221 réponses à ce sujet

[Argolas]

Eterna5 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Be more specific. Destroying the Reapers is Paragon. Here's one Paragon line for you:

"This thing is an abomination. How do we destroy it?"

Destroying the Reapers may not b paragon, it is debatable.

Killing the Reapers while fully knowing that your allies will be collateral damage is not paragon. 

The suicide mission is a very good example of that not being the case. When the mission is important, Paragon Shepard focuses on getting it done. When you land on the collector homeworld, Miranda says "We all knew this was likely a one-way trip." Paragon Shepard agrees. Neutral Shepard says not to give up their lives yet.

"A good leader is someone who values the life of his men over the success of the mission, but understands that sometimes the cost of failing a mission is higher than the cost of losing those men."

- Anderson

Modifié par Argolas, 30 avril 2013 - 10:19 .

[IMNOTCRAZYiminsane]

robertthebard wrote...

IMNOTCRAZYiminsane wrote...

I guess Your right but I am annoyed by the change I liked Cerberus and My default Shep is a Renegade colonist Sole Surviver so yes I do know about Cerberus involment that doesn't mean I'm going to Judge all of Cerberus that's like me Judging all of the Turians because that stupid councilor 

In ME1 through Alliance POV yes they were a terrorist group 
In ME2 through Cerberus POV yes they did things different but it was for humanity Yes they did hursh things but it's up to the player or Shepard to see if they went too far 
In ME3 they are just stupid crazy TIM is stupid crazy forcing indoctrination and killing people by the millions to have an army it was "Pro-humanity" to "Pro-TIM" I don't like that change

Why couldn't we work together and while Hackett is saying "Destroy" TIM would be saying "Control" give their reasons have the player think about their choice instead of just shooting the tube, because to me grabbing the panals would have made my Shepard a hipocrite. And no it would not be two different games it would be the same game with more then one choice being jam 24/7 into Shepard's, the player, ears

And TIM didn't know about Jack   

All of Cerberus is led by TIM.  Every project that goes on is approved by him, and you can get this from Miranda in your first conversation with her.  You chose to ignore that, and that's ok, I guess, but I didn't.  I didn't choose to ignore what they were, and I wanted to walk away after Freedom's Progress, but no option to do so.  I didn't want to work with/for them at all.

That last line is lolworthy though.  Since there are recordings in the lab on Pragia about TIM.  So you expect me to believe that he's financing a project w/out knowing what's going on?  It's a Cerberus Facility.  Of course he knows what's going on.  Talk to both Mordin and Tali when they first board, and both will tell you about the surveillance equipment in their respective areas.  Do you honestly believe he's not keeping track of where the money's going?  Like I said, he's trying to paint you a picture of the "altruistic vision" of Cerberus, while in reality, there is nothing altruistic about them.  Of course, this also overlooks the fact that he gave you a dossier on Jack, which means that he did indeed know about her.

1. Relax and no i did not ignore the conversation with Miranda It's common knowlegde to know TIM controls Cerberus
2. like i said before what they did was hursh and it depends on the player we have different mindset of Cerberus and thats fine 
3.Fine w/e TIM knew about Jack im just going by in game that TIM didn't know what was happening with Jack and during her LM the place where she was went rouge and was doing everything outside of TIM's orders
4.Lolworthy really I Mean really sigh <_<
5. There in game that Yes they were working outside TIM

Modifié par IMNOTCRAZYiminsane, 30 avril 2013 - 10:22 .

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote....

Where's the roll on the floor laughing smiley when you need one???http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/lol.png I killed EDI, that's one person, so now, one person is a mass slaughter? I think your perspective is off. Of course, it could just be that you're off in general, wanna share whatever it is?

If you committed genocide against the geth beforehand, that's no point in Destroy's favor. It just makes you even worse.

. For the las time, killing the geth over Rannoch isn't genocide in any way shape or form.  It's a legitimate military encounter where both sides are fighting for survival.

[robertthebard]

Xilizhra wrote...

Will you sacrifice the brigades?

