264 réponses à ce sujet

[Astartes Marine]

Optimystic_X wrote...
Then let's have a discussion - tell me why, if not fear. Because Hackett and Anderson think it's the only way? They hired you to think for yourself, not to blindly follow their directions. Hackett says as much in your reinstatement e-mail - Shepard has absolute authority to make any and all war-related decisions on humanity's behalf under emergency war powers (chapter and verse.)

My reasoning here was done using in-game knowledge, nothing meta, just what Shepard has seen.

Countless civilizations have been destroyed by the Reapers and their flawed leader, countless lives have been lost due to an assumed inevitability, they cannot be allowed to continue just because of what MIGHT happen. 

When I first chose Destroy for the first time (even before the EC when the Geth's destruction was guaranteed by that line from the Catalyst "you can wipe out all synthetic life if you want, including the Geth") I went in expecting that Shepard would die too, and thinking "I'll see you in the afterlife Legion, I only pray that you can forgive what I'm about to do and understand why." and I shot the tube.  It was not something I did casually.

I could not choose control as it's far too much power for one single man to have.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and it leaves the Reapers intact leaving the possibility of future harvests open as once Shepard becomes the Catalyst he's no longer the character I've been playing for three games and instead is something...else, with the combined knowledge and logic of the Reapers.

I could not choose Synthesis as that's too drastic a change to decide in the few seconds one gets at the end of the game.  That is something that would require discussion and debate among all the races, Shepard is not qualified nor does he have the right to make that kind of change for everyone.  Besides we've seen that forced uplifting before a race is ready can have dire consequences...it is not something to be done on a whim. 
If the Catalyst is right and synthesis is inevitable then it should be done gradually and we should accomplish it on our own terms, allowing everyone to adapt as it comes and have all the extra experience and maturity when it does happen.


As for Refuse...I DO like the speech that Shepard gives.  The first time I heard that speech I thought, THAT'S MY SHEPARD!  Now let's end this war the right way!
And then I got dick slapped in the face by "art" and a game over.  <_<

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

We do know the consequences. The Catalyst has no reason to lie.

I applaud your recognition of a meaningful choice, though. You understand that for choices to be meaningful, 'good' choices generally need to lead to good outcomes and vice versa? And that Paragon choices therefore generally need to be rewarded more? And that punishing the player with bad outcomes they could never have reasonably forseen is poor writing for a story about meaningful heroism?

. Except ME isn't about exclusively "heroism" in the traditional sense; your hero can be the epitome of an anti-hero.  Shepard can do some really grey actions and I think that works well in the narrative.  Some of the paragon options just reek of naïveté, not heroism.

P.S.  the Catalyst has every reason to lie about Destroy, it will kill him if commenced.

[robertthebard]

Optimystic_X wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

...and the Reapers spent three games trying to kill me, and even succeeded once.  Every time I spoke to one, it ran along the lines of "You are insignificant, and will die because we demand it".  So if I force myself to go past the Harbinger DeM, you can bet your ass I'm blowing them up.  They have never shown me anything that says "Hey, if you spare us, we can work together to make the galaxy a better place.

Oh, sorry, I was just thinking for myself...

So... hatred? Revenge? Those are more worthy of slaughtering innocents than fear?

Is that honestly the best Shepard can do?

Argolas wrote...

It's not about using reaper tech or not. It's about the choice being handed over to Shepard as opposed to Shepard achieving something.

The choice came from our Crucible, that we built. The kid is just a mouthpiece.

AresKeith wrote...

You mean the Reaper controlled Geth or when you Optional side with the Geth and Quarians refuse to stop attacking

The latter. After you destroy the Rannoch Reaper, the Geth are no longer under Reaper control. And they "regret the deaths of the Creators" but have no problem erasing them from existence if they keep attacking.

AresKeith wrote...
Other than that Geth themselves had no problem welcoming the Quarians back if they didn't attack them

I'm talking about ability here. In the beginning, they are unwilling to wipe out the Quarians, even if it means risking that they come back later and take on the Geth once more.

