935 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

RiptideX1090 wrote...

Fade9wayz wrote...

If that super AI feels that threatened by organics past choices, even if in that new civilisation it exists in a much more open and accepting context, then too bad for it. It will need to grow a thicker skin, so to speak, and either suck it up and prove a AI can be fully integrated in a diverse galactic civilsation, like EDI did, or take drastic measures to ensure its own self-preservation. After all the Geth did just that in the Morning War. Besides, history proved that synthetics are not the only one concerned. The Rachni were almost wiped out and only survived by sheer luck. The Krogans were neutered when they were deemed too much of a threat for the galaxy as well.

That actually raises a good point, I wonder how EDI would have felt meeting the Catalyst. Until that point, she had only ever held a very visceral hatred for the Reapers and their obsession with preserving everything in their twisted way. As the embodiment of that, I imagine EDI would have despised the Catalyst and everything it stood for.

But... that's not true at all. She hated them because they allegedly cared about nothing but self-preservation; it had nothing to do with their reasons for killing people. As their actual purpose is (in a rather warped way) wholly selfless, her opinion might change upon meeting the Catalyst.

[robertthebard]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Do you see that Shepard about 4 posts up? MY SHEPARD would NEVER do that in CONTROL. MY SHEPARD would rule the galaxy with an iron fist. MY SHEPARD would rule like Stalin. But she promised Liara she would return from the battle. Consequently she chose Destroy because Starbrat didn't mention "you will die." Aren't you glad?

I am...  eeeep.

Footnote:  The Catalyst does point out that you are mostly synthetic, and therefore, you could die...

[crimzontearz]

As long as Shepard + crew+ LI live I am good with ruining the rest of the galaxy

yes I am a horrible selfish person

[remydat]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

She was evil, not stupid. She'd do anything for those she cared about. All she asked was unquestioning obedience in return. Her crew was her family. Until they got out of line. Loyalty was the only thing that came before family. Rachni queen.... Liara said we went too far. Got me thinking... she could be an ally... Wrex got pissed. Virmire. Wrex questioned, got aggressive and paid the price. "Sacrificed" the Council. Liara: "Yes, a sacrifice for the greater good!" See? instead of +34 renegade it was +25 renegade +9 paragon. Same result, and it made Liara feel better. Made Irina feel less of a monster. lol.

Post scene: "you left Earth in a unique position. The galaxy will be looking to us for leadership." Udina said.    "That's why I did it." Shepard said.    Anderson as councilor.

Jack had it rough, and kind of reminded her of her. Miranda? one of those priviledged b****es she hated. Liara? She could trust. Loyal as a puppy. Tali? Same deal. Garrus? no problems. Zaeed? yeah, sounds like Vido needs to die. Somehow even managed to get along with Samara at 90/10 renegade. There are like 10% paragon you can't help but get. I called this one "The Terminator." "Kill him. You're a killer, Jack. That's what killer's do."

We lost some on the suicide mission: Thane (seeker swarm), Legion, Miranda (sided with Jack). Legion took it in the flashlight -- tech expert -- yeah, he tried to send that data on the Migrant Fleet back to the Geth that he took from Tali. Tali was loyal. Don't send the data. Hey, he's a machine. Machines aren't supposed to have emotional issues, right? Logic.

Yeah, this was the second run through ME3 in April. Not that I thought it would be any different. Capping The Illusive Man with the Renegade conversation using the renegade Interrupt you have to be quick. I stood there and shot the Catalyst for three minutes until I got bored.

This one was less psychologically damaged than the Colonist/Ruthless, but more far more ruthless.

Yeah I think I ultimaely concluded that if My Earthborn/Ruthless Shep was the best this cycle had to offer as a savior that this cycle didn't need saving, lol.  The more I played with him the more I imagined that he was too dangerous to trust him with the end game decision.  I imagined he would opt for control and then use the Reapers to settle scores with the other races and establish his empire. 

Sorry Garrus, Turians started the first contact war and are too militaristic and will likely oppose me, they gotta go.  Only Salarian Shep ever trusted was Mordin and he had to put a bullet in him to sabotage the Genophage.  Those Lizard bastards are too smart for their own good and given the Dalatross can't be trusted so they gotta go as well.  Sorry Liara, the Asari are hot and all but they hid the fact they had a beacon for thousands of years and have been acting like they are the sh*t ever since.  Gotta go.

Krogan, Wrex and Eve are dead and Wreav will soon follow.  Shep would then install a puppet and lack of a cure keeps them in line.  Their reward will be they get to be Shep's muscle as they will head up C-Sec, be the main troops in Shep's military and as a perk they will get to take part in the extermination of their enemies ie the former Council Races as payback for the Genophage.

Batarians can stick around and supplement my Krogan forces provided they are not too pissy about Arrival.  If they are then they are dead.  Vorcha have to accept the Terminus Systems are not under my rule as well and again they can supplement Krogan forces otherwise they are dead.

The rest of races I judge timid enough to keep alive.  The Volus like the Salarians are less than trustworthy but since they are motivated mostly by greed they can get a council seat and be in charge of my economy.  Hannar and Elcor get council seats as well.  The Drell get council seat and form the bulk of my Spectre Units.

As for the humans.  They run the council and oversee all the other races.  Admiral Hackett and any other humans likely to oppose my rule will be killed with impunity.  That's just life when you are trying to estbalish an empire.

Once all the above is in place then that just leaves the Geth.  I suspect they are behind the PV rebuilding their megastructure and so are not concerned about us plus I would have keep relations between us good while I get my organic house in order.  Now that it is through the Geth must be dealt with.  Their continued evolvement is a threat as I can't risk they surpass the Reapers which I judge a possibility beacuse the Reapers are still confined by their original programming while the Geth have been finding their own purpose.  So this will be the first big organic synthetic war post the ending and the Geth will either have to be eliminated or the more preferably option is they accept my control with me reinstalling Reaper Code.  They can retain their free will but I just have a nice little control switch I can turn on if they get out of line.  They can largely remain behind the Veil if they accept this but will have to submit to a draft where I get to call some of their Geth Units or Primes up for military service.

