865 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

111987 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually no.  It was only established that the Reapers can not be defeated "conventionally" (by which I mean without a Reaper Off Button) at the start of ME3.  In ME2 there were a number of hints that the Reapers could be sucessfully fought and Vigil seems to imply this as well in ME1 (see Klengendan Cannon as just one example).

In *this* cycle we frittered away our advantages and at the very end of the game, it's crucible or nothing, but it didn't have to be that way.

The Illusive Man even says that the Klendagon Cannon was likely a last 'FU' to the Reapers before they were annihilated. In any case, one dead Reaper isn't saying much when there are hundreds, if not thousands of them. That cannon was a one trick pony.

In ME2, during that same mission, EDI actually says Reaper shields are impervious to dreadnaught fire. So actually, ME3 made the Reapers more beatable by having the 4:1 ratio.

So you have a LOT of cannons of this sort.  What's the problem?  Yes sure there may be technical and engineering hurdles, but don't toss the word "impossible" at me unless something really is impossible.

Something like the Klengadon cannon should have at least been explored, and that's just one option.

The price is too high.  You are essentially trusting that your number one enemy is telling the truth, and that you have to pick some horrific warcrime and hope that the Catalyst isn't lying (and it's most certainly able to lie).  Now you personally might not agree that the price is too high, but if you pick REFUSE as a player, this is the choice that you are making in character, and Bioware needs  to honor that choice.

How would you have them honor that choice? As stated, the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally. As antagonists, that is how they are written. Anything other than Shepard's cycle being wiped out would be ridiculous in my opinion.

:nonono:

The Reapers can not be 'conventionally' defeated by the end of ME3 only in THIS cycle.  There is no reason to think that another cycle with enough prep time, enough time to reserach and build, couldn't in fact defeat the Reapers.  The Reapers have some pretty significant shortcomings like an inability to recover losses and they are technologically stagnant.  It might be too late for *this* cycle to exploit those flaws, but you can not say that about ALL cycles.

Honoring our CHOICE not to use the crucible means allowing us to win the game without using the curcible period.  That may mean (and I am fine with) that our cycle has to lose to a future cycle may win.   That is sacrifice but that is a meaningful way to HONOR player choice.

No it's not a valid interpretation because it doesn't HONOR the choice the player made.  That's ultimately the bottom line.

-Polaris

But see, that's just your interpretation of it. You say it doesn't honor the choice. I say it does.

These are all opinions. I say that your interpretation is valid. Why can't more than one be valid?

Because my way honors the choice of the player in an RPG and your's doesn't.  That's why.

-Polaris

[FlamingBoy]

111987 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

bloody hell, the subjective lecture again....

Because only one perspective is the true perspective, right?

This is not a matter of liking peanut butter over jelly (jam )

If you cannot defend you argument for a logical perspective, then its not worth the paper its written on.

For example
It is my subjective opinion AIDS is an alien implant with a probe placed in the nose of the a lion.

I base this on because I "feel" this way.


Every thing is subjective, but not every subjective interpretation is equal if it cannot be defended. Saying this is my interpretation is a cop out.

Modifié par FlamingBoy, 25 juin 2013 - 04:41 .

[FlamingBoy]

I think I should post that post 3 times, So many people replied to me

[111987]

FlamingBoy wrote...

111987 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

bloody hell, the subjective lecture again....

Because only one perspective is the true perspective, right?

This is not a matter of liking peanut butter over jelly (jam )

If you cannot defend you argument for a logical perspective, then its not worth the paper its written on.

For example
It is my subjective opinion AIDS is an alien implant with a probe placed in the nose of the a lion.

I base this on because I "feel" this way.


Every thing is subjective, but not every subjective interpretation is equal if it cannot be defended. Saying this is my interpretation is a cop out.

I am defending my viepoint with logical arguments, supporting data, etc...that's what the discussion I am having with IanPolaris is about.

[dreamgazer]

FlamingBoy wrote...