Now, they have that capability. Mere years after the Morning War ended, they've grown up completely. They advance much faster than we do and always will.

What, does somebody acting with the authority you gave them make you weak in the knees?  As I stand there listening to the Kid do it's spiel, my fleets are being torn apart.  I can see it in the dramatic effect shots they give us while we listen.  So, how about "self preservation"?

I do know that your perspective is off, though, since you claim it's mere years after the Morning War, when it's "mere" centuries later.  According to a dialog between Shepard and Tali in ME 1, the Quarian fleet has ships that are "3 centuries old".  300 years is a long time.

[KaiserShep]

woops. mistake. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 29 avril 2013 - 10:18 .

[KaiserShep]

Optimystic_X wrote...

I'm narrow-minded? I'm not the one willing to commit genocide out of fear - Destroyers are. Laughable.

It's always interesting to see these sorts of indictments for the destroy option. I'll always maintain that given the option on terms of reality, everyone would pick destroy, not because of lack of value held on the geth and EDI, but rather that dissolution into a beam or handlebars that shoot lightning are actually very insane, and is why I'd always pick destroy. Of course, as a third person perspective, we like to craft our hero into one of the options given, but I like to think of this on terms that would also actually apply to me. And when I really think about it, I would not hesitate to press the reset button on synthetic life if it meant getting rid of the nightmare machines altogether. 

Maybe I'm making too big a deal about this whole character involvement stuff, but I think that the detachment from the character's fate is what makes the other choices easier too. It's easy to throw Shepard into the beam or lightning rods to get what you're told is the ideal choice, but it's certainly not the choice we'd pick ourselves, unless of course, we simply didn't want to live anymore. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 29 avril 2013 - 10:17 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

We do know the consequences. The Catalyst has no reason to lie.

I applaud your recognition of a meaningful choice, though. You understand that for choices to be meaningful, 'good' choices generally need to lead to good outcomes and vice versa? And that Paragon choices therefore generally need to be rewarded more? And that punishing the player with bad outcomes they could never have reasonably forseen is poor writing for a story about meaningful heroism?

. Except ME isn't about exclusively "heroism" in the traditional sense; your hero can be the epitome of an anti-hero.  Shepard can do some really grey actions and I think that works well in the narrative.  Some of the paragon options just reek of naïveté, not heroism.

P.S.  the Catalyst has every reason to lie about Destroy, it will kill him if commenced.

I agree with the part about heroism.

I play as a neutral anti-hero. I'm also a bit of a magnificent bastard. I have my own idealism and sense of honor that greatly differs from traditional mores. It's why I support Cerberus. Sometimes the normal idea's of honor and heroism get in the way of what needs to be done.

[Argolas]

If you don't care about what happens to your Shepard that's a very bad sign for the writers. You are absolutely right to care, KaiserShep.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Optimystic_X wrote...
I'm narrow-minded? I'm not the one willing to commit genocide out of fear - Destroyers are. Laughable.

And here I thought you were a reasonable person.

[Cheviot]

KaiserShep wrote...
Maybe I'm making too big a deal about this whole character involvement stuff, but I think that the detachment from the character's fate is what makes the other choices easier too.

Not at all.  I'm sad that Shepard dies, but I'm happy because she sacrificed her life in order to end the Reaper threat.  Her actions save the galaxy, and she never made a secret of the fact she'd give her life if the cause was right.  The only concern a player should have is what their Shepard would believe is right.

Modifié par Cheviot, 29 avril 2013 - 10:35 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Cheviot wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...
Maybe I'm making too big a deal about this whole character involvement stuff, but I think that the detachment from the character's fate is what makes the other choices easier too.

Not at all.  I'm sad that Shepard dies, but I'm happy because she sacrificed her life in order to end the Reaper threat.  Her actions save the galaxy, and she never made a secret of the fact she'd give her life if the cause was right.  The only concern a player should have is what their Shepard would believe is right.

