208 réponses à ce sujet

[George Costanza]

ThinkSharp wrote...

George Costanza wrote...

Because then there's no reason to pick Control or Synthesis. That's why they spend so much time humanising the Geth and shoving EDI's Pinnochio routine at you. So when it comes to the crunch it's more difficult to pick Destroy.

You really believe that the main reason EDI and the Geth are humanized is so that it's harder to choose Destroy?

I know many people feel betrayed by the endings, but it's not as if BW designed every plot point in the game around the last 5 minutes in order to promote some agenda.

Both EDI and Legion are portrayed in a positive and "more human" light from the moment they are introduced in ME2. Both act as counterweights to prejudice: EDI against evil AIs, Legion against evil Geth. That they continue to do so with more emphasis in ME3 should not be a surprise. Of course the point is to make the choices involving them harder. But it's no different than having to face Wrex when considering the Genophage cure. It's the same thing.

Showing EDI and the Geth to be more complex adds something to the story overall. (And I'd argue that the Geth aren't exactly shown to be innocent. Even as you see they are "innocent" in the Morning War, they continue to side with the Reapers and try to kill organics.)There's nothing wrong with depth. Besides, there are plenty of shallow mooks to mow down, cue Cereberus and Reaper troops.

But anyway,  does it mean that you can't or shouldn't destroy the Geth or the Reapers for the sake of the greater galaxy? No, it just means that there are ramifications. This is realistic. (Not talking about science here; I'm talking about war and life.) Life is not cut and dry, black and white. Not facing that is naive.

(I apologize if I read too much into your statement, GC.)

No, I don't think that's the only reason, but I think it certainly contributed.

Look at the war between the Geth and the Quarians. They're at war for nonsensical reasons. The Quarian admirals behave in ridiculous, unbelievable ways. Then there's an entire mission that basically says, "The Quarians were dicks. Love the Geth". There's so much time dedicated to forcing the Geth down your throat as the poor misunderstood synthetics that just acted out of self-defence and they don't really want to work with the Reapers.

It probably sounds like I'm hating on the Geth, and I'm not, because I like them. But the game does go out of it's way in this one to, rather than let you make up your own mind, hold your hand and lead you to the conclusion that the Quarians are to blame for the whole affair, and that their actions now are just adding fuel to the fire.

I think the Rannoch act, overall, was very good, and certainly the second best part of ME3 behind the Tuchanka arc, but what holds it back is that the moral ambiguity seems to go out of the window a little in favour of attempting to shoe horn the player into one method of thinking.

Personally, I hated what they did with EDI in ME3 though.

All in all, the major point was, that the only reason the Crucible targets EDI and the Geth is so the choice is more difficult. Whether the decision to make the Geth so sympathetic in this game derived from that, or whether the ending choice came about as a product of what they'd done with the Geth during the story, I don't know.

[Vortex13]

Reorte wrote...

Refuse is standing there with a lifebelt in your hands, watching someone flailing around in the water whilst you do nothing. That makes you as responsible for his death when he drowns as if you'd pushed him in in my eyes.

Refuse is personal beliefs/morals vs compromise, Refuse is a person holding a gun to a religious (Christan for example) person's family and saying that you have to renounce your beliefs, reject God or they are going to kill your family.

Yes I know BSN is quite fond of the "Ask the ghosts of a trillion dead souls if honor matters, the scilence is your answer." counter to this viewpoint but the ending is a question of one's beliefs. Everyone dying is a result of the plot demanding the use of the Crucible and the God Mode enabled Reapers, not because Shepard went into full idiot mode. In every other event Shepard has stuck to his/her beliefs the impossible was accomplished, heck Shepard can achieve Geth/Quarian peace by shouting, so its not like there was zero precidence set in the game for succeeding by holding on to one's values. 

People can say that Shepard refusing on behalf of the galaxy is foolish, and I agree, but Shepard also speaks on behalf of the galaxy in the other endings as well; all equally foolish. Giving one person that choice is a falling of the ending itself and the result of an attempted 'deep' ending.


