Seival wrote...
darkiddd wrote...
The Night Mammoth wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
No one is losing their freedon in control.
Until they do something the Shepalyst doesn't want them to.
Exactly. And sooner or later it will happen.
How can someone loose something he never had? Freedom does not exist. It's just a beautiful word that politicians use to control the crowd.
Modifié par Han Shot First, 06 janvier 2013 - 06:36 .
He's speak philosophicaly. We don't even know we truely have free will.fiendishchicken wrote...
Seival wrote...
darkiddd wrote...
The Night Mammoth wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
No one is losing their freedon in control.
Until they do something the Shepalyst doesn't want them to.
Exactly. And sooner or later it will happen.
How can someone loose something he never had? Freedom does not exist. It's just a beautiful word that politicians use to control the crowd.
OK are you some Soviet holdover or something?
Modifié par dreman9999, 06 janvier 2013 - 06:42 .
clennon8 wrote...
Yes, because of the Shadow Broker thing, basically. Particularly if she's "hardened" or whatever.
Han Shot First wrote...
Destroy:
Liara
Garrus
Ashley
Kaidan
Wrex
Tali
Mordin
Thane
Samara
Jacob
Grunt
Javik
Vega
Zaeed
Kasumi
Control:
Miranda
Legion
Synthesis:
EDI
I see the fact she was harden is proof enough she would pick destroy.Dr_Extrem wrote...
clennon8 wrote...
Yes, because of the Shadow Broker thing, basically. Particularly if she's "hardened" or whatever.
well .. there is a difference between using the brokers network to help shepard stop the reapers and controling the archenemy.
liara saw first hand what the reapers did to her homeworld - she was crushed and broken. she wanted to make the reapers pay. she was angry and vengeful.
she would shoot the tube.,
Ahh are you one of those people that think the "Catalyst let you win" ?Ticonderoga117 wrote...
Mcfly616 wrote...
Shepard had to make the choice. He was the only one that could've.
Because....? Shepard wouldn't have made it if the Catalyst didn't bring him up.
HiddenInWar wrote...
Han Shot First wrote...
Destroy:
Liara
Garrus
Ashley
Kaidan
Wrex
Tali
Mordin
Thane
Samara
Jacob
Grunt
Javik
Vega
Zaeed
Kasumi
Control:
Miranda
Legion
Synthesis:
EDI
Basically this, except Miranda would be for destroy I think.
Modifié par Han Shot First, 06 janvier 2013 - 06:46 .
dreman9999 wrote...
He's speak phyisopical. We don't even know we truely have free will.
Mcfly616 wrote...
Ahh are you one of those people that think the "Catalyst let you win" ?
Well, Shepard is the only reason the Crucible was able to dock. Only when the Crucible is docked does the Catalyst know that its solution won't work anymore.
TIM was under the Reapers/Catalysts control. It made sure that no one was left but Shepard. Shepard is the avatar of our cycle. He carries the hopes of everybody in the galaxy. He represents us. The Catalyst represents them (the Reapers)
If you don't understand the symbolism of Shepard or the ending, then there's really no point in me going any further....
fiendishchicken wrote...
Kaidan: Destroy, possibly Refuse
Ashley: Destroy
Garrus: Destroy
Wrex: Destroy
Tali: Destroy
Liara: Destroy
Jacob: Destroy
Miranda: Early ME2 Control, Late ME2 - ME3 Destroy
Mordin: Early ME2 Control, Late ME2 - ME3 Destroy
Jack: Destroy
Grunt: Destroy
Samara: Destroy
Thane: Destroy
Morinth: Control
Legion: This one is hard. The only one he wouldn't pick is Control.
Zaeed: Destroy
Kasumi: Synthesis (since it gets her beloved Keiji back. That seems to be all she lives for.)
James: Destroy
EDI: Destroy, possibly Synthesis
Javik: Destroy
Han Shot First wrote...
I'm on the fence about Miranda, and you may be right that she'd choose Destroy as well.
