1388 réponses à ce sujet

[Bill Casey]

Eterna5 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

There is slavery in control...
You've enslaved the reapers into your own private army...

And you killed them.

"Is submission not preferable to extinction?"

Modifié par Bill Casey, 21 décembre 2012 - 03:44 .

[Eterna]

Bill Casey wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

There is slavery in control...
You've enslaved the reapers into your own private army...

And you killed them.

"Is submission preferable to extinction?"

Turning them into your slaves isn't submitting to them. 

[Bill Casey]

Did you miss the point, or are you just messing with me?

[Ageless Face]

Bill Casey wrote...

"Is submission not preferable to extinction?"

That's what Saren says, if you want to quote him correctly. 

And if the indoctrinated Saren says that, which means the Reapers themselves believe it, we can guess they'd rather being inslaved than destroyed.

[GethPrimeMKII]

Since we're sharing opinions, here goes:

Control is too much power to grant one man, no matter how incorruptible he may seem. Synthesis is too much for one man to decide on behalf of an entire galaxy, no matter how pure his intentions are. Destroy may sacrifice the lives of millions, but they are lives that willing to be sacrificed.

Modifié par GethPrimeMKII, 21 décembre 2012 - 04:01 .

[The_Other_M]

 

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Since we're arguing from a literal perspective, here goes:

Control is too much power to grant one man, no matter how incorruptible he may seem. Synthesis is too much for one man to decide on behalf of an entire galaxy, no matter how pure his intentions are. Destroy may sacrifice the lives of millions, but they are lives that willing to be sacrificed.

Yeah but, Destroy is just as bad as the other two-- it's "too much for one man to decide."
These lives were never "asked" to sacrifice themselves because the master of the "Magic Reaper-Off Button" demanded it.

Catalyst: If you want to get rid of us, then we're taking all Synthetic life and some of the Mass Relays with us.
BUT if you want to keep all that, then you still have to keep us around, because apparently you guys don't know what the f*** you're doing.

All in all, the endings are still bulls***.

[GethPrimeMKII]

The_Other_M wrote...

 

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Since we're arguing from a literal perspective, here goes:

Control is too much power to grant one man, no matter how incorruptible he may seem. Synthesis is too much for one man to decide on behalf of an entire galaxy, no matter how pure his intentions are. Destroy may sacrifice the lives of millions, but they are lives that willing to be sacrificed.

Yeah but, Destroy is just as bad as the other two-- it's "too much for one man to decide."
These lives were never "asked" to sacrifice themselves because the master of the "Magic Reaper-Off Button" demanded it.

Catalyst: If you want to get rid of us, then we're taking all Synthetic life and some of the Mass Relays with us.
BUT if you want to keep all that, then you still have to keep us around, because apparently you guys don't know what the f*** you're doing.

All in all, the endings are still bulls***.

These lives were willing to be sacrificed to destroy the reapers. In literal interpretation thats exactly what happens. You're not doing anything nobody signed up for. 

Nobody asked to have their DNA forcibly rewritten. Who is Shepard to decide the genetic destiny of an entire galaxy?

 An imperfect, corruptible being (in other words everybody) should not be allowed the the god-like power the Catalyst is offering Shepard. 

There are many more reasons why I think Control and Synthesis are the wrong way to go, but since we're just arguing morals, I believe Destroy is the least morally reprehensible choice one can make. 



**EDIT**
Here's some bonus questions:

Why is it that Control seems a hell of a lot more precise than Destroy? If destroy cant distinguish between geth's and Reapers, and in worse case scenario's anything more advanced than a lightulb, why is it Control is able to isolate Reapers? 

Modifié par GethPrimeMKII, 21 décembre 2012 - 05:07 .

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

I think the idea behind making the Control ending seem viable is that no insignificant man can Control thousands of Mechanical Gods. Hence why it's not actually Shepard controlling the Reapers; it's an AI based on Shepard's ethical code and memories. So it makes sense that we can't direct the Reapers to do what we want them to do.

If Shepard was alive and in control of the Reapers then that would raise the validity of the "power corrupts" argument that is usually used against the current Control ending.

Plus...what happens when Shepard dies? The implications are problematic.

Well, there are no perfect endings, right?  

It's just that with more and more varied optons, we might have had a better shot at getting endings more people could have lived with.

