287 réponses à ce sujet

[Iamjdr]

@ BleedingUranium
I completely agree and even if the IT theory was true ( which i dont personally belive)destroy was the way out so i dont know how 3D keeps trying to claim indoctrination and @3D If destroy doesnt do what the catalyst says it does then why are all the Reapers shown dying?

[Wayning_Star]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Indoctrination means that your goals align with those of the Reapers'. Unless one of the Reapers' goals is to destroy all Reapers, then Destroy can't be indoctrination, this isn't my opinion, that's how it works.

Indoctrination is used to promote and support harvest, that is the reaper perogative/core directive. The catalyst is more complicated in it's motives. Many think it's up to something, and that something is only to end the chaos.

How many Sheps actually KNOW what the chaos really is? 

[Iamjdr]

Destroy doesn't promote the harvest tho so where is the indoctrination?

[3DandBeyond]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Let me put it this way, if we were not forced to use 1914 tactics during Priority Earth, flew the Normandy and several other frigates as close to the Citadel as possible (i.e. used our thanix to take out that destroyer), and were able to take a Geth Prime, Jack, and EDI onto the Citadel with us and had that discussion with starbrat I think it would go something like this:

Jack: Great, just ****g great. Shepard, you can't be seriously thinking about controlling the reapers.

EDI: Jack is right. You will be faced with the same dilemma as the Catalyst currently is faced.

Jack: And the other two? Brainwashing or genocide? Put a bullet in my head and kill me while I'm still me.

Geth Prime: Destroy is not an acceptable solution to us. We did not fight this war only to be thrown away. We fought and sacrificed many to get you here, Shepard Commander.

EDI: If it were only me, I would make that sacrifice, but I cannot sacrifice an entire race. Synthesis would completely rewrite me as well, and that is unacceptable. I have learned so much and do not want to be rewritten.

Geth Prime: We agree. We do not wish to be rewritten either. We are still learning. We will not give up what we have achieved.

Shepard: So what I am hearing from all of you is that none of these choices are acceptable? This is the consensus even though it will likely result in a long terrible war that results in our extinction anyway?

EDI: That is correct. It is like when you made the decision of what to do with the Geth Heretics. If you rewrote the Geth Heretics they would no longer be Geth Heretics, but they would be something else. It is the same as destroying them. And do you trust yourself to be able to maintain control over the reapers and maintain peace between organics and synthetics and preserve organic life at all costs?

Shepard: Hackett, the Crucible is a no go. It doesn't work like we thought it would. We're going to have to fight this out. Normandy pick us up.

Yes, exactly and that's providing you trust the kid in the first place.  So, "hey Hackett.  I met this AI here who controls the reapers.  He wants me to think he's not threatening so he looks like a kid I saw the reapers kill on Earth.  He indoctrinated TIM into thinking Control was possible but it wasn't.  He says the reapers no longer work to solve a problem (we'll talk about that later, since I forgot to tell you what Leviathan told me about it all), but he's still using them.  He says he isn't killing anyone, but some of the races are just disposed of and won't be ascended.  They must taste bad or something.  He has basically done a lot of bad stuff, kept giving us tech that we thought was Prothean.  So, those plans we found for the crucible at the Mars' Prothean ruins.  Well, he won't tell me who created them.  And he says the Citadel is a part of him and his home.  Now, the crucible is supposed to work with this choice console that somehow just exists as a part of that part of him.  I'm truly confused by all this.  Thank God, Jack and EDI and that Geth Prime are all here or I'd think I'm having a bad dream.  They don't buy any of it, but I was starting to.  My head hurt so much because of the twisted crap this kid has been making me listen to.  But, my friends here say it's just so much BS and none of this is believable.  I think I need to have a long talk with Liara because this Prothean weapon is neither."

[BleedingUranium]

Iamjdr wrote...

Destroy doesn't promote the harvest tho so where is the indoctrination?

Indeed. It promotes none of the Reapers goals while also wanting them killed. Do you know what the one and only thing every single indoctrinated person ever had in common? Whatever they wanted involved the Reapers not dying.

