139 réponses à ce sujet

[RiouHotaru]

EHondaMashButton wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Because the Starchild isn't active. It's made pretty clear that while he "controls" the Reapers, it isn't an active control. It's just a programmed directive. People keep attributing human logical processes to AIs when we all know that's not the case.

That's like asking why the Reapers didn't just wait for Shepard to die of natural causes before invading. It's because they're not programmed to think that way. The catalyst isn't a human being, it's an AI.

But the reapers aren't fully machines and arent AIs at all. They're organic minds uploaded into machine bodies.  Legion tells us this in ME2.

Yes, but every single conversation with a Reaper ends in the same thing.  The Reapers cannot concieve of losing or of anything resembling negotiation or compromise.  So even if they aren't "true" AI, they still have some level of programming.

[VerdantSF]

Abirn wrote...

Robhuzz wrote...

Yeah. BioWare only thought about that AFTER they wrote the ending and figured it was good enough.

It's called a plot hole. One in which 3 sentences of dialogue (20 seconds perhaps) make a 40 hour game obsolete.

Because ME1 didn't have shoddy writing or space magic. 

This as well

It doesn't just make the 40 hour game obsolete, it makes all 3 40 hour games in the trilogy obsolete.

Sadly, ^this^.

[DangerousPuddy]

Abirn wrote...

Robhuzz wrote...

Yeah. BioWare only thought about that AFTER they wrote the ending and figured it was good enough.

It's called a plot hole. One in which 3 sentences of dialogue (20 seconds perhaps) make a 40 hour game obsolete.

Because ME1 didn't have shoddy writing or space magic. 

This as well

It doesn't just make the 40 hour game obsolete, it makes all 3 40 hour games in the trilogy obsolete.

It's amazing isn't it. Anythign they call it - bittersweet fun, despite all of that it could have been implemented so much better. The fact that the ending is 5 minutes long, regardless of what ending it is just shows that they got lazy, rushed, budgeting or uncreative. In any case it is unacceptable.

[SalsaDMA]

It was because there was a Biotic God in the neighborhood. He didn't want to cause undue alarms with other godhoods just yet.

(Yes, I know the timeframe doesn't match, but who cares? The plotwriters certainly don't anyway.)

[Mr-Snrub]

RiouHotaru wrote...

EHondaMashButton wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Because the Starchild isn't active. It's made pretty clear that while he "controls" the Reapers, it isn't an active control. It's just a programmed directive. People keep attributing human logical processes to AIs when we all know that's not the case.

That's like asking why the Reapers didn't just wait for Shepard to die of natural causes before invading. It's because they're not programmed to think that way. The catalyst isn't a human being, it's an AI.

But the reapers aren't fully machines and arent AIs at all. They're organic minds uploaded into machine bodies.  Legion tells us this in ME2.

Exactly.

I could understand this in the first game from Sovereign. I could understand this in the second game with Harbinger (although a little more insight into the harvesting would have been nice)

But in the end, I think with ME3 they honestly didn't know what to put as the Reaper "purpose" (hence the shoddy ending) and thus continuted that trend.
Yes, but every single conversation with a Reaper ends in the same thing.  The Reapers cannot concieve of losing or of anything resembling negotiation or compromise.  So even if they aren't "true" AI, they still have some level of programming.

[DangerousPuddy]

SalsaDMA wrote...

It was because there was a Biotic God in the neighborhood. He didn't want to cause undue alarms with other godhoods just yet.

(Yes, I know the timeframe doesn't match, but who cares? The plotwriters certainly don't anyway.)

Although this is quite hilarious it is a little unfair.

I understand Bioware's point of view for much of the things they did wrong, but the point is that despite that it doesn't excuse them from letting it slide. At least some companies will delay a release to better their product. In the case for ME3 it was delayed for outside of single player...

[Kanner]

There's a strong rumour going around that none of the writing team had even played ME1.

[DangerousPuddy]

Kanner wrote...

There's a strong rumour going around that none of the writing team had even played ME1.

It kind of blows your mind that any company that puts so much effort into art design, inter-corporation communication, sound design, writing etc. could let something like this slide...its really hard to believe. They had to have goofed up somewhere and bad.

It's like letting Osama bin Laden through an American Airport check post-9/11.

Have they really gotten that bad?

[tetrisblock4x1]

BSN is so dumb.

