128 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

wright1978 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Well, that was EC Destroy. As I said, EC High EMS Destroy is thematically compromised. It removed the main downside of the Destroy ending, keeping the thematically less significant death of the synthetics instead. To discuss the opinion that this should not have happened, that the relays should've been destroyed, not necessarily the synthetics, is the point of this thread.

BTW, this is based on the acknowledgement of the claim that the Reapers and their technology were more thematically significant to the story than the organic/synthetic conflict. I think most would agree with this.

Disagree completely. High EMS EC destroy is thematically intact as far as i'mn concerned. It is about rejecting the cycle and reaper life as evidenced by Reapers, husks, The geth(unfortunately since you can't avoid them choosing reaper upgrades and EDI). It is thematically in tact. It is not about destroying the reaper created relays and never should have been. Them being fixed and used is necessary Taking and using creations of other civilisations is perfectly natural.

The Catalyst explicitly states that "all synthetic life will be targetted" and teh Crucible will not discriminate.  The theme is compromised because it forces Shepard to reject all synthetics, not just the Reapers.  If it just targetted code, the geth would go back to being a consensus and EDI would lose her advanced cyberwarfare capabilities, but there's no reason to think they, as intellects independant of the reapers, couldn't suvive.

The destruction of the relays, I think is less an explicit rejection of the Reapers but more of a symbolic breaking free of their cycle. The relays are a trap, stunting galactic development.  It makes the younger races complacent.  By taking the relays away, it shows a new beginning for the galaxy, as they build their own relay network.  This network won't be a shortcut, or somethnig just handed to them, but was built themselves.

[Fawx9]

Now that I think about it Destroy could have taken a divergent approach.

Option 1) You reject everything that is Reaper and the result is thus: Reapers destroyed, Geth/EDI software upgrades wiped out, Citadel destroyed. This causes the loss of what is considered the heart of the galactic community along with any secrets it hold and the relays disabled until they can be repaired with a new control station. This takes longer than what is portrayed in the EC

Option 2) Current Destroy. The problem isn't with us, but synthetics. You reap what they have built, but wipe out all synthetic life.

Edit. While coming up with the above, I realized just how silly it was to be forced to add on the negatives. If Control/Synthesis truely don't have any downsides(no trickery, forcing issue in green magic is 'fixed') I don't see why destroy is punished. I would think not having a space police force or everyone buddy buddy enough. It would actually work better if fear of the future was the downside.

Modifié par Fawx9, 13 février 2013 - 10:02 .

[wright1978]

iakus wrote...

The Catalyst explicitly states that "all synthetic life will be targetted" and teh Crucible will not discriminate.  The theme is compromised because it forces Shepard to reject all synthetics, not just the Reapers.  If it just targetted code, the geth would go back to being a consensus and EDI would lose her advanced cyberwarfare capabilities, but there's no reason to think they, as intellects independant of the reapers, couldn't suvive.

The destruction of the relays, I think is less an explicit rejection of the Reapers but more of a symbolic breaking free of their cycle. The relays are a trap, stunting galactic development.  It makes the younger races complacent.  By taking the relays away, it shows a new beginning for the galaxy, as they build their own relay network.  This network won't be a shortcut, or somethnig just handed to them, but was built themselves.

 Don't see any reason why destroying of reaper code wouldn't kill EDI and geth too.  So given there isn't a single synthetic that don't have reaper code i don't see any evidence that this isn't a side effect of targetting reaper based life.

No the relays are just a piece of infrastructure. Just as we didn't go round destroying every symbol of the roman empire we shouldn't destroy the extremely positive piece of legacy infrastructure that the reapers have gifted us. Post the reapers death the relays aren't a trap and are something that can be built upon. Zero need or positivity to the notion of scourging all their technology from the universe  and rebuilding from scratch.

[noobcannon]

here's the thing, until i actually see a geth or EDI "die" from the destroy ending, i'm not going to assume that it happens (even if the kid tells me it will). he also claims i die if i choose destroy and the breath scene strongly suggests otherwise. now if i actually saw at least one synthetic die from my choice AND there was no breath scene i might consider other options......but that's still a big maybe.

