422 réponses à ce sujet

[The Twilight God]

wantedman dan wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

So where did you get the idea that the geth are wiped out in Destroy?

I'll oblige: My interpretation of the events of the ending.

Your interpretation? I could interpret that all the asari on Thessia die in synthesis. But you'll never see me running around claiming synthesis is genocide because you kill all the asari on Thessia as if it's some kind of established fact requiring no proof or evidence.

Details. Details.

Share them. Tell us exactly where you got the idea from. What event? What line of dialog?

[wantedman dan]

The Twilight God wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

So where did you get the idea that the geth are wiped out in Destroy?

I'll oblige: My interpretation of the events of the ending.

Your interpretation? I could interpret that all the asari on Thessia die in synthesis. But you'll never see me running around claiming synthesis is genocide because you kill all the asari on Thessia as if it's some kind of established fact requiring no proof or evidence.

Details. Details.

Share them. Tell us exactly where you got the idea from. What event? What line of dialog?

That's right. My interpretation.

[The Twilight God]

wantedman dan wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

So where did you get the idea that the geth are wiped out in Destroy?

I'll oblige: My interpretation of the events of the ending.

Your interpretation? I could interpret that all the asari on Thessia die in synthesis. But you'll never see me running around claiming synthesis is genocide because you kill all the asari on Thessia as if it's some kind of established fact requiring no proof or evidence.

Details. Details.

Share them. Tell us exactly where you got the idea from. What event? What line of dialog?

That's right. My interpretation.

An interpretation, by definition, is indicative of an explanation within the provided narrative. You have to have a reason to come to an interpretation. Even if your reasons are flawed you still need a reason. For instance, if I said Liara was pregnant at the memorial wall it wouldn't be an interpretation. It would be an assertion. Only when I explain how and why I came to that conclusion does it become an interpretation.

Hence, I ask you: Details. Details.

Without an explanation there is no interpretation. Being willfully ignorant of of the fact that NOTHING indicates the demise of the Geth consensus is an invalid assertion, not an interpretation. An interpretation is inferred from the narrative. Not "just because I want them to be dead". People seem to believe that just because you choose to believe something that their belief itself makes it rational and valid. This is the very warped logic of many religious institutions. Stop side stepping and running from the question. You come of as a guy who knows he's wrong, but is too stubborn to admit it.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 16 octobre 2012 - 03:22 .

[wantedman dan]

The Twilight God wrote...

You come off as a guy who knows he's wrong, but is too stubborn to admit it.

Only to a person who doesn't realize he's been toyed with over the past two days. Think what you will; what I said, however, still stands. 

[Sauron001]

Refuse allows soo many variables. By shepard taking refuse it would move everything towards not conventional but guerilla war. The entire allied fleet meets at the designated coordinates and makes preparations for a long drawn out war. If we had the technology from Cerberus they would utilize the reaper code to confuse and control the reaper ground forces in close proximity to our forces and have them commit suicide.

Fighting a larger and more advanced force is not impossible and with the Krogan's high birhtrate troop numbers would not be a horrible problem. It will go down to a a fight of atttrition.

This fight is bigger than any small moral debate and I would rather die free and unbroken than submit and be controlled or have my free will taken away.

There is no such thing as metagaming in the real world and it may have not worked but with all the power of the glaxay and self replicating GETH and Krogans if may not be a lost cause just a very long and horrible fight to the last man standing....A fight to remember and plenty of romances and fast families to be had.

I would actually take this ending because there is too much you can turn it into and it creates a vast uncertainty

edit: grammar corrections

Modifié par Sauron001, 16 octobre 2012 - 03:34 .

[AdmiralCheez]

I'd choose Refuse if it worked.

All the Catalyst's options force a solution on the organics vs. synthetics problem, a problem we were able to solve ourselves, without the Reapers.

If Refused worked, I'd take it, because I want to prove to the Catalyst that its core premise is wrong.

[Yate]

I'd like to see the conversation between Refuse!Shepard and Hackett.

Destroy > Refusal in every way. Anyone who chooses Refusal is not role playing, they're trying to be hipster.

[Yate]

Sauron001 wrote...

Refuse allows soo many variables. By shepard taking refuse it would move everything towards not conventional but guerilla war. The entire allied fleet meets at the designated coordinates and makes preparations for a long drawn out war. If we had the technology from Cerberus they would utilize the reaper code to confuse and control the reaper ground forces in close proximity to our forces and have them commit suicide.

Fighting a larger and more advanced force is not impossible and with the Krogan's high birhtrate troop numbers would not be a horrible problem. It will go down to a a fight of atttrition.

This fight is bigger than any small moral debate and I would rather die free and unbroken than submit and be controlled or have my free will taken away.

