9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...

webhead921 wrote...

I honestly hope that the "synthesis turns everyone into husks" and IT crowd will finally be silenced.

I made an addition.

It's bigger than LotSB. Did you see the graph they made?

Where did you get that from? Link please.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 juin 2012 - 06:26 .

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

webhead921 wrote...

I honestly hope that the "synthesis turns everyone into husks" and IT crowd will finally be silenced.

I made an addition.

It's bigger than LotSB. Did you see the graph they made?

Where did you get that from? Link please.

Behold.

I suppose you want me to dig up the image of the Geth as well. With the maskless Quarian.

[Taboo]

Behold. Right click and hit view image. Is that a green light I see?

[Nimrodell]

lillitheris wrote...

Dunno. Again, the personal part of it doesn’t matter because I’m concerned about everyone else. For all intents and purposes, we could stipulate that Shepard dies in Control, or is horribly tortured for all eternity. That’s irrelevant for this discussion, because I‘m asking you about the effects on the tens of billions of people that are NOT Shepard.

I am not sure if there as a genuine misunderstanding about what a defined effect is, or if you’re deliberately obfuscating the issue. Unknown is not unknowable. Destroy and Control can be reasoned about. The possibilities and threats they present, while unknown far in the future, are not mystical. They’re familiar possibilities, and threats.

The galactic scale, again, is well-defined. As you insist, we take the Catalyst at its word. The Catalyst says that Shepard controls the Reapers. This is pretty clear. Whether it’s Shepard, an AI modeled after Shepard, or some even less sophisticated system, somehow a being with Shepard’s qualities and morals will exert control over the Reapers. Whether Shepard just makes them fly in the dark space, or makes them an active guardian force, or use it to make humanity a superpower — all that is irrelevant. Those depend on the Shepard, but they each are clear, comprehensible paths. There is no indication given that Shepard would at any point lose control, or become less Shepardy.

However, if it should be that the Catalyst is incorrect and in 100 years the Shepard AI goes crazy and directs the Reapers to attack people — so be it. It’s a known threat. There’s nothing mystical about it.

Or maybe Shepard loses control. Then the Reaper threat is back, presumably. Again, nothing mystical about it.

All these things are unknowns, but they are well-defined, and they can be reasoned about, reacted to, etc. In contrast, you have absolutely no information about Synthesis.

I think we have different opinion of what can be considered as well-defined. I'm not deliberately obfuscating the issue - the second Catalyst says - you'll loose everything you have - I'll see situation that is not well-defined - what will I loose, my mind, my emotions, or perhaps it's cheesy phrase that tells me I'll loose the ones I love. In destroy it'll feed me with you could or it might happen - nothing defined in those. I am person that is actually concerned for everyone, trying to save everyone, same as you are, we just have different opinions on how it should be done. Take of that what you will. Just please, don't say I don't provide evidence because I did provide those in same amount you did or perhaps even more. Only one thing keeps confusing me, if I can accept your reasoning and your choice without any accusation so far, why can't you do the same, at least try to see it all from my perspective if my perspective is so important.

lillitheris wrote...

Why should you take Catalyst's words for granted in that choice and differently in synthesis

Where am I taking words differently? You are the one(s) insisting on various non-literal interpretations of its words (without any corroborating proof, of course). My scenario works either way, so long as the same standard is applied to all three choices. It seems that it is you who uses different standards.

This is the first time I see you truly twisting someone's words - tell me, where, at what point I've used different standards? When I said that all three choices should be taken for granted not just two or one that are convenient to us, I was thinking along well-defined choices and outcomes. I stated many times, none of the choices is well-defined and I did say what I consider not defined, even now I said it, while answering the previous. All three choices imply risk, all three choices are unknown because Catalyst itself present 'em as such. Do I need to go sentence by sentence in order to make you at least less distrustful while talking to me? My intentions while talking to people here are truly honest, no back thoughts and so far I was the one justifying myself to you (even though there's no real need for that, I mean, you are not in my Shepard's universe nor are you owner of my copy ), why don't you justify yourself to us for your choices? I'm kidding, there's no need for such BS, because, honestly, I'm fine with whatever you choose and think. The important thing for me is - either accept that there are other perspectives or at least, try to talk to me without thinking I'm trying to do something deliberately. Honestly, all I said before is what I really think .

lillitheris wrote...

yes, I'd choose that like I did already and I gave the reasons.

