235 réponses à ce sujet

[dorktainian]

yeah lets make nice with the gigantic immortal spacegods that are going to kill us all.

Insane.

[Indy_S]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

The tree/forest fire style comparisons don't work because the creatures the Reapers are harvesting are not only sentient but actively resisting.

I disagree with that. Sentience is not necessary for something to be in conflict. Fire has terrible self-control and it will all-to-readily consume its fuel to the point where it is in conflict with itself. It threatens its own existence whether it has an awareness of it or not.

[Eain]

AlanC9 wrote...

Eain wrote...

No, those that roleplay are stuck with refuse. There's no reason at all to assume that the Spacekid is lying about control and synthesis but is honest about Destroy. Shoot the tube to activate the Crucible? Really? What happened to buttons? Shepard has no reason to believe that destroying a component on a weapon makes it work. Moreover, the source telling him this is his sworn enemy. Thirdly, why would the Spacekid know anything? Why would it know how the Crucible works or what it can do? Unless it designed it... in which case using it is an even worse idea.

I agree with most of this, but how does role-play lead to Refuse? Why pick certain defeat over a small chance of victory?

Because Shepard doesn't know it's certain defeat. There's always a fighting chance of finding/using a weapon that isn't apparently infested with the spirit of the Reaper overlord. Or finding a Reaper weakness. Or finding a way to activate the Crucible that doesn't involve breaking parts of it. Anything.

We as players may understand it to be certain defeat because that's what the writers keep telling us, but Shepard is a character in that world and can only make decisions based on what she knows. And what she knows isn't that the people she associates herself with are mouthpieces for Mac Walters and Casey Hudson. That's how we as players understand it, but to Shepard these are just people who are fallible.

[David7204]

Ridiculous.

The Catalyst has no reason to lie to Shepard, period. 

Modifié par David7204, 16 mai 2013 - 11:34 .

[Eain]

Why not?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Ridiculous.

The Catalyst has no reason to lie to Shepard, period. 

Just because he's not lying does not make him truthful. He doesn't elaborate on his problem, how he came to recognize the problem, how the problem can be solved, or how he came up with the formula to solve his problem.

Most importantly, he never explains his perspective to you. You don't know how he views things, and he certainly doesn't understand how you view things.

I think the destroy and control options are layed out to you. There's some hiccups in the explanation of both but it's there. I'm thinking this is because he is programmed to not withhold the solutions.

As for synthesis, I think he sees what the Crucible can do, and is able attune the Citadel to use the Crucible for synthesis. All it requires is Shepard's "life essence". He explains what synthesis is, but he explains it from his perspective. What he thinks it is. You're basing that decision upon his belief. That's not necessary a lie, but that is dishonesty on his part.

[AlanC9]

Morlath wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I'm not in disagreement with the tree. I'm not battling it. I'm just clearing space for a new driveway (or whatever). What I'm doing simply isn't about the tree.

Of course it is. You decide that what you want to use the space the tree is taking up is of far more importance than the tree itself.

Sure, but is "conflict" the right word for utter indifference?

[AlanC9]

Eain wrote...
Because Shepard doesn't know it's certain defeat. There's always a fighting chance of finding/using a weapon that isn't apparently infested with the spirit of the Reaper overlord. Or finding a Reaper weakness. Or finding a way to activate the Crucible that doesn't involve breaking parts of it. Anything.

So the Axis still had a chance to win in January 1945? I know Adolf thought they could pull it out, but did any sane person think that?

Some wars are not winnable. This is one of them.

How would the new way to activate the Crucible work? There's no hidden control panel in the room with Shepard. And the Reapers are shooting at the Crucible. 

Edit: I kind of get what you're saying, of course. It's possible for Shepard to think that conventional  victory and the Catalyst telling the truth are both highly improbable. The big difference is that there's real-world evidence for the first proposition, whereas the second relies on a lot of hypotheticals, since Reaper motives up to that point have been obscure and Reaper behavior is non-rational.

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 mai 2013 - 04:24 .

