55528 réponses à ce sujet

[HellishFiend]

Lord Goose wrote...

How would you have reacted if you were not given the
choice to destroy the reapers at all? You'd call BS
immediately, wouldnt you?

I understand your point, but I'm asking about different thing.
Basically, I need an explanation, why Reapers can't use willingness to destroy them as part of indoctrination, just as they have done it with desire to control them? Shepard could wake up as paranoid, who will screw everything up. Even if they want such outcome to the lesser extent.

Why desire to destroy them is incorruptible? I can clearly picture a way how the could use it for their own gain.

They actually used it, if Shepard killed first rachni queen, but was convinced with the promises of fake. She calims that she will fight and will destroy ''the machines'', but still ends up stabbing you in back.

You're losing me on these points. On the first one, I cant imagine how you're coming to the conclusion that symbolically picking Destroy in the decision chamber will cause Shepard to become stricken with paranoia in reality. 

And on the second bit, I fail to see how that applies at all, to be honest. Maybe you can explain it better so that I can properly reply, but as it stands, I dont even know what to say because I dont know what youre implying. 

[spotlessvoid]

Lord Goose wrote...

How would you have reacted if you were not given the
choice to destroy the reapers at all? You'd call BS
immediately, wouldnt you?

I understand your point, but I'm asking about different thing.
Basically, I need an explanation, why Reapers can't use willingness to destroy them as part of indoctrination, just as they have done it with desire to control them? Shepard could wake up as paranoid, who will screw everything up. Even if they want such outcome to the lesser extent.

Why desire to destroy them is incorruptible? I can clearly picture a way how the could use it for their own gain.

They actually used it, if Shepard killed first rachni queen, but was convinced with the promises of fake. She calims that she will fight and will destroy ''the machines'', but still ends up stabbing you in back.

You're point isn't contradictory to IT. You're just asking why destroy can't also be a bad option right?

Destroy is the good option because it's a video game and you need a way to win. Hence the breathing scene Easter egg/clue.

[HellishFiend]

Arian Dynas wrote...


I think it's more a debate of how it "Looks" to outsiders, you might not care, but some of us think that our credibility would be potentially hurt with that just hanging out for everyone to see, in a group discussion it's a bit more private and thus less potentially damaging to our reputation, since only we see it and we can't be accused of being crazy Jesus'-face-in-toast nutballs. I am not saying this is actually the case, but that is one way it could APPEAR. Does that make sense?

We have a difference of opinion on what "damages our credibility" and whether or not that even matters, so lets just leave it at that. People in this thread that I consider friends and comrades do things that I perceive as damaging to our credibility all the time. I tolerate it.  I've also called attention to it and been dismisssed, and I drop the subject if I'm asked to. Does that make sense?

[Arian Dynas]

HellishFiend wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...


I think it's more a debate of how it "Looks" to outsiders, you might not care, but some of us think that our credibility would be potentially hurt with that just hanging out for everyone to see, in a group discussion it's a bit more private and thus less potentially damaging to our reputation, since only we see it and we can't be accused of being crazy Jesus'-face-in-toast nutballs. I am not saying this is actually the case, but that is one way it could APPEAR. Does that make sense?

We have a difference of opinion on what "damages our credibility" and whether or not that even matters, so lets just leave it at that. People in this thread that I consider friends and comrades do things that I perceive as damaging to our credibility all the time. I tolerate it.  I've also called attention to it and been dismisssed, and I drop the subject if I'm asked to. Does that make sense?

I am not raising the spectre, I am merely attempting to give an explanation of someone else's position. Nothing more.

[HellishFiend]

Arian Dynas wrote...

I am not raising the spectre, I am merely attempting to give an explanation of someone else's position. Nothing more.

Fair enough.

[spotlessvoid]

Arian Dynas wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

@ Arian

I had actually brought the question of Shepard seeing the vision of TIM and Anderson choosing the options in the last thread. If the ending is meant to be taken at face value, then what exactly are those visions? Hallucinations? Out of game suggestions? Again, this new mechanic of visually displaying Shepard thoughts is never introduced prior to the ending, except dreams and beacon visions. Only if it's already in Shepards head would it make sense. Otherwise it's a cheap game mechanic that suddenly and momentarily changes the players perspective and destroys the immersion

I rather like Gunslinger's take on it, have a look a few posts above, I think he put it better than I could have.

