543 réponses à ce sujet

[Maxster_]

AlanC9 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

He just SUDDENLY decides to "offer" "victory" to Shepard. It is completely his, Catalyst's, decision.

He suddenly decides that after Shepard forcibly changes him by ramming the Crucible down his throat, of course.

Except that it is was just a giant battery, designed by reapers.
And all functionality and interface to use that battery was built-in into Citadel from the beginning. Who build the citadel? Reapers.

[Getorex]

AlanC9 wrote...

Getorex wrote...
By the way...in extension of my previous post here on why the ending, no matter what you choose, absolutely ENDS galactic civilization and renders it IMPOSSIBLE: Even if FTL lets you travel at 100 times the speed of light, it is STILL impossible to maintain a galactic civilization as broad as was before with the Relays. It would STILL take you 250 years just to get to the galactic core at 100x lightspeed and all the interesting places of the Relay-based civilization are farther than the core. So you are looking at >250 years one way to get ANYWHERE you want to go in the old civilization. Without the relays, which ALL your allowed choices destroy, you DO utterly destroy the overall civilization and it cannot come back without Relays again. 

Where'd that 100x lightspeed figure come from? FTL speed is more like 4000x lightspeed. Reapers travel at approximately 10,000x lightspeed.
 
As for the rest, why is Earth dependent on trade with the other races? You're not actually making a case for "economic depression, mass starvation, violence and social chaos." Give the USA a source of oil and we'd be OK if the other continents vanished. We'd have to make our own iPads, but we could figure that out in a bit.

Yes I am making a case for depression.  The ENTIRE galactic economy is based upon, is DEPENDENT upon Relays.  The basis for the economy everyone was enjoying before the Reapers was absolutely predicated upon Relays.  Just like our modern economy is absoluely predicated upon fast international travel.  Suddenly going from hours to days to travel ANYWHERE on earth to taking a year or two?  Economic collapse through the floor and into the basement.  EVERYTHING changes in an instant.  There's no time to slowly work your way down to the new normal, you are plopped into it in the blink of a green, red, or blue flash of light.

Even at 10,000x lighspeed you cannot do it.  4000x is also far short of what is needed.  You are talking about running a civilization, on an equivalent basis as it was during 1400s.  At 4000x lightspeed it takes almost 7 years to reach the core.  Increase that to get to the other side of the galaxy to the interesting locations.  Decades pass for a 2-way trip at 4000x. 

Also,where did 10,000x lightspeed for Reapers come from?   That, by the way, gives you a 2.5 year one-way trip to the core.  Say 4 to 7 years, one-way, to the other side of the galaxy.  Yep, worse than the 1400s on earth.  At least there it would take you that long to circumnavigate the world - but you couldn't build a working international civilization on that.

Modifié par Getorex, 04 octobre 2012 - 08:42 .

[Dr_Extrem]

Maxster_ wrote...

Except that it is was just a giant battery, designed by reapers.
And all functionality and interface to use that battery was built-in into Citadel from the beginning. Who build the citadel? Reapers.

s**t man ... don't come up with logic! ... it is contrary to space magic! 

[3DandBeyond]

I will say that I don't think the choices fit either paragon nor renegade. A paragon would have to go against character and put all the things done and said out with the trash. A renegade would be a bit more selfish. Both would want to know more about what happens. A paragon, to the people left behind. A renegade, to him/herself. The paragon would want to know if making a choice is helping. A renegade would want to know what they get out of it.

A renegade would easily take control, except for the fact that a renegade wants to keep on living. A renegade if taking power, wants an audience-that Shepard would find it impossible to do because there's no fun to be had in doing it. There's no entourage to know that Shepard owns their butts. No one to impress. Synthesis would have no appeal either for a renegade-death for what? Destroy makes the most sense for a renegade. There's no conflict because it's unlikely a renegade helped the geth or EDI. However, the explanation for it does not really say what Shepard's fate would be. A renegade would want to know that.

There is no good choice. Yes, it's my opinion, but in order to choose one of them a paragon that asks a million questions, would want to know more to make sure s/he isn't doing something worse and a renegade would want to know what happens to him/herself.

For all Shepard knows setting off the crucible could do a number of things that may well have been intended-harvest faster, they moved the citadel to Earth for that reason. It might send out a plague that would kill all non-humans. It could do anything.

And in this thread people once again have posted that they think the kid is only interested in ascending people or preserving them, or whatever.

