Aller au contenu

Photo

Rejection is the only choice - unless you meta-game


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
1027 réponses à ce sujet

#826
humes spork

humes spork
  • Members
  • 3 338 messages

elitehunter34 wrote...

My whole argument with humes is that by him saying that defeating the Reapers conventionally is 100% impossible, then he's saying that defeating the Reapers conventionally is a logical impossibility.  Which again, is not a proveable statement.  If he said that defeating the Reapers conventionally has a 99% chance of being impossible, then he's making an infinitely more provable claim.

You're asking me to discharge an inductive argument simply by merit of it being an inductive argument. I will absolutely not concede to sophistry by doing so.

Falsify the claim by presenting evidence to the contrary -- as really, you are (and have been) expected to do as the counter-claimant to an inductive argument, given all that is sufficient to uphold my claim is the lack of evidence to the contrary -- and I will.

#827
Aaleel

Aaleel
  • Members
  • 4 427 messages
Reject will never be an option for me.

I started the last run with the intention of using the Crucible, and willing to accept any consequences that went along with using it without knowing what it did. So I'm told potential consequences, consequences that I was ready to live with before. But now all of a sudden I'm not going to use the crucible unless the outcome is clean? I go from willing to accept whatever happens, to the outcome must be clean for me to use this thing?

Keeping with the consequences. An AI comes walking out at the last minute in the form of a child warning me of consequences and repercussions of using the crucible. This made me MORE confident in using it, not less. If the Catalyst had described the outcome of using it as all rainbows, butterflies and puppies then I may have been given some pause.

#828
Ryzaki

Ryzaki
  • Members
  • 34 422 messages

Lord Goose wrote...

You shoot him out of curiosity?
Well, that's that I mean. Where is no good reason to do that.


He slaughtered countless lives because of his "logic" shooting a hologram in the face wasn't going to do anything to him (I also shot at the Keeper and poor Anderson for the lulz (legion too. XD). ) Starbrat is the only one who throws a hissy fit.

#829
v TricKy v

v TricKy v
  • Members
  • 1 017 messages

incinerator950 wrote...

v TricKy v wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

spiriticon wrote...

I like this ending more and more each time. I think it's better than Control or Synthesis.


For people who like the idea of dooming trillions to an unnecessary demise, it is definitely better.  It is also better for people who are afraid of decision making, so averse to dilemmas they prefer dooming trillions to making a decision from among difficult choices.  As an aesthetic choice, that is.

You seem to have a problem with accepting other viewpoints. What do you get from talking down decisions other people made?


I can't speak for him, but the reason I laugh at the fanpan ending is because the open speculation and usual Dev Twitter announcement that trims speculation when it says the next Cycle wins, with use of the Crucible.  

Regardless if thats true or not, Refusal is a glorified Game Over that is in place of an ending.  It offers less in the destruction of the Council races then the actual endings saving themselves. 

Also doesn't have the cool Omnisiah voice like you get in Control. 

Well the openess of the refuse ending is makes good in my point of view. It lets you end the story the way you want because everything is possible after it cuts to black. Besides maybe Bioware left it open for reason. There is after all the talk about the Leviathan of Dis DLC.

#830
DarthSliver

DarthSliver
  • Members
  • 3 335 messages
You gotta look at it from a different point of view too, the Council doing nothing is why your building the Cruicible in the first place. You built this weapon and you hooked it up to the Citadel to use the power source from there to make it work. The Starkid starts off telling you that when the Cruicible hooked up it alter its programming making it realize there were other options to its Synthetic problem that lead to the "Cycles" to happen in the first place. It gives you three new solutions to decide upon, Control the Reapers, Synthesis of Organics and Synthetic, than there is the Destroy option, the option you came to do but the catch is it will kill not only the Reapers but also all synthetic life. So the obvious thing you do is pick the Option you came to do and destroy the Reapers because you know the Geth would do the same if the rolls were reverse.

Now your telling me you would rather refuse the chance to destroy them because you would rather do what the council did to you and refuse to believe the Starkid despite that he tells you that his program was altered by the Cruiciable allowing him to see more solutions. Refusing to take a leap of faith on any of the options is worse than what the Council did by not believing you about the Reapers. By refusing to take a chance you ensure that trillions will die and you are worse than the Council, you already know the fleet is strapped as it is and the Reapers will break them. Doing nothing isnt an option, if the Starkid is lying than you already have failed better to hope that what he saids is true.

