617 réponses à ce sujet

[Killdren88]

You cannot let the Reapers go unpunished. They murdered countless other species. And I find it odd that people are willing to overlook that and give the Reapers the galactic version of community service as if their crimes were not a big deal.

[Wayning_Star]

iakus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

iakus wrote...
A post-Destroy galaxy will be a new frontier drawn on an old map.

Is anything of that told in the epilogue?

A Destroy epilogue with destroyed relays could have told us how the old pathways between the stars have gone and new ones have to be explored, opening new frontiers and places never seen before. It could've told us how the relays prevented us from ever looking into the space between them, which we must now confront. That would have been interesting, and it would have appealed to why most of us like science fiction.

Sure, you can headcanon it that way, just as I can headcanon "Control for Synthesis" where the control entity guides the galaxy to Synthesis instead of forcing it on everyone. We can do that, but it's not the same.

But that's exactly what damaged relays mean

In order to repair the relays, they have to be able to reach them.  that means sending ships out between the relay points.  And that will mean mapping out systems beyond the familliar star clusters, as stops to refuel and resupply will become necessary.  They will have to look beyond what's next door to the relays and have to look at what exactly gets bypassed when you made these jumps. 

Not only that, things will change in the interim.  Colonies will be isolated perhaps for several human generations.  They will have to survive on their own.  Some may die out.  Others may move elsewhere.  Some will grow and change in new ways as they adapt and become self-sufficient.  new governments will rise, oew political  and military powers may appear.  Council and Terminus borders may have to be redrawn.  Perhaps several times.

A post-Destroy galaxy can go in any number of directions.

but according to the "trusted" catalyst, that would be in circles, as the chaos is alive and kicking?

lore/game facts sucks..but..

[Wayning_Star]

Killdren88 wrote...

You cannot let the Reapers go unpunished. They murdered countless other species. And I find it odd that people are willing to overlook that and give the Reapers the galactic version of community service as if their crimes were not a big deal.

how do we decide what is 'punishment', as we decide to act just like'm?

but then, we really don't exactly know what 'Them' are, so we don't really understand what to punish?

The more you think about applying story and lore, it gets worse from there..on the uninformed concept of decision...

[eye basher]

As long as there is life in the galaxy there will be war as least with destroy the biggest threat is gone for good.

[Wayning_Star]

eye basher wrote...

As long as there is life in the galaxy there will be war as least with destroy the biggest threat is gone for good.

but,the catalyst says it isn't gone for good, as the catalsyt says that it's not the problem..

[clennon8]

Did Thedas become boring after the Warden defeated the Blight?

I suppose some people might say it did, but I don't think so.

MEU is an incredibly vast and varied setting. I think there are many more stories to be told. Many more alien races to encounter and have sex with, civilizations to explore, monsters to kill, trivial objects to fetch, robots to humanize, reporters to punch, memes to propagate.

Modifié par clennon8, 14 février 2013 - 09:21 .

[Auld Wulf]

So, I was just out on a walk and it occurred to me that in this very thread we have a wonderfully chronic instance of a binary (dualistic) thinker over-simplifying everything with binary rationales in order to posit the superiority of destroy.

My problem with binary thinking is that it makes the thinker hypostatise an illusory simplicity that doesn't exist within reality, thus causing a limited scope of perception which deals in absolutes. In other words, a binary thinjer paints up a wall of opposition that doesn't exist.

I posited that the most likely reason that a person might choose Destroy is if they have an ingrained inclination toward simplification due to their love of games which do just that. I don't think that these are stupid, evil, or mentally ill individuals. No, they are people much like myself. They just have the failing that their perceptions are over-simplified by absolutes. This is a common problem, and we all have our failings.

But my point is is that Destroy fans have gone on the attack with this over-simplification so much that they themselves have placed fans of other endings in positions of opposition. They made unnecessary enemies out of those who chose differently and couldn't handle the backlash of people pointing out their over-simplified thinking.

Binary opposition does not occur nearly as much between Control and Synthesis fans as it does between Destroy and Control/Synthesis fans, and I find that interesting. As much as constants upset me, every Destroy fan I've spoken with seems to have fallen prey to binary opposition. According to Destroy fans I've spoken with here and elsewhere, fans of Control/Synthesis are either absolutely evil, or absolutely insane.

