80611 réponses à ce sujet

[BansheeOwnage]

byne wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

What is interesting in ME is it seems somewhat inconsistent. The control choice of ME2, rewriting the heretics, is marked as the good choice, not only by Paragon points but also by file names.
But still as some of your squadmates will ask or tell you: is it really that a difference if you rewrite code of sapient life or brainwash them?

I never really saw rewriting the heretics as being similar to control.

Sovereign changed the way the heretics thought. He basically indoctrinated them.

You're not brainwashing them, you're un-brainwashing them.

Exactly. Just replace them with, say, asari. If you ran into a group of asari who were indoctrinated, and you were presented with 2 choices:
1. Unindoctrinate them
2. Kill them

which one would most people choose?

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 01 août 2012 - 07:55 .

[Ageless Face]

TSA_383 wrote...
Which of these characters is set up as the "paragon" throughout the game:

-Anderson
-The Illusive Man

YES the renegade/paragon thing in the choice is a trick 

I didn't say it's not a trick. I'm asking wether you think renegade have played wrong, or if "paragon" "renegade" should even apply here. Though I got my answers, I'm good.

BTW, why is another man's opinions must clowd mine? Javik will also want to destroy the Reapers. Does that means he was paragon? If I agreed with him one one thing, should I also agree with him on another? Should I kill the Geth?

I really don't see Anderson or TIM any differently on that aspect. If I disagreed with TIM on controlling the Reapers when it seemed like there was no other option, does it mean I should also disagree with him when it is possible? If my Shepard saw Anderson as her father figure, does it mean I should agree with everything he does?

Oh. Sorry for tainting the threat with literalism BTW. 

[MegumiAzusa]

byne wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

What is interesting in ME is it seems somewhat inconsistent. The control choice of ME2, rewriting the heretics, is marked as the good choice, not only by Paragon points but also by file names.
But still as some of your squadmates will ask or tell you: is it really that a difference if you rewrite code of sapient life or brainwash them?

I never really saw rewriting the heretics as being similar to control.

Sovereign changed the way the heretics thought. He basically indoctrinated them.

You're not brainwashing them, you're un-brainwashing them.

It was never really made clear if it really was Sovereign who introduced the differences. In fact from what Legion tells you he had as much contact with it as heretics had until they split up.

[RavenEyry]

TSA_383 wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

Note in 3 renegade is portrayed as more decisive as well as a few evil moves. Like how not taking the interupt at the end gets you killed.

Nooo... the ending would never have a situation where taking the "renegade" choice is the only way to survi.... wait....

Let's do the foreshadowing dance!

[byne]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

They did say if he looked like Harbinger no one would listen to him. I would listen to Harbinger before I listened to Mr. Sparkle... Seriously.
ಠಠಠ_ಠಠಠ

Yeah, I'd be more inclined to listen to the leader of the Reapers if he wasnt taking a form that he clearly chose to manipulate me.

If you have a good argument, it shouldnt matter what you look like. Harbinger himself could have been the one in the meeting with the dalatrass arguing that the krogan deserve a cure, and I'd have agreed with him.

The fact that the Reapers have to disguise their leader as the kid means they know they dont have a persuasive argument, and have to resort to trickery.

[N7L4D]

byne wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

What is interesting in ME is it seems somewhat inconsistent. The control choice of ME2, rewriting the heretics, is marked as the good choice, not only by Paragon points but also by file names.
But still as some of your squadmates will ask or tell you: is it really that a difference if you rewrite code of sapient life or brainwash them?

I never really saw rewriting the heretics as being similar to control.

Sovereign changed the way the heretics thought. He basically indoctrinated them.

You're not brainwashing them, you're un-brainwashing them.

I always found that choice to be difficult in me2, though I usually picked the rewrite, and when you put it like that, it seems to be alright

[TJBartlemus]

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

 Seeing how this thread made three times, I have to ask: would you make a "false" ending, then expand on that "false" ending to prepare for the "real" ending?

There is no false ending. The ending we have is the ending. It's just that there is a detail or a perspective that we are missing in the ending. IT is that perspective/interpretation of the ending as it is. We are just waiting to see if that perspective is correct. Like in Blade Runner. The perspective that he is a replicant. That perspective was missing until the creator released the truth. (Even the producers of ME related the ending to the Blade Runner replicant truth.)

[RavenEyry]

HagarIshay wrote...
If I disagreed with TIM on controlling the Reapers when it seemed like there was no other option, does it mean I should also disagree with him when it is possible?

Note Shepard doesn't just say it's not possible.
TIM: But what if I can?
Shep: We're not ready.

[BansheeOwnage]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

byne wrote...


Everyone knows that indoctrinating your own people and turning refugees into husks is the paragon thing to do!

