80611 réponses à ce sujet

[BleedingUranium]

demersel wrote...

Isn't it a genius move by the reaper leader to present an option to destroy them (as you insist he does) as one of HIS options? Knowing that you might not trust anything he says at all and veiw everything he proposes as a trap? )))

It's not a "trap", it's a battle for what Shepard's goal, his mindset is, nothing more, nothing less. Destroy can't be a trap ever. In IT because Shepard's goal remains true, and isn't a Reaper goal, while in literal, everything does what it does.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 07 janvier 2013 - 03:39 .

[dorktainian]

demersel wrote...

Isn't it a genius move by the reaper leader to present an option to destroy them (as you insist he does) as one of HIS options? Knowing that you might not trust anything he says at all and veiw everything he proposes as a trap? )))

   


Yeah.  but that choice was 'always' there.  If the crudible has been used before in previous cycles then destroy as a choice would have been there before wouldnt it?  Its not unique to this cycle.  We've been guided through the trilogy into using the 'decision wheel' to solve our decisions and when we get to the most important decision in the game we still rely on paragon/renegade?  Whatever happened to choosing for yourself?  

That doesnt mean i'm entirely sure either.  The ending could be anything.

[demersel]

draconian139 wrote...

demersel wrote...

Isn't it a genius move by the reaper leader to present an option to destroy them (as you insist he does) as one of HIS options? Knowing that you might not trust anything he says at all and veiw everything he proposes as a trap? )))

Yes, if an option to destroy them is actually there.    

None of the options are actually there. It is all happenning inside your mind, and it is all about your desires and resolve. 

[BleedingUranium]

dorktainian wrote...

demersel wrote...

Isn't it a genius move by the reaper leader to present an option to destroy them (as you insist he does) as one of HIS options? Knowing that you might not trust anything he says at all and veiw everything he proposes as a trap? )))

   


Yeah.  but that choice was 'always' there.  If the crudible has been used before in previous cycles then destroy as a choice would have been there before wouldnt it?  Its not unique to this cycle.  We've been guided through the trilogy into using the 'decision wheel' to solve our decisions and when we get to the most important decision in the game we still rely on paragon/renegade?  Whatever happened to choosing for yourself?  

That doesnt mean i'm entirely sure either.  The ending could be anything.

Are you guys talking IT or literal, you're confusing me.

[demersel]

BleedingUranium wrote...

demersel wrote...

Isn't it a genius move by the reaper leader to present an option to destroy them (as you insist he does) as one of HIS options? Knowing that you might not trust anything he says at all and veiw everything he proposes as a trap? )))

It's not a "trap", it's a battle for what Shepard's goal, his mindset is, nothing more, nothing less. Destroy can't be a trap ever. In IT because Shepard's goal remains true, and isn't a Reaper goal, while in literal, everything does what it does.

i know. You don't have to convince me.. ))

[demersel]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Are you guys talking IT or literal, you're confusing me.

They are talking nonesense, in order to make refuse look good. And it is getting very close to the Twillights DT nonesense. 

[dorktainian]

BleedingUranium wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

demersel wrote...

Isn't it a genius move by the reaper leader to present an option to destroy them (as you insist he does) as one of HIS options? Knowing that you might not trust anything he says at all and veiw everything he proposes as a trap? )))

   


Yeah.  but that choice was 'always' there.  If the crudible has been used before in previous cycles then destroy as a choice would have been there before wouldnt it?  Its not unique to this cycle.  We've been guided through the trilogy into using the 'decision wheel' to solve our decisions and when we get to the most important decision in the game we still rely on paragon/renegade?  Whatever happened to choosing for yourself?  

That doesnt mean i'm entirely sure either.  The ending could be anything.

Are you guys talking IT or literal, you're confusing me.

i also think thats where a fair few of us (myself included) get confused.  What is real and what is illusion?  at this point of the game I dunno.  Who does?

Modifié par dorktainian, 07 janvier 2013 - 03:43 .

[ElSuperGecko]

In the grim darkness of the synthesised future, there is only Synthkoala...

[dorktainian]

demersel wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Are you guys talking IT or literal, you're confusing me.

They are talking nonsense, in order to make refuse look good. And it is getting very close to the Twillights DT nonsense. 

bioware said the endings are equally valid.  (corrected spelling for you) we don't have to talk nonsense to make any option any worse than it actually is.

[draconian139]

demersel wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Are you guys talking IT or literal, you're confusing me.

They are talking nonesense, in order to make refuse look good. And it is getting very close to the Twillights DT nonesense. 

We're both talking IT and in both of our cases we don't necessarily believe that refuse is the correct option assuming we get IT DLC(@bleeding whenever I say this I mean postbreath DLC that makes it clear that the previous ending was an indoctrination attempt).  I believe that the "correct" option depends on the Shepard and how he's interpreting things around him, thus no DLC will be forthcoming as this isn't possible to implement.  If DLC comes destroy I think destroy will almost definitely be the answer.  Dorktainian is unsure of what the correct answer and thinks its at least possible that refuse is.

