210 réponses à ce sujet

[Obadiah]

General TSAR wrote...

How is Galactic Subjection or Genetic Mutilation better than Pyrrhic Victory or Last Stand?

Well for one thing with the toasters alive they can answer beings like you to your face.

Modifié par Obadiah, 13 janvier 2014 - 08:06 .

[Malanek]

Refuse is a pure Paragons only choice. Being a Paragon is about remaining true to your ideals and values no matter what. They will not fight evil by committing a lesser evil even in the face of armageddon. Mandatory Synthesis would not even be considered by a paragon because trillions of people might not want to undergo genetic modification and a paragon couldn't make that choice for them.

[dreamgazer]

General TSAR wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Actually, I can't claim originality to this one. It was The Twilight God's astute analysis.

Destroy targetted tech. We know this from the Catalyst's dialogue and Destroy's Low- and Mid-EMS variants. And even in High-EMS, the relays overload and the Citadel blows up (not true of Control). ]Volus rely on the tech in their suits to survive. However, we see no Volus in the Destroy epilogue, just as we see no geth. They're not there because they're dead.

I just can't believe I didn't pick up on that one. Usually I'm the first to see what no else does.

We see no Elcor nor Jellyfish nor Insane Porcupine nor Four Eyes in the ending slides, THEY MUST BE DEAD!!!

Fail Logic is Fail. 

I hope you realize that's the point HYR is trying to make about negative headcanon built around what's not pictured. 

Anyway, can Tali walk out of the Normandy in the vanilla destroy ending? 

[General TSAR]

Obadiah wrote...
Well for one thing with the toasters alive they can answer beings like you your face.

SkyNet is no more alive than a VI or a talking toaster.

But one benefit of the destruction of genocidal kitchen appliances is the amount of flashlights that will be available on the open market. 

Modifié par General TSAR, 13 janvier 2014 - 07:51 .

[DeinonSlayer]

@dreamgazer
Yes. She'll also refrain from putting the plaque on the wall in high-EMS Destroy like anyone else.

[His Name was HYR!!]

General TSAR wrote...

We see no Elcor nor Jellyfish nor Insane Porcupine nor Four Eyes in the ending slides, THEY MUST BE DEAD!!!

They're not tech-reliant species to begin with, so we don't need to see them. Their survival is a given.

Fail Logic is Fail. 

What?? I'm just invoking the same "looks like"-nonsense used by Destroyers to bash the other endings. :innocent:

[Almostfaceman]

von uber wrote...

He shoots he scores!

[General TSAR]

StreetMagic wrote...

.."beings like you" lol..

Man, I thought I was a geek. Learn something new every day.

Yep, someone doesn't like appliances being insulted. 

[FlyingSquirrel]

Bfler wrote...

FlyingSquirrel wrote...
 A heavily headcanoned Control or Synthesis is really the only way I can feel comfortable with the endings for a Paragon Shepard.

If you headcanon, that the Shepard AI destroys all Reapers after everything is rebuild, then control is paragon.

How would that be Paragon if the Reapers are non-hostile once freed from the Catalyst? If anything, it seems like the Reapers themselves were probably indoctrinated, so a Paragon Control AI-Shepard would want to be very careful about the line between leading the Reapers and enslaving them.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Daemul wrote...

To much Synthesis here, we need more Control.





Thread hijack attempt in progress.

Are you trying to...assume direct control?

[dreamgazer]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

@dreamgazer
Yes. She'll also refrain from putting the plaque on the wall in high-EMS Destroy like anyone else.

There's your answer, established from the original ending (I was being relatively rhetorical, but gracias). 

[FlyingSquirrel]

Malanek999 wrote...

Refuse is a pure Paragons only choice. Being a Paragon is about remaining true to your ideals and values no matter what. They will not fight evil by committing a lesser evil even in the face of armageddon.

Except that it sends the message that sticking to your ideals and values ultimately gets everyone killed, whereas in most other crucial decisions, there was at least a possible path to a positive outcome for a "pure" Paragon Shepard. In some cases it wasn't 100% obvious and required multiple prerequisites, e.g. in the ME2 suicide mission and the Tuchanka and Rannoch arcs in ME3, but it was there. (I guess Arrival is an exception, but it's optional DLC and there's no "decision point" that leads to different outcomes.)

Modifié par FlyingSquirrel, 13 janvier 2014 - 08:04 .

[dreamgazer]

Paragon and Renegade mean different things to different people.

One could also say that Refuse is the ultimate sociopathic renegade decision for Shepards who, in that moment, want nothing more than to annihilate all life through the ultimate freedom of death.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 13 janvier 2014 - 08:19 .

