360 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

Because outside of the Leviathan cycle, Synthetic conflict has never been the problem the star child claimed

The Reapers themselves are the cause to their own claim because Organics were on the verge of beating the Synthetics until the Reapers showed up

[Iakus]

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.

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.

It's not hyperbole at all 

I think it's horrific.  Believe it or don't.  But I am not exagerating my feelings about it.  The entire point of the Shepardlyst is that the galaxy can't find it's own way without some higher authority making sure everyone plays nice.  Paragon or Renegade, i find that repugnant.

 And that's without the threat of the Reapers turning on organics again someday.

[PsyrenY]

dreamgazer wrote...

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

webkit-fake-url://B25A22E7-C5C6-4D3D-9D73-CA7FDB5287D6/imagejpeg

Can you fix this link? Even quoting it I'm not sure where it's supposed to be from.

J. Reezy wrote...

Bees?

Did I really have to specify sapients? Come now 

[spirosz]

J. Reezy wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

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?

Bees?

This wise man speaks the truth.

bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[masster blaster]

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 is the other choices.  I find this to be a very bad thing.

To be fair an act og genocid is only consider genocide if you wanted it to. The synthetics dying is more of a sacrifice than just killing them for the luz. I felt sorry this had to happen, but this is war. Not every war has a happy ending. Not to mention javik made it clear that their will be losses. So this was one. And if the galaxy in destroy learns from their mistakes they can stop the cycle from happening again. It may happen again later on in the future, but for now its peace time unless you put weava in charge then your fued. XD.

Also I agree there is no problem Actually the Intellegence is the one creating the problem since it it'self is a synthetic that is killing organics, and uses synthetics to kill organics.

[MegaSovereign]

iakus wrote...

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.

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.

It's not hyperbole at all 

I think it's horrific.  Believe it or don't.  But I am not exagerating my feelings about it.  The entire point of the Shepardlyst is that the galaxy can't find it's own way without some higher authority making sure everyone plays nice.  Paragon or Renegade, i find that repugnant.

 And that's without the threat of the Reapers turning on organics again someday.

Oh believe me. I know you were being sincere with your beliefs, but it sounded like you were pushing your belief as a fact.

And I think you're wrong about Control. The point of Control to me is that Shepard gets to exert his agenda at the cost of his life. That's why there are Paragon/Renegade variants, since Shepard's morality guides the new Catalyst.

[Iakus]

Optimystic_X wrote...

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

No, EDI was not human.  She had an interest in humans, and strove to emulate them, but she was not human.

Which doesn't make her less an individual or worthy of life.  But let's not anthropomorphize things.

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.

"Your connection to your kind will be lost.  Though you will remain aware of their existence"

Great, the galaxy is one big ant farm now...

iakus wrote...

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

Conflict, yes.  There's conflict between organics too.

But an inevitable galactic extinction at the hands of synthetics?  No, that is not inevitable.

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Oh believe me. I know you were being sincere with your beliefs, but it sounded like you were pushing your belief as a fact.

And I think you're wrong about Control. The point of Control to me is that Shepard gets to exert his agenda at the cost of his life. That's why there are Paragon/Renegade variants, since Shepard's morality guides the new Catalyst.

Not to point fingers, but you're the one saying refuse is "objectively" worse than the other options 

And there's paragon/renegade variants of the Shepard VI, so that's not a comforting thought either.

[dreamgazer]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Can you fix this link? Even quoting it I'm not sure where it's supposed to be from.

Sure. Posting from a mobile borks photos sometimes, for some reason.

dreamgazer wrote...

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:

[masster blaster]

As i Said Control Shepard is forceing the Reapers on the galaxy. ^^^

[spirosz]

masster blaster wrote...

As i Said Control Shepard is forceing the Reapers on the galaxy. ^^^

To help it rebuild and or depending on Shepard, they could all fly to the sun if "Shepard" deemed it. 

[Iakus]

masster blaster wrote...


To be fair an act og genocid is only consider genocide if you wanted it to. The synthetics dying is more of a sacrifice than just killing them for the luz. I felt sorry this had to happen, but this is war. Not every war has a happy ending. Not to mention javik made it clear that their will be losses. So this was one. And if the galaxy in destroy learns from their mistakes they can stop the cycle from happening again. It may happen again later on in the future, but for now its peace time unless you put weava in charge then your fued. XD.

If EDI sacrificed herself to make sure teh Crucible firede, I'd agree (like Mordin's death in the Shroud).

If the geth fleet died holding back the Reapers as the Crucible powered up, I'd agree (like Thane's death saving the Councilor)

But Destroy's price is a pointless tragedy.  It serves no meaning.  "When you start killing your friends, war turns into murder"

I'm also not too keen on Javik's advice, as his people didn't do so well agianst the Reapers themselves.  There are enough real sacrifices in the game it doesn't need to be padded out with "Needs moar sadz" ones.

Also I agree there is no problem Actually the Intellegence is the one creating the problem since it it'self is a synthetic that is killing organics, and uses synthetics to kill organics.

Yeah, makes the whole darn trilogy feel pointless.

[AresKeith]

masster blaster wrote...