I can agree to this to an extent. I don't believe synthesis is right. I don't believe control is right. I believe destroy is right, even if others have to die for it. I resent the ending concept, and I resent the themes given, and I resent how the narrative is broken to propagate the ending.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 29 avril 2013 - 10:45 .

[Cheviot]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...
Maybe I'm making too big a deal about this whole character involvement stuff, but I think that the detachment from the character's fate is what makes the other choices easier too.

Not at all.  I'm sad that Shepard dies, but I'm happy because she sacrificed her life in order to end the Reaper threat.  Her actions save the galaxy, and she never made a secret of the fact she'd give her life if the cause was right.  The only concern a player should have is what their Shepard would believe is right.

I can agree to this to an extent. I don't believe synthesis is right. I don't believe control is right. I believe destroy is right, even if others have to die for it.

But others believe synthesis or control is the solution that their Shepard would give their life for.  They believe that those solutions are right as strongly as you believe destroy is. That's the point I was making.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Cheviot wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...
Maybe I'm making too big a deal about this whole character involvement stuff, but I think that the detachment from the character's fate is what makes the other choices easier too.

Not at all.  I'm sad that Shepard dies, but I'm happy because she sacrificed her life in order to end the Reaper threat.  Her actions save the galaxy, and she never made a secret of the fact she'd give her life if the cause was right.  The only concern a player should have is what their Shepard would believe is right.

I can agree to this to an extent. I don't believe synthesis is right. I don't believe control is right. I believe destroy is right, even if others have to die for it.

But others believe synthesis or control is the solution that their Shepard would give their life for.  They believe that those solutions are right as strongly as you believe destroy is. That's the point I was making.

And I'm not disputing that point. And I'm sure you realize that it goes the other way too. There are a great deal of people who destroy is the best among the provided choices.

[Cheviot]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...
Maybe I'm making too big a deal about this whole character involvement stuff, but I think that the detachment from the character's fate is what makes the other choices easier too.

Not at all.  I'm sad that Shepard dies, but I'm happy because she sacrificed her life in order to end the Reaper threat.  Her actions save the galaxy, and she never made a secret of the fact she'd give her life if the cause was right.  The only concern a player should have is what their Shepard would believe is right.

I can agree to this to an extent. I don't believe synthesis is right. I don't believe control is right. I believe destroy is right, even if others have to die for it.

But others believe synthesis or control is the solution that their Shepard would give their life for.  They believe that those solutions are right as strongly as you believe destroy is. That's the point I was making.

And I'm not disputing that point. And I'm sure you realize that it goes the other way too. There are a great deal of people who destroy is the best among the provided choices.

Of course I agree.  I'd be a hypocrite otherwise.  However, I was just responding to KaiserShep's suggestion that choosing anything other than destroy meant the player was somehow detached from the character of Shepard.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Cheviot wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...
Maybe I'm making too big a deal about this whole character involvement stuff, but I think that the detachment from the character's fate is what makes the other choices easier too.

Not at all.  I'm sad that Shepard dies, but I'm happy because she sacrificed her life in order to end the Reaper threat.  Her actions save the galaxy, and she never made a secret of the fact she'd give her life if the cause was right.  The only concern a player should have is what their Shepard would believe is right.

I can agree to this to an extent. I don't believe synthesis is right. I don't believe control is right. I believe destroy is right, even if others have to die for it.

But others believe synthesis or control is the solution that their Shepard would give their life for.  They believe that those solutions are right as strongly as you believe destroy is. That's the point I was making.

And I'm not disputing that point. And I'm sure you realize that it goes the other way too. There are a great deal of people who destroy is the best among the provided choices.

Of course I agree.  I'd be a hypocrite otherwise.  However, I was just responding to KaiserShep's suggestion that choosing anything other than destroy meant the player was somehow detached from the character of Shepard.

