585 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

They'd have a point if the losses we got weren't just as far-fetched. More negative consequence would be an inevitable consequence of a more believable resolution, I've no problem with that, but I've often got the impression that some people think they should be there for their own sake. What ones we did get felt more like "Can't have everything too nice so we'll arbitrarily kill Shepard, or the geth, or whatever" instead of a natural consequence of the story.

No ME consequences are ever natural. They're all contrived.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

There was more than one post that took that position.

 

You mean the one that I didn't take?

 

If I wasn't paying sufficient attention to who had written them then I apologise.

 

I don't mind if someone fails to keep track of who they're quoting. I do it all the time. It's not necessary to apologize for that.

 

Calling a very large number of people "idiotic" on the other hand...

[AlanC9]

(that the worst outcome of ME3 is the hardest to get is a problem).

Huh? Anyone can Refuse.

[Reorte]

While this is tactically sensible, it does require you to ignore the way Bio presents the "neutral" option, which says explicitly that only destroying Sovereign matters. It sounds like the design intent was that saving the DA would take the Alliance fleet out of position for an immediate attack on Sovereign, but they don't actually show that happening.

If the DA was clearly so far away that anything involved in the fight with it would be irrelevent to the fight with Sovereign (i.e. neither the geth nor the Alliance would have time to get back before Sovereign was either destroyed or victorious) then that would fit. Then the choice would be "Assist the Destiny Ascenions" (Paragon), "Join in against Sovereign straight away" (Neutral) or "Hold back enough to let the Council fleet take quite a bit of damage but do enough so we can mop up without much loss" (Renegade). Might even be a good chance to have an optimum neutral choice too.

There are still a couple of issues to iron out with that though but they're probably not insurmountable.

[Reorte]

Huh? Anyone can Refuse.

Well, OK, not counting Refuse.

[DrBlingzle]

Well I come back after being gone for a couple of hours and...
Well now I don't know where to pick up from.

[Reorte]

Calling a very large number of people "idiotic" on the other hand...

Very large numbers of people are. I've completely lost faith with humanity as a whole.

[AlanC9]

Well, OK, not counting Refuse.

So that was a Synthesis complaint? You really ought to be explicit with this stuff.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

But  by that token I am not wrong for despising the choices.

 

That's not a logical progression. What I said about no one being wrong for their ending choice does not "by that token" extend to despising the choices that other people make.

 

I don't care what ending anyone chooses, and that includes you. What I do care about is people criticizing the choices others make that they don't like, and that includes you.

[Reorte]

So that was a Synthesis complaint?

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Very large numbers of people are. I've completely lost faith with humanity as a whole.

 

That's not a justification for calling people who disagree with you idiotic.

[AlanC9]

No, not a sacrificial decision. A risk, a chance, a danger, yes. A sacrifice, no. I don't take the position that every time a military commander makes a decision to send his troops into battle, knowing that they won't all come out alive, he's making a sacrificial decision.

Is this a pure semantics issue, or did I just miss the substantive question?

[Reorte]

No ME consequences are ever natural. They're all contrived.

Whatever happens should feel like a plausible outcome of the event. Some ME consequences are better at that than others. They're all contrived in that they are the product of someone's imagination but as long as they don't give the impression that "this is happening because we want it to happen, no matter how unlikely" then that's OK. In any work of fiction events have to give the impression that they're happening naturally enough to avoid breaking suspension of disbelief.

[dreamgazer]

No, not a sacrificial decision. A risk, a chance, a danger, yes. A sacrifice, no. I don't take the position that every time a military commander makes a decision to send his troops into battle, knowing that they won't all come out alive, he's making a sacrificial decision. If you've got a lot of decisions where it's definitely "You WILL die to save us all" then you've either got a crap commander or a problem with your story.

You're really not comprehending the fact that "sacrifice" applies to more than just death, probably because you're trying to pigeonhole it into your war perspective. You can sacrifice safety, moral perspectives, potential resources, and the feeling of security that finality brings you, all of which arise in many primary and secondary missions across the trilogy.

And yes, bringing risk and danger upon you due to an alternate decision path is a part of sacrifice.

[Reorte]

That's not a justification for calling people who disagree with you idiotic.

