485 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Awful lot of gamer entitlement in this thread

*sips soda*

Why should this thread be different from any other thread?

[JamesFaith]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Awful lot of gamer entitlement in this thread

*sips soda*

Had this thread ever chance to be different with "endings" in title?

[Iakus]

Br3ad wrote...

Who said that VI's aren't affected? Kagi's VI was affected. And you obviously don't know anything about biotics, because they don't have any cybernetics. They have one implant on their brain stem. I'm sure that anyone who has cybernetics in their brain, are finished.

There's no evidence Keji's graybox was affected.

Umm, what do you think was causing Kaidan's migraines?  it was his L2 implant.  The one that would require dangerous brain surgery to remove or replace?  Destroy should have given him the worst migraine ever.

[Iakus]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Awful lot of gamer entitlement in this thread

*sips soda*

Aaaaand, here come the trolls

[Iakus]

JamesFaith wrote...

So you were probably visiting only "happy refuse" threads.

Demands for "I would rather die in fight then accept Catalyst's options" were common here before EC.

Funny isn't it, how Bioware failed to interpret that as "Your endings suck" when galactic extinction is a preferred alternative to some?

[The Night Mammoth]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

iakus wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

iakus wrote...



Because rather than give EDI and the geth a heroic sendoff like Mordin in the Shroud tower, I'm essentially shooting them in the back, like Shepard betraying Mordin.  It's not a "reasonable" sacrifice.  I've noted in another post what Destroy already requires in sacrifice (essentially, the galaxy and the relay network ust be rebuild without help from teh Reapers).  Adding EDI and the geth is nothing more than an arbitrary tragedy.

A beam that is meant to kill synthetics killing synthetics is not arbitrary.

And what is a synthetic?  What makes it different from a VI?  How is a billion year old Reaper cybernetic hive mind the same as a three year old human technology standalone quantum blue box like EDI like a four century old quarian tech networked consensus like the geth?

Why does it strike them all down, but leave a biotic with cybernetics running through his nervous system alone?  How about quarian cyborgs?  salarians who replace parts of their brains with VI interfaces?  How about some guy with a pacemaker?  "Even you are partly synthetic"

Yes, it's completely arbitrary.

Biggest difference? The Geth and EDI both have Reaper code installed. So the beam targets artificial lifeforms with reaper code installed.

What's Reaper code? Reapers are individual artificial intelligences made of different species that have been melted down, how is their code possibly all the same? How does the Crucible/Citadel know what Reaper code is? How does it target Reaper code and how does it just delete it? Why does it target Reaper code? Why would the geth die if some of their code is deleted? How does EDI die because it affects Reaper code? She's only partly based on some of Sovereign's recovered technology, and Sovereign was dead, so where did any Reaper code come from? Why would she die regardless, she's also an artificial intelligence, and a quantum computer, she wouldn't have any recognisable Reaper code in her, she wouldn't be EDI otherwise and part of the point of AI's is that they evolve constantly. Also, if part of the point of Destroy is that it targets synthetics, how does it target synthetics if they don't have any? The Catalyst also says nothing about Reaper code, so is it lying? It says that it just targets synthetics, and that Shepard is part of that description in some way. Does that mean Shepard has code in her? How? Where? Why? 

[Iakus]

The Mad Hanar wrote...


Considering your reaction to the refuse option, yes. They gave people what they wanted, but there still people out there saying, "but that's not what I *reeeally* wanted!" Not that it really matters, ending the game in a different way would've completely underminded a good chunk of the plot in Mass Effect 3 anyways.

Yeah I'm sure galactic extinction is what everyone who hated the endings "reeeally wanted"

And given ME3 undermined so much of ME1 and ME2, who'd notice if EC undermined ME3?

"Growing up". More like driving each other to extinction. I guess that's all fine and dandy, but controlling the Reapers to serve a better purpose? Naaah, that's evil.

So are we changing our reasoning from "The Reapers don't dominate the galaxy" to "The galaxy needed domination anyway"?

Because with the latter I can see how such a pessimistic outlook could think Control is a "happy" outcome.

[Ieldra]

iakus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

iakus wrote...
And to anyone who thinks I am unwilling to pay a heavy price to defeat the Reapers:  I daresay the prices I'm willing to pay are on the whole steeper than what most of you are willing to pay.  But those prices would allow Shepard to win more cleanly.

Perhaps that's because those prices wouldn't be paid by you? There are essentially only three kinds of prices paid by you: in the lives of those you love, in your honor, and in your life or physical wellbeing. Everything else is so remote from you that its meaning as a sacrifice is questionable.

