360 réponses à ce sujet

[BansheeOwnage]

KiwiQuiche wrote...
Saving us from the Reaper threat.

Took more effort than the Extended Cut.

Top.

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 20 mai 2013 - 04:12 .

[spirosz]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

spirosz wrote...

So technically, the galaxy never thought for itself when the Catalyst was a so called "God" before Shepard? 

"You civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays - Our technology. By using it, you develop along the paths we desire."

So, no, we were always beign manipulated by the reapers. Now is the time to break the cycle and finally be free. That means no more reapers.

As I wrote before, we were still unaware, but everyone was thinking for themselves in the sense, regardless of falling under the "paths" the Reapers desire.  

For example, if there were no Reapers and our cycle was basically doing the same thing it was doing, would it be any different up until the "harvesting" (when there is Reapers)?  People would still live their lives in the same fashion regardless of this unaware existence.  

Modifié par spirosz, 20 mai 2013 - 04:13 .

[Iakus]

spirosz wrote...

iakus wrote...
Then it goes to "You must do something horrific to the galaxy and then kill yourself.  Or else we kill everyone anyway.

I wouldn't really compare the two... but in what sense are you doing something horrific to the galaxy, aside from the "forcing" in Synthesis.

Well you already covered Synthesis with the foirced transhumanism

In Control you're setting up a galactic police state based on an AI with technology known to have gone squirrelly at least once before.

Destroy is arguably the "least bad" in that you solve the Catalyst's organics vs synthetics problem (for the short term, anyway) by murdering all synthetics in the galaxy.  But hey, omlets and eggs, right? /sarcasm


Sometimes I think Shepard's actually better off in dying in most of these endings.  I don't think any of my Shepards would want to live after performing these acts...

Modifié par iakus, 20 mai 2013 - 04:20 .

[MegaSovereign]

Took more effort than the Extended Cut.

Top.

That's like the biggest FU to the cinematics team. And the composer(s).

[Iakus]

spirosz wrote...

As I wrote before, we were still unaware, but everyone was thinking for themselves in the sense, regardless of falling under the "paths" the Reapers desire.  

For example, if there were no Reapers and our cycle was basically doing the same thing it was doing, would it be any different up until the "harvesting" (when there is Reapers)?  People would still live their lives in the same fashion regardless of this unaware existence.  

So it's not manipulation if you do't realize you're being manipulated?  

[spirosz]

iakus wrote...

spirosz wrote...

iakus wrote...
Then it goes to "You must do something horrific to the galaxy and then kill yourself.  Or else we kill everyone anyway.

I wouldn't really compare the two... but in what sense are you doing something horrific to the galaxy, aside from the "forcing" in Synthesis.

Well you already covered Synthesis with the foirced transhumanism

In Control you're setting up a galactic police state based on an AI with technology known to have gone squirrelly at least once before.

Destroy is arguably the "least bad" in that you solve the Catalyst's organics vs syhnthetics problem for the short term, anyway) by murdering all synthetics in the galaxy.  But hey, omlets and eggs, right? /sarcasm


SOmetimes I thinkShepard's actually better off in dying in most of these endings.  I don't think any of my Shepards would want to live after performing these acts...

Ahaha, okay that's fair.  

[spirosz]

iakus wrote...

spirosz wrote...

As I wrote before, we were still unaware, but everyone was thinking for themselves in the sense, regardless of falling under the "paths" the Reapers desire.  

For example, if there were no Reapers and our cycle was basically doing the same thing it was doing, would it be any different up until the "harvesting" (when there is Reapers)?  People would still live their lives in the same fashion regardless of this unaware existence.  

So it's not manipulation if you do't realize you're being manipulated?  

In my mind, no.  If one is unaware and still commiting acts they believe is from their own will and what their body is telling them, no. 

[masster blaster]

spirosz wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

spirosz wrote...

So technically, the galaxy never thought for itself when the Catalyst was a so called "God" before Shepard? 

"You civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays - Our technology. By using it, you develop along the paths we desire."

So, no, we were always beign manipulated by the reapers. Now is the time to break the cycle and finally be free. That means no more reapers.

As I wrote before, we were still unaware, but everyone was thinking for themselves in the sense, regardless of falling under the "paths" the Reapers desire.  

