Refuse in the place of Destroy

Page 8 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by TurianRebel212 on Wed Aug 20, 2014 2:36 pm

Okay, so the crucibles choices or "paths" well none of them are legit in terms of a real perepective. There is no Destroy the Reapers and everyone lives happily ever after and the reapers are defeated. Nope.


You just wake up. That's it. You still have to finish the fight.

Which is what makes IT so strong to begin with it, IT leaves room for a legit sequel to ME3.

Also, and yet again this is redundant because Holy fuck have we gone over this over and over again. But thematically the core ideas and themes of what Mass Effect and Shepard is are represented with Destroy vs. the other choices. I mean, again you have to look at the dreams and the ending (as it's a dream also, remember?) from a thematic perspective.

Which IT does in spades. Again, only strengthening it's legitimacy by doing so.


Last edited by TurianRebel212 on Wed Aug 20, 2014 2:41 pm; edited 1 time in total

_________________
We fight or we die. I choose to be free. I choose to rid the galaxy of monsters. I choose destroy.
avatar
TurianRebel212
Banshee

Posts : 1806
Join date : 2013-02-02
Location : In the dreamscape.

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Rifneno on Wed Aug 20, 2014 2:39 pm

TurianRebel212 wrote:Okay, so the crucibles choices or "paths" well none of them are legit in terms of a real perepective. There is no Destroy the Reapers and everyone lives happily ever after and the reapers are defeated. Nope.


You just wake up. That's it. You still have to finish the fight.

Which is what makes IT so strong to begin with it, IT leaves room for a legit sequel to ME3.
Don't even bother.  We've been through it countless times.  It's like talking to a literalist.  In one ear, out the other.

_________________
Remember folks.  We didn't get A, B, C endings.  We got A, A, A endings.
avatar
Rifneno
Honey Badger

Posts : 2625
Join date : 2013-01-07
Age : 36
Location : Razgriz Straits

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by TurianRebel212 on Wed Aug 20, 2014 2:45 pm

Rifneno wrote:
TurianRebel212 wrote:Okay, so the crucibles choices or "paths" well none of them are legit in terms of a real perepective. There is no Destroy the Reapers and everyone lives happily ever after and the reapers are defeated. Nope.


You just wake up. That's it. You still have to finish the fight.

Which is what makes IT so strong to begin with it, IT leaves room for a legit sequel to ME3.
Don't even bother.  We've been through it countless times.  It's like talking to a literalist.  In one ear, out the other.

I guess, I mean refuse is pretty obviously a reaper trick once again. Accept it literally shows you what happens.

-Death of Shepard
-Loss of cycle
-Reaper Harvest completed.


I mean the whole after credits stargazer asari scene with the "well da shepard showed us da way so our cycle could beat da reapez" is really fvckin' herp derp and yet again a 4th wall break. But like you said, this has been showed over and over and over again. So.... Yeah.

_________________
We fight or we die. I choose to be free. I choose to rid the galaxy of monsters. I choose destroy.
avatar
TurianRebel212
Banshee

Posts : 1806
Join date : 2013-02-02
Location : In the dreamscape.

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by smash016 on Wed Aug 20, 2014 4:38 pm

Terramine wrote:Which, speaking of spamming. What do you call the SPAM OF INSULTING IMAGES YOU ALL JUST POSTED. You all should be banned way before me. But I'm the bad guy here.


Who do you think triggered that spam of insulting images.

That's the kind of response you get. Perhaps you should take it as a hint to try and change something about your behavior here.

I have no problem with your postings in terms of content. I just don't read it because I don't think it's all that interesting, sorry.

But it's the way you indeed shove your ideas down people's throats, and sound very arrogant while doing so. The worst kind of arrogance, too, because it's the absolutely baseless kind.

Show some respect and you might get some in return.

_________________
"Refuse to believe life ends here. Too wasteful. Have more to offer. Mistakes to fix. Cannot end here. Could do so much more."
avatar
smash016
Scion

Posts : 642
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Everywhere at Once

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by dorktainian on Wed Aug 20, 2014 4:48 pm

and the speculation continues.

damn you bioderp.

_________________
avatar
dorktainian
Sovereign

Posts : 3506
Join date : 2013-01-08
Age : 49

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Terramine on Wed Aug 20, 2014 7:44 pm

TurianRebel212 wrote:Okay, so the crucibles choices or "paths" well none of them are legit in terms of a real perepective. There is no Destroy the Reapers and everyone lives happily ever after and the reapers are defeated. Nope.