[Iakus]

wright1978 wrote...

 Don't see any reason why destroying of reaper code wouldn't kill EDI and geth too.  So given there isn't a single synthetic that don't have reaper code i don't see any evidence that this isn't a side effect of targetting reaper based life.

No the relays are just a piece of infrastructure. Just as we didn't go round destroying every symbol of the roman empire we shouldn't destroy the extremely positive piece of legacy infrastructure that the reapers have gifted us. Post the reapers death the relays aren't a trap and are something that can be built upon. Zero need or positivity to the notion of scourging all their technology from the universe  and rebuilding from scratch.

There is other synthetic life out there.  They just don't feature in the war.  Yet th ephrase is "all synthetic life will be targetted" not "All Reaper code will be targetted"  In addition, EDI and the geth lived as synthetic life before receiving their upgrades.  Targetting that code should revert them to an earlier state, not kill them. 

As for the relays, if incorporating Roman roads into a weapon would destroy an alien invasion, but would also result in the destruction of said roads, pretty sure it would be worth it.  We can build more roads.

And the relays are still a trap, in a sense.  With them in place, there's no need to learn how they work, how to build new ones.  Or even dare I say, improve upon them.  They're content to sit on the few dozen worlds they have rather than go out there and add to the network, or even make full use of the network they have.

[Iakus]

noobcannon wrote...

here's the thing, until i actually see a geth or EDI "die" from the destroy ending, i'm not going to assume that it happens (even if the kid tells me it will). he also claims i die if i choose destroy and the breath scene strongly suggests otherwise. now if i actually saw at least one synthetic die from my choice AND there was no breath scene i might consider other options......but that's still a big maybe.

EDI's not with the crew in teh ememorial scene, and name is on the Memorial Wall in Destroy

Her face is also among those in the "remember the dead" montage in Destroy as well.

[noobcannon]

iakus wrote...

noobcannon wrote...

here's the thing, until i actually see a geth or EDI "die" from the destroy ending, i'm not going to assume that it happens (even if the kid tells me it will). he also claims i die if i choose destroy and the breath scene strongly suggests otherwise. now if i actually saw at least one synthetic die from my choice AND there was no breath scene i might consider other options......but that's still a big maybe.

EDI's not with the crew in teh ememorial scene, and name is on the Memorial Wall in Destroy

Her face is also among those in the "remember the dead" montage in Destroy as well.

it's still not a death scene although that is a very good argument.

Modifié par noobcannon, 13 février 2013 - 10:28 .

[wright1978]

iakus wrote...

There is other synthetic life out there.  They just don't feature in the war.  Yet th ephrase is "all synthetic life will be targetted" not "All Reaper code will be targetted"  In addition, EDI and the geth lived as synthetic life before receiving their upgrades.  Targetting that code should revert them to an earlier state, not kill them. 

As for the relays, if incorporating Roman roads into a weapon would destroy an alien invasion, but would also result in the destruction of said roads, pretty sure it would be worth it.  We can build more roads.

And the relays are still a trap, in a sense.  With them in place, there's no need to learn how they work, how to build new ones.  Or even dare I say, improve upon them.  They're content to sit on the few dozen worlds they have rather than go out there and add to the network, or even make full use of the network they have.

There's no need to encorporate destruction of roads(relay network) to destroy alien invasion. Sure we could rip up the roads and build new ones but that is fundamentally wasteful. Makes much more sense to take the existing network and expand upon it. No relays aren't a trap post destroy. The galaxy can still build new ones or improve upon them post destroy. The need to expand will eventually mean new relays will be constructed anyway. As it stands in high EMS destroy anyway, they still have to fix them which will require studying them in detail.


Also don't agree about reaper code.The reaper code fundamentally changes the geth. Don't see it as being possible to just surgically remove it without killing the geth.

[Meltemph]

I see this time and time again, where people try and pull themes from an ending based on their own preconceptions, and then try and frame a question in the most manipulating way possible, anywho.