I mean, imagine, Shepard grabs the control rods, a harbinger-like voice booms out "Control assumed.  Awaiting instructions", and your last act in controling Shepard is a dialogue wheel giving the Reapers orders. 

"Protect us"
"DIe"
"Obey me"
"Be Free"
"Leave"
"Power down"



And then in a High EMS Control ending, staggering away from the control rods to face the consequences of your actions...

[Ticonderoga117]

iakus wrote...
Well, there are no perfect endings, right?  

It's just that with more and more varied optons, we might have had a better shot at getting endings more people could have lived with.

I mean, imagine, Shepard grabs the control rods, a harbinger-like voice booms out "Control assumed.  Awaiting instructions", and your last act in controling Shepard is a dialogue wheel giving the Reapers orders. 

"Protect us"
"DIe"
"Obey me"
"Be Free"
"Leave"
"Power down"



And then in a High EMS Control ending, staggering away from the control rods to face the consequences of your actions...

Why bother grabbing the nodes? Just tell GlowBoy!

"I want you to die."

End game.

[AlanC9]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Why bother grabbing the nodes? Just tell GlowBoy!

"I want you to die."

End game.

"I cannot self-terminate."

As for iakus' proposal, sounds doable. How different would the cinematics have to be? Obviously there'd have to be an alternative to the relays getting fixed by Reapers.

[Ticonderoga117]

AlanC9 wrote...
"I cannot self-terminate."

As for iakus' proposal, sounds doable. How different would the cinematics have to be? Obviously there'd have to be an alternative to the relays getting fixed by Reapers.

"Shut down. Fly into a far away star. Exile yourself to dark space. Fly to Andromeda at sublight. Fly into the galaxy's core. Compute Pi."

Be creative, it's not hard to figure out a way to give orders to GlowBoy that either kills the Reapers, are makes them a null threat.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Why bother grabbing the nodes? Just tell GlowBoy!

"I want you to die."

End game.

"I cannot self-terminate."

As for iakus' proposal, sounds doable. How different would the cinematics have to be? Obviously there'd have to be an alternative to the relays getting fixed by Reapers.

Given the majority of the cinematics are screenshots, probably not terribly different.  Most of the change would probably be in the ending speech describing the aftermath:  Whether the Reapers stuck around to help or not,  What collateral damage befell due to the choice (how many Reaper eezo cores do you think it would to make a star go all Haestrom?).  Lingering doubt that the Reaper threat is gone forever, or relief that it finally is.  Might need multiple characters giving different speeches based on teh choice (Reapers that fly into the sun probably aren't going to describe what comes afterwards)

[Iakus]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
"I cannot self-terminate."

As for iakus' proposal, sounds doable. How different would the cinematics have to be? Obviously there'd have to be an alternative to the relays getting fixed by Reapers.

"Shut down. Fly into a far away star. Exile yourself to dark space. Fly to Andromeda at sublight. Fly into the galaxy's core. Compute Pi."

Be creative, it's not hard to figure out a way to give orders to GlowBoy that either kills the Reapers, are makes them a null threat.

that's why I listed "Power down" as a choice.  I figure someone might want an option to disable the Reapers without destroying them.  EIther for study, or to keep around but inactive "just in case"

Then there's "Be free" as some sort of ultra-paragon anti-indoctrination ending.  Maybe an option could be unlocked if certain choices were made or War Assets found that could lead to a way to free the Reapers from Catalyst control (and perhaps cure indoctrination in general) for those brave enough (or foolish enough) to see what Reapers  would do when they're totally unshackled...

Also "Leave" to just send them somewhere else and either become someone else's problem or maybe a problem for us to deal with later.  Basically:  Punt.

[Ticonderoga117]

iakus wrote...
that's why I listed "Power down" as a choice.  I figure someone might want an option to disable the Reapers without destroying them.  EIther for study, or to keep around but inactive "just in case"

Then there's "Be free" as some sort of ultra-paragon anti-indoctrination ending.  Maybe an option could be unlocked if certain choices were made or War Assets found that could lead to a way to free the Reapers from Catalyst control (and perhaps cure indoctrination in general) for those brave enough (or foolish enough) to see what Reapers  would do when they're totally unshackled...

Also "Leave" to just send them somewhere else and either become someone else's problem or maybe a problem for us to deal with later.  Basically:  Punt.

I figure that this kid needs to be told exactly what to do, otherwise he starts blending things down and turning them into squids because "hey, why not, my creator didn't say NOT to."

