428 réponses à ce sujet

[KingZayd]

Optimystic_X wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

It's the "unrealistic and bizzare" behaviour of his enemies that leads up to it.

A program following its programming is unrealistic? 

Must be some really low quality programming.

[PsyrenY]

KingZayd wrote...

Must be some really low quality programming.

Exactly, the Leviathans came up with it.

But it's still expected that it would stick to it.

[AlanC9]

KingZayd wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Eryri wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Speculating about a "kill Reapers" button that doesn't exist and lies that the Catalyst didn't tell?

Neither of which Shepard would be sure of at the time he makes the decision.

It isn't "speculation" if you know they don't exist. Unless we're only speculating about why some Sheps might pick Refuse and doom the galaxy. But I guess that's the case here.

But you don't. That's just an assumption you made.

Wait. Are you going full IT too? Unless you are, the kid wasn't lying since the epilogues back him up.

Can't disprove the existence of the kill switch, since Bio didn't model every inch of the Citadel and let us fly around in God mode.

[KingZayd]

Optimystic_X wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Must be some really low quality programming.

Exactly, the Leviathans came up with it.

But it's still expected that it would stick to it.

But how was it then able to design the Reapers? There's a lack of consistency.

[KingZayd]

AlanC9 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Eryri wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Speculating about a "kill Reapers" button that doesn't exist and lies that the Catalyst didn't tell?

Neither of which Shepard would be sure of at the time he makes the decision.

It isn't "speculation" if you know they don't exist. Unless we're only speculating about why some Sheps might pick Refuse and doom the galaxy. But I guess that's the case here.

But you don't. That's just an assumption you made.

Wait. Are you going full IT too? Unless you are, the kid wasn't lying since the epilogues back him up.

Can't disprove the existence of the kill switch, since Bio didn't model every inch of the Citadel and let us fly around in God mode.

I don't believe Bioware wrote IT. I just think IT makes a lot more sense than what we got.
Epilogues are just what Shepard imagines as he dies.

[Phatose]

KingZayd wrote...

Phatose wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Phatose wrote...

All viewpoints are different, like I said before. Don't have to change hardware to change viewpoints. That's gonna happen constantly no matter what.

Beyond that, what would you prefer? The power always has to reside somewhere. Is having a group of 12 overlords better than 1? Is 100 better then 12? A million better then a hundred?

Yes.

That leads directly to every man for himself.  Chaos.

Freedom. Until someone decides to form a gang and then become a relative "overlord". As long as people don't have more power over you than you have over them, you're free.

Enforcing "people aren't allowed to have more power over me then I have over them" is enforcing your own morality on the universe.  That's not freedom.

[johnj1979]

There is NO good choice in Mass Effect 3.

Control = what to the Reapers are doing to Husks and what the Quarians did to the Geth

Destroy = Reapers destroying life and is the same as Creberus putting humans ahead of aliens (Organics ahead of Synthetics).

Synthesis = Reapers turning organics into Husks.

Do Nothing = Everyone but Reapers die

so where are the good endings in this Mass Effect game, so it does need to change.

[KingZayd]

Phatose wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Phatose wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Phatose wrote...

All viewpoints are different, like I said before. Don't have to change hardware to change viewpoints. That's gonna happen constantly no matter what.

Beyond that, what would you prefer? The power always has to reside somewhere. Is having a group of 12 overlords better than 1? Is 100 better then 12? A million better then a hundred?

Yes.

That leads directly to every man for himself.  Chaos.

Freedom. Until someone decides to form a gang and then become a relative "overlord". As long as people don't have more power over you than you have over them, you're free.

Enforcing "people aren't allowed to have more power over me then I have over them" is enforcing your own morality on the universe.  That's not freedom.

But I'm not enforcing it. I'm just using my morals to make my decision. Which is what morals are for. And following my morals, I don't create this eternal supreme overlord.

The more unrestrained power an entity has, the more harm it can do. I'm not going to actively increase the risk to the galaxy.

[Phatose]

So, when you encounter someone who disagrees with that morality, you're going to let them continue to act in their own terms of morality? Or are you going to stop them?

