185 réponses à ce sujet

[ninjaman001]

memorysquid wrote...

iakus wrote...

ninjaman001 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

On the plus side, maybe Bioware is completely wrong about synthetic life, that we can coexist just fine, and this game will just one day be seen as "super racist"...

This is what still makes me angry about the logic behind this, synthetics and organics not being able to coexist. That's life, even organics can't coexist without at some point fighting each other, what makes synthetics any different if they are also life forms? Why does it have to be just organics or just synthetics, any form of life is going to have conflict, that fact is shown through the conflict between the Geth and the heretics. They just royally ****ed up in their writing. Conflict is a fact of life.

And the Destroy ending, which flat out rejects the Catalyst's assertions, is the one that wipes out synthetic life.

This ending was clearly not well thought out

What the game asserts and may be true or false given the writers' intentions, is that synthetics are so different and respond to different cues that conflicts with them are different and result in total war.  EDI points out her heuristics are different than the Geth and allow her to form personal attachments the Geth can't; who knows how they change with the reaper code? 

The examples you get in game are the Citadel AI deciding for no certain reason that it will be persecuted so it frames its creator and tries to build a ship to join the Geth and wipe out organics.  The Geth decide to worship the Reapers and prosecute a war of annihilation and the zha'til who take over their creators alter their genetic code and start a galactic war.  In game, it is actually a pretty coherent theme.

Depending on how you play though, Legion reveals to you that the Geth went out of their way to not annihilate the Quarians during the morning war(I also think that the geth shown in the memory is Legion or at least in part is "him" when asked about the rifle it's using he's says kind of hestiantly that "it is a good weapon platofrm" or something along those lines like he is witholding something), they only wanted to drive them away to ensure their own survival. Again depending on how you play there is peace between Geth and Quarians and Legion even refers to himself in the singular and not in the plural before uploading his code to the rest of the geth.

Which in part I think is evidence that no matter the process of evolution they can all come to a certain end point, individuality and the appreciation and respect of other forms of life.

Modifié par ninjaman001, 26 juin 2012 - 02:52 .

[Bill Casey]

memorysquid wrote...

The examples you get in game are the Citadel AI deciding for no certain reason that it will be persecuted so it frames its creator and tries to build a ship to join the Geth and wipe out organics.  The Geth decide to worship the Reapers and prosecute a war of annihilation and the zha'til who take over their creators alter their genetic code and start a galactic war.  In game, it is actually a pretty coherent theme.

The Reapers are the ones who tell the Heretics to destroy organics...
The Reapers are also the ones who co-opted the Zha'Til...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 26 juin 2012 - 02:52 .

[memorysquid]

Ryzaki wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

You're disregarding my point.

CONTROL is the issue. Pay attention. You assume Control of them to do YOUR bidding. That's why it's associated with the Illusive Man. Regardless of how you use them, you are still controlling the actions of beings by force.

I do not rewrite the Geth for this reason, and I play as a Paragon.

You are not "saving" the Reapers by controlling them.

No my issue is you claiming control isn't a valid paragon option. It is. Just like brainwashing the heretics was. The Illusive Man doesn't make the choice a renegade one. Just means he was the one constantly pushing for it. (Just like Anderson was constantly pushing Destroy. That doesn't make the decision paragon just because Anderson's mostly a Paragon). Hackett's a renegade he pushes for Destroy as well.

FYI control of beings via force to do good is still a paragon
option. For someone screaming pay attention maybe you should more of it
in game. Paragon's about risky decisions, leaps of faith and lower casualities. Renegade's making sure the job's done no matter the cost.

Good for you. Doesn't stop it from being considered by the game to be the paragon decision.

Who said I was saving the Reapers? The Reapers are giant husks that exist only to slaughter and make more of them the species they come from are DEAD. The best thing for them is a mercy kill. Control saves the Geth, EDI and the technology. The Reapers can't be saved. It's too late for them. And that's assuming they're even alive and not just giant tools.

What if, because I think there is in game evidence to support the idea, the Reapers are basically Matrix-like storage units that somehow function as a gestalt entity, but literally comprised of tons of different consciousnesses arising from the DNA goo that they are pumped full of?  Sure the original species are all dead and gone.  But what if they are now full of billions of years worth of trillions of new composite consciousnesses from dead civilizations?  How does that change your decision calculus?  And assume they are alive and not just giant VI tools because that is how they are presented in game.