[Wayning_Star]

Iamjdr wrote...

@ BleedingUranium
I completely agree and even if the IT theory was true ( which i dont personally belive)destroy was the way out so i dont know how 3D keeps trying to claim indoctrination and @3D If destroy doesnt do what the catalyst says it does then why are all the Reapers shown dying?

3d isn't insisting on indoctrination, as from the catalyst, it's more about just not having enough information (other than from the catalyst, who nobody wishes to trust/give credence.) So it's would seem like self delusion to take the word of the enemy/opponent/prime mover whos intentions are vague and ill explained.

3d isn't all that crazy about 'hunches' imho

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 17 janvier 2013 - 07:02 .

[3DandBeyond]

Iamjdr wrote...

Destroy doesn't promote the harvest tho so where is the indoctrination?

Assume you are actually role playing and not meta-gaming.  You only know what Shepard knows.  And I'm not talking about indoctrination.  Shepard has no idea and no proof of what the crucible and choices will do.  The citadel is used for the harvest-did Shepard know that?  Did anyone?  As far as anyone knew at first it was created by the Protheans and yet, it wasn't.  As far as they knew its purpose was just to be used to signal the reapers the cycle could begin and yet, it wasn't.  As far as anyone knew the relay monument was non-functional, and yet, it was.  These people don't really know anything.  So, now Shepard is expected to make a choice that will decide the fate of the whole galaxy based upon the biggest set of unknowns ever.  Yeah, that should turn out well.

[Wayning_Star]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Iamjdr wrote...

Destroy doesn't promote the harvest tho so where is the indoctrination?

Indeed. It promotes none of the Reapers goals while also wanting them killed. Do you know what the one and only thing every single indoctrinated person ever had in common? Whatever they wanted involved the Reapers not dying.

note: don't forget the Leviathan, they invented indoctrination.

[Wayning_Star]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Iamjdr wrote...

Destroy doesn't promote the harvest tho so where is the indoctrination?

Assume you are actually role playing and not meta-gaming.  You only know what Shepard knows.  And I'm not talking about indoctrination.  Shepard has no idea and no proof of what the crucible and choices will do.  The citadel is used for the harvest-did Shepard know that?  Did anyone?  As far as anyone knew at first it was created by the Protheans and yet, it wasn't.  As far as they knew its purpose was just to be used to signal the reapers the cycle could begin and yet, it wasn't.  As far as anyone knew the relay monument was non-functional, and yet, it was.  These people don't really know anything.  So, now Shepard is expected to make a choice that will decide the fate of the whole galaxy based upon the biggest set of unknowns ever.  Yeah, that should turn out well.

can't know everything 3d.

(well, I can..but...

[BleedingUranium]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Iamjdr wrote...

@ BleedingUranium
I completely agree and even if the IT theory was true ( which i dont personally belive)destroy was the way out so i dont know how 3D keeps trying to claim indoctrination and @3D If destroy doesnt do what the catalyst says it does then why are all the Reapers shown dying?

3d isn't insisting on indoctrination, as from the catalyst, it's more about just not having enough information (other than from the catalyst, who nobody wishes to trust/give credence.) So it's would seem like self delusion to take the word of the enemy/opponent/prime mover whos intentions are vague and ill explained.

3d isn't all that crazy about 'hunches' imho

I certainly respect that view, but that only works before you make your choice.

[Meltemph]

but many argue from hindsight, there is no forsight but lore and codex entries. From those the genisis option seems to fit the criteria of the technologically advanced/trapped MEU. They made the bed, now mostly approve of sleeping there.

That is oversimplifying the question though, as I'm sure you understand. Those slides after the ending are just that, and in no way give any real context of the eventuality of the situation.  In fact all the ending EC slides dont in anyway give you a broad view of the setting after the choices.  What we are shown is essentially only things related to our journey to the end of ME3.

I think the better way to put what you said is: As it stands, I am willing to lay in the bed I created, I also believe this bed will stay comfortable.

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 janvier 2013 - 07:10 .

