4520 réponses à ce sujet

[CroGamer002]

Plus, who cares what Reapers want?


Oh wait, they want to make us extinct.

So, screw that. Their opinion doesn't matter since our survival is at stake, due to them.

[The Angry One]

Seival wrote...

Well, I tried to help you to understand, and did everything I could... You just need more time to process that, I guess... Or you can just wait for EC to avoid deep-analize attempts. I'm sure that after EC release endings will be much easier to understand.

You don't get it do you?
It is not your job to get me to understand. It is the game's. The game has failed. It has failed because there is nothing to "understand".
You have not enlightened yourself, you are simply engaging in wishful thinking and used headcanon to get around the daft plot.

Sorry, that doesn't fly with me.
I detest this foolish illusion some people throw up, that the ending was simply too much for us to understand and the EC will explain all.
I will state again since you keep ignoring this simple fact: The EC will solve nothing, because it can't resolve the fundamental problem with control: Foreshadowing. As in, there is none.

The EC will not change the lack of foreshadowing.
The EC will not change that all pro-control characters have been crazy, indoctrinated or both.
The EC will not change that Shepard does not once express any interest in control throughout the game.
The EC will not change that nothing is shown to demonstrate that Shepard is at all qualified to control thousands of billion year old minds at the same time.

Unless, of course, the EC reworks the game from the ground up. But that's not going to happen.

[SwitchN7]

I will murder them and anything in my way every ****ing time! They deserve to be wiped out! Every playthrough.If i could  i would have put a bullet even in the Catalyst's brain No mercy.No compromise.None.

Modifié par SwitchN7, 31 mai 2012 - 03:18 .

[Jamie9]

Ha ha. Well of course you're not going to be satisfied if your expectations are that high!

With regards to foreshadowing; I think everything comes back to how weak a plot device the Crucible is. Since we don't have a clue what it does until 5 minutes before the end, we have no time to analyse anything, get opinions from our loyal friends and crew.

It's jarring in it's current state. But I'm not going to condemn the Extended Cut until I've played it. I maintain my optimism. You can say "I told you so." after it releases if you like.

[pistolols]

Taboo-XX wrote...

pistolols wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

I don't really think we should say Control = Paragon, Destroy = Renegade.

I think we should... and not just because of the colors... but because if you were to look at the crucible choices from the top down you would see that it is set up exactly like the dialogue wheel with the paragon choice being top right, renegade on the bottom and synthesis is the middle neutral choice.  It's a deliberate nod to the game by the developers.  Very cool how they did that.

Yes. What's even more cool is that green is a neutral color and it fills the void when used in paintings and films. Red is harsh and blue is calming.

I don't really assign much credence to them though, as I feel the colors are only there for convienience, as none of the choices are really ethical.

How is control not ethical when compared to destroy?  It is obviously the more ethical choice for the same reason throwing people in prison is more ethical than executing them.  That's why it's the paragon choice... we're taking care of the baddies without killing them.  It's exactly the sort of thing paragon shep is all about.  Don't believe me?  Replay Legion's loyalty mission in ME2.

And synthesis is only unethical if you're part of the bandwagon that has chosen to make a big deal out of it.  The bandwagon that apparently believes people should have a choice when it comes to their evolution, even though we have never had a choice in that before.  Personally i am a Control guy, but i feel the idea of synthesis is quite compelling for the same reasons the song "Imagine" by John Lennon is compelling.

[The Angry One]

Jamie9 wrote...

Ha ha. Well of course you're not going to be satisfied if your expectations are that high!

With regards to foreshadowing; I think everything comes back to how weak a plot device the Crucible is. Since we don't have a clue what it does until 5 minutes before the end, we have no time to analyse anything, get opinions from our loyal friends and crew.

Yes, the insipid Crucible mystery doesn't help matters. But hints are thrown in that it can be used for controlling the Reapers.
Therefore even with this they could've done better. Most importantly, have Shepard express an interest instead of completely agreeing with everyone who says the Reapers must be destroyed.

