171 réponses à ce sujet

[esideras]

I want the dialogue option "Harbinger?" -> Shepard: "Harbinger is that you?" Starbrat: "...Dammit!"

[Reofeir]

CavScout wrote...

Aurora313 wrote...

My Shepard would have questioned every factor. In the previous incarnations, he questioned everything, strung together facts before making judgement. Starchild just constantly contradicts itself.

No he didn't. Occasionaly you'd get an "Investigate" option on the left but in the end, the two or three choices on the right were usually same.

To be honest; just something I wanted to bring up: In Mass Effect 1 I hated, HATED, sounding like a idiot to the council by disagreeing with them with just a "vision" I had. I would of more or less said "Fine, whatever. I'll go find saren and stop his plan." but no I'm forced into beleiving the reapers are real...sure that be great if I knew who the reapers were in the first place besides what some geth thought. So in my eyes I just controlled how shepard can react...with him not being "my shepard" mostly due to that. 

Anywys, to what Auroa said; Well sure you can make judgements in your head, and then decide by your final choice (RGB) on what you think is right. Sure, more choices to tell him he was wrong (with him telling you you have to anyways) would of been nice, but the final choice *might* relfect who your shepard is.

[CronoDragoon]

Zenor wrote...

but the final choice *might* relfect who your shepard is.

Oh, absolutely. I have no doubt. I can only really speak for myself when I say it does not; it just so happens a lot of people agree with me. It's why people think range of choice is a problem.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 28 mars 2012 - 04:33 .

[CaliGuy033]

CronoDragoon wrote...

CavScout wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote..

CavScout wrote...
You completely missed his point. You never played Shep the way you wanted to. You have only played Shep the way BioWare allowed you to play him.

I didn't miss his point. In most dialogue wheels, there was an option that represented a basic personality. Hero, anti-hero, and a couple shades in between. It's what the Paragon/Renegade system is based on. Bioware does indeed shape how that basic character progresses in the game, but the ending does not fit this narrative of how the dialogue choices have shaped the general "idea" of your Shepard's personality in the past.

You are misremembering how much control you ever had in the ME saga.

Without you providing examples, I can only say you are wrong.

I gotta agree with him, I'm afraid.  The idea that you can really shape your character in some significant way is pretty much illusory.  Sure, you have the chance to make some choices, but the majority of the game is scripted, and for every choice you have, there's 50 more moments where you're on a completely predefined path.  And it's that way by necessity--you can't make a true "Choose Your Own Adventure" game with the limited resources you have (both human and technological) to make a video game.

Modifié par CaliGuy033, 28 mars 2012 - 04:34 .

[Zyrious]

Baronesa wrote...

Zenor wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Would it listen? I don't know.
Would Shepard try? HELL YES.

But he injured...and before the kid stated his choices, it did sound like shepard was disagreeing. Just at that spot he was listening to what the "kid" had to say. Obviously he can overall disagree with the destroy choice, or agree with synthesis or agree with the illusive man's plot the whole time. Is the only reason people are saying shepard is agreeing because he was listening to the options he had?

Because those are the "solutions" proposed by the catalyst... Shepard would not follow that, would defy them or find a new solution on her own.

By accepting the solutions proposed by the Catalyst, that are made by adhering to it's logic, then Shepard is accepting the justification for the whole genocidal cycle

The destroy option isnt part of the catalyst's plans. It is the original function of the Crucible, as you see in all of the intel reports. The possibility of collateral is acknowledged throughout the game. When you pick destroy, your shepard is sticking to his original plan. While i wish dialogue wise you could tell off the kid, by picking destroy you are still doing just that. Destroy is not his choice, he is just trying to stop you by rubbing the collateral in your face.

[Reofeir]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Zenor wrote...

but the final choice *might* relfect who your shepard is.

Oh, absolutely. I have no doubt. I can only really speak for myself when I say it does not; it just so happens a lot of people agree with me. It's why people think range of choice is a problem.

