448 réponses à ce sujet

[majinbuu1307]

bump

[III Achilles II]

I don't understand the point of these threads when it is all speculation on both sides.

[danistrad]

III Achilles II wrote...

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. 

Nope.  Funny, that you say I have no logic, though.  You should learn about it, it can come in handy.  You implied that I implied something that I did not imply.  So, faulty logic?  Maybe.  But not on my part.

[daecath]

Two problems.

First, I agree, IT isn't real. It's pretty clear now that BioWare didn't have any grand hidden master plan to trick us all and release this absolutely brilliant mind-f of an ending. The ending is what it is - badly written.

However, that does not discount the possibility of using IT as a means of improving the ending. The theory states that everything that happens from the point of Harbinger's beam was a hallucination/dream. I prefer dream - Indoctrination sounds like a form of hypnosis/subliminal manipulation/etc., which would manifest in dream form like what we saw, if Shepard was unconscious. If Shepard was awake, then that would have all been very vivid hallucinations, which aren't mentioned in anything about Indoctrination.

Second, the catalyst logic is still flawed. It begs the question. In order to support the catalyst's logic behind stopping the synthetic/organic conflict, you must first accept that there is a conflict. Not only that, you must accept that this conflict is fundamental, built into the very nature of those two groups, to a point where it is an inevitable and unalterable conclusion. You must also accept that organics will always lose to synthetics, thus requiring an external force to rescue them.

Ok, so let's go ahead and accept the first premise. Organics and synthetics are too fundamentally different to ever coexist peacefully for any length of time. We'll then start with the second premise, and why it is flawed. Simply put, synthetics are bound by their nature. First, organic life is imperfect, therefore synthetic life will be imperfect. True, they have the potential to improve technologically. But only to a point. They are bound by the same physical laws we are. Their circuitry can be made only so small, there are only so many materials available to create exteriors, etc. And organics have the same capability for adaptation, and self improvement. We can build non-intelligent technologies to augment our capabilities. We can even turn to genetic engineering to craft better soldiers, more intelligent scientists, and shapelier butts. The premise that synthetics can develop and advance indefinitely while organics cannot is flawed.

Now back to the first premise. We've already disproven that in this cycle with the Geth. Organics and synthetics can work together and coexist peacefully. If anything, it is the organics that are the problem, not the synthetics. It was the quarians who attacked first in this cycle. And a synthetic is much longer lived, and has much better memory than an organic, so they are going to be less likely to restart a conflict once it has been resolved. Unless the organics of subsequent generations force their hand.

[III Achilles II]

danistrad wrote...

III Achilles II wrote...

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. 

Nope.  Funny, that you say I have no logic, though.  You should learn about it, it can come in handy.  You implied that I implied something that I did not imply.  So, faulty logic?  Maybe.  But not on my part.

Forgive me! Well then why don't you truly state what Bioware indirectly said that proved I.T. wrong. 

Tell me more! 

[balance5050]

The more you fight IT the stronger it gets.

[Dorrieb]

majinbuu1307 wrote...
(snip)  

[*]Catalyst-Reapers exist to stop synthetics from destroying ALL(not just advanced, this is key) Life.[*]If synthetics where to be allowed, their calculations(over probably a billion or so years of evidence) is that the synthetics always eventually rebel, time needed is irrelevant. Geth could still possibly rebel again for another reason in 500 years, 1000 years, 20,000 years. Key point -Possibility of synthetics wiping out ALL organic life, not just advanced, total extinction of organics instead of making way for new ones-

The problem with that logic is that you could replace the word 'synthetics' with just about anything, if the length of time is irrelevant. For example, custard. The Catalyst could argue that custard will eventually destroy *all* organic life. Maybe not today, or in 20,000 years, but as long as there is a chance, however infinitesimal, that organic life will be wiped out by custard, it is inevitable that it will happen given enough time. Therefore the Reapers would be justified in destroying our civilization, to prevent us from making custard.

Anything could happen given enough time. 

[III Achilles II]

daecath wrote...

Two problems.

First, I agree, IT isn't real. It's pretty clear now that BioWare didn't have any grand hidden master plan to trick us all and release this absolutely brilliant mind-f of an ending. The ending is what it is - badly written.

Well either the Truth DLC or ME4 will be released and I guess we will all know the "master plan." 

Bioware and companies all have plans. We just don't know what Bioware will do yet. 

I.T. has not been explicitly disproven. 

[Erield]

III Achilles II wrote...

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? 