Wouldn't it be better to, say, have an argument with Hackett? Showcase the possible benefits of controlling the Reapers? Tension between allies? Potential conflict? Vindication at the end when Shepard can in fact do what they've wanted to do? Too videogamey?

It's jarring in it's current state. But I'm not going to condemn the Extended Cut until I've played it. I maintain my optimism. You can say "I told you so." after it releases if you like.

I'm not condemning the EC.
If I say the EC won't eliminate the common cold, this is not a condemnation. This is a statement of fact based on what the EC is designed to do. It is not designed to eliminate the common cold.
Similarily, the EC is not designed to alter the entire game. Which is what control needs to be a viable option. You can throw in all the last minute explanations you want, this will change nothing. Arguably, it'll make it worse.

pistolols wrote...

And synthesis is only unethical if
you're part of the bandwagon that has chosen to make a big deal out of
it.  The bandwagon that apparently believes people should have a choice
when it comes to their evolution, even though we have never had a choice
in that before.  Personally i am a Control guy, but i feel the idea of
synthesis is quite compelling for the same reasons the song "Imagine" by
John Lennon is compelling.

Newsflash: Synthesis is not evolution.
Moreover, evolution is not moral. Evolution is a reaction to enviroment. Nobody is making a choice, it's a generational process. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Synthesis is a direct alteration chosen by one person, and that freaking is immoral as hell, because that is a choice, imposed on the whole galaxy in the name of the Reapers.

Modifié par The Angry One, 31 mai 2012 - 03:25 .

[MegaSovereign]

The Angry One wrote...

Seival wrote...

Well, I tried to help you to understand, and did everything I could... You just need more time to process that, I guess... Or you can just wait for EC to avoid deep-analize attempts. I'm sure that after EC release endings will be much easier to understand.

You don't get it do you?
It is not your job to get me to understand. It is the game's. The game has failed. It has failed because there is nothing to "understand".
You have not enlightened yourself, you are simply engaging in wishful thinking and used headcanon to get around the daft plot.

Sorry, that doesn't fly with me.
I detest this foolish illusion some people throw up, that the ending was simply too much for us to understand and the EC will explain all.
I will state again since you keep ignoring this simple fact: The EC will solve nothing, because it can't resolve the fundamental problem with control: Foreshadowing. As in, there is none.

The EC will not change the lack of foreshadowing.
The EC will not change that all pro-control characters have been crazy, indoctrinated or both.
The EC will not change that Shepard does not once express any interest in control throughout the game.
The EC will not change that nothing is shown to demonstrate that Shepard is at all qualified to control thousands of billion year old minds at the same time.

Unless, of course, the EC reworks the game from the ground up. But that's not going to happen.

-The themes of control, destroy, and synthesis were foreshadowed in ME1 and ME2. For example, keeping/destroying the geth heretics is similar to Control/Destroy. Hell Legion/Shepard even talked about the ethics behind Control...

-The Catalyst was foreshadowed on Thessia.

-TIM was indoctrinated, but his logic was sound. Especially when he was talking to EDI during the Cerberus assault. The Reapers started to attack Sanctuary when they found out about TIM's plan to use indoctrination against them.


-It's called role-playing. Shepard didn't express any interest in keeping the collector base, but lo and behold you have the option to when new information is given to you.

-He's using the CRUCIBLE, the project with the billion year old blue-prints, to control the Reapers. The way you worded that statement makes it seem like he's using his god powers.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 31 mai 2012 - 03:32 .

[pistolols]

The Angry One wrote...

Newsflash: Synthesis is not evolution.
Moreover, evolution is not moral. Evolution is a reaction to enviroment. Nobody is making a choice, it's a generational process. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Synthesis is a direct alteration chosen by one person, and that freaking is immoral as hell, because that is a choice, imposed on the whole galaxy in the name of the Reapers.

It's an instant evolution.  No, it's not darwinian evolution, but it is an evolution none the less.  It's a process of change in a certain direction.

[Seival]

The Angry One wrote...

Seival wrote...