#831
Lord Goose

Lord Goose
  • Members
  • 865 messages
[quote]Ryzaki wrote... [quote]Lord Goose wrote... You shoot him out of curiosity?
Well, that's that I mean. Where is no good reason to do that.[/
quote] He slaughtered countless lives because of his
"logic" shooting a hologram in the face wasn't going to do
anything to him (I also shot at the Keeper and poor Anderson
for the lulz (legion too. XD). ) Starbrat is the only one who
throws a hissy fit. [/quote]

My point is, that in verbal Reject, Shepard at least makes clear, why he will not do anything. Physical Reject is meaningless.

#832
Ryzaki

Ryzaki
  • Members
  • 34 422 messages

Lord Goose wrote...
My point is, that in verbal Reject, Shepard at least makes clear, why he will not do anything. Physical Reject is meaningless.


And my point is it doesn't matter. Starbrat does what he does regardless of Shep refusing to use the Crucible...or simply deciding to shoot him (even if you flat out say okay I'm going to go do X and go on your merry way to pick it).

Starbrat's petty. He's a damn hologram. That shot didn't hurt. Hell I can shoot at that Keeper all day and it does nothing.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juillet 2012 - 10:00 .


#833
krukow

krukow
  • Members
  • 3 943 messages
Starbrat has no motivation to lie. NONE.

Shep is passed out on the floor. If starbrat wanted to win, he just had to leave him there. Done. War over, let's start the next cycle. He doesn't. He brings him up to the area, wakes him up, then gives him choices.

And even if you want to ignore that, there's still no reason to do nothing. If you do nothing, you lose. You know this. Hackett knows this. Everyone knows this. The plan was crucible or bust. That was the whole plan. Arguing that you should do nothing because starbrat might be lying, when it would be the dumbest thing ever ever, is like arguing that you might be color blind, therefor you should ignore that red light and go on through the intersection.

Derp.

#834
Fingertrip

Fingertrip
  • Members
  • 1 192 messages
Wow, rape the word meta-game more please. :/

#835
DarthSliver

DarthSliver
  • Members
  • 3 335 messages
I am still with that the game shouldve ending at "Best Seats in the House" because it was awesome. Everything after that just seems full of hogwash.

But Rejecting just shows the Starkid that what his doing is meaning full because Organics are ignorant as shown by Shepard going " even thought you gave me a way to end the Reaper threat, F you" But Reject is also a leap of faith like trusting the Starkid that the choices are real, you leave the fate of the galaxy to the next Cycle.

#836
The Smitchens

The Smitchens
  • Members
  • 771 messages
Why does refusal have to be the only choice without meta-gaming?  I'm sure the galaxy would completely understand if Shepard came back to Earth and said "I didn't like what I saw.  Let's just keep getting our asses kicked... by the way.  Anderson died helping me get there so I could just change my mind for everyone in the galaxy.  Back to the battle."

In that position, with a chance to stop something as huge as galactic warfare, with everyone either being killed or turned into some monstrocity, just how many people really would say "let the battle rage on"?  Especially when the decision is at the behest of the losing side.

Modifié par The Smitchens, 02 juillet 2012 - 10:14 .


#837
Guest_Rubios_*

Guest_Rubios_*
  • Guests

The Angry One wrote...

You could remove the meta-gaming problem out of the equation entirely by properly foreshadowing these effects during the game.


You can't be serious... :blink:

All endings are a leap of faith because you never actually know what the crucible does, but literally half the trilogy is foreshadowing of that final decision:

- Rachni Queen moral dilemma (refuse much?)
- Saren final speech.
- The whole Lazarus Proyect (a.k.a Commander Jesus) 
- Destroying or controlling the Geth herectics. 
- Proyect Overlord. 
- The collector base fate.
- The whole Joker/EDI romance thing.
- The genophage sabotage.
- Miranda and her control chip. 
- Shepard going into the Geth consensus (organic and synthetic minds working together? IMPOSSIBRU!)
- All the EDI moral "dilemmas".
- Hipster Legion sacrificing himself to give the Geth sentience and individuality (he did synthesis before it was cool). 
- Priority: Horizon
- TIM speech at Cronos Station ("... you chose to control Eva's body" - "It was necessary..."  - "My point exactly.")  
- TIM "self-righteousness" (refuse) vs "necessary sacrifices" (C/S/D) speech.

...

Sometimes I feel like people play Mass Effect only to shoot aliens and bang Liara... :mellow:

Modifié par Rubios, 02 juillet 2012 - 10:25 .


#838
Ryzaki

Ryzaki
  • Members
  • 34 422 messages
..how in the hell is Rachni Queen refuse? You either melt her ass to goo or you decide to belive her word that she'll be peaceful. That has squat to do with refusal.

And in ME3 you either buy her not getting trapped AGAIN or you let her get crushed by rocks. How the hell is that refusal?