[Iakus]

 Now you're getting the whole danger of an AI god ruling the galaxy 

[Ticonderoga117]

iakus wrote...

 Now you're getting the whole danger of an AI god ruling the galaxy 

Which is why Control is nutty and the Leviathans plain dumb.

"Hey, uh, we want to stop AI's right?"
"Yeah."
"So, like, let's make our own!"
"BRILLIANT!"

[Ieldra]

iakus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

I think the idea behind making the Control ending seem viable is that no insignificant man can Control thousands of Mechanical Gods. Hence why it's not actually Shepard controlling the Reapers; it's an AI based on Shepard's ethical code and memories. So it makes sense that we can't direct the Reapers to do what we want them to do.

If Shepard was alive and in control of the Reapers then that would raise the validity of the "power corrupts" argument that is usually used against the current Control ending.

Plus...what happens when Shepard dies? The implications are problematic.

Well, there are no perfect endings, right?  

It's just that with more and more varied optons, we might have had a better shot at getting endings more people could have lived with.

I mean, imagine, Shepard grabs the control rods, a harbinger-like voice booms out "Control assumed.  Awaiting instructions", and your last act in controling Shepard is a dialogue wheel giving the Reapers orders. 

"Protect us"
"DIe"
"Obey me"
"Be Free"
"Leave"
"Power down"

And then in a High EMS Control ending, staggering away from the control rods to face the consequences of your actions...

There was never a chance of that. They wanted that sacrifice theme. If you make an ending around a sacrifice theme, avoiding the sacrifice must incur a significant cost felt by the player or nobody will take it - and then what's the point in making it in the frist place.

How did you feel about DAO's ending BTW?

[Hey]

I don't choose control because I don't trust what I will become. Not arguing it's heinous or anything like that but I just don't trust myself when I may not be myself anymore.

[LieutenantSarcasm]

Festae9 wrote...

I don't choose control because I don't trust what I will become. Not arguing it's heinous or anything like that but I just don't trust myself when I may not be myself anymore.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

History has proven this maxim time and again, even with the best of people. I see no reason as to why shepbot would be any different.

[Hey]

LieutenantSarcasm wrote...

Festae9 wrote...

I don't choose control because I don't trust what I will become. Not arguing it's heinous or anything like that but I just don't trust myself when I may not be myself anymore.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

History has proven this maxim time and again, even with the best of people. I see no reason as to why shepbot would be any different.

I feel like if I could be myself, just as I am now and not transform into something else, i'd feel better about it even though that seems a bit short sighted - but the slides tell me I'm not me anymore, it's a replicant and I can't go along with that because I don't know what that entity is. 

Even pre-knowing the end I still felt like it was a huge risk.

[Ieldra]

LieutenantSarcasm wrote...

Festae9 wrote...

I don't choose control because I don't trust what I will become. Not arguing it's heinous or anything like that but I just don't trust myself when I may not be myself anymore.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

History has proven this maxim time and again, even with the best of people. I see no reason as to why shepbot would be any different.

No, history hasn't proven that. This false impression exists because of the following factors:

(1) The history books only tell us of remarkable events. The times when everything just went on normally aren't mentioned.
(2) The bad stuff sticks in our minds more than the good stuff. Even worse, if someone has done good and bad, mentioning the good is often seen as justifying the bad and summarily dismissed.
(3) The delusion that anyone can rule without treading on someone's toes. We're judging rulers by everyday standards. In our normal lives, we can afford to do nothing when all the alternatives look bad. If you're responsible for a whole country, you often can't afford that.
(4) Cultural bias. Take slavery. It's abhorrent to us now, but nobody thought it was a big thing 2000 years ago. It was just a fact of life.
(5) People tend to put a negative spin on everything a powerful person does. Example: your neighboring country is brutally oppressed by its government. People are asking you for help. If you do, you've started a war. If you don't, you haven't helped.
(6) When everything you do affects a lot of people, everything you do is bound to offend *someone*.

So, while it's true that people can be corrupted by power, there is little evidence that it's the rule, and even less unavoidable.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 21 décembre 2012 - 09:12 .

[LieutenantSarcasm]

Ieldra2 wrote...