Now, this brings me to my opening statement, if you read back, you'll find someone making the claim that Destroy fans represent sanity in an absolute way, and that Control/Synthesis fans represent mental disability or insanity in an absolute way. More interesting is that when I pointed out how easy it is to fall into the comfort of binary opposition due to so many games being based around that, I was accused of saying that Control/Synthesis fans absolutely represent intellect, whereas Destroy fans absolutely represent a complete lack of intellect. That's not what I said at all.

The fact of the matter is this: Destroy fans have painted walls of opposition binarily depicting fans of other endings in a negative light. If those Destroy fans can't handle the retalliation, they shouldn't have thrown up those walls of opposition in the first place to separate us. {As the "you're all insane" chap proves to be the case with his post, where he mentions off-handedly the long term persecution of non-Destroy fans.) The problem is though that I think dualism is like an addiction and they can't stop seeing everything as simple forms of opposition, in which case I feel genuinely sorry for them.

Prove me wrong, Destroy fans, I'd love that. I really would. Prove that you haven't always seen non-Destroy fans as lesser beings through the lens of binary opposition. I would really like to see that, lest this will continue on as an endless cycle not unlike that of the reapers.

But if you're going to continue to depict non-Destroy fans in a negative light due to binary opposition, then it's only fair to realise that we're going to retalliate and hand your arses to you. Figuratively speaking, of course.

So, yes, is this the point where minds are opened or are the walls of binary opposition going to stand?

[PainCakesx]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Killdren88 wrote...

You cannot let the Reapers go unpunished. They murdered countless other species. And I find it odd that people are willing to overlook that and give the Reapers the galactic version of community service as if their crimes were not a big deal.

how do we decide what is 'punishment', as we decide to act just like'm?

but then, we really don't exactly know what 'Them' are, so we don't really understand what to punish?

The more you think about applying story and lore, it gets worse from there..on the uninformed concept of decision...

That moral relativism is the same reasoning used by advocates of a loose setencing policy for violent criminals.

The Reapers decided to commit galactic genocide, not us. They're not morally equivalent at all.

On a pragmatic point of view, keeping them around is a ticking time bomb. 

[BleedingUranium]

Wayning_Star wrote...

eye basher wrote...

As long as there is life in the galaxy there will be war as least with destroy the biggest threat is gone for good.

but,the catalyst says it isn't gone for good, as the catalsyt says that it's not the problem..

And I already proved that his problem doesn't exist before I got there. The Reapers are the only problem, so I'm going to get rid of them.

[clennon8]

Damn it. Where's the binary switch to hide that guy's posts?

[MattFini]

Auld Wulf wrote...

It's clear that almost every person who's chosen Destroy (if not every person) was raised on video games; with little input from films, music, or books.

Stopped right here.

Absurdity and ignornace in its most basic form.

A shame you can't make your points without making brash generalizations about others because you probably had some interesting content in that post.

Modifié par MattFini, 14 février 2013 - 05:37 .

[Killdren88]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Killdren88 wrote...

You cannot let the Reapers go unpunished. They murdered countless other species. And I find it odd that people are willing to overlook that and give the Reapers the galactic version of community service as if their crimes were not a big deal.

how do we decide what is 'punishment', as we decide to act just like'm?

but then, we really don't exactly know what 'Them' are, so we don't really understand what to punish?

The more you think about applying story and lore, it gets worse from there..on the uninformed concept of decision...

 

Does that truly matter? Just because we dont know exactly we have know right to ensure justice is done? Are ae to just forget about what did and not make them answer for their crimes? The catalyst ciuld be right. But deal with probelms ae currently face. Not worry down the road about what might come of it.

[BleedingUranium]

MattFini wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

It's clear that almost every person who's chosen Destroy (if not every person) was raised on video games; with little input from films, music, or books.

Stopped right here.

Absurdity and ignornace in it's most basic form.

A shame you can't make your points without making brash generalizations about others because you probably had some interesting content in that post.

Quite.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 14 février 2013 - 05:38 .

[Wayning_Star]

PainCakesx wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Killdren88 wrote...

You cannot let the Reapers go unpunished. They murdered countless other species. And I find it odd that people are willing to overlook that and give the Reapers the galactic version of community service as if their crimes were not a big deal.

how do we decide what is 'punishment', as we decide to act just like'm?

but then, we really don't exactly know what 'Them' are, so we don't really understand what to punish?

The more you think about applying story and lore, it gets worse from there..on the uninformed concept of decision...

That moral relativism is the same reasoning used by advocates of a loose setencing policy for violent criminals.

