57139 réponses à ce sujet

[balance5050]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

if it's a ploy, why is his "bait" (synthesis/control) not available to the player at all by default whilst Destroy always is


-Why would Harby want to indoctrinate someone who sucks at putting together armies?

For his own continued existence, obviously?

If he's indoctrinating him, why doesn't he talk him into outright surrender and let the Reapers win? There's another flaw that comes to mind.

Also, no hints at the Catalyst being a liar. 

-Except that the whole game contradicts him. He also says that your synthetics will fail if you choose destroy, Shep can't live without synthetics yet, he can survive after choosing destroy. Also, EDI can walk out of the Normandy if you choose destroy according to Pat Weekes unofficial interview. Several clear signs you are being lied to.

So the writers wrote a blatant inconsistency. Not really proof. Weekes also said that he thought EDI should be destroyed. The man now in-charge of writing the ending extended-cut, mind you.

He never said Shepard's synthetics would fail and/or that he or she would die, he just notes that Shepard has cybernetic implants of his own. Maybe they did fail and he lived anyway. Who knows, lack of explanation is why we're here now. At the end of the day, though, this is a headcanon explanation until proven otherwise.

Well, to you.... bioware never said it wasn't canon. So to me it's canon until proven otherwise. 

He doesn't need to indoctrinate Shepard if your EMS sucks so hard that the reapers could easily win. You "think" you're destroying the Reapers, but in I.T. you're just dying, and I don't see how shooting a tube activates the crucible anyway, seems more like symbolism.

You can belive the pretty colors and space magic  if you want, but just know that you're in the official I.T. thread, the second longest thread on the BSN, the most popular unified theory on the meaning of the ending

Modifié par balance5050, 02 mai 2012 - 06:05 .

[Tirian Thorn]

SS2Dante wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

Tell me, how are the Catalyst and reapers not the very problem they claim to prevent? Why do they go straight to genocide? Why have they not attempted any real sort of communication throughout the series besides taunts? There are too many gaps and flaws with the Catalyst's argument for any reasonable person to accept as not suspect.

The problem they claim to prevent is synthetics destroying organic civilization. They achieve this by preserving life, it is stored in Reaper form. Don't believe it? Legion said it himself back in ME2, look it up on youtube. The reap'd species aren't killed, their minds live on inside the Reaper. "Each [Reaper] a nation." Also, they don't kill off all organics. Other species that haven't advanced are allowed to live, which further goes to show that they aren't just synthetics bent on wiping out organics.

Reapers do communicate too. But obviously, few people will take kindly to "submit to us and you will not be harmed." Some did (Saren) but most won't. That's where indoctrination comes in. However, the Catalyst isn't reasoning for Shepard to continue their work. If anything, he basically concedes defeat, on the premise that Shepard is standing there.

Why don't the Reapers just kill the synthetics then? 

If they are truly trying to prevent organic life from beig destroyed by synthetics, just destroy the synthetics. 

Oh no. Not this again. Please not this again.

Which part? 

Because I think that's a valid question.

Seriously, if the Reapers true goal was to preserve organics, why not just kill the synthetics instead? 

The reapers could have outposts on major worlds and when synthetics rise up to slay their creators the reapers could be signaled to show up and wipe out the mean, nasty machines. 

[SS2Dante]

balance5050 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

if it's a ploy, why is his "bait" (synthesis/control) not available to the player at all by default whilst Destroy always is


-Why would Harby want to indoctrinate someone who sucks at putting together armies?

For his own continued existence, obviously?

If he's indoctrinating him, why doesn't he talk him into outright surrender and let the Reapers win? There's another flaw that comes to mind.

Also, no hints at the Catalyst being a liar. 

-Except that the whole game contradicts him. He also says that your synthetics will fail if you choose destroy, Shep can't live without synthetics yet, he can survive after choosing destroy. Also, EDI can walk out of the Normandy if you choose destroy according to Pat Weekes unofficial interview. Several clear signs you are being lied to.

So the writers wrote a blatant inconsistency. Not really proof. Weekes also said that he thought EDI should be destroyed. The man now in-charge of writing the ending extended-cut, mind you.

He never said Shepard's synthetics would fail and/or that he or she would die, he just notes that Shepard has cybernetic implants of his own. Maybe they did fail and he lived anyway. Who knows, lack of explanation is why we're here now. At the end of the day, though, this is a headcanon explanation until proven otherwise.

Well, to you.... bioware never said it wasn't canon. So to me it's canon until proven otherwise. 

