1388 réponses à ce sujet

[Xandurpein]

Well, even if it would be true that Reaper-shep is simply an exact virtual replica of the real Shepard (and not YOUR head canon) then he's still just a flawed human being that shouldn't have that power. Either Reaper-shepard is just Shepard, and then he'ss not to be trusted with infinite power or he is a god, and then he's an unknowable more than just Shepard. Either way I think it's a very bad idea.

[Soda Master]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

By your definition Catalyst is the ideal ruler already, the way he is. Maybe the game had it all wrong and we should just submit then? Maybe we risk subverting Catalyst's flawless logic when we mix it with Shepard's human bias? Maybe objectivly we'll all be better off as a giant metal cuttlefish after all..?

The Catalyst as it is, is not an ideal ruler. He's an AI construct that lacks perspective. Like any other AI in the mass-effect universe, he has no understanding of organic moral values and ethics. Shepard, being an organic himself, does.


And again, you use your own headcanon instead of the actual lore of the games. For the last time: NO, SHEPARD DOES NOT GET MIXED WITH ANY FLAWED LOGIC AT ALL. SHEPARD REPLACES THE CATALYST AND HIS FLAWED LOGIC.

Read that? He REPLACES the Catalyst. No fusion, but REPLACEMENT.

I hate to break into your argument, but it's not like Shepard simply got their untouched human brain stuck into a Reaper body and that was that. They were literally converted into the form that they appeared as in the Control ending. They aren't human anymore. And there's no telling what may have been altered during that process of conversion, or even how their thought process functions anymore. 

My two cents.

[Costin_Razvan]

Well, even if it would be true that Reaper-shep is simply an exact virtual replica of the real Shepard (and not YOUR head canon) then he's still just a flawed human being that shouldn't have that power.

You have yet to give a single argument as to why the Council is better then Shepard's rule.

Also the notion that Shepard shouldn't have that power is kinda laughable to me. Oh sorry where you complaining when the fate of entire species ( Rachni, Geth, Quarian, Krogan ) was in your hands?

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 décembre 2012 - 04:57 .

[SpamBot2000]

pirate1802 wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Or he could simply be an authoritarian leader, which in itself is not wrong in my eyes and when I look at democracy right now and all it's failures...well then I wouldn' support it.

I 100% agree,

That was a popular sentiment in the 1930's too. Didn't end all that well, if memory serves.

[Xandurpein]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Well, even if it would be true that Reaper-shep is simply an exact virtual replica of the real Shepard (and not YOUR head canon) then he's still just a flawed human being that shouldn't have that power.

You have yet to give a single argument as to why the Council is better then Shepard's rule.

Also the notion that Shepard shouldn't have that power is kinda laughable to me. Oh sorry where you complaining when the fate of entire species ( Rachni, Geth, Quarian, Krogan ) was in your hands?

Of course it's a ridiculous notion that we, as Shepard, get to keep playing God with entire races like we do. This is game and Shepard is in part a fairy-tale hero. If anyone wants to head canon a fairy-tale ending where Reaper-shep is the anointed king of the Galaxy, I guess it's fine. The fact that Shepard has the kind of power he has is a result of the Space opera setting. If there is no need for it, my distaste for it means I can stop.

[Someone With Mass]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Or he could simply be an authoritarian leader, which in itself is not wrong in my eyes and when I look at democracy right now and all it's failures...well then I wouldn' support it.

I 100% agree,

That was a popular sentiment in the 1930's too. Didn't end all that well, if memory serves.

It'd help if everyone thought the same way when it comes to these things, but I don't think that'll happen.

[Zardoc]

Did you ever consider not everyone is a power hungry madman/woman?

[jtav]

But it need no go that way. For one, Control lacks the demagoguery and hyper-nationalism of fascism. A better analogy would be Plato's philosopher-king or the enlightened despots of the 18th century.

[Maniccc]

Xilizhra wrote...

I continue to roleplay as the Shepard-Catalyst because my actions determine its personality and beliefs. When I say "I plan," it can be inferred to being the Shepard-Catalyst; I have as much control over that, as a player, as I do Shepard herself. What I ensure is an end to large-scale conflict. Also, which ideas, exactly, are "deeply flawed?"[/q]

This is head canon, and it is naive, as I have already pointed out.  It is also not entirely correct.  Take, for example, the Rachni Queen in ME1.