The range of choice might be a problem, of course. The fact you can't yell at the kids face can be a problem, of course. I just wanted to state that the fact people are saying you flat out agree with him, is not right in my opinion. I wanted to see why people thought that, and I got some good awnsers why. TO me it seems more of, like I said many times, "Should you trust him?" then "Do you agree with him" because you can easily disagree with him and pick the destroy option which bassicly goes against what he wants. He obviously wants synthesis, I mean look at he keeps talking about it! 

All i'm saying is, from what I see you don't agree with him, at least not about his thoughts about the created always killing the creators and such and such.
*Unless you pick synthesis, then you agree with him. You agree with the reapers! If you pick control...you're taking a heavy risk to save everyone else. Destroy just disagrees flat out.

Modifié par Zenor, 28 mars 2012 - 04:40 .

[CavScout]

CronoDragoon wrote...

CavScout wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote..

CavScout wrote...
You completely missed his point. You never played Shep the way you wanted to. You have only played Shep the way BioWare allowed you to play him.

I didn't miss his point. In most dialogue wheels, there was an option that represented a basic personality. Hero, anti-hero, and a couple shades in between. It's what the Paragon/Renegade system is based on. Bioware does indeed shape how that basic character progresses in the game, but the ending does not fit this narrative of how the dialogue choices have shaped the general "idea" of your Shepard's personality in the past.

You are misremembering how much control you ever had in the ME saga.

Without you providing examples, I can only say you are wrong.

Demanding I prove a negative is silly.

[admcmei]

It's blatantly out of character and people who are arguing are just grasping for straws. He/she totally submits to the flawed logic.
And (no one ever mentions it) I also hated the way he/she doesn't show any ****ing emotion about ****ing DYING. DYING. I don't care who you are, DYING is a big ****ing deal for ANYONE. Even Jesus ****ing Christ showed some emotion about DYING in the end, is Shepard less human than Jesus Christ??? The sacrifice she makes is already completetely meaningless and idiotic if you think about it for more than two minutes, to also make it so totally emotionless just makes it worse.

[CronoDragoon]

CaliGuy033 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

CavScout wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote..

CavScout wrote...
You completely missed his point. You never played Shep the way you wanted to. You have only played Shep the way BioWare allowed you to play him.

I didn't miss his point. In most dialogue wheels, there was an option that represented a basic personality. Hero, anti-hero, and a couple shades in between. It's what the Paragon/Renegade system is based on. Bioware does indeed shape how that basic character progresses in the game, but the ending does not fit this narrative of how the dialogue choices have shaped the general "idea" of your Shepard's personality in the past.

You are misremembering how much control you ever had in the ME saga.

Without you providing examples, I can only say you are wrong.

I gotta agree with him, I'm afraid.  The idea that you can really shape your character in some significant way is pretty much illusory.  Sure, you have the chance to make some choices, but the majority of the game is scripted, and for every choice you have, there's 50 more moments where you're on a completely predefined path.  And it's that way by necessity--you can't make a true "Choose Your Own Adventure" game with the limited resources you have (both human and technological) to make a video game.

You agree with him that the dialogue wheel does not have, in general, 4 options that represent Hero/Anti-hero/Both sides of the argument and that, by picking choices during the games based on these four options, you can develop a basic personality of your Shepard to the point of extrapolating based on hypothetical scenarios? Because that's what I said in the post you quoted.

[CavScout]

Aurora313 wrote...No he didn't. Occasionaly you'd get an "Investigate" option on the left but in the end, the two or three choices on the right were usually same.

Spinning on headcanon, but that's my point. He can't question the 'Starchilds' Logic. He just blatently accepts it. He can't ask 'why did you come to this conclusion when I've spent the entire game proving just how wrong you are'.

Because nothing you did in game can actually prove him wrong...

Modifié par CavScout, 28 mars 2012 - 04:46 .

[Reofeir]

admcmei wrote...

