111987 wrote...
You don't have to let something happen to know the outcome.
HenchxNarf wrote...
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.
Chk-2000 wrote...
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.
Edje Edgar wrote...
111987 wrote...
You don't have to let something happen to know the outcome.
Yes you do. You can NEVER say with 100% certainty that something WILL happen. Only that something HAS happened.
No matter how often you drop a stone, you never know what happens the next time you drop it.
Modifié par The Angry One, 21 mars 2012 - 09:18 .
111987 wrote...
Edje Edgar wrote...
111987 wrote...
You don't have to let something happen to know the outcome.
Yes you do. You can NEVER say with 100% certainty that something WILL happen. Only that something HAS happened.
No matter how often you drop a stone, you never know what happens the next time you drop it.
That is definitely a valid point of view.
The Reaper's point of view is that by preventing the circumstances that would lead to apocalypse, apocalypse will never happen. Now while you wouldn't know if the apocalypse is inevitable until it happens, the Reapers argue it's better to just not wait to find out.
Modifié par Edje Edgar, 21 mars 2012 - 09:19 .
111987 wrote...
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.
Cody211282 wrote...
Chk-2000 wrote...
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.
Holy crap someone backed me up with some science! Thanks.
People who think FTL is some sort of magic space travel have watched Star Wars a few to many times(not that there is anything wrong with that, there just isn't any science to back anything in it up.)
The Angry One wrote...
Well, with Star Wars it's instant or something isn't it? That's fine for it's universe with it's rules.
This universe has different rules, and ship FTL travel happens to be, relatively speaking, very slow and ponderous. It's just how it is. That's how the rules of the universe were set up.
Now the writers smash up the relays with little regard for the consequences, and that's the major issue.
Edje Edgar wrote...
111987 wrote...
Edje Edgar wrote...
111987 wrote...
You don't have to let something happen to know the outcome.
Yes you do. You can NEVER say with 100% certainty that something WILL happen. Only that something HAS happened.
No matter how often you drop a stone, you never know what happens the next time you drop it.
That is definitely a valid point of view.
The Reaper's point of view is that by preventing the circumstances that would lead to apocalypse, apocalypse will never happen. Now while you wouldn't know if the apocalypse is inevitable until it happens, the Reapers argue it's better to just not wait to find out.
By that very same logic I posted earlier, there is no way of telling if your current actions will avoid apocalypse. Besides it's basicly like saying, if you drink atleast one glass of fluid once a month you will never turn into a frog. Has any human ever turned into a frog? No? Because they drink a glas of fluid atleast once a month.
GodChildInTheMachine wrote...
111987 wrote...
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.
See, that is exactly one of the major complaints that many of us have with the endings. We have more in common than we thought? As it turns out they cut out that precious extra dialogue in order to keep things more "mysterious".
The Catalyst's logic, as it stands, is refutable. And the supposition that he must have something to back it up which he isn't letting on (I do appreciate that you said allegedly) is a common fallacy known as an appeal to authority.
111987 wrote...
Edje Edgar wrote...
111987 wrote...
Edje Edgar wrote...
111987 wrote...
You don't have to let something happen to know the outcome.
Yes you do. You can NEVER say with 100% certainty that something WILL happen. Only that something HAS happened.
No matter how often you drop a stone, you never know what happens the next time you drop it.
That is definitely a valid point of view.
The Reaper's point of view is that by preventing the circumstances that would lead to apocalypse, apocalypse will never happen. Now while you wouldn't know if the apocalypse is inevitable until it happens, the Reapers argue it's better to just not wait to find out.
By that very same logic I posted earlier, there is no way of telling if your current actions will avoid apocalypse. Besides it's basicly like saying, if you drink atleast one glass of fluid once a month you will never turn into a frog. Has any human ever turned into a frog? No? Because they drink a glas of fluid atleast once a month.
I disagree. If you wipe out advanced organic civilizations, there is no way synthetics or AI's will come into existence on their own.
111987 wrote...
I disagree. If you wipe out advanced organic civilizations, there is no way synthetics or AI's will come into existence on their own.
111987 wrote...
I disagree. If you wipe out advanced organic civilizations, there is no way synthetics or AI's will come into existence on their own.
111987 wrote...
The ending is definitely not perfect, and you'll never see me saying that it is. I think there were many flaws. A lot of them could have been avoided however if we just just been able to converse with the Catalyst more. Convincing him that he's wrong would be stupid in my opinion, just cause I doubt a billion year old AI would question its entire existence because of one conversation with one organic, but still. More info could have helped a lot.
Edje Edgar wrote...
111987 wrote...
I disagree. If you wipe out advanced organic civilizations, there is no way synthetics or AI's will come into existence on their own.
As far as you know, did organic life not come into existance on it's own aswell? We cannot look into the future, that's why we do what we can while we hope for the best.
That's also why, morally speaking, mankind no longer accepts the idea of sacrificing people so one of infinite possibilites MIGHT be averted. It's considered deeply immoral, and by accepting starchilds premise Shephard has also become deeply immoral. And that's why I hate the ending.
GodChildInTheMachine wrote...
111987 wrote...
I disagree. If you wipe out advanced organic civilizations, there is no way synthetics or AI's will come into existence on their own.
I doubt you would want to apply that argument to the cause of obliterating another country with nuclear weapons to prevent it from being attacked by its neighbor?
111987 wrote...
The ending is definitely not perfect, and you'll never see me saying that it is. I think there were many flaws. A lot of them could have been avoided however if we just just been able to converse with the Catalyst more. Convincing him that he's wrong would be stupid in my opinion, just cause I doubt a billion year old AI would question its entire existence because of one conversation with one organic, but still. More info could have helped a lot.
Do you understand what the word synthetic means? It means artificially created. For example, the autobots aren't synthetic since they evolved on their own. The cylons are synthetic, since they were created by man.Edje Edgar wrote...
111987 wrote...
I disagree. If you wipe out advanced organic civilizations, there is no way synthetics or AI's will come into existence on their own.
As far as you know, did organic life not come into existance on it's own aswell? We cannot look into the future, that's why we do what we can while we hope for the best.
That's also why, morally speaking, mankind no longer accepts the idea of sacrificing people so one of infinite possibilites MIGHT be averted. It's considered deeply immoral, and by accepting starchilds premise Shephard has also become deeply immoral. And that's why I hate the ending.
Creid-X wrote...
I don't think the ending is bad, it is badly executed and underdeveloped.
It revolves around the order-versus-chaos dichotomy represented by organics and synthetics. Those themes were underlying since the first Mass Effect (We impose order in the chaos or organic evolution) and were further explored in Javik's conversations (ironic that the meta-plot is examined ina piece of DLC) but they were pretty much left untouched in ME2 in favor of character development and Shepard's interpersonal story.
We're pretty much looking into a Lost situation here, only that instead of making no sense whatsoever the mojo of the series was stuffed inside of the last 10 minutes in a less than stellar way and as such it felt out of place.
So, in definitive I don't like the eding but not because the concept itself, but because of it's poor execution. Also, I wanted to know why people are saying the ending does not offer hope. Why exactly?
Ingu wrote...
I realise the title may sound like flame bait, but I'm genuinely curious as to why people seem to seriously like it. How do they ignore the gaping plot holes re. the Mass Effect relays and the Normandy's, that is, Joker and your whole team's out of character retreat?
Retour en haut