Ce sujet est fermé
llbountyhunter wrote...
Rksmithers wrote...
llbountyhunter wrote...
Rksmithers wrote...
.............. how do i get the battlefield 3 character? .................
luck
what do you mean?
well, when you buy a pack you ramdomly get character and stuff. I always get to much of what I dont need and not enough of what I do.
"Again, both camps say the other is in denial. Neither of us have a claim to say we're completely right. We have to wait for Bioware to say. In that way, it is nothing like a religion, conspiracy, or anything like that. It is literalists taking the story for what it is and others looking at the story to see if there is something deeper. Thank you for proving my point."
I have the same problem as you about the C-Sec bug. Do not authorize Palavi to transfer, she has no combat experience and only want to be near to her bro. It will decrease your EMS...pirate1802 wrote...
There is this stupid bug where I tell the C-sec to concentrate on bigger crimes, yet in the war assets screen it says they are focusing on smaller crimes, leading to decreased efficiency. Also, Pvt. Talavi still argues with her superior after I have approved her request
BatmanTurian wrote...
llbountyhunter wrote...
Rksmithers wrote...
llbountyhunter wrote...
Rksmithers wrote...
.............. how do i get the battlefield 3 character? .................
luck
what do you mean?
well, when you buy a pack you ramdomly get character and stuff. I always get to much of what I dont need and not enough of what I do.
It's a perk of the Battlefield 3 preorder. I'm pretty sure it's not something you can get otherwise.
MegumiAzusa wrote...
The Reapers giving a technology to prevent the organics to research into another area that might result in a superior technology. Prevent in the sense of there is no need to and 50k years isn't enough to create that need.ExtendedCut wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
They give them technology so they don't have to research it for themselves thus stopping them to research a technology that the Reapers could not handle.ExtendedCut wrote...
marcelo_sdk wrote...
An idea came to mind just now: the Catalyst says that he created the Reapers to "save" the organics from the destruction by the synthetics. But, if what Sovereign says is true, that by using the relays the organics races evolve in the way the Reapers want, it means that the Reapers created the problem they want to solve?
I think that knowing why the first cycle happened would enlight a lot of things.
You know, I had never considered that. You're right - if the Reapers are "designed" to stop the organics from getting to the point of technological advancement that they can create their own synthetics, and therefore those synthetics will eventually destroy them (i.e. Starbrat's logic), then WHY would the Reapers give organics advanced technology (mass relays) that would only serve to increase and/or speed up the process of technological advancement?
Makes no sense. Good find.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. "They" meaning humans and other advanced civs? Or "they" meaning the Reapers?
SubAstris wrote...
"Again, both camps say the other is in denial. Neither of us have a claim to say we're completely right. We have to wait for Bioware to say. In that way, it is nothing like a religion, conspiracy, or anything like that. It is literalists taking the story for what it is and others looking at the story to see if there is something deeper. Thank you for proving my point."
The fact is, there has to be something conclusively pointing towards something deeper for it to be there, you can't just assume such a thing exists. I despise the term, "literalists", first because it implies a stubborn belief in a literal interpretation, and second, most people who don't think IT is correct do not adhere to a literal interpretation per se, rather they find evidence for IT inconclusive
ExtendedCut wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
The Reapers giving a technology to prevent the organics to research into another area that might result in a superior technology. Prevent in the sense of there is no need to and 50k years isn't enough to create that need.ExtendedCut wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
They give them technology so they don't have to research it for themselves thus stopping them to research a technology that the Reapers could not handle.ExtendedCut wrote...
marcelo_sdk wrote...
An idea came to mind just now: the Catalyst says that he created the Reapers to "save" the organics from the destruction by the synthetics. But, if what Sovereign says is true, that by using the relays the organics races evolve in the way the Reapers want, it means that the Reapers created the problem they want to solve?
I think that knowing why the first cycle happened would enlight a lot of things.
You know, I had never considered that. You're right - if the Reapers are "designed" to stop the organics from getting to the point of technological advancement that they can create their own synthetics, and therefore those synthetics will eventually destroy them (i.e. Starbrat's logic), then WHY would the Reapers give organics advanced technology (mass relays) that would only serve to increase and/or speed up the process of technological advancement?
Makes no sense. Good find.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. "They" meaning humans and other advanced civs? Or "they" meaning the Reapers?
