219 réponses à ce sujet

[mcsupersport]

Aaleel wrote...



How can the crucible target every living thing in the galaxy in Synthesis, then can target just reapers in Control but has to target all Synthetics in Destory?

You just picked out this one part lol.  None of it makes any sense.

Oh, by all means...but the thread was about destroy and the effect on Edi and the Geth, so I was trying to limit my issues with the endings to simply this narrow focus. 

The pure stupidity of the concept of EVERY LIVING THING IN THE ENTIRE GALAXY being effected by synthosis is enormous.  Control should be a two part question too, one do you take control, and two what do you do with that power....  Personally, all my Shepards would probably pick control, then run all the stupid Reapers into a star.  Problem solved.   But to stay on the narrow concept of Destroy and AI...to me it seems at the end, Bioware forgot or just decided to handwave teh simple fact that through 3 games, a point is made that Geth are software, not hardware...and thus a wave of energy shouldn't hurt them any more than it would hurt any other program on any other system.

[radishson]

Why the hell do people get so upset about losing synthetics? They were created by organics before, they can be recreated just as easily. Their entire "personalities" were constructed by organics for specifics purposes and developed through exposure to traditional stimuli. Their actions and "feelings" are mathematical, which means they can be calculated, quantified, and reproduced. No big deal.

[Xilizhra]

There's no reason to hate the Reapers. I ran a poll on this a while back and thankfully it did open a few eyes, at least. The Reapers are victims -- victims of what's basically mind rape. They deserve to die for that? Do they? You answer that. I've gone past expecting people to think less two dimensionally, or to set aside their black & white binary thinking, but... you asked.

While I don't disagree with you, there's one thing I wonder about: why did the Catalyst make, say, both Sovereign and Harbinger seem to thoroughly enjoy their work? The Rannoch destroyer doesn't display much emotion, being more akin to the Catalyst, but Sovereign and Harbinger both do, and seem to be actively malevolent in personality. Did the Catalyst rewrite their minds to be more focused on this in an emotional way? Was Harbinger's arrogance just due to the species it was created from, and might Sovereign have been made from a similar race, with said arrogance in both cases being twisted to serve the Catalyst's needs? What do you think?

[Phatose]

mcsupersport wrote...

Aaleel wrote...



How can the crucible target every living thing in the galaxy in Synthesis, then can target just reapers in Control but has to target all Synthetics in Destory?

You just picked out this one part lol.  None of it makes any sense.

Oh, by all means...but the thread was about destroy and the effect on Edi and the Geth, so I was trying to limit my issues with the endings to simply this narrow focus. 

The pure stupidity of the concept of EVERY LIVING THING IN THE ENTIRE GALAXY being effected by synthosis is enormous.  Control should be a two part question too, one do you take control, and two what do you do with that power....  Personally, all my Shepards would probably pick control, then run all the stupid Reapers into a star.  Problem solved.   But to stay on the narrow concept of Destroy and AI...to me it seems at the end, Bioware forgot or just decided to handwave teh simple fact that through 3 games, a point is made that Geth are software, not hardware...and thus a wave of energy shouldn't hurt them any more than it would hurt any other program on any other system.

Well, they had a bit of a problem there in that according to ME2 at the very least, the Reapers were software too.

[drayfish]

Xilizhra wrote...

MASSEFFECTfanforlife101 wrote...

Phatose wrote...

Look man, what do you want us to do here?

The problem here seems to be that you're doing what you're doing for the specific reason of hate, and you don't like that. That's not something we can do anything about. Your motivations are your own.

We could give you a thousand different reasons to choose destroy, but at the end of the day, they won't be your reason.

If you don't like doing things out of hatred, then don't. Find a better reason.