It's my opinion that the whole ending is structured around a detached Shepard. I believe, from knowledge of narrative expansion and cohesion, that the player is detached from Shepard after TIM's confrontation. All choices suffer from that.

[Cheviot]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...
Maybe I'm making too big a deal about this whole character involvement stuff, but I think that the detachment from the character's fate is what makes the other choices easier too.

Not at all.  I'm sad that Shepard dies, but I'm happy because she sacrificed her life in order to end the Reaper threat.  Her actions save the galaxy, and she never made a secret of the fact she'd give her life if the cause was right.  The only concern a player should have is what their Shepard would believe is right.

I can agree to this to an extent. I don't believe synthesis is right. I don't believe control is right. I believe destroy is right, even if others have to die for it.

But others believe synthesis or control is the solution that their Shepard would give their life for.  They believe that those solutions are right as strongly as you believe destroy is. That's the point I was making.

And I'm not disputing that point. And I'm sure you realize that it goes the other way too. There are a great deal of people who destroy is the best among the provided choices.

Of course I agree.  I'd be a hypocrite otherwise.  However, I was just responding to KaiserShep's suggestion that choosing anything other than destroy meant the player was somehow detached from the character of Shepard.

It's my opinion that the whole ending is structured around a detached Shepard. I believe, from knowledge of narrative expansion and cohesion, that the player is detached from Shepard after TIM's confrontation. All choices suffer from that.

I see no such detachment.  Shepard's choice at the end of ME3 is formed by his experiences over the series, and his experience during the war.  To pick a random example, a Shepard who freed the Rachni Queen in ME1 would be less likely to choose destroy than a Shepard who killed her, since the first Shepard would know that some previously hostile species can be trusted at their word, and can co-exist with others given the right cirumstances.

[robertthebard]

Cheviot wrote...

I see no such detachment.  Shepard's choice at the end of ME3 is formed by his experiences over the series, and his experience during the war.  To pick a random example, a Shepard who freed the Rachni Queen in ME1 would be less likely to choose destroy than a Shepard who killed her, since the first Shepard would know that some previously hostile species can be trusted at their word, and can co-exist with others given the right cirumstances.

As a person that saves the Rachni queen and destroys, what?  I am faced with a decision:  Save the last known example of a species, or condemn it to death for events that it had no part in, since it was an egg when it was brought to Noveria.

In the end, I'm faced with the question of sparing billion year old robots, that have been harvesting space faring life every 50,000 years or so since their inception.  These same robots that are currently wiping out my fleets, instead of attempting peaceful talks.  The same robots that, in the three opportunities we've had for dialog indicated how insignificant we were, and how we would be harvested.  How do you see these choices as anywhere near the same thing?  Did Sovereign say:  Hey, if you spare us, we can work together to make the galaxy a better place?  Did Harbinger, or the Rannoch Reaper?  No?  Then what makes you think they are worth saving?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Cheviot wrote...

I see no such detachment.  Shepard's choice at the end of ME3 is formed by his experiences over the series, and his experience during the war.  To pick a random example, a Shepard who freed the Rachni Queen in ME1 would be less likely to choose destroy than a Shepard who killed her, since the first Shepard would know that some previously hostile species can be trusted at their word, and can co-exist with others given the right cirumstances.

I save the Rachni queen and I listen to what she was saying and what others said about the Rachni up to that point. She is not responsible for the previous Rachni's actions. In fact, it's implied that the Rachni were indoctrinated to serve the purpose of weaking the galaxy or replacing the Keepers. I can tell you that your assertion is completely untrue in context outside your own game.

