166 réponses à ce sujet

[KingZayd]

Xilizhra wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

PirateMouse wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Oh yeah? Who can stand up to the Reaper army now that the Crucible has been used up?

There is always someone who can kill someone else; it does not follow that we cannot have peace just because A could kill B.  To be ruled by fear, well ... it is often precisely that fear that leads to such terrible acts as genocide, in fact.

It's not being ruled by fear. It's merely using logic. Shepard is not the type to ignore the things he perceives to be unjust and wrong. He would use his power to enforce his moral views on the galaxy. It is only a matter of time before in the end he effectively rules the galaxy or ends up in a war he cannot lose.

As they say: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

That'd cause long-term harm in several ways, to be so blatant about it in too many ways. Hence, not something I'd do.

First of all it's not you. It's not even Shepard. It's an AI that is based on Shepard.

[Xilizhra]

First of all it's not you. It's not even Shepard. It's an AI that is based on Shepard.

Shepard wholly transferred into an AI state. She's died once and come back, why not a second time?

Also, another thing they say is "Better to rule in Hell, then to serve in Heaven."

[PirateMouse]

KingZayd wrote...

It's not being ruled by fear. It's merely using logic. Shepard is not the type to ignore the things he perceives to be unjust and wrong. He would use his power to enforce his moral views on the galaxy. It is only a matter of time before in the end he effectively rules the galaxy or ends up in a war he cannot lose.

As they say: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

You mean like if he/she were to "enforce his/her moral views on the galaxy" by wiping out an entire species on the grounds that he/she "might" do something bad later if he/she doesn't definitely do something horrible right now?

Don't try to play the "playing god" card.  Destroy is playing god, too.  So is Synthesis.  Hell, even Refusal is playing god  (unless you picked Refusal because you believed the Starbrat was lying) -- a god who refuses to take responsibility for his/her power, but a god nonetheless.

We both stopped the Reapers from killing everyone, and we both played god.  You played god and committed genocide.  I played god and became a protector of the galaxy.

Modifié par PirateMouse, 12 avril 2013 - 06:35 .

[PirateMouse]

KingZayd wrote...

First of all it's not you. It's not even Shepard. It's an AI that is based on Shepard.

How do you know it's not? How do you know, for that matter, that ME2 Shepard is actually Shepard? You were dead after all, and for two years no less.

What if Shepard were suddenly vaporized and then instantly replaced in the same instant by a perfect clone (absolutely no deviation) of Shepard with all of Shepard's memories ... would that still be Shepard?

I can make your head spin if you want to go down this road.  Suffice it to say that whether you think the Shepard AI is "actually" Shepard (whatever that means) or not, it's nevertheless the same personality with the same memories ... in AI form.

[KingZayd]

Xilizhra wrote...

First of all it's not you. It's not even Shepard. It's an AI that is based on Shepard.

Shepard wholly transferred into an AI state. She's died once and come back, why not a second time?

Also, another thing they say is "Better to rule in Hell, then to serve in Heaven."

TIM was adamant that Shepard's brain had to be exactly the same as before (somehow).
Human brains operate differently to AI's. There are a bunch of chemicals involved.

http://masseffect.wi...al_Intelligence

Read the stuff about quantum blue boxes. If you can't just copy over an AI from one place to another, why do you think you can copy over Shepard directly into an AI. You can't. There is an AI that is created with all of Shepard's memories, but it is not Shepard. The personality will be different and we even see this in the EC videos.

Also that quote you used is attributed to Satan from "Paradise Lost". Just thought it was interesting that you were using Satan's quote 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

I distinctly remember my Shepard telling Vega that his command "... isn't a democracy."


I'd say that about sums it up. =\\

[Xilizhra]

Read the stuff about quantum blue boxes. If you can't just copy over an AI from one place to another, why do you think you can copy over Shepard directly into an AI. You can't. There is an AI that is created with all of Shepard's memories, but it is not Shepard. The personality will be different and we even see this in the EC videos.

We can't. That says nothing about the Catalyst. And it's more than Shepard's memories that have been copied; the only logical reason to completely disintegrate Shepard is to process and upload all of Shepard's biological information into the Catalyst, so a complete reconstruction based on the entire nervous system and suchlike can be performed, not just one from the brain alone.

Also that quote you used is attributed to Satan from "Paradise Lost". Just thought it was interesting that you were using Satan's quote

That was deliberate. With Catalyst being basically the God of the MEverse, Control puts you in the Lucifer role. Destroy has you as Fenris/Jormungandr, Synthesis makes you Jesus, and Refuse... I don't know, maybe Job.

[PirateMouse]

KingZayd wrote...

Read the stuff about quantum blue boxes. If you can't just copy over an AI from one place to another, why do you think you can copy over Shepard directly into an AI.