Well, I tried to help you to understand, and did everything I could... You just need more time to process that, I guess... Or you can just wait for EC to avoid deep-analize attempts. I'm sure that after EC release endings will be much easier to understand.

You don't get it do you?
It is not your job to get me to understand. It is the game's. The game has failed. It has failed because there is nothing to "understand".
You have not enlightened yourself, you are simply engaging in wishful thinking and used headcanon to get around the daft plot.

Sorry, that doesn't fly with me.
I detest this foolish illusion some people throw up, that the ending was simply too much for us to understand and the EC will explain all.
I will state again since you keep ignoring this simple fact: The EC will solve nothing, because it can't resolve the fundamental problem with control: Foreshadowing. As in, there is none.

The EC will not change the lack of foreshadowing.
The EC will not change that all pro-control characters have been crazy, indoctrinated or both.
The EC will not change that Shepard does not once express any interest in control throughout the game.
The EC will not change that nothing is shown to demonstrate that Shepard is at all qualified to control thousands of billion year old minds at the same time.

Unless, of course, the EC reworks the game from the ground up. But that's not going to happen.

You just need more time to process the endings. Yes, BioWare writers have made the endings that are hard to understand. But believe me, EC will fix that.

Modifié par Seival, 31 mai 2012 - 03:37 .

[Jamie9]

The Angry One wrote...

Yes, the insipid Crucible mystery doesn't help matters. But hints are thrown in that it can be used for controlling the Reapers.
Therefore even with this they could've done better. Most importantly, have Shepard express an interest instead of completely agreeing with everyone who says the Reapers must be destroyed.

Wouldn't it be better to, say, have an argument with Hackett? Showcase the possible benefits of controlling the Reapers? Tension between allies? Potential conflict? Vindication at the end when Shepard can in fact do what they've wanted to do? Too videogamey?

Indeed, this would have been good for the game. But so would conflicts between love interests if you cheated on them in ME2. They seemingly dropped all crew arguments for ME3. Arguably, the only crew conflict that exists is Liara and Javik AND you freakin' have to buy DLC to have that!

The thing is, I don't think there's a way to make that work with the reveal at the end. I was totally against control until the end because we're told, all the time, that control is impossible. Not that it might be possible, but that it's impossible.

It's only at the end we actually realise it's a viable possibility. The Prothean VI should have explained the Crucible's functions at TIM's base. That way Priority: Earth could be filled with tension. You vs. Hackett perhaps?

The Angry One wrote...

I'm not condemning the EC.
If I say the EC won't eliminate the common cold, this is not a condemnation. This is a statement of fact based on what the EC is designed to do. It is not designed to eliminate the common cold.
Similarily, the EC is not designed to alter the entire game. Which is what control needs to be a viable option. You can throw in all the last minute explanations you want, this will change nothing. Arguably, it'll make it worse.

I understand what you mean. I can't refute your claim, and I won't because you're not incorrect.

I'm just going to hope. That's really all I can do right now.

[mauro2222]

pistolols wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Newsflash: Synthesis is not evolution.
Moreover, evolution is not moral. Evolution is a reaction to enviroment. Nobody is making a choice, it's a generational process. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Synthesis is a direct alteration chosen by one person, and that freaking is immoral as hell, because that is a choice, imposed on the whole galaxy in the name of the Reapers.

It's an instant evolution.  No, it's not darwinian evolution, but it is an evolution none the less.  It's a process of change in a certain direction.

Then your argument falls down. It's a forced change, not a natural evolution wich is already part of us.

[pistolols]

mauro2222 wrote...

pistolols wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Newsflash: Synthesis is not evolution.
Moreover, evolution is not moral. Evolution is a reaction to enviroment. Nobody is making a choice, it's a generational process. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Synthesis is a direct alteration chosen by one person, and that freaking is immoral as hell, because that is a choice, imposed on the whole galaxy in the name of the Reapers.

It's an instant evolution.  No, it's not darwinian evolution, but it is an evolution none the less.  It's a process of change in a certain direction.

