Taboo-XX wrote...
Random Jerkface wrote...
Why dies the Internet always resort to anti-intellectual argument when it sees a word it doesn't recognise?HellishFiend wrote...
Look out everyone, the internet tough guy has armed himself with a thesaurus and a dictionary. Next he's going to wow us with his education background and credentials.
It's my fault, I apologize.
o Ventus wrote...
MisterJB wrote...
That is a simplistic way of looking at it. Society has evolved enough to allow for equality between genders.frylock23 wrote...
That's an interesting perspective you have there. By your logic, there is no such thing as a nonviolent marriage since pretty much every man is physically stronger and to pretty much every woman. That must mean that my husband has been seriallly beating me all during the course of our past 16 years together and I have been blissfully unaware of it.
*runs off to examine self for bruises that don't exist because her husband absolutely has not been beating her physically or emotionally*
Of course, there are certain differences between marriages and international or interspecies relations.
Disregarding extreme outliers...
Why aren't we at war with Japan, Britain, Germany, Austria, Finland, the Netherlands, Russia, Africa, or Canada then?
MisterJB wrote...
That is a simplistic way of looking at it. Society has evolved enough to allow for equality between genders.frylock23 wrote...
That's an interesting perspective you have there. By your logic, there is no such thing as a nonviolent marriage since pretty much every man is physically stronger and to pretty much every woman. That must mean that my husband has been seriallly beating me all during the course of our past 16 years together and I have been blissfully unaware of it.
*runs off to examine self for bruises that don't exist because her husband absolutely has not been beating her physically or emotionally*
Of course, there are certain differences between marriages and international or interspecies relations.
Because there are alternative ways to dominate others that don't involve landing troops on their soil.o Ventus wrote...
Disregarding extreme outliers...
Why aren't we at war with Japan, Britain, Germany, Austria, Finland, the Netherlands, Russia, Africa, or Canada then?
Random Jerkface wrote...
gurl, now u kno u wrong fo dat.syllogi wrote...
And I'm playing the tiniest violin for EDI. If sacrifices have to be made, I'll wipe a hard drive.
MisterJB wrote...
Because there are alternative ways to dominate others that don't involve landing troops on their soil.o Ventus wrote...
Disregarding extreme outliers...
Why aren't we at war with Japan, Britain, Germany, Austria, Finland, the Netherlands, Russia, Africa, or Canada then?
Hmm, this is getting dangerously close to real-world politics, let's translate this into ME terms.
The asari are not at war with anyone and they still, pretty much, run the galaxy.
The turians and batarians don't enslave everyone else only because they are not strong enough.
) so that I can make a better informed decision. If the Indoctrination Theory turn out to be true I'll just uninstall and use the CD as a coaster. 
Do you believe only the methods matter, not the subjugation itself? Is it acceptable if done through nonviolent methods?The Night Mammoth wrote...
Why wont synthetics use these methods?
Not by the time humanity comes on the scene. Much of their strength comes from the Turians, and their power diminishes.
Again though, nonviolent methods.
The First Contact War was a war of conquest for the turians. They would have turned humanity into a client race without cause.And because the former don't want to.
Modifié par MisterJB, 16 juin 2012 - 10:45 .
iHorizons wrote...
You are a moron JB
What are the cultures more likely to survive and thrive? The ones more willing to spread their viewpoint through force.Taboo-XX wrote...
Being advanced =/= being violent.
I'm sorry.
HYR 2.0 wrote...
iHorizons wrote...
You are a moron JB
Thanks for your intelligent and thoughtful contribution.
Not.
Considering that it's supposed to happen to every single life form in the entire galaxy then that's a pretty massive huge downside no matter how good or bad the actual effects.Arondell wrote...
On the other hand I'm having a hard time seeing obvious downsides to the synthesis. Yes I get the whole changing all life without its permission is wrong thing on the intellectual level at least.
That's a fairly big reason too IMO. Disregarding any moral implications it's so far-fetched that it immediately breaks immersion.I also don't like the space magic feel to it.
Who knows? There must be some changes if it's going to do what Starbrat claims it'll do (even then it's very far-fetched to think that there any changes that could achieve that). Even if you can somehow ignore the ethical and space magic problems there's no sensible explanation as to why it'll stop the Reapers from trying to kill everyone.The practical results as shown in game seem to amount to everyone getting some metallic tattoos and glowy eyes. There is no other *obvious* changes. Joker still seems to have the whole brittle bone issue from how he is moving at the end. That may just be habit at work though. Other then that humans still seem human, turians still seem turian, etc. Are there psychological changes? Physical beyond the superficial? *I* can't tell given the information available.