No, history hasn't proven that. This false impression exists because of the following factors:

(1) The history books only tell us of remarkable events. The times when everything just went on normally aren't mentioned.
(2) The bad stuff sticks in our minds more than the good stuff. Even worse, if someone has done good and bad, mentioning the good is often seen as justifying the bad and summarily dismissed.
(3) The delusion that anyone can rule without treading on someone's toes. We're judging rulers by everyday standards. In our normal lives, we can afford to do nothing when all the alternatives look bad. If you're responsible for a whole country, you often can't afford that.
(4) Cultural bias. Take slavery. It's abhorrent to us now, but for nobody thought it was a big thing 2000 years ago. It was just a fact of life.
(5) People tend to put a negative spin on everything a powerful person does. Example: your neighboring country is brutally oppressed by its government. People are asking you for help. If you do, you've started a war. If you don't, you haven't helped. 

If history has not proven the maxim I listed, it should be quite simple to list someone who had absolute power for a long peroid of time and did not abuse it. I will buy a hat store, and eat it if you do this. And although you do have some good points, they will not appreciably change the fact that every person who has absolute power for a sustained period of time gets tyrannical.

[Hey]

Ieldra2 wrote...

LieutenantSarcasm wrote...

Festae9 wrote...

I don't choose control because I don't trust what I will become. Not arguing it's heinous or anything like that but I just don't trust myself when I may not be myself anymore.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

History has proven this maxim time and again, even with the best of people. I see no reason as to why shepbot would be any different.

No, history hasn't proven that. This false impression exists because of the following factors:

(1) The history books only tell us of remarkable events. The times when everything just went on normally aren't mentioned.
(2) The bad stuff sticks in our minds more than the good stuff. Even worse, if someone has done good and bad, mentioning the good is often seen as justifying the bad and summarily dismissed.
(3) The delusion that anyone can rule without treading on someone's toes. We're judging rulers by everyday standards. In our normal lives, we can afford to do nothing when all the alternatives look bad. If you're responsible for a whole country, you often can't afford that.
(4) Cultural bias. Take slavery. It's abhorrent to us now, but nobody thought it was a big thing 2000 years ago. It was just a fact of life.
(5) People tend to put a negative spin on everything a powerful person does. Example: your neighboring country is brutally oppressed by its government. People are asking you for help. If you do, you've started a war. If you don't, you haven't helped. 

I agree mostly except #4 - I bet there has always been a strong sense of right and wrong about this one.  It may have been easier though to push these beliefs aside however when the "Jones's are doing it".  I hang on to this hope anyway.

[Ieldra]

LieutenantSarcasm wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

No, history hasn't proven that. This false impression exists because of the following factors:

(1) The history books only tell us of remarkable events. The times when everything just went on normally aren't mentioned.
(2) The bad stuff sticks in our minds more than the good stuff. Even worse, if someone has done good and bad, mentioning the good is often seen as justifying the bad and summarily dismissed.
(3) The delusion that anyone can rule without treading on someone's toes. We're judging rulers by everyday standards. In our normal lives, we can afford to do nothing when all the alternatives look bad. If you're responsible for a whole country, you often can't afford that.
(4) Cultural bias. Take slavery. It's abhorrent to us now, but for nobody thought it was a big thing 2000 years ago. It was just a fact of life.
(5) People tend to put a negative spin on everything a powerful person does. Example: your neighboring country is brutally oppressed by its government. People are asking you for help. If you do, you've started a war. If you don't, you haven't helped. 

If history has not proven the maxim I listed, it should be quite simple to list someone who had absolute power for a long peroid of time and did not abuse it. I will buy a hat store, and eat it if you do this. And although you do have some good points, they will not appreciably change the fact that every person who has absolute power for a sustained period of time gets tyrannical.

You might have a look at the internal policies of Cyrus the Great, one of the most powerful autocrats in human history.

Also, you need to define "abuse of power". Different cultural standards apply. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 21 décembre 2012 - 09:26 .

[SpamBot2000]

Let's look at the external policies of Cyrus the Great, via Wikipedia:

"Cyrus built his empire by conquering first the Median Empire, then the Lydian Empire and eventually the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Either before or after Babylon, he led an expedition into central Asia, which resulted in major campaigns that were described as having brought "into subjection every nation without exception".[10] Cyrus did not venture into Egypt, as he himself died in battle, fighting the Massagetae along the Syr Darya in December 530 BC.[11][12]"

Clearly someone to emulate. Dude just wasn't having the whole "someone living not under my rule" crap.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 21 décembre 2012 - 11:05 .