As I said in my Previous Post, I'm trying to convince myself that I am not choosing Destroy to kill off all Synthetics. I choose Destroy to end the Reaper Threat, to be the Avenger of every man, woman, child, and infant around the galaxy who have been harvested, indoctrinated, and killed by the hands of the Reapers. Not only the men, women, children, and infants that died in our time, but also for the ones who died in all the Cycles before us to the time of the first kill by the hands of the Reapers. This, despite the fact that EDI, and the Geth will be lost to us. I'm trying to fully convince that I chose Destroy for this and NOT  for the sake of killing off all Synthetics. And I don't want people to think that I'm doing it to kill all Synthetics.

Here's a helpful point of advice.

The Reapers did not do any of that. They were just the tools of the Catalyst. The Catalyst dies in all endings except Refuse. Know that your vengeance is complete no matter what option you take. You may choose any of the three endings with a clear conscience.

It could also be argued that the Catalyst just 'retires' rather than dies.  He does, after all, convince Shepard to literally do his job for him - either to finish the galactic social engineering that he started, or take his place as leader of the Reapers.

Not so much a "Yeah, take that, vile fiend!' as a 'Thanks for keeping my seat warm, guy.'

[Xilizhra]

It could also be argued that the Catalyst just 'retires' rather than dies. He does, after all, convince Shepard to literally do his job for him - either to finish the galactic social engineering that he started, or take his place as leader of the Reapers.

Not so much a "Yeah, take that, vile fiend!' as a 'Thanks for keeping my seat warm, guy.'

You could see it that way, but that would involve you actually caring what the Catalyst thinks/feels about the situation, which I personally do not.

If I'm attacked by a terrorist and shoot him, what do I care that he feels fulfilled about being a martyr? Either way, the threat is gone.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 22 avril 2013 - 02:10 .

[drayfish]

Xilizhra wrote...

It could also be argued that the Catalyst just 'retires' rather than dies. He does, after all, convince Shepard to literally do his job for him - either to finish the galactic social engineering that he started, or take his place as leader of the Reapers.

Not so much a "Yeah, take that, vile fiend!' as a 'Thanks for keeping my seat warm, guy.'

You could see it that way, but that would involve you actually caring what the Catalyst thinks/feels about the situation, which I personally do not.

If I'm attacked by a terrorist and shoot him, what do I care that he feels fulfilled about being a martyr? Either way, the threat is gone.

Rather more like you are attacked by a terrorist who asks you to finish his life's mission.  ...Which you then do.

[Xilizhra]

drayfish wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

It could also be argued that the Catalyst just 'retires' rather than dies. He does, after all, convince Shepard to literally do his job for him - either to finish the galactic social engineering that he started, or take his place as leader of the Reapers.

Not so much a "Yeah, take that, vile fiend!' as a 'Thanks for keeping my seat warm, guy.'

You could see it that way, but that would involve you actually caring what the Catalyst thinks/feels about the situation, which I personally do not.

If I'm attacked by a terrorist and shoot him, what do I care that he feels fulfilled about being a martyr? Either way, the threat is gone.

Rather more like you are attacked by a terrorist who asks you to finish his life's mission.  ...Which you then do.

If it's a good mission, the fact that a terrorist was on it doesn't make the mission itself a bad thing. Many good people are currently working to overthrow the president of Syria despite the fact that terrorists have been involved with that too.

[adayaday]

Yay were are sliding into the politics realm.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Awwwww yeah this is going to be good!

[drayfish]

Xilizhra wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

It could also be argued that the Catalyst just 'retires' rather than dies. He does, after all, convince Shepard to literally do his job for him - either to finish the galactic social engineering that he started, or take his place as leader of the Reapers.

Not so much a "Yeah, take that, vile fiend!' as a 'Thanks for keeping my seat warm, guy.'

You could see it that way, but that would involve you actually caring what the Catalyst thinks/feels about the situation, which I personally do not.

If I'm attacked by a terrorist and shoot him, what do I care that he feels fulfilled about being a martyr? Either way, the threat is gone.

Rather more like you are attacked by a terrorist who asks you to finish his life's mission.  ...Which you then do.

If it's a good mission, the fact that a terrorist was on it doesn't make the mission itself a bad thing. Many good people are currently working to overthrow the president of Syria despite the fact that terrorists have been involved with that too.

