422 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

wantedman dan wrote...

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.

Control doesn't require grave implications, at least none so much that they'd make Refuse look attractive.

[MegaSovereign]

wantedman dan wrote...

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.

I know whats at stake. I take responsibility on any damage my decision causes. That goes for any decision I've made ever.

However picking Destroy does not make me a racist if that's what you are insinuating.

[wantedman dan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Control doesn't require grave implications, at least none so much that they'd make Refuse look attractive.

One man having absolute power over a fleet of hyperadvanced biosynthetic deathbringers to enforce goings on isn't troubling, in any way, to you?

[AdmiralCheez]

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.

99% percent of the game(s) was rendered pointless by the endings as they are, anyway.

In fact, you know what?  That whole Crucible thing took place largely off-screen.  Most of what Shepard did was about unifying the galaxy to do other stuff.  The player's choices would've felt like they had WAY more impact through a successful refuse.

[Xilizhra]

wantedman dan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Control doesn't require grave implications, at least none so much that they'd make Refuse look attractive.

One man having absolute power over a fleet of hyperadvanced biosynthetic deathbringers to enforce goings on isn't troubling, in any way, to you?

Not compared to the alternatives.

[Foolsfolly]

Xilizhra wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

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.

Control doesn't require grave implications, at least none so much that they'd make Refuse look attractive.

Control, at least the Paragon Control ending is a real status quo ending. The big sacrifice is Shepard's death. Other than that the Reapers rebuild everything, all species are alive, and society continues forward with a very powerful guardian angel watching out for them.

Renegade Control... is closer to tyranny than I'd like. It's like if the Reapers decided to rule the galaxy instead of harvest it.

[wantedman dan]

MegaSovereign wrote...

I know whats at stake. I take responsibility on any damage my decision causes. That goes for any decision I've made ever.

However picking Destroy does not make me a racist if that's what you are insinuating.

Good; that tells me you've at least considered some of the consequences of your actions. You can go in with the best of intentions by choosing destroy, so don't get me wrong.

But, in choosing such, you cannot willfully be ignorant of the grave implications such an action brings forth for future generations. The precedents set by any decision made in the endgame are deeper, far deeper, than what's on the surface.

[Xilizhra]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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.

99% percent of the game(s) was rendered pointless by the endings as they are, anyway.

In fact, you know what?  That whole Crucible thing took place largely off-screen.  Most of what Shepard did was about unifying the galaxy to do other stuff.  The player's choices would've felt like they had WAY more impact through a successful refuse.

But if a successful Refuse was ever even possible, we'd have known about it beforehand, probably with fewer people saying "conventional victory is impossible." People would notice the Reaper fleet size compared to our own, and at least one person would say something like "hmmm, we might not actually need the Crucible here," or something.

[MegaSovereign]

wantedman dan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Control doesn't require grave implications, at least none so much that they'd make Refuse look attractive.

One man having absolute power over a fleet of hyperadvanced biosynthetic deathbringers to enforce goings on isn't troubling, in any way, to you?

It's an AI, actually.

[wantedman dan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Not compared to the alternatives.

So you can't argue the merits of your decision, thus you tear down the merits of others in defense? That, my dear, is no argument at all.

[wantedman dan]

MegaSovereign wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Control doesn't require grave implications, at least none so much that they'd make Refuse look attractive.

One man having absolute power over a fleet of hyperadvanced biosynthetic deathbringers to enforce goings on isn't troubling, in any way, to you?

It's an AI, actually.

Splitting hairs.

[AdmiralCheez]

Xilizhra wrote...

But if a successful Refuse was ever even possible, we'd have known about it beforehand, probably with fewer people saying "conventional victory is impossible." People would notice the Reaper fleet size compared to our own, and at least one person would say something like "hmmm, we might not actually need the Crucible here," or something.

Hence why pulling off Refuse would require an additional card in the player's hand, some sort of DLC, perhaps...

It's only dirty on BW/EA's part if they planned it that way all along.

[MegaSovereign]

wantedman dan wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

I know whats at stake. I take responsibility on any damage my decision causes. That goes for any decision I've made ever.

However picking Destroy does not make me a racist if that's what you are insinuating.

Good; that tells me you've at least considered some of the consequences of your actions. You can go in with the best of intentions by choosing destroy, so don't get me wrong.

But, in choosing such, you cannot willfully be ignorant of the grave implications such an action brings forth for future generations. The precedents set by any decision made in the endgame are deeper, far deeper, than what's on the surface.

The effort I put into getting the Quarians and the Geth to make peace will not be for nothing. After how helpful the Geth are in helping the Quarians settle in on Rannoch, I'm optimistic that they will realize how wrongly they have treated the Geth in the past.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 16 octobre 2012 - 04:56 .

[Foolsfolly]

Xilizhra wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

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.

99% percent of the game(s) was rendered pointless by the endings as they are, anyway.

In fact, you know what?  That whole Crucible thing took place largely off-screen.  Most of what Shepard did was about unifying the galaxy to do other stuff.  The player's choices would've felt like they had WAY more impact through a successful refuse.

But if a successful Refuse was ever even possible, we'd have known about it beforehand, probably with fewer people saying "conventional victory is impossible." People would notice the Reaper fleet size compared to our own, and at least one person would say something like "hmmm, we might not actually need the Crucible here," or something.

Joker- "We all know what's going to happen. You're going to kick the Reapers' ass. It's what you do."