He doesn't need to indoctrinate Shepard if your EMS sucks so hard that the reapers could easily win. You "think" you're destroying the Reapers, but in I.T. you're just dying, and I don't see how shooting a tube activates the crucible anyway, seems more like symbolism.

You can belive the pretty colors and space magic  if you want, but just know that you're in the official I.T. thread, the second longest thread on the BSN, the most popular unified theory on the meaning of the ending

May want to bring up the dialogue changes that happen with the starkid that back up the low EMS explanation.

I would, but...lazy.

[ExtendedCut]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

only 2 *flaws? 


1. if shepard becomes a bigger threat is it not logical to try harder to make him lose?
2. edi can survive at the end of destroy. liar.

1.) I don't follow.
2.) LOL yeah, because the writers couldn't make up their own minds about that. Patrick Weekes said it himself, he argued she should have died. Why the blatant inconsistency took place is beyond me, but knowing that, it's hardly ground to call him a liar.

Sorry to butt in, but with your answer to number two - you and llbh are arguing to totally separate things - llbh is arguing that the Starkid is lying, and you are arguing that the writers screwed up.  One of you is explaining the logic based on game content, and the other is explaining it based on unfounded assumptions about the writers competency.  It's apples to oranges.

In other words, of course IT can be discredited if you simply assume the writers are a bunch of idiots.  No one is denying that.  If every point that supports IT is just blown-off as a game screw-up, then there is no point in debating anything.    IT supporters, however, would like to give an otherwise excellent company like Bioware the benefit of the doubt until we know something for sure.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

Tell me, how are the Catalyst and reapers not the very problem they claim to prevent? Why do they go straight to genocide? Why have they not attempted any real sort of communication throughout the series besides taunts? There are too many gaps and flaws with the Catalyst's argument for any reasonable person to accept as not suspect.

The problem they claim to prevent is synthetics destroying organic civilization. They achieve this by preserving life, it is stored in Reaper form. Don't believe it? Legion said it himself back in ME2, look it up on youtube. The reap'd species aren't killed, their minds live on inside the Reaper. "Each [Reaper] a nation." Also, they don't kill off all organics. Other species that haven't advanced are allowed to live, which further goes to show that they aren't just synthetics bent on wiping out organics.

Reapers do communicate too. But obviously, few people will take kindly to "submit to us and you will not be harmed." Some did (Saren) but most won't. That's where indoctrination comes in. However, the Catalyst isn't reasoning for Shepard to continue their work. If anything, he basically concedes defeat, on the premise that Shepard is standing there.

Why don't the Reapers just kill the synthetics then? 

If they are truly trying to prevent organic life from beig destroyed by synthetics, just destroy the synthetics. 

It's pretty unlikely that any civilization would take kindly to seeing machines that they created be destroyed at the hands of giant, unknown alien ships. Besides, if said civilization is just going to recreate those machines in a few months, the Reapers would probably never stop attacking. So, they attack it at the root of the problem they see. It also provides other life that hasn't advanced yet to do so (advance).

[SS2Dante]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

Tell me, how are the Catalyst and reapers not the very problem they claim to prevent? Why do they go straight to genocide? Why have they not attempted any real sort of communication throughout the series besides taunts? There are too many gaps and flaws with the Catalyst's argument for any reasonable person to accept as not suspect.

The problem they claim to prevent is synthetics destroying organic civilization. They achieve this by preserving life, it is stored in Reaper form. Don't believe it? Legion said it himself back in ME2, look it up on youtube. The reap'd species aren't killed, their minds live on inside the Reaper. "Each [Reaper] a nation." Also, they don't kill off all organics. Other species that haven't advanced are allowed to live, which further goes to show that they aren't just synthetics bent on wiping out organics.

Reapers do communicate too. But obviously, few people will take kindly to "submit to us and you will not be harmed." Some did (Saren) but most won't. That's where indoctrination comes in. However, the Catalyst isn't reasoning for Shepard to continue their work. If anything, he basically concedes defeat, on the premise that Shepard is standing there.

Why don't the Reapers just kill the synthetics then? 

If they are truly trying to prevent organic life from beig destroyed by synthetics, just destroy the synthetics. 

Oh no. Not this again. Please not this again.

Which part? 

Because I think that's a valid question.

Seriously, if the Reapers true goal was to preserve organics, why not just kill the synthetics instead? 

The reapers could have outposts on major worlds and when synthetics rise up to slay their creators the reapers could be signaled to show up and wipe out the mean, nasty machines. 