Because space magic.

Why do you think you can shoot the Crucible and kill Starbrat and all of the Reapers (along with EDI and all of the geth)? Why do you think you can jump into the beam of light and turn everyone everywhere forever into some weird organic/synthetic hybrid thingy?

Space magic.

And space magic says you the Crucible can copy Shepard into AI form.

I never said it's good writing ... but hell, the best choice of those given is pretty obvious, and it sure ain't Destroy.

Modifié par PirateMouse, 12 avril 2013 - 06:51 .

[Eckswhyzed]

It'd be nice to hear their opinions, but I doubt my ending choice would change.

It's also funny to watch people project their ending choices onto the squadmates....

[KingZayd]

PirateMouse wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

It's not being ruled by fear. It's merely using logic. Shepard is not the type to ignore the things he perceives to be unjust and wrong. He would use his power to enforce his moral views on the galaxy. It is only a matter of time before in the end he effectively rules the galaxy or ends up in a war he cannot lose.

As they say: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

You mean like if he/she were to "enforce his/her moral views on the galaxy" by wiping out an entire species on the grounds that he/she "might" do something bad later if he/she doesn't definitely do something horrible right now?

Don't try to play the "playing god" card.  Destroy is playing god, too.  So is Synthesis.  Hell, even Refusal is playing god  (unless you picked Refusal because you believed the Starbrat was lying) -- a god who refuses to take responsibility for his/her power, but a god nonetheless.

We both stopped the Reapers from killing everyone, and we both played god.  You played god and committed genocide.  I played god and became a protector of the galaxy.

Control is the "playing god" card. Unlimited power forever. That's pretty much as close to playing god as you can get :Pbut I said nothing about "playing god"

Yes. Because if he does do something bad, unlike the Rachni, and the Krogan, and the Geth, he can't be stopped. I'm not going to risk everyone in the galaxy for something as petty as my conscience.

It's a one-time intervention that frees the galaxy from a would be self-appointed eternal "benevolent dictator". Submission is not preferable to extinction.

[Xilizhra]

It's a one-time intervention that frees the galaxy from a would be self-appointed eternal "benevolent dictator". Submission is not preferable to extinction.

Inapplicable, as you're making the choice for the ones who'd be rendered extinct without their input. Also imagining submission where there isn't necessarily any.

[KingZayd]

PirateMouse wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Read the stuff about quantum blue boxes. If you can't just copy over an AI from one place to another, why do you think you can copy over Shepard directly into an AI.

Because space magic.

Why do you think you can shoot the Crucible and kill Starbrat and all of the Reapers (along with EDI and all of the geth)? Why do you think you can jump into the beam of light and turn everyone everywhere forever into some weird organic/synthetic hybrid thingy?

Space magic.

And space magic says you the Crucible can copy Shepard into AI form.

I never said it's good writing ... but hell, the best choice of those given is pretty obvious, and it sure ain't Destroy.

I don't. The ending sucks. But Destroy is easily the least stupid choice.

Watch the EC Control video again. That is not the same Shepard at all. It's not completely detached from him, but it's certainly not the same either.

[KingZayd]

Xilizhra wrote...

It's a one-time intervention that frees the galaxy from a would be self-appointed eternal "benevolent dictator". Submission is not preferable to extinction.

Inapplicable, as you're making the choice for the ones who'd be rendered extinct without their input. Also imagining submission where there isn't necessarily any.

I'm making it for everyone, just as Control Shepard would be. Only my reign is incredibly brief. Control Shepard's is infinite.

[Xilizhra]

KingZayd wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

It's a one-time intervention that frees the galaxy from a would be self-appointed eternal "benevolent dictator". Submission is not preferable to extinction.

Inapplicable, as you're making the choice for the ones who'd be rendered extinct without their input. Also imagining submission where there isn't necessarily any.

I'm making it for everyone, just as Control Shepard would be. Only my reign is incredibly brief. Control Shepard's is infinite.

I make the decision only for myself and the Reapers; it doesn't directly affect anyone else.

[KingZayd]

Xilizhra wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

It's a one-time intervention that frees the galaxy from a would be self-appointed eternal "benevolent dictator". Submission is not preferable to extinction.

Inapplicable, as you're making the choice for the ones who'd be rendered extinct without their input. Also imagining submission where there isn't necessarily any.

I'm making it for everyone, just as Control Shepard would be. Only my reign is incredibly brief. Control Shepard's is infinite.

I make the decision only for myself and the Reapers; it doesn't directly affect anyone else.

Yes, because if there's one thing Shepard is known for, it's keeping out of everyone's way and being a non-interventionist. /sarcasm.

Modifié par KingZayd, 12 avril 2013 - 07:01 .