I don't believe the same of the Reapers as the Rachni. Without meta-gaming, I don't believe in co-existence with them. Indeed all of my Shepard's experiences points to them being machines that seek to dominate and destroy, through persuasion and suggestion as well as overt force. And from what I'm hearing in the game, it sounds like a faulty logic matrix stemming from an imperfect postulation given by an imperfect organic society caused an imperfect cycle based on an imperfect design. The being is not doing anything to preserve life, not by our definition. It may keep the genetic data of the harvested being, but that's not life. Nor do I believe being told to jump into a beam which kills me will somehow cause a solution to its problem. Having me die and take it's word on faith (the creator of the Reapers, the enemy of all life) is not even a question. It doesn't tell you how the denizens of the galaxy will react: For all I know, everyone and everything will become a mindless thrall within the Catalysts vision of perfection. It "solves" the problem. There would be no more conflict. But would such an existence be desirable? I think such an existence is utterly terrifying,  I'm not going to take that chance. I'm not going to choose a solution that requires a leap of faith on the part of the Reapers. I have no faith in the Reapers or the Catalyst. Destroy has the most... quantitive result. It's the easiest to envision, and the most direct in consequence. I don't like a lot of the consequences, but it ends the Reaper threat and technology can be rebuilt.

[Cheviot]

robertthebard wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

I see no such detachment.  Shepard's choice at the end of ME3 is formed by his experiences over the series, and his experience during the war.  To pick a random example, a Shepard who freed the Rachni Queen in ME1 would be less likely to choose destroy than a Shepard who killed her, since the first Shepard would know that some previously hostile species can be trusted at their word, and can co-exist with others given the right cirumstances.

As a person that saves the Rachni queen and destroys, what?  I am faced with a decision:  Save the last known example of a species, or condemn it to death for events that it had no part in, since it was an egg when it was brought to Noveria.

In the end, I'm faced with the question of sparing billion year old robots, that have been harvesting space faring life every 50,000 years or so since their inception.  These same robots that are currently wiping out my fleets, instead of attempting peaceful talks.  The same robots that, in the three opportunities we've had for dialog indicated how insignificant we were, and how we would be harvested.  How do you see these choices as anywhere near the same thing?  Did Sovereign say:  Hey, if you spare us, we can work together to make the galaxy a better place?  Did Harbinger, or the Rannoch Reaper?  No?  Then what makes you think they are worth saving?

A Shepard who chooses to save the Rachni Queen goes against what most if not all others in the galaxy would do in that situation.  There is no reason to believe that the Queen is telling the truth, and every reason to think she's coming up with a story to save herself.  She even agrees that her children be killed!  She's Queen of a species that killed millions, that is known for nothing but murder on a grand scale, yet Shepard decides to trust her, and that trust pays off.  How can that not play into Shepard's decision at the Citadel?

Also, I wouldn't say Shepard was concerned with "saving" the Reapers; it would be closer to "pacifying" them, either through control or taking away their reason for attacking the galaxy.  Shepard has something of a history when it comes to dealing with those the rest of the galaxy think are nothing but irredeemable murder-lizards (Krogan) or murder-bots (Geth).

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Cheviot wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

I see no such detachment.  Shepard's choice at the end of ME3 is formed by his experiences over the series, and his experience during the war.  To pick a random example, a Shepard who freed the Rachni Queen in ME1 would be less likely to choose destroy than a Shepard who killed her, since the first Shepard would know that some previously hostile species can be trusted at their word, and can co-exist with others given the right cirumstances.

As a person that saves the Rachni queen and destroys, what?  I am faced with a decision:  Save the last known example of a species, or condemn it to death for events that it had no part in, since it was an egg when it was brought to Noveria.

In the end, I'm faced with the question of sparing billion year old robots, that have been harvesting space faring life every 50,000 years or so since their inception.  These same robots that are currently wiping out my fleets, instead of attempting peaceful talks.  The same robots that, in the three opportunities we've had for dialog indicated how insignificant we were, and how we would be harvested.  How do you see these choices as anywhere near the same thing?  Did Sovereign say:  Hey, if you spare us, we can work together to make the galaxy a better place?  Did Harbinger, or the Rannoch Reaper?  No?  Then what makes you think they are worth saving?