I'll hold position until you make a better analogy. One that acknowledges that no one dies in the non-Destroy endings.

Where's the roll on the floor laughing smiley when you need one???http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/lol.png I killed EDI, that's one person, so now, one person is a mass slaughter? I think your perspective is off. Of course, it could just be that you're off in general, wanna share whatever it is?

If you committed genocide against the geth beforehand, that's no point in Destroy's favor. It just makes you even worse.

Oh no, we're to genocide now?  So, by messing up something in ME 1 or 2 that I didn't know was going to be a factor in making peace, I committed genocide?  I'd type out a more detailed response, but really, I can't see the point.  I mean really, any intelligent person would have left this out of a discussion.

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

hahaha good ol' BSN

[Xilizhra]

The suicide mission is a very good example of that not being the case. When the mission is important, Paragon Shepard focuses on getting it done. When you land on the collector homeworld, Miranda says "We all knew this was likely a one-way trip." Paragon Shepard agrees. Neutral Shepard says not to give up their lives yet.

This is a self-sacrificing attitude, not an others-sacrificing one.

. For the las time, killing the geth over Rannoch isn't genocide in any way shape or form. It's a legitimate military encounter where both sides are fighting for survival.

Genocide if you can make peace, utter incompetence if you can't.

[robertthebard]

IMNOTCRAZYiminsane wrote...

1. Relax and no i did not ignore the conversation with Miranda It's common knowlegde to know TIM controls Cerberus
2. like i said before what they did was hursh and it depends on the player we have different mindset of Cerberus and thats fine 
3.Fine w/e TIM knew about Jack im just going by in game that TIM didn't know what was happening with Jack and during her LM the place where she was went rouge and was doing everything outside of TIM's orders
4.Lolworthy really I Mean really sigh <_<
5. There in game that Yes they were working outside TIM

Remember earlier, where I mentioned hand in the cookie jar?  Your video is the example of that.  It's even followed up by an email saying "Hey, we didn't really do that, despite the fact that it's a Cerberus funded lab that stole kids for biotic research".  Next, you'll be telling me that Sanctuary wasn't his idea?

[Yestare7]

Xilizhra wrote... sacrificing allies unnecessarily has never been Paragon.

unnecessarily is the keyword. Geth and EDI are necessary sacrifices,
to destroy the reapers

[robertthebard]

Xilizhra wrote...

The suicide mission is a very good example of that not being the case. When the mission is important, Paragon Shepard focuses on getting it done. When you land on the collector homeworld, Miranda says "We all knew this was likely a one-way trip." Paragon Shepard agrees. Neutral Shepard says not to give up their lives yet.

This is a self-sacrificing attitude, not an others-sacrificing one.

. For the las time, killing the geth over Rannoch isn't genocide in any way shape or form. It's a legitimate military encounter where both sides are fighting for survival.

Genocide if you can make peace, utter incompetence if you can't.

RoberttheBard's dictionary of BSN terms defines utter incompetence as:  Stating that failing to make peace on Rannoch is genocide, and then waffling to "oh, well, if you can't make it, you were just imcompetent, even if you didn't know that something might be important later".  Sound familiar?

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

. For the las time, killing the geth over Rannoch isn't genocide in any way shape or form. It's a legitimate military encounter where both sides are fighting for survival.

Genocide if you can make peace, utter incompetence if you can't.

. Again with you insulting. I'm not incompetent.  Ceberus thought the fancy new geth was awesome and I was happy to give it to them, paid for a new biotic upgrade.

[Xilizhra]

RoberttheBard's dictionary of BSN terms defines utter incompetence as: Stating that failing to make peace on Rannoch is genocide, and then waffling to "oh, well, if you can't make it, you were just imcompetent, even if you didn't know that something might be important later". Sound familiar?

In what area did you fail to make peace? What did you miss?

Also, strictly speaking, as Shepard takes a direct action that Shepard knows will be the doom of all geth, it still is genocide. So you're right, I shouldn't have waffled.

[Yestare7]

Xilizhra wrote...

Will you sacrifice the brigades?

