6432 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. I never said there should not be  happy ending. I'm say there should not be a shepard lives, only reapers die ending.

2.Morality is subjective. How they fell about the choice is up to them.

3.If the player is fine with killing the geth. Fine for them, that just means they had little conflict tha choice. Tha doesn't mean a Shepard lives with out the geth dieing choice should be there.

1. A Reapers only die, shepard lives ending would be a happy ending, and you said you wouldn't want a happy ending because of your usual arguement anout moral conflict. Therefore any happy ending for any player shouldn't be possible.

dreman9999 wrote...
They want the player to go through moral conflict because of the choices at hand. Having a "You live, only reapers die" choice negates that concept.

 
2. Yes how they feel about it is their choice therefore you can't say moral conflict is there for everybody in general

3.but if it is a happy ending for that person there is no moral conflict. as i quoted you above you said that EAware wants moral conflict and therefore a synthetic hater killing all synthetics would negate that concept

1.And having an ending where Shepard lives and only the reapers die will negate the direcdtion the devs what to go with the story...Moral conflict.
2. I never siad that moral conflict is there for everyone. Morality is subjetive. Moral conflict can't be garunteed for every one that plays the game, even if you do set up a senario where moral conflict happens.

3.
Morality is subjetive. Moral conflict can't be garunteed for every one that plays the game, even if you do set up a senario where moral conflict happens. 

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

thats the point, it is not general because it isn't there for everyone. Your trying to use it as a stronger base for your pointless arguement and its invalid because not everyone has one for the choices they make in the game.

It doesn't become 
invalid   because you don't go through it.

for **** sake you will listen and read, I said you using it by saying its general is invalid because not everyone goes through it. If everyone has a moral conflict for each choices then its general but its not

No. Itdoes nto invalid it.
Morality is subjetive. Moral conflict can't be garunteed for every one that plays the game, even if you do set up a senario where moral conflict happens. 

[Moirai]

dreman9999 wrote...

Moirai wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Moirai wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Moirai wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Moirai wrote...



Bioware..?

Control and destory is not based on the catalyst logic nor control by him. He just telling you what the crucible does.

I understand what you're saying, but it's not directly pertinent to the point I was making. Which was, Bioware effectively yanking the rug out from under the player at the last moment in the worst possible way, based on flaky evidence which the game had already shown was not the case. That's not good story-telling. That's just cheap story-telling...in my personal opinion.

The catalyst issues have nothing to do with your choice. It's just telling you how it started. It's beleif have no real ground on your choice to control it or destroy it. If you don't belieive it, destory it.

But on it's points, their 2 ancient alien being that did say the conflicts happend...Javik and the Leviathens.

Wrong. The Catalyst's 'issues', as you call them, have everything to do with the fact that the choices are even presented as options in the first place. The choices are only contextually valid themselves provided that the premise behind the 'harvest' is fundamatally valid and intact.  It can be shown otherwise, using information clearly available in the game.

On that basis, an option to explain the current invalidation of that core premise to the Catalyst is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances and situation.

Yes, it can be ignored. If you don't beleive his issues are a real problem, you pick destory. It 's as simple as that.
The catalyst issue are just the cause. It does not have to be related toyou issuse with the conflict with the reapers.

Also, you clear don't understand that the catalyst is a shackled AI doing what it's programed to do.



Leviathan: The intelligence was envisioned as another tool
Shepard:And now we all pay the price of you mistake
Leviathan: There was no mistake. It still serves it's perpose

And on it's programing aka perpose...



[color=rgb(170, 170, 170)">Leviathan: ]perserve life at any cost.[/color]

That basicly means  they made a shackled  AI to solve a problem with no limit ever given to how. 
It's shackled. 
The catalyst is  shackled. 

The Catalyst has a mandate, and that is to preserve life at any cost, and that is the only stated restriction, or 'shackling', placed on the Catalyst. How it achieves that is left entirely up to it itself. Hence why it could arrive at the conclusion it did, and all but wipe out its creators. Clear evidence that it wasn't restricted or 'shackled' within the bounds of that very openly defined mandate.

If you have a list of specific operational parameters for that mandate that I've somehow missed, which clearly show how the Catalyst was 'shackled' within the confines of the stated open mandate, then please feel free to post them.

The point is that, given that its only stated purpose is to preserve life at any cost, something it has clearly misinterpreted, that does not, and should not, exclude the possibility of 'discussing' that misinterpretation with the Catalyst, within the confines of its madate, and helping it see that its perceived methodology is intrinsically flawed and that the requirements for validating its core programming are not in evidence.

The only reason for not letting you do so is that Bioware didn't want you to, and wanted to enforce the choices at the end. That's staggeringly obvious. Everyone gets that. It's pretty simple stuff.

The point I'm personally making is the fact that it is enforced and basically ignores the very opportunities of choice that the game itself goes to so much trouble to present to you as possibilities.

The shackle is that is has to solve the problem given.  A machine does what it's programed to do, an AI does what it's programed to do as it see fit. Even nowit's still doing what it's creators ask it to do.
The shackles is solving the problem.

Indeed.

However, it is a problem that no longer exists. There is no evidence in this current cycle to support the notion that the solution it employs is actually warranted. Hence, not only is its reasoning for beginning the harvest, without any supporting evidence, flawed, but achieving its stated mandate does not intrinsically exclude the ability to recognise that there is no threat and that its 'harvest' is fundamentally invalid for the current situation and should never have been started.

My point, again, is that you should be able to task the Catalyst on that specific issue. The fact that you cannot is my specific problem with the ending.

