343 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

LandoN7 wrote...

No, actually I like TIM much more than Hackett. Much, much more. But I think he has a lot of wasted potential.
And I think it's pretty obvious that TIM is indoctrinated, and Hackett is not. As a result, I don't trust TIM and I don't trust control.

Fair enough, but see my question above.

[Meltemph]

I'm not quite clear how one can have confidence that Destroy will actually destroy but still worry that Control won't actually control.

Huh? I'm quite sure control does exactly what the kid says it will do... Beyond that though? Lot more questions come up with control, compared to destroy.

Also, this doesnt make sense:

Note that this has nothng much to do with dorktanian's "argument;" you're getting to the same place he is for if fervent reasons.

Modifié par Meltemph, 19 février 2013 - 01:58 .

[LandoN7]

AlanC9 wrote...

Note that this has nothng much to do with dorktanian's "argument;" you're getting to the same place he is for if fervent reasons.

I'm not quite clear how one can have confidence that Destroy will actually destroy but still worry that Control won't actually control.

You make a good point. Let me start off by saying that I totally agree and that I personally don't believe the Catalyst can be trusted.

As a more general answer, I think people tend to think Destroy is more reliable because it is a more concrete idea. It's a goal (I believe)we've been striving for for 2.5 games. Control, on the other hand, isn't so believeable as destroying the reapers. There are simply too many questions that are left over from the idea. What happens to the original catalyst?, Why would he even allow Shepard to take his place?, will CataShep stay true to his reasonings for choosing control? 

Now, onto a deeper consideration I urge you to think of. TIM is indoctrinated, that's a fact. The catalyst itself says they control him. TIM introduces control only in the 3rd game, where many argue is where his indoctrination truly began. If TIM wants control, and he is being controlled by the reapers, does that mean the leader of the reapers wants control as well? If so, I think it sheds a light on control many seem to overlook.


EDIT: I'm not saying this is fact, it's just my specualtions for Super Mac.

Modifié par LandoN7, 19 février 2013 - 02:06 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

AlanC9 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Choosing something other then destroy, is being perfectly willing to risk the galaxy for ones own desires, due to the lack of a coherent explanation for the others.

Note that this has nothng much to do with dorktanian's "argument;" you're getting to the same place he is for if fervent reasons.

I'm not quite clear how one can have confidence that Destroy will actually destroy but still worry that Control won't actually control.

I think it's more to do with the having more confidence in the proposed outcome. Destoying the Reapers if fairly straight forward. Controling them on the other hand maintains their presence in the galaxy, having them around is a risk, not everyone is willing to take it. As far as the Reapers go both options have clear short term effects, one has unknown long term effects.

[Meltemph]

Destoying the Reapers if fairly straight forward. Controling them on the other hand maintains their presence in the galaxy, having them around is a risk, not everyone is willing to take it. As far as the Reapers go both options have clear short term effects, one has unknown long term effects.

Its not that at all. It has mroe to do with "how" control works. The kid makes it quite clear you are going to die, and that the effects of controlling the reapers isnt as simple as "I'm now in control". This begs the question of what is controlling them, why is it programmed the way it is, and what does the Controlshep being consist of?

Taking the kids explanation at face value is incredibly vague. I dont believe the kid is lying about any of the endings, but with control and synthesis, the way he explained it, I'm not sure why he would have to lie, he didnt explain anything.

Modifié par Meltemph, 19 février 2013 - 02:26 .

[Volc19]

AlanC9 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Choosing something other then destroy, is being perfectly willing to risk the galaxy for ones own desires, due to the lack of a coherent explanation for the others.

Note that this has nothng much to do with dorktanian's "argument;" you're getting to the same place he is for if fervent reasons.

I'm not quite clear how one can have confidence that Destroy will actually destroy but still worry that Control won't actually control.

Hypocrisy and fanaticism to strange things to people.

[Meltemph]

Volc19 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Choosing something other then destroy, is being perfectly willing to risk the galaxy for ones own desires, due to the lack of a coherent explanation for the others.

Note that this has nothng much to do with dorktanian's "argument;" you're getting to the same place he is for if fervent reasons.

I'm not quite clear how one can have confidence that Destroy will actually destroy but still worry that Control won't actually control.

Hypocrisy and fanaticism to strange things to people.

ITT: I use words I dont understand

[GreyLycanTrope]

Meltemph wrote...
Its not that at all. It has mroe to do with "how" control works. The kid makes it quite clear you are going to die, and that the effects of controlling the reapers isnt as simple as "I'm not in control". This begs the question of what is controlling them, why is programmed the way it is, and what does the Controlshep being consist of?

Taking the kids explanation at face value is incredibly vague. I dont believe the kid is lying about any of the endings, but with control and synthesis, the way he explained it, I'm not sure why he would have to lie, he didnt explain anything.

What I mean is that the immediate effect is straight forward, Shep electrocutes self, Reapers stop attacking, being reprogrammed or something to that effect. How they were altered and how this is maintained exactly is still up in the air (the unknown long term effects I was talking about).

