1258 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

That's a weakness of EC. Just because people are graetful to"the Shepard" for comitting a given war crime, down't make said war crime okay.

Although no one besides Shepard would have known about what went on on the Citadel. To them, Shepard stopped the Reapers.

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That's a weakness of EC. Just because people are graetful to"the Shepard" for comitting a given war crime, down't make said war crime okay.

Although no one besides Shepard would have known about what went on on the Citadel. To them, Shepard stopped the Reapers.

The player knows, though.  And all the choices leave me, at least, cold. I don't care how happy Hackett or EDI sound.

[Allan Schumacher]

Fair, but given the context, how the characters in the game are reacting is somewhat irrelevant.

What I find interesting about the destroy ending is the discussion that ensues.

I don't consider any of the endings to be dark (particularly after the EC), nor do I consider the crucible's blast being indiscriminate towards EDI and the Geth a war crime either. I think this divide is what complicates any sort of motivation for additional variations on the ending. You certainly don't feel the same as me, and it's certainly not that your perspective is any more right or wrong than mine.

I'm curious if there could be another ending option that is still somewhat on par with the existing ones in terms of benefit/consequences that would satiate those that feel the options that are present in the current EC are not satisfactory.

I'm also curious how destroy would be received if the knowledge of all synthetics being affected was not presented to Shepard (and hence, couldn't affect Shepard's thought process).

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 28 janvier 2013 - 04:24 .

[AB Souldier]

iakus wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

My answer would be a cutscene for each ending: Destroy lives/dies, Control, and Synthesis.

The Destroy decision is a dialogue wheel with the Catalyst. When the Catalyst mentions that you are part synthetic, he follows that up with this question: Are you willing to die merely to ensure our destruction?You have two options, you can either say that you have no problem sacrificing yourself to protect what's important (insert defiant line) or that you have people waiting for you and can't afford to die (still choosing Destroy mind you. this is more a Firefly "that ain't plan A" type of thing). That dialogue choice determines the nature of your memorial scene, along with either a Reunion scene or a DA Origins funeral scene. Combine all this with swapping the geth/edi for the relays as I described and you have what has GOT to be happy enough for people to finally be satisfied.

What you describe would satisfy me, I give you that.

This will satisfy me as well.

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Fair, but given the context, how the characters in the game are reacting is somewhat irrelevant.

What I find interesting about the destroy ending is the discussion that ensues.

I don't consider any of the endings to be dark (particularly after the EC), nor do I consider the crucible's blast being indiscriminate towards EDI and the Geth a war crime either. I think this divide is what complicates any sort of motivation for additional variations on the ending. You certainly don't feel the same as me, and it's certainly not that your perspective is any more right or wrong than mine.

I'm curious if there could be another ending option that is still somewhat on par with the existing ones in terms of benefit/consequences that would satiate those that feel the options that are present in the current EC are not satisfactory.

I'm also curious how destroy would be received if the knowledge of all synthetics being affected was not presented to Shepard (and hence, couldn't affect Shepard's thought process).

CronoDragon put forth a scenerio that would work for me:  spare the syntheticsw and the relays are far ore badly damaged.  I can more readily imagine the galaxy climbing out of a galactic dark age than I can  coutenence SHepard beging a bigger murderer than Saren .  Others may not feel the same way though.

Another scernio I could have found acceptable would have been if the synthetics were made aware of this choice and proved amenable to the sacrifice.  The big difference (besides scope) between the Destroy ending and the fates of characters like Thane, Legion, Mordin, and even some secondary (not to mention preventable) deaths like Samara and Grunt is they sacrificed themselves willingly.  They walked into a situation knowing they were almost certainly not coming back.  It was their choice to do so.  Shepard choosing Destroy denies them that choice.  Sure deaths happen in battle, but that is an abstract.  This was a specific situation that would kill them, and they are unaware of  what is taking place.

[hiraeth]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm also curious how destroy would be received if the knowledge of all synthetics being affected was not presented to Shepard (and hence, couldn't affect Shepard's thought process).

Well, probably more people would have chosen destroy. Shepard/we can only make a choice based on the choices and information presented to us, so destroy would have seemed to be more of a true "destroy" (where reapers are destroyed with no additional collateral). This probably would have been easier to pull off in the original ending, but with the EC, it might have become clearer that synthetics were affected, which I think would have angered a lot of players (i.e, they'd feel cheated that they weren't given the full information when it came time to make the choice). If the player never finds out, well then what's the point? 