YMMV

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


1. I never said there should not be  happy ending. I'm say there should not be a shepard lives, only reapers die ending.

2.Morality is subjective. How they fell about the choice is up to them.

3.If the player is fine with killing the geth. Fine for them, that just means they had little conflict tha choice. Tha doesn't mean a Shepard lives with out the geth dieing choice should be there.

Well, yes you did, but apparently now you want a happy ending as long as it's the one you want, just not anyone else's.  Please explain to me the word selfish again.

Morality is only partly subjective.  In real life do you think it's right to do just anything you want to achieve your goals?  Do you think that if you do something society considers morally wrong in order to obtain some acceptable outcome, you are exempt from consequences?  And do you not understand that consequences in conflicts can involve far more sacrifice from the living than even the dead have already performed?  Live heroes live through things that are often as harsh as those that took their dead compatriots, but I'd still rather have them live.

Since a moral dilemma is not truly always in existence it cannot have been Bioware's intent.  Since you also keep stating I don't understand a moral dilemma, please do tell me one example of one you've faced in your life-you are the expert and seem to indicate I'm just a complete idiot (even though I have had to make life and death decisions in my life).  Please give me an example of this in yours.

And then tell me if it would be better that all wars just end with choices that pop up out of the enemy's nether regions (his home)-oh, right they aren't his choices at all.  They all temporarily solve his problem, but they have nothing to do with him at all. 

Tell me what kind of sporting event you go to that you would rather neither team had the chance to win-tell me how manyof them you'd prefer ended with one team having 3 choices to pick from.

And then tell me how an optional ending would hurt you personally or mess up your game.  Tell me just how unselfish you are being in saying what matters is only that you are happy while others are not.

1.
Morality is subjetive. Moral conflict can't be garunteed for every one that plays the game, even if you do set up a senario where moral conflict happens. 

2. 
The way the game end is based on you actions. The catalyst has nothing to do with what he crucible does out side of synthesis. The condition of the crucible does. And what contols the condition of the crucible is your ems score. The ending you get is based on ems, not the catalyst. 

3.My issue ofargument is not based on my game. It based on the direction BW wants the story to go. I said that many times over.

[dreman9999]

Moirai wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Moirai wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Moirai wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Moirai wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Moirai wrote...



Bioware..?

Control and destory is not based on the catalyst logic nor control by him. He just telling you what the crucible does.

I understand what you're saying, but it's not directly pertinent to the point I was making. Which was, Bioware effectively yanking the rug out from under the player at the last moment in the worst possible way, based on flaky evidence which the game had already shown was not the case. That's not good story-telling. That's just cheap story-telling...in my personal opinion.

The catalyst issues have nothing to do with your choice. It's just telling you how it started. It's beleif have no real ground on your choice to control it or destroy it. If you don't belieive it, destory it.

But on it's points, their 2 ancient alien being that did say the conflicts happend...Javik and the Leviathens.

Wrong. The Catalyst's 'issues', as you call them, have everything to do with the fact that the choices are even presented as options in the first place. The choices are only contextually valid themselves provided that the premise behind the 'harvest' is fundamatally valid and intact.  It can be shown otherwise, using information clearly available in the game.

On that basis, an option to explain the current invalidation of that core premise to the Catalyst is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances and situation.

Yes, it can be ignored. If you don't beleive his issues are a real problem, you pick destory. It 's as simple as that.
The catalyst issue are just the cause. It does not have to be related toyou issuse with the conflict with the reapers.

Also, you clear don't understand that the catalyst is a shackled AI doing what it's programed to do.



Leviathan: The intelligence was envisioned as another tool
Shepard:And now we all pay the price of you mistake
Leviathan: There was no mistake. It still serves it's perpose

And on it's programing aka perpose...



[color=rgb(170, 170, 170)">Leviathan: ]perserve life at any cost.[/color]

That basicly means  they made a shackled  AI to solve a problem with no limit ever given to how. 
It's shackled. 
The catalyst is  shackled. 

The Catalyst has a mandate, and that is to preserve life at any cost, and that is the only stated restriction, or 'shackling', placed on the Catalyst. How it achieves that is left entirely up to it itself. Hence why it could arrive at the conclusion it did, and all but wipe out its creators. Clear evidence that it wasn't restricted or 'shackled' within the bounds of that very openly defined mandate.

If you have a list of specific operational parameters for that mandate that I've somehow missed, which clearly show how the Catalyst was 'shackled' within the confines of the stated open mandate, then please feel free to post them.

The point is that, given that its only stated purpose is to preserve life at any cost, something it has clearly misinterpreted, that does not, and should not, exclude the possibility of 'discussing' that misinterpretation with the Catalyst, within the confines of its madate, and helping it see that its perceived methodology is intrinsically flawed and that the requirements for validating its core programming are not in evidence.

The only reason for not letting you do so is that Bioware didn't want you to, and wanted to enforce the choices at the end. That's staggeringly obvious. Everyone gets that. It's pretty simple stuff.

The point I'm personally making is the fact that it is enforced and basically ignores the very opportunities of choice that the game itself goes to so much trouble to present to you as possibilities.

The shackle is that is has to solve the problem given.  A machine does what it's programed to do, an AI does what it's programed to do as it see fit. Even nowit's still doing what it's creators ask it to do.
The shackles is solving the problem.

Indeed.

However, it is a problem that no longer exists. There is no evidence in this current cycle to support the notion that the solution it employs is actually warranted. Hence, not only is its reasoning for beginning the harvest, without any supporting evidence, flawed, but achieving its stated mandate does not intrinsically exclude the ability to recognise that there is no threat and that its 'harvest' is fundamentally invalid for the current situation and should never have been started.