Modifié par Reorte, 16 juin 2012 - 10:51 .
MisterJB wrote...
Because there are alternative ways to dominate others that don't involve landing troops on their soil.o Ventus wrote...
Disregarding extreme outliers...
Why aren't we at war with Japan, Britain, Germany, Austria, Finland, the Netherlands, Russia, Africa, or Canada then?
Hmm, this is getting dangerously close to real-world politics, let's translate this into ME terms.
The asari are not at war with anyone and they still, pretty much, run the galaxy.
The turians and batarians don't enslave everyone else only because they are not strong enough.
The ones who don't annoy the hell out of everyone by trying to spread their viewpoint through force. Spreading it through force means a lot of people paying lip service to your view and sharpening their daggers behind your back.MisterJB wrote...
What are the cultures more likely to survive and thrive? The ones more willing to spread their viewpoint through force.
Modifié par Taboo-XX, 16 juin 2012 - 10:53 .
I don't think Shepard dies in Control but yes, there is the sacrifice of "everything we had", meaning the existence as a human will all the connections that define a human life. As for TIM, you can see it as being the point. Can we recognize that "Control is bad because TIM wanted it" is an association fallacy and look clearly at the ethics and the results of Control, recognizing that this is a good option if you want to preserve galactic civilization? If it was intentional, I'd find it ingenious, but Bioware has always had the subtlety of a sledgehammer in these things. Apparently rightly so, considering that the association with TIM remains the most quoted "argument" against Control.zambot wrote...
A Golden Dragon wrote...
The fianl analysis is that there is no "right" answer to which of the three options is "Best". Which also means that there is no "wrong" answer, either.
There is your choice, and only your choice. And the consequences pertaining therein. This final decision will be made by the ethics and morals of each person siting at the computer, or at a console in front of a television, and it is those morals and ethics that determine which is right.
Dying for what you believe is actually quite common.
It's being able to live with your choice afterwards that shows the real martyr.
I think this was Bioware's intent, but the execution of the ending was poor enough to where this kind of ethical decision making did not happen for most people in practice. The intent of control clearly was to provide players with the option of saving the galaxy by sacrificing their lives. Why else would control be the option that preserves the citidel and possibly even all the relays? Big problems with control include it being associated with one of the most evil characters in the game (TIM) and it being utterly unbelievable based on it being fought against the entire game.
It isn't tacked on. Destroy is the pro-organic choice. Not in the sense of "organics über alles" but in the sense of "protecting the freedom and integrity of organic life" where Control puts organics under the guardianship of synthetics and Synthesis changes it. The death of the synthetics is a believable side effect, thematically.Destroy on the other hand looks to be the option where the player gets to destroy the reapers and possibly save him/herself, but at the cost of allies and a friend. The problem there is that the cost appears to be tacked on by Bioware just to make sure there's a cost to what would oherwise be a very desirable ending.
Yes, Shepard's survival is an powerful element, but it shouldn't surprise anyone that it comes with a cost. Before I knew the leaked script, I was convinced there would be no way out of Shepard's death, and that it's possible at all came as a surprise.I think the community's reaction would be a lot different if Shep survived control instead of destroy. You'd see a LOT more support for control. There are a large number of people who just want their Shep to survive, no matter the cost. These people are upset at the cost ("I can't believe BW blew up the relays") or in denial about the cost ("He's lying about EDI and the Geth being destroyed).
It could've worked I think. If the Catalyst dialogue had been better written. I've never seen such a jumble of contradictions in so few words. I wonder why they didn't see that any attempt to keep the converation "high-level" and simple (dare I say simplistic), when the problem was anything but, could only result in an epic mess.At the end of the day, this is why the ending failed. No one understood the choices, neither the risks nor the consequences of those choices. We were all asked to believe and trust the explanation of a new, untrusted, and frankly poorly developed character (god child) to help us understand these difficult choices. This is an unreasonable expectation placed on us (the players) by the developers. Then in the aftermath, there were only subtle differences between the consequences of those actions presented to us which trivialized the choices themselves. wtf Bioware. wtf.
Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 juin 2012 - 10:57 .
Alex Kershaw wrote...
The AI you destroy (geth/EDI) can be rewritten fairly easily I'm sure, which makes control and destroy virtually the same, no?
jtav wrote...
Alex Kershaw wrote...
The AI you destroy (geth/EDI) can be rewritten fairly easily I'm sure, which makes control and destroy virtually the same, no?
Unique blue boxes. Every AI is unique in ME. Put the same data in a different quantum computer and you get a different person.
Modifié par Taboo-XX, 16 juin 2012 - 11:03 .
Retour en haut