[memorysquid]

Bill Casey wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

The examples you get in game are the Citadel AI deciding for no certain reason that it will be persecuted so it frames its creator and tries to build a ship to join the Geth and wipe out organics.  The Geth decide to worship the Reapers and prosecute a war of annihilation and the zha'til who take over their creators alter their genetic code and start a galactic war.  In game, it is actually a pretty coherent theme.

The Reapers are the ones who tell the Heretics to destroy organics...
The Reapers are also the ones who co-opted the Zha'Til...

Is there in game evidence of either?  A Reaper tells the Heretics what to do, sure.  But I think they just chose to do it on their own.  That is to say, that's what the game told me and I thought it was straightforward.

And where does it mention the Zha'til going south because of Reaper influence?  I missed that.

[memorysquid]

ninjaman001 wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

iakus wrote...

ninjaman001 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

On the plus side, maybe Bioware is completely wrong about synthetic life, that we can coexist just fine, and this game will just one day be seen as "super racist"...

This is what still makes me angry about the logic behind this, synthetics and organics not being able to coexist. That's life, even organics can't coexist without at some point fighting each other, what makes synthetics any different if they are also life forms? Why does it have to be just organics or just synthetics, any form of life is going to have conflict, that fact is shown through the conflict between the Geth and the heretics. They just royally ****ed up in their writing. Conflict is a fact of life.

And the Destroy ending, which flat out rejects the Catalyst's assertions, is the one that wipes out synthetic life.

This ending was clearly not well thought out

What the game asserts and may be true or false given the writers' intentions, is that synthetics are so different and respond to different cues that conflicts with them are different and result in total war.  EDI points out her heuristics are different than the Geth and allow her to form personal attachments the Geth can't; who knows how they change with the reaper code? 

The examples you get in game are the Citadel AI deciding for no certain reason that it will be persecuted so it frames its creator and tries to build a ship to join the Geth and wipe out organics.  The Geth decide to worship the Reapers and prosecute a war of annihilation and the zha'til who take over their creators alter their genetic code and start a galactic war.  In game, it is actually a pretty coherent theme.

Depending on how you play though, Legion reveals to you that the Geth went out of their way to not annihilate the Quarians during the morning war(I also think that the geth shown in the memory is Legion or at least in part is "him" when asked about the rifle it's using he's says kind of hestiantly that "it is a good weapon platofrm" or something along those lines like he is witholding something), they only wanted to drive them away to ensure their own survival. Again depending on how you play there is peace between Geth and Quarians and Legion even refers to himself in the singular and not in the plural before uploading his code to the rest of the geth.

Which in part I think is evidence that no matter the process of evolution they can all come to a certain end point, individuality and the appreciation and respect of other forms of life.

Oh I agree.  I got peace for both in my playthrough; the Catalyst really spits in the eye of my Shep's achievements with his claims for sure.  But you aren't given a choice to call shenanigans on him.  I grant it is possible the whole game is The Usual Suspects but they thought the reveal was understood; I just think the chance of that possibility is close to zero.  The Catalyst, I think, is supposed to just be correct and appears, in game, to be understood by Shep as such.

[Ryzaki]

memorysquid wrote...
What if, because I think there is in game evidence to support the idea, the Reapers are basically Matrix-like storage units that somehow function as a gestalt entity, but literally comprised of tons of different consciousnesses arising from the DNA goo that they are pumped full of?  Sure the original species are all dead and gone.  But what if they are now full of billions of years worth of trillions of new composite consciousnesses from dead civilizations?  How does that change your decision calculus?  And assume they are alive and not just giant VI tools because that is how they are presented in game.

If they have intelligence and don't feel regret for what they've done still don't care. If they show regret I'll have them try to make amends by fixing the Galaxy and helping it recover. Either way I'd still control them.

Same reason my OP Spirit Monks bind Sun Kin's soul. He can do more good undead than he can completely dead. Atonement and what not.

[JShepppp]

If destroy is "ethically okay" then wouldn't that make it too easy and favor it over the other endings? I was under the impression the endings should be equal but different, or at least that that was the idea.

[memorysquid]

Taboo-XX wrote...

You're disregarding my point.

CONTROL is the issue. Pay attention. You assume Control of them to do YOUR bidding. That's why it's associated with the Illusive Man. Regardless of how you use them, you are still controlling the actions of beings by force.

I do not rewrite the Geth for this reason, and I play as a Paragon.

