286 réponses à ce sujet

[Samtheman63]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Volc19 wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...


Shepard's life is not relevant.

And how does controlling someone mean siding with him.

Only person who told you to pick control is TiM, TiM is indoctrinated.  The reapers are telling you to pick control

This is quite nearly the textbook definition of an association fallacy.

Thank you for that, that just made my day.

It's actually the very specific relationship between control and indoctrination that matters here.  If it were some other story then no there wouldn't be an association, but in this story it's clear.  The only people that thought they could control the reapers were indoctrinated in order to make them believe they could, and they could not.  The only other "person" that believes control is possible already controls the reapers and controlled TIM into believing he could control them.  But he couldn't because they already controlled him. 

reinforced by the prothean VI on thessia when asked why the crucible didnt work for them
"we were sabotaged from within.  a splinter group argued we should dominate the reapers rather than destroy them. it fractured out order of battle.  later, we discovered the seperates were indoctrinated"

reminds me a little bit of cerberus...

Modifié par Samtheman63, 21 janvier 2013 - 06:48 .

[3DandBeyond]

Samtheman63 wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...
ready to sacrifice my self to save the galaxy and get rid of the reapers is a far cry from believing electricuting yourself will turn you into an AI god

Right... Shooting some tube which your enemy has told you it will kill him is SO believable.

he said it wouldn't work, and that the chaos would come back

we seen anderson choosing destroy, TiM control, and synthesis is some bull**** that kid has pulled out of his ass.

remember anderson?  hes a good guy
hint hint

Actually, the kid says it destroys the reapers, but the chaos will come back-meaning organics will create synthetics that will kill them.

The dying reaper on Rannoch makes it clear that the kid and the reapers represent order and that organics are chaos.  So, the chaos will return does not say the reapers will return at all.

And so we see Anderson choosing destroy.  Does Shepard see that?  Is the kid showing movies now?  Or, is this just BW trying to confuse everything or somehow saying this is what you should choose and when EDI and the geth are no more they just sit back and say, "gotcha!"

Yes, Anderson wants them destroyed and TIM wants control.  Who wants synthesis and why aren't there home movies of them?  Saren, Sovereign, et al.  That would be compelling.

[Samtheman63]

HagarIshay wrote...


And that's a telling why? I should choose the choices based on other people's opinions and what they would do? 

well if one of those people is your ally and commanding officer who has acted like a father figure to shepard through out the series, and the other is the evil villian....... YES

[3DandBeyond]

Samtheman63 wrote...

reinforced by the prothean VI on thessia when asked why the crucible didnt work for them
"we were sabotaged from within.  a splinter group argued we should dominate the reapers rather than destroy them. it fractured out order of battle.  later, we discovered the seperates were indoctrinated"

reminds me a little bit of cerberus...

Yes, particularly because they become huskerized (collectors).

[IIEquillibriumII]

pirate1802 wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Who cares either way? It's your game and your choice at the end of the day.

This. Haters gonna hate. In the end its your game and your choice. That said, destroyers definitely seem to be the most arrogant bunch. ITers are among the front-ranking destroy-fanatics.

I personally believe all the three (or four) endings are good/bad depending on your interpretation. There is no objectively best or worst ending. But hey, this is BSN. Hating on other's chosen ending is the "in" thing these days.

And this is where it goes wrong, when we start trashing eachother, can we keep it clean and civilised? i found that disturbing to be called ¨most arrogant bunch¨ I like the IT, it gives me some clarity to the ending, but im not trashing Control / Synthesis? i just can't make myself choose them. its like my point of religion, i admire and respect that people can believe in those things, but i can't make myself believe it.

Modifié par IIEquillibriumII, 21 janvier 2013 - 06:51 .

[DeinonSlayer]

xsdob wrote...

Because people like to be correct, and like to be cruel to others they perceive as different than them. And becasue they view themselves as the majority, they lose any incentive to not give into base urges of being a complete dick to their fellow human beings when it comes to choices they made. It's all a consequence of this medium, and being able to write whatever you want with no consequences to yourself and no one ever having to see who you are, or who the person your talking to is. Once you break it down it really is just the ugly side of human nature coming forward in those types of people, if control or synthesis were the popular ones than you'd be seeing this same problem with them.

Still doesn't mean these dicks shouldn't get called out for acting the way they do. Hell, I would be more open about how destroy is one of my cannon endings for one of my shepards if It wasn't for these crazy people waving their epeens everywhere.