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juillet 2012 - 10:24 .


#839
The Smitchens

The Smitchens
  • Members
  • 771 messages

Rubios wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

You could remove the meta-gaming problem out of the equation entirely by properly foreshadowing these effects during the game.


You can't be serious... :blink:

All endings are a leap of faith because you never actually know what the crucible does, but literally half the trilogy is foreshadowing of that final decision:

- Rachni Queen moral dilemma (refuse much?)
- Saren final speech.
- The whole Lazarus Proyect (a.k.a Commander Jesus) 
- Destroying or controlling the Geth herectics. 
- Proyect Overlord. 
- The collector base fate.
- The whole Joker/EDI romance thing.
- The genophage sabotage.
- Miranda and her control chip. 
- Shepard going into the Geth consensus (organic and synthetic minds working together? IMPOSSIBRU!)
- All the EDI moral "dilemmas".
- Hipster Legion sacrificing himself to give the Geth sentience (he did synthesis before it was cool). 
- Priority: Horizon
- TIM speech at Cronos Station ("... you chose to control Eva's body" - "It was necessary..."  - "My point exactly.")  
- TIM "self-righteousness" (refuse) vs "necessary sacrifices" (C/S/D) speech.

...

Sometimes I feel like people play Mass Effect only to shoot aliens and bang Liara... :mellow:


I'll give people credit that there are plot holes and things that don't make 100% sense (such is the fate of science fiction).  I thought it was a pretty safe assumption back when I first beat ME2 that the ending of ME3 would have no choice but to put us up against the biggest moral decision possible.  It couldn't simply boil down to "I got the good/bad ending".

It's no different than what Fable 2 did with the needs of one/a few/many options at the end, only it was done far more effectively.  I mean, here we are still discussing the morality of the choices.  This is what they wanted to happen all along and for that they deserve a lot more credit than they've gotten.

#840
The Smitchens

The Smitchens
  • Members
  • 771 messages

Ryzaki wrote...

..how in the hell is Rachni Queen refuse? You either melt her ass to goo or you decide to belive her word that she'll be peaceful. That has squat to do with refusal.

And in ME3 you either buy her not getting trapped AGAIN or you let her get crushed by rocks. How the hell is that refusal?


He left out the auxiliary verb and subject.  The full sentence should read "do you refuse much?"  It is asking you how often you refuse to free the queen.

#841
Guest_Rubios_*

Guest_Rubios_*
  • Guests

Ryzaki wrote...

..how in the hell is Rachni Queen refuse? You either melt her ass to goo or you decide to belive her word that she'll be peaceful. That has squat to do with refusal.


That's you taking the blind decision of letting go the future of the species that tried to wipe out all the sentient life in Citadel space (and would do if not for the Krogan) just because your moral compass says it is wrong.

The decision of not using a weapon that can end the cycle just because you believe that brainwash / lack of choice / genocide is wrong ends up being the same.

You are simply accepting the risk of getting wiped out by rachni / reapers because all the other solutions are wrong, unless you metagame that is...

Modifié par Rubios, 02 juillet 2012 - 10:46 .


#842
elitehunter34

elitehunter34
  • Members
  • 622 messages

humes spork wrote...

You're asking me to discharge an inductive argument simply by merit of it being an inductive argument. I will absolutely not concede to sophistry by doing so.

Falsify the claim by presenting evidence to the contrary -- as really, you are (and have been) expected to do as the counter-claimant to an inductive argument, given all that is sufficient to uphold my claim is the lack of evidence to the contrary -- and I will.


Is defeating the Reapers conventionally logically impossible?  Do you agree or disagree with this statement?  This question is entirely relevant because you stand behind your claim that defeating the Reapers conventionally is 100% impossible.  Therefore, you are arguing that defeating the Reapers conventionally is logically impossible.  If you are saying something is logically impossible, it is no longer an inductive argument.  An inductive argument does not prove that something is true, it only supports the conclusion and allows for the possibility of it to be false.  Saying it is logically impossible to defeat the Reapers conventionally is an assertion, not an inductive argument, and that's an assertion that is impossible to prove.  I don't have to provide any evidence to the contrary because you are trying to prove that something is impossible which is in itself  impossible.  Your evidence does not prove that defeating the Reapers conventionally is impossible, it only proves that it is highly improbable.  Two entirely different things.  Why can't you seem to understand the difference between those two concepts?


You know, I don't want to do this because it is besides the point I'm trying to make, but here's some evidence that defeating the Reapers conventionally is possible.  Never before have the Reapers had to fight an enemy where their leaders weren't instantly killed and could use the Mass Relays.  That was a massive strategic advantage for the Reapers and now that is gone.  Supplies, ships, and soldiers can be quickly and efficiently shuttled across the galaxy, and the Reapers can't stop that.  So the Reapers have to spread their resources trying to take everyone out.