111987 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

bloody hell, the subjective lecture again....

Because only one perspective is the true perspective, right?

This is not a matter of liking peanut butter over jelly (jam )

If you cannot defend you argument for a logical perspective, then its not worth the paper its written on.

For example
It is my subjective opinion AIDS is an alien implant with a probe placed in the nose of the a lion.

I base this on because I "feel" this way.

Every thing is subjective, but not every subjective interpretation is equal if it cannot be defended. Saying this is my interpretation is a cop out.

Interpreting fiction is different from interpreting science facts. 

And it's once again subjective whether an interpretation can be "properly" defended.

[FlamingBoy]

111987 wrote...



I am defending my viepoint with logical arguments, supporting data, etc...that's what the discussion I am having with IanPolaris is about.

"But see, that's just your interpretation of it. You say it doesn't honor the choice. I say it does.

These are all opinions. I say that your interpretation is valid. Why can't more than one be valid?"

quote from you

Its the subjective argument to avoid actually saying anything beyond "all our opinions are each little snowflakes"

[FlamingBoy]

dreamgazer wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

111987 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

bloody hell, the subjective lecture again....

Because only one perspective is the true perspective, right?

This is not a matter of liking peanut butter over jelly (jam )

If you cannot defend you argument for a logical perspective, then its not worth the paper its written on.

For example
It is my subjective opinion AIDS is an alien implant with a probe placed in the nose of the a lion.

I base this on because I "feel" this way.

Every thing is subjective, but not every subjective interpretation is equal if it cannot be defended. Saying this is my interpretation is a cop out.

Interpreting fiction is different from interpreting science facts. 

And it's once again subjective whether an interpretation can be "properly" defended.

Its not properly defended if the defence is "my opinion is subjective".

[Maxster_]

111987 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

111987 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

So it basically ruins the whole point of picking Refuse in the first place. Oh well, I'll just ignore it since it's just Gamble and his twitter word isn't lore.

Picking Refuse has a point? A point that can be ruined by something someone else does?

Yes.  It's a point you may not agree with (and if you, you don't pick refuse), but the entire point of refuse was the unwillingless to accept the Catalyst's solution as the "only" solution, a refusal to "pick your war-crime", and thus a leap of faith that even if we went down swinging, we might at least give the next cycle (or cycles) a chance to defeat the Reapers the right way, without sacrificing it's collective soul on the alter of the Crucible.

That is the point that Bioware completely (and IMHO deliberately) ruined.  I consider it "trolling", i.e. "it's our way or go away".  I also think it's childish at this point.

-Polaris

It's been established, over three games, that the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally. Call it bad writing or whatever else, but that's the way the Reapers have been presented.

No, it wasn't.
It is established in ME1, that reapers is a very dangerous enemy, but they can be defeated with enough firepower and use of strategy and tactics.
This is exactly why Sovereign was scheming for thousands of years, instead of attacking Citadel directly. It is even stated in the codex.

Chooisng Refuse is choosing to undue all the work you did in ME3. All the alliances you build are for the express purpose of using the Crucible. Thus it is fitting that in Refuse, you lose everything if you do not use the Crucible.

Not joining Saren(Sovereign) is choosing to undue all the work you did in ME1. Because reapers can't be defeated, and submission is preferable to extinction . 

The Reapers aren't invincible. Sovereign couldn't have just charged in and taken on the entire Citadel fleet. But in ME1 it was shown to be vastly more powerful than anything the Citadel races had.

Incorrect. He was a powerful dreadnought, but only one. Entire Citadel fleet would crush it instantly.

Sovereign was only defeated because of Saren's death. The devs have stated that if the Saren death did not occur, Sovereign may have been defeated, but with MUCH higher casualties. And Sovereign was already carving through the fleet like butter when they engaged it.

