80611 réponses à ce sujet

[MegumiAzusa]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Are you guys arguing this from a literal perspective? Because then I'd agree, but what you're saying doesn't apply to IT.

Yeah I was saying how literal refuse makes no sense as an option and Raistlin was pointing out how literal destroy is also baffling.

And this is without getting into the effects once it's chosen.

How is literal destroy baffling?

AI created to prevent synthetics from killing organics, also says itself that its purpose is to preserve all Organic and Synthetic species...offers you choice to destroy all synthetics including all the supposedly preserved races...but makes sure to point out that it will not end the cycle in any way and the nightmare will come again.

In short not only is it allowing something to happen which will go against its core programming (since the cycle of Synthetics killing organics will not end) but also something which will destroy every single one of the species its cliams it is its purpose to preserve.

The current solution doesn't work anymore, but it can't stop the Cycle on its own.

[RavenEyry]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

AI created to prevent synthetics from killing organics, also says itself that its purpose is to preserve all Organic and Synthetic species...offers you choice to destroy all synthetics including all the supposedly preserved races...but makes sure to point out that it will not end the cycle in any way and the nightmare will come again.

In short not only is it allowing something to happen which will go against its core programming (since the cycle of Synthetics killing organics will not end) but also something which will destroy every single one of the species its cliams it is its purpose to preserve.

And that's just the offering that's baffling. Beyond that we've got the whole thing about how red light can selectively target only sentient synthetics but not specific ones a destroy them irreperably despite no obvious physical damage.

And the visible light travels faster than light, but all three do that and I think it's an acceptable break from reality like sound in space.

[BleedingUranium]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Are you guys arguing this from a literal perspective? Because then I'd agree, but what you're saying doesn't apply to IT.

Yeah I was saying how literal refuse makes no sense as an option and Raistlin was pointing out how literal destroy is also baffling.

And this is without getting into the effects once it's chosen.

How is literal destroy baffling?

AI created to prevent synthetics from killing organics, also says itself that its purpose is to preserve all Organic and Synthetic species...offers you choice to destroy all synthetics including all the supposedly preserved races...but makes sure to point out that it will not end the cycle in any way and the nightmare will come again.

In short not only is it allowing something to happen which will go against its core programming (since the cycle of Synthetics killing organics will not end) but also something which will destroy every single one of the species its cliams it is its purpose to preserve.

The current solution doesn't work anymore, but it can't stop the Cycle on its own.

Except it clearly does because Refuse.

[RavenEyry]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

The current solution doesn't work anymore, but it can't stop the Cycle on its own.

1) It never did.
2) How is giving up and not solving the problem a new solution?

[BleedingUranium]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Can I just politely point out that in each ending except refuse, the narrator says what they will do or what will happen, as if they're talking about the future. They're not talking about the present, therefore, an argument could be made that nothing said or in the slides actually happens. EDI says the galaxy will do stuff. She doesn't say it in past tense.

If it had actually happened, she would have said it in past tense. Same goes for Shepreaper and Hackett. They're just expressing their hopes and you're seeing images of those hopes. What you are seeing is not what might actually be happening based on the use of tense.

And something I have on the Great Wall:

Bioware said that some parts of the game are not meant to be taken literally.

Being a literalist means you have believe this statement.

Being a literalist means you have to take some parts of the game non-literally.

Literalists are crazy.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 29 novembre 2012 - 03:10 .

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...
AI created to prevent synthetics from killing organics, also says itself that its purpose is to preserve all Organic and Synthetic species...offers you choice to destroy all synthetics including all the supposedly preserved races...but makes sure to point out that it will not end the cycle in any way and the nightmare will come again.

In short not only is it allowing something to happen which will go against its core programming (since the cycle of Synthetics killing organics will not end) but also something which will destroy every single one of the species its cliams it is its purpose to preserve.

I have to say this falls under simple video game logic. Everyone would've been angry if there was no option to kill the Reapers, so Bioware had to put that option in while still keeping the Catalyst as the final choice guide.

[RavenEyry]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...
I have to say this falls under simple video game logic. Everyone would've been angry if there was no option to kill the Reapers, so Bioware had to put that option in while still keeping the Catalyst as the final choice guide.

Doesn't explain why Mr. Sparkle appears to prefer destroy to refuse.

[The Heretic of Time]

Hey Arashi08, I wanted to take a break from the BSN, but I remember seeing your post yesterday before I went to bed. I feel like responding to this post before I take my break, because it's a pretty good post:

Arashi08 wrote...