Then your argument falls down. It's a forced change, not a natural evolution wich is already part of us.

All evolution is forced change, darwinian or otherwise.  We don't control it.  I'm addressing the criticism from people that complain: "synthesis doesn't give people a choice"  All i'm saying is that's a moot point and no need to bring ethics into it.

[MegaSovereign]

mauro2222 wrote...

pistolols wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Newsflash: Synthesis is not evolution.
Moreover, evolution is not moral. Evolution is a reaction to enviroment. Nobody is making a choice, it's a generational process. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Synthesis is a direct alteration chosen by one person, and that freaking is immoral as hell, because that is a choice, imposed on the whole galaxy in the name of the Reapers.

It's an instant evolution.  No, it's not darwinian evolution, but it is an evolution none the less.  It's a process of change in a certain direction.

Then your argument falls down. It's a forced change, not a natural evolution wich is already part of us.

Well you can't choose to evolve. We're not ****ing pokemon.

[The Angry One]

MegaSovereign wrote...

-The themes of control, destroy, and synthesis were foreshadowed in ME1 and ME2. For example, keeping/destroying the geth heretics is similar to Control/Destroy. Hell Legion/Shepard even talked about the ethics behind Control...

Negatively foreshadowed.

-The Catalyst was foreshadowed on Thessia.

Badly.

-TIM was indoctrinated, but his logic was sound. Especially when he was talking to EDI during the Cerberus assault. The Reapers started to attack Sanctuary when they found out about TIM's plan to use indoctrination against them.

How was his logic sound? His argument with EDI has no bearing on anything.
Taking one platform to use as her own does not equal controlling all Reapers.

Also, EDI is basically making a non-argument too. EDI claims taking over Eva was "necesarry". She however never explains WHY it is necesarry. I'd argue that it isn't. She did it because she felt like it. It has nothing to do with TIM's plan.

-It's called role-playing. Shepard didn't express any interest in keeping the collector base, but lo and behold you have the option to when new information is given to you.

Because it wasn't an OPTION until right then. TIM even tells you this.

-He's using the CRUCIBLE, the project with the billion year old blue-prints, to control the Reapers. The way you worded that statement makes it seem like he's using his god powers.

No, I stated quite plainly he wants to use the Crucible (which is why it makes sense he wants to stop you from connecting it to the Citadel... wait, what?).

Seival wrote...

You just need more time to process the
endings. Yes, BioWare writers have made the endings that are hard to
understand. But believe me, EC will fix that.

You're starting to irritate me, you're clearly not reading anything I say.

Modifié par The Angry One, 31 mai 2012 - 03:45 .

[Jamie9]

MegaSovereign wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

pistolols wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Newsflash: Synthesis is not evolution.
Moreover, evolution is not moral. Evolution is a reaction to enviroment. Nobody is making a choice, it's a generational process. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Synthesis is a direct alteration chosen by one person, and that freaking is immoral as hell, because that is a choice, imposed on the whole galaxy in the name of the Reapers.

It's an instant evolution.  No, it's not darwinian evolution, but it is an evolution none the less.  It's a process of change in a certain direction.

Then your argument falls down. It's a forced change, not a natural evolution wich is already part of us.

Well you can't choose to evolve. We're not ****ing pokemon.

HUGE difference. Darwinian evolution occurs during the creation of the embryo - through the mutation of genes. The individual itself is born with these changes (obviously very very minor, as evolution is a fairly slow process), and they stay the same until their death.

Synthesis changes your genetics during your lifespan. There is a very distinct difference here and it brings up a completely different number of moral questions.

[mauro2222]

pistolols wrote...

All evolution is forced change, darwinian or otherwise.  We don't control it.  I'm addressing the criticism from people that complain: "synthesis doesn't give people a choice"  All i'm saying is that's a moot point and no need to bring ethics into it.

MegaSovereign wrote...

Well you can't choose to evolve. We're not ****ing pokemon.

You're both missing the second part of my comment, is not something we have to endure just for the sake of being alive, is something added, that's why it's forced upon people.

