316 réponses à ce sujet

[Heimdall]

spotlessvoid wrote...

" I'm not fine with being judged for my ideological veiwpoint."

How naive.

In the real world, my friend, there are many ways to make decisions and many differing philiosophies and values.  Some of these are more valid than others, but there are many equally valid ways to veiw the world.  If you cannot accept the idea that there is more than one valid conclusion in many situations and respect that, even if it isn't yours, I think you'll make few friends in life.

At any rate, I feel I should clarify.  This is an RPG, it should not be Bioware's mission to punish my character for an ideological stance at the 11th hour.

[ghost9191]

AlanC9 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

" I want them all to be valid choices following different ideologies, read the post on the previous page. Iwant more than one way to succeed with variable but roughly equivalent drawbacks."

That's not how life works. There are consequences to actions. The Reapers played off your desires and subverted you. Just because you want synthesis doesn't mean trusting the starchild was the right call.

Or IT is just wrong, and your Shep's done a great deal of unnecessary damage to the galaxy.

as does synthesis, one might say that does a lot more damage to the galaxy . al teast destroy can be rebuilt, synthesis however is kinda irreversible. or so i assume, if not and ppl go back to way before how will they be treated, you know being "lesser species" and all

[ATiBotka]

spotlessvoid wrote...

ATiBotka wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

just because you like it doesnt make it possible

But what makes Control and Synthesis different than Destroy? 

Name one person that's not a Reaper or indoctrinated that advocated for those two?

No one knew about Control or Synthesis, (except TIM).

[BatmanTurian]

AlanC9 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

" I want them all to be valid choices following different ideologies, read the post on the previous page. Iwant more than one way to succeed with variable but roughly equivalent drawbacks."

That's not how life works. There are consequences to actions. The Reapers played off your desires and subverted you. Just because you want synthesis doesn't mean trusting the starchild was the right call.

Or IT is just wrong, and your Shep's done a great deal of unnecessary damage to the galaxy.

Not as much damage to the galaxy that the Reapers have done over, what, millions of years? Countless sapient beings, organic and synthetic, just wiped from existence, the hopes and dreams of trillions wiped out all as a petri dish experiment.

[ghost9191]

Lord Aesir wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

" I'm not fine with being judged for my ideological veiwpoint."

How naive.

In the real world, my friend, there are many ways to make decisions and many differing philiosophies and values.  Some of these are more valid than others, but there are many equally valid ways to veiw the world.  If you cannot accept the idea that there is more than one valid conclusion in many situations and respect that, even if it isn't yours, I think you'll make few friends in life.

At any rate, I feel I should clarify.  This is an RPG, it should not be Bioware's mission to punish my character for an ideological stance at the 11th hour.

www.youtube.com/watch

[Heimdall]

AlanC9 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

I'm fine with a character failing because he failed to prepare for the fight.  I'm not fine with being judged for my ideological veiwpoint.

Isn't that sort of like what Refuse fans say? Their morality won't let them use the Crucible, and  they're punished for it by having the whole galaxy destroyed.

Which is as it should be, IMO. Any moral code that gets the whole galaxy killed is worthless.

The difference is that they had fair warning, with the entire cast of the game telling them upfront that conventional victory is impossible.  That goes back to what I think failure should be based on, practical concerns like lack of preparation, or in this case, unwillingness to accept what people have been telling them to their face for the past twenty hours, not to mention previous games.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 07 octobre 2012 - 06:45 .

[BatmanTurian]

Lord Aesir wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

" I'm not fine with being judged for my ideological veiwpoint."

How naive.

In the real world, my friend, there are many ways to make decisions and many differing philiosophies and values.  Some of these are more valid than others, but there are many equally valid ways to veiw the world.  If you cannot accept the idea that there is more than one valid conclusion in many situations and respect that, even if it isn't yours, I think you'll make few friends in life.

At any rate, I feel I should clarify.  This is an RPG, it should not be Bioware's mission to punish my character for an ideological stance at the 11th hour.

But that's what many RPG's do. They punish you for making a bad decision. Otherwise you wouldn't be roleplaying and your decisions would mean nothing.

[ghost9191]

ATiBotka wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

ATiBotka wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

just because you like it doesnt make it possible

But what makes Control and Synthesis different than Destroy? 

