422 réponses à ce sujet

[Maxster_]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...Really? There was 600 thousands death sentences between 1922 and 1953. This of course, very many, but not even close to Hitler's doing.
Also, 2.5 millions sentenced to a prison camps maximum(by same years).

The numbers you provided are of Russian death. The total death tole of Stalin's reign was about 30 million(Did a history paper on it) while Hitler's was about 15 million, so twice as much.

Yeah, yeah. And whose was those?

Don't understand what you question is asking. Please clarify and I will try to accomadate your curiosity.

It is clear to me, that you have no idea what are you talking about.
Near 18 millions civilian citizens of USSR only were deliberately destroyed. Add to that jews, poljaks, and other, and then you will know true horror of nazy Germany.

When did I say that **** Germany wasn't one of the worst government's to ever exist. All I stated was that Stalin's reign had a higher death toll than Hitler's did.

And of course, that is a lie. Archives are long since open.

[David7204]

**** Germany was famously bureaucratic. They kept records of how many people they killed. Stalin...not so much.

[inversevideo]

Shadrach 88 wrote...

inversevideo wrote...

Hard core RPGers do not meta-game. No save-n-replay, no YouTube.
There is nothing, in your dealings with Starkid up to that point, that would lead you to believe that you do not have a shot at reasoning with the AI. It tells you that the Crucible has opened new paths. It offers you Control and Destroy. You propose a new solution and it goes off. You cannot predict that.

I choose destroy, but that was my pre-EC choice as well. If I were not meta-gaming then refuse is a very valid choice. But I choose genocide every time. The other choices are worse in my opinion.

But based on everything you know, at the point of having to make a choice, refuse is appropriate.

If your style of play is save-n- replay then one of the other choices would lead to a better outcome.

Or, strangely enough, given that Starkid cannot be reasoned with, and it's choices are it's choices and not the galaxies', maybe refuse is correct. Maybe that is
the point. Maybe the galaxy has to commit the ultimate sacrifice so that future life can live free.

We do not know, because Bioware decided to play with our minds, during the last 10 minutes of the game, when all I wanted, for all the sacrifice already made, was to live or die, but feel like a big 'gudammed hero' doing it.

Those who chose refuse do so for very valid reasons, and not to eff the galaxy.
If you are not meta-gaming then refuse is a valid call.

You can similarily reason that when not metagaming, Shepard is presented with three choices, none of which have any guarantee of working beyond the word of an entity who Shepard has no reason to trust.

The alternative however, is complete extermination. Shepard might battle the odds, but he/she isn't unaware of the fact that half the galaxy has fallen to Reaper control, and that the forces now gathered are effectively a "do-or-die" attempt to end the conflict, since prolonging it is completely infeasible.

So we have three extremely dicey options, or certain death for everyone. No metagaming involved, and I know which one I'd sooner choose.

See, it is the three choice or certain death where you seem to be unconsciously meta-gaming.
You have four choices. The Starkid presented you with three of those choices.
Choosing to reject them and reason with the thing is not unreasonable, given that it tells you it is able to perceive new paths. If you believe everything it tells you then you also believe it is telling the truth when it says it can see new paths. If you believe that it will let you destroy or control them, then there is no reason not to believe it will not be able to consider alternatives. Logically, the worse you should get is that it tells you that you must choose from the choices it has provided. There is no reason for you to expect that it will have a cow, go all Reaper voice, and annihilate the galaxy.

So, I don't see why, if your not meta-gaming, you could not choose refuse, as it makes the most sense up to that point. There is no way that Shepard could know that choice leads to death for all.

In fact it is perfectly within character to chose refuse over, genocide, forced eugenics, or dictatorship.
You just got through telling TIM why control is wrong. You spent time mentoring EDI, bringing peace to the Quarian and Geth. Geth runtimes are uploading into Quarian suits to help them readapt to Rannoch.
The entire series has been about diversity and why it is important.

Now you are presented with three choices that will take away all you and others have worked hard to achieve. All the sacrifice, all the lessons learned, for nothing?

So, yeah, if Starkid is capable of learning, if the Crucible has opened new paths for Starkid, then it is perfectly valid to try to communicate with it and propose an alternative.

