387 réponses à ce sujet

[KingZayd]

Optimystic_X wrote...

drewelow wrote...

Apologies for jumping into the argument:

Neither of these "easily explains", unless you consider space magic a good storytelling device.  In "science fiction".

Care to elaborate?

And the Crucible is hardly the first instance of "space magic" in the series, yet for some reason it's the one that has so many of you up in arms.

drewelow wrote... 
And what reason doesn't the Catalyst have to lie to you?

You mean besides already winning? And you not having a clue how to activate the Crucible?

Kileyan wrote...

So your reasoning is that the Starkid is so powerful he doesn't have to lie? Thats it, we must blindly trust all it says, because it is so powerful that it could kick our butt anyway?

Whether you trust it or not is unfortunately irrelevant. If he's lying, then none of the endings can be trusted; should you stand there and derp until your army/friends are destroyed?

Put another way: do nothing, and you lose. Do anything other than the three options presented, and you lose. What does defiance get you besides meaningless posturing?

No, you ignore his counsel, and just go for destroy like everyone wants you to.

[PsyrenY]

KingZayd wrote...
No, you ignore his counsel, and just go for destroy like everyone wants you to.

What "counsel?" Do you mean "here are your options?" Because Destroy is one of them.

[omphaloskepsis]

Optimystic_X wrote...

drewelow wrote...

Apologies for jumping into the argument:

Neither of these "easily explains", unless you consider space magic a good storytelling device.  In "science fiction".

Care to elaborate?

And the Crucible is hardly the first instance of "space magic" in the series, yet for some reason it's the one that has so many of you up in arms.

drewelow wrote... 
And what reason doesn't the Catalyst have to lie to you?

You mean besides already winning? And you not having a clue how to activate the Crucible?

Science fiction, and all storytelling, assumes a certain latitude at the beginning of a story.  Science fiction is about extrapolating the results of that early latitude in a logical and consistent way.  Actually, that consistency is a key to all forms of storytelling.  Last minute space magic is bad storytelling, and even worse sci-fi.  A freshman college class, and probably even a high school class, would tear that to shreds.

As to the starchild lying:  he wasn't already winning.  Depending on your EMS and readiness, Bioware actually tells you that YOU are winning (hence all of the posts about winning by conventional victory).  Even without huge readiness/EMS, considering the whole point of the Crucible is to win the war, and that Shepard is about to activate it, it's reasonable to assume that the Catalyst is worried. 

So Shepard has a reasonable assumption of victory, and certainly faith in his/her victory at that point.

But you dodged my question.  Is your Shepard in the habit of putting absolute trust in strangers who make claims of galactic genocide?

Modifié par drewelow, 19 avril 2012 - 02:47 .

[KingZayd]

Optimystic_X wrote...

KingZayd wrote...
No, you ignore his counsel, and just go for destroy like everyone wants you to.

What "counsel?" Do you mean "here are your options?" Because Destroy is one of them.

listen to what he says:
"I know you've come to destroy us" (obviously)
implies the geth will die.
The peace will not last (it never does), then some more rubbish about synthetics

you see anderson shooting the crucible.

While he is negative about destroy, he is far more positive about the other choices.

[pacer90]

Yeah I assumed it was the renegade option because you were forcing Shepard's morality on everyone else. I was wrong.

[Kileyan]

Optimystic_X wrote...

drewelow wrote...

Apologies for jumping into the argument:

Neither of these "easily explains", unless you consider space magic a good storytelling device.  In "science fiction".

Care to elaborate?

And the Crucible is hardly the first instance of "space magic" in the series, yet for some reason it's the one that has so many of you up in arms.

drewelow wrote... 
And what reason doesn't the Catalyst have to lie to you?

You mean besides already winning? And you not having a clue how to activate the Crucible?

Kileyan wrote...

So your reasoning is that the Starkid is so powerful he doesn't have to lie? Thats it, we must blindly trust all it says, because it is so powerful that it could kick our butt anyway?

Whether you trust it or not is unfortunately irrelevant. If he's lying, then none of the endings can be trusted; should you stand there and derp until your army/friends are destroyed?

Put another way: do nothing, and you lose. Do anything other than the three options presented, and you lose. What does defiance get you besides meaningless posturing?

Thank you, that is why the ending sucks. No matter what we do, we never really had any choices. Some games have a deus ex machina where we can win against all odds at the end. This game chose to put in a plot device where we can never win.