Bioware opened this can of worms by having Sheperd in this situation in the first place; in all other senerios s/he had at least two squadmates to offer input, but now you are alone and asked to make a choice that conflicts with one's values. Obviously players are going to stand their ground, to be beat the Reapers on our terms, and do it without sacrificing the soul of our species. 

Is that idiotic? No more than a starving Hindu refusing a hamburger.

[robertthebard]

George Costanza wrote...

No, I don't think that's the only reason, but I think it certainly contributed.

Look at the war between the Geth and the Quarians. They're at war for nonsensical reasons. The Quarian admirals behave in ridiculous, unbelievable ways. Then there's an entire mission that basically says, "The Quarians were dicks. Love the Geth". There's so much time dedicated to forcing the Geth down your throat as the poor misunderstood synthetics that just acted out of self-defence and they don't really want to work with the Reapers.

It probably sounds like I'm hating on the Geth, and I'm not, because I like them. But the game does go out of it's way in this one to, rather than let you make up your own mind, hold your hand and lead you to the conclusion that the Quarians are to blame for the whole affair, and that their actions now are just adding fuel to the fire.

I think the Rannoch act, overall, was very good, and certainly the second best part of ME3 behind the Tuchanka arc, but what holds it back is that the moral ambiguity seems to go out of the window a little in favour of attempting to shoe horn the player into one method of thinking.

Personally, I hated what they did with EDI in ME3 though.

All in all, the major point was, that the only reason the Crucible targets EDI and the Geth is so the choice is more difficult. Whether the decision to make the Geth so sympathetic in this game derived from that, or whether the ending choice came about as a product of what they'd done with the Geth during the story, I don't know.

Just a point to order about the Morning War; according to Tali in ME 1, it started exactly because the Quarians were dicks.  "Does this unit have a soul?" was followed by "Shut them all down, now".  I'm not sure that I'd say that made them dicks exactly, but, nothing in the fighter squadron mission is inconsistent with what Tali told us.

[Dunabar]

GlassElephant wrote...

If you let the Geth die over Rannoch, the only catch is EDI dies.

1+

Yeah it was sad EDI had to be deactivated, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one (or two if Shepard is dead in Destroy)

[Xilizhra]

Is that idiotic? No more than a starving Hindu refusing a hamburger.

I.e. extremely, except even worse than that, because it's a starving Hindu denying hamburgers to everyone else starving.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Eh the sexbot was my only loss in my most recent run.

So nothing of value was lost.

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 25 avril 2013 - 02:56 .

[Giantdeathrobot]

Optimystic_X wrote...



It has to be, otherwise Destroy would have wiped out everyone with any cybernetics or synthetic parts e.g. the whole Quarian race. How do you know what the Crucible targets, then?

How indeed. That's my entire point, it makes no damn sense whatsoever.

You know, when the ''logical'' explanation to a plot-critical event is a handwave that isin't mentionned in the game and doesn't make sense, things are bad. We know nothing (Jon Snow) because Bioware doesn't want us asking questions. We're just suppoed to take it at face value, and I call that **** writing designed to artificially create a catch.

FYI, ''targeting', code is utterly impossible. It's like if I made a nuke that only kills spanish-speaking people. It's completely silly.

[Vortex13]

Xilizhra wrote...

Is that idiotic? No more than a starving Hindu refusing a hamburger.

I.e. extremely, except even worse than that, because it's a starving Hindu denying hamburgers to everyone else starving.

True, but that is what happens when the game places the player in an isolated situation and then makes the challenge of their values. Shepard refusing for the whole galaxy is no more foolish then Shepard picking Synthesis for the whole galaxy, or Control, or Destroy. S/he is just one person, a soldier, and the act of making the decision, whatever it is is too big for only one person to make. 


Refuse is not inaction, it is standing on one's principles, the game just says "Well everybody dies." The starving Hindu will refuse the hamburger because of his values, not because be wants everyone else to starve. You can say that the Hindu should suck it up and eat the hamburger, so that everyone can live, but to the Hindu, he would be violating his beliefs, and in a sense damning himself. 

