606 réponses à ce sujet

[dorktainian]

Just kill the reapers. It's not rocket science. someone has given you the opportunity to kill them and you hesitate? pull the god damn trigger. The synthetics wont mind. they'd rather die than become reaper thralls.

Just pull the trigger.

[Kataphrut94]

I hate to be the sort of person who crows about their preferred ending at the expense of the others, but surely Control is just as much of a 'screw you' to the Reapers as Destroy. By controlling them, you're taking away their free will and confining the original Catalyst to the great Recycle Bin in the sky. Not to mention you also preserve the free will of your synthetic allies (you know, by not killing them).

If we're arguing about sacrifice, it's slightly stronger than Destroy (though not quite as strong as Synthesis) because it's self-sacrifice, as opposed to pawn sacrifice.

[dorktainian]

Fandango9641 wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

Just kill the reapers. It's not rocket science. someone has given you the opportunity to kill them and you hesitate? pull the god damn trigger. The synthetics wont mind. they'd rather die than become reaper thralls.

Just pull the trigger.

Perfect. You see, that the game would reward dorktainian's genocidal logic, whilst punishing people like iakus for trying to make a choice that actually respects basic, fundamental rights is what makes it an absolute disgrace. Thanks dorktainian, much appreciated.

   

rubbish.  your passifistic nature obviously didnt take any notice of anything that happened in game regarding synthetics and the fact they would rather die than become reaper thralls.  Thats ok then.  You sacrifice all organics for the poor little synthetic soon to be overlords.

I'll let you prey to your toaster.  Good luck with that. 

ca·pit·u·lat·ed, ca·pit·u·lat·ing, ca·pit·u·lates
1. To surrender under specified conditions; come to terms.    

The reapers may not think they are at war, but we fight for our survival.

2. To give up all resistance; acquiesce.

Modifié par dorktainian, 11 juin 2013 - 02:16 .

[elrofrost]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

I hate to be the sort of person who crows about their preferred ending at the expense of the others, but surely Control is just as much of a 'screw you' to the Reapers as Destroy. By controlling them, you're taking away their free will and confining the original Catalyst to the great Recycle Bin in the sky. Not to mention you also preserve the free will of your synthetic allies (you know, by not killing them).

If we're arguing about sacrifice, it's slightly stronger than Destroy (though not quite as strong as Synthesis) because it's self-sacrifice, as opposed to pawn sacrifice.

I think Control is Shepard merging with the current Catalyst becoming the new and improved Catalyst. With a new mandate. And a new purpose.

But sooner or later, the races of the galaxy will advance. To the point where they won't need the "Reapers" to "protect" them from themselves. And then what happens? Of course, it'll be 10,000 or so years. So who cares.

I choose Control everytime. My Shepard cared too much for his LI, crew, friends and the rest of life to risk the other solutions.

[dorktainian]

Fandango9641 wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

Just kill the reapers. It's not rocket science. someone has given you the opportunity to kill them and you hesitate? pull the god damn trigger. The synthetics wont mind. they'd rather die than become reaper thralls.

Just pull the trigger.

Perfect. You see, that the game would reward dorktainian's genocidal logic, whilst punishing people like iakus for trying to make a choice that actually respects basic, fundamental rights is what makes it an absolute disgrace. Thanks dorktainian, much appreciated.

   

rubbish.  you obviously didnt take any notice of anything that happened in game regarding synthetics and the fact they would rather die than become reaper thralls.  Thats ok then.  You sacrifice all organics for the poor little synthetic soon to be overlords.

I'll let you prey to your toaster.  Good luck with that.

Yep, no respect for life that is 'different' from himself. Well done (and thanks again).

and once again you didn't read.  I would be doing the synthetics a favor.  

jeez.  

[Iakus]

[quote]dorktainian wrote...

[/quote]yes but he tries to tell you it's wrong whereas with the other options he tries to persuade you they're ok.
[/quote]

He only points out the potential flaws int he plan.  He doesn't say it's "wrong".

Basically he's telling you one of the new "possibilities" is to be just like the Reapers:  wipe out one side and hammer it down whenever it pokes its head up again.  The flaw is the possibility that organics will grow lax in this and allow synthetics to rise up again.

Lilke I said, it's the first possibility he gives:  "be like me"

[David7204]

It was absolutely a mistake not to offer some sort of option for conventional victory that defies any 'help' from the Catalyst entirely. But that doesn't make the three options completely meritless.

[Kataphrut94]

elrofrost wrote...

Kataphrut94 wrote...

I hate to be the sort of person who crows about their preferred ending at the expense of the others, but surely Control is just as much of a 'screw you' to the Reapers as Destroy. By controlling them, you're taking away their free will and confining the original Catalyst to the great Recycle Bin in the sky. Not to mention you also preserve the free will of your synthetic allies (you know, by not killing them).