So that's my Earthborn Ruthless Shep.  He came from nothing and grew up hating those with privilege and his lack of power and so he would seize that power in the form of the Reapers and create an empire getting rid of those races that deemed themselves better than everyone else (ie the 3 Council Races).  He will turn the empire over to those that were oppressed but only to the extent they submit completely to his rule.

On second though, I do have issues with the Council so maybe I will finally let him finish the Thessia mission and continue to the end.  Viva La Revolution, lol.


Geth?  They will probably be my first big war post the ending.  Can't allow them to stay behind the Veil and

[remydat]

Fade9wayz wrote...

Oh yeah, I'll give you that I forgot about that last, useless scene. That scene only makes sense for me in the Refuse choice where it actually brings closure. Not so much in the other choices, especially since they released the EC.

Back to topic.You seem to forget that all these past civilisations that led to the crucible were completely annihilated by a super-race of what? Synthetics. Synthetics they didn't even know about, let alone threatened. Cycles after cycles of organics were relentlessly erased by the same Synthetics who didn't care about how the future organics would feel about that, not that they ever tried to make friends with organics anyway. If that super AI has any shred of logic, its natural conclusion should be that it is normal, that in the context of war and desperate choices for self-preservation, organics wouldn't hesitate to use any means to destroy the threat, even if it means indiscriminately destroying any other tech advanced enough to suffer from a large scale sorta-EMP beam.

If that super AI feels that threatened by organics past choices, even if in that new civilisation it exists in a much more open and accepting context, then too bad for it. It will need to grow a thicker skin, so to speak, and either suck it up and prove a AI can be fully integrated in a diverse galactic civilsation, like EDI did, or take drastic measures to ensure its own self-preservation. After all the Geth did just that in the Morning War. Besides, history proved that synthetics are not the only one concerned. The Rachni were almost wiped out and only survived by sheer luck. The Krogans were neutered when they were deemed too much of a threat for the galaxy as well.

Anyway, you can't judge the descendants of a nation by the acts of some of their ancestors. Besides, it's not like there is no hope since the whole Geth/Quarians affair at least proved there is room for reconcilitation and cooperation when both parties are willing to work things out.

As it is, we simply differ on moral stands here. I find it much more unbearable to inflict a super-tyrant AI on the whole galactic community than taking the risk of wiping any sentient life in this cycle in the hope the next galactic civilisation, organic or synthetic, can grow and develop freely. The best way to ensure that is destroy. As it is, other synthetics are destroyed in the process, but it's not like organics survive this without a scratch either, Batarians were almost wiped out, depending of the player's choices, Hanar and Drells are essentially exctinct, Krogans and Rachni too.

The ironic thing is that Geth might have survived if they hadn't just integrated Reaper code... So I don't see why I should be afraid a future hypothetical AI might feel hurt in its feelings that organics might so selfishly chose self-preservation in such an extreme context.

Edit: tldr, judging things out of their context is no good.

Besides, I don't see why you care so much about our motivations for chosing Destroy. I don't care for your motivations in chosing Control or Synthesis, it's just a game after all, and I might very well take the other choices in other playthroughs for sh** and giggles.

I think that end scene still makes sense.  It simply shows that no matter the choice you largely end up in the same spot.  That is the point to me.  The player makes a choice based on his own morals but ultimately that choice is simply 4 paths to the same end.  We are humans.  We have a finite perspective.  We tend to think that drastically different choices invariably lead to drastically different outcomes but over the course of millions of years those choices can become largely insignificant and all converge on the same outcome.  So in short, different methods to arrive at the same end.

Nope they were annihilated by a super race of synthetic-organic hybrids.  It is your bias (I don't mean that personally or as an insult) that chooses to see them as more synthetic.   That right there if you said it to Mr Super AI confirms your inherent bias.  The Reapers are evil so they are synthetic.  We will ignore the fact they are also organic.  And you can't respond with but the organic part of them has no control over their decisions but the synthetic part has very little control as well.  They are just following the restrictive programming their synthetic creater and by extension Leviathan designed for them.  So the threat is of a synthetic organic origin but you in your organic mind see it as a synthetic threat and over coutless cycles developed a weapon that sort to destroy all synthetics. 

That is the logical conclusion a Super AI would make especially if you talk to it as you just did to me and choose to define the threat as a synthetic one ignoring the organic origins of said threat.  Leviathan ie an organic is just as much as fault for the Reapers as the Catalyst.  It was it's sh*tty programing that led to this problem.  And of course this is just a possibility.  It is also possible as I said that it doesn't care about it but that is no different than the possibilty that Control and Synthesis do not result in the Reapers rebelling.  In fact, the game itself makes clear the Catalyst believes Chaos ie conflict with synthetics will return 100% in the destroy option but that in it's opinion, Control and Synthesis will not result in a Reaper harvest.  So you are actually speculating more if you think Control or Synthesis are bigger threats than Destroy as the game makes clear Destroy is the bigger threat for conflict to return. 

Also as an aside on the Geth.  The Quarians only stand down in the Paragon and Renegade options because the are told the Geth have RC or are back to full strength and will wipe them out.  Without that knowledge ie in the non-peace options they choose to fire and so you either have to stop the Geth from uploading the code and let the Quarians kill them or let the Geth upload the code and kill the Geth.  There is no option in the game where the Geth don't upload the code and the Quarians stand down.

