69153 réponses à ce sujet

[Hekate]

Y'know, the only way to get Tali's loyalty is too do what she asks. And the only way she'll survive the suicide mission is if you have her loyalty. So problem solved. If you don't do what she ask's she dies.

So debate over, cause no matter how selfish you think it may be would you really basically kill Tali to tell the truth?

[Jog0907]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Jog0907 wrote...


+1, I agree, too much focus is put on winning a debate instead of actually learning from it.

If you'd just learn that I"m right we could settle this easily.

hypocrite

[Homebound]

Starfishsicko wrote...

Not gonna lie. Only reason I did what tali said was because I wanted to hook up with her.

as do all great men of history.

[XenoAlbedo]

Got new 7.1 surround sound headphones and replayed Mass Effect. Most damn epic experience I've ever had. (Romanced Tali again too!)

Modifié par XenoAlbedo, 05 février 2012 - 05:22 .

[Hekate]

Ok, you won't go with that, what about this. Telling the truth isn't always the right thing to do. C'mon, everyone's gotta agree with that. Sure some may think telling the truth all the time is the only moral thing to do, but aren't there times where telling the truth may do far, far more harm then good? I mean the fact that you get 30 renegade points for telling said truth should tell you something.

[Jog0907]

Amieera wrote...

Ok, you won't go with that, what about this. Telling the truth isn't always the right thing to do. C'mon, everyone's gotta agree with that. Sure some may think telling the truth all the time is the only moral thing to do, but aren't there times where telling the truth may do far, far more harm then good? I mean the fact that you get 30 renegade points for telling said truth should tell you something.

I see those renegade points as a bad alocation in game design. To me the decision is away from the typical paragon/renegade mindset and as such revealing or witholding should be points neutral.

[Jog0907]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Amieera wrote...

Ok, you won't go with that, what about this. Telling the truth isn't always the right thing to do. C'mon, everyone's gotta agree with that. Sure some may think telling the truth all the time is the only moral thing to do, but aren't there times where telling the truth may do far, far more harm then good? I mean the fact that you get 30 renegade points for telling said truth should tell you something.

It tells me either that Renegade has more integrity than Paragon or that Bioware is very biased and that the way they assign Paragon/Renegade isn't based on the decision itself but rather the outcome.

at most the justification I would find for that is that in me2 renegade shep seems to tend  to care less about his crew (and thus is less likely to consider tali opinion) but even then thats not always the case for him.

[Hekate]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Amieera wrote...

Ok, you won't go with that, what about this. Telling the truth isn't always the right thing to do. C'mon, everyone's gotta agree with that. Sure some may think telling the truth all the time is the only moral thing to do, but aren't there times where telling the truth may do far, far more harm then good? I mean the fact that you get 30 renegade points for telling said truth should tell you something.

It tells me either that Renegade has more integrity than Paragon or that Bioware is very biased and that the way they assign Paragon/Renegade isn't based on the decision itself but rather the outcome.

Ok, whatever, but your missing the whole point of my post, the other two thirds of it. Telling the truth is not always the right thing to do and can at times do much more harm then good. Which in this case it does, no matter what you may say about the fleet breaking up being good.

[Spartanburger]

Hellbound555 wrote...

the thing i hate about debate teams and such is everything is set up to "win an argument". to me, thats missing the point of an argument in the first place. When people argue, its to understand and to be understood..if all you're doing is trying to win, you'll never get to the heart of the matter.

for example, if i had debated back and forth with Saph instead of asking the reasoning behind his stance, do you think we'd come to this odd mutual understanding of one another?

That is the goal of arguments, yes. In a controled debate you have locked teams. This sucked in school because even if you supported the 'pro' side, if you were on the 'con' side then you'd have to argue against your own opinion. This could be beneficial in a 'debate to win' scenario because you'd be more able to find the points that the opposing team would raise so you could then find research to counter them.
But those are really only for formal scenarios. In an informal scenario like now then coming to a mutual understanding is much more likely and more easy to achieve. This is preferable to a formal debate. Formal debates are a great way to hone your arguing skills so that once put in a informal environment mutual understanding can be achieved quicker and/or better.

Saphra Deden wrote...

Without meta-gaming, how do you know this? For all you know it will tip the argument drastically in favor of one side and end the debate.