Incorrect.
Sovereign wasn't defeated instantly because he brought geth fleet with him. And, after arrival, he headed directly inside the Citadel, and closed it behind him(actually, Saren closed). And this was only possible, because Saren took C-Sec off-guard, by arriving right at Presidium tower with a strong support of geth infantry through Conduit. Without that support, Saren could not took controls of the Citadel, and thus close it, and without closing it - Sovereign would be dead fastly.

And of course, all that means, that reapers can be defeated conventionally, just not in current cycle. Still, reapers arrival in full strength, in ME3, means that ME1 was completely pointless.

[KiwiQuiche]

The fleets should have just nuked the Citadel. Shepard should have said to Hackett "Oh hey the Reaper God is in here, blow it to hell" then. Problem solved.

[IanPolaris]

111987 wrote...

I am defending my viepoint with logical arguments, supporting data, etc...that's what the discussion I am having with IanPolaris is about.

Here's the thing.  I grant that different people will have different interpretations, but consider:

If you actually think that the Reapers can never be defeated conventionally, and the Shepard goes with your interpretation, then they aren't going to pick Refuse in the first place.  Thus if the Refuse ending doesn't reflect this point of view, you lose nothing since you wouldn't have picked it anyway.

However, for those that tend to agree with my interpretation, their Shepards are quite possibley (not always not a significant fraction) will in fact pick the refuse option.  Right now with Gamble's official tweets, the choice of THESE players isn't being honored.

So why makes your interpretation better than mine?  Why should your interpretation be honored for an ending you will almost certainly never pick while mine isn't for an ending I might well pick?

-Polaris

[dreamgazer]

FlamingBoy wrote...

Its not properly defended if the defence is "my opinion is subjective".

Well, if that statement is left alone like that without any supporting explanation, then I agree.

[AlanC9]

IanPolaris wrote...

Yes.  It's a point you may not agree with (and if you, you don't pick refuse), but the entire point of refuse was the unwillingless to accept the Catalyst's solution as the "only" solution, a refusal to "pick your war-crime", and thus a leap of faith that even if we went down swinging, we might at least give the next cycle (or cycles) a chance to defeat the Reapers the right way, without sacrificing it's collective soul on the alter of the Crucible.

I'm not competent to talk about collective souls and whatnot, but why would Shepard think that a future cycle wouldn't use the Crucible? She knows that Liara's put the plans in her capsules.

[dreamgazer]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

The fleets should have just nuked the Citadel. Shepard should have said to Hackett "Oh hey the Reaper God is in here, blow it to hell" then. Problem solved.

What kind of damage would violently nuking the Citadel create? It'd probably be different than the controlled explosion that happens after the Crucible is armed. 

[FlamingBoy]

dreamgazer wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

Its not properly defended if the defence is "my opinion is subjective".

Well, if that statement is left alone like that without any supporting explanation, then I agree.

Which is often the case on this forum (for both sides) and the main point of argument in which I was tackling.

[111987]

IanPolaris wrote...

111987 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually no.  It was only established that the Reapers can not be defeated "conventionally" (by which I mean without a Reaper Off Button) at the start of ME3.  In ME2 there were a number of hints that the Reapers could be sucessfully fought and Vigil seems to imply this as well in ME1 (see Klengendan Cannon as just one example).

In *this* cycle we frittered away our advantages and at the very end of the game, it's crucible or nothing, but it didn't have to be that way.

The Illusive Man even says that the Klendagon Cannon was likely a last 'FU' to the Reapers before they were annihilated. In any case, one dead Reaper isn't saying much when there are hundreds, if not thousands of them. That cannon was a one trick pony.

In ME2, during that same mission, EDI actually says Reaper shields are impervious to dreadnaught fire. So actually, ME3 made the Reapers more beatable by having the 4:1 ratio.

So you have a LOT of cannons of this sort.  What's the problem?  Yes sure there may be technical and engineering hurdles, but don't toss the word "impossible" at me unless something really is impossible.

Something like the Klengadon cannon should have at least been explored, and that's just one option.

