1258 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr_Extrem]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

not at all. it loosing the bigger scope. choosing something because of the wrong reasons is still wrong - even if your intentions are good.

"textbook paragon reasoning" and "selfish self preservation" are both wrong reasons to make the choice.

Paragon reasoning, specifically the preservation of lives, is morality, specifically Paragon morality. If morality is the wrong reason to make a choice then I have no idea what claim you are trying to make here.

yes .. in this case, morality is the wrong reason. especially, if strings are attached to save the geth and edi. control is not a moral or even a paragon choice (the control terminal might be paragon-blue but the renegare interupt is on the left side of the screen as well). control is the choice to use the reapers power to make a difference/shape the galaxy.

if you choose control only to save the geth and edi, you are doing it for the wrong reasons, because there area a lot of strings attached to this choice. shepard cant even be sure, that he/she will be able to keep control over them - the catalysts word is the only assurance here.

[Fawx9]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...

Does Destroy provide the knowledge and manpower needed to quickly  repair the mass relays?

Apparently yes, if you listen to the Catalyst. Not only did BW take out the line about them being destroyed, but it also says that any technology affected by the blast can be quickly repaired. It's analogous to a giant pat on the back from BW saying, "don't worry, it'll work out."

Does Destroy create "perfect understanding" between organics and synthetics?

Most Destroyers I've seen are perfectly satisfied believing they've either solved the organic/synthetic problem (by claiming Rannoch invalidates the Catalyst) or at the least earns the galaxy the right to decide their own answer to the problem. Destroyers aren't having regrets about the possibilities of Synthesis.

Does Destroy create an immortal fleet of sentient dreadnoughts to watch over the galaxy?

Destroyers don't want that. You've been on these boards and I'm sure made the same argument, to the effect of "that's enslavement" or "that's far too dangerous" or such.

These are really all arguments that would be made by Control or Synthesis people to support their endings. But based on the arguments I've seen made by Destroyers for their own ending, none of these issues really gives them pause in their own minds. You yourself said you wouldn't hesitate to pick a Destroy with a reunion scene and relay destruction instead of geth/EDI. MEHEM is even further unbalanced.

Shoudn't that be the goal between the choices though? Argue for your ending, not against the tact on evils associted with the others.

Destory : We believe we don't no space ghost. We can do this ourselves. Burn the space cuttlefish!  May or may not wipe out all organics because of pride.

Control: Maybe you have a point ghost boy. Also I can do more with the reapers alive for the better of all than simply destorying them. May or may not create a new rogue AI.

Synthesis. Space ghost's 3rd option that may lead to a  quicker, more elegant, solution if allowed(Yes I'm changing it cause the current version is stupid). Take the first step to unlocking new possibilites. Those that wish to follow Shepards example can(obviously they don't die) and gain new knoweldge. Proposed changes cause both hope for a new future and fear of change. Up to the people how to proceed.

We remove the stupid tact on evil perceptions and can finally discuss the true benefits and negatives of the options.

Modifié par Fawx9, 29 janvier 2013 - 01:08 .

[CommanderVyse]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

not at all. it loosing the bigger scope. choosing something because of the wrong reasons is still wrong - even if your intentions are good.

"textbook paragon reasoning" and "selfish self preservation" are both wrong reasons to make the choice.

Paragon reasoning, specifically the preservation of lives, is morality, specifically Paragon morality. If morality is the wrong reason to make a choice then I have no idea what claim you are trying to make here.

Paragon or Renegade, Shepard is still a hero. They are not the same as good vs evil. Every Shepard had at least some Renegade and some Paragon  points by the end of the series. In ME3, paragon and renegade choices filled the same meter.

Picking an option only because it will add to your score is worse than a "selfish" choice based on your own feelings.

[Dr_Extrem]

CronoDragoon wrote...


