctrinated scientists or something like that. Synthesis is something new.

My mission assigned by Admiral Hackett was to destroy the reapers. That's my job. That's what my C.O. was counting on me to do. Shepard completes her mission.

I am going to have lunch now.

You have to trust he is telling you the truth that destory is in fact destroy.  You have nothing but his word to prove that it is.  So you trust him only when it confirms your own ideas.

And unfortunately I can't mod life to create endings I decision.  You are free to use MEHEM of course but I like the fact that the game is like life and sometimes you only get sh*tty hands to play with.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Phatose wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Phatose wrote...

Guess you didn't get the reference there, huh?

Not having the Geth die I would prefer. But turning the whole ending into an "I win" button? Nah. It's cheap, and if it had been the original ending, I would've screamed.

Start screaming. Join the "entitled whiners".

What do you think the original ending was?

Control = I win. Blue
Synthesis = I win. Green
Destroy = I win. Red

Originally it was like this: you died in all three endings with your choice of blue, green, or red explosions (unless you played the hell out of multi-player in which case you might have gotten a gasp of air in Destroy - Shepard lives), and the Normandy crashed on a planet somewhere. Cut to credits. That's what the endings were.

Control = I sort of win, only now I'm a giant space god who lost all his connection to his friends and family and am now going to spend the rest of eternity as a protector of creatures I have no connection with.  Not really...."I win"
Synthesis = I sort of win, but those things that were killing us and everybody else are now coming to dinner for a chat, everybody and everything is green and I'm not entire sure what I actually did.  Everybody seems ok, except for the ones who are dead, which includes me.
Destroy = I sort of win, only I blew up at least one species to do it, I might've died in the process, and even if I survived I'm now going to spend the rest of my life dealing with the fact that I decided who was disposable and pulled the trigger.

That's a heck of a lot more then "I win" there.  Much more bittersweet at best.

Phatose..... You're getting too detailed. Keep it high level. -- CH.

I felt like this on 22 March 2012 at 3:20 am. It's an oldie but a goodie. I had just completed the game. I had 12 complete play throughs of ME1 and ME2. over 1200 hrs

[DecCylonus]

remydat wrote...

DecCylonus wrote...

That's not exactly what I said. I said that if you pick Control, you are agreeing with major parts of the Catalyst's solution. You are agreeing that the synthetic / organic conflict is inevitable. If it isn't, then no solution is necessary, and therefore Control is unnecessary. You are also agreeing that the Reapers are a good solution to the problem. (Genocide of the whole galaxy is a bad solution, but the Reapers themselves have merrit.) If they aren't, then why pick it? I confronted the OP with this dilemma because I wanted to know what he really thought about Control as a solution.

I also allow for the possibility that you may pick Control because the consequences are the least repulsive to you out of all the choices. Many people chose their preferred solution for that reason.

It is odd to complain Control with allows both parties to live is assuming confict is inevitable as if Destroy which eradicates one side of the conflict is not doing so as well only it is arguable worse because you eliminate one side completely. 

I have heard no one claim they choose Control because they want the power.  I have heard plenty people claim they choose control because synthetics aren't alive or are toasters or whatever else.  That logic in and of itself proves that some people choose destroy because they do not value synthetic life the same.  Once you admit that they you are by extension saying conflict is inevitable because you can't end conflict when one side things they are superior to the other to the point they don't respect their right to exist.

Now if I am mistaken and someone has said they choose Control because they like the idea of it then let me know.  I have never seen it honestly.  I have seen more than enough evidence that some people are unconcerned about synthetic lives.

Except that EDI and the Geth are collateral damage in Destroy. It is not my goal to wipe them out. Morally, it is akin to  dropping a big bomb on an enemy unit that is close to my own troops, killing them in the process. In this case I consider it worth the sacrifice to be completely rid of the Reapers and the Catalyst. I would say the same if it killed one of the organic races instead of the Geth.

