350 réponses à ce sujet

[AtreiyaN7]

The Angry One wrote...

You want to like the ending? Go ahead and like it.
But don't even pretend you're not on a crusade with your "retake BSN!" sig and all your malarky.
You want to make us go away, but we're not going anywhere, and if you want to debate the merits of the ending then prepare to be refuted and have the fact that you deliberately misinterpret the ending to suit yourself exposed, and this happens EVERY TIME I debate one of you.

Yeah, right. *snort*

[Tony208]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Edje Edgar wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Cyph3rX wrote...
Pretty much, Garrus commented on the poor readiness of the Turians, Wrex was complaining about Reaper scouts and incursions into his system, The Geth pretty much ripped the majority of the Quarians a new one, the Asari got roflstomped by invading Reapers on Thessia, Hackett had to sacrifice whole fleets to cover his retreats and was down to fighting a losing guerilla war with few resources.

Btw, they were only going to Earth mainly because they were all going to eventually be overrun anyway and the Crucible was their last great hope, and pretty much their whole plan which was reiterated several times ad nauseum by Hackett.

I really doubt they had an exit plan if this one failed, epecially since they kept complaining about lack of resources throughout the game.

This is dependent on your effective military strength, resources mulitplied by galactic readiness rating.  If it's super high, then logically we can assume that these guys covered their bases.  They're not coming out perfect, but they're also not coming out doomed.

We are logically assuming they flew in supply ships during a battle? I don't think we have the same idea with logically assuming anything.

They can keep them nearby without putting them on the front lines XD

More speculation

[111987]

The Angry One wrote...

111987 wrote...

Edje Edgar wrote...

111987 wrote...

The Star Child's logic is framed in a way that is non-falsifiable, so by definition you cannot disprove it.

Apart from the fact where the geth and quarians are helping each other in my game? Or do you mean that his premise might still be true in the future? Because everything could be true in the future so then everything is non-falisifiable...

Exactly. I would assume he has some evidence supporting his claims (like observation, tests, etc...), but ultimately you can never disprove him. Plus, being billions of years old, he has a lot more experience/evidence than us to support his stance than we do to support ours, even if we are right.

That is idiotic reasoning. Using his moronic logic you can claim anything will inevitably happen given enough time.

You could, but you wouldn't have an AI intellect and billions of years of experience to support your claim, so...

BTW, I think you might want to consider dropping the arrogant attitude, the whole "I'm right and I will refute you because you are just wrong" attitude. It isn't exactly conducive to friendly discussion on a social forum like the BSN.

[Geneaux486]

Edje Edgar wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Edje Edgar wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Cyph3rX wrote...
Pretty much, Garrus commented on the poor readiness of the Turians, Wrex was complaining about Reaper scouts and incursions into his system, The Geth pretty much ripped the majority of the Quarians a new one, the Asari got roflstomped by invading Reapers on Thessia, Hackett had to sacrifice whole fleets to cover his retreats and was down to fighting a losing guerilla war with few resources.

Btw, they were only going to Earth mainly because they were all going to eventually be overrun anyway and the Crucible was their last great hope, and pretty much their whole plan which was reiterated several times ad nauseum by Hackett.

I really doubt they had an exit plan if this one failed, epecially since they kept complaining about lack of resources throughout the game.

This is dependent on your effective military strength, resources mulitplied by galactic readiness rating.  If it's super high, then logically we can assume that these guys covered their bases.  They're not coming out perfect, but they're also not coming out doomed.

We are logically assuming they flew in supply ships during a battle? I don't think we have the same idea with logically assuming anything.

They can keep them nearby without putting them on the front lines XD

If I were to plan an attack of this scale I would have my supplies ready near the nearest unthreatened relay. Ready to warp in when the attack has been succesfull. You wouldn't want your supply ships anywhere near that battle, what if you are forced to retreat? You run the risk of your supply ships being either cut off or in the way.

Did you see the galaxy map at the end?  The Reapers controlled every system.  Doesn't matter where supplies are, it'd be smarter to keep them close anyway.

[Tony208]

The people who see hope in the ending are the same people who see an empty glass as full.

[HenchxNarf]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

You want to like the ending? Go ahead and like it.
But don't even pretend you're not on a crusade with your "retake BSN!" sig and all your malarky.
You want to make us go away, but we're not going anywhere, and if you want to debate the merits of the ending then prepare to be refuted and have the fact that you deliberately misinterpret the ending to suit yourself exposed, and this happens EVERY TIME I debate one of you.

Yeah, right. *snort*

so says the persone with "RetakeME3" on their sig.

So we want our boards back? So what.

