1388 réponses à ce sujet

[Bill Casey]

Madecologist wrote...

but you have to atleast believe the choices are real for you to be able to choose any of them (even destroy).

This is incorrect, and shows a poor understanding of the Indoctrination Theory...

[clennon8]

It's easy to make a glib dismissal of something someone else says as "headcanon and fanon," especially when you're desperately trying to defend your own headcanon and fanon.

Anyway, I would say that the Deception Theory thread is far more rigorously logical than anything that has appeared in this thread, or any other endings-related thread on this forum for that matter. The author adheres to an extremely strict code of using ONLY in-game information.

Modifié par clennon8, 22 décembre 2012 - 09:05 .

[SpamBot2000]

I'm so damn sick of arguing about this crap. Why the hell can I not have an ending that doesn't drag things into this abyss for my damn space adventure? Why is that, huh?

[Iakus]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

I'm so damn sick of arguing about this crap. Why the hell can I not have an ending that doesn't drag things into this abyss for my damn space adventure? Why is that, huh?

Lots of speculations for everybody!  

[The Heretic of Time]

clennon8 wrote...

It's easy to make a glib dismissal of something someone else says as "headcanon and fanon," especially when you're desperately trying to defend your own headcanon and fanon.

Except I don't defend any headcanon or fanon. I simply defend the Control ending as presented in the game. It's you Control haters who constantly use your own headcanon and fanon as weak arguments against the Control ending.

Anyway, I would say that the Deception Theory thread is far more rigorously logical than anything that has appeared in this thread, or any other endings-related thread on this forum for that matter. The author adheres to an extremely strict code of using ONLY in-game information.

You are entitled to your opinion, but with all due respect, I disagree and think your opinion is rubbish.

[Rifneno]

iakus wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

I'm so damn sick of arguing about this crap. Why the hell can I not have an ending that doesn't drag things into this abyss for my damn space adventure? Why is that, huh?

Lots of speculations for everybody!  

I believe the Shifty Looking Cow is the Intelligence and not that thing on the Citadel.  Speculations, anyone?

[The Heretic of Time]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

I'm so damn sick of arguing about this crap. Why the hell can I not have an ending that doesn't drag things into this abyss for my damn space adventure? Why is that, huh?

If you are sick of this arguing, than why are you still here? Just go post somewhere else in a thread that isn't related to an ending you don't even like. Just sayin'.

[clennon8]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

It's easy to make a glib dismissal of something someone else says as "headcanon and fanon," especially when you're desperately trying to defend your own headcanon and fanon.

Except I don't defend any headcanon or fanon. I simply defend the Control ending as presented in the game. It's you Control haters who constantly use your own headcanon and fanon as weak arguments against the Control ending.

Anyway, I would say that the Deception Theory thread is far more rigorously logical than anything that has appeared in this thread, or any other endings-related thread on this forum for that matter. The author adheres to an extremely strict code of using ONLY in-game information.

You are entitled to your opinion, but with all due respect, I disagree and think your opinion is rubbish.

And I think your arguments are facile and inane.  So there.  Thpthpthpthp.

[Stakrin]

For my Canon Shepard, control would not work.
He is the one based off what I would do making split second decisions, and I wouldn't do control because living as an immortal entity, I fear, would eventually drive me insane. I would see all of my friends die, and watch species do some really stupid bull. Eventually, if I snapped and had hundreds of Reapers to do whatever I wanted them to...not pretty.
He did destroy, sacrificing the Geth and EDI sucked, but he wasn't willing to keep the Reapers around in case they broke. Chose chaos over order.

[Dr_Extrem]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

i did not jump to this conclusion ... i just do not turn a blind eye on the possibility, that even a paragon shep-ai could do reasonable, if questionable things to make sure, that its purpose is fullfilled.

As long as those things continue to follow the pattern established by Shepard in life, I have no issue with that.