If we're arguing about sacrifice, it's slightly stronger than Destroy (though not quite as strong as Synthesis) because it's self-sacrifice, as opposed to pawn sacrifice.

I think Control is Shepard merging with the current Catalyst becoming the new and improved Catalyst. With a new mandate. And a new purpose.

But sooner or later, the races of the galaxy will advance. To the point where they won't need the "Reapers" to "protect" them from themselves. And then what happens? Of course, it'll be 10,000 or so years. So who cares.

I choose Control everytime. My Shepard cared too much for his LI, crew, friends and the rest of life to risk the other solutions.

Exactly. It's why I never agreed with the arguments that Shepard choosing Control can only lead to more genocide. He's spent his whole life fighting against the cycle of destruction, why on Earth would he (or the AI based on his personality) double back on it?

What the original Catalyst lacked was basic empathy, which is understandable given his origins. Shepard does care about life and knows that organics and synthetics can peacefully coexist (having seen it with EDI and the geth), so he would understand that perpetuating a cycle of violence based on a non-issue is pointless.

Modifié par Kataphrut94, 11 juin 2013 - 02:27 .

[dorktainian]

iakus wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

yes but he tries to tell you it's wrong whereas with the other options he tries to persuade you they're ok.

He only points out the potential flaws int he plan.  He doesn't say it's "wrong".

Basically he's telling you one of the new "possibilities" is to be just like the Reapers:  wipe out one side and hammer it down whenever it pokes its head up again.  The flaw is the possibility that organics will grow lax in this and allow synthetics to rise up again.

Lilke I said, it's the first possibility he gives:  "be like me"

 

Ok.  it's like a car salesman.  You go and buy a car.  You pick this nice red car.  You go to collect it weeks later only to be told that there are 2 other options, a blue one with better traction control - but the price is higher, or a green one with better environmental features and WIFI but once again with a much higher price.

Now the red one has go faster stripes on it and is what you have always wanted, but the other 2 do seem awfully tempting.  Which one do you pick?   

And yes i do equate starjar to a car salesman.  He's making a pitch.  

Modifié par dorktainian, 11 juin 2013 - 02:26 .

[frostajulie]

txgoldrush wrote...

Because they fail to even pinpoint the central conflict, especially with the Catalyst.

The ending is NOT about organics and synthetics, its about sacrifice.

Why?

Because that's what the central conflict revolves around. In fact, organics and synthetics theme only matters in the synthesis ending. The central conflict is one of METHOD not MOTIVE. In fact, Shepard really doesn't argue to the motives, he argues against his methods. This is why you can't go...."well, Starchild, geth and quarian peace can prove you wrong" because that simply is not the conflict Shepard has with him, the conflict is his cycle.

Also, the TIM conflict is not about destroying the Reapers or controlling them (although it can be with a Paragon) its about once again, not only his methods, but that they are counterproductive (as well as he is indoctrinated).

This is the protagonist and antagonist conflict.......the protagonist is willing to sacrifice himself or herself to preserve the galaxy and the ones they love, and call for others to sacrifice not without thought or feeling. The antagonists, both TIM and the Catalyst, ruthlessly sacrifice lives to pursue their goals and motives, with no thought whatsoever. THIS IS THE CONFLICT. And the entire Catalyst conversation shows the Catalyst's character flaw, he simply doesn't truly understand organics and their are hints of this throughout the conversation, especially if Shepard dissents some of the choices.

This is the central conflict not only of the ending, not only of Mass Effect 3, but the entire trilogy. But nope, BSNers don't recognize the obvious, harping on the Catalyst's motives while completely ignoring Shepards arguments in the end. Nevermind the Catalyst's creation strikes at the heart another theme, people are willing to create or harness things that they do not understand to pursue their goals and solutions to problems, backfiring due to lack of understanding.

This is why Shepard had to sacrifice to fire the Crucible, the themes define him as such.

So when anti enders say that the themes of the ending come out of nowhere, they really do not get it.

LMFAO at your smug stupidity.  Yeah guy thats "really it" we just don't "get it":O:lol:

[Iakus]

David7204 wrote...

If you're determined to disagree with everything your enemy says just because he's your enemy, you're a complete idiot and you'll pay for it. What happens when your enemy says 2+2=4?

I verify it independantly.  He may be trying to indoctrinate me

Picking Destroy goes against the dogma the synthetics and organics must be in conflict. It goes against the dogma the Synthesis is good or necessary or inevitable. It goes against the dogma that the Reapers themselves are necessary.

Not, it doesn't.  Because if you destroy one side or the other, there is no more conflict..

Syntheis is, to the Catalyst, the "optimal" solution.  But it's not the only valid concept.  The Catalyst doesn't care if the Reapers are necessary or not.  Just that "life" is preserved

[dorktainian]

Fandango9641 wrote...




Nope, there's no justifying genocide to me I'm afraid! In any case, how about we agree to differ and let those wonderful posts of yours stand for themselves eh?