The more unrestrained power an entity has, the more good it can do as well. I'm not going to actively decrease the hope the galaxy has.

[AlanC9]

Eryri wrote...
Personally, I would have liked to see Shepard at least voice these sorts of concerns. I find his meek acceptance of the information provided by an entity that he has literally just met, rather irritating and out of character. It's only sheer dumb luck that the Catalyst was actually telling the truth.

Hmm.... how would that play out? If Shepard doesn't actively Refuse in dialogue he can walk around for a few minutes and find out that there isn't any exit or any kill switch. The big Refuse speech didn't have to actually trigger the end sequence, so he could have done this in Refuse too.

So he doesn't find them and.... I guess he talks to the Catalyst again, or just shoots him?  How does that conversation go?

[AlanC9]

johnj1979 wrote...

There is NO good choice in Mass Effect 3.

Control = what to the Reapers are doing to Husks and what the Quarians did to the Geth

Destroy = Reapers destroying life and is the same as Creberus putting humans ahead of aliens (Organics ahead of Synthetics).

Synthesis = Reapers turning organics into Husks.

Do Nothing = Everyone but Reapers die

so where are the good endings in this Mass Effect game, so it does need to change.

Why does it need to?

[AlanC9]

KingZayd wrote...


I don't believe Bioware wrote IT. I just think IT makes a lot more sense than what we got.
Epilogues are just what Shepard imagines as he dies.

Well, if you think that makes sense, we're done.

[PsyrenY]

johnj1979 wrote...

Synthesis = Reapers turning organics into Husks.

Wrong.

[johnj1979]

AlanC9 wrote...

johnj1979 wrote...

There is NO good choice in Mass Effect 3.

Control = what to the Reapers are doing to Husks and what the Quarians did to the Geth

Destroy = Reapers destroying life and is the same as Creberus putting humans ahead of aliens (Organics ahead of Synthetics).

Synthesis = Reapers turning organics into Husks.

Do Nothing = Everyone but Reapers die

so where are the good endings in this Mass Effect game, so it does need to change.

Why does it need to?

for me Mass Effect games have been about the moral choice and that is just not happening in Mass Effect 3.

Modifié par johnj1979, 21 mai 2013 - 08:20 .

[KingZayd]

Phatose wrote...

So, when you encounter someone who disagrees with that morality, you're going to let them continue to act in their own terms of morality? Or are you going to stop them?

The more unrestrained power an entity has, the more good it can do as well. I'm not going to actively decrease the hope the galaxy has.

Yes.

Unless I see them abuse the power, I don't see the collection of power itself as immoral intrinsically. I just think it increases the danger level. I would support harmless measures that attempt to restrict undue power. These are used in governments across the world.

Easier to break something than it is to make it.

It's actively decreasing the freedom the galaxy has. This means in the case of a harmful overlord, nobody can do anything about it.

[KingZayd]

AlanC9 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...


I don't believe Bioware wrote IT. I just think IT makes a lot more sense than what we got.
Epilogues are just what Shepard imagines as he dies.

Well, if you think that makes sense, we're done.

So you think the endings make sense? That's interesting

[Bill Casey]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Eryri wrote...

Well, they're not terribly relatable if they don't. Are you saying that you wouldn't mind characters behaving in completely unrealistic and bizarre ways so long as the setting was sufficiently weird? 

What's "unrealistic and bizarre" about willing to sacrifice oneself to save another species and end a war at the same time? Seems pretty consistent with Paragon Shepard to me.

Paragon Shepard's a ****ing rapist?
He's worse than the Reapers? Really?

Modifié par Bill Casey, 21 mai 2013 - 08:23 .

[johnj1979]

Shepard is nothing more than a war criminal

Hero to Villian in 10 minutes

[Phatose]

KingZayd wrote...

Phatose wrote...

So, when you encounter someone who disagrees with that morality, you're going to let them continue to act in their own terms of morality? Or are you going to stop them?

The more unrestrained power an entity has, the more good it can do as well. I'm not going to actively decrease the hope the galaxy has.

Yes.

Unless I see them abuse the power, I don't see the collection of power itself as immoral intrinsically. I just think it increases the danger level. I would support harmless measures that attempt to restrict undue power. These are used in governments across the world.