The Reapers decided to commit galactic genocide, not us. They're not morally equivalent at all.

On a pragmatic point of view, keeping them around is a ticking time bomb. 

you miss the control of that hypothetical, the catalyst. It controls the enviornment, otherwise we wouldn't be reliant on it to carry out our wishes. Our wishes: To end the reaper threat.

the catalyst states destroy will not end the reaper threat, as it's part of the build and destroy cycle,war if you will or chaos as the catalyst logic persists.

the reapers are container vessels, nothing more(face value there) their 'mission' is simplistic, the catalyst(their boss/controller) objective isn't.

But, the crucible is a wild card delt from an unknown hand by unknown engineers and non existent author of the choices menu.

unless you suspect the catalyst wrote the choices at the last minute of the last billion years or so?

[Wayning_Star]

Auld Wulf wrote...

So, I was just out on a walk and it occurred to me that in this very thread we have a wonderfully chronic instance of a binary (dualistic) thinker over-simplifying everything with binary rationales in order to posit the superiority of destroy.

My problem with binary thinking is that it makes the thinker hypostatise an illusory simplicity that doesn't exist within reality, thus causing a limited scope of perception which deals in absolutes. In other words, a binary thinjer paints up a wall of opposition that doesn't exist.

I posited that the most likely reason that a person might choose Destroy is if they have an ingrained inclination toward simplification due to their love of games which do just that. I don't think that these are stupid, evil, or mentally ill individuals. No, they are people much like myself. They just have the failing that their perceptions are over-simplified by absolutes. This is a common problem, and we all have our failings.

But my point is is that Destroy fans have gone on the attack with this over-simplification so much that they themselves have placed fans of other endings in positions of opposition. They made unnecessary enemies out of those who chose differently and couldn't handle the backlash of people pointing out their over-simplified thinking.

Binary opposition does not occur nearly as much between Control and Synthesis fans as it does between Destroy and Control/Synthesis fans, and I find that interesting. As much as constants upset me, every Destroy fan I've spoken with seems to have fallen prey to binary opposition. According to Destroy fans I've spoken with here and elsewhere, fans of Control/Synthesis are either absolutely evil, or absolutely insane.

Now, this brings me to my opening statement, if you read back, you'll find someone making the claim that Destroy fans represent sanity in an absolute way, and that Control/Synthesis fans represent mental disability or insanity in an absolute way. More interesting is that when I pointed out how easy it is to fall into the comfort of binary opposition due to so many games being based around that, I was accused of saying that Control/Synthesis fans absolutely represent intellect, whereas Destroy fans absolutely represent a complete lack of intellect. That's not what I said at all.

The fact of the matter is this: Destroy fans have painted walls of opposition binarily depicting fans of other endings in a negative light. If those Destroy fans can't handle the retalliation, they shouldn't have thrown up those walls of opposition in the first place to separate us. {As the "you're all insane" chap proves to be the case with his post, where he mentions off-handedly the long term persecution of non-Destroy fans.) The problem is though that I think dualism is like an addiction and they can't stop seeing everything as simple forms of opposition, in which case I feel genuinely sorry for them.

Prove me wrong, Destroy fans, I'd love that. I really would. Prove that you haven't always seen non-Destroy fans as lesser beings through the lens of binary opposition. I would really like to see that, lest this will continue on as an endless cycle not unlike that of the reapers.

But if you're going to continue to depict non-Destroy fans in a negative light due to binary opposition, then it's only fair to realise that we're going to retalliate and hand your arses to you. Figuratively speaking, of course.

So, yes, is this the point where minds are opened or are the walls of binary opposition going to stand?

I like you wulf, you're off the wall.. friggen great read. lol

[Ieldra]

fainmaca wrote...
I have to say I'm surprised at a thread like this, Ieldra, and perhaps just a little dismayed. I thought you were more accomodating of the different endings than most on this board.

Note that I explicitly said that my opinion is not to be construed as "Destroy is objectively bad".

As for being accommodating, I try, but I see less and less reason to be. I've lived with one year where there was a new hate thread for my preferred choice almost every week, where people were so obsessed with proving its wrong that they deny the epilogue as a delusion. Why should I exert myself - and believe me, it is an effort - to be accommodating when all I get for it is disdain, when people here on BSN are not even willing to concede that every choice is a valid preference, from a certain reasonable point of view?