[The Angry One]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

There are those of us who can see hope in the ME3 endings, or at least the Synthesis ending in my case. C'est la vie - I don't particularly are if you believe they represent doom and despair and. You want to experience real despair/bleakness? Try reading I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream, and then get back to me after you do. Great story by Harlan Ellison, yet it has one of the darkest endings I've ever read. ME3's ending is positively giddy in comparison to it - especially since people clearly survive in the post-ME3 future.

A handful of people survive. On one planet. Likely the same Joker landed on.
So a handful of inbred descendants of the Normandy crew are all that's left to show for our efforts.

Also it's funny you mention I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream, considering the game version of that book had more ending variations than ME3, including less bleak outcomes. Even though it's a story about people who want to die because they're kept alive by a machine that wants to torture them forever. Irony?

[Geneaux486]

Tony208 wrote...

The people who see hope in the ending are the same people who see an empty glass as full.

That's speculation.

[The Angry One]

HenchxNarf wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

You want to like the ending? Go ahead and like it.
But don't even pretend you're not on a crusade with your "retake BSN!" sig and all your malarky.
You want to make us go away, but we're not going anywhere, and if you want to debate the merits of the ending then prepare to be refuted and have the fact that you deliberately misinterpret the ending to suit yourself exposed, and this happens EVERY TIME I debate one of you.

Yeah, right. *snort*

so says the persone with "RetakeME3" on their sig.

So we want our boards back? So what.

Nobody's taken your boards. They took our trilogy. Try again.

[Cody211282]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Cody211282 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

They bring emergency supplies, rations, and get fuel from nearby planets, the same way you do on the Galaxy Map.  Did you think the Mass relays magically generated fuel for those depots?  The only way your logic works is if the races of the galaxy just say "Whelp, we're done" and sit around and die.

Yeah I forgot there's lots of food to be had on Mars, Venus and Mercury.
Where are you going to get fuel? The depots and infrastructure in Sol have been destroyed?
You can search the local cluster, but that's going to cost you fuel, and if the infrasctructure in the other systems has been destroyed too (and Reapers LOVE to destroy infrastructure) then you're S.O.L. aren't you?

Reaper tactics 101 is that they love to blow the hell out of fuel stations and anything else that they dont need.

Plus the amount of fuel needed for a fleet as big as the one you brought to save earth just doesn't exsist in the sol system, and if it ever had you can bet the reapers had a hayday bowing it to chunks.

Right because as we all know there's a fine line between having just enough resources to work out a semi-long term survival plan and having everything you need to get galactic civilization back up and running instantly.

I'm talking just fuel, just to get some ships back home, and they dont even have that, no ship even needed a tank that big because of the relay network. No relays mean no way to get home.

[HenchxNarf]

111987 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

111987 wrote...

Edje Edgar wrote...

111987 wrote...

The Star Child's logic is framed in a way that is non-falsifiable, so by definition you cannot disprove it.

Apart from the fact where the geth and quarians are helping each other in my game? Or do you mean that his premise might still be true in the future? Because everything could be true in the future so then everything is non-falisifiable...

Exactly. I would assume he has some evidence supporting his claims (like observation, tests, etc...), but ultimately you can never disprove him. Plus, being billions of years old, he has a lot more experience/evidence than us to support his stance than we do to support ours, even if we are right.

That is idiotic reasoning. Using his moronic logic you can claim anything will inevitably happen given enough time.

You could, but you wouldn't have an AI intellect and billions of years of experience to support your claim, so...

BTW, I think you might want to consider dropping the arrogant attitude, the whole "I'm right and I will refute you because you are just wrong" attitude. It isn't exactly conducive to friendly discussion on a social forum like the BSN.

But yet she rags on me and then calls your logic "moronic" and your reasoning "idiotic".

[Edje Edgar]

111987 wrote...

Edje Edgar wrote...

111987 wrote...

The Star Child's logic is framed in a way that is non-falsifiable, so by definition you cannot disprove it.

Apart from the fact where the geth and quarians are helping each other in my game? Or do you mean that his premise might still be true in the future? Because everything could be true in the future so then everything is non-falisifiable...

Exactly. I would assume he has some evidence supporting his claims (like observation, tests, etc...), but ultimately you can never disprove him. Plus, being billions of years old, he has a lot more experience/evidence than us to support his stance than we do to support ours, even if we are right.

The fact that there still is organic life meant it has either never been annihilated or organic life got annihilated and then returned. In which case his entire cycle would be a natural occurance and wouldn't need his intervention, in either way observation is out of the question. The assumption of running tests to determine a people's 'future motivation' is just delving into a whole new level of ethic wrongness.