In the first Earth mission, at the very beginning of the game, the Reapers "conveniently" avoid firing on the Normandy and destroying it, instead killing two shuttles filled with innocent noncombatants.  This is a  minor flaw, and easily overlooked on its own.

The very next mission has you going to Mars, which has a Prothean dig site, which just happens to have some long-undiscovered portion that they just discovered just in time--this is, keep in mind, a site that should have been thoroughly explored considering that it jumped human advancement hundreds of years over-night.  The possibility that this was all overlooked for decades stretches incredulity. 

Diana Allers.  I don't think I need to say more here; a previous reporter (like Emily Wong) would have been better.

Everything Crucible-related; you never learn anything about it, really.  It never progresses beyond hand-wavey "space magic."

The Citadel ends up over Earth...somehow.  For some reason.  And the Reapers didn't destroy it...for some reason.

Kai Leng.  I don't think I need to say more

Thane gets a cut-scene auto-death.  Shepard decided that it was cool to just let Thane fight Kai Leng and not interfere; I mean, **** Thane.  Right?  Right.

On the final Earth mission, you know that turret bit in the  middle of no-man's land or something?  Where you have to kill Reaper forces for no ****ing reason, and it doesn't make much sense and is just a little confusing and out of place?  Yeah, that.

The space-beam magic transporter up to the Citadel.  Why didn't the Reapers turn it off when they realized that Shepard and crew (or hell, just people with guns) were heading that way?  They knew enough to draw Harby and others to guard it, but not to turn it off?  Seriously?

Joker fleeing at the end.  Yes.  Joker flees at the end even via IT--you got your stupid ending.  Joker's gone.  Meh, ok, maybe not--but still.  They thought it was good enough to put into the "fake endings."

Tali's face reveal.

Tali's face is a stock photo that has been photoshopped, and seemingly a fairly rush job.  I suck with photoshop, so it would have taken me approximately 98137987 years, so I don't know if this is true or not.  Still, stock photo.

These are several things that happen in the game, and only one of them is possibly IT related.  Otherwise, empirical evidence contained within the game of poor decisions story-wise.

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

Easy answer: Star Child caused it to be added to the Crucible plans after one of the Reapings.  God only knows why.  Probably not even Bioware, because it seems possible that they didn't know what they were doing here at this point; or possibly it's supposed to hint to a deeper meaning of the Star Child.  He doesn't want to be the overseer of galactic order anymore, but he can't pass on the reins of awesome until someone comes along, so he creates a test to tell when it's time to give up.  That test is the Crucible, and Shepard is the first one to pass.

Stupid, corny, and at least as plausible as IT--with many fewer assumptions than IT relies upon.

[Merengues 1945]

What I don't get is why the people who defend the endings assume that everyone who don't like them are entitled whiners or stupid obtuse guys... we just don't like it... I don't want clarifications because I undertand it as I understand that 1+1=2.

As they defend their artistic integrity I can also as with other art interpret it as I wish (thats the nice part of art, and more in comercial art, its sujective to the person) and I found it with lack of emotion and almost nonsensical in comparison with the rest of the game.

That doen't mean that I am a entitled whiner, they're free to make whatever they want and I have the freedom to say that in my opinion their product it's rubbish. I don't demand a happy ending, I wish to have a sensical one, but they're free to defend it when they make it in the right way and not with spoiled-child-like statements as the ones from Casey Hudson nor calling the fans stupid just for don't liking the ending... Stanley Kubrick didn't call stupid the guys who didn't like Eyes Wide Shot.

As you're free to say that you like the ending, I am free to say I didn't like it and as with any other way of art, everyone including you and me can interpret the ending as we wish, someones decide to make it by creating the indoctrination theory wich is valid as any other.

If you claim to be so damn savant to understand the Mass Effect 3 ending (wich by th way have the complexity of a single and boring substraction), please be reasonable and just ignore the comment that you don't like... be the mature guy and live and let die.... or else you're just as obssessed and entitled as them.

[majinbuu1307]

daecath wrote...

Two problems.

First, I agree, IT isn't real. It's pretty clear now that BioWare didn't have any grand hidden master plan to trick us all and release this absolutely brilliant mind-f of an ending. The ending is what it is - badly written.

However, that does not discount the possibility of using IT as a means of improving the ending. The theory states that everything that happens from the point of Harbinger's beam was a hallucination/dream. I prefer dream - Indoctrination sounds like a form of hypnosis/subliminal manipulation/etc., which would manifest in dream form like what we saw, if Shepard was unconscious. If Shepard was awake, then that would have all been very vivid hallucinations, which aren't mentioned in anything about Indoctrination.

