57139 réponses à ce sujet

[Skillz1986]

Yeah..you win. go ahead and carve another notch into your monitor.

[Vahilor]

SubAstris wrote...

Vahilor wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Skillz1986 wrote...

@subastris
1: didn't you want to to leave? Sorry, don't get me wrong. You're asking legitimate questions and everyone is alright with it. but you've mentioned sometime ago, you were about to leave.and you sure have a hard time doing so.

2:mass relays overloading...take a good hard look at them in the vids. do they lool like they've just overloaded? When something literaly flies appart, it definetly blew up.

3: the citadel is seized no matter what. IT kicks in AFTER you get hit by harbinger. and assumes that everything afterwards is either fully or partially a dream (two sides on this one). So, since the reapers have invaded the citadel, even with IT one can and should be worried about the people on the citadel.

1) Did I? Oh well...
2) We don't have anything to compare the overloading with, but to me it could easily have done it. But that's irrelevant, because Weekes has stated that they did indeed overload, and as he writes the lore (with the rest of BW), there's nothing really to argue against
3) If you look at another of my replies you will see the following line that makes it clear Weekes is talking about after the Catalyst scene. Furthermore, the preceding question was about how "EDI would survive a destroy ending" and others about the ending post-Catalyst.

They break clearly appart in the Synthesis and the Destroy ending.. there is no overload... and we have been proved more than once that a lot of stuff BW employees are telling us is not true...

And without IDT.. we will have a lot of funny SPace Magic.. more SPace Magic and Enchantment explanations.. I'm really looking forward to the new wave of rage that will bring...

They break apart in all endings. I don't get why people so reluctant to accept that they overloaded (give no comparison before and Weekes' statements which frankly triumph over all in-game).

"without IDT"- What is this referring to? Just the Mass Relays overloading. If it is "space magic", so be it, if that is what BW intended (and it seemed like they did)

Space Magic they need to explain all of the endings (not only MR) when they don't go with IDT and change nothing about the endings..

[SubAstris]

Skillz1986 wrote...

Yeah..you win. go ahead and carve another notch into your monitor.

The IT juggernaut is slowing haha

[SubAstris]

Vahilor wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Vahilor wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Skillz1986 wrote...

@subastris
1: didn't you want to to leave? Sorry, don't get me wrong. You're asking legitimate questions and everyone is alright with it. but you've mentioned sometime ago, you were about to leave.and you sure have a hard time doing so.

2:mass relays overloading...take a good hard look at them in the vids. do they lool like they've just overloaded? When something literaly flies appart, it definetly blew up.

3: the citadel is seized no matter what. IT kicks in AFTER you get hit by harbinger. and assumes that everything afterwards is either fully or partially a dream (two sides on this one). So, since the reapers have invaded the citadel, even with IT one can and should be worried about the people on the citadel.

1) Did I? Oh well...
2) We don't have anything to compare the overloading with, but to me it could easily have done it. But that's irrelevant, because Weekes has stated that they did indeed overload, and as he writes the lore (with the rest of BW), there's nothing really to argue against
3) If you look at another of my replies you will see the following line that makes it clear Weekes is talking about after the Catalyst scene. Furthermore, the preceding question was about how "EDI would survive a destroy ending" and others about the ending post-Catalyst.

They break clearly appart in the Synthesis and the Destroy ending.. there is no overload... and we have been proved more than once that a lot of stuff BW employees are telling us is not true...

And without IDT.. we will have a lot of funny SPace Magic.. more SPace Magic and Enchantment explanations.. I'm really looking forward to the new wave of rage that will bring...

They break apart in all endings. I don't get why people so reluctant to accept that they overloaded (give no comparison before and Weekes' statements which frankly triumph over all in-game).

"without IDT"- What is this referring to? Just the Mass Relays overloading. If it is "space magic", so be it, if that is what BW intended (and it seemed like they did)

Space Magic they need to explain all of the endings (not only MR) when they don't go with IDT and change nothing about the endings..

Not everything is that broekn that it needs to be fixed with "space magic", it can be, but doesn't need to be. We don't know what BW's intentions are for the EC

[Skillz1986]

I am not even one of the straight "believers" i just think it holds more weight than explaining what we currently have...and if you really think you've won...well.

[Vahilor]

*shruggs* so you are right for the sake of it...and if you wanna believe all BW says so not my problem really.

[Skillz1986]

Because there's so much reason to believe what they've said right? like all the promises they've made pre release.

[SubAstris]

Vahilor wrote...

