448 réponses à ce sujet

[Veloric Wu]

DoomManiac wrote...

you have failed,we will find another way

----Harbinger

[majinbuu1307]

Turkeysock wrote...

I'm sorry, but sadly that doesn't make this ending any less of a piece of crap then it currently is. The logic of the catalyst is still poor and doesn't make a lick of sense. There is no evidence except for one case in the Prothean cycle where synthetic life actively attacked organic life. The Geth rebelled only to protect and preserve themselves AFTER the Quarians tried to wipe them out.

There is no evidence that synthetic life has actively tried to wipe out organic life in previous cycles. All we have is the word of Starkid that this has happened before. But honestly, Starkid had control over the Reapers, why then did Shepard have to sacrifice himself in every option?

And by the way, Sacrifice endings only work when it's one of the choices to choose, not when it's every choice.

I'm sorry, the Reapers have been around for at least-FACT- a billion years.(check it)
I'm pretty sure, they have seen PLENTY of other synthetics, other than the ones that attacked the protheans. 
50k years =/= Billion. They have seen some *expletive deleted*

[majinbuu1307]

Erield wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Erield wrote...

Gallifreya wrote...

And when Destroy is the only option,  it's because you have a low EMS. The Reapers don't want/need to control a slackass Shepard, because the forces Shepard brought to the final confrontaion can't defeat the Reapers. There aren't enough of the assets present.

So...when you have low EMS, the citadel scene is for realsie.  But when you have high EMS, it's fake?

No, it matters how well the crucible is built, You build a bad toaster and things might set on fire.

I was talking specifically in regards to IT.  I think the endings we got are the endings as intended; and that those endings are ****.  gallifreya (and the few other IT proponents who have actually responded to this question when I pose it to them) seem to be saying that with low EMS none of it matters, because everyone dies anyway so Reapers auto-win.

The problem with that is that the scenes leading up to it do not change at all, so what is Indoctrination with High EMS with multiple options is the exact same as "not-indoctrinated" Shepard.  At least, that's what they seem to be saying. 

It may be because it's almost 2 am but i'm going to have to re-read that lol. Mind pftzzztffft

[balance5050]

majinbuu1307 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

shurryy wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

If you understood it you would understand WHY the catalyst was logically sound. I raged too at first, took me a few weeks to actually take everything in and go, OH!

I'm still not too fond of the ending options though. Ending DLC might help.

WHY the catalyst was logically sound. 
WHY the catalyst was logically sound. 
the catalyst was logically sound. 
the catalyst was logically sound. 
THE CATALYST WAS LOCICALLY SOUND.

... The catalyst made sense?
... I'm done here. Anyone who approves the god-child have failed. 

Re-read the very bottom about the catalyst in my OP

COME ON MAN!!! Don't keep sending us on a run around! If you are to lazy to type out any sort of coherent rebuttal then you need snap out of whatever daze you're in and use this forum for actual debate. You are just, not worth the time, it's like talking to husk.=]:wizard:

Modifié par balance5050, 13 avril 2012 - 06:48 .

[Veloric Wu]

alright now onto the serious part~I'm not against the ending that Shepard dies in Blue & Green.

In OP's post, he stated that Red is the best ending because it allowed Shepard to live. And we may be able to see how Shepard meets her/his crew on Normandy.

That is likely. All the Mass Relays are destroyed, the Asari are the only race with the technology to rebuild them. Although it will surely take years to do that, Shepard might be able to see Liara & Garrus again.

But the problem is.....under the current situation, even if you choose the Red ending, meeting ur crew won't matter at all. Becuase Shepard needs to make that sacrifice, and it is a done deal.

I do agree that this is not an indoctrination. Apparently the writer intended to make the players think if the Reapers are really the enemy. The fact is, whatever they're trying to present, they presented it with a poor fashion.

[balance5050]

TROLL TROLL TROLL!!! IGNORE!!!! IMPERVIOUS TO LOGIC!!!

[Skvindt]

balance5050 wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

shurryy wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

If you understood it you would understand WHY the catalyst was logically sound. I raged too at first, took me a few weeks to actually take everything in and go, OH!

I'm still not too fond of the ending options though. Ending DLC might help.

WHY the catalyst was logically sound. 
WHY the catalyst was logically sound. 
the catalyst was logically sound. 
the catalyst was logically sound. 
THE CATALYST WAS LOCICALLY SOUND.

... The catalyst made sense?
... I'm done here. Anyone who approves the god-child have failed. 