That's why we end it. So it would never happen again.
That's when Destroy comes in. It's a fresh start. Organics have a choice to start the cycle thing all over again, or learn for the past mistakes. Besides the organics trapped inside the Reaper need to die. Their is a balance between the living and the dead. THey need to die. It's been long past. Nobody should ver live that long, and I free those organics by giving them peace.

For example, if there were no Reapers and our cycle was basically doing the same thing it was doing, would it be any different up until the "harvesting" (when there is Reapers)?  People would still live their lives in the same fashion regardless of this unaware existence.  

[Iakus]

[quote]spirosz wrote...

So it's not manipulation if you don't realize you're being manipulated?  

[/quote]

In my mind, no.  If one is unaware and still commiting acts they believe is from their own will and what their body is telling them, no. 

[/quote]

So indoctrination is not manipulation?

[Chashan]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Took more effort than the Extended Cut.

Top.

That's like the biggest FU to the cinematics team. And the composer(s).

Allocation of ressources is the key.

[Iakus]

spirosz wrote...

iakus wrote...

spirosz wrote...

iakus wrote...
Then it goes to "You must do something horrific to the galaxy and then kill yourself.  Or else we kill everyone anyway.

I wouldn't really compare the two... but in what sense are you doing something horrific to the galaxy, aside from the "forcing" in Synthesis.

Well you already covered Synthesis with the foirced transhumanism

In Control you're setting up a galactic police state based on an AI with technology known to have gone squirrelly at least once before.

Destroy is arguably the "least bad" in that you solve the Catalyst's organics vs syhnthetics problem for the short term, anyway) by murdering all synthetics in the galaxy.  But hey, omlets and eggs, right? /sarcasm


SOmetimes I thinkShepard's actually better off in dying in most of these endings.  I don't think any of my Shepards would want to live after performing these acts...

Ahaha, okay that's fair.  

Like I said.

Catalyst=Jigsaw

"I wanna play a little game"

[BansheeOwnage]

iakus wrote...

spirosz wrote...

As I wrote before, we were still unaware, but everyone was thinking for themselves in the sense, regardless of falling under the "paths" the Reapers desire.  

For example, if there were no Reapers and our cycle was basically doing the same thing it was doing, would it be any different up until the "harvesting" (when there is Reapers)?  People would still live their lives in the same fashion regardless of this unaware existence.  

So it's not manipulation if you do't realize you're being manipulated?  

Exactly my thoughts. Just because you don't know you are being manipulated it makes it okay? You sense of morality is worrying.

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 20 mai 2013 - 04:22 .

[spirosz]

[quote]iakus wrote...

[quote]spirosz wrote...

So it's not manipulation if you don't realize you're being manipulated?  

[/quote]

In my mind, no.  If one is unaware and still commiting acts they believe is from their own will and what their body is telling them, no. 

[/quote]

So indoctrination is not manipulation?

[/quote]

Again, depends on the context.  

1. Indocrinated bob.

2. Nonindocrinated bob.

1 goes to buy a cigar and goes back to work.

2 goes to buy a cigar and goes back to work.  

Both still accomplish the same thing, during the same timeline.

[MegaSovereign]

iakus wrote...

spirosz wrote...

iakus wrote...
Then it goes to "You must do something horrific to the galaxy and then kill yourself.  Or else we kill everyone anyway.

I wouldn't really compare the two... but in what sense are you doing something horrific to the galaxy, aside from the "forcing" in Synthesis.

Well you already covered Synthesis with the foirced transhumanism

In Control you're setting up a galactic police state based on an AI with technology known to have gone squirrelly at least once before.

Destroy is arguably the "least bad" in that you solve the Catalyst's organics vs syhnthetics problem for the short term, anyway) by murdering all synthetics in the galaxy.  But hey, omlets and eggs, right? /sarcasm


SOmetimes I thinkShepard's actually better off in dying in most of these endings.  I don't think any of my Shepards would want to live after performing these acts...

You don't solve the Catalyst's problem in Control or Destroy. Synthetics were not necessarily the instigators of the conflict and the Catalyst thinks in inevitabilities so a "short term" solution doesn't exist.