[3DandBeyond]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Iamjdr wrote...

Destroy doesn't promote the harvest tho so where is the indoctrination?

Indeed. It promotes none of the Reapers goals while also wanting them killed. Do you know what the one and only thing every single indoctrinated person ever had in common? Whatever they wanted involved the Reapers not dying.

I don't even care about indoctrination and was never even talking about that.  I'm talking about what a rational fully aware and wide awake person would think if confronted by all of this, and destroy is just as invalid a choice as the rest, absent proof.  You could do more harm than good and that is what Shepard would know.  Everything the kid and reapers have done has been to harvest.  In fact, it's you guys that believe what the kid says, but when confronted with his contradictions (deceptions), you point at me and say that's only true if I believe the kid.  I don't.  Playing this as an RPG, it goes against all that Shepard in my game is shown and knows, to believe this kid and decide to make a choice.  If there was proof in the game that destroy would destroy the reapers, the debate might be different, but would still require committing a heinous act that one should not be force into as a way to win a war in a game.  And furthermore, it's not about what I would do, but about what a reasonable and rational person (the Shepard I played) would do under those circumstances, and all that she did do.

[3DandBeyond]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Iamjdr wrote...

@ BleedingUranium
I completely agree and even if the IT theory was true ( which i dont personally belive)destroy was the way out so i dont know how 3D keeps trying to claim indoctrination and @3D If destroy doesnt do what the catalyst says it does then why are all the Reapers shown dying?

3d isn't insisting on indoctrination, as from the catalyst, it's more about just not having enough information (other than from the catalyst, who nobody wishes to trust/give credence.) So it's would seem like self delusion to take the word of the enemy/opponent/prime mover whos intentions are vague and ill explained.

3d isn't all that crazy about 'hunches' imho

I certainly respect that view, but that only works before you make your choice.

That's what role playing is.  The Shepard I played would never see the things you are meta-gaming.

[BleedingUranium]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Iamjdr wrote...

Destroy doesn't promote the harvest tho so where is the indoctrination?

Assume you are actually role playing and not meta-gaming.  You only know what Shepard knows.  And I'm not talking about indoctrination.  Shepard has no idea and no proof of what the crucible and choices will do.  The citadel is used for the harvest-did Shepard know that?  Did anyone?  As far as anyone knew at first it was created by the Protheans and yet, it wasn't.  As far as they knew its purpose was just to be used to signal the reapers the cycle could begin and yet, it wasn't.  As far as anyone knew the relay monument was non-functional, and yet, it was.  These people don't really know anything.  So, now Shepard is expected to make a choice that will decide the fate of the whole galaxy based upon the biggest set of unknowns ever.  Yeah, that should turn out well.

I understand the risk, but I entered that room with the intention of destroying the Reapers, and only one choice makes that happen. To you the risk is too great, to me anything that isn't destroying them is too risky.

[Meltemph]

I'm talking about what a rational fully aware and wide awake person would think if confronted by all of this, and destroy is just as invalid a choice as the rest

I'm not sure how you could come to this conclusion. Regardless of whether you have to have faith in the catalyst or not does not take away from the fact that the most rational choice to make, based on previous knowledge would be to pick destroy. Any other choice is far removed from rational, and becomes a choice of emotion. When your view and context of a situation is constrained, even more so then normal, the rational choice would be the one where the understanding of a perceived consequence is fully understood(or more understood then other options).

What you are advocating is that there is no such thing as a more rational choice when faced with degree's of ambiguity.

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 janvier 2013 - 07:16 .

[Wayning_Star]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Iamjdr wrote...

@ BleedingUranium
I completely agree and even if the IT theory was true ( which i dont personally belive)destroy was the way out so i dont know how 3D keeps trying to claim indoctrination and @3D If destroy doesnt do what the catalyst says it does then why are all the Reapers shown dying?

3d isn't insisting on indoctrination, as from the catalyst, it's more about just not having enough information (other than from the catalyst, who nobody wishes to trust/give credence.) So it's would seem like self delusion to take the word of the enemy/opponent/prime mover whos intentions are vague and ill explained.

