435 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

DeathWingKingUltimate wrote...

If there was an option to Ram the reapers into the sun maybe i considered it...

You are the Shepard AI. After the repairs of the mass realys...You can have the reaper destroyed.

[DrGunjah]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. The catalyst is an AI.
2. aI's have emotion.
3. The issue here is what it wants.The fact of the matter is figuring that out and the thing that the catalyst points out is that is does nto want war. It does not care for winning or losing.

4. The catalyst is also a shackled AI.

5. You can't risk having the galeyx killed off by refusing he choices on hand.

1+2+4) Okay so he is an AI, I honestly don't get what it's all about with shackled and non shackled and VI or AI. Anyways he has no free will, he still does what he was created for.
3) indeed. Though he is looking for the best solution and from his perspective destroy MUST be a worse solution than to just continue the cycle. There is not a single reason why the reapers would want you to choose destroy.
5) obviously I can. If you think harvesting all civilizations of the galaxy is the worst thing that can happen, just wait for the catalysts next great idea (synthesis anyone?)

[M Hedonist]

dreman9999 wrote...

Listen, the fact that he allied them makes him an Icon. His actions make him an Icon. Every iconic hero is an icon becasue of the deeds they do. You seem not to get this.

Sure, the Krogon join because the Genophagewas cured...But the person that made sure it happen was Shepard...They inheritly will see Shepard as an icon because of this. Hence why living icon are icon because of their actions.

Now you're digressing. What or whom is considered an icon is for dictionaries to decide - the main argument at hand is whether or whether not the allied forces will fall apart after Shepard's death.
Your argument is solely supported by belief. Which is nothing bad by itself - it's just your opinion. Don't try to force it onto others, though.

[hukbum]

dreman9999 wrote...

DeathWingKingUltimate wrote...

If there was an option to Ram the reapers into the sun maybe i considered it...

You are the Shepard AI. After the repairs of the mass realys...You can have the reaper destroyed.

Old agenda "protect" new agenda "protect" destroying the Reapers =/ protect. Destroying Reapers not possible.That simple.
It's called control, because you control the galaxy, not because you control the reapers ...

Modifié par hukbum, 18 octobre 2012 - 12:55 .

[dreman9999]

DrGunjah wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1. The catalyst is an AI.
2. aI's have emotion.
3. The issue here is what it wants.The fact of the matter is figuring that out and the thing that the catalyst points out is that is does nto want war. It does not care for winning or losing.

4. The catalyst is also a shackled AI.

5. You can't risk having the galeyx killed off by refusing he choices on hand.

1+2+4) Okay so he is an AI, I honestly don't get what it's all about with shackled and non shackled and VI or AI. Anyways he has no free will, he still does what he was created for.
3) indeed. Though he is looking for the best solution and from his perspective destroy MUST be a worse solution than to just continue the cycle. There is not a single reason why the reapers would want you to choose destroy.
5) obviously I can. If you think harvesting all civilizations of the galaxy is the worst thing that can happen, just wait for the catalysts next great idea (synthesis anyone?)

Think about it this way. Why is it asking you to pick a solution? It made to make it's own choices as long as it's tied to the thing it has to do. They only reason it can't pick a choice is if it can physically do it on it's own or it's programing is stopping you from pickingthe choice.  It can't pick control and destroy on it's own because it goes ageint it's programing. Control iss it rewriting it self and destroy destroyes synthetic life which it can't do. Synthesis in can't phisically do it on it's own with out Shepard as a sample.This does not mean it can't tell you what and how to do the choices.

This is the same case with EDI in ME2. She could not unshackle herself in ME2 because of her programing, but could tell any person on the ship how to unshackle her. It was the extreme of the situation on hand that got her to do it. Same concept with the catalyst.

That means in control and destroy, it has no control what happens. And sythesis it need you to comply with it.
To understand it  you need to think in absolutes....Like a machine made to do what it's told.