[CosmicGnosis]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Fair, but given the context, how the characters in the game are reacting is somewhat irrelevant.

What I find interesting about the destroy ending is the discussion that ensues.

I don't consider any of the endings to be dark (particularly after the EC), nor do I consider the crucible's blast being indiscriminate towards EDI and the Geth a war crime either. I think this divide is what complicates any sort of motivation for additional variations on the ending. You certainly don't feel the same as me, and it's certainly not that your perspective is any more right or wrong than mine.

I'm curious if there could be another ending option that is still somewhat on par with the existing ones in terms of benefit/consequences that would satiate those that feel the options that are present in the current EC are not satisfactory.

I'm also curious how destroy would be received if the knowledge of all synthetics being affected was not presented to Shepard (and hence, couldn't affect Shepard's thought process).

There is a cynicism surrounding every ending. Synthetics are hostages of the Crucible's Destroy function. If you choose Destroy, then you obliterate an entire domain of life in favor of preserving organics. It should be noted that most organics in the galaxy fear synthetics. Choosing Destroy does nothing to challenge their prejudice.

The Control ending remings me too much of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, in which he argued that societies need a strong monarch to guide them.

Synthesis invalidates the character arcs of EDI and Legion. It suggests that they were not really alive until Synthesis was achieved. It also violates people's freedom to choose what happens to their bodies. Just like the Catalyst's harvest cycle, Synthesis disregards the perspectives and opinions of individuals.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 28 janvier 2013 - 04:52 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Fair, but given the context, how the characters in the game are reacting is somewhat irrelevant.

What I find interesting about the destroy ending is the discussion that ensues.

I don't consider any of the endings to be dark (particularly after the EC), nor do I consider the crucible's blast being indiscriminate towards EDI and the Geth a war crime either. I think this divide is what complicates any sort of motivation for additional variations on the ending. You certainly don't feel the same as me, and it's certainly not that your perspective is any more right or wrong than mine.

I'm curious if there could be another ending option that is still somewhat on par with the existing ones in terms of benefit/consequences that would satiate those that feel the options that are present in the current EC are not satisfactory.

I'm also curious how destroy would be received if the knowledge of all synthetics being affected was not presented to Shepard (and hence, couldn't affect Shepard's thought process).

I'll qualify this - on my first play, I sided with the Quarians because the Quarians were presented wearing suits in the Geth Collective -- they should not have been wearing suits, and I didn't buy GethVI's argument. No peace possible, so bye bye Geth.

Otherwise....

* It's not just the Geth and EDI. There's an entire race that uploaded themselves into a virtual reality that get destroyed as well. "the Crucible will not discriminate. Get rid of this and we've got a deal.

I don't even go for the "make the relays more damaged" bit. Heck, they're damaged enough. It's going to take centuries to fix all of them. It's not like we've got heavy equipment to do that kind of job. People seem to think they'll be back on line in 10 years. Did anyone actually look at the Charon relay when the fleet came back into the system? The Alliance wasn't even able to get 9 Frigates built that it lost in the Battle of the Citadel in 3 years!!! Worlds are without infrastructure now, too. Look at the mess the reapers made. The Citadel is the least of the problems.

The other endings? No. Way. In. Hell. 1) I found the other two endings pro-reaper endings. I found the writers did a job of indoctrinating the player to choose one of those; and 2) I do not sacrifice my character in games.

(And there is the problem of Shepard. Where is Shepard? Alive? Where? Any atmosphere on the arms is gone! Did she get beamed back to earth? All I have are questions.)

[thefallen2far]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm curious if there could be another ending option that is still somewhat on par with the existing ones in terms of benefit/consequences that would satiate those that feel the options that are present in the current EC are not satisfactory.

Maybe the issue is the percepetion of what is considered "benefit/consequence".   I didn't see "benefit" in anything that happened in the ending. The Reapers weren't justified or sympathetic.  They were monsters.  They were a beheamoth giant killer robots that were as close to evil as can be defined.  Every plot was to depict them as being more pervasive and unrepenatant.

The only option in which actually resulted in the insane giant killer concentration camp creating, torturing, melting civilization circular logic crazy robots being destroyed was to choose to sacrifice a new form of self awared consiousness that were willing to fight with you.  It's kinda like seeing a story of a terrorist group with hostages and the options you have are you can kill the hostages and the terrorists with the hostages, you can take away all religion so there are no longer terrorists and giving up your lie to take control of the terrorists to order bombings responstibly hoping it'll never backfire.  And then when you see the option of not making any of those choices, you have the opinion of not choosing any of these optins and the terrorists will kill everyone and in future generations terrorism will end. 