The price is too high.  You are essentially trusting that your number one enemy is telling the truth, and that you have to pick some horrific warcrime and hope that the Catalyst isn't lying (and it's most certainly able to lie).  Now you personally might not agree that the price is too high, but if you pick REFUSE as a player, this is the choice that you are making in character, and Bioware needs  to honor that choice.

How would you have them honor that choice? As stated, the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally. As antagonists, that is how they are written. Anything other than Shepard's cycle being wiped out would be ridiculous in my opinion.

:nonono:

The Reapers can not be 'conventionally' defeated by the end of ME3 only in THIS cycle.  There is no reason to think that another cycle with enough prep time, enough time to reserach and build, couldn't in fact defeat the Reapers.  The Reapers have some pretty significant shortcomings like an inability to recover losses and they are technologically stagnant.  It might be too late for *this* cycle to exploit those flaws, but you can not say that about ALL cycles.

Going in to the next cycle and predicting things is impossible. There are just way too many variables. What if the next space-faring cycle doesn't reach the Citadel until there are only a few centuries left before their 50,000 years are up? What if their governments are plagued by doubt, suspicion, and indecision and don't act fast enough and with enough conviction? What if they build synthetics that rebel and wipe them out, undoing all of their preparations? The possibilities are endless.

You are right. Theoretically, the Reapers could be defeated given enough time, resources, and preparation. If say the next cycle discovers Liara's capsules with a few thousand years to spare, they could build thousands of dreadnaughts with Thanix cannons and Klendagon Cannons on every world and devise shielding for indoctrination and aggressivley explore the inner workings of the Citadel. But that's just one possibility.

Honoring our CHOICE not to use the crucible means allowing us to win the game without using the curcible period.  That may mean (and I am fine with) that our cycle has to lose to a future cycle may win.   That is sacrifice but that is a meaningful way to HONOR player choice.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. To me, it all comes down to the Reapers not being able to be beaten conventionally. That is the story Bioware is intent on telling.

Because my way honors the choice of the player in an RPG and your's doesn't.  That's why.

-Polaris

We disagree on what would honor said choice. I compare it (loosely) to ME2 and the Suicide Mission. They tell you the whole game that if your team isn't mentally prepared (i.e. DO THE LOYALTY MISSIONS) there will be casualties. If you choose to ignore this, well, then your team will likely all die. The same in ME3; they tell you the whole game only the Crucible can defeat the reapers. Refusing to use the Crucible is roughly the same thing as not doing the loyalty missions.

[IanPolaris]

AlanC9 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Yes.  It's a point you may not agree with (and if you, you don't pick refuse), but the entire point of refuse was the unwillingless to accept the Catalyst's solution as the "only" solution, a refusal to "pick your war-crime", and thus a leap of faith that even if we went down swinging, we might at least give the next cycle (or cycles) a chance to defeat the Reapers the right way, without sacrificing it's collective soul on the alter of the Crucible.

I'm not competent to talk about collective souls and whatnot, but why would Shepard think that a future cycle wouldn't use the Crucible? She knows that Liara's put the plans in her capsules.

Shepard trusts Liara..at least enough to reasonably think that if the crucible doesn't work, Liara will warn the next cycle.  In fact that's exactly what she does.  The very first thing she does is WARN the next cycle NOT to build the crucible (well technically she says we built it and deployed it but it didn't work, but I'd certainly take that as a warning if I received it!)

-Polaris

[111987]

FlamingBoy wrote...

111987 wrote...



I am defending my viepoint with logical arguments, supporting data, etc...that's what the discussion I am having with IanPolaris is about.

"But see, that's just your interpretation of it. You say it doesn't honor the choice. I say it does.

These are all opinions. I say that your interpretation is valid. Why can't more than one be valid?"

quote from you

Its the subjective argument to avoid actually saying anything beyond "all our opinions are each little snowflakes"

Are you serious? Did you read the rest of my post? That's where the arguments are...my argument is not summed up in that one quote you chose.