It's just the way the Crucible functions. In its worst condition it kills everything, in its best it focuses its energy on synthetic targets. Control doesn't target synthetics because it's basically a "software update," if that makes sense.

I still think these choices are objectively superior in terms of which does less damage to the galaxy. Your claim of the galaxy being screwed no matter what seems a bit silly.

[VirtualSoldier27]

the refuse option makes Shepard responsible for the death of an entire galactic cycle,"Liara should have siad in her time capsule thing "What we thought was our savior,wasn't brave enough to make the vital choices at our darkest our,and we were defeated"

the refuse option essentially erased every acomplishment that shepard has,from Elisium to Earth,and replaces them with the biggest failure in galactic history. The refuse option makes shepard a joke and a cuationary tale to the next cycle!!!,if you pick it,than you are selfish and shortsighted,its has simple has that.

Synthisis is an instant catylist,harbinger,sovierign victory,thats why its presented has the best option,the Catylist presented it to Shepard has the best option,becuase thats what he has been trying to acomplish for countless cylcles,if you pick Synthisis,youre enemy you have been fighting most of youre adult life,wins!!!
Control-Seems like a good idea if you think about it,transplant shepards memory and personality into an AI,so he can protect the galaxy by force,but it still can go wrong,and sometimes,even a well meaning AI cant see when the line between good and evil becomes blurred

so,when in doubt, DESTROY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

You don't solve the Catalyst's problem in Control or Destroy. Synthetics were not necessarily the instigators of the conflict and the Catalyst thinks in inevitabilities so a "short term" solution doesn't exist.

It's just the way the Crucible functions. In its worst condition it kills everything, in its best it focuses its energy on synthetic targets. Control doesn't target synthetics because it's basically a "software update," if that makes sense.

I still think these choices are objectively superior in terms of which does less damage to the galaxy. Your claim of the galaxy being screwed no matter what seems a bit silly.

Of course, you don't solve the Catalyst's problem.  Because there is no problem.  It's a "solution" to something that doesn't exist.  All of it!  All the "choices", all the solutions

You set up a police state because the Catalyst doesn't think organics and synthetics can get along without Big Brother watching fro all eternity.  And that's assuming nothing goes wrong with the AI this time around.

And Destroy is genociding all synthetics based on the paranoid ramblings of a glitchy AI.  

Whether you think these chocies do less damage to the galaxy as a whole, they are horrific choices.  And Bioware thinking that societies rebuilding with these choices as the foundations is a "good" ending is extremely troubling to me.  To me, it goes far beyond "no perfect solution ".

In my subjective opinion, Refuse has every bit as much merit as the other choices.  I find this to be a very bad thing.

[MegaSovereign]

iakus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

You don't solve the Catalyst's problem in Control or Destroy. Synthetics were not necessarily the instigators of the conflict and the Catalyst thinks in inevitabilities so a "short term" solution doesn't exist.

It's just the way the Crucible functions. In its worst condition it kills everything, in its best it focuses its energy on synthetic targets. Control doesn't target synthetics because it's basically a "software update," if that makes sense.

I still think these choices are objectively superior in terms of which does less damage to the galaxy. Your claim of the galaxy being screwed no matter what seems a bit silly.

Of course, you don't solve the Catalyst's problem.  Because there is no problem.  It's a "solution" to something that doesn't exist.  All of it!  All the "choices", all the solutions

You set up a police state because the Catalyst doesn't think organics and synthetics can get along without Big Brother watching fro all eternity.  And that's assuming nothing goes wrong with the AI this time around.

And Destroy is genociding all synthetics based on the paranoid ramblings of a glitchy AI.  

Whether you think these chocies do less damage to the galaxy as a whole, they are horrific choices.  And Bioware thinking that societies rebuilding with these choices as the foundations is a "good" ending is extremely troubling to me.  To me, it goes far beyond "no perfect solution ".

In my subjective opinion, Refuse has every bit as much merit as the other choices.  I find this to be a very bad thing.

That's your headcanon of Control. You could argue that Renegade Control interferes with galactic affairs on a government level but the Paragon version leaves it ambigiuous beyond the new Catalyst being Joe the repairman.

Yes they are choices. Yes they each come with a set of moral ambiguity and consequences. But calling them horrific is nothing more than tiresome hyperbole.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 20 mai 2013 - 04:49 .

