935 réponses à ce sujet

[Cheviot]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

Destroy and Refuse force a change on others too.  You're condemning either some (EDI, Shep and Geth in Destroy) or almost all (in Refuse) sentient life to death.  Besides, change was already forced on the entire human race with the discovery of the Relays.

First, in Refuse, if you do not meta-game it, that's not true. Refuse creates a true "unknown" for Shepard until he does it. Once the action is taken, consequences quickly make it clear that the Organics will not be able to win with that choice, but Shepard cannot know that before taking the action.

In Destroy, EDI and the Geth (Shepard is irrelevant, because you control Shepard's will) are active participants in the war. In war, sometimes soldiers are ordered to lay down their lives or take actions that their commanding officer is aware they are likely to die performing. If choosing Destroy was like firing a nuke at the Reapers, the Catalyst might have said "The Geth and EDI are well within the blast radius, even you are fairly close to the blast zone." to ward you off from firing it. The point is, EDI and the Geth all know that as active participants in this battle and in the war their lives may be asked of them in the name of the mission.

In Refuse, Shepard is bleeding out, and he knows that the Reapers can't be defeated without the Crucible - he knows how difficult it is to destroy even one.  He'd have to be very optimistic to think that refusal can lead anywhere good.  A Shepard who refuses either distrusts the Catalyst, or thinks the solutions offered are worth the conditions attached to them.

Regarding Destroy, everyone is an active participant in the war, since by the end, the Reapers are everywhere, meaning the battlefield is too, and so everyone is in the blast radius. 

[Sc2mashimaro]

remydat wrote...

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

I don't know that Synthesis itself destroys individuality, but choosing it certainly reflects a belief that individuality is not very important.

No it doesn't because you still keep you Krogan DNA and it simply adds to that DNA.  This is like saying because my Girlfirend speaks Spanish, my learning spanish so that we can connect easier means I am no longer an individual.  Synthesis connects organics and synthetics.  It does so by allowing each to keep what makes them an organic or synthetic.  They have essentially learned a new language at a genetic level.

I never said it destroyed individuality. I said choosing it reflects a belief that individuality or, more accurately, free will is not very important because it forces every individual in the galaxy to accept a new organic-synthetic biology regardless of their feelings or thoughts on the matter. It is, fundamentally, the use of force on non-participants. 

And no it is not the only ending where change is forced on others.  You force the Geth or EDI to die.  They did not make that decision in destroy.

That's true and ALL of the choices except Refuse require the use of force on others. As I covered in my post, though, the reason Control and Destroy are different from Synthesis in this regard is because they do not use force against people who are non-participants in the battle. Everyone affected is in combat already and it is reasonable to assume that they know force may be used against them.

Also, I personally value free will very highly, but that is not universal, so many people will find the use of force in Synthesis justified anyway. Just like many believe that forced vaccines are justified (humans and germs will inevitably have conflict!).

[robertthebard]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...
. Just like many believe that forced vaccines are justified (humans and germs will inevitably have conflict!).

Oh no, you have just uncovered the plot of the next ME game.

Canon is Synthesis, and since germs had their genetic structure altered, they are mad that Smallpox and the Black Plague got cured, and blame humans for the genocide of their predecessors.

[remydat]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

I never said it destroyed individuality. I said choosing it reflects a belief that individuality or, more accurately, free will is not very important because it forces every individual in the galaxy to accept a new organic-synthetic biology regardless of their feelings or thoughts on the matter. It is, fundamentally, the use of force on non-participants. 

That's true and ALL of the choices except Refuse require the use of force on others. As I covered in my post, though, the reason Control and Destroy are different from Synthesis in this regard is because they do not use force against people who are non-participants in the battle. Everyone affected is in combat already and it is reasonable to assume that they know force may be used against them.

Also, I personally value free will very highly, but that is not universal, so many people will find the use of force in Synthesis justified anyway. Just like many believe that forced vaccines are justified (humans and germs will inevitably have conflict!).