As i Said Control Shepard is forceing the Reapers on the galaxy. ^^^

I wouldn't really call that forcing the Reapers on the galaxy, but I would assume people would still be hostile or untrusting towards the Reapers

[MegaSovereign]

iakus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Oh believe me. I know you were being sincere with your beliefs, but it sounded like you were pushing your belief as a fact.

And I think you're wrong about Control. The point of Control to me is that Shepard gets to exert his agenda at the cost of his life. That's why there are Paragon/Renegade variants, since Shepard's morality guides the new Catalyst.

Not to point fingers, but you're the one saying refuse is "objectively" worse than the other options 

And there's paragon/renegade variants of the Shepard VI, so that's not a comforting thought either.

If the objective is to save as many lives as possible, then refuse isn't the best way to do it. In terms of morality, "which ending is better" is subjective, but my opinion is that refuse still isn't the best here because I believe inaction is still a choice and that Shepard's hands aren't clean because of it.

I don't understand your second point. You're comparing a scam VI program to Shepard uploading his being using billion year old technology in order to replace a billion year old hyper intelligence. That's a ridiculous comparison.

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

I don't understand your second point. You're comparing a scam VI program to Shepard uploading his being using billion year old technology in order to replace a billion year old hyper intelligence. That's a ridiculous comparison.

The point is just because there's a "paragon" and 'renegade" verson of the Shepalyst, doesn't mean they're accurate representations.  Or even that they'll stay that way.

[dreamgazer]

spirosz wrote...

To help it rebuild and or depending on Shepard, they could all fly to the sun if "Shepard" deemed it. 

Far be it for me to encroach on people's interpretations, but London looks pretty reconstructed there---roughly at about this same point in the destroy ending. 

[PsyrenY]

iakus wrote...

No, EDI was not human.  She had an interest in humans, and strove to emulate them, but she was not human.

I never said she was human. I said she has humanity. There is a difference, and the fact that you don't see what that difference is means you may not be the best qualified to comment on this concept.

iakus wrote...

"Your connection to your kind will be lost.  Though you will remain aware of their existence"

That statement means Shepard is beholden to all life, not just her own species.

iakus wrote...

Conflict, yes.  There's conflict between organics too.

But an inevitable galactic extinction at the hands of synthetics?  No, that is not inevitable.

You're not thinking long-term enough if you believe that. The Catalyst has the perspective you lack.

[Sibu]

David7204 wrote...

Hardly. Lots of Shepards who understand that the Catalyst has no reason to lie.

Irrelevant. His reasons are stupid and the way how the character is introduced is ridiculous. Anyone who actually think the Catalyst is a good character, and that includes you, is a ****ing idiot.

[dreamgazer]

Irrelevant post. Disregard.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 20 mai 2013 - 05:44 .

[PsyrenY]

Sibu wrote...

Irrelevant. His reasons are stupid and the way how the character is introduced is ridiculous. Anyone who actually think the Catalyst is a good character, and that includes you, is a ****ing idiot.

Stick to attacking arguments rather than attacking people, unless you've run out of cogent responses that is.

[MegaSovereign]

iakus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

I don't understand your second point. You're comparing a scam VI program to Shepard uploading his being using billion year old technology in order to replace a billion year old hyper intelligence. That's a ridiculous comparison.

The point is just because there's a "paragon" and 'renegade" verson of the Shepalyst, doesn't mean they're accurate representations.  Or even that they'll stay that way.

The original Catalyst seemed to be pretty consistent with following its mandate. Besides, this largely boils down to your interpretation of Control. I think you're purposely giving Control a more negative outlook than you really need to.

With that said, I do choose Destroy for my canon for the same reason I chose to destroy the Geth heretics. If I rewrote the Geth/Reapers then there's still a non-zero probability of this going wrong in the long term. To me, it's still an understandable choice. I don't view it as "horrific." Especially when the Reapers can be viewed as victims of the Catalyst and that destroying them is arguably just as tragic as controlling them.

[AresKeith]

Optimystic_X wrote...

You're not thinking long-term enough if you believe that. The Catalyst has the perspective you lack.

Starting a cycle of Harvesting because of an assumption hasn't been truly proven is not a good perspective

[Iakus]

[quote]Optimystic_X wrote...

I never said she was human. I said she has humanity. There is a difference, and the fact that you don't see what that difference is means you may not be the best qualified to comment on this concept.[/quote]

Keep your insults to a minimum please.  

And as for EDI, while she is a benevolant character, capable of emotions and feelings in her own way, she does not expereince them the same way as organics.  Nor does she have the same priorities.  She even says so to Shepard in her efforts to understand humans.  She doesn't think like a human.  Or any organic, really.

[quote]iakus wrote...

"Your connection to your kind will be lost.  Though you will remain aware of their existence"[/quote]

That statement means Shepard is beholden to all life, not just her own species. [/quote]

Where in the world did you get that?  SHould I have included the line before that said 'You will no longer be organic?"

[quote]
You're not thinking long-term enough if you believe that. The Catalyst has the perspective you lack.
[/quote]

And what we have here is the fallacy known as "argument from authority"

[dreamgazer]

Optimystic_X wrote...

You're not thinking long-term enough if you believe that. The Catalyst has the perspective you lack.

How has its perspective evolved since it was given those initial programming directives, though?