It's blatantly out of character and people who are arguing are just grasping for straws. He/she totally submits to the flawed logic.
And (no one ever mentions it) I also hated the way he/she doesn't show any ****ing emotion about ****ing DYING. DYING. I don't care who you are, DYING is a big ****ing deal for ANYONE. Even Jesus ****ing Christ showed some emotion about DYING in the end, is Shepard less human than Jesus Christ??? The sacrifice she makes is already completetely meaningless and idiotic if you think about it for more than two minutes, to also make it so totally emotionless just makes it worse.

The thing is you're *not* sumitting to his logic. Maybe you're agreeing with him to at least trust him about the choices your given, but the destroy choice goes against what he wants. He just makes it harder by telling you the consequence of losing the geth. (For geth haters, PERFECT ENDING...for geth lovers...hardest choice ever.)
TO me synthesis is agreeing with them, since the whole option is based off their logic really.
Control is just a way out of control, but the risk that the reapers could come back if you fail...but in short term it's good.
I'm not really grasping for straws, I know the flaws about the ending (opinion not mattering). This, however, I don't think is correct as I don't think you actually agree with him.

[CavScout]

admcmei wrote...
It's blatantly out of character and people who are arguing are just grasping for straws. He/she totally submits to the flawed logic.

Shep isn't acting out of character. And the logic is not flawed. It is actually logic laid out in ME1.

Hell, I'd argue that "my" Shep was far more out of character working with Cerbrus in ME2.

And (no one ever mentions it) I also hated the way he/she doesn't show any ****ing emotion about ****ing DYING. DYING. I don't care who you are, DYING is a big ****ing deal for ANYONE. Even Jesus ****ing Christ showed some emotion about DYING in the end, is Shepard less human than Jesus Christ??? The sacrifice she makes is already completetely meaningless and idiotic if you think about it for more than two minutes, to also make it so totally emotionless just makes it worse.

I never took Shep to be a wuss....

[Aurora313]

[quote]CavScout wrote...



[quote]Aurora313 wrote...No he didn't. Occasionaly you'd get an "Investigate" option on the left but in the end, the two or three choices on the right were usually same.[/quote]

Spinning on headcanon, but that's my point. He can't question the 'Starchilds' Logic. He just blatently accepts it. He can't ask 'why did you come to this conclusion when I've spent the entire game proving just how wrong you are'.

[/quote]

Because nothing you did in game can actually prove him wrong...[/quote]

So... I didn't broker peace between the Quarrians and the Geth. EDI is secretly plotting to kill Joker and everyone else in the galaxy is she? I didn't demonstrate that they can work together and make peace with each other?

You know, the very thing that Catalyst said was impossible.

Modifié par Aurora313, 28 mars 2012 - 04:49 .

[CronoDragoon]

Zenor wrote...

 Maybe you're agreeing with him to at least trust him about the choices your given

Yeah, this is really my problem, although it sort of becomes a meta issue since this is just a sub-problem of the problem that the writers believed these were the correct choices to give the Catalyst to give to you.

[admcmei]

Zenor wrote...

admcmei wrote...

It's blatantly out of character and people who are arguing are just grasping for straws. He/she totally submits to the flawed logic.
And (no one ever mentions it) I also hated the way he/she doesn't show any ****ing emotion about ****ing DYING. DYING. I don't care who you are, DYING is a big ****ing deal for ANYONE. Even Jesus ****ing Christ showed some emotion about DYING in the end, is Shepard less human than Jesus Christ??? The sacrifice she makes is already completetely meaningless and idiotic if you think about it for more than two minutes, to also make it so totally emotionless just makes it worse.

The thing is you're *not* sumitting to his logic. Maybe you're agreeing with him to at least trust him about the choices your given, but the destroy choice goes against what he wants. He just makes it harder by telling you the consequence of losing the geth. (For geth haters, PERFECT ENDING...for geth lovers...hardest choice ever.)
TO me synthesis is agreeing with them, since the whole option is based off their logic really.
Control is just a way out of control, but the risk that the reapers could come back if you fail...but in short term it's good.
I'm not really grasping for straws, I know the flaws about the ending (opinion not mattering). This, however, I don't think is correct as I don't think you actually agree with him.

