935 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Yeah, last time I checked I was in the top ten of active posters, and most of the higher ones are active in MP.

Your point?

[Fandango]

Your point?

 

You first.

[AlanC9]

My point was that trust is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure I already said that.

[Fandango]

My point was that trust is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure I already said that.

 

Yep, I got that part. Care to answer my questions?

[Iakus]

How isn't it an answer? You trust that the Crucible will function in ways A, B, or C if you perform actions X, Y, or Z because there's no alternative.

It's not really trust, though. just probabilities.

It's reasoning like this that gives IT legs.

[AlanC9]

Yep, I got that part. Care to answer my questions?

Why should Shepard trust the Catalyst , you mean? Since trust is irrelevant, Shepard shouldn't even bother to consider the question; she's got important things to think about. I suppose the answer to "do you believe X" when you've never thought about X is always "no," so I guess the answer is that Shepard shouldn't trust the Catalyst.

Where are you going with this?

@Iakus: I didn't follow that. Then again, I have no real understanding of why anyone would sign on with IT.

[Sartoz]

                                                                                   <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

It may be because DA:I failed to deliver what the marketing description said it was. Said marketing was designed to stimulate us to image a world under threat and chaos where armies were at war. Instead, the game delivered fetch quests, one small never ending battle between mages and their former jailers, a smoke like build up of economic power, intelligence and assassinations that were all remote with no sense of actual impact from your decisions.

 

For example -- questions:

1. did we really feel that the world was under threat and in chaos?

2. did the Inquisition build an army that rivaled Orlais?

3. how did the Quizzy + 3 companions saved the world?

4. where was the Inquisition vaulted military and economic power that bowed the world to its knees?

5. The game ended with the Solace plot hanging in the air. Was Solace an Evin god?

6. Trespasser DLC wrapped up the Inquisition = really finished the game for us.

 

So, the fear is: ME:A marketing descriptions will be such that the game will fail to deliver. Also, it will be incomplete. Meaning that the DLCs will really finish the game and bring closure. Combat will be different and simplified.

 

Having said that, the game, Bio says,  will be visually stunning.

[Killroy]

Casey Hudson, in my mind, is little more than a glorified parasite whom has proven that he's only as good as the people around him and little else. Its kinda difficult to hold him responsible any more than a sock puppet responsible for the hand guiding it. In ME3, Drew was gone, he put his grossly underqualified friend in charge of the writing, the internal review guy, (the one that checked up on everyone's work to see if it was consistent with what others in the team were writing or had written) left to go work on Halo 4, the guy that wrote Legion for ME2 left as did a lot of other people on the original staff and new people were brought in. At that point, I believe Casey was just taking interviews and smiling for the cameras, not really overlooking everyone's work as he should have been (seriously, in 2011 he was giving an interview every other week, often times in many different places which means the vast majority of his time was spent traveling) and so when it came down to crunch time he was left floundering wondering what the **** to do. And either Mac came up with it, or drew a blank in which point Casey decided to all but plagiarize the endings for Deus Ex (Which according to his own twitter thread was his favorite game of all time.)

 

So he's guilty of gross incompetence, negligence and thievery.

 

Settle down, lad.

[Iakus]

 

@Iakus: I didn't follow that. Then again, I have no real understanding of why anyone would sign on with IT.

The entire ending is predicated on "trust" that the Catalyst is telling the truth.  Or at least, that things can't possibly get worse.

 

What if you don't trust the Catalyst?  What if you really don't believe what the Catalyst is saying.  If you call BS on the whole scenario, what are you left with?

[AlanC9]

But that wasn't my position. That's the exact opposite of what I said, in fact. For the... fourth time, I think?... trust is irrelevant.

The probability of victory without using the Crucible is zero, though I suppose we can introduce a fractional chance that Extreme Indoctrination Theory is true and there's no war being fought at all, or some other scenario where Shepard is so divorced from reality that it doesn't matter what she decides or how she decides it. (I'm going to evaluate the defeat outcome as having zero utility, since I don't think that making a big defiant speech has any value. YMMV.)

Now, with not using the Crucible having a value of zero, using the Crucible becomes the rational move regardless of the probability of the Catalyst telling the truth. If he's lying, so what? You score zero either way.

Unless you've got a way that things can actually get worse than defeat and extermination, that is.

[Cyonan]

The entire ending is predicated on "trust" that the Catalyst is telling the truth.  Or at least, that things can't possibly get worse.

 

What if you don't trust the Catalyst?  What if you really don't believe what the Catalyst is saying.  If you call BS on the whole scenario, what are you left with?

 

While this is a fair complaint of the original ending, the EC addresses it just fine by allowing the player to reject the Catalyst's options.

 

You'll lose and get wiped out, but you can call BS on the whole scenario now.

