308 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

Guys, just report him and move on. It's obvious that he's doing this in order to rile everyone up.

[Eterna]

KingZayd wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

RiptideX1090 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
No I'm not, I'm just telling you my interpretation of the Destroy ending.  I don't see how me making unfounded claims about your ending is any different from you making undounded claims about my ending. 

Do you get it yet?

What unfounded claims have I made regarding your ending?

Everyone other than Harper and the Catalyst say Control is either bad or impossible. That is a fact. It's not about if it works or not, it's about whether or not I agree with TIM's ideals and am willing to trust my greatest enemy. And I'm not. My decision is based on facts and themes presented in the story.

Your decision is based on headcannoning what you think is going to happen in other endings. 

 I'm refferirng to the "How ken you be surez it won't go ape****z eventually!" people. Or pretty much everyone who has said control is bad in this thread.

Stating it's a possibility is not an unfounded claim, even if you spell it wrong. It is a possibility. Saying it definitely doesn't happen (or indeed that it definitely does), would be an unfounded claim.

Right, and it's a possibillity that the Yahg will take over the Galaxy in a post Destroy unverse. 

Guys, just report him and move on. It's obvious that he's doing this in order to rile everyone up.

 For what? I'm only doing what everyone else was ding. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 15 novembre 2012 - 11:46 .

[RiptideX1090]

Eterna5 wrote...

 For what? I'm only doing what everyone else was ding. 

I don't think I saw anyone else calling other users "dumb bricks".

[AxStapleton]

Eterna5 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

RiptideX1090 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
No I'm not, I'm just telling you my interpretation of the Destroy ending.  I don't see how me making unfounded claims about your ending is any different from you making undounded claims about my ending. 

Do you get it yet?

What unfounded claims have I made regarding your ending?

Everyone other than Harper and the Catalyst say Control is either bad or impossible. That is a fact. It's not about if it works or not, it's about whether or not I agree with TIM's ideals and am willing to trust my greatest enemy. And I'm not. My decision is based on facts and themes presented in the story.

Your decision is based on headcannoning what you think is going to happen in other endings. 

 I'm refferirng to the "How ken you be surez it won't go ape****z eventually!" people. Or pretty much everyone who has said control is bad in this thread.

Stating it's a possibility is not an unfounded claim, even if you spell it wrong. It is a possibility. Saying it definitely doesn't happen (or indeed that it definitely does), would be an unfounded claim.

Right, and it's a possibillity that the Yahg will take over the Galaxy in a post Destroy.

Which is a fair assumption. Does every one of your posts have to be filled with such vitirol?

[Eterna]

You guys sure get mad when your own tactics are used against you.

[AxStapleton]

Eterna5 wrote...

You guys sure get mad when your own tactics are used against you.

Who's getting angry?

Modifié par AxStapleton, 15 novembre 2012 - 11:50 .

[RiptideX1090]

Eterna5 wrote...

You guys sure get mad when your own tactics are used against you.

You're hardly worth getting upset over. Again, all you've done is show you can't carry a conversation with the grown ups without resorting to name calling and stooping down to the level of those you claim are using false arguments.

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

Eterna5 wrote...

You guys sure get mad when your own tactics are used against you.

I'm perfectly calm. It's you that's always passive aggressive and posting ad-hominem attacks. I don't care if your a pro-ender, anti-ender, neautral ender, red ender, blue ender, green ender, rainbow ender etc. I don't care if they started it or if you started it or if the biotic god started it. You, and people like you are trolls in my book. 

Cut it out.

Modifié par Mr.BlazenGlazen, 15 novembre 2012 - 11:53 .

[ElSuperGecko]

RiptideX1090 wrote...
[Ideally, the way this SHOULD have been handled is Harper, Anderson, and Shepard all going to meet the Catalyst together. That way all three sides present their arguments at once, and it could have been far more balanced, which each person giving pros for their choice and cons for the other two.

Anderson: Shepard! Don't trust them! We can end this, here and now!

Harper: We have a chance to end this, Shepard, and so much more! Replace the AI, take the Reapers for yourself, save the galaxy! I brought you back because I knew you had what it would take to see this through!

Catalyst: Termination and Subvervience do not solve the problem of organic and synthetic mutual destruction. For there to be everlasting peace, there is only one path forward. but you must decide.

How cool would this have been?

Now THAT would have been really interesting, awesome to play through and worked really well.  Very cool indeed, bravo!

BUT - at the same time, the argument's also there for having the sequence as it now stands.  Just Shepard, just the Catalyst.  No words of warning or advice from anyone (just how many would have sided with Harper over Anderson, anyway?)  Instead, the player has to make the decision on their own, with only what they know, what they've learned and their moral compass to guide them.  And if they forget the lessons of the past, if they haven't paid enough attention... well, what happens then?