There is no such thing as metagaming in the real world and it may have not worked but with all the power of the glaxay and self replicating GETH and Krogans if may not be a lost cause just a very long and horrible fight to the last man standing....A fight to remember and plenty of romances and fast families to be had.

I would actually take this ending because there is too much you can turn it into and it creates a vast uncertainty

edit: grammar corrections

No.

The crucible forces get wiped out and the galaxy is defenceless.

[AdmiralCheez]

Yate wrote...

I'd like to see the conversation between Refuse!Shepard and Hackett.

There is no conversation.  Everyone dies.

Destroy > Refusal in every way.

At least with Refusal, you're not actually sentencing anyone to death.  Metagame-wise, sure, but in-game, you could full well believe that it would work.

Anyone who chooses Refusal is not role playing, they're trying to be hipster.

Nah.  I roleplay pretty hard sometimes, and I can invision more than one of my Sheps giving that speech and meaning it.

If only it had worked, man.  I'd do it for EDI and my geth-babies.

[The Spamming Troll]

Yate wrote...

I'd like to see the conversation between Refuse!Shepard and Hackett.

Destroy > Refusal in every way. Anyone who chooses Refusal is not role playing, they're trying to be hipster.

you think hacket would beleive shepard somehow beamed onto some random room in the citadel, saw anderson, talked to TIM, passed out again and woke up after floating up to the penthouse suite on the citadel and then met some holographic godchild that tells him his EMS score gives him some options like synthesis or control and that shooting him in the face makes him talk like harbinger, all the while he had a gun he never needed to reload.

yeah, i wonder how that conversation would go.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 16 octobre 2012 - 04:26 .

[wantedman dan]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Yate wrote...

I'd like to see the conversation between Refuse!Shepard and Hackett.

Destroy > Refusal in every way. Anyone who chooses Refusal is not role playing, they're trying to be hipster.

you think hacket would beleive shepard somehow beamed onto some random room in the citadel, saw anderson, talked to TIM, passed out again and woke up after floating up to the penthouse suite on the citadel and then met some holographic starchild that tells him his EMS score gives him some options like synthesis or control and that shooting him in the face makes him talk like harbinger, all the while he had a gun he never needed to reload.

yeah, i wonder how that conversation would go.

Shepard: Sir, ...

Hackett: Damn. The commander's lost a lot of blood. He's delirious. 

[Foolsfolly]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

I'd choose Refuse if it worked.

All the Catalyst's options force a solution on the organics vs. synthetics problem, a problem we were able to solve ourselves, without the Reapers.

If Refused worked, I'd take it, because I want to prove to the Catalyst that its core premise is wrong.

Wouldn't that be great? To prove the enemy of the game and series as being wrong fundamentally? It's a damned shame BioWare didn't think that was important.

[wantedman dan]

Foolsfolly wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

I'd choose Refuse if it worked.

All the Catalyst's options force a solution on the organics vs. synthetics problem, a problem we were able to solve ourselves, without the Reapers.

If Refused worked, I'd take it, because I want to prove to the Catalyst that its core premise is wrong.

Wouldn't that be great? To prove the enemy of the game and series as being wrong fundamentally? It's a damned shame BioWare didn't think that was important.

Not just the enemy, but their driving philosophy; proving wrong, and applying such, their philosophies would have made the ending so much more fulfilling.

Alas... 'twas not meant to be.

[Foolsfolly]

wantedman dan wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

I'd choose Refuse if it worked.

All the Catalyst's options force a solution on the organics vs. synthetics problem, a problem we were able to solve ourselves, without the Reapers.

If Refused worked, I'd take it, because I want to prove to the Catalyst that its core premise is wrong.

Wouldn't that be great? To prove the enemy of the game and series as being wrong fundamentally? It's a damned shame BioWare didn't think that was important.

Not just the enemy, but their driving philosophy; proving wrong, and applying such, their philosophies would have made the ending so much more fulfilling.

Alas... 'twas not meant to be.

That's what the EC should have added. Not a Refuse ending but a "Look at us. We're making it work." ending. One where the Catalyst's core ideals were defeated by proving it wrong.

...and then we blow up the Reapers because **** them! The galaxy's better off without them. Especially since they're the reason the geth even left the veil with Saren in the first damn place. Continuing the very cycle it assures always repeats.

Killing the Catalyst isn't enough. We had to break the ideals, their philosophy. As Jim Gordon would say "We have to show them our way works."

[MegaSovereign]

wantedman dan wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Refusers remind me of Maelon for some reason.

Mordin: "Whole team agreed, project was necessary!"

The way I see it, my orders were to activate the Crucible to stop the Reapers. I'm not going to break the most important order I've ever received.

 

People have conducted themselves in horrible, horrible ways under the guise of "I was just following orders."

Yea but saving the galaxy isn't anything like being a Nazi...

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 16 octobre 2012 - 04:33 .