Ah, I see what you are saying. I guess that makes sense in a round-about kind of way.
BatmanTurian wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
"Again, both camps say the other is in denial. Neither of us have a claim to say we're completely right. We have to wait for Bioware to say. In that way, it is nothing like a religion, conspiracy, or anything like that. It is literalists taking the story for what it is and others looking at the story to see if there is something deeper. Thank you for proving my point."
The fact is, there has to be something conclusively pointing towards something deeper for it to be there, you can't just assume such a thing exists. I despise the term, "literalists", first because it implies a stubborn belief in a literal interpretation, and second, most people who don't think IT is correct do not adhere to a literal interpretation per se, rather they find evidence for IT inconclusive
Look who's back. missed ya. Let's be civil though
Despise the term all you like, but it fits. Anti-IT people are Literalists. You believe we are suppossed to take the literal ending at face value whether you explain it away by bugs or poor writing. Finding IT inconclusive means you don't see the ending as an extended metaphor, but as a "literal" ending.
MaximizedAction wrote...
My ten cents on that Keeper at the end.
The only other Keeper I noticed in ME3 was the one on the Docking bay D24. As some point he starts walking on this already narrow corridor and you of course crash into him and then he stops.
Why have him walk THERE? Why not at the Presidium or the Embassies? Why somewhere where you will eventually crash into him. And boy was that a clipping.
SubAstris wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
Look who's back. missed ya. Let's be civil though
Despise the term all you like, but it fits. Anti-IT people are Literalists. You believe we are suppossed to take the literal ending at face value whether you explain it away by bugs or poor writing. Finding IT inconclusive means you don't see the ending as an extended metaphor, but as a "literal" ending.
It is not adequate since it doesn't allow any room to believe that the end taken at face-value has any metaphorical or figurative meanign whatsoever.
Modifié par balance5050, 30 avril 2012 - 06:30 .
. Number 2..
llbountyhunter wrote...
ExtendedCut wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
The Reapers giving a technology to prevent the organics to research into another area that might result in a superior technology. Prevent in the sense of there is no need to and 50k years isn't enough to create that need.ExtendedCut wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
They give them technology so they don't have to research it for themselves thus stopping them to research a technology that the Reapers could not handle.ExtendedCut wrote...
marcelo_sdk wrote...
An idea came to mind just now: the Catalyst says that he created the Reapers to "save" the organics from the destruction by the synthetics. But, if what Sovereign says is true, that by using the relays the organics races evolve in the way the Reapers want, it means that the Reapers created the problem they want to solve?
I think that knowing why the first cycle happened would enlight a lot of things.
You know, I had never considered that. You're right - if the Reapers are "designed" to stop the organics from getting to the point of technological advancement that they can create their own synthetics, and therefore those synthetics will eventually destroy them (i.e. Starbrat's logic), then WHY would the Reapers give organics advanced technology (mass relays) that would only serve to increase and/or speed up the process of technological advancement?
Makes no sense. Good find.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. "They" meaning humans and other advanced civs? Or "they" meaning the Reapers?
Ah, I see what you are saying. I guess that makes sense in a round-about kind of way.
the problem I see with this is that if your trying to get new technology out of a species, you dont guide them down the same path you went through- otherwise youll end up with the same results.
Guess he was made out of Bad Luck Brians.BatmanTurian wrote...
Simon_Says wrote...
Well it looks like my earlier statement of "what could be found was found" turned out incorrect. Noice.Rifneno wrote...
Very minor nitpick: Saren was the one who said Sovereign was insulted by the heretic geth's "pitiful" devotion. Which is odd in retrospect since Legion said that Nazara (Sovereign) is the one who contacted the geth seeking allies. He was looking for their help and then felt insulted when he got it? ... Is it just me, or does anyone else get the impression that Sovereign was kind of a dick even for a Reaper? The rest of them go about their horrible crimes with apparently apathy. Sovereign was just hateful. To everyone. About everything. I wonder if that's why he got stuck with guard duty. "I'm not listening to Nazara's crap for another 50,000 years. Let him play vanguard, I'm going for a nap."