You just wake up. That's it. You still have to finish the fight.

Which is what makes IT so strong to begin with it, IT leaves room for a legit sequel to ME3.

Also, and yet again this is redundant because Holy fuck have we gone over this over and over again. But thematically the core ideas and themes of what Mass Effect and Shepard is are represented with Destroy vs. the other choices. I mean, again you have to look at the dreams and the ending (as it's a dream also, remember?) from a thematic perspective.

Which IT does in spades. Again, only strengthening it's legitimacy by doing so.
What does that first bit have to do with destroy or refuse? It applies to both.

No you're actually wrong here. Some of the stuff you guys point to is quoting OTHER CHARACTERS as to what the fuck Shepard's choice is. The only thing you can actually pick up on thematically in dialogue... is actually largely in favor of Refuse. Sticking to your resolve against the Reapers no matter what, no selling out, no turning back, etc.

But get this, not only is Refuse perfectly fitting thematically... thematically speaking DESTROY IS AN INDOCTRINATION CHOICE.

See remember TIM? And Saren? Well they were both AGAINST the Reapers technically speaking. Because they were against the cycle. Saren's peace with the Reapers, was actually not in perfect alignment with the Reapers. Neither was TIM's control idea. How is controlling the Reapers ACTUALLY in line with them? Or making peace with them? It's merely in line with their existence. But the Reapers aren't simply trying to exist, otherwise we would have no problem with them. The problem is that they have this thing called the cycle where they murder us all.

Now get this. Destroy thematically fits as an indoctrination choice because you have to use the Reaper's methods. You have to use THEIR resources, accept THEIR terms and THEIR rules.

_________________
Life is chaos itself. Organisms appear and evolve as a mere byproduct of thermodynamics.

Welcome to a universe made up of many universes, enter prisoner 092993 of a tiny blue dot.

We are the Masters of the descended world!
avatar
Terramine
Destroyer

Posts : 2469
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 24
Location : USA

http://Tumblr Blog: terraminelightvoid.tumblr.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Terramine on Wed Aug 20, 2014 7:47 pm

TurianRebel212 wrote:*part 2*
"I mean, again you have to look at the dreams and the ending (as it's a dream also, remember?) from a thematic perspective. "

I am. The dreams are Reaper indoctrination dreams. What do we see happen in these dreams? The boy goes into a FIRE. A FIRE. Not a green merging beam, not a blue mind controlling beam. HE GOES INTO FIRE. THE THING THAT MEANS DESTROY. Destroy, the dreams are symbolizing Destroy. Why are the Reapers indoctrinating Shepard to choose Destroy? SO HE CAN BREAK OUT? HAHAHAHAHA

"Please come home... to burn in a fire"

Speaking of thematic. Physically speaking, where is Destroy compared to Refuse?

_________________
Life is chaos itself. Organisms appear and evolve as a mere byproduct of thermodynamics.

Welcome to a universe made up of many universes, enter prisoner 092993 of a tiny blue dot.

We are the Masters of the descended world!
avatar
Terramine
Destroyer

Posts : 2469
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 24
Location : USA

http://Tumblr Blog: terraminelightvoid.tumblr.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Terramine on Wed Aug 20, 2014 7:49 pm

By the way guys. Thematically speaking Synthesis is actually the MOST against the Reapers. Because see it is literally a perfectly happy ending, the cycle ends perfectly, etc.

But in Destroy Shepard accepts the cycle, he accepts what the catalyst says, etc. Destroy removes the existence of the Reapers, but it necessitates them and the cycle. It proves them right. That's the most ideal indoctrination choice.

Edit: I meant Synthesis is the most against them, out of the 3 choices hopefully that made itself obvious.... but now you know.


Last edited by Terramine on Wed Aug 20, 2014 8:02 pm; edited 1 time in total

_________________
Life is chaos itself. Organisms appear and evolve as a mere byproduct of thermodynamics.

Welcome to a universe made up of many universes, enter prisoner 092993 of a tiny blue dot.

We are the Masters of the descended world!
avatar
Terramine
Destroyer

Posts : 2469
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 24
Location : USA

http://Tumblr Blog: terraminelightvoid.tumblr.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Terramine on Wed Aug 20, 2014 7:53 pm

smash016 wrote:
Terramine wrote:Which, speaking of spamming. What do you call the SPAM OF INSULTING IMAGES YOU ALL JUST POSTED. You all should be banned way before me. But I'm the bad guy here.


Who do you think triggered that spam of insulting images.