Bingo gunslinger. I can't keep up with you guys on my phone.

[RavenEyry]

I'd say arguing about arguing damages our credibility more than any of the actual talking points.

[Arian Dynas]

RavenEyry wrote...

I'd say arguing about arguing damages our credibility more than any of the actual talking points.

Shut up, you're going to start an argument about arguing about arguing!

[RavenEyry]

Arian Dynas wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

I'd say arguing about arguing damages our credibility more than any of the actual talking points.

Shut up, you're going to start an argument about arguing about arguing!

"The only thing to argue is argument itself"

[HellishFiend]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Shut up, you're going to start an argument about arguing about arguing!

Once again I'm reminded of this image...

[Lord Goose]

to the conclusion that
symbolically picking Destroy in the decision chamber will
cause Shepard to become stricken with paranoia in reality.

Shepard wakes up after mental attack he managed to repel. But, how can he be sure, that everybody repelled such attack succesfully? There is no guarantee, so anyone could be indoctrinated. Any proposal could be part of Reapers trap. Any disagreement could be result of indoctrination.

I'm trying to say, that maybe indoctrination wasn't defeated even in Destroy? It could have been changed into more subtle version.

it's a video game and you need a way to win

Correct. Is where any logical reason, why desire to destroy them is completely worhtless for Reapers?

For me, that explanation kinda defeats the purpose of I. T. I mean, the point of I. T. what it doesn't relies on meta-references, right? You can't have breath scene with low ems, nor you can see it before finish the game.

[HellishFiend]

RavenEyry wrote...

"The only thing to argue is argument itself"

If that was the case, we wouldnt have software of any kind, because computers wouldnt be able to function. 

...computer science joke...sorry. 

[Arian Dynas]

Lord Goose wrote...

to the conclusion that
symbolically picking Destroy in the decision chamber will
cause Shepard to become stricken with paranoia in reality.

Shepard wakes up after mental attack he managed to repel. But, how can he be sure, that everybody repelled such attack succesfully? There is no guarantee, so anyone could be indoctrinated. Any proposal could be part of Reapers trap. Any disagreement could be result of indoctrination.

I'm trying to say, that maybe indoctrination wasn't defeated even in Destroy? It could have been changed into more subtle version.

it's a video game and you need a way to win

Correct. Is where any logical reason, why desire to destroy them is completely worhtless for Reapers?

For me, that explanation kinda defeats the purpose of I. T. I mean, the point of I. T. what it doesn't relies on meta-references, right? You can't have breath scene with low ems, nor you can see it before finish the game.

You silly goose.

[Arian Dynas]

HellishFiend wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

"The only thing to argue is argument itself"

If that was the case, we wouldnt have software of any kind, because computers wouldnt be able to function. 

...computer science joke...sorry. 

Whut? Sorry, I'm dumb, I don't get it 

[HellishFiend]

Lord Goose wrote...

I'm trying to say, that maybe indoctrination wasn't defeated even in Destroy? It could have been changed into more subtle version.

I suppose that could be left up to individual interpretation, but in that case I'd be inclined to believe that indoctrination is fully defeated if you pick Destroy. 

[Arian Dynas]

HellishFiend wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

I'm trying to say, that maybe indoctrination wasn't defeated even in Destroy? It could have been changed into more subtle version.

I suppose that could be left up to individual interpretation, but in that case I'd be inclined to believe that indoctrination is fully defeated if you pick Destroy. 

Considering that roughly 99% of their audience fell for it the first time, I don't think it could get much more subtle without going Andromeda strain on you.

[spotlessvoid]

You are a silly ****ing goose. Pwned. Stop asking the same question.
Destroying Reapers is the right choice. Period. They are a deadly threat. Living 101. Eliminate all deadly threats. Therefore, willful indoctrination denied Harbs!

[HellishFiend]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Whut? Sorry, I'm dumb, I don't get it 

In programming, an argument is a value passed on to a function. 

To use an analogy, lets say a "function" is eating food. 

An argument would be the thing that you eat. 

So an apple would be the argument that gets passed on to the function of eating. Thus the function of eating can be re-used for multiple purposes rather than having to make a brand new set of instructions for each thing you want to eat.