Does anyone remember how she reacts if she is brought along on a ME2 playthrough where Shepard decides to keep the Collector Base? If she voices disapproval there, I'd move her to Destroy.
I also forgot Morinth, who I'm certain would choose Control.
I well updated my post.fiendishchicken wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
He's speak phyisopical. We don't even know we truely have free will.
What the hell is phyisopical?
Philosophical? Yeah, I know 100% grade-A I have free will. Not because some politician or birthright or whatever tells me.
Because I tell me.
Modifié par dreman9999, 06 janvier 2013 - 06:51 .
Ticonderoga117 wrote...
Han Shot First wrote...
I'm on the fence about Miranda, and you may be right that she'd choose Destroy as well.
Does anyone remember how she reacts if she is brought along on a ME2 playthrough where Shepard decides to keep the Collector Base? If she voices disapproval there, I'd move her to Destroy.
I also forgot Morinth, who I'm certain would choose Control.
Did it once with Miranda. Quite sure when TIM was all "Don't destroy the base Shepard, we need it!" she cut him off by shutting off the comm channel. If that's not an endorsement I don't know what is.
Modifié par Han Shot First, 06 janvier 2013 - 06:54 .
Han Shot First wrote...
Liara would be firmly in the Destroy camp.
For those who think she'd choose Control, what scene in the series leads you to believe that Liara would choose to become some sort of Reaper A.I. that rules over the Reapers?
Modifié par HYR 2.0, 06 janvier 2013 - 06:54 .
HYR 2.0 wrote...
Han Shot First wrote...
Liara would be firmly in the Destroy camp.
For those who think she'd choose Control, what scene in the series leads you to believe that Liara would choose to become some sort of Reaper A.I. that rules over the Reapers?
1.) Using the SB's resources for a "good" purpose rather than just crashing it like Shepard can suggest to her.
2.) Her belief all sentient races have the right to self-determinate, referring specifically to geth, in an intercom-chat with Tali.
Nobody doesn't think the Reapers creation is horrific, but horror is hardly something to base decisions off of. Maelon's data?
Modifié par Han Shot First, 06 janvier 2013 - 07:01 .
dreman9999 wrote...
I well updated my post.
Added, the question comes with the issue of the nature of the human body. Much of it is dictated by insicts and chemical reactions. We have no true control over these chemical reactions. You can say you have free will till you get drunk and lose self control. Or have other outside simuli get uncontrolible reaction from you. The issueis not do we have self determisum but how much self control we have of our reactions. Much of what we feel is chemical based. If that right part of the mind is cut out, that would drasicly change.
Anderson was unable to break the hold over him. And if you played through the first 2 games and only realized there was something special/symbolic about Shepard at the end of ME3, than you must've not been paying attention.Ticonderoga117 wrote...
Mcfly616 wrote...
Ahh are you one of those people that think the "Catalyst let you win" ?
Well, Shepard is the only reason the Crucible was able to dock. Only when the Crucible is docked does the Catalyst know that its solution won't work anymore.
TIM was under the Reapers/Catalysts control. It made sure that no one was left but Shepard. Shepard is the avatar of our cycle. He carries the hopes of everybody in the galaxy. He represents us. The Catalyst represents them (the Reapers)
If you don't understand the symbolism of Shepard or the ending, then there's really no point in me going any further....
Considering Anderson had a good lead on us anyway, why not him? Oh... symbolism is the reason eh? Well when you force symbolism to be the driving force behind things instead of common sense or logic, then you have issues.
HYR 2.0 wrote...
2.) Her belief all sentient races have the right to self-determinate, referring specifically to geth, in an intercom-chat with Tali.
Nobody doesn't think the Reapers creation is horrific, but horror is hardly something to base decisions off of. Maelon's data?
Modifié par fiendishchicken, 06 janvier 2013 - 07:09 .
fiendishchicken wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
I well updated my post.
