132 réponses à ce sujet

[MediumD]

I could accept StarBrat logic if the Reapers were devouring civilizations as part of a reproduction cycle. Or if they were seeding and later devouring civilizations (basically, farming them) to create new troops to fight some vicious inter-galactic synthetic threat that had already colonized a vast portion of the universe. Right now, though, I'm left with Yo Dawg nonsense.

[brfritos]

blacqout wrote...

brfritos wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

Switch the order.  Instead of "Synthetics will always turn on their creators,"  have "Organics will always turn on their creations."  Done, now he's saving synthetics... but that leaves the plot hole of what happened to all of the synthetics... unless all of them joined the reapers and use their componants to make those eldrich creatures the reapers are so fond of making. 

Except you have a scenario of making peace between Quarians and Geth, so actually the whole discussion is flawed, Shepard proved that synthetics and organics CAN coexist and don't need merge.
This single fact alone turns the Synthetic end a WTF an the entire discussion pointless.
And don't forget that depending of your actions the synthetic end is not even available!

Wich also turns the Destroy end in a war crime and annihilation, so humanity therefore should be treated like the Batarians (a PoS race) or the Krogans (a bunch of animals).

And why Shepard is so submissive to the Catalyst, since we are talking about it?
If people wants to find logic where it doesn't exists, fine.
But at least let's apply logic in a cohesive manner.

What happens if Shepard doesn't intervene? The Geth were winning in ME3. They would have utterly annhiliated their "creators".

Without the intervention of a man whose actions were so incredible he became an actual legend, the Catalyst is proven correct there and then. 

Also, the Catalyst clearly states that the "peace cannot last" when describing the control option. This would intimate that it's aware that peace between man and machine is temporarily possible.

Do you honestly think that there are any guarantees that the Geth and Quarians will live in perfect harmony from now until forever? 

Il Divo already replied what I wanted to say, so there's no need to add to it.

But wait a second, you want certainty for everything? You can't have it.
I don't know if the peace between the Quarians and the Geth will last, but because of this doubts you don't give them a chance to try it?

Also this brings another problem: why Shepard don't argument with the Catalyst that peace and cooperation between organics and synthetics are possible and not necessary an annihilation between them?
That's one of the problems with the Catalyst, the choices are too arbitrary because whatever reason and not because the path you follow lead to them.

[justlogme]

RyuujinZERO wrote...

Enough alcohol makes anything make sense... this is probably how the script got past the door in the first place

  This ^^

[blacqout]

brfritos wrote...

blacqout wrote...

brfritos wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

Switch the order.  Instead of "Synthetics will always turn on their creators,"  have "Organics will always turn on their creations."  Done, now he's saving synthetics... but that leaves the plot hole of what happened to all of the synthetics... unless all of them joined the reapers and use their componants to make those eldrich creatures the reapers are so fond of making. 

Except you have a scenario of making peace between Quarians and Geth, so actually the whole discussion is flawed, Shepard proved that synthetics and organics CAN coexist and don't need merge.
This single fact alone turns the Synthetic end a WTF an the entire discussion pointless.
And don't forget that depending of your actions the synthetic end is not even available!

Wich also turns the Destroy end in a war crime and annihilation, so humanity therefore should be treated like the Batarians (a PoS race) or the Krogans (a bunch of animals).

And why Shepard is so submissive to the Catalyst, since we are talking about it?
If people wants to find logic where it doesn't exists, fine.
But at least let's apply logic in a cohesive manner.

What happens if Shepard doesn't intervene? The Geth were winning in ME3. They would have utterly annhiliated their "creators".

Without the intervention of a man whose actions were so incredible he became an actual legend, the Catalyst is proven correct there and then. 

Also, the Catalyst clearly states that the "peace cannot last" when describing the control option. This would intimate that it's aware that peace between man and machine is temporarily possible.

Do you honestly think that there are any guarantees that the Geth and Quarians will live in perfect harmony from now until forever? 

Il Divo already replied what I wanted to say, so there's no need to add to it.

But wait a second, you want certainty for everything? You can't have it.
I don't know if the peace between the Quarians and the Geth will last, but because of this doubts you don't give them a chance to try it?

Also this brings another problem: why Shepard don't argument with the Catalyst that peace and cooperation between organics and synthetics are possible and not necessary an annihilation between them?
That's one of the problems with the Catalyst, the choices are too arbitrary because whatever reason and not because the path you follow lead to them.