Believe me, I undertand what you are saying, but that is why the ending sucked. The ending relies on our character trusting this Starbaby, not even being able to ask a question, no dialog at all, just derp derp....if you say so sir baby sir, I will pull a lever sir starbaby.

That is bad story telling.

[CSunkyst]

Optimystic_X wrote...

drewelow wrote...

Apologies for jumping into the argument:

Neither of these "easily explains", unless you consider space magic a good storytelling device.  In "science fiction".

Care to elaborate?

And the Crucible is hardly the first instance of "space magic" in the series, yet for some reason it's the one that has so many of you up in arms.

drewelow wrote... 
And what reason doesn't the Catalyst have to lie to you?

You mean besides already winning? And you not having a clue how to activate the Crucible?

Kileyan wrote...

So your reasoning is that the Starkid is so powerful he doesn't have to lie? Thats it, we must blindly trust all it says, because it is so powerful that it could kick our butt anyway?

Whether you trust it or not is unfortunately irrelevant. If he's lying, then none of the endings can be trusted; should you stand there and derp until your army/friends are destroyed?

Put another way: do nothing, and you lose. Do anything other than the three options presented, and you lose. What does defiance get you besides meaningless posturing?

See, you're running under the false assumption that the ending couldn't have been written any other way.  The ending is bad in part BECAUSE those are our only options.  Writing the ending of an epic heroic trilogy so that our only option at the ending basically feels like an act of surrender?  In game it may be the only way to "win" but it was still a HORRIBLE idea. 

Hell chosing to go with the retarded technological singularity as Reaper motivation was itself a terrible idea, let alone Starbrat's counterproductive "solution" for it.  We shouldn't even be having that discussion with the starbrat in the second place. (in the first place the concept of Starbrat was a bad idea to begin with) 

What's wrong if having a high enough EMS with a united galaxy brings out a conventional victory?  What's wrong if your past coices and a high reputation open up the opportunity to use some of that famous Shepar "talk-fu" on the starbrat?  What's wrong with writing in a difficult to earn option where defiance in the face of a murderous entity leads to victory?  Do you just hate the idea of an emotionally satisfying ending?  If you don't like it then pick synthesis and violate the entire galaxy.

Also, it was hardly the first bit of "space magic" to upset the fans, or do I need to bring up breather masks and cat suits?  Mass Effect USED TO cater to the hard science fiction crowd, now it's operating on a level somewhere below Star Wars. 

Modifié par CSunkyst, 19 avril 2012 - 03:20 .

[ctanctan]

Extra-Planetal wrote...

I still say Synthesis ending - IT'S A TRAP

lol

[Narsilsword]

I also want to add that synthesis dooms non-sapient species.
I won't go into specifics, but if say a dog or shark (picked at random) were to undergo the (stupid) orgnanic-synthetic hybridization their adaptions and instincts would be thrown out of balance. They will not be able to adapt to such a change and will most likely die from being unable to cope.
now if the synthesis option makes all non-sapient life sapient and intelligent (which is not possible that fast) then that leads to a list of other complications

[Kileyan]

Narsilsword wrote...

I also want to add that synthesis dooms non-sapient species.
I won't go into specifics, but if say a dog or shark (picked at random) were to undergo the (stupid) orgnanic-synthetic hybridization their adaptions and instincts would be thrown out of balance. They will not be able to adapt to such a change and will most likely die from being unable to cope.
now if the synthesis option makes all non-sapient life sapient and intelligent (which is not possible that fast) then that leads to a list of other complications

I choose to believe it makes all life the same. A bunch of worker drones, a hivemind, a bunch of greys, shared intelligence which sounds good in theory, but lacking identity, freedom and ambition. It is just a network of samey drones. Dogs, cats, humans, roaches, all the same in the network.

We don't fight each other, it is a utopia! We don't do anything but exist to eventually wipe out or assimilate any organics that dared to survive the space magic, or dare to evolve. We are the reapers, except a more permanent solution that just systematically wipes out all organics, rather than waiting for them to grow and form societies.

The reapers get some vacation time that is long past due:)

[Narsilsword]

Kileyan wrote...

Narsilsword wrote...