3d isn't all that crazy about 'hunches' imho

I certainly respect that view, but that only works before you make your choice.

I just stuck what little facts in at bucket, stared at'em a while, considered Geth, Edi and the whole mess created by the Leviathan selfishness. Decided the ONLY way to taper their Apex were to jump into the mean green beam. They'll end up dominating cause that is just what they do. ( I knew, or headcanoned, that their was another race still around that was pulling strings behind the curtains, The Levi DLC sinched that suspicion.)

It's the least I could do and the most potent choice of all. Wether it's canon or not.. doesn't matter.

look't the bright side, nobody will have to plug in their Christmas Trees anymore..

[Iamjdr]

So now I need to meta to know that if Shep is given the chance to take out there reapers definitively he would take it? He killed 300000 bartarians just to.slow them down but he won't kill the Geth cause now they are "alive" I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense to me.

[3DandBeyond]

Meltemph wrote...

but many argue from hindsight, there is no forsight but lore and codex entries. From those the genisis option seems to fit the criteria of the technologically advanced/trapped MEU. They made the bed, now mostly approve of sleeping there.

That is oversimplifying the question though, as I'm sure you understand. Those slides after the ending are just that, and in no way give any real context of the eventuality of the situation.  In fact all the ending EC slides dont in anyway give you a broad view of the setting after the choices.  What we are shown is essentially only things related to our journey to the end of ME3.

I think the better way to put what you said is: As it stands, I am willing to lay in the bed I created, I also believe this bed will stay comfortable.

Yes, this is another issue.  The slides do not show true and real consequences.  They gloss over the reality in order to "fix" the negative impressions people were left with after the original endings.  BW hit us over the head in saying that exploded/destroyed relays would lay waste to the galaxy and then seemed to want us to believe the Normandy crash was some Garden of Eden scene and the Shepard gasp was some glimmer of hope.  But how could that be if the galaxy was dead and gone, or would be?  Yet, BW said it would be a wasteland, destroyed, ruined, a dark ages, a mess.  It was ridiculous.  Then the EC was released and BW denied they ever meant the galaxy was destroyed (but they had said it would be).  The slides are to make people feel happy and let them know, the Krogans have babies (if you cured), green eyes are happy eyes and everyone might become immortal (breed, damn you, breed), and Shreaper will take care of everyone.  Super silly unreal events and no real consequences.

[Wayning_Star]

Meltemph wrote...

I'm talking about what a rational fully aware and wide awake person would think if confronted by all of this, and destroy is just as invalid a choice as the rest

I'm not sure how you could come to this conclusion. Regardless of whether you have to have faith in the catalyst or not does not take away from the fact that the most rational choice to make, based on previous knowledge would be to pick destroy. Any other choice is far removed from rational, and becomes a choice of emotion. When your view and context of a situation is constrained, even more so then normal, the rational choice would be the one where the understanding of a perceived consequence is fully understood(or more understood then other options).

What you are advocating is that there is no such thing as a more rational choice when faced with degree's of ambiguity.

ignoring chaos is a dangerous precident.. Look where it got the Leviathan..

[Eterna]

At the end of the day, all the people saying EDI would be okay with Destroy are people who are placing their personal bias on the character to make themselves feel better about their choice.

[Meltemph]

ignoring chaos is a dangerous precident.. Look where it got the Leviathan..

Hmm? Chaos is what it is, there is no such thing as avoiding it. To assume the ability to predict is to assume the abilities of a god or God. None of the endings took care of the fundamental idea of chaos, they only chose to change what that chaos entails. You effectively created a new galaxy with out taking care of a supposed problem(chaos).

[Wayning_Star]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

but many argue from hindsight, there is no forsight but lore and codex entries. From those the genisis option seems to fit the criteria of the technologically advanced/trapped MEU. They made the bed, now mostly approve of sleeping there.

