275 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

The Twilight God wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

If EMS is 4000+ and the Destroy option is chosen, Shepard is seen barely alive, gasping for breath (if Anderson is shot by the Illusive Man, the player needs 5000+ EMS to see this short scene).

It's now 3100 for breathe scene and 4000 (or 4100) if anderson is killed. 

Ok, but my point still stands.

[The Spamming Troll]

dreman9999 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

TNT1991 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Open end ending mean I, you or anyone can imagine the results of that last moment with Shepard. 
AKA, if I say he is alive , I'm right. If you say he's dead, your right.
With subjective things, there never is only one truth.

 

This. 

thats about as rewarding to my journey as making my choices a tally point under EMS.

pft.

i guess hudson wasnt lieing when he said there would be alot of endings. he just forgot to mention its all headcanon endings.

again, pft.

AKA....I want a happy ending.


Just for you to know how different the results of the ending can be....

 EMS is between 0-1749, only the Destroy or Control option will be available (determined by whether or not the Collector Base was destroyed or preserved in Mass Effect 2). If the Collector base was left intact, only the Control option is possible, if it was destroyed, only the Destroy ending will be available and both will result in massive physical damage to Earth, with Destroy killing everyone on Earth.

If EMS is between 1750-2349, the choice between Destroy or Control options becomes available, but either choice will cause some substantial damage to the galaxy.If EMS is between 2350-2649, the Control option will cause no physical damage and the Destroy option will still massively damage the galaxy.

If EMS is 2650+ the Destroy and Control options will no longer cause any physical harm to the galaxy.If EMS is 2800+ the Synthesis ending becomes available.

If EMS is 4000+ and the Destroy option is chosen, Shepard is seen barely alive, gasping for breath (if Anderson is shot by the Illusive Man, the player needs 5000+ EMS to see this short scene).

In every ending, the Crucible's blast causes the Normandy to crash land on an unknown planet. The survival of the Normandy's crew will rely solely on EMS:

If EMS is substantially low (below ~2000), nobody exits the Normandy.
If EMS is moderately high (above minimum, below maximum) and Destroy or Control are chosen, Joker and the player's most-favored crew mate will exit the ship.

If Synthesis is chosen, Joker, EDI, and the player's most-favored crew member will exit the ship. Joker and EDI will embrace.
If EMS is 4000+ then three crew members will exit in the Destroy and Control endings; Joker and two of the player's most-favored crew mates. 

So not having the ending you want means you don't have many endings?

i dont need a happy ending. i need an ending that makes ****ing sense. period. nothing to do with walt disney here, everything to do with mac walters and casey hudson. atleast im under the impression thats where im supposed to put the blame.

ive got almost zero concern about what happens if i dont have enough EMS. EMS was an awfull idea. it was going to fail from the start, and easily displease fans of the series. but im not here to complain about what happens if my EMS isnt high enough. bad things should happen if i didnt do enough, or do the correct things. its called so called RPGs, youd be seeing some kind of consequences. any EMS score outside of something deserving of being a WIN has nothing to do wit hthe endings. atleast in my interpretation of how the journey should have ended. wiht a "high enough EMS" i should get what i want, and more imporatntly what i deserved. whatever that is, is to pointless to even bring up now. instead im hand fed by my enemy the no questions asked ending to the cycle and the reapers by some bazaro entity brought upon by some other bazaro object.

youd think maybe in ME4 those differences would show consequences. let me remind you of how bioware makes their games.....

picking anderson means undina is councelor.

killing the rachni queen means the rachni are still around.

leaving the council to die makes the council hologram copies.

saving kaiden means i get an ashely-based kaiden.


....when ME4 comes out and features synthesis as cannon, i wonder if youll care.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 02 octobre 2012 - 03:44 .

[dreman9999]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

TNT1991 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Open end ending mean I, you or anyone can imagine the results of that last moment with Shepard. 
AKA, if I say he is alive , I'm right. If you say he's dead, your right.
With subjective things, there never is only one truth.

 

This. 

thats about as rewarding to my journey as making my choices a tally point under EMS.

pft.

i guess hudson wasnt lieing when he said there would be alot of endings. he just forgot to mention its all headcanon endings.

again, pft.

AKA....I want a happy ending.


Just for you to know how different the results of the ending can be....

 EMS is between 0-1749, only the Destroy or Control option will be available (determined by whether or not the Collector Base was destroyed or preserved in Mass Effect 2). If the Collector base was left intact, only the Control option is possible, if it was destroyed, only the Destroy ending will be available and both will result in massive physical damage to Earth, with Destroy killing everyone on Earth.