*shruggs* so you are right for the sake of it...and .if you wanna believe all BW says so not my problem really

But they are the ones of who write the lore...They decide what is what, even if it contradicts what seems to happen in-game. Therefore whatever they say comes before the game, period, no questions asked. Unless you want to delude yourself into believing what BW say isn't true, but then you are creating a new ME from yourself, and therefore can't expect to be considered right by the majority

[SubAstris]

Skillz1986 wrote...

Because there's so much reason to believe what they've said right? like all the promises they've made pre release.

There is a difference. Those promises, that were fulfilled or not, were made in the process of making the game, whilst Weekes' comments are made post

[HellishFiend]

SubAstris, as such an obvious connoisseur of such things as logic, reason, analytics, premise, evidence, etc, it shocks me to observe that you dont realize that a statement saying that an explanation for an event is forthcoming does not preclude the possibility that said explanation is that said event was a portrayal to the player born from someones mind.

[Skillz1986]

Same difference. lie to me once, i won't believe in anything you say until i see ireefutable proof. so far, i haven't seen it.

[Arian Dynas]

SubAstris. You need to learn the difference between winning a debate by carefully reasoned and logical arguments...

And just making the same arguments backed up by supposition until the other person gives up. They are not the same thing.

And before you try to draw me into an argument, know that I am not going to waste my time with you, unless you are willing to entertain the notion that you could be wrong.

estebanus wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Hello again.

Is it safe to come in? Is mintycool still around?
Oh, and did anyone find anything interesting?

I reported him. The mods should be hitting him with the banhammer any day now.

Thanks!

That guy really was a jerk!

My pleasure. He was far more than a jerk. He was an intentionally rude jackass who came here for no other reason to rub his superiority in our faces, all the while making hate speech against the religious.

Just because I am not a follower of any real religion doesn't mean that I think that **** is right.
If he really wants to be as well informed and well reasoned as he thinks he is, he should learn Theology. You know, one of those sciences where we get past the laughably naive belief that God is a man in the sky and look at the nature of what defines a God.

I don't think anyone can argue there was a prime cause to the Universe that began all effects, which began all other causes. Could we call this God? Sure. You could also go Stephen Hawking and call it the Grand Unified Theory.

Basically, being superior about how you can prove there is no man with a big flowing beard who lives in the clouds doesn't make you look any more intelligent. It just makes you look like a pompous jackass.

[Vahilor]

SubAstris wrote...

Vahilor wrote...

*shruggs* so you are right for the sake of it...and .if you wanna believe all BW says so not my problem really

But they are the ones of who write the lore...They decide what is what, even if it contradicts what seems to happen in-game. Therefore whatever they say comes before the game, period, no questions asked. Unless you want to delude yourself into believing what BW say isn't true, but then you are creating a new ME from yourself, and therefore can't expect to be considered right by the majority

Oh they can make what they want, they can make mice dance on the crucible and sing "love is in the air." and shepard can strat  to glow and kiss the reapers and what ever irrlogigal stuff.. but in the and WE the fans and the customers buy their games.. and if we are not satisfied.. than BW will get nothing.

Modifié par Vahilor, 22 avril 2012 - 10:56 .

[HellishFiend]

Arian Dynas wrote...

SubAstris. You need to learn the difference between winning a debate by carefully reasoned and logical arguments...

And just making the same arguments backed up by supposition until the other person gives up. They are not the same thing.

Not only that, but it is a common theme among the Anti-IT crowd to portray opinions as fact when those opinions are based off incorrect definitions of various terminology and subjective interpretations, and then fail to even cite their interpretation in detail. They attack and then expect us to defend our point of view without even clearly stating or defending their own point of view. 

I wont defend the small subset of the IT crowd that claims it to be irrefutable fact, but at least they do the small service of presenting a foundation and justification for their claim. The anti-IT crowd doesnt even do that. They expect us to take their opinion as a foundation and justification for a theory (yes, claiming the endings are to be taken at face value is just as much a theory as IT is, at this point) in and of itself, which is completely absurd. 

Modifié par HellishFiend, 22 avril 2012 - 10:58 .

[SubAstris]

HellishFiend wrote...

SubAstris, as such an obvious connoisseur of such things as logic, reason, analytics, premise, evidence, etc, it shocks me to observe that you dont realize that a statement saying that an explanation for an event is forthcoming does not preclude the possibility that said explanation is that said event was a portrayal to the player born from someones mind.