Indeed it would, and this, I think, is at least one of the core reasons why pro-ITers and anti-ITers don't get along.  At a certain point logic seems to take the backseat and ego takes over, for both sides.  Naturally this doesn't just apply to pro-cons and pro-synths but also to "literalists" and ITers as well as people who enjoyed the ending as is.

I think it's not so much about ego but more about the fact that our wishes and desires collabs. I'm perfectly content with my Control ending and basically you want BioWare to take that away from me with the IT, if you understand what I mean. 

Imagine that you're going to buy a new car. You can either choice a Volvo, a Peugeot or an Volkswagen. You really like the Volkswagen, so you bought one of those. You're perfectly happy with the Volkswagen, but all of the sudden, after a year, the salesman bursts into your garage, trashes your Volkswagen and takes it away. "Here, have a Peugeot instead, it's much better!" the salesman says. "But I didn't choose  Peugeot, I didn't even want a damn Peugeot, I wanted a Volkswagen! Why can't I have my Volkswagen? What kind of madness is this?" you reply.

The salesman replies: "Nahhhh you only think you wanted a Volkswagen because you were indoctrinated, haha! Here, take this Peugeot, everyone from the IT club says the Peugeot is much better than the Volkswagen anyway and they aren't indoctrinated, so you better listen to them son. Now quit whining and enjoy your Peugeot!"

After a moment of silence, you reply: "So... can I then at least get a new Volkswagen after using this Peugeot? I really liked my Volkswagen!" 

But the salesman says: "No, you can't have a goddamn Volkswagen son!"

You: "WHY?"

Salesman: "Because the IT crew doesn't like Volkswagens! They say Volkswagens and Volvos won't get you to your destination, only Peugeots will!"

You: "But the Volkswagen got me to my destination before, so obviously what you say is not true!"

Salesman: "No son, that was all an illusion. Now quit whining you son of a bitch and enjoy your goddamn Peugeot! Goodbye!"

You: 


Do you see what I'm getting at?

Based on what I've learned from all three games, it seems to me that some of the themes persent within the Mass Effect series are more anti-control and synthesis.  For me, it seemed like the game was trying to illustrate that attempts at controlling something that you don't understand always end disasterously.  This is seen in the games on multiple occasions, if only I could remember them all lol.  Cerberus is usually the faction most tied to this theme; as their attempts at control have almost always backfired.  Ironically they seem the most successful when they don't try and take direct control over events, such as TIM choocing to not implant a control ship in Shepard and giving her free reign on the Collector mission.  Overall I feel that the games have been trying to tell players that trying to control something you know very little about oft has negative consequences.

Succes has always been defined as getting up one more time than you've been knocked down.

Yes, Cerberus did failed many times with their experiments, but they were always pretty damn close. In fact, in ME3 we finally see Cerberus being succesful at taking control over their troops and monsters. They succesfully turn regular people into controllable super-soldiers. And Oleg Pretovsky succesfully managed to create a new, better version of the Adjucants that he could control.

What I admire about Cerberus is that they don't give up. They strongly believe they can take control and they won't stop until they have that control. We saw they were getting more succesful in ME3 and they would have succeeded in taking over control of the reapers if TIM wasn't indoctrinated.

Really, that was the only think that kept TIM back; the fact that he became indoctrinated.

Synthesis seems a bit less illustrated in specific events, to me it seems a more broad topic as Synthesis pretty much seems to represent the Reapers themselves; they are a forced synthesis, the very same choice Shepard could make in the endings.  I already wrote a lenghty post about how I felt synthesis as presented inthe endings was fundamentally wrong so I won't take up more space with it in this one, though if you are interested I can retype it in a new post.  To me, synthesis itself isn't necessarily the problem, it's the notion of the player thinking they know better than the natural order of things by deciding "yep we need to evolve like this because the Reaper leader I've met at the last minute says so."  Though Synthesis itself does seem to be frowmed upon by some characters, including Legion in ME2, and made an example of its negative consequences int he form of Saren at the end of ME1.  While I personally don't like the idea of rewriting all organic DNA, I think the fundamental problem with the Synthesis choice it's its execution and it's lack of consensus.

My only problem with Synthesis is that it seems like magic to me. I do like the idea of all live being connected to each other in Synthesis. It reminds me of the Helios ending in Deus Ex 2, my favorite ending in that game.

I don't think anything in the Mass Effect series is against Synthesis, simply because we have not yet seen anything like Synthesis in the Mass Effect universe. Synthesis is much more than just "organics and machines intertwined", as Saren puts it.

So yeah, there isn't really any foreshadowing for Synthesis in the trilogy. It came pretty much out of the blue.