If EMS is between 1750-2349, the choice between Destroy or Control options becomes available, but either choice will cause some substantial damage to the galaxy.If EMS is between 2350-2649, the Control option will cause no physical damage and the Destroy option will still massively damage the galaxy.

If EMS is 2650+ the Destroy and Control options will no longer cause any physical harm to the galaxy.If EMS is 2800+ the Synthesis ending becomes available.

If EMS is 4000+ and the Destroy option is chosen, Shepard is seen barely alive, gasping for breath (if Anderson is shot by the Illusive Man, the player needs 5000+ EMS to see this short scene).

In every ending, the Crucible's blast causes the Normandy to crash land on an unknown planet. The survival of the Normandy's crew will rely solely on EMS:

If EMS is substantially low (below ~2000), nobody exits the Normandy.
If EMS is moderately high (above minimum, below maximum) and Destroy or Control are chosen, Joker and the player's most-favored crew mate will exit the ship.

If Synthesis is chosen, Joker, EDI, and the player's most-favored crew member will exit the ship. Joker and EDI will embrace.
If EMS is 4000+ then three crew members will exit in the Destroy and Control endings; Joker and two of the player's most-favored crew mates. 

So not having the ending you want means you don't have many endings?

i dont need a happy ending. i need an ending that makes ****ing sense. period. nothing to do with walt disney here, everything to do with mac walters and casey hudson. atleast im under the impression thats where im supposed to put the blame.

ive got almost zero concern about what happens if i dont have enough EMS. EMS was an awfull idea. it was going to fail from the start, and easily displease fans of the series. but im not here to complain about what happens if my EMS isnt high enough. bad things should happen if i didnt do enough, or do the correct things. its called so called RPGs, youd be seeing some kind of consequences. any EMS score outside of something deserving of being a WIN has nothing to do wit hthe endings. atleast in my interpretation of how the journey should have ended.

youd think maybe in ME4 those differences would show consequences. let me remind you of how bioware makes their games.....

picking anderson means undina is councelor.

killing the rachni queen means the rachni are still around.

leaving the council to die makes the council hologram copies.

saving kaiden means i get an ashely-based kaiden.


....when ME4 comes out and features synthesis as cannon, i wonder if youll care.

The ending does make sense.
Detroy effects all tech.

Control is a mass rewrite.

Synthtesis is a question of advancement.


Added,ME as a series has 4 theme they cover.

The moraily of advancement.
The morality of control vs freedom.
The morality of ends vs means
And the issues of orgaic vs syhtnetic.

Now all these theme ties into  and effect each other.
Control vs freedom intertwines with  orgaic vs syhtnetic because that issues cause conflict with organic vs synthetic, as well as advancement and ends vs means.

Advancement ties into with control vs freedom being that advancement can cut down freedom, and the means of that advancement may or may not justify it's end, and that adavancement make synthetic life.

End vs means ties into control vs freedom because control can end up with a victory ageint our enemy but at the cost of free will. Advancement can end up with a victory ageint our enemy but at the cost would mean lives and free will.

Now, the ending for ME3 covers all 4 themes.
The event with the catalyst and destroy ask ends vs means and orgainic vs synthetic.

Control ask control vs freedom and end vs means being that Shepard is sacrificing him/herself.

Synthesis is a quastion of end vs means, advancement, and control vs freedom.

All the endings cover the themes is some way. Inheritly, ME provides the issues with the themes cover but nover an abolute awnser being that it's a game that can be looked at in any perpesctive.


Also, Kaiden in ME3 is nothing like Ashley at all.

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 octobre 2012 - 03:51 .

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...
The universe, including earth, is not build on inheate goods and evil. It shades of grey. It's never that simple. If you look at the world in black and white I feel sad for you. You problem is that your looking at things in the extremes.

Your problem is you continually ignore what people are saying.  There is inherent good and evil and yes many times there are shades of grey.  But when it comes to a question of saving the galaxy you want to be pretty darn sure that what you are choosing is more good than it is evil.  There is nothing in the explanation for any of these choices that is so well defined and coherent as to indicate that you will do more good than harm. 

And yes there are clearly good and clearly evil things that exist.  Just because you live in some pristine environment where such things don't exist, does not mean that they aren't out there.  There are people that kill other people just for the fun of it or for money, because they like money more than people-tell me the shade of gray there.

Evil is as evil does.  Just because some despot likes dogs doesn't mean he's a good person if he routinely likes to kill as many people as possible because their noses are not the right shape.

