518 réponses à ce sujet

[balance5050]

HagarIshay wrote...

balance5050 wrote...


Sigh... acording to your opinion woman, it hasn't been a legitimate option for millions of years and a tiny little ghost boy isn't going to convince me otherwise....

First, the bolded part- important.......Or not.

second, destroying all the reapers by shooting a tube was also not very legit up until the little ghost by told us. So there still no reason to believe him.

Besides, why would he tell you about destroy at all? Why not let you accidentally stumble into it?

It's metaphors, none of the options seem legit (grabbing lightning, throwing yourself into a laser) but destroy is the option that Shepard was already attempting, shooting things is just how Shepard does it usually.

Don't forget, the kid never acually explained how to activate the different options, you only see visions of TIM and Anderson showing you how it's done.

[llbountyhunter]

HagarIshay wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...


They choices scene is not real. its a mental battle between shepard and harbinger (I'm my view) 

The end part is shepar and the reapers pushings there own sides on this. 

Shepard want destroy the reapers want control/synthesis. 

All shepard does is choose.

That's funny, cause my Shep wanted to save lives more than destroy the reapers. Does that mean my Shep is answering to the reapers becuase of it? No. It's just mean that my Shepard can learn to compromise. My Shep chose control. And it wasn't because the reapers wanted to. It's beucase SHE wanted to. And becuase I, as a player, wanted to.


And just for the record, I don't think the reapers will want anyone to control them. They destroyed TIM's sanctuary.

No it means your not strong enough and CHOOSE to be easily swayed.

That's the point. Its a trick.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 08 juin 2012 - 10:05 .

[Lord Goose]

Destroy is Shepard's doctrine, control and synthesis are the reapers doctrine, the destroy option was already there in sheps head, control and synthesis are the new options that Shepard wasn't thinking about before.

Prove that.
Really. I played all three games and I don't remember any instance where Shepard would have said something like: "I just want to destroy all the reapers".

Also, do Reapers really have any actual doctrine? They may not think in the same way as their tools.

For example. geth considered Nazara to be their God, but it actually insulted him. Why Saren and TIM must be different.

[llbountyhunter]

Lord Goose wrote...

Destroy is Shepard's doctrine, control and synthesis are the reapers doctrine, the destroy option was already there in sheps head, control and synthesis are the new options that Shepard wasn't thinking about before.

Prove that.
Really. I played all three games and I don't remember any instance where Shepard would have said something like: "I just want to destroy all the reapers".

Also, do Reapers really have any actual doctrine? They may not think in the same way as their tools.

For example. geth considered Nazara to be their God, but it actually insulted him. Why Saren and TIM must be different.

I seripiously question wetjer you have played mass effrct at all.

[Lord Goose]

I seripiously question wetjer you have played mass effrct at all.

All three games.
Well, maybe they have edited that out in my language version, but I still don't remember such instances. Usually, he says something general, like "stopping them'' etc.
And I was playing paragon (100%), so may have missed Renegade phrases.

[Ageless Face]

dreamgazer wrote...

 
You're approaching a shift in the conversation that will take it far, far off-track. 

From my perception of a literal interpretation: no, the catalyst isn't lying, per se.  He's just not being forthright about the exact conditions in which they'll happen, and relying on implications.  Anything you pick will happen the way it's supposed to happen---destroy destroys, control controls, and synthesis synthesizes.  The parameters in which they happen, however, are not defined, and could end up better ... or a hell of a lot worse.  I'll leave it at that.

The catalyst wants the situation to feel neutral, yet immediate.  He doesn't want things to seem completely unhinged from reality, because Shepard will reject everything and just choose to destroy.  If it seems like a (mostly) nonpartisan playing field, Shepard might be inclined to choose the pacifistic options.  You can look at the benefits of control and synthesis all you want; I'll leave them out of the conversation.  The big thing to remember is: choosing either blue or green keeps the Reapers alive, and the catalyst---who is inextricably linked to the Reapers---wants that. 

Why give us synthesis to contemplate from a story standpoint? I'll rely on BSN's new favorite dismissive lingo: BECAUSE, ART!  Thinking about synthesis and its implications is thought-provoking.  That's a reward. 

Fair enough. Like I said, I don't think the choice is any better than the others. I just don't believe it will also be any worse than the others- or in this case, destroy. It's all about idealism. And I'll just leave it at that.  

[balance5050]

HagarIshay wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

 
You're approaching a shift in the conversation that will take it far, far off-track. 

From my perception of a literal interpretation: no, the catalyst isn't lying, per se.  He's just not being forthright about the exact conditions in which they'll happen, and relying on implications.  Anything you pick will happen the way it's supposed to happen---destroy destroys, control controls, and synthesis synthesizes.  The parameters in which they happen, however, are not defined, and could end up better ... or a hell of a lot worse.  I'll leave it at that.