Easier to break something than it is to make it.

It's actively decreasing the freedom the galaxy has. This means in the case of a harmful overlord, nobody can do anything about it.

But don't you see?  Everybody else is absolutely free to disagree on what Qualifies as the 'abuse of power'.

That's the problem with promoting freedom.  Sooner or later, you encounter someone who disagrees that everyone should have freedom.  And then you're stuck. If you don't prevent that, freedom goes poof at their hands. If you do, you've then taken away their freedom to disagree with you, and it goes poof at your hands instead.

[PsyrenY]

Bill Casey wrote...

Paragon Shepard's a ****ing rapist?

You clearly have no idea what rape is.

Bill Casey wrote...
He's worse than the Reapers? Really?

Only in Refuse. They are slaves to their programming, whereas Refuse Shep would actively choose the harvest.

[KingZayd]

Phatose wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Phatose wrote...

So, when you encounter someone who disagrees with that morality, you're going to let them continue to act in their own terms of morality? Or are you going to stop them?

The more unrestrained power an entity has, the more good it can do as well. I'm not going to actively decrease the hope the galaxy has.

Yes.

Unless I see them abuse the power, I don't see the collection of power itself as immoral intrinsically. I just think it increases the danger level. I would support harmless measures that attempt to restrict undue power. These are used in governments across the world.

Easier to break something than it is to make it.

It's actively decreasing the freedom the galaxy has. This means in the case of a harmful overlord, nobody can do anything about it.

But don't you see?  Everybody else is absolutely free to disagree on what Qualifies as the 'abuse of power'.

That's the problem with promoting freedom.  Sooner or later, you encounter someone who disagrees that everyone should have freedom.  And then you're stuck. If you don't prevent that, freedom goes poof at their hands. If you do, you've then taken away their freedom to disagree with you, and it goes poof at your hands instead.

Yes. And I will act to prevent what I consider "an abuse".

In the case of an overlord with restricted power, nobody is able prevent what they consider "an abuse". The more freedom they have, the more people are able to resist what they consider "an abuse"

And that's why we adopt a certain level of government and laws. To maximise our freedoms as much as we can. Absolute anarchy means no security which means less freedom for those to weak to prevent themselves.

The rejection of dictators and monarchs (who have any actual power) and the adoption of democracy is a result of this quest to maximise freedom.

People who have proven themselves to be dangerous, and who threaten the freedoms, have a certain amount of freedom removed from them (house arrest/ prison / death etc.) in the interests of preserving the most freedom.

It's a balancing act. You try to prevent someone getting enough power that the freedoms of others are reduced significantly. It's not easy, but that doesn't mean it's not important. If it was easy, then the world would be a much more comfortable place.

Modifié par KingZayd, 21 mai 2013 - 09:06 .

[AlanC9]

johnj1979 wrote...

for me Mass Effect games have been about the moral choice and that is just not happening in Mass Effect 3.

So it's not about making the best choice under the circumstances, but finding  the "moral" choice. The one where nothing has to be compromised and everything works out. The choice that often isn't available ITRW. 

Fair enough. I thought that almost always having such a choice available was a problem with the series, not a design principle to be upheld. Different tastes.

[AlanC9]

KingZayd wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...
I don't believe Bioware wrote IT. I just think IT makes a lot more sense than what we got.
Epilogues are just what Shepard imagines as he dies.

Well, if you think that makes sense, we're done.

So you think the endings make sense? That's interesting

I didn't mean to imply that. Just that IT is even worse.

[Tron Mega]

there was a short time in my life when i thought ME3s ending was interesting.

it was solely because of IT.

[KingZayd]

AlanC9 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...
I don't believe Bioware wrote IT. I just think IT makes a lot more sense than what we got.
Epilogues are just what Shepard imagines as he dies.

Well, if you think that makes sense, we're done.

So you think the endings make sense? That's interesting

I didn't mean to imply that. Just that IT is even worse.

So you're saying it's makes less sense for the things that don't make sense to be imaginary than it does for them to be real?

That is: real nonsense > imaginary nonsense?

How?

Modifié par KingZayd, 22 mai 2013 - 02:53 .