I also want to add that synthesis dooms non-sapient species.
I won't go into specifics, but if say a dog or shark (picked at random) were to undergo the (stupid) orgnanic-synthetic hybridization their adaptions and instincts would be thrown out of balance. They will not be able to adapt to such a change and will most likely die from being unable to cope.
now if the synthesis option makes all non-sapient life sapient and intelligent (which is not possible that fast) then that leads to a list of other complications

I choose to believe it makes all life the same. A bunch of worker drones, a hivemind, a bunch of greys, shared intelligence which sounds good in theory, but lacking identity, freedom and ambition. It is just a network of samey drones. Dogs, cats, humans, roaches, all the same in the network.

We don't fight each other, it is a utopia! We don't do anything but exist to eventually wipe out or assimilate any organics that dared to survive the space magic, or dare to evolve. We are the reapers, except a more permanent solution that just systematically wipes out all organics, rather than waiting for them to grow and form societies.

The reapers get some vacation time that is long past due:)

Yes, but like I said, I really don't have time to go into the specifics, but while you can get away with Humans and intelligent life being able to cope with synthesis, non-sapient creatures can't undergo such an "upgrade" without sever complications.
Synthesis makes many mistakes about what evolution means and what its "purpose" is. Whoever wrote such an option misunderstodd evolution as having a "top and bottom" which is quite a common misunderstanding. So when starchild explains that this "new DNA" will be the replacement foundations of all organics (and I assume synthetics), non-sapient life would not be able to undergo such a transition without either becoming intelligent or going throw a long list of specific transitions that would take precision and time.

sharks, dogs, cats would not be able to join the "synthetic community" diue to a lack of sapient features that the writer obviously intended synthesis to be directed at. A dog's instincts are built specifically (or seem to be) around its evolutionary adaptions. Its mind is set to function best with the physical attributes natural selection has given it. A human is able to use its brain to step beyond his given abilities using intelligence almost escaping natural selection.
A dog undergoing synthesis would have no idea of what happened and would instead of adapting, would fail to interperet stimuli it had not been conditioned to interperet. It can't use human-like intelligence to make sense outside of its instinctual boundaries and would react with confusion.

[PsyrenY]

drewelow wrote...
Science fiction, and all storytelling, assumes a certain latitude at the beginning of a story.  Science fiction is about extrapolating the results of that early latitude in a logical and consistent way.  Actually, that consistency is a key to all forms of storytelling.  Last minute space magic is bad storytelling, and even worse sci-fi.  A freshman college class, and probably even a high school class, would tear that to shreds.

The Crucible wasn't "last-minute." It shows up immediately after the tutorial.

drewelow wrote... 
As to the starchild lying:  he wasn't already winning.  Depending on your EMS and readiness, Bioware actually tells you that YOU are winning (hence all of the posts about winning by conventional victory).

That high readiness "winning in key locations" message refers to ground skirmishes/evacuating civilians. In space - the battles that actually matter - you are routinely told that you cannot win conventionally, and the Crucible is your only chance, by a variety of very credible sources.

 

drewelow wrote...  
But you dodged my question.  Is your Shepard in the habit of putting absolute trust in strangers who make claims of galactic genocide?

My Shepard believes that AI acts according to logic. Starchild might have arrived at a faulty conclusion, but an outright fabrication does not compute, especially not when his goal would have been more easily obtained by not speaking to me at all. In short, he has no reason to lie; he could certainly be wrong, but even that is irrelevant since I need his help to activate the Crucible.

[PsyrenY]

KingZayd wrote...

While he is negative about destroy, he is far more positive about the other choices.

"Preference" is not "counsel." Synthesis is his favored option - but because he sees it as logical and inevitable, not because choosing it will hasten the destruction of this cycle's advanced life forms. Quite the opposite in fact - Synthesis ensures that they will remain, and this belief is validated by the Joker-EDI scene.

Kileyan wrote...

Believe me, I undertand what you are saying, but that is why the ending sucked. The ending relies on our character trusting this Starbaby, not even being able to ask a question, no dialog at all, just derp derp....if you say so sir baby sir, I will pull a lever sir starbaby.

That is bad story telling.

I can see why it might be distasteful to some, but my Shepard accepts that not every choice he makes will be 100% to his liking. Sometimes, one has to make lemonade out of life's lemons, and save as many people as possible.

Javik warned me, leading up to the final battle, that I would have more hard choices to make. Simply "plug in Crucible, flip switch, Reapers die, no consequences" would have been anticlimactic, after foreshadowing like that.