Gotta remember that by ME1 Sovereign was a complete and total screw-up. Not only did it not detect the prothean's sabotage of the keepers for 50 millenia, but its first attempt at invasion with the rachni fell flat on its face, and its second attempt revolves around finding a mass relay that somehow it lost. Not to mention that its new plan revolved around a single indoctrinated agent and due to being discovered on Eden Prime there's another organic on that agent's trail who could screw up the whole plan. Who did. Sure the reapers had backup plans in place but imagine how the conversation between Sovereign and Harbinger would go if Sovereign survived. "We left you 50 000 years with just one job to do, and you couldn't do it."
Also, Sovereign was looking for manpower/fodder, not allies. In that case, some eyerolling would seem natural on Sovereigns part.
It's obvious why he was left behind. He's the Reaper the others don't like and because he would obviously be a screwup in the main invasion, so they put him out as a scout. But he couldn't even succeed at that. Sovereign must have been made of a race of "special" aliens or born losers.
He puffs himself up like he's super-awesome because of his insecurity but the fact that he fails superhard at almost everything he does means he's probably the joke/pariah of the Reaper community. The village idiot, if you will.
SubAstris wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
"Again, both camps say the other is in denial. Neither of us have a claim to say we're completely right. We have to wait for Bioware to say. In that way, it is nothing like a religion, conspiracy, or anything like that. It is literalists taking the story for what it is and others looking at the story to see if there is something deeper. Thank you for proving my point."
The fact is, there has to be something conclusively pointing towards something deeper for it to be there, you can't just assume such a thing exists. I despise the term, "literalists", first because it implies a stubborn belief in a literal interpretation, and second, most people who don't think IT is correct do not adhere to a literal interpretation per se, rather they find evidence for IT inconclusive
Look who's back. missed ya. Let's be civil though
Despise the term all you like, but it fits. Anti-IT people are Literalists. You believe we are suppossed to take the literal ending at face value whether you explain it away by bugs or poor writing. Finding IT inconclusive means you don't see the ending as an extended metaphor, but as a "literal" ending.
It is not adequate since it doesn't allow any room to believe that the end taken at face-value has any metaphorical or figurative meanign whatsoever.
balance5050 wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
Look who's back. missed ya. Let's be civil though
Despise the term all you like, but it fits. Anti-IT people are Literalists. You believe we are suppossed to take the literal ending at face value whether you explain it away by bugs or poor writing. Finding IT inconclusive means you don't see the ending as an extended metaphor, but as a "literal" ending.
It is not adequate since it doesn't allow any room to believe that the end taken at face-value has any metaphorical or figurative meanign whatsoever.
No, your decisions, even if they happen literally, they can still have metaphorical meaning. By literalist he means that everything you see on screen literally happens.
And that is exactly what the Reapers do and want. "... to develop along the path we desire." as Nazara said.llbountyhunter wrote...
the problem I see with this is that if your trying to get new technology out of a species, you dont guide them down the same path you went through- otherwise youll end up with the same results.ExtendedCut wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
The Reapers giving a technology to prevent the organics to research into another area that might result in a superior technology. Prevent in the sense of there is no need to and 50k years isn't enough to create that need.ExtendedCut wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
They give them technology so they don't have to research it for themselves thus stopping them to research a technology that the Reapers could not handle.ExtendedCut wrote...
marcelo_sdk wrote...
An idea came to mind just now: the Catalyst says that he created the Reapers to "save" the organics from the destruction by the synthetics. But, if what Sovereign says is true, that by using the relays the organics races evolve in the way the Reapers want, it means that the Reapers created the problem they want to solve?
I think that knowing why the first cycle happened would enlight a lot of things.
You know, I had never considered that. You're right - if the Reapers are "designed" to stop the organics from getting to the point of technological advancement that they can create their own synthetics, and therefore those synthetics will eventually destroy them (i.e. Starbrat's logic), then WHY would the Reapers give organics advanced technology (mass relays) that would only serve to increase and/or speed up the process of technological advancement?
Makes no sense. Good find.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. "They" meaning humans and other advanced civs? Or "they" meaning the Reapers?
Ah, I see what you are saying. I guess that makes sense in a round-about kind of way.
byne wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
"Again, both camps say the other is in denial. Neither of us have a claim to say we're completely right. We have to wait for Bioware to say. In that way, it is nothing like a religion, conspiracy, or anything like that. It is literalists taking the story for what it is and others looking at the story to see if there is something deeper. Thank you for proving my point."
