233 réponses à ce sujet

[Paragon Fury]

So while I was thinking about the ME3 ending last night, I was wondering why the **** you can't debate the Starchild at all; and thats when I realized its because any debate with the Starchild with end with you winning; unless the Starchild was able to produce evidence that what he is describing actually occurred outside of his own Reaper interference, he has no logical ground to stand on.

Even if he did produce such evidence, it will merely lead to logical deadlock - both of you can claim logically sound and valid points, which in actually means the Starchild is still wrong because a non-zero possibilty of his being wrong still exists.

"What the hell are you talking about?!" is what you're probably asking right now. Well, get ready to math.

In reduced logical terms, this is what the Starchild states:

If organics Create synthetics, then synthetics will always Destroy organics.

In logic form, this would look like C>D. What he is implying through his arguement is C>D, C*D (synthetics created and destroyed organics), so C>D.  So it would be:

C>D / C*D // C>D

The truth table (remember these from high school?) would be:

C>D / C*D // C>D
T T T  T F T   T T T
T F F  T F F   T F F
F T T  F T T   F T T
F T F  F F F   F T F

Conclusion: Valid argument.

However, it hinges completely on the idea the D (synthetics destroy organics) is true - something for which there is no evidence of, anywhere, making it an untrue argument. He is in essence making two conclusions in one statement. Since there is only evidence against D, Shepard could make the counter argument:

C>D / C*~D // C>~D
T T T  T F F T  T F F T
T F F  T T T F  T T T F
F T T  F F F T  F T F T
F T F  F F T F  F T T F

In english, "If organics create synthetics, then synthetics will always destroy organics / Synthetics created but did not destroy organics // Therefore if organics create synthetics, synthetics will not always destroy organics."

Conclusion: Valid, true argument.


Shepard could also make the opposite argument of Starchild, C>~D / C*~D // C>~D, which is still logically valid (and true).

In essence, you're not allowed to debate Starchild because Starchild is patently wrong (at the very best) or in a deadlock with with Shepard (at the very worst),  meaning if you debate him you destroy the whole ending right there.


TL;DR - Poorly thought out ending is poorly thought out, and Starchild can go pucker himself with some good old fashioned logic.

[The Angry One]

If you have even a rudimentary understanding of logic you could argue the Catalyst down.
But I guess Mr. Walters didn't want his new super-character to be hindered by inconvenient things like facts and evidence.

[xsdob]

Well that doesn't matter because the crucible forces the catalyst to let you change the cycle. The crucible gives shepard the options, and the catalyst has to explain them, like forcing the ctrl+alt+delete button on him and making him listen to you.

[The Angry One]

xsdob wrote...

Well that doesn't matter because the crucible forces the catalyst to let you change the cycle. The crucible gives shepard the options, and the catalyst has to explain them, like forcing the ctrl+alt+delete button on him and making him listen to you.

Except he doesn't listen. He states his agenda and the options he has determined for Shepard, and Shepard just smiles and nods.

[Kawamura]

I will... be right back when I've reviewed logic tables.

[TheCinC]

I don't even believe the Star Child exists, so there is no need to argue with it. If it does exist, then it is an AI that has gone crazy over the Milennia or which already was crazy. In which case, it needs to be put out of its misery and the Reapers with it, again no need to argue with it.

Modifié par TheCinC, 08 avril 2012 - 08:53 .

[firebreather19]

Yeah? I'm the catalyst. Talk me down.

[xsdob]

The Angry One wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Well that doesn't matter because the crucible forces the catalyst to let you change the cycle. The crucible gives shepard the options, and the catalyst has to explain them, like forcing the ctrl+alt+delete button on him and making him listen to you.

Except he doesn't listen. He states his agenda and the options he has determined for Shepard, and Shepard just smiles and nods.

How does he decide what choices the crucible has to offer? He didn't make it nor did he have a hand in it. Shepard's actions allow for the outcomes and choices presented, which is why it hinges on EMS in the first place.