I don't. Nobody does. Nothing is known for sure about what happens to the fleet and as such everything is a possibility. If it is a possibility it therefore must be considered. Some things are more likely than others though.

Saphra Deden wrote...
Why is the fleet breaking up a bad thing? If it is broken up then each side can go their own separate ways freely.

One other person here said it well: Divide and concur. A split fleet would be exponentially more vulnerable. It's basic physics. Take two solid masses, split one of them in half and then put everything in acid. The object that was not split will take far longer to be dissolved than the object that was split because its surface area to volume ratio is much smaller.
Another example? Look at our newest country: South Sudan. Sure, it's nice that they have independence, but in achieving that they also had massive increases in poverty, disease, ect. The situation is just bad.
Were it not for the Reapers, and for the massive loss of life if the fleet (or half the fleet if they split) goes to war with the Geth then I would do nothing to stop it.

Saphra Deden wrote...
Don't meta-game.

If you can actually provide me with a logical reason to not, then I won't. In the mean time: I'll do as I please.

Saphra Deden wrote...
So you see, it can go either way if you hide it or reveal it.

I never said it couldn't. I was only saying what seemed most likely to occur.

Here's the thing. You can be against Metagaming and all, but metagaming is required to come to a conclusion on practically every decision.

Lets take the decision to turn the data over or not.
It's obvious that this is a major decision, so it's a good idea to think about it before going one way or the other. In order to make the best decision, you must think about all possible impacts of either decision. That is itself metagaming. Nothing is guaranteed, anyone who is half intelligent knows this. I made my decision because I came to the conclusion that the most likely outcome of turning the data over is a dangerous and devastating split in the fleet and war with the Geth.

I do in no way think that any of the conclusions I make are guaranteed. I'm taking high level statistics. One thing you learn is that Extrapolation (which is really the only thing I'm doing) is never correct. I can't remember the exact quote, but "Extrapolation is never correct, but it is sometimes useful."
The further you get from known data, the less certain any conclusion is. Anyone who metagames knows this, the problem arises when they assume that it is certain.
But extrapolation is useful if the data you want cannot be acquired. The end result will never be exact, but it will generally be close.

Saying that metagaming, or extrapolating known data, events, outcomes, ect to find possible future events and outcomes, should never be used is stupid. We do it every day. Things like that have prevented more wars than you might think. It is equally stupid to say that the conclusion of such analysis is certain and should be accepted as fact. All we can say is what is likely to happen while knowing that the true outcome cannot be known.

[Hekate]

Ok. I'm done with this. Each time you completely ignore the main point of my post.

Obviously because you can't think up an argument to counteract mine. So goodbye.

[XenoAlbedo]

Oh dear, it seems another argument as popped up. I'll end it with a random picture of Tali.

[XenoAlbedo]

By Keelah! Not even a picture of Tali stopped this argument?! Things are in a bad way indeed.

[Rip504]

Tali Zorah will save the Galaxy...

[Unschuld]

Spartanburger wrote...

One other person here said it well: Divide and concur. A split fleet would be exponentially more vulnerable. It's basic physics. Take two solid masses, split one of them in half and then put everything in acid. The object that was not split will take far longer to be dissolved than the object that was split because its surface area to volume ratio is much smaller.

Good to see someone read my post...

Saphra Deden wrote... 
Let's try another one.

Will you have an easier time hunting three wolves if they stay in a group or if they split up? (or fugitives, or whatever)

I shouldn't need to say how this is a terrible and desperate example. When hunting wolves (and fugitives) they are more or less united against the hunter. The point isn't how you can find them easier, if they were all hiding in different spots they're HIDING and aren't a threat like they would be if they were united against you in one spot. The point is that the Quarian fleet scattered and each group doing its own independant thing isn't a united force against the opposition (the reapers).

There is no bearing on the arguement (nor do we care) how easy it is for the reapers to find every organic and cull them. They're machines, and will do so systematically. The point of concern is how much of a united force of organics can we use for a common goal to prevent extinction of everything. Scattered, uncoordinated forces are not useful.

Modifié par Unschuld, 05 février 2012 - 06:22 .

[XenoAlbedo]

I didn't want to do this but Tali wants to state her opinion on these annoying arguments.