My point, again, is that you should be able to task the Catalyst on that specific issue. The fact that you cannot is my specific problem with the ending.

YMMV

The problem not exsist is not up to you. It's up to the catalyst to see and it want a absolute solution.
To the catalyst any solution that is not absolute is not an answer.
You're dealing with a being that thinks in pure logic....Pure logic thinking lead to thinking in absolutes. Think in absolute is dangerous.

A shackled AI with no morality that is locked in logic can't be argued with.

Modifié par dreman9999, 01 septembre 2012 - 06:58 .

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. I never said there should not be  happy ending. I'm say there should not be a shepard lives, only reapers die ending.

2.Morality is subjective. How they fell about the choice is up to them.

3.If the player is fine with killing the geth. Fine for them, that just means they had little conflict tha choice. Tha doesn't mean a Shepard lives with out the geth dieing choice should be there.

1. A Reapers only die, shepard lives ending would be a happy ending, and you said you wouldn't want a happy ending because of your usual arguement anout moral conflict. Therefore any happy ending for any player shouldn't be possible.

dreman9999 wrote...
They want the player to go through moral conflict because of the choices at hand. Having a "You live, only reapers die" choice negates that concept.

 
2. Yes how they feel about it is their choice therefore you can't say moral conflict is there for everybody in general

3.but if it is a happy ending for that person there is no moral conflict. as i quoted you above you said that EAware wants moral conflict and therefore a synthetic hater killing all synthetics would negate that concept

1.And having an ending where Shepard lives and only the reapers die will negate the direcdtion the devs what to go with the story...Moral conflict.
2. I never siad that moral conflict is there for everyone. Morality is subjetive. Moral conflict can't be garunteed for every one that plays the game, even if you do set up a senario where moral conflict happens.

3.
Morality is subjetive. Moral conflict can't be garunteed for every one that plays the game, even if you do set up a senario where moral conflict happens. 

I'm not saying it wouldn't,  what I am saying is that because it would not have "moral conflict" to use your favorite phrase, any 'happy ending' no matter how the player plays the game goes against the what the devs want if there goal is 'moral conflict'. No matter if you A (hate geth and choose to destroy them) or if you B (love them and have an ending where you save them), both of which are happy endings it goes against your idea that 'moral conflict' is what the devs want. It's impossible to make sure everybody feels conflicted therefore it's impossible for the devs to want to make it so you feel moral conflict.

[Zan51]

IamDanThaMan wrote...

Wow, I don't even know where to begin on how bad your entire post is.

"Hard" science fiction is hardly an exact term, and your definition for it is not one that most people use. I am sure you would consider Star Trek to be an example of this, but they break several of our current "laws" of the universe. More often, it means that the fiction sets up its own internal laws and follows them. In the case of Mass Effect, the only thing they change is the introduction of Element Zero, and everything is based on its ability to manipulate gravity.

You seem to think that this means that we can throw all causality out the window and just assume that if someone is bad, bad things should happen to them, and if you work hard enough, you should be able to save everyone.

Also, for a supposed writer, you seem to have a very poor grasp of the english language. My saying that I felt that one choice was better than the others does not make that choice inherently better than the others. If I prefer Chocolate Ice cream, does that mean that is the best for everyone? If you really believe that, I have some magic beans I'd like to sell you.

Also, your analogy is stupid. Why is it that nobody has brought up the two boat thing from the dark knight yet? That would be a much better analogy than any of the garbage you geniuses keep coming up with. Except that the joker would also have explosives strapped to his body, and the inmates would have killed in self defense and they don't have a detonater, except some of them were the Joker's cronies, and the Joker is going to set off a nuke that will destroy all of Gotham if you don't make a choice,then come back after the city is re-built and do it again, and Batman Doesn't exist.

Edit: Actually, the inmates all used to work for the Joker, but only because another gang was coming to get them.

1) NOT a Star Trek Fan
2) Don't like unrealistic Super Hero Comics turned into movies, I prefer more realistic SF, so not seen the Batman movie, nor will I.
3) If your have to explain that paragraph I quoted by saying you didn't mean what you patently said, then you failed at trying to get your real meaning, which is different from the words you physically wrote, across.
4) You are So good at putting words into other folk's mouths, aren't you? That and worming your way out of what you do say when people call you ion it seems to be your main method of "discussion? You suit the phrase "Deny everything" from the X Files. I never said 1 thing about Causality.
5) My Moral Choice example is excellent and highly realistic as it happened. That you choose to see it as not and prefer a made up one, is your failing, not mine.
6) Eezo and its effects permeate everything in ME series. from toothbrushes to spaceships, to biotocs and weapons of all sizes.
7) You should read The Physics of Start Trek - some of the science in the tv series is happening now, like transporting stuff. Try here though = http://www.huffingto..._n_1607146.html

Modifié par Zan51, 01 septembre 2012 - 06:59 .

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

No. Itdoes nto invalid it.
Morality is subjetive. Moral conflict can't be garunteed for every one that plays the game, even if you do set up a senario where moral conflict happens. 

Now you are trolling and starting pointless arguemants, since a few pages back you was going on saying it was general. And now your saying its subjective and saying everything I just told you.

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

No. Itdoes nto invalid it.
Morality is subjetive. Moral conflict can't be garunteed for every one that plays the game, even if you do set up a senario where moral conflict happens. 

Now you are trolling and starting pointless arguemants, since a few pages back you was going on saying it was general. And now your saying its subjective and saying everything I just told you.

I did not say it was general. I siad alot of people felt conflict over the choices. I never said everyone did.

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. I never said there should not be  happy ending. I'm say there should not be a shepard lives, only reapers die ending.