I don't need you to feel sad for me-because I certainly feel that for you.  You continually tell people what they don't know, as you put it, which is insulting, but then you go and prove what you don't.

I'll give you good and evil.  Good is knowing you could live and choosing to die anyway in order to achieve real good for others.  Good is sacrificing a happier life so that others may have comfort.  Evil is knowing you are doing wrong and doing it, anyway without remorse.  Evil is deciding to do bad things because you like to.  Evil is being told you are hurting someone and doing it anyway.  Good is refusing to choose an easy path and give in to this kind of evil even though the result will be death.

Evil is not only a mind-set, but an action.  When you tell the kid he is hurting people-the exact opposite of what he is supposed to be doing, he ignores that.  His actions are evil, even if his intent is not.  And sometimes all you can react to is behavior, especially when you cannot use reason.  The kid showed he cannot be reasoned with.  So, he's like some evil person intent on doing evil, because if he is logical than when Shepard tells him that, he should understand that it is true and should stop.  But he doubles down on that and ups the ante, and wants Shepard to help him hurt people.  As long as there's a slideshow afterward we can all join hands and sing songs together.

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

The ending does make sense.
Detroy effects all tech.

Control is a mass rewrite.

Synthtesis is a question of advancement.


Added,ME as a series has 4 theme they cover.

The moraily of advancement.
The morality of control vs freedom.
The morality of ends vs means
And the issues of orgaic vs syhtnetic.

Now all these theme ties into  and effect each other.
Control vs freedom intertwines with  orgaic vs syhtnetic because that issues cause conflict with organic vs synthetic, as well as advancement and ends vs means.

Advancement ties into with control vs freedom being that advancement can cut down freedom, and the means of that advancement may or may not justify it's end, and that adavancement make synthetic life.

End vs means ties into control vs freedom because control can end up with a victory ageint our enemy but at the cost of free will. Advancement can end up with a victory ageint our enemy but at the cost would mean lives and free will.

Now, the ending for ME3 covers all 4 themes.
The event with the catalyst and destroy ask ends vs means and orgainic vs synthetic.

Control ask control vs freedom and end vs means being that Shepard is sacrificing him/herself.

Synthesis is a quastion of end vs means, advancement, and control vs freedom.

All the endings cover the themes is some way. Inheritly, ME provides the issues with the themes cover but nover an abolute awnser being that it's a game that can be looked at in any perpesctive.


Also, Kaiden in ME3 is nothing like Ashley at all.

Unfortunately all of your so-called morality issues were long ago decided by Shepard in the game.  Advancement was eschewed by Mordin and by Legion and even Wrex in talking about the boredom of the Krogan.  Legion specifically mentions that the true geth see things differently from the heretics and didn't want knowledge handed to them, but wanted to earn it.

Control was also put aside as something that rational people wanted.  Even TIM had rejected controlling Shepard.
Ends justifying the means was totally discarded as were all of these so-called themes, by a paragon Shepard.  A paragon speaks about this so often, I don't know how you missed it.  Every loyalty mission was a rejection of that idea that the end justifies the means and they rejected these other so-called themes too.

The stories were about Unity, diversity, redemption and self-determination.  These are the paragon themes.  They should be vastly different and perhaps you could view your ideas as renegade themes, but the game makes no distinction.  A paragon can't get any choices that upholds his/her themes.  The writers totally ignored paragon Shepards at the end.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
The universe, including earth, is not build on inheate goods and evil. It shades of grey. It's never that simple. If you look at the world in black and white I feel sad for you. You problem is that your looking at things in the extremes.

Your problem is you continually ignore what people are saying.  There is inherent good and evil and yes many times there are shades of grey.  But when it comes to a question of saving the galaxy you want to be pretty darn sure that what you are choosing is more good than it is evil.  There is nothing in the explanation for any of these choices that is so well defined and coherent as to indicate that you will do more good than harm. 

And yes there are clearly good and clearly evil things that exist.  Just because you live in some pristine environment where such things don't exist, does not mean that they aren't out there.  There are people that kill other people just for the fun of it or for money, because they like money more than people-tell me the shade of gray there.

Evil is as evil does.  Just because some despot likes dogs doesn't mean he's a good person if he routinely likes to kill as many people as possible because their noses are not the right shape.

I don't need you to feel sad for me-because I certainly feel that for you.  You continually tell people what they don't know, as you put it, which is insulting, but then you go and prove what you don't.