Then, why did they send out that plague on Omega which was specifically meant to kill non-humans? It killed, didn't preserve people. I know some will say that was the Collectors, but the Collectors were indoctrinated and did all that for the reapers.

[Maxster_]

but the Collectors were indoctrinated and did all that for the reapers.

They are not even alive at that point. Just programmed constructs, robots.

[V-rcingetorix]

dreman9999 wrote...

V-rcingetorix wrote...

@Dreman,

Is that statement absolutely true? Are all people truly absolutely different?

Mathematically, that is true. But light can have only so many colors before its just bandying semantics; aquamarine blue comes to mind.

Therefore, if it is absolutely true that people are different, then it is also true that the absolutes are in varying degrees of each other, and an average exists. Statisticians call this a median, or the number separating the higher half from the lower half.

There is a finite number of people, so there is a finite number of observable points. If there is a median, there is a high and low portion, and therefore a paragon/renegade tilt.
~snip~
[/quote
]But people are always changing. So what if there is a fintenumber of people. They have an infinate number of way they change and the people who are here die aff and be replace by others. That inheritly cause change on he socil level. History show this change clearly.

And with your light point, that is an issue of how much  level of color we can see, not how much color of light there is. You have to remeber our perspectiveis limited. We can't see everything.

Well, yes. People change, yet stay the same. You've heard the saying: "There's nothing so constant as change," right? People will change, but since you bring up history, people need time to change.

Rome was not built in a day, and its people developed their personality, culture and behaviors over thousands of years. People may have changed, but what they believed in did not, at least for a few centuries between beliefs.

And with light...really? How far do you want to take it? Ultraviolet? X-Ray? Radio waves?

Light is limited. Say there are 5000 shades of color in the visible spectrum, which is approximately 8% of the electromagnetic spectrum. If it is assumed that the rest of the spectrum has similar shading (which it really, really doesn't), then there would be around 500,000 shades of electromagnetic energy. Finite names, finite shades, finite number of variables.

Finite number means there is a median, which proves positive (paragon) and negative (renegade) tendencies. To me, anyway.

Modifié par V-rcingetorix, 04 octobre 2012 - 10:56 .

[V-rcingetorix]

3DandBeyond wrote...



~snip~

Then, why did they send out that plague on Omega which was specifically meant to kill non-humans? It killed, didn't preserve people. I know some will say that was the Collectors, but the Collectors were indoctrinated and did all that for the reapers.

Only reason I can recall is Mordin commentating that the COllectors were experimenting on mutation potential. If you get the sound files for ME2, you can hear Harbinger comentating on the potential of various species.

Quarians, for example, are good because of their cybernetic upgrades, but have poor immune systems (REJECT), Krogan are regarded as primitive (REJECT), Turians as having potential (MAYBE), Asari as genetic dead ends (REJECT) and Humans...muahahaha, Humans have great potential! (ICE CREAM!)

Humans are targeted first. Batarians are mostly mowed down, their system was closest to the relay, and it doesn't seem the Reapers stayed to harvest very long. Therefore, humans must have beenn subject to some tests, and the other species must have been tested as well, and found inferior for some reason.

Hence, Collectors bring plague to Omega, to test the variability of aliens. Humans have already been tested and are being Collected...which is why Shepard is back in the first place.

If not, maybe....space magic?

[V-rcingetorix]

system seems to be glitching on me...I did not subit a new post here...

Modifié par V-rcingetorix, 04 octobre 2012 - 10:55 .

[T-Raks]

No. What about thinking for yourself instead of making your decisions based on color? If you would use your brain, you would understand that destroy is not a renegade option (or you would be fine with whatever you choose). Paragon or renegade nd their colors doesn't matter when making a decision, your way of thinking does.

[drayfish]

T-Raks wrote...

No. What about thinking for yourself instead of making your decisions based on color? If you would use your brain, you would understand that destroy is not a renegade option (or you would be fine with whatever you choose). Paragon or renegade nd their colors doesn't matter when making a decision, your way of thinking does.

What if your brain tells you that every one of those endings is nonsensical and amoral?  What if you see each of them as violating the universe in a totally unprecedented way that leaps well beyond some simplistic Paragon Renegade dichotomy?

[Maxster_]

drayfish wrote...

T-Raks wrote...

No. What about thinking for yourself instead of making your decisions based on color? If you would use your brain, you would understand that destroy is not a renegade option (or you would be fine with whatever you choose). Paragon or renegade nd their colors doesn't matter when making a decision, your way of thinking does.