This. I consider myself a Destroyer, but out of four ME3 playthroughs, only two actually choose Destroy.

[Ageless Face]

Nerevar-as wrote...
Please tell me anything remotely believable in the last 5 minutes besides choosing Refuse. You need to metagame and trust Starbrat´s idiotic rants to choose any of the others.

I didn't say there was something was more believable than another (though I like the ending, but I don't care to get into it now). I only meant to say one ending is no better than the other, putting one ending in a bright way and step on another doesn't change that.

3DandBeyond wrote...
This is the main issue I have with all of this-it's what would be logical to Shepard.  I can't help but think no rational person confronted with this mess would do anything the kid says.  So what if the kid didn't make the choices-he's telling Shepard what they supposedly do.  It's like saying, "here take this gun.  Point it to your head.  Pull the trigger.  It won't hurt you."  It's one thing (though unbelievable) if a friend tells you to do that.  It's another thing, if some flawed AI serial killer does it.

I pretty much agree. Shepard gave into what the catalyst said way too fast. Even with the EC, the number of questions I had to ask is not even close to the little amount I had being given. I can't say I trust him much.

But then again, not doing as he asks will also turn into a sure loosing scenario Shepard knows will happen anyway - no offense to refusers...

[3DandBeyond]

Samtheman63 wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...


And that's a telling why? I should choose the choices based on other people's opinions and what they would do? 

well if one of those people is your ally and commanding officer who has acted like a father figure to shepard through out the series, and the other is the evil villian....... YES

It isn't only about other people's opinions-it's about all that Shepard has also wanted to do and what Shepard knows must happen.  Shepard knows how s/he feels after the Lazarus project and how s/he questions who s/he is.  Does it then make sense for Shepard to think that the "people" still alive within reapers are ok with all this?  It's practical and real.  The kid says he destroyed his creators when he turned them into reapers.  The reapers do one thing very well and the whole purpose for doing that is really not known.  What is known calls into question what they'd do if allowed to live.

How do they maintain themselves and repair damage or what not?  Do they require nourishment and in what form?  The citadel seems to be maintained by keepers using their protein vats and what's in them?  In part they contain the goo of vent boys and girls.  And that becomes part of the citadel when repairs are made.

The crucible was created to be a weapon-weapons are created by people to be used to destroy.  The whole galaxy believes in destroying the reapers, except for a few irrational people.  If you believe the crucible will destroy the reapers and you do not care or can live with what happens to the geth and EDI, destroy is the only choice.  But you are free to see it some other way.  It is your game.  Just don't ask others to agree with your opinion and then be upset if they don't.  Believe strongly enough in your own opinion and then be able to back it up not to other people, but to yourself.

[Ageless Face]

Samtheman63 wrote...
well if one of those people is your ally and commanding officer who has acted like a father figure to shepard through out the series, and the other is the evil villian....... YES

NO. Just because someone is important to me does not mean I think like he does.

And even if my enemy would use a gun kill everyone in sight, I could use the same gun to protect me and my allies.

[Volc19]

Samtheman63 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Volc19 wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...


Shepard's life is not relevant.

And how does controlling someone mean siding with him.

Only person who told you to pick control is TiM, TiM is indoctrinated.  The reapers are telling you to pick control

This is quite nearly the textbook definition of an association fallacy.

Thank you for that, that just made my day.

It's actually the very specific relationship between control and indoctrination that matters here.  If it were some other story then no there wouldn't be an association, but in this story it's clear.  The only people that thought they could control the reapers were indoctrinated in order to make them believe they could, and they could not.  The only other "person" that believes control is possible already controls the reapers and controlled TIM into believing he could control them.  But he couldn't because they already controlled him. 

reinforced by the prothean VI on thessia when asked why the crucible didnt work for them
"we were sabotaged from within.  a splinter group argued we should dominate the reapers rather than destroy them. it fractured out order of battle.  later, we discovered the seperates were indoctrinated"

reminds me a little bit of cerberus...

"A likes B."
"A is a bad person."
"This must mean B is bad as well."

This argument isn't an argument. It is inherrently wrong. It is a logical fallacy.

Ideas aren't made bad by the people that hold them. Control and Synthesis aren't tainted as ideas because of who liked them. It is alright to still think that they are bad choices, but not primarily because of who liked them best. Likewise, saying Destroy is right because a well liked character supports it is equally wrong.