I saw reasons for why you think a headcanon version of Synthesis might be a good choice, if they happen to be correct — which you have no ability to predict. I was specifically asking you about the choice between an unknowable outcome, and a defined outcome.

Again, yes, I'd choose the same because my reasoning can't change that easily - I see all three choices, I can't predict anything for either of them and I am firm on that one - you'll loose everything you have or you might even destroy geth is not something that I consider as well-defined and predictable in the time of choosing. And I can't predict what will happen in synthesis either, the only thing I know for sure is that evolution is actually a mutation, that Catalyst is mean being that doesn't have compassion or the same understanding of life as I do and that I want true understanding between opposites - and that's it.

…

lillitheris wrote...I dunno. I’m just getting the distinct vibe that none of you are genuinely considering this at the correct scale.

Isn't it presumptuous statement? What is correct scale according to you? Can there be something defined like correct scale when survival of all organic species is at stake? Shall we start with big words and great speech bravados now? For me, correct scale is - save all you can and if it's possible give them better start - that's the only driving force for me, only correct scale when it comes to these choices and that's why accept all three choices as valid ones. And again, I'm not doing anything deliberately - this is what I am, indeed.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@lillitheris:
Consider the Catalyst's description of the rationale for the cycle and of Synthesis. If I took that at face value I would be unable to make a decision. To say nothing of "destroy the tube to trigger the superweapon". If you insist on taking the RP perspective, then you need to take all the circumstances into account.

Which circumstances? And what do you mean by ‘face value’ in this case? Completely literal interpretation?

But suppose these problems didn't exist.
Then, believing the Catalyst, there's a 99.9999....% or so chance of organics eventually being wiped out by synthetics if you choose Destroy, and I'd take the unknowns of Synthesis over that any day.

That’s a valid view.

I’d argue that the Catalyst being truthful doesn’t mean that it’s correct, and it absolutely doesn’t mean that the Catalyst’s proposed solution would work. Even with several months of time to think about it (as opposed to ~10 minutes), nobody has been able to reason a way in which it actually would work to ensure that synthetics won’t wipe out the organics. “A better chance” isn’t really any better than Control (or, in my view, Destroy).

And, on the other hand, if we go with the idea that the Synthesis is an ‘ascension’ or ‘higher level of being’ or however you term it, and thus unknowable…then the Catalyst would have no way of making predictions about it, invalidating that argument.

Synthesis is the way to make intelligent life more resilient and more capable in the face of future threats with similar capabilities like the Reapers.

This, however, is where you hop off the standard train. This is purely conjecture, and also deviates from what the Catalyst is actually saying.

[antares_sublight]

The caption is: "The complex sequence of logic for the Extended Cut."
Note the green box to the left, that's as far as the logic for Synthesis gets.

[Taboo]

More work was put into that graph that anything else in the ending.

Astounding.

[Taboo]

Also, Ieldra.

The file size is 1.9 GB.

LotSB was 1.6 GB.

[webhead921]

I am so pumped for the extended cut. These images look promising!

[lillitheris]

Nimrodell wrote...

I think we have different opinion of what can be considered as well-defined.

Obviously. You are hedging against things that you don’t know for certain beforehand. I’m hedging against things that cannot be known.

I'm not deliberately obfuscating the issue - the second Catalyst says - you'll loose everything you have - I'll see situation that is not well-defined - what will I loose, my mind, my emotions, or perhaps it's cheesy phrase that tells me I'll loose the ones I love.

Sure, but that’s you being concerned about yourself. It’s absolutely a valid concern, but that’s not the correct scale in the question that I propose. You’re sacrificing yourself in some manner, that‘s what happens.

Only one thing keeps confusing me, if I can accept your reasoning and your choice without any accusation so far, why can't you do the same, at least try to see it all from my perspective if my perspective is so important.

I see it from your perspective, I think. I just don’t think that it’s broad enough in this particular case, as evidenced by your hedging against Control above. Please note that this is in no way a slight against you…we all have cognitive biases. I’m inviting you to try to examine yours, and the reasons why you’re choosing something that you can know nothing about over something that you can reason about but can’t predict 100%.

