332 réponses à ce sujet

[Oransel]

JeosDinas wrote...

Except, as nuts as this sounds, the thing is a program. It has no reason to lie.

What makes you think so? Really, what? AI's are very capable of lying (like EDE showed) or betraying. Hell, they are capable of indoctrinating people. Starkid saying he has no reason to lie or live... and you believe him? Just like that? I agree about gamble part. Except, for me, refusing has more chances mathematically. That's why it is more utilitarian.  

[Blarty]

Zine2 wrote...

Blarty wrote...
By the same token, why doesn't the Star Child just have Shepard killed whilst he's on the station,

He did try. See TIM and the gun.

Possibly, however TIM doesn't see the truth of his own indoctrination til well after he makes Shepard shoot Anderson, so I wouldn't say that it was a given.

[Zine2]

Zanza86 wrote...

OP is definitely a troll.

You tell that to everyone who points out that your "Reapers surpassed their creators" nonsense is just that - nonesense - with absolutely no evidence supporting it whatsoever?

And that presenting the Reapers as being justified in OMNOMing their masters as anything but genocide is to condone genocide?

Yeah, sure, call me a troll. You're still a condoner of genocide and spouting nonesense based on non-existent evidence. Those are simple facts.

[Blarty]

On a side note, I got the impression that the Catalyst just wants the cycle to be ended, in whatever way, the anger at the refusal yet complete inaction over the destroy choice makes me lean towards this conclusion

[Zine2]

Blarty wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

Blarty wrote...
By the same token, why doesn't the Star Child just have Shepard killed whilst he's on the station,

He did try. See TIM and the gun.

Possibly, however TIM doesn't see the truth of his own indoctrination til well after he makes Shepard shoot Anderson, so I wouldn't say that it was a given.

I'll grant that the lack of ground troops (i.e. more Marauders) may be an indication of the Star Kid letting Shep live, but TIM IS there and he does try to kill Shep; if the Star Kid wanted Shep alive then he could just have called off TIM.

[B3ckett]

The reject ending would'be been better if some more fighting to the last man was shown. Then Liara's time capsule would be so much more...

[JeosDinas]

Zine2 wrote...

It doesn't merely sound nuts to trust the AI. It's really crazy to trust the AI given its record for using deception. We only know (as players, not even as ingame characters) that it's not lying in hindsight.

You assume trust must be unwavering, complete. This is a false assumption. Trust is an act of faith. And while we have reason to doubt the Catalyst, Shepard is also given enough information to understand that it is a program, enacting what it feels is a necessary action. The admission that variables have been altered is, in and of itself an extension of faith towards Shepard, as if the offering of choice. It can be, in amazingly cynical terms, interpreted as Machiavellian but that doesn't seem intellectually sound. The choice becomes redundant in the face of an enemy that can control your mind or force your limbs to move. Inference alone allows the player and Shepard to take a moment and reflect upon this. And it generally points towards the fact that what we are dealing with is something like the gears of a machine. The moment the machine admits it is redundant, antiquated, and anachronistic is the moment that any and all power it had is given away.

Really, you're just being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. Especially since my first point in this thread largely coincided with your own assessment of the Control ending.

Oransel wrote...
 Except, for me, refusing has more chances mathematically.  

 

To believe this, we have to reject the entire narrative of the game up until that point and presume that the story itself is lying to us. That's something of a large bit of willing metatextual ignorance.

Modifié par JeosDinas, 27 juin 2012 - 10:15 .

[Zine2]

Blarty wrote...

On a side note, I got the impression that the Catalyst just wants the cycle to be ended, in whatever way, the anger at the refusal yet complete inaction over the destroy choice makes me lean towards this conclusion

The new stuff in the EC does, at least, have indications of this. The problem again is the in-game context of trust - kinda hard to trust it when its minions have been shredding the galaxy.

[Blarty]

Zine2 wrote...

Blarty wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

Blarty wrote...
By the same token, why doesn't the Star Child just have Shepard killed whilst he's on the station,

He did try. See TIM and the gun.

Possibly, however TIM doesn't see the truth of his own indoctrination til well after he makes Shepard shoot Anderson, so I wouldn't say that it was a given.

I'll grant that the lack of ground troops (i.e. more Marauders) may be an indication of the Star Kid letting Shep live, but TIM IS there and he does try to kill Shep; if the Star Kid wanted Shep alive then he could just have called off TIM.

My point there is that at that point TIM is still very much of the persuasion that he is still in control of his faculties and can control the Reapers.

[mrpoultry]

As i said before Refusal ending is the best. If my Shep isn't able to be hammered like a bent nail over the bonnet of a Tennakont by Garrus then EVERYBODY dies. NO compromises.

Modifié par mrpoultry, 27 juin 2012 - 10:17 .

[Fiyenyaa]

Zine2 wrote...

Fiyenyaa wrote...
Obviously this reasoning can be used to excuse some pretty horrendous things (which is why anyone should take utilitarianism with a pinch of salt), but it does have a certain logic to it.

That's why I differentiate it from the moral choice. The moral choice is to say "no" to any horrendous excuse regardless of the consequences.  

To do a lesser evil to serve a greater good (or indeed to a avoid a greater evil) is moral if you ask me.
When the stakes are "galactic civlisation is wiped out yet again" versus "galactic civlisation is saved, minus the Geth" then I'd say that as horrible as the choice is, you are morally obliged to the second choice.
Morality is not some kind of "these are my principles, I shall stick to them in any situation" idea to me. Morality is inherently adaptive and situational. Genocide may be the most immoral, disgusting and inhuman thing any of us can think of, but the scale is really quite different here.

