331 réponses à ce sujet

[ImperatorMortis]

chuckles471 wrote...

Principle.

I won't let a bully dictate the fate of the galaxy. We lose, so be it.

Oh my God.. Never has a post made me so upset. 

Just.. Oh my God.. 

You won't let a bully have a say in the Galaxy's fate, even if his say includes everyone staying alive, and moving on with their lives? 

So instead you let everyone die..

Are you a sociopath? 

Are the Reject Shepards sociopaths? 

Modifié par ImperatorMortis, 04 juillet 2012 - 03:01 .

[Errationatus]

I think there is a point to the endings a few folks are missing, and that is the Catalyst does tell us what it is and why it was created.  This has probably come up before, but I think its valid.

As the Catalyst itself stated (paraphrashing a smidge here) It was created as a bridge, as it were, a mediator between organics and synthetics and it was implied that it had an open-ending mandate in how it did that.

It simply logicked the most expedient way possible.

The Catalyst/Crucible/Reapers are not space magic.

They're shallow versions of Skynet, Arnie and Terminators.

Shepard is a Kyle Reese that actually had supporters and real help.

Unfortunately, that still paints Refusal as ultimately selfish and self-defeating. 


...It also shows the value of good programmers and the quadruple checking of the code they write.  

[RainbowDazed]

F00lishG wrote...

Why is it so hard to see that the you basically won when you meet the Catalyst? He will stand and do nothing and you can destroy all the Reapers. There. War over. No one else needs to die.

Is it because he told you the choice existed, thus taking away the power of something you were going to do anyways? Is that it?

Is it because the idea of a Giant supeweapon merging with the Reaper Boss A.I. too much for you to handle? Is that it?

Or are you all just so cynical that you see yourself  rejecting Bioware itself because you cannot accept what was handed to you?

I genuinely want to know. Because I cannot see preferring genocide and ascension to destroying the enemy that you sworn to do since ME1.

Copied/pasted/extended my post from another thread:

The reject ending will be the canonical ending for my reckless-ruthless renegade Shepard who either takes all or nothing! It fits her character well. Since she as a character does not know what results from the other choices are, she
has no reason to believe the blabberings of the god-child. Thus she'd tell him to **** off. The child is asking Shepard to either

a) Choose to save other species at the cost of one (genocide for Geth/EDI)
 Choose to accept control of a sentient race (reapers)
c) Choose to merge synthetic/organic life in some way that is too alien for her (and me) to understand.

None of those given choices are what Shepard came there to do. She came to the Crucible to finish reapers of, once and for all - by killing each and every one of them. The choices given were a) unacceptable and  questionable because of the source (a deranged AI that had started the cycle).

So the only sensible thing to do was to tell the little ****er to ****** off, radio Hackett that "It seems we'll be going out fighting. Give them hell and make them remember this cycle." and die. Ultimately this question comes down to this: do you settle for something less than what your heart desires or rather reject what you are offered and be without it? Many people (me included) often settles, but not my Shepard. She's hardcore, and that's the reason she is the first one that made it to the Catalyst. She doesn't make compromises or settle for anything less than what she wants.

Only thing that bothered me in this ending was Liara's whiny "we failed" recording though it did fit her character. We didn't fail, we finished the crucible, stored the information for future cycles and showed the catalyst that we don't do deals with lying reaper-****es.

The stargazer scene at the end was a nice touch. Shepard truly is a legend - the one who showed all organics that
extinction is a better choice than making deals with the Old Machines. And because of that choice the future cycles triumphed (or as I interperted it, the next cycle did).

Hail ruthless Shepard! \\m/

Modifié par RainbowDazed, 04 juillet 2012 - 03:20 .

[Ryzaki]

My Shep chose reject simply because he didn't trust the Catalyst. At all.

And if yours fine. I'm not saying trusting him was the wrong or stupid thing to do.

My Shep rejected because he struggled, he sacrificed and he was going to give the next cycle a chance to avoid having to bow to the Reapers to survive and prove their ridiculous logic true.