[AlanC9]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Refuse is a pure Paragons only choice. Being a Paragon is about remaining true to your ideals and values no matter what. They will not fight evil by committing a lesser evil even in the face of armageddon.

Except that it sends the message that sticking to your ideals and values ultimately gets everyone killed, whereas in most other crucial decisions, there was at least a possible path to a positive outcome for a "pure" Paragon Shepard. In some cases it wasn't 100% obvious and required multiple prerequisites, e.g. in the ME2 suicide mission and the Tuchanka and Rannoch arcs in ME3, but it was there. (I guess Arrival is an exception, but it's optional DLC and there's no "decision point" that leads to different outcomes.)

Well, you can just let the timer expire in Arrival. That's a decision point leading to a different outcome.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 janvier 2014 - 08:17 .

[dreamgazer]

AlanC9 wrote...

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Refuse is a pure Paragons only choice. Being a Paragon is about remaining true to your ideals and values no matter what. They will not fight evil by committing a lesser evil even in the face of armageddon.

Except that it sends the message that sticking to your ideals and values ultimately gets everyone killed, whereas in most other crucial decisions, there was at least a possible path to a positive outcome for a "pure" Paragon Shepard. In some cases it wasn't 100% obvious and required multiple prerequisites, e.g. in the ME2 suicide mission and the Tuchanka and Rannoch arcs in ME3, but it was there. (I guess Arrival is an exception, but it's optional DLC and there's no "decision point" that leads to different outcomes.)

Well, you can just let the timer expire in Arrival. That's a decision point leading to a different outcome,

Pretty screwed up one, too.

[Comrade Wakizashi]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

General TSAR wrote...

LOL NOPE.

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Killing off the geth (if even alive, at that point in the game) is the least of what Destroy does wrong.

Nope, blowing up the toasters is the icing on the cake (assuming they weren't destroyed over the skies of Rannoch).

Volus aren't "toasters." What about them? They died too.

No, they didn't. Volus aren't synthetics. If your reasoning is that no technology would work anymore, than all guns would have stopped working and the Normandy would just have crashed totally instead of crash-landed with minimal damage.
Oh, and Shepard wouldn't have been alive in the end. Which he is in the Destroy ending.

[Comrade Wakizashi]

Malanek999 wrote...

Refuse is a pure Paragons only choice. Being a Paragon is about remaining true to your ideals and values no matter what. They will not fight evil by committing a lesser evil even in the face of armageddon. Mandatory Synthesis would not even be considered by a paragon because trillions of people might not want to undergo genetic modification and a paragon couldn't make that choice for them.

I wouldn't call refuse Paragon. Allowing genocide of billions is in no way morally justifiable.

[AlanC9]

But Shepard doesn't do anything wrong. Sure, the Reapers kill everybody, but that's not Shepard's fault.

(I agree it's b.s., but serious philosophers have proposed that it should work like this.)

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 janvier 2014 - 08:33 .

[Mathias]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I seem to remember responding to you about this a while back.

Oh yeah, it was here: http://social.biowar...60/317#17724411 (you didn't respond)

Probably because I didn't return to that thread. Synthesis is probably the worst and most insultingly stupid ending I've ever seen.

"Oh you probably haven't seen many bad endings then."

No I have, and this is probably the worst. Naming every single thing wrong with that ending would be an incredibly time consuming task given how exquisitely f-ed it all is.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 13 janvier 2014 - 08:40 .

[Comrade Wakizashi]

AlanC9 wrote...

But Shepard doesn't do anything wrong. Sure, the Reapers kill everybody, but that's not Shepard's fault.

(I agree it's b.s., but serious philosophers have proposed that it should work like this.)

Yeah... there exists a lot of BS amongst philosophers.

[Malanek]

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Refuse is a pure Paragons only choice. Being a Paragon is about remaining true to your ideals and values no matter what. They will not fight evil by committing a lesser evil even in the face of armageddon. Mandatory Synthesis would not even be considered by a paragon because trillions of people might not want to undergo genetic modification and a paragon couldn't make that choice for them.

I wouldn't call refuse Paragon. Allowing genocide of billions is in no way morally justifiable.

That's Paragon for you. Its not an ends justifies the means outlook...that is unquestionably renegade which is opposite. The point is that it isn't Shepard committing the genocide, so they will remain true to their values no matter what, they will keep fighting for what they believe. The Renegade is not evil, they will simply take account of the entire situation and be prepared to commit a small evil themself to avoid a bigger one from someone else.

It was very telling before the EC that so many people wanted a refuse option. They, rightly, considered all 3 choices morally unpalatable. So we got the refuse choice. The consequences are completely immaterial to the pure paragon.

There is a really great passage from a David Gemmell book, Dark Prince, about this. I'll put it up later.

[ElSuperGecko]

Yes. Of course it is.