506 réponses à ce sujet

[Argolas]

KingZayd wrote...

Argolas wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Peace in Control is delusional anyway

Well, the epilogue proves that it's all sunshine and rainbows (same for synthesis) - granted, that makes no sense but hey, can't argue with Bioware's artistic utopia ex culo.

Not really. The epilogue doesn't cover all time. War could easily break out after what we see in the epilogue.

It doesn't even need open war. As I said, there are plenty of desperate people out there, nothing to lose and endless anger against the Reapers. Remember, their forces are finite, as long as the harvest doesn't start again, every destroyed Reaper is permanently one Reaper less. There is also no way to defend themselves against such strikes for the Reapers. A well-funded organization such as Cerberus (not Cerberus itself, but an organization backed by rich and powerful people who want to see the Reapers gone) can easily construct small hit-and-run fleets. The Reapers would slowly bleed out or restart the harvest, none of both very appealing.

I would accept Control as the best ending íf there was the option that the Shepalyst simply destroys the Reapers manually, so basically Destroy without casualties. But the epilogue clearly shows that the Reapers are going to stick around dangerously close to us, and that's unacceptable.

But if that was an option, destroy would be a little redundant. A mere "do you want some collateral damage with that?" option.

Yes... because choosing Control changes Shepard... but that's another matter. Choosing Control under that premise would require metagaming anyway.

[David7204]

All decisions in all video games are influenced by 'metagaming.' The player always has information the player character doesn't, and that includes a first playthrough. It's impossible to avoid.

Modifié par David7204, 09 mai 2013 - 02:12 .

[Argolas]

David7204 wrote...

All decisions in all video games are influenced by 'metagaming.' The player always has information the player character doesn't, and that includes a first playthrough. It's impossible to avoid.

That's not always true. For example, it's somewhere between hard and impossible to metagame in Torment. The player of this game knows very little more than The Nameless One, and many of the expactations we usually have in a game are not fulfilled.

[AlanC9]

Argolas wrote...
There is also no way to defend themselves against such strikes for the Reapers. A well-funded organization such as Cerberus (not Cerberus itself, but an organization backed by rich and powerful people who want to see the Reapers gone) can easily construct small hit-and-run fleets. The Reapers would slowly bleed out or restart the harvest, none of both very appealing.

Assuming the Reapers sit still in plain sight and wait to be attacked, sure. Why would they?

It's funny how many people in this board talk about mounting hit-and-run attacks against a force with no fixed bases to defend. Though I guess you could lure the Reapers out by threatening to destroy Earth or something.

[Argolas]

AlanC9 wrote...

Argolas wrote...
There is also no way to defend themselves against such strikes for the Reapers. A well-funded organization such as Cerberus (not Cerberus itself, but an organization backed by rich and powerful people who want to see the Reapers gone) can easily construct small hit-and-run fleets. The Reapers would slowly bleed out or restart the harvest, none of both very appealing.

Assuming the Reapers sit still in plain sight and wait to be attacked, sure. Why would they?

It's funny how many people in this board talk about mounting hit-and-run attacks against a force with no fixed bases to defend. Though I guess you could lure the Reapers out by threatening to destroy Earth or something.

So what do you think they are doing post Control?

[PsyrenY]

David7204 wrote...

All decisions in all video games are influenced by 'metagaming.' The player always has information the player character doesn't, and that includes a first playthrough. It's impossible to avoid.

The reverse is sometimes true as well.  Take Shepard's vision from ME1 - there was absolutely nothing in that from a player's perspective that would point to Ilos. And even before we get the Cipher or the whole vision, Shepard could tell it was a race being massacred, something that we can barely tell from the images we're shown.

Which of course leads me to the visions Shepard gets in ME3 from the Catalyst, pertaining to each ending choice. It's obvious that what Shepard sees convinces him/her that the Catalyst is being truthful and what the three choices actually mean. The player however only gets brief snatches. Which is why so many players still believe Shepard doesn't have enough to go on, when in fact s/he does.

[AlanC9]

Depends on what needs to be done at the particular moment,wouldn't it? If something needs Reaper attention, there shoukd be Reapers there. Otherwise they should hang out in interstellar space.

Modifié par AlanC9, 09 mai 2013 - 03:27 .

[PsyrenY]

Argolas wrote...


Yes... because choosing Control changes Shepard... but that's another matter. Choosing Control under that premise would require metagaming anyway.

None of the choices require metagaming. Shepard gets a vision of what each choice entails by asking about it.