I realise it doesn't preclude it, just makes it pretty unlikely that Weekes would say such a thing about the Mass Relays, the Citadel being all hypothetical (when this cannot be discerned truly from his statements, not only to the contradictory nature of such statements and the conclusions people draw from them, but also the fact that the interview was paraphrased). I am by no means saying that this is conclusive proof that IT is wrong, just so you know

[HellishFiend]

SubAstris wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

SubAstris, as such an obvious connoisseur of such things as logic, reason, analytics, premise, evidence, etc, it shocks me to observe that you dont realize that a statement saying that an explanation for an event is forthcoming does not preclude the possibility that said explanation is that said event was a portrayal to the player born from someones mind.

I realise it doesn't preclude it, just makes it pretty unlikely that Weekes would say such a thing about the Mass Relays, the Citadel being all hypothetical (when this cannot be discerned truly from his statements, not only to the contradictory nature of such statements and the conclusions people draw from them, but also the fact that the interview was paraphrased). I am by no means saying that this is conclusive proof that IT is wrong, just so you know

Those sentences are not well formed, so I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. What exactly makes it unlikely that Weekes would say what he did? What contradictory nature are you talking about? In what way is the Citadel a hypothesis, and what is it hypothesizing? 

[HellishFiend]

 And this whole situation just makes me want to go "on the record" and say that in all my time on this forum I have never seen a post that makes a solid, well-founded case why IT should be dismissed, or, similarly, one on why the endings should be taken at face value.

[SubAstris]

HellishFiend wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

SubAstris, as such an obvious connoisseur of such things as logic, reason, analytics, premise, evidence, etc, it shocks me to observe that you dont realize that a statement saying that an explanation for an event is forthcoming does not preclude the possibility that said explanation is that said event was a portrayal to the player born from someones mind.

I realise it doesn't preclude it, just makes it pretty unlikely that Weekes would say such a thing about the Mass Relays, the Citadel being all hypothetical (when this cannot be discerned truly from his statements, not only to the contradictory nature of such statements and the conclusions people draw from them, but also the fact that the interview was paraphrased). I am by no means saying that this is conclusive proof that IT is wrong, just so you know

Those sentences are not well formed, so I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. What exactly makes it unlikely that Weekes would say what he did? What contradictory nature are you talking about? In what way is the Citadel a hypothesis, and what is it hypothesizing? 

Look back at my previous post on it, its like a page or two back

[SubAstris]

HellishFiend wrote...

 And this whole situation just makes me want to go "on the record" and say that in all my time on this forum I have never seen a post that makes a solid, well-founded case why IT should be dismissed, or, similarly, one on why the endings should be taken at face value.

And likewise, I have never seen a good argument for IT should be taken seriously as a realistic interpretation of events

[estebanus]

Sorry to interrupt any ongoing discussion here, but I may have found some more evidence that starchild is lying.

The planet Aphras in the Xe-Cha system of the shryke abyssal says something very interesting:

"A unique discovery, Aphras is a "heavenly twin" - a planet in a star system that has not one but two worlds of sufficient size to retain a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere within the habitable life zone of its parent star. Fossil evidence shows abundant vertebrates and evidence of a sapient terrestrial avian species in its Bronze Age. However, the only trace of contemporary life on the planet is that of single-celled organisms in its seas. All else has suffered from an extinction event - a series of massive impacts that vaporized vast quantities of water and lofted dust into its atmosphere. Early theories that this event was a collision with a fragmenting asteroid have now been discounted - the impact craters were aimed directly at habitation centers."

This would in fact mean, that the reapers desrtoyed a species in its bronze age, meaning it hadn't even achieved to leave their own planet.
However, it is said by starchild that the reapers "only harvest the advanced civilizations, leaving the younger ones alone"
But why would they then have destroyed this species?

Any thoughts?

[Rifneno]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

No, Grunt's loyalty mission, a puberty rite that ends with beating a worm whose only attack is to spit goo at you, that's symbolism.

Thank you Rifeneno... I never thought about it that way before, never make me think about it again.

That's me, I'm a helper.

I reported him. The mods should be hitting him with the banhammer any day now.

Yeah, I did too. I pretty damn rarely report people, but that guy was way the hell over the line. Sadly, still not as over the line as the only other guy I can remember reporting, who claimed the ending was a hallucination... as gay Shepard died of AIDS. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with people?

Skillz1986 wrote...

The relays literally flew apart...there are clearly parts coming of that thing. it exploded. and as for weekes giving away what happened before the ec comes out? He is legally bound to avoid that. so you can't take anything he said in this q&a as cannon. he just states possibilities.