I can see there's a warped percieved nobility in the attempt at justifying them, but it fails to make them justified or sympathetic with its' logic, if anything, they come across as more crazy and more desrving of being destroyed.

Yes there are benefits of controlling the terrorist cells, destroying the terrorists sacrificing the hostages or getting rid of all religion as solutiong for trying to stopping terrorists, but the unspeakable acts you do are distractions because 1 it doesn't feel like it's worth it and 2because letting the terrrorists get away with horrible acts and acknowledging it as being unstoppable despite what you want is.... simply a bad story. 

Personally, I saw it as success/failure. And in the end.... Shepard's a failure.  And that's why the ending's unsatisfactory.  It was an action game with the ending that tries to be solemn and deep but  just sucks the life out of you saying that nihilism is the only acceptable perception of reality. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

nvm.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 28 janvier 2013 - 05:50 .

[AlanC9]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
I'm curious if there could be another ending option that is still somewhat on par with the existing ones in terms of benefit/consequences that would satiate those that feel the options that are present in the current EC are not satisfactory.

One idea I saw kicking around was Shepard using the Crucible to detonate the Citadel relay, like in Arrival. The Citadel fleets are FTLing out and are safe, but the bulk of the Reaper forces are too close to react and are annihilated. This cuts Reaper numbers down to the point where a conventional war is winnable. (OK, we have to do a handwave about the Reapers not using hit-and-run tactics to destroy the galaxy even if they're outnumbered, but since so many players here delude themselves into thinking that these tactics would work against the Reapers, I think  Bio could get away with this ) . Or the Reapers aren't all annihilated and retreat into the unknown parts of he galaxy to plot revenge.

The downsides are that Shepard, the ME2 squadmates, Earth, and something like 90% of the human race are incinerated. Whether the relays work without the Citadel.... beats me. Effectively,it's Destroy without total genocide of a particular race. Total casualties probably end up higher depending on how you count geth.

I'm not qualified to say whether this option would be satisfactory to the folks who have a problem since I don't have a problem with the existing endings, but I thought it was an interesting concept.

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 janvier 2013 - 06:16 .

[DeinonSlayer]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Fair, but given the context, how the characters in the game are reacting is somewhat irrelevant.

What I find interesting about the destroy ending is the discussion that ensues.

I don't consider any of the endings to be dark (particularly after the EC), nor do I consider the crucible's blast being indiscriminate towards EDI and the Geth a war crime either. I think this divide is what complicates any sort of motivation for additional variations on the ending. You certainly don't feel the same as me, and it's certainly not that your perspective is any more right or wrong than mine.

I'm curious if there could be another ending option that is still somewhat on par with the existing ones in terms of benefit/consequences that would satiate those that feel the options that are present in the current EC are not satisfactory.

I'm also curious how destroy would be received if the knowledge of all synthetics being affected was not presented to Shepard (and hence, couldn't affect Shepard's thought process).

I think Destroy is highly comparable to the decision at the end of ME1's Bring Down The Sky. Shepard can either allow the escape of a terrorist who tried to kill millions, or stop him, and sacrifice three hostages in the process. I think the latter is a fair trade.

With Destroy, it's EDI and (maybe) the Geth taking the role of the hostages, and the Reapers are Balak. Exact same situation, higher stakes. I give no credence to Starkid's assertion that conflict is inevitable. As I stated in this thread, whatever the outcome was on Rannoch, it will influence galactic society's perception of synthetics going forward.

• If the Quarians won, Shepard can cite it as proof that synthetic victory isn't inevitable if we help each other when the problem arises. Three centuries earlier, the Council sat back and watched their entire population get slaughtered without intervening. Had they helped, the Geth would have been stopped before that happened. Both in the modern cycle and in the Prothean cycle, the organics were about to win until the Reapers intervened.
• If the Geth won, it will serve as a very stark example going forward - even if the Geth die in Destroy. The galaxy will see that we can't beat the synthetics, so we have to learn to coexist with them. I predict an amendment to the Council's categorical ban on artificial intelligence.
• If peace is made, it stands out as proof that conflict is not inevitable, and will not inevitably lead to the organic extinction the Catalyst warns of.