[Simocrates]

No one has said it ie nonsense and you seem to be the one making wild accusations from little to no evidence. Your theory about my opinion is a good example of this. Also the catalyst explains everything clearly, it explains their logic as to why they don't consider the cycles to be war or conflict. Again I think the blame fire for burning analogy went over your head and made you feel stupid hence the butthurt.

[thisisme8]

So, back to the OP - sorry to interrupt current debate.

The reject ending actually has the merit of being the "heaviest ending." Even though the other endings are all fine since you "win," different people will have different views of their price, since that price is almost entirely defined by morals.

The reject ending, however, tells the story of the last complete cycle. So basically, you have three whole games where you try to defeat the reapers, but you learn at the end, you aren't the hero of this story, somebody in the next cycle is. A really powerful message.

Granted, this all depends on speculation of how the next cycle wins. From my own interpretation, the next cycle was able to win without the Crucible, and without the 3 decision dilemma (this is gathered from Liara saying they built the Crucible, they were united, but they still couldn't do it), but still very dependent on something you did. So, you aren't the hero of the story, but the "hero of old" that the current hero seeks for guidance as he stares off into the sky with Liara's recording in hand, wondering what he should do next.

Very clever, BioWare. Very clever.

[Zine2]

JeosDinas wrote...

You assume trust must be unwavering, complete.

 
I don't see any reason to trust it at all. You're the one spouting nonesense about how it can't lie... when it's been using deception all the time.

Really, you're just being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic.

If by "pendantic" you mean "debunking your silly claims that the Reapers haven't proven themselves to be capable of deception", yes I am pendantic about stupid claims that runs contrary to all evidence.

[Blarty]

Zine2 wrote...

Blarty wrote...

On a side note, I got the impression that the Catalyst just wants the cycle to be ended, in whatever way, the anger at the refusal yet complete inaction over the destroy choice makes me lean towards this conclusion

The new stuff in the EC does, at least, have indications of this. The problem again is the in-game context of trust - kinda hard to trust it when its minions have been shredding the galaxy.

I guess that goes back to my earlier point of the Catalyst not killing Shepard outright.....  

[Zine2]

Zanza86 wrote...

No one has said it ie nonsense

It is nonsense. Go look at the "Catalyst is a Rogue AI thread". 

Stop trolling by spouting more nonsense that is completely contradicted by the evidence.

[Zine2]

thisisme8 wrote...

The reject ending, however, tells the story of the last complete cycle. So basically, you have three whole games where you try to defeat the reapers, but you learn at the end, you aren't the hero of this story, somebody in the next cycle is. A really powerful message.

Granted, this all depends on speculation of how the next cycle wins. From my own interpretation, the next cycle was able to win without the Crucible, and without the 3 decision dilemma (this is gathered from Liara saying they built the Crucible, they were united, but they still couldn't do it), but still very dependent on something you did. So, you aren't the hero of the story, but the "hero of old" that the current hero seeks for guidance as he stares off into the sky with Liara's recording in hand, wondering what he should do next.

Quite true. Not only that, it also nicely ties in with the Prothean sacrifices to give the current cycle a fighting chance. It's one of the stronger themes in the series that doesn't get enough love.

[JeosDinas]

Zine2 wrote...

If by "pendantic" you mean "debunking your silly claims that the Reapers haven't proven themselves to be capable of deception", yes I am pendantic about stupid claims that runs contrary to all evidence.

I literally mean pendantic. Sophistic. It's why I said the word.

[Oransel]

JeosDinas wrote...

Oransel wrote...
 Except, for me, refusing has more chances mathematically.  

 

To believe this, we have to reject the entire narrative of the game up until that point and presume that the story itself is lying to us. That's something of a large bit of willing metatextual ignorance.

Proofs, please. Except for "Hackett saying..." argument. Does not matter what he says. I want to see real, compelling and strong proofs that conventional victory is impossible. 

[Simocrates]

Until you provide your own evidence OP all you are doing is trolling. I haven't seen you actually come up with a valid reply other than "u r dumb i is smart".

[thisisme8]

Oransel wrote...

JeosDinas wrote...

Oransel wrote...
 Except, for me, refusing has more chances mathematically.  

 

To believe this, we have to reject the entire narrative of the game up until that point and presume that the story itself is lying to us. That's something of a large bit of willing metatextual ignorance.

Proofs, please. Except for "Hackett saying..." argument. Does not matter what he says. I want to see real, compelling and strong proofs that conventional victory is impossible. 

Grab pretty much every line of dialogue in all three games.  From there, just pick and choose.

[RiptideX1090]

I liked how the Reject ending actually was more in keeping with the themes of Mass Effect. Of choosing one's own destiny.

However. Destroy is the only one where I get to blow that star brat, Harbinger, and all the Reapers to bloody hell, and thus is the more satisfying one, in my opinion. You lose EDI and the geth, but as the geth say, "There will be no more compromise with the old machines," and as EDI says, "the Reapers are devoted to nothing but self preservation, I am different. I would die for Jeff, to end this."

[Oransel]

thisisme8 wrote...

Grab pretty much every line of dialogue in all three games.  From there, just pick and choose.

Please, provide us with these lines.

[PaoloModica]

I don't know.
If the catalyst lie to you, why does he tells to you about the choice to destroy, control or synthesis.
He could simply do not show up and let Shepard die without knowning what to do, or telling him that there is only a choice, the one he want.
He has nothing to lose, because he's winning.
The entire galaxy fleet tried to save ONLY A single PLANET and was almost wiped out.
There was no possibility to lose for him, so there was no need to lie to Shepard.