2.Morality is subjective. How they fell about the choice is up to them.

3.If the player is fine with killing the geth. Fine for them, that just means they had little conflict tha choice. Tha doesn't mean a Shepard lives with out the geth dieing choice should be there.

1. A Reapers only die, shepard lives ending would be a happy ending, and you said you wouldn't want a happy ending because of your usual arguement anout moral conflict. Therefore any happy ending for any player shouldn't be possible.

dreman9999 wrote...
They want the player to go through moral conflict because of the choices at hand. Having a "You live, only reapers die" choice negates that concept.

 
2. Yes how they feel about it is their choice therefore you can't say moral conflict is there for everybody in general

3.but if it is a happy ending for that person there is no moral conflict. as i quoted you above you said that EAware wants moral conflict and therefore a synthetic hater killing all synthetics would negate that concept

1.And having an ending where Shepard lives and only the reapers die will negate the direcdtion the devs what to go with the story...Moral conflict.
2. I never siad that moral conflict is there for everyone. Morality is subjetive. Moral conflict can't be garunteed for every one that plays the game, even if you do set up a senario where moral conflict happens.

3.
Morality is subjetive. Moral conflict can't be garunteed for every one that plays the game, even if you do set up a senario where moral conflict happens. 

I'm not saying it wouldn't,  what I am saying is that because it would not have "moral conflict" to use your favorite phrase, any 'happy ending' no matter how the player plays the game goes against the what the devs want if there goal is 'moral conflict'. No matter if you A (hate geth and choose to destroy them) or if you B (love them and have an ending where you save them), both of which are happy endings it goes against your idea that 'moral conflict' is what the devs want. It's impossible to make sure everybody feels conflicted therefore it's impossible for the devs to want to make it so you feel moral conflict.

But the devs can still make the senerios to try to anyway. As I  said before just because you don't go through as much moral conflict does not mean it's invalide. I matter not that every one does not go through it. Just because everyone does not go through it does nto mean an easy way out has to be added.

Modifié par dreman9999, 01 septembre 2012 - 07:06 .

[THEE_DEATHMASTER]

I wonder if it would take really low or really high dlc sales to make them consider the OP's point. I somehow doubt it's the latter that's actually happened though.

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

1.
Morality is subjetive. Moral conflict can't be garunteed for every one that plays the game, even if you do set up a senario where moral conflict happens. 

2. 
The way the game end is based on you actions. The catalyst has nothing to do with what he crucible does out side of synthesis. The condition of the crucible does. And what contols the condition of the crucible is your ems score. The ending you get is based on ems, not the catalyst. 

3.My issue ofargument is not based on my game. It based on the direction BW wants the story to go. I said that many times over.

If a player has no moral conflict, then the endings are not about that and BW didn't only intend that there be a moral conflict.

You have no idea whether the catalyst has anything to do with the crucible plans-the Leviathans didn't make them, so whoever did had to know about the reapers and the kid.  The only one who does know about both other than Shepard and the Leviathans is the kid himself.  I never said your EMS had nothing to do with it-now, you're just creating new arguments.  Your people are building it-you add assets to it to help build it, and that works toward making it complete.  Even connected to the catalyst (it is supposed to work with him), it is not finished-it is largely intact.  If English is not your first language, that means it is not intact.  It cannot discriminate because it is not intact.  Either you don't have enough assets to protect it well enough or it is not finished.

You only know what you interpret BW to have said in the past-I have commented on this but you ignore anything that doesn't agree with your position.  BW has said a lot of things-a lot of them have not come to pass and never will.  But, if you insist on making them stick with a moral dilemma then I have every right to "demand" that they stick with other things they have said.  You say they intended to have a moral dilemma based on the dark energy plot.  Well that's gone, but ok let's have a moral dilemma.  Then, I say we shouldn't have abc endings and we should have such a variety of endings it will be like no 2 players are playing the same game-they said those things too.  They've said a lot more-for instance that at the very end it will be all out war and you won't even have time to think or care about anything because of all the fighting.  You won't care about what happened before or having a love interest-it's all out war.  Shall I go on, because in your mind if they've said it that's what they mean exactly.  Here's another one-the story is just as much the fan's story as it is Bioware's.  So, I'm requesting that my part of the story be fixed.

If you say they intend to have there be a moral dilemma because someone once said that, then everything else they ever said is also true and should happen as well.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 01 septembre 2012 - 07:07 .

[Moirai]

dreman9999 wrote...

Moirai wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Moirai wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Moirai wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Moirai wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Moirai wrote...



Bioware..?

Control and destory is not based on the catalyst logic nor control by him. He just telling you what the crucible does.

I understand what you're saying, but it's not directly pertinent to the point I was making. Which was, Bioware effectively yanking the rug out from under the player at the last moment in the worst possible way, based on flaky evidence which the game had already shown was not the case. That's not good story-telling. That's just cheap story-telling...in my personal opinion.

The catalyst issues have nothing to do with your choice. It's just telling you how it started. It's beleif have no real ground on your choice to control it or destroy it. If you don't belieive it, destory it.

But on it's points, their 2 ancient alien being that did say the conflicts happend...Javik and the Leviathens.

Wrong. The Catalyst's 'issues', as you call them, have everything to do with the fact that the choices are even presented as options in the first place. The choices are only contextually valid themselves provided that the premise behind the 'harvest' is fundamatally valid and intact.  It can be shown otherwise, using information clearly available in the game.

On that basis, an option to explain the current invalidation of that core premise to the Catalyst is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances and situation.

Yes, it can be ignored. If you don't beleive his issues are a real problem, you pick destory. It 's as simple as that.
The catalyst issue are just the cause. It does not have to be related toyou issuse with the conflict with the reapers.