[KingZayd]

AlanC9 wrote...

Morlath wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I'm not in disagreement with the tree. I'm not battling it. I'm just clearing space for a new driveway (or whatever). What I'm doing simply isn't about the tree.

Of course it is. You decide that what you want to use the space the tree is taking up is of far more importance than the tree itself.

Sure, but is "conflict" the right word for utter indifference?

It's not utter indifference, or else you'd leave it alone. Conflict doesn't necessarily mean hate.

[AlanC9]

KingZayd wrote...

It's not utter indifference, or else you'd leave it alone. Conflict doesn't necessarily mean hate.

This is an awfully broad definition of "conflict." I don't think it's appropriate or particularly useful. 

Does anybody ever actually use "conflict" for something like the tree example when he isn't trying to prove a theoretical point about The Nature Of Conflict? I can't think of an example.

Marxism for instance, uses "struggle" in a fairly similar fashion. But in English "conflict" is typically used only  for conscious disputes.

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 mai 2013 - 04:17 .

[ElSuperGecko]

David7204 wrote...
Ridiculous.

The Catalyst has no reason to lie to Shepard, period. 

....and Shepard has no reason to believe it, trust it or accept it's faulty logic, period.  Players do though, don't they?  And they do so implicitly.

#indoctrinated

[Ticonderoga117]

tickle267 wrote...

VIKI Catalyst: Do you not see the logic of my plan?
Sonny Shepard: Yes, but it just seems too... heartless.

Spooner Also Shepard: You have so got to die.

[Morlath]

AlanC9 wrote...

Morlath wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I'm not in disagreement with the tree. I'm not battling it. I'm just clearing space for a new driveway (or whatever). What I'm doing simply isn't about the tree.

Of course it is. You decide that what you want to use the space the tree is taking up is of far more importance than the tree itself.

Sure, but is "conflict" the right word for utter indifference?

Your indifference is in relation to the tree itself. The conflict comes from the relationship between you and the tree and how your wants/desires interact with the tree's life.

To use your example, Zaaed isn't in conflict with the factory workers when he wants to let the place blow up in his desire to get to Vigo. As far as Zaaed is concerned there's no "conflict" there. As far as anyone who isn't blinded by rage or indifferent to human suffering is concerned, there's definitely conflict.

So with you and that tree? You may have an indifferent attitude towards the tree but the tree sure as heck is in conflict with you if you want to kill it.

[Nineteen]

I'm not sympathetic to the Reapers. My favorite ending is Control, though, because it's creepy as hell and more cathartic to me than Destroy (which is my 'canon' ending).

[TheRealJayDee]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

David7204 wrote...
Ridiculous.

The Catalyst has no reason to lie to Shepard, period. 

....and Shepard has no reason to believe it, trust it or accept it's faulty logic, period.  Players do though, don't they?  And they do so implicitly.

#indoctrinated

Seriously, I've played through Portal 1+2 for the first time recently, and the whole Starchild conversation seems like an attempt to lure you into killing yourself with the promise of cake. Only less charming and convincing. And subtle. And lacking cake.

Starchild: Hey Shepard!
Shepard: Who are you?
SC: I am the leader of your enemies. You know, those decieving genocide machines currently killing everyone?!
S: Why do you look like a child from my dreams?
SC: To make it perfectly obvious that I am indeed in your head. Like, directly. I'm not one of many words.
S: Well, ****!
SC: I know you want to end the Reaper threat, but I have this totally more important problem and I need you to solve it.
S: What are you even talking about?
SC: blablablablaSingularityblablablabla
S: 'kay?!
SC: Yeah, to solve my problem AND yours - just jump into that disintegrating beam. Everyone will be more equal and in peace.
S: Sounds insane. Other options?
SC: Touch those super high voltage thingies and become an immortal overlord. It's fine and safe, really.
S: Any way to just, you know, get rid of the Reapers?
SC: Urm... yeah, sure... you... have to shoot this there part of the device you poured all the galaxy's resources into building.  
S: I'm supposed to just... shoot those tubes? Won't that just blow the whole thing up?
SC: Nah, it will totally activate the machine and fry the Reapers...
S: Okay then! Leap of faith...
SC: ...and all your synthetic friends and allies. Truly sorry 'bout that!
S: ****! Can you explain the other options in more detail?
SC: Nope, no time for that.
S: But... I need time to think this over then.
SC: I give you all of about thirty seconds. 
S: What, are you serious?
SC: Yeah... I'm sorry! *cough*everysecondyouthinkaboutitthousandsofyourpeopledie*cough*
S: Damn, what shall I do?
SC: *cough*jumpintothebeamjumpintothebeamjumpintothebeam*cough*
S: You know what - **** you, I'm outta here...!
SC: SO BE IT!!