[essarr71]

AlanC9 wrote...

essarr71 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

if you don't choose Destroy you're a deluded fool.

I do enjoy asking control/systhesis lovers the tough questions and watching the deflections/head-cannon responses.

If that's arrogant, so be it.  

What tough questions would those be?

Anything that involves why the milky way accepts the sudden change.  It's not even a matter of the "power corrupts" issue with control, or the wacky science for synthesis.  What happens down the road in control?  How does systhesis stop aggression?  How far is the leesh?  Whose knowledge/conclusions are the ones universally swallowed?  If the races maintain thier identity, why is it a peaceful universe?  What happens when the races get tired of being governed by something alien or when they become technologically equal with them?  Would the catalyst allow that?  Does synthesis even allow for free thinking?  If so, what happens when a group says 2 > 3, when the rest of the milky way says 1>2?  Rewrite or destroy? 

Destroy doesn't leave the milky way in some magical happy place.  But there are no questions.. and whatever unity that might exists is based on the races achievements from working together, and not because we're mesmerized by magic mushrooms or scared slaves of Reapers. 

Is it a pretty Milky Way?  Hell, no.  It's broken and bloody and theres tons of work to do.  But it's a free one.

[Samtheman63]

Volc19 wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Volc19 wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...


Shepard's life is not relevant.

And how does controlling someone mean siding with him.

Only person who told you to pick control is TiM, TiM is indoctrinated.  The reapers are telling you to pick control

This is quite nearly the textbook definition of an association fallacy.

Thank you for that, that just made my day.

It's actually the very specific relationship between control and indoctrination that matters here.  If it were some other story then no there wouldn't be an association, but in this story it's clear.  The only people that thought they could control the reapers were indoctrinated in order to make them believe they could, and they could not.  The only other "person" that believes control is possible already controls the reapers and controlled TIM into believing he could control them.  But he couldn't because they already controlled him. 

reinforced by the prothean VI on thessia when asked why the crucible didnt work for them
"we were sabotaged from within.  a splinter group argued we should dominate the reapers rather than destroy them. it fractured out order of battle.  later, we discovered the seperates were indoctrinated"

reminds me a little bit of cerberus...

"A likes B."
"A is a bad person."
"This must mean B is bad as well."

This argument isn't an argument. It is inherrently wrong. It is a logical fallacy.

Ideas aren't made bad by the people that hold them. Control and Synthesis aren't tainted as ideas because of who liked them. It is alright to still think that they are bad choices, but not primarily because of who liked them best. Likewise, saying Destroy is right because a well liked character supports it is equally wrong.

No one likes control or synthesis, apart from those who are indcotrinated.  fact.

why would those who are indoctrinated try to influence their ideas up on others?

they wouldn't, you know why?  because they are not their ideas, they are not in control, it all comes from the reapers, the every ones that are slaughtering the galaxy that you have been trying to stop for 3 games.  do not listen to them.

[essarr71]

Vic7im wrote...

essarr71 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

if you don't choose Destroy you're a deluded fool.

I do enjoy asking control/systhesis lovers the tough questions and watching the deflections/head-cannon responses.

If that's arrogant, so be it.  

A hat tip to the refuse option, classy.

I chose destroy because I had something real special to come back to.

I pick refuse for the speech.  Then pretend I pick destroy for the ultimate victory.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 The arrogance problem isn't Destroyers, it's anti-enders.

It just happens that like 99% of anti-enders are Destroyers, Refusers, ITers.

Never talked to a Controller and felt him/her to be arrogant. My fellow Synthesizers are pretty level-headed. At worst, they get testy towards people that are trollan. I'm really the only one of them for whom you could make that label.

[UrgentArchengel]

Because people suck? I seriously wouldn't let it bother you. There are arrogant Pro-Control, Pro-Synthesis, and Pro-Refuse. I myself am also Pro-Destroy, and an old indoctrination therorist. I don't tell people what to do, but I do show why I do what I do. I killed EDI, and the Geth, but I also Headcanon my ending so only Reaper Tech is affected thanks to the Interferometric Array, and a high EMS. It's like Arrival. I launched what is basically a moon into the Alpha Relay, and a killed a whole ton of Batarians. What I can't stand is why people think I enjoyed doing it. I liked EDI, and the Geth, and I did not enjoy killing them or those Batarians. But instead of opening up everyone to what could be mass Indoctrinarion, and eventual huskification of all life in the galaxy or what could end up becoming just as bad or worse then the cycles, I shoot a tube, and all things Reaper are destroyed or severely damaged. I say in the end, it's not about right or wrong, because all the choices in the end are open enough that a little imaginations makes it all better.