If your personal decision is determined by your own survival, then you are selfish. That's just how it is. Now, you can have valid reasons for picking Destroy, as I do, but your own survival should not be one of them unless we are meta-gaming.

has shepard seen the ending? shepard does not choose destroy because he/she could survive - shep chooses destroy to get rid of the reapers. shepard has no reason to believe, that walking into an exploding tube will not end his/her own life and being partially synthetic, the indication is clear from the very beginning. the catalysts confronts shepard with certain death in every choice.

this is a metagaming pov.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 29 janvier 2013 - 01:08 .

[CronoDragoon]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

yes .. in this case, morality is the wrong reason. especially, if strings are attached to save the geth and edi. control is not a moral or even a paragon choice (the control terminal might be paragon-blue but the renegare interupt is on the left side of the screen as well). control is the choice to use the reapers power to make a difference/shape the galaxy.

if you choose control only to save the geth and edi, you are doing it for the wrong reasons, because there area a lot of strings attached to this choice. shepard cant even be sure, that he/she will be able to keep control over them - the catalysts word is the only assurance here.

In that case you are mischaracterizing the problem here. What you are really trying to say is that choosing Control is making the wrong choice (because of the strings attached, because of the potential future danger) for the right reason (protecting the peoples of the galaxy). Moral reasoning is leading you to a path that can do more harm than good. I think that's what you want to say.

Choosing Destroy because Shepard survives may or may not be the right decision, but it is certainly for the wrong reason. (role-playing the game here, not meta-gaming)

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

if people choose conrol just to avoid addtional casualties, then its like choosing destroy because shepard could live.

Except that it's not really the same at all. One is textbook Paragon reasoning and the other is selfish.

I never found "Is submission not preferable to extinction" particularly paragon

[CronoDragoon]

wwinters99 wrote...
Paragon or Renegade, Shepard is still a hero. They are not the same as good vs evil. Every Shepard had at least some Renegade and some Paragon  points by the end of the series. In ME3, paragon and renegade choices filled the same meter.

Picking an option only because it will add to your score is worse than a "selfish" choice based on your own feelings.

You are getting stuck on the Paragon wording and it's leading to you countering an argument I'm not making. You can substitute Renegade instead of Paragon and my argument still applies. The preservation of life is a moral reason for choosing an ending, be it Paragon or Renegade (Renegade Tuchanka still follows this logic, only it is looking farther ahead into the future). Preserving yourself is not a moral reason.

[Dr_Extrem]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

yes .. in this case, morality is the wrong reason. especially, if strings are attached to save the geth and edi. control is not a moral or even a paragon choice (the control terminal might be paragon-blue but the renegare interupt is on the left side of the screen as well). control is the choice to use the reapers power to make a difference/shape the galaxy.

if you choose control only to save the geth and edi, you are doing it for the wrong reasons, because there area a lot of strings attached to this choice. shepard cant even be sure, that he/she will be able to keep control over them - the catalysts word is the only assurance here.

In that case you are mischaracterizing the problem here. What you are really trying to say is that choosing Control is making the wrong choice (because of the strings attached, because of the potential future danger) for the right reason (protecting the peoples of the galaxy). Moral reasoning is leading you to a path that can do more harm than good. I think that's what you want to say.

Choosing Destroy because Shepard survives may or may not be the right decision, but it is certainly for the wrong reason. (role-playing the game here, not meta-gaming)

no .. i am saying, that choosing control only because you feel sorry for the geth and edi in destroy, is wrong. (btw. the geth and the edi wandet the reapers destroyed - not controled by anyone)

if this is your only reason not to choose destroy, you are not better than a person who chooses to sacrifice them in destroy. the lives of the geth and edi come at the price of the reapers still being alive.

[CronoDragoon]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

has shepoard seen the ending? shepard does not choose destroy because he/she could survive - shep chooses destroy to get rid of the reapers. shepard has no reason to believe, that walking into an exploding tube will not end his/her own life and being partially synthetic, the indication is clear from the very beginning. the catalysts confronts shepard with certain death in every choice.

this is a metagaming pov.

You are the one that brought up the comparison to picking Destroy because Shepard survives, so are you countering yourself now...?