[SpamBot2000]

AlanC9 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

It's not utter indifference, or else you'd leave it alone. Conflict doesn't necessarily mean hate.

This is an awfully broad definition of "conflict." I don't think it's appropriate or particularly useful. 

Does anybody ever actually use "conflict" for something like the tree example when he isn't trying to prove a theoretical point about The Nature Of Conflict? I can't think of an example.

Marxism for instance, uses "struggle" in a fairly similar fashion. But in English "conflict" is typically used only  for conscious disputes.

If you have a conflict of interests, are your interests at war? Do they hate each other?

You're not "indifferent" to a tree when you're chopping it down. You might not get emotional over it, but you wish the tree to be cut down.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 16 mai 2013 - 06:07 .

[KingZayd]

AlanC9 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

It's not utter indifference, or else you'd leave it alone. Conflict doesn't necessarily mean hate.

This is an awfully broad definition of "conflict." I don't think it's appropriate or particularly useful. 

Does anybody ever actually use "conflict" for something like the tree example when he isn't trying to prove a theoretical point about The Nature Of Conflict? I can't think of an example.

Marxism for instance, uses "struggle" in a fairly similar fashion. But in English "conflict" is typically used only  for conscious disputes.

That is the definition of conflict. If you don't think it's useful, use another word.

I didn't pick the tree example, but if you were in conflict with the tree, then the tree would be in conflict with you.

[AlexMBrennan]

Seriously, I've played through Portal 1+2 for the first time recently, and the whole Starchild conversation seems like an attempt to lure you into killing yourself with the promise of cake. Only less charming and convincing. And subtle. And lacking cake.

Yeah, except no unless the Crucible device works we are already dead, and Shepard is cut off from reinforcements and bleeding to death whilst the Reapers are shooting the Crucible.

[wright1978]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

I'm not sympathetic to those merciless, evil, genocidal killing machines or their master overlord. Nope.

QFT

[Ridwan]

Valhart wrote...

I'm posting because OP will surely value my opinion even though s/he clearly doesn't, but I'll post it anyway. OP is right, my opinion is invalid because it doesn't agree with his/her stated opinion so f*** me right? HERP DERP SYNTHSIS IS DA BESTEST! or LOL CONTROL IS SET US UP DA BOMB! is how OP clearly sees me since OP like to generalize. I will now generalize about the intellectually stunted short shortsightedness of the OP because that is what all the cool SYNpathizers and CONtrollers do.

Or you know, I have my own opinion while respecting those of others and choosing not to be a raging **** and disrespecting others who don't hold the same opinion. You don't like ABCD ending, that's cool, your opinion, but I'm not going to insult you because I disagree with you, because you know I have the decency to treat you like a human being with your own opinion. Unless you're mad about the romance options in the game, all I have to say to you people is go play a dating sim.

lol, that was fun to read.

[His Name was HYR!!]

KaiserShep wrote...