[AlanC9]

Pre-EC you could just stand there and wait for the Crucible to be destroyed. Not quite as satisfying, though.

[Iakus]

But that wasn't my position. That's the exact opposite of what I said, in fact. For the... fourth time, I think?... trust is irrelevant.

The probability of victory without using the Crucible is zero, though I suppose we can introduce a fractional chance that Extreme Indoctrination Theory is true and there's no war being fought at all, or some other scenario where Shepard is so divorced from reality that it doesn't matter what she decides or how she decides it. (I'm going to evaluate the defeat outcome as having zero utility, since I don't think that making a big defiant speech has any value. YMMV.)

Now, with not using the Crucible having a value of zero, using the Crucible becomes the rational move regardless of the probability of the Catalyst telling the truth. If he's lying, so what? You score zero either way.

Unless you've got a way that things can actually get worse than defeat and extermination, that is.

 

And Space Cthulhu is telling you that shooting this tube will make everything better?  Or grab the control rods; you'll die but still control the Reapers?  Or jump into the beam of green space magic and spread your specialness throughout the galaxy and save us all?

 

Can you honestly say the possibility that the Reapers are screwing with Shepard's mind is not a nonzero probability?  That, gameplay and story segregation aside, the Reapers aren't trying to distract Shepard, or trick him/her into getting killed because there was a way to stop the Reapers, and the Catalyst wasn't trying to lead Shepard astray?  These "solutions" are ludicrous!  Why should I trust any of this?  It must be a dream!

 

One would almost expect Shepard to tell the Catalyst "You're the camel!"

While this is a fair complaint of the original ending, the EC addresses it just fine by allowing the player to reject the Catalyst's options.

 

You'll lose and get wiped out, but you can call BS on the whole scenario now.

All the EC does is take the nonsensical and says "It just works, okay?"

[KaiserShep]

And Space Cthulhu is telling you that shooting this tube will make everything better? 

 

 

Well, technically it's telling you that it'll just end in the same thing happening again, made worse by the suggestion that at least one of your synthetic allies will be destroyed.

[straykat]

Pre-EC you could just stand there and wait for the Crucible to be destroyed. Not quite as satisfying, though.

 

Really? So it was kind of like Refuse is now?

[straykat]

It's not a transhumanism point. It's just about the uniqueness of human minds. If you ascribe to any mechanical theory - basically to modern science - then the relevant question isn't really the material something is made out of (unless somehow the material has special properties) but whether the material is arranged in such a manner as to allow for a phenomenon to take place. In a science fiction setting with sapient aliens you've already assumed 1) human minds are not unique and can be replicated by other mechanical arrangements and information processing systems and 2) our biochemicistry is not uniquely suited to life. We've already succesfully simulated a lot of information processing - we already have AI in that sense, we just haven't copied human minds.

We don't really know if birds experience music as we do. Or experience smelling flowers as we do. Once you assume there are other beings with this subjective experience, there's no grounds by which you can have meat is special type points.

Let's put it another way: the basic premise that human phenomenology is special goes out the window when you assume that rubber masks aliens like asari or Turians (who are just humans in funny masks) exist. There's no difference between that and humans made out of silicon (like EDI).

 

I'm assuming these aliens have similar enough bodies to have a thing like "consciousness". I don't even know where to start with computers yet. All of the analogies for it to fall in place are missing. So far, I only understand a paradigm of programmable machines, who, at best, make use of utility functions to simulate intelligence. 

 

Anyhow, I wouldn't persecute synthetics in a post-destroy world like the Reapers have. It's worth seeing how it plays out without all of the interference. That should be enough to make me unlike Reapers (or Pol Pot, for that matter). And my main act of "genocide" is simply not letting Legion upload the Code. The very Code I've been fighting since launching the series. The Geth themselves aren't even true AI yet,. You still want to call that murder or genocide, be my guest. I'll live.

[Drone223]

Look, the Catalyst is clearly unreliable and the game rewards those players who are willing to trust in its strange claims and embrace its monstrous solutions. Which isn't to say that Mac and Casey intended to pervert the trilogy so. They just did!

Except it clearly doesn't and at several points in ME3 Shepard can betray his/her allies. For instance Shepard can kill Mordin to ensure the cure is sabotaged and in doing so betray Wrex, On Rannoch Shepard can turn his back on the geth to which Legion/Vi will try to stop him/her and during the coup Shepard can kill the VS.

[DanielCofour]

Though the flip side of that idea is that morals which fail to offer guidance when you're faced with a hard choice are worthless. "All my options are unacceptable" isn't useful.