I have also never seen anyone say they chose control because they like that solution. The OP was arguing passionately for Control without disclosing his reasons, so I forced the issue to see what he really believed. I don't pretend that the logic of my argument is 100% sound. I didn't intend to convince the OP to choose Destroy instead, I just wanted to force him to recon with the consequences of Control. If he thought that Reaper Shepard was a good solution, I wanted to hear why. As it turned out, he admitted that he chooses Control because he finds the consequences the least objectionable of all the choices.

As for who gets the blame for the consequences of any of the endings, I put that squarely on the Catalyst. It started the cycles, and comes back like clockwork every 50,000 years to wipe out all advanced organics and any synthetics they happen to have created. It refuses to see any solutions but its own. This is even more maddening because it admits that Shepard's cycle is different. It clearly sees things have changed, but is unwilling to simply stand down. It could offer a truce right there and stop the killing. It could offer to release the Reapers, share its technology, and share the cumulated knowledge of the Reapers. Instead it forces you to choose to destroy all synthetics, become the new Catalyst commanding the Reaper armada, or genetically rewrite everyone. You have to pick one, or the Catalyst will still kill you all. There is no doubt in my mind that the Catalyst deserves the blame for whichever solution is chosen. Shepard still has to bear the burden of having chosen one of the terrible solutions, but the Catalyst held the gun to the head of the entire galaxy. I don't think Shepard is particularly culpable for the consequences of any of the solutions, considering that the other option was to let the Catalyst kill everyone anyway.

[robertthebard]

remydat wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

There is no proof that a Harvest won't happen either.  However, there is absolutely no chance of one in Destroy.  I don't need to distrust the catalyst to see the possibility of another harvest, all I have to do is look up.  What is it that would make me think that if they are allowed to continue to exist, it won't happen again?  Certainly not any dialog I've had with actual Reapers over the course of three games, including Harbinger in Arrival.  Why would I think that understanding would change it's view?  It's old, far older than anyone can really imagine, and it believes we live because they allow it.  How does that position get magically changed in Synthesis?  It's likely it already understands organics fairly well, since it used to be organic.  In Control, there's no way to be absolutely positive that, over the course of a millennia, ShepAI won't reach the same conclusion as it's predecessor.  I mean, it could happen that it doesn't, all things are possible, but, because all things are possible, it's also likely that it will.  We just had a dialog with TIM where we can tell him we're not ready for that kind of power.  Refusal is no kind of option, once you get this far, so buh bye Reapers.

Umm, you don't know what button triggers Destroy.  You are told by the Catalyst.  You choose to trust that he is telling you the truth.

Furthermore, without a harvest there is a threat that an advanced AI will be created and that advanced AI will not be restricted from just nuking a planet or running an asteroid into a mass relay because it it's twisted goal is to preserve and harvest organics so it fights tedious ground wars despite having the firepower to just destroy you from the sky.  So again, all you you doing is cherry picking what you want to believe from the Catalyst.

As for the rest of you post, I have already discussed the logic as to why the Catalsyt ultimately doesn't care about your choice here.

http://social.biowar...ndex/16519456/2

Summarizing does not equal cherry picking.  The salient points:  You have three choices, if your EMS is high enough, and the explanation of the three points.  Don't think I cherry picked anything there.  Like I said, I don't need to distrust the Catalyst in regard to the chance for another harvest.  Looking up, I see a harvest in full swing.  What I am missing is an assurance that, with the Reapers left alive, another harvest would still be impossible.  That is not given in any of the choices but Destroy.  Regardless of your assurances to the contrary, you are not on the platform with me when Shepard is faced with the decision.

