935 réponses à ce sujet

[Lieutenant Kurin]

I'd like to be the one to say there is no right choice here. Refusal is to do nothing, to allow the only hope as of yet just disappear. All other choices lead to the total stranding of everyone who tried to save your race, and leaving every colony out there on their own. In addition, with the lack of dextro supplies, one could theorize that most of the quarian people (if you saved them) were decimated through the firing of the Crucible, as their ENTIRE fleet (civilians included) were left stranded above Earth.

Point being, there is no wrong choice here, it technically would be a spur of the moment decision where the only surefire result of all of them would be more deaths. Not to mention it had to be decided by a Commander who was high on adrenaline and bleeding from everything. Again, no right choice.

And personally, I don't see Control as a solution, there is a reason why we retire leaders after a while, they lose touch of humanity because of the stresses of their job. The Catalyst effectively proves that trying to sort this whole organics vs. synthetics thing drives a person bananas.

By the way, anyone noticed that the entire three part solution involves three Cs? Citadel, Crucible, Catalyst? I wonder if that was intentional.

There is nothing really WRONG with destroy, but nothing really RIGHT with it. And if destroy would kill all organics, then why bother, the Reapers are doing well enough on their own.

Modifié par Lieutenant Kurin, 12 avril 2013 - 06:43 .

[kobayashi-maru]

I would have sacrificed Earth to save the Krogan. I would sacrifice the Asari to save Space Hamster.

[oblique9]

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.

I see it more as a quest to save whatever you don't kill.

I'm not trying to kill a Reaper because 'why not'. I'm doing it because if I don't, everybody else WILL die.

Even not looking at it as a mathematical equation, I can't see a moral argument being made for choosing to allow a 3rd party to kill everything when you knew that killing something would save everything else.

[Steelcan]

Sentient6 wrote...

This thread makes me think about the Normandy... Why wasn't it destroyed along with the Reapers? I mean, Normandy was EDI's actual body, the sexbot was just a mobile platform... Having the Normandy destroyed would raise the stakes even higher!!

. Despite this flying in the face of everything we see in the EC.  Besides the Reaper's bodies weren't destroyed either.

[PirateMouse]

Sentient6 wrote...

This thread makes me think about the Normandy... Why wasn't it destroyed along with the Reapers?!

Because reasons.

[Xellith]

Id hit the button if it wiped out all organics. Long as the reapers were destroyed and all life from then on out were able to determine its own future. I mean its not like abiogenesis wont happen again. If life can arise on so many planets then Im fairly sure It'll appear again sooner or later.

Modifié par Xellith, 12 avril 2013 - 06:46 .

[fr33stylez]

PirateMouse wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Zazzerka wrote...

I AM SO SICK OF THE WORD "GENOCIDE"

HOLY F*CKING HELL

Plus infinity. This is sacrifice, learn the difference.

I'm sure you like to tell yourself that.  In fact, I'm sure many such atrocities have been committed with similar thinking behind them.

Whether you call it genocide or not, Control and Synthesis are more heinous and perverse crimes against the galaxy. That's the sad part about the endings.

[Astartes Marine]

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

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

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

[PirateMouse]

fr33stylez wrote...

Whether you call it genocide or not, Control and Synthesis are more heinous and perverse crimes against the galaxy. That's the sad part about the endings.

Yes, stopping the Reapers without any further casualties is totally more heinous than committing genocide.

[BansheeOwnage]

oblique9 wrote...

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.

I see it more as a quest to save whatever you don't kill.

I'm not trying to kill a Reaper because 'why not'. I'm doing it because if I don't, everybody else WILL die.

Even not looking at it as a mathematical equation, I can't see a moral argument being made for choosing to allow a 3rd party to kill everything when you knew that killing something would save everything else.

Well said.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Xilizhra wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

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?

I'm guessing you sided with the Geth. I'm getting this. I've read your posts.

So why do you pick control? Why do you hate Xen so much? She did not want to kill the Geth at all. She thought killing the Geth was a total waste. She wanted to control the Geth and use them to fight the reapers. Then use them for what they were originally created. Use them to benefit the Quarian people.