The catalyst wants the situation to feel neutral, yet immediate.  He doesn't want things to seem completely unhinged from reality, because Shepard will reject everything and just choose to destroy.  If it seems like a (mostly) nonpartisan playing field, Shepard might be inclined to choose the pacifistic options.  You can look at the benefits of control and synthesis all you want; I'll leave them out of the conversation.  The big thing to remember is: choosing either blue or green keeps the Reapers alive, and the catalyst---who is inextricably linked to the Reapers---wants that. 

Why give us synthesis to contemplate from a story standpoint? I'll rely on BSN's new favorite dismissive lingo: BECAUSE, ART!  Thinking about synthesis and its implications is thought-provoking.  That's a reward. 

Fair enough. Like I said, I don't think the choice is any better than the others. I just don't believe it will also be any worse than the others- or in this case, destroy. It's all about idealism. And I'll just leave it at that.  

All the endings are about idealism, that's kinda the point.

[Lord Goose]

The catalyst wants the situation to feel neutral, yet immediate. He doesn't want things to seem completely unhinged from reality, because Shepard will reject everything and just choose to destroy. If it seems like a (mostly) nonpartisan playing field, Shepard might be inclined to choose the pacifistic options.

But, according to Retribution, if Reapers doesn't feel like they could bring indoctrinated to the knees without resistance, they choose to lay dormant and manipulate them, instead of dominate. Why can't they manipulate Shepard after he wakes up, making him stricken with paranoia, seeing indoctrinated everywhere, and ultimately screwing everything up?

I tried to have explanation, but fans immediately got so defensive, that the best I could have got is "it depends on personal interpretation".

Modifié par Lord Goose, 08 juin 2012 - 10:20 .

[KingZayd]

HagarIshay wrote...

balance5050 wrote...


Sigh... acording to your opinion woman, it hasn't been a legitimate option for millions of years and a tiny little ghost boy isn't going to convince me otherwise....

First, the bolded part- important.......Or not.

second, destroying all the reapers by shooting a tube was also not very legit up until the little ghost by told us. So there still no reason to believe him.

Besides, why would he tell you about destroy at all? Why not let you accidentally stumble into it?

He never tells us how to activate destroy

[balance5050]

Lord Goose wrote...

The catalyst wants the situation to feel neutral, yet immediate. He doesn't want things to seem completely unhinged from reality, because Shepard will reject everything and just choose to destroy. If it seems like a (mostly) nonpartisan playing field, Shepard might be inclined to choose the pacifistic options.

But, according to Retribution, if Reapers doesn't feel like they could bring indoctrinated to the knees without resistance, they choose to lay dormant and manipulate them, instead of dominate. Why can't they manipulate Shepard after he wakes up, making him stricken with paranoia, seeing indoctrinated everywhere, and ultimately screwing everything up?

I tried to have explanation, but fans immediately got so defensive, that the best I could have got is "it depends on personal interpretation".

I think they WILL manipulate Shepard after he wakes up, IF you choose control or synthsis.

[KingZayd]

Lord Goose wrote...

Destroy is Shepard's doctrine, control and synthesis are the reapers doctrine, the destroy option was already there in sheps head, control and synthesis are the new options that Shepard wasn't thinking about before.

Prove that.
Really. I played all three games and I don't remember any instance where Shepard would have said something like: "I just want to destroy all the reapers".

Also, do Reapers really have any actual doctrine? They may not think in the same way as their tools.

For example. geth considered Nazara to be their God, but it actually insulted him. Why Saren and TIM must be different.

Well according to the dialogue options my Shepard picked (mostly paragon), destroying the reapers was the only option.

[dreamgazer]

Lord Goose wrote...

But, according to Retribution, if Reapers doesn't feel like they could bring indoctrinated to the knees without resistance, they choose to lay dormant and manipulate them, instead of dominate. Why can't they manipulate Shepard after he wakes up, making him stricken with paranoia, seeing indoctrinated everywhere, and ultimately screwing everything up?

I tried to have explanation, but fans immediately got so defensive, that the best I could have got is "it depends on personal interpretation".

Honest answer? Shepard's a strong-willed individual who has a firmer constitution than most others---an exception to the rule in terms of what s/he can withstand in terms of indoctrination and mind-meddling, something that's been established since ME1.

[Ageless Face]

llbountyhunter wrote...

No it means your not strong enough and CHOOSE to be easily swayed.

That's the point. Its a trick.

So you think because I have a different idealism than you it means my Shepard has made the wrong choice?

Let me give you an example:

When Shepard is going to Morinth's apartemt, s/he can try to resist Morinth. If she's strong enough (if Shepard has enough paragon/renegade points) then Shepard can resist. 

And then... Shepard needs to make a choice. Should s/he choose Morinth, or Samara?

That was a question of idealism. There is not right choice to it (or at least there should not be. What BioWare did to Morinth is just sad. But I won't get into it now).

There should be a charm or intimidate options. THAT should be whether Shepard is indoc or not. Not the actual choices.