You are not "saving" the Reapers by controlling them.

You can say that, but the choice to save the heretics nets you paragon points.  The choice to ice them nets you renegade points.  Your extratextual decision-making doesn't reflect on Paragon Shep.  Personally I was fine with rewriting them.  Rewriting them effectively destroys them but preserves them as resources, anyway.  Plus, Legion pointed out their internal mathematics was simply wrong.  He mentions they miscalculate by .001 or something, so unlike our disagreements, you LITERALLY know the Heretics are wrong.

[Iakus]

JShepppp wrote...

If destroy is "ethically okay" then wouldn't that make it too easy and favor it over the other endings? I was under the impression the endings should be equal but different, or at least that that was the idea.

It's not though.

In fact, it seems deliberately stacked to disuade people from choosing it.

[memorysquid]

Ryzaki wrote...

memorysquid wrote...
What if, because I think there is in game evidence to support the idea, the Reapers are basically Matrix-like storage units that somehow function as a gestalt entity, but literally comprised of tons of different consciousnesses arising from the DNA goo that they are pumped full of?  Sure the original species are all dead and gone.  But what if they are now full of billions of years worth of trillions of new composite consciousnesses from dead civilizations?  How does that change your decision calculus?  And assume they are alive and not just giant VI tools because that is how they are presented in game.

If they have intelligence and don't feel regret for what they've done still don't care. If they show regret I'll have them try to make amends by fixing the Galaxy and helping it recover. Either way I'd still control them.

Same reason my OP Spirit Monks bind Sun Kin's soul. He can do more good undead than he can completely dead. Atonement and what not.

I had similar rationale on the Reapers, but oooo that was a naughty choice for Sun Kim.  Stuff like that taints your own soul; let the Celestial Bureaucracy sort all that out.  Naughty!  I didn't like Closed Fist, personally, most of the choices made you out to be a complete dick.

[JShepppp]

iakus wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

If destroy is "ethically okay" then wouldn't that make it too easy and favor it over the other endings? I was under the impression the endings should be equal but different, or at least that that was the idea.

It's not though.

In fact, it seems deliberately stacked to disuade people from choosing it.

Otherwise it'd be too easy. Shep lives, REapers completely dead. Sounds golden. There has to be a downside, and that's the rest of the synthetics dying.

As for the relays being destroyed, that's the sacrifice for ending the Reaper threat (not necessarily killing Reapers).

At least my opinion.

[Bill Casey]

I should point out that the Prothean separatists wanted to dominate the reapers rather than destroy them, and they were indoctrinated...

Desolas Arterius wanted to use the monolith to control the Reaperized turians, and he was indoctrinated...

After looking at Quian's research, Saren believed he could use Sovereign to control the Geth. Quian was indoctrinated and Saren soon would be...

[Iakus]

JShepppp wrote...


Otherwise it'd be too easy. Shep lives, REapers completely dead. Sounds golden. There has to be a downside, and that's the rest of the synthetics dying.

As for the relays being destroyed, that's the sacrifice for ending the Reaper threat (not necessarily killing Reapers).

At least my opinion.

Yes there has to be some sort of drawback, but genocide is too much.  It's pushing people to the clear Bioware favorite (Synthesis) or at least Control.

In addition, what's keeping Bioware from making the other endginds more desirable?

If they want to balance the endings, they should make people think about which is best, not which is least bad.

[Ryzaki]

memorysquid wrote...
I had similar rationale on the Reapers, but oooo that was a naughty choice for Sun Kim.  Stuff like that taints your own soul; let the Celestial Bureaucracy sort all that out.  Naughty!  I didn't like Closed Fist, personally, most of the choices made you out to be a complete dick.

Oh I don't know. Epilogue said my OP SM was fine.

And yeah they do. ridculously enough the most lore wise CF action in the game (telling the girl to kill the man trying to make her a slave) LOCKS YOU OUT OF A CF EXCLUSIVE STYLE. I just...WAT. WAAAAT?!?

[Ryzaki]

memorysquid wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

You're disregarding my point.

CONTROL is the issue. Pay attention. You assume Control of them to do YOUR bidding. That's why it's associated with the Illusive Man. Regardless of how you use them, you are still controlling the actions of beings by force.

I do not rewrite the Geth for this reason, and I play as a Paragon.

You are not "saving" the Reapers by controlling them.