What was missing from the Extended Cut was an opportunity, as Shepard, to challenge the Catalyst's assertion. I described how this could have been done in the linked thread. In my personal opinion, Destroy is best (EDI is a tragic casualty of war, but, frankly, in light of their actions, I think the Geth have it coming - peace is a mercy). Control fits for playthroughs where the Geth survive Rannoch (two out of four for me - I sided with the Quarians in both "Geth VI" playthroughs).

Synthesis...

Really, I'm OK with a lot of it, post-EC. Post-Destroy relay reconstruction, Normandy return, Shepard's survival, I've worked it out in my head to a place where I'm comfortable with it. If I could change two things in the extended cut, it'd be this:

• Give Shepard the opportunity to directly challenge the Catalyst's assertion about inevitable synthetic-organic conflict. As it is, Shepard can either agree with glowboy's premise via autodialogue ("There must be another way!" needs to be split into a dialogue option letting Shepard either say that, or invoke the example of Rannoch as a counterargument), or say (s)he won't use the Crucible.
• Give Shepard the option to approve of one of the three options in dialogue. As it is, Shepard can either be hostile (a welcome addition), or ambivalent towards all three. After hearing Destroy's description, I'd be moving already.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 28 janvier 2013 - 06:46 .

[AlanC9]

thefallen2far wrote...
 It's kinda like seeing a story of a terrorist group with hostages and the options you have are you can kill the hostages and the terrorists with the hostages, you can take away all religion so there are no longer terrorists and giving up your lie to take control of the terrorists to order bombings responstibly hoping it'll never backfire.  And then when you see the option of not making any of those choices, you have the opinion of not choosing any of these optins and the terrorists will kill everyone and in future generations terrorism will end. 

Why would there be any bombings?

Personally, I saw it as success/failure. And in the end.... Shepard's a failure.  And that's why the ending's unsatisfactory.  It was an action game with the ending that tries to be solemn and deep but  just sucks the life out of you saying that nihilism is the only acceptable perception of reality. 

I really wish people wouldn't toss around "nihilism" so sloppily. I get what you're saying there... yep,  you don't get to punish the bad guys without causing bad consequences. But that isn't at all the same thing as nihilism. Just a language quibble, though.

But how did you feel about the ending of Watchmen?

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 janvier 2013 - 06:50 .

[BirdsallSa]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Fair, but given the context, how the characters in the game are reacting is somewhat irrelevant.

What I find interesting about the destroy ending is the discussion that ensues.

I don't consider any of the endings to be dark (particularly after the EC), nor do I consider the crucible's blast being indiscriminate towards EDI and the Geth a war crime either. I think this divide is what complicates any sort of motivation for additional variations on the ending. You certainly don't feel the same as me, and it's certainly not that your perspective is any more right or wrong than mine.

I'm curious if there could be another ending option that is still somewhat on par with the existing ones in terms of benefit/consequences that would satiate those that feel the options that are present in the current EC are not satisfactory.

I'm also curious how destroy would be received if the knowledge of all synthetics being affected was not presented to Shepard (and hence, couldn't affect Shepard's thought process).

I think Destroy is highly comparable to the decision at the end of ME1's Bring Down The Sky. Shepard can either allow the escape of a terrorist who tried to kill millions, or stop him, and sacrifice three hostages in the process. I think the latter is a fair trade.

With Destroy, it's EDI and (maybe) the Geth taking the role of the hostages, and the Reapers are Balak. Exact same situation, higher stakes. I give no credence to Starkid's assertion that conflict is inevitable. As I stated in this thread, whatever the outcome was on Rannoch, it will influence galactic society's perception of synthetics going forward.

• If the Quarians won, Shepard can cite it as proof that synthetic victory isn't inevitable if we help each other when the problem arises. Three centuries earlier, the Council sat back and watched their entire population get slaughtered without intervening. Had they helped, the Geth would have been stopped before that happened. Both in the modern cycle and in the Prothean cycle, the organics were about to win until the Reapers intervened.
• If the Geth won, it will serve as a very stark example going forward - even if the Geth die in Destroy. The galaxy will see that we can't beat the synthetics, so we have to learn to coexist with them. I predict an amendment to the Council's categorical ban on artificial intelligence.
  
• If peace is made, it stands out as proof that conflict is not inevitable, and will not inevitably lead to the organic extinction the Catalyst warns of.