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Apparently yes, if you listen to the Catalyst. Not only did BW take out the line about them being destroyed, but it also says that any technology affected by the blast can be quickly repaired. It's analogous to a giant pat on the back from BW saying, "don't worry, it'll work out."

The Catalyst only says they can be repaired.  Not that they can be repaired quickly.  Hackett's speech says they have a long road ahead of them, as "the relays are severely damaged"

Most Destroyers I've seen are perfectly satisfied believing they've either solved the organic/synthetic problem (by claiming Rannoch invalidates the Catalyst) or at the least earns the galaxy the right to decide their own answer to the problem. Destroyers aren't having regrets about the possibilities of Synthesis.

Destroyers think the conflict isn't inevitable.  Not the same thing.

And EDI explicitly states teh Reaperw share teh combined knowledge of all the species tehy've harvested.  That's a virtual cornucopia of knowledge gained through Syntehsis, however you feel about the process itself.

Destroyers don't want that. You've been on these boards and I'm sure made the same argument, to the effect of "that's enslavement" or "that's far too dangerous" or such.

It's still a massive, powerful fleet that can take on any military threat.  Eventhe Leviathans

These are really all arguments that would be made by Control or Synthesis people to support their endings. But based on the arguments I've seen made by Destroyers for their own ending, none of these issues really gives them pause in their own minds. You yourself said you wouldn't hesitate to pick a Destroy with a reunion scene and relay destruction instead of geth/EDI. MEHEM is even further unbalanced.

Bingo!  Detroy and Synthesis for all their terribleness, have tangible rewards.  Destroy has...nothing!  Nothing but the satisfaction of not giving in to the Reapers.  All for the low low price of galactic genocide!

[CronoDragoon]

Dr_Extrem wrote...
no .. i am saying, that choosing control only because you feel sorry for the geth and edi in destroy, is wrong. (btw. the geth and the edi wandet the reapers destroyed - not controled by anyone)

"Feeling sorry" for them is selective wording. You are trying to save them and that is a moral reason. Self-survival is not.

if this is your only reason not to choose destroy, you are not better than a person who chooses to sacrifice them in destroy. the lives of the geth and edi come at the price of the reapers still being alive.

You aren't a better person if you choose Destroy, as you say, to make sure the Reapers are dead. But that isn't the comparison you made. You compared it to someone choosing Destroy to make sure Shepard is alive. If we are just isolating the two reasons of "Shepard living" and "saving allies" then the better reason here is clear. Whether or not OTHER reasons change the scale is a different matter.

You realize I'm a Destroyer right? I clearly am not trying to put down Destroy and prop up Control. I am instead pointing out that THIS particular reason for picking Destroy is worse than THAT particular reason for picking Control.

[Dr_Extrem]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

has shepoard seen the ending? shepard does not choose destroy because he/she could survive - shep chooses destroy to get rid of the reapers. shepard has no reason to believe, that walking into an exploding tube will not end his/her own life and being partially synthetic, the indication is clear from the very beginning. the catalysts confronts shepard with certain death in every choice.

this is a metagaming pov.

You are the one that brought up the comparison to picking Destroy because Shepard survives, so are you countering yourself now...?

not really .. ingame shepards and my reasoning/pov are something different.


shepard (not i) has no reason to believe, that any choice will give him/her a chance to survive. saving edi and the geth come at a cost - living reapers and the uncertainty, if shepard is still shepard after assuming direct control.

[Dr_Extrem]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...
no .. i am saying, that choosing control only because you feel sorry for the geth and edi in destroy, is wrong. (btw. the geth and the edi wandet the reapers destroyed - not controled by anyone)

"Feeling sorry" for them is selective wording. You are trying to save them and that is a moral reason. Self-survival is not.

if this is your only reason not to choose destroy, you are not better than a person who chooses to sacrifice them in destroy. the lives of the geth and edi come at the price of the reapers still being alive.

You aren't a better person if you choose Destroy, as you say, to make sure the Reapers are dead. But that isn't the comparison you made. You compared it to someone choosing Destroy to make sure Shepard is alive. If we are just isolating the two reasons of "Shepard living" and "saving allies" then the better reason here is clear. Whether or not OTHER reasons change the scale is a different matter.