[PirateMouse]

Eckswhyzed wrote...

It'd be nice to hear their opinions, but I doubt my ending choice would change.

It's also funny to watch people project their ending choices onto the squadmates....

No doubt.

I obviously support Control, but I don't believe all squadmates would.  I'm thinking ...

Zaeed: Destroy
Wrex: Destroy
Jack: Destroy
Javik: Destroy
Grunt: Destroy
Ashley: Destroy
EDI: Either Synthesis or Control
Legion: Either Synthesis or Control
Liara: Control
Kasumi: Control
Jacob: Control
Thane: Control
Mordin: Control
Kaiden: Control
Samara: Either Destroy or Control
Miranda: Either Destroy or Control
Garrus: Either Destroy or Control
Vega: Busy doing pull-ups
Tali: Too drunk to care

Just my off-hand guesses.  I'm probably forgetting one or more people, but I'll call this good for what I think your various squadmates would choose.

[PirateMouse]

KingZayd wrote...

Yes, because if there's one thing Shepard is known for, it's keeping out of everyone's way and being a non-interventionist. /sarcasm.

Intervening was sort of necessary in order to save the galaxy.  It doesn't follow that it's impossible to settle down after the Reaper threat has been stopped.

Of course, it wasn't necessary to intervene by committing genocide.  That's something you chose to do all by yourself.

[kalasaurus]

PirateMouse wrote...

Eckswhyzed wrote...

It'd be nice to hear their opinions, but I doubt my ending choice would change.

It's also funny to watch people project their ending choices onto the squadmates....

No doubt.

I obviously support Control, but I don't believe all squadmates would.  I'm thinking ...

Zaeed: Destroy
Wrex: Destroy
Jack: Destroy
Javik: Destroy
Grunt: Destroy
Ashley: Destroy
EDI: Either Synthesis or Control
Legion: Either Synthesis or Control
Liara: Control
Kasumi: Control
Jacob: Control
Thane: Control
Mordin: Control
Kaiden: Control
Samara: Either Destroy or Control
Miranda: Either Destroy or Control
Garrus: Either Destroy or Control
Vega: Busy doing pull-ups
Tali: Too drunk to care

Just my off-hand guesses.  I'm probably forgetting one or more people, but I'll call this good for what I think your various squadmates would choose.

I think Kaidan and Garrus would probably pick Destroy too.  They were really happy to see the geth die after Rannoch.  It would be a win/win for them.

As for the rest, I agree they'd probably pick those.

Modifié par GlassElephant, 12 avril 2013 - 07:16 .

[KingZayd]

PirateMouse wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Yes, because if there's one thing Shepard is known for, it's keeping out of everyone's way and being a non-interventionist. /sarcasm.

Intervening was sort of necessary in order to save the galaxy.  It doesn't follow that it's impossible to settle down after the Reaper threat has been stopped.

Of course, it wasn't necessary to intervene by committing genocide.  That's something you chose to do all by yourself.

Actually, as you said, It was necessary to intervene in order to save the galaxy. And unfortunately, the only solution to the Reaper vs non-Reaper conflict  had negative side effects. I didn't enjoy commiting genocide. I liked the Geth. But they would be just as doomed as the rest of us if the Reapers weren't stopped.

Shepard has always intervened throughout the series, even when the galaxy didn't depend on it. He's just that kind of guy, and usually it's a positive trait. When you're an immortal, unstoppabable force it's not so pleasant.

A question though: How do you excuse Arrival Shepard's destruction of the Alpha Relay? He murdered many Batarians when he did that.

Modifié par KingZayd, 12 avril 2013 - 07:19 .

[Null_Mime]

I was a big supporter of the Control ending... Well, in a sense I still am. But Ive come to see Destroy as being far less evil than I use to. Destroying the Reapers means that for the first time in hundreds of thousands, or maybe even millions of years, life has a chance to grow and evolve without Reaper interference.

I keep thinking back to the talks I had with both Legion and Mordin...

"Technology is not a straight line. There are many paths to the same end. Accepting another's path blinds you to alternatives." - Legion

"All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming, compensating for limitations. Can't carry a load so invent wheel. Can't catch food so invent spear. Limitations. No limitations no advancement, culture stagnates. Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready... disastrous." - Mordin

Both in Synthesis and Control, you are accepting the Reaper's power, technology and advancment instead of letting the universe evolve and achieve it on it's own terms. While this is more indirect in the Control ending, as the controlling consciousness of the Reapers, you are still imposing your will/morals on the rest of the galaxy. Which, at worst (as a Renegade) you become a dictator, and a best (as a Paragon) you puppy-guard/coddle everything, solving problems for eveyone instead of them learning to work it out themselves.