Honestly by this point, it is all going to be down to opinion.  I personally feel that Destroy is the best option because the other two seem to have been shown as negative outcomes rather than positive, the only exception being the endings themselves. I can't think of a way to make IT satisfy everyone, I don't think any ending can truly do that, but if there aren't any conflicts of negative consequences, then why should we care about the story at all?  I personally feel that the point of the endings, were IT real, could be that you can't take the easy way out and expect things to be perfect; if you believe the Reapers, then you've allowed yourself to side with them in a sense, in spite of all they've done to the galaxy and their arrogant view on us, believing themselves to be "ascending" us and thinking themselves above us, when clearly thay aren't "superior" since they need organics to have a reason to exist.

There is a huge difference between negative consequences that might hinder me in succesfully completing the game and negative consequences that will completely hinder me from completing the game.

What the IT basically does is that it breaks the game for many people. The whole ending becomes completely broken. It's no longer about choosing your own path, it's now about choosing the path BioWare wants you to take, or better said, what YOU GUYS want us to take. Mass Effect has never been like that. Mass Effect has always been about "choose your own path from A to B". Sure, some paths would make our trip from A to B harder, sometimes we have to deal with negative consequences that will make our road from A to B a bit more difficult, but we've ALWAYS been able to reach B eventually, regardless of the path we chose. That's the BioWare style.

The idea that 3 out of the 4 paths that we can choose basically lead to the same "GAME OVER, Shepard is indoctrinated" screen is completely against everything BioWare has ever done with their Mass Effect series. It's also pretty f*cking ridiculous.

It would make more sense if only 1 path would lead to a tragic ending, which we already have: Refuse. That is the only ending that comes even remotely close to a GAME OVER screen. But even Refuse ends on a happy note with the new Stargazer scene. Refuse has in my opinion the most optimistic and happy Stargazer scene from all 4 of the endings!

Long story short, I think this is simply the point were we will have to agree to disagree.  Still, I appreciate being able to discuss this in a civil manner and I'm sorry that there are individuals on both sides who don't want to do that.  So thank you again for hearing my opinions and also being civil about it.  

The feeling is mutual. I'm glad you're here Arashi08.

[Restrider]

Got a quick question:
Once you've uploaded your custom avatar, where does it show up in the profile options? Under "Change Profile Photo"??

[The Heretic of Time]

BleedingUranium wrote...

And something I have on the Great Wall:

Bioware said that some parts of the game are not meant to be taken literally.

Being a literalist means you have believe this statement.

Being a literalist means you have to take some parts of the game non-literally.

Literalists are crazy.

You are crazy. "Literalists" don't even exist. It's just a silly label you ITers have created to stick on everyone who doesn't agree with the IT to feel superior about yourself. I am not a literalist and I will not define myself as such, ever.
So yeah, continue beating up that strawman, I don't care. 

[The Heretic of Time]

Restrider wrote...

Got a quick question:
Once you've uploaded your custom avatar, where does it show up in the profile options? Under "Change Profile Photo"??

I'll PM you with the answer on how to get a custom avatar.

[BleedingUranium]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

And something I have on the Great Wall:

Bioware said that some parts of the game are not meant to be taken literally.

Being a literalist means you have believe this statement.

Being a literalist means you have to take some parts of the game non-literally.

Literalists are crazy.

You are crazy. "Literalists" don't even exist. It's just a silly label you ITers have created to stick on everyone who doesn't agree with the IT to feel superior about yourself. I am not a literalist and I will not define myself as such, ever.
So yeah, continue beating up that strawman, I don't care. 

A rose by any other name...

[RavenEyry]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

You are crazy. "Literalists" don't even exist. It's just a silly label you ITers have created to stick on everyone who doesn't agree with the IT to feel superior about yourself. I am not a literalist and I will not define myself as such, ever.
So yeah, continue beating up that strawman, I don't care. 

It's the easiest word to use even if it's not technically correct. We can't call you 'non-ITers' because that implies agreement or disagreement with us is the most important factor. When others have said they dislike the label 'literalist' they can't come up with anything better. If you can I'd be happy to use it.

[RavenEyry]

Restrider wrote...

Got a quick question:
Once you've uploaded your custom avatar, where does it show up in the profile options? Under "Change Profile Photo"??

Yes, it'll be in the DA:O section assuming you used that upload method.

[BleedingUranium]

RavenEyry wrote...

Restrider wrote...

Got a quick question:
Once you've uploaded your custom avatar, where does it show up in the profile options? Under "Change Profile Photo"??

Yes, it'll be in the DA:O section assuming you used that upload method.