 

Fair point, though I think the discussion kind of moved away into a philosophical debate about morals, from the point that a game which never presented itself as a game about impossible choices suddenly giving you one between genocide, totalitarianism, forced genetic redesign and mass suicide and subsequently presented your choice as a good thing. Not to mention the remarkably stupid technical explanation of the event. That was my point. I wasn't trying to argue morality here, I was pointing out the absurdity, stupidity, tone-deafness and lack of self awareness of the ending. 

 

But as I can see the conversation moved far further away into transhumanism and co. Okay, I'll just step back and let it unfold. 

[DanielCofour]

Except it clearly doesn't and at several point in ME3 Shepard can betray his/her allies. For instance Shepard can kill Mordin to ensure the cure is sabotaged and in doing so betray Wrex, On Rannoch Shepard can turn his back on the geth to which Legion/Vi will try to stop him/her and during the coup Shepard can kill the VS.

 

But he can also cure the Genophage, give the Geth true intelligence and secure peace between the Quarians and the Geth. And if you believe the EMS counter, those are the "correct" choices. Sure, you could take "evil" choices there, but even so you were doing what *you* thought was best to save the galaxy. Shepard is trying to save every living creature in the galaxy, not intentionally being evil and sabotaging the efforts.

 

And if you think the ending gave you 3 evil choices, you're mistaken. Yes, from a moral standpoint all four endings could be considered evil, but the game didn't consider them evil. That's an important distinction. So, what Fandango said still holds true. 

[straykat]

Fair point, though I think the discussion kind of moved away into a philosophical debate about morals, from the point that a game which never presented itself as a game about impossible choices suddenly giving you one between genocide, totalitarianism, forced genetic redesign and mass suicide and subsequently presented your choice as a good thing. Not to mention the remarkably stupid technical explanation of the event. That was my point. I wasn't trying to argue morality here, I was pointing out the absurdity, stupidity, tone-deafness and lack of self awareness of the ending. 

 

But as I can see the conversation moved far further away into transhumanism and co. Okay, I'll just step back and let it unfold. 

 

I'm just gonna add one other thing.. you probably know I don't think it's genocide by now (especially when I just kill Legion), but Destroy to me is just clean slate. It's the chaos that Reapers fear. If there's any negatives about it, it's that. Not genocide... not necessarily. I just happen to think chaos is the only way for life to move forward. All of these endings have an element of growth, and I prefer that one.

 

The Geth are screwed no matter what you do. Upload the Code, they aren't the Geth anymore. Kill Legion, the Geth are gone by the Quarians' hands.

[Fandango]

Except it clearly doesn't and at several point in ME3 Shepard can betray his/her allies. For instance Shepard can kill Mordin to ensure the cure is sabotaged and in doing so betray Wrex, On Rannoch Shepard can turn his back on the geth to which Legion/Vi will try to stop him/her and during the coup Shepard can kill the VS.

 

All of which would mean more if it pertained to a single thing I said. Besides, I think we're all pretty much agreed now that there exists no good reason to trust in anything the Catalyst has to say for itself, even though the game rewards the player for doing so.

 

That was my earlier contention. That remains one of the many (many, many, many) reasons why the ending blows.

[Drone223]

But he can also cure the Genophage, give the Geth true intelligence and secure peace between the Quarians and the Geth. And if you believe the EMS counter, those are the "correct" choices. Sure, you could take "evil" choices there, but even so you were doing what *you* thought was best to save the galaxy. Shepard is trying to save every living creature in the galaxy, not intentionally being evil and sabotaging the efforts.

 

And if you think the ending gave you 3 evil choices, you're mistaken. Yes, from a moral standpoint all four endings could be considered evil, but the game didn't consider them evil. That's an important distinction. So, what Fandango said still holds true. 

No it isn't, if it was true then Shepard wouldn't been given the option to sabotage the cure and betray Wrex or let the geth die on Rannoch. The whole idea is that is Shepard willing to do what ever it takes to stop the reaper's?

[straykat]

Curing the Genophage is horrible, if you don't have everything in place. It's not a simple black and white thing. 

 

 

I'm sure Saren would have great EMS too. Krogan, Geth, Asari alliances.. and he ultimately wanted Synthesis. 

 

And yet I convinced him to put a bullet in his head.

[Drone223]

All of which would mean more if it pertained to a single thing I said. Besides, I think we're all pretty much agreed now that there exists no good reason to trust in anything the Catalyst has to say for itself, though the game rewards the player for doing so.

 

That was my earlier contention. That remains one of the many (many, many, many) reasons why the ending blows.

It does, if a game is about unity then why give the option to betray allies on several occasions? The ending was just poorly executed that's all nothing more nothing less.

[Drone223]

Curing the Genophage is horrible, if you don't have everything in place. It's not a simple black and white thing. 

 

Exactly, sabotaging the cure when Wrev is alive makes sense since Wrev makes it very clear he wants to start another Krogan rebellion as soon as possible after the war.