57139 réponses à ce sujet

[estebanus]

Cstaf wrote...

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.

Because if the reapers destroyed the citadel, they wouldn't have a perfect trap for the next cycle. They'd have to travel all the way back to darkspace by themselves, and they would have to invade in a full frontal assault again, not by cutting off the head of the next cycle's government in one fell swoop.

[Rifneno]

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?

That's very interesting.  Good find.  I always found it odd that the characters assumed the Reapers were leaving Parnack, the yagh homeworld, alone because they weren't advanced enough.  And Shepard's supremely retarded belief that it's because the yagh "can bite back".  I mean it's not like the Reapers attacked every homeworld at once.  Sur'Kesh hadn't even been hit by the time the game ended and it's a Council homeworld FFS.

I think someone pointed out a while back also that they're reaping Harvesters, which were the things in ME2 that dropped klixen.  Those things aren't even sapient to my knowledge.

[estebanus]

SubAstris wrote...

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.

That's why I said i MAY HAVE, not that I did.
Also, the reapers are the only species we know to be able to commit mass extinction, so is it really that much of a stretch to think that the reapers did it?

[SubAstris]

HellishFiend wrote...

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. 

Mako evidence? You mean there being three circular objects on the Citadel, therefore Shepard is thinking of the Mako? I thought people had got past that laughable piece of "evidence" quite frankly.

Excuse me if I am wrong on what you mean and are actually referring to something else.

[SubAstris]

estebanus wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

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.

That's why I said i MAY HAVE, not that I did.
Also, the reapers are the only species we know to be able to commit mass extinction, so is it really that much of a stretch to think that the reapers did it?

There are many things that could have created a mass extinction. For a big claim such as the Catalyst is lying on such an issue, you need  to have substantial evidence for that being the case which this doesn't provide unfortunately

[Rifneno]

estebanus wrote...

Cstaf wrote...

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.

Because if the reapers destroyed the citadel, they wouldn't have a perfect trap for the next cycle. They'd have to travel all the way back to darkspace by themselves, and they would have to invade in a full frontal assault again, not by cutting off the head of the next cycle's government in one fell swoop.

Also, it's unknown is the Reapers can simply shut off the Citadel's quantum shielding.  Quantum shielding is also used on the relays, and look what it took in Arrival to destroy a relay.  The Citadel could take a hydrogen bomb and not bat an eye unless the QS is removed.  Unless the Reapers have an immensely powerful weapon that we've yet to see in action, they'd have an easier time defending it than destroying it.

[HellishFiend]

SubAstris wrote...


Mako evidence? You mean there being three circular objects on the Citadel, therefore Shepard is thinking of the Mako? I thought people had got past that laughable piece of "evidence" quite frankly.

Excuse me if I am wrong on what you mean and are actually referring to something else.

No, I'm referring to this:

[SubAstris]

HellishFiend wrote...

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. 

What? Your comments do not seem to make much sense. Are you implying that such comments are meant to instill doubt into the minds of those who still believe the ending is to be taken at face value? BW/Weekes could have easily said "no comment" or "wait for DLC" (like they have been saying all along and did in fact say in the interview), but you make it sound as though he is just playing silly mind games.

I am questioning why he would say anything at all on the matter, he would have got himself out of a hypothetical quagmire. And why exactly would he say the Arrival relays explode?

[SubAstris]

HellishFiend wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


Mako evidence? You mean there being three circular objects on the Citadel, therefore Shepard is thinking of the Mako? I thought people had got past that laughable piece of "evidence" quite frankly.

Excuse me if I am wrong on what you mean and are actually referring to something else.

No, I'm referring to this:

Maybe I am being deliberately thick, I can't see what is going on, walk me through what you really mean by the "Mako evidence", if you will

[HellishFiend]

SubAstris wrote...