I maintain that every ending choice is good in its way. From a certain reasonable point of view. I have not changed my opinion on that. Consequently, I started this topic as an opinion piece, not as an attempt to prove Destroy is bad in any objective sense, unlike some other obsessed fanatics on the other side.

What I would really like to see here, is more attempts to create beautiful and inspiring post-ending scenarios, for all of the endings, and less attempts try and gain agency over others' games and pulling them into the dirt. I may have approached doing the same here, but even if so, I won't apologize for doing once what others have been doing for a year.

[Wayning_Star]

Killdren88 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Killdren88 wrote...

You cannot let the Reapers go unpunished. They murdered countless other species. And I find it odd that people are willing to overlook that and give the Reapers the galactic version of community service as if their crimes were not a big deal.

how do we decide what is 'punishment', as we decide to act just like'm?

but then, we really don't exactly know what 'Them' are, so we don't really understand what to punish?

The more you think about applying story and lore, it gets worse from there..on the uninformed concept of decision...

 

Does that truly matter? Just because we dont know exactly we have know right to ensure justice is done? Are ae to just forget about what did and not make them answer for their crimes? The catalyst ciuld be right. But deal with probelms ae currently face. Not worry down the road about what might come of it.

I know what you mean, but it's a brain toaster to figure out just who to blame and then punish. OR if punishment would actually do any real good..if good is what we're up to there. Revenge isn't justice...is it?

[Ieldra]

Killdren88 wrote...
You cannot let the Reapers go unpunished. They murdered countless other species. And I find it odd that people are willing to overlook that and give the Reapers the galactic version of community service as if their crimes were not a big deal.

I consider enforcing human notions of karma irrelevant when the future of the galaxy is at stake, especially since the Reapers do not subscribe, and cannot reasonably be expected to subscribe, to such notions. Add that the Reapers' will is likely subverted, and it becomes questionable in the first place. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 février 2013 - 05:45 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Auld Wulf wrote...

The fact of the matter is this: Destroy fans have painted walls of opposition binarily depicting fans of other endings in a negative light.

Um, I'm a Destroyer/MEHEMer, and I fully recognize that there are psycho-douches and nice, reasonable people on both sides.  There are a few SPECIFIC Controllers/Synthesizers that I think are total jerks/a few cards short of a full deck, but that's less about the ending they chose and more about their crappy attitudes and, uh, "unconventional" ethical philosophies.

I really don't think I have to name specific names, here.  Pretty sure everyone knows who they are.

As for dirtbag Destroyers, I really wanna punch the ones that overlook or celebrate the synthetic genocide.  That's why I installed the MEHEM: to protect my robot babies (and get rid of bastard Starkid).

PS: The roboticide thingy always felt like a tacked-on consequence to get people to choose the other two endings.  I really don't think the writers thought it over completely when they put it in there.  Then again, that could be said about nearly everything relating to the ending(s).

PPS: Like, I would've been okay with it if it was JUST EDI (makes sense since she's part Reaper) and she KNEW about it.  Even though she said she's okay with fighting to the death, it feels wrong just killing her off behind her back.  The geth thing is unfair no matter how you slice it, ESPECIALLY if you just finished working your ass off to make peace between them and their creators.  If anything, the geth should be used as proof that the Catalyst's logic is fundamentally wrong, but alas...

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 14 février 2013 - 05:50 .

[clennon8]

Blame the writers, Ieldra, for the story they told.

[Ieldra]

clennon8 wrote...
Blame the writers, Ieldra, for the story they told.

"You cannot control what others will do. But you can choose how to react to it" - Shepard to Garrus in the "Dr Saleon" mission.

The story is told. Is it for us to make the best of it. Instead, we are tearing each other apart.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 février 2013 - 05:51 .

[dreamgazer]

Disassembling binary thinkers with ... binary thinking that ignores context and conceptual execution. How quaintly straw-manned.

[FOX216BC]

 

[Vigilant111]

@ Auld Wulf: Why don't you just call destroy supporters fundamentalists?

Handing my arse back to me? (It is inevitable that you are making this very personal isn't it?) I think you are a little late to the party, pal. It was done months ago, and people are still standing

[Wayning_Star]

dreamgazer wrote...

Disassembling binary thinkers with ... binary thinking that ignores context and conceptual execution. How quaintly straw-manned.

thats the moral of wulfs presentation, turning stuff on it's head,then through a glass to depolorize it..

all arguement, "via" is 'strawman'..lol