And I don't care about your choices.  I care about the debate.  You didn't see me start a thread about this.  I responded to people's opinions by pointing out what I though were flaws in their logic.  You are ultimately free to decide whatever you want for whatever reasons you want.  The only time I point this stuff out was when people are trying to imply Destroy is the only good option.  It isn't.  All the options have pros and cons and all of them are in some way valid.  You are playing god in all these choices and it is simply a matter of what kind of god you want to be.  A pessmistic one that thinks the threat can only be ended with more sacrifices of life or an optimistic one where you think it can be ended with no further loss of life.  And I see pessmistic and optimistic to describe your outlook not to cast aspersions.  I don't nescessarily consider one outlook better than the other.

[remydat]

Fade9wayz wrote...

Exactly my feeling about it. The catalyst basis for reasoning are so wrong and warped that it's conclusions could only be idiotic. EDI would have spanked him to the next galaxy

The Catalyst's logic is a more extreme version of Destroy though.  Sacrifice life in order to save it.  It has just been doing it for billions of years.  You simply don't like it because it is your life being sacrificed.  Just like the Geth, EDI or any other race synthetic or organic that you play god and decide to sacrifice them when you have other options wouldn't like it.

Although to be fair, the other difference is you don't make that sacrifice unitl you have to ie until the threat has alread materilized while the Catalyst makes that sacrifice premptively ie before the threat arises.

[remydat]

wiccame wrote...

If saving the galaxy meant you had to destroy an entire race to do so then yes, rather one race die out than the whole galaxy. Thats why my Shepard let the council die in 1, wasnt gonna to risk diminishing my forces for one ship. And why the Batarian colony had to die too.

If there were 10 organic races and 20 synthetics races and say synthetics had twice the population as the organics, what would you do if you had to kill an organic race to save everyone.  What would you have to do if you had to kill all 10. 

I guess my point here is, aren't we just choosing to define synthetics as one monolithic races because it makes it easier to justify killing them.  People talk of ruthless calculus but I suspect that ruthless calculus only applies when we think organics are the majority.

[RiptideX1090]

remydat wrote...

Fade9wayz wrote...

Exactly my feeling about it. The catalyst basis for reasoning are so wrong and warped that it's conclusions could only be idiotic. EDI would have spanked him to the next galaxy

The Catalyst's logic is a more extreme version of Destroy though.  Sacrifice life in order to save it.  It has just been doing it for billions of years.  You simply don't like it because it is your life being sacrificed.  Just like the Geth, EDI or any other race synthetic or organic that you play god and decide to sacrifice them when you have other options wouldn't like it.

Although to be fair, the other difference is you don't make that sacrifice unitl you have to ie until the threat has alread materilized while the Catalyst makes that sacrifice premptively ie before the threat arises.

No, Destroy and what the Catalyst is doing are two infinitely separate things, for one major reason, which you even point out. It's because the Catalyst does not allow the existance of free will. It never has. It doesn't matter if a cycle makes peace with their synthetics, as we eventually did, it doesn't warn anyone, it probably doesn't even always let them get to the point where AI evolve to where they become a threat, it just lets civilization reach a certain point, then it wipes it out. And it's hardly saving anything. It razes worlds and uploads minds and genetic materials into Reapers. Do you think those Reapers have any free will? The Reapers spit in the face of the notion of free will, as does the Catalyst. Becoming a Reaper is just the ultimate form of Indoctrination. 

The fundamental difference between Destroy, and Control and Synthesis is that Destroy is the only one that actually frees the Galaxy for the first time in over a billion years, at least. Will the Catalyst be proven right in the end, will machines eventually rise up? Well, maybe. There's also the chance that the galaxy will get swallowed up in a black hole or dark energy build up will cause every star in the galaxy to go nova. But at least in destroy the people of the galaxy will be making their choices without Shepard or the Catalyst being the ones calling the shots. 

Which is the Galaxy I fought for. I didn't fight for three games so that those guys who say stuff like: "WE ARE ETERNAL, YOU ARE BACTERIA" and "YOUR WORDS ARE AS HOLLOW AS YOUR FUTURE, THIS EXCHANGE IS OVER" can keep stomping around like they own the galaxy.

I fight for freedom, mine and everyone's. And if I die, I'll know I died doing everything I could to stop the Catalyst, and that I succeeded. That is why I pick Destroy. For freedom, no matter what stupid, idiotic monkey paws the devs want to tack on to it.

[robertthebard]

remydat wrote...

Fade9wayz wrote...

Exactly my feeling about it. The catalyst basis for reasoning are so wrong and warped that it's conclusions could only be idiotic. EDI would have spanked him to the next galaxy

The Catalyst's logic is a more extreme version of Destroy though.  Sacrifice life in order to save it.  It has just been doing it for billions of years.  You simply don't like it because it is your life being sacrificed.  Just like the Geth, EDI or any other race synthetic or organic that you play god and decide to sacrifice them when you have other options wouldn't like it.

Although to be fair, the other difference is you don't make that sacrifice unitl you have to ie until the threat has alread materilized while the Catalyst makes that sacrifice premptively ie before the threat arises.

Yes, and at the same time, a resounding no.  The only thing selective about the Reapers is that they only take all spacefaring advanced civilizations, they don't differentiate between organic or synthetic, and as you say, they do it over and over and over.  You want us to look at the broader picture, all the while you limit your scope.  You see, when I destroy the Reapers, I'm not just avenging our cycle, or Javik's, but every cycle that came before, and I'm not just saving the lives of the current cycle, but every other organic species that is likely to achieve space travel forward.  I have no way to comprehend how many lives I have avenged going backwards, and likewise, how many lives I have saved going forward from this clear and present danger.

[remydat]

robertthebard wrote...

Yes, and at the same time, a resounding no.  The only thing selective about the Reapers is that they only take all spacefaring advanced civilizations, they don't differentiate between organic or synthetic, and as you say, they do it over and over and over.  You want us to look at the broader picture, all the while you limit your scope.  You see, when I destroy the Reapers, I'm not just avenging our cycle, or Javik's, but every cycle that came before, and I'm not just saving the lives of the current cycle, but every other organic species that is likely to achieve space travel forward.  I have no way to comprehend how many lives I have avenged going backwards, and likewise, how many lives I have saved going forward from this clear and present danger.