She shares a lot in common with TIM, doesn't she? "So The Illusive Man was right after all." What is so different between you and her from an ethical standpoint? You chose to control the Reapers. They are your slaves now.

In my case, I'm hoping for it to be a temporary arrangement; I need to assess the Reapers to see which ones will not be dangerous to the galaxy when freed, as opposed to freeing them all instantly with Synthesis.

But what if it's not? What if they're like Sovereign where they're all indoctrinated and fully believing the ways of cycle? Why did the human reaper in ME2 attack us? They were colonists we were trying to save moments earlier, but that changes. It becomes one ship, one will, many minds. Nazara told you this on Virmire. "We are each a nation, independent*, free of all weakness." That will is the purpose for what they were created: the harvest. It was hardcoded into them when they were created. They are independent in that they limited autonomy to perform their task. There is only the harvest. Now you must control them. I am sorry. You are the Catalyst.

* I've had job descriptions that said "independent" and turned out to be anything but independent. The independent meant that I had limited autonomy to carry our my assigned duties without having to get permission from my supervisor for every little thing. That is all. We assumed complete independence for each reaper. Assume = Ass U Me.

[Nole]

I commit genocide to some robots to save the galaxy so what.

[remydat]

DecCylonus wrote...

. "Their sacrifice will be honored in the coming empire."

Except there was no empire.  The Protheans were just exterminated except for Javik and the Collectors.  It's an empty promise.

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

Hell, Legion doesn't even get a shout out in the Citadel DLC, lol.  So yeah nothing was honored.  That is just some silly statement that sounds cool mainly because the people that would object to it are dead, lol.

[BansheeOwnage]

Xellith wrote...

Id hit the button if it wiped out all organics. Long as the reapers were destroyed and all life from then on out were able to determine its own future. I mean its not like abiogenesis wont happen again. If life can arise on so many planets then Im fairly sure It'll appear again sooner or later.

Exactly. The goal of Mass Effect (and many other things) has always been to fight for the right of self-determination.

[Argolas]

remydat wrote...

DecCylonus wrote...

. "Their sacrifice will be honored in the coming empire."

Except there was no empire.  The Protheans were just exterminated except for Javik and the Collectors.  It's an empty promise.

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

Hell, Legion doesn't even get a shout out in the Citadel DLC, lol.  So yeah nothing was honored.  That is just some silly statement that sounds cool mainly because the people that would object to it are dead, lol.

A lot of people aren't mentioned in the Endings.

[BansheeOwnage]

Astartes Marine wrote...

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

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

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

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

[remydat]

oblique9 wrote...

I see it more as a quest to save whatever you don't kill.

I'm not trying to kill a Reaper because 'why not'. I'm doing it because if I don't, everybody else WILL die.

Even not looking at it as a mathematical equation, I can't see a moral argument being made for choosing to allow a 3rd party to kill everything when you knew that killing something would save everything else.

Except you are then presented with evidence that everyone else WILL NOT die.  All you are doing is saying you believe the Catalyst that destroy is in fact destroy but then will ignore everything else he says or choose to believe it is a lie.  So he just happens to be telling you the truth about the option you instinctively want to pick but then he must be lying on confused about the other options that he clearly states WILL NOT result in everyone'e else death.

This is just confirmation bias.  You heard destroy and liked what you heard so everything else that contradicts your pre-ordained conclusion will be disregarded.

[justafan]

I do it the Turian way. So long as a sustainable population of any current cycle species survives, I would choose destroy.

[remydat]

Argolas wrote...

A lot of people aren't mentioned in the Endings.

No one claimed they would be honored in the coming empire.  I was responding to that statement and asking who is shown to honor the Geth?

If you want to claim these other people who died will be honored in the coming empire and they are never referenced in game again then I would call you out on that as well.

Maybe I am wrong but Legion and Morinthe are the only 2 former squadmates without a reference in the Citadel DLC correct?  And who actually gives a f**k about Morinthe?  She probably has like 7 fans if that, lol.