That's the kind of response you get. Perhaps you should take it as a hint to try and change something about your behavior here.

I have no problem with your postings in terms of content. I just don't read it because I don't think it's all that interesting, sorry.

But it's the way you indeed shove your ideas down people's throats, and sound very arrogant while doing so. The worst kind of arrogance, too, because it's the absolutely baseless kind.

Show some respect and you might get some in return.
Respect is /always/ earned. But so is disrespect. You don't just disrespect those you don't know do you? I hope not. I don't see what I do as disrespectful. The way I roll is, that the most logical position is the closest one to being absolute. So you should treat it as such. Are you going to tell me it's wrong to tell religious people that evolution is FACT? I'm not saying my position is fact, but the whole point isn't that evolution is fact it's that it's the BEST fact. Nothing else stands up to it right? So in the same way, in a vacuum of nothing but speculations. The most logical speculations are the best.

Rif has this attitude too, despite him claiming he is oh so passive. Real passive there Rif when your reputation is the rabid Honey Badger.

_________________
Life is chaos itself. Organisms appear and evolve as a mere byproduct of thermodynamics.

Welcome to a universe made up of many universes, enter prisoner 092993 of a tiny blue dot.

We are the Masters of the descended world!
avatar
Terramine
Destroyer

Posts : 2469
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 24
Location : USA

http://Tumblr Blog: terraminelightvoid.tumblr.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Terramine on Wed Aug 20, 2014 8:13 pm

Harbinger You know what guys? I'll just shut up about this for good, sound good to you guys, hella  Harbinger

_________________
Life is chaos itself. Organisms appear and evolve as a mere byproduct of thermodynamics.

Welcome to a universe made up of many universes, enter prisoner 092993 of a tiny blue dot.

We are the Masters of the descended world!
avatar
Terramine
Destroyer

Posts : 2469
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 24
Location : USA

http://Tumblr Blog: terraminelightvoid.tumblr.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by ToGanymedeandTitan on Wed Aug 20, 2014 8:28 pm

'I don't know how to read'? You've said a lot of things in this thread, while also being a presumptuous arsehole about what others are thinking unnecessarily, as recent as this God damn page, actually accusing them of being a sheep, 'not accepting IT for its merits' and so forth. Forgive me for not necessarily taking every single god damn word of this thread and for that matter, other threads which span for at least thirty fucking pages, especially when you take such a condescending attitude towards this to begin with. Despite that part of your rationale might have changed, you're still being an insufferable prick about it as if it hadn't.

Listen, if the 'true option' known as Refuse was available BEFORE, *T H E N* perhaps it would be the 'true destruction choice', because a game wouldn't finish without having an actual defining choice, should the other ones be actually considered fake. Buuuut since the whole thing was made as an additional with no other context to it besides a speech that may or may not have had any affect on the actual outcome, how the actual fuck are you supposed to make the connection that it's the actual 'Destruction of Reapers' ~oh so obvious shiny red button option~ when there was one already fucking there with that label??

Let's face it- what you're doing is constructing the ideal scenario yourself, because no matter what the case, we don't know what it looks like when the choice is actually made. That's what we've been made to construct for ourselves because of this mess in the first place, hence why Destroy was the go-to 'break the psychological-warfare' option, with the consensus being that the Reapers were toying with Shepard and believed without a shadow of a doubt that Destroy would NOT be the one they would actually take in that state.

Word of God is fuzzy enough as it is with this bullshit. Couple that with the fact that hindsight bias is a bit of a block, and it won't do to fucking insult people because they can't get past the way Bioware laid things out and the timing of such, in order to see your ~most logical solution~ that was 'there all along'. Which it wasn't. If it were, then maybe you could say that it was a critical option, but given that it was tossed in the way it was then forgive people for thinking logically that it was a fucking afterthought at best and its purpose was to affirm that you cannot just refuse them without consequences.
Otherwise I'd be willing to concede that Refuse is symbolic of a 'refusal to fall into the trap'.

So the only other thing to do would, yes, be to use their own resources against them. The perspective is, that no, the Catalyst is NOT fine with you taking Destroy, which is why the 'consequences' are so heavily laden on Destroy to begin with.



Jesus Christ, you're as bad as KnownNoMore with his Umineko 'resolution'.

You bleat about how illogical it is, and how people are stupid/'sheeples' for having thought it, but it's the same logic as any villain from Dr Robotnik to freaking GLaDOS leaving that one weakness exposed instead of covering themselves completely. It happens all the time in videogames- the villain gets too big for their boots, and thinks they have absolute control when they really don't, and the Destroy option is basically the proverbial 'red button', the 'Force Shutdown' as it were. The ACTION. The literal and figurative smashing of the exposed glass.