This is the first time I see you truly twisting someone's words - tell me, where, at what point I've used different standards?

First of all, you accused me of using ‘different standards’, even though I’ve consistently said that either things should be interpreted literally or metaphorically. If you get to say that some things the Catalyst is saying about Synthesis are metaphorical, then it’s a different standard from the other two options if you do not apply the same there.

I did not mean to say that you were trying to lie, only that I saw the situation as being exactly the opposite. I’m sorry.

I'm kidding, there's no need for such BS, because, honestly, I'm fine with whatever you choose and think.

That’s great, but this thread’s purpose is to prove how Synthesis is a good choice in comparison to the others. By definition, that absconds the neutrality.

The important thing for me is - either accept that there are other perspectives or at least, try to talk to me without thinking I'm trying to do something deliberately. Honestly, all I said before is what I really think .

Thank you for that. It’s hard to find debates in which one or both parties are not dishonestly representing their side.

Again, yes, I'd choose the same because my reasoning can't change that easily - I see all three choices, I can't predict anything for either of them and I am firm on that one

This is where I invite you to re-examine your assumptions. I am not sure how I can explain it any better, but I think there is a very clear and definite difference between outcomes that you can reason about, but can’t predict completely accurately (C/D), and outcomes that you have no ability to reason about at all.

I can’t think of a good analogy, either, because by definition I can only think of things that I can reason about…

Modifié par lillitheris, 22 juin 2012 - 06:58 .

[Taboo]

Heh, that's the fun here. Who knows what will happen.

Cautious.Cautious.

I think it would better if they just showed Synthesis happening and showing that it doesn't morph people. If they decide it mixes DNA. Nothing will save you.

[lillitheris]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I think it would better if they just showed Synthesis happening and showing that it doesn't morph people. If they decide it mixes DNA. Nothing will save you.

Sure, I can think of many ways to improve the outcome. I’m mostly interested in the decision, however, which the outcome doesn’t affect.

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Consider the Catalyst's description of the rationale for the cycle and of Synthesis. If I took that at face value I would be unable to make a decision. To say nothing of "destroy the tube to trigger the superweapon". If you insist on taking the RP perspective, then you need to take all the circumstances into account.

Which circumstances? And what do you mean by ‘face value’ in this case? Completely literal interpretation?

The circumstances of your decision, the way you implement them and the believability of that way, If you imagine yourself in that situation - shoot the tubes to activate the superweapon, use the conveniently human-compatible controls to enact Control - it appears like an insane dream, right? I can actually understand why people came up with IT, being unable or unwilling to leave the RP perspective. And "at face value" means a literal interpretation, yes. The rationale of synthetics eradicating organics at some point doesn't work without further exposition and the description of Synthesis is incoherent. But: the Catalyst as an insane genocidal ghost who doesn't really know what it's doing and talking about? Well, *that* certainly breaks my suspension of disbelief more thoroughly than any other possible interpretation. It forces me to the out-of-world perspective. I grant it may be different for you, but I can't play on using that perspective.

lillitheris wrote...
And, on the other hand, if we go with the idea that the Synthesis is an ‘ascension’ or ‘higher level of being’ or however you term it, and thus unknowable…then the Catalyst would have no way of making predictions about it, invalidating that argument.

It may be incomprehensible for us, but not for the Catalyst. And "unknowable" is a pretty big claim that I wouldn't lightly make about anything at all.

Besides, if we're talking about the leaked script version, there's the statement "...a path you've already started down". We'd get there eventually on our own, if we had the time. Unknown as the future is, it's implied we'd get there if we could avoid being eradicated by synthetics before we get there. I'm just speeding the process up. 

Synthesis is the way to make intelligent life more resilient and more capable in the face of future threats with similar capabilities like the Reapers.

This, however, is where you hop off the standard train. This is purely conjecture, and also deviates from what the Catalyst is actually saying.

You forgot to quote quite a few relevant things from my reply. This among others:

"Instead, he sees his preference for Synthesis vindicated by....his own existence and success. Without Miranda's biosynthetic fusion, the galaxy would have fallen to the Reapers."