It's not as though this wasn't foreshadowed, either.  It's not as though we weren't warned to heed the opinions and the advice of our allies and friends.

EDI:  "Moral decsion should not be made in a vacuum, If I do not ask the crew for their opinions, I may miss key context"

[BrotherCorvid]

Eterna5 wrote...

Right, and it's a possibillity that the Yahg will take over the Galaxy in a post Destroy unverse. 

The difference here, and why throwing that out as a rebuttal doesn't work for destroyers, is that the Yahg aren't an immediate threat to everyone in the galaxy.  They haven't slaughtered civilizations for untold millenia simply to reproduce.  They sit on their planet, minding their own business.  If they become a threat, they'll be dealt with accordingly when the time comes.

The Reapers, however, are a proven, very immediate threat, which should be dealt with accordingly in the most efficient way possible.  That's why destroy works in people's minds-- they're dealing with the known threat, and removing it permanently.  They aren't simply changing the threat into something new, as in synthesis and control, and they aren't giving up, as in refusing, they are stopping the threat the most direct way possible.  If they have to commit a sacrifice to ensure the survival of everyone else in the galaxy, rather than stand on principle and take two potentially risky, unproven paths, then they'll do it.

And by the by, should the Yahg, (only one planetful of beings), decide to try and take on the combined might of the rest of the civilized galaxy (which destroyed the Reapers), then let them.  It'll be hilarious.

[Nerevar-as]

Eterna5 wrote...

Right, and it's a possibillity that the Yahg will take over the Galaxy in a post Destroy unverse. 

It´s a possibility a huge fleet arrives from Andromeda, curbstomps the Reapers along with everyone else, and the new hero must look for a new DEM to stop them. More likely than a culture that still hasn´t left their own planet way after humanity settled on Mars by their own means will become a considerable threat. Although if the lead writer repeats, any amount of nonsense is a bigger possibility.

[RiptideX1090]

ElSuperGecko wrote...
It's not as though this wasn't foreshadowed, either.  It's not as though we weren't warned to heed the opinions and the advice of our allies and friends.

EDI:  "Moral decsion should not be made in a vacuum, If I do not ask the crew for their opinions, I may miss key context"

Indeed.

I just think the final decision would have had so much more power behind it if all three faces were there in the final scene, giving arguments for their ideals.

[Eterna]

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

You guys sure get mad when your own tactics are used against you.

I'm perfectly calm. It's you that's always passive aggressive and posting ad-hominem attacks. I don't care if your a pro-ender, anti-ender, neautral ender, red ender, blue ender, green ender, rainbow ender etc. I don't care if they started it or if you started it or if the biotic god started it. You, and people like you are trolls in my book. 

Cut it out.

Sorry, I get carried away some times. 

Sorry Guys. 

I think I'm going to take a break from these forums for awhile, they make me too jaded and negative. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 16 novembre 2012 - 12:02 .

[RiptideX1090]

RobotWalk wrote...

And by the by, should the Yahg, (only one planetful of beings), decide to try and take on the combined might of the rest of the civilized galaxy (which destroyed the Reapers), then let them.  It'll be hilarious.

We'll have the turians and salarians engineer a gun that the krogan carry into battle and shoots flaming vorcha at the enemy.

[ForThessia]

because I picked Destroy and my choice is the best choice.

In all seriousness, Destroying the Reapers was what Shep set out to do in the first place.

[BrotherCorvid]

RobotWalk wrote...

And by the by, should the Yahg, (only one planetful of beings), decide to try and take on the combined might of the rest of the civilized galaxy (which destroyed the Reapers), then let them.  It'll be hilarious.

I'd also like to add to this the potential for yahg attacking a post-control or post-synthesis galaxy would ALSO be hilarious.  Envisioning the Yahg as a threat in relation to any of the endings is absurd conjecture.  The conversation should stick to what we know, and drawing conclusions from that.

[BrotherCorvid]

RiptideX1090 wrote...

RobotWalk wrote...

And by the by, should the Yahg, (only one planetful of beings), decide to try and take on the combined might of the rest of the civilized galaxy (which destroyed the Reapers), then let them.  It'll be hilarious.

We'll have the turians and salarians engineer a gun that the krogan carry into battle and shoots flaming vorcha at the enemy.

The best.  The best.

"I'M ALIVE" as the flaming vorcha careens into the Yahg.

[Nerevar-as]

RiptideX1090 wrote...

RobotWalk wrote...