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 19 février 2013 - 02:24 .

[Meltemph]

I get what you are saying. I just wanted to make it clear, specifically why it is such an unknown if you are at all inquisitive, specifically about the endings.

[AlanC9]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Controling them on the other hand maintains their presence in the galaxy, having them around is a risk, not everyone is willing to take it. As far as the Reapers go both options have clear short term effects, one has unknown long term effects.

That description works for me; trading off possible long-term benefits against certain short-term losses is something that comes up all the time in the series. And people should make these calls in different ways; it's no fun if the right answer is obvious.

[Meltemph]

AlanC9 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Controling them on the other hand maintains their presence in the galaxy, having them around is a risk, not everyone is willing to take it. As far as the Reapers go both options have clear short term effects, one has unknown long term effects.

That description works for me; trading off possible long-term benefits against certain short-term losses is something that comes up all the time in the series. And people should make these calls in different ways; it's no fun if the right answer is obvious.

Well in simple game terms anything works, as long as you are willing.  However, if we are talking about the validity of each ending, in terms of impact and what is at stake, it is hard, as a realist, to give much adherence to the idea of picking control or synthesis over destroy.  

That isnt to say I have not picked the other choices, simply to see what happens.  I get why someone would want to pick the other endings, in terms of curiosity or whimsicalness; but in terms of effectiveness and making sure you actually do save the galaxy, the other endings just dont give enough to make sense in regards to risk vs reward, specially considering what is at stake.

Modifié par Meltemph, 19 février 2013 - 02:42 .

[Auintus]

Perhaps someone here can answer this for me. If the Catalyst is trying to deceive you, why doesn't he just say, "You screwed up your Crucible device. To destroy the Reapers, you have to jump into the beam."?
Please note, I do consider Destroy a valid option(Refuse, on the other hand...). I am just questioning this argument for defending it.

[Whybother]

Aye, destroy.

Except for once when I made a very renegade Shep and picked Control for the lulz. Otherwise Destroy and get back with the LI.

[Red Panda]

Killing all synthetics is a giggle!

[Some Gamer Guy]

Destroyers are a bunch of rednecks.

[Whybother]

OperatingWookie wrote...

Killing all synthetics is a giggle!

Really you are just destroying synthetics based off reaper tech, which is bad.

[Steelcan]

Auintus wrote...

Perhaps someone here can answer this for me. If the Catalyst is trying to deceive you, why doesn't he just say, "You screwed up your Crucible device. To destroy the Reapers, you have to jump into the beam."?
Please note, I do consider Destroy a valid option(Refuse, on the other hand...). I am just questioning this argument for defending it.

. Simple, he's trying to convince you that Destroy is abad idea, not deceive you

[Auintus]

Steelcan wrote...

Auintus wrote...

Perhaps someone here can answer this for me. If the Catalyst is trying to deceive you, why doesn't he just say, "You screwed up your Crucible device. To destroy the Reapers, you have to jump into the beam."?
Please note, I do consider Destroy a valid option(Refuse, on the other hand...). I am just questioning this argument for defending it.

. Simple, he's trying to convince you that Destroy is a bad idea, not deceive you

So its more presenting its opinion on the matter than actually trying to lie to you, is that right? See, that actually makes sense. Usually I just hear that it's lying to you.

[Hadeedak]

Some Gamer Guy wrote...

Destroyers are a bunch of rednecks.

About then, the Duke boys showed up.

[ZerebusPrime]

Some Gamer Guy wrote...

Destroyers are a bunch of rednecks.

Nonsense!


In my case it just happens to be true.

[UrgentArchengel]

Well I am from Vermont, where we ride cows to work, and school. So I guess that Redneck comment applies to me as well.

[Vubica]

Auintus wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Auintus wrote...

Perhaps someone here can answer this for me. If the Catalyst is trying to deceive you, why doesn't he just say, "You screwed up your Crucible device. To destroy the Reapers, you have to jump into the beam."?
Please note, I do consider Destroy a valid option(Refuse, on the other hand...). I am just questioning this argument for defending it.

. Simple, he's trying to convince you that Destroy is a bad idea, not deceive you

So its more presenting its opinion on the matter than actually trying to lie to you, is that right? See, that actually makes sense. Usually I just hear that it's lying to you.

I never destrroy cuz i the geth but, EDI offers some hints towards lying when she says that once free of operator controll nothing constricts her to give accurate data, and werent the leviathans the first to be asimilated? she also offers a reason as to why it might lie when she says that her blah blah blah to keep the normandy operational is similar to human self preservation instincts... cheeky robits...

[EnvyTB075]

Dat pipe

[Obadiah]

I just finished a play though where I picked Destroy because the Reaper threat needed to be ended forever. Only done Destroy once before because the sacrifice is just so high.

RIP buddies. You will not be forgotten:

Modifié par Obadiah, 19 février 2013 - 04:28 .

[Han Shot First]

Destroy every time.