935 réponses à ce sujet

[Ecrulis]

It really depends, one race then absolutely, if it killed off all organics than it defeats its own purpose, also I am totally going to keep a tally on how many people say they would gleefully sacrifice the asari...stay classy BSN

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

If the cost to stop the reapers was every organic life in the galaxy, then I'd still chose destroy, because there will be life again, and it will be free to evolve on a natural course.

[fr33stylez]

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.

Well, I don't think anyone went into the war thinking Shepard would decide to keep the Reapers around, under his/her control with a plan of 'guiding' or 'monitoring' the galaxy for all of eternity either.

Modifié par fr33stylez, 12 avril 2013 - 04:02 .

[Reikilea]

Everything is better than husks and reaper clones with suddenly awakened mind. I dont wanna be friends with bashees and brutes.  Imagine the suiside rate. An dont think society would just accept them. Please beeing the same doesn´t neccesary mean, they we all posses the same ideas. It worked great within communism, right?

And since destroy is specifically directed at synthetics, this whole question is just off. We will rebuilt and archive peace and understanding of all species by our own.

And I would never sacrifice salarians when we are at it. They are coolest. Others are meh. But again destroy targets synthetics.Not organics.

Modifié par Reikilea, 12 avril 2013 - 04:12 .

[Clayless]

fr33stylez wrote...

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.

Well, I don't think anyone went into the war thinking Shepard would decide to keep the Reapers around, under his/her control with a plan of 'guiding' or 'monitoring' the galaxy for all of eternity either.

A lot of them probably went in to stop the Reapers and unite the galaxy though. There's a 3rd option that does that.

[N7Avin180]

I know you support Control. But really? If I were an ordinary citizen I would have serious problem with the Shepalyst. I would not feel safe knowing there is someone out there with that kind of power. No one should be able to have that kind of power.

[robertthebard]

PirateMouse wrote...

Zazzerka wrote...

It would be kind of redundant if it killed all organics.

Here's a question for those who picked Control ...

Would you still pick Control if it required you to enslave all quarians?

All asari?

All turians?

etc.

Of course not ... but "enslaving" all Reapers is hardly equivalent as it only acts against an enemy force (the most terrible enemy force in the history of the galaxy, in fact).  By contrast, killing all synthetics means murdering friendlies and allies.  Your question and attempted analogy would make sense in this context if the Control ending already required you to "enslave" all synthetics.

That said, if you still want to pursue that, make your own thread about it.

Then how is your premise any more relevant, since Destroy doesn't require you to kill any organics.  Typical BSN logic, your ending is bad because...  I die at the beam, if you play past that and complain about any ending, you are the worst form of hypocrite in my opinion.  To wit:  Surviving a beam that rips cruisers in half, on foot is an acceptable DeM, but complaining about the endings being DeM ripoffs is acceptable.  Of course, you probably believe that the Lazarus DeM was just good science too, right?

[AresKeith]

Robosexual wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

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.

Well, I don't think anyone went into the war thinking Shepard would decide to keep the Reapers around, under his/her control with a plan of 'guiding' or 'monitoring' the galaxy for all of eternity either.

A lot of them probably went in to stop the Reapers and unite the galaxy though. There's a 3rd option that does that.

And I'm 100% positive that nobody went in this war thinking Synthesis would happen

[Astartes Marine]

Since it's just a game, and the end of this story...I'd do whatever I wish. Reapers die no matter what.

[Reorte]

PirateMouse wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Controllers, if Control was stated to have a given probability of failure (things going back to how they were) how high would that probability have to be to make you choose Destroy instead? Synthesis is out of the question just for the sake of argument here.

Why don't you make your own thread for this?

Because it's more interesting to expand this one for easy comparing and contrasting.

[Asnine112]

The only thing you're actually killing in destroy is EDI.

Geth aren't synthetics, they're software

[Clayless]

Asnine112 wrote...

The only thing you're actually killing in destroy is EDI.

Geth aren't synthetics, they're software

So's everything. We can't work without our hardware, but what makes us is our software.

The Geth die along with EDI, no matter how much you don't want to believe it.

Modifié par Robosexual, 12 avril 2013 - 04:21 .

[N7Avin180]

Just a thing. "The crucible does not discriminate". Destroy affects all synthetics. Shouldnt Control ad well?

[remydat]

Reorte wrote...

Controllers, if Control was stated to have a given probability of failure (things going back to how they were) how high would that probability have to be to make you choose Destroy instead? Synthesis is out of the question just for the sake of argument here.