And by the by, should the Yahg, (only one planetful of beings), decide to try and take on the combined might of the rest of the civilized galaxy (which destroyed the Reapers), then let them.  It'll be hilarious.

We'll have the turians and salarians engineer a gun that the krogan carry into battle and shoots flaming vorcha at the enemy.

Nah. This will be the perfect ocassion to test the Thresser firing cannon.

[shepskisaac]

'Cause it's considered the Paragon choice (due to killing the Reapers and that it's what Anderson would've done and what he and Hackett were telling Shep to do the entire game) and great majority of Sheps are Paragons, we already know that from official data released by Bioware (only like 1/4 of Sheps were Renegades) + of course it's the only ending in which Shep survives in his organic form

Modifié par IsaacShep, 16 novembre 2012 - 12:02 .

[RiptideX1090]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Nah. This will be the perfect ocassion to test the Thresser firing cannon.

...can't we do both...?

[KingZayd]

Eterna5 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

RiptideX1090 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
No I'm not, I'm just telling you my interpretation of the Destroy ending.  I don't see how me making unfounded claims about your ending is any different from you making undounded claims about my ending. 

Do you get it yet?

What unfounded claims have I made regarding your ending?

Everyone other than Harper and the Catalyst say Control is either bad or impossible. That is a fact. It's not about if it works or not, it's about whether or not I agree with TIM's ideals and am willing to trust my greatest enemy. And I'm not. My decision is based on facts and themes presented in the story.

Your decision is based on headcannoning what you think is going to happen in other endings. 

 I'm refferirng to the "How ken you be surez it won't go ape****z eventually!" people. Or pretty much everyone who has said control is bad in this thread.

Stating it's a possibility is not an unfounded claim, even if you spell it wrong. It is a possibility. Saying it definitely doesn't happen (or indeed that it definitely does), would be an unfounded claim.

Right, and it's a possibillity that the Yahg will take over the Galaxy in a post Destroy unverse. 

Yes, it's possible. But I'm not convinced they will, at least not in the short term. In the long-term, nobody knows. But in the short-term, they don't stand a chance against the rest of the galaxy.

[Nerevar-as]

RiptideX1090 wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Nah. This will be the perfect ocassion to test the Thresser firing cannon.

...can't we do both...?

Fine for me.

Poor Yagh...

[Dr_Extrem]

Nerevar-as wrote...

RiptideX1090 wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Nah. This will be the perfect ocassion to test the Thresser firing cannon.

...can't we do both...?

Fine for me.

Poor Yagh...

what about a gun, that fires rampaging klixon at the enemy ... that seperates the pros.

[DirtySHISN0]

CDR David Shepard wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

Because people think that being told to do something for 3 games as opposed to 1 game isn't indoctrination.

A man who thinks the same at 70 as he did at 20 has learned nothing.

A character changing their mind at the last second about Control just because a Reaper leader AI, that looks like the kid in their dreams, says it's possible...sounds more like indoctrination to me.

To each their own.

Also...comparing 50 years of real life to roughly 60 hours of sci-fi gameplay...is as absurd as it sounds.

Its a relevant analogy, experience provides context which in turn provides new opinions.

It also depends on how you view your shepard, i decided long before the ending i wouldn't willfully sacrifice the geth. So when it came down to the decisions and one appeared that would destroy the geth i knew that was off the table straight away.

I will give my 2 cents whenever an ending is being ganged up on because frankly they are all equally faulty and justifying one based on scale does not absolve responsibility or remove the faults asociated with it.

[clennon8]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

clennon8 wrote...
Meanwhile, the best argument the pro-Synths and pro-Controls can come up with in defense of their choices is "But the epilog slides!" If there's a comparison to be made to religion, it should be made to the literalists. The epilog slides comprise their afterlife. They're buying into the Reapers' indoctrination, and jihading themselves for the promise of some bullsh*t afterlife.

I completely agree.

The ending slides, and what they show (or more importantly seem to show, or don't show) should not be taken into account when your Shepard makes their decision.

It's a Schrodinger's Cat situation.  Shepard has no idea what will happen after making the decision, but people justify their decision based on what the epilogues show.  Their Shepards appear to be clairvoyant.

If anything, the reasoning behind your final decision should be made by taking into account everything the player has witnessed prior to that point, not afterwards.  And in that case, the evidence for and reasons to choose Destroy are MUCH more favourable than the reasons to pick either Synthesis or Control.

But, you see, pro-Synths have decided that the ending is badly written, and have thereby excused themselves from the continuity of the story and any pretenses at roleplaying.  Everything is fair game, including hand-waving away inconvenient in-game information, and using epilogue slides to make in-game decisions.

Modifié par clennon8, 16 novembre 2012 - 12:50 .