I've given up giving people much respect and trying to persuade me that I'm wrong to do so will probably just reinforce that view, particularly when a number of them are still carrying on with positions that I've never seen any merit in. Arrogant? Perhaps, although "constantly disappointed" would be my position. I see no reason to be polite any more.

If that's a problem then you'd best put me on ignore.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Sacrifice:

 

- an act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy.

 

- a move intended to allow the opponent to win a pawn or piece, for strategic or tactical reasons.

 

- an animal, person, or object offered in a sacrifice.

 

I'm having a very hard time understanding how every military leader in history who has ever used the word "sacrifice" when referring to war and battle is somehow wrong.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

I've given up giving people much respect and trying to persuade me that I'm wrong to do so will probably just reinforce that view, particularly when a number of them are still carrying on with positions that I've never seen any merit in. Arrogant? Perhaps, although "constantly disappointed" would be my position. I see no reason to be polite any more.

If that's a problem then you'd best put me on ignore.

 

It's strange that you would bother participating in a discussion like this. What are you hoping to accomplish? Are you hoping to convince people that you're right? For that, you need them to respect your opinion. You just finished saying that you don't give people respect because you don't see the point. If it's pointless, then why engage them in the first place? Especially if you're just going to insult them, without bothering to actually explain your position because it's "pointless" to do so.

 

It seems like the easy path would be not to bother arguing with people, at all.

[Reorte]

You're really not comprehending the fact that "sacrifice" applies to more than just death, probably because you're trying to pigeonhole it into your war perspective. You can sacrifice safety, moral perspectives, potential resources, and the feeling of security that finality brings you, all of which arise in many primary and secondary missions across the trilogy.

I comprehend that, it's just the example of death remains a clear and relevent one.

And yes, bringing risk and danger upon you due to an alternate decision path is a form of sacrifice.

Then it's such a wide definition that it's the theme for every single conflict story ever written, which makes it a fairly pointless thing to bring up at all.

[dreamgazer]

I've given up giving people much respect and trying to persuade me that I'm wrong to do so will probably just reinforce that view, particularly when a number of them are still carrying on with positions that I've never seen any merit in. Arrogant? Perhaps, although "constantly disappointed" would be my position. I see no reason to be polite any more.

That answers a few questions.

[Reorte]

It's strange that you would bother participating in a discussion like this. What are you hoping to accomplish? Are you hoping to convince people that you're right? For that, you need them to respect your opinion. You just finished saying that you don't give people respect because you don't see the point. If it's pointless, then why engage them in the first place? Especially if you're just going to insult them, without bothering to actually explain your position because it's "pointless" to do so.
 
It seems like the easy path would be not to bother arguing with people, at all.

There was a time when I did. Now it's more like an itch I can't scratch.

[dreamgazer]

I comprehend that, it's just the example of death remains a clear and relevent one.

Of course it is, but it's far from the only one.

Then it's such a wide definition that it's the theme for every single conflict story ever written, which makes it a fairly pointless thing to bring up at all.

I don't agree. In the instance of the rachni queen in ME1, you're sacrificing either security or perceived moral integrity, a paradigm that reemerges throughout the series.

[Reorte]

Sacrifice:
 
- an act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy.[/size]
 
- [/size]a move intended to allow the opponent to win a pawn or piece, for strategic or tactical reasons.[/size]
 
- [/size]an animal, person, or object offered in a sacrifice.[/size]
 
I'm having a very hard time understanding how every military leader in history who has ever used the word "sacrifice" when referring to war and battle is somehow wrong.[/size]

Too wide a definition to be particularly useful, especially when discussing ideas like it being a theme above it being a war story anyway.

[dreamgazer]

Too wide a definition to be particularly useful, especially when discussing ideas like it being a theme above it being a war story anyway.

The definition is fine, actually, and there's more to Mass Effect's moral dilemmas than it being a "war story".

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Too wide a definition to be particularly useful, especially when discussing ideas like it being a theme above it being a war story anyway.

 

Wow.

 

I have nothing further to add.

[Reorte]

Of course it is, but it's far from the only one.

Yes, but I don't think I've said otherwise.

I don't agree. In the instance of the rachni queen in ME1, you're sacrificing either security or perceived moral integrity, a paradigm that reemerges throughout the series.

That puts it into "too wide a definition to be meaningful", at least when considering whether it's a theme or not. By that definition every single decision ever made is about sacrifice to some degree.