See, here is the kicker, if it had worked, if you were in fact able to reason with the Starkid, and it took it's Reapers and retreated to dark space, you would not feel this way. All other choices being the same, you would be asking why people did not choose refuse and try to reason with Starkid? And that is why it seems that your objections are based on meta-gaming. Because you are advocating for the choice that produces the best result based on foreknowledge of that outcome.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Maxster_ wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

When did I say that **** Germany wasn't one of the worst government's to ever exist. All I stated was that Stalin's reign had a higher death toll than Hitler's did.

And of course, that is a lie. Archives are long since open.

I take it by your avid defense of Joseph Stalin (why you are defending that monster I have no idea), that you are of Russian decent. Let me pose this simple question, how many of those you are referring too , Soviet soldiers especially, do you believe were actually gunned down by the Soviet military yet counted as Germany doing it because the Soviet Union was an "ally" of the Western powers?

[T-Raks]

inversevideo wrote...

...
Those who chose refuse do so for very valid reasons, and not to eff the galaxy.
If you are not meta-gaming then refuse is a valid call.

No, it's not, because how can Shepard be so full of himself (not meant personal) that he is that delusional that he thinks he can leave a clear shot to destroy the Reapers on the table when the harvesting already has gone on for millions of years as far as we know? How can anyone think, that we have that luxury? If you have one shot, you take it! Anything else is an epic fail.

I mean, I'm with you if we had searched for a back-up plan during the game - a plan we might be convinced of before we go on with the crucible - to build that refuse ending up. Then you would've a case. But we didn't, so there is no valid refuse option. The whole point of the crucicble is that anything else that any cycle before came up with didn't succeed. In that situation with the shot right in front of you to say "Nah, let's get back in the huddle - Garrrus, you alive, you have any idea? Liara? Anyone?" is dumb.

If you fear that finishing your job - using the crucible - will fail, you still try it. YOU have that shot in that situation. No one else. If it really fails, they don't need you in the huddle. This was the plan you were the spike of, if that plan fails, because your fear that the little starbrat is lying to you proves right, there are others left, that have to come up with a new plan. But you cannot justify not taking this ultra-rare possibiity at defeating the Reapers with one shot.

And the added refuse ending is no middle-finger, it's not even a new ending, it just showed what was implied before: that our cycle is doomed if we don't use the crucible. That should have been clear to anyone, that's why I guess it wasn't included from the beginning. So I see it the other way around: when people choose refuse, they want to give the crucible/catalyst the middle finger though they should know that they are doing wrong for "our" cycle.

Modifié par T-Raks, 13 octobre 2012 - 07:48 .

[David7204]

How many times does this need to be repeated?. The Catalyst has no reason to lie to Shepard. If he wanted Shepard dead, he would have just left him or her to die. If all he needed was a button pressed, he would have done it himself millions of years ago.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

David7204 wrote...

**** Germany was famously bureaucratic. They kept records of how many people they killed. Stalin...not so much.

If you use National Socialist, it doesn't censor. And that's a good point.

[Maxster_]

David7204 wrote...

**** Germany was famously bureaucratic. They kept records of how many people they killed. Stalin...not so much.

Really? Books of birth, books of marriages, every soldier draft, every soldier transfer, every arrest, every release, detailed personal info almost for everyone(except western Ukraine). You have no idea about bureacracy of Soviet Union.

[Maxster_]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

When did I say that **** Germany wasn't one of the worst government's to ever exist. All I stated was that Stalin's reign had a higher death toll than Hitler's did.

And of course, that is a lie. Archives are long since open.

I take it by your avid defense of Joseph Stalin (why you are defending that monster I have no idea), that you are of Russian decent. Let me pose this simple question, how many of those you are referring too , Soviet soldiers especially, do you believe were actually gunned down by the Soviet military yet counted as Germany doing it because the Soviet Union was an "ally" of the Western powers?

Another myth? What the hell you are talking about? Date, place, documents.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Maxster_ wrote...

David7204 wrote...

**** Germany was famously bureaucratic. They kept records of how many people they killed. Stalin...not so much.

Really? Books of birth, books of marriages, every soldier draft, every soldier transfer, every arrest, every release, detailed personal info almost for everyone(except western Ukraine). You have no idea about bureacracy of Soviet Union.

