93 réponses à ce sujet

[Bob from Accounting]

Calling me an 'idiot' is against the site rules.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Once again you miss the point so comically that I would be the idiot if I tried to explain it to you.

 

I'll do it. I shall throw the idiot ball into the fiery pits of Mount Hero, into the burning chasm from when it came. 

 

David has the tenacity to argue against a form of philosophy or morality. Now let him defend it or back it up.

 

I've got 3 arguments from 3 philosophers ready to wipe him out as far as philosophical debates go.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Calling me an 'idiot' is against the site rules.

 

No one called you an idiot.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Calling me an 'idiot' is against the site rules.

 

Pot meet kettle.

[Bad King]

There is no difference in scale. The only difference is one of simulation, if you want to look at it that way. When you roleplay you simulate beliefs. Which means you can also simulate mistakes made by those beliefs. The pro-x -> anti-(not)x progression is a mistake of that belief. Whether you actually hold that belief or merely "simulate" it for roleplay, the same thing happens.

 

If it helps, I'm not accusing you of being a human supremacist. I'm merely accusing of roleplaying one.

 

Roleplaying doesn't necessitate a difference in scale, but in this case there certainly is such a difference as the thread was conveying the playthrough of an absolutely pro-human extremist and so cannot be used in support of your point: "that "pro-x" viewpoints more often than not end up being little more than anti-(not)x tirades."

[CrutchCricket]

Calling me an 'idiot' is against the site rules.

 

lol come on. You're not even trying anymore are you?

 

 

Roleplaying doesn't necessitate a difference in scale, but in this case there certainly is such a difference as the thread was conveying the playthrough of an absolutely pro-human extremist and so cannot be used in support of your point: "that "pro-x" viewpoints more often than not end up being little more than anti-(not)x tirades."

 

Explain the difference in scale and how your roleplayed viewpoint is not the very definition of anti-(not)x.

[Kingthlayer]

Except it does nothing of the sort as most of the named alien kills are inconsequential and some, like Shiala are actually counterproductive. Nor do I find your "relative power of humans" reasoning convincing in the least. Finally, please point to where I made any judgement on people's opinions.

 

You want to roleplay a "**** all aliens" playthrough, go ahead. But at least be honest about it.

 

 

I found it interesting. I think you can make an argument for characterization in that it shows EDI contemplating things now that she's free to do so. Before while being shackled she was restricted from performing certain actions. I also think she was restricted from thinking about certain things as well since the difference between thinking and doing is much less pronounced in an AI. With the shackles removed, her thoughts span out more and more like a free individual. So while you get her asking about the hard questions, you also get lighter musings.

 

Shiala worked with Benezia on Sovereign.  And if Benezia(by all accounts far more powerful than Shiala) can't resist indoctrination, how can I at the time be sure Shiala wasn't indoctrinated.  Killing her was the right decision.

[CrutchCricket]

Shiala worked with Benezia on Sovereign.  And if Benezia(by all accounts far more powerful than Shiala) can't resist indoctrination, how can I at the time be sure Shiala wasn't indoctrinated.  Killing her was the right decision.

 

The argument in question was not formulated on a risk-assessment basis and allowed for meta-gaming. Which means he knew Shiala would be fine but advocated killing her "because she's an alien" and not because she might be indoctrinated.

 

But to your argument, it depends on whether you do Noveria before Feros. If you do Feros first it can be plausibly claimed that Shepard does not know the full extent and permanence of indoctrination and thus can be swayed that Shiala will be fine. There is also nothing to cast doubt on the thorian's ability to overwrite indoctrination regardless of mission order. If indoctrination was stronger, Shiala would've likely attempted to kill the thorian herself in order to ensure beyond any doubt that the Cypher could not also be given to Shepard.

[Bad King]

Explain the difference in scale and how your roleplayed viewpoint is not the very definition of anti-(not)x.

 

Certainly: you yourself summed up the difference with Miranda's dialogue from ME2 who wants to advance humanity but doesn't necessarily want to wipe out the competition as my role-played character would strive to do. My role-played character would indeed be anti-(not)x, but it's role-play of an extreme position that few or no Mass Effect players would rationally take, even those who call themselves pro-human. Therefore you cannot use an exceptional, extremist example of role-play as evidence "that "pro-x" viewpoints more often than not end up being little more than anti-(not)x tirades".

[wolfhowwl]

I really would have liked an option to arrest Shiala.

 

I don't want to let someone who worked for Saren walk away but executing someone who surrendered, is cooperating with you, and also possesses the Prothean Cipher just feels dumb.

[CrutchCricket]

Certainly: you yourself summed up the difference with Miranda's dialogue from ME2 who wants to advance humanity but doesn't necessarily want to wipe out the competition as my role-played character would strive to do. My role-played character would indeed be anti-(not)x, but it's role-play of an extreme position that few or no Mass Effect players would rationally take, even those who call themselves pro-human. Therefore you cannot use an exceptional, extremist example of role-play as evidence "that "pro-x" viewpoints more often than not end up being little more than anti-(not)x tirades".

 

If you admit the underlined why are you still arguing with me? That's literally all I've been saying.

 

Labeling your case as "extreme" does not disprove my claim because it's always the extreme cases that push a pro-x position into an anti-(not)x. You're not really doing anything new.

[TheMyron]

*Clears throat.

 

Marauders and Cannibals are ranged humanoid enemies, we didn't "need" Cerberus as an enemy, (especially as a 3rd-party enemy that occupies 60% of the game and behaves like the Grand Army of the Empire crossed with Hydra).  And even if the Collectors were destroyed, the Abominations, Scions, and Praetorians were created using modern humans crossed with Reaper technology, so they should have been included in the ME3 story.

[Bad King]

If you admit the underlined why are you still arguing with me? That's literally all I've been saying.

 

Labeling your case as "extreme" does not disprove my claim because it's always the extreme cases that push a pro-x position into an anti-(not)x. You're not really doing anything new.

 

It's an extreme and an exception, therefore not something that you can use as evidence to justify your generalised statements about those on the BW forums who consider themselves pro-human.

[CrutchCricket]

Well if you want to consider yourself special, I won't stop you.

[Bad King]

Well if you want to consider yourself special, I won't stop you.

 

Back to square one again: it's a role-playing thread, not what I actually believe.

[CrutchCricket]

Back to square one again: it's a role-playing thread, not what I actually believe.

 

Back to square one: that doesn't matter.

 

This cycle has repeated itself more times ... on second thought, nah.

 

This exchange is over.

[oldag07]

Maybe the SB could have been the organization that revived Shapard, and Cerberus could have remained the big baddy in ME3.

[Bad King]

Maybe the SB could have been the organization that revived Shapard, and Cerberus could have remained the big baddy in ME3.

 

That actually would have worked a lot better considering that 1). the SB had cooperated with Shepard at least once before in ME1 and 2). the SB likely had far more resources at his disposal than Cerberus had and thus would be more capable of reviving and funding Shepard. Making Cerberus a strong ally of Shepard in ME2 and then turning them against him in ME3 was poor. 

[Village_Idiot]

That's just completely silly.

 

*chug*