Name one person that's not a Reaper or indoctrinated that advocated for those two?

No one knew about Control or Synthesis, (except TIM).

actually , considering TIM brought it up numerous times , and shepard brought it up with Hackett , one can assume more then just TIM knew about control. think hackett was along the lines of " it will be like taming a shark"

[ATiBotka]

ghost9191 wrote...

actually , considering TIM brought it up numerous times , and shepard brought it up with Hackett , one can assume more then just TIM knew about control. think hackett was along the lines of " it will be like taming a shark"

But Control and Synthesis are still possible. 

And I have proof.

Modifié par ATiBotka, 07 octobre 2012 - 06:43 .

[Heimdall]

spotlessvoid wrote...

" I want them all to be valid choices following different ideologies, read the post on the previous page. Iwant more than one way to succeed with variable but roughly equivalent drawbacks."

That's not how life works. There are consequences to actions. The Reapers played off your desires and subverted you. Just because you want synthesis doesn't mean trusting the starchild was the right call.

There are consquences: Shepard is dead, the galaxy is forever changed. 

What you want is for it to be the wrong call because that would cement the idea that destroy is the only correct option.  What if I were to argue that synthesis, the leap of faith, is the right call and concocted a theory in which destroy and control both prove ultimately disastrous for the galaxy?  Would that be more in your veiw of how life works for you?

This is not a linear game, and ideally there should not be an ideal path as you seem to want destruction to be through IT.  There should be many outcomes with benefits and drawbacks.  It should be up to the player's discretion to decide whether one of these options is better than the rest.  That, to me, seems more in line with how life works than there being only one correct choice.

[Heimdall]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

" I'm not fine with being judged for my ideological veiwpoint."

How naive.

In the real world, my friend, there are many ways to make decisions and many differing philiosophies and values.  Some of these are more valid than others, but there are many equally valid ways to veiw the world.  If you cannot accept the idea that there is more than one valid conclusion in many situations and respect that, even if it isn't yours, I think you'll make few friends in life.

At any rate, I feel I should clarify.  This is an RPG, it should not be Bioware's mission to punish my character for an ideological stance at the 11th hour.

But that's what many RPG's do. They punish you for making a bad decision. Otherwise you wouldn't be roleplaying and your decisions would mean nothing.

True, but having the option to make a bad decision isn't the same as telling two thirds of the playerbase that they were fundamentally wrong in the way they're roleplaying their Shepards.  As I said, I think that ME2 did the failure aspect rather well because it was based on preparation rather than a moral decision.  Imagine if Shepard's survival was settled by the decision to destroy or keep the Collector Base: that's the sort of thing I'm objecting to here.

[spotlessvoid]

Lord Aesir:

So when someone makes the wrong decision during the suicide mission that's Bioware telling their players they're wrong? Bioware put everything you needed to know in the game to make the right choice. The world doesn't have to validate your opinion. Just like Bioware doesn't need to validate your choice because you believe it. Saren also believed in synthesis. Bioware made it clear how that ended. They did the same with TIM and control. Sheesh

[BatmanTurian]

Lord Aesir wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

" I'm not fine with being judged for my ideological veiwpoint."

How naive.

In the real world, my friend, there are many ways to make decisions and many differing philiosophies and values.  Some of these are more valid than others, but there are many equally valid ways to veiw the world.  If you cannot accept the idea that there is more than one valid conclusion in many situations and respect that, even if it isn't yours, I think you'll make few friends in life.

At any rate, I feel I should clarify.  This is an RPG, it should not be Bioware's mission to punish my character for an ideological stance at the 11th hour.

But that's what many RPG's do. They punish you for making a bad decision. Otherwise you wouldn't be roleplaying and your decisions would mean nothing.

True, but having the option to make a bad decision isn't the same as telling two thirds of the playerbase that they were fundamentally wrong in the way they're roleplaying their Shepards.  As I said, I think that ME2 did the failure aspect rather well because it was based on preparation rather than a moral decision.  Imagine if Shepard's survival was settled by the decision to destroy or keep the Collector Base: that's the sort of thing I'm objecting to here.

I understand what you're saying, but you can't have all the endings be gumdrops. Some of the endings have to be bad (besides refuse, fark that) for our end decision to matter. On the other hand, all of them seem bad in some way when looked at too closely.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 07 octobre 2012 - 06:55 .