Yes he dies and his cycle dies. But they died fighting the Reapers. Everytime someone says Rejecters gave up I roll my eyes. Choosing not to use Deus Ex Machina weapon that you realize your enemy has SOME control over doesn't make giving up. It does mean Shep threw away a hand without even looking at it and decided to pick up a crappy hand and try to win with that and failed yes. But not that he/she gave up. I'm sick of hearing Reject haters flat out lie about things. If you don't like the ending? Fine. The blatant lies are getting goddamn tiresome though.

[ahleung]

JakeMacDon wrote...

This is what you happen to be doing. I haven't dismissed anything you've said.  I've simply pointed out why I think you're wrong.  You provide nothing to say you're right.   I've actually played the games several times and actually pay attention to both dialogue and story.  Which you obviously haven't.  You also have no ability to distinguish the fact that brainwashing - which is what Indoctrination actually is - doesn't need to involve lying at all.  You won't even concede it's possible because then your entire "argument" collapses.

TIM's example might be controversial.
But EDI's examples were definitely showing she lied (or output untrue message on purpose). It just didn't fit your definition of lying (by own free will?)

At least I tried to raise examples to show "machine lying" (but overruled by you)

On the contrary, did you raise any examples of "machine can't lie"?
(e.g. a machine tried/wanted to lie, then found himself CAN'T?)

No, all your examples are just "machine didn't lie", or "(you think) machine had no reason to lie".
They didn't prove you wrong, but they also didn't prove you right.

Your logic is:
You claim something (Machine can't lie)
then you keep raising examples that didn't prove you wrong. (See? he didn't lie. See? he has no reason to lie)
and you overrule all other peoples' examples that proved you wrong. (EDI's jokes, EDI deceiving Alliance)
Then you declare you are right, becaue (you think) no one proved you wrong.

You are doing exactly what you accused me of doing: Assume the conclusion.

 
Uh, listen, genius - it is absolutely crucial to the topic.  "Does the Cataylst lie?"  Refusal proponents say yes, which is the entire crux of their argument!  

What I meant by irrelevant is "how YOU call it". Re-read my post.

Didn't I said this 2 to 3 times? (and you still haven't responded to it)
Let's say we agree with you, Cataslyt can't lie, but he might be programmed to lie.
How does it make any difference on the topic (whether Shepard should trust Catalyst)?

 
Oh, so suddenly it is relevant!

What I meant by relevant is the fact that: "machine can output untrue message on purpose". (Yes, I am writing this statement again and again, because I am not allowed to use the shorter word "lie" )
Who cares if YOU don't agree to call it lying?
Re-read my post.

 
Let me clue you in on a few things:  One, I never denied that machines can be programmed to lie.  READ THIS CAREFULLY.  I said OF THEIR OWN VOLITION, WITHOUT BEING PROGRAMMED TO, THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF IT.

I haven't forced anything on anyone.  As my rather enjoyable discussion with jonjon2se demonstrated (in which I said essentially the same thing).   But that was because that particular person was intelligent and thoughtful.

There. You are forcing other people to accept "lying needs to be by own free will, otherwise it's not called lying."

For me, the definition I use is rather more common
oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lie--2
"Tell an intentionally false statement"

I don't see anything related to "own volition".
Care to explain why EDI's joke didn't fit that definition?

"Reading is tiring" tells me everything I need to know about you and your position.  

What made me tiring is digging the key points out of your text walls.
Writing long paragrahs and complicated sentences doesn't make your point more valid.
We are not writing thesis here.
On forums, and sometimes in daily life, make your point simple and clear is much more important.
Using highlight does help.

What
is tiring is constantly having to rebut an idiot who thinks that
endless repetition of the same unsupported nonsense over and over
somehow validates his exceedingly shallow position.

I think I'll stop doing that now. 

Funny, this should be not the first time I heard you said you would stop.

And my "wanking" keeps getting replies.

Modifié par ahleung, 06 juillet 2012 - 07:54 .

[ahleung]

delete, double posted

Modifié par ahleung, 05 juillet 2012 - 02:59 .

[Quackjack]

DESTROY FTW
*Flame shield activate*