No sure how any of this changes the point.  I said you are Sacrificing life in order to save it.  I acknowlege the time scale and the scope is different.  None of what you said contradicts that.  And mind, you I acknowledge there are elements of Synthsis and Control consistent with the Catalyst and Reapers as well.  That is the point, pretending like only some of these decisions have elements of Catalyst/Reaper logic is simply bias in my opinion.  They all force us to play Catalyst/Reaper god to some extent.  We simply decide which we find less grotesque based on our morality.

And if the Super AI race is created in the future in a post Destroy world, it can decide it will avenge all the synthetics who died during Destroy, avenge the Quarians attack on the Geth, avenge the harmless AI that were killed in the Citadel archives, etc.

Let me ask you if you were eternal and another threat came up next cycle and you had to sacrifice another race again, would you do it?  How many races before you stop and decide maybe there is a better way?  Point is you have the luxury of dying and only having to make this decision once.  That doesn't mean your logic is the same.  It just means you are not eternal.

Modifié par remydat, 13 avril 2013 - 06:08 .

[remydat]

RiptideX1090 wrote...

No, Destroy and what the Catalyst is doing are two infinitely separate things, for one major reason, which you even point out. It's because the Catalyst does not allow the existance of free will. It never has. It doesn't matter if a cycle makes peace with their synthetics, as we eventually did, it doesn't warn anyone, it probably doesn't even always let them get to the point where AI evolve to where they become a threat, it just lets civilization reach a certain point, then it wipes it out. And it's hardly saving anything. It razes worlds and uploads minds and genetic materials into Reapers. Do you think those Reapers have any free will? The Reapers spit in the face of the notion of free will, as does the Catalyst. Becoming a Reaper is just the ultimate form of Indoctrination. 

The fundamental difference between Destroy, and Control and Synthesis is that Destroy is the only one that actually frees the Galaxy for the first time in over a billion years, at least. Will the Catalyst be proven right in the end, will machines eventually rise up? Well, maybe. There's also the chance that the galaxy will get swallowed up in a black hole or dark energy build up will cause every star in the galaxy to go nova. But at least in destroy the people of the galaxy will be making their choices without Shepard or the Catalyst being the ones calling the shots. 

Which is the Galaxy I fought for. I didn't fight for three games so that those guys who say stuff like: "WE ARE ETERNAL, YOU ARE BACTERIA" and "YOUR WORDS ARE AS HOLLOW AS YOUR FUTURE, THIS EXCHANGE IS OVER" can keep stomping around like they own the galaxy.

I fight for freedom, mine and everyone's. And if I die, I'll know I died doing everything I could to stop the Catalyst, and that I succeeded. That is why I pick Destroy. For freedom, no matter what stupid, idiotic monkey paws the devs want to tack on to it.

But that is not the comparison I made.  I said it is sacrificing life to save it.  The issue of free will is completely different and I never tried to make that comparision.  Again, you just have the luxury of having to make this decision once.  In my other post which it seems people are ignoring I asked a simple question.  If there were 20 synthetic races and 10 organic races ie synthetic population was double, what would you do if you had to sacrifice all synthetics?  What would you do if you had to sacrifice all organics?  And finally what would you do if you were eternal and next cycle some organics and synthetics are at it again?

[T-Raks]

PirateMouse wrote...

krukow wrote...

Irrelevant since it doesn't.

Of course it's relevant.  It speaks to what and how much you're willing to justify in your quest for a kill.

There was never a "quest for a kill". Destroying the Reapers is about ending the Reaper threat without the fear of them coming back under someone else's control or changing the DNA of every living being against their will.

Guess you misunderstood what is at stake. Blind revenge was not the theme of destroy.

[RiptideX1090]

remydat wrote...

RiptideX1090 wrote...

No, Destroy and what the Catalyst is doing are two infinitely separate things, for one major reason, which you even point out. It's because the Catalyst does not allow the existance of free will. It never has. It doesn't matter if a cycle makes peace with their synthetics, as we eventually did, it doesn't warn anyone, it probably doesn't even always let them get to the point where AI evolve to where they become a threat, it just lets civilization reach a certain point, then it wipes it out. And it's hardly saving anything. It razes worlds and uploads minds and genetic materials into Reapers. Do you think those Reapers have any free will? The Reapers spit in the face of the notion of free will, as does the Catalyst. Becoming a Reaper is just the ultimate form of Indoctrination. 

The fundamental difference between Destroy, and Control and Synthesis is that Destroy is the only one that actually frees the Galaxy for the first time in over a billion years, at least. Will the Catalyst be proven right in the end, will machines eventually rise up? Well, maybe. There's also the chance that the galaxy will get swallowed up in a black hole or dark energy build up will cause every star in the galaxy to go nova. But at least in destroy the people of the galaxy will be making their choices without Shepard or the Catalyst being the ones calling the shots. 

Which is the Galaxy I fought for. I didn't fight for three games so that those guys who say stuff like: "WE ARE ETERNAL, YOU ARE BACTERIA" and "YOUR WORDS ARE AS HOLLOW AS YOUR FUTURE, THIS EXCHANGE IS OVER" can keep stomping around like they own the galaxy.

I fight for freedom, mine and everyone's. And if I die, I'll know I died doing everything I could to stop the Catalyst, and that I succeeded. That is why I pick Destroy. For freedom, no matter what stupid, idiotic monkey paws the devs want to tack on to it.

But that is not the comparison I made.  I said it is sacrificing life to save it.  The issue of free will is completely different and I never tried to make that comparision.  Again, you just have the luxury of having to make this decision once.  In my other post which it seems people are ignoring I asked a simple question.  If there were 20 synthetic races and 10 organic races ie synthetic population was double, what would you do if you had to sacrifice all synthetics?  What would you do if you had to sacrifice all organics?  And finally what would you do if you were eternal and next cycle some organics and synthetics are at it again?

