80611 réponses à ce sujet

[estebanus]

plfranke wrote...

DJBare wrote...

munnellyladt wrote...

Alright that proves it,they didn't intend IT.

If you are referring to my post, then I disagree, here's why, I was in essence indoctrinated through 2 and a half games to stop the reapers NOT all synthetics, but when I reached the goal I failed by giving the reapers exactly what they wanted, the destruction of synthetics.


I'm going to stick with that, for me personally I've finally eliminated those three choices leaving only refuse.

So just standing around doing nothing is the only way to not be indoctrinated? My God, I never thought I'd see the day when even Djbare, an Iter I've respected from the beginning, went off the deep end.

I think he's arguing from a literal POV, so he wouldn't be indoctrinated in refuse.

Modifié par estebanus, 18 août 2012 - 11:02 .

[FFZero]

Gallifreya wrote...

FFZero....did you ask about Shepard's "bullet" wound at the end? Like, where the frak did it come from? That would've been a good question.

No but I think I’d asked poor Jessica enough questions by that point.

I think I was talking to her about IT and the endings for nearly an hour...

[spotlessvoid]

DJBare

What about the goal of ascending organics into perfection. The Reapers neverstruck me as suicidal, yet destroy kills them as well. What happens when organics create new synthetics and the Reapers aren't around to stop the "inevitable" war

[lex0r11]

Hm. Didn't know so many folks here went to Gamescom too.

estebanus wrote...

[...]

Weil isso, halt.

That's the way to end a discussion! I do that too sometimes.

[DJBare]

plfranke wrote...
So just standing around doing nothing is the only way to not be indoctrinated? My God, I never thought I'd see the day when even Djbare, an Iter I've respected from the beginning, went off the deep end.

There is a philosophy in life, some times it better to do nothing, this is especially important when you don't know what the hell is going on.

[estebanus]

FFZero wrote...

Gallifreya wrote...

FFZero....did you ask about Shepard's "bullet" wound at the end? Like, where the frak did it come from? That would've been a good question.

No but I think I’d asked poor Jessica enough questions by that point.

I think I was talking to her about IT and the endings for nearly an hour...

Interesting. I talked with her earlier today. I aksed her about DLC, and if they'd add on to the ending the way Leviathan does. She said I'd just have to wait and see, but that I probably wouldn't be disappointed.

[estebanus]

lex0r11 wrote...

Hm. Didn't know so many folks here went to Gamescom too.

estebanus wrote...

[...]

Weil isso, halt.

That's the way to end a discussion! I do that too sometimes.

Yeah, I use that when trying to explain really bad books to my friends.

[estebanus]

DJBare wrote...

plfranke wrote...
So just standing around doing nothing is the only way to not be indoctrinated? My God, I never thought I'd see the day when even Djbare, an Iter I've respected from the beginning, went off the deep end.

There is a philosophy in life, some times it better to do nothing, this is especially important when you don't know what the hell is going on.

as a few certain star wars characters would say, "apathy is death."
This couldn't ring anymore true than in refuse. However, that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[paxxton]

estebanus wrote...

paxxton wrote...

estebanus wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Hehehe. I told you all along - Control is the means to survival.

Nope. Control is the means to death, Shepard's and everyone's.

I don't consider Shepard to be dead after choosing Control. His self was transfered to a different medium, that's all. One caveat: the new Shepard is aware of the fact that his entity is seperate from the fleshy one and that leaves open the possibility of future rebellion.

Shepard is dead. This "new Shepard" you're talking about is nothing but a poor imitation loosely based on the original. for lack of a better word, you could call it an "abomination", if you will.

So if such a possibility appeared in RL, you'd call it how? It may sound futuristic but there are people thinking about developing technology allowing human consciousness to be transfered to a machine. Besides that's what we have today (prostheses like artificial arms, legs, but also glasses) only taken to the next level (or 2 levels ahead).

[DJBare]

spotlessvoid wrote...

DJBare

What about the goal of ascending organics into perfection. The Reapers neverstruck me as suicidal, yet destroy kills them as well. What happens when organics create new synthetics and the Reapers aren't around to stop the "inevitable" war

Does it kill reapers?, yeah sure we see the apparant destruction of the reapers, but in IT that information is being fed to us by the reapers, this is an unknowable race if beings that are part synthetic part organic...Woah, a thought just occurred to me, that tall figure we see in the cave drawings, huh, I'm gonna have to think this one over before I say anymore.

[DoomsdayDevice]

There's just so many inconsistencies in Bioware's statements. You people are way too quick to jump to conclusions.

Jessica says you may be on a new part of the citadel, where they used concrete, while Chris says he sure would like to think that by the time we're building space stations, we'll have something better than concrete. In other words: concrete in a space station? L-O-L

For me it's really simple. Saren wanted synthesis, TIM wanted control. Both were indoctrinated. Some Reaper AI is manipulating you into these options. What's the logical conclusion? Exactly.

Don't believe the propaganda.

They just want the ending to be be multi-interpretable, that includes IT. It will probably always stay ambiguous, no matter how much DLC we get. And I'm fine with it.

The problem is that so many people want it simply one way or another.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 18 août 2012 - 11:13 .

[spotlessvoid]

Here's why I think Starchild still has his own agenda in conflict with Shepards

Also, if the catalyst truly controls the Reapers, who needs the crucible?

"Sure, I could just tell them to stop,but I'd rather kill off edi and the geth by making you send out the destructo beam" Or why not "You chose control,very wise Shepard. So first turn this key, then pop the clutch....actually forgert it, it'll just be easier if you die in the process..."