[Fedi.St]

The Razman wrote...

Fedi.St wrote...

As I understand you are saying that although the citadel is part of the kid (actually said in the game) you propose that he cannot control it as we can;t control it our heart. (assumption)

So I'm asking you:
1)what are the actual evidence in the game which you are basing the assumption?

2)How the hell he can't control the citadel while he creates an elevator to take shep in the beam level?

3)Why no instead accept the IT theory which fits all the plothole into an assumption/explanation based in the facts given throughout the game?

I'm completely neutral to the IT. But if we are gonna accept something it better have some notion some structure which is already given from the ME1. Anyway  the questions are there for you to answer them.

1) Isn't the burden of proof on the other side, in that one? You're asking me to provide evidence for him not having the ability to do something. My answer is ... he's never displayed the ability to do such before, at any point. It would be like someone asking "Give me your evidence that the Krogan cannot fly" ... I have no evidence as such as thing is never explicitly said, other than past precedent: the Krogan have never flown before?

2) Somewhere (having trouble finding exactly where right now) in this document I outline this point a bit more in-depth ... but in short, I'd make the argument that the meeting with the Catalyst is mostly symbolic. I'd argue that it may not have even happened in reality. Other than that, there's no reason to assume that a single platform being controlled by the Starchild means the Starchild is in direct control of the Citadel, is there? That's a wide assumption.

3) The Indoctrination Theory makes assumptions based on logically inconsistent ideas. There's never been any report at any stage that Indoctrination can produce full on hallucination, despite us having loads of information on the process by the time Mass Effect 3 comes around and loads of first-hand studies done on indoctrinated individuals. There's also just no explanation of motive in Indoctrination Theory; if Harbinger has hit Sheperd with a beam and stopped him in his tracks, what would be the purpose of inducing an extremely complex and long hallucination where he fights the Illusive Man and has to make a choice about what to do with the galaxy's fate? They've won already. There's no motive for it.

It also results in the entire galaxy being destroyed no matter what you do, seeing as how Sheperd never reaches the beam due to being hit by Harbinger. He never reaches the Citadel, never sets of the Crucible, and without that there's no hope of beating the Reapers. Ending = we're all dead, no matter what. I just don't think that's a very plausible assumption to think they'd write in, after three games of trying to stop the Reapers.

My head is exploded. I would answer you but  our discussion is completely shot to pieces. You should be a politician you know. They do exactly this. Turning black into white and distorting everything.

You should read again the IT . Its not anywhere near on what you are saying. It's not a hallucination. 

My friend you are trying to justify the completely meaningless endings and you are fighting a lost cause. Arguments like the ones you are pushing make the IT the only common sense forward. Imagine that.

[RocketManSR2]

I lol'd @ this:

http://t3.gstatic.co...wyFXS1hHaGlP0lg

[BentOrgy]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

BSN is so dumb.

Then save yourself and stop posting.

[Applepie_Svk]

Mr-Snrub wrote...

Just sayin'.

I was saying that whole week, this is one of the greatest plothole which cause presence of this godchild and why ?
Protheans sabotage of Keepers was poitnless
Conduit was pointless
Saren and Geths gathered to help Sovergein - pointless
Keepers pointless (as a gate openers)
LOL in fact the whole ME1 was pointless

And once again reasons :
If the Reapers are the creators of the Citadel, Relays and Catalyst is owner of his solution that means THE Reapers, than Catalyst is one who is in charge and not some Sovergein or Harbringer ...
Catalyst is a part of Citadel or living being of the Citadel, that means he should has a power over technology which is created by Reapers in fact by him, if he has not power over Citadel than he is pointless as a Reapers themself. (LoL it remind me a recyclacion ring)

This is not a plothole, this is a black-plothole consuming whole universe since ME1...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 27 mars 2012 - 09:22 .

[Ghost-621]

Kanner wrote...

There's a strong rumour going around that none of the writing team had even played ME1.

Judging from Mass Effect 3's story, I just may believe that.

[BentOrgy]

Ghost-621 wrote...

Kanner wrote...

There's a strong rumour going around that none of the writing team had even played ME1.

Judging from Mass Effect 3's story, I just may believe that.

Well, considering Mac Walters, Patrick Weekes, and a few others were core writers in ME1, ME2, and ME3, I'd be inclined to say "Lies, they just didn't care anymore."

Can't decide which is worse.