Destroy is as thematic as you want it to be or as least thematic as you want it, destroy is the least specific in terms of having some frame of mind(philosophically) before choosing it. There is no specific "theme" in destroy, other then wanting to destroy the reapers, no matter the cost. One of the biggest draws to destroy is has very little "thematic" specifics, outside of "kill the reapers".

I didn't choose destroy because I thought synthetics were evil or the technological trap the reapers created were evil, I chose destroy because it got rid of the Leviathans stupid mistake that plummeted the galaxy into the dark ages, essentially, every 50k years or so.  It was the most rational decision, specifically because the other 2 choices are nothing but thematic's.

Modifié par Meltemph, 13 février 2013 - 10:36 .

[Iakus]

wright1978 wrote...

There's no need to encorporate destruction of roads(relay network) to destroy alien invasion. Sure we could rip up the roads and build new ones but that is fundamentally wasteful. Makes much more sense to take the existing network and expand upon it. No relays aren't a trap post destroy. The galaxy can still build new ones or improve upon them post destroy. The need to expand will eventually mean new relays will be constructed anyway. As it stands in high EMS destroy anyway, they still have to fix them which will require studying them in detail.


Also don't agree about reaper code.The reaper code fundamentally changes the geth. Don't see it as being possible to just surgically remove it without killing the geth.

Except in the endings we are given, the relay networks are incorporated into the destruction of the Reapers.  And given the way the Crucible works, it's not wasteful, it's a necessity.  The question is, would it be a more aesthetically pleasing ending to spare the geth, but make the relays irrepairable.  I say "yes" for the reasons cited.

  This actually makes me wonder, what if there was a "paragon" and "renegade" version of Destroy, where you had the option to spare the synthetics at the expense of the relays (paragon) or destroy synthetics to save the relays (renegade)?  Wasn't there an N7 mission like that in ME2?  Something about batarians firing javelin missles at a colony?

[Hurbster]

I wish that we had the chance to convince the Geth not to take the reaper upgrades.

[Meltemph]

iakus wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

There's no need to encorporate destruction of roads(relay network) to destroy alien invasion. Sure we could rip up the roads and build new ones but that is fundamentally wasteful. Makes much more sense to take the existing network and expand upon it. No relays aren't a trap post destroy. The galaxy can still build new ones or improve upon them post destroy. The need to expand will eventually mean new relays will be constructed anyway. As it stands in high EMS destroy anyway, they still have to fix them which will require studying them in detail.


Also don't agree about reaper code.The reaper code fundamentally changes the geth. Don't see it as being possible to just surgically remove it without killing the geth.

Except in the endings we are given, the relay networks are incorporated into the destruction of the Reapers.  And given the way the Crucible works, it's not wasteful, it's a necessity.  The question is, would it be a more aesthetically pleasing ending to spare the geth, but make the relays irrepairable.  I say "yes" for the reasons cited.

  This actually makes me wonder, what if there was a "paragon" and "renegade" version of Destroy, where you had the option to spare the synthetics at the expense of the relays (paragon) or destroy synthetics to save the relays (renegade)?  Wasn't there an N7 mission like that in ME2?  Something about batarians firing javelin missles at a colony?

I dont think I would ever choose getting rid of Mass Effect Technology, in a MAss Effect game.  I would be essetnailly killing the setting with my own hands.  I dont like the sound of that.

[Iakus]

Meltemph wrote...

I dont think I would ever choose getting rid of Mass Effect Technology, in a MAss Effect game.  I would be essetnailly killing the setting with my own hands.  I dont like the sound of that.

Ah, but the beauty is, it can all be replaced, give enough time. 

[wright1978]

iakus wrote...


Except in the endings we are given, the relay networks are incorporated into the destruction of the Reapers.  And given the way the Crucible works, it's not wasteful, it's a necessity.  The question is, would it be a more aesthetically pleasing ending to spare the geth, but make the relays irrepairable.  I say "yes" for the reasons cited.

  This actually makes me wonder, what if there was a "paragon" and "renegade" version of Destroy, where you had the option to spare the synthetics at the expense of the relays (paragon) or destroy synthetics to save the relays (renegade)?  Wasn't there an N7 mission like that in ME2?  Something about batarians firing javelin missles at a colony?