You realize I'm a Destroyer right? I clearly am not trying to put down Destroy and prop up Control. I am instead pointing out that THIS particular reason for picking Destroy is worse than THAT particular reason for picking Control.

for the last time - shepard has no reason to believe, that he/she will survive the destroy ending. shepard cant choose his/her own life over the lives of the geth and edi.


if the player makes the control-choice only because the geth & edi will not die, this player is like a person who chooses destroy only, because shepard might survive. if this is the only reason to make this choice, the player has a narrowed view.

there are two "levels" of playing, that are seperated. shepards choice & reasoning vs. the players choice & reasoning.



last edit:
need to go to bed now ..

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 29 janvier 2013 - 01:20 .

[CommanderVyse]

CronoDragoon wrote...

wwinters99 wrote...
Paragon or Renegade, Shepard is still a hero. They are not the same as good vs evil. Every Shepard had at least some Renegade and some Paragon  points by the end of the series. In ME3, paragon and renegade choices filled the same meter.

Picking an option only because it will add to your score is worse than a "selfish" choice based on your own feelings.

You are getting stuck on the Paragon wording and it's leading to you countering an argument I'm not making. You can substitute Renegade instead of Paragon and my argument still applies. The preservation of life is a moral reason for choosing an ending, be it Paragon or Renegade (Renegade Tuchanka still follows this logic, only it is looking farther ahead into the future). Preserving yourself is not a moral reason.

So, as I said, MEHEM/Control/Synthesis = Save EDI and Geth
As you said, Shepard's fate is not what is important.

We apparently are now only arguing about the morality of destroying, controlling, or allying with the Reapers.

That is my goal

3 choices, each with valid arguments, none with visible in-game consequences. Time to speculate what is better, not what is least horrible, you win, I win, Bioware wins.

Modifié par wwinters99, 29 janvier 2013 - 01:22 .

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

The Catalyst only says they can be repaired.  Not that they can be repaired quickly.  Hackett's speech says they have a long road ahead of them, as "the relays are severely damaged"

His exact wording is that they "will have little difficulty repairing the damage." In other words, they can be repaired quickly.

Destroyers think the conflict isn't inevitable.  Not the same thing.

And EDI explicitly states teh Reaperw share teh combined knowledge of all the species tehy've harvested.  That's a virtual cornucopia of knowledge gained through Syntehsis, however you feel about the process itself.

It's still a massive, powerful fleet that can take on any military threat.  Eventhe Leviathans

Bingo!  Detroy and Synthesis for all their terribleness, have tangible rewards.  Destroy has...nothing!  Nothing but the satisfaction of not giving in to the Reapers.  All for the low low price of galactic genocide!

Pointing out the benefits of other endings is not the same as having consequences in your own ending. The bottom line is that MEHEM allows Destroyers to pick their own ending without thinking twice. It's what they want and they have to give up little to achieve it. That unbalances the ending because they have no moral qualms to consider.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 29 janvier 2013 - 01:24 .

[MegaSovereign]

iakus wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

if people choose conrol just to avoid addtional casualties, then its like choosing destroy because shepard could live.

Except that it's not really the same at all. One is textbook Paragon reasoning and the other is selfish.

I never found "Is submission not preferable to extinction" particularly paragon

Domination isn't submission. That's what the Control ending is anyway.

[CronoDragoon]

Dr_Extrem wrote...
for the last time - shepard has no reason to believe, that he/she will survive the destroy ending. shepard cant choose his/her own life over the lives of the geth and edi.
 

And for the last time, you yourself brought up Shepard's survival (a meta-game reason) to compare with the preservation of life (both an RP and meta-game reason). It doesn't make sense to bring up a comparison on how two things are similar, get pointed out to you how they are different, and then use another way how they are different to obscure the debate we were having.

[CronoDragoon]

wwinters99 wrote...

So, as I said, MEHEM/Control/Synthesis = Save EDI and Geth
As you said, Shepard's fate is not what is important.

We apparently are now only arguing about the morality of destroying, controlling, or allying with the Reapers.

That is my goal

3 choices, each with valid arguments, none with visible in-game consequences. Time to speculate what is better, not what is least horrible, you win, I win, Bioware wins.

For better or worse, BioWare wanted people who would normally bee-line to Destroy to think about the other endings and weigh the moral dilemma. Kudos to you if you would do that anyway, even without the geth/EDI destruction or some other tangible consequence. I don't think most people would.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 29 janvier 2013 - 01:34 .

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

His exact wording is that they "will have little difficulty repairing the damage." In other words, they can be repaired quickly.

How quick is quickly to an immortal AI?  Hackett's exact words are "the relays are severealy damaged"

Destroyers think the conflict isn't inevitable.  Not the same thing.

Pointing out the benefits of other endings is not the same as having consequences in your own ending. The bottom line is that MEHEM allows Destroyers to pick their own ending without thinking twice. It's what they want and they have to give up little to achieve it. That unbalances the ending because they have no moral qualms to consider.

The bottom line is Destroy sacrifices the most and gains the least.

[CommanderVyse]

CronoDragoon wrote...

wwinters99 wrote...

So, as I said, MEHEM/Control/Synthesis = Save EDI and Geth
As you said, Shepard's fate is not what is important.

We apparently are now only arguing about the morality of destroying, controlling, or allying with the Reapers.

That is my goal

3 choices, each with valid arguments, none with visible in-game consequences. Time to speculate what is better, not what is least horrible, you win, I win, Bioware wins.

For better or worse, BioWare wanted people who would normally bee-line to Destroy to think about the other endings and weigh the moral dilemma. Kudos to you if you would do that anyway, even without the geth/EDI destruction. I don't think most people would.

Most people don't play Renegade, most people don't play Femshep, most people don't play as an Engineer. It does not make those choices less valid or less worthy of Bioware's development time.

[CronoDragoon]

wwinters99 wrote...

Most people don't play Renegade, most people don't play Femshep, most people don't play as an Engineer. It does not make those choices less valid or less worthy of Bioware's development time.

That sort of ignores the fact that debates about destroying vs. controlling vs. freeing DO happen around here. But you also get debates about the other consequences, too. Seen from this perspective, there is more to consider in the current endings than in your proposed endings.

Regardless of whether or not Shepard's survival should be a valid reason for picking Destroy, it clearly is a major reason for quite a few people. Knowing this would be the case, I think BW added the geth/EDI thing. You say that the endings should have isolated the decision of what to do with the Reapers. I agree with you in a perfect world where everyone considers the ramifications and morality of their actions. But BW was working with the knowledge that MEHEM is what a lot of people wanted. But they also had these ideas for Control and Synthesis. So they did what they wanted to ensure that what THEY wanted happened, which was making Destroy people think. Of course, it didn't quite work out like they hoped, now did it?

I maintain that Destroy's problem is not the existence of consequence but the nature of it. Killing the geth/EDI is inpretty big conflict with what is supposed to be a dominant interpretation of Destroy, namely the rejection of the Catalyst's supposed problem. Substituting a difference consequence such as the relays being destroyed still makes people think twice while not also invalidating a major story arc of the series.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 29 janvier 2013 - 01:54 .

[Dhoozy77]

Artistic Integrity do you know it?

[Kunari801]

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.

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). 

Interesting thoughts. For myself I think the loss (sacrifice) of Mordin, Legion, Anderson, and others along the way to the choice was sufficient to give the player a sense of benefit/consequences without needing to add more to the RBG.

As to your second question, it probably would have been better to NOT specify the fate of the Geth & EDI in Destroy.

[thefallen2far]

AlanC9 wrote...
So you're saying that Control isn't actually Control?

Can I control them to fly into the nearest black hole? Can I control them to shut down their sheilds to let the armies blow them up? If not, can I control them to fly to the edge of space [not just the galaxy] and then if reaching it, fly back to the other edge to find out the distance of the universe, and make sure they go 100 meters a second to ensure you get an accurate measurement of the distance. If not, I don't have control of the Reapers.