Added, the question comes with the issue of the nature of the human body. Much of it is dictated by insicts and chemical reactions. We have no true control over these chemical reactions. You can say you have free will till you get drunk and lose self control. Or have other outside simuli get uncontrolible reaction from you. The issueis not do we have self determisum but how much self control we have of our reactions. Much of what we feel is chemical based. If that right part of the mind is cut out, that would drasicly change.
You miss the point entirely. You jumped from philosophical freedom to physiological mechanisms. The two are not the same at all. They're not even related. Your argument is invalid.
I call bogus on all that anyway. You're always in control. Not physical perhaps (though I don't mind not having to remember to breath or make my heart beat). But you have absolute choice in how you choose to react to anything external. You get drunk, that's all on you. You chose to drink alcohol. For other outside stimuli, you still have control over your actions. I may not be able to control my emotions and feelings about something, but I am in full control over how I choose to react to it externally. That won't fly any other way.
Mcfly616 wrote...
Anderson was unable to break the hold over him. And if you played through the first 2 games and only realized there was something special/symbolic about Shepard at the end of ME3, than you must've not been paying attention.Ticonderoga117 wrote...
Mcfly616 wrote...
Ahh are you one of those people that think the "Catalyst let you win" ?
Well, Shepard is the only reason the Crucible was able to dock. Only when the Crucible is docked does the Catalyst know that its solution won't work anymore.
TIM was under the Reapers/Catalysts control. It made sure that no one was left but Shepard. Shepard is the avatar of our cycle. He carries the hopes of everybody in the galaxy. He represents us. The Catalyst represents them (the Reapers)
If you don't understand the symbolism of Shepard or the ending, then there's really no point in me going any further....
Considering Anderson had a good lead on us anyway, why not him? Oh... symbolism is the reason eh? Well when you force symbolism to be the driving force behind things instead of common sense or logic, then you have issues.
But the two are not indepedent. They both react to one another. Which is the point. the fact that they can manipulate one another means one can use it as a question ofthe realiies of free will.fiendishchicken wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
I well updated my post.
Added, the question comes with the issue of the nature of the human body. Much of it is dictated by insicts and chemical reactions. We have no true control over these chemical reactions. You can say you have free will till you get drunk and lose self control. Or have other outside simuli get uncontrolible reaction from you. The issueis not do we have self determisum but how much self control we have of our reactions. Much of what we feel is chemical based. If that right part of the mind is cut out, that would drasicly change.
You miss the point entirely. You jumped from philosophical freedom to physiological mechanisms. The two are not the same at all. They're not even related. Your argument is invalid.
I call bogus on all that anyway. You're always in control. Not physical perhaps (though I don't mind not having to remember to breath or make my heart beat). But you have absolute choice in how you choose to react to anything external. You get drunk, that's all on you. You chose to drink alcohol. For other outside stimuli, you still have control over your actions. I may not be able to control my emotions and feelings about something, but I am in full control over how I choose to react to it externally. That won't fly any other way.
That's still based on state of mind. How a person can react still is effected by state of mind.darkiddd wrote...
fiendishchicken wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
I well updated my post.
Added, the question comes with the issue of the nature of the human body. Much of it is dictated by insicts and chemical reactions. We have no true control over these chemical reactions. You can say you have free will till you get drunk and lose self control. Or have other outside simuli get uncontrolible reaction from you. The issueis not do we have self determisum but how much self control we have of our reactions. Much of what we feel is chemical based. If that right part of the mind is cut out, that would drasicly change.
You miss the point entirely. You jumped from philosophical freedom to physiological mechanisms. The two are not the same at all. They're not even related. Your argument is invalid.
I call bogus on all that anyway. You're always in control. Not physical perhaps (though I don't mind not having to remember to breath or make my heart beat). But you have absolute choice in how you choose to react to anything external. You get drunk, that's all on you. You chose to drink alcohol. For other outside stimuli, you still have control over your actions. I may not be able to control my emotions and feelings about something, but I am in full control over how I choose to react to it externally. That won't fly any other way.
This. Freedom doesn't even have be exteriorized. Freedom is choosing how to react to the circumstances even if you are trapped or phisically immovilized .
Retour en haut