I think choosing it over Destroy reflects the fact a choice that keeps everyone alive and affects everyone EQUALLY is better than a choice that exterminates one group so that others may live.  Free will is important.  It is important the synthetics who are at your mercy if you choose destroy.  Also this assumes there are not synthetic races out there say beyond the PV who you just unknowingly slaughtered.

The same with Control.  You have installed yourself as final arbiter over people.  You can decide to allow them to live as they see fit or you can decide to micromanage them.

So there are issues of free will with all the choices.  Personally I value free will and life very highly so I find the use of force in destroy unacceptable for me.

[Sc2mashimaro]

Cheviot wrote...

In Refuse, Shepard is bleeding out, and he knows that the Reapers can't be defeated without the Crucible - he knows how difficult it is to destroy even one.  He'd have to be very optimistic to think that refusal can lead anywhere good.  A Shepard who refuses either distrusts the Catalyst, or thinks the solutions offered are worth the conditions attached to them.

Regarding Destroy, everyone is an active participant in the war, since by the end, the Reapers are everywhere, meaning the battlefield is too, and so everyone is in the blast radius. 

Still, in Refuse, Shepard does not actively use force against anyone (except maybe the ghost-boy).

As far as your Destroy argument goes, I can't really say you are wrong. You are basically advocating a position that says we are at "Total War" or a state of "absolute war". And that, being thus, there are no non-beligerants and there are no rules to say that certain groups (ex: civilians) are not allowed to be targeted in the pursuit of victory. I think, regardless of the circumstances, we should strive to avoid such actions and pursue a war more in line with the theory of "Just War" rather than "Absolute War".

[Sc2mashimaro]

remydat wrote...

I think choosing it over Destroy reflects the fact a choice that keeps everyone alive and affects everyone EQUALLY is better than a choice that exterminates one group so that others may live.  Free will is important.  It is important the synthetics who are at your mercy if you choose destroy.  Also this assumes there are not synthetic races out there say beyond the PV who you just unknowingly slaughtered.

Yes, it is absolutely a possibility that there are unknown casualties when choosing Destroy (the nuclear bomb analogy fits again!). I may have over-stated my case when I said that choosing synthesis meant that "free-will" was unimportant to the person who chooses it. Rather, I should have said that it reflects that the person who chooses it prioritizes some things above free-will.

The same with Control.  You have installed yourself as final arbiter over people.  You can decide to allow them to live as they see fit or you can decide to micromanage them.

I think that depends on your Shepard. As long as Shepard retains free will, it is reasonable to assume Shepard will act with his/her new power the way you would choose for him/her to act with his/her new power. Some Controllers would be exactly as you said, others would be Ron Swanson and explain how Reapers waste your tax dollars .

So there are issues of free will with all the choices.

Yes, except Refuse. Because all three choices involved the use of force/violence against others. The scope and nature of that force/violence changes in each choice, but they all are fundamentally violent. The question is whether the target of that violence is acceptable and whether the nature of that violence makes it more acceptable. Synthesis has the widest scope (does violence to the most people), but arguably does the least harm to each person affected - and that fits with why you choose it.

I don't like Synthesis because I do not think the scope is acceptable. I think Control and Destroy also use force, greatly in excess of what Synthesis does, but that the targets/scope is more acceptable.

[Cheviot]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...
Still, in Refuse, Shepard does not actively use force against anyone (except maybe the ghost-boy).

Technically, yes, but as I said, he'd have to be very optimistic to think that he wasn't opening the door to the Reaper use of force.  As John Stuart Mill says in this quote I've just copy-pasted from wikiquote, "Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."

Sc2mashimaro wrote...
As far as your Destroy argument goes, I can't really say you are wrong. You are basically advocating a position that says we are at "Total War" or a state of "absolute war". And that, being thus, there are no non-beligerants and there are no rules to say that certain groups (ex: civilians) are not allowed to be targeted in the pursuit of victory. I think, regardless of the circumstances, we should strive to avoid such actions and pursue a war more in line with the theory of "Just War" rather than "Absolute War".