Also, you clear don't understand that the catalyst is a shackled AI doing what it's programed to do.



Leviathan: The intelligence was envisioned as another tool
Shepard:And now we all pay the price of you mistake
Leviathan: There was no mistake. It still serves it's perpose

And on it's programing aka perpose...



[color=rgb(170, 170, 170)">Leviathan: ]perserve life at any cost.[/color]

That basicly means  they made a shackled  AI to solve a problem with no limit ever given to how. 
It's shackled. 
The catalyst is  shackled. 

The Catalyst has a mandate, and that is to preserve life at any cost, and that is the only stated restriction, or 'shackling', placed on the Catalyst. How it achieves that is left entirely up to it itself. Hence why it could arrive at the conclusion it did, and all but wipe out its creators. Clear evidence that it wasn't restricted or 'shackled' within the bounds of that very openly defined mandate.

If you have a list of specific operational parameters for that mandate that I've somehow missed, which clearly show how the Catalyst was 'shackled' within the confines of the stated open mandate, then please feel free to post them.

The point is that, given that its only stated purpose is to preserve life at any cost, something it has clearly misinterpreted, that does not, and should not, exclude the possibility of 'discussing' that misinterpretation with the Catalyst, within the confines of its madate, and helping it see that its perceived methodology is intrinsically flawed and that the requirements for validating its core programming are not in evidence.

The only reason for not letting you do so is that Bioware didn't want you to, and wanted to enforce the choices at the end. That's staggeringly obvious. Everyone gets that. It's pretty simple stuff.

The point I'm personally making is the fact that it is enforced and basically ignores the very opportunities of choice that the game itself goes to so much trouble to present to you as possibilities.

The shackle is that is has to solve the problem given.  A machine does what it's programed to do, an AI does what it's programed to do as it see fit. Even nowit's still doing what it's creators ask it to do.
The shackles is solving the problem.

Indeed.

However, it is a problem that no longer exists. There is no evidence in this current cycle to support the notion that the solution it employs is actually warranted. Hence, not only is its reasoning for beginning the harvest, without any supporting evidence, flawed, but achieving its stated mandate does not intrinsically exclude the ability to recognise that there is no threat and that its 'harvest' is fundamentally invalid for the current situation and should never have been started.

My point, again, is that you should be able to task the Catalyst on that specific issue. The fact that you cannot is my specific problem with the ending.

YMMV

The problem not exsist is not up to you. It's up to the catalyst to see and it want a absolute solution.
To the catalyst any solution that is not absolute is not an answer.
You're dealing with a being that thinks in pure logic....Pure logic thinking lead to thinking in absolutes. Think in absolute is dangerous.

A shackled AI with no morality that is locked in logic can't be argued with.

And that is the very in-game reasoning that I am specifically stating that I don't agree with from a story perspective.

It's not so much a case of dealing with a 'shackled' AI here, but with a 'shackled' plot. Hence, my addressing 'Bioware' and not 'Catalyst' in my original post.

I accept that you don't agree with me, and that's fine. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

[3DandBeyond]

IamDanThaMan wrote...

Wow, I don't even know where to begin on how bad your entire post is.

"Hard" science fiction is hardly an exact term, and your definition for it is not one that most people use. I am sure you would consider Star Trek to be an example of this, but they break several of our current "laws" of the universe. More often, it means that the fiction sets up its own internal laws and follows them. In the case of Mass Effect, the only thing they change is the introduction of Element Zero, and everything is based on its ability to manipulate gravity.

You seem to think that this means that we can throw all causality out the window and just assume that if someone is bad, bad things should happen to them, and if you work hard enough, you should be able to save everyone.

Also, for a supposed writer, you seem to have a very poor grasp of the english language. My saying that I felt that one choice was better than the others does not make that choice inherently better than the others. If I prefer Chocolate Ice cream, does that mean that is the best for everyone? If you really believe that, I have some magic beans I'd like to sell you.

Also, your analogy is stupid. Why is it that nobody has brought up the two boat thing from the dark knight yet? That would be a much better analogy than any of the garbage you geniuses keep coming up with. Except that the joker would also have explosives strapped to his body, and the inmates would have killed in self defense and they don't have a detonater, except some of them were the Joker's cronies, and the Joker is going to set off a nuke that will destroy all of Gotham if you don't make a choice,then come back after the city is re-built and do it again, and Batman Doesn't exist.

Edit: Actually, the inmates all used to work for the Joker, but only because another gang was coming to get them.

This is a truly nasty post-no wonder you don't want anyone else to achieve the semblance of what they'd be happy with. 

Full of insults-when you have nothing valid to say, by all means insult the poster.

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. I never said there should not be  happy ending. I'm say there should not be a shepard lives, only reapers die ending.

2.Morality is subjective. How they fell about the choice is up to them.

3.If the player is fine with killing the geth. Fine for them, that just means they had little conflict tha choice. Tha doesn't mean a Shepard lives with out the geth dieing choice should be there.

1. A Reapers only die, shepard lives ending would be a happy ending, and you said you wouldn't want a happy ending because of your usual arguement anout moral conflict. Therefore any happy ending for any player shouldn't be possible.

dreman9999 wrote...
They want the player to go through moral conflict because of the choices at hand. Having a "You live, only reapers die" choice negates that concept.

