172 réponses à ce sujet

[Maxster_]

Also, topic was
Destory, Control or Reject, which is true to Shepard's character?
For Shepard character like it was in ME1, the choice is obviously Reject.

[Reorte]

MerchantGOL wrote...

Additionally You can't use the "shepard has no right to decide the other races fate excuse" then say destroy is the best option when you still deciding the fates of entire species

The right thing to do is to pick the choice that leaves the least number of people screwed, although going back to the actual topic that doesn't necessarily mean it's the most in-character choice for any given Shepard.

[Maxster_]

MerchantGOL wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...


P.S. But borg comparison is a far more close to a truth

No its  not the borgs have no emotion or individuality

In gundam  00 Humanity is able to attain true  peace  with them selves an a hostile technorganic race, because they were able to create a dialouge through the enhancments their form of synthis gave them, that ending is pretty much me3's Syntesis ending. word for word

Well, i guess submission is preferable to extinction for some
Also ME1 ideas like strength in the diversity going into oblivion. In exchange for a bright new one, that peace only be possible through homogenization.
And not only homogenization of bodies, but also homogenization of minds.
Ah, that brave new world

There is still diversty, but afte rall shepard did their was still so much hate , Wha thappens when their isn't a combined threat to bring people together, Synthesis  gives the best option for achiving true peace because now their is a bridge that conects us to each other, A krogan is stilla  krogan and a Quarrian is still a Quarrian.

Yeah, yeah, of course I'll believe some reaper's pawn like you.

[ElSuperGecko]

Destroy for my Shepard, both Paragon and Renegade. My Shep's goal was always to stop the Reapers, not compromise with them.

My Shep paid attention to his/her squadmates, to Javik's descriptions of the Reaper invasion, to Anderson, to Hackett, to their statments that the only way to win the fight is by destroying the Reasper threat once and for all. My Shep stuck to that plan, and held the line.

[Reorte]

MerchantGOL wrote...
There is still diversty, but afte rall shepard did their was still so much hate , Wha thappens when their isn't a combined threat to bring people together, Synthesis  gives the best option for achiving true peace because now their is a bridge that conects us to each other, A krogan is stilla  krogan and a Quarrian is still a Quarrian.

More knowledge of each other just makes it easier to kill those you hate. And people have often fought wars most enthusiastically against those the least different from them (the slightly different are evil heretics, very different are just funny foreigners attitude).

[Maxster_]

Reorte wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Additionally You can't use the "shepard has no right to decide the other races fate excuse" then say destroy is the best option when you still deciding the fates of entire species

The right thing to do is to pick the choice that leaves the least number of people screwed, although going back to the actual topic that doesn't necessarily mean it's the most in-character choice for any given Shepard.

Actual choice was surrender to an enemy whim or not.
In-game choice, not meta-game.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Destroy for my Shepard, both Paragon and Renegade. My Shep's goal was always to stop the Reapers, not compromise with them.

My Shep paid attention to his/her squadmates, to Javik's descriptions of the Reaper invasion, to Anderson, to Hackett, to their statments that the only way to win the fight is by destroying the Reasper threat once and for all. My Shep stuck to that plan, and held the line.

But clearly didn't pay attention to the Reaper backstory, which is far more important than opinions of various non-experts.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Maxster_ wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...


P.S. But borg comparison is a far more close to a truth

No its  not the borgs have no emotion or individuality

In gundam  00 Humanity is able to attain true  peace  with them selves an a hostile technorganic race, because they were able to create a dialouge through the enhancments their form of synthis gave them, that ending is pretty much me3's Syntesis ending. word for word

Well, i guess submission is preferable to extinction for some
Also ME1 ideas like strength in the diversity going into oblivion. In exchange for a bright new one, that peace only be possible through homogenization.
And not only homogenization of bodies, but also homogenization of minds.
Ah, that brave new world

There is still diversty, but afte rall shepard did their was still so much hate , Wha thappens when their isn't a combined threat to bring people together, Synthesis  gives the best option for achiving true peace because now their is a bridge that conects us to each other, A krogan is stilla  krogan and a Quarrian is still a Quarrian.

Yeah, yeah, of course I'll believe some reaper's pawn like you.

Catalyst is the Reaper's leader, not pawn. Also, don't bring the 'trust issue" up because you trust that shooting a tube will destroy all synthetic life.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Reorte wrote...

More knowledge of each other just makes it easier to kill those you hate. And people have often fought wars most enthusiastically against those the least different from them (the slightly different are evil heretics, very different are just funny foreigners attitude).

That is, if you are inherently inclined to hate/kill them, but anyone with any passable concept "knowledge" can see how futile it is to create conflict and kill other people over silly concepts such as differences.

[Yate]

Anyone who chooses Refusal is not playing to character.

[MerchantGOL]

Reorte wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...
There is still diversty, but afte rall shepard did their was still so much hate , Wha thappens when their isn't a combined threat to bring people together, Synthesis  gives the best option for achiving true peace because now their is a bridge that conects us to each other, A krogan is stilla  krogan and a Quarrian is still a Quarrian.