What? Your comments do not seem to make much sense. Are you implying that such comments are meant to instill doubt into the minds of those who still believe the ending is to be taken at face value? BW/Weekes could have easily said "no comment" or "wait for DLC" (like they have been saying all along and did in fact say in the interview), but you make it sound as though he is just playing silly mind games.

I am questioning why he would say anything at all on the matter, he would have got himself out of a hypothetical quagmire. And why exactly would he say the Arrival relays explode?

Nevermind about that, it's rather pointless. You're implying that in the context of IT, you think he would have done/said something else. That's an opinion. Asking us to cite reasons why your opinion is invalid is pointless. If IT is true and their goal is to keep it secret until the big reveal, it makes sense for them to say things that can be taken in both contexts, which he did. That's not an opinion; it is a logical flow. It is not even much of a stretch to take the fact that they havent said anything that can't be taken in both contexts as an indicator in and of itself. 

You can "not get it" or disagree with it as much as you want, but the truth is that everything he said can indeed be taken in both contexts, and requiring us to be on the defensive to try and explain why he would say those things in the context of IT, lest it be used as evidence against IT, is not fair. The fact that it CAN be taken in both contexts stands on its own. 

[Skillz1986]

Wow..now he doesn't see what you could possibly mean by "mako evidence" after you've posted the screenshots...that's just cute

[HellishFiend]

SubAstris wrote...


Maybe I am being deliberately thick, I can't see what is going on, walk me through what you really mean by the "Mako evidence", if you will

Again youre asking for an explanation on something that is self-explanatory. And when you're not doing that, you're asking us to provide justification for things that are self-justifiying. And dont even try to go into what makes something self-explanatory or self-justifying. That is something you learn in school when learning theories and science projects. My apologies if you're being genuine, but I cant continue to go along with this. If you're genuinely curious, go back and find the previous discussions on the subject. 

[SubAstris]

HellishFiend wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


What? Your comments do not seem to make much sense. Are you implying that such comments are meant to instill doubt into the minds of those who still believe the ending is to be taken at face value? BW/Weekes could have easily said "no comment" or "wait for DLC" (like they have been saying all along and did in fact say in the interview), but you make it sound as though he is just playing silly mind games.

I am questioning why he would say anything at all on the matter, he would have got himself out of a hypothetical quagmire. And why exactly would he say the Arrival relays explode?

Nevermind about that, it's rather pointless. You're implying that in the context of IT, you think he would have done/said something else. That's an opinion. Asking us to cite reasons why your opinion is invalid is pointless. If IT is true and their goal is to keep it secret until the big reveal, it makes sense for them to say things that can be taken in both contexts, which he did. That's not an opinion; it is a logical flow. It is not even much of a stretch to take the fact that they havent said anything that can't be taken in both contexts as an indicator in and of itself. 

You can "not get it" or disagree with it as much as you want, but the truth is that everything he said can indeed be taken in both contexts, and requiring us to be on the defensive to try and explain why he would say those things in the context of IT, lest it be used as evidence against IT, is not fair. The fact that it CAN be taken in both contexts stands on its own. 

It is a likely interpretation of events based on reason, given IT, in which as many have said, BW would have been tight-lipped, yet do the exact opposite and have answered questions about a range of things, assuming such things to be true, without doing any of things which you would likely expect if IT was true (that is deny that such things take place, or more likely, just say " no comment" in line with what they have said before)


"it CAN be taken in both contexts"- That does not, however, preclude that one is more likely than the other.

[Vahilor]

*peeks in* nahh that guy still is here *goes back to MP*

[SubAstris]

HellishFiend wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


Maybe I am being deliberately thick, I can't see what is going on, walk me through what you really mean by the "Mako evidence", if you will

Again youre asking for an explanation on something that is self-explanatory. And when you're not doing that, you're asking us to provide justification for things that are self-justifiying. And dont even try to go into what makes something self-explanatory or self-justifying. That is something you learn in school when learning theories and science projects. My apologies if you're being genuine, but I cant continue to go along with this. If you're genuinely curious, go back and find the previous discussions on the subject. 