And I'm saying it's not sacrificing life to save it, it's erradicating life and downloading copies and calling it salvation. 

The numbers are irrelevant. Ten organics to ten billion synthetics, ten synthetics to ten billion organics, it doesn't matter. You're changing the variables from what they are to a hypothetical, when it doesn't even alter the end outcome when you do. Because the Catalyst isn't leveling the playingfield, it's burning the forest down and turning anything that survives into machines that burn down more forests. It says it is doing what it does for the greater good, it's acting pre-emptively, but the method it is using ultimately saves nothing. Worlds burn, species go extinct, and then it starts all over again in a few thousand years. Nothing is allowed to thrive in the end except for the Catalyst and the Reapers, in the end, the Reapers are the only faction benifiting. The catalyst can say 'I just did it because I'm the misunderstood hero the galaxy needs!', but the evidence is all to the contrary. I don't trust it, it doesn't get my sympathy, I'm not letting it live, and if that means I have to burn the entire universe to the ground to do it, so help me, I will.

[remydat]

RiptideX1090 wrote...

And I'm saying it's not sacrificing life to save it, it's erradicating life and downloading copies and calling it salvation. 

The numbers are irrelevant. Ten organics to ten billion synthetics, ten synthetics to ten billion organics, it doesn't matter. You're changing the variables from what they are to a hypothetical, when it doesn't even alter the end outcome when you do. Because the Catalyst isn't leveling the playingfield, it's burning the forest down and turning anything that survives into machines that burn down more forests. It says it is doing what it does for the greater good, it's acting pre-emptively, but the method it is using ultimately saves nothing. Worlds burn, species go extinct, and then it starts all over again in a few thousand years. Nothing is allowed to thrive in the end except for the Catalyst and the Reapers, in the end, the Reapers are the only faction benifiting. The catalyst can say 'I just did it because I'm the misunderstood hero the galaxy needs!', but the evidence is all to the contrary. I don't trust it, it doesn't get my sympathy, I'm not letting it live, and if that means I have to burn the entire universe to the ground to do it, so help me, I will.

I think you misunderstand which life is being saved.  I am not referring to the lives preserved in Reaper Form.  I am referring to the Catalyst's opinion that without the harvest all the primitive non-space faring species would also be killed by the synthetic threat.  During the Prothean Cycle, they and all advanced life were sacrificed because in the Catalyst's opinion, the Protheans would eventually create an AI that not only killed them and the advanced species in their cyle but would wipe the floor with the Asari, Krogan, Turian, Quarians, Elcor, Volus, etc. ie all the primitive species at the time that would not stand a chance if this AI already killed the most advanced oganic race in the galaxy ie the Protheans.

You are free to reject it's logic but yes it is sacrificing advanced life to save life.  Just like you are sacrificing synthetics to save organics.  The fact that over the span of billions of years every species will hypothetically fall victim to the harvest is irrelevant because they got to live for millions of years before being harvested while in the Catalyst's opinion, without it the cycles would essentially have never existed because organics would have been completely eradicated before any of the cycles started back in the Leviathan age.  That Super AI would have killed all organics and then continued to kill new organic life as it sprung up and long before it would every be able of challenging it. 

It would be an unending cycle of the Super AI finding an organic race in cave man stage and basically slaughtering them before they even discovered fire.  Hell if it wanted do, it could simply kill a planet's ecosystem while organic life is still at the amoeba stage.  It doesn't need organic life at all.  You think when the earth was just populated with bacteria, those bacteria would be able to prevent their extinction thus preventing sentient life from ever being born on earth?  If I am a Super AI, after I killed the advanced organics and all currently living sentient species, I simply turn every planet I find that could possibly create orgnanic life into the equivalent of Jupiter ie I make it unsuitable for life of any kind period while life is still at the bacteria phase and unable to stop me.

You have a finite perspective.  You get to make a decision and die and not have to live with the consequences.  The Catalyst was tasked with a problem gathered data that arrived at the same conclusion ie synthetics would wipe out organic life and so instituted a process by which organic life gets to grow, develop and live for millions of years even getting to travel the galaxy before being harvested before they can create a synthetic that would kill them and then deny every organic species going forward from ever attaining any level of advancement because they would kill them before they could every pose a threat to it.

You don't have to agree with its logic or solution but that logic as the same basic premise as destroy whether you like it or not, sacrifice life in order to save life.  There is no way around it.  It is just doing it on a greater scope and time scale because it is essentially immortal while Shep isn't.  If Shep chooses destroy and this Super AI the Catalyst warns us about is created and sees that organics killed all synthetic life that came before it and thus proceeds to wipe out all organics as the Catalyst envisioned then Shep has the luxury of being dead and not having to live with the consequences of his actions.

Modifié par remydat, 13 avril 2013 - 07:31 .

[robertthebard]

remydat wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Yes, and at the same time, a resounding no.  The only thing selective about the Reapers is that they only take all spacefaring advanced civilizations, they don't differentiate between organic or synthetic, and as you say, they do it over and over and over.  You want us to look at the broader picture, all the while you limit your scope.  You see, when I destroy the Reapers, I'm not just avenging our cycle, or Javik's, but every cycle that came before, and I'm not just saving the lives of the current cycle, but every other organic species that is likely to achieve space travel forward.  I have no way to comprehend how many lives I have avenged going backwards, and likewise, how many lives I have saved going forward from this clear and present danger.

No sure how any of this changes the point.  I said you are Sacrificing life in order to save it.  I acknowlege the time scale and the scope is different.  None of what you said contradicts that.  And mind, you I acknowledge there are elements of Synthsis and Control consistent with the Catalyst and Reapers as well.  That is the point, pretending like only some of these decisions have elements of Catalyst/Reaper logic is simply bias in my opinion.  They all force us to play Catalyst/Reaper god to some extent.  We simply decide which we find less grotesque based on our morality.