Dr_Extrem wrote...

lets construct a little problem: 
the salarians uplift the yagh - the rest of the galaxy does not like it, because the yagh go on a killing spree.
what would the shep-ai do? ... indoctrinate the salarians not to uplift the yagh in the first place?
kill the yagh, before they cause enormous damage? punish the salarians for uplifting them?

this would cause conflicts between the different mandates of the catalyst. the few (yagh) should have a voice and can not be blamed for being uplifted but they cause damage to the many. the many, deserve protection form the few - this violates the premise, that the few need to have a voice. the salarians are part of the many but caused the problem in the first place. it gets complicated.

Complicated, to be sure. To answer your question, it would depend on a lot of variables. If the Shepard AI learned about the scheme prior to completion, probably go to the Coucil or other authority figures and try to get a consensus of some sort going. If it started looking bad - Cerberus bad - a precision strike against the uplifting facilities might be involved. If it happened only afterward, I imagine the solution would be to punish the specific yahg known to have harmed someone else or proven to be conspiring to do such. I doubt the salarians would be punished by Shepard anymore than the asari were for hiding the beacon or the salarians for modifying the genophage and trying to sabotage the cure. The galaxy would just have to learn to get along - and that would include the uplifted yahg.

So, yeah, I imagine the Paragon Shepard AI would follow the basic Paragon principles: help everyone you can, avoid hurting innocents, minimize dead species, try negotiation rather than force where possible.

this is entirely possible.

that is one of my big problems with the endings ...

your assumptions are as valid, as mine. we both use the non-altered epiloge as a basement but we come to different conclusions. wich both are not invalid.

we drifted into headcanon, without a notice. the strength of the endings, became its biggest problem. it is too open to interpretation. (mho)


we will never get a consensus ... i dislike all ending equally (you could call me an "ending critic" - i have no hate for them, because to hate them, i would need to love them even a bit).

but at least we can have a real discussion here, that does not derail.



as a last sidenote:

who should punish a crime against the society? the society itself or a higher being?

[SpamBot2000]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

I'm so damn sick of arguing about this crap. Why the hell can I not have an ending that doesn't drag things into this abyss for my damn space adventure? Why is that, huh?

If you are sick of this arguing, than why are you still here? Just go post somewhere else in a thread that isn't related to an ending you don't even like. Just sayin'.

Because some things deserve to be argued against, such as the hubris of finding no problemo with an immortal Reaper king of the universe. And all the damn threads here are related to the ending crap anyway. 

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You're sure of it? Why? As if even a human-level intellect wouldn't know that some things aren't up for a popular vote. If Control!Shep is guided by Paragon Shepard's value's, then it will place a value on the continued existence of any one species, and it will only take drastic measures to prevent a greater disaster.

To get a little more philosophical, consider the the question: Can there exist a fully deterministic system of laws we would find acceptable if applied with no exceptions? If you think Control!Shepard is bound to do something like the above, then you're answering that question with "no". Likely you would argue that there is no compassion, no empathy and no sense of the value of, say, a single species or suchlike. I think all those can be bound into rules a fully rational but empathy-less entity could use to make decisions. 

The Shepard AI isn't human.  It doesn't have any connection to humans or organic life in general.  I do believe that such an AI would render down all the lives under it's guardianship into a simple numbers game, like EMS


Assuming this AI would still be Commander Shepard is the benign anthropomorphism Legion warned about in judging other life forms

[SeptimusMagistos]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

who should punish a crime against the society? the society itself or a higher being?

I don't see post-Control Shepard as distinct from society. Just a Spectre with a lot of firepower and a really big computer for a brain.

Modifié par SeptimusMagistos, 22 décembre 2012 - 09:22 .

[Bill Casey]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

I'm so damn sick of arguing about this crap. Why the hell can I not have an ending that doesn't drag things into this abyss for my damn space adventure? Why is that, huh?

They wanted you to experience what Shepard is experiencing...
Depending on your reading of the text, they either wanted to attempt to indoctrinate you or wanted to give you PTSD...

[Madecologist]

Bill Casey wrote...

Madecologist wrote...

but you have to atleast believe the choices are real for you to be able to choose any of them (even destroy).

This is incorrect, and shows a poor understanding of the Indoctrination Theory...

Since I don't believe or don't abide to the IT, my understanding of it is irrelevent.