More knowledge of each other just makes it easier to kill those you hate. And people have often fought wars most enthusiastically against those the least different from them (the slightly different are evil heretics, very different are just funny foreigners attitude).

I am not talking about knowldge, i am talking about Understanding.


The right thing to do is to pick the choice that leaves the least number of people screwed, although going back to the actual topic that doesn't necessarily mean it's the most in-character choice for any given Shepard.

If thats the case i am even more sure my shepard made the right choice.

[Maxster_]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...


P.S. But borg comparison is a far more close to a truth

No its  not the borgs have no emotion or individuality

In gundam  00 Humanity is able to attain true  peace  with them selves an a hostile technorganic race, because they were able to create a dialouge through the enhancments their form of synthis gave them, that ending is pretty much me3's Syntesis ending. word for word

Well, i guess submission is preferable to extinction for some
Also ME1 ideas like strength in the diversity going into oblivion. In exchange for a bright new one, that peace only be possible through homogenization.
And not only homogenization of bodies, but also homogenization of minds.
Ah, that brave new world

There is still diversty, but afte rall shepard did their was still so much hate , Wha thappens when their isn't a combined threat to bring people together, Synthesis  gives the best option for achiving true peace because now their is a bridge that conects us to each other, A krogan is stilla  krogan and a Quarrian is still a Quarrian.

Yeah, yeah, of course I'll believe some reaper's pawn like you.

Catalyst is the Reaper's leader, not pawn. Also, don't bring the 'trust issue" up because you trust that shooting a tube will destroy all synthetic life.

So, MerchantGOL are the Catalyst? That's new
Also, from did you got that to believe a enemy leader is better than to believe his pawn? That's new, also
And from where did you got an idea, that I trusted catalyst?
My ending before EC is Alt+F4, after - Alt+F4 after Shepard speech. Also Reject is true choice for Shepard's character, as it was in ME1.

Modifié par Maxster_, 02 octobre 2012 - 12:08 .

[MerchantGOL]

Yate wrote...

Anyone who chooses Refusal is not playing to character.

Really because my shepard always looked for peacefull solution that would save the most lives.

Letting trillions die because of Stubborn pride is not incharacter for my shepard.

Modifié par MerchantGOL, 02 octobre 2012 - 12:11 .

[Inanna Athanasia]

Davik Kang wrote...

InannaAthanasia wrote...
...I always felt like in ME2 when Shep realizes that
s/he actually died and was brought back that only one thing mattered, saving
the galaxy. Shep begins to take on a new drive that shows that no matter what
s/he thought of various people and so forth, such on working with TIM and such;
it doesn't matter as long as the Reapers are destroyed...

The entire game is based on one woman/man
bearing the weight of the galaxy on her/his shoulders only. We saw it with
leaving Kaidan or Ash behind, with saving or killing the council, with working
with Cerberus or not, destroying or rewriting the Geth, saving or destroying
the collector base, curing the genophage or not and so forth. These are choices
that can potentially have a huge impact on the galaxy, well maybe not Kaidan or
Ash, but still they are a huge burden to carry and Shep has to choose. S/He has
built a life on making the tough choices no one else cans or wants to. Yet as
hard as they are, as much as s/he does not want to make those calls, Shep does
do it. 

This is a beautiful description of Shepard's character and role in the galaxy!  I was touched reading it.  This is really sad, but when playing ME1-3, I felt so much compassion for Shepard, even though she's a scripted VG character, for having to bear the burden of the galaxies problems on her shoulders.  You summed it up really nicely.

Thanks I agree, while it is just a character and just a game, Shep's story really does reach out and grab you. I guess its proof enough on this subject and more, if the story didn't grab people so much then they wouldn't be so passionate about the game.

Reorte wrote...

Although I strongly think that some
choices are better than others the same is true for some Shepards so
I've got to go with the tired old "depends upon your Shepard" line. It's
perfectly possible to roleplay a Shepard who would make any one of the
available choices.

I know it all comes down to how one views Shep to another. And while most of my Shep's are very much alike, there are indeed a lot of different ways to play her/him. Which is why I wanted to hear what other think and why they felt certain choices were right and so forth. I just wanted to know why others felt only certain options were the only one they could ever see Shep make. I doubt anything would change my view on why my Shep did what she and he did, but it does give pause for thought and appreciation to see why others were driven to something different.

Modifié par InannaAthanasia, 02 octobre 2012 - 12:10 .

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Maxster_ wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Catalyst is the Reaper's leader, not pawn. Also, don't bring the 'trust issue" up because you trust that shooting a tube will destroy all synthetic life.

So, MerchantGOL are the Catalyst? That's new
Also, from did you got that to believe a enemy leader is better than to believe his pawn? That's new, also
And from where did you got an idea, that I trusted catalyst?
My ending before EC is Alt+F4, after - Alt+F4 after Shepard speech.

1) I misread your post
2) Leviathan states that Catalyst is still shackled, thus cannot give false information, thus is telling the truth.
3) You seemed like a Destroy-supporter, so I apologize for assuming

[MerchantGOL]

Maxster_ wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...