You can say that, but the choice to save the heretics nets you paragon points.  The choice to ice them nets you renegade points.  Your extratextual decision-making doesn't reflect on Paragon Shep.  Personally I was fine with rewriting them.  Rewriting them effectively destroys them but preserves them as resources, anyway.  Plus, Legion pointed out their internal mathematics was simply wrong.  He mentions they miscalculate by .001 or something, so unlike our disagreements, you LITERALLY know the Heretics are wrong.

The heretics aren't wrong. Legion tells you this. The analogy is like 1 is less than 2 while the heretics are 2 is less than 3. Both are true. But they lead the groups into different paths. They simply had different beliefs.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 26 juin 2012 - 03:20 .

[capn233]

Or you could simply reject the notion that artificial intelligences / machines actually constitute life.

[MegaSovereign]

Bill Casey wrote...

I should point out that the Prothean separatists wanted to dominate the reapers rather than destroy them, and they were indoctrinated...

Desolas Arterius wanted to use the monolith to control the Reaperized turians, and he was indoctrinated...

After looking at Quian's research, Saren believed he could use Sovereign to control the Geth. Quian was indoctrinated and Saren soon would be...

It's not that simple.

TIM wanted to dominate the Reapers. And yes he was being indoctrinated. But the thing was...He was getting close to finding a way to controlling them. That's why the Reapers attacked Sanctuary.

The possibility of controlling the Reapers, once thought to be impossible, started to seem like a viable way to end the Reaper war.

TIM and Saren were never meant to be generic bad guys with evil goals. That's not how indoctrination works. Victims of indoctrination don't suddenly break out of their established character.  Their intentions were understandable, but the Reapers twisted their own goals to be aligned with theirs.

Not to mention....Shepard (Paragon) and TIM don't necessarily want to use the Reapers the same way.

[CuseGirl]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
EDI -- I hated this, but taking her on the final assault gets her killed now. I saw this in a tweet. Or was it in the podcast. I don't remember.

Yes this whole thing is metagaming for the win. Just so you can tell the Catalyst as you fire the gun at the red tube and see that frown: "Good Good. Feel the butthurt flow through you."

"Invasive, most invasive".

[memorysquid]

Ryzaki wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

You're disregarding my point.

CONTROL is the issue. Pay attention. You assume Control of them to do YOUR bidding. That's why it's associated with the Illusive Man. Regardless of how you use them, you are still controlling the actions of beings by force.

I do not rewrite the Geth for this reason, and I play as a Paragon.

You are not "saving" the Reapers by controlling them.

You can say that, but the choice to save the heretics nets you paragon points.  The choice to ice them nets you renegade points.  Your extratextual decision-making doesn't reflect on Paragon Shep.  Personally I was fine with rewriting them.  Rewriting them effectively destroys them but preserves them as resources, anyway.  Plus, Legion pointed out their internal mathematics was simply wrong.  He mentions they miscalculate by .001 or something, so unlike our disagreements, you LITERALLY know the Heretics are wrong.

The heretics aren't wrong. Legion tells you this. The analogy is like 1 is less than 2 while the heretics are 2 is less than 3. Both are true. But they lead the groups into different paths. They simply had different beliefs.

Legion uses that analogy but Legion is wrong.  What he says is that a calculation of whatever number he actually used, like 1.234 returns a value for the heretics of 1.233.  He then follows it up with that nonsense about 1<2 and 2<3.  Well 1<2<3 is perfectly coherent; as coherent as me saying the sky is blue and you saying grass is green; disagreement isn't even involved.  1.234=1.233 is flat out false and "work with the Reapers" is the literal opposite of "don't work with the Reapers."  In short Legion's analysis sucked, but I thought, once again, it was just poor writing and not Legion being an illogical self-willed machine I should put down immediately.

[Ryzaki]

Yeah well Legion's analogy being wrong or not it's still supposed to be saying the heretics aren't wrong anymore than people of different religions/beliefs are wrong. They simply differ. That's all. That's the gist of his quote.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 26 juin 2012 - 03:39 .

[memorysquid]

capn233 wrote...

Or you could simply reject the notion that artificial intelligences / machines actually constitute life.

You could.  I don't know why you would though.  Brain dead but breathing isn't considered human life per se.  AIs are clearly self-willed, make choices, want to continue existing.  All the things you do that let me know you are alive and conscious are exhibited by AIs.  I think you constitute life.

