505 réponses à ce sujet

[FOX216BC]

 Refuse ending should have made it  possible to achive a "Pyrrhic victory" depending on your EMS.

[Geneaux486]

You don't seem to understand that my point has no problem with Shepard losing. It was expected. My problem is with the lack of depth in that ending and the trivilzation of Shep's sacrifice (especially with the addition FU via Twitter. Hurr durr the other cycle used the Crucible anyways!) Your attempt to equalize other choices Shep makes (other choices that have positive outcomes that have Shep's goals become achieveable) is inaccurate. It's not like choosing Morinth over Samara. It's not like helping Aneolis over Parsini (which I do plenty of times) those choices are seperate but lead to Shep's goal.

In that sense, they are different, you're right about that. But that's not why I was saying they were the same in the first place. What I was saying was that there's no moral justification for making any of those choices, including the Refusal ending, but that we should be allowed to make them anyway. That is how I think they're similar.

[Ryzaki]

There's no moral justification for any of those choices? How about no? Just because YOU can't justify those endings doesn't mean there's no justification. You just don't get it. And that's okay because if you don't get it you don't get it. But there's a very obvious reason why the choices aren't on the same level. Whether you understand that or not.

And on that note I'm finally done. We are clearly not going to reach anything near seeing things similarly.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 juin 2012 - 04:25 .

[Geneaux486]

Ryzaki wrote...

There's no moral justification for any of those choices? How about no? Just because YOU can't justify those endings doesn't mean there's no justification. You just don't get it. And that's okay because if you don't get it you don't get it. But there's a very obvious reason why the choices aren't on the same level. Whether you understand that or not.

And on that note I'm finally done. We are clearly not going to reach anything near seeing things similarly.

For someone who seemed indignant at the idea of me ignoring their points, you sure are quick to write off anyone who disagrees with you as being incapable of understanding.  We could have had this entire discussion without the second-guessing.
Okay, so what do you see as the moral upside to sparing an unrepentant mass murderer while killing an honorable defender of the innocent if you can only save one?  What about aiding a crook at the cost of the life of someone who's trying to stop the crime, when siding with the cop would result in no loss of life at all? 

Modifié par Geneaux486, 29 juin 2012 - 04:34 .

[Ryzaki]

...*rubs temples*

I've had too many debates on the validity of renegade solutions to rehash them. Especially with someone spewing about morality when that varies from person to person.

Hash that garbage somewhere else.

As for indignant. You weren't ignoring "one" of my points. You were ignoring the meat of the arguement. Of course I won't bother continuing the discussion when you're ignoring the main points of my arguement. There's no reason to. Especially not if you're trying to compare it to something it has no or little similarities to.

Ugh and I'm really done. I need to stop replying when I said I'm done.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 juin 2012 - 04:39 .

[Cant Planet]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Good lord, this thread is forcing me into being on Geneaux's side about something.

I'm having a hard time recalling when we had a major disagreement about something, though I do remember you. Little help?
And you don't have to take sides in this, I gave the dude way more attention than he deserved for far longer than I should've, so that's my bad.  Helped derail this thread a little bit in the process to. 

Nah, there was nothing in particular, I just remember your name because I'm nearly always in complete opposition to your stated positions, but they're always stated well (if sometimes vehemently).

I even agreed with AtlasMickey today. Must be some Synthesis in the air or something.

[Geneaux486]

Ryzaki wrote...

...*rubs temples*

I've had too many debates on the validity of renegade solutions to rehash them. Especially with someone spewing about morality when that varies from person to person.
 


Hash that garbage somewhere else.

You didn't answer my question.  What is the moral upside to sparing Morinth and killing Samara, or to helping Anoleis not only get himself killed but get Parasini killed as well?  I don't care how often you've debated this issue, we've all had to repost our viewpoints billions of times on this forum, but if you're going to post in this thread, then say "I've had this discussion too much to elaborate but you're definetely wrong", you're halfassing it.