Whether or not it made complete sense, it was there to exploit, it was symbolic, and that's all there is to it.

Forgive people for not being as actively involved in SHAPING the scenario as you are, when they just want a scenario to enjoy, when the whole reason they CAME to IT in the first place was because they were unsatisfied. Being unsatisfied and looking for other options doesn't sound like being a sheep to me. And personally, I'm sick and tired of being made to think of ideal solutions when we should have fucking had one solidly presented to us to begin with.
avatar
ToGanymedeandTitan
Drone

Posts : 8
Join date : 2014-04-04
Age : 29
Location : Floating around the cosmos

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by DoomsdayDevice on Wed Aug 20, 2014 10:26 pm

Terramine wrote:I've refuted all the arguments ever thrown at me.

Only in your own mind. The reason people don't respond to your Ah, yes... refutations, is because they have tried to argue with you in the past, but it's like talking to a brick wall. You're an incredibly arrogant asshole. I don't know what's the matter with you, but you're either the world's most ingenious troll, or you're just completely unable to step back, take a look at yourself and and get an idea of how you might come off. Or maybe you just don't give a fuck.

Sure, Rif can be an asshole too, but unlike you, he's god damn funny, makes solid arguments, and he's not an arrogant prick with some kind of obnoxious superiority complex.

Terramine wrote:you wake up in /all/ endings*

[*citation needed]

_________________
"A good leader is someone who values the life of his men over the success of the mission, but understands that sometimes the cost of failing a mission is higher than the cost of losing those men." - Anderson
avatar
DoomsdayDevice
Being of Light

Posts : 2960
Join date : 2013-01-08
Location : Probing Uranus

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by spotlessvoid on Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:34 pm

yeah, basically the "winning" ending would never be added months later as an after thought to an after thought of a dlc.
avatar
spotlessvoid
Blood Pack Warrior

Posts : 906
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by spotlessvoid on Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:37 pm

Terramine wrote:By the way guys. Thematiclly eaking Synthesis is actually the MOST against the Reapers. Because see it is literally a perfectly happy ending, the cycle ends perfectly, etc.

But in Destroy Shepard accepts the cycle, he accepts what the catalyst says, etc. Destroy removes the existence of the Reapers, but it necessitates them and the cycle. It proves them right. That's the most ideal indoctrination choice.

Edit: I meant Synthesis is the most against them, out of the 3 choices hopefully that made itself obvious.... but now you know.

The Reapers supposedly tried synthesis on there own, which makes sense. Now you know.

Also, suggesting the Reapers being destroyed is their optimal outcome is just fucking stupid.

Are you trolling or just that daft?
avatar
spotlessvoid
Blood Pack Warrior

Posts : 906
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Terramine on Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:42 pm

spotlessvoid wrote:
Terramine wrote:By the way guys. Thematiclly eaking Synthesis is actually the MOST against the Reapers. Because see it is literally a perfectly happy ending, the cycle ends perfectly, etc.

But in Destroy Shepard accepts the cycle, he accepts what the catalyst says, etc. Destroy removes the existence of the Reapers, but it necessitates them and the cycle. It proves them right. That's the most ideal indoctrination choice.

Edit: I meant Synthesis is the most against them, out of the 3 choices hopefully that made itself obvious.... but now you know.

The Reapers supposedly tried synthesis on there own, which makes sense. Now you know.

Also, suggesting the Reapers being destroyed is their optimal outcome is just fucking stupid.

Are you trolling or just that daft?
Everything the Reapers say is just there to deceive you. So the catalyst claiming they've tried it before is irrelevant. It's probably just there to make sense of the choice to Shepard. The way it's being presented, is all.

But see by saying "Synthesis is the Reaper choice" kinda directly like that, it doesn't make sense. If he wanted Shepard to pick synthesis the most, why wouldn't he be deceptive about this choice the most? He is LEAST deceptive about it, he presents it as is, no gimicks or tricks or anything beyond bluntly accepting everything the Reapers are. This is the choice for the blind people who never even stood a chance, aka the ones who end up gibbering animals.

Control is the second least deceptive choice, and Destroy is the most deceptive. This is the choice he needs to lie about the most which doesn't make sense unless this is for those Shepards who put up a mental challenge enough to be long term indoctrination agents. Being so well mentally put together that you can survive the process prolonged.