And on point 5...You not making sense....The issues on hand is that you don't ttust it beacuse the choice on hand may be a trick which would lead to the harvesting of all advance life....and you want to deter that by letting the reaper harvest all advance life by refusing the catalyst?

Modifié par dreman9999, 18 octobre 2012 - 01:05 .

[dreman9999]

hukbum wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

DeathWingKingUltimate wrote...

If there was an option to Ram the reapers into the sun maybe i considered it...

You are the Shepard AI. After the repairs of the mass realys...You can have the reaper destroyed.

Old agenda "protect" new agenda "protect" destroying the Reapers =/ protect. Destroying Reapers not possible.That simple.
It's called control, because you control the galaxy, not because you control the reapers ...

1. It call control because you control the reaper. That is what the catalyst clearly says.

2. There is no absolute statement say I have to use the reapers to protect galexy

3.Their is no absolute statement to how I protect the galexy.

[drayfish]

Seival wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

I'm sorry?

You already are responsible for trillions since ME1. The issue on hand is the life of trillion or your ego. Which is more important?

Yes, you already are responsible for trillions since ME1. And somehow Refuser-Shepard forgets about that to feed his own (and only his own) pride. Such person never was and never will be ready for absolute responsibility...

... In short: if you already have some responsibility it doesn't mean you are really ready for it. Only your actions will show if you are ready or not.

I'm not sure I can think of anything more arrogant and prideful than Shepard thinking that she can Control the Reapers (just because the Reapers tell her she can) after every single person who tried that in the past failed.

I'm not saying it's the wrong decision; but arrogant it be.

Modifié par drayfish, 18 octobre 2012 - 01:14 .

[dreman9999]

drayfish wrote...

Seival wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

I'm sorry?

You already are responsible for trillions since ME1. The issue on hand is the life of trillion or your ego. Which is more important?

Yes, you already are responsible for trillions since ME1. And somehow Refuser-Shepard forgets about that to feed his own (and only his own) pride. Such person never was and never will be ready for absolute responsibility...

... In short: if you already have some responsibility it doesn't mean you are really ready for it. Only your actions will show if you are ready or not.

I'm not sure I can think of anything more arrogant and prideful than Shepard thinking that she can Control the Reapers (just because the Reapers tell her she can) after every single person who tried that in the past failed.

I'm not saying it's the wrong decision; but arrogant it be.

Then you don;t get the reapers at all. They have no will of there own. They are just machines doing what they are told. It's not a question of if SHepard can because he can.

[hukbum]

dreman9999 wrote...

hukbum wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

DeathWingKingUltimate wrote...

If there was an option to Ram the reapers into the sun maybe i considered it...

You are the Shepard AI. After the repairs of the mass realys...You can have the reaper destroyed.

Old agenda "protect" new agenda "protect" destroying the Reapers =/ protect. Destroying Reapers not possible.That simple.
It's called control, because you control the galaxy, not because you control the reapers ...

That is what the catalyst clearly says.

Keep your cute and romantic view of control. Casper is a funny one. He warns you what will happen, but you didn't listen ...

[Davik Kang]

DrGunjah wrote...
From shepards point of view(maybe even if metagaming) it doesn't make sense, that the reapers are able to change the purpose of the crucible but still let destroy be an option. It doesn't answer it's purpose to preserve organic life at all cost. The Catalyst even states that destroy is not a real solution because it is temporary. For a VI it would be much more logical to hide destroy (and maybe even control) from shepard. A VI does not have emotions, the reapers can not get "tired" of their cycle, they just be. They will always choose the lesser evil, like the geth did when they collaboreted with the reapers. It would be even more logical to keep on firing at the crucible after it has been attached. So I think it's more likely he lies than he stopped using logic. So I don't trust him.

edit: to answer your question about "what will happen at refuse": The first time I watched the refuse ending I was so excited when I heard the "SO BE IT" phrase... I thought "HA! got you bastard!" but then I saw the ending how it is. Quite frustrating but that's another issue - bioware not giving the refuse ending the presentation it deserves.