[KiwiQuiche]

dreamgazer wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

The fleets should have just nuked the Citadel. Shepard should have said to Hackett "Oh hey the Reaper God is in here, blow it to hell" then. Problem solved.

What kind of damage would violently nuking the Citadel create? It'd probably be different than the controlled explosion that happens after the Crucible is armed. 

Who cares? The thing that just said it controls the Reapers lives there. Kill it. Blow it to hell and gone.

[Maxster_]

111987 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

111987 wrote...

The Reapers aren't invincible. Sovereign couldn't have just charged in and taken on the entire Citadel fleet. But in ME1 it was shown to be vastly more powerful than anything the Citadel races had.

Sovereign was only defeated because of Saren's death. The devs have stated that if the Saren death did not occur, Sovereign may have been defeated, but with MUCH higher casualties. And Sovereign was already carving through the fleet like butter when they engaged it.

The point being is that the Reapers are vincible and with the proper technology, and preperations then (hypothetically at least) could be defeated.  Of course there was a horrid Retcon on the part of Bioware's Writers that enabled the Reapers to make it to our galaxy from Dark Space in only three years......and another horrible retcon that essentially said the Reapers could do this without discharging their drive cores.  That retcon (and it was a retcon after ME1) really harmed the series IMO.

I disagree with the idea that what Saren wanted=Synthesis, but that's a different discussion. And I know we won't achieve anything on that front.

I don't see how you can.  Sarenly openly preaches the union of man and machine with the strengths of both and the weaknesses of neither.  How is that not synethesis?

-Polaris

They key difference is that Saren was obviously indoctrinated, and wanted to implant everything with Reaper tech and thus all be slaves to the Reapers. Synthesis is not Reaper technology, but even if it was, it is obviously not the same type of implants that was used on Saren.

Synthesis is not a reaper technology? So, there was some race that was far more advanced than reapers?

it is obviously not the same type of implants that was used on Saren.

Really? Reapers working alongside with current cycle's races means that everyone was brainwashed. Hatred and fear won't just go away, as is dissent about being forcibly mutilated.

[111987]

IanPolaris wrote...

111987 wrote...

I am defending my viepoint with logical arguments, supporting data, etc...that's what the discussion I am having with IanPolaris is about.

Here's the thing.  I grant that different people will have different interpretations, but consider:

If you actually think that the Reapers can never be defeated conventionally, and the Shepard goes with your interpretation, then they aren't going to pick Refuse in the first place.  Thus if the Refuse ending doesn't reflect this point of view, you lose nothing since you wouldn't have picked it anyway.

However, for those that tend to agree with my interpretation, their Shepards are quite possibley (not always not a significant fraction) will in fact pick the refuse option.  Right now with Gamble's official tweets, the choice of THESE players isn't being honored.

So why makes your interpretation better than mine?  Why should your interpretation be honored for an ending you will almost certainly never pick while mine isn't for an ending I might well pick?

-Polaris

I'm not trying to say mine is better than yours. My original point was that just because you think Bioware is trolling Refusers, not everyone would feel the same way because they would agree with Bioware's vision of Refuse.

[FlamingBoy]

111987 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

111987 wrote...



I am defending my viepoint with logical arguments, supporting data, etc...that's what the discussion I am having with IanPolaris is about.

"But see, that's just your interpretation of it. You say it doesn't honor the choice. I say it does.

These are all opinions. I say that your interpretation is valid. Why can't more than one be valid?"

quote from you

Its the subjective argument to avoid actually saying anything beyond "all our opinions are each little snowflakes"

Are you serious? Did you read the rest of my post? That's where the arguments are...my argument is not summed up in that one quote you chose.

Your absoultely correct, however your quoting method singled this one out as a response to polis. I then made the assumption you wanted this part to stand apart from the rest of your argument.