But just for the comedy:

Shepard:  I've seen your solution, your people are turned into monsters.
TIM:  Hardly, they are being improved.
How are they being improved?  By being merged with Reaper tech, omg, you mean, the same thing that Synthesis does, granted a bit cruder, and with less space magic.
Shepard:  So TIM was right?
Catalyst:  Yes, but he couldn't control us because we already controlled him.  Gee, that worked out well for TIM didn't it?  In fact, it didn't work out so well for Benezia or Saren either did it?  So just what in what I know about indoctrination makes me think Control is a good idea?  Will the Reapers lose their indoctrination ability in Control or Synthesis?  So an active Reaper fleet poses no threat to the galaxy, despite what we've just gone through to get here?  I ain't buyin' it.  See, no need to cherry pick anything, the facts are in evidence, and all have been considered.  All that's left is the brutal calculus of war, you know, 10 billion over here die, so that 20 billion over here can live.  This sacrifice is much more acceptable than the possibility of another harvest.

[remydat]

DecCylonus wrote...

Except that EDI and the Geth are collateral damage in Destroy. It is not my goal to wipe them out. Morally, it is akin to  dropping a big bomb on an enemy unit that is close to my own troops, killing them in the process. In this case I consider it worth the sacrifice to be completely rid of the Reapers and the Catalyst. I would say the same if it killed one of the organic races instead of the Geth.

I have also never seen anyone say they chose control because they like that solution. The OP was arguing passionately for Control without disclosing his reasons, so I forced the issue to see what he really believed. I don't pretend that the logic of my argument is 100% sound. I didn't intend to convince the OP to choose Destroy instead, I just wanted to force him to recon with the consequences of Control. If he thought that Reaper Shepard was a good solution, I wanted to hear why. As it turned out, he admitted that he chooses Control because he finds the consequences the least objectionable of all the choices.

As for who gets the blame for the consequences of any of the endings, I put that squarely on the Catalyst. It started the cycles, and comes back like clockwork every 50,000 years to wipe out all advanced organics and any synthetics they happen to have created. It refuses to see any solutions but its own. This is even more maddening because it admits that Shepard's cycle is different. It clearly sees things have changed, but is unwilling to simply stand down. It could offer a truce right there and stop the killing. It could offer to release the Reapers, share its technology, and share the cumulated knowledge of the Reapers. Instead it forces you to choose to destroy all synthetics, become the new Catalyst commanding the Reaper armada, or genetically rewrite everyone. You have to pick one, or the Catalyst will still kill you all. There is no doubt in my mind that the Catalyst deserves the blame for whichever solution is chosen. Shepard still has to bear the burden of having chosen one of the terrible solutions, but the Catalyst held the gun to the head of the entire galaxy. I don't think Shepard is particularly culpable for the consequences of any of the solutions, considering that the other option was to let the Catalyst kill everyone anyway.

Yes but the point is someone else would consider that morally objectionable.  My point here is you appeared to be arguing as if Destroy is not a moral dilemma as well.  One of the Atomic Bombs ended up detonating on a hospital.  There are still children being born today with genetic defects due to the radiation effect of the bomb on the survivors.  Some people will say that it was necessary.  Some people will say that it was morally objectionable no matter what.  It is a moral dilemma.

As long as we are in agreement that they all present their own moral dilemmas then find.  I simply responded because some of your posts seemed to suggest you thought Destroy had no such dilemmas hence why when you pointed out Control was in some ways similar to the Catalyst, I noted Destroy could be argued as similar as well.

[DecCylonus]

remydat wrote...

DecCylonus wrote...

Except that EDI and the Geth are collateral damage in Destroy. It is not my goal to wipe them out. Morally, it is akin to  dropping a big bomb on an enemy unit that is close to my own troops, killing them in the process. In this case I consider it worth the sacrifice to be completely rid of the Reapers and the Catalyst. I would say the same if it killed one of the organic races instead of the Geth.