Because we've had this argument like 10 times and it always escalates and goes on for like 12 pages. I think the starchilds reasoning is perfectly sound BUT I will NOT go into it again

Anyway, either way I don't think his reasoning is a super solid argument one way or the other, so *shrug*

[byne]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...


Why don't the Reapers just kill the synthetics then? 

If they are truly trying to prevent organic life from beig destroyed by synthetics, just destroy the synthetics. 

Oh no. Not this again. Please not this again.

Which part? 

Because I think that's a valid question.

Seriously, if the Reapers true goal was to preserve organics, why not just kill the synthetics instead? 

The reapers could have outposts on major worlds and when synthetics rise up to slay their creators the reapers could be signaled to show up and wipe out the mean, nasty machines. 

Dante is secretly a Reaper sympathizer, and agrees with their methods. We had a whole long convo about it a while back. I think he just doesnt want to be forced to defend the indefensible again.

[His Name was HYR!!]

llbountyhunter wrote...

1.reapers dont comunicate they indoctrinate. saren was indoctrinated, and you sound indoctrinated as well.



4. edi suvrive destroy. also since shepard is partly sinthetic he would have to die as well. but he doesnt.

Indoctrinated? No, don't be silly. Reapers don't exist. I'm just objective-minded, I'm not looking into this with inherent Reaper bias. I think that's what seperates me from the fanbase at large. I'm open to other solutions. Others should try it too sometime.

llbountyhunter wrote...

also wouldnt it become easier to harvest species BEFORE they become spacefaring? why wait?

 

Not their goal. They want life to advance, before preserving them. They don't just create Reapers from bugs or varren.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 02 mai 2012 - 06:13 .

[Tirian Thorn]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

Tell me, how are the Catalyst and reapers not the very problem they claim to prevent? Why do they go straight to genocide? Why have they not attempted any real sort of communication throughout the series besides taunts? There are too many gaps and flaws with the Catalyst's argument for any reasonable person to accept as not suspect.

The problem they claim to prevent is synthetics destroying organic civilization. They achieve this by preserving life, it is stored in Reaper form. Don't believe it? Legion said it himself back in ME2, look it up on youtube. The reap'd species aren't killed, their minds live on inside the Reaper. "Each [Reaper] a nation." Also, they don't kill off all organics. Other species that haven't advanced are allowed to live, which further goes to show that they aren't just synthetics bent on wiping out organics.

Reapers do communicate too. But obviously, few people will take kindly to "submit to us and you will not be harmed." Some did (Saren) but most won't. That's where indoctrination comes in. However, the Catalyst isn't reasoning for Shepard to continue their work. If anything, he basically concedes defeat, on the premise that Shepard is standing there.

Why don't the Reapers just kill the synthetics then? 

If they are truly trying to prevent organic life from beig destroyed by synthetics, just destroy the synthetics. 

It's pretty unlikely that any civilization would take kindly to seeing machines that they created be destroyed at the hands of giant, unknown alien ships. Besides, if said civilization is just going to recreate those machines in a few months, the Reapers would probably never stop attacking. So, they attack it at the root of the problem they see. It also provides other life that hasn't advanced yet to do so (advance).

So if my son were to create something that tries to attack him I should just kill my son instead?  Based on "reaper logic." 

Yes, that is reducing the problem to a ridiculous scenario - but it doesn't change the point. 

My point is that the Star-Child is full of S***. 

[byne]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

It's pretty unlikely that any civilization would take kindly to seeing machines that they created be destroyed at the hands of giant, unknown alien ships. Besides, if said civilization is just going to recreate those machines in a few months, the Reapers would probably never stop attacking. So, they attack it at the root of the problem they see. It also provides other life that hasn't advanced yet to do so (advance).

I dont know about you, but if giant nearly indestructable starships showed up, killed all my robots, threatened to also kill me if I built anymore, and then left, I dont think I'd be making anymore robots.

[balance5050]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

1.reapers dont comunicate they indoctrinate. saren was indoctrinated, and you sound indoctrinated as well.



4. edi suvrive destroy. also since shepard is partly sinthetic he would have to die as well. but he doesnt.

Indoctrinated? No, don't be silly. Reapers don't exist. I'm just objective-minded, I'm not looking into this with inherent Reaper bias. I think that's what seperates me from the fanbase at large. I'm open to other solutions. Others should try it too sometime.

Reapers don't need to exist for you to be indoctrinated silly:D

Give us some of these "other" solutions, so we can rip them apart with logic.