I'll hold position until you make a better analogy. 

You side stepped the question. 

That's cute in a debate, but if you cannot answer this question with "yes",
then you are unfit for command and should step down.



Y

[Yestare7]

Xilizhra wrote...

RoberttheBard's dictionary of BSN terms defines utter incompetence as: Stating that failing to make peace on Rannoch is genocide, and then waffling to "oh, well, if you can't make it, you were just imcompetent, even if you didn't know that something might be important later". Sound familiar?

In what area did you fail to make peace? What did you miss?

Also, strictly speaking, as Shepard takes a direct action that Shepard knows will be the doom of all geth, it still is genocide. So you're right, I shouldn't have WAFFLED

:O the Magic word!!!

[AresKeith]

Xilizhra, not every play style is gonna lead to players having a choice to make peace

Trying to cry "genocide" when the person doesn't even have the option to make peace makes your claim fall

[Xilizhra]

AresKeith wrote...

Xilizhra, not every play style is gonna lead to players having a choice to make peace

Trying to cry "genocide" when the person doesn't even have the option to make peace makes your claim fall

In-universe, it's an utter failure of Shepard to not attempt to make peace. Trying to make peace and failing would be acceptable, but Shepard does not do that. Shepard allows the quarians to die or forces the geth to die.

[IMNOTCRAZYiminsane]

robertthebard wrote...

IMNOTCRAZYiminsane wrote...

1. Relax and no i did not ignore the conversation with Miranda It's common knowlegde to know TIM controls Cerberus
2. like i said before what they did was hursh and it depends on the player we have different mindset of Cerberus and thats fine 
3.Fine w/e TIM knew about Jack im just going by in game that TIM didn't know what was happening with Jack and during her LM the place where she was went rouge and was doing everything outside of TIM's orders
4.Lolworthy really I Mean really sigh <_<
5. There in game that Yes they were working outside TIM

Remember earlier, where I mentioned hand in the cookie jar?  Your video is the example of that.  It's even followed up by an email saying "Hey, we didn't really do that, despite the fact that it's a Cerberus funded lab that stole kids for biotic research".  Next, you'll be telling me that Sanctuary wasn't his idea?

Sanctuary was in ME3 and i already explained that i didn't like Cerberus so no im not going to say "it wasn't his Idea" I do like Cerberus in ME2 yes doesn't mean I Liked them in ME3

And yes it was funded by Cerberus but they Cut ties with TIM going rouge and doing what they want TIM order for it to be shut down where in game did it say TIM caused what happened to Jack? From what happened in game TIM funded it, they went rouge, Jack happened 

Besides the fact you don't like Cerberus show me where in game TIM was behind it all 

@Yestare7 I got scared and thought it was Blue [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/sick.png[/smilie]

Modifié par IMNOTCRAZYiminsane, 30 avril 2013 - 10:51 .

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Xilizhra, not every play style is gonna lead to players having a choice to make peace

Trying to cry "genocide" when the person doesn't even have the option to make peace makes your claim fall

In-universe, it's an utter failure of Shepard to not attempt to make peace. Trying to make peace and failing would be acceptable, but Shepard does not do that. Shepard allows the quarians to die or forces the geth to die.

. Neither choice is really genocide though.  Again, it's military necessity in a desperate fight for survival.

[AresKeith]

Xilizhra wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Xilizhra, not every play style is gonna lead to players having a choice to make peace

Trying to cry "genocide" when the person doesn't even have the option to make peace makes your claim fall

In-universe, it's an utter failure of Shepard to not attempt to make peace. Trying to make peace and failing would be acceptable, but Shepard does not do that. Shepard allows the quarians to die or forces the geth to die.

Shepard technically does, he/she tries to tell the Quarians to stand down before making the big choice between them

[Xilizhra]

AresKeith wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Xilizhra, not every play style is gonna lead to players having a choice to make peace

Trying to cry "genocide" when the person doesn't even have the option to make peace makes your claim fall

In-universe, it's an utter failure of Shepard to not attempt to make peace. Trying to make peace and failing would be acceptable, but Shepard does not do that. Shepard allows the quarians to die or forces the geth to die.