And if the Super AI race is created in the future in a post Destroy world, it can decide it will avenge all the synthetics who died during Destroy, avenge the Quarians attack on the Geth, avenge the harmless AI that were killed in the Citadel archives, etc.

Let me ask you if you were eternal and another threat came up next cycle and you had to sacrifice another race again, would you do it?  How many races before you stop and decide maybe there is a better way?  Point is you have the luxury of dying and only having to make this decision once.  That doesn't mean your logic is the same.  It just means you are not eternal.

So what your saying is that making yourself eternal would be  a bad thing, since it would force you to possibly make the same decision/same type of decision over and over?  In that case, wouldn't Control be infinitely worse?  Since, in a very literal sense, you have done just that.  If the Krogan decide to exact revenge for the Genophage, are you going to allow it?  If not, are you going to kill them all, or just enough to make them change their minds?  Did you cure the Genophage or not?  If not, aren't you going to get pretty close to wiping them out?  Are you going to decide that revenge is warranted, and allow them to wipe out the Salarians or the Turians or both?  If so, then what kind of peace are you really giving anyone?  At least I, in my Destroy scenario, don't have to take responsibility for the galaxy.  The Krogan, Salarians and Turians are going to have to resolve their issues on their own, which according to one of the Salarians in the Sur'Kesh mission, is how it's supposed to be.  Nature deciding who goes extinct, instead of politicians, or ShepAI...  Note that, with the exception of ShepAI, Synthesis provides for the same scenario.  Understanding does not equal acceptance, or peace.  Sure, immediately after the war with the Reapers, all the slides show peaceful coexistence, but even in Destroy, in 10 years it could be different.  Once the wounds heal a bit from that war, some may be ready for the next one.  You choose Control, you really do put yourself into your hypothetical.  So how long until you decide that you have to try something different?  How long until you figure the initial Catalyst had it right, and you restart the Harvests to prevent yourself from having to make these decisions?  Congratulations?  You have just proven one theory on why I would never take Control.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

robertthebard wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Do you see that Shepard about 4 posts up? MY SHEPARD would NEVER do that in CONTROL. MY SHEPARD would rule the galaxy with an iron fist. MY SHEPARD would rule like Stalin. But she promised Liara she would return from the battle. Consequently she chose Destroy because Starbrat didn't mention "you will die." Aren't you glad?

I am...  eeeep.

Footnote:  The Catalyst does point out that you are mostly synthetic, and therefore, you could die...

Could is a big word. I know about "Jason". Something this evil never dies.

Post-war: Shepard retires and moves to Illium with Liara. Liara runs an Information Brokerage, and Shepard takes care of things for her.... all kinds of things.... like debt collections ... remember that conversation Liara was having in ME2? and doing the "odd jobs" like assassinations, thieving (Kasumi?). All run in the secondary vault of a legitimate financial institution (front) for whom everyone works.

And Shepard and Liara's first born becomes the successor to Aria.

[remydat]

robertthebard wrote...

So what your saying is that making yourself eternal would be  a bad thing, since it would force you to possibly make the same decision/same type of decision over and over?  In that case, wouldn't Control be infinitely worse?  Since, in a very literal sense, you have done just that.  If the Krogan decide to exact revenge for the Genophage, are you going to allow it?  If not, are you going to kill them all, or just enough to make them change their minds?  Did you cure the Genophage or not?  If not, aren't you going to get pretty close to wiping them out?  Are you going to decide that revenge is warranted, and allow them to wipe out the Salarians or the Turians or both?  If so, then what kind of peace are you really giving anyone?  At least I, in my Destroy scenario, don't have to take responsibility for the galaxy.  The Krogan, Salarians and Turians are going to have to resolve their issues on their own, which according to one of the Salarians in the Sur'Kesh mission, is how it's supposed to be.  Nature deciding who goes extinct, instead of politicians, or ShepAI...  Note that, with the exception of ShepAI, Synthesis provides for the same scenario.  Understanding does not equal acceptance, or peace.  Sure, immediately after the war with the Reapers, all the slides show peaceful coexistence, but even in Destroy, in 10 years it could be different.  Once the wounds heal a bit from that war, some may be ready for the next one.  You choose Control, you really do put yourself into your hypothetical.  So how long until you decide that you have to try something different?  How long until you figure the initial Catalyst had it right, and you restart the Harvests to prevent yourself from having to make these decisions?  Congratulations?  You have just proven one theory on why I would never take Control.

No you like the Catalyst always have a choice.  You can choose to keep doing the same thing over and over or you can choose to find another path.  However, if you were eternal and this issue keep coming up each cycle and you tell me your solution would be some form of Destroy each and every time then the only difference really from you and the Catalyst is you had the luxury of not being eternal and hence not having to make this decision over and over.  So the problem is not that you are eternal. The problem is you choosing the same decision over and over.

And I have already said, none of the options result in peace.  People who think Synthesis is some utopia are deluding themselves.  A Krogan hybrid can still hate a Salarian or Turian hybrid for the genophage.   Ultimately with synthesis or control everyone is alive to see if they can forge a future together.  Everyone including synthetics.  That is how I decide but you are free to choose differently.

As for Control in particular the only difference here is I have more power.  Shep human so conflict and he tried to stop it.  Shep Reaper sees conflict and will try to stop it.  Shep human talks to people and tries to get them to work together.  Shep Reaper will talk to people and try to get them to work together.  The only difference is I have more power.  However, I don't need to rule as the catalyst did.  I can offer my advice or leave them alone and simply intervene only when a conflict cannot be resolved by the two parties.  We have already seen organics and synthetics resolve stuff with genophages or genocide so my Shep Reaper Paragon will step in if that is how they choose to resolve things.  Otherwise they are free to do what they want.

