935 réponses à ce sujet

[Zazzerka]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, you do rather constantly bray about its virtues, which can get... wearisome, to say the least.

You mean "you" in the broad sense, right? Because I, personally, don't often post in this forum, and give little to no f*cks about ending conversations.

[PwrdOff]

Xilizhra wrote...

As for choosing Destroy, every single one of us signed up for this fight knowing that it could be the end for some or all of us. We all agreed to do whatever it took to use the Crucible, even though we didn't know exactly what the Crucible would do. We all had to wonder if setting that thing off would kill us, and we accepted that risk to destroy the Reapers. Everyone accepted those risks because they believed destroying the Reapers was worth it.

False. The synthetics did not sign on for extinction when they knew an alternative was available.

Synthetics can't go extinct, there's nothing stopping anyone from building more geth later on.  Trying to resurrect an extinct organic species is a fair bit more difficult.

[Xilizhra]

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

As for choosing Destroy, every single one of us signed up for this fight knowing that it could be the end for some or all of us. We all agreed to do whatever it took to use the Crucible, even though we didn't know exactly what the Crucible would do. We all had to wonder if setting that thing off would kill us, and we accepted that risk to destroy the Reapers. Everyone accepted those risks because they believed destroying the Reapers was worth it.

False. The synthetics did not sign on for extinction when they knew an alternative was available.

. No they signed on for extinction when they joined the Reapers.  Again:devil:

Actually, that was to avoid extinction.

Synthetics can't go extinct, there's nothing stopping anyone from
building more geth later on.  Trying to resurrect an extinct organic
species is a fair bit more difficult.

Irrelevant. The geth as individuals are all dead.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 12 avril 2013 - 05:57 .

[CDR David Shepard]

PirateMouse wrote...

DecCylonus wrote...

The Reapers are the Catalyst's solution to the synthetic / organic conflict "problem". By assuming control, you admit that:
1) This conflict is inevitable and that a radical solution is necessary. 
2) An armada of all powerful warships controlled by an AI is the best solution for keeping the peace.

No you don't.  By assuming control, you kick Starbrat out of power, stop the Reapers from being a threat, and do so without committing genocide against anyone.  Nowhere in any of that are you required to agree with the brat about anything.  The only thing it requires you to believe is that Starbrat is telling the truth about controlling the Reapers ... and if you believe Starbrat's lying to you, you have no more reason to believe that shooting the Crucible will activate it, and Refusal becomes your only logical choice.

For me....I believe that the Reaper's can be controlled...but I don't believe Shepard's "mind" "soul" can stay sane/"be his own" for an eternity.

I believe the cycles would eventually continue at some point.

Obviously that is a hypothetical argument against Control...but it is the reason I will never pick Control.

Destroy ends the Reaper threat for good. This...and this alone...is why I always choose Destroy.

Modifié par CDR David Shepard, 12 avril 2013 - 06:01 .

[Abraham_uk]

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?

Quarians: Still yes.

Asari: Still yes.

Humans: Still yes.

All organics! Hell no!

Modifié par Abraham_uk, 12 avril 2013 - 05:58 .

[Nole]

Baelrahn wrote...

To me, Destroy is the ultimate question of whether you consider synthetics as alive. I do not.

[robertthebard]

PirateMouse wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Right, I forgot for a moment, this is BSN.  Exceptions to the rule only apply to certain factions to say "You are evil for doing that".  However, since Destroy targets Synthetics only, somebody postulating the same scenario in Control, another ending that only targets Reapers can't happen because you chose to not allow it?  It is, at the base, the exact same thing.

No, it's really not.  I actually explained why it isn't.  I covered this topic exactly, to the point I can't explain it better than by just copy/pasting.  Do I need to copy/paste? You refuse to go back and read? Okay, here's your copy/paste:

PirateMouse wrote...

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.

