435 réponses à ce sujet

[Hudathan]

They wanted to make omelettes without breaking eggs, it's that simple. So they threw a tantrum and burned down the house.

[The Night Mammoth]

Why don't Synthesizers pick Control? It's the same feihua from the same source.

[hukbum]

dreman9999 wrote...

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?

Question: Do you read the stuff people were writing?
Looks to me like you're in some "bloodrage-writing-no-time-to-read"-mode ...

[DeathWingKingUltimate]

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.

No, I'm the Shepardinger of your Protection 

[hukbum]

DeathWingKingUltimate wrote...

I'm the Shepardinger of your Protection 

[drayfish]

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

I'm sorry, I really can't follow what you are saying here at all - but my issue is one of retroactive argument.  The moment that you justify a choice based upon what you already know happened ('Well no one died when I picked Synthesis so it must be right...') you are metagaming if you then apply that knowledge to subsequent playthroughs, or try to declare to others that they should have known to make such a choice before they actually did...

Again, Role Playing is intended to be you making your character behave in the manner you would in such a situation - and given that in our own lives we cannot consult a wiki to dictate what our decisions should be, it is imersion-breaking to apply such omniscience to the game.

[dreman9999]

hukbum wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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?

Question: Do you read the stuff people were writing?
Looks to me like you're in some "bloodrage-writing-no-time-to-read"-mode ...

I understand you taking about control but you seem not to get what I'm say. Your picking and choosing what the catalyst many bein glieing about and telling the truth bout with no bases. I'm say for everythogn the catalyst says you have to consider if it's a truth or a lie, not just pick and choose.

Now do you understand my point?

[drayfish]

Hudathan wrote...

They wanted to make omelettes without breaking eggs, it's that simple. So they threw a tantrum and burned down the house.

Eugenics; Totalitarianism; Genocide = 'eggs'.

[dreman9999]

drayfish wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

I'm sorry, I really can't follow what you are saying here at all - but my issue is one of retroactive argument.  The moment that you justify a choice based upon what you already know happened ('Well no one died when I picked Synthesis so it must be right...') you are metagaming if you then apply that knowledge to subsequent playthroughs, or try to declare to others that they should have known to make such a choice before they actually did...

Again, Role Playing is intended to be you making your character behave in the manner you would in such a situation - and given that in our own lives we cannot consult a wiki to dictate what our decisions should be, it is imersion-breaking to apply such omniscience to the game.

But even then, with the info you have on hand, there still is the issue that the catalsyt maybe telling the truth about refuse....Is that worth the risk?

[dreman9999]

drayfish wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

They wanted to make omelettes without breaking eggs, it's that simple. So they threw a tantrum and burned down the house.

Eugenics; Totalitarianism; Genocide = 'eggs'.

Where does it say control is Totalitarianism? You're the shepard AI, you can make any governement you wish. You can easilly just let all advance life rule itself.

And the entire question of the series is what the player is willing to do to stop an unstoppable force.

Modifié par dreman9999, 18 octobre 2012 - 02:00 .

[dreman9999]

DeathWingKingUltimate 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.

No, I'm the Shepardinger of your Protection 

But you choose how you protect. Where doe it say you have to use the reapers?

Modifié par dreman9999, 18 octobre 2012 - 02:00 .

[dreman9999]

Fandango9641 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

And therin lies the problem many people have with the ending dreman9999; they simply do not trust in any of the solutions on offer. And why should we?

Because of the risks on hand.

[deatharmonic]

drayfish wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

They wanted to make omelettes without breaking eggs, it's that simple. So they threw a tantrum and burned down the house.

Eugenics; Totalitarianism; Genocide = 'eggs'.

Man, I'm hungry, gonna do me some eggs 

[drayfish]

dreman9999 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

I'm sorry, I really can't follow what you are saying here at all - but my issue is one of retroactive argument.  The moment that you justify a choice based upon what you already know happened ('Well no one died when I picked Synthesis so it must be right...') you are metagaming if you then apply that knowledge to subsequent playthroughs, or try to declare to others that they should have known to make such a choice before they actually did...

Again, Role Playing is intended to be you making your character behave in the manner you would in such a situation - and given that in our own lives we cannot consult a wiki to dictate what our decisions should be, it is imersion-breaking to apply such omniscience to the game.

But even then, with the info you have on hand, there still is the issue that the catalsyt maybe telling the truth about refuse....Is that worth the risk?

Making a deal with the genocidal monster that is proudly declaring he wants to wipe you and everyone you care for out of existence, the guy who is asking you to mutate, massacre or potentially dominate your own people in order to serve his will...? 

Yes, I thought it was worth the risk to believe that the fleet of people I care for (and do not want to harm) may have a fighting chance over giving up and buying into this guy's hopeless racist screed.

Modifié par drayfish, 18 octobre 2012 - 02:04 .