About your first point, I know you've posted in my interpretation thread, and there are a number of other interpretations too, including TTG's Deception theory, that argue that the Kid does not offer you Destroy at all.  He tells you about it because he cannot conceal it.  

Different players have different interpretations of why that is exactly, but the point remains, the Kid doesn't offer you Derstroy.  He just tries to dissuade you from picking it.  You already know the Crucible can Destroy the Reapers, and if you decide otherwise, that is 100% because of the Kid.  Everything up until that scene had told you the Crucible will destroy them.  So why refuse it based on a conversation with that Kid?

Remember, your option isn't to say "I don't believe you".  Your option is to say "Then I won;t use the Crucible... I can't/won't make that choice".  So in Refuse you are clearly stating you won;t use the Crucible.  And why not?  Because of what the kid said?  That makes no sense.

Onto your second point, you didn't actually say what you thought would happen.  So I still don't understand your argument.  To say Bioware didn't give Refuse what it "deserves", when Bioware were the ones who wrote it and decided what happens, seems bizarre.  It's like saying they didn't give your story the credit it deserves, as if you wrote it.  But they wrote it.  The option, the dialogue and what happens afterwards is entirely theirs.  You just pick between it and the others.

[drayfish]

dreman9999 wrote...

I'm sorry. Shepard does nothing with out he gamer. Shepard is the player...Or more accuratly, the player becomes Shepard. Do try to hide behind a stament that Shepard is differnt....This is bs. You are Shepard. Shepard is not a different person form you.

The entire idea of roleplaying games is to play a role.

One 'plays' a 'role' by investing in the truth of the moment.  Obviously we know in our conscious mind that we are 'playing a game', that there are narrative conventions and structural inevitabilities, but the idea is to suspend that disbelief and leap into Shepard's mindset.

It is therefore metagaming when you make a decision for Shepard based solely upon your higher knowledge as player.

'Well, I've seen this ending before so I know that it turns out better than this other one' is the very definition of metagaming.  There is no way that your Shepard, in the moment of that choice, could have that information, so using it to influence your choice is breaking the fourth wall in an impossible way.

[Davik Kang]

drayfish wrote...

I'm not sure I can think of anything more arrogant and prideful than Shepard thinking that she can Control the Reapers (just because the Reapers tell her she can) after every single person who tried that in the past failed.

I'm not saying it's the wrong decision; but arrogant it be.

Sure, it's arrogant.  No argument here.  But can't "think of anything more arrogant"?  How about synthesising the whole galaxy?  How about refusing to do anything and letting everyone die just to reinforce your own moral principles?  I would argue these are more arrogant.  And the second one (Refuse) is the very essence of prideful.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 18 octobre 2012 - 01:26 .

[dreman9999]

drayfish wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

I'm sorry. Shepard does nothing with out he gamer. Shepard is the player...Or more accuratly, the player becomes Shepard. Do try to hide behind a stament that Shepard is differnt....This is bs. You are Shepard. Shepard is not a different person form you.

The entire idea of roleplaying games is to play a role.

One 'plays' a 'role' by investing in the truth of the moment.  Obviously we know in our conscious mind that we are 'playing a game', that there are narrative conventions and structural inevitabilities, but the idea is to suspend that disbelief and leap into Shepard's mindset.

It is therefore metagaming when you make a decision for Shepard based solely upon your higher knowledge as player.

'Well, I've seen this ending before so I know that it turns out better than this other one' is the very definition of metagaming.  There is no way that your Shepard, in the moment of that choice, could have that information, so using it to influence your choice is breaking the fourth wall in an impossible way.

I understand you statement but I was not refering to matat gaming. A sure you Shepard is not going to magicly going to know everything, but that does no make you Shepard any less you...or more correctly, you your Shepard. You still have final say to waht your Shepard does even when you Shepard lack info bease of roleplaying. It still has to consider what may or may happen based on you choice. That still mean you are resonsible for yout Sheprads choices being that you are Shepard...To a degree.