 
2. Yes how they feel about it is their choice therefore you can't say moral conflict is there for everybody in general

3.but if it is a happy ending for that person there is no moral conflict. as i quoted you above you said that EAware wants moral conflict and therefore a synthetic hater killing all synthetics would negate that concept

1.And having an ending where Shepard lives and only the reapers die will negate the direcdtion the devs what to go with the story...Moral conflict.
2. I never siad that moral conflict is there for everyone. Morality is subjetive. Moral conflict can't be garunteed for every one that plays the game, even if you do set up a senario where moral conflict happens.

3.
Morality is subjetive. Moral conflict can't be garunteed for every one that plays the game, even if you do set up a senario where moral conflict happens. 

I'm not saying it wouldn't,  what I am saying is that because it would not have "moral conflict" to use your favorite phrase, any 'happy ending' no matter how the player plays the game goes against the what the devs want if there goal is 'moral conflict'. No matter if you A (hate geth and choose to destroy them) or if you B (love them and have an ending where you save them), both of which are happy endings it goes against your idea that 'moral conflict' is what the devs want. It's impossible to make sure everybody feels conflicted therefore it's impossible for the devs to want to make it so you feel moral conflict.

But the devs can still make the senerios to try to anyway. As I  said before just becaus eyou don;t go through as much moral conflict does not mean it's invalide. I matter not that every one does not go through it. Just because everyone does not go through it does nto mean an easy way out has to be added.

before I focus on your comment let me say one thing, please read over your comments before you post them, your spelling and grammer is terrible half the time

now to your comment, they can try but it's not going to happen because of how the players play. Meaning that moral conflict is irrelevant because everybody won't go through it so no matter what they do they will never get moral conflict always involved. They should have focused on making sure the endings made sense rather than to make sure players are conflicted over the choices.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1.
Morality is subjetive. Moral conflict can't be garunteed for every one that plays the game, even if you do set up a senario where moral conflict happens. 

2. 
The way the game end is based on you actions. The catalyst has nothing to do with what he crucible does out side of synthesis. The condition of the crucible does. And what contols the condition of the crucible is your ems score. The ending you get is based on ems, not the catalyst. 

3.My issue ofargument is not based on my game. It based on the direction BW wants the story to go. I said that many times over.

If a player has no moral conflict, then the endings are not about that and BW didn't only intend that there be a moral conflict.

You have no idea whether the catalyst has anything to do with the crucible plans-the Leviathans didn't make them, so whoever did had to know about the reapers and the kid.  The only one who does know about both other than Shepard and the Leviathans is the kid himself.  I never said your EMS had nothing to do with it-now, you're just creating new arguments.  Your people are building it-you add assets to it to help build it, and that works toward making it complete.  Even connected to the catalyst (it is supposed to work with him), it is not finished-it is largely intact.  If English is not your first language, that means it is not intact.  It cannot discriminate because it is not intact.  Either you don't have enough assets to protect it well enough or it is not finished.

You only know what you interpret BW to have said in the past-I have commented on this but you ignore anything that doesn't agree with your position.  BW has said a lot of things-a lot of them have not come to pass and never will.  But, if you insist on making them stick with a moral dilemma then I have every right to "demand" that they stick with other things they have said.  You say they intended to have a moral dilemma based on the dark energy plot.  Well that's gone, but ok let's have a moral dilemma.  Then, I say we shouldn't have abc endings and we should have such a variety of endings it will be like no 2 players are playing the same game-they said those things too.  They've said a lot more-for instance that at the very end it will be all out war and you won't even have time to think or care about anything because of all the fighting.  You won't care about what happened before or having a love interest-it's all out war.  Shall I go on, because in your mind if they've said it that's what they mean exactly.  Here's another one-the story is just as much the fan's story as it is Bioware's.  So, I'm requesting that my part of the story be fixed.

If you say they intend to have there be a moral dilemma because someone once said that, then everything else they ever said is also true and should happen as well.

1. 
But the devs can still make the senerios to try to anyway. As I  said before just because you don't go through as much moral conflict does not mean it's invalide. I matter not that every one does not go through it. Just because everyone does not go through it does nto mean an easy way out has to be added.

2.We know that the crucible is not control by the catalyst because what it does is effected by you mes score...As in how intact it is. If it's very damaged you get one choice and it's bad.
The more ems you have the more chices you have and the more the results of the choices improve.

3.The concept of lots of hard choices, no e of them esay never changed. The fact that they planned the ending to have one set of hard choice and change it to a differnt set of hard choices means the concept stayed.

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. I never said there should not be  happy ending. I'm say there should not be a shepard lives, only reapers die ending.

2.Morality is subjective. How they fell about the choice is up to them.

3.If the player is fine with killing the geth. Fine for them, that just means they had little conflict tha choice. Tha doesn't mean a Shepard lives with out the geth dieing choice should be there.

1. A Reapers only die, shepard lives ending would be a happy ending, and you said you wouldn't want a happy ending because of your usual arguement anout moral conflict. Therefore any happy ending for any player shouldn't be possible.

dreman9999 wrote...
They want the player to go through moral conflict because of the choices at hand. Having a "You live, only reapers die" choice negates that concept.

 
2. Yes how they feel about it is their choice therefore you can't say moral conflict is there for everybody in general

3.but if it is a happy ending for that person there is no moral conflict. as i quoted you above you said that EAware wants moral conflict and therefore a synthetic hater killing all synthetics would negate that concept

1.And having an ending where Shepard lives and only the reapers die will negate the direcdtion the devs what to go with the story...Moral conflict.
2. I never siad that moral conflict is there for everyone. Morality is subjetive. Moral conflict can't be garunteed for every one that plays the game, even if you do set up a senario where moral conflict happens.

3.
Morality is subjetive. Moral conflict can't be garunteed for every one that plays the game, even if you do set up a senario where moral conflict happens. 