Second, the catalyst logic is still flawed. It begs the question. In order to support the catalyst's logic behind stopping the synthetic/organic conflict, you must first accept that there is a conflict. Not only that, you must accept that this conflict is fundamental, built into the very nature of those two groups, to a point where it is an inevitable and unalterable conclusion. You must also accept that organics will always lose to synthetics, thus requiring an external force to rescue them.

Ok, so let's go ahead and accept the first premise. Organics and synthetics are too fundamentally different to ever coexist peacefully for any length of time. We'll then start with the second premise, and why it is flawed. Simply put, synthetics are bound by their nature. First, organic life is imperfect, therefore synthetic life will be imperfect. True, they have the potential to improve technologically. But only to a point. They are bound by the same physical laws we are. Their circuitry can be made only so small, there are only so many materials available to create exteriors, etc. And organics have the same capability for adaptation, and self improvement. We can build non-intelligent technologies to augment our capabilities. We can even turn to genetic engineering to craft better soldiers, more intelligent scientists, and shapelier butts. The premise that synthetics can develop and advance indefinitely while organics cannot is flawed.

Now back to the first premise. We've already disproven that in this cycle with the Geth. Organics and synthetics can work together and coexist peacefully. If anything, it is the organics that are the problem, not the synthetics. It was the quarians who attacked first in this cycle. And a synthetic is much longer lived, and has much better memory than an organic, so they are going to be less likely to restart a conflict once it has been resolved. Unless the organics of subsequent generations force their hand.

Exactly, the organics attacked the synthetics, causing organics to be a threat, so the synthetics attacked them, what happens if/when that happens again down the road? Eventually, since time is not a factor, statistics showed the synthetics always ending up doing the same thing. Reapers have been around for at least a billion years(check it) so they know some history.

[majinbuu1307]

Merengues 1945 wrote...

What I don't get is why the people who defend the endings assume that everyone who don't like them are entitled whiners or stupid obtuse guys... we just don't like it... I don't want clarifications because I undertand it as I understand that 1+1=2.

As they defend their artistic integrity I can also as with other art interpret it as I wish (thats the nice part of art, and more in comercial art, its sujective to the person) and I found it with lack of emotion and almost nonsensical in comparison with the rest of the game.

That doen't mean that I am a entitled whiner, they're free to make whatever they want and I have the freedom to say that in my opinion their product it's rubbish. I don't demand a happy ending, I wish to have a sensical one, but they're free to defend it when they make it in the right way and not with spoiled-child-like statements as the ones from Casey Hudson nor calling the fans stupid just for don't liking the ending... Stanley Kubrick didn't call stupid the guys who didn't like Eyes Wide Shot.

As you're free to say that you like the ending, I am free to say I didn't like it and as with any other way of art, everyone including you and me can interpret the ending as we wish, someones decide to make it by creating the indoctrination theory wich is valid as any other.

If you claim to be so damn savant to understand the Mass Effect 3 ending (wich by th way have the complexity of a single and boring substraction), please be reasonable and just ignore the comment that you don't like... be the mature guy and live and let die.... or else you're just as obssessed and entitled as them.

OP here, just to clarify, I would rather have a different ending, didn't like it so much, but its what we got. Hopefully, the DLC will make it alittle less....depressing.

[balance5050]

So wait, you think the little kid is telling the truth?

[majinbuu1307]

Dorrieb wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...
(snip)  

[*]Catalyst-Reapers exist to stop synthetics from destroying ALL(not just advanced, this is key) Life.[*]If synthetics where to be allowed, their calculations(over probably a billion or so years of evidence) is that the synthetics always eventually rebel, time needed is irrelevant. Geth could still possibly rebel again for another reason in 500 years, 1000 years, 20,000 years. Key point -Possibility of synthetics wiping out ALL organic life, not just advanced, total extinction of organics instead of making way for new ones-

The problem with that logic is that you could replace the word 'synthetics' with just about anything, if the length of time is irrelevant. For example, custard. The Catalyst could argue that custard will eventually destroy *all* organic life. Maybe not today, or in 20,000 years, but as long as there is a chance, however infinitesimal, that organic life will be wiped out by custard, it is inevitable that it will happen given enough time. Therefore the Reapers would be justified in destroying our civilization, to prevent us from making custard.

Anything could happen given enough time. 