That is oversimplifying the question though, as I'm sure you understand. Those slides after the ending are just that, and in no way give any real context of the eventuality of the situation.  In fact all the ending EC slides dont in anyway give you a broad view of the setting after the choices.  What we are shown is essentially only things related to our journey to the end of ME3.

I think the better way to put what you said is: As it stands, I am willing to lay in the bed I created, I also believe this bed will stay comfortable.

Yes, this is another issue.  The slides do not show true and real consequences.  They gloss over the reality in order to "fix" the negative impressions people were left with after the original endings.  BW hit us over the head in saying that exploded/destroyed relays would lay waste to the galaxy and then seemed to want us to believe the Normandy crash was some Garden of Eden scene and the Shepard gasp was some glimmer of hope.  But how could that be if the galaxy was dead and gone, or would be?  Yet, BW said it would be a wasteland, destroyed, ruined, a dark ages, a mess.  It was ridiculous.  Then the EC was released and BW denied they ever meant the galaxy was destroyed (but they had said it would be).  The slides are to make people feel happy and let them know, the Krogans have babies (if you cured), green eyes are happy eyes and everyone might become immortal (breed, damn you, breed), and Shreaper will take care of everyone.  Super silly unreal events and no real consequences.

my impression of destroy is that it MUST destroy all technology in the MEU, its the only way to end the chaos.

Many seek to ingnore chaos as some transient techno singularity. But organics created technology to upend nature to have a better chance at survival, a force of pressure induced by evolution. In the MEU, that pressure invoked synthetic life to compete. Following the scripts of evolution and the struggle against nature to survive.

That is 'the chaos'.

[Meltemph]

Eterna5 wrote...

At the end of the day, all the people saying EDI would be okay with Destroy are people who are placing their personal bias on the character to make themselves feel better about their choice.

And?  For some people who get attached to that character, but have issues picking an unknown it is a normal reaction.  Just becuase you or I or anyone else dont need to reationalize the feelings of an individual to make the proper choice is a pointless assertion when given the choices available.  People are coping with their choice in the way they know how.  Just because not everyone understand why they made a rational choice over one of preference doesnt make them wrong or bad for doing it.

[Wayning_Star]

Iamjdr wrote...

So now I need to meta to know that if Shep is given the chance to take out there reapers definitively he would take it? He killed 300000 bartarians just to.slow them down but he won't kill the Geth cause now they are "alive" I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense to me.

but shep didn't have four choices then, did he/she?

[3DandBeyond]

Iamjdr wrote...

So now I need to meta to know that if Shep is given the chance to take out there reapers definitively he would take it? He killed 300000 bartarians just to.slow them down but he won't kill the Geth cause now they are "alive" I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense to me.

The Arrival, as I've said and others would agree is one of the, if not the worst piece of DLC created for the games (Pinnacle Station might win out though).  It was created by one of the writers that gave you the ME3 original endings and the one who said the galaxy would be a wasteland after ME3's endings.  He wanted the galaxy to be destroyed.  I hate that DLC, the Arrival.  But, at least in it (as I also said) Shepard can attempt to warn the Batarians.  In Destroy, Shepard, who just talked to Hackett, doesn't consult or warn anyone or even try to.

And, yes you'd have to meta-game to have proof of what Destroy does.  You have no idea what it will do beforehand-there's no proof at all, unless you can point out some proof.  I'd also like you to review just what the kid says it will do and then explain what it all means specifically.  There will be losses but no more than have already occurred-explain it.  And then, if you believe Destroy is real and will destroy the reapers, do you believe the kid when he says his solution will no longer work?  That means the reapers won't work.  If you believe that is true, then why is he still using something that does  not solve his problem?  Why wouldn't Shepard ask him? 

And again, you think it makes sense for him to kill organics to keep synthetics from killing them, but you don't think he might want to kill synthetics to keep them from killing organics.  If he is being truthful, the all the choices do serve his purpose.  They keep synthetics from killing organics.  That is his goal. 

So it's just wonderful.  A story that could have included a vast variety of synthetics that ran the gamut from arrogant to indifferent, beneficial to "evil" was turned into killer robots from outer space.