Is that unfair to the other people? No more than Synthesis is to the people who don't want it, or Control to those who want to kill the Reapers, or Destroy to EDI and the Geth. That is (one of) the problem(s) with the ending, Shepard should not be making his/her decision in a vaccum, with the Catalyst pushing to make a choice all the while looking at some arbritrary timer that will activate Refuse, should you take too long.

[Xilizhra]

True, but that is what happens when the game places the player in an isolated situation and then makes the challenge of their values. Shepard refusing for the whole galaxy is no more foolish then Shepard picking Synthesis for the whole galaxy, or Control, or Destroy. S/he is just one person, a soldier, and the act of making the decision, whatever it is is too big for only one person to make.

It is. But that does not matter. It's not an ideal galaxy, it's not an ideal solution, but trillions of people are counting on this decision being made, not refused. Even Destroy is better than the alternative of simple surrender.

Refuse is not inaction, it is standing on one's principles, the game just says "Well everybody dies." The starving Hindu will refuse the hamburger because of his values, not because be wants everyone else to starve. You can say that the Hindu should suck it up and eat the hamburger, so that everyone can live, but to the Hindu, he would be violating his beliefs, and in a sense damning himself.

If your beliefs damage the survival of yourself or others, they're poorly-chosen beliefs and need to be revised, otherwise you'll lose your beliefs along with the rest of you.

Is that unfair to the other people? No more than Synthesis is to the people who don't want it, or Control to those who want to kill the Reapers, or Destroy to EDI and the Geth. That is (one of) the problem(s) with the ending, Shepard should not be making his/her decision in a vaccum, with the Catalyst pushing to make a choice all the while looking at some arbritrary timer that will activate Refuse, should you take too long.

Control isn't unfair in that way at all; vengeance is not a valid reason alone for killing. But even if that's true, while all are unfair in some way, Refusal is the most unfair, to the largest amount of people. You can't say that just because everything is damaging, everything is equally damaging; it's simply not true.

[robertthebard]

Giantdeathrobot wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...



It has to be, otherwise Destroy would have wiped out everyone with any cybernetics or synthetic parts e.g. the whole Quarian race. How do you know what the Crucible targets, then?

How indeed. That's my entire point, it makes no damn sense whatsoever.

You know, when the ''logical'' explanation to a plot-critical event is a handwave that isin't mentionned in the game and doesn't make sense, things are bad. We know nothing (Jon Snow) because Bioware doesn't want us asking questions. We're just suppoed to take it at face value, and I call that **** writing designed to artificially create a catch.

FYI, ''targeting', code is utterly impossible. It's like if I made a nuke that only kills spanish-speaking people. It's completely silly.

Um, no.  Current computer viruses target code.  Unless you believe buying specific hardware makes your system immune to viruses?  Viruses that attack vulnerabilities in Windows don't work on Macs.  Why?  Because they use different code, software, to run.  All software is code.  Compared to the current cycle in ME, we are basically cavemen, but we can already target code, and not just code, but specific code.  Hell, antivirus programs show that this is a false premise, since they only target viruses, which are also code.

[Kel Riever]

Well, everybody seems to think that the Geth, EDI and even maybe Shepard, die in high EMS destroy.

But the author didn't know anything about code (irony right there working for a video game company) or breathing. So they made up a 6-12 year old's interpretation of how those things work.

Using your brain, and the knowledge you would know from a high school diploma, you would realize that the Geth and EDI would never have to be destroyed along with the Reapers, and that Shepard would live after the breath scene.

And that's how you get Destroy, the ending where everybody actually lives, even if BioWare didn't want them to.

[Vortex13]

Xilizhra wrote...

True, but that is what happens when the game places the player in an isolated situation and then makes the challenge of their values. Shepard refusing for the whole galaxy is no more foolish then Shepard picking Synthesis for the whole galaxy, or Control, or Destroy. S/he is just one person, a soldier, and the act of making the decision, whatever it is is too big for only one person to make.

It is. But that does not matter. It's not an ideal galaxy, it's not an ideal solution, but trillions of people are counting on this decision being made, not refused. Even Destroy is better than the alternative of simple surrender.