[wantedman dan]

Foolsfolly wrote...

That's what the EC should have added. Not a Refuse ending but a "Look at us. We're making it work." ending. One where the Catalyst's core ideals were defeated by proving it wrong.

...and then we blow up the Reapers because **** them! The galaxy's better off without them. Especially since they're the reason the geth even left the veil with Saren in the first damn place. Continuing the very cycle it assures always repeats.

Killing the Catalyst isn't enough. We had to break the ideals, their philosophy. As Jim Gordon would say "We have to show them our way works."

That's the thing, though, isn't it that makes the ending so truly unfulfilling? We actively proved the assumptions made by the Catalyst wrong by showing that synthetics and organics can coexist peacefully and cooperatively. Instead of being able to show such, we instead got nose-thumbing to the highest degree.

[AdmiralCheez]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Wouldn't that be great? To prove the enemy of the game and series as being wrong fundamentally? It's a damned shame BioWare didn't think that was important.

Yeah, especially since what Shepard said and did most preserves the spirit of the series, and what makes Shepard... well, Shepard:

"No.  I'm going to end this war on my terms...  I fight for freedom, mine and everyone's.  I fight for the right to choose our own fate.  And if I die, I'll die knowing that I did everything I could to stop you.  And I'll die free."

I don't know about you, but THAT's the kinda thing I signed on for.

Also, I agree with both you and wantedman dan that it would have been much more satisflying to prove the Catalyst wrong on principle, to show that "our way works."

[wantedman dan]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Yea but saving the galaxy isn't anything like being a Nazi...

Says who? You're actively committing atrocities in the name of "peace."

Peace predicated upon such is nasty, delicate, and not worth the price.

[Storin]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

Wouldn't that be great? To prove the enemy of the game and series as being wrong fundamentally? It's a damned shame BioWare didn't think that was important.

Yeah, especially since what Shepard said and did most preserves the spirit of the series, and what makes Shepard... well, Shepard:

"No.  I'm going to end this war on my terms...  I fight for freedom, mine and everyone's.  I fight for the right to choose our own fate.  And if I die, I'll die knowing that I did everything I could to stop you.  And I'll die free."

I don't know about you, but THAT's the kinda thing I signed on for.

Also, I agree with both you and wantedman dan that it would have been much more satisflying to prove the Catalyst wrong on principle, to show that "our way works."

This is why, when I watched the video of the Refuse ending, I got the distinct impression that Bioware was just giving us all the finger.

[Xilizhra]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

Wouldn't that be great? To prove the enemy of the game and series as being wrong fundamentally? It's a damned shame BioWare didn't think that was important.

Yeah, especially since what Shepard said and did most preserves the spirit of the series, and what makes Shepard... well, Shepard:

"No.  I'm going to end this war on my terms...  I fight for freedom, mine and everyone's.  I fight for the right to choose our own fate.  And if I die, I'll die knowing that I did everything I could to stop you.  And I'll die free."

I don't know about you, but THAT's the kinda thing I signed on for.

Also, I agree with both you and wantedman dan that it would have been much more satisflying to prove the Catalyst wrong on principle, to show that "our way works."

Unfortunately, that would have been an even bigger narrative screwup, as it'd make the entire game, based around building the Crucible, completely pointless.

[wantedman dan]

Storin wrote...

This is why, when I watched the video of the Refuse ending, I got the distinct impression that Bioware was just giving us all the finger.

"Oh, you want to show that your way works? TOO F*CKING BAD. As consolation, here's Shep embodying everything opposite to that which he advocated throughout the series."

[wantedman dan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Unfortunately, that would have been an even bigger narrative screwup, as it'd make the entire game, based around building the Crucible, completely pointless.

The narrative is an abysmal failure on levels multitudinal.

[MegaSovereign]

wantedman dan wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Yea but saving the galaxy isn't anything like being a Nazi...

Says who? You're actively committing atrocities in the name of "peace."

Peace predicated upon such is nasty, delicate, and not worth the price.

Control = replacing current Reaper Intelligence with another to stop the Reapers.

Destroy = Collateral Damage.

[wantedman dan]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Control = replacing current Reaper Intelligence with another to stop the Reapers.

Destroy = Collateral Damage.

Even if you don't believe control leads to authoritarianism and destroy isn't genocide, if you seriously and truly believe that neither of those two have grave implications, I have nothing further to say to you on the subject.

[AdmiralCheez]

Storin wrote...

This is why, when I watched the video of the Refuse ending, I got the distinct impression that Bioware was just giving us all the finger.

Which is a total turdbag move on Bioware's part.

Part of me keeps hoping for a "successful refusal" some time down the road, but it's unlikely.  Take that stupid Crucible out, and that's how it would have ended, anyway.

"Conventional victory's impossible," my ass.  We're an unconventional bunch.  We can handle it.