I'll give you good and evil.  Good is knowing you could live and choosing to die anyway in order to achieve real good for others.  Good is sacrificing a happier life so that others may have comfort.  Evil is knowing you are doing wrong and doing it, anyway without remorse.  Evil is deciding to do bad things because you like to.  Evil is being told you are hurting someone and doing it anyway.  Good is refusing to choose an easy path and give in to this kind of evil even though the result will be death.

Evil is not only a mind-set, but an action.  When you tell the kid he is hurting people-the exact opposite of what he is supposed to be doing, he ignores that.  His actions are evil, even if his intent is not.  And sometimes all you can react to is behavior, especially when you cannot use reason.  The kid showed he cannot be reasoned with.  So, he's like some evil person intent on doing evil, because if he is logical than when Shepard tells him that, he should understand that it is true and should stop.  But he doubles down on that and ups the ante, and wants Shepard to help him hurt people.  As long as there's a slideshow afterward we can all join hands and sing songs together.

Do you understand that morality is inheritly based on perspective. Because of that, morality is grey. In ordoer for morality to be black and white, morality would beobjective...Which it's not, it subjective. Stop looking at it inthe extremes.

Evil is a mind set. Actions intetied for  good can do harmfull things as well just as well  and the same grade as Actions intended for bad.

The catalyst has no morality, It has no concept of good or evil. It's just a machine doing what it's programed to do.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The ending does make sense.
Detroy effects all tech.

Control is a mass rewrite.

Synthtesis is a question of advancement.


Added,ME as a series has 4 theme they cover.

The moraily of advancement.
The morality of control vs freedom.
The morality of ends vs means
And the issues of orgaic vs syhtnetic.

Now all these theme ties into  and effect each other.
Control vs freedom intertwines with  orgaic vs syhtnetic because that issues cause conflict with organic vs synthetic, as well as advancement and ends vs means.

Advancement ties into with control vs freedom being that advancement can cut down freedom, and the means of that advancement may or may not justify it's end, and that adavancement make synthetic life.

End vs means ties into control vs freedom because control can end up with a victory ageint our enemy but at the cost of free will. Advancement can end up with a victory ageint our enemy but at the cost would mean lives and free will.

Now, the ending for ME3 covers all 4 themes.
The event with the catalyst and destroy ask ends vs means and orgainic vs synthetic.

Control ask control vs freedom and end vs means being that Shepard is sacrificing him/herself.

Synthesis is a quastion of end vs means, advancement, and control vs freedom.

All the endings cover the themes is some way. Inheritly, ME provides the issues with the themes cover but nover an abolute awnser being that it's a game that can be looked at in any perpesctive.


Also, Kaiden in ME3 is nothing like Ashley at all.

Unfortunately all of your so-called morality issues were long ago decided by Shepard in the game.  Advancement was eschewed by Mordin and by Legion and even Wrex in talking about the boredom of the Krogan.  Legion specifically mentions that the true geth see things differently from the heretics and didn't want knowledge handed to them, but wanted to earn it.

Control was also put aside as something that rational people wanted.  Even TIM had rejected controlling Shepard.
Ends justifying the means was totally discarded as were all of these so-called themes, by a paragon Shepard.  A paragon speaks about this so often, I don't know how you missed it.  Every loyalty mission was a rejection of that idea that the end justifies the means and they rejected these other so-called themes too.

The stories were about Unity, diversity, redemption and self-determination.  These are the paragon themes.  They should be vastly different and perhaps you could view your ideas as renegade themes, but the game makes no distinction.  A paragon can't get any choices that upholds his/her themes.  The writers totally ignored paragon Shepards at the end.

The issues with advancement was not put a side by the story at all be it an issue with cerberus and the reapers. Added, it did not have a single anwser for it.

As for control.
TIM use a different form of control on Shepard and in the end used indoctriation to control him any way.

The stories were not about Unity, diversity, redemption and self-determination. Remeber, this is a game were you look at it in mulitple perspective. A renagade player can beat the game with out dealing with Unity, diversity, redemption and self-determination. A person can beat the game with Manipulation. single mindedness, ruthlessness, and control. They can use that and get the best ending as well. Your looking at the story is a way too paragon way. 

Look at the game in mulitple perspectives, not one.

[The Spamming Troll]

dreman9999 wrote..,
Also, Kaiden in ME3 is nothing like Ashley at all.

im not saying responding to your other part of this post would be worthless, but, responding to the other part of your post would be worthless.

but i would like to know how different ash and kaoden are in ME3. im prety sure they both hate shepard for the same reasons, they both become spectres regardless of anything rational, they both follow the path of defending udina.....im not so sure whats different about them other then their sex and background. hell as male shep i can even bang kaiden too.

[The Spamming Troll]

dreman9999 wrote...