[Scorpion1O1]

If they outright charge for it
•People will burn BioWare

If they give it away for free
•Great but still people will be grumpy

If it is free But requires all previously paid for DLC
• Fare enough

[Heimdall]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Lord Aesir:

So when someone makes the wrong decision during the suicide mission that's Bioware telling their players they're wrong? Bioware put everything you needed to know in the game to make the right choice. The world doesn't have to validate your opinion. Just like Bioware doesn't need to validate your choice because you believe it. Saren also believed in synthesis. Bioware made it clear how that ended. They did the same with TIM and control. Sheesh

...How many times do I have to say they did the suicide mission right before you actually read what I'm typing?  How many times are you going to refuse to see the distinction between the suicide mission and the IT?  I won't explain it again, I've typed it out a dozen times over these past few pages.

Saren had Reaper hardware jammed directly into his skull, that is not the same as the synthesis no matter how much you want it to be, but at any rate I've said earlier that synthesis is a leap of faith.  TIM was under the Reaper's control, but they freaked when they realized he'd figured out how to actually pull it off.  That actually seems to suggest that Control is quite possible.  Like I said, these "Foreshadowings" are nothing but selective interpretations.

I just don't understand the IT theory proponents need for my decision to be wrong.

[spotlessvoid]

Scorpion1O1 wrote...

If they outright charge for it
•People will burn BioWare

If they give it away for free
•Great but still people will be grumpy

If it is free But requires all previously paid for DLC
• Fare enough

not a bad compromise

edit: lol

Modifié par spotlessvoid, 07 octobre 2012 - 07:05 .

[Heimdall]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

" I'm not fine with being judged for my ideological veiwpoint."

How naive.

In the real world, my friend, there are many ways to make decisions and many differing philiosophies and values.  Some of these are more valid than others, but there are many equally valid ways to veiw the world.  If you cannot accept the idea that there is more than one valid conclusion in many situations and respect that, even if it isn't yours, I think you'll make few friends in life.

At any rate, I feel I should clarify.  This is an RPG, it should not be Bioware's mission to punish my character for an ideological stance at the 11th hour.

But that's what many RPG's do. They punish you for making a bad decision. Otherwise you wouldn't be roleplaying and your decisions would mean nothing.

True, but having the option to make a bad decision isn't the same as telling two thirds of the playerbase that they were fundamentally wrong in the way they're roleplaying their Shepards.  As I said, I think that ME2 did the failure aspect rather well because it was based on preparation rather than a moral decision.  Imagine if Shepard's survival was settled by the decision to destroy or keep the Collector Base: that's the sort of thing I'm objecting to here.

I understand what you're saying, but you can't have all the endings be gumdrops. Some of the endings have to be bad (besides refuse, fark that) for our end decision to matter. On the other hand, all of them seem bad in some way when looked at too closely.

I'm not saying I want perfect endings, I want them all to have drawbacks.  I want it to depend on the individual Shepard's ideology which one is best of the lot for the galaxy and the future, which benefits are worth the cost (Or in the case of synthesis, more of a leap of faith)

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 07 octobre 2012 - 07:10 .

[BatmanTurian]

Lord Aesir wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Lord Aesir:

So when someone makes the wrong decision during the suicide mission that's Bioware telling their players they're wrong? Bioware put everything you needed to know in the game to make the right choice. The world doesn't have to validate your opinion. Just like Bioware doesn't need to validate your choice because you believe it. Saren also believed in synthesis. Bioware made it clear how that ended. They did the same with TIM and control. Sheesh

...How many times do I have to say they did the suicide mission right before you actually read what I'm typing?  How many times are you going to refuse to see the distinction between the suicide mission and the IT?  I won't explain it again, I've typed it out a dozen times over these past few pages.

Saren had Reaper hardware jammed directly into his skull, that is not the same as the synthesis no matter how much you want it to be, but at any rate I've said earlier that synthesis is a leap of faith.  TIM was under the Reaper's control, but they freaked when they realized he'd figured out how to actually pull it off.  That actually seems to suggest that Control is quite possible.  Like I said, these "Foreshadowings" are nothing but selective interpretations.

I just don't understand the IT theory proponents need for my decision to be wrong.