Refuse is not inaction, it is standing on one's principles, the game just says "Well everybody dies." The starving Hindu will refuse the hamburger because of his values, not because be wants everyone else to starve. You can say that the Hindu should suck it up and eat the hamburger, so that everyone can live, but to the Hindu, he would be violating his beliefs, and in a sense damning himself.

If your beliefs damage the survival of yourself or others, they're poorly-chosen beliefs and need to be revised, otherwise you'll lose your beliefs along with the rest of you.

Is that unfair to the other people? No more than Synthesis is to the people who don't want it, or Control to those who want to kill the Reapers, or Destroy to EDI and the Geth. That is (one of) the problem(s) with the ending, Shepard should not be making his/her decision in a vaccum, with the Catalyst pushing to make a choice all the while looking at some arbritrary timer that will activate Refuse, should you take too long.

Control isn't unfair in that way at all; vengeance is not a valid reason alone for killing. But even if that's true, while all are unfair in some way, Refusal is the most unfair, to the largest amount of people. You can't say that just because everything is damaging, everything is equally damaging; it's simply not true.

1. This would be a problem with the ending section overall, rather than the act of Refusal. Everybody dying does suck, but Shepard standing on his/her convictions is more inline with the character and game up until the last five minutes of the trilogy. Also I wouldn't consider Refuse to be surrender; Shepard standing there like an idiot is another problem with the ending's presentation, but just because the Shepard doesn't pick one of the Catalyst's choices doesn't mean that the galaxy would roll over and die. They will fight, most likely a long and drawn out war, but they will resist, in the end our cycle will lose, but we will have gone out with a bang, not a wimmper. Also Refuse is more 'equal oppertunity' then Destroy is, seeing as how organics and synthetics will go down in a blaze of glory side by side, rather then one throwing the other under the proverbial bus. 

I don't like Refuse, but the concept behind it is interesting to me.

2. Shepard's beliefs and values are not the villian here, its the crazy person with the gun pointed at the galaxy. I've seen many posts concerning Refuse saying that if only Shepard had compromised, if only he/she had not been so idealistic then no one would have died. Now it is true that by not picking Refuse the current cycle will not die but the point I'm getting at here is that its not the beliefs/convictions' faults that everyone died, its the Catalyst and the Reapers.

The starving Hindu's faith is not to blame for the death of everybody else, its the crazy maniac that is determining the fate of the world on wheather a Hindu will eat beef that is to blame.

3. About Control, yeah what was I thinking lol? That makes no sense. I ment to say that Control was unfair to people who didn't want a galaxy wide police state. Refuse results in the death of the current cycle yes, but technically Synthesis is more 'damaging' as you put it, as it violates not only the current space farrimg species, but every being in the entire galaxy. In Refuse only our cycle is destroyed, in Synthesis, everyone everywhere is altered.

[Xilizhra]

1. This would be a problem with the ending section overall, rather than the act of Refusal. Everybody dying does suck, but Shepard standing on his/her convictions is more inline with the character and game up until the last five minutes of the trilogy. Also I wouldn't consider Refuse to be surrender; Shepard standing there like an idiot is another problem with the ending's presentation, but just because the Shepard doesn't pick one of the Catalyst's choices doesn't mean that the galaxy would roll over and die. They will fight, most likely a long and drawn out war, but they will resist, in the end our cycle will lose, but we will have gone out with a bang, not a wimmper. Also Refuse is more 'equal oppertunity' then Destroy is, seeing as how organics and synthetics will go down in a blaze of glory side by side, rather then one throwing the other under the proverbial bus.

It was made extremely clear that the Crucible was the only hope of the galaxy, and that everything was a delaying action until it could be deployed.

2. Shepard's beliefs and values are not the villian here, its the crazy person with the gun pointed at the galaxy. I've seen many posts concerning Refuse saying that if only Shepard had compromised, if only he/she had not been so idealistic then no one would have died. Now it is true that by not picking Refuse the current cycle will not die but the point I'm getting at here is that its not the beliefs/convictions' faults that everyone died, its the Catalyst and the Reapers.