Secondly, saying someone is right because he is older or holds any other position of authority is a classic fallacy.

Thirdly, using your logic an opposing theory that synthetic and organic life will inevitably find peace and common ground is EQUALLY unfalsifiable.

Modifié par Edje Edgar, 21 mars 2012 - 09:06 .

[The Angry One]

111987 wrote...

You could, but you wouldn't have an AI intellect and billions of years of experience to support your claim, so...

"I'm old, therefore I'm right" is not an argument. The Catalyst presents no evidence. None.

BTW, I think you might want to consider dropping the arrogant attitude, the whole "I'm right and I will refute you because you are just wrong" attitude. It isn't exactly conducive to friendly discussion on a social forum like the BSN.

I am objectively right. These endings are a disaster, and if you continue to support them you will get more of the same until BioWare folds.
I do not want to see BioWare fold, it would be a sad day. If that comes across as arrogant, then tough.

[garf]

HenchxNarf wrote...

EionaCousland wrote...

Because everyone has different opinions/ personal preferences. I wasn't happy with the endings, but I find it kind of freaky how people who were are getting flamed all over this place.

No one can have a positive opinion. No one. And it's been proven twice now in like five minutes.

That's a little extreme. as challenging and uncivil as the people who think we are too dumb on unversed in science fiction to get the high concepts. I don't like the endings yes. I can't imagine myself liking the endings yes. but hey I don't like coconut or haggis either. Other people do.


There are interesting concepts tested in the endings. unfortunatey the ending is not the best place to test a sharp right turn in your philosphical narrative. Also, I'm rather suspicous of the emperor's new clothes which are based on the idea that if you don't understand it, it must be deep.

[The Angry One]

HenchxNarf wrote...

But yet she rags on me and then calls your logic "moronic" and your reasoning "idiotic".

..... I called the Catalyst's logic moronic and it's reasoning idiotic.
Pay attention.

[FemmeShep]

I just wanted to apologize for what I said earlier. While I do strongly have an opinion about those that liked the ending (and this thread is about that), I got carried away. People have opinions and feelings, and even if I disagree with that, I should always respect them.

Modifié par FemmeShep, 21 mars 2012 - 09:07 .

[Edje Edgar]

garf wrote...

Also, I'm rather suspicous of the emperor's new clothes which are based on the idea that if you don't understand it, it must be deep.

Rofl, great analogy. I might have to quote you some day.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

Edje Edgar wrote...


Actually I think there's a lot of people who hate the endings because of its philosophy, in fact I mainly hate it because of it's 'message'. The message isn't one of hope at all, but of despair. All conflict is bound up in our genetical make up and therefor unavoidable.

I personally agree with you. The philosophy of the ending, as I see it, is a dialectical argument that amounts to some kind of racist Marxism. It is like a dissertation on some kind of racial conflict theory written by a member of the Hitler youth. When you have in mind that the real main themes of Mass Effect are free will and the cooperation of diverse peoples, it really makes you scratch your head.

It really isn't hard to understand. As a logical argument it looks pretty bad too:

All organics will create synthetics

All synthetics will kill all organics

Therefore, only organics must exist

OR

Organics must totally dominate synthetics

OR

Neither must exist separately

Not only do its conclusions violate its own premises, but it begs the question of why synthetics weren't *controlled* in the first place, or why the Aryan/Silicon Master Race wasn't created, instead of the obviously less efficient and doomed Reaper strategy.

[garf]

ohmic12 wrote...

They are either trolls looking to fire people up or they only started playing the ME series at ME3 so have no idea of the story line of ME1 & 2 so miss out on the emotional connection that other people have for the series

I disagree. Just becuase they disagree with you and I doesn't mean they are lacking as fans nor or they just trying to provoke. Some MAY be. others not so much. people do not come from cookie cutterss we all have the right to have our own interpretations and preferences. If we want to be respected as something other than entitled crybabies we need to give respect to those who sincerely like the ending.

[Edje Edgar]

FemmeShep wrote...

I just wanted to apologize for what I said earlier. While I do strongly have an opinion about those that liked the ending (and this thread is about that), I got carried away. People have opinions and feelings, and even if I disagree with that, I should always respect them.

You should respect their right to voice their opinion. There's no law that says you actually have to respect what they say

[The Angry One]

I respect people's opinions, but will not hesitate to tell someone when they're wrong.
Or in Hench's case when they try to spread outright lies to silence anyone who disagrees with them.

[Cyph3rX]

111987 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

111987 wrote...

Edje Edgar wrote...

111987 wrote...

The Star Child's logic is framed in a way that is non-falsifiable, so by definition you cannot disprove it.