Yes yes, I know the idea that Destroy is a resistance to the Reapers final attempt to convert you, and your actions and choices  pushes you do something that lets you break this control. At that point even followers of the theory have different opinions of what happens next (does Shepard actually trigger the WMD known as the Catalyst, does he wake up in the Rubble after Harbie zaps in... etc etc etc).

But again I don't abide nor believe in IT and as such, its arguements are just... wisps on the wind for me. For those that believe in IT then it offers another aveneue on how to interpert the endings. Without someone is either stuck accepting the Catalyst is at least being trueful about the choices, or you are tossed in a big web of lies and are screwed either way.

I am starting to get annoyed that IT believers act like their Theory is gospel and that its legitmacy is the 'only' legitmacy. You guys are starting to sound worst than String Theory Physicists. The proper thing to have said was that this is not the case for people that believe in IT since they have an alternative explaination for the evnets. Instead of having some sort of vieled attack against my intelligence.

Modifié par Madecologist, 22 décembre 2012 - 09:28 .

[Bill Casey]

Whether you believe or abide by IT is irrelevant to it making your statement incorrect...

[Dr_Extrem]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

who should punish a crime against the society? the society itself or a higher being?

I don't see post-Control Shepard as distinct from society. Just a Spectre with a lot of firepower and a really big computer for a brain.

i see the shep-ai far away from being a part of society.

headcanon again - on both sides.


we dont know for sure, because its up to the player.
i could call you naive for seeing things your way - but i honestly dont. if you were naive, to believe in your view of the endings, i would be paranoid to see problems on the horizon.

[Rifneno]

Madecologist wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Madecologist wrote...

but you have to atleast believe the choices are real for you to be able to choose any of them (even destroy).

This is incorrect, and shows a poor understanding of the Indoctrination Theory...

Since I don't believe or don't abide to the IT, my understanding of it is irrelevent.

Yes yes, I know the idea that Destroy is a resistance to the Reapers final attempt to convert you, and your actions and choices  pushes you do something that lets you break this control. At that point even followers of the theory have different opinions of what happens next (does Shepard actually trigger the WMD known as the Catalyst, does he wake up in the Rubble after Harbie zaps in... etc etc etc).

But again I don't abide nor believe in IT and as such, its arguements are just... wisps on the wind for me. For those that believe in IT then it offers another aveneue on how to interpert the endings. Without someone is either stuck accepting the Catalyst is at least being trueful about the choices, or you are tossed in a big web of lies and are screwed either way.

I am starting to get annoyed that IT believers act like their Theory is gospel and that its legitmacy is the 'only' legitmacy. You guys are starting to sound worst than String Theory Physicists. The proper thing to have said was that this is not the case for people that believe in IT since they have an alternative explaination for the evnets. Instead of having some sort of vieled attack against my intelligence.

You know what else is annoying?  People who dismiss things without understanding them, then cry when their blanket statements are pointed out as incorrect because of their ignorance.

That's you, in case I was being too subtle.

[The Night Mammoth]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

who should punish a crime against the society? the society itself or a higher being?

I don't see post-Control Shepard as distinct from society. Just a Spectre with a lot of firepower and a really big computer for a brain.

A Spectre with more firepower than the entirety of galactic civilization and no one to answer to. Spectres at least answer to the council under the knowledge that other spectres or governments can take them down if they go rogue, and they never have enough power to do that much damage, relatively speaking. Shepard going rogue could kill everyone, because there's no one to stop her. 

I get the analogy, but the scale is insanely skewed. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 22 décembre 2012 - 09:34 .

[The Heretic of Time]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

I'm so damn sick of arguing about this crap. Why the hell can I not have an ending that doesn't drag things into this abyss for my damn space adventure? Why is that, huh?

If you are sick of this arguing, than why are you still here? Just go post somewhere else in a thread that isn't related to an ending you don't even like. Just sayin'.

Because some things deserve to be argued against, such as the hubris of finding no problemo with an immortal Reaper king of the universe. And all the damn threads here are related to the ending crap anyway. 

If anyone is acting arrogant and pretentious, it's you. Like I said, you are entitled to your opinion, but stop trying to shove your opinion down other peoples throat. We're talking about a video-game here for f*ck sakes. Seriously, get a life.