[The Angry One]

pistolols wrote...

It's an instant evolution.  No, it's not darwinian evolution, but it is an evolution none the less.  It's a process of change in a certain direction.

I'm sorry, did you learn everything you know about evolution from Pokemon?

Synthesis is not evolution in any way, shape or form. It is an alteration based on a philosophy.
It is one made by the concious choice of one person to alter the current generation without their consent.

[pistolols]

The Angry One wrote...

pistolols wrote...

It's an instant evolution.  No, it's not darwinian evolution, but it is an evolution none the less.  It's a process of change in a certain direction.

I'm sorry, did you learn everything you know about evolution from Pokemon?

Synthesis is not evolution in any way, shape or form. It is an alteration based on a philosophy.
It is one made by the concious choice of one person to alter the current generation without their consent.

it's not DARWINIAN evolution in any way, shape or form.  But it is evolution.  It is a change which is what evolution literally means.  Perhaps you should look the word up. 

And i don't see a problem with forcing it onto people.  It's just upgrades.  There are no down sides to it, unless you want to go ahead and list some for me because i certainly can't think of any.  There is no need for consent.  You don't need someone's consent to give them a million dollars.  They will just happily accept it.

[vallore]

Seival wrote...

JA Shepard wrote...

EDI is the biggest question mark for me. If Joker is the first thing she's ever loved, the Reapers are the first things she has ever truly hated and is very articulate in explaining why. But if you present her with evidence that the Reapers can be controlled, does her logical side weigh that evidence more heavily against her emotional desire to put them to an end?

Then, Joker is suddenly in play. Does he support destroy if it means losing EDI? You also can't forget about his sister being in a colony hit by Reapers. He stands out as possibly the most conflicted character in this situation. Does he want revenge or does he want to not risk losing anyone else? He'd desperately want to believe there was another way to keep EDI. It may not take as much to convince him as it might to convince EDI if you agree to fly the Reapers to the sun after you're done with them.

This is ridiculously fun to think about this. More reason to support control, I guess.

Well, EDI actually didn't say anything about hating the Reapers. Moreover, in one of conversations she showed some respect to them (called them and the Geth successful synthetic life forms). EDI sees enemies in Reapers, but EDI also respects them as the enemies.

...In the end EDI became even more "human" than some true humans around. How can anyone backstab this living being and think that it was a paragon choice? Sacrificing the Geth and EDI to stop the Reapers is pure renegade option. So everyone should understand that Control = Paragon, and Destroy = Renegade. And it doesn't mean that Control or Destroy is "the best" option. They are just different ways to stop the Reapers, nothing more.

Mmm, I disagree. Control is not paragon, neither is destroy renegade.

Personally, I believe one of the reasons we have so little information to go by, regarding the endings, is that Bioware wanted us to “fill the blanks,” in the way it suited each one of us the most, supposedly allowing us to carve our best possible ending, (It didn’t work, but that is another issue).

Now one of the consequences of this, is that there is no “right,” choice for an ending, or “right,” motivations for it, either. I can tell you that, the motivations for my Shepard to choose destroy were anything but “renegade” and were, in fact, one of the most paragon-ish decisions taken in game I made. I can also tell you that, from the perspective of that Shepard, control would imply an extremely “renegade” decision, as her motivations for it would be so.

[mauro2222]

pistolols wrote...

And i don't see a problem with forcing it onto people.  It's just upgrades.  There are no down sides to it, unless you want to go ahead and list some for me because i certainly can't think of any.  There is no need for consent.  You don't need someone's consent to give them a million dollars.  They will just happily accept it.

You don't see a problem with forcing things over people?...

Well, I'm gonna cut your left arm and replace it with a blade... see it's an upgrade, you don't need to use a knife anymore.

It may look like an upgrade to me, but for you it may not. I'm forcing it because I think is best, but for others it may not be.

[MegaSovereign]

Negatively foreshadowed.

What? TF does that even mean.

How was his logic sound? His argument with EDI has no bearing on anything.
Taking one platform to use as her own does not equal controlling all Reapers.