This. People, if you don't know what "NDA" means then google the phrase "non-disclosure agreement". It's a pretty standard thing. Back in EQ, they'd give us an NDA to even take part in a closed beta trial of new expansions. You think BW's staff that's in the know wouldn't be under NDA if there was some big secret to come?

Also, you guys are still reading--let alone replying to, SubAstris? How bored are you?

[HellishFiend]

SubAstris wrote...

I would like to hear what IT theorists think about Weekes' comments in regards to things like the Mass Relays (it was a long time ago but whatever). Just reading through some of the Q&As, Weekes responds in frank terms about the fact that the Relays, contrary to popular opinion, didn't explode but overloaded. Now, if IT is true, why wouldn't Weekes toe the BW line and just say "wait until the DLC comes out" and not talk about them in such details, esp. as it was not his, or BW's, intention to people to look too deeply into them? Under IT, does it really matter if the relays would explode or overload? No. And so why make up a crappy excuse about how the Relays overloaded when in actuality, they didn't (if you believe IT)?

If you also look at how he tries to reassures the interviewer that not everyone had died on the Citadel, not everything had been in vain,

"-Did anyone on the Citadel survive?

Yes. We would never, ever do anything that made the player feel, on replay, that it would be better for everyone on the Citadel if they just died"

This seems to suggest strongly that BW thought hard about whether they were going to make everyone on the Citadel die or not, and decided not to. Now, if IT is true, why even make that decision, it is not important at all? Why even think about it, since the Citadel is symbolic (of whatever)?

In the context of IT, I think it would be to give fans who still take the ending at face value something to chew on to tide them over until they get the "news". Is that really farfetched? Wouldnt you do something similar if you and your team were masterminding IT and trying to keep it secret? 

Also, about the bit about the folks on the Citadel, I'm not even sure how to respond to that. If IT is true, I would think it would be self explanatory that since the Citadel has in fact NOT blown up (or broken apart, whatever), that it is safe for him to say what he did because it doesn't give anything away. The possibility of people on the Citadel surviving is not exclusive to either face-value or IT theories. 

[zyntifox]

I've got a question, not really tied to IT but since this is the only thread i follow on BSN i might aswell post it here. I wonder if the reapers seem to know that the citadel is what is needed to destroy them, and Illusive man tells them that our next goal is to accuire the citadel; why don't they just destroy the citadel instead of trying to defend it on Earth? Since im a PS3 owner i do not know if this is covered in ME1, so sorry if it's a obvious answer.

[HellishFiend]

SubAstris wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

 And this whole situation just makes me want to go "on the record" and say that in all my time on this forum I have never seen a post that makes a solid, well-founded case why IT should be dismissed, or, similarly, one on why the endings should be taken at face value.

And likewise, I have never seen a good argument for IT should be taken seriously as a realistic interpretation of events

Then, to be quite honest, I find it hard to take you seriously. There is such a bevy of well-formed and well-thought-out evidence that any person with an ounce of objectivity should be inclined to at least "take it seriously" regardless of whether or not they actually agree with it. Heck, Shepard being shown waking up amidst concrete and Mako wreckage alone is enough to lend credence to the idea that Shepard never left Earth. And that is just one citation out of countless dozens. 

[SubAstris]

estebanus wrote...

Sorry to interrupt any ongoing discussion here, but I may have found some more evidence that starchild is lying.

The planet Aphras in the Xe-Cha system of the shryke abyssal says something very interesting:

"A unique discovery, Aphras is a "heavenly twin" - a planet in a star system that has not one but two worlds of sufficient size to retain a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere within the habitable life zone of its parent star. Fossil evidence shows abundant vertebrates and evidence of a sapient terrestrial avian species in its Bronze Age. However, the only trace of contemporary life on the planet is that of single-celled organisms in its seas. All else has suffered from an extinction event - a series of massive impacts that vaporized vast quantities of water and lofted dust into its atmosphere. Early theories that this event was a collision with a fragmenting asteroid have now been discounted - the impact craters were aimed directly at habitation centers."

This would in fact mean, that the reapers desrtoyed a species in its bronze age, meaning it hadn't even achieved to leave their own planet.
However, it is said by starchild that the reapers "only harvest the advanced civilizations, leaving the younger ones alone"
But why would they then have destroyed this species?

Any thoughts?

Your logic doesn't seem to follow

1) Bronze-age species gets wiped out by some unknown event
2) We know that the Reapers can cause mass extinction
3) Therefore, the Reapers did it
4) The Catalyst is lying

Premise 2 & 3 do not follow, there is not enough evidence to point towards it being the Reapers' actions, therefore you cannot make that conclusion.