[umadcommander]

ive said it before, we dont know the best ending but the worst is definitely synthesis:wizard:

Modifié par umadcommander, 07 janvier 2013 - 03:47 .

[BleedingUranium]

demersel wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

demersel wrote...

Isn't it a genius move by the reaper leader to present an option to destroy them (as you insist he does) as one of HIS options? Knowing that you might not trust anything he says at all and veiw everything he proposes as a trap? )))

It's not a "trap", it's a battle for what Shepard's goal, his mindset is, nothing more, nothing less. Destroy can't be a trap ever. In IT because Shepard's goal remains true, and isn't a Reaper goal, while in literal, everything does what it does.

i know. You don't have to convince me.. ))

We really need a sarcasm font

[dorktainian]

draconian139 wrote...

demersel wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Are you guys talking IT or literal, you're confusing me.

They are talking nonesense, in order to make refuse look good. And it is getting very close to the Twillights DT nonesense. 

We're both talking IT and in both of our cases we don't necessarily believe that refuse is the correct option assuming we get IT DLC(@bleeding whenever I say this I mean postbreath DLC that makes it clear that the previous ending was an indoctrination attempt).  I believe that the "correct" option depends on the Shepard and how he's interpreting things around him, thus no DLC will be forthcoming as this isn't possible to implement.  If DLC comes destroy I think destroy will almost definitely be the answer.  Dorktainian is unsure of what the correct answer and thinks its at least possible that refuse is.

I'm saying that any of the options could be correct (bar synthesis)....we do not know. valid reasons and excuses can be made for any of the endings...  People say Shep dies in Refuse.....but do we see him die?  The last time we see him is when everything goes quiet on the citadel after the beam is turned off.  Destroy has Shep in the rubble taking his breath.  This should be a good thing right?  We don't know.  We have no answers....only guesswork.  It's all speculation.  How is one piece of speculation better than another?  they are both.......speculation.  Bit like IT.  Unproven.

Modifié par dorktainian, 07 janvier 2013 - 03:51 .

[umadcommander]

dorktainian wrote...

draconian139 wrote...

demersel wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Are you guys talking IT or literal, you're confusing me.

They are talking nonesense, in order to make refuse look good. And it is getting very close to the Twillights DT nonesense. 

We're both talking IT and in both of our cases we don't necessarily believe that refuse is the correct option assuming we get IT DLC(@bleeding whenever I say this I mean postbreath DLC that makes it clear that the previous ending was an indoctrination attempt).  I believe that the "correct" option depends on the Shepard and how he's interpreting things around him, thus no DLC will be forthcoming as this isn't possible to implement.  If DLC comes destroy I think destroy will almost definitely be the answer.  Dorktainian is unsure of what the correct answer and thinks its at least possible that refuse is.

I'm saying that any of the options could be correct (bar synthesis)....we do not know. valid reasons and excuses can be made for any of the endings...  People say Shep dies in Refuse.....but do we see him die?  The last time we see him is when everything goes quiet on the citadel after the beam is turned off.  Destroy has Shep in the rubble taking his breath.  This should be a good thing right?  We don't know.  We have no answers....only guesswork.  It's all speculation.  How is one piece of speculation better than another?  they are both.......speculation.

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg844/scaled.php?server=844&filename=speculations.jpg&res=landing

[demersel]

dorktainian wrote...

draconian139 wrote...

demersel wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Are you guys talking IT or literal, you're confusing me.

They are talking nonesense, in order to make refuse look good. And it is getting very close to the Twillights DT nonesense. 

We're both talking IT and in both of our cases we don't necessarily believe that refuse is the correct option assuming we get IT DLC(@bleeding whenever I say this I mean postbreath DLC that makes it clear that the previous ending was an indoctrination attempt).  I believe that the "correct" option depends on the Shepard and how he's interpreting things around him, thus no DLC will be forthcoming as this isn't possible to implement.  If DLC comes destroy I think destroy will almost definitely be the answer.  Dorktainian is unsure of what the correct answer and thinks its at least possible that refuse is.

I'm saying that any of the options could be correct (bar synthesis)....we do not know. valid reasons and excuses can be made for any of the endings...  People say Shep dies in Refuse.....but do we see him die?  The last time we see him is when everything goes quiet on the citadel after the beam is turned off.  Destroy has Shep in the rubble taking his breath.  This should be a good thing right?  We don't know.  We have no answers....only guesswork.  It's all speculation.  How is one piece of speculation better than another?  they are both.......speculation.  Bit like IT.  Unproven.

You know that gravity is an unproven theory, right? Doesn't make you say that jumping off a sky scraper is a healthy idea, though, does it? 