You are given the option to kill the (supposedly) last Queen, or release her.  You cannot, however, choose neither.  You cannot, for example, choose to keep her imprisoned.  So your options, as the player, are not Shep's options, as the character.  As a player you can only influence to a degree what Shep decides based on what is written by the authors.  You are not Shep.

[q]Genocide of the geth and the Reapers both, remember. And it's no more simplistic or myopic than your dislike of alleged future tyranny.

There is no "alleged" future tyranny. Shep, even para shep, states she will "ensure" that her vision of the future is enacted. This is tyrannical. It is not alleged, it is explicitly stated by Shep.  Control is tyranny.  It is very clear.  You choose to ignore that fact.

I freely and consistently acknowledge the fate of the Reapers and the Geth in the destroy option.  Your position ignores the fact that shep-god creates a tyranny, that is explicitly stated by even the paragon shep-god.  So no, I am not being myopic,  I am being holisitc in my approach.  I am looking at all sides and all aspects.  Hence, your position, which fails to do so, is simplistic.  It is also naive, because you head canon a happy (or happier, or preferred) control ending that is contradicted by the facts in the game.

[Maniccc]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Well, even if it would be true that Reaper-shep is simply an exact virtual replica of the real Shepard (and not YOUR head canon) then he's still just a flawed human being that shouldn't have that power.

You have yet to give a single argument as to why the Council is better then Shepard's rule.

Also the notion that Shepard shouldn't have that power is kinda laughable to me. Oh sorry where you complaining when the fate of entire species ( Rachni, Geth, Quarian, Krogan ) was in your hands?

Imust interject here (agaisnt my better judgement) that there is a huge difference between shep-god and the council, more than one. 

1)  The council is organic, shep-god is not.

2)  The council changes its members over time, shep-god is one and the same

3)  The council is not possessed of absolute power, in practical terms, shep-god is.

4)  shep-god is part catalyst intelligence, the council is not

And if you think about it further, the list can be extended.  Quite frankly, this is all very obvious, and the ramifications should be equally obvious.  The notion that the Council and shep-god are the same in terms of being "top dog" is absurd and barely worthy of discussion. 

[Xilizhra]

There is no "alleged" future tyranny. Shep, even para shep, states she will "ensure" that her vision of the future is enacted. This is tyrannical. It is not alleged, it is explicitly stated by Shep. Control is tyranny. It is very clear. You choose to ignore that fact.

And if that vision of the future is a relatively free one, such ensuring could easily be her just blasting away any would-be conquerors and leaving the rest largely alone. Your interpretation is too limited.

I freely and consistently acknowledge the fate of the Reapers and the Geth in the destroy option. Your position ignores the fact that shep-god creates a tyranny, that is explicitly stated by even the paragon shep-god. So no, I am not being myopic, I am being holisitc in my approach. I am looking at all sides and all aspects. Hence, your position, which fails to do so, is simplistic. It is also naive, because you head canon a happy (or happier, or preferred) control ending that is contradicted by the facts in the game.

You refuse to allow for any interpretation of Control (an ending that you don't choose, mind) apart from your own, which is not the only one allowed for.

[Costin_Razvan]

Maniccc: I never said Shepard-Catalyst was equal to the Council in power, rather my point was why the **** should I think keeping the current Council is better while I am committing genocide on the Geth to do so. ( I won't bother bringing the Reaper genocide argument here, I know how that flies ).

Give me one good solid reason why I should accept genocide and a pathetic governement that has proven time and time again it can do a lot of ****ty decisions over Shepard-Catalyst. 

What that Shepard can cause a lot more suffering overall then Council ever did it? That's not a certainity. It's a possibility sure, but just that a possible outcome.

Xandurpein: The reality is that Shepard has that power. You don't like that then maybe you've chosen the wrong forum for the wrong game series to argue about why people shouldn't have that much power.

It is still hypocritical to complain of someone having so much power in game when you were perfectly happy in making all those decisions in ME1, ME2 and over the course of ME3 that affected entire species.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 décembre 2012 - 05:36 .

[clennon8]

I'm sure Shepard will be the best Reaper Overlord of all time.

[Maniccc]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Maniccc: I never said Shepard-Catalyst was equal to the Council in power, rather my point was why the **** should I think keeping the current Council is better while I am committing genocide on the Geth to do so. ( I won't bother bringing the Reaper genocide argument here, I know how that flies ).