Modifié par UrgentArchengel, 21 janvier 2013 - 07:16 .

[Volc19]

Samtheman63 wrote...

Volc19 wrote...

"A likes B."
"A is a bad person."
"This must mean B is bad as well."

This argument isn't an argument. It is inherrently wrong. It is a logical fallacy.

Ideas aren't made bad by the people that hold them. Control and Synthesis aren't tainted as ideas because of who liked them. It is alright to still think that they are bad choices, but not primarily because of who liked them best. Likewise, saying Destroy is right because a well liked character supports it is equally wrong.

No one likes control or synthesis, apart from those who are indcotrinated.  fact.

why would those who are indoctrinated try to influence their ideas up on others?

they wouldn't, you know why?  because they are not their ideas, they are not in control, it all comes from the reapers, the every ones that are slaughtering the galaxy that you have been trying to stop for 3 games.  do not listen to them.

It doesn't matter. What did I just say? Ideas aren't tainted by those who hold them. I don't care if Hitler and the Daleks like an ending, that doesn't make it bad. What you are arguing is incorrect. There isn't anything else to it.

It's like I'm smashing my head against a brick wall.

Modifié par Volc19, 21 janvier 2013 - 07:15 .

[dreamgazer]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 The arrogance problem isn't Destroyers, it's anti-enders.

Right, and "pro-enders" never purport their intellectual superiority and denigrate others.

Arrogance is everywhere, from all angles. Surely you know that by now.

[AresKeith]

dreamgazer wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 The arrogance problem isn't Destroyers, it's anti-enders.

Right, and "pro-enders" never purport their intellectual superiority and denigrate others.

Arrogance is everywhere, from all angles. Surely you know that by now.

That's the kind of stuff I was talking about

[Reorte]

If you really find the alternatives very unpleasant it's hard not to sound arrogant.

[Samtheman63]

Volc19 wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

Volc19 wrote...

"A likes B."
"A is a bad person."
"This must mean B is bad as well."

This argument isn't an argument. It is inherrently wrong. It is a logical fallacy.

Ideas aren't made bad by the people that hold them. Control and Synthesis aren't tainted as ideas because of who liked them. It is alright to still think that they are bad choices, but not primarily because of who liked them best. Likewise, saying Destroy is right because a well liked character supports it is equally wrong.

No one likes control or synthesis, apart from those who are indcotrinated.  fact.

why would those who are indoctrinated try to influence their ideas up on others?

they wouldn't, you know why?  because they are not their ideas, they are not in control, it all comes from the reapers, the every ones that are slaughtering the galaxy that you have been trying to stop for 3 games.  do not listen to them.

It doesn't matter. What did I just say? Ideas aren't tainted by those who hold them. I don't care if Hitler and the Daleks like an ending, that doesn't make it bad. What you are arguing is incorrect. There isn't anything else to it.

It's like I'm smashing my head against a brick wall.

of course it ****ing matters, why would the reapers try and influence you to do something that would defeat them?

you have been trying to stop the reapers for 3 games now, they have been trying to kill/capture/indoctrinated you, the reapers are the enemy, anything they do to you is an attempt to defeat you, everything you are doing is an attempt to defeat them.  why would they suddenly turn around and say "here you go shepard this is how you control us as to how you see fit, and this is how you turn everyone into organic/synthetic hybrids so we can all be friends, even though weve just been trying to kill every living thing in the galaxy, YAAAAAAAAAAY!!"

[dreamgazer]

Reorte wrote...

If you really find the alternatives very unpleasant it's hard not to sound arrogant.

Essentially, yeah. That's the game BioWare played, though, by constructing an ending paradigm that involves conflicting ethical and philosophical positions (some of which appear to align with the antagonists). It's not just the choice of what to do in your universe; it's the choice of what not to do with it, and why the other options aren't better-fitted.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

dreamgazer wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 The arrogance problem isn't Destroyers, it's anti-enders.

Right, and "pro-enders" never purport their intellectual superiority and denigrate others.

Arrogance is everywhere, from all angles. Surely you know that by now.

Read the OP.

It's not about arrogance in general. It's about "My ending" arrogance.

Why don't we take a quick looksie at each endings' "support" thread...