I'd agree, but the problem is that the Reapers forced Total War from the start, especially considering they use civilian populations as their ground troops.  In the end, I'd say all the solutions force privations on the majority, if only from post-war rebuilding, and so it would be almost impossible to find a solution to keep them out of the "blast zone".

[remydat]

Sc2mashimaro

Fair enough. As long as we agree all 3 choices have their problems then fine.  I value life and free will more so I choose Control or Synthesis because Destroy involves taking free will from people while also killing them.  You appear to value free will and impact the least amount of people more.
 
I only prefer Synthesis over Control from a metagame perspective ie I can see the end result is that no one appears that pissed off by the decision and all appear to be happy about it. Otherwise, I would probably opt for Control unless I was 100% convinced by the Catalyst.

As for refuse, it is no less an issue of free will.  You force the rest of the Galaxy to accept your decision to do nothing. The Galaxy is burning outside and you basically decide for billions they can continue to burn.  What's worse is they gave up their lives to put you in position to decide and you basically refuse to decide.  The Galaxy would have been better off sending someone else up their to decide for them.

Modifié par remydat, 14 avril 2013 - 11:21 .

[Sc2mashimaro]

Cheviot wrote...

Sc2mashimaro wrote...
Still, in Refuse, Shepard does not actively use force against anyone (except maybe the ghost-boy).

Technically, yes, but as I said, he'd have to be very optimistic to think that he wasn't opening the door to the Reaper use of force.  As John Stuart Mill says in this quote I've just copy-pasted from wikiquote, "Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."

Yeah. That might be why some people see "Refuse" as surrendering.

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

I'd agree, but the problem is that the Reapers forced Total War from the start, especially considering they use civilian populations as their ground troops.  In the end, I'd say all the solutions force privations on the majority, if only from post-war rebuilding, and so it would be almost impossible to find a solution to keep them out of the "blast zone".

That might be true. Heck, I was arming the civilians on the Citadel during the rest of the game - undermining my own position here. There are not a lot of good choices in war. I would still prioritize limiting the scope of the use of force, but I can definitely see your position here.

[DoodlyDangus]

I'd totally sacrifice the Catalysst. Stupid plot characters count as a species, right?

Oh, there goes Kai Leng too.

[Sc2mashimaro]

remydat:

I only choose Destroy because my role-play tells me not to trust the Catalyst. Control is better for me from a meta-game perspective. But yeah, thanks for the discussion, I enjoyed it

(Also, I totally get why some people view Refuse as being similar to surrendering)

[remydat]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

remydat:

I only choose Destroy because my role-play tells me not to trust the Catalyst. Control is better for me from a meta-game perspective. But yeah, thanks for the discussion, I enjoyed it

(Also, I totally get why some people view Refuse as being similar to surrendering)

Likewise on the discussion.

[Norbulus]

Whole thread is a piece of racist boloney. Species other than council races are ignored and regarded as inferior.

[Afroninja367]

Dunabar wrote...

The Geth in my story were not destroyed at earth, but back on Rannoch by the Quarians. Am I doing the whole 'destroy is genocide' thing right?

No, you are just being a loyal Quarian, like the rest of us. Keelah se'lai!

[eye basher]

If destroy blew up the whole galaxy i'd still choose it the reapers need to die plain and sinple.

[AlanC9]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

Sc2mashimaro wrote...
Still, in Refuse, Shepard does not actively use force against anyone (except maybe the ghost-boy).

Technically, yes, but as I said, he'd have to be very optimistic to think that he wasn't opening the door to the Reaper use of force.  As John Stuart Mill says in this quote I've just copy-pasted from wikiquote, "Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."

Yeah. That might be why some people see "Refuse" as surrendering.

Well, letting your enemies do whatever they please.... yeah, most of the time you surrender it does work like that.

[capn233]

If you feel the Reapers' logic about synthetics is bs, you could justify destroying all current organics to save the ones of the future.

Modifié par capn233, 15 avril 2013 - 01:11 .

[Strelsky]

If the catalyst told me that destroy would also kill all organics, I would still choose destroy and call it out on its bluff.

[Taboo]

You go all the way regardless of which ending you choose. The only difference is that you survive one choice.