Give me one good solid reason why I should accept genocide and a pathetic governement that has proven time and time again it can do a lot of ****ty decisions over Shepard-Catalyst. 

What that Shepard can cause a lot more suffering overall then Council ever did it? That's not a certainity.

I've already discussed this in abundance, though not exhaustively, and have no desire to do so again.  But I will leave it at this rather vague comment:  freedom vs control.  Anyone serious about this discussion is, I'm sure, smart enough to take it from there.  With the application of a little objective thinking, many aspects of this can be teased out, both "good" and "bad".  This is particularly true if you extrapolate from history the ramifications of totalitarian rule.  Just bear in mind, you should look at both sides of possibility, not pick simply one side and choose it because the best possibilty (as any given person sees it) is desirable and acquirable.  What if you get the worst possibility instead?  This is why all aspects must be considered and weighed, something I find that all control proponents fail to do.

[q]clennon8 wrote'''

  I'm sure Shepard will be the best Reaper Overlord of all time.[/q]

This is beautifully stated.

Modifié par Maniccc, 20 décembre 2012 - 05:42 .

[Xilizhra]

I've already discussed this in abundance, though not exhaustively, and have no desire to do so again. But I will leave it at this rather vague comment: freedom vs control. Anyone serious about this discussion is, I'm sure, smart enough to take it from there. With the application of a little objective thinking, many aspects of this can be teased out, both "good" and "bad". This is particularly true if you extrapolate from history the ramifications of totalitarian rule. Just bear in mind, you should look at both sides of possibility, not pick simply one side and choose it because the best possibilty (as any given person sees it) is desirable and acquirable. What if you get the worst possibility instead? This is why all aspects must be considered and weighed, something I find that all control proponents fail to do.

And if Destroy goes wrong, you could have utter oblivion or at least the destruction of all societal infrastructure, among other things. And what if it succeeds only for us to fall under the control of the Leviathans? Are they better than Shepard?

[garrusfan1]

Cause it isn't shep basically shep would be gone and thus we might go back to the old cycle. Look I have been on the geths side and EDIs and defended them in the majority of conversations but if they have to die in destroy sorry but that has to be done and people who choose control or synthesis are taking a HUGE risk and I don't believe it is worth it.

[Costin_Razvan]

What if you get the worst possibility instead?

You want to talk about the worst possibility? Destroy in it's worst form, as in low EMS, wipes out billions of people in the galaxy, it kills almost every single person in the galaxy.

Control, even with the lowest EMS, does not do so. It doesn't kill anyone, it only causes infrastructure damage.

At high EMS, even though I accept the possibility can happen though it's not necesary I still pick Control. Because to me that option is still preferable to a garuanted genocide.

As for your notion of "freedom" there is no such thing as absolute freedom in any government, least of all the Council who discriminates against any race who isn't on it.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 décembre 2012 - 05:47 .

[SpamBot2000]

I hope BioWare are reading this thread and seeing for themselves what kind of ideologies they are nurturing with their artistry. Might give them pause the next time they feel like burying a series in ultimate power fantasies.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 20 décembre 2012 - 05:47 .

[Maniccc]

Xilizhra wrote...

I've already discussed this in abundance, though not exhaustively, and have no desire to do so again. But I will leave it at this rather vague comment: freedom vs control. Anyone serious about this discussion is, I'm sure, smart enough to take it from there. With the application of a little objective thinking, many aspects of this can be teased out, both "good" and "bad". This is particularly true if you extrapolate from history the ramifications of totalitarian rule. Just bear in mind, you should look at both sides of possibility, not pick simply one side and choose it because the best possibilty (as any given person sees it) is desirable and acquirable. What if you get the worst possibility instead? This is why all aspects must be considered and weighed, something I find that all control proponents fail to do.

And if Destroy goes wrong, you could have utter oblivion or at least the destruction of all societal infrastructure, among other things. And what if it succeeds only for us to fall under the control of the Leviathans? Are they better than Shepard?

Well, this is a bit of head canon, but what if it all goes wrong?  And this is one major reason why the endings are so thoroughly flawed.  You are given choices from an enemy that is thoroughly cruel and vicious, psychopathic and murderous on an almost unimaginable scale.  And we're supposed to go with it?  Having this conversation is perhaps impossible because of this.  There is no right answer, because all our choices are wrong (even refusal).

My contention has never been that destroy is "good" per se, only that it is the only moral (or closest to moral, I should say) option given the circumstances.  It is, overall, the least evil option, is perhaps the best way to put it, in the long run.  Vagueness is necessary, because the endings are vague. 