In Cyrus Shepard's eyes, his being a biosynthetic made it possible to end the Reaper threat. The Catalyst alludes to this when it says "even you are partly synthetic". Of course it's still a risk banking on the interpretation that connects this statement with Synthesis, but Shepard being some sort of model for the change is very much hinted at by the Catalyst when it says "everything you are will be absorbed and then sent out". Also that's where roleplaying comes in. My Shepards aren't just strategy machines, and they certainly aren't wedded to the most expedient or safe choice in everything. Choosing Synthesis is a completely valid and in-character culmination of Cyrus Shepard's story.   

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 juin 2012 - 07:35 .

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
Heh, that's the fun here. Who knows what will happen.

Cautious.Cautious.

I think it would better if they just showed Synthesis happening and showing that it doesn't morph people. If they decide it mixes DNA. Nothing will save you.

I think it would be best to leave the actual outcome largely unknown, but give the Catalyst a coherent description. The leaked script is pretty good. "A path you've already started down" implies that would happen anyway, "So...we'll just go on living, together" and "we synthetics will become more like you, and organics will become like us" are hint enough for me as to where this is going.

The closure scenes of the EC will do the rest. Hopefully. Just four more days of waiting...

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The circumstances of your decision, the way you implement them and the believability of that way, If you imagine yourself in that situation - shoot the tubes to activate the superweapon, use the conveniently human-compatible controls to enact Control - it appears like an insane dream, right?

I see. For purposes of having a discussion it must be assumed that these are valid choices.

lillitheris wrote...
And, on the other hand, if we go with the idea that the Synthesis is an ‘ascension’ or ‘higher level of being’ or however you term it, and thus unknowable…then the Catalyst would have no way of making predictions about it, invalidating that argument.

It may be incomprehensible for us, but not for the Catalyst. And "unknowable" is a pretty big claim that I wouldn't lightly make about anything at all.

Wait…how does an unascended — and non-hybrid — being know what the ascension is like? I will concede that it’s a valid assumption to make from an RP POV that it does. Unfounded, but valid.

Besides, if we're talking about the leaked script version, there's the statement "...a path you've already started down". We'd get there eventually on our own, if we had the time. Unknown as the future is, it's implied we'd get there if we could avoid being eradicated by synthetics before we get there. I'm just speeding the process up. 

…Er, that’d invalidate your objection to Destroy and Control about the inevitable destruction. The entire problem that the Catalyst is purporting to ‘solve’. Which is probably why it was cut.

Synthesis is the way to make intelligent life more resilient and more capable in the face of future threats with similar capabilities like the Reapers.

This, however, is where you hop off the standard train. This is purely conjecture, and also deviates from what the Catalyst is actually saying.

You forgot to quote quite a few relevant things from my reply. This among others:

"Instead, he sees his preference for Synthesis vindicated by....his own existence and success. Without Miranda's biosynthetic fusion, the galaxy would have fallen to the Reapers."

In Cyrus Shepard's eyes, his being a biosynthetic made it possible to end the Reaper threat. …

I don’t feel those are relevant. I’m objecting to you ‘knowing’ things about the end result of Synthesis.

I suppose Cyrus can think he knows, of course…but that kinda sucks for everybody affected by the decision. Still, making a (potentially) misguided decision is RP, of course.

Modifié par lillitheris, 22 juin 2012 - 07:49 .

[Ieldra]

No, I don't RP my Shepard as thinking he knows the exact results. He thinks he can be reasonably confident in certain parameters, but he's very much aware that he's taking a jump into unknown territory. He does it anyway, for much the same reasons pointed out by several people on the last few pages.

Edit:
The "path we've already started down" doesn't invalidate the objection to Destroy, because I can assume we won't be given the time to get there. But I agree it would make Control almost a canonical choice, since this is exactly the choice where you hedge your bets and try to find a new solution on your own, or keeping synthetics in check until organics have found the means to keep up.

Edit2:
You're taking "ascension" in a different way than I do. As I see it, it's not a singular occurence, there's no "higher plane of existence" involved. I'm interpreting it more like "gaining one of many possible levels in capability and understanding by passing a certain threshold that requires specific means to pass". Compare the background used by the Orion's Arm project: they have a hierarchy of seven (possibly more) tiers separated from each other by thresholds passed by experiencing singularity-type events. The first stage actually involves integrating what would be called synthetic aspects in the ME universe, but keeping the existing morphology.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 juin 2012 - 08:09 .