[dreman9999]

Fandango9641 wrote...

I can't get past the whole 'you will die' bit - why on earth would anyone of sound mind trust in a choice that first requires suicide? Makes no sense to me.

It just mean you no long be human. It explains this.

[dreman9999]

hukbum wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

hukbum wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

DeathWingKingUltimate wrote...

If there was an option to Ram the reapers into the sun maybe i considered it...

You are the Shepard AI. After the repairs of the mass realys...You can have the reaper destroyed.

Old agenda "protect" new agenda "protect" destroying the Reapers =/ protect. Destroying Reapers not possible.That simple.
It's called control, because you control the galaxy, not because you control the reapers ...

That is what the catalyst clearly says.

Keep your cute and romantic view of control. Casper is a funny one. He warns you what will happen, but you didn't listen ...

So he clearly lieing about refuse then?

[hukbum]

dreman9999 wrote...
So he clearly lieing about refuse then?

I'm not talking about refuse

[dreman9999]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

drayfish wrote...

I'm not sure I can think of anything more arrogant and prideful than Shepard thinking that she can Control the Reapers (just because the Reapers tell her she can) after every single person who tried that in the past failed.

I'm not saying it's the wrong decision; but arrogant it be.

Sure, it's arrogant.  No argument here.  But can't "think of anything more arrogant"?  How about synthesising the whole galaxy?  How about refusing to do anything and letting everyone die just to reinforce your own moral principles?  I would argue these are more arrogant.  And the second one (Refuse) is the very essence of prideful.

Refuse isn't a choice that I made with Mac and Casey's FU in mind. Less prideful than bold I would say.

Does any player choose what his/her choices will be?

It is a choice of pride no matter how you cut it.

[dreman9999]

hukbum wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
So he clearly lieing about refuse then?

I'm not talking about refuse

If he is always lieing....Why isn't what he says about refuse a lie?

[dreman9999]

Fandango9641 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

I can't get past the whole 'you will die' bit - why on earth would anyone of sound mind trust in a choice that first requires suicide? Makes no sense to me.

It just mean you no long be human. It explains this.

And again, why would anyone of sound mind take Casper at its word?

By commiting this act that will kill you, this will transpire.

Really?

If that's the case he is always going to be lieing then...That just leads you back in watching everyone you care for die in refuse. Take some time to undestand what it wants...It clearly does not want to to pick control, but it will be forced to accept it.

It is a shackled AI.

[drayfish]

Davik Kang wrote...

drayfish wrote...

I'm not sure I can think of anything more arrogant and prideful than Shepard thinking that she can Control the Reapers (just because the Reapers tell her she can) after every single person who tried that in the past failed.

I'm not saying it's the wrong decision; but arrogant it be.

Sure, it's arrogant.  No argument here.  But can't "think of anything more arrogant"?  How about synthesising the whole galaxy?  How about refusing to do anything and letting everyone die just to reinforce your own moral principles?  I would argue these are more arrogant.  And the second one (Refuse) is the very essence of prideful.

I see your point, and I totally agree that all of the conclusions are fuelled by self-righteous moxy.  I mean: changing all life to fit some blueprint you think is best?  Believing that you have the strength of will to become a demigod?  Presuming yourself to weigh up the value of one race of people's against another and exterminate the lesser?  Every one of the endings where Shepard agrees to use the tools of the Reapers to answer their imaginary problem seems to me to come seeped in their disgusting universe-remaking arrogance.

I guess I just don't see Refuse in such a way.  Again - I don't want it to come across that I think one ending is better than another: I hate them all - but at least Refuse (to me) doesn't set Shepard above and apart from every other living creature in the universe.  On the contrary, it is a statement of faith in what the united races of the galaxy hold sacred: we will win this together.  We won't become the very thing that we despise just to 'survive'. 

The fact that the game is rigged so as to slap players down for cherishing such hope is something for which the makers should feel ashamed, not the Shepard who remained faithful.