P.S. But borg comparison is a far more close to a truth

No its  not the borgs have no emotion or individuality

In gundam  00 Humanity is able to attain true  peace  with them selves an a hostile technorganic race, because they were able to create a dialouge through the enhancments their form of synthis gave them, that ending is pretty much me3's Syntesis ending. word for word

Well, i guess submission is preferable to extinction for some
Also ME1 ideas like strength in the diversity going into oblivion. In exchange for a bright new one, that peace only be possible through homogenization.
And not only homogenization of bodies, but also homogenization of minds.
Ah, that brave new world

There is still diversty, but afte rall shepard did their was still so much hate , Wha thappens when their isn't a combined threat to bring people together, Synthesis  gives the best option for achiving true peace because now their is a bridge that conects us to each other, A krogan is stilla  krogan and a Quarrian is still a Quarrian.

Yeah, yeah, of course I'll believe some reaper's pawn like you.

I'm not a  pawn, I just belive there are more options to dealing with an enemy then Killing it  for the sake of killing it

[Maxster_]

MerchantGOL wrote...

Yate wrote...

Anyone who chooses Refusal is not playing to character.

Really becaus emy shepard always looked for peacefull solution that would save the most lives.

LEtting trillions die because of Stubborn pride is not incharacter for my shepard.

Sure, submission is always preferable to extinction. Hello, Saren

[Reorte]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

More knowledge of each other just makes it easier to kill those you hate. And people have often fought wars most enthusiastically against those the least different from them (the slightly different are evil heretics, very different are just funny foreigners attitude).

That is, if you are inherently inclined to hate/kill them, but anyone with any passable concept "knowledge" can see how futile it is to create conflict and kill other people over silly concepts such as differences.

That's about how you think, not about what you know.

[Maxster_]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Catalyst is the Reaper's leader, not pawn. Also, don't bring the 'trust issue" up because you trust that shooting a tube will destroy all synthetic life.

So, MerchantGOL are the Catalyst? That's new
Also, from did you got that to believe a enemy leader is better than to believe his pawn? That's new, also
And from where did you got an idea, that I trusted catalyst?
My ending before EC is Alt+F4, after - Alt+F4 after Shepard speech.

1) I misread your post
2) Leviathan states that Catalyst is still shackled, thus cannot give false information, thus is telling the truth.
3) You seemed like a Destroy-supporter, so I apologize for assuming

1) I know. That was funny, really
2) Of course EAWare now trying to justify that plot-hole ridden non-rpg auto-dialogue mess, that was ME3. They enjoy raping their own lore.
3) no problem

[MerchantGOL]

Maxster_ wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Yate wrote...

Anyone who chooses Refusal is not playing to character.

Really becaus emy shepard always looked for peacefull solution that would save the most lives.

LEtting trillions die because of Stubborn pride is not incharacter for my shepard.

Sure, submission is always preferable to extinction. Hello, Saren

I didn't Submit, the optiosn given at the end of the game, are not the machniations of the enemey, The machien would of done what it did with or with out the Uncaring god figure informing you what to do.

[ElSuperGecko]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
But clearly didn't pay attention to the Reaper backstory, which is far more important than opinions of various non-experts.

How very supercilious of you.

I was talking from my Shep's perspective.  And I paid plenty of attention to the Reapers backstory.  Enough to know that they corrupt organics and use them as tools to fulfil their own goals.  Enough to know that they brought down the previous cycles from within prior to harvesting them.  And enough to know better than to follow in TIM's footsteps, or Saren's for that matter.

[Reorte]

InannaAthanasia wrote...

I know it all comes down to how one views Shep to another. And while most of my Shep's are very much alike, there are indeed a lot of different ways to play her/him. Which is why I wanted to hear what other think and why they felt certain choices were right and so forth. I just wanted to know why others felt only certain options were the only one they could ever see Shep make. I doubt anything would change my view on why my Shep did what she and he did, but it does give pause for thought and appreciation to see why others were driven to something different.

Because it's possible to create a Shepard where any would fit I don't think that it means much. You can play a Shepard how you'd act if you were him, in which case it reflects your own views, or you can create one that's a fictional character with whatever personality you feel like.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

And I paid plenty of attention to the Reapers backstory.  Enough to know that they corrupt organics and use them as tools to fulfil their own goals.  Enough to know that they brought down the previous cycles from within prior to harvesting them.  And enough to know better than to follow in TIM's footsteps, or Saren's for that matter.

And yet, you can't differentiate between the Reapers and the Catalyst. Or for that matter, indoctrinated agents.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Reorte wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

More knowledge of each other just makes it easier to kill those you hate. And people have often fought wars most enthusiastically against those the least different from them (the slightly different are evil heretics, very different are just funny foreigners attitude).

That is, if you are inherently inclined to hate/kill them, but anyone with any passable concept "knowledge" can see how futile it is to create conflict and kill other people over silly concepts such as differences.

That's about how you think, not about what you know.

What you know affects how you think.

Violence stems from misunderstanding, courtesy a general lack of knowledge, and poor judgment of individuals who don't realize that conflict is generally never preferable to cooperation.