Re-read the very bottom about the catalyst in my OP

COME ON MAN!!! Don't keep sending us on a run around! If you are to lazy to type out any sort of coherent rebuttal then you need snap out of whatever dave you're in and use this forum for actual debate. You are just, not worth the time, it's like talking to husk.=]:wizard:

His rebuttal is at the bottom of the original post.  Read it.

[balance5050]

Joke topic

[majinbuu1307]

balance5050 wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

shurryy wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

If you understood it you would understand WHY the catalyst was logically sound. I raged too at first, took me a few weeks to actually take everything in and go, OH!

I'm still not too fond of the ending options though. Ending DLC might help.

WHY the catalyst was logically sound. 
WHY the catalyst was logically sound. 
the catalyst was logically sound. 
the catalyst was logically sound. 
THE CATALYST WAS LOCICALLY SOUND.

... The catalyst made sense?
... I'm done here. Anyone who approves the god-child have failed. 

Re-read the very bottom about the catalyst in my OP

COME ON MAN!!! Don't keep sending us on a run around! If you are to lazy to type out any sort of coherent rebuttal then you need snap out of whatever daze you're in and use this forum for actual debate. You are just, not worth the time, it's like talking to husk.=]:wizard:

Too much to read another paragraph?

[majinbuu1307]

SRX wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

shurryy wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

If you understood it you would understand WHY the catalyst was logically sound. I raged too at first, took me a few weeks to actually take everything in and go, OH!

I'm still not too fond of the ending options though. Ending DLC might help.

WHY the catalyst was logically sound. 
WHY the catalyst was logically sound. 
the catalyst was logically sound. 
the catalyst was logically sound. 
THE CATALYST WAS LOCICALLY SOUND.

... The catalyst made sense?
... I'm done here. Anyone who approves the god-child have failed. 

Re-read the very bottom about the catalyst in my OP

COME ON MAN!!! Don't keep sending us on a run around! If you are to lazy to type out any sort of coherent rebuttal then you need snap out of whatever dave you're in and use this forum for actual debate. You are just, not worth the time, it's like talking to husk.=]:wizard:

His rebuttal is at the bottom of the original post.  Read it.

Thank you:) *gives 500 interweb points*

[Turkeysock]

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Turkeysock wrote...

I'm sorry, but sadly that doesn't make this ending any less of a piece of crap then it currently is. The logic of the catalyst is still poor and doesn't make a lick of sense. There is no evidence except for one case in the Prothean cycle where synthetic life actively attacked organic life. The Geth rebelled only to protect and preserve themselves AFTER the Quarians tried to wipe them out.

There is no evidence that synthetic life has actively tried to wipe out organic life in previous cycles. All we have is the word of Starkid that this has happened before. But honestly, Starkid had control over the Reapers, why then did Shepard have to sacrifice himself in every option?

And by the way, Sacrifice endings only work when it's one of the choices to choose, not when it's every choice.

I'm sorry, the Reapers have been around for at least-FACT- a billion years.(check it)
I'm pretty sure, they have seen PLENTY of other synthetics, other than the ones that attacked the protheans. 
50k years =/= Billion. They have seen some *expletive deleted*

It's nothing but pure speculation that in every cycle there was a race that created synthetics, or that synthetics that were created were actively pursuing the complete destruction of their creators/all organic races.

Just because the reapers have been around for a long time doesn't prove anything about your point. Pure speculation is just that.

And again, Starkid had complete control over the reapers (at least going by what it said), so why then, did Shepard have to sacrifice himself in every option?

The logic is still bad and the ending still sucks. This is just bad writing. Ask anyone who is either a Literary major in college, or a person who writes for a living. They'll come out and tell you just how poorly the ending was executed.

[Erield]

Catalyst-Reapers exist to stop synthetics from destroying ALL(not just advanced, this is key) Life.

The Catalyst's stated goal is to keep synthetics from destroying all organic life.  The Catalyst's stated reason is that the created will always rebel against the creator.  The Catalyst's stated solution is to use the Reapers to prevent this from happening.

The Problem:  Reapers are created.  Thus, if the Catalyst is a logical being (which
everyone supporting him claims, because otherwise he's merely the worst
genocidal maniac the galaxy has ever dreamed of having, and Shepard
just decides to go along with him) then the Catalyst truly believes that
his solution will inevitably rebel against their instructions
and end all life in the galaxy.

The Result:  The Catalyst's reasoning and "logic" is ****.

As for the Crucible's "space magic, Anything so very much more advanced than the tech we currently have will always be viewed as unexplainable and "magic." If a pilgrim saw a flatscreen tv with avatar playing, they would scream witchcraft.