We don't " need" you to be wrong. We just see things differently based on lore and themes present in the game. But you are entitled to your own opinion that you are right and we are wrong  just as we are entitled to believe you are wrong and we are right. We both have valid interpretations (according to Bioware anyway).

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 07 octobre 2012 - 07:14 .

[dsl08002]

To be honest i dont care if its free or if you must pay.

Give us this DLC bioware, i would pay for it.

[DoomsdayDevice]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

People still honestly believe in IT? Seriously?

Yeah, because Leviathan established IT is entirely possible.

[SpamBot2000]

I would gladly pay a reasonable price for a reasonable ending for ME3.

[MajorKellyRisner]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Lord Aesir:

So when someone makes the wrong decision during the suicide mission that's Bioware telling their players they're wrong? Bioware put everything you needed to know in the game to make the right choice. The world doesn't have to validate your opinion. Just like Bioware doesn't need to validate your choice because you believe it. Saren also believed in synthesis. Bioware made it clear how that ended. They did the same with TIM and control. Sheesh

...How many times do I have to say they did the suicide mission right before you actually read what I'm typing?  How many times are you going to refuse to see the distinction between the suicide mission and the IT?  I won't explain it again, I've typed it out a dozen times over these past few pages.

Saren had Reaper hardware jammed directly into his skull, that is not the same as the synthesis no matter how much you want it to be, but at any rate I've said earlier that synthesis is a leap of faith.  TIM was under the Reaper's control, but they freaked when they realized he'd figured out how to actually pull it off.  That actually seems to suggest that Control is quite possible.  Like I said, these "Foreshadowings" are nothing but selective interpretations.

I just don't understand the IT theory proponents need for my decision to be wrong.

We don't " need" you to be wrong. We just see things differently based on lore and themes present in the game. But you are entitled to your own opinion that you are right and we are wrong  just as we are entitled to believe you are wrong and we are right. We both have valid interpretations (according to Bioware anyway).

Then why pounce and gang up on others who have their own opinion and say that they are wrong? Why?

[spotlessvoid]

" I'm not saying I want perfect endings, I want them all to have drawbacks. I want it to depend on the individual Shepard's ideology which one is best of the lot for the galaxy and the future,which benefits are worth the cost (Or in the case of synthesis, more of a leap of faith)"

And I find 3 victorious options trite. Just because you like synthesis doesnt mean the starchild is telling the truth....

[Heimdall]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Lord Aesir:

So when someone makes the wrong decision during the suicide mission that's Bioware telling their players they're wrong? Bioware put everything you needed to know in the game to make the right choice. The world doesn't have to validate your opinion. Just like Bioware doesn't need to validate your choice because you believe it. Saren also believed in synthesis. Bioware made it clear how that ended. They did the same with TIM and control. Sheesh

...How many times do I have to say they did the suicide mission right before you actually read what I'm typing?  How many times are you going to refuse to see the distinction between the suicide mission and the IT?  I won't explain it again, I've typed it out a dozen times over these past few pages.

Saren had Reaper hardware jammed directly into his skull, that is not the same as the synthesis no matter how much you want it to be, but at any rate I've said earlier that synthesis is a leap of faith.  TIM was under the Reaper's control, but they freaked when they realized he'd figured out how to actually pull it off.  That actually seems to suggest that Control is quite possible.  Like I said, these "Foreshadowings" are nothing but selective interpretations.

I just don't understand the IT theory proponents need for my decision to be wrong.

We don't " need" you to be wrong. We just see things differently based on lore and themes present in the game. But you are entitled to your own opinion that you are right and we are wrong  just as we are entitled to believe you are wrong and we are right. We both have valid interpretations (according to Bioware anyway).

I don't need destroy to be a wrong decision, I only believe it shouldn't be the only correct one that gets the best outcome.  I just oppose any theory that seeks to limit choices to a rigid hierarchy of better and worse.  Do you at least see the problem with that?

[ATiBotka]

spotlessvoid wrote...

" I'm not saying I want perfect endings, I want them all to have drawbacks. I want it to depend on the individual Shepard's ideology which one is best of the lot for the galaxy and the future,which benefits are worth the cost (Or in the case of synthesis, more of a leap of faith)"

And I find 3 victorious options trite. Just because you like synthesis doesnt mean the starchild is telling the truth....

Just because you like Destroy, doesn't mean the starchild is telling the truth.