Not only that, but as Javik said, the current cycle is much more diverse than the previous cycle.  So the current cycle has the advantage of being able to use the strengths of some races to balance out the weaknesses of the other races.

You know whats some more proof?  The fact that the organic races have weapons and technology that can damage or destroy the Reapers.  That puts the probability of success above 0.

Modifié par elitehunter34, 02 juillet 2012 - 11:01 .


#843
Ryzaki

Ryzaki
  • Members
  • 34 422 messages

Rubios wrote...
That's you taking the blind decision of letting go the future of the species that tried to wipe out all the sentient life in Citadel space (and would do if not for the Krogan) just because your moral compass says it is wrong.

The decision of not using a weapon that can end the cycle just because you believe that brainwash / lack of choice / genocide is wrong ends up being the same.

You are simply accepting the risk of getting wiped out by rachni / reapers, unless you metagame that is...


Ah I see now. To be granted though you run a much high chance of killing the Rachni Queen if she does decide to turn on Shepard than you do the reapers and there's the chance she simply won't turn on you. Don't have that with the reapers. The Rachni Queen also has the benefit of not telling you her kind murdered for the good of those they killed.

The Smitchens wrote...
He left out the auxiliary verb and
subject.  The full sentence should read "do you refuse much?"  It is
asking you how often you refuse to free the queen.


Oh.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juillet 2012 - 10:46 .


#844
Archonsg

Archonsg
  • Members
  • 3 560 messages
It was said to be impossible to defeat the Luftwaffe in the early days of WW2, a relatively small force of allied pilots proved them wrong at the Battle of Britain, it was said that no one could stand against the "divine wind" of the Kamikaze squads, brave sailors lost lives, endured and proved that wrong, and it was believed that when the might of the US is brought to bear on slipper wearing peasant army in a little south east Asian country, the war would be won.

Shows how little "common sense" or wisdom really effects the tides of war. Sometimes there's that little extra something that can tip the balance for one side or the other.

Game wise, had Bioware made it such that Reject with a little higher EMS rating then "destroy breath scene" is required gets a victory result and write it so that it is plausible, then why not? Why couldn't the Rachni Queen realizing that her race is doomed due to Reaper interference sing that one last song, make that sacrifice for all races, for Shepard for believing in her, and asks her entire race to charge that last charge? Hace her song override reaper control and all Rachni based reaper forces turn on their slavers? Have the Geth who just only learned the value of being alive, give up theirs so that their creators, the Quarians might live, have every race act as one, and show it in cutscenes, Batarians rescuing humans, Krogans aiding the Salarians, so much tgat the writers can come up with to make a victory possible.

Because, even from our own history, in war, sometimes the impossible isn't so.

Unfortunately , Bioware choose not to. Instead in essence telling us,  "Y"oou wanted a reject option, well here it is, but" FU!, hope you liked it. "

Modifié par Archonsg, 02 juillet 2012 - 10:54 .


#845
drinkurmilk

drinkurmilk
  • Members
  • 231 messages
I would find Reject to be a more attractive option if there existed a viable alternate solution to the Reaper threat.  My assumption long before Mass Effect 3 was released was that any kind of victory without sacrifice and a near-blind leap of faith by Shepard in some way was beyond question.  There needed to be something else, something to be uncovered that would make any kind of a win possible, the Catalyst was it. 

If you subscribe to the idea that Reapers can be defeated with firepower then, fine, that's your prerogative.  Bioware could do little more to enunciate the unwinnable nature of this fight without stating point blank: "You cannot just pew pew them."  It also speaks volumes that post-reject, Shepard meekly stands, watching
the fleets around him/her get battered in the skies.  There was no other
solution - fighting was a stall. 

As far as 'meta-gaming' -- lexicon-of-the-moment -- it is not reasonable to expect we (as Shepard) to fully comprehend the fallout of their choice before it happens first time around.  We understand now, thanks significantly to the EC, but at the time of making it, we did not.  The options were detailed as much as was to be expected given context.  The Catalyst is the medium and the war is nearing its finals throws, an exhaustive list of what is good and bad about each is logisitically impossible.  You would also forefit a considerable sense of scale and impetus surrounding your decision if it was entirely conspicuous.  The decision is ultimately a faith in something greater.

It doesn't make Reject any less of a suitable choice for some Shepards.  It really comes down to how willing yours is to, not just step, but steamroll into an unknown quantity. 