[The Twilight God]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Peace in Control is delusional anyway

Well, the epilogue proves that it's all sunshine and rainbows (same for synthesis) - granted, that makes no sense but hey, can't argue with Bioware's artistic utopia ex culo.

Actually it doesn't. It merely depicts what the narrative HOPES will happen. The last scene to ACTUALLY OCCUR is the memorial and Normandy takeoff. The narrator does not speak in past tense (i.e. this has happened), but rather speaks in terms of hopes and wants.

It is no coincidence that Shepard is reaperized prior to being disintegrated in both Reaper options..

There is a collage of pictures which have no direct relation to anything being said by the narrator. The narrator doesn't speak specifically about anything in these pictures. Shepard never mentions Miranda and her sister studying reapers or Wrex returning to a joyous Tuchanka. In fact, the narrative is the same regardless of what pictures pop up on screen; rather it's Wrex and Grunt overlooking a cheering crowd, Wreav overlooking a desolate wasteland or Rachni moving in on Tuchanka. The narration and the pictures are disjointed and therefore don't constitute an actual epilogue. This dissonance renders the pictures inconsequential. Any assumption that they are magical visions of the future seen through a crystal ball is a baseless conjecture by the player. The narrator, Shepard, only speaks about what he will do; Not what has been done. We never see anything it claims it will do actually happen.

[AlanC9]

The strength of your headcanon dazzles me sometimes, TTG.

But what on earth do you mean by "(t)he narrator, Shepard, only speaks about what he will do; Not what has been done "? Shepard isn't the narrator of anything.

Or are you still pushing that modified IT variant?

Modifié par AlanC9, 09 mai 2013 - 08:05 .

[Argolas]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Argolas wrote...


Yes... because choosing Control changes Shepard... but that's another matter. Choosing Control under that premise would require metagaming anyway.

None of the choices require metagaming. Shepard gets a vision of what each choice entails by asking about it.

What I meant is  choosing Control with the intention to Destroy the Reapers immediatly after taking them over, basically Destroy without casualties except Shepard him/herself. I said that my Shep would choose Control if he knew he could do that, but the choices are presented as they are for a reason it appears. Control, Synthesis and Destroy seem to be mutually exclusive, thus Destroy is still my choice both with and without metagaming.

[Dubozz]

Starbrat ruined the game. Nuff said.

[The Twilight God]

AlanC9 wrote...

The strength of your headcanon dazzles me sometimes, TTG.

But what on earth do you mean by "(t)he narrator, Shepard, only speaks about what he will do; Not what has been done "? Shepard isn't the narrator of anything.

Or are you still pushing that modified IT variant?

Headcannon, by definition, is player-made fiction that is not derived from the source material. It represents events that do not take place in-game. Like little blue babies or Hackett having the ability to see into the future through a magical crystal ball. Nothing I have mentioned is fabricating anything that is not derived from in-game events. Ergo, it cannot be headcannon. You may choose to disagree with my conclusions concerning in-game events, but nothing I have said is fabricated. It is all supported by in-game data.

Reaper Shepard , Synthesized EDI and Hackett do the voice over for the endings. I refer to them as the "ending narrators". And in all three cases they speak about what the plan, believe and hope to happen based on their personal perspective given state of the galaxy/their state of mind. At no point do they claim anything they plan, hope or want to see occur has occurred in the pass tense (i.e. it hasn't actually happened). This is basic second grade reading comprehension. Furthermore, there is no evidence that either of them have developed the ability to see into the future.

To your last comment, "IT" is used to describe a idea in which the entire sequence following the encounter with Harbinger at the base of the Conduit is a dream. I have never stated support for such an concept and have argued against it.

[Wayning_Star]

the reaperships do NOT lie, nor does the catalyst. They cannot. That is an organic condition, via evolution. Part of the self survival instinct.

Why would the catalyst even bother to 'preserve' if it's all about 'lies'.

[jkflipflopDAO]

Wayning_Star wrote...

the reaperships do NOT lie, nor does the catalyst. They cannot. That is an organic condition, via evolution. Part of the self survival instinct.

Why would the catalyst even bother to 'preserve' if it's all about 'lies'.

EDI lies to Joker all the time.

[jkflipflopDAO]

AcidwireX wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The Crucible wasn't a potential solution, it was a certain solution. No reasonable player would seriously think the Crucible was going to go to waste and end up being worthless after the narrative spent so much focus on it. It was effectively certain to players that the Crucible was going to stop the Reapers somehow, and some unknown elements were going to play a part.