Which of the three would "I would rather have the entire relay network be rendered permanently inoperable than sacrifice EDI and the geth" fall under?

I would find that very much preferable to what we got. It would be thematically consistent as well. Still, I suspect you wouldn't feel it as keenly, it wouldn't be as personal since it's not you who pay the price but your civilization. I guess it would have meaning to you, and it certainly would have to me, but I suspect the writers were intentionally going for something more personal in order to prevent people from not feeling the sacrifice because of emotional detachment.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 août 2013 - 06:25 .

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

So you were probably visiting only "happy refuse" threads.

Demands for "I would rather die in fight then accept Catalyst's options" were common here before EC.

Funny isn't it, how Bioware failed to interpret that as "Your endings suck" when galactic extinction is a preferred alternative to some?

Who says they didn't interpret those specific comments that way?

Not surrendering to any and all demands =/= failing to interpret.

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

iakus wrote...
Which of the three would "I would rather have the entire relay network be rendered permanently inoperable than sacrifice EDI and the geth" fall under?

I would find that very much preferable to what we got. It would be thematically consistent as well. Still, I suspect you wouldn't feel it as keenly, it wouldn't be as personal since it's not you who pay the price but your civilization. I guess it would have meaning to you, and it certainly would have to me, but I suspect the writers were intentionally going for something more personal in order to prevent people from not feeling the sacrifice because of emotional detachment.

I disagree that that would be thematically consistent to destroy relays in destroy. To the victor the spoils is my motto. However i agree that writers chose synthetic destruction as a personal stab at the heart because wanted to try and stop people picking destroy ending rather than have the endings stand or fall before people thematically on their own.

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

So you were probably visiting only "happy refuse" threads.

Demands for "I would rather die in fight then accept Catalyst's options" were common here before EC.

Funny isn't it, how Bioware failed to interpret that as "Your endings suck" when galactic extinction is a preferred alternative to some?

And what? Some people have different tastes and preferencies then other?

Normal thing behind borders of Iakusia, so why should I make fun from it? 

[Iakus]

[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...


Which of the three would "I would rather have the entire relay network be rendered permanently inoperable than sacrifice EDI and the geth" fall under?[/quote]
I would find that very much preferable to what we got. It would be thematically consistent as well. Still, I suspect you wouldn't feel it as keenly, it wouldn't be as personal since it's not you who pay the price but your civilization. I guess it would have meaning to you, and it certainly would have to me, but I suspect the writers were intentionally going for something more personal in order to prevent people from not feeling the sacrifice because of emotional detachment.

[/quote]

I wouldn't feel it as  negatively, if that's what you mean.  And Shepard, assuming he/she survived, would hav eto pay the price, just like everyone else who survived the war:  living in what would likely amount to a galactic dark age.  An uncertain future in a galaxy that no longer has the technology they had so relied on, and must now learn to build it themselves or do without.

And whatever the writers were shooting for, what tehy hit was "emotionally manipulative, arbitrary tragedy"

[Iakus]

JamesFaith wrote...

iakus wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

So you were probably visiting only "happy refuse" threads.

Demands for "I would rather die in fight then accept Catalyst's options" were common here before EC.

Funny isn't it, how Bioware failed to interpret that as "Your endings suck" when galactic extinction is a preferred alternative to some?

And what? Some people have different tastes and preferencies then other?

Normal thing behind borders of Iakusia, so why should I make fun from it? 

Yes, some people have different tastes.

One would think that a game that boasts innumerable endings would have cast a wider net, given Bioware is trying to boaden their audience.

Instead, they managed to shrink it.  I would not call that a win.

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...
And what? Some people have different tastes and preferencies then other?

Normal thing behind borders of Iakusia, so why should I make fun from it? 

Yes, some people have different tastes.

One would think that a game that boasts innumerable endings would have cast a wider net, given Bioware is trying to boaden their audience.

Instead, they managed to shrink it.  I would not call that a win.

Please, show me some BW quote about "innumerable endings".

And missing Iakus is hadly shrinking of net. 

[Iakus]

JamesFaith wrote...

iakus wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...
And what? Some people have different tastes and preferencies then other?

Normal thing behind borders of Iakusia, so why should I make fun from it? 

Yes, some people have different tastes.

One would think that a game that boasts innumerable endings would have cast a wider net, given Bioware is trying to boaden their audience.

Instead, they managed to shrink it.  I would not call that a win.

Please, show me some BW quote about "innumerable endings".

And missing Iakus is hadly shrinking of net. 

There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How
could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and
then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t
say any more than that…”

Mike Gamble.