[Xilizhra]

drayfish wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

I'm sorry, I really can't follow what you are saying here at all - but my issue is one of retroactive argument.  The moment that you justify a choice based upon what you already know happened ('Well no one died when I picked Synthesis so it must be right...') you are metagaming if you then apply that knowledge to subsequent playthroughs, or try to declare to others that they should have known to make such a choice before they actually did...

Again, Role Playing is intended to be you making your character behave in the manner you would in such a situation - and given that in our own lives we cannot consult a wiki to dictate what our decisions should be, it is imersion-breaking to apply such omniscience to the game.

But even then, with the info you have on hand, there still is the issue that the catalsyt maybe telling the truth about refuse....Is that worth the risk?

Making a deal with the genocidal monster that is proudly declaring he wants to wipe you and everyone you care for out of existence, the guy who is asking you to mutate, massacre or potentially dominate your own people in order to serve his will...? 

Yes, I thought it was worth the risk to believe that the fleet of people I care for (and do not want to harm) may have a fighting chance over giving up and buying into this guy's hopeless racist screed.

I don't care what the Catalyst's nature is, all I want to do is stop the harvest. If I die from one of those choices, the result is the same as me dying from not making a choice: the galaxy is doomed. I have nothing to lose anymore.

[dreman9999]

Fandango9641 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

And therin lies the problem many people have with the ending dreman9999; they simply do not trust in any of the solutions on offer. And why should we?

Because of the risks on hand.

Ah yes, desperate times require irrational measures. That the best you got dreman9999?

Right, because based on the info in the lore, codex, and past 2 games we can totaly take the reaper on as a unified force.(No we can't.)

I'm sorry but I have a point, there is a risk to refuse, more so in the other choice. Any person who list all the varible would see refuse is not a good choice.

[dreman9999]

Xilizhra wrote...

drayfish wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

I'm sorry, I really can't follow what you are saying here at all - but my issue is one of retroactive argument.  The moment that you justify a choice based upon what you already know happened ('Well no one died when I picked Synthesis so it must be right...') you are metagaming if you then apply that knowledge to subsequent playthroughs, or try to declare to others that they should have known to make such a choice before they actually did...

Again, Role Playing is intended to be you making your character behave in the manner you would in such a situation - and given that in our own lives we cannot consult a wiki to dictate what our decisions should be, it is imersion-breaking to apply such omniscience to the game.

But even then, with the info you have on hand, there still is the issue that the catalsyt maybe telling the truth about refuse....Is that worth the risk?

Making a deal with the genocidal monster that is proudly declaring he wants to wipe you and everyone you care for out of existence, the guy who is asking you to mutate, massacre or potentially dominate your own people in order to serve his will...? 

Yes, I thought it was worth the risk to believe that the fleet of people I care for (and do not want to harm) may have a fighting chance over giving up and buying into this guy's hopeless racist screed.

I don't care what the Catalyst's nature is, all I want to do is stop the harvest. If I die from one of those choices, the result is the same as me dying from not making a choice: the galaxy is doomed. I have nothing to lose anymore.

Thank you...Perfect logic.

[Noelemahc]

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.

"Refusing to do anything" is not something Shepard would do either. From a role-playing perspective Refusal has merit if you have faith in your fleet, if you have faith in all the nooks and crannies of the galaxy you've dragged by their collar onto the front lines, in all the guns and ships you seem to have personally assembled by hand in order to get them all to fight as one.

However, from a metagaming perspective all of that flies into the incinerator of the Non-Standard Game Over that Refusal is. As Drayfish aptly put it, it's a slap to the face of every player that (not without reason) finds the Crucible to be too unreliable to hang the fate of the entire galaxy on. The fact that Shepard (and, by proxy, every other character) is roped into accepting in way back on Mars and enforcing its existence is already a failure on the part of the game's writers.

You see, it's one thing when you say "Nah, forget it, I'm not fighting you" and eat your gun. It's another when you say "I'm not fighting you with this clearly poisoned weapon" and whip out a plan B and-- Owait, the plan B is missing. The pre-release quotes (and quite a few cut quests) inferred that there would be more than one path to vicktoree, some of which would turn out to be duds only after you went the whole nine yards and made the entire galaxy depend on them. That would'a been awesome to have, wouldn't you agree?

The problem is that the game posits Refusal from a gameplay perspective as the second, but then plays it out as the first.

It's losing a war for bringing a machine gun instead of the agreed-upon sabre. It's nonsensical. It's the part where a gazillion of possible OTHER plans come into play (I've written more than a handful of non-lore-breaking options to replace the lore-breaking one we get in the game proper) instead of everybody dying offscreen.