So if the only thing to argue was argument itself, a computer program wouldnt actually be able to do anything, because all you'd have would be a bunch of variables running into each other, accomplishing nothing. 

Or a fruit salad.  Maybe both. 

[HellishFiend]

spotlessvoid wrote...

You are a silly ****ing goose. Pwned. Stop asking the same question.
Destroying Reapers is the right choice. Period. They are a deadly threat. Living 101. Eliminate all deadly threats. Therefore, willful indoctrination denied Harbs!

Illusive Theory 101: Seek to gain power over and control all deadly threats. 

[Arian Dynas]

HellishFiend wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Whut? Sorry, I'm dumb, I don't get it 

In programming, an argument is a value passed on to a function. 

To use an analogy, lets say a "function" is eating food. 

An argument would be the thing that you eat. 

So an apple would be the argument that gets passed on to the function of eating. Thus the function of eating can be re-used for multiple purposes rather than having to make a brand new set of instructions for each thing you want to eat.

So if the only thing to argue was argument itself, a computer program wouldnt actually be able to do anything, because all you'd have would be a bunch of variables running into each other, accomplishing nothing. 

Or a fruit salad.  Maybe both. 

Yeaaaah... don't quit your day job.

Unless your audience consists exclusively of IT nerds (IT as in Information Technology, not, well this thread)

I suppose it could be worse, I have a tendency to make jokes about obscure historical facts and D&D concepts.

[Starbuck8]

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

*snip*
And as I have pointed out before, the Guardian never actually presents you with Destroy at all, Anderson does that by the sepia toned flash back thingy (which by the way, why have we never examined those? The fact alone that Shepard is seeing them should mean something is up.) and then the Guardian COMMENTS on it, saying how he knows you've thought about it.

I tried bringing those flash-forwards up earlier on in this thread but I think it got burried, or maybe I was reaching. Reposting, in response to dreamgazer:

dreamgazer wrote...

 
-- After watching the flashes of Anderson and The Illusive Man execute
their respective Crucible solutions, I'm still undecided on whether
Shepard manifests them on his/her own or whether the catalyst forces
them.  But the way FemShepard says "So, The Illusive Man was right", it
almost seems like she just finished watching a surprise flash before her
eyes that she couldn't control, or something. 

I'm glad you pointed this out, I didn't even think to question it.

As someone previously stated: Shepard's perspective is OUR perspective as the gamer, everything he/she sees is what we see.

When
those flashes happen, WE see Shepard see Anderson pick the red option,
Illusive Man pick the blue. Now, IF we are assuming Shepard's
perspective then it is hard to believe he/she would paint Anderson with a
red light and Illusive Man with paragon blue and not just some neutral
gray flashback color for both of them. Assuming that, we can almost say the Catalyst is showing us/Shepard this memory flash in which case we can almost say the Catalyst is inside our mind.

If
not, then these flashes/visions are ambigious things to put into
our/Shepards perspective/vision without further purpose other than to
show us what those choices will look like from an aesthetic viewpoint.

Are you guys seeing what I'm sayiing?

In
short: the flashforwards potentially show The Catalyst as being able to
PUT IDEAS into our/Shepard's head and not just pull images out of it
(i.e. the child for its physical appearance).

Quite insightful. I think it might be worth considering as well the fact that the synthesis option has no flash vision of someone using it.

To me it kinda feels like the game is saying destroy was Anderson's path, control was TIM's, but you're path is synthesis. Come on. Pick synthesis. In a literal interpretation this could indicate that BW set up synthesis as the "best" ending, but from an IT standpoint, it seems to enhance the deception, especially if you consider that these images are being put in your head by starbinger.

I dunno, I'm tired, but curious what other's interpretations may be.

[spotlessvoid]

Just remember:

WWAD?

[spotlessvoid]

Just in case anyone needs clarification, he'd kill him some Reapers

[HellishFiend]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Yeaaaah... don't quit your day job.

Unless your audience consists exclusively of IT nerds (IT as in Information Technology, not, well this thread)

I suppose it could be worse, I have a tendency to make jokes about obscure historical facts and D&D concepts.

Yeah, I got my IT's confused for a second there. Should work on properly dotting my i's and crossing my t's. 

*collective disgusted moan from the crowd*

...what?

[spotlessvoid]

Bioware is tired. Time for sleep