Refuse completely rejects everything the Reapers say and are. This makes sense as allowing you to break free from indoctrination because you don't let them influence you at all.

That's exactly WHAT indoctrination is, influence of the Reapers. And so in Destroy where they influence you so much that you agree with their terms, and you accept them as necessary(for their own destruction), that screams indoctrination. You're accepting their influence. This is the exact definition of indoctrination.

Now putting this whole "synthesis is worse or better than destroy" stuff aside, another easily possible scenario is that all 3 endings indoctrinate you the same and NO players will be able to avoid indoctrination. Which would actually make sense because it wouldn't divide the fanbase. Nobody could say things were unfair. They can bitch about the outcome TOGETHER, but that's just like Shepard dying in the first place. And you can even judge it's merit as art, but you can't really say they did something /wrong/ like left a shitload of plotholes and an ending that makes no sense. It makes perfect sense whether you like it or not.

_________________
Life is chaos itself. Organisms appear and evolve as a mere byproduct of thermodynamics.

Welcome to a universe made up of many universes, enter prisoner 092993 of a tiny blue dot.

We are the Masters of the descended world!
avatar
Terramine
Destroyer

Posts : 2469
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 24
Location : USA

http://Tumblr Blog: terraminelightvoid.tumblr.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Terramine on Thu Aug 21, 2014 7:04 pm

Rifneno wrote:
pasza89 wrote:
TurianRebel212 wrote:
Synthesis is clearly Saren.

This is the last thing I'd expect to see on that forum. I wish there was a way to filter out your posts. You are one of the reasons a lot of people consider IT surreal.

You are clearly clueless.
Any non-moderator can be filtered out.  Add them to the "foes" list in your profile.  Anyway, he's not wrong.  Saren wasn't synthesis for most of the game, but after Virmire he went full retard.

"The relationship is symbiotic, organic and machine intertwined, a union of flesh and steel, the strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither! I am a vision of the future Shepard, the evolution of all organic life!"

That's what he says on the Citadel.  It doesn't get much more synthesis than that.
No but not only that, you guys are such thematic nuts. Bioware has psychology majors right? Or whatever the heck. Well get this, it seems Bioware put reoccuring themes of expressing different lines of thought throughout the series in a form of progression.

Hell just to be clear, the ending choices are much more than controlling the Reapers, making peace with them or destroying them. There's more behind it than that. The endings are different world views. If you pay attention to the progression of TIM, you can see him GRADUALLY turning to Control. He didn't just magically out of the blue BAM CONTROL. He showed the subtlest hints of the basic thought process behind control.

Wanting to protect humanity. Wanting to advance humanity. Wanting to make a better world. But it's about advancing. "We evolve or we die".

Same with Saren and Synthesis. Wanting to save as many as possible. In whatever way possible. Throw everything away if need be. In Mass Effect 1 we are told Anderson's past with Saren. It is forced on us that Saren is a monster because he doesn't look for another way, he just goes straight for selling out 100%. This has nothing to do with the concept of merging flesh and steel, but it does fit with the Synthesis choice in the ending thematically. And as he goes along, he slowly grows towards sounding more and more like he's a Synthesizer. TIM also slowly grows to sound more and more like a Controller.

But tell me. If Shepard is being indoctrinated, shouldn't he also be growing to sound more and more like whatever he would sound like indoctrinated? So then, I challenge you guys to show me Shepard becoming more and more Synthesis or more and more Control? Because Shepard sounds more and more Destroy with time... if you catch my drift.

Also, physically all 3 choices are together right. And thematically, TIM and Saren are symbolic for 2 of the choices right? But what about Anderson? Anderson is symbolic, he is the true FAILED SHEPARD. I say this because it's bashed over our heads how Shepard is succeeding in all the places he failed. And when push comes to shove... if you read the comics and you play the games and everything. There is this thematic sense of 3 symbolic figures. TIM, Saren and Anderson.

Thematically, all 3 of them match up with the endings. And I have HARD EVIDENCE of this because in the endings TIM is choosing control and ANDERSON IS SHOWN CHOOSING DESTROY. It all fits perfectly, it fits with the facts. The idea that Destroy is the right choice, LEAVES 1 BIG PLOTHOLE... why is Anderson seen choosing Destroy, what is the purpose of those cutscenes in the first place? Destroy as the right choice, only PARTLY answers this and thus leaves a gap in the Anderson part.

But my interpretation, patches that hole up flawlessly.