The catalyst has no morality, It has no concept of good or evil. It's just a machine doing what it's programed to do.

so how do we turn the catalyst off?

riddle me that.

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...
Do you understand that morality is inheritly based on perspective. Because of that, morality is grey. In ordoer for morality to be black and white, morality would beobjective...Which it's not, it subjective. Stop looking at it inthe extremes.

Evil is a mind set. Actions intetied for  good can do harmfull things as well just as well  and the same grade as Actions intended for bad.

The catalyst has no morality, It has no concept of good or evil. It's just a machine doing what it's programed to do.

Do you understand you are being condescending and insulting every time you start a post like this?  Do you understand that a lot of us actually live and breathe and have real lives too and so we may have lived a bit and seen a lot of things or are you just going to keep spewing nonsense?  I honestly believe you live in a bubble.  There are certain things that are always wrong, no matter what.  If you think they do not exist then you must be really young. 

Evil is action and/or a mindset.  People can do evil things and not intend to do evil.  That happens.  If you think that extremes of good and evil do not exist, you're wrong or you don't get out or know history or current events.

Do you understand that some things are not about morality in the game but are about previous behavior and decisions that the character already made.  That means Shepard would have to step out of character to do something different-going against the morality that Shepard displayed.  Not my morality but his/her own.

I didn't say the catalyst had any morality.  I said it is committing evil acts, it is acting evilly, doing wrong.  It is supposedly a thing of logic.  It therefore takes in the information given to it and assesses the logic of it.  If a person says to it, "you are hurting me" and it's programmed to help not hurt the person, then its logic should tell it to stop hurting that person.

Shepard says to the kid that he is killing people.  The kid's logic should at least make it pause and assess the situation and maybe ask Shepard, "why do you think that?"  Instead, the kid says no he isn't.  So, his actions are evil even if he has no intent to do evil.  Were the heretic geth doing evil things?  Yes, and they were killed or re-written for it.  I killed them every time.  I couldn't take the chance otherwise.  And don't even start by saying the control is re-writing.  That's just garbage.  It's ignoring what conrol is-it's putting Shepard's data in there with the kid and the reapers and Shepard is no longer Shepard.  If the kid was the victim of his programming, the so too will Shreaper be the victim of it.  The whole precept is flawed and Shepard's data becomes a part of it.  And I'm out dremann9999.  I know you'll start in with shackled AI, that I don't understand how a machine thinks, whatever.

[3DandBeyond]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

dreman9999 wrote..,
Also, Kaiden in ME3 is nothing like Ashley at all.

im not saying responding to your other part of this post would be worthless, but, responding to the other part of your post would be worthless.

but i would like to know how different ash and kaoden are in ME3. im prety sure they both hate shepard for the same reasons, they both become spectres regardless of anything rational, they both follow the path of defending udina.....im not so sure whats different about them other then their sex and background. hell as male shep i can even bang kaiden too.

The only difference I could see is that Ashley doesn't swing both ways.

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...



Unfortunately all of your so-called morality issues were long ago decided by Shepard in the game.  Advancement was eschewed by Mordin and by Legion and even Wrex in talking about the boredom of the Krogan.  Legion specifically mentions that the true geth see things differently from the heretics and didn't want knowledge handed to them, but wanted to earn it.

Control was also put aside as something that rational people wanted.  Even TIM had rejected controlling Shepard.
Ends justifying the means was totally discarded as were all of these so-called themes, by a paragon Shepard.  A paragon speaks about this so often, I don't know how you missed it.  Every loyalty mission was a rejection of that idea that the end justifies the means and they rejected these other so-called themes too.

The stories were about Unity, diversity, redemption and self-determination.  These are the paragon themes.  They should be vastly different and perhaps you could view your ideas as renegade themes, but the game makes no distinction.  A paragon can't get any choices that upholds his/her themes.  The writers totally ignored paragon Shepards at the end.

The issues with advancement was not put a side by the story at all be it an issue with cerberus and the reapers. Added, it did not have a single anwser for it.

As for control.
TIM use a different form of control on Shepard and in the end used indoctriation to control him any way.

The stories were not about Unity, diversity, redemption and self-determination. Remeber, this is a game were you look at it in mulitple perspective. A renagade player can beat the game with out dealing with Unity, diversity, redemption and self-determination. A person can beat the game with Manipulation. single mindedness, ruthlessness, and control. They can use that and get the best ending as well. Your looking at the story is a way too paragon way. 

Look at the game in mulitple perspectives, not one.