In synthesis relays are damaged too, so it is merely a contrived repercussion of the beam not being calibrated properly or the relays not being capable of containing the force of the beam.

Personally preserving relays with death of geth would be more aesthetically pleasing. Destroy currently is a very broad church so it isn'tespecially surprising to me that people's priorities differ.

Paragon/destroy area is interesting, especially as anything that improves choice is good. Maybe the more focused the beam is the more damage it does to the relays. Thereby giving players the choice to prioritise the relays(less focused beam destroying synthetics and reapers) or prioritise synthetics at expense of relays(focused beam that burns out relays but only destroys reapers)

[Meltemph]

iakus wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

I dont think I would ever choose getting rid of Mass Effect Technology, in a MAss Effect game.  I would be essetnailly killing the setting with my own hands.  I dont like the sound of that.

Ah, but the beauty is, it can all be replaced, give enough time. 

Yes, but if your end goal is to replace all that you lost, in essetnially the same fashion, there isnt much sense for opting to break something you are going to be essetnially recreating.  

[jstme]

Meltemph wrote...

iakus wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

I dont think I would ever choose getting rid of Mass Effect Technology, in a MAss Effect game.  I would be essetnailly killing the setting with my own hands.  I dont like the sound of that.

Ah, but the beauty is, it can all be replaced, give enough time. 

Yes, but if your end goal is to replace all that you lost, in essetnially the same fashion, there isnt much sense for opting to break something you are going to be essetnially recreating.  

Mass Effect fields are not reaper-related but rather part of physical laws of ME3 universe. Relays,cores and ctr are just a technology that utilises mass effect field.
Reaper also utilised same physical laws in their creations - citadel, relays and ctr. However Reapers choose to place relays and citadel in a way that was specifically designed to lead organic civilisations in certain pattern. Aka - its (part of?) a trap.
Thus,in order to be free the trap that ensures cycle patterns has to be broken. Reaper relays and Reaper citadel need to go. Building new relays using same Mass Effect in (possibly different from Reaper chosen ones) certain locations has nothing to do with what was existing prior to it.     

[d-boy15]

well...

It used to be like that in leaked script during the end of 2011, destroy is the only ending where
the relay and reaper based tech. are destroy along with the reaper.

also, in that script synthesis didn't mess with anyone DNA and the catalyst is javik not the kid.

perhaps it's a rough draft or they really change it, there are so many detail that not included in
actual game

Modifié par d-boy15, 14 février 2013 - 12:44 .

[ForThessia]

Seboist wrote...

No, preserving the relays is more desirable than keeping a bunch of murderous machines intact.

[Auld Wulf]

Meltemph wrote...

[...] specifically because the other 2 choices are nothing but thematic's.

So what you're saying here is, basically, one picks Destroy for one of three reasons.

1.) One is an insatiable paranoid who believes everything related to the reapers is irredeemably evil.
2.) One is a monster who loves nothing more than revelling in genocide and similar atrocities.
3.) One chooses Destroy out of spite because they hate the story/theme of the game.

Okay then. I can't say that surprises me a lot. I'd not call that 'rational' at all, though, I'd call that exceedingly emotional and irrational.

[DeinonSlayer]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

[...] specifically because the other 2 choices are nothing but thematic's.

So what you're saying here is, basically, one picks Destroy for one of three reasons.

1.) One is an insatiable paranoid who believes everything related to the reapers is irredeemably evil.
2.) One is a monster who loves nothing more than revelling in genocide and similar atrocities.
3.) One chooses Destroy out of spite because they hate the story/theme of the game.

Okay then. I can't say that surprises me a lot. I'd not call that 'rational' at all, though, I'd call that exceedingly emotional and irrational.

It must be comforting, to build a straw-man impression of anyone who doesn't think like you. Makes it easier to justify hating them, right?