_________________
Life is chaos itself. Organisms appear and evolve as a mere byproduct of thermodynamics.

Welcome to a universe made up of many universes, enter prisoner 092993 of a tiny blue dot.

We are the Masters of the descended world!
avatar
Terramine
Destroyer

Posts : 2469
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 24
Location : USA

http://Tumblr Blog: terraminelightvoid.tumblr.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Terramine on Thu Aug 21, 2014 7:18 pm

spotlessvoid wrote:yeah, basically the "winning" ending would never be added months later as an after thought to an after thought of a dlc.  
Assuming Refuse was the winning ending, I think that means the Extended Cut was actually carefully planned the whole time. What doesn't make sense to me is that you guys believe that Bioware is so brilliant to think up IT, but they're so sloppy as to release an ending DLC for FREE wasting time and money for basically nothing? That's a little absurd.

But talk about citations needed. Who said there is a "break out of indoctrination" choice? Who says breaking out of indoctrination is even how things are won? If the next game resolves everything, then Shepard could easily end up indoctrinated no matter what.

But regardless this is what I'm talking about, I throw out these vast walls of refutations and actually converting some of your guys stuff to my side of the argument, as well throwing out way more points. And you respond with some irrelevant bullshit like "THE WINNING ENDING IS IN EC" or "THE BREATH SCENE"...

Like, how do those things refute what I said? If that's what you guys are referring to when you say you refute my arguments and I ignore it... um... I cannot express the level of absurdity. The EC being seperate from vanilla, and the breath scene. DO NOTHING TO REFUTE ANYTHING IVE SAID.

_________________
Life is chaos itself. Organisms appear and evolve as a mere byproduct of thermodynamics.

Welcome to a universe made up of many universes, enter prisoner 092993 of a tiny blue dot.

We are the Masters of the descended world!
avatar
Terramine
Destroyer

Posts : 2469
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 24
Location : USA

http://Tumblr Blog: terraminelightvoid.tumblr.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Terramine on Thu Aug 21, 2014 7:23 pm

DoomsdayDevice wrote:*snip*Or maybe you just don't give a fuck.

Sure, Rif can be an asshole too, but unlike you, he's god damn funny, makes solid arguments, and he's not an arrogant prick with some kind of obnoxious superiority complex.

Terramine wrote:you wake up in /all/ endings*

[*citation needed]
An asshole who is right, is still right. Still an asshole too, but it's irrelevant to whether I'm making valid points or not. So try to stay on topic, stop focusing about how I come off because it's irrelevant.

Besides I come off as an asshole by simply asserting myself, and then when I refute EVERYTHING people say and at the very least eliminate their core points and they either respond with irrelevant things, or they only refute very minor points... I'm going to keep asserting myself. I have no reason to step down until someone actually puts me down by way of logic. I look at what people say and actually factor in whether they logically refute my points or not and vice versa.

I'm only a wall because your ARGUMENTS are inferior.

Edit: It's also important to note that I actually address every single point someone makes. Every single one. But then you guys sit there and avoid entire paragraphs of stuff. Picking and choosing what you respond to, and it's not even the core stuff just minor side points I make. I address everything from the opposition though. Deconstructing every little tidbit. From the most core, to the most side.

_________________
Life is chaos itself. Organisms appear and evolve as a mere byproduct of thermodynamics.

Welcome to a universe made up of many universes, enter prisoner 092993 of a tiny blue dot.

We are the Masters of the descended world!
avatar
Terramine
Destroyer

Posts : 2469
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 24
Location : USA

http://Tumblr Blog: terraminelightvoid.tumblr.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Terramine on Thu Aug 21, 2014 7:59 pm

"So the only other thing to do would, yes, be to use their own resources against them. The perspective is, that no, the Catalyst is NOT fine with you taking Destroy, which is why the 'consequences' are so heavily laden on Destroy to begin with."

No but SEE. This is what an indoctrinated person sounds like. You're saying we should give in to the Reapers. YOU'RE INDOCTRINATED. And all you are, is a Destroyer, defending destroy. This isn't some self contained thing, ALL DESTROYERS must think like this, it's an inevitably logical conclusion of rationalizing Destroy. Therefore, all Destroyers are indoctrinated.

Remember how I said that thematically, Destroy is an indoctrination ending? Well lets look at TIM... most people have gleemed from him, thematics as to why Control is BAD right? But there's more to it than that. What is it people point to thematically, about the way he is... that makes them conclude that Control is bad? Well, it's pointed to that he has to give in to the Reapers to do it. Controlling the Reapers isn't impossible if you were advanced enough, but since we aren't advanced enough TIM is going through the Reapers themselves to achieve it.