What if your brain tells you that every one of those endings is nonsensical and amoral?  What if you see each of them as violating the universe in a totally unprecedented way that leaps well beyond some simplistic Paragon Renegade dichotomy?

Then you are certainly not a part of EAWare target audience
The less you know about ME lore, science, engineering, biology, military tactics, literature - the better. To a point of considering ME3 good storytelling example.

[christrek1982]

the ending is unfair to everyone that wanted anything remotely like a victory or a dare I say it a happy ending.

[3DandBeyond]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...



~snip~

Then, why did they send out that plague on Omega which was specifically meant to kill non-humans? It killed, didn't preserve people. I know some will say that was the Collectors, but the Collectors were indoctrinated and did all that for the reapers.

Only reason I can recall is Mordin commentating that the COllectors were experimenting on mutation potential. If you get the sound files for ME2, you can hear Harbinger comentating on the potential of various species.

Quarians, for example, are good because of their cybernetic upgrades, but have poor immune systems (REJECT), Krogan are regarded as primitive (REJECT), Turians as having potential (MAYBE), Asari as genetic dead ends (REJECT) and Humans...muahahaha, Humans have great potential! (ICE CREAM!)

Humans are targeted first. Batarians are mostly mowed down, their system was closest to the relay, and it doesn't seem the Reapers stayed to harvest very long. Therefore, humans must have beenn subject to some tests, and the other species must have been tested as well, and found inferior for some reason.

Hence, Collectors bring plague to Omega, to test the variability of aliens. Humans have already been tested and are being Collected...which is why Shepard is back in the first place.

If not, maybe....space magic?

I agree they were trying to find mutations-human ones.  And I did point out earlier the various reasons that the others weren't good candidates for whatever they need.

But, the main point is these beings that are supposedly only preserving organics specifically targeted them to die.  Unless you were Vorcha or human it killed you.

It just seems for this supposedly benevolent being (the catalyst) he sure does a lot of killing-though I've never seen him as all that benevolent.  He was created by beings that were worse than the Protheans, and the Protheans actually were pretty bad.  So the kid was created by ruthless nasty beings bent on controlling or killing everyone in the galaxy themselves and the AI they created is now supposedly there to do good?  Something stinks here.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

No. It's unfair to players who do not want to make difficult/high-stakes decisions.

[drayfish]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

No. It's unfair to players who do not want to make difficult/high-stakes decisions.

Picking which arbitrary attrocity is less repellent does not equal 'Difficult'.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

drayfish wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

No. It's unfair to players who do not want to make difficult/high-stakes decisions.

Picking which arbitrary attrocity is less repellent does not equal 'Difficult'.

It's not necessarily the thought-process which is difficult, but taking the action itself. Either one, or both, make it so.

[Heimdall]

I chose synthesis in a heart beat. Didn't seem non paragon to me.

[AlanC9]

Getorex wrote...
Yes I am making a case for depression.  The ENTIRE galactic economy is based upon, is DEPENDENT upon Relays.  The basis for the economy everyone was enjoying before the Reapers was absolutely predicated upon Relays.  Just like our modern economy is absoluely predicated upon fast international travel.  Suddenly going from hours to days to travel ANYWHERE on earth to taking a year or two?  Economic collapse through the floor and into the basement.  EVERYTHING changes in an instant.  There's no time to slowly work your way down to the new normal, you are plopped into it in the blink of a green, red, or blue flash of light.

Nations on Earth have coped with being cut off from international trade before, and from having their road and rail lines bombed flat, mostly by Americans. And the lore of the ME universe states that manufacturing is relatively decentralized and easily reconfigured.

An economic decline? Yeah, to some extent. But that's a relative decline from a pretty high standard.

Also,where did 10,000x lightspeed for Reapers come from?

Codex entry on Reaper Capabilities.

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 octobre 2012 - 04:56 .

[drayfish]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

No. It's unfair to players who do not want to make difficult/high-stakes decisions.

Picking which arbitrary attrocity is less repellent does not equal 'Difficult'.

It's not necessarily the thought-process which is difficult, but taking the action itself. Either one, or both, make it so.

You mean picking which kind of Reaper attrocity you are willing to rebirth the universe with?  Is genocide worse than totalitarianism?  Are forced eugenics easier to live with than racial extermination?  Either way you are still becoming a Reaper in order to stop a Reaper.