Uh, do you realize that I said that a renegade might not consider those to be the themes, but a paragon would?  For heaven's sake read before posting.  It's like talking to a doorknob.  Yes the stories were about those themes for a paragon.  I'm really done with you.  You like talking to yourself don't you.  Read my post again or actually for the first time.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 02 octobre 2012 - 05:39 .

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...
 I honestly believe you live in a bubble.  There are certain things that are always wrong, no matter what.  If you think they do not exist then you must be really young.  

Or he's using a purely consequentialist moral system. In that case no action is "always wrong," unless it always leads to bad consequences. And if it always leads to bad consequences, then there's never a reason to perform that action unless you're trying to do evil.

Evil is action and/or a mindset.

If you like. But that doesn't say how an action can be judged evil if the actor doesn't have an evil mind-set. Or why such an action even should be judged evil; why wouldn't it just be a mistake?

Do you understand that some things are not about morality in the game but are about previous behavior and decisions that the character already made.  That means Shepard would have to step out of character to do something different-going against the morality that Shepard displayed.  Not my morality but his/her own.

So we're talking role-playing now? OK. But who are you, or I, or anyone else, to tell dreman9999 how his character is to be played?

[dreman9999]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The catalyst has no morality, It has no concept of good or evil. It's just a machine doing what it's programed to do.

so how do we turn the catalyst off?

riddle me that.

You shot the pipe.

[Morty Smith]

dreman9999 wrote...

Kroitz wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Kroitz wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Kroitz wrote...

It´s a different feeling to fight for victory than be given the permission to win from your enemy.

Take sometime to understand you enemy. You find that they never wanted to fight you.

No they didn´t, they just wanted to get rid of us without a fuss. I understand that, we´re pals now.

Just like nationalist germany didn´t want to fight anyone, they just wanted to impose their twisted world-view on everything and everyone with force. It´s the other nations fault for resisting.

Get your mind out of the gutter.

You clearly don't get it. The catalystis just a machine doing what it's programed to do. It nas no morality. Any conflict it does is just a means to an end. It does not what to do no evil nor is inheritly evil. It has no concept of good or evil. It has no free will.

It just a mad dog that need to be put down. Stop trying to lokk atit as an evil thing.

You jump from de-personalisation and de-antagonising straight to justifing their enemy-status.

Dude, how am I supposed to "get" your argument, if you don´t even get what you are writing yourself?

You clearly not understanding what I'm saying. Nothing I said justifies the enemies actions, The fact I said it just a mad dog that need to be put down point to the fact that we still have to stop it.
You're right to say that I'm de-antagonising it. That because it's not really an antagonist. It just a tool doing what it programed to do. As long as you see the catalyst as an antagonist, you'll never understand it.

Incoherent argumentation, contradicting thoughts, general cheese ... are you a lead-writer at Bioware?

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Do you understand that morality is inheritly based on perspective. Because of that, morality is grey. In ordoer for morality to be black and white, morality would beobjective...Which it's not, it subjective. Stop looking at it inthe extremes.

Evil is a mind set. Actions intetied for  good can do harmfull things as well just as well  and the same grade as Actions intended for bad.

The catalyst has no morality, It has no concept of good or evil. It's just a machine doing what it's programed to do.

Do you understand you are being condescending and insulting every time you start a post like this?  Do you understand that a lot of us actually live and breathe and have real lives too and so we may have lived a bit and seen a lot of things or are you just going to keep spewing nonsense?  I honestly believe you live in a bubble.  There are certain things that are always wrong, no matter what.  If you think they do not exist then you must be really young. 

Evil is action and/or a mindset.  People can do evil things and not intend to do evil.  That happens.  If you think that extremes of good and evil do not exist, you're wrong or you don't get out or know history or current events.

Do you understand that some things are not about morality in the game but are about previous behavior and decisions that the character already made.  That means Shepard would have to step out of character to do something different-going against the morality that Shepard displayed.  Not my morality but his/her own.

I didn't say the catalyst had any morality.  I said it is committing evil acts, it is acting evilly, doing wrong.  It is supposedly a thing of logic.  It therefore takes in the information given to it and assesses the logic of it.  If a person says to it, "you are hurting me" and it's programmed to help not hurt the person, then its logic should tell it to stop hurting that person.