I have also never seen anyone say they chose control because they like that solution. The OP was arguing passionately for Control without disclosing his reasons, so I forced the issue to see what he really believed. I don't pretend that the logic of my argument is 100% sound. I didn't intend to convince the OP to choose Destroy instead, I just wanted to force him to recon with the consequences of Control. If he thought that Reaper Shepard was a good solution, I wanted to hear why. As it turned out, he admitted that he chooses Control because he finds the consequences the least objectionable of all the choices.

As for who gets the blame for the consequences of any of the endings, I put that squarely on the Catalyst. It started the cycles, and comes back like clockwork every 50,000 years to wipe out all advanced organics and any synthetics they happen to have created. It refuses to see any solutions but its own. This is even more maddening because it admits that Shepard's cycle is different. It clearly sees things have changed, but is unwilling to simply stand down. It could offer a truce right there and stop the killing. It could offer to release the Reapers, share its technology, and share the cumulated knowledge of the Reapers. Instead it forces you to choose to destroy all synthetics, become the new Catalyst commanding the Reaper armada, or genetically rewrite everyone. You have to pick one, or the Catalyst will still kill you all. There is no doubt in my mind that the Catalyst deserves the blame for whichever solution is chosen. Shepard still has to bear the burden of having chosen one of the terrible solutions, but the Catalyst held the gun to the head of the entire galaxy. I don't think Shepard is particularly culpable for the consequences of any of the solutions, considering that the other option was to let the Catalyst kill everyone anyway.

Yes but the point is someone else would consider that morally objectionable.  My point here is you appeared to be arguing as if Destroy is not a moral dilemma as well.  One of the Atomic Bombs ended up detonating on a hospital.  There are still children being born today with genetic defects due to the radiation effect of the bomb on the survivors.  Some people will say that it was necessary.  Some people will say that it was morally objectionable no matter what.  It is a moral dilemma.

As long as we are in agreement that they all present their own moral dilemmas then find.  I simply responded because some of your posts seemed to suggest you thought Destroy had no such dilemmas hence why when you pointed out Control was in some ways similar to the Catalyst, I noted Destroy could be argued as similar as well.

I never said Destroy wasn't morally objectionable. I have said that I think it's tragic that EDI and the Geth die. The difference is I consider them casualties of war instead of genocide, which means I don't see it as Shepard committing a criminal act. It's still very objectionable, but I blame the Catalyst for causing the entire situation, not Shepard for dealing with it. All of the solutions have objectionable consequences, and I like that Bioware didn't give us an easy solution.

[remydat]

robertthebard wrote...

Summarizing does not equal cherry picking.  The salient points:  You have three choices, if your EMS is high enough, and the explanation of the three points.  Don't think I cherry picked anything there.  Like I said, I don't need to distrust the Catalyst in regard to the chance for another harvest.  Looking up, I see a harvest in full swing.  What I am missing is an assurance that, with the Reapers left alive, another harvest would still be impossible.  That is not given in any of the choices but Destroy.  Regardless of your assurances to the contrary, you are not on the platform with me when Shepard is faced with the decision.

But just for the comedy:

Shepard:  I've seen your solution, your people are turned into monsters.
TIM:  Hardly, they are being improved.
How are they being improved?  By being merged with Reaper tech, omg, you mean, the same thing that Synthesis does, granted a bit cruder, and with less space magic.
Shepard:  So TIM was right?
Catalyst:  Yes, but he couldn't control us because we already controlled him.  Gee, that worked out well for TIM didn't it?  In fact, it didn't work out so well for Benezia or Saren either did it?  So just what in what I know about indoctrination makes me think Control is a good idea?  Will the Reapers lose their indoctrination ability in Control or Synthesis?  So an active Reaper fleet poses no threat to the galaxy, despite what we've just gone through to get here?  I ain't buyin' it.  See, no need to cherry pick anything, the facts are in evidence, and all have been considered.  All that's left is the brutal calculus of war, you know, 10 billion over here die, so that 20 billion over here can live.  This sacrifice is much more acceptable than the possibility of another harvest.