If anything, the catalyst is reduced to the great expositor, having no sway or impact on what the crucible or shepard does, but having to explain it to him.

So pretty much, the catalyst loses it's power as soon as the crucible is docked, all it needed now was someone with a physical body to activate it and to specify what it does.

Modifié par xsdob, 08 avril 2012 - 08:56 .

[ShepardTheHopeful]

Screw the rules I have a crucible!

Personally I don't care how much assets it takes I want to make the crucible do one thing...I want to make the AI child feel pain. For every reaper shot I want him to feel like he's been set on fire healed and set on fire again. I want that child in severe agony screw arguments that child needs to die. I never thought i'd had an AI more than the girl from the Resident Evil movie....it took 10 years for a "Artistic" writer to prove me wrong.

but yeah you already prove the child wrong with EDI and again if you create peace between the Geth and the Quarians which is what unlocks the synthesis ending...I think.

[Blind Rapture]

firebreather19 wrote...

Yeah? I'm the catalyst. Talk me down.

 

[Baronesa]

Catalyst finishes it's explanation and waits for Shepard's decisions

Shepard: I should go.

[firebreather19]

I'm not watching a video. Talk to me.

[xsdob]

Baronesa wrote...

Catalyst finishes it's explanation and waits for Shepard's decisions

Shepard: I should go.

And against all odd, that was the secret phrase to activate the citadels self-destruct sequence, killing all the reapers and disintegrating the citadel to ashes.

[ShepardTheHopeful]

Blind Rapture wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Yeah? I'm the catalyst. Talk me down.

 

That should've just been the ending there I would've taken it lol

[The Angry One]

xsdob wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Well that doesn't matter because the crucible forces the catalyst to let you change the cycle. The crucible gives shepard the options, and the catalyst has to explain them, like forcing the ctrl+alt+delete button on him and making him listen to you.

Except he doesn't listen. He states his agenda and the options he has determined for Shepard, and Shepard just smiles and nods.

How does he decide what choices the crucible has to offer? He didn't make it nor did he have a hand in it. Shepard's actions allow for the outcomes and choices presented, which is why it hinges on EMS in the first place.

If anything, the catalyst is reduced to the great expositor, having no sway or impact on what the crucible or shepard does, but having to explain it to him.

So pretty much, the catalyst loses it's power as soon as the crucible is docked, all it needed now was someone with a physical body to activate it and to specify what it does.

The only logical explanation for the Crucible's origin is that the Catalyst or it's creators designed it.
Therefore, it provides functions that it or it's creators have already determined.

[Lookout1390]

May as well have Shepard magically appear in a ball-gag, leash and collar, assless-chaps, and give the star-child a riding crop.

[Erixxxx]

The Angry One wrote...

xsdob wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Well that doesn't matter because the crucible forces the catalyst to let you change the cycle. The crucible gives shepard the options, and the catalyst has to explain them, like forcing the ctrl+alt+delete button on him and making him listen to you.

Except he doesn't listen. He states his agenda and the options he has determined for Shepard, and Shepard just smiles and nods.

How does he decide what choices the crucible has to offer? He didn't make it nor did he have a hand in it. Shepard's actions allow for the outcomes and choices presented, which is why it hinges on EMS in the first place.

If anything, the catalyst is reduced to the great expositor, having no sway or impact on what the crucible or shepard does, but having to explain it to him.

So pretty much, the catalyst loses it's power as soon as the crucible is docked, all it needed now was someone with a physical body to activate it and to specify what it does.

The only logical explanation for the Crucible's origin is that the Catalyst or it's creators designed it.
Therefore, it provides functions that it or it's creators have already determined.

Not improbable. There have been theories around here that the cycles are more or less a science project set up by an extremely advanced civilization. Wouldn't be the first time in the history of sci-fi that something like that has happened.