And don't pretend my view on the endings is somehow unique.  I  claim my voice is mine alone, but I also know there are plenty of others who hold similar views.

[Nashtalia]

the fact that from what Vigil said, considering that "Control" isn't the way as he said that "Understanding" them isn't the way to go [something of this wording]. so obviously "Control" isn't the way to go. which conclude that Destroying them is the way to go

[Ieldra]

Nashtalia wrote...
the fact that from what Vigil said, considering that "Control" isn't the way as he said that "Understanding" them isn't the way to go [something of this wording]. so obviously "Control" isn't the way to go. which conclude that Destroying them is the way to go

"Don't try to understand" is a message I would never accept from anyone. Vigil is a VI constructed from the personality of a Prothean, its opinions are not authoritative.

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Please, show me some BW quote about "innumerable endings".

And missing Iakus is hadly shrinking of net. 

There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How
could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and
then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t
say any more than that…”

Mike Gamble.
.

Many =/= innumerable (too numerous to be counted; numberless by dictionary)

There is great difference between these words.

[Nashtalia]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Nashtalia wrote...
the fact that from what Vigil said, considering that "Control" isn't the way as he said that "Understanding" them isn't the way to go [something of this wording]. so obviously "Control" isn't the way to go. which conclude that Destroying them is the way to go

"Don't try to understand" is a message I would never accept from anyone. Vigil is a VI constructed from the personality of a Prothean, its opinions are not authoritative.

i would say that considering he is a Prothean, he has honestly has weight of his speech...specifically the "Don't try to Understand them", despite what others say....for the fact that when i saved The Collector base for Cerberus, sure they can do some research into The Collector Tech, but in the end "it" Destroyed / Ruined them in the process...

in honesty Prothean has interested me in general, they were the first to experience "The Cycle" and have grounds to say to stand on their words. and their warnings was quite useful and helpful. and their words of "Break the Cycle" was enough for me and has weight

And.....

The Illusive Man wanted to understand them and Control them, and what of him happened when he did "try" to Control them? *nods* Indoctrination....."Listen to yourself.....you're  Indoctrinated"

as what i have said to Indoctrinated Saren trying to make a good sense of this surrendering to these Machines. i have said >you're  Indoctrinated [you're a puppet]

Modifié par Nashtalia, 22 août 2013 - 07:26 .

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Nashtalia wrote...
the fact that from what Vigil said, considering that "Control" isn't the way as he said that "Understanding" them isn't the way to go [something of this wording]. so obviously "Control" isn't the way to go. which conclude that Destroying them is the way to go

"Don't try to understand" is a message I would never accept from anyone. Vigil is a VI constructed from the personality of a Prothean, its opinions are not authoritative.

Especially since the Reapers are remarkably simple to understand.

[Dr. Megaverse]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

iakus wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

iakus wrote...


Because rather than give EDI and the geth a heroic sendoff like Mordin in the Shroud tower, I'm essentially shooting them in the back, like Shepard betraying Mordin.  It's not a "reasonable" sacrifice.  I've noted in another post what Destroy already requires in sacrifice (essentially, the galaxy and the relay network ust be rebuild without help from teh Reapers).  Adding EDI and the geth is nothing more than an arbitrary tragedy.

A beam that is meant to kill synthetics killing synthetics is not arbitrary.

And what is a synthetic?  What makes it different from a VI?  How is a billion year old Reaper cybernetic hive mind the same as a three year old human technology standalone quantum blue box like EDI like a four century old quarian tech networked consensus like the geth?
Why does it strike them all down, but leave a biotic with cybernetics running through his nervous system alone?  How about quarian cyborgs?  salarians who replace parts of their brains with VI interfaces?  How about some guy with a pacemaker?  "Even you are partly synthetic"
Yes, it's completely arbitrary.

Biggest difference? The Geth and EDI both have Reaper code installed. So the beam targets artificial lifeforms with reaper code installed.

What's Reaper code? Reapers are individual artificial intelligences made of different species that have been melted down, how is their code possibly all the same? How does the Crucible/Citadel know what Reaper code is? How does it target Reaper code and how does it just delete it? Why does it target Reaper code? Why would the geth die if some of their code is deleted? How does EDI die because it affects Reaper code? She's only partly based on some of Sovereign's recovered technology, and Sovereign was dead, so where did any Reaper code come from? Why would she die regardless, she's also an artificial intelligence, and a quantum computer, she wouldn't have any recognisable Reaper code in her, she wouldn't be EDI otherwise and part of the point of AI's is that they evolve constantly. Also, if part of the point of Destroy is that it targets synthetics, how does it target synthetics if they don't have any? The Catalyst also says nothing about Reaper code, so is it lying? It says that it just targets synthetics, and that Shepard is part of that description in some way. Does that mean Shepard has code in her? How? Where? Why? 