1.  How do you know Destroy is in fact Destory?  Because the Catalyst told you.  You trust that he told you the truth.  You have no proof unless you think Red is the universal color for Destroy.

2.  The Catalyst told you with destroy that organics will create other synthetics.  Those synthetics are the actual synthetic threat the Catalyst was meant to prevent hence why it comes before it can be created and harvests.  So do you think it has been harvesting for billions of years for sh*ts and giggles?  Is the fact it has been wiping out organic life for billions of years to prevent the creation of this synthetic race not concern you?  Is the fact Leviathan confirms this all not worrisome?  What assurance do you have that when this synthetic threat is created he does observe the fact you eradicating synthetic life to save organics and conclude organics need to be exterminated to prevent a similar fate from happening again.

So again, you are choosing to believe the Catalyst when he tells you what Red, Blue and White mean.  You are then choosing to ignore everything else he says as are as he has been eradicating life for billions of years to prevent super advanced AI life from being born.  You are ignoring Leviathan confirms this.  You are ignoring that a a primitive AI like the Geth caused so much trouble in this cycle and that when they were more of a true AI like Reaper Code Geth they ripped the Quarians to shreads.  You are ignoring the fact that exterminating synthetics gives that future synthetic race the reason to not trust orgnanics and provides the self-fulfilling prophecy that could prove the Reapers right.

So the point here is, you are taking a chance no matter what.  You are taking a chance either on the Reapers still beign a threat or the synthetic race it was so concerned would wipe you out being born in a post Destroy world with you providing it with the very reason it will seek to destroy you ie you exterminated all synthetic life before it.  It also will not be restricted by the requirements of the harvest and so can bomb and kill you with impunity.

[remydat]

DecCylonus wrote...

I never said Destroy wasn't morally objectionable. I have said that I think it's tragic that EDI and the Geth die. The difference is I consider them casualties of war instead of genocide, which means I don't see it as Shepard committing a criminal act. It's still very objectionable, but I blame the Catalyst for causing the entire situation, not Shepard for dealing with it. All of the solutions have objectionable consequences, and I like that Bioware didn't give us an easy solution.

Agreed that is why I said I only responded because I thought you thought otheriwse.  Now that it is clear we essenitally agree but simply have different opinions on the option we find less morally objectionable then fair enough.

[Asharad Hett]

I would kill everyone to stop the reapers so that in a few million years the next intelligent life wouldn't have to deal with it.

All other options end in our death anyways, and then the reapers still exist to wipe out the next cycle.

Modifié par Asharad Hett, 12 avril 2013 - 10:36 .

[o Ventus]

Robosexual wrote...

Tom Lehrer wrote...

Everyone went into the war knowing full well they may not come out of it alive, the Geth included.

Though I don't think anyone went into the war knowing that, even if there's other ways for them to win and survive, their entire race will be wiped out by one of their allies.

The people doing the wipe out don't know either.

[robertthebard]

remydat wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Summarizing does not equal cherry picking.  The salient points:  You have three choices, if your EMS is high enough, and the explanation of the three points.  Don't think I cherry picked anything there.  Like I said, I don't need to distrust the Catalyst in regard to the chance for another harvest.  Looking up, I see a harvest in full swing.  What I am missing is an assurance that, with the Reapers left alive, another harvest would still be impossible.  That is not given in any of the choices but Destroy.  Regardless of your assurances to the contrary, you are not on the platform with me when Shepard is faced with the decision.

But just for the comedy:

Shepard:  I've seen your solution, your people are turned into monsters.
TIM:  Hardly, they are being improved.
How are they being improved?  By being merged with Reaper tech, omg, you mean, the same thing that Synthesis does, granted a bit cruder, and with less space magic.
Shepard:  So TIM was right?
Catalyst:  Yes, but he couldn't control us because we already controlled him.  Gee, that worked out well for TIM didn't it?  In fact, it didn't work out so well for Benezia or Saren either did it?  So just what in what I know about indoctrination makes me think Control is a good idea?  Will the Reapers lose their indoctrination ability in Control or Synthesis?  So an active Reaper fleet poses no threat to the galaxy, despite what we've just gone through to get here?  I ain't buyin' it.  See, no need to cherry pick anything, the facts are in evidence, and all have been considered.  All that's left is the brutal calculus of war, you know, 10 billion over here die, so that 20 billion over here can live.  This sacrifice is much more acceptable than the possibility of another harvest.