[SS2Dante]

byne wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...


Why don't the Reapers just kill the synthetics then? 

If they are truly trying to prevent organic life from beig destroyed by synthetics, just destroy the synthetics. 

Oh no. Not this again. Please not this again.

Which part? 

Because I think that's a valid question.

Seriously, if the Reapers true goal was to preserve organics, why not just kill the synthetics instead? 

The reapers could have outposts on major worlds and when synthetics rise up to slay their creators the reapers could be signaled to show up and wipe out the mean, nasty machines. 

Dante is secretly a Reaper sympathizer, and agrees with their methods. We had a whole long convo about it a while back. I think he just doesnt want to be forced to defend the indefensible again.

I'm not sure at what point this became a joke

Do you really want to have the conversation again?

[SS2Dante]

byne wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

It's pretty unlikely that any civilization would take kindly to seeing machines that they created be destroyed at the hands of giant, unknown alien ships. Besides, if said civilization is just going to recreate those machines in a few months, the Reapers would probably never stop attacking. So, they attack it at the root of the problem they see. It also provides other life that hasn't advanced yet to do so (advance).

I dont know about you, but if giant nearly indestructable starships showed up, killed all my robots, threatened to also kill me if I built anymore, and then left, I dont think I'd be making anymore robots.

You would however consider the starships "hostile"

[balance5050]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

also wouldnt it become easier to harvest species BEFORE they become spacefaring? why wait?

 

Not their goal. They want life to advance, before preserving them. They don't just create Reapers from bugs or varren.

They still do create things from non-advanced races though, the advanced races just happen to be mosst common races because, well, theyre the most advanced. 

[Tirian Thorn]

byne wrote...

Dante is secretly a Reaper sympathizer, and agrees with their methods. We had a whole long convo about it a while back. I think he just doesnt want to be forced to defend the indefensible again.

I'm just sick Anti-IT'ers showing up, accusing us of being close-minded, especially when they don't even fully understand the theory. 

The pick one small piece of the theory, then say how that isn't likely and therefore IT isn't possible and we're all stupid for believing it. 

It's insulting and I'm sick of trying to have a discussion with any of them.  Wald & Sub being the worst of the bunch I've dealt with. 

So I'm taking a break and maybe they'll go away.  And if not, I'm going to ignore them and not waste another word on them. 

[SS2Dante]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

byne wrote...

Dante is secretly a Reaper sympathizer, and agrees with their methods. We had a whole long convo about it a while back. I think he just doesnt want to be forced to defend the indefensible again.

I'm just sick Anti-IT'ers showing up, accusing us of being close-minded, especially when they don't even fully understand the theory. 

The pick one small piece of the theory, then say how that isn't likely and therefore IT isn't possible and we're all stupid for believing it. 

It's insulting and I'm sick of trying to have a discussion with any of them.  Wald & Sub being the worst of the bunch I've dealt with. 

So I'm taking a break and maybe they'll go away.  And if not, I'm going to ignore them and not waste another word on them. 

Good lord I hope I've not been thrown into that crowd of Anti ITers

Yeah, 'greed bout the rest of the post.

[balance5050]

SS2Dante wrote...

I'm not sure at what point this became a joke

Do you really want to have the conversation again?

SS2Dante, the bottom line is "their" logic isn't "our logic". It makes sense for a fly to eat poop, doesn't mean we all should.

We're calling you a sympathiser becaus ewhat you're saying sounds like this:

"Yeah, I totally see where Hitlers coming from. Beleiving that there is but one super race makes sense!"

It's like seeing things from Skynets point of view, or the Coveneants point of view, or any enemies point of view.

OUR point of view is that we want to survive, that's all that should matter.

Modifié par balance5050, 02 mai 2012 - 06:21 .

[MaximizedAction]

Whether or whether not somebody is 'indoctrinated by Bioware/Reapers' is easy to find out:

What was their choice in their first playthrough?*

__________
* Somebody suggested this already a 100 pages ago, I think. But I still like it as an indicator proveded by Bioware.

[Kyzee]

 Well, looks like I popped in at the right time, doesn't it? <_<

Enough with the insults and mocking, people. As I've said time and time again, there's NO need to insult each other just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion. We're here to have a civil discussion about IDT, not call another person delusional, or an idiot, or anything else in that vein.

If you disagree with IDT, simply makes your points as to why. If you agree with IDT, do the same. If you find a flaw with either argument, it's entirely possible to do so without resorting to insults.