This is a question about the Catalysts function that has always bothered me. No doubt the Lazarus implants are made of materials currently in existence and in other objects. Many people may even have medical "implants" which may use technologies spun off from the Lazarus project, TIM isn't one to let Cerberus advances go to waste after all. Did all of the drop dead?  
What about shipboard computers?  They're made of the same materials and use "intelligent" programming (I say intelligent because most VIs resemble weak AIs). Did those all get fried?  If so, how are there fleets still around as EC shows?  
Why does the red beam destroy the Geth hardware and software, but not wipe VIs galaxy wide?  

[Nashtalia]

Dr. Megaverse wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

iakus wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

iakus wrote...


Because rather than give EDI and the geth a heroic sendoff like Mordin in the Shroud tower, I'm essentially shooting them in the back, like Shepard betraying Mordin.  It's not a "reasonable" sacrifice.  I've noted in another post what Destroy already requires in sacrifice (essentially, the galaxy and the relay network ust be rebuild without help from teh Reapers).  Adding EDI and the geth is nothing more than an arbitrary tragedy.

A beam that is meant to kill synthetics killing synthetics is not arbitrary.

And what is a synthetic?  What makes it different from a VI?  How is a billion year old Reaper cybernetic hive mind the same as a three year old human technology standalone quantum blue box like EDI like a four century old quarian tech networked consensus like the geth?
Why does it strike them all down, but leave a biotic with cybernetics running through his nervous system alone?  How about quarian cyborgs?  salarians who replace parts of their brains with VI interfaces?  How about some guy with a pacemaker?  "Even you are partly synthetic"
Yes, it's completely arbitrary.

Biggest difference? The Geth and EDI both have Reaper code installed. So the beam targets artificial lifeforms with reaper code installed.

What's Reaper code? Reapers are individual artificial intelligences made of different species that have been melted down, how is their code possibly all the same? How does the Crucible/Citadel know what Reaper code is? How does it target Reaper code and how does it just delete it? Why does it target Reaper code? Why would the geth die if some of their code is deleted? How does EDI die because it affects Reaper code? She's only partly based on some of Sovereign's recovered technology, and Sovereign was dead, so where did any Reaper code come from? Why would she die regardless, she's also an artificial intelligence, and a quantum computer, she wouldn't have any recognisable Reaper code in her, she wouldn't be EDI otherwise and part of the point of AI's is that they evolve constantly. Also, if part of the point of Destroy is that it targets synthetics, how does it target synthetics if they don't have any? The Catalyst also says nothing about Reaper code, so is it lying? It says that it just targets synthetics, and that Shepard is part of that description in some way. Does that mean Shepard has code in her? How? Where? Why? 

This is a question about the Catalysts function that has always bothered me. No doubt the Lazarus implants are made of materials currently in existence and in other objects. Many people may even have medical "implants" which may use technologies spun off from the Lazarus project, TIM isn't one to let Cerberus advances go to waste after all. Did all of the drop dead?  
What about shipboard computers?  They're made of the same materials and use "intelligent" programming (I say intelligent because most VIs resemble weak AIs). Did those all get fried?  If so, how are there fleets still around as EC shows?  
Why does the red beam destroy the Geth hardware and software, but not wipe VIs galaxy wide?  

you forgot to mention that the Catalyst said any damage done, can be re-built with no problem...so i guess you missed that part, it obviously showed the Tech being oblivirated but they were re-built as the Catalyst said even after that devestation beam blast, it showed a re-built London

that said after the re-building after the Reaper threat, it looked as if there was no damage done...a clean re-built civilization with the exception of No Shepard [her sacrifice did indeed was good but saddening *Destroy* ending]


so as it was said that The Reapers are in honestly scared of Shepard, because Shepard being in "this Cycle" would indeed "Break their Cycle". that one being that would make a major change to their Harvesting [Cycle].

Modifié par Nashtalia, 22 août 2013 - 08:03 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Nashtalia wrote...
the fact that from what Vigil said, considering that "Control" isn't the way as he said that "Understanding" them isn't the way to go [something of this wording]. so obviously "Control" isn't the way to go. which conclude that Destroying them is the way to go

"Don't try to understand" is a message I would never accept from anyone. Vigil is a VI constructed from the personality of a Prothean, its opinions are not authoritative.

Especially since the Reapers are remarkably simple to understand.

Really, there is nothing that needs understanding. Don't try to understand them because you'd be wasting your time, and defeating them doesn't come from understanding them.