I'm not saying it wouldn't,  what I am saying is that because it would not have "moral conflict" to use your favorite phrase, any 'happy ending' no matter how the player plays the game goes against the what the devs want if there goal is 'moral conflict'. No matter if you A (hate geth and choose to destroy them) or if you B (love them and have an ending where you save them), both of which are happy endings it goes against your idea that 'moral conflict' is what the devs want. It's impossible to make sure everybody feels conflicted therefore it's impossible for the devs to want to make it so you feel moral conflict.

But the devs can still make the senerios to try to anyway. As I  said before just becaus eyou don;t go through as much moral conflict does not mean it's invalide. I matter not that every one does not go through it. Just because everyone does not go through it does nto mean an easy way out has to be added.

before I focus on your comment let me say one thing, please read over your comments before you post them, your spelling and grammer is terrible half the time

now to your comment, they can try but it's not going to happen because of how the players play. Meaning that moral conflict is irrelevant because everybody won't go through it so no matter what they do they will never get moral conflict always involved. They should have focused on making sure the endings made sense rather than to make sure players are conflicted over the choices.

That doesn't mean they have toadd an easy way out. They can try as much as they like...It's there game. Just becaus e it doen't workfor everyone does not mean they can't try.

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Now you are trolling and starting pointless arguemants, since a few pages back you was going on saying it was general. And now your saying its subjective and saying everything I just told you.

I did not say it was general. I siad alot of people felt conflict over the choices. I never said everyone did.

you have been saying that, we were telling you the Moral Conflict was subjective

dreman9999 wrote...

Morality is realative. Just because you have no issue wih the choice at hand does not mean it does not cause moral conflict in general.
It just mean you don't find the choices conflicting.

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...


But the devs can still make the senerios to try to anyway. As I  said before just because you don't go through as much moral conflict does not mean it's invalide. I matter not that every one does not go through it. Just because everyone does not go through it does nto mean an easy way out has to be added.

2.We know that the crucible is not control by the catalyst because what it does is effected by you mes score...As in how intact it is. If it's very damaged you get one choice and it's bad.
The more ems you have the more chices you have and the more the results of the choices improve.

3.The concept of lots of hard choices, no e of them esay never changed. The fact that they planned the ending to have one set of hard choice and change it to a differnt set of hard choices means the concept stayed.

So Bioware meant for there to be a moral dilemma, but not for everyone? 
This is now what you are saying.  That's great.  I don't want one, so now they could easily make an ending for me and others like me that doesn't contain one-since it is not meant for everyone to have to face a moral dilemma.

Thanks dreman9999, for agreeing with me.  Bioware never meant for everyone to face a moral dilemma, just some people.  Good news.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 01 septembre 2012 - 07:17 .

[dreman9999]

[quote]Moirai wrote...

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...

[quote]Moirai wrote...

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...

[quote]Moirai wrote...

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...

[quote]Moirai wrote...

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...

[quote]Moirai wrote...

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...

[quote]Moirai wrote...



Bioware..?[/quote]Control and destory is not based on the catalyst logic nor control by him. He just telling you what the crucible does.
[/quote]

I understand what you're saying, but it's not directly pertinent to the point I was making. Which was, Bioware effectively yanking the rug out from under the player at the last moment in the worst possible way, based on flaky evidence which the game had already shown was not the case. That's not good story-telling. That's just cheap story-telling...in my personal opinion.

[/quote]The catalyst issues have nothing to do with your choice. It's just telling you how it started. It's beleif have no real ground on your choice to control it or destroy it. If you don't belieive it, destory it.

But on it's points, their 2 ancient alien being that did say the conflicts happend...Javik and the Leviathens.

[/quote]

Wrong. The Catalyst's 'issues', as you call them, have everything to do with the fact that the choices are even presented as options in the first place. The choices are only contextually valid themselves provided that the premise behind the 'harvest' is fundamatally valid and intact.  It can be shown otherwise, using information clearly available in the game.

On that basis, an option to explain the current invalidation of that core premise to the Catalyst is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances and situation.

[/quote]Yes, it can be ignored. If you don't beleive his issues are a real problem, you pick destory. It 's as simple as that.
The catalyst issue are just the cause. It does not have to be related toyou issuse with the conflict with the reapers.

Also, you clear don't understand that the catalyst is a shackled AI doing what it's programed to do.



Leviathan: The intelligence was envisioned as another tool
Shepard:And now we all pay the price of you mistake
Leviathan: There was no mistake. It still serves it's perpose

And on it's programing aka perpose...



[color=rgb(170, 170, 170)">Leviathan: ]perserve life at any cost.[/color]

That basicly means  they made a shackled  AI to solve a problem with no limit ever given to how. 
It's shackled. 
The catalyst is  shackled. 

[/quote]

The Catalyst has a mandate, and that is to preserve life at any cost, and that is the only stated restriction, or 'shackling', placed on the Catalyst. How it achieves that is left entirely up to it itself. Hence why it could arrive at the conclusion it did, and all but wipe out its creators. Clear evidence that it wasn't restricted or 'shackled' within the bounds of that very openly defined mandate.

If you have a list of specific operational parameters for that mandate that I've somehow missed, which clearly show how the Catalyst was 'shackled' within the confines of the stated open mandate, then please feel free to post them.

The point is that, given that its only stated purpose is to preserve life at any cost, something it has clearly misinterpreted, that does not, and should not, exclude the possibility of 'discussing' that misinterpretation with the Catalyst, within the confines of its madate, and helping it see that its perceived methodology is intrinsically flawed and that the requirements for validating its core programming are not in evidence.