[xsdob]

Erixxxx wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

xsdob wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Well that doesn't matter because the crucible forces the catalyst to let you change the cycle. The crucible gives shepard the options, and the catalyst has to explain them, like forcing the ctrl+alt+delete button on him and making him listen to you.

Except he doesn't listen. He states his agenda and the options he has determined for Shepard, and Shepard just smiles and nods.

How does he decide what choices the crucible has to offer? He didn't make it nor did he have a hand in it. Shepard's actions allow for the outcomes and choices presented, which is why it hinges on EMS in the first place.

If anything, the catalyst is reduced to the great expositor, having no sway or impact on what the crucible or shepard does, but having to explain it to him.

So pretty much, the catalyst loses it's power as soon as the crucible is docked, all it needed now was someone with a physical body to activate it and to specify what it does.

The only logical explanation for the Crucible's origin is that the Catalyst or it's creators designed it.
Therefore, it provides functions that it or it's creators have already determined.

Not improbable. There have been theories around here that the cycles are more or less a science project set up by an extremely advanced civilization. Wouldn't be the first time in the history of sci-fi that something like that has happened.

Well, there are two possibilities for that,

1. the crucible was made by the same race who inevented the reapers after the reapers turned on them, and that they were destroyed before they could fully preserve the data on how to build the crucible, which is why every cycle has to find out what the crucible is.

2. The crucible is a test for organic races to see if they can overcome the reapers and save their cycle. It is a solution that was thought up along with thee reapers and that the entire history of organic civilization is to test whether organics can defeat synthetics and become the dominanat life form.

or they could be as immature as the reaper in the new mass defect 10, and just either spam you with saying "it is beyond your comprehension", "no" or just start making loud noises to drown out your points.

[honkayjeezus]

I'm not really sure complex ideas work well with anything that is simple and not sound. You could write a thesis paper on the stock photos for Talia whatnot, that doesn't mean it is a good read.

[MPSai]

The Angry One wrote...

If you have even a rudimentary understanding of logic you could argue the Catalyst down.
But I guess Mr. Walters didn't want his new super-character to be hindered by inconvenient things like facts and evidence.

And this is why Starkid is Mac Walters' mary-sue.

Modifié par MPSai, 08 avril 2012 - 09:36 .

[ShepardTheHopeful]

My money is the keepers made it. We know virtually nothing about them and they're apparently the only species that learned of the Citadels secrets front to back. Might explain why the reapers kept em to maintain it. They could've been the first race after the reapers saw the threats realized what had occurred and tried to create it but didn't have the know how at the time. But meh speculation is speculated.

[ShepardTheHopeful]

MPSai wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

If you have even a rudimentary understanding of logic you could argue the Catalyst down.
But I guess Mr. Walters didn't want his new super-character to be hindered by inconvenient things like facts and evidence.

And this is why Starkid is Mac Walters' mary-sue.

I thought the abomination was Hudson's creation have I been hating the wrong person this whole time? 

[PsyrenY]

The Angry One wrote...

Except he doesn't listen. He states his agenda and the options he has determined for Shepard, and Shepard just smiles and nods.

What else can you do though? Yell at the hologram? Punch it? Hold your breath? Cry?

If he refuses to listen to you, all the logic in the world won't help Shepard. You have to pick one of the three.

[Vigil_N7]

Shepard was going to debate with him through the dialogue wheel/investigate, but that was cut from the game because the developers thought the ending spoke for itself.

[MPSai]

ShepardTheHopeful wrote...

MPSai wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

If you have even a rudimentary understanding of logic you could argue the Catalyst down.
But I guess Mr. Walters didn't want his new super-character to be hindered by inconvenient things like facts and evidence.

And this is why Starkid is Mac Walters' mary-sue.

I thought the abomination was Hudson's creation have I been hating the wrong person this whole time? 

Yes. Mac Walters is the lead writer, Casey Hudson is the executive producer. Though he may have had a hand in it who knows. All I know is Mac Walters is largely responsible for the ending.