The starving Hindu's faith is not to blame for the death of everybody else, its the crazy maniac that is determining the fate of the world on wheather a Hindu will eat beef that is to blame.

That's true. It's also irrelevant, because Shepard can't change the Catalyst's behavior. All Shepard can determine is what Shepard does.

3. About Control, yeah what was I thinking lol? That makes no sense. I ment to say that Control was unfair to people who didn't want a galaxy wide police state. Refuse results in the death of the current cycle yes, but technically Synthesis is more 'damaging' as you put it, as it violates not only the current space farrimg species, but every being in the entire galaxy. In Refuse only our cycle is destroyed, in Synthesis, everyone everywhere is altered.

Synthesis is only an upgrade, not mass slaughter. It's qualitatively a completely different change. And Control doesn't necessarily implement a police state.

[PsyrenY]

George Costanza wrote...

It's not a lack of understanding. There is no understanding. The Crucible doesn't make any sense on practically any level you look at it.

Your last statement itself betrays a lack of understaning.

Plenty of us get the Crucible. Follow the threads in my sig to see numerous ways. Each one is a level.

Giantdeathrobot wrote...

How indeed. That's my entire point, it makes no damn sense whatsoever.

You know, when the ''logical'' explanation to a plot-critical event is a handwave that isin't mentionned in the game and doesn't make sense, things are bad.

Why? Is it that hard to exercise your brain a little? Must you be spoon-fed every minor plot detail?

[johnj1979]

o Ventus wrote...

johnj1979 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

johnj1979 wrote...

The problem is that Destroying ALL Synthetic life to save life that just doesn't sit well with me. It a bit much for ONE person to decide that. Shepard is not the HERO, Shepard is a WAR CRIMINAL.

So your "solution" is to be an accessory after the fact to genocide on a scale that makes Destroy look like you ran over a squirrel on the way to the grocery store?  Like I said, if you're going to refuse, then it should be Ultimate Refusal, because then, no matter what, you're already dead, and don't have to listen to the Kid.

Genocide is not victory
Let life choose it's own fate

Refuse is not letting "life" choose its fate.

Refuse is Shepard rejecting victory because of his or her moral standing, completely disregarding his or her entire motivation for every action he or she takes throughout the game. It is quite literally the dumbest thing Shepard can possibly do.

How is genocide a moral victory?
Then again how are any of the three ending a moral victory?

So Mass Effect 3 is the Kobayashi Maru of games.

No matter what Shepard does the decision is to go against what he/she believes

[johnj1979]

robertthebard wrote...

johnj1979 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

johnj1979 wrote...

The problem is that Destroying ALL Synthetic life to save life that just doesn't sit well with me. It a bit much for ONE person to decide that. Shepard is not the HERO, Shepard is a WAR CRIMINAL.

So your "solution" is to be an accessory after the fact to genocide on a scale that makes Destroy look like you ran over a squirrel on the way to the grocery store?  Like I said, if you're going to refuse, then it should be Ultimate Refusal, because then, no matter what, you're already dead, and don't have to listen to the Kid.

Genocide is not victory
Let life choose it's own fate

You didn't let life choose it's own fate, you let the Reapers choose it.  By refusing to act when it was within your power to do so, you are every bit as guilty of genocide as the Reapers are.  You are in a lose/lose scenario, no matter what you do, because you were too proud to accept defeat at Harbinger on the way to the beam.  You don't get a Legend Save for Refuse, so it's the same as quitting the game when Harbinger nukes you, so why allow yourself to continue from there, if you're going to do nothing?  I have died there 16 times, and it's a very satisfying end to Shepard's journey, dying trying to stop the Reapers, and I don't have to deal with the kid.

given the options isn't to refuse the options that are there the option only option to take?

[robertthebard]

johnj1979 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

johnj1979 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

johnj1979 wrote...

The problem is that Destroying ALL Synthetic life to save life that just doesn't sit well with me. It a bit much for ONE person to decide that. Shepard is not the HERO, Shepard is a WAR CRIMINAL.