Really?  You're going to go there...?

Besides, if you are overthrowing totalitarianism in order to establish a totalitarian overlord; stopping genocide by using the genocide of innocents yourself; or fighting against eugenic mutation by inflicting it on people because you think its cool; then you are really just saying that its all relative, and as long as it's you flipping the switch, things are peachy.

The reason people are called 'terrorists' is because they 'terrorise' others into doing what they want.

The catalyst wants you to do his job for him.  He puts a gun to the universe's head so that you will choose one of his solutions.  You do.

It's the definition of terrorism, and he won.

[Xilizhra]

Besides, if you are overthrowing totalitarianism in order to establish a totalitarian overlord; stopping genocide by using the genocide of innocents yourself; or fighting against eugenic mutation by inflicting it on people because you think its cool; then you are really just saying that its all relative, and as long as it's you flipping the switch, things are peachy.

I've been fighting murderers by killing them throughout the entire series. I stopped killers of worlds from entering the galaxy by killing a world myself. The galaxy is imperfect.

The catalyst wants you to do his job for him. He puts a gun to the universe's head so that you will choose one of his solutions. You do.

It's the definition of terrorism, and he won.

And now the Catalyst is gone, and I can work to undo the damage it did to the galaxy. I will rebuild. I will use the Reapers as protectors, not as destroyers. Ultimately I hope to release them to rejoin galactic life as best they can, but I want to assess them first, to ensure which ones can be safely released.

[Suron]

OperatingWookie wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

You live with it. You can't erase what you've done. No holy man or court of law can remove it. It simply is.

The Geth can be destroyed above Rannoch however.

It's wrong though. It's unforgiveable, a compromise of who you are.

"I won't let fear compromise who I am." That held up real well, didn't it?

Sacrifice the few to save the vaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaast many.  I fail to see how this is "unforgivable"

what's unforgivable is refusing and letting the Reaper's wipe everyone out.

Funny the stances people take on something that isn't actually real.  If ANY of us were in that spot...you'd choose destory...have nightmares...live the rest of your life sorry and mourning for EDI/Geth maybe.  You're not even sure the Idiot Starchild is 100% accurate in it wiping them out..but you ARE 100% sure if you do NOTHING EVERYONE dies.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Yeah, I have no issues with destroying the synthetics of this current period, to achieve the foundation of a better galaxy for all in the future, a future free from the Reapers. They're my sacrifice to do it. There's no guilt, and no remorse. I'm sad that it had to be this way, but I blame the Catalyst and the Reapers for that, not myself.

I do think it was forced though. SuperMac didn't want everyone to ignore his pet ending.

It's so badly written though, and it breaks the narrative and implied themes so heavily that I just had to write my own ending concept.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 22 avril 2013 - 02:57 .

[drayfish]

Xilizhra wrote...

Besides, if you are overthrowing totalitarianism in order to establish a totalitarian overlord; stopping genocide by using the genocide of innocents yourself; or fighting against eugenic mutation by inflicting it on people because you think its cool; then you are really just saying that its all relative, and as long as it's you flipping the switch, things are peachy.

I've been fighting murderers by killing them throughout the entire series. I stopped killers of worlds from entering the galaxy by killing a world myself. The galaxy is imperfect.

The catalyst wants you to do his job for him. He puts a gun to the universe's head so that you will choose one of his solutions. You do.

It's the definition of terrorism, and he won.

And now the Catalyst is gone, and I can work to undo the damage it did to the galaxy. I will rebuild. I will use the Reapers as protectors, not as destroyers. Ultimately I hope to release them to rejoin galactic life as best they can, but I want to assess them first, to ensure which ones can be safely released.

Well as long as you can justify it to yourself, and see the righteousness in your own actions.


...Of course, that was precisely what the Catalyst thought too.  That as long as he was doing the slaughtering and domination, that it was for the better of the universe.

But I guess if the hypocrisy of such a position didn't keep him awake at night, why should it bother his replacement?