I choose Destroy because we don't need an unassailable, unaccountable overlord to "protect" us from the consequences of our own actions. I choose Destroy because said overlord is a war criminal for whom justice is long overdue. I choose Destroy because I give no credence to its assertion that conflict is inevitable. Conflict is always inevitable - whatever the outcome on Rannoch, it will serve either as proof that synthetics can be defeated if we help each other when the problem arises, proof that we cannot defeat them and must thus learn to live with them, or proof that coexistence is entirely within our grasp (if we do away with the Council's categorical ban which currently compels organics to try to destroy synthetics, or else). I choose Destroy because I believe we're capable of existing as we are, advancing at our own pace, owning our achievements, and adapting to whatever changes come our way. I choose Destroy because it sets us free.

I took no pleasure in sacrificing the hostages in BDTS, either, but if that's the price to stop Balak from ever posing a threat to anyone ever again, it's a fair price. Acceptable casualties. Not a vendetta. And before it's brought up, my issues with the Geth are solely on account of their actions, and I still make peace when I can - I have no bias against synthetics in general.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 14 février 2013 - 01:00 .

[ruggly]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

[...] specifically because the other 2 choices are nothing but thematic's.

So what you're saying here is, basically, one picks Destroy for one of three reasons.

1.) One is an insatiable paranoid who believes everything related to the reapers is irredeemably evil.
2.) One is a monster who loves nothing more than revelling in genocide and similar atrocities.
3.) One chooses Destroy out of spite because they hate the story/theme of the game.

Okay then. I can't say that surprises me a lot. I'd not call that 'rational' at all, though, I'd call that exceedingly emotional and irrational.

It's pretty sad that the only way you can get your rocks off is to pull things out of your ass and then try to insult players.  People have posted time and time again legitimate reasons why they choose destroy.  You then decide to skip all over that and then hurl insults.  You bemoan people's lack of reading, perhaps you should work on it some more.

Anyways, back on topic.  I guess I'm undecided on this, although this sounds like an interesting idea:

  This actually makes me wonder, what if there was a "paragon" and "renegade" version of Destroy, where you had the option to spare the synthetics at the expense of the relays (paragon) or destroy synthetics to save the relays (renegade)?  Wasn't there an N7 mission like that in ME2?  Something about batarians firing javelin missles at a colony?

If there's a paragon and renegade control, it would make sense to me to have a paragon and renegade destroy.

And yeah, that was a side mission where you could either aim the missiles at the space port or the capital city, I believe.

Modifié par ruggly, 14 février 2013 - 01:17 .

[Meltemph]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

[...] specifically because the other 2 choices are nothing but thematic's.

So what you're saying here is, basically, one picks Destroy for one of three reasons.

1.) One is an insatiable paranoid who believes everything related to the reapers is irredeemably evil.
2.) One is a monster who loves nothing more than revelling in genocide and similar atrocities.
3.) One chooses Destroy out of spite because they hate the story/theme of the game.

Okay then. I can't say that surprises me a lot. I'd not call that 'rational' at all, though, I'd call that exceedingly emotional and irrational.

It must be comforting, to build a straw-man impression of anyone who doesn't think like you. Makes it easier to justify hating them, right?

I choose Destroy because we don't need an unassailable, unaccountable overlord to "protect" us from the consequences of our own actions. I choose Destroy because said overlord is a war criminal for whom justice is long overdue. I choose Destroy because I give no credence to its assertion that conflict is inevitable. Conflict is always inevitable - whatever the outcome on Rannoch, it will serve either as proof that synthetics can be defeated if we help each other when the problem arises, proof that we cannot defeat them and must thus learn to live with them, or proof that coexistence is entirely within our grasp (if we do away with the Council's categorical ban which currently compels organics to try to destroy synthetics, or else). I choose Destroy because I believe we're capable of existing as we are, advancing at our own pace, owning our achievements, and adapting to whatever changes come our way. I choose Destroy because it sets us free.

I took no pleasure in sacrificing the hostages in BDTS, either, but if that's the price to stop Balak from ever posing a threat to anyone ever again, it's a fair price. Acceptable casualties. Not a vendetta. And before it's brought up, my issues with the Geth are solely on account of their actions, and I still make peace when I can - I have no bias against synthetics in general.