Well clearly it isn't self-explanatory, otherwise I would have got it. Lay out formally your arguments for why the Mako evidence constitutes good evidence for IT.

All you have done so far is dart around the issue, expecting someone to take it as true without justification.

[SubAstris]

Skillz1986 wrote...

Wow..now he doesn't see what you could possibly mean by "mako evidence" after you've posted the screenshots...that's just cute

All I am seeing are two wheels... Please explain how this shows good evidence for IT, I can't see it

No doubt you will just say, "YOUR TOO STUPID TO SEE IT!!!!"

[HellishFiend]

SubAstris wrote...


It is a likely interpretation of events based on reason, given IT, in which as many have said, BW would have been tight-lipped, yet do the exact opposite and have answered questions about a range of things, assuming such things to be true, without doing any of things which you would likely expect if IT was true (that is deny that such things take place, or more likely, just say " no comment" in line with what they have said before)


"it CAN be taken in both contexts"- That does not, however, preclude that one is more likely than the other.

You're continuing to cite opinions and suppositions in order to try and justify other opinions and suppositions.  Are you really just being deliberately thick, like you said?  

[schneeland]

Vahilor wrote...

*peeks in* nahh that guy still is here *goes back to MP*

Probably just some leisurly Sunday afternoon strolling in the sun

[Rifneno]

HellishFiend wrote...

You're continuing to cite opinions and suppositions in order to try and justify other opinions and suppositions.  Are you really just being deliberately thick, like you said?  

Does it matter?  The result is the same either way: he's not worth the time.

[HellishFiend]

SubAstris, I'm sorry, but this discourse is over. We've both said our piece, and any further information, justification, or things you need "laid out" can be found in the earlier pages of this thread. Good day, sir.

[SubAstris]

HellishFiend wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


It is a likely interpretation of events based on reason, given IT, in which as many have said, BW would have been tight-lipped, yet do the exact opposite and have answered questions about a range of things, assuming such things to be true, without doing any of things which you would likely expect if IT was true (that is deny that such things take place, or more likely, just say " no comment" in line with what they have said before)


"it CAN be taken in both contexts"- That does not, however, preclude that one is more likely than the other.

You're continuing to cite opinions and suppositions in order to try and justify other opinions and suppositions.  Are you really just being deliberately thick, like you said?  

I am trying to find likely reasons for the actions of BW, if you want to deny everything and just say that is solely your opinion, fine (I guess it is better than not providing any reasons, even if they are just opinions, for what you believe). It doesn't really achieve much though in assessing their aims

[SubAstris]

HellishFiend wrote...

SubAstris, I'm sorry, but this discourse is over. We've both said our piece, and any further information, justification, or things you need "laid out" can be found in the earlier pages of this thread. Good day, sir.

Just as i thought, little to no justification for your belief that the "Mako evidence", whatever they may entail (still no answer for that), is good evidence for IT and then claim things are "obvious". Ohh...

[Skillz1986]

So you do see two wheels, good. this a screenshot of the "breathe scene". Which, if you take the endings at face value MUST take place on the citadel. the two wheels strongly indicate that it takes place on earth. if you don't think so , prove to me, why there are a pair of wheels on the citadel...in a part bo one has ever been befor

[SubAstris]

Skillz1986 wrote...

So you do see two wheels, good. this a screenshot of the "breathe scene". Which, if you take the endings at face value MUST take place on the citadel. the two wheels strongly indicate that it takes place on earth. if you don't think so , prove to me, why there are a pair of wheels on the citadel...in a part bo one has ever been befor

How exactly was this image taken? In my various viewings of the video, I have never seen a wheel there. Could you possibly point it out on a video of some sort which would be much harder to doctor than a photo?

[Skillz1986]

Why don't yo just do it yourself?