You always fail, and you always succeed. If you succeed, then you fail at failing. If you fail, you succeeded at failing. (Yes I know there are flaws to that, but I made it up when I was like 8 )

[MegumiAzusa]

N7L4D wrote...

byne wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

What is interesting in ME is it seems somewhat inconsistent. The control choice of ME2, rewriting the heretics, is marked as the good choice, not only by Paragon points but also by file names.
But still as some of your squadmates will ask or tell you: is it really that a difference if you rewrite code of sapient life or brainwash them?

I never really saw rewriting the heretics as being similar to control.

Sovereign changed the way the heretics thought. He basically indoctrinated them.

You're not brainwashing them, you're un-brainwashing them.

I always found that choice to be difficult in me2, though I usually picked the rewrite, and when you put it like that, it seems to be alright

It actually doesn't really apply. Legion gives you a description in an equation. As both equations are true, and in fact really come to the same result, there is no error to correct with rewriting.

[Applepie_Svk]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

You always fail, and you always succeed. If you succeed, then you fail at failing. If you fail, you succeeded at failing. (Yes I know there are flaws to that, but I made it up when I was like 8 )

It´s like IN...FAILCEPTION 

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

byne wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

What is interesting in ME is it seems somewhat inconsistent. The control choice of ME2, rewriting the heretics, is marked as the good choice, not only by Paragon points but also by file names.
But still as some of your squadmates will ask or tell you: is it really that a difference if you rewrite code of sapient life or brainwash them?

I never really saw rewriting the heretics as being similar to control.

Sovereign changed the way the heretics thought. He basically indoctrinated them.

You're not brainwashing them, you're un-brainwashing them.

"If you change how someone is, how they think, you have killed them. They will be something new in the same body" - Samara, ME2.

You know, I never really cared much for Samara before. Sure she was cool, but going through the series again I realized she has some really nice dialogue.

Also funny how the above statement could be applied to Synthesis and Control where the Catalyst say explicitely that you will die. Could he have been teelling the truth, but it is this kind of death he refered to and not a bodily one?

Modifié par Raistlin Majare 1992, 01 août 2012 - 08:01 .

[BansheeOwnage]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

byne wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

What is interesting in ME is it seems somewhat inconsistent. The control choice of ME2, rewriting the heretics, is marked as the good choice, not only by Paragon points but also by file names.
But still as some of your squadmates will ask or tell you: is it really that a difference if you rewrite code of sapient life or brainwash them?

I never really saw rewriting the heretics as being similar to control.

Sovereign changed the way the heretics thought. He basically indoctrinated them.

You're not brainwashing them, you're un-brainwashing them.

It was never really made clear if it really was Sovereign who introduced the differences. In fact from what Legion tells you he had as much contact with it as heretics had until they split up.

A bunch of us came to the conclusion that it is more likely they were indoctrinated (Geth version) than not. Sovereign basically started every major interstellar conflict of this cycle. He also chose thralls that were easy to control en masse, i.e. the ranchni. It makes sense that he would "indoctrinate" the geth.

[BansheeOwnage]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

N7L4D wrote...

byne wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

What is interesting in ME is it seems somewhat inconsistent. The control choice of ME2, rewriting the heretics, is marked as the good choice, not only by Paragon points but also by file names.
But still as some of your squadmates will ask or tell you: is it really that a difference if you rewrite code of sapient life or brainwash them?

I never really saw rewriting the heretics as being similar to control.

Sovereign changed the way the heretics thought. He basically indoctrinated them.

You're not brainwashing them, you're un-brainwashing them.

I always found that choice to be difficult in me2, though I usually picked the rewrite, and when you put it like that, it seems to be alright

It actually doesn't really apply. Legion gives you a description in an equation. As both equations are true, and in fact really come to the same result, there is no error to correct with rewriting.

In the same exact sense that we disagree on whether or not it applies. Funny.

Edit: Also what you're saying is a bit like the difference between paragon and renegade.

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 01 août 2012 - 08:04 .

[BansheeOwnage]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Also funny how the above statement could be applied to Synthesis and Control where the Catalyst say explicitely that you will die. Could he have been teelling the truth, but it is this kind of death he refered to and not a bodily one?

Actually yeah, in IT this would effectively be what would happen.

[Dwailing]

TSA_383 wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

Note in 3 renegade is portrayed as more decisive as well as a few evil moves. Like how not taking the interupt at the end gets you killed.

Nooo... the ending would never have a situation where taking the "renegade" choice is the only way to survi.... wait....

Now THAT would quiet those Renegades who keep saying that Paragons get all the good stuff!

[Lord Goose]

Full Renegade will be perfectly happy with Destroy. Basically, Destroy have two side-effects.