Explain how custard would destroy us, without us doing something to custard to make it...synthetic custard. Or capable of moving, or killing anything, at all. Lol.

[Erield]

majinbuu1307 wrote...

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.

They also said we couldn't hope to understand the motivations of the Reapers.  Turns out, we can, and they're stupid and wrong.  It wouldn't even have to be a super-great explanation, just an explanation.  Here, I'll do one right now as an example.

The Mass Relays have a dark energy core that power their abilities.  They are linked in a chain, with Primary's going further with a set destination and Secondary's having a shorter range but anywhere.  The Citadel is a super-cool Relay that goes to dark space where the Reapers hang out (just the basics as I understand them.) 

The Crucible triggers a flux capacitor in the Citadel, that instead of creating a Relay Jump from Dark Space, instead channels dark space itself.  It's not warping in ships, it's warping in cool barely understood ****.  This beam then fires at each Relay in sequence, causing the detonation/shockwave with each corresponding Relay.  The shockwave is massive, as the dark energy core has all of its energy used in a single instant; most of this energy is used to fire off at the next Relay.  The rest of it does whatever space-magic flavor you picked in the system.

In this way, each system gets hit by the Control beam, and so each Reaper in each system with a Relay is now under Control; this can happen because of dark energy rising.  Or something.


Whatever, I'm done being 'creative.'  The point is, an extra five lines of dialogue from someone at some point  would have made the Crucible less retarded and more useful.  In Star Trek, we know that the solution is to realign the deflector dish to emit anti-matter gamma radiation; but if they don't say that, then it's gone from interesting BS to just ****.

Do you understand the difference, and why that difference (although minor) is so very significant?  (Not trying to be an ass here, honest curiosity.)

[balance5050]

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...
(snip)  

[*]Catalyst-Reapers exist to stop synthetics from destroying ALL(not just advanced, this is key) Life.[*]If synthetics where to be allowed, their calculations(over probably a billion or so years of evidence) is that the synthetics always eventually rebel, time needed is irrelevant. Geth could still possibly rebel again for another reason in 500 years, 1000 years, 20,000 years. Key point -Possibility of synthetics wiping out ALL organic life, not just advanced, total extinction of organics instead of making way for new ones-

The problem with that logic is that you could replace the word 'synthetics' with just about anything, if the length of time is irrelevant. For example, custard. The Catalyst could argue that custard will eventually destroy *all* organic life. Maybe not today, or in 20,000 years, but as long as there is a chance, however infinitesimal, that organic life will be wiped out by custard, it is inevitable that it will happen given enough time. Therefore the Reapers would be justified in destroying our civilization, to prevent us from making custard.

Anything could happen given enough time. 

Explain how custard would destroy us, without us doing something to custard to make it...synthetic custard. Or capable of moving, or killing anything, at all. Lol.

[*]Uhm, the mold on custard could evolve and give off deadly spores that kill... 

Modifié par balance5050, 13 avril 2012 - 07:35 .

[majinbuu1307]

balance5050 wrote...

So wait, you think the little kid is telling the truth?

What he has seen over the past billion or so years, yes. He knows what has gone down, and using that, draws up statistics(a billion years is a pretty good timeframe to see how things develope every time) So he came to a conclusion.  To us a morally wrong conclusion, but logically sound. Sucks to be us, but then again if the Reapes didn't reap in the first place, the protheans would have enslaved us into their empire to fight their version of the geth, and most likely would have lost. "turning the tide" doesn't mean they won, and eventually, givin enough time, more AI or synthetics would be created, and givin enough time, could rebel as well, and wipe out EVERYTHING, instead of a portion.

[majinbuu1307]

balance5050 wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...
(snip)  

[*]Catalyst-Reapers exist to stop synthetics from destroying ALL(not just advanced, this is key) Life.[*]If synthetics where to be allowed, their calculations(over probably a billion or so years of evidence) is that the synthetics always eventually rebel, time needed is irrelevant. Geth could still possibly rebel again for another reason in 500 years, 1000 years, 20,000 years. Key point -Possibility of synthetics wiping out ALL organic life, not just advanced, total extinction of organics instead of making way for new ones-

The problem with that logic is that you could replace the word 'synthetics' with just about anything, if the length of time is irrelevant. For example, custard. The Catalyst could argue that custard will eventually destroy *all* organic life. Maybe not today, or in 20,000 years, but as long as there is a chance, however infinitesimal, that organic life will be wiped out by custard, it is inevitable that it will happen given enough time. Therefore the Reapers would be justified in destroying our civilization, to prevent us from making custard.