No. I don't want certainty and i don't need it, but i'm also not the Catalyst. I haven't witnessed countless cycles in which we're led to believe the same patterns emerge - namely that organics and the synthetics they create just can't peacefully exist forever. 

The Catalyst is arguing from a position that we're not supposed to be able to fully comprehend... but various information about previous cycles, relayed through Javik and the Prothean VI on Thessia, gives us no reason to doubt the Catalyst. 

The funny thing though, is that if you decide the Catalyst is wrong, Shepard can act on that. It's called choosing destroy. Sure, the Geth have to go as a result... but future synthetics are free to be created and attempt to live peacefully with their creators. 

[wellsoul2]

It made more sense in MA2 when Reapers came every 50k years , stole all the technology and wiped
out the organics. Then slept again waiting for a new crop.

It would make more sense if the Reapers were a weapon created in a catastrophic war that then decided
they would cull both sides to keep that from happening again.

[MadMatt910]

blacqout wrote...

You have to go back many years to find an example of me being banned from anything, and your constant following me around warning others to not engage me is bordering on harassment.

Actually I believe I've only talked to you in 3 threads, the first of which I gave you the benefit of the doubt after you had been called a troll for a couple of pages, and in the other 2 threads I opening them up without realising you had contributed.

Can we notify the Oxford English Dictionary, constantly now means twice. You know these words? They mean things.

Yeah, I did use the link in your sig to have a quick look at your history too, more out of curiosity than anything else.

My comments about not engaging you were routed in the fact that in the first thread you were in, it quickly became you telling everyone that the reason they didn't like the ending was because they weren't smart enough. Frankly, with this kind of attitude potentially interesting threads will always become flame wars. Posting 'don't feed the troll' seems common practice.

Anyway, I'm not interested in engaging this any further, other people can find out the hard was how condesending and conceited you are to those who don't share your viewpoints.

[blacqout]

MadMatt910 wrote...

blacqout wrote...

You have to go back many years to find an example of me being banned from anything, and your constant following me around warning others to not engage me is bordering on harassment.

Actually I believe I've only talked to you in 3 threads, the first of which I gave you the benefit of the doubt after you had been called a troll for a couple of pages, and in the other 2 threads I opening them up without realising you had contributed.

Can we notify the Oxford English Dictionary, constantly now means twice. You know these words? They mean things.

Yeah, I did use the link in your sig to have a quick look at your history too, more out of curiosity than anything else.

My comments about not engaging you were routed in the fact that in the first thread you were in, it quickly became you telling everyone that the reason they didn't like the ending was because they weren't smart enough. Frankly, with this kind of attitude potentially interesting threads will always become flame wars. Posting 'don't feed the troll' seems common practice.

Anyway, I'm not interested in engaging this any further, other people can find out the hard was how condesending and conceited you are to those who don't share your viewpoints.

Constantly means: without variation or change, in every case.

You have waded into every discussion i've been engaged in for the past week or so and advised people to stop talking to me.

You should probably leave the acting clever to us professionals.

[MadMatt910]

blacqout wrote...

MadMatt910 wrote...

blacqout wrote...

You have to go back many years to find an example of me being banned from anything, and your constant following me around warning others to not engage me is bordering on harassment.

Actually I believe I've only talked to you in 3 threads, the first of which I gave you the benefit of the doubt after you had been called a troll for a couple of pages, and in the other 2 threads I opening them up without realising you had contributed.

Can we notify the Oxford English Dictionary, constantly now means twice. You know these words? They mean things.

Yeah, I did use the link in your sig to have a quick look at your history too, more out of curiosity than anything else.

My comments about not engaging you were routed in the fact that in the first thread you were in, it quickly became you telling everyone that the reason they didn't like the ending was because they weren't smart enough. Frankly, with this kind of attitude potentially interesting threads will always become flame wars. Posting 'don't feed the troll' seems common practice.

Anyway, I'm not interested in engaging this any further, other people can find out the hard was how condesending and conceited you are to those who don't share your viewpoints.

Constantly means: without variation or change, in every case.

You have waded into every discussion i've been engaged in for the past week or so and advised people to stop talking to me.

You should probably leave the acting clever to us professionals.

Actually I havn't since I have seen your posts in other threads and made no comment on them. So in fact it wasn't in every case, therefore, by your definition, not constantly.