I've noted that there are a number of people doing just that, and thanks, guys. Really. I don't enjoy coming in here and yelling at everyone to calm down. If we could all just get on board with this, things would be much more enjoyable for everyone.

Please, treat each other with respect and civility. It's not a lot to ask.

Modifié par Kyzee, 02 mai 2012 - 06:34 .

[SS2Dante]

balance5050 wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

byne wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...


Why don't the Reapers just kill the synthetics then? 

If they are truly trying to prevent organic life from beig destroyed by synthetics, just destroy the synthetics. 

Oh no. Not this again. Please not this again.

Which part? 

Because I think that's a valid question.

Seriously, if the Reapers true goal was to preserve organics, why not just kill the synthetics instead? 

The reapers could have outposts on major worlds and when synthetics rise up to slay their creators the reapers could be signaled to show up and wipe out the mean, nasty machines. 

Dante is secretly a Reaper sympathizer, and agrees with their methods. We had a whole long convo about it a while back. I think he just doesnt want to be forced to defend the indefensible again.

I'm not sure at what point this became a joke

Do you really want to have the conversation again?

SS2Dante, the bottom line is "their" logic isn't "our logic". It makes sense for a fly to eat poop, doesn't mean we all should.

I...don't understand that comparison. You wouldn't claim the fly is stupid for wanting to eat poop. So...:S

Anyway, NO. Not having the conversation again

[MaximizedAction]

Kyzee wrote...

 Well, looks like I popped in at the right time, doesn't it? <_<

Enough with the insults and mocking, people. As I've said time and time again, there's NO to insult each other just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion. We're here to have a civil discussion about IDT, not call another person delusional, or an idiot, or anything else in that vein.

If you disagree with IDT, simply makes your points as to why. If you agree with IDT, do the same. If you find a flaw with either argument, it's entirely possible to do so without resorting to insults.

I've noted that there are a number of people doing just that, and thanks, guys. Really. I don't enjoy coming in here and yelling at everyone to calm down. If we could all just get on board with this, things would be much more enjoyable for everyone.

Please, treat each other with respect and civility. It's not a lot to ask.

QFT

[SS2Dante]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Whether or whether not somebody is 'indoctrinated by Bioware/Reapers' is easy to find out:

What was their choice in their first playthrough?*

__________
* Somebody suggested this already a 100 pages ago, I think. But I still like it as an indicator proveded by Bioware.

Synthesis. They totally got me.

[llbountyhunter]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

1.reapers dont comunicate they indoctrinate. saren was indoctrinated, and you sound indoctrinated as well.



4. edi suvrive destroy. also since shepard is partly sinthetic he would have to die as well. but he doesnt.

Indoctrinated? No, don't be silly. Reapers don't exist. I'm just objective-minded, I'm not looking into this with inherent Reaper bias. I think that's what seperates me from the fanbase at large. I'm open to other solutions. Others should try it too sometime.

llbountyhunter wrote...

also wouldnt it become easier to harvest species BEFORE they become spacefaring? why wait?

 

Not their goal. They want life to advance, before preserving them. They don't just create Reapers from bugs or varren.

its a theory that bioware was trying to see how indoctrination would work in real-life.

the fact that you truely believe what the star kid says to you, and dont belive the reapers mean us harm.... well it looks like it worked.

[MaximizedAction]

Thread dropped out of FTL for refueling.

[Tirian Thorn]

SS2Dante wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

byne wrote...

Dante is secretly a Reaper sympathizer, and agrees with their methods. We had a whole long convo about it a while back. I think he just doesnt want to be forced to defend the indefensible again.

I'm just sick Anti-IT'ers showing up, accusing us of being close-minded, especially when they don't even fully understand the theory. 

The pick one small piece of the theory, then say how that isn't likely and therefore IT isn't possible and we're all stupid for believing it. 

It's insulting and I'm sick of trying to have a discussion with any of them.  Wald & Sub being the worst of the bunch I've dealt with. 

So I'm taking a break and maybe they'll go away.  And if not, I'm going to ignore them and not waste another word on them. 

Good lord I hope I've not been thrown into that crowd of Anti ITers

Yeah, 'greed bout the rest of the post.

You're fine Dante.  I don't want to re-hash the same old arguements every day as well. 

But that's what happens.  Some new Anti-IT'er shows up with a "reason" why IT doesn't work, but it's the same stuff we've been hearing for weeks. 

I don't expect everyone to read 2,000 pages of posts.  But I think it's time to face the facts:

People believe in IT

People don't believe in IT. 

Deal with it.