In short, the scenarios are different from the start.  I'm drawing an analogy, saying, "You were willing to wipe out one entire species ... would you commit genocide against another, too?" The analogy doesn't carry to Control because Control never required you to control anyone but the Reapers.  They would be equivalent only if Destroy didn't require you to kill anyone but the Reapers or if Control required that you control all synthetic life.

...and your post and initial question would make sense if it required you to target organics.  It doesn't.  I realize this flies in the face of everything you believe about your ending choice, but I can't do anything about that.  The reality is, you changed the nature of the beam for your hypothesis, but refuse to acknowledge a change of the nature of the beam in another hypothesis because it changes the nature of your preferred ending.  You say almost exactly that in your quote of yourself.  It reads like this to me:  No, that can't happen because I didn't say you could change the nature of the beam in any ending but Destroy.  The only reason you're changing the nature of the beam is to throw more "you people are monsters" accusations around.  There is no difference in the two scenarios, barring that, in yours some race gets killed for your "you people are monsters" justification, and in the other the same people may be enslaved along with the Reapers.

I realize you are unable to make the distinction here, but the beam in Destroy does not target organics.  You changed the variable to suit your question, and reject a change in Control that simply does what you did, added context to the existing situation.

[fr33stylez]

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.

Creative language there, but no, no one went into the war saying we should fundamentally change every organic in the galaxy by integrating them with synthetics, to (somehow) solve the Reaper God's problem we have no proof exists.

We do have several examples of people saying we should destroy the Reapers that indoctrinate friends, huskify families, blend people into goo, and have been altering the path of the galaxy for the past 1 billion years.

[Bill Casey]

Given the alternatives, yes...

[BansheeOwnage]

Bill Casey wrote...

Given the alternatives, yes...

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Steelcan wrote...

It depends. But really if Destroy killed organics I'd have some serious beefs with its logic.

^^^^ This. I think the rage would have been far worse in March 2012 had this been the case. Bioware would have had to write an entirely new ending instead of the EC. Artistic integrity wouldn't have cut it.

The Extended Cut wouldn't have cut it.

Of course the metagame solution would have been to shoot Wrex, fake the genophage cure, and sacrifice the Krogan.

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...
Actually, that was to avoid extinction.

. They still joined the Reapers, willingly.

Modifié par Steelcan, 12 avril 2013 - 06:11 .

[MKfighter89]

then whats the difference between destory and refuse if you kill all organics expect reapers die.

[Xilizhra]

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Actually, that was to avoid extinction.

. They still joined the Reapers, willingly.

And now they've left. I need every ally I can get.

[robertthebard]

JillBSuiT wrote...

then whats the difference between destory and refuse if you kill all organics expect reapers die.

Nothing, but this way, he can point to people that choose Destroy and say 'you people are monsters".

[ronneroo]

I didn't want to kill the Geth and EDI. I do see them as being alive, and EDI is one of my crew, my family. I wanted a happy ending, and despite the Reapers not being dead, Control was my first choice. I didn't enjoy it, but it seemed the lesser of 3 evils to me. It was also the only one where Shepard "survives."

As for my reason why I pick Destroy now, I'm just going to be blunt: I am Commander Shepard, and I don't want to die.
After learning that Shepard lives with Destroy, the question wasn't "millions vs billions" it was "me vs trillions" and I chose myself. It's not something I'm proud of or happy about, but I just want to live, sorry.

[BansheeOwnage]

robertthebard wrote...

JillBSuiT wrote...

then whats the difference between destory and refuse if you kill all organics expect reapers die.

Nothing, but this way, he can point to people that choose Destroy and say 'you people are monsters".

Pretty much!

[Clayless]

Asnine112 wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

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.

By your theory all the ships that we're using should be destroyed too, but this clearly isn't the case.

Why do the Geth survive where EDI does not? Simple: EDI is based on Reaper tech....she's basically Reaper tech actually. Geth, on the other hand, are software constructs who temporarily inhabit hardware shells, the way a program runs on a computer (or say, a VI or program helps to pilot a ship in the ME universe). By your theory every single ship should be destroyed in the destroy ending, yet none are (with high enough EMS), to bring it back to my first sentence.