So your "solution" is to be an accessory after the fact to genocide on a scale that makes Destroy look like you ran over a squirrel on the way to the grocery store?  Like I said, if you're going to refuse, then it should be Ultimate Refusal, because then, no matter what, you're already dead, and don't have to listen to the Kid.

Genocide is not victory
Let life choose it's own fate

You didn't let life choose it's own fate, you let the Reapers choose it.  By refusing to act when it was within your power to do so, you are every bit as guilty of genocide as the Reapers are.  You are in a lose/lose scenario, no matter what you do, because you were too proud to accept defeat at Harbinger on the way to the beam.  You don't get a Legend Save for Refuse, so it's the same as quitting the game when Harbinger nukes you, so why allow yourself to continue from there, if you're going to do nothing?  I have died there 16 times, and it's a very satisfying end to Shepard's journey, dying trying to stop the Reapers, and I don't have to deal with the kid.

given the options isn't to refuse the options that are there the option only option to take?

er, what?

[Clayless]

It's not.

/thread.

[NeroonWilliams]

johnj1979 wrote...

How is genocide a moral victory?
Then again how are any of the three ending a moral victory?

So Mass Effect 3 is the Kobayashi Maru of games.

No matter what Shepard does the decision is to go against what he/she believes

No offense, but while your Kobayashi Maru analogy is valid (even to the point of all the Kirks out here with their MEHEM), the point of the Kobayashi Maru test and the end of ME3 both is that there are some situations that cannot be solved perfectly.

TIM has spent the last 2 games talking about morally gray decisions.

The ending is about what you truly feel is important.  If you feel that strongly about it, by all means Refuse and doom the current cycle to near oblivion (yay Liara for the near).




P.S.  If you can find it, "The Kobayashi Maru" is a pretty good Star Trek novel that recounts Starfleet Academy tales about Kirk, Sulu, Chekov, and Scotty and how each of them faced down the no-win scenario.

[AlanC9]

George Costanza wrote...
Then there's an entire mission that basically says, "The Quarians were dicks. Love the Geth".

Isn't that mission just a recap of stuff we already know from ME1 and ME2? I agree on the message, but I figure the new players need to know what the rest of us already knew

[K. S. Black]

OP, I think the answer is that Shepard is told by the Catalyst that Control, Synthesis, and Destroy are solutions to ITS problem, hence Destroy wipes out Synthetics instead of just destroying the Reapers. Because the Catalyst doesn't see the Reapers as a problem, just the hypothetical conflict between Organic's and Synthetic's.

This is why I dislike the ending(s) because you/Shepard are not really solving the Reaper threat, but their problem that was a minor plot, which was wrapped up earlier in the game, and forced to be the main one in the last 10 minutes of the game.

Edit:
Control: Shepard becomes the new Catalyst to oversee that there is no more conflict between Organic's and Synthetic's. And if there is, will find a new way to solve the problem.

Synthesis: Shepard goes along with the Catalyst and thinks that it is the only "real" solution to the conflict between Organic's and Synthetic's, supposedly stopping it.

Destroy: Shepard destroys all Synthetic life to prevent a current conflict from coming about. However a future conflict may arise and without the Reapers, may result in the wiping out all Organic life.

If these endings were presented in another game where the build-up to this conflict was the main focus as well as presented in a different fashion, I would have enjoyed it. But for them to be in Mass Effect just does not fit, in my opinion.

Modifié par K. S. Black, 25 avril 2013 - 09:00 .

[robertthebard]

K. S. Black wrote...

Not sure if the OP has his/her answer since I did not go through all 5 pages, but I think the answer is that Shepard is told by the Catalyst that these are solutions to ITS problem, hense destroy wipes out Synthetics instead of just destroying the Reapers. Because the Catalyst doesn't see the Reapers as a problem, just the conflict between Organic's and Synthetic's. This is why I dislike the ending(s) because you/Shepard are not really solving the Reaper problem, but a problem that was a minor plot, that was wrapped up earlier in the game, and forced to be the main one in the last 10 minutes of the game.