To Space Magic:  Every other instance of "Space Magic" that has a direct or indirect role in the game is explained in some way.  The fact that they go to great lengths to avoid explaining the Crucible while it is being built, and then continue this on to the end, does not make it a more satisfying story; it makes it worse.  At the very end, with a being that probably does understand the Crucible, and how and why it works, we are given the explanation, "Flip the switch, and the light will turn on" when you ask how a lightbulb works.  The answer avoids the question, and insults the person asking.

Your answer, while technically a correct one, is not a defensible one in a story that is based in science possibility, instead of science fantasy.  If this were Star Wars, the issue wouldn't be the problem that it is; this is not Star Wars.  This is Mass Effect, and we expect (and demand) better from our writers.

[Keyrlis]

I can't believe you've kept this thread bumped for 6 hours.
I'm mostly sold on IT, myself. I even used the principle of "lex parsimoniae" to help me decide.
I considered whether or not a multimillion dollar company, known for it's storyline success, would take a chance on the third installment of what has so far been a hard-sci-fi universe by adding what appears to be an intentionally questionable ending. Regardless of if you believe in IT or not, the ending, as it stands, is not in line with the rest of the canonical system of physical rules and laws, and they have an entire PR department who would have a good idea on the likely response of a bunch of nerds such as ourselves. If there is not SOME reasonable explanation for the events of ME3, then it is just an example of poor writing...
I refuse to believe that is the case.

[Erield]

Keyrlis wrote...

I can't believe you've kept this thread bumped for 6 hours.
I'm mostly sold on IT, myself. I even used the principle of "lex parsimoniae" to help me decide.
I considered whether or not a multimillion dollar company, known for it's storyline success, would take a chance on the third installment of what has so far been a hard-sci-fi universe by adding what appears to be an intentionally questionable ending. Regardless of if you believe in IT or not, the ending, as it stands, is not in line with the rest of the canonical system of physical rules and laws, and they have an entire PR department who would have a good idea on the likely response of a bunch of nerds such as ourselves. If there is not SOME reasonable explanation for the events of ME3, then it is just an example of poor writing...
I refuse to believe that is the case.

And thus you prove that Bioware has indoctrinated you into the belief that they are incapable of ****ing up.  Hard.  

[2papercuts]

Two ways this can go

The catalyst rebeled and destroyed his creators but didn't kill all organics proving himself wrong.
Or he didn't rebel proving himself wrong.

Also reapers haven't tryed to kill all organics proving him wrong

Modifié par 2papercuts, 13 avril 2012 - 07:02 .

[majinbuu1307]

balance5050 wrote...

TROLL TROLL TROLL!!! IGNORE!!!! IMPERVIOUS TO LOGIC!!!

Sounds lke you're the one trollin buddy.

[An English Gamer]

 I think an important feature when it comes to whether the Geth will rebel is something EDI mentioned. She said that the Quarians made a mistake in making them "not enough like them". She says things like how, unlike her, they are not individuals. They are all a collective and so will all work to what they determine to be the best way forward for their species. Be that eliminating organic life. However EDI says that her individuality prevents her calculations from devaluing the lives of the Normandies crew.
This may mean that when the Geth gain true intelligence and individuality
"Legion - I must go to them."
That they are like EDI, individuals capable of seperate goals and wants, prevented from devaluing organic life.
It is likely then that the Geth won't rebel in the future if treated like every other species.

[III Achilles II]

Erield wrote...

Keyrlis wrote...

I can't believe you've kept this thread bumped for 6 hours.
I'm mostly sold on IT, myself. I even used the principle of "lex parsimoniae" to help me decide.
I considered whether or not a multimillion dollar company, known for it's storyline success, would take a chance on the third installment of what has so far been a hard-sci-fi universe by adding what appears to be an intentionally questionable ending. Regardless of if you believe in IT or not, the ending, as it stands, is not in line with the rest of the canonical system of physical rules and laws, and they have an entire PR department who would have a good idea on the likely response of a bunch of nerds such as ourselves. If there is not SOME reasonable explanation for the events of ME3, then it is just an example of poor writing...
I refuse to believe that is the case.

And thus you prove that Bioware has indoctrinated you into the belief that they are incapable of ****ing up.  Hard.  

What empirical evidence do you have that Mass Effect 3 writers screw up the story extremely bad? 

Have they done some crazy sh**? Yes! Kill off the main character in the beginning of ME2? 


The truth about the catalyst is this for people who take the ending at FACE VALUE. 