[PsyrenY]

iakus wrote...

Except that's not Shepard.  It's an AI based on Shepard, but with none of the humanity that helped define him/her.

What is "humanity?" How do you define it? EDI was never human, yet she has plenty of it.

You have no knowledge of what qualities the Shepalyst does and does not possess, save for (a) a desire to protect the galaxy, and ( a desire to end the cycle of harvesting. These are both goals the organic Shepard possessed, whether Paragon or Renegade.

iakus wrote...

Of course, you don't solve the Catalyst's problem.  Because there is no problem.  It's a "solution" to something that doesn't exist.  All of it!

Eventual conflict with synthetics does exist, and it is a problem. You are wrong.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 20 mai 2013 - 04:48 .

[sharkboy421]

Apologies if I end up restating things that have already been said but I would like to share my two cents on refuse.

One of my initial reactions to the original endings, besides confusion about what just happened, was confusion over just who had been talking to the catalyst.  Even with the unfortunate amount of auto-dialogue in ME3, Shepard was still the woman who had stared down Sovereign and Harbinger.  Most of the series reinforced the idea (at least it did to me) that Shepard had this unbreakable determination to fight against the impossible.  And you were usually able to succeed.

As much as it pained me to think about it, I knew there was a strong chance Shepard might have to sacrifice herself to end the Reapers.  I didn't like the idea, but I could understand and live with it.  What really got to me though was the Shepard who spoke to the catalyst did not have that ramrod straight backbone made of steel.  Where had the woman who told off two Reapers gone?  Instead there was this meek person who just accepted what she was given.

The Extended Cut fixed this some what and allowed Shepard to ask questions and gain further context about what the catalyst was saying.  However for me personally this only served to further confirm my thoughts that the endings were out of place.  Regardless, I did go and watch the new "refuse" ending on youtube when I heard about it.  And damn that speech was awesome.  I knew that person, that was Shepard.  There was the larger-than-life hero who could stand in the face a cosmic-horror and say "no more".  Except. . .this time she lost. 

This was another huge moment of confusion to me.  Every other time Shepard has stood up to fight, she has won.  Sure there were set backs like Virmire, but in the end she won.  And at the end of the entire series, in her crowning moment of glory, she fails? I just don't get it.

The EC is quite an awesome dlc that obviously crafted with great care and love by an extremely talented group of people.  I still hold Bioware in high esteem, but I personally feel the EC and the end of ME3, no matter how well done, were a mistake.

[spirosz]

Optimystic_X wrote...

iakus wrote...

Except that's not Shepard.  It's an AI based on Shepard, but with none of the humanity that helped define him/her.

What is "humanity?" How do you define it? EDI was never human, yet she has plenty of it.

You have no knowledge of what qualities the Shepalyst does and does not possess, save for (a) a desire to protect the galaxy, and ( a desire to end the cycle of harvesting. These are both goals the organic Shepard possessed, whether Paragon or Renegade.

I agree.  

[AresKeith]

Optimystic_X wrote...

iakus wrote...

Of course, you don't solve the Catalyst's problem.  Because there is no problem.  It's a "solution" to something that doesn't exist.  All of it!

Eventual conflict with synthetics does exist, and it is a problem. You are wrong.

So is conflict with other Organics and that's a problem on the same level if not more

[PsyrenY]

AresKeith wrote...


So is conflict with other Organics and that's a problem on the same level if not more

It's not on the same level at all. How many immortal organic races do you know? How many organic races are capable of reaching consensus on anything?

[spirosz]

But Ares, we can not understand the other side, in relation to synthetics. Were as organic vs organic conflicts are something we can comprehend, at least to a certain degree.

[dreamgazer]

MegaSovereign wrote...

That's your headcanon of Control. You could argue that Renegade Control interferes with galactic affairs on a government level but the Paragon version leaves it ambigiuous beyond the new Catalyst being Joe the repairman. 

Well, there is another constant element, regardless of paragon or renegade Shepards:

Modifié par dreamgazer, 20 mai 2013 - 05:01 .

[KaiserShep]

Heck the rachni war and krogan rebellion seemed worse than the geth war, in that it had greater influence to more species than just the quarians.