The details in EDI's case make all the difference in the world. Her being a synthetic does not automatically make it fit into the Catalyst's argument, because while the Catalyst is largely hokey and vague in what it says, it is specific on its point regarding the synthetic rebellion. EDI is not a case of synthetics vs. organics, because EDI is actually working to save everyone. This actually goes against what the Catalyst is saying, because it's
trying to convince us that not only is conflict between organics and
synthetics inevitable, but that it also threatens all life in the
galaxy. Am I supposed to now believe that EDI is a good example of a
threat against organics, just because Cerberus happens to be comprised
of people? "Creator", as used by the Catalyst, is clearly meant to be a
general term. If synthetics ONLY attacked their literal creators, we
wouldn't have much reason to even care what this stupid hologram says,
because we'd only be talking about an extremely tiny percentage of the
population. So really, EDI is acting on behalf of a far larger
percentage of organic beings than against. 

At this point, I'm beginning to repeat myself. Read my replies to The Night Mammoth along with my replies to you.

The Catalyst makes a brief but very important distiction between which organics are at risk of which synthetics.

It's created vs. creators. And, again, each instance of conflict need not wipe out entire races. It just needs to be duplicated enough times over a long time for it to eventually end with no (advanced) organics left. And, again, it may be justified.

[KingZayd]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

The details in EDI's case make all the difference in the world. Her being a synthetic does not automatically make it fit into the Catalyst's argument, because while the Catalyst is largely hokey and vague in what it says, it is specific on its point regarding the synthetic rebellion. EDI is not a case of synthetics vs. organics, because EDI is actually working to save everyone. This actually goes against what the Catalyst is saying, because it's
trying to convince us that not only is conflict between organics and
synthetics inevitable, but that it also threatens all life in the
galaxy. Am I supposed to now believe that EDI is a good example of a
threat against organics, just because Cerberus happens to be comprised
of people? "Creator", as used by the Catalyst, is clearly meant to be a
general term. If synthetics ONLY attacked their literal creators, we
wouldn't have much reason to even care what this stupid hologram says,
because we'd only be talking about an extremely tiny percentage of the
population. So really, EDI is acting on behalf of a far larger
percentage of organic beings than against. 

At this point, I'm beginning to repeat myself. Read my replies to The Night Mammoth along with my replies to you.

The Catalyst makes a brief but very important distiction between which organics are at risk of which synthetics.

It's created vs. creators. And, again, each instance of conflict need not wipe out entire races. It just needs to be duplicated enough times over a long time for it to eventually end with no (advanced) organics left. And, again, it may be justified.

That'd be true if advanced organic races were to stop emergin. Do we gave a reason to suspect this is the case?

[His Name was HYR!!]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

All I can say to that is 'so what?' 

Each individual is preserved but not conscious? So what? They might as well be dead, because I don't see the difference between an eternity of forced unconsciousness in a Reaper after losing your body and ability to experience life as you want to as an individual, and being a lifeless corpse. 

Cultures are preserved? So what? There's nothing of worth in the hard information of the culture of a species if it never ever gets passed down and is no use to anyone. See the book burning analogy again. Storing a culture in a Reaper is the same as destroying it.

So, you've created life, life that assures a past civilization is not lost forever to imminent extinction.

As I said, to the catalyst, life is more important than lives. And, in that, 1 > 0.

Aside though, was I right when I asked if your explanation was different or not?

I believe so.

If what you're saying is that the Catalyst is just trying to stop advanced organics from being completely lost, and so it kills them and stores them, I have wa-a-a-a-a-a-y more reason to choose Destroy now. That would mean it's causing the thing it wants to prevent from arbitrary reasons, or at least arbitrary reasons in my eyes.

Except, again, they are not lost under his solution. They are definitely not "completely" lost, either.

KingZayd wrote...

Incorrect. Transfer only the memories
and you encounter the quantum blue box problem. You see this in the
EC control ending. Personalities are not copied over.

In Shepard's case, the blue box (read: brain) is still the same.

In the case of synthetics, yes, but that's largely a retcon established in ME3 (probably to justify Legion's death scene).

[His Name was HYR!!]

KingZayd wrote...

That'd be true if advanced organic races were to stop emergin. Do we gave a reason to suspect this is the case?

I think the idea with newly-emerged organic life that emerges is that they'll fall into the same circle.

Or maybe they come into conflict with the synthetics that already overrun the galaxy (like we did with the catalyst).