[PirateMouse]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

remydat:

I only choose Destroy because my role-play tells me not to trust the Catalyst. Control is better for me from a meta-game perspective. But yeah, thanks for the discussion, I enjoyed it

(Also, I totally get why some people view Refuse as being similar to surrendering)

Why would you choose Destroy if you don't trust the Catalyst? It's an option that was specifically given to you by him, and he told you how to do it.  You're even taking an enormous leap of faith in believing that somehow shooting some tubes is going to destroy the Reapers and not, say, destroy the Crucible instead or spread some super-indoctrination virus through the galaxy that indoctrinates everyone forever or who knows what else.

If you don't believe the Catalyst but still picked Destroy, then your choice was poorly thought out and made no logical sense because you were doing exactly one of the three things he told you to do exactly how he told you to do it.

Modifié par PirateMouse, 15 avril 2013 - 02:37 .

[Afroninja367]

remydat wrote...


I think choosing it over Destroy reflects the fact a choice that keeps everyone alive and affects everyone EQUALLY is better than a choice that exterminates one group so that others may live.  Free will is important.  It is important the synthetics who are at your mercy if you choose destroy.  Also this assumes there are not synthetic races out there say beyond the PV who you just unknowingly slaughtered.

The same with Control.  You have installed yourself as final arbiter over people.  You can decide to allow them to live as they see fit or you can decide to micromanage them.

So there are issues of free will with all the choices.  Personally I value free will and life very highly so I find the use of force in destroy unacceptable for me.

wait... So defeating the reapers is unacceptable??? I don't understand

[Phatose]

Defeating the Reapers and exterminating the Reapers are not the same thing.

[remydat]

Afroninja367 wrote...

wait... So defeating the reapers is unacceptable??? I don't understand

Pretty sure the game gives me 3 options to defeat them, 2 of which don't involve killing another race.  You are free to choose to defeat them how you want and I will choose to defeat them how I want.

[ZerebusPrime]

Destruction of all organic life in the universe would of course be self-defeating.

That said...

"Megatron must be stopped, no matter the cost."

If it means an end to the Reapers so that sentient organic life is free to develop without the Reaper's periodic interventions, no one species is too important to sacrifice. Not even humanity.

[The Twilight God]

PirateMouse wrote...

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

remydat:

I only choose Destroy because my role-play tells me not to trust the Catalyst. Control is better for me from a meta-game perspective. But yeah, thanks for the discussion, I enjoyed it

(Also, I totally get why some people view Refuse as being similar to surrendering)

Why would you choose Destroy if you don't trust the Catalyst? It's an option that was specifically given to you by him, and he told you how to do it.  You're even taking an enormous leap of faith in believing that somehow shooting some tubes is going to destroy the Reapers and not, say, destroy the Crucible instead or spread some super-indoctrination virus through the galaxy that indoctrinates everyone forever or who knows what else.

If you don't believe the Catalyst but still picked Destroy, then your choice was poorly thought out and made no logical sense because you were doing exactly one of the three things he told you to do exactly how he told you to do it.

Although I agree with you to a point, I don't think it's rational to just assume ANYTHING can happen. It's a power conduit and it is labeled as such. Therefore it removes power from something on the Citadel as neither it nor any of the machinery are part of the Crucible. Due to the nature of what is actions are taken in Destroy, it ultimately comes down to game mechanics. You have no alternative but the 3 options or give up entirely and let the Reapers continue. Of the three options (to which the game design leaves no alternative) Destroy does not require the protagonist to commit suicide on the word of the antagonist. If Shepard does synthesis or control and the Kid is lying, all hope is lost. If he shoots a power conduit and the Crucible still doesn't fire he is still standing to seek alternatives story wise. 

For trust factor it would have made more sense for Bioware to have the Reapers cease fire AND have a brute in the room and have the Kid's image project out of the husk the circular area husk variants have on their stomach regions. That way it would have the means to stop Shepard and its lack of aggressive action would give the player some reason to trust it. The entire scene is poorly done if the intent was not for Control and Synthesis to be indoctrinated endings.