208 réponses à ce sujet

[Wynterdust]

You let them murder everyone. How is that not genocide?
Saying there should be a way to win in refuse is exactly the same as saying the geth shouldn't die in destroy for example. It is not how it was designed.

[Argolas]

Wynterdust wrote...

You let them murder everyone. How is that not genocide?

Look up the definition of genocide again.

[Bill Casey]

Wynterdust wrote...

You let them murder everyone. How is that not genocide?

No I do not let them murder everyone...

Saying there should be a way to win in refuse is exactly the same as saying the geth shouldn't die in destroy for example. It is not how it was designed.

That's bull****...
We'll fight and win without it...
I won't let fear compromise who I am...


Except we don't and I did...


"There's always another way" is bull****. What eve tells you when she gives you the crystal is bull****...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 26 avril 2013 - 11:35 .

[Wynterdust]

True. Worded that wrong. I'll reword:

You let the reapers commit genocide when you had the power to stop it. It is just as bad as committing the act yourself.

There is three solutions, so really those are the other ways.
You're told throughout the game conventional victory is impossible. What would you expect with refuse? An ending where you can suddenly win conventionally? That would pretty much make most of the game redundant since you spend most of it gettingaid to build the crucible.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Bill Casey wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Refuse is the right thing to do, and everyone dies...

Interesting definition of "right"

Complete monsters, all of you...

Yes how dare we make a choice in a video game. And then have the gall to make light of it!

[In Exile]

iakus wrote...
Pretty much.

The death of EDI and the geth is just an arbitrary tragedy tacked onto Destroy. 

I mean, destroy already has a consequence:  a new dark age.

With Control and Synthesis you have the Reapers rebuilding the relay network.  With Destroy, you turn down the opportunity for the knowledge (Synthesis) and power (Control) of the Reapers in favor of galactic life developing along its own path.  In exchange, you have to find your own way to repair or replace the relays. 

It's not as devastating as the "galactic wasteland" implied in the original endings. But it could easily be years, even decades before the network is back up and running. 

But no, that's not enough, let's pile on a galactic genocide while we're at it.

No, see, if you did that, people would like the option because it gives us a chance for self-determination without basically racially based genocide. And we can't have that. Instead, we need to forgive the people who created death camps and hold hands with them while they build us things.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

In Exile wrote...

iakus wrote...
Pretty much.

The death of EDI and the geth is just an arbitrary tragedy tacked onto Destroy. 

I mean, destroy already has a consequence:  a new dark age.

With Control and Synthesis you have the Reapers rebuilding the relay network.  With Destroy, you turn down the opportunity for the knowledge (Synthesis) and power (Control) of the Reapers in favor of galactic life developing along its own path.  In exchange, you have to find your own way to repair or replace the relays. 

It's not as devastating as the "galactic wasteland" implied in the original endings. But it could easily be years, even decades before the network is back up and running. 

But no, that's not enough, let's pile on a galactic genocide while we're at it.

No, see, if you did that, people would like the option because it gives us a chance for self-determination without basically racially based genocide. And we can't have that. Instead, we need to forgive the people who created death camps and hold hands with them while they build us things.

Don't forget the campfire songs and soylent batarian!

[In Exile]

Robosexual wrote...
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.

If I put a dog in a blender and then use that as lubricant for my car, I didn't preserve the dog.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

In Exile wrote...

Robosexual wrote...
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.

If I put a dog in a blender and then use that as lubricant for my car, I didn't preserve the dog.

Dogs represent chaos, we represent order...

The dog blendering must continue!

[robertthebard]

Argolas wrote...

Wynterdust wrote...

You let them murder everyone. How is that not genocide?

Look up the definition of genocide again.