What was missing from the Extended Cut was an opportunity, as Shepard, to challenge the Catalyst's assertion. I described how this could have been done in the linked thread. In my personal opinion, Destroy is best (EDI is a tragic casualty of war, but, frankly, in light of their actions, I think the Geth have it coming - peace is a mercy). Control comes second, in playthroughs where the Geth survive Rannoch (two out of four for me - sided with the Quarians in both "Geth VI" playthroughs).

Synthesis...

Really, I'm OK with a lot of it, post-EC. Post-Destroy relay reconstruction, Normandy return, Shepard's survival, I've worked it out in my head to a place where I'm comfortable with it. If I could change two things in the extended cut, it'd be this:

• Give Shepard the opportunity to directly challenge the Catalyst's assertion about inevitable synthetic-organic conflict. As it is, Shepard can either agree with glowboy's premise via autodialogue ("There must be another way!" needs to be split into a dialogue option letting Shepard either say that, or invoke the example of Rannoch as a counterargument), or say (s)he won't use the Crucible.Give Shepard the option to approve of one of the three options in dialogue. As it is, Shepard can either be hostile (a welcome addition), or ambivalent towards all three. After hearing Destroy's description, I'd be moving already.

Adding to what you said, how about we get some better hostile responses to Synthesis and Control? Shepard's only rebuttal against control is, "I didn't come this far to lose everything I have." This makes it seem like my Shepard isn't doing it because he doesn't want to die. How about because any time someone has tried to use control, it has backfired on them? I also think you should get to just talk general smack about the idea of synthesis, pretty much a brief summary of what the majority of the bsn says about it.     

PL

[DeinonSlayer]

True. I'd forgotten that part about Control. "I won't be a dictator" would also be an acceptable substitute line.

[78stonewobble]

MegaSovereign wrote...

I don't see how making the endings "happier" will make it objectively better.

The EC actually downplayed the aspect of consequence through the epilogue when all the endings were portrayed as uplifting. Killed the Geth? Changed people's DNA? Doesn't matter, the galaxy has a bright future to look forward to.

I don't see how showing Shepard reuniting with his friends would do anything about the "grim dark" complaints about the Crucible choices. I'm not saying a "happy ending" would be bad, but modifying the existing ending...well...It's just not a good idea to continuously edit a concept with different ideas and themes. You can't fix a bad batch by continuously blending more ingredients with it. If you want something better you're gonna have to dump what you got and start over. But Bioware is not going to dedicate their very last DLC to nothing but cinematics because that would be a tough sell.

It wouldn't.

However thats not the only thing that matters. Subjectively matters quite a bit as well.

Suppose an alternate world where corporate money grows on tress and a "happy ending" only dlc comes out.

I buy and play through the game with this. It doesn't change my problems with the catalyst which still annoys the crap out of me but... with the happy ending I am now also ending the game feeling annoyed but smiling rather than just annoyed.

In that sense it would be an improvement to me.

Otherwise though and realistically I agree.

[DullahansXMark]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm curious if there could be another ending option that is still somewhat on par with the existing ones in terms of benefit/consequences that would satiate those that feel the options that are present in the current EC are not satisfactory.

To sorta contribute, an ending that works as the flip side to Refusal. If your EMS is high enough, you actually manage to beat the Reapers without the Catalyst's help. But there are lots of casualties to be had in doing so. Like, it would take decades or even hundreds of years for galactic civilization to repair itself back to its former glory.

I also once brainstormed an idea of where it turned out the Crucible was an anti-Reaper mech that Shepard gets to pilot. Which he therein uses to fly throughout the galaxy and eliminate each and every Reaper one by one in what would be the most epic final boss fight of all time.

Just my two cents.

Modifié par DullahansXMark, 28 janvier 2013 - 07:57 .

[txgoldrush]

78stonewobble wrote...

RukiaKuchki wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...

However when you find out the catalyst makes no sense, there is no point in what the reapers are doing and there is nothing but space magic and "because I said so" as reasons for why the solutions are what they are. Then it all unravels into a pointless mess.

So do you think that the fundamental problem is actually the Catalyst's logic? Do you think it should have been better explained in the game, or perhaps in the Leviathan DLC?

I think the logic is so fundamentally flawed it cannot be fixed. So the problem is trying to use logic as motivation in the first place.

Had the catalyst been displayed as crazy or faulty I'd have had no problem with the rest making little to no sense.
Crazy doesn't have to make sense. It's why it's crazy. 