Modifié par drayfish, 22 avril 2013 - 03:04 .

[Xilizhra]

Well as long as you can justify it to yourself, and see the righteousness in your own actions.

Did Arrival anger you this much?

...Of course, that was precisely what the Catalyst thought too. That as long as he was doing the slaughtering and domination, that it was for the better of the universe.

Given that I wasn't going to do either one, I'm not really sure where you're going with this.

[dreamgazer]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I do think it was forced though. SuperMac didn't want everyone to ignore his pet ending.

I always wonder where this "pet ending" position comes from. Wouldn't the extent of synthesis be more detailed if it was some cherished baby of an ending?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

dreamgazer wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I do think it was forced though. SuperMac didn't want everyone to ignore his pet ending.

I always wonder where this "pet ending" position comes from. Wouldn't the extent of synthesis be more detailed if it was some cherished baby of an ending?

You think it would be. They didn't know what the hell they were going for I think.

I think they had an idea of what they wanted and decided to roll with it despite the narrative for the games giving it absolutely no build up. IMO, it's indicitive of the problem of giving BW too much freedom. And where the hell was the lore-master or quality control expert.

The whole "this is the best ending" thing by the Catalyst and a few admittedly ambiguous statements from BW employees, plus Mac's own writing. The "lot's of speculation" page that he made.

[drayfish]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well as long as you can justify it to yourself, and see the righteousness in your own actions.

Did Arrival anger you this much?

...Of course, that was precisely what the Catalyst thought too. That as long as he was doing the slaughtering and domination, that it was for the better of the universe.

Given that I wasn't going to do either one, I'm not really sure where you're going with this.

Just the dominating, then?  Cool.  As long as you can bargain the hypocrisy of that away, you're good.

[MASSEFFECTfanforlife101]

Spartas Husky wrote...

Geth and EDI didn't die least every biotic in the galaxy be left brain dead. or retarded.

Do you mean they can come back unless everyone in the Galaxy is Electronically Impaired?

[Xilizhra]

Just the dominating, then? Cool. As long as you can bargain the hypocrisy of that away, you're good.

Someone will be dominating someone no matter what happens with the Reapers. It's a matter of who has the most power. I don't believe it's inherently evil for that to be me.

[drayfish]

Xilizhra wrote...

Just the dominating, then? Cool. As long as you can bargain the hypocrisy of that away, you're good.

Someone will be dominating someone no matter what happens with the Reapers. It's a matter of who has the most power. I don't believe it's inherently evil for that to be me.

Again: the Catalyst believed precisely the same thing of himself and the universe.

Modifié par drayfish, 22 avril 2013 - 03:28 .

[Xilizhra]

drayfish wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Just the dominating, then? Cool. As long as you can bargain the hypocrisy of that away, you're good.

Someone will be dominating someone no matter what happens with the Reapers. It's a matter of who has the most power. I don't believe it's inherently evil for that to be me.

Again: the Catalyst believed precisely the same thing of himself and the universe.

Tell me. How would you achieve a galaxy with no domination?

[MASSEFFECTfanforlife101]

Auld Wulf wrote...


You don't have to kill the Geth, or EDI. That's a choice. You kill the Geth and EDI because you want to. To choose Destroy is to say that you want them dead, because there's always another choice. A better choice.

How? I didn't choose Destroy to get rid of the Geth and EDI. I wanted to rid the Galaxy of the Reapers and the Catalyst.

I don't hate EDI nor do I hate the Geth. I hate the Reapers and the Catalyst.

And I am not comfortable with Synthesis. Peace between Organics was achieved. The Theme "Organics Vs Synthetics"  ended on Rannoch. We can have Peace without Synthesis, without the Reapers, and without the Catalyst.

There are a few things in Synthesis that does not feel "Complete"  for me. In High EMS Destroy it does. You go through this ENTIRE Trilogy, and in the end, Synthesis sticks out like a ****ing sore thumb. 

Modifié par MASSEFFECTfanforlife101, 22 avril 2013 - 03:37 .