Anything could happen given enough time. 

Explain how custard would destroy us, without us doing something to custard to make it...synthetic custard. Or capable of moving, or killing anything, at all. Lol.

[*]Uhm, the mold on custard could evolve and give of deadly spores that kill... 

I'm going to punch you in the mandible lol

[majinbuu1307]

Erield wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

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.

They also said we couldn't hope to understand the motivations of the Reapers.  Turns out, we can, and they're stupid and wrong.  It wouldn't even have to be a super-great explanation, just an explanation.  Here, I'll do one right now as an example.

The Mass Relays have a dark energy core that power their abilities.  They are linked in a chain, with Primary's going further with a set destination and Secondary's having a shorter range but anywhere.  The Citadel is a super-cool Relay that goes to dark space where the Reapers hang out (just the basics as I understand them.) 

The Crucible triggers a flux capacitor in the Citadel, that instead of creating a Relay Jump from Dark Space, instead channels dark space itself.  It's not warping in ships, it's warping in cool barely understood ****.  This beam then fires at each Relay in sequence, causing the detonation/shockwave with each corresponding Relay.  The shockwave is massive, as the dark energy core has all of its energy used in a single instant; most of this energy is used to fire off at the next Relay.  The rest of it does whatever space-magic flavor you picked in the system.

In this way, each system gets hit by the Control beam, and so each Reaper in each system with a Relay is now under Control; this can happen because of dark energy rising.  Or something.


Whatever, I'm done being 'creative.'  The point is, an extra five lines of dialogue from someone at some point  would have made the Crucible less retarded and more useful.  In Star Trek, we know that the solution is to realign the deflector dish to emit anti-matter gamma radiation; but if they don't say that, then it's gone from interesting BS to just ****.

Do you understand the difference, and why that difference (although minor) is so very significant?  (Not trying to be an ass here, honest curiosity.)

I don't disagree that more info is always useful. Knowledge is power.

[III Achilles II]

Easy answer: Star Child caused it to be added to the Crucible plans after one of the Reapings.  God only knows why.  Probably not even Bioware, because it seems possible that they didn't know what they were doing here at this point; or possibly it's supposed to hint to a deeper meaning of the Star Child.  He doesn't want to be the overseer of galactic order anymore, but he can't pass on the reins of awesome until someone comes along, so he creates a test to tell when it's time to give up.  That test is the Crucible, and Shepard is the first one to pass.

Stupid, corny, and at least as plausible as IT--with many fewer assumptions than IT relies upon.

The other answers might be questionable. Just like things in the first ME1 and ME2. NO they are not perfect, but the series as a whole is pretty incredible. A few minors issues here and there like a turrent, but honestly, nothing quite like what everyone is claiming with the ending. 

We will all know soon enough. 

That's the most absurd answer I've heard. Catalyst added it to try and "get caught" or something silly. And we I.T. theorist are grasping at straws? 

[balance5050]

majinbuu1307 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...
(snip)  

[*]Catalyst-Reapers exist to stop synthetics from destroying ALL(not just advanced, this is key) Life.[*]If synthetics where to be allowed, their calculations(over probably a billion or so years of evidence) is that the synthetics always eventually rebel, time needed is irrelevant. Geth could still possibly rebel again for another reason in 500 years, 1000 years, 20,000 years. Key point -Possibility of synthetics wiping out ALL organic life, not just advanced, total extinction of organics instead of making way for new ones-

The problem with that logic is that you could replace the word 'synthetics' with just about anything, if the length of time is irrelevant. For example, custard. The Catalyst could argue that custard will eventually destroy *all* organic life. Maybe not today, or in 20,000 years, but as long as there is a chance, however infinitesimal, that organic life will be wiped out by custard, it is inevitable that it will happen given enough time. Therefore the Reapers would be justified in destroying our civilization, to prevent us from making custard.

Anything could happen given enough time. 

Explain how custard would destroy us, without us doing something to custard to make it...synthetic custard. Or capable of moving, or killing anything, at all. Lol.

[*]Uhm, the mold on custard could evolve and give of deadly spores that kill... 

I'm going to punch you in the mandible lol

 
[*] [*]     [*] You see though? with that  kind of logic, everythingis in the realm of possibility, if time is infinite then EVERYTHING will happen eventually, so if time isn't a factor then everything happens.