From the instant the Crucible was mentioned, I expected it to backfire and actually be a reaper trap.

Because its too good to be true. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought this.

As soon as Liara said "a Prothean Superweapon!" I said "No F'n way they're gonna pull this cheap crap!". I was wrong.

[spockjedi]

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

As soon as Liara said "a Prothean Superweapon!" I said "No F'n way they're gonna pull this cheap crap!". I was wrong.

Same here.  But I couldn't imagine how far the crap would go.

[The Twilight God]

Wayning_Star wrote...

the reaperships do NOT lie, nor does the catalyst. They cannot. That is an organic condition, via evolution. Part of the self survival instinct.

Why would the catalyst even bother to 'preserve' if it's all about 'lies'.

How is lying an "organic condition"? Where do you derive this concept? Or did you simply pull it out of thin air to support your desired position?

Your statement is contradicted by in-game data.

Either the Reapers motives are something we cannot understand or it is something we understand (even if only to point out how ridiculous it is). Was the Rannoch Reaper lying or the Kid?

Sovereign claims that the mass relays *including the Citadel) were constructed by the Reapers. The Kid claims the Citadel and itself to be one and the same. Was Sovereign lying or the Kid?

The Kid claims that the Crucible will target synthetics and defines synthetics as "technology you rely on". Going so far as to imply Shepard will die if the Crucible is activated. However, there is no indication that the Crucible had any effect synthetics at all and Shepard can survive the blast. Was the Kid lying or is the Kid an organic?

One could go on and on about the inconsistencies.

[Argolas]

Wayning_Star wrote...

the reaperships do NOT lie, nor does the catalyst. They cannot. That is an organic condition, via evolution. Part of the self survival instinct.

Why would the catalyst even bother to 'preserve' if it's all about 'lies'.

Sovereign claimed that the Reapers had no beginning and no end. The former is a lie, the latter... maybe arrogance? Another 'organic condition'? It turned out to be wrong anyway. As did both conflicting 'inevitabilites', the harvest and synthesis. I let none of both happen.

[Morlath]

Wayning_Star wrote...

the reaperships do NOT lie, nor does the catalyst. They cannot. That is an organic condition, via evolution. Part of the self survival instinct.

EDI in ME3 just after she gets the body tells you she lies and explains it's because there's no restrictive programming making her tell the truth.

[PsyrenY]

Morlath wrote...


EDI in ME3 just after she gets the body tells you she lies and explains it's because there's no restrictive programming making her tell the truth.

Right, because her shackles were removed.

The Catalyst however is still shackled, as evidenced by every part of the ending choices that isn't Synthesis.

[David7204]

Having the Crucible be a Reaper crap makes utterly no sense.

As I've said countless times, the Catalyst has no reason to lie. Hence, you don't need to 'metagame' to trust that the three options will do what he says they will do.

Modifié par David7204, 09 mai 2013 - 06:48 .

[The Night Mammoth]

It used deception to kill the Leviathans and continues to use deception to enact the cycles, has been hiding in the Citadel for millions of years, uses a form of mind control which deceives the subject into serving it, and takes the form of the child from Shepard's dreams to manipulate her.

I see no reason why it wouldn't be capable of lying. For that reason, I think it's perfectly understandable that some people base their choices, whatever it may be, on a lack of trust. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 09 mai 2013 - 06:52 .

[PsyrenY]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I see no reason why it wouldn't be capable of lying.

If it was capable of lying about the choices, it would have no reason to present you with Destroy and Control. Or, to quote another post I read on these boards - "if you can't trust it, there's no reason to believe that shooting the tube won't just cause toxic gas to pour out all over Shepard, or that the electrodes it wants you to grasp are simply live wires."

[David7204]

There's nothing the Catalyst stands to gain by lying to Shepard.

Optimystic_X wrote...

If it was capable of lying about the choices, it would have no reason to present you with Destroy and Control. Or, to quote another post I read on these boards - "if you can't trust it, there's no reason to believe that shooting the tube won't just cause toxic gas to pour out all over Shepard, or that the electrodes it wants you to grasp are simply live wires."

This is also wrong. The point of the exchange is that the Catalyst is handing the choice over to Shepard, freely and willingly. Including the choice to Destroy him.

It's not concerned about it's own 'survival.' It has no sense of self-preservation.

Modifié par David7204, 09 mai 2013 - 06:55 .