Now you will invariably talk to me about power corrupts and absolutely power corrupts absolutely.  Fair point.  I simply am not willing to exterminate synthetics to avoid seeing if this is true in some potential future.  Further that same logic applies and has applied for the past few thousand years where the Asari used a secret beacon to obtain power, the Turians used their military to obtain power and the Salarians used their knowledge.  Collectively they have been imposing their will on everyone and doing so in the most grotesque ways that sorry I trust Shep Reaper paragon more than I trust them.  Or do I need to go through all their amoral, corrupt, and at times cowardly acts?

Again, you are free to make the choice you want.  My point is they all have their own validity and I am just pointint out that any downside you see in control and synthetics, I can counter with a positive as well as point out the downside to Destroy.  Control and Synthesis are simply better options for me because of my perspective as destroy is a better option for you based on yours.  That is all I am trying to get across.

[Xamufam]

robertthebard wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Do you see that Shepard about 4 posts up? MY SHEPARD would NEVER do that in CONTROL. MY SHEPARD would rule the galaxy with an iron fist. MY SHEPARD would rule like Stalin. But she promised Liara she would return from the battle. Consequently she chose Destroy because Starbrat didn't mention "you will die." Aren't you glad?

I am...  eeeep.

Footnote:  The Catalyst does point out that you are mostly synthetic, and therefore, you could die...

In citadel dlc they say 40% synthetic (must romance samantha)
Edi also said that shepard is not a transhuman but fully human & sheps brain is organic & sheps major organs are organic
(me 2 beginning)

Modifié par Troxa, 13 avril 2013 - 08:38 .

[robertthebard]

remydat wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

So what your saying is that making yourself eternal would be  a bad thing, since it would force you to possibly make the same decision/same type of decision over and over?  In that case, wouldn't Control be infinitely worse?  Since, in a very literal sense, you have done just that.  If the Krogan decide to exact revenge for the Genophage, are you going to allow it?  If not, are you going to kill them all, or just enough to make them change their minds?  Did you cure the Genophage or not?  If not, aren't you going to get pretty close to wiping them out?  Are you going to decide that revenge is warranted, and allow them to wipe out the Salarians or the Turians or both?  If so, then what kind of peace are you really giving anyone?  At least I, in my Destroy scenario, don't have to take responsibility for the galaxy.  The Krogan, Salarians and Turians are going to have to resolve their issues on their own, which according to one of the Salarians in the Sur'Kesh mission, is how it's supposed to be.  Nature deciding who goes extinct, instead of politicians, or ShepAI...  Note that, with the exception of ShepAI, Synthesis provides for the same scenario.  Understanding does not equal acceptance, or peace.  Sure, immediately after the war with the Reapers, all the slides show peaceful coexistence, but even in Destroy, in 10 years it could be different.  Once the wounds heal a bit from that war, some may be ready for the next one.  You choose Control, you really do put yourself into your hypothetical.  So how long until you decide that you have to try something different?  How long until you figure the initial Catalyst had it right, and you restart the Harvests to prevent yourself from having to make these decisions?  Congratulations?  You have just proven one theory on why I would never take Control.

No you like the Catalyst always have a choice.  You can choose to keep doing the same thing over and over or you can choose to find another path.  However, if you were eternal and this issue keep coming up each cycle and you tell me your solution would be some form of Destroy each and every time then the only difference really from you and the Catalyst is you had the luxury of not being eternal and hence not having to make this decision over and over.  So the problem is not that you are eternal. The problem is you choosing the same decision over and over.

And I have already said, none of the options result in peace.  People who think Synthesis is some utopia are deluding themselves.  A Krogan hybrid can still hate a Salarian or Turian hybrid for the genophage.   Ultimately with synthesis or control everyone is alive to see if they can forge a future together.  Everyone including synthetics.  That is how I decide but you are free to choose differently.

As for Control in particular the only difference here is I have more power.  Shep human so conflict and he tried to stop it.  Shep Reaper sees conflict and will try to stop it.  Shep human talks to people and tries to get them to work together.  Shep Reaper will talk to people and try to get them to work together.  The only difference is I have more power.  However, I don't need to rule as the catalyst did.  I can offer my advice or leave them alone and simply intervene only when a conflict cannot be resolved by the two parties.  We have already seen organics and synthetics resolve stuff with genophages or genocide so my Shep Reaper Paragon will step in if that is how they choose to resolve things.  Otherwise they are free to do what they want.

Now you will invariably talk to me about power corrupts and absolutely power corrupts absolutely.  Fair point.  I simply am not willing to exterminate synthetics to avoid seeing if this is true in some potential future.  Further that same logic applies and has applied for the past few thousand years where the Asari used a secret beacon to obtain power, the Turians used their military to obtain power and the Salarians used their knowledge.  Collectively they have been imposing their will on everyone and doing so in the most grotesque ways that sorry I trust Shep Reaper paragon more than I trust them.  Or do I need to go through all their amoral, corrupt, and at times cowardly acts?

Again, you are free to make the choice you want.  My point is they all have their own validity and I am just pointint out that any downside you see in control and synthetics, I can counter with a positive as well as point out the downside to Destroy.  Control and Synthesis are simply better options for me because of my perspective as destroy is a better option for you based on yours.  That is all I am trying to get across.

Actually, you really haven't paid much attention to my position at all.  I have 20 and change games with saves at the beam in London, and I have 4 completions.  I have, on more than one occasion, pointed out that allowing one's self to survive Harbinger's laser opens one's self to the Catalyst.  I choose to reject the DeM of surviving a laser blast that rips cruisers in half.