This also makes me think back to Star Trek episodes involving the Q.

Despite being so powerful to the point where time and space are their playthings, they acknowledge that humanity will someday surpass them. This is due to the humanity's drive to learn and improve in order to compensate for our faults. Where as the "Q", unable to even imagine how they could become any better, would remain as they are. For this reason, Picard regularly rejects the "gifts" of the Q so humanity can develope and advance on it's own.

So yes, while Destroy forces us to lose EDI and the Geth, and as a huge Geth supporter it really hurts me to do so, in the long run it would be for the greater good for all life in the Galaxy.

Side Note: In my head-canon I like to believe that some Geth managed to somehow escape the blast and, with the help of the Quarians, were able to make new fully intelligent Geth.

Modifié par Null_Mime, 12 avril 2013 - 07:39 .

[PirateMouse]

KingZayd wrote...

Actually, as you said, It was necessary to intervene in order to save the galaxy. And unfortunately, the only solution to the Reaper vs non-Reaper conflict  had negative side effects.

That would be a fine argument if it were the only solution, but it wasn't ... so it's not.  It's not even an acceptable excuse.

[PirateMouse]

Null_Mime wrote...

I was a big supporter of the Control ending... Well, in a sense I still am. But Ive come to see Destroy as being far less evil than I use to. Destroying the Reapers means that for the first time in hundreds of thousands, or maybe even millions of years, life has a chance to grow and evolve without Reaper interference.

I keep thinking back to the talks I had with both Legion and Mordin...

"Technology is not a straight line. There are many paths to the same end. Accepting another's path blinds you to alternatives." - Legion

"All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming, compensating for limitations. Can't carry a load so invent wheel. Can't catch food so invent spear. Limitations. No limitations no advancement, culture stagnates. Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready... disastrous." - Mordin

Both in Synthesis and Control, you are accepting the Reaper's power, technology and advancment instead of letting the universe evolve and achieve it on it's own terms. While this is more indirect in the Control ending, as the controlling consciousness of the Reapers, you are still imposing your will/morals on the rest of the galaxy. Which, at worst (as a Renegade) you become a dictator, and a best (as a Paragon) you puppy-guard/coddle everything, solving problems for eveyone instead of them learning to work it out themselves.

This also makes me think back to Star Trek episodes involving the Q.

Despite being so powerful to the point where time and space are their playthings, they acknowledge that humanity will someday surpass them. This is due to the humanity's drive to learn and improve in order to compensate for our faults. Where as the "Q", unable to even imagine how they could become any better, would remain as they are. For this reason, Picard regularly rejects the "gifts" of the Q so humanity can develope and advance on it's own.

So yes, while Destroy forces us to lose EDI and the Geth, and as a huge Geth supporter it really hurts me to do so, in the long run it would be for the greater good for all life in the Galaxy.

Side Note: In my head-canon I like to believe that some Geth managed to somehow escape the blast and, with the help of the Quarians, were able to make new fully intelligent Geth.

This is all well and good, but I don't quite see why the two are mutually exclusive.  Why can't the galaxy use Reaper tech and develop its own (and even tear apart the Reaper tech finally, reverse-engineer it, and really understand how it works) at the same time? Why can't Reaper AI Shepard, Paragon or Renegade, back off and only intervene seriously when/if it's absolutely necessary?

And I mean, seriously, the idea of being special and advancing "on our own" is cute and all? But in the real world, any civilization that comes across new tech quickly adopts it (while also continuing to advance in its own way), and any civilization that fails to do this gets left behind.  This idea of "advancing along our own pathways" while rejecting discovered technology is a cute concept that can be made to seem very wise within the context of a story, but in reality, it's a childish one.

The adult thing to do would be to take the time to tear apart all that Reaper tech and figure out how it really works rather than simply continuing to blindly rely on it.  ... and then improve on it and make something even better.

Modifié par PirateMouse, 12 avril 2013 - 09:31 .

[ComfortablyNumb]

PirateMouse wrote...
 I played god and became a protector of the galaxy.

Leto Atrides II and his Golden Path comes to mind. He also became god to save people. Didn't end well for him or his galaxy...

[S.A.K]

Genocide or not, destroy is the best option IMO.
Control is slavery and Shepard becomes catalyst 2.0
Synthasis is just messed.
And lets not even talk about refuse.
Shapard's job was destroying the Reapers. Not enslave them or mess up ppl's DNA. And the only synthatic I gave a f*ck about was EDI.

[Xilizhra]

The adult thing to do would be to take the time to tear apart all that Reaper tech and figure out how it really works rather than simply continuing to blindly rely on it. ... and then improve on it and make something even better.

Indeed. However... some of that will be proprietary, as I have no intention of letting the Reapers fall behind in the tech race.