Again, I'm not convinced that's difficult so much as just amoral semantics.

Modifié par drayfish, 05 octobre 2012 - 05:16 .

[Xilizhra]

drayfish wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

No. It's unfair to players who do not want to make difficult/high-stakes decisions.

Picking which arbitrary attrocity is less repellent does not equal 'Difficult'.

It's not necessarily the thought-process which is difficult, but taking the action itself. Either one, or both, make it so.

You mean picking which kind of Reaper attrocity you are willing to rebirth the universe with?  Is genocide worse than totalitarianism?  Are forced eugenics easier to live with than racial extermination?  Either way you are still becoming a Reaper in order to stop a Reaper.

Again, I'm not convinced that's difficult so much as just amoral semantics.

I suspect your definition of "Reaper" is rather liberal here. Can you define it?

[Maxster_]

drayfish wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

No. It's unfair to players who do not want to make difficult/high-stakes decisions.

Picking which arbitrary attrocity is less repellent does not equal 'Difficult'.

It's not necessarily the thought-process which is difficult, but taking the action itself. Either one, or both, make it so.

You mean picking which kind of Reaper attrocity you are willing to rebirth the universe with?  Is genocide worse than totalitarianism?  Are forced eugenics easier to live with than racial extermination?  Either way you are still becoming a Reaper in order to stop a Reaper.

Again, I'm not convinced that's difficult so much as just amoral semantics.

Crime and Punishment focuses on the mental anguish and moral dilemmas of Rodion Raskolnikov, an impoverished ex-student in St. Petersburg who formulates and executes a plan to kill an unscrupulous pawnbroker
for her cash. Raskolnikov argues that with the pawnbroker's money he
can perform good deeds to counterbalance the crime, while ridding the
world of a worthless vermin. He also commits this murder to test his own hypothesis that some people are naturally capable of such things, and even have the right to do them. Several times throughout the novel, Raskolnikov justifies his actions by connecting himself mentally with Napoleon Bonaparte, believing that murder is permissible in pursuit of a higher purpose.

Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky.

Modifié par Maxster_, 05 octobre 2012 - 05:22 .

[ghost9191]

drayfish wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

No. It's unfair to players who do not want to make difficult/high-stakes decisions.

Picking which arbitrary attrocity is less repellent does not equal 'Difficult'.

It's not necessarily the thought-process which is difficult, but taking the action itself. Either one, or both, make it so.

You mean picking which kind of Reaper attrocity you are willing to rebirth the universe with?  Is genocide worse than totalitarianism?  Are forced eugenics easier to live with than racial extermination?  Either way you are still becoming a Reaper in order to stop a Reaper.

Again, I'm not convinced that's difficult so much as just amoral semantics.

could be wrong, but doesn't synthesis and destroy both basically removed the racial group. in destroy you destroy them outright . and in synthesis you remove that which makes the races different, i mean synthestics and organics. so there are no longer the two just one or whatever

i mean it isn't the same but they both basically remove the racial part, synthetics and organics can't coexist so lets either remove synthetics by destroying them or remove that which makes the two groups different. kinda making them no longer organics or synthetics. but again i could be interpreting it wrong

[teh DRUMPf!!]

drayfish wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

No. It's unfair to players who do not want to make difficult/high-stakes decisions.

Picking which arbitrary attrocity is less repellent does not equal 'Difficult'.

It's not necessarily the thought-process which is difficult, but taking the action itself. Either one, or both, make it so.

You mean picking which kind of Reaper attrocity you are willing to rebirth the universe with?  Is genocide worse than totalitarianism?  Are forced eugenics easier to live with than racial extermination?  Either way you are still becoming a Reaper in order to stop a Reaper.

Again, I'm not convinced that's difficult so much as just amoral semantics.

I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing here. It isn't a difficult decision/action, because the immorality at hand is just semantics?

Unless you are truly comfortable with making that kind of decision and/or taking such an action, then I don't see how it isn't difficult. And it's clear as day from the fan reaction - across the internet - that many people are not completely comfortable with what the ending throws at them. And THAT is the crux of the controversy at hand here...

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 05 octobre 2012 - 05:38 .

[AlanC9]

Maybe we need a definition of what it means for a decision to be "difficult."

[Maxster_]

AlanC9 wrote...

Maybe we need a definition of what it means for a decision to be "difficult."

Humans is always part of the society. Completely disregarding human moral is difficult for a sane person.