[SpamBot2000]

Madecologist wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Madecologist wrote...

but you have to atleast believe the choices are real for you to be able to choose any of them (even destroy).

This is incorrect, and shows a poor understanding of the Indoctrination Theory...

Since I don't believe or don't abide to the IT, my understanding of it is irrelevent.

Yes yes, I know the idea that Destroy is a resistance to the Reapers final attempt to convert you, and your actions and choices  pushes you do something that lets you break this control. At that point even followers of the theory have different opinions of what happens next (does Shepard actually trigger the WMD known as the Catalyst, does he wake up in the Rubble after Harbie zaps in... etc etc etc).

But again I don't abide nor believe in IT and as such, its arguements are just... wisps on the wind for me. For those that believe in IT then it offers another aveneue on how to interpert the endings. Without someone is either stuck accepting the Catalyst is at least being trueful about the choices, or you are tossed in a big web of lies and are screwed either way.

I am starting to get annoyed that IT believers act like their Theory is gospel and that its legitmacy is the 'only' legitmacy. You guys are starting to sound worst than String Theory Physicists. The proper thing to have said was that this is not the case for people that believe IT since they have alternative explaination for the evnets. Instead of having some sort of vieled attack against my intelligence.

The IT is perceived as a viable way out of the Catalyst mess by many. It seems to me the object of faith in it is BioWare. 

And the game does contain many elements that point that way, since it was the intention to have a scene at the end with Shep fighting indoctrination. Only they dropped it because they couldn't figure out the controls for it.

[SpamBot2000]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

I'm so damn sick of arguing about this crap. Why the hell can I not have an ending that doesn't drag things into this abyss for my damn space adventure? Why is that, huh?

If you are sick of this arguing, than why are you still here? Just go post somewhere else in a thread that isn't related to an ending you don't even like. Just sayin'.

Because some things deserve to be argued against, such as the hubris of finding no problemo with an immortal Reaper king of the universe. And all the damn threads here are related to the ending crap anyway. 

If anyone is acting arrogant and pretentious, it's you. Like I said, you are entitled to your opinion, but stop trying to shove your opinion down other peoples throat. We're talking about a video-game here for f*ck sakes. Seriously, get a life.

Lots of people acting arrogant and pretentious on this thread. And some even thuggishly belligerent. Go figure.

[Madecologist]

Bill Casey wrote...

Whether you believe or abide by IT is irrelevant to it making your statement incorrect...

And if IT is wrong? What then? Only the validity of IT can make my statement incorrect. Since the validity of IT is still a debate (as in does someone believe in it or not). Then my statement may be correct or incorrect depending on your own personal view.

As a clarification, my statement implies the none IT model of viewing the ends. Since I am not arguing for IT or an IT interpertation my statements stands, under the IT model then there is another explaination. If it makes you happy I will edit the original post and indicate the IT explaination as another alternative. More than that, I have to disagree with.

IT is not a truth, but an opinion on how to explain the ending. In that light it is as valid as another player's interpertation, but many will have discussions without factoring it into their model (because they don't believe in it).

Modifié par Madecologist, 22 décembre 2012 - 09:46 .

[Rifneno]

Madecologist wrote...

And if IT is wrong? What then? Only the validity of IT can make my statement incorrect. Since the validity of IT is still a debate (as in does someone believe in it or not). Then my statement may be correct or incorrect depending on your own personal view.

As a clarification, my statement implies the none IT model of viewing the ends. Since I am not arguing for IT or an IT interpertation, under the IT model then there is another explaination. If it makes you happy I will edit the original post and indicate the IT explaination as another alternative. More than that, I have to disagree with.

IT is not a truth, but a opinion on how to explain the ending. In that light it is as valid as another player's interpertation.

No wonder you don't understand it.  You can't even understand a simple concept like "it's not about IT, it's about your stupid blanket statement that all paths require believing in the 'catalyst's BS."

[The Heretic of Time]

Bill Casey wrote...

Madecologist wrote...

but you have to atleast believe the choices are real for you to be able to choose any of them (even destroy).

This is incorrect, and shows a poor understanding of the Indoctrination Theory...

Lets keep fanon, especially Wild Mass Guessing out of this thread please.