Mass unmarked graves, unlisted nuclear weapons... yeah we have no idea.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Maxster_ wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

When did I say that **** Germany wasn't one of the worst government's to ever exist. All I stated was that Stalin's reign had a higher death toll than Hitler's did.

And of course, that is a lie. Archives are long since open.

I take it by your avid defense of Joseph Stalin (why you are defending that monster I have no idea), that you are of Russian decent. Let me pose this simple question, how many of those you are referring too , Soviet soldiers especially, do you believe were actually gunned down by the Soviet military yet counted as Germany doing it because the Soviet Union was an "ally" of the Western powers?

Another myth? What the hell you are talking about? Date, place, documents.

Example: At the Battle of Stalingrad, if a Soviet soldier retreated(even one step), he was shot by his own government for cowardice.

[Maxster_]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

When did I say that **** Germany wasn't one of the worst government's to ever exist. All I stated was that Stalin's reign had a higher death toll than Hitler's did.

And of course, that is a lie. Archives are long since open.

I take it by your avid defense of Joseph Stalin (why you are defending that monster I have no idea), that you are of Russian decent. Let me pose this simple question, how many of those you are referring too , Soviet soldiers especially, do you believe were actually gunned down by the Soviet military yet counted as Germany doing it because the Soviet Union was an "ally" of the Western powers?

Another myth? What the hell you are talking about? Date, place, documents.

Example: At the Battle of Stalingrad, if a Soviet soldier retreated(even one step), he was shot by his own government for cowardice.

Really? Do you know, that Battle of Stalingrad had no place to retreat? There was a river behind.
Actually, that order was several times executed before Stalingrad. Mostly shoot in the air, to stop panic. That was done to not to repeat fails of 1941.
You know, desertery is bad. And retreat is only allowed by no less than division command, or at army level. That is basics of army.
Not that i personally like that order, but that was a war for survival.

[T-Raks]

Why is this thread hi-jacked for a WW2 debate among two posters? Isn't that something for personal messages?

[Village_Idiot]

inversevideo wrote...

See, it is the three choice or certain death where you seem to be unconsciously meta-gaming.
You have four choices. The Starkid presented you with three of those choices.
Choosing to reject them and reason with the thing is not unreasonable, given that it tells you it is able to perceive new paths. If you believe everything it tells you then you also believe it is telling the truth when it says it can see new paths. If you believe that it will let you destroy or control them, then there is no reason not to believe it will not be able to consider alternatives. Logically, the worse you should get is that it tells you that you must choose from the choices it has provided. There is no reason for you to expect that it will have a cow, go all Reaper voice, and annihilate the galaxy.

So, I don't see why, if your not meta-gaming, you could not choose refuse, as it makes the most sense up to that point. There is no way that Shepard could know that choice leads to death for all.

In fact it is perfectly within character to chose refuse over, genocide, forced eugenics, or dictatorship.
You just got through telling TIM why control is wrong. You spent time mentoring EDI, bringing peace to the Quarian and Geth. Geth runtimes are uploading into Quarian suits to help them readapt to Rannoch.
The entire series has been about diversity and why it is important.

Now you are presented with three choices that will take away all you and others have worked hard to achieve. All the sacrifice, all the lessons learned, for nothing?

So, yeah, if Starkid is capable of learning, if the Crucible has opened new paths for Starkid, then it is perfectly valid to try to communicate with it and propose an alternative.

See, here is the kicker, if it had worked, if you were in fact able to reason with the Starkid, and it took it's Reapers and retreated to dark space, you would not feel this way. All other choices being the same, you would be asking why people did not choose refuse and try to reason with Starkid? And that is why it seems that your objections are based on meta-gaming. Because you are advocating for the choice that produces the best result based on foreknowledge of that outcome.

I see your point that Refusal is something of an unknown at the point of "divergence" as it were. However, Shepard does not attempt to reason with the Starkid should Refusal be chosen. S/he delivers an impressive speech which effectively boils down to defiance. We had no way of knowing this would occur as the player, because we're bound by the game's mechanics- the dialogue system doesn't tell us word for word what Shepard will say and do.

It's a bizarre occasion where Shepard actually has more knowledge than the player. Shepard is fully aware of what s/he is going to do if Refusal is chosen, the player however isn't. They could have reasoned that the Catalyst was possible to talk down, to reason with, and gone with the Refusal choice because of this. Then Shepard goes and simply delivers a verbal lambasting.