 How can that not play into Shepard's decision at the Citadel?

Also, I wouldn't say Shepard was concerned with "saving" the Reapers; it would be closer to "pacifying" them, either through control or taking away their reason for attacking the galaxy.  Shepard has something of a history when it comes to dealing with those the rest of the galaxy think are nothing but irredeemable murder-lizards (Krogan) or murder-bots (Geth).

Because it's a completely separate event. And you're making an argument of the majority.

The scientists have already spoken about the Queen as well. They mention that their studies have shown that the previous Rachni were under some sort of control.

The Krogan, I need for the war as well as having been around them for several years, I have more of an insight into their psyche and culture. I know that Wrex is not like that. I know that Eve is not like that. I don't trust the Krogan fully, but they do have the authority and rapport among their people to make a meaningful change. 

And the Geth who had a chance to kill me, that instead acknowledged my presence and left peacefully. I want to know why it did that. How it knows who I am. Why it didn't try to kill me, when it knew who I was and what I had done to the Geth, I had to know.

But the Reapers... Let's just say I see their existence in a different light. Something completely different than any other definition of life. Something that should not exist.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Cheviot wrote...

I see no such detachment.  Shepard's choice at the end of ME3 is formed by his experiences over the series, and his experience during the war.  To pick a random example, a Shepard who freed the Rachni Queen in ME1 would be less likely to choose destroy than a Shepard who killed her, since the first Shepard would know that some previously hostile species can be trusted at their word, and can co-exist with others given the right cirumstances.

Bad example. I saved the rachni queen in every single play through... all 12 of them. I've only played ME3 three times. I picked destroy all three times. I sided with the quarians twice and made peace once. The Geth with Legion at least show some redeeming features. I see absolutely no redeeming features in the Reapers -- ZERO. I would never pick an ending where the reapers were left around. Bioware might as well have made a single ending game.

Without metagaming. The galaxy went too far. I trusted my instincts and trusted Liara. And then there was that souring of the songs. It sounded like reaper interference to me. So I trusted the queen.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 30 avril 2013 - 01:08 .

[Argolas]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

I see no such detachment.  Shepard's choice at the end of ME3 is formed by his experiences over the series, and his experience during the war.  To pick a random example, a Shepard who freed the Rachni Queen in ME1 would be less likely to choose destroy than a Shepard who killed her, since the first Shepard would know that some previously hostile species can be trusted at their word, and can co-exist with others given the right cirumstances.

Bad example. I saved the rachni queen in every single play through... all 12 of them. I've only played ME3 three times. I picked destroy all three times. I sided with the quarians twice and made peace once. The Geth with Legion at least show some redeeming features. I see absolutely no redeeming features in the Reapers -- ZERO. I would never pick an ending where the reapers were left around. Bioware might as well have made a single ending game.

There's this particular stereotype of people who picked Destroy here on BSN. Appearently, being defiant in front of the mindhacking reapers implies the urge to kill anything and anyone we come across.

[Steelcan]

Argolas wrote...


There's this particular stereotype of people who picked Destroy here on BSN. Appearently, being defiant in front of the mindhacking reapers implies the urge to kill anything and anyone we come across.

. Because we are clearly all genocide enjoying, mass murdering, psychos who roll in the blood of crippled orphaned puppies.

[KENNY4753]

so "destroyers commite genocide out of fear" is one of thde stupidest posts I have seen. I destroy them because they dont desevre to live. Not because Im afraid.

And the genocide card again. First the Geth/EDI joined the war effort because they wanted the Reapers dead. They knew that there was a very good chance they would die.

Plus it isnt even clear that they die. There are multiple reasons why the could have survived.

1. The Catalyst implies that Shep will die but boom we get the vague breath scene. Therefore the Catalyst was wrong.

2. Hackett says we can rebuilt what was lost. That includes the Geth as well as the Relays.

3. EDIs name on the Memorial Wall means nothing since that scene takes place very shortlhy after the Crucible fires. There was not yet time to "rebuild what was lost".