What this all is really saying, is why it's bad to give in to the reapers. Thematically It's beaten over your head that giving in to the reapers AT ALL IN THE SLIGHTEST BIT IS WRONG. IT ALWAYS ENDS WRONGLY. ALWAYS.

Destroy working is goes against established lore and thematics because making a deal with the Reapers NEVER WORKS.

_________________
Life is chaos itself. Organisms appear and evolve as a mere byproduct of thermodynamics.

Welcome to a universe made up of many universes, enter prisoner 092993 of a tiny blue dot.

We are the Masters of the descended world!
avatar
Terramine
Destroyer

Posts : 2469
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 24
Location : USA

http://Tumblr Blog: terraminelightvoid.tumblr.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Terramine on Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:03 pm

I remember reading you guys talking about this, that giving in to the reapers in the slightest never works. The only time using their methods work is when it's against their will in a way that relies entirely upon ourselves. Like thannix cannons.

Destroy is NOT comparable to thannix cannons, it's comparable to CONTROL.

_________________
Life is chaos itself. Organisms appear and evolve as a mere byproduct of thermodynamics.

Welcome to a universe made up of many universes, enter prisoner 092993 of a tiny blue dot.

We are the Masters of the descended world!
avatar
Terramine
Destroyer

Posts : 2469
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 24
Location : USA

http://Tumblr Blog: terraminelightvoid.tumblr.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Terramine on Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:08 pm

ToGanymedeandTitan wrote:'*snip
To address the rest of this. Being an asshole irrelevant, the people on this forum HAVE been very blind and been heavily biased and straight up having double standards, etc.

That long babble thing about bioware and whatnot, well, this all depends on how you see bioware. I see them from the perspective that they wrote the genius that is IT. So I don't see them as being so sloppy and shit. I get deep with it because clearly there is still room to figure out what exactly is going on. No need to apologize, I'm just able to go deep without much effort.

Also you have a point about not reading the posts in the topic, I was just saying I've answered all this before.

_________________
Life is chaos itself. Organisms appear and evolve as a mere byproduct of thermodynamics.

Welcome to a universe made up of many universes, enter prisoner 092993 of a tiny blue dot.

We are the Masters of the descended world!
avatar
Terramine
Destroyer

Posts : 2469
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 24
Location : USA

http://Tumblr Blog: terraminelightvoid.tumblr.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by spotlessvoid on Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:20 am

Terramine wrote:
ToGanymedeandTitan wrote:'*snip
To address the rest of this. Being an asshole irrelevant, the people on this forum HAVE been very blind and been heavily biased and straight up having double standards, etc.

That long babble thing about bioware and whatnot, well, this all depends on how you see bioware. I see them from the perspective that they wrote the genius that is IT. So I don't see them as being so sloppy and shit. I get deep with it because clearly there is still room to figure out what exactly is going on. No need to apologize, I'm just able to go deep without much effort.

Also you have a point about not reading the posts in the topic, I was just saying I've answered all this before.

you're definitely deep in it
avatar
spotlessvoid
Blood Pack Warrior

Posts : 906
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by TurianRebel212 on Fri Aug 22, 2014 4:24 am

Terramine wrote:
TurianRebel212 wrote:Okay, so the crucibles choices or "paths" well none of them are legit in terms of a real perepective. There is no Destroy the Reapers and everyone lives happily ever after and the reapers are defeated. Nope.


You just wake up. That's it. You still have to finish the fight.

Which is what makes IT so strong to begin with it, IT leaves room for a legit sequel to ME3.

Also, and yet again this is redundant because Holy fuck have we gone over this over and over again. But thematically the core ideas and themes of what Mass Effect and Shepard is are represented with Destroy vs. the other choices. I mean, again you have to look at the dreams and the ending (as it's a dream also, remember?) from a thematic perspective.

Which IT does in spades. Again, only strengthening it's legitimacy by doing so.
What does that first bit have to do with destroy or refuse? It applies to both.

No you're actually wrong here. Some of the stuff you guys point to is quoting OTHER CHARACTERS as to what the fuck Shepard's choice is. The only thing you can actually pick up on thematically in dialogue... is actually largely in favor of Refuse. Sticking to your resolve against the Reapers no matter what, no selling out, no turning back, etc.

But get this, not only is Refuse perfectly fitting thematically... thematically speaking DESTROY IS AN INDOCTRINATION CHOICE.