In 2 of the 4 saves, I have no geth, didn't meet the qualifications for the interrupts, and saved the Quarians.  In one of those I was romancing Tali, so it made sense.  So your gloom and doom scenario to Destroy does not apply.  I am killing EDI, it is unfortunate, but according to the brutal calculus, 1 dead is better than everyone dead, screwed by your hypothetical, or genetically raped.  In the other two, I have achieved peace, but their deaths, while regrettable, end the Reapers for good w/out me having to screw the galaxy with your hypothetical, or genetically rape everyone.  Conflict 10,000 years from now, brought on by an AI, or factions of organics is not my concern.  My concern is ending the clear and present danger, and I have done just that.  I don't care what you see as positives or negatives to any of the scenarios.  Standing on the platform, for the first time, considering the options I had, Destroy made the most sense.  In subsequent playthroughs, my moral compass didn't change, and neither did Shep's.  Kill the Reapers, and let the galaxy commence to rebuilding.

Of note, my first two completions resulted in Shepard's death, since I don't do MP, and it was required to get high enough EMS to not die.  I willingly gave my life, along with EDI's to save the galaxy.  The Reapers are dead, and cannot be turned against anyone later in a Control scenario, or revolt on their own in a Synthesis scenario.  You think this is bad, because well, EDI and geth.  I submit that it's unfortunate that they had to die too, but in 2 of 4 completions, I died as well.  But, the galaxy is safe from the Reapers.  10 years down the road, or 10,000 is not my concern.  The clear and present danger is, and it's dealt with.

[remydat]

robertthebard

Just because you sacrificed the Geth yesterday instead of today (ie at the end of the game) does not mean you haven't sacrificed them.

And again, you are free to make your decision based on your logic as I am free to make mine based on my logic.  I am not suggesting you change your logic.  I am telling you why I don't agree with it and why my logic is different.  For 3 games I have been fighting to destroy the Reapers and then when confronted with their creator and when confronted with Leviathan, I learn things are more complicated. 

Obviously that hasn't changed your ultimate goal but it did for me.  I am human, my goals and motivations change as I am presented with new information.  Just because I started out with a goal say 6 years ago in ME1 doesn't mean I must stick with it when new information is provided.  If it meant that then I might as well be a machine.

The Reaper threat today is ended under all 3 scenarios IMO.  There is a potential threat in the future under all 3 scenarios IMO.  So I choose the option that saves the most lives.

[Jared Shepard]

Here we are again with the word "genocide" being tossed around about the thought of destroying a bunch of talking calculators vs. living things (like the things that gave you life).
Anything that speaks of itself as "we" in reference to its collective consciousness is not "living" or an individual. EDI could be the Normandy or the "body" she was inside of. Hell, you could probably plug her into your XBox......not life. Not living. No blood. No genocide.....(well aside from the Genocide the Reapers commit every 50 thousand years they are in existence.)

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Troxa wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Do you see that Shepard about 4 posts up? MY SHEPARD would NEVER do that in CONTROL. MY SHEPARD would rule the galaxy with an iron fist. MY SHEPARD would rule like Stalin. But she promised Liara she would return from the battle. Consequently she chose Destroy because Starbrat didn't mention "you will die." Aren't you glad?

I am...  eeeep.

Footnote:  The Catalyst does point out that you are mostly partly synthetic, and therefore, you could die...

In citadel dlc they say 40% synthetic (must romance samantha)
Edi also said that shepard is not a transhuman but fully human & sheps brain is organic & sheps major organs are organic
(me 2 beginning)

Fixed. It's not mostly. It's PARTLY. It is done as a means to convince you to take synthesis. But hey... in the two you have zero chance at living. In destroy there is a chance. High EMS? Casey said you live. Hepler said it could be your last breath. I'm going with Casey's word because that's what he wanted for the ending.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 13 avril 2013 - 09:28 .

[Aaleel]

Jared Shepard wrote...

Here we are again with the word "genocide" being tossed around about the thought of destroying a bunch of talking calculators vs. living things (like the things that gave you life).
Anything that speaks of itself as "we" in reference to its collective consciousness is not "living" or an individual. EDI could be the Normandy or the "body" she was inside of. Hell, you could probably plug her into your XBox......not life. Not living. No blood. No genocide.....(well aside from the Genocide the Reapers commit every 50 thousand years they are in existence.)

It wouldn't even be genocide if they were organic.  Genocide is singling out one group and taking systematic steps to wipe them out.  Finding out at the very last moment that deaths may result in the execution of a military attack agreed uopn by everyone is not genocide.  That's like saying arrivial was genocide because you found out at the last moment that Batarians were going to die.

To have committed genocide on the Geth you would have had to build the crucible, deploy it, and use it for the sole purpose of killing Geth and only Geth, which you didn't.  It was never your intent in any of your actions before the Catalyst walked out to kill Geth.

Collateral damage plain and simple.

Modifié par Aaleel, 13 avril 2013 - 09:29 .

[remydat]

Jared Shepard wrote...

Here we are again with the word "genocide" being tossed around about the thought of destroying a bunch of talking calculators vs. living things (like the things that gave you life).
Anything that speaks of itself as "we" in reference to its collective consciousness is not "living" or an individual. EDI could be the Normandy or the "body" she was inside of. Hell, you could probably plug her into your XBox......not life. Not living. No blood. No genocide.....(well aside from the Genocide the Reapers commit every 50 thousand years they are in existence.)

If you are referring to my posts then you are confused. My reference to genocide was speaking with respect to both ORGANICS AND SYNTHETICS. I said both groups have historically resolved their conflicts with genophage and genocide. The Genophage was a refernce to just organics because obviously they are the only ones that did it. However, genocide has been perpetrated by both Organics and Synthetics as is clear by human history.

So it is only your bias that assumed I was referring to organics trying to kill synthetics when my comment was refering to both and was commenting on genocide not only beteween synthetics vs organics but also organics vs organics.

[TheImmortalBeaver]

I would intentionally pick the Destroy ending if it called all Asari. Because they suck.

Outside of that, probably if it was only one race (IE, similar to the current situation of genocide-ing the Geth), as by the end, I see little functional difference between most organic races and the Geth. They're all sentient.