Also, EDI is basically making a non-argument too. EDI claims taking over Eva was "necesarry". She however never explains WHY it is necesarry. I'd argue that it isn't. She did it because she felt like it. It has nothing to do with TIM's plan.

He was indoctrinated, but wanting to dominate the Reapers and take advantage of their tech seemed to be in character. Before the last Act the Reapers did not know about the Crucible, so they probably didn't think someone taking control of them was even possible. Reapers have been known to twist their indoctrinated victims' ideals against them. Like with Saren and merging synthetics/organics. It was nonsense at the time because it simply wasn't possible.

Because it wasn't an OPTION until right then. TIM even tells you this.

Yea like how it wasn't an option to control the reapers until right then. When Shepard found out about TIM's plan to control the Reapers and had told Anderson about it, he regarded TIM as insane. The reason why was not because it doesn't seem like a good solution, but because it didn't seem possible. You're given new information at the end that tells you that it IS possible.

No, I stated quite plainly he wants to use the Crucible (which is why it makes sense he wants to stop you from connecting it to the Citadel... wait, what?).

Ofcourse TIM wants to stop you. He's indoctrinated. Renegade Shepard could even tell him to go control the Reapers. "They won't let you do it."

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 31 mai 2012 - 04:06 .

[pistolols]

mauro2222 wrote...

pistolols wrote...

And i don't see a problem with forcing it onto people. It's just upgrades. There are no down sides to it, unless you want to go ahead and list some for me because i certainly can't think of any. There is no need for consent. You don't need someone's consent to give them a million dollars. They will just happily accept it.

You don't see a problem with forcing things over people?...

Well, I'm gonna cut your left arm and replace it with a blade... see it's an upgrade, you don't need to use a knife anymore.

It may look like an upgrade to me, but for you it may not. I'm forcing it because I think is best, but for others it may not be.

this looks like a straw man argument.

seriously if you could list some downsides to synthesis, i'm all ears. there doesn't appear to be anything negative about it, only enhancement (and apparently not even that much enhancement as Joker still limps).

[vallore]

pistolols wrote...



And i don't see a problem with forcing it onto people.  It's just upgrades.  There are no down sides to it, unless you want to go ahead and list some for me because i certainly can't think of any.  There is no need for consent.  You don't need someone's consent to give them a million dollars.  They will just happily accept it.

One problem with this “upgrade” theory is that it was proposed by an entity that equated extinction with “preservation,” and genocide with “ascending.” I shudder to think what “improvements” synthesis might cause, considering It’s other peculiar concepts…

[mauro2222]

pistolols wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

pistolols wrote...

And i don't see a problem with forcing it onto people. It's just upgrades. There are no down sides to it, unless you want to go ahead and list some for me because i certainly can't think of any. There is no need for consent. You don't need someone's consent to give them a million dollars. They will just happily accept it.

You don't see a problem with forcing things over people?...

Well, I'm gonna cut your left arm and replace it with a blade... see it's an upgrade, you don't need to use a knife anymore.

It may look like an upgrade to me, but for you it may not. I'm forcing it because I think is best, but for others it may not be.

this looks like a straw man argument.

seriously if you could list some downsides to synthesis, i'm all ears. there doesn't appear to be anything negative about it, only enhancement (and apparently not even that much enhancement as Joker still limps).

Indeed it looks like a straw man argument...

I'm talking about the unethical implications of synthesis and you are asking me to list downsides... we don't even know what it does, it could delete the gene that causes mortality if speculation is granted, and that is not a good thing.

Oh, and I forgot about your example, the "million dollar" one... terrible, terrible example. You're giving, not changing there.

Modifié par mauro2222, 31 mai 2012 - 04:22 .

[Seival]

The Angry One wrote...

You're starting to irritate me, you're clearly not reading anything I say.

I'm reading. And I just want to say that not all books can be understood automatically. Some complicated books need a lot of brain power, will, and time to be processed... The same goes to RPG games like ME Trilogy.