Destroy -- http://social.biowar.../index/12264531
Control -- http://social.biowar.../index/12263044
Synthesis -- http://social.biowar.../index/12153660
Refuse -- None available.

Two of them have troll posting on the front page. One is clean, and ironically, projecting that supporters from the other side will come in and troll their poor thread.

One bad apple does not spoil the bunch, really. A large and/or vocal group of them do. To that end, even if there *are* arrogant supporters on all sides of the issue, there really is one group that sticks out like a sore thumb about it.

There's a reason someone made this thread, and won't make one for the other folks (unless trying to be a smartass).

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 21 janvier 2013 - 07:37 .

[Reorte]

Samtheman63 wrote...

of course it ****ing matters, why would the reapers try and influence you to do something that would defeat them?

you have been trying to stop the reapers for 3 games now, they have been trying to kill/capture/indoctrinated you, the reapers are the enemy, anything they do to you is an attempt to defeat you, everything you are doing is an attempt to defeat them.  why would they suddenly turn around and say "here you go shepard this is how you control us as to how you see fit, and this is how you turn everyone into organic/synthetic hybrids so we can all be friends, even though weve just been trying to kill every living thing in the galaxy, YAAAAAAAAAAY!!"

The wrong things can be done for the right reason though. The idea that your enemy might have a point but is simply going about it in completely the wrong way isn't that terrible (I don't think that that's the case with the Reapers but the concept isn't invalid). "They're my enemy and therefore they can't possibly say anything right" is a dangerous, foolish path. The clearest example of that are politicians - they'd rather do anything than admit that an opposition politician could have a good idea (other than claim that they pinched it from them) no matter how clearly good an idea it is to everyone else.

[Samtheman63]

Reorte wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

of course it ****ing matters, why would the reapers try and influence you to do something that would defeat them?

you have been trying to stop the reapers for 3 games now, they have been trying to kill/capture/indoctrinated you, the reapers are the enemy, anything they do to you is an attempt to defeat you, everything you are doing is an attempt to defeat them.  why would they suddenly turn around and say "here you go shepard this is how you control us as to how you see fit, and this is how you turn everyone into organic/synthetic hybrids so we can all be friends, even though weve just been trying to kill every living thing in the galaxy, YAAAAAAAAAAY!!"

The wrong things can be done for the right reason though. The idea that your enemy might have a point but is simply going about it in completely the wrong way isn't that terrible (I don't think that that's the case with the Reapers but the concept isn't invalid). "They're my enemy and therefore they can't possibly say anything right" is a dangerous, foolish path. The clearest example of that are politicians - they'd rather do anything than admit that an opposition politician could have a good idea (other than claim that they pinched it from them) no matter how clearly good an idea it is to everyone else.

but the idea of controlling the reapers is coming from the reapers themselves, no one else!  if indcotrination didnt exist, and TiM/Saren/a few other bad guys said controlling the reapers was an option, then yes maybe we should listen to what they have to say and consider it.  but it doesn't, the only source of the control/synthesis ending is coming from the every ones you have been trying to defeat, the reapers, both of which end with the reapers still alive and shepard dead. 

(pick destroy)

[L2 Sentinel]

Destroy is the only option that doesn't turn Shepard into a massive hypocrite, even if it does make him/her a backstabbing douche that promised the geth that siding with him was in their best interest.

Moments before s/he makes the decision, s/he tells TIM that humans aren't ready to wield that kind of power. They were messing with things they don't understand. If something goes wrong, and control of the reapers cannot be maintained, then the galaxy is doomed. It's not worth the risk. Destroy the reapers and the war ends today. Control the reapers, and you risk the war coming back. There are too many variables. The catalyst offers nothing to convince us otherwise. All it does is confirm that control is possible. It's not a permanent solution.

As for synthesis, Shepard just explained to the catalyst that the lifeforms in this galaxy don't want to be harvested and turned into reapers. They would rather keep their current forms. How, then, can you justify permanently altering the physiology of all life in the galaxy without their consent? Is that not changing their forms? Furthermore, new life is bound to evolve that has not been hit by the beam, so the cycle hasn't been ended. The new life forms aren't partly synthetic, and therefore must be harvested. It's not a permanent solution. It also is the hardest ending to believe. A beam washes over you and now you are some kind of cyborg thing?

Yes, the sacrifice of the geth and EDI is a tragedy. There is no way around that. But the alternatives are more horrifying, imo. If it makes me arrogant to think that, then I guess I'm arrogant.