In essence, you can almost say that you're only truly not metagaming if you already know what action Shepard will take in Refusal (which sounds self-contradictory, I know), since up until that point, it's just a dialogue tree choice. Shepard is fully aware of what s/he will say. The player isn't.

The argument is effectively based on the potential for Shepard to take a "fifth option" and sway the Catalyst, which admittedly, we don't know until we've played the ending to its conclusion. But in all fairness, you can contradict the Catalyst at every turn in the conversation, but it achieves nothing. The way it addresses Shepard make it pretty clear that it believes its logic is infallible, even if Shepard might not. It's completely reasonable for him/her to therefore come to the conclusion that any attempt to reason with the Catalyst is doomed to failure.

Modifié par Shadrach 88, 13 octobre 2012 - 08:00 .

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Maxster_ wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

When did I say that **** Germany wasn't one of the worst government's to ever exist. All I stated was that Stalin's reign had a higher death toll than Hitler's did.

And of course, that is a lie. Archives are long since open.

I take it by your avid defense of Joseph Stalin (why you are defending that monster I have no idea), that you are of Russian decent. Let me pose this simple question, how many of those you are referring too , Soviet soldiers especially, do you believe were actually gunned down by the Soviet military yet counted as Germany doing it because the Soviet Union was an "ally" of the Western powers?

Another myth? What the hell you are talking about? Date, place, documents.

Example: At the Battle of Stalingrad, if a Soviet soldier retreated(even one step), he was shot by his own government for cowardice.

Really? Do you know, that Battle of Stalingrad had no place to retreat? There was a river behind.
Actually, that order was several times executed before Stalingrad. Mostly shoot in the air, to stop panic. That was done to not to repeat fails of 1941.
You know, desertery is bad. And retreat is only allowed by no less than division command, or at army level. That is basics of army.
Not that i personally like that order, but that was a war for survival.

they had buildings to fall back too, but leaving the front lines for any reason=desertion according to the Soviet military. And you really think they stopped at shooting in the air if the troops kept doing it? The answer is no, you make examples by gunning them down. There's a historically accurate Battle of Stalingrad movie(can't remember the name but it involved Russia's most famous sniper)that showws this. At least you agree it was a terrible order.

[Geimhreadh]

T-Raks wrote...

Why is this thread hi-jacked for a WW2 debate among two posters? Isn't that something for personal messages?

Godwin's Law, or a variant thereof?

[Geimhreadh]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

When did I say that **** Germany wasn't one of the worst government's to ever exist. All I stated was that Stalin's reign had a higher death toll than Hitler's did.

And of course, that is a lie. Archives are long since open.

I take it by your avid defense of Joseph Stalin (why you are defending that monster I have no idea), that you are of Russian decent. Let me pose this simple question, how many of those you are referring too , Soviet soldiers especially, do you believe were actually gunned down by the Soviet military yet counted as Germany doing it because the Soviet Union was an "ally" of the Western powers?

Another myth? What the hell you are talking about? Date, place, documents.

Example: At the Battle of Stalingrad, if a Soviet soldier retreated(even one step), he was shot by his own government for cowardice.

Really? Do you know, that Battle of Stalingrad had no place to retreat? There was a river behind.
Actually, that order was several times executed before Stalingrad. Mostly shoot in the air, to stop panic. That was done to not to repeat fails of 1941.
You know, desertery is bad. And retreat is only allowed by no less than division command, or at army level. That is basics of army.
Not that i personally like that order, but that was a war for survival.

they had buildings to fall back too, but leaving the front lines for any reason=desertion according to the Soviet military. And you really think they stopped at shooting in the air if the troops kept doing it? The answer is no, you make examples by gunning them down. There's a historically accurate Battle of Stalingrad movie(can't remember the name but it involved Russia's most famous sniper)that showws this. At least you agree it was a terrible order.

Enemy at the Gates, maybe?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Geimhreadh wrote...

T-Raks wrote...

Why is this thread hi-jacked for a WW2 debate among two posters? Isn't that something for personal messages?

Godwin's Law, or a variant thereof?

I apologize for that, i'll stop now.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Geimhreadh wrote...
Enemy at the Gates, maybe?