That depends.  If Destroy guaranteed 100% that the advanced synthetic race the Reapers created the harvest to prevent would never exist then the probability of failure for me before I consider destroy would have to be somewhere far north of 50%.  Otherwise I personally would always choose to save lives today rather than kill them for future lives that may not actually be in harms way.  Once I decide to kill something today, it is gone.  If that probability turns out right in the future then everyone is alive to deal with it.

The bigger problem though is this.  Destroy is just as likely if not more likely to result in things going back to the way it is.  Without the Reapers and with organics becoming more advanced, any AI they create is likely to be more advanced than the primitive Geth because they have lived past the harvest.  How will that AI react when it finds out you killed all synthetics to save yourselves.  You can come up with all the excuses you want but if I was an advanced AI that found out synthetics sacrificed all previous organics to save themselves, I would conclude no matter what synthetics do organics will kill them if the need arises.  And so they must be destroyed.  This would be especially true if you made peace with the Geth and you reward all their efforts in helping the Quarians rebuild Rannoch by destroying them, lol.

Modifié par remydat, 12 avril 2013 - 04:24 .

[PirateMouse]

robertthebard wrote...

Then how is your premise any more relevant, since Destroy doesn't require you to kill any organics.

I already explained this.  I'm not going to hold your hand.  Go back and read.

[remydat]

N7Avin180 wrote...

Just a thing. "The crucible does not discriminate". Destroy affects all synthetics. Shouldnt Control ad well?

Control replaces Star Brat with Shep.  Star Brat only controls the Reapers.  There is no sentient being with destroy.

[Steelcan]

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.

. Is it any worse to be wiped out by your ally than an enemy?  It's still being wiped out.

[MetioricTest]

PirateMouse wrote...

Here's a question for those who picked Destroy ...

Would you still pick Destroy if it required you to kill all quarians?

All asari?

All turians?

All humans?

All [i]organics?

Yes.

[N7Avin180]

remydat wrote...

N7Avin180 wrote...

Just a thing. "The crucible does not discriminate". Destroy affects all synthetics. Shouldnt Control ad well?

Control replaces Star Brat with Shep.  Star Brat only controls the Reapers.  There is no sentient being with destroy.

Thanks for helping me clear that up. Was just kind of irking me.

[Liamv2]

Reorte wrote...

Controllers, if Control was stated to have a given probability of failure (things going back to how they were) how high would that probability have to be to make you choose Destroy instead? Synthesis is out of the question just for the sake of argument here.

I whould choose destroy if control had a chance of backfireing

[remydat]

Steelcan wrote...

Is it any worse to be wiped out by your ally than an enemy?  It's still being wiped out.

I think most people consider betrayal and murder by a friend/ally as worse than being killed by an enemy.  The result is the same but yes we feel differently about them.

This would be like saying is it worse if your wife screws your best friend as opposed to your one night stand from last night hooking up with a random ddue.  Of course it is because you feel a greater sense of loyalty in the first scenario than the latter regardless of the fact the result is the same ie the women you slept with slept with someone else.

Modifié par remydat, 12 avril 2013 - 04:33 .

[Clayless]

Steelcan wrote...

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.

. Is it any worse to be wiped out by your ally than an enemy?  It's still being wiped out.

I wouldn't fight for someone who was going to kill me, and everyone I know and love, when they didn't need to. Even the enemy is going to preserve us in some way, whereas the person I'd be fighting for would just point blank commit genocide on us when given the chance.

I wouldn't fight for someone like that. Like you pointed out, it's irrelevant in the end, so there's no need to pointlessly waste the effort that could be spent on trying to find some way to survive.

[JBPBRC]

PirateMouse wrote...

Here's a question for those who picked Destroy ...

Would you still pick Destroy if it required you to kill all quarians?

All asari?

All turians?

All humans?

All organics?

How far are you really prepared to go? How far does the end justify the means for you?

All the way. Its what Marauder Shields would do.

IF ONLY WE HAD LISTENED.

[ManiacG]

If one person still stands at the end of a war the fight was whort it -Garrus Vacarian

[PirateMouse]

remydat wrote...

You can come up with all the excuses you want but if I was an advanced AI that found out synthetics sacrificed all previous organics to save themselves, I would conclude no matter what synthetics do organics will kill them if the need arises.  And so they must be destroyed.

Essentially, the very act of choosing Destroy proves Starbrat was right all along?

Interesting angle.