1. Minor damage to technology.
2. Synthetics wiped out.

Renegade does not consider synthetics to be alive. Full Renegade should have sold Legion to Cerberus and fail to achieve quarian-geth peace. Renegade also considers synthetics to be machines, which are not even alive.

[BansheeOwnage]

Lord Goose wrote...

Full Renegade will be perfectly happy with Destroy. Basically, Destroy have two side-effects.

1. Minor damage to technology.
2. Synthetics wiped out.

Renegade does not consider synthetics to be alive. Full Renegade should have sold Legion to Cerberus and fail to achieve quarian-geth peace. Renegade also considers synthetics to be machines, which are not even alive.

Sureokaywhatever. I've picked renegade options, therefore I don't think synthetics are alive. Great logic.

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 01 août 2012 - 08:07 .

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

(Snip)

BansheeOwnage wrote...

A bunch of us came to the conclusion that it is more likely they were indoctrinated (Geth version) than not. Sovereign basically started every major interstellar conflict of this cycle. He also chose thralls that were easy to control en masse, i.e. the ranchni. It makes sense that he would "indoctrinate" the geth.

The Rachni are actually kinda of an oddball in the entire Indoctrination thing. On one side we know that they were Indoctrinated and forced into war, but on the other hand we got a Queen who is supposedly immune or at least resistant to Indoctrination.

In fact there are hints that a hivemind offers strength against Indoctrination as per Shiala and the Thorian Creeper linking the colonists together mentally and allowing Shiala to remain free.

Off course it might be a case of a hivemind offering protection at first, but once the Indoctrination has a foothold it spreads more easily through the rest of the linked creatures using the hivemind as a weapon.

That might explain why the singular queen is resistant as it beeing because she is alone and knows of the dangers of Indoctrination. That way she can shut out the noise and as teh only queen she cannot be attacked through the hivemind.

Just some thoughts.

[jgibson14352]

https://www.twitter....755619089551360

Anybody else seen this? Can't wait

[LtBehemoth]

https://twitter.com/...755619089551360

Something big incoming

'd

Modifié par LtBehemoth, 01 août 2012 - 08:09 .

[BansheeOwnage]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

*snip*

Some good thoughts. I have another way to simpify the geth rewrite decision. It basically boils down to:
1. Create life/strengthen the geth consensus by "creating" more programs and thus allowing the geth to acheive a wider range of prespectives and become more intelligent.
2. Kill them. No negative consquences as such, but no positive ones either.

[jgibson14352]

LtBehemoth wrote...

https://twitter.com/...755619089551360

Something big incoming

'd

 
http://m.youtube.com...h?v=O5DFbQKFdyE

[BansheeOwnage]

LtBehemoth wrote...

https://twitter.com/...755619089551360

Something big incoming

'd

Sounds like leviathan to me. Hopefully it comes out tuesday. I mean come on, it's taking forever.

[I_eat_unicorns]

TJBartlemus wrote...

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

 Seeing how this thread made three times, I have to ask: would you make a "false" ending, then expand on that "false" ending to prepare for the "real" ending?

There is no false ending. The ending we have is the ending. It's just that there is a detail or a perspective that we are missing in the ending. IT is that perspective/interpretation of the ending as it is. We are just waiting to see if that perspective is correct. Like in Blade Runner. The perspective that he is a replicant. That perspective was missing until the creator released the truth. (Even the producers of ME related the ending to the Blade Runner replicant truth.)

We got an ending that was poorly written and allowed mutliple theories other than the IT to be developed. Everyone got mad about the lack of closure/plot holes and we waited for a response from Bioware, and they announced the ec dlc which would not add any new endings, just expand on the current one. Believing in the IT is pretending that the original ending was more than poor writing. It wasn't. We got the answer of whether or not the perspective of IT is right or wrong from the ec dlc, Bioware won't be adding any new endings as they have said before. 

You can believe anything you want if that's how you derive entertainment, and there's nothing wrong with it. But if there can be a "truth" about the structure of a fictional work it is that that which the author intended is the actuality. ME's writers do not intend IT to be the valid end.  

And making the IT in a future dlc would render the ec dlc useless. You're telling me that those slideshows and the epilouge scenes are dreams?

www.youtube.com/watch

Watch that video at that part. You can see how much they have worked to make the ec dlc. Why would Bioware do all of that work, then turn a 180 and say "lol it was all a dream"?

And I've never heard of Bioware relating Blade runner's ending to the "truth" of me's ending. Go get me a link, but it wouldn't really matter as they didn't need to release the ec dlc. Why would any company spend 3 months of time/resources/money making a FREE dlc and then work later to make an ending that makes those 3 months worthless? No company would do that, and no writer would do that. 

Modifié par I_eat_unicorns, 01 août 2012 - 08:13 .