Obviously I was wrong, that particular quoting method always throws me off. Sorry

[IanPolaris]

111987 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

111987 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually no.  It was only established that the Reapers can not be defeated "conventionally" (by which I mean without a Reaper Off Button) at the start of ME3.  In ME2 there were a number of hints that the Reapers could be sucessfully fought and Vigil seems to imply this as well in ME1 (see Klengendan Cannon as just one example).

In *this* cycle we frittered away our advantages and at the very end of the game, it's crucible or nothing, but it didn't have to be that way.

The Illusive Man even says that the Klendagon Cannon was likely a last 'FU' to the Reapers before they were annihilated. In any case, one dead Reaper isn't saying much when there are hundreds, if not thousands of them. That cannon was a one trick pony.

In ME2, during that same mission, EDI actually says Reaper shields are impervious to dreadnaught fire. So actually, ME3 made the Reapers more beatable by having the 4:1 ratio.

So you have a LOT of cannons of this sort.  What's the problem?  Yes sure there may be technical and engineering hurdles, but don't toss the word "impossible" at me unless something really is impossible.

Something like the Klengadon cannon should have at least been explored, and that's just one option.

The price is too high.  You are essentially trusting that your number one enemy is telling the truth, and that you have to pick some horrific warcrime and hope that the Catalyst isn't lying (and it's most certainly able to lie).  Now you personally might not agree that the price is too high, but if you pick REFUSE as a player, this is the choice that you are making in character, and Bioware needs  to honor that choice.

How would you have them honor that choice? As stated, the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally. As antagonists, that is how they are written. Anything other than Shepard's cycle being wiped out would be ridiculous in my opinion.

:nonono:

The Reapers can not be 'conventionally' defeated by the end of ME3 only in THIS cycle.  There is no reason to think that another cycle with enough prep time, enough time to reserach and build, couldn't in fact defeat the Reapers.  The Reapers have some pretty significant shortcomings like an inability to recover losses and they are technologically stagnant.  It might be too late for *this* cycle to exploit those flaws, but you can not say that about ALL cycles.

Going in to the next cycle and predicting things is impossible. There are just way too many variables. What if the next space-faring cycle doesn't reach the Citadel until there are only a few centuries left before their 50,000 years are up? What if their governments are plagued by doubt, suspicion, and indecision and don't act fast enough and with enough conviction? What if they build synthetics that rebel and wipe them out, undoing all of their preparations? The possibilities are endless.

You are right. Theoretically, the Reapers could be defeated given enough time, resources, and preparation. If say the next cycle discovers Liara's capsules with a few thousand years to spare, they could build thousands of dreadnaughts with Thanix cannons and Klendagon Cannons on every world and devise shielding for indoctrination and aggressivley explore the inner workings of the Citadel. But that's just one possibility.

If the Reapers could even hypothetically be defeated in the next cycle, then that becomes the POINT of the refuse ending.

Honoring our CHOICE not to use the crucible means allowing us to win the game without using the curcible period.  That may mean (and I am fine with) that our cycle has to lose to a future cycle may win.   That is sacrifice but that is a meaningful way to HONOR player choice.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. To me, it all comes down to the Reapers not being able to be beaten conventionally. That is the story Bioware is intent on telling.

Bioware isn't even consistant about this.  In ME1 (and even into ME2), the REapers were very much able (at least in principle) to be beaten "conventionally" (as in no magic 'off' button).  That didn't really change until ME3.  Thus I dispute that this was bioware's intent.

I also would say that if you aren't going to let the player win without using the crucible, then don't offer that option.  That was entirely Bioware's choice.

Honoring decisions means honoring decisions in an RPG.  I sometimes wonder if Bioware has forgotten how to write an RPG but I digress.

Because my way honors the choice of the player in an RPG and your's doesn't.  That's why.

-Polaris

We disagree on what would honor said choice. I compare it (loosely) to ME2 and the Suicide Mission. They tell you the whole game that if your team isn't mentally prepared (i.e. DO THE LOYALTY MISSIONS) there will be casualties. If you choose to ignore this, well, then your team will likely all die. The same in ME3; they tell you the whole game only the Crucible can defeat the reapers. Refusing to use the Crucible is roughly the same thing as not doing the loyalty missions.