[Byronic-Knight]

 

majinbuu1307 wrote. . . 
If synthetics where to be allowed, their calculations(over probably a billion or so years of evidence) is that the synthetics always eventually rebel, time needed is irrelevant. Geth could still possibly rebel again for another reason in 500 years, 1000 years, 20,000 years. Key point -Possibility of synthetics wiping out ALL organic life, not just advanced, total extinction of organics instead of making way for new ones-

Except the Geth didn't rebel. The Quarians tried to exterminate them because they began to ask existential questions. They acted out of self-defense. 

[Erield]

III Achilles II wrote...


That's the most absurd answer I've heard. Catalyst added it to try and "get caught" or something silly. And we I.T. theorist are grasping at straws? 

Fact:  A race added the Catalyst as Citadel to the Crucible plans

Supposition:  Star Child says that Shepard is the first Organic to make it to him. 
If you assume that Star Child is correct, or honestly lying (assume that Star Child believes that everything he says is true), then this becomes fact as well.

The odds of successfully creating designs and then building a Ferrari when you have no idea what/how the engine will be, and then magically finding it in space, is so small that...****.  A brick  is more likely to be a sentient species, and see it as our overlords in real-world Earth than that.

This heavily implies that Star Child is, at the least, indirectly responsible for the inclusion of the Catalyst in the plans of the Crucible.  When I specifically state that the motivation for that is guesswork, you latch on to that one bit to mock.  I even said it was stupid.  It's also at least as plausible as IT.  Why?

The theory that Star Child is behind everything takes the ME universe as presented at face value.  No great leaps of logic, no great assumptions, no ignoring large parts of the game claiming that they were all happening "in your mind."  Hell, it even stays true to the whole Catalyst and Crucible meanings. 
It is as thematically consistent, if not moreso, than IT.  Give me good arguments how it's not...I dare you 

[III Achilles II]

Erield wrote...

III Achilles II wrote...


That's the most absurd answer I've heard. Catalyst added it to try and "get caught" or something silly. And we I.T. theorist are grasping at straws? 

Fact:  A race added the Catalyst as Citadel to the Crucible plans

Supposition:  Star Child says that Shepard is the first Organic to make it to him. 
If you assume that Star Child is correct, or honestly lying (assume that Star Child believes that everything he says is true), then this becomes fact as well.

The odds of successfully creating designs and then building a Ferrari when you have no idea what/how the engine will be, and then magically finding it in space, is so small that...****.  A brick  is more likely to be a sentient species, and see it as our overlords in real-world Earth than that.

This heavily implies that Star Child is, at the least, indirectly responsible for the inclusion of the Catalyst in the plans of the Crucible.  When I specifically state that the motivation for that is guesswork, you latch on to that one bit to mock.  I even said it was stupid.  It's also at least as plausible as IT.  Why?

The theory that Star Child is behind everything takes the ME universe as presented at face value.  No great leaps of logic, no great assumptions, no ignoring large parts of the game claiming that they were all happening "in your mind."  Hell, it even stays true to the whole Catalyst and Crucible meanings. 
It is as thematically consistent, if not moreso, than IT.  Give me good arguments how it's not...I dare you 

1. The fact that the star child takes form ONLY AS A CHILD FROM WITHIN SHEPARD's MIND. 
2. Shepard and Female Shepard's voices are heard as STARCHILD.
3. Why does he make the comment you are the first race to reach him? IF another race ADDED HIM. 
4. It doesn't make sense why Starchild would add himself with plans to destroy the reapers when he is so strongly against stopping the cycle. 
5. We invented a lot of things over YEARS that were far beyond the time even a thousand years ago. The plans and crucible were built and re-built many, many cycles. 
6. How is indoctrination, a theme throughout all three games, illogical???? The plotholes exist to tell the gamers that the ending is off. Otherwise, how would we know Shepard was indoc.? 


I'm just saying. There are A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THE STARCHILD and Shepard's reactions. 

[harrier25699]

Good post, well constructed and just as convincing as the IT itself.

The ending still fails however, it took a fan (the OP) just over a month to provide another rationalisation of the vanilla ending, something the game should have done without leaving so much empty space for speculation.  It was a massive blunder by BioWare.  Empty space does not pertain bitter-sweet, though Damian Hirst could probably make it work, he was not involved.  It fails the fundamental rules of fictional story telling.

I had a whole massive post planned and draughted in notepad but I can't be bothered with this argument anymore.  The ending sucks and that, sadly,  is never going to change.

Modifié par harrier25699, 13 avril 2012 - 08:02 .