The fact is, there has to be something conclusively pointing towards something deeper for it to be there, you can't just assume such a thing exists. I despise the term, "literalists", first because it implies a stubborn belief in a literal interpretation, and second, most people who don't think IT is correct do not adhere to a literal interpretation per se, rather they find evidence for IT inconclusive
Look who's back. missed ya. Let's be civil though
Despise the term all you like, but it fits. Anti-IT people are Literalists. You believe we are suppossed to take the literal ending at face value whether you explain it away by bugs or poor writing. Finding IT inconclusive means you don't see the ending as an extended metaphor, but as a "literal" ending.
It is not adequate since it doesn't allow any room to believe that the end taken at face-value has any metaphorical or figurative meanign whatsoever.
I must just be tired but I have no clue what you mean.
Are you saying you believe the ending at face value and at the same time somehow think it isnt really what happened and is just a metaphor or figurative interpretation of what happened?
MegumiAzusa wrote...
And that is exactly what the Reapers do and want. "... to develop along the path we desire." as Nazara said.llbountyhunter wrote...
the problem I see with this is that if your trying to get new technology out of a species, you dont guide them down the same path you went through- otherwise youll end up with the same results.ExtendedCut wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
The Reapers giving a technology to prevent the organics to research into another area that might result in a superior technology. Prevent in the sense of there is no need to and 50k years isn't enough to create that need.ExtendedCut wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
They give them technology so they don't have to research it for themselves thus stopping them to research a technology that the Reapers could not handle.ExtendedCut wrote...
marcelo_sdk wrote...
An idea came to mind just now: the Catalyst says that he created the Reapers to "save" the organics from the destruction by the synthetics. But, if what Sovereign says is true, that by using the relays the organics races evolve in the way the Reapers want, it means that the Reapers created the problem they want to solve?
I think that knowing why the first cycle happened would enlight a lot of things.
You know, I had never considered that. You're right - if the Reapers are "designed" to stop the organics from getting to the point of technological advancement that they can create their own synthetics, and therefore those synthetics will eventually destroy them (i.e. Starbrat's logic), then WHY would the Reapers give organics advanced technology (mass relays) that would only serve to increase and/or speed up the process of technological advancement?
Makes no sense. Good find.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. "They" meaning humans and other advanced civs? Or "they" meaning the Reapers?
Ah, I see what you are saying. I guess that makes sense in a round-about kind of way.
SubAstris wrote...
balance5050 wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
Look who's back. missed ya. Let's be civil though
Despise the term all you like, but it fits. Anti-IT people are Literalists. You believe we are suppossed to take the literal ending at face value whether you explain it away by bugs or poor writing. Finding IT inconclusive means you don't see the ending as an extended metaphor, but as a "literal" ending.
It is not adequate since it doesn't allow any room to believe that the end taken at face-value has any metaphorical or figurative meanign whatsoever.
No, your decisions, even if they happen literally, they can still have metaphorical meaning. By literalist he means that everything you see on screen literally happens.
This was not made clear and is an ambiguous term
SubAstris wrote...
byne wrote...
I must just be tired but I have no clue what you mean.
Are you saying you believe the ending at face value and at the same time somehow think it isnt really what happened and is just a metaphor or figurative interpretation of what happened?
No, rather certain aspects of the ending may or may not have allusions to other things, the true and meaning of certain things cannot be conveyed just with a literal interpretation
SubAstris wrote...
No, rather certain aspects of the ending may or may not have allusions to other things, the true and meaning of certain things cannot be conveyed just with a literal interpretation
Modifié par balance5050, 30 avril 2012 - 06:41 .
SubAstris wrote...
balance5050 wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
Look who's back. missed ya. Let's be civil though
Despise the term all you like, but it fits. Anti-IT people are Literalists. You believe we are suppossed to take the literal ending at face value whether you explain it away by bugs or poor writing. Finding IT inconclusive means you don't see the ending as an extended metaphor, but as a "literal" ending.
It is not adequate since it doesn't allow any room to believe that the end taken at face-value has any metaphorical or figurative meanign whatsoever.
No, your decisions, even if they happen literally, they can still have metaphorical meaning. By literalist he means that everything you see on screen literally happens.
This was not made clear and is an ambiguous term
Modifié par BatmanTurian, 30 avril 2012 - 06:44 .
Retour en haut