The only reason for not letting you do so is that Bioware didn't want you to, and wanted to enforce the choices at the end. That's staggeringly obvious. Everyone gets that. It's pretty simple stuff.

The point I'm personally making is the fact that it is enforced and basically ignores the very opportunities of choice that the game itself goes to so much trouble to present to you as possibilities.
[/quote]
The shackle is that is has to solve the problem given.  A machine does what it's programed to do, an AI does what it's programed to do as it see fit. Even nowit's still doing what it's creators ask it to do.
The shackles is solving the problem.

[/quote]

Indeed.

However, it is a problem that no longer exists. There is no evidence in this current cycle to support the notion that the solution it employs is actually warranted. Hence, not only is its reasoning for beginning the harvest, without any supporting evidence, flawed, but achieving its stated mandate does not intrinsically exclude the ability to recognise that there is no threat and that its 'harvest' is fundamentally invalid for the current situation and should never have been started.

My point, again, is that you should be able to task the Catalyst on that specific issue. The fact that you cannot is my specific problem with the ending.

YMMV

[/quote]The problem not exsist is not up to you. It's up to the catalyst to see and it want a absolute solution.
To the catalyst any solution that is not absolute is not an answer.
You're dealing with a being that thinks in pure logic....Pure logic thinking lead to thinking in absolutes. Think in absolute is dangerous.

A shackled AI with no morality that is locked in logic can't be argued with.

[/quote]

And that is the very in-game reasoning that I am specifically stating that I don't agree with from a story perspective.

It's not so much a case of dealing with a 'shackled' AI here, but with a 'shackled' plot. Hence, my addressing 'Bioware' and not 'Catalyst' in my original post.

I accept that you don't agree with me, and that's fine. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

[/quote]
That concept hs been in th story from day one. Infact everything was build up with you interaction with Legion and EDI. The concept of an AI being shackled to do waht it'sprogramed to do is not new to the plot. It's call indoctriantion.All the ending is say is the reapers are indoctrianted to do their programing. This is not coming out of left feild.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


But the devs can still make the senerios to try to anyway. As I  said before just because you don't go through as much moral conflict does not mean it's invalide. I matter not that every one does not go through it. Just because everyone does not go through it does nto mean an easy way out has to be added.

2.We know that the crucible is not control by the catalyst because what it does is effected by you mes score...As in how intact it is. If it's very damaged you get one choice and it's bad.
The more ems you have the more chices you have and the more the results of the choices improve.

3.The concept of lots of hard choices, no e of them esay never changed. The fact that they planned the ending to have one set of hard choice and change it to a differnt set of hard choices means the concept stayed.

So Bioware meant for there to be a moral dilemma, but not for everyone? 
This is now what you are saying.  That's great.  I don't want one, so now they could easily make an ending for me and others like me that doesn't contain one-since it is not meant for everyone to have to face a moral dilemma.

Thanks dreman9999, for agreeing with me.  Bioware never meant for everyone to face a moral dilemma, just some people.  Good news.

The fact that you made this topic means that you are going through a moral delama. You just don't want it to be as extreme.

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

That doesn't mean they have toadd an easy way out. They can try as much as they like...It's there game. Just becaus e it doen't workfor everyone does not mean they can't try.

Nope, it's not their game. 

You said because they once said that they wanted the game to be about moral dilemmas that that was their intent.

They also said the game and story was partly my story (the player's story) and that we help create it. 

So, if you get your moral dilemma because they should remain true to what they've said, then I get my story as they told me I get to help create it.  I'm asking for them to fix my part of the story.

Thanks for agreeing with me dreman9999

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Now you are trolling and starting pointless arguemants, since a few pages back you was going on saying it was general. And now your saying its subjective and saying everything I just told you.

I did not say it was general. I siad alot of people felt conflict over the choices. I never said everyone did.

you have been saying that, we were telling you the Moral Conflict was subjective

dreman9999 wrote...

Morality is realative. Just because you have no issue wih the choice at hand does not mean it does not cause moral conflict in general.
It just mean you don't find the choices conflicting.

Agian, that was a term refelecting that other peopel felt moral delama over the choices even if you did not.

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...
before I focus on your comment let me say one thing, please read over your comments before you post them, your spelling and grammer is terrible half the time

now to your comment, they can try but it's not going to happen because of how the players play. Meaning that moral conflict is irrelevant because everybody won't go through it so no matter what they do they will never get moral conflict always involved. They should have focused on making sure the endings made sense rather than to make sure players are conflicted over the choices.

That doesn't mean they have to add an easy way out. They can try as much as they like...It's there game. Just because it doen't work for everyone does not mean they can't try.

Sure they can try but it's wasted effort. Moral conflict is not a general thing as you said a few pages back in this thread, so it's a wasted effort to try to make everybody go through it. People should want a happy ending because if people spent over 100 hours on these games EAware should let them see their previous choices pay off, see their war assets actually do something, and have not have wastes time trying to make everybody conflicted about that final color choice. and yes I already know you will say "it's there game, they can do what they want to" but that doesn't mean they did the right thing.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

That doesn't mean they have toadd an easy way out. They can try as much as they like...It's there game. Just becaus e it doen't workfor everyone does not mean they can't try.

Nope, it's not their game. 

You said because they once said that they wanted the game to be about moral dilemmas that that was their intent.

They also said the game and story was partly my story (the player's story) and that we help create it. 

So, if you get your moral dilemma because they should remain true to what they've said, then I get my story as they told me I get to help create it.  I'm asking for them to fix my part of the story.

Thanks for agreeing with me dreman9999

It is their game....The made it and wrote it. You direct what you do based on what choices they put in the game.
If they want to try to but moral delamain the game, they can.