[Shaigunjoe]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Also, Ieldra.

The file size is 1.9 GB.

LotSB was 1.6 GB.

Unfortunatly the xboxlive limit is 2 gigs, be nice if it was larger. Bet the PC players hate that is is being limited by live.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 22 juin 2012 - 08:11 .

[antares_sublight]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Also, Ieldra.

The file size is 1.9 GB.

LotSB was 1.6 GB.

Unfortunatly the xboxlive limit is 2 gigs, be nice if it was larger. Bet the PC players hate that is is being limited by live.

Like someone else said, 1.9GB for 16 endings. LotSB was 1.6GB for one ending.

[lillitheris]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Also, Ieldra.

The file size is 1.9 GB.

LotSB was 1.6 GB.

Unfortunatly the xboxlive limit is 2 gigs, be nice if it was larger. Bet the PC players hate that is is being limited by live.

Oh, there are so many things limited by consoles for us to hate. This barely makes a blip.

[Shaigunjoe]

lillitheris wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Also, Ieldra.

The file size is 1.9 GB.

LotSB was 1.6 GB.

Unfortunatly the xboxlive limit is 2 gigs, be nice if it was larger. Bet the PC players hate that is is being limited by live.

Oh, there are so many things limited by consoles for us to hate. This barely makes a blip.

Hahah, good point!  I have a really good PC now, but back when ME was released, I did not, so I have played through the entire series on the xbox. 

[Nimrodell]

lillitheris wrote...

This is where I invite you to re-examine your assumptions. I am not sure how I can explain it any better, but I think there is a very clear and definite difference between outcomes that you can reason about, but can’t predict completely accurately (C/D), and outcomes that you have no ability to reason about at all.

I can’t think of a good analogy, either, because by definition I can only think of things that I can reason about…

I did re-examine my assumptions and I think I can give you a valid answer now. It's tied to what I do for living - I'm professor of literature (comparative and national) and Serbian language and for that matter, I'm very good in what I do . One of the things I do is interpretation of literary works and while doing that I use wide specter of methods, but in these cases that can be also a curse, because unintentionally I'm capable of seeing skeleton of the story, mechanics that were used while building it, it's very flesh and the possible pathways story will take. I specialized in what Michail Bachtin calls 'prodigia', chronotop, Paul Riker's types of time, as well in types of narration and types of narrators themselves. That's why I mentioned the pattern I saw but it was really late last night, so the whole explanation seemed rather confusing and I had to grab some sleep because I have two vampires that wake me up really early every morning.

While destroy and control have strong ground and probability in Mass Effect scifi universe (hell, even now scientists are considering mind-uploading possibility after quantum computer is built, and they are actually mapping neurons in human brain, so yes, control has strong ground), synthesis looks really out of place in world such is Mass Effect, but it's actually from something that we usually don't consider initially in scifi genre (just look at Star Trek, it took New Generation in order to invoke questions about faith itself). Mass Effect is indeed story about 'false' messiah and coming of the new order to things. In stories like that one, messiah and his/hers followers have to prove themselves by taking a leap of faith (just imagine how it was for poor Tom and Paul when they discovered that Jesus is actually live and kicking, after all, Tom got himself pretty good nickname and we know for sure that even Jesus doubted in one moment, before he died on the cross).

Mass Effect is filled with with such archetypes and stories about mortal heroes, alone or even spurned by everyone beating the odds against the omnipotent unknown being, making final pacts, thus bringing the new order to living (for example, even Tolkien was toying with that idea with Arda Re-made concept - there will be time when Eru will decide to bring forth Morgoth to final judgement for his transgressions, he'll raise from the dead Hurin and Turin to bring justice upon Morgoth and then finally elves and men will become the same, as it was intended in first song and vision - that's what all firstborn hope for, that's their esthel). Even in John's Revelation, the final outcome after so many horrible things inflicted by the purge of Earth that is marred, so much death and destruction, when messiah comes down for the second time, all those righteous mortals that are left alive or risen again, become the same - no differences anymore, no concept of race, nationality, social class - the new order, Earth healed (new Jerusalem from the heavens) - and mortals need that leap of faith in order to achieve that and it's kinda hard for us nowadays to actually believe in that and we would surely argue on God's way to purge the Earth and finally destroy Lucifer.