That's it.I loved that movie but couldn't remember it's name and it was annoying me. Thank you, Geimhreadh.

[Maxster_]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

When did I say that **** Germany wasn't one of the worst government's to ever exist. All I stated was that Stalin's reign had a higher death toll than Hitler's did.

And of course, that is a lie. Archives are long since open.

I take it by your avid defense of Joseph Stalin (why you are defending that monster I have no idea), that you are of Russian decent. Let me pose this simple question, how many of those you are referring too , Soviet soldiers especially, do you believe were actually gunned down by the Soviet military yet counted as Germany doing it because the Soviet Union was an "ally" of the Western powers?

Another myth? What the hell you are talking about? Date, place, documents.

Example: At the Battle of Stalingrad, if a Soviet soldier retreated(even one step), he was shot by his own government for cowardice.

Really? Do you know, that Battle of Stalingrad had no place to retreat? There was a river behind.
Actually, that order was several times executed before Stalingrad. Mostly shoot in the air, to stop panic. That was done to not to repeat fails of 1941.
You know, desertery is bad. And retreat is only allowed by no less than division command, or at army level. That is basics of army.
Not that i personally like that order, but that was a war for survival.

they had buildings to fall back too, but leaving the front lines for any reason=desertion according to the Soviet military. And you really think they stopped at shooting in the air if the troops kept doing it? The answer is no, you make examples by gunning them down. There's a historically accurate Battle of Stalingrad movie(can't remember the name but it involved Russia's most famous sniper)that showws this. At least you agree it was a terrible order.

Nah, Stalingrad was wrong example. There was stand, defending the working tank factory and beach. Only hardened troops, fight for every house, for every level.
You don't know how it feels, when you lost a 1/3 of population to occupation, and every day thousands murdered by German. No pressure, yeah.
Every fail, every unsanctioned retreat - means more losses, more civilians dead, more time period before freeing. Every officer mistake, every soldier left their position out of fear - means a lot more dead.
You have no idea what the hell was that. In Belorussia, every 4th belorus was killed by Germans. Entire villages burned just for fun. Villagers shot or burned alive.

[Maxster_]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Geimhreadh wrote...
Enemy at the Gates, maybe?

That's it.I loved that movie but couldn't remember it's name and it was annoying me. Thank you, Geimhreadh.

Yeah, "close to truth"... Nowhere near.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Maxster_ wrote...
Nah, Stalingrad was wrong example. There was stand, defending the working tank factory and beach. Only hardened troops, fight for every house, for every level.
You don't know how it feels, when you lost a 1/3 of population to occupation, and every day thousands murdered by German. No pressure, yeah.
Every fail, every unsanctioned retreat - means more losses, more civilians dead, more time period before freeing. Every officer mistake, every soldier left their position out of fear - means a lot more dead.
You have no idea what the hell was that. In Belorussia, every 4th belorus was killed by Germans. Entire villages burned just for fun. Villagers shot or burned alive.

Again, I agree that National Socialist Germany was terrible. As for rest, let's agree to disagree about who was worse.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Maxster_ wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Geimhreadh wrote...
Enemy at the Gates, maybe?

That's it.I loved that movie but couldn't remember it's name and it was annoying me. Thank you, Geimhreadh.

Yeah, "close to truth"... Nowhere near.

Soviet Union altered history, so how would you know. Again, let's drop this because neither of us are going to change our views and we're derailing the thread.

Modifié par LDS Darth Revan, 13 octobre 2012 - 08:11 .

[Hanako Ikezawa]

DirtyMouthSally wrote...

inversevideo wrote...
*snip not meta gaming*

From a non-meta pov you may have a point.  That's some really bad luck for Shepard and the galaxy for refusing.

Shepard:  Wait a second, there's got to be another way, what about...
Catalyst:  SO BE IT!
Shepard: 


If you think about it, these choices are laughable, especially synthesis and control.  The extended cut just makes it worse.  You've got Shepard becoming an overlord, supposedly benelovent.  You could say that Shepard becomes what was fought against throughout the series, the new catalyst! 

Or you have hybrids walking around with glowing eyes.  These choices don't deserve to be debated.  They should be laughed at by everyone here!

Those are better than the genocides of varying degree that Destroy and Refuse are.