Shepard technically does, he/she tries to tell the Quarians to stand down before making the big choice between them

And then gives up immediately? No, that is incompetence. Making a continued effort to try to win peace until one side just crushed the other would be sad, but not as bad as what we actually got, and not as poor a reflection on Shepard.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Xilizhra wrote...

Where's the roll on the floor laughing smiley when you need one???http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/lol.png I killed EDI, that's one person, so now, one person is a mass slaughter? I think your perspective is off. Of course, it could just be that you're off in general, wanna share whatever it is?

If you committed genocide against the geth beforehand, that's no point in Destroy's favor. It just makes you even worse.

There is no genocide against the geth. If they were an organic species I'd have an ethical problem. Geth are not like organics. Do not apply our morality to them. No two species are identical. All must be judged on their own merits. Treating every species like ones own is racist. I've said that before.

The minds of both forms of life can be shaped. With organics this takes a lot of time. With synthetics, replacement of a data file is the only requirement.

You have basically mobile platform, an operating system, and a datafile. There are backups on the Geth's central server. This is how alien synthetic life is.

[remydat]

My renegade Shep chooses control. This dude thinks everyone else but him is a douche so naturally he will need to stick around and regulate everyone. The Council races especially will likely have to be culled for the greater good. They have manipulated the rest of the Galaxy for too long. It's payback time b*tches.

[Eterna]

Argolas wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Be more specific. Destroying the Reapers is Paragon. Here's one Paragon line for you:

"This thing is an abomination. How do we destroy it?"

Destroying the Reapers may not b paragon, it is debatable.

Killing the Reapers while fully knowing that your allies will be collateral damage is not paragon. 

The suicide mission is a very good example of that not being the case. When the mission is important, Paragon Shepard focuses on getting it done. When you land on the collector homeworld, Miranda says "We all knew this was likely a one-way trip." Paragon Shepard agrees. Neutral Shepard says not to give up their lives yet.

"A good leader is someone who values the life of his men over the success of the mission, but understands that sometimes the cost of failing a mission is higher than the cost of losing those men."

- Anderson

The difference of course being that in the suicide mission you weren't given an option that saves everyone. At the end of ME3 you are given two options that spare everyone, you chose to kill your allies to complete the mission when you didn;t have to. That is not paragon. 

[Yestare7]

Yestare7 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Will you sacrifice the brigades?

I'll hold position until you make a better analogy. 

You side stepped the question. 

That's cute in a debate, but if you cannot answer this question with "yes",
then you are unfit for command and should step down.



Y

waiting for an answer on this one.

[robertthebard]

Xilizhra wrote...

RoberttheBard's dictionary of BSN terms defines utter incompetence as: Stating that failing to make peace on Rannoch is genocide, and then waffling to "oh, well, if you can't make it, you were just imcompetent, even if you didn't know that something might be important later". Sound familiar?

In what area did you fail to make peace? What did you miss?

Also, strictly speaking, as Shepard takes a direct action that Shepard knows will be the doom of all geth, it still is genocide. So you're right, I shouldn't have waffled.

What does it matter?  The paragon/renegade shouts at the Quarians were not available, so, in your eyes, I'm guilty of genocide.  I realize you are waffling all over the place now, since people not me are also calling foul, but really, your lack of knowledge about what went on in that playthrough of Rannoch gives you no right to be judgemental, or accusatory about what I intended to do, or about my competence on doing it.  However, you went straight to 'you committed genocide on Rannoch instead", which tells me that no matter what, that's what you think.  The fact that Shepard never fires a shot at that point, or that Shepard, when choosing who to save might be romancing Tali, and perhaps base his decision on that doesn't matter to you, does it?  So why ask?  In the long run, you'll just say "see, you killed them systematically and intentionally".  Which is, btw what genocide means, since it's fairly obvious you don't know.  I'm not sure how I wiped out all those ships in orbit w/out firing a shot, with my Widow, but hey, whatever makes your boat float.