Will it apply here differently than it keeps being applied to Destroy for, you know, reasons?  If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Let's look at the scenario, and we'll disregard everyone telling us we can't do it, because, you know, we're Shepard.  We hit the Relay to go to Earth for the final mission, and through whatever space magic, or sensors, or what have you that lets us know "Hey, these systems are controlled by Reapers", every system is controlled by Reapers.  It doesn't matter if you have 100% EMS or 50% EMS, the Reapers are steam rolling the galaxy.  What would possibly make me think that even with the resistance we'd been offering on some fronts, we're going to win?  Do the Reapers stop the Harvest while you're talking to the Kid?  Nope, you get a few "dramatic effect" camera shots of fighting going on, and I want to say outside, but it looks like we're outside too.  Things aren't going well.  The very act of trying to land our ground troops cost us around 50% of them, and we hear about positions being overrun, and even see a few of them getting that way while we work our way to the beam.

What, in this scenario, makes me think we can win?  Nothing, except for pride.  I've postulated, time and again, that the Kid is doing it's moustache twirling exposition, but it's also possible that it's just buying time.  After all, if you wait too long after the dialog, the Crucible gets shut down anyway, right?  We have every ship we have trying to defend it "at all costs", but the costs are immense.  We can't even defend the Crucible for an extended period of time, what makes me think we can win?  Nothing.  So, the only reason to Refuse is "I'm not sacrificing my principles, even if it means that everyone dies" which makes the Catalyst happy, and fits right into that trope that was pointed at everyone that chose to do something besides accept death.  It's exactly as the trope says though, nobody that isn't there is going to know that you did nothing to stop it, or shot the kid, they'll just think you either died before you could do anything, or that it didn't work.  So yeah, that's a good time to "stand on your principles", after all, it's not like you went through the Omega 4 Relay to stop the Collectors or anything, or stole your ship so you could go to Ilos.

I do have to wonder though, if the option had been available, if these same people would have said "I can't steal the Normandy, it's a violation of my principles" and just sat in the hangar bay, waiting for death, or told TIM "I can't order my crew to their deaths, it's a violation of my principles, so our colonies are just going to have to take it on the chin".  But Rob, it's not the same, there's no RGB.  Nope, there isn't.  What there is is being forced to do something that you can't come back from in order to "do the right thing", and save the Galaxy in spite of itself.

[Ticonderoga117]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Robosexual wrote...
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.

If I put a dog in a blender and then use that as lubricant for my car, I didn't preserve the dog.

Dogs represent chaos, we represent order...

The dog blendering must continue!

Quite sure the opposite of dogs is cats.

Also, to address what thier name implies... have you heard of the Grim Reaper? He may have a scythe, but he isn't harvesting grain with it!

[PsyrenY]

In Exile wrote...

No, see, if you did that, people would like the option because it gives us a chance for self-determination without basically racially based genocide. And we can't have that. Instead, we need to forgive the people who created death camps and hold hands with them while they build us things.

I killed their slave master. It's not so much about forgiving them as giving them a chance to atone.

In Exile wrote...

If I put a dog in a blender and then use that as lubricant for my car, I didn't preserve the dog.

But if there is useful information in the dog's DNA (which we know there is - see also Javik) then you did.

[Ticonderoga117]

Optimystic_X wrote...

In Exile wrote...

If I put a dog in a blender and then use that as lubricant for my car, I didn't preserve the dog.

But if there is useful information in the dog's DNA (which we know there is - see also Javik) then you did.

But the dog is dead. You killed it. So what if you kept that when it's dead.

It would be like scanning a complete Gutenburg Bible then burning the actual thing. The scanned copy means diddly when you destroyed the real McCoy. You can print the scanned copy any time, but it wouldn't be worth $2.2 million.

[Iakus]

In Exile wrote...

iakus wrote...
Pretty much.

The death of EDI and the geth is just an arbitrary tragedy tacked onto Destroy. 

I mean, destroy already has a consequence:  a new dark age.

With Control and Synthesis you have the Reapers rebuilding the relay network.  With Destroy, you turn down the opportunity for the knowledge (Synthesis) and power (Control) of the Reapers in favor of galactic life developing along its own path.  In exchange, you have to find your own way to repair or replace the relays. 

It's not as devastating as the "galactic wasteland" implied in the original endings. But it could easily be years, even decades before the network is back up and running. 

But no, that's not enough, let's pile on a galactic genocide while we're at it.

No, see, if you did that, people would like the option because it gives us a chance for self-determination without basically racially based genocide. And we can't have that. Instead, we need to forgive the people who created death camps and hold hands with them while they build us things.