Also, the "Catalyst" never explicitly says that the Geth will die....it's just implied. There's enough grey area in there to leave a lot of room for doubt (lots of speculation for everyone!)

What? By my theory everyone would die, if you actually read the post you quoted.

But they don't. Which means it only targets synthetic software or possibly only Reaper code and tech. Which the Geth happens to fall under.

Modifié par Robosexual, 12 avril 2013 - 06:15 .

[PirateMouse]

robertthebard wrote...

...and your post and initial question would make sense if it required you to target organics.  It doesn't.

Are you genuinely incapable of understanding the point, or is this an act?

Okay, I'll try only one more time for you:

The point of this thread is that currently, Destroy requires you to kill all synthetic life (the price) in order to destroy the Reapers (the goal).  The question being posed now is whether you would also commit genocide against other entire classes of sentient life to achieve the same result (again, destroying the Reapers).

Control requires that you sacrifice your physical body (the price) in order to control the Reapers (the goal).  Asking whether you'd be willing to enslave others is a failed analogy in this context because Control doesn't carry a price apart from acting against the Reapers specifically that involves also controlling others.  Destroy, however, does.

To make it even simpler for you ... by default:

Destroy = Destroy Reapers + Destroy all synthetics

Control = Control Reapers + ?

This can then be expressed as:

Destroy = Destroy Reapers + X (where X is another group that must also be destroyed -- by default, all synthetics)

Control = Control Reapers + ... we still don't have anything to add here

Now I'm substituting various other species for synthetics to serve as X in the Destroy section and asking whether people would still do it.  You can't substitute anything for X in the Control section because X is missing in the Control section.  Control never required X to begin with.

Modifié par PirateMouse, 12 avril 2013 - 06:20 .

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Actually, that was to avoid extinction.

. They still joined the Reapers, willingly.

And now they've left. I need every ally I can get.

. They gave me no choice.  It was them or the quarians....... 

[MKfighter89]

WittingEight65 wrote...

Baelrahn wrote...

To me, Destroy is the ultimate question of whether you consider synthetics as alive. I do not.

This, they are all programs and software if you want to think deeper and say the geth have evolved into a true AI you can. All in all guess what they were still created out of parts and materials on a assembly line, they don't have a soul and they can be rebuilt again. 

Modifié par JillBSuiT, 12 avril 2013 - 06:19 .

[DeinonSlayer]

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Actually, that was to avoid extinction.

. They still joined the Reapers, willingly.

And now they've left. I need every ally I can get.

. They gave me no choice.  It was them or the quarians....... 

This is gonna become another one of those threads now, isn't it?

[Steelcan]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Actually, that was to avoid extinction.

. They still joined the Reapers, willingly.

And now they've left. I need every ally I can get.

. They gave me no choice.  It was them or the quarians....... 

This is gonna become another one of those threads now, isn't it?

. Godwin's law for BSN....

[Xilizhra]

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Actually, that was to avoid extinction.

. They still joined the Reapers, willingly.

And now they've left. I need every ally I can get.

. They gave me no choice.  It was them or the quarians....... 

Then you're an imbecile.

[BansheeOwnage]

ronneroo wrote...

I didn't want to kill the Geth and EDI. I do see them as being alive, and EDI is one of my crew, my family. I wanted a happy ending, and despite the Reapers not being dead, Control was my first choice. I didn't enjoy it, but it seemed the lesser of 3 evils to me. It was also the only one where Shepard "survives."

As for my reason why I pick Destroy now, I'm just going to be blunt: I am Commander Shepard, and I don't want to die.
After learning that Shepard lives with Destroy, the question wasn't "millions vs billions" it was "me vs trillions" and I chose myself. It's not something I'm proud of or happy about, but I just want to live, sorry.

Yes. This far after launch, I will admit it too. I want Shepard to live. Shepard deserves better...