Responding to wulf is pointless, he doesnt even understand the arguments he is making.  He is an amusing version of Godwins Law.  I typically find his diatribes quite funny.  He posts a mountain of minutia with nothing substansive in it, other then making sure his personal feelings on a subject color his view point on everything he see's or believes.

[noobcannon]

Auld Wulf wrote...

So what you're saying here is, basically, one disagrees with me  for one of three reasons.

1.) One is an insatiable paranoid who believes everything related to the reapers is irredeemably evil.
2.) One is a monster who loves nothing more than revelling in genocide and similar atrocities.
3.) One chooses Destroy out of spite because they hate the story/theme of the game.

Okay then. I can't say that surprises me a lot. I'd not call that 'rational' at all, though, I'd call that exceedingly emotional and irrational.

fixed

Modifié par noobcannon, 14 février 2013 - 02:23 .

[Dunabar]

Meltemph wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

[...] specifically because the other 2 choices are nothing but thematic's.

So what you're saying here is, basically, one picks Destroy for one of three reasons.

1.) One is an insatiable paranoid who believes everything related to the reapers is irredeemably evil.
2.) One is a monster who loves nothing more than revelling in genocide and similar atrocities.
3.) One chooses Destroy out of spite because they hate the story/theme of the game.

Okay then. I can't say that surprises me a lot. I'd not call that 'rational' at all, though, I'd call that exceedingly emotional and irrational.

It must be comforting, to build a straw-man impression of anyone who doesn't think like you. Makes it easier to justify hating them, right?

I choose Destroy because we don't need an unassailable, unaccountable overlord to "protect" us from the consequences of our own actions. I choose Destroy because said overlord is a war criminal for whom justice is long overdue. I choose Destroy because I give no credence to its assertion that conflict is inevitable. Conflict is always inevitable - whatever the outcome on Rannoch, it will serve either as proof that synthetics can be defeated if we help each other when the problem arises, proof that we cannot defeat them and must thus learn to live with them, or proof that coexistence is entirely within our grasp (if we do away with the Council's categorical ban which currently compels organics to try to destroy synthetics, or else). I choose Destroy because I believe we're capable of existing as we are, advancing at our own pace, owning our achievements, and adapting to whatever changes come our way. I choose Destroy because it sets us free.

I took no pleasure in sacrificing the hostages in BDTS, either, but if that's the price to stop Balak from ever posing a threat to anyone ever again, it's a fair price. Acceptable casualties. Not a vendetta. And before it's brought up, my issues with the Geth are solely on account of their actions, and I still make peace when I can - I have no bias against synthetics in general.

Responding to wulf is pointless, he doesnt even understand the arguments he is making.  He is an amusing version of Godwins Law.  I typically find his diatribes quite funny.  He posts a mountain of minutia with nothing substansive in it, other then making sure his personal feelings on a subject color his view point on everything he see's or believes.

Better to just let him talk, he does fine on his own with making himself out to be exactly what he trys to make everyone else out to be that goes against his belief. Disagree with his opinion on synthetics, you're a racist. Disagree with his opinion on Destroy,  you support genocide. That is pretty much his logic in a bottle and that's not all of it. The more you aim to try to stay focused on the game (WHICH SHOULD ONLY BE TAKEN AS JUST A GAME) the more he attacks you outside of the forums. He is pretty much a voice that should be left to echo in the darkness all by itself.

[eddieoctane]

iakus wrote...

EDI's not with the crew in teh ememorial scene, and name is on the Memorial Wall in Destroy

Her face is also among those in the "remember the dead" montage in Destroy as well.

Shepard isn't with the crew for the memorial, and his/her name is on the wall. Yet we have a cutscene entitled "Shepard Alive", showing how little thoe two pieces of information actually matter. There's a concept in writing, "Show, don't tell". Hemingway followed it. Mac is not nearly the caliber or writer as Hemingway. There's also a meme on the interwebs, "Pics or it didn't happen". It takes 3 seconds to show EDI shutting down. Simply putting the name on the board doesn't provide the proof. It's the writers whispering in your ear "all those people are dead" without actually showing the deaths of central characters.  The narrative needed more thna just a hand-wave to kill off the Geth or EDI.