REALITY CHECK, PEOPLE. In the real world, you aren't disqualified from fighting if your opponent is holding a hostage and you refuse to shoot him through the hostage. Unless, of course, he then shoots you and the hostage, but the game doesn't show that happen, does it? The Reapers, which up to this point have been barely managing to keep the galaxy's SEPARATED fleets at bay, magically defeat everyone in seconds, sure.


Back to the matter at hand: Control is not preferrable to Refusal because any number of possible Lotus Eater Machine subtropes can spring out from around the corner. Even if we accept that all we see on-screen is the truth and nothing but (i.e. discount any VR, simulation, memory editing, indoctrination or photoshopping), there's still a lot of issues with Control.

1. Geth. Destroy magically does not discern between Geth and Reapers and presumably other sufficiently advanced synthetics (which is idiotic all by itself, as ME2 almost defined the Reapers as being hyper-advanced cybors => would all the galaxy's cyborgs be affected in Control and Destroy, then? That's the ENTIRE Quarian race and almost HALF the Salarians!); but Control does? Really?

2. "We are infinite, each of us a nation." Either Sovereign was lying out of its ass or they're not as self-aware as it claimed themselves to be. If it's A, congratulations, you've just ruined the main draw of the most charismatic villain of the series. If it's B, it makes you question why BioWare chose to drop Daro'Xen's questline, as it would have certainly served to enhance the endings with additional subtext on Shepard being a dick to the entire galaxy regardless of what he chooses.

3. As mentioned in my previous post (which all of you gleefully ignored, opting instead to derail the thread into a discussion on the morality of Refusal), there is absosmurfly ZERO guarantee that once Shepard is uploaded onto a Reaper mainframe he will be constrained by its hardware limitations, the very same that may have contributed to the original faulty conclusion of recursive machine logick.

4. Absolute power corrupts absolutely has already been brought up more than a few times in this thread, so I'll just skip the SkyNet propaganda.

5. Both Para and Rene Shreaperd talk about protecting the galaxy from evils and threats (in their own special cutesy ways). But, again, excessive force and/or righteous retribution can and will be interpreted by a disembodied machine (even one controlled by an AI built off a scan of a human brain, one already damaged by two deaths and resurrections, multiple battlefield traumas, quite a few concussions and a heckuva lotta implants of varying age and quality) differently than a flesh-and-blood human, and at some point we fall back into the Iron Savior fallacy.
"Iron Iron Savior, look what you have done!
Can't you see, your assessment might be wrong?"



From a non-metagaming perspective, I would ask of you this simple question:

If Dr. Doom came up to you and said that you can forever banish him from the universe if you would have touched those two exposed and obviously live high-voltage wires over there, would you seriously have done it? Are you really that gullible?

[Xilizhra]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...I don't care what the Catalyst's nature is, all I want to do is stop the harvest. If I die from one of those choices, the result is the same as me dying from not making a choice: the galaxy is doomed. I have nothing to lose anymore.

Good grief - why would you be willing to wager the future of the galaxy without first understanding the Catalyst or its solutions?

I'll do my best in the extremely limited time that I have, and from that, I decided that Control was the best option.

[Davik Kang]

drayfish wrote...
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.

Ok.  I will admit that since I finished the game I was pretty convinced that Destroy was the best ending.  Now I have a slightly different idea.  I had Shepard pick Destroy, and I'll stand by that choice and whatever the consequences may be.  Maybe it was the wrong choice.  Most choices I made in the trilogy had Shepard/me doubting whether it was the right one.  And I'll never know (unless Bioware bring out more stuff explaining it all, or canonise an ending for a sequel, which I hope they don't).

But about the Refuse justification.  I think it does set Shepard above and apart from everybody.  Because I think it is Shepard saving herself for the sake of her morals.  It is the only ending where she doesn't physically kill herself, but instead just lets herself die, and others around her.  And the only person she protects in doing this is herself.  Note that I'm not supporting suicide, but more pointing out that Refuse is not just a refusal to sacrifice herself, but a refusal to sacrifice her principles.

I have already discussed this with some players in this other Refuse thread, over the last few pages.

http://social.biowar...059/17#14538334

In short, I think the dialogue at the end makes it clear that Refuse means refusing to use the Crucible.  But we already knew that the Crucible was the only thing that could stop the Reapers.  That's why we committed so much of the war effort into building it, at the expense of protecting other worlds and fighting the Reapers.

So by picking Refuse, you're putting down your gun; you're saying, I give up, I won't make this kind of choice; you're saying, we'll all lose this together.  You'd rather die than do something terrible.  But you have to do somehting terrible.  Even picking up a gun and shooting at enemies is terrible.  Fighting someone is terrible, but you have to do it, otherwise you just let them beat you up.  

You have to fire the Crucible, because if you don't, you give up, and everybody dies.  This isn't metagaming.  This is made clear throughout the whole plot of ME3.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 18 octobre 2012 - 02:18 .