[Lord Goose]

I think they WILL manipulate Shepard after he wakes up, IF you choose control or synthsis.

Why can't they manipulate him using his desire to destroy?

I clearly could picture, who Shepard orders to execute all geth (contamined by Reaper's code), EDI (using Reapers technology), quarins (too close to geth), salarians (were not trying to help allied forces), everything which uses Thanix (created from Reaper's technology)... And when everybody will try to reason him out, he will call them indoctrinated, and will start shooting.

Shepard is dead, morale is decreased, everyone is dying, while Reapers laugh their tentacles.

[Lord Goose]

Well according to the dialogue options my Shepard picked (mostly paragon), destroying the reapers was the only option.

What does he say exactly and where?

[dreamgazer]

Lord Goose wrote...

I think they WILL manipulate Shepard after he wakes up, IF you choose control or synthsis.

Why can't they manipulate him using his desire to destroy?

I clearly could picture, who Shepard orders to execute all geth (contamined by Reaper's code), EDI (using Reapers technology), quarins (too close to geth), salarians (were not trying to help allied forces), everything which uses Thanix (created from Reaper's technology)... And when everybody will try to reason him out, he will call them indoctrinated, and will start shooting.

Shepard is dead, morale is decreased, everyone is dying, while Reapers laugh their tentacles.

If you want to take the nihilistic approach, go for it.

BioWare went on a darker trip this time, but I vehemently disagree with the notion that they went that dark. 

Plus, Shepard's made of sterner stuff than to have themselves completely manipulated in that fashion.  It's a play on psychosis, and Shepard is really, really strong in that regard. 

[Ageless Face]

balance5050 wrote...


All the endings are about idealism, that's kinda the point.

If all the endings are about idealism, then why should I be punished for thinking differently than you? I should have consequences by choosing, sure. But not let my hole game be completley destroyed by one choice that I thought that suited my ideals.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 08 juin 2012 - 10:32 .

[balance5050]

HagarIshay wrote...

There should be a charm or intimidate options. THAT should be whether Shepard is indoc or not. Not the actual choices.

But then nobody would be fooled, it's about indoctrinating THE PLAYER don't forget.

[balance5050]

HagarIshay wrote...

balance5050 wrote...


All the endings are about idealism, that's kinda the point.

If all the endings are about idealism, then why should I be punished for thinking differently than you? I should have consequences by choosing, sure. But not let my hole game be completley destroyed by one choice that I thought that suited my ideals.

Uhm, controlling the reapers was described as a bad idea in all the lore, it's punishing you for not paying attention.

[Lord Goose]

If you want to take the nihilistic approach, go for it.

I don't want to take nihilistic approach.
I'm just wondering why it is impossible?

For me now, I. T. seems to be popular only because it gives explanation, why you shouldn't feel guilty about sacrificing your allies for the sake of the mission. Basically, advocating Destroy.

Plus, Shepard's made of sterner stuff than to have themselves completely manipulated in that fashion. It's a play on psychosis, and Shepard is really, really strong in that regard.

Well, it was dramatizing.
But, say, what if after Destroy Reapers will manipulate Shepard into destroying Crucible, making him believe that it is a Reapers trap, and when command allied fleet to disassamble and fly away? Yes, it would make harvest last longer, but in the end, Reapers would still win.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 08 juin 2012 - 10:40 .

[Ageless Face]

balance5050 wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

There should be a charm or intimidate options. THAT should be whether Shepard is indoc or not. Not the actual choices.

But then nobody would be fooled, it's about indoctrinating THE PLAYER don't forget.

But nobody will be screwed, also . And I thought it was about indoc Shepard.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 08 juin 2012 - 10:41 .

[Lord Goose]

Uhm, controlling the reapers was described as a bad idea in all the lore, it's punishing you for not paying attention.

Why I'm supposed to do everything as Hackett and Anderson said? Why can't I make my own decision?

[Ageless Face]

balance5050 wrote...

Uhm, controlling the reapers was described as a bad idea in all the lore, it's punishing you for not paying attention.

And killing synthetics was also considered a bad idea. But it doesn't stop you from thinking it's the best option.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 08 juin 2012 - 10:39 .

[covertdrizzt]

balance5050 wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

balance5050 wrote...


All the endings are about idealism, that's kinda the point.

If all the endings are about idealism, then why should I be punished for thinking differently than you? I should have consequences by choosing, sure. But not let my hole game be completley destroyed by one choice that I thought that suited my ideals.

Uhm, controlling the reapers was described as a bad idea in all the lore, it's punishing you for not paying attention.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[balance5050]

HagarIshay wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Uhm, controlling the reapers was described as a bad idea in all the lore, it's punishing you for not paying attention.

And killing synthetics was also considered a bad idea. But it doesn't stop you from thinking it's the best option.

EDI says shes willing to die in the struggle to beat the reapers, Geth Prime says something similar, and Garuss ties it all together with his "deadly calculus" ramblings. You have their blessing, now finish your mission soldier.....