Yes, and at the same time, no.  The premise of the series is the Reaper threat, and they are Synthetic.  We can use hybrid, but, they were manufactured, not born, and we saw how that works.  So the concept is there, and my biggest LoL moment is the Kid's self fulfilling prophecy.  "But, Synthetics will wipe out Organics if my Synthetics don't wipe out Organics".

[Clayless]

robertthebard wrote...

K. S. Black wrote...

Not sure if the OP has his/her answer since I did not go through all 5 pages, but I think the answer is that Shepard is told by the Catalyst that these are solutions to ITS problem, hense destroy wipes out Synthetics instead of just destroying the Reapers. Because the Catalyst doesn't see the Reapers as a problem, just the conflict between Organic's and Synthetic's. This is why I dislike the ending(s) because you/Shepard are not really solving the Reaper problem, but a problem that was a minor plot, that was wrapped up earlier in the game, and forced to be the main one in the last 10 minutes of the game.

Yes, and at the same time, no.  The premise of the series is the Reaper threat, and they are Synthetic.  We can use hybrid, but, they were manufactured, not born, and we saw how that works.  So the concept is there, and my biggest LoL moment is the Kid's self fulfilling prophecy.  "But, Synthetics will wipe out Organics if my Synthetics don't wipe out Organics".

That's not how it works, the Reapers are preserving life, not wiping it out. They're harvesting, even their name implies it. Simply trying to pretend the Reapers were doing otherwise means you didn't understand anything in the series or are simply lying.

Basically, Xzibit isn't a good source of information if you want to make fun of Mass Effect.

[johnj1979]

robertthebard wrote...

johnj1979 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

johnj1979 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

johnj1979 wrote...

The problem is that Destroying ALL Synthetic life to save life that just doesn't sit well with me. It a bit much for ONE person to decide that. Shepard is not the HERO, Shepard is a WAR CRIMINAL.

So your "solution" is to be an accessory after the fact to genocide on a scale that makes Destroy look like you ran over a squirrel on the way to the grocery store?  Like I said, if you're going to refuse, then it should be Ultimate Refusal, because then, no matter what, you're already dead, and don't have to listen to the Kid.

Genocide is not victory
Let life choose it's own fate

You didn't let life choose it's own fate, you let the Reapers choose it.  By refusing to act when it was within your power to do so, you are every bit as guilty of genocide as the Reapers are.  You are in a lose/lose scenario, no matter what you do, because you were too proud to accept defeat at Harbinger on the way to the beam.  You don't get a Legend Save for Refuse, so it's the same as quitting the game when Harbinger nukes you, so why allow yourself to continue from there, if you're going to do nothing?  I have died there 16 times, and it's a very satisfying end to Shepard's journey, dying trying to stop the Reapers, and I don't have to deal with the kid.

given the options isn't to refuse the options that are there the option only option to take?

er, what?

I was trying to get across that shepard has been a person with strong morals, a strong sense of right and wrong (save the council or not and destroy Collector base or not). With the three ending seem to go against those strong morals that Shepard has, so if you reject the three on moral grounds then that just leaves to refuse option that can be picked

[johnj1979]

NeroonWilliams wrote...

johnj1979 wrote...

How is genocide a moral victory?
Then again how are any of the three ending a moral victory?

So Mass Effect 3 is the Kobayashi Maru of games.

No matter what Shepard does the decision is to go against what he/she believes

No offense, but while your Kobayashi Maru analogy is valid (even to the point of all the Kirks out here with their MEHEM), the point of the Kobayashi Maru test and the end of ME3 both is that there are some situations that cannot be solved perfectly.

TIM has spent the last 2 games talking about morally gray decisions.

The ending is about what you truly feel is important.  If you feel that strongly about it, by all means Refuse and doom the current cycle to near oblivion (yay Liara for the near).




P.S.  If you can find it, "The Kobayashi Maru" is a pretty good Star Trek novel that recounts Starfleet Academy tales about Kirk, Sulu, Chekov, and Scotty and how each of them faced down the no-win scenario.

I was meaning that no-matter what option you pick it is a no win