When you shape the whole future of the galaxy based on something somone says and die without a second thought in the process? That's some commitment. Yeah, I'd say that's called agreeing or submitting.

[Reofeir]

[quote]CavScout wrote...

[quote]Aurora313 wrote...No he didn't. Occasionaly you'd get an "Investigate" option on the left but in the end, the two or three choices on the right were usually same.[/quote]

Spinning on headcanon, but that's my point. He can't question the 'Starchilds' Logic. He just blatently accepts it. He can't ask 'why did you come to this conclusion when I've spent the entire game proving just how wrong you are'.[/quote]

Because nothing you did in game can actually prove him wrong...[/quote]
With his logic you can never really prove him wrong.
The created were just about to destroy their creators. The geth did seem willing to do it, even if it was to protect themselves.
EDI sounds like she is willing to fight against cerberus and the illusive man...
Even if you temporarly fixed a problem, it could still happen. Thus the machine is always right int his case. You can't really argue with it. It would be nice to, and I would want to, but the awnser might just be him still disagreeing. 
Also: This discussion isn't really about the proof that can prove them wrong, but it's mostly about does shepard actually *agree* with their logic is what I'm debating. 

[CronoDragoon]

CavScout wrote...

Aurora313 wrote...No he didn't. Occasionaly you'd get an "Investigate" option on the left but in the end, the two or three choices on the right were usually same.

Spinning on headcanon, but that's my point. He can't question the 'Starchilds' Logic. He just blatently accepts it. He can't ask 'why did you come to this conclusion when I've spent the entire game proving just how wrong you are'.

Because nothing you did in game can actually prove him wrong...

Nothing you did in the game proves him right, either. But you do have evidence to the contrary, and you can't use this evidence against his word, which is a problem.

[CavScout]

Aurora313 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Because nothing you did in game can actually prove him wrong...

So... I didn't broker peace between the Quarrians and the Geth. EDI is secretly plotting to kill Joker and everyone else in the galaxy is she? I didn't demonstrate that they can work together and make peace with each other?

What you accomplish in ME3 doesn't disprove the inevitability argument as laid out by the Catalyst and by Tali in ME1. You could argue at best, there is peace for the moement but like 1918's peace between Germany and France didn't prevent WWII, saying peace "now" means peace forever in ME3 is silly.

In the end, it wouldn't even matter. You have to stop the Reapers. At least there were three choices in ME3, that's more than in ME and ME2 when it came down to the end...

[CavScout]

CronoDragoon wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Because nothing you did in game can actually prove him wrong...

Nothing you did in the game proves him right, either. But you do have evidence to the contrary, and you can't use this evidence against his word, which is a problem.

There is the whole problem of Shep not being around for millions of years to observe what happens...

[admcmei]

 

And (no one ever mentions it) I also hated the way he/she doesn't show any ****ing emotion about ****ing DYING. DYING. I don't care who you are, DYING is a big ****ing deal for ANYONE. Even Jesus ****ing Christ showed some emotion about DYING in the end, is Shepard less human than Jesus Christ??? The sacrifice she makes is already completetely meaningless and idiotic if you think about it for more than two minutes, to also make it so totally emotionless just makes it worse.

I never took Shep to be a wuss....

That's such a superficial response. And here I thought Mass Effect was about three dimentional characters and not cliché action heroes.

Modifié par admcmei, 28 mars 2012 - 04:53 .

[Aurora313]

The Geth said themselves they did not want to destroy. They simply relalitated in self defence. If the Quarians hadn't made the first move, they'd be living side by said still. There'd be splinter-factions, sure, but not all geth would betray them. Hell, a large number of Quarians encouraged the geth to seek self-awareness before they were exiled.

[CavScout]

admcmei wrote...
That's such a superficial response. And here I thought Mass Effect was about three dimentional characters and not cliché action heroes.

What game have you been playing?

[CronoDragoon]

CavScout wrote...

Aurora313 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Because nothing you did in game can actually prove him wrong...