See remember TIM? And Saren? Well they were both AGAINST the Reapers technically speaking. Because they were against the cycle. Saren's peace with the Reapers, was actually not in perfect alignment with the Reapers. Neither was TIM's control idea. How is controlling the Reapers ACTUALLY in line with them? Or making peace with them? It's merely in line with their existence. But the Reapers aren't simply trying to exist, otherwise we would have no problem with them. The problem is that they have this thing called the cycle where they murder us all.

Now get this. Destroy thematically fits as an indoctrination choice because you have to use the Reaper's methods. You have to use THEIR resources, accept THEIR terms and THEIR rules.

"TIM and Saren are both against the Reapers technically speaking"

Okay, with that. You have just went full herpderp and lost all objectivity or validity.


Tell ya what, read some things OUTSIDE of the games. Like the Drew K novels and Evolution. Then..... We'll talk.

_________________
We fight or we die. I choose to be free. I choose to rid the galaxy of monsters. I choose destroy.
avatar
TurianRebel212
Banshee

Posts : 1806
Join date : 2013-02-02
Location : In the dreamscape.

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by spotlessvoid on Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:38 am

TIM is indoctrinated, like the Prothean control faction. It's impossible for an indoctrinated person to control the Reapers, so they can believe it all they want the Reapers don't care.

The Reapers tried synthesis so Saren can think what he wants about it being a merger and not a hostile takeover, the Reapers probably want it and they'll certainly stop their indoctrinated pawn from doing it if they don't.

Destroying a Reaper is 100% possible, it's obviously not what they want or they'd take too many Reaper sleeping pills and do it their own damn selves. You have enough guns, or even just the right gun, AND YOU CAN WITHOUT A DOUBT DESTROY THE REAPERS. Destroying the Reapers is literally the goal of every non indoctrinated person in the galaxy.

Therefore it is in their BEST INTEREST to dissuade anyone from pursuing that path who has any chance of actually accomplishing it.


Only a moron would suggest destroy as presented is worse than refuse, hmmm geth and EDI die or every sapient being in the galaxy dies..... hmmmmm.


No wonder this crap is banned from the thread.
avatar
spotlessvoid
Blood Pack Warrior

Posts : 906
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by ToGanymedeandTitan on Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:56 pm

Terramine wrote:No but SEE. This is what an indoctrinated person sounds like. You're saying we should give in to the Reapers. YOU'RE INDOCTRINATED. And all you are, is a Destroyer, defending destroy. This isn't some self contained thing, ALL DESTROYERS must think like this, it's an inevitably logical conclusion of rationalizing Destroy. Therefore, all Destroyers are indoctrinated.

Uhhh...

First, there are two very fundamental differences in the results of Destroy vs that of Control/Synthesis. One, Destroy doesn't involve keeping the Reapers alive. As far as we know, the Reapers are destroyed when that choice is taken. Two, when you opt for that choice, you aren't 'giving in' to anything because the results are immediate destruction, and there's no way in hell that the Reapers would even want that. And you still haven't answered why the consequences are laden on this but not on Control/Synthesis. If they were perfectly okay with that choice being there they wouldn't have bothered with that.

After all, Synthesis/Control ARE EVIDENTLY DISTINCT from Destroy, and for a damn good reason.

Besides, all Destroyers thinking a certain way does not mean they have been indoctrinated, what the hell? If anything, it means they HAVEN'T because the whole galaxy basically is calling for their destruction and a few select people have been gunning for control/synthesis. There's no way that the way of thinking for Destroy itself is inherent in indoctrination. Unless you're somehow suggesting that the Reapers are alive after Destroy; as much as the endings oversimplify everything going down with Control/Synthesis, the fact remains that the Reapers are alive in those and that they die in Destroy. THAT we can be sure of.

The 'deal' with the Reapers is broken if you make that choice. Nothing about what Anderson says means he's indoctrinated. Just because 'thematically speaking' he has had that same 'growth journey' as those who were indoctrinated, it's the same for every creature in the cosmos calling for the Reapers' heads.

The two may be similar at a glance but they aren't one and the same. So don't put the choices together as if they mean the exact same thing because they really, really don't. There's a huge difference between TIM 'making use of the resources' by ALLYING himself with the Reapers, and Shepard 'making use of them' as a means to simply stab them in the back. Fundamentally they rely on completely different thought processes.
avatar
ToGanymedeandTitan
Drone

Posts : 8
Join date : 2014-04-04
Age : 29
Location : Floating around the cosmos

Back to top Go down

Re: Refuse in the place of Destroy

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 8 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum