The endings (again)

I'll just let you define Destroy for yourself.

Fun meme. WHY ARE YOU ALL STILL SO ANGRY? IT'S BEEN NINE. FUCKING. YEARS!

No Monica, I'm not assuming you want peace between the 2. I'm saying your word can't be trusted and you're a traitor to your allies. Which if you're playing as a Renegade I could totally respect. Not for what you did but because its consistent with a Renegade playthrough. My point is that 94% of players are Paragon and Destroy is completely out of keeping with Paragon values.

My criticisms are aimed at hypocritical Paragon players, not Renegade players. There are so few of you guys that even Bioware doesn't care what they do.

Assuming I do want peace then, tell me again why the Geth get destroyed if you choose the Destroy option?

Have you not played the endings or something? Geth and all synthetics are wiped out in the Destroy ending. Peace with the Geth (either alone or between them and the Quarians) is only possible by telling them you oppose the Reapers and only them. The Geth make it clear that whilst they have no wish to harm organics, they do not accept any argument that they must die to save organic life.

They only fight with organics because you claim not to support killing them being either desirable or an acceptable loss. If you support peace with them and the Quarians, it is on the basis that the whole issue of Synthetic vs Organic is a corrosive distraction that the galaxy needs them to move past. That we can co exist and will be much stronger for it. And this is proved out instantly - yet Destroy sees you backslide on all of that and sell the Geth out to save organic life. Exactly as you said you wouldn't and proving the Reapers and Starkid were 100% correct about organics.

I'll give you a simple example. The existence of the Catalyst on the Citadel. Some have complained it is stupid and ruins the point of ME1 as the Catalyst would have control of the Citadel and simply operate the relay it self. That is a negative perspective.



However during the talk with the Catalyst it sets itself up as something akin to a scientists observing the galaxy and only acting indirectly thought the Reapers. Combine that with the fact the entire point of the Citadel is to be a massive trap that races can live for thousands of years on without figuring out it's true nature. There is no reason for the Catalyst to control anything because that is what the Keepers and the Reapers are for. And since it acts as an observer of the galaxy the aberration of the Prothean scientists disabling the Keeper signal is something it would obverse without interfering with. Because that is what scientists do they obverse and accept all aberrations and alternating to their experiments. They don't stop the experiment and alter it until it comes out exactly the way they want it to. Those people are called frauds and are a factor in why we have people that think vaccines cause autism and other just migraine inducing stupidity.


That is a more positive perspective.



One takes the lack of direct explanation as bad and the other fills in the blanks we are not directly told with logic and supporting reason that fits. It fits with the events of ME1, it fits with the behavior and motivation the Catalyst gives during our chat with it in ME3. And since ME1 the big suspension of belief is that the Citadel is basically a massive mouse trap that has been working for countless races for countless cycles. The idea the Catalyst doesn't actually have any control of the Citadel nor does it need any control with the existence of the Keepers doesn't need even a fraction of the suspension of belief as the massive floating mouse trap in space.

Red for the win. We destroy them, or they destroy us.

So you're playing a different ending than we're actually discussing, right? So all this anger is just theater.

Col, in what universe is wiping out a race of allied troops you swore to value equally alongside organics *to save said organics when they specifically said they did not accept the legitimacy of that argument* NOT a Renegade decision?! I'm not saying its a Renegade decision because its red, I'm saying its Renegade because you can't get much more Renegade than committing total genocide to the very last person on an allied race who are only fighting with you because you promised not to do this!

And where did I say Control was a Paragon option?!

Look, by your various posts and threads its obvious that you really like playing Sheperd and got very attached to your version of the character. I understand and mostly am delighted to see people so into ME. But you must understand how hard it then is to accept what amounts to 'No I can totally make an objective decision about this despite Sheperd only living in 1 specific ending'. Can you? Because most people can't and that's the whole point - Bioware never should have framed the choice whilst gating Sheperd's survival like that. It *completely* skewed the results.

Does it make it worse if I tell you I've met Steve Blum twice?   I still want to meet Mark Meer though.

This.

Refuse is the only option that makes sense to me.

My first play through was well before the EC.  Refused to play Starbrats'  shitty little game.

The Beacons Shep and Liara put together for the next cycle are what makes refuse the choice for me.  

Shepard dies, but everybody and everything eventually pass, what matters is what you do when given the choice.

History of this cycle is secure via the Beacons, hope for the next to defeat the threat is there also.

Sing the song of Achilles and become immortal by doing something legendary.