If Shepard is the first organic to reach the Catalyst then how would other races know about it? 

Granted there are a lot of questions, but IT seems to explain most of them. 

[Keyrlis]

And 10 cool points to Erield for pointing out the logic flaw in "the created always destroying the creator."
Just because humanity did that with our gods doesn't mean synthetics are equally arrogant. After all, they can ask their creators, "Why?", on Rannoth, now and not just have to make up a story about why they can't detect the quarians, but that they are "with them, always".
Not to be offensive, just pointing out the philosophy behind the "angry golem" theory of AI's.

[majinbuu1307]

Erield wrote...

Catalyst-Reapers exist to stop synthetics from destroying ALL(not just advanced, this is key) Life.

The Catalyst's stated goal is to keep synthetics from destroying all organic life.  The Catalyst's stated reason is that the created will always rebel against the creator.  The Catalyst's stated solution is to use the Reapers to prevent this from happening.

The Problem:  Reapers are created.  Thus, if the Catalyst is a logical being (which
everyone supporting him claims, because otherwise he's merely the worst
genocidal maniac the galaxy has ever dreamed of having, and Shepard
just decides to go along with him) then the Catalyst truly believes that
his solution will inevitably rebel against their instructions
and end all life in the galaxy.

The Result:  The Catalyst's reasoning and "logic" is ****.

As for the Crucible's "space magic, Anything so very much more advanced than the tech we currently have will always be viewed as unexplainable and "magic." If a pilgrim saw a flatscreen tv with avatar playing, they would scream witchcraft.

To Space Magic:  Every other instance of "Space Magic" that has a direct or indirect role in the game is explained in some way.  The fact that they go to great lengths to avoid explaining the Crucible while it is being built, and then continue this on to the end, does not make it a more satisfying story; it makes it worse.  At the very end, with a being that probably does understand the Crucible, and how and why it works, we are given the explanation, "Flip the switch, and the light will turn on" when you ask how a lightbulb works.  The answer avoids the question, and insults the person asking.

Your answer, while technically a correct one, is not a defensible one in a story that is based in science possibility, instead of science fantasy.  If this were Star Wars, the issue wouldn't be the problem that it is; this is not Star Wars.  This is Mass Effect, and we expect (and demand) better from our writers.

The crucible was designed over COUNTLESS cycles, we cannot hope to understand it.

[danistrad]

What's the point of this post? BW has as much as stated (if indirectly) that IT is not true. In my opinion, the people who still hold on to IT just want BW to make it true. It's called a retcon, and it happens all the time, with the ME universe included. I think it's pretty unlikely that they'll do it, but it would be more interesting than what they used.

[majinbuu1307]

Keyrlis wrote...

And 10 cool points to Erield for pointing out the logic flaw in "the created always destroying the creator."
Just because humanity did that with our gods doesn't mean synthetics are equally arrogant. After all, they can ask their creators, "Why?", on Rannoth, now and not just have to make up a story about why they can't detect the quarians, but that they are "with them, always".
Not to be offensive, just pointing out the philosophy behind the "angry golem" theory of AI's.

And who is to say some event won't happen in the near future, there are always wars, and eventually, the Geth could deem us a threat, and have advanced themselves to the point where we can't hope to compete with them, like the reapers.

[balance5050]

majinbuu1307 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

TROLL TROLL TROLL!!! IGNORE!!!! IMPERVIOUS TO LOGIC!!!

Sounds lke you're the one trollin buddy.

Haha, at this point you're right, so I'll leave you to it then. It would be crazy if he did indeed survive those explosions man...

[majinbuu1307]

danistrad wrote...

What's the point of this post? BW has as much as stated (if indirectly) that IT is not true. In my opinion, the people who still hold on to IT just want BW to make it true. It's called a retcon, and it happens all the time, with the ME universe included. I think it's pretty unlikely that they'll do it, but it would be more interesting than what they used.

Because the pesky guys just wont quit lol

[III Achilles II]

danistrad wrote...

What's the point of this post? BW has as much as stated (if indirectly) that IT is not true. In my opinion, the people who still hold on to IT just want BW to make it true. It's called a retcon, and it happens all the time, with the ME universe included. I think it's pretty unlikely that they'll do it, but it would be more interesting than what they used.

So having the chance to deny the I.T. theory and NOT DENYING it is indirectly denying it? 

Y U NO HAVE LOGIC? 

I want to see what Bioware has in store. I just have more faith that they are incredible writers and things like the scene where Shepard awakes indicate they at least have something in store.