1.  How do you know Destroy is in fact Destory?  Because the Catalyst told you.  You trust that he told you the truth.  You have no proof unless you think Red is the universal color for Destroy.

2.  The Catalyst told you with destroy that organics will create other synthetics.  Those synthetics are the actual synthetic threat the Catalyst was meant to prevent hence why it comes before it can be created and harvests.  So do you think it has been harvesting for billions of years for sh*ts and giggles?  Is the fact it has been wiping out organic life for billions of years to prevent the creation of this synthetic race not concern you?  Is the fact Leviathan confirms this all not worrisome?  What assurance do you have that when this synthetic threat is created he does observe the fact you eradicating synthetic life to save organics and conclude organics need to be exterminated to prevent a similar fate from happening again.

So again, you are choosing to believe the Catalyst when he tells you what Red, Blue and White mean.  You are then choosing to ignore everything else he says as are as he has been eradicating life for billions of years to prevent super advanced AI life from being born.  You are ignoring Leviathan confirms this.  You are ignoring that a a primitive AI like the Geth caused so much trouble in this cycle and that when they were more of a true AI like Reaper Code Geth they ripped the Quarians to shreads.  You are ignoring the fact that exterminating synthetics gives that future synthetic race the reason to not trust orgnanics and provides the self-fulfilling prophecy that could prove the Reapers right.

So the point here is, you are taking a chance no matter what.  You are taking a chance either on the Reapers still beign a threat or the synthetic race it was so concerned would wipe you out being born in a post Destroy world with you providing it with the very reason it will seek to destroy you ie you exterminated all synthetic life before it.  It also will not be restricted by the requirements of the harvest and so can bomb and kill you with impunity.

So your source of information is different from mine?  Somebody besides the Catalyst is telling you that Control will work, or Synthesis?  No?  Then why keep bringing it up, unless you Refuse?  The thing is, with Destroy, the races are all free to do whatever they want to do, freewill, without having to worry about whether or not the Reapers, or ShepAI takes offense to it.  The cause of this self fulfilling prophecy is dead and gone, along with his puppets.  It doesn't matter who the puppeteer is, if they have no puppets to control.

The rest of this is covered in my quoted post.  There are no assurances that there would be no repeat of the harvest as long as the Reapers are alive.  I've touched on the moustache twirling exposition of the Catalyst more than a few times.  That's all I see it as.  If you choose anything but Refuse, you are buying into it's spiel, so don't try to make out like the only viable options are Control and Synthesis.  You have no more reason to believe Control or Synthesis than I do to believe Destroy.  I have less reason to believe that it would kill the geth, myself and EDI than I do to believe it would kill just the Reapers.  He tells us that Shepard is mostly synthetic after all.  This is what it does, but it could kill you too might as well be what he says, and even with that possibility, I shoot the tube.  Why?  Because I am willing to die to save the galaxy, if that's what it takes, EDI is too, she told me herself.  So with no geth, it's a nonissue.  With the geth, it's regrettable, but, brutal calculus, and much safer for everyone that's left.

[HiddenInWar]

Bill Casey wrote...

remydat wrote...

So who exactly is honoring them?  No one mourns the Geth in the post destroy ending as far as I am aware.  In fact they are not even mentioned at all are they?

Thank you.