Oh, silly me.  That was the very thing my Shepards fought for the entire trilogy.

Man, I must have been really, really confused 

[Whybother]

GlassElephant wrote...

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

If you let the Quarians die over Rannoch, then the Turians have a nice world to colonize.  One of my femsheps has a house with Garrus on Rannoch, beachfront property

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I just love when people claim the Reapers are preserving life.

[KC_Prototype]

Best choice, destroy, earth saved and Shepard lives, only minor catch is that synthentics are destroyed but will be easily repaired back to normal. Can't go wrong with that.

[adayaday]

Is it just me or there is someone out there that also think that reaper preservation method is kinda similar to pickles in a jar?

[In Exile]

Optimystic_X wrote...
I killed their slave master. It's not so much about forgiving them as giving them a chance to atone.

They build death camps and melted millions.

But if there is useful information in the dog's DNA (which we know there is - see also Javik) then you did.

What does that even mean? What is "useful" information? If someone tears you to piece to harvest your cells for an experiment, did that person "save you"? 

[robertthebard]

Optimystic_X wrote...

In Exile wrote...

No, see, if you did that, people would like the option because it gives us a chance for self-determination without basically racially based genocide. And we can't have that. Instead, we need to forgive the people who created death camps and hold hands with them while they build us things.

I killed their slave master. It's not so much about forgiving them as giving them a chance to atone.

In Exile wrote...

If I put a dog in a blender and then use that as lubricant for my car, I didn't preserve the dog.

But if there is useful information in the dog's DNA (which we know there is - see also Javik) then you did.

Quick, go ask the dog's DNA if it minds if we destroy the blender.

[Wayning_Star]

robertthebard wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

In Exile wrote...

No, see, if you did that, people would like the option because it gives us a chance for self-determination without basically racially based genocide. And we can't have that. Instead, we need to forgive the people who created death camps and hold hands with them while they build us things.

I killed their slave master. It's not so much about forgiving them as giving them a chance to atone.

In Exile wrote...

If I put a dog in a blender and then use that as lubricant for my car, I didn't preserve the dog.

But if there is useful information in the dog's DNA (which we know there is - see also Javik) then you did.

Quick, go ask the dog's DNA if it minds if we destroy the blender.

careful what you ask DNA for.. you might get it.

(brought us the handy if pesky catalyst program)

[Metallica93]

I had some guy trying to convince me "Refusal" was the best option because "the other options were made by the enemy" and anything other than refusing would "be a crime."

The game is centered around the construction and USE of the Crucible. It's the equivalent of saying "Man, I wish I could write this idea down!" when there's a pencil in front of you. Congratulations, you just killed off the rest of an entire galaxy and pushed your dilemma onto another cycle 50,000 years from now.

Can't believe they actually added that as a choice

Modifié par Metallica93, 27 avril 2013 - 01:33 .

[SpamBot2000]

Metallica93 wrote...

Can't believe they actually added that as a choice

Me neither, though not for the same reason.

[robertthebard]

Metallica93 wrote...

I had some guy trying to convince me "Refusal" was the best option because "the other options were made by the enemy" and anything other than refusing would "be a crime."

The game is centered around the construction and USE of the Crucible. It's the equivalent of saying "Man, I wish I could write this idea down!" when there's a pencil in front of you. Congratulations, you just killed off the rest of an entire galaxy and pushed your dilemma onto another cycle 50,000 years from now.

Can't believe they actually added that as a choice

You don't understand man, the Kid was lying when it said it had thought the Crucible plans destroyed, because, well, you know, the Reapers planted the plans so that Shepard could build it, and, well really, I've never been able to follow the circular logic of some of those that accuse the Kid of circular logic.  So I guess it's just "because reasons".  /sarcasm  

That theory always cracks me up though:  Let's plant plans that include a method to destroy us because no species is going to be willing to destroy us.

[SpamBot2000]

Why does the kid instruct Shepard to shoot the tube to destroy the Reapers?

Because the writer didn't give a ****, that's why.

After over a year, that's the best we've got.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 27 avril 2013 - 01:46 .