So... I didn't broker peace between the Quarrians and the Geth. EDI is secretly plotting to kill Joker and everyone else in the galaxy is she? I didn't demonstrate that they can work together and make peace with each other?

What you accomplish in ME3 doesn't disprove the inevitability argument as laid out by the Catalyst and by Tali in ME1. You could argue at best, there is peace for the moement but like 1918's peace between Germany and France didn't prevent WWII, saying peace "now" means peace forever in ME3 is silly.

In the end, it wouldn't even matter. You have to stop the Reapers. At least there were three choices in ME3, that's more than in ME and ME2 when it came down to the end...

There is a difference between "war" and "extermination of organic life." I sure as hell don't expect permanent peace between synthetics and organics, but the Catalyst is not shaping his solutions on the possibility of mere war.

Also, Tali herself changes her view of the geth pretty significantly over the series.

[Reofeir]

admcmei wrote...

Zenor wrote...

admcmei wrote...

It's blatantly out of character and people who are arguing are just grasping for straws. He/she totally submits to the flawed logic.
And (no one ever mentions it) I also hated the way he/she doesn't show any ****ing emotion about ****ing DYING. DYING. I don't care who you are, DYING is a big ****ing deal for ANYONE. Even Jesus ****ing Christ showed some emotion about DYING in the end, is Shepard less human than Jesus Christ??? The sacrifice she makes is already completetely meaningless and idiotic if you think about it for more than two minutes, to also make it so totally emotionless just makes it worse.

The thing is you're *not* sumitting to his logic. Maybe you're agreeing with him to at least trust him about the choices your given, but the destroy choice goes against what he wants. He just makes it harder by telling you the consequence of losing the geth. (For geth haters, PERFECT ENDING...for geth lovers...hardest choice ever.)
TO me synthesis is agreeing with them, since the whole option is based off their logic really.
Control is just a way out of control, but the risk that the reapers could come back if you fail...but in short term it's good.
I'm not really grasping for straws, I know the flaws about the ending (opinion not mattering). This, however, I don't think is correct as I don't think you actually agree with him.

When you shape the whole future of the galaxy based on something somone says and die without a second thought in the process? That's some commitment. Yeah, I'd say that's called agreeing or submitting.

Really you only agree to take what choices you're given as the truth. You can still, however, go against their wishes, their ideals, and what they think is the best choice. Thus you're disagreeing with them. 
This is again the problem of: Do you trust him to at least that point?

However the endings goes as follow:
If you agree with the reaper's ideals you're most likely going to go with synthesis.
If you agree with him on the terms of you can control the reapers, thus thinking that you can save people by losing your life, you might just go with control.
If you think he is wrong, and that those two options are stupid, go with the safest bet...destroy. It has a HEAVY price tag, but the galaxy is safe without any further risk beyond what you just did. *Excluding the galaxy being seperated delama which occurs no matter what*

So you're telling me that it doesn't sound like you disagree with the reapers in any of thsoe? Fine, I respect your opinion. I agree with many that we should of had more room to disagree; but those options to give me the choice to submit to what they offer, or disagree and destroy them forever with no threat anymore.

[Reofeir]

CronoDragoon wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Aurora313 wrote...No he didn't. Occasionaly you'd get an "Investigate" option on the left but in the end, the two or three choices on the right were usually same.

Spinning on headcanon, but that's my point. He can't question the 'Starchilds' Logic. He just blatently accepts it. He can't ask 'why did you come to this conclusion when I've spent the entire game proving just how wrong you are'.

Because nothing you did in game can actually prove him wrong...

Nothing you did in the game proves him right, either. But you do have evidence to the contrary, and you can't use this evidence against his word, which is a problem.

This is why his logic is up for so much debate, I really did wish we could have the option to say something against him so I can have some more context on why he thinks this way. We don't, so oh well. I'm working with what I have, and you can, in my opinion, disagree with him with a choice. Now if these choices were a choice anyone's shepard would make, is another discussion. Along with it's logic. I still stand on the fact you can at least disagree with his logic with destroy being the biggest disagreement with him.