As for indignant. You weren't ignoring "one" of my points. You were ignoring the meat of the arguement. Of course I won't bother continuing the discussion when you're ignoring the main points of my arguement. There's no reason to. Especially not if you're trying to compare it to something it has no or little similarities to.

I wasn't ignoring any of your argument.  I aknowleged and responded to it, agreed with the parts that were right, refuted the parts that weren't.

Ugh and I'm really done. I need to stop replying when I said I'm done.

Then stop talking about it and do it.  Either have the discussion or don't, enough of this "I'm going to stop responding to you then repeatedly remind you of that" bull****.

Nah, there was nothing in particular, I just remember your name because I'm nearly always in complete opposition to your stated positions, but they're always stated well (if sometimes vehemently).

I hope I'm not coming off as vehement all the time.  Sometimes I can get agressive, but as far as I'm aware that's only when someone else decides they want to make things personal.  Me disagreeing with someone over a video game is never going to cause me to not like them, that would just be silly.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 29 juin 2012 - 04:49 .

[Ryzaki]

*yawns*

Oh there we go with that moral upside arguement again. Nevermind that moral upsides have nothing to do with a choice having positive outcomes. *yawns more*

Awww are you getting mad? Tut tut.

And nope still completely missing the point of my arguement. Completely. It's more amusing than irritating now that you threw your little fit though.

Actually I'll keep responding. This is amusing now. *gets popcorn*

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 juin 2012 - 04:51 .

[Geneaux486]

Ryzaki wrote...

*yawns*

Oh there we go with that moral upside arguement again. Nevermind that moral upsides have nothing to do with a choice having positive outcomes. *yawns more*

Awww are you getting mad? Tut tut.

Actually I'll keep responding. This is amusing now.

Not mad, just calling it like I see it.  You still haven't answered my question.

[Ryzaki]

And you still don't get it. Morality has jack all to do with my irritation about how Refuse is treated. Jack all.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 juin 2012 - 04:54 .

[wantedman dan]

Ryzaki wrote...

*yawns*

Oh there we go with that moral upside arguement again. Nevermind that moral upsides have nothing to do with a choice having positive outcomes. *yawns more*

Awww are you getting mad? Tut tut.

And nope still completely missing the point of my arguement. Completely. It's more amusing than irritating now that you threw your little fit though.

Actually I'll keep responding. This is amusing now. *gets popcorn*

I figured you'd see it my way.

[Geneaux486]

Ryzaki wrote...

And you still don't get it.

And you resort to vague, baseless responses when your bluffs are called. 

I figured you'd see it my way.

Gotta admit, you did have me going.  I actually believed I was talking to an idiot.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 29 juin 2012 - 04:55 .

[wantedman dan]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

And you still don't get it.

And you resort to vague, baseless responses when your bluffs are called. 

LOL IRONY

[Ryzaki]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

And you still don't get it.

And you resort to vague, baseless responses when your bluffs are called. 

Nope I resort to vauge baseless responsens when being clear was ignored or completely ununderstood. Why bother being clear if you clearly don't get it? Might as well be mysterious. Maybe then you'll get it!

[Ryzaki]

wantedman dan wrote...

I figured you'd see it my way.

figures huh? Oh well. I'll always have headcanon. Until BW tries to take it away. <_<

[Geneaux486]

Ryzaki wrote...
Nope I resort to vauge baseless responsens when being clear was ignored or completely ununderstood. Why bother being clear if you clearly don't get it? Might as well be mysterious. Maybe then you'll get it!

I don't think I was "ununderstanding" you.  In fact, I know I wasn't, because every time you clarified, it was exactly what I thought it was.  You went from confrontational to vague, skipping being clear in the process.  Also the whole "I'm done with this thread" thing which clearly didn't pan out.  Basically you strike me as the kind of person who'll say anything to sound superior, regardless of whether or not you actually mean it (and regardless of whether or not it makes sense).  You can derail this thread all you want, but until you want to actually get back to the discussion, I'm done responding to you.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 29 juin 2012 - 04:59 .