[Astartes Marine]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Astartes Marine wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
It's just another "you people are monsters" justification, since what happens is quite literally http://www.merriam-w...=0&t=1365791023

It's not even guaranteed that the synthetics "die" anyways.  That "you can wipe out all synthetic life if you want" line from the original Destroy ending was retconned by the EC into "all synthetics will be targeted" and "there will be losses, but no more than has already been lost" and "the survivors should have little trouble repairing the damage".

Post-EC the fate of the Geth is left ambiguous as no definitive proof of their destruction is given.  Considering Shepard lives despite starbrat's assumptions...

Exactly. You know, I wrote a 3000 word essay about how the EC actually made things more vague? I think you'd like it.

Is that the one with the poll?  I'll have to read it. 

Also bringing my post up again, the "wipe out all synthetics line was removed with the EC.  This "genocide" that people keep throwing around may also have been retconned.

[Jukaga]

PinkToolTheater wrote...

I'd sacrifice the Yahg, Batarians, Vorcha, Jellyfish together with Geth

+1

I'm very pleased you included the worst villains of all, the Hanar. Despicable, manipulative big stupid jellyfish. Hate them. With a capital H.

[JasonShepard]

Astartes Marine wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Astartes Marine wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
It's just another "you people are monsters" justification, since what happens is quite literally http://www.merriam-w...=0&t=1365791023

It's not even guaranteed that the synthetics "die" anyways.  That "you can wipe out all synthetic life if you want" line from the original Destroy ending was retconned by the EC into "all synthetics will be targeted" and "there will be losses, but no more than has already been lost" and "the survivors should have little trouble repairing the damage".

Post-EC the fate of the Geth is left ambiguous as no definitive proof of their destruction is given.  Considering Shepard lives despite starbrat's assumptions...

Exactly. You know, I wrote a 3000 word essay about how the EC actually made things more vague? I think you'd like it.

Is that the one with the poll?  I'll have to read it. 

Also bringing my post up again, the "wipe out all synthetics line was removed with the EC.  This "genocide" that people keep throwing around may also have been retconned.

Worth noting that the epilogue slides do show a deserted Rannoch if the Geth were chosen over the Quarians and then Destroy was chosen. Although that doesn't necessarily mean anything: I can show you an empty plain of desert on Earth - doesn't mean humanity has been wiped out.

So yeah, I find it interesting that they reduced the focus on synthetic casualties - presumably they were making room for people who wanted to envision a post-Destroy Geth survival. I still make my choice based on the assumption that the Geth will be wiped out.

OT:
Hmm... On the one hand, if I wipe out all organics in the galaxy to stop the Reapers, life will come back someday and develop free of the threat of the Reapers. On the other hand, non-space-flight civilisations that would otherwise have 50,000 years of peace would be included in that... (I find it useful to remember that the Reapers only affect people that happen to be living when they show up.)

So, given no alternatives, my upper limit is probably to wipe out all space-faring species do defeat the Reapers. Basically, anyone that the Reapers will be wiping out this cycle. Above that, and I'd pick refuse and trust Liara's time-capsules to save the next cycle.

Modifié par JasonShepard, 12 avril 2013 - 11:12 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

FWIW I think MEHEM is going to be the canon ending for ME3. It's how the series can move forward. The Geth are just too cool a species to throw away.

[Jukaga]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

FWIW I think MEHEM is going to be the canon ending for ME3. It's how the series can move forward. The Geth are just too cool a species to throw away.

Not trying to be mean, but dream on. MEHEM is no more going to be the basis of ME4 than any other fanfic, which is all it is.

[Steelcan]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

FWIW I think MEHEM is going to be the canon ending for ME3. It's how the series can move forward. The Geth are just too cool a species to throw away.

. I threw them away over the skies of Rannoch 

[DarthRic]

Modifié par DarthRic, 14 avril 2013 - 12:01 .

[AlexMBrennan]

All organics?

I am willing to go even further - everything. Simply put, if the Reapers are allowed to continue their harvest then they will kill every extant *and* future species