[Ecrulis]

robertthebard wrote...

Astartes Marine wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
I stopped them from being a threat, and freed the galaxy from their manipulation forever, at only the cost of EDI and the Reapers.  Ad no one will mourn the Reapers

There's a certain person on this board that would mourn the Reapers and throw around words like sociopath towards those who didn't choose the sunshine and roses green beam.  I don't think I need to name names either.

Zazzerka wrote...

I AM SO SICK OF THE WORD "GENOCIDE"

HOLY F*CKING HELL

Indeed, some people take a video game WAY too seriously.  <_<

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

Pretty much, it's laughable how quickly "innocent queries about destroy" turn into labeling all those who choose it genocidal lunatics.

[PirateMouse]

Ecrulis wrote...

Pretty much, it's laughable how quickly "innocent queries about destroy" turn into labeling all those who choose it genocidal lunatics.

That actually was the result of reactionary responses from people who picked Destroy.  Try reading back (and be honest with yourself) and look to see who "shot first," so to speak.  All I did initially was pose the question and step back, and then a number of people began ignoring the question to either attack me or change the topic to Control and how awful they feel that is.

[BansheeOwnage]

Ecrulis wrote...
Pretty much, it's laughable how quickly "innocent queries about destroy" turn into labeling all those who choose it genocidal lunatics.

*Sigh* I know...

[Ecrulis]

PirateMouse wrote...

Ecrulis wrote...

Pretty much, it's laughable how quickly "innocent queries about destroy" turn into labeling all those who choose it genocidal lunatics.

That actually was the result of reactionary responses from people who picked Destroy.  Try reading back (and be honest with yourself) and look to see who "shot first," so to speak.  All I did initially was pose the question and step back, and then a number of people began ignoring the question to either attack me or change the topic to Control and how awful they feel that is.

I apologize, I wan't refering to anyone in particular I was just pointing out that regardless of the threads original intentions it eventually degrades into labeling all "destroyers" as psychos, honestly I'm surprised a certain someone hasn't shown up to call us all sociopaths for killing the poor misunderstood giant death robots. <_<

Modifié par Ecrulis, 12 avril 2013 - 07:06 .

[fr33stylez]

PirateMouse wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

Whether you call it genocide or not, Control and Synthesis are more heinous and perverse crimes against the galaxy. That's the sad part about the endings.

Yes, stopping the Reapers without any further casualties is totally more heinous than committing genocide.

lol, becoming the new Catalyst while putting the galaxy under your Reaper rule for eternity

lol, jumping into a beam and transforming every living organic being into a synthetic hybrid for no reason

[DecCylonus]

PirateMouse wrote...

DecCylonus wrote...

Wrong. How can you choose to become something you don't agree with?

Wrong.  I didn't.  I chose to kick the Starbrat out of power and stop the Reapers from being a threat ... without committing genocide.  That's it.  No other motive you assign matters because you're wrong the moment you attempt it.

It has nothing to do with motive. It has to do with the consequences of the choices the Catalyst offers. The future of the galaxy is entirely determined by Shepard's choice. The outcome of each option is radically different.

If all you really want is the Catalyst gone, the Reapers no longer a threat, and no genocide, why not pick Synthesis? You get everything you stated with that choice too.

The point is that with either choice you are getting more than just no Catalyst, no Reaper threat, and no genocide. You must have some reason for choosing Control over Synthesis. You must think that having the Reapers around, under control of the new Shepard AI, is better than merging organics and synthetics. And if you keep the Reapers around under your control, you admit that there is some merrit to an AI overseeing the galaxy with the Reapers as its tools to implement its will. Which means in many ways, you agree with the Catalyst's original solution, except for the genocide. That's a big difference, but only in the way the Reapers are used.

Either you see Synthesis as equally viable, or you want more than you stated and Control has other factors that appeal to you. Or Control doesn't really appeal to you, but it's the least repulsive option to you. Which is it?