Wrong.  In the Suicide Mission, you could actually do well even with a largely disloyal crew by making certain choices.   You also had a very good idea what the stakes and rules were.

None of that's true in this last scene in ME3.  If you refuse to use the crucible, then in order to HONOR that choice, the Reapers need to be defeated without the crucible (it might not be by your cycle however.....).  If your EMS isn't good enough, the you should simply get a "game over".  Not doing enough to win the game (when the game tells you what is enough) is a perfectly valid reason for a "game over" screen.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

111987 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

111987 wrote...

I am defending my viepoint with logical arguments, supporting data, etc...that's what the discussion I am having with IanPolaris is about.

Here's the thing.  I grant that different people will have different interpretations, but consider:

If you actually think that the Reapers can never be defeated conventionally, and the Shepard goes with your interpretation, then they aren't going to pick Refuse in the first place.  Thus if the Refuse ending doesn't reflect this point of view, you lose nothing since you wouldn't have picked it anyway.

However, for those that tend to agree with my interpretation, their Shepards are quite possibley (not always not a significant fraction) will in fact pick the refuse option.  Right now with Gamble's official tweets, the choice of THESE players isn't being honored.

So why makes your interpretation better than mine?  Why should your interpretation be honored for an ending you will almost certainly never pick while mine isn't for an ending I might well pick?

-Polaris

I'm not trying to say mine is better than yours. My original point was that just because you think Bioware is trolling Refusers, not everyone would feel the same way because they would agree with Bioware's vision of Refuse.

Yes but those people that agree with Bioware aren't likely to pick 'refuse" and so their opinions on the matter count for less because they aren't the target audience of this ending.

-Polaris

[111987]

Maxster_ wrote...

Incorrect. He was a powerful dreadnought, but only one. Entire Citadel fleet would crush it instantly.

That's an exaggeration. Rewatch the battle. Sovereign is dominating and shows so sign of slowing down until Saren's death. And the 'much higher casualties' thing comes from Gamble's twitter (or one of the other writers, can't remember).

Maxster_ wrote...
Incorrect.
Sovereign wasn't defeated instantly because he brought geth fleet with him. And, after arrival, he headed directly inside the Citadel, and closed it behind him(actually, Saren closed). And this was only possible, because Saren took C-Sec off-guard, by arriving right at Presidium tower with a strong support of geth infantry through Conduit. Without that support, Saren could not took controls of the Citadel, and thus close it, and without closing it - Sovereign would be dead fastly.

All of this shows that Sovereign needed help to prevent the Citadel from closing on it. Not that he would have been annihilated if it had engaged the fleets in combat. If the Citadel closes, Sovereign can't do anything other than pointleslly mill about destroying ships until it is eventually brought down. Sure, the Geth fleet helped to distract the Citadel fleet and allow Sovereign to reach the Citadel unimpeded, but as seen in the battle, Sovereign wouldn't have gone down without tremendous loss of life.

[111987]

FlamingBoy wrote...

111987 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

111987 wrote...



I am defending my viepoint with logical arguments, supporting data, etc...that's what the discussion I am having with IanPolaris is about.

"But see, that's just your interpretation of it. You say it doesn't honor the choice. I say it does.

These are all opinions. I say that your interpretation is valid. Why can't more than one be valid?"

quote from you

Its the subjective argument to avoid actually saying anything beyond "all our opinions are each little snowflakes"

Are you serious? Did you read the rest of my post? That's where the arguments are...my argument is not summed up in that one quote you chose.

Your absoultely correct, however your quoting method singled this one out as a response to polis. I then made the assumption you wanted this part to stand apart from the rest of your argument.

Obviously I was wrong, that particular quoting method always throws me off. Sorry

No problem. Sorry for my rudeness. Mistakes like that happen sometimes