[Rosewind]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

In the grim darkness of the synthesised future, there is only Synthkoala...

That's no Koala that is a drop bear mate!

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

To chime in:

I am on the fence regarding Refuse, but Destroy can never be bad.

Presented or not presented by the Reaper leader, Destroy is what we came to do, it has been our goal for the majority of 3 games.

Indoctrination works by aligning the victim with the Reapers goals, but if Destroy is a trap how would it reallign Shepards goal? He/she walks into the choice deadset in his dedication to destroying the Reapers even if it means sacrifices.

That is not a goal which would be benefit the Reapers.

[draconian139]

dorktainian wrote...
I'm saying that any of the options could be correct (bar synthesis)....we do not know. valid reasons and excuses can be made for any of the endings...  People say Shep dies in Refuse.....but do we see him die?  The last time we see him is when everything goes quiet on the citadel after the beam is turned off.  Destroy has Shep in the rubble taking his breath.  This should be a good thing right?  We don't know.  We have no answers....only guesswork.  It's all speculation.  How is one piece of speculation better than another?  they are both.......speculation.  Bit like IT.  Unproven.

Someone actually made a decent argument for why synthesis could be correct.  Basically they subscribe to waking dream theory and feel that by choosing synthesis you are ignoring the brat completely and noticing the parallels to the beam and the Crucible chamber.  Synthesis leads to actually getting you to the beam and onto the crucible.  Control means you believed the lies and get indoctrinated, Destroy means that you resist indoctrination and are shooting at Harbinger...you get a breath scene if your EMS was high enough for someone to save your ass.  In refuse you're standing there doing nothing.

Modifié par draconian139, 07 janvier 2013 - 04:00 .

[draconian139]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

To chime in:

I am on the fence regarding Refuse, but Destroy can never be bad.

Presented or not presented by the Reaper leader, Destroy is what we came to do, it has been our goal for the majority of 3 games.

Indoctrination works by aligning the victim with the Reapers goals, but if Destroy is a trap how would it reallign Shepards goal? He/she walks into the choice deadset in his dedication to destroying the Reapers even if it means sacrifices.

That is not a goal which would be benefit the Reapers.

The reapers can obviously make him hallucinate, Shepard isn't questioning.  They just have to show him Reapers instead of what is actually there and he'll destroy whatever it is without thinking.  The damage that he can do in such a state is far less than him actually accepting Reaper goals though.

[dorktainian]

[demersel]

draconian139 wrote...

Someone actually made a decent argument for why synthesis could be correct.  Basically they subscribe to waking dream theory and feel that by choosing synthesis you are ignoring the brat completely and noticing the parallels to the beam and the Crucible chamber.  Synthesis leads to actually getting you to the beam and onto the crucible.  Control means you believed the lies and get indoctrinated, Destroy means that you resist indoctrination and are shooting at Harbinger...you get a breath scene if your EMS was high enough for someone to save your ass.  In refuse you're standing there doing nothing.

How do they explain all the melting? 

[dorktainian]

also.... fwiw (although nobody will probably take any notice) We assume Shep is indoctrinated and everything happening around him is a result of this, but then assume the choices presented are literal choices? That does not make any sense. surely the choices would also be misleading?

[draconian139]

demersel wrote...

draconian139 wrote...

Someone actually made a decent argument for why synthesis could be correct.  Basically they subscribe to waking dream theory and feel that by choosing synthesis you are ignoring the brat completely and noticing the parallels to the beam and the Crucible chamber.  Synthesis leads to actually getting you to the beam and onto the crucible.  Control means you believed the lies and get indoctrinated, Destroy means that you resist indoctrination and are shooting at Harbinger...you get a breath scene if your EMS was high enough for someone to save your ass.  In refuse you're standing there doing nothing.

How do they explain all the melting? 

Don't have a clue.  My main problem with it was why would Shepard only see Synthesis in highish EMS if this was what was going on.  

[BleedingUranium]

dorktainian wrote...

also.... fwiw (although nobody will probably take any notice) We assume Shep is indoctrinated and everything happening around him is a result of this, but then assume the choices presented are literal choices? That does not make any sense. surely the choices would also be misleading?

He's not indoctrinated.

[demersel]

dorktainian wrote...

also.... fwiw (although nobody will probably take any notice) We assume Shep is indoctrinated and everything happening around him is a result of this, but then assume the choices presented are literal choices? That does not make any sense. surely the choices would also be misleading?

In literal interpretation it makes absolutely no sense for the choices to actually be what they are said to be by the Guardian. That makes liteteral interpretetion beyond nonesensical.


However if we view the ending as a battle for Shepard's mind  then it would make sense why the choices actually do what they do. It explains why the choices are actually what they are said to be. And why the Guardian even needs to present you with them, and why the destroy choice is there at all.