Synthesis:

"Super ultra collectible Joker circuit board hat is usually 800,000,000 Microsoft points, but it's free to you with synthesis. Common Shep, it's got little lights (batteries not included) Oh, and uh, welcome to Reaperhood, you'll find your ID badge and company phone in the top drawer of your desk. Questions? Oh, also, you die"

Basically what I'm saying is starchild could make things easier for Shep if he wanted to. But he doesnt. bs

Modifié par spotlessvoid, 18 août 2012 - 11:21 .

[plfranke]

DJBare wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

DJBare

What about the goal of ascending organics into perfection. The Reapers neverstruck me as suicidal, yet destroy kills them as well. What happens when organics create new synthetics and the Reapers aren't around to stop the "inevitable" war

Does it kill reapers?, yeah sure we see the apparant destruction of the reapers, but in IT that information is being fed to us by the reapers, this is an unknowable race if beings that are part synthetic part organic...Woah, a thought just occurred to me, that tall figure we see in the cave drawings, huh, I'm gonna have to think this one over before I say anymore.

Spill it bare, this may be your redeeming idea.

[estebanus]

paxxton wrote...

estebanus wrote...

paxxton wrote...

estebanus wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Hehehe. I told you all along - Control is the means to survival.

Nope. Control is the means to death, Shepard's and everyone's.

I don't consider Shepard to be dead after choosing Control. His self was transfered to a different medium, that's all. One caveat: the new Shepard is aware of the fact that his entity is seperate from the fleshy one and that leaves open the possibility of future rebellion.

Shepard is dead. This "new Shepard" you're talking about is nothing but a poor imitation loosely based on the original. for lack of a better word, you could call it an "abomination", if you will.

So if such a possibility appeared in RL, you'd call it how? It may sound futuristic but there are people thinking about developing technology allowing human consciousness to be transfered to a machine. Besides that's what we have today (prostheses like artificial arms, legs, but also glasses) only taken to the next level (or 2 levels ahead).

That is inherently different from control. In real life, transferring human minds into machines means that it is the mind itself, not just a copy of it.

[estebanus]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...


The problem is that so many people want it simply one way or another.

There's a reason why I'm a huge fan of latin. Because it's either right or wrong. There is no "maybe" when it comes to latin.

That's the same way I like my stories. Give me a direct answer to what happens in the end. Don't end it on a cliffhanger that won't be expanded upon, and don't make it ambiguous.

[paxxton]

estebanus wrote...

paxxton wrote...

estebanus wrote...

paxxton wrote...

estebanus wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Hehehe. I told you all along - Control is the means to survival.

Nope. Control is the means to death, Shepard's and everyone's.

I don't consider Shepard to be dead after choosing Control. His self was transfered to a different medium, that's all. One caveat: the new Shepard is aware of the fact that his entity is seperate from the fleshy one and that leaves open the possibility of future rebellion.

Shepard is dead. This "new Shepard" you're talking about is nothing but a poor imitation loosely based on the original. for lack of a better word, you could call it an "abomination", if you will.

So if such a possibility appeared in RL, you'd call it how? It may sound futuristic but there are people thinking about developing technology allowing human consciousness to be transfered to a machine. Besides that's what we have today (prostheses like artificial arms, legs, but also glasses) only taken to the next level (or 2 levels ahead).

That is inherently different from control. In real life, transferring human minds into machines means that it is the mind itself, not just a copy of it.

Well, it would be a perfect (preferably) copy of the original. You couldn't actually transfer minds but the physical structure of the brain that gives rise to the mind.

[DoomsdayDevice]

Also, transferring minds is more of an ethical question than using artificial limbs, wouldn't you think?

[estebanus]

paxxton wrote...
Well, it would be a perfect (preferably) copy of the original. You couldn't actually transfer minds but the physical structure of the brain that gives rise to the mind.

Yeah, the mind is essentially cloned. It is just another version of you.

This is not what happens in control. It is an AI loosely based on Shepard, but it isn't a clone, meaning it isn't Shepard.

Modifié par estebanus, 18 août 2012 - 11:20 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

Also, refuse can't be the only valid option because it wasn't in the original ending.

Unless puzzle theory, but there's very little to support that idea, so far.

[lex0r11]

In omnia paratus.

[DJBare]

plfranke wrote...
Spill it bare, this may be your redeeming idea.

Praise the lord to be redeemed!, huh no, I do not require redemption for an opinion, but thanks for the offer.

[paxxton]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Also, transferring minds is more of an ethical question than using artificial limbs, wouldn't you think?

Uhm, no. If you gradually substituted different parts of the body with their artificial counterparts, you'd eventually end up only with the brain being original. Why wouldn't one be allowed then to transfer his or her consciousness between platforms?

[estebanus]

paxxton wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Also, transferring minds is more of an ethical question than using artificial limbs, wouldn't you think?

Uhm, no. If you gradually substituted different parts of the body with their artificial counterparts, you'd eventually end up only with the brain being original. Why wouldn't one be allowed then to transfer his or her consciousness between platforms?

Wow, this whole conversation reminds me of Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

It's your body, and it's your decision to do with it what you want, but only if it doesn't put other lives at risk.

Modifié par estebanus, 18 août 2012 - 11:25 .

[DJBare]

estebanus wrote...
Wow, this whole conversation reminds me of Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

I was thinking more like Fiend without a face

[spotlessvoid]

Doomsday, I think it's fair in a 100+ hour (easily) game where the player is given great agency to determine their story's outcome, and replayability is a crucial aspect, I think it's fair to ask for a clear ending