[CronoDragoon]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
Give me one good solid reason why I should accept genocide and a pathetic governement that has proven time and time again it can do a lot of ****ty decisions over Shepard-Catalyst. 

What that Shepard can cause a lot more suffering overall then Council ever did it? That's not a certainity. It's a possibility sure, but just that a possible outcome.

The Council is better (relative to Shep-AI. I am not saying it's great) because there is a limit to the amount it can eff up before the members get replaced or the structure gets dissolved. There is no way to mitigate the damage that a bad decision on Shepard's part can have.

Again, look at the Reaper cycle. The Council does not have the influence or power to pull off something like the Reaper cycle. Shepard-AI does.

By having a structure in place with competing interests, you are effectively trying to eliminate worst-case scenarios for the abuse of power. And by worst case I don't even mean the genocide of a species trying to conquer the galaxy. I mean something like the Reaper cycle.

With Shepard, worst case scenarios are in play. So are best-case scenarios which competing interests also preclude.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 20 décembre 2012 - 05:55 .

[clennon8]

You sillies. What could possibly go wrong with making an AI copy of a human being and putting it in charge of an unstoppable army of indoctrinating killer robots that have been turning people into milkshakes for the last billion years. That always turns out well.

[Maniccc]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

What if you get the worst possibility instead?

You want to talk about the worst possibility? Destroy in it's worst form, as in low EMS, wipes out billions of people in the galaxy, it kills almost every single person in the galaxy.

Control, even with the lowest EMS, does not do so. It doesn't kill anyone, it only causes infrastructure damage.

At high EMS, even though I accept the possibility can happen though it's not necesary I still pick Control. Because to me that option is still preferable to a garuanted genocide.

As for your notion of "freedom" there is no such thing as absolute freedom in any government, least of all the Council who discriminates against any race who isn't on it.

Absolute freedom is a strawman fallacy, and your condemnation of the Council is disingenuous.  The Council is  not static, and is not one person with one mind, as already pointed out.

Furthermore, you are obviously not thinking carefully.  You are saying that living as a slave is preferable to death.  Maybe that is true for you, but as I have already discussed elsewhere in this thread, it is not true for everyone else.

*sigh* this is why I should not have said anything, all I am doing is repeating myself to someone who is not thinking carefully.  I'm just going to leave this here.

[Xilizhra]

Well, this is a bit of head canon, but what if it all goes wrong? And this is one major reason why the endings are so thoroughly flawed. You are given choices from an enemy that is thoroughly cruel and vicious, psychopathic and murderous on an almost unimaginable scale. And we're supposed to go with it? Having this conversation is perhaps impossible because of this. There is no right answer, because all our choices are wrong (even refusal).

Any might go wrong, at which point it matters little what I choose. However, I don't see the Catalyst as being any of those things except possibly "murderous." It's not emotionally driven to kill, but was built for a purpose and cannot deviate from what it believes to be the best way of fulfilling that purpose.

[Ieldra]

As if you'd have an example, clennon. Pfft.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 décembre 2012 - 05:55 .

[The Heretic of Time]

LnzOQuin wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

By your definition Catalyst is the ideal ruler already, the way he is. Maybe the game had it all wrong and we should just submit then? Maybe we risk subverting Catalyst's flawless logic when we mix it with Shepard's human bias? Maybe objectivly we'll all be better off as a giant metal cuttlefish after all..?

The Catalyst as it is, is not an ideal ruler. He's an AI construct that lacks perspective. Like any other AI in the mass-effect universe, he has no understanding of organic moral values and ethics. Shepard, being an organic himself, does.


And again, you use your own headcanon instead of the actual lore of the games. For the last time: NO, SHEPARD DOES NOT GET MIXED WITH ANY FLAWED LOGIC AT ALL. SHEPARD REPLACES THE CATALYST AND HIS FLAWED LOGIC.

Read that? He REPLACES the Catalyst. No fusion, but REPLACEMENT.

I hate to break into your argument, but it's not like Shepard simply got their untouched human brain stuck into a Reaper body and that was that. They were literally converted into the form that they appeared as in the Control ending. They aren't human anymore. And there's no telling what may have been altered during that process of conversion, or even how their thought process functions anymore. 

My two cents.

I'm perfectly aware of all that. And again, it's not a fusion, but a replacement. Big difference.