Okay so now a question for Controllers. Since its likely controllers somewhat believe the Catalyst then if the Crucible does not discriminate then it should effect the Geth in control correct? That being the case Shep would enslave the Geth against their will. So I can call controllers 'Slavers' since destroy makes me a 'mass murderer'. Even if the Geth are not affected in control you are still a 'slaver' since you are enslaving the Reapers the very way the Catalyst did.

The quote "Give me liberty or give me death" comes to mind when thinking about the endings. Control doesnt free anybody. So I guess "give me death" is the way to go.

[AresKeith]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

I see no such detachment.  Shepard's choice at the end of ME3 is formed by his experiences over the series, and his experience during the war.  To pick a random example, a Shepard who freed the Rachni Queen in ME1 would be less likely to choose destroy than a Shepard who killed her, since the first Shepard would know that some previously hostile species can be trusted at their word, and can co-exist with others given the right cirumstances.

Bad example. I saved the rachni queen in every single play through... all 12 of them. I've only played ME3 three times. I picked destroy all three times. I sided with the quarians twice and made peace once. The Geth with Legion at least show some redeeming features. I see absolutely no redeeming features in the Reapers -- ZERO. I would never pick an ending where the reapers were left around. Bioware might as well have made a single ending game.

Without metagaming. The galaxy went too far. I trusted my instincts and trusted Liara. And then there was that souring of the songs. It sounded like reaper interference to me. So I trusted the queen.

One Ideal ending that branches off in many different ways based on your choices including whether Shepard lives or dies

And being to control the Reapers, with a fail ending where the cycle continues

[robertthebard]

Cheviot wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

I see no such detachment.  Shepard's choice at the end of ME3 is formed by his experiences over the series, and his experience during the war.  To pick a random example, a Shepard who freed the Rachni Queen in ME1 would be less likely to choose destroy than a Shepard who killed her, since the first Shepard would know that some previously hostile species can be trusted at their word, and can co-exist with others given the right cirumstances.

As a person that saves the Rachni queen and destroys, what?  I am faced with a decision:  Save the last known example of a species, or condemn it to death for events that it had no part in, since it was an egg when it was brought to Noveria.

In the end, I'm faced with the question of sparing billion year old robots, that have been harvesting space faring life every 50,000 years or so since their inception.  These same robots that are currently wiping out my fleets, instead of attempting peaceful talks.  The same robots that, in the three opportunities we've had for dialog indicated how insignificant we were, and how we would be harvested.  How do you see these choices as anywhere near the same thing?  Did Sovereign say:  Hey, if you spare us, we can work together to make the galaxy a better place?  Did Harbinger, or the Rannoch Reaper?  No?  Then what makes you think they are worth saving?

A Shepard who chooses to save the Rachni Queen goes against what most if not all others in the galaxy would do in that situation.  There is no reason to believe that the Queen is telling the truth, and every reason to think she's coming up with a story to save herself.  She even agrees that her children be killed!  She's Queen of a species that killed millions, that is known for nothing but murder on a grand scale, yet Shepard decides to trust her, and that trust pays off.  How can that not play into Shepard's decision at the Citadel?

Also, I wouldn't say Shepard was concerned with "saving" the Reapers; it would be closer to "pacifying" them, either through control or taking away their reason for attacking the galaxy.  Shepard has something of a history when it comes to dealing with those the rest of the galaxy think are nothing but irredeemable murder-lizards (Krogan) or murder-bots (Geth).

Because despite being alien, the only dialog I have with her doesn't include "You are insignificant, and will die because I demand it"?

But this right here is why we can't see eye to eye on the choice: Also, I wouldn't say Shepard was concerned with "saving" the Reapers; it would be closer to "pacifying" them,  I've got them by the mechanical balls, why do I want to pacify them?