[Transairion]

Destroy was always perfectly "ethical" if you were a hardcore Renegade, since you basically already murdered the Geth and hate EDI with a passion anyway.

Paragons though... yeah, buddies with the Geth, buddies with EDI, you can't really pick Destroy at the end and still call yourself a hardcore Paragon.

[CuseGirl]

Transairion wrote...

Destroy was always perfectly "ethical" if you were a hardcore Renegade, since you basically already murdered the Geth and hate EDI with a passion anyway.

Paragons though... yeah, buddies with the Geth, buddies with EDI, you can't really pick Destroy at the end and still call yourself a hardcore Paragon.

I don't believe in the "hardcore" anything. I play mostly paragon (unless i'm meta-gaming in a certain direction) but I choose destroy everytime. 

[G Kevin]

Paragade FTW

Quoting myself here:

G Kevin wrote...

Not really a fan of any of the endings.

Personally I picked destroy because it felt right.

Synthesis is a genetic rewrite of what seems like all things.

Control is pretty much being a God.

Destroy is the only one where Shepard stays himself and does what he set out to do. I don't like the Geth and EDI held hostage there for no good reason other than to deter me from picking destroy. I know that if I asked Legion and EDI about it, they would agree to sacrifice themselves for the destruction of the Reapers. Just like how Legion risked his life on the Suicide mission.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Rewriting the Heretics is the same as killing them. If you truly believe the Geth to be sentient, they are no longer who they were. You changed that. And BioWare calls this a Paragon decision? You did this for the purpose that the reaper virus they were infected with would not infect the rest of the Geth. However there was a non-zero probability of failure. Destroying the Heretic base is morally the same thing with a 100% chance of success. Hence, because of the 100% chance of success it is a renegade decision. -- I guess because it makes a big explosion that only a Krogan could love.

Pure paragons and pure renegades IMO are insane. But BioWare knows that people like to lean like 90% one way or the other, and mostly 90% paragon. So they created this ending to throw everyone who did everything the right way. They also are looking at the globe and how polarized everything is. A lot of people see things either black or white.

They said your decisions matter. They do matter. They put everyone in a no-win situation at the end: a situation where one would have to compromise their personal ethics to defeat the Reapers. Why? Because everyone was rewarded for success (achievements, etc.) in every single mission, and you got a feel good sensation when everything went perfectly.

Also remember that Hudson and Walters set up the rules and regulations for the universe you're in. You've got a Kobiyashi Maru at the end. How did Kirk beat that scenario? He changed the rules. He metagamed the scenario by hacking the program.

However, if one purposely fails in certain places of the series by taking certain actions, and making poor minor decisions that don't affect the story line in a major way at first, but just create a perfect storm for a failure for a particular outcome (such as attaining peace on Rannoch), and not playing by the book of Paragon and Renegade, but playing by the book of Kirk, you can have a situation at the end like I describe.

Legion becomes a "redshirt". I know a lot of you guys look at him as a "bro." But he's a redshirt. He serves a limited function, then gets himself in trouble and then you as Shepard, have to play Kirk the hardass, because Geth have been the enemy for the past 90 hrs of the game and this is the ONLY Geth you met that has not been. The only reason it's not is because its enemy is your enemy. It doesn't mean you're not going to be enemies once your main enemy is defeated. Nor does it mean you can fully trust each other. Kirk wouldn't.

So by my method of metagaming and working around the rules and desired outcomes that Hudson and Walters set up for us I came up with the scenario on page one. I turned their desired outcomes against them and rid the galaxy of a potential enemy (the Geth) by screwing up, took care of another problem by simply bringing her along on the final assault and letting her get killed by Harbinger's laser blast (EDI). I mean if you look at EDI she is a very competent fighter. With that tech armor she's almost invulnerable. She's a great squadmate, and a great selection, but just knowing that the two are going to die means I'm not going to take Liara on that last leg, and EDI is someone Starbrat can hold over your head so if EDI is dead already, oh well.

Feel the butthurt, Starbrat. Now you guys can choose Destroy guilt-free with no downside. Have high enough EMS and Shepard lives.

You guys follow me? You're not killing anyone. You're just playing a little fast and loose with the rules and not playing the game as it was meant to be played. However, IMO I don't feel that Hudson and Walters played fair with us either, and that their story deserves to be played fairly. That's just the opinion of one grouchy old lady.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 26 juin 2012 - 03:54 .