There are a few more. There aren't many but a lot of people honestly suspect Shepard will pull off the impossible and destroy the Reapers. Including Javik and I believe Liara.

It always feels like I'm betraying them when I choose something other than Destroy.

[wantedman dan]

MegaSovereign wrote...

The effort I put into getting the Quarians and the Geth to make peace will not be for nothing. After how helpful the Geth are in helping the Quarians settle in, I'm optimistic that they will realize how wrongly they have treated the Geth in the past.

And what about the precedent set that destroying synthetic life, as the Catalyst posited, to further the goals of the greater good? What does that do to the value of life overall when weighed against the greater needs of the galaxy?

Modifié par wantedman dan, 16 octobre 2012 - 04:57 .

[Xilizhra]

wantedman dan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Not compared to the alternatives.

So you can't argue the merits of your decision, thus you tear down the merits of others in defense? That, my dear, is no argument at all.

Well, it keeps the greatest number of people alive and unaltered and provides a decent defense force against krogan or Leviathan aggression, which may grow rather too strong for comfort otherwise. And Synthesis can be implemented more slowly/naturally, with individual Reapers being freed if their personalities were inclined to peace to begin with.

[MegaSovereign]

wantedman dan wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

The effort I put into getting the Quarians and the Geth to make peace will not be for nothing. After how helpful the Geth are in helping the Quarians settle in, I'm optimistic that they will realize how wrongly they have treated the Geth in the past.

And what about the precedent set that destroying synthetic life, as the Catalyst posited, to further the goals of the greater good?

The precedent isn't that synthetics are 2nd rate...If anything it's promoting the ruthless Calculus of war that Garrus talked about early on. Sacrifice 10 billion lives to save 10 trillion.

[CronoDragoon]

Will Destroy cause future synthetics to distrust/want revenge on organics? That doesn't seem obvious to me.

[wantedman dan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, it keeps the greatest number of people alive and unaltered and provides a decent defense force against krogan or Leviathan aggression, which may grow rather too strong for comfort otherwise. And Synthesis can be implemented more slowly/naturally, with individual Reapers being freed if their personalities were inclined to peace to begin with.

That's great, and all, but you still haven't weighed that, in a positive critical sense, against the authoritianism inherent with control. In fact, you've actually justified one of the most negative aspects of our society with your reasoning, that being an authoritarian regime.

[wantedman dan]

MegaSovereign wrote...

The precedent isn't that synthetics are 2nd rate...If anything it's promoting the ruthless Calculus of war that Garrus talked about early on. Sacrifice 10 billion lives to save 10 trillion.

So we are all essentialized into beings subjected to ruthless logical calculations regardless of emotional appeal? What good are emotions, in that case? Should we be, then, apathetic to the needs of the few overall?

[Foolsfolly]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Will Destroy cause future synthetics to distrust/want revenge on organics? That doesn't seem obvious to me.

I don't think so. But future synthetics would have questions about it. Perhaps some might feel distrust. But I doubt they'd want revenge against organics. It's not like humanity screamed about equal rights when they found out the galaxy killed off all the rachni a thousand years prior to first contact.

[Xilizhra]

wantedman dan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, it keeps the greatest number of people alive and unaltered and provides a decent defense force against krogan or Leviathan aggression, which may grow rather too strong for comfort otherwise. And Synthesis can be implemented more slowly/naturally, with individual Reapers being freed if their personalities were inclined to peace to begin with.

That's great, and all, but you still haven't weighed that, in a positive critical sense, against the authoritianism inherent with control. In fact, you've actually justified one of the most negative aspects of our society with your reasoning, that being an authoritarian regime.

I don't have to be authoritarian. It's entirely possible for me to only intervene in scenarios of dire need, and let the Council govern things otherwise. It'll probably do better without the Reapers hanging over everyone's head in any case.

[wantedman dan]

Foolsfolly wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Will Destroy cause future synthetics to distrust/want revenge on organics? That doesn't seem obvious to me.

I don't think so. But future synthetics would have questions about it. Perhaps some might feel distrust. But I doubt they'd want revenge against organics. It's not like humanity screamed about equal rights when they found out the galaxy killed off all the rachni a thousand years prior to first contact.

Naturally, history will face some form of propogandizement before being disseminated.

[wantedman dan]

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't have to be authoritarian. It's entirely possible for me to only intervene in scenarios of dire need, and let the Council govern things otherwise. It'll probably do better without the Reapers hanging over everyone's head in any case.

You are the ultimate governing force of the galaxy; the sovereign political (violent) power in the Milky Way. None are able to match the might of the Reaper fleet, according to your own argumentation. Simply because you do not concern yourself with the mundane governance that the council must oversee does not remove you from the fact that you are such an ultimate, sovereign political power.

[Xilizhra]

wantedman dan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't have to be authoritarian. It's entirely possible for me to only intervene in scenarios of dire need, and let the Council govern things otherwise. It'll probably do better without the Reapers hanging over everyone's head in any case.

You are the ultimate governing force of the galaxy; the sovereign political (violent) power in the Milky Way. None are able to match the might of the Reaper fleet, according to your own argumentation. Simply because you do not concern yourself with the mundane governance that the council must oversee does not remove you from the fact that you are such an ultimate, sovereign political power.

I accept that it's not a perfect solution, and that some will be unhappy with this. But it's the best option available to me, that I can see. I personally don't think that this'll be entirely different from the Council's own fleet being able to crush anyone who turned against the Council actively, except for the possibility of the Terminus Systems being more intimidated, which may not be all that bad.