Shepard says to the kid that he is killing people.  The kid's logic should at least make it pause and assess the situation and maybe ask Shepard, "why do you think that?"  Instead, the kid says no he isn't.  So, his actions are evil even if he has no intent to do evil.  Were the heretic geth doing evil things?  Yes, and they were killed or re-written for it.  I killed them every time.  I couldn't take the chance otherwise.  And don't even start by saying the control is re-writing.  That's just garbage.  It's ignoring what conrol is-it's putting Shepard's data in there with the kid and the reapers and Shepard is no longer Shepard.  If the kid was the victim of his programming, the so too will Shreaper be the victim of it.  The whole precept is flawed and Shepard's data becomes a part of it.  And I'm out dremann9999.  I know you'll start in with shackled AI, that I don't understand how a machine thinks, whatever.

Right is wrong is always based on perspective. Say that here are inherite right thing and wrong thing is close minded.Even the game tells you this...



Morality will always be subjective no matter how you cut it. This is a case of reality as well.

Morality has nothing to do with logic.
You say he's kill, he says his preserving. No one is wrong on the consept because it's based on perspective.

It a concept statedin ME as well.
Legion:We say  2+1=3
they say 2+2=4.

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 octobre 2012 - 07:28 .

[Jadebaby]

OdanUrr wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

NO I WILL NOT PICK A COLOR, I CAME TO DEFEAT EVIL. I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR THE NAZGUL WERE JUST TRYING TO HELP ME AFTER ALL. 

You could choose Red and destroy the Reapers?

And wipe out all the hobbits, I suppose. Well that's okay, at least we did what we set out to do: save the Shire.

OH WAIT NO WE DIDN'T.

No, no, we'll have to think of something else then. Perhaps we could pick the blue ending -- you become the new Sauron, but you use the One Ring to build carpool lanes and sh*t, and your Flaming Eye turns a lovely cerulean color!

No, still not right, still not right -- oh! Oh! Green! Turn everyone into half person, half Nazgul! This way, there will be peace! Sauron said so, it must be right.

You did not answer my question. Why would you not choose Destroy?

Because my Shepard faught for freedom. Hers and everybody's. She faught for the right for others to choose their own fates. Not just in organics but synthetics as well. Sure, people have been sacrificed along the way, but that's because she couldn't possibly save them. Not because a genocidal AI told her she couldn't.

[dreman9999]

Kroitz wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Kroitz wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Kroitz wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Kroitz wrote...

It´s a different feeling to fight for victory than be given the permission to win from your enemy.

Take sometime to understand you enemy. You find that they never wanted to fight you.

No they didn´t, they just wanted to get rid of us without a fuss. I understand that, we´re pals now.

Just like nationalist germany didn´t want to fight anyone, they just wanted to impose their twisted world-view on everything and everyone with force. It´s the other nations fault for resisting.

Get your mind out of the gutter.

You clearly don't get it. The catalystis just a machine doing what it's programed to do. It nas no morality. Any conflict it does is just a means to an end. It does not what to do no evil nor is inheritly evil. It has no concept of good or evil. It has no free will.

It just a mad dog that need to be put down. Stop trying to lokk atit as an evil thing.

You jump from de-personalisation and de-antagonising straight to justifing their enemy-status.

Dude, how am I supposed to "get" your argument, if you don´t even get what you are writing yourself?

You clearly not understanding what I'm saying. Nothing I said justifies the enemies actions, The fact I said it just a mad dog that need to be put down point to the fact that we still have to stop it.
You're right to say that I'm de-antagonising it. That because it's not really an antagonist. It just a tool doing what it programed to do. As long as you see the catalyst as an antagonist, you'll never understand it.

Incoherent argumentation, contradicting thoughts, general cheese ... are you a lead-writer at Bioware?

It 's that hard to understand a machine is doing what it's programed to do?

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 octobre 2012 - 07:32 .

[dreman9999]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

NO I WILL NOT PICK A COLOR, I CAME TO DEFEAT EVIL. I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR THE NAZGUL WERE JUST TRYING TO HELP ME AFTER ALL. 

You could choose Red and destroy the Reapers?

And wipe out all the hobbits, I suppose. Well that's okay, at least we did what we set out to do: save the Shire.

OH WAIT NO WE DIDN'T.

No, no, we'll have to think of something else then. Perhaps we could pick the blue ending -- you become the new Sauron, but you use the One Ring to build carpool lanes and sh*t, and your Flaming Eye turns a lovely cerulean color!

No, still not right, still not right -- oh! Oh! Green! Turn everyone into half person, half Nazgul! This way, there will be peace! Sauron said so, it must be right.

You did not answer my question. Why would you not choose Destroy?

Because my Shepard faught for freedom. Hers and everybody's. She faught for the right for others to choose their own fates. Not just in organics but synthetics as well. Sure, people have been sacrificed along the way, but that's because she couldn't possibly save them. Not because a genocidal AI told her she couldn't.