    


It's not a straight forward problem.  Nobody says it is.  You are offered a chance to destroy the 2 km long killing machines.  machines responsible for wiping out hundreds of trillions of lives (organic and i'm sure synthetic).  

At the very beginning of the game Shepard openly states ''We fight or we die''.

and dont forget the reapers do not think they are at war.  We however are fighting to save ourselves.

If the reapers do not think they are at war, then what makes you think..

1.  They will allow a human to control them?
2.  They will allow us any sort of free will if we choose synthebodge?       

they are fulfilling their programming - as is starjar.

as i've said before..i've chosen refuse on many occasions.  I'm stating the right choice in my opinion from 3.  Maybe the right choice is not to choose at all.  We'll see. 

Modifié par dorktainian, 11 juin 2013 - 02:37 .

[dorktainian]

Fandango9641 wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...




Nope, there's no justifying genocide to me I'm afraid! In any case, how about we agree to differ and let those wonderful posts of yours stand for themselves eh?

    


It's not a straight forward problem.  Nobody says it is.  You are offered a chance to destroy the 2 km long killing machines.  machines responsible for wiping out hundreds of trillions of lives (organic and i'm sure synthetic).  

At the very beginning of the game Shepard openly states ''We fight or we die''.

and dont forget the reapers do not think they are at war.  We however are fighting to save ourselves.

If the reapers do not think they are at war, then what makes you think..

1.  They will allow a human to control them?
2.  They will allow us any sort of free will if we choose synthebodge?       

they are fulfilling their programming - as is starjar.

as i've said before..i've chosen refuse on many occasions.  I'm stating the right choice from 3.  Maybe the right choice is not to choose at all.  We'll see.

And again, there is no way for you to make a convincing case for genocide to me I'm afraid. And as for the late edit you made to the post above, you're precisely wrong - to comply with Casper in accepting any of its solutions is to show cowardice, not the other way around!

like i said.  we'll see.

[dorktainian]

Fandango9641 wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...




Nope, there's no justifying genocide to me I'm afraid! In any case, how about we agree to differ and let those wonderful posts of yours stand for themselves eh?

    


It's not a straight forward problem.  Nobody says it is.  You are offered a chance to destroy the 2 km long killing machines.  machines responsible for wiping out hundreds of trillions of lives (organic and i'm sure synthetic).  

At the very beginning of the game Shepard openly states ''We fight or we die''.

and dont forget the reapers do not think they are at war.  We however are fighting to save ourselves.

If the reapers do not think they are at war, then what makes you think..

1.  They will allow a human to control them?
2.  They will allow us any sort of free will if we choose synthebodge?       

they are fulfilling their programming - as is starjar.

as i've said before..i've chosen refuse on many occasions.  I'm stating the right choice from 3.  Maybe the right choice is not to choose at all.  We'll see.

And again, there is no way for you to make a convincing case for genocide to me I'm afraid. And as for the late edit you made to the post above, you're precisely wrong - to comply with Casper in accepting any of its solutions is to show cowardice, not the other way around!

like i said.  we'll see.

And like I said, we already know the game rewards your genocidal logic. Kind of my point!

haha comedy gold.        


*late edit 1*

Maybe it's a test.  Are you willing to do what is necessary?

**late edit 2*

The (insert the name which must never be used on BSN) theory.

Modifié par dorktainian, 11 juin 2013 - 03:03 .

[dorktainian]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Nope, you've lost me

IT is quite straightforward.



*edit* if only i could.  

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

Not, it doesn't.  Because if you destroy one side or the other, there is no more conflict..

Which is the opposite of what the Catalyst says about Destroy. He flat out warns you that picking Destroy will allow the cycle of synthetic rebellions to continue and breed further conflict in the future. Destroy rejects the Catalyst's purpose and his means.

The root of the problem is that the relationship between the Catalyst and the Crucible is presented inconsistently. One moment, the Catalyst is calling Destroy one of the possible "new" solutions, the next he says it solves nothing. The best we can do is see which interpretation has the most evidence and logic on its side. In this respect I think it's a compelling case that Destroy is rejecting the Catalyst:

1. It rejects the need for Reaper overlords to prevent synthetic conflict.
2. It ignores the Catalyst's assertion that future synthetic conflict and rebellion is inevitable, since this is the Catalyst's main complaint against Destroy.
3. The Catalyst's mandate is to preserve life, which as of the EC we know INCLUDES synthetic life. Destroy wipes out synthetics, which conflicts with his mandate. The logical conclusion here is that Destroy is not something he wants in this respect, either.
4. The Catalyst says that all synthetics will be wiped out because the Crucible will not discriminate. The way Destroy beam functions is independent of the Catalyst's wishes (this assertion is further supported by #3).

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 11 juin 2013 - 03:30 .

[Kel Riever]

Synthesis is genocide. You kill every being in the galaxy as it exists.