Apart from the fact where the geth and quarians are helping each other in my game? Or do you mean that his premise might still be true in the future? Because everything could be true in the future so then everything is non-falisifiable...

Exactly. I would assume he has some evidence supporting his claims (like observation, tests, etc...), but ultimately you can never disprove him. Plus, being billions of years old, he has a lot more experience/evidence than us to support his stance than we do to support ours, even if we are right.

That is idiotic reasoning. Using his moronic logic you can claim anything will inevitably happen given enough time.

You could, but you wouldn't have an AI intellect and billions of years of experience to support your claim, so...

BTW, I think you might want to consider dropping the arrogant attitude, the whole "I'm right and I will refute you because you are just wrong" attitude. It isn't exactly conducive to friendly discussion on a social forum like the BSN.

He basically goes with a self-fulfiling prophecy, which is a fallacy. Don't forget the circular logic of destroy organics to save them from synthetics by using synthetics created from organics to destroy and harvest organics to create more synthetics to wipe them out all again 50k years later. Why not just have Reapers reape the synthetics the organics create in the first place, tip their hats, and go back to dark space?

Modifié par Cyph3rX, 21 mars 2012 - 09:11 .

[111987]

Edje Edgar wrote...

The fact that there still is organic life meant it has either never been annihilated or organic life got annihilated and then returned. In which case his entire cycle would be a natural occurance and wouldn't need his intervention, in either way observation is out of the question. The assumption of running tests to determine a people's 'future motivation' is just delving into a whole new level of ethic wrongness.

You don't have to let something happen to know the outcome.

Edje Edgar wrote...

Secondly, saying someone is right because he is older or holds any other position of authority is a classic fallacy.

Agreed. That's not what I'm saying though.

Edje Edgar wrote...
Thirdly, using your logic an opposing theory that synthetic and organic life will inevitably find peace and common ground is EQUALLY unfalsifiable.

It's not MY logic, it's the Catalyst's logic. And the Catalyst (alledgedly) has evidence to back up his theory. The problem with the conversation, in my opinion, is that it isn't really a discussion. He just tells you things, and then you make a choice. You can reject his logic and choose destroy or control, but you never get to discuss it with him and thus lose the perspective that might help us better understand his POV.

[Chk-2000]

Cody211282 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Cody211282 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

They bring emergency supplies, rations, and get fuel from nearby planets, the same way you do on the Galaxy Map.  Did you think the Mass relays magically generated fuel for those depots?  The only way your logic works is if the races of the galaxy just say "Whelp, we're done" and sit around and die.

Yeah I forgot there's lots of food to be had on Mars, Venus and Mercury.
Where are you going to get fuel? The depots and infrastructure in Sol have been destroyed?
You can search the local cluster, but that's going to cost you fuel, and if the infrasctructure in the other systems has been destroyed too (and Reapers LOVE to destroy infrastructure) then you're S.O.L. aren't you?

Reaper tactics 101 is that they love to blow the hell out of fuel stations and anything else that they dont need.

Plus the amount of fuel needed for a fleet as big as the one you brought to save earth just doesn't exsist in the sol system, and if it ever had you can bet the reapers had a hayday bowing it to chunks.

Right because as we all know there's a fine line between having just enough resources to work out a semi-long term survival plan and having everything you need to get galactic civilization back up and running instantly.

I'm talking just fuel, just to get some ships back home, and they dont even have that, no ship even needed a tank that big because of the relay network. No relays mean no way to get home.

I don't think anyone could have prepared enough to be able to reach their home worlds "on foot". The intergalactic distances are in the truest sense of the word astronomical. Just look at the facts. Our Milky Way is about 120 000 light years across. Now we see, that the Quarian home world is almost at the opposite side of the galaxy than the SOL system (let's say about 100 000 ly away - and that's not counting the fact, that you cannot travel through the galaxy core).

Now even if they could reach FTL speeds 100 times faster then light (which would be incredibly fast) they would have to travel 1000 years (much more if they have to go round the core) to get back to Rannoch - without stopping to refuel, make repairs or gathering food. I don't think ANY amount of fuel and food they could have brought with them to earth would last that long. Apart from the fact, that they won't live that long to survive the journey. Let's face it. Without the relays, there is no going home for most races stuck in the SOL system.

[HenchxNarf]

The Angry One wrote...

I respect people's opinions, but will not hesitate to tell someone when they're wrong.
Or in Hench's case when they try to spread outright lies to silence anyone who disagrees with them.

At least I'm not a hypocrit. But, that's neither here nor there.

I haven't tried to silence anyone, actually.