What defies Shepard among the mortals is his/her ability to make the decision in the first place, less the decision itself.

#846
humes spork

humes spork
  • Members
  • 3 338 messages

elitehunter34 wrote...

Is defeating the Reapers conventionally logically impossible?

Yes. You have at the fundament an inductive claim supported by existing evidence, and a lack of evidence to the contrary; moreover, repeated and canonical assertions in the context of the game itself, and independent verification of the truth-value of the claim upon selecting the refusal ending. It is not a claim rendered exclusively from inductive reasoning.

The overwhelming amount of evidence for the inductive claim, and lack of evidence to the contrary, elevates the probability the claim is true to such a point pointing out its inductive nature has nominal impact on the claim itself. Then you add the canonical arguments in favor of the inductive claim, which elevate it quite frankly beyond reproach. That is in part why it is irrational to refuse under any circumstance -- even if the Catalyst is lying conventional victory is impossible.

And as if that is somehow not veracious enough to be persuasive, independent confirmation of the claim after the fact demonstrates its overwhelming soundness. Again, if you refuse to accept that conventional victory is impossible, you must deny canon to do so. All of it, really, which brings me to my next points.

Never before have the Reapers had to fight an enemy where their leaders weren't instantly killed and could use the Mass Relays.

Can you prove this assertion? All that can be inferred by the fact the Reapers continue to exist is that they have never lost. The details of each individual cycle are not available.

Not only that, but as Javik said, the current cycle is much more diverse than the previous cycle.  So the current cycle has the advantage of being able to use the strengths of some races to balance out the weaknesses of the other races.

Yet, as of the actual activation of the Crucible that diversity has had no impact of merit on the war effort itself. The most to which said "diversity" has amounted are tactical victories that were still decisive strategic losses.

...the organic races have weapons and technology that can damage or destroy the Reapers.

So did whatever civilization that put down the derelict Reaper you visit in ME2. Did they win? Sovereign was destroyed, the Leviathan of Dis could very well have been disabled by an organic species, and the "current" cycle put down a large number of Reapers...all to no avail. The ability to destroy a Reaper is not equivalent to the ability to win the war conventionally. If it were, the Reapers would have been put down no "later" than 37 million years ago.

I brought up voluntarily, and answered these counter-allegations, in this post. At this point, you're retreading old ground to attempt to make a point that was long since addressed and discharged.

Modifié par humes spork, 02 juillet 2012 - 11:45 .


#847
Asharad Hett

Asharad Hett
  • Members
  • 1 492 messages

Biotic Sage wrote...

I just have a hard time seeing the logic that doing one of those 3 is worse than attempting what is essentially the same thing that thousands of dead cycles before us attempted.
...snip...
Also, the Crucible was the work of thousands of cycles.  Another argument for actually using it and letting it do its thing is to make sure all of their plans and sacrifices weren't for nothing.


Um....  Your first statement contradicts your last.

#848
Moirai

Moirai
  • Members
  • 328 messages
There are quite a few reasons why I do not like the idea of the Reject ending, but I'll focus on one that I find potentially more bothersome to me than most.

Here's the scene: Big battle at Earth. All ships in the respective fleets engaged Reaper forces, All waiting for the Crucible to do its thing...

And....it doesn't, because Shepard has decide not to use it and has now collapsed and died from blood loss.

Okay. Now here's the potential problem...

Reapers regain full 'air space' control of the Citadel, and...no surprises here...the Crucible as well. Shouldn't exactly be an issue for them really. After all, they have back door control access to the Citadel (Catalyst) and the firepower.

Now, after they've potentially regrouped to pound a pile of cack out of our fleet and probably push us back to a rallying position, they can sneak off with the Crucible, rip it apart, find out what it does, and then, a few thousand years later...

...re-engineer the Citadel to not accept that design any more.

Oh boy. Well, I guess that's really screwed up Liara's carefully seeded time capsule info. Everyone's boned in the next cycle, because they'll build one, take it to the Citadel and then find it doesn't fit. Then everyone will need to spend the next couple of hundred cycles designing and building a new one that does. Somehow.

Brilliant.

The point being is...it has the potential to happen.

Edit: I guess it's also possible that the Reapers could change the Citadel so that it's impossible to dock any external power source to it.

Modifié par Moirai, 02 juillet 2012 - 11:47 .


#849
Ryzaki

Ryzaki
  • Members
  • 34 422 messages
If they waste time rebuilding it after Liara told them it didn't work they deserve to be killed.

#850
Moirai

Moirai
  • Members
  • 328 messages
Well, she did include plans for it in her time capsule, so...

Anyway, rip the idea apart however you see fit. Just throwing it out there...