Seeing the previous pattern, seeing the archetypes that were used in building Shepard's story, the offer of synthesis actually resembled very much to that leap of faith - Catalyst, unknown being that is potent, being of ruthless calculus that we can't understand - that being is not acting from our system of values and knowledge - is actually acknowledging that this time is different and that new order of things is required - and it's not about being an enemy, or immoral, it's not even concerned with such things because it's different existence and type of perceiving things - chaos and order - on a space scale, we're not even what might be considered a blink of an eye and yet, it acknowledge the need for change. According to my personal beliefs, experience and practical knowledge about basic functions in stories, I decide to make that leap of faith. This is the best answer I can give in such 'short' form required for forum post. There's much to be said and I could quote many stories and show this mechanic, I could even go that far and use Prop's or Cvetanov's typology of basic character functions used in fairy tales that ascended into other literary genres, especially slipstream ones, but that would do no good. I just hope you'll be satisfied with my answer or at least find it interesting enough to read .

Edit: stupid typo.

Modifié par Nimrodell, 22 juin 2012 - 09:07 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

No, I don't RP my Shepard as thinking he knows the exact results. He thinks he can be reasonably confident in certain parameters, but he's very much aware that he's taking a jump into unknown territory. He does it anyway, for much the same reasons pointed out by several people on the last few pages.

…But my point is that he can’t be confident in said parameters. It can’t be unknowable if that’s the case. That means there should be something that can be reasoned about in Synthesis.

Edit:
The "path we've already started down" doesn't invalidate the objection to Destroy, because I can assume we won't be given the time to get there.

I’ll certainly concede that you can opine that the chance of survival is not increased enough by it. It does invalidate Catalyst’s lemma, which is that synthetics will inevitably destroy organics.

But I agree it would make Control almost a canonical choice, since this is exactly the choice where you hedge your bets and try to find a new solution on your own, or keeping synthetics in check until organics have found the means to keep up.

Yes. In this case, would it not be sensible to do this and obtain more information about the unknown? Hell, you could maybe reconstruct the Citadel (I think it’s implied that it actually doesn’t get destroyed, but I’m not certain) and the Crucible, and reinitiate Synthesis at any time!

It’d be a no-brainer choice over Synthesis — when you consider that it’s not just your own life at stake, it’s everyone’s — to take some time to research, get opinions, etc.

You're taking "ascension" in a different way than I do. As I see it, it's not a singular occurence, there's no "higher plane of existence" involved. I'm interpreting it more like "gaining one of many possible levels in capability and understanding by passing a certain threshold that requires specific means to pass".

I see…if you go with this, then it would only be a question of the Catalyst’s infallibility — and your estimate about what exactly it thinks is an acceptable form of life for organics (again, not a strong track record if we assume the Reapers are enslaved hiveminds…)

[Shaigunjoe]

antares_sublight wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Also, Ieldra.

The file size is 1.9 GB.

LotSB was 1.6 GB.

Unfortunatly the xboxlive limit is 2 gigs, be nice if it was larger. Bet the PC players hate that is is being limited by live.

Like someone else said, 1.9GB for 16 endings. LotSB was 1.6GB for one ending.

Well, that has nothing to do with the statement I did make, but I'll bite.

It is an unfair comparison, as LotSB had gameplay and what not included with the package.  They probably are able to reuse a lot of art assists for locations in the EC that they couldn't do for LotSB.  2 Gigs is a lot, thats more than 25% of an xbox disc.

I will save further discussion on this for another thread, as this is not the place for it.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 22 juin 2012 - 08:31 .

[lillitheris]

That’s a very interesting view — and interesting post — Nimrodell. It’s so good that I am loath to point out that it’s completely OOC or metagaming.

Again, I certainly have no grudge against anyone who in their own game chooses whatever it is they choose. I just do not see the in-character justification for the choice, if we compare the three options.

[Ieldra]

@lillitheris:
Leaving now, I just wanted to say that this was a much more interesting debate than most we've had in this thread. Trying to bring the RP perspective in line with the storytelling perspective is something I see as a worthwhile endeavor, even though in the end we'll likely have to agree to disagree. As for Control, it's actually *shown* that the Citadel isn't destroyed. You see the arms closing after the Crucible has done its job.