[wantedman dan]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Gotta admit, you did have me going.  I actually believed I was talking to an idiot.

That insult was rather contrived and poorly conceived.

Try again, sweetheart.

[wantedman dan]

Ryzaki wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

I figured you'd see it my way.

figures huh? Oh well. I'll always have headcanon. Until BW tries to take it away. <_<

Gamble already took mine away with that godawful tweet, "OH THEY JUST USED TEH CREWSIBEL LAWL"

[Ryzaki]

Geneaux486 wrote...
I don't think I was "ununderstanding" you.  In fact, I know I wasn't, because every time you clarified, it was exactly what I thought it was.  You went from confrontational to vague, skipping being clear in the process.  Also the whole "I'm done with this thread" thing which clearly didn't pan out.  Basically you strike me as the kind of person who'll say anything to sound superior, regardless of whether or not you actually mean it (and regardless of whether or not it makes sense).  You can derail this thread all you want, but until you want to actually get back to the discussion, I'm done responding to you.

Misunderstanding yeah sure. Nope it wasn't what you thought it was. But you kept insisting it was even when I clarified so clearly you didn't understand. My clarifications getting snippy was because I get agitated when someone constantly misconstrues my point. It gets really agitating. I admit I get snippy really fast.

Oh for the record your little "moral upside" was pretty superior on it's own.

But by all means stop responding to me. I don't care. XD

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 juin 2012 - 05:01 .

[Geneaux486]

Ryzaki wrote...
But by all means stop responding to me. I don't care. XD

 Basically you strike me as the kind of person who'll say anything to sound superior, regardless of whether or not you actually mean it (and regardless of whether or not it makes sense).

[Ryzaki]

wantedman dan wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

I figured you'd see it my way.

figures huh? Oh well. I'll always have headcanon. Until BW tries to take it away. <_<

Gamble already took mine away with that godawful tweet, "OH THEY JUST USED TEH CREWSIBEL LAWL"

Ugh don't remind me. I'm pretending that doesn't exist. *sticks fingers in ears* that does show the spirit the ending was meant in which pretty much explains a lot.

Just petty.

[Ryzaki]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
But by all means stop responding to me. I don't care. XD

 Basically you strike me as the kind of person who'll say anything to sound superior, regardless of whether or not you actually mean it (and regardless of whether or not it makes sense).

Hi pot. Meet kettle.

So how's that not responding to me working out? 

For the record *stage whisper* alot of those things you said about me could easily apply to you.

Just saying.

I don't have a monopoly on being arrogant and superior in this thread.


And that moral upside especially didn't make sense. I had NEVER said ANYTHING about MORALIRTY. I said positive. Why you equalized the two I'll never understand.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 juin 2012 - 05:05 .

[wantedman dan]

Ryzaki wrote...

Ugh don't remind me. I'm pretending that doesn't exist. *sticks fingers in ears* that does show the spirit the ending was meant in which pretty much explains a lot.

Just petty.

Completely agreed. Their usage of twitter to inform us of crucial plot points is... disconcerting, to say the least.

[Geneaux486]

wantedman dan wrote...
Completely agreed. Their usage of twitter to inform us of crucial plot points is... disconcerting, to say the least.

Wasn't it also in the new stargazer scene as well?

[Ryzaki]

wantedman dan wrote...
Completely agreed. Their usage of twitter to inform us of crucial plot points is... disconcerting, to say the least.

Seriously. I was all content with that ending before hand too. Blargh. Sure it needed some fleshing out but hey it did what I wanted it to do. Shep threw a light into the future, future cycles took that light and pwn'd the Reapers without buying Starbrat's BS and RGB endings.

But noooooooo. Can't have that.