I always see "DA"

[Hanako Ikezawa]

RavenEyry wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...
I have to say this falls under simple video game logic. Everyone would've been angry if there was no option to kill the Reapers, so Bioware had to put that option in while still keeping the Catalyst as the final choice guide.

Doesn't explain why Mr. Sparkle appears to prefer destroy to refuse.

I've gone with the assumption that he perhaps views that this cycle will be able to handle the chaos once it returns since they were able to defeat the Reapers, the most advanced form of synthetic life that have ever existed in the Milky Way. i came to this assumption from reading the leaked script about when Harbinger stated that only by letting humanity become a Reaper can the Dark Energy be stopped, yet Shepard argues that they'll not do that and risk finding a way to defeat the Dark Energy itself before it's too late. As for why the Catalyst doesn't like Refuse, that can be easily explained as he is an AI, so views things logically. The Crucible comes along and offers better options than he has been able to do himseklf thus far, and yet the Shepard, the avatar of this cycle, refuses to do it. To us, that's like someone finding a cure for cancer, yet thowing it away based on their principles. You can see why they did it, and yet it makes no logical sense.

[The Heretic of Time]

RavenEyry wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

You are crazy. "Literalists" don't even exist. It's just a silly label you ITers have created to stick on everyone who doesn't agree with the IT to feel superior about yourself. I am not a literalist and I will not define myself as such, ever.
So yeah, continue beating up that strawman, I don't care. 

It's the easiest word to use even if it's not technically correct. We can't call you 'non-ITers' because that implies agreement or disagreement with us is the most important factor. When others have said they dislike the label 'literalist' they can't come up with anything better. If you can I'd be happy to use it.

And why is 'non-ITist' not a good label? It's the best label imo. 

Or how about 'aITist'?  Like atheist, where the 'a' in front of 'theist' means "no" or "non" ot "not a".

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
And why is 'non-ITist' not a good label? It's the best label imo. 

Or how about 'aITist'?  Like atheist, where the 'a' in front of 'theist' means "no" or "non" ot "not a".

Being a devout Mormon, I wouldn't like the term they used to describe us as an equivilent of an atheist. Just thought I'd point this out.

[OneWithTheAssassins]

Oh joy, Hanar your back. Allow me to repost an earlier comment of mine...

OneWithTheAssassins wrote...

I think Hanar is losing it.
He's starting to swear and insult more and more with every post as he runs out of things to back up his arguments with...
Just like your average Literalist.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

OneWithTheAssassins wrote...

Oh joy, Hanar your back. Allow me to repost an earlier comment of mine...

OneWithTheAssassins wrote...

I think Hanar is losing it.
He's starting to swear and insult more and more with every post as he runs out of things to back up his arguments with...
Just like your average Literalist.

Why are you trying to pick a fight?

[RavenEyry]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

And why is 'non-ITist' not a good label? It's the best label imo. 

Or how about 'aITist'?  Like atheist, where the 'a' in front of 'theist' means "no" or "non" ot "not a".

If it's fine by you. The last guy who complained about the literalist label got even more offended by 'anti-ITer'

[BleedingUranium]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

You are crazy. "Literalists" don't even exist. It's just a silly label you ITers have created to stick on everyone who doesn't agree with the IT to feel superior about yourself. I am not a literalist and I will not define myself as such, ever.
So yeah, continue beating up that strawman, I don't care. 

It's the easiest word to use even if it's not technically correct. We can't call you 'non-ITers' because that implies agreement or disagreement with us is the most important factor. When others have said they dislike the label 'literalist' they can't come up with anything better. If you can I'd be happy to use it.

And why is 'non-ITist' not a good label? It's the best label imo. 

Or how about 'aITist'?  Like atheist, where the 'a' in front of 'theist' means "no" or "non" ot "not a".

Because it assumes non-IT is default, while something like Literalist shows it as just another interpretation.

[RavenEyry]

OneWithTheAssassins wrote...

Oh joy, Hanar your back. Allow me to repost an earlier comment of mine...

OneWithTheAssassins wrote...

I think Hanar is losing it.
He's starting to swear and insult more and more with every post as he runs out of things to back up his arguments with...
Just like your average Literalist.

There are MUCH worse people than Hanar. Like the guy who said 'I win' in every post and insisted Byne didn't start IT.

[BleedingUranium]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
And why is 'non-ITist' not a good label? It's the best label imo. 

Or how about 'aITist'?  Like atheist, where the 'a' in front of 'theist' means "no" or "non" ot "not a".

Being a devout Mormon, I wouldn't like the term they used to describe us as an equivilent of an atheist. Just thought I'd point this out.

And I'm an atheist  We have religious and non-religious people on both sides too.