Sorry but you missed the note on consiquensisum. Theirsthe ideal and their is the reality. You can't save everyone. You need to focus on who you can save.

Add, if you want a furtur for all lofe so badly, just pick control.

[Jadebaby]

You realise your terrible spelling invalidates everything you say, right?

But then again, I don't really listen to the crap you spew in the first place.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...



Unfortunately all of your so-called morality issues were long ago decided by Shepard in the game.  Advancement was eschewed by Mordin and by Legion and even Wrex in talking about the boredom of the Krogan.  Legion specifically mentions that the true geth see things differently from the heretics and didn't want knowledge handed to them, but wanted to earn it.

Control was also put aside as something that rational people wanted.  Even TIM had rejected controlling Shepard.
Ends justifying the means was totally discarded as were all of these so-called themes, by a paragon Shepard.  A paragon speaks about this so often, I don't know how you missed it.  Every loyalty mission was a rejection of that idea that the end justifies the means and they rejected these other so-called themes too.

The stories were about Unity, diversity, redemption and self-determination.  These are the paragon themes.  They should be vastly different and perhaps you could view your ideas as renegade themes, but the game makes no distinction.  A paragon can't get any choices that upholds his/her themes.  The writers totally ignored paragon Shepards at the end.

The issues with advancement was not put a side by the story at all be it an issue with cerberus and the reapers. Added, it did not have a single anwser for it.

As for control.
TIM use a different form of control on Shepard and in the end used indoctriation to control him any way.

The stories were not about Unity, diversity, redemption and self-determination. Remeber, this is a game were you look at it in mulitple perspective. A renagade player can beat the game with out dealing with Unity, diversity, redemption and self-determination. A person can beat the game with Manipulation. single mindedness, ruthlessness, and control. They can use that and get the best ending as well. Your looking at the story is a way too paragon way. 

Look at the game in mulitple perspectives, not one.

Uh, do you realize that I said that a renegade might not consider those to be the themes, but a paragon would?  For heaven's sake read before posting.  It's like talking to a doorknob.  Yes the stories were about those themes for a paragon.  I'm really done with you.  You like talking to yourself don't you.  Read my post again or actually for the first time.

And your still not getting that the game can be seen in morethan one perspective. You bosting a paragon only view just show how narrow your veiw is.  Thegame is not just abut one view.  You don;t get this?
That way the theme of the story is the moarlity of control, the morality ofadvancement, the morality of ends vs means, and the issue of organic vs synthetic. No matter how you play the game you always have deal with these themes.
Nothing in this game gives an absolute awnser.

[Jadebaby]

also, FTR, you missed the point entirely. Whose to say I can't save everyone? The enemy? Of course they're going to say that. Harbinger also said I will succumb to his will in ME2. Yet, I didn't. Same thing here.

The only difference is, the ****ing game forces you to cooperate with the Reapers now.

[dreman9999]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

You realise your terrible spelling invalidates everything you say, right?

But then again, I don't really listen to the crap you spew in the first place.

Because you can counter my arguement, you attackmy spelling?

Shallow.

[dreman9999]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

also, FTR, you missed the point entirely. Whose to say I can't save everyone? The enemy? Of course they're going to say that. Harbinger also said I will succumb to his will in ME2. Yet, I didn't. Same thing here.

The only difference is, the ****ing game forces you to cooperate with the Reapers now.

1.Destroy and control option are not cooperating with them.
 Synthesis is.

2.Reality and the past games shows you can't save everyone. Did you save bother Kaiden and Ashley? Mordin, thane, or Legion?

One theme ME covers in teh quetstion of end vs mean is the issue of sacrific. Heck, you had to do that in the ME of ME1.

The very ads for ME1 brings up that point.



You can't save everyone. You have to do wants need to be done to stop the reapers and that means you can't alway take the moral high ground.

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 octobre 2012 - 07:48 .

[dreman9999]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

dreman9999 wrote..,
Also, Kaiden in ME3 is nothing like Ashley at all.

im not saying responding to your other part of this post would be worthless, but, responding to the other part of your post would be worthless.

but i would like to know how different ash and kaoden are in ME3. im prety sure they both hate shepard for the same reasons, they both become spectres regardless of anything rational, they both follow the path of defending udina.....im not so sure whats different about them other then their sex and background. hell as male shep i can even bang kaiden too.

So? that does not mean ther beleifs and morals are the same. Kaiden still does not act like Ashley.
Kaiden is not a tough as nail poet with a strong connect to family. And Ashley is not a soft hearted person that looks in depth the events around them.