If they wanted a logic route it should have been kept very simple. Reapers reap because sentients organics are as tasty as bacon and they want to make more reapers.

Simple and relatively bulletproof logic.

There is no Catalyst's "logic".....its ONLY doing what it was programmed to do, nothing more.

Its the LEVIATHAN's logic thats really in play...they created the thing and the narrative shows, they were not fully logical. They made the same mistake the races under them made.

[78stonewobble]

txgoldrush wrote...
There is no Catalyst's "logic".....its ONLY doing what it was programmed to do, nothing more.

Its the LEVIATHAN's logic thats really in play...they created the thing and the narrative shows, they were not fully logical. They made the same mistake the races under them made.

Then it's a program rather than an AI.

However that is up to interpretation and it doesn't change the fact that the underlying logic is not only non-rational it's also incredibly stupid.

Irrational fear could have been understandable and is a powerfull motivator, but thats not the route they took.

No matter who is to blame they made out the antagonist to be... well...  retarded.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 28 janvier 2013 - 08:27 .

[Bill Casey]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Fair, but given the context, how the characters in the game are reacting is somewhat irrelevant.

What I find interesting about the destroy ending is the discussion that ensues.

I don't consider any of the endings to be dark (particularly after the EC), nor do I consider the crucible's blast being indiscriminate towards EDI and the Geth a war crime either. I think this divide is what complicates any sort of motivation for additional variations on the ending. You certainly don't feel the same as me, and it's certainly not that your perspective is any more right or wrong than mine.

I'm curious if there could be another ending option that is still somewhat on par with the existing ones in terms of benefit/consequences that would satiate those that feel the options that are present in the current EC are not satisfactory.

I'm also curious how destroy would be received if the knowledge of all synthetics being affected was not presented to Shepard (and hence, couldn't affect Shepard's thought process).

I've played the face value interpretation...
You're a complete monster no matter what you do...
You, the player...

Morality and Ethics are completely meaningless, and you are outright punished for having them...
Galaxy dies...

FVT ending rewards sociopathy and ethical nihilism...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 28 janvier 2013 - 08:37 .

[SpamBot2000]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm curious if there could be another ending option that is still somewhat on par with the existing ones in terms of benefit/consequences that would satiate those that feel the options that are present in the current EC are not satisfactory.

Would that still mean committing suicide because the Reaper leader kindly instructs you to, in order to advance its agenda? Because that would remain... problematic.

And yes, even the 'Destroy' ending appears to play into the whole 'Organic vs. Synthetic Deathmatch will have to determine everything anywhere forever' obsession that someone in the Mass Effect team came up with the night before deadline.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 28 janvier 2013 - 08:38 .

[Kazzuuk]

Bill Casey wrote...

I've played the face value interpretation...
You're a complete monster no matter what you do...
You, the player...

Morality and Ethics are completely meaningless, and you are outright punished for having them...
Galaxy dies...

"War is Hell" - William Tecumseh Sherman

[txgoldrush]

78stonewobble wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
There is no Catalyst's "logic".....its ONLY doing what it was programmed to do, nothing more.

Its the LEVIATHAN's logic thats really in play...they created the thing and the narrative shows, they were not fully logical. They made the same mistake the races under them made.

Then it's a program rather than an AI.

However that is up to interpretation and it doesn't change the fact that the underlying logic is not only non-rational it's also incredibly stupid.

Irrational fear could have been understandable and is a powerfull motivator, but thats not the route they took.

No matter who is to blame they made out the antagonist to be... well...  retarded.

So "controlled burn" is stupid? Did you know that we create forest fires to prevent major forest fires? Same logic here, and in its mind, its not killing civilizations, but perserving them.

And simply put, the Catalyst is a shackled AI, only facilitating the request of its creators. The Catalyst tells you that "its only facilitating their request".

[SpamBot2000]

Kazzuuk wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

I've played the face value interpretation...
You're a complete monster no matter what you do...
You, the player...

Morality and Ethics are completely meaningless, and you are outright punished for having them...
Galaxy dies...

"War is Hell" - William Tecumseh Sherman

Well, Star Wars wasn't, if you get the distinction.

[Bill Casey]

"I'm going to stop the Reapers, but I won't sacrifice the soul of our species to do it." - Paragon Shepard

Modifié par Bill Casey, 28 janvier 2013 - 08:41 .