That isn't the meaning of "nihilistic." It just isn't. Unless you're saying that the Catalyst really is right, and it's either the cycles or AIs exterminating organics. That would be nihilistic, all right.

I'm only going by the dictionary definition which states that nihilism is the doctrine of beliefs that moral truths are a facade and thus could be sacrificial for your own means to an end. So, the established belief that the united efforts of peoples to overcome a seemingly unstopable force, only to be revealed that truth is a lie, and you have to sacrifice your moral truths to be successful [with a little cut scene to show you how wrong your beliefs are by showing your not denying your moral truths results in civilization being wiped out. That's nihilism. Being able to overcome your obstacles without denying yur moral beliefs would be the opposite of nihilism. So no, allowing the Reapers to continue the cycles is not nihilism based on how I'm using the definition. I don't know your definition of nihilism, so I don't know why you think it's not.

Maybe you think artificial perception is truth.... but nihilism denies all truth, including artificial intelligence.

AlanC9 wrote...

So you're just philosophically opposed to works where bad guys don't get punished?

No, I'm saying I have no inherent interest in it. Obviously if I had sympathy for the villain, I wouldn't mind him/her/it surviving or "getting away with it".... I don't see anything sympathetic of crazy giant torturing concentration making robots. If there was something of value outside of just "the villain got away" ending, that would be impressive.... but I didn't find anything of value in any of the endings of this game. Basically, seeing your hero as a failure just seems anticlimactic to me. It's like if John MCClain died at the end of Die Hard and Hans escaped by collapsing the building in his escape. I wouldn't have liked Die Hard. I would have thought the ending was bad.

Modifié par thefallen2far, 29 janvier 2013 - 02:04 .

[CronoDragoon]

thefallen2far wrote...

Can I control them to fly into the nearest black hole? Can I control them to shut down their sheilds to let the armies blow them up? If not, can I control them to fly to the edge of space [not just the galaxy] and then if reaching it, fly back to the other edge to find out the distance of the universe, and make sure they go 100 meters a second to ensure you get an accurate measurement of the distance. If not, I don't have control of the Reapers.

It's interesting and I will agree with you. I don't think Control is absolute Control, certainly at the least because it's not Shepard controlling them but a Shepard-AI. If like the Catalyst he bases everything on one prime directive, which is stated to either be "protect the many" or "destroy those who would threaten the many" then it probably is pretty limited what Shepard-AI will allow itself to do. Certainly not destroy itself. Damnit, once again I want ME4 to be based off Control now.

That isn't the meaning of "nihilistic." It just isn't. Unless you're saying that the Catalyst really is right, and it's either the cycles or AIs exterminating organics. That would be nihilistic, all right.

I'm only going by the dictionary definition which states that nihilism is the doctrine of beliefs that moral truths are a facade and thus could be sacrificial for your own means to an end. So, the established belief that the united efforts of peoples to overcome a seemingly unstopable force, only to be revealed that truth is a lie, and you have to sacrifice your moral truths to be successful [with a little cut scene to show you how wrong your beliefs are by showing your not denying your moral truths results in civilization being wiped out. That's nihilism. Being able to overcome your obstacles without denying yur moral beliefs would be the opposite of nihilism. So no, allowing the Reapers to continue the cycles is not nihilism.

I don't think either of you are quite right with your examples. Even if the Catalyst won, the story isn't being nihilistic. Nihilism is the utter futility of morality; the undesirability of the belief in truth. By Alan's examples, the Catalyst winning isn't nihilistic because the Catalyst in its own perverse way does belief in truth: it believes that its prime directive is the only truth. In Fallen's examples, the worst you could say is that the endings promote utter consequentialism as the desirable morality: they do not refute all truth but rather suggest that idealism is useless and that all decisions should be made based on maximizing utility for the many. Nihilism would be to suggest that Shepard and the galaxy would have been better off screwing and eating cheeseburgers until they were harvested rather than fight.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 29 janvier 2013 - 02:09 .