CSunkyst wrote...
What's wrong with writing in a difficult to earn option where defiance in the face of a murderous entity leads to victory?  Do you just hate the idea of an emotionally satisfying ending?  If you don't like it then pick synthesis and violate the entire galaxy.

To me, Synthesis IS "emotionally satisfying." I've advanced the universe thousands, perhaps millions of years in an instant, and ended millions more years of pointless bloodshed and conflict. What could be better?

[KingZayd]

Optimystic_X wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

While he is negative about destroy, he is far more positive about the other choices.

"Preference" is not "counsel." Synthesis is his favored option - but because he sees it as logical and inevitable, not because choosing it will hasten the destruction of this cycle's advanced life forms. Quite the opposite in fact - Synthesis ensures that they will remain, and this belief is validated by the Joker-EDI scene.

By counsel i meant what it tells you about the choices. The Joker-EDI scene is just what Shepard imagines after he jumps (or imagines jumping into the beam). Even if you think the Joker-EDI scene is real, there is no guarrantee that the reapers won't come and kill everyone again.

Modifié par KingZayd, 19 avril 2012 - 04:11 .

[omphaloskepsis]

Optimystic_X wrote...

drewelow wrote...
Science fiction, and all storytelling, assumes a certain latitude at the beginning of a story.  Science fiction is about extrapolating the results of that early latitude in a logical and consistent way.  Actually, that consistency is a key to all forms of storytelling.  Last minute space magic is bad storytelling, and even worse sci-fi.  A freshman college class, and probably even a high school class, would tear that to shreds.

The Crucible wasn't "last-minute." It shows up immediately after the tutorial.

drewelow wrote... 
As to the starchild lying:  he wasn't already winning.  Depending on your EMS and readiness, Bioware actually tells you that YOU are winning (hence all of the posts about winning by conventional victory).

That high readiness "winning in key locations" message refers to ground skirmishes/evacuating civilians. In space - the battles that actually matter - you are routinely told that you cannot win conventionally, and the Crucible is your only chance, by a variety of very credible sources.

 

drewelow wrote...  
But you dodged my question.  Is your Shepard in the habit of putting absolute trust in strangers who make claims of galactic genocide?

My Shepard believes that AI acts according to logic. Starchild might have arrived at a faulty conclusion, but an outright fabrication does not compute, especially not when his goal would have been more easily obtained by not speaking to me at all. In short, he has no reason to lie; he could certainly be wrong, but even that is irrelevant since I need his help to activate the Crucible.

OK, your first 2 responses didn't address what we were talking about, but I"ll provide context and see if that works better (maybe I should have quoted everything).

Your 2nd response is regarding the starchild lying (or not):
First, if the starchild thinks that it has a chance of losing, lying is a perfectly logical strategy. 

But, there are other issues that highlight the fact that the starchild is seriously untrustworthy, such as its use of the term "ascendance" to describe civilizations that have been destroyed and turned into its slaves for a billion years.  Control + ascendance = utter breakdown of the integrity of the starchild, and in the synthesis ending.  (Granted, you could argue that the writers meant well, and just screwed up, but that's a big, big screw up.)

My general point:  Shepard had reason to believe he/she was about to win, at the point the starchild appears.  Then the starchild spouts a lot of bad dialog that implies that the starchild is either an idiot, or lying.  (Or the writers weren't up to writing that ending.)

Quick summary of issues with dialog:  DNA doesn't work like that, evolution doesn't work like that, ascendance doesn't work like that, etc.

Back to my first point:

You said:
And again, you continually blind yourself to the two key possibilities here:
(a) Whichever species decided to incorporate the Catalyst could have deduced the Star-AI's presence on the Citadel:
( Nobody deduced it, and this was just a random side effect of hooking the thing up without knowing there was an AI installed.

Either of those easily explain the Catalyst behaving the way it does...

I said:
Not easily explained, except by space magic.  To provide more detail:

(a) Assuming that anybody deduced the starchilds presence is silly.  The protheans would have done a lot more than just messing with the keepers, they probably would have tried to destroy the Citadel.   Also, even if a previous race had in some ridiculous manner (other than space magic) guessed at this, they'd need a lot of details to be able to develop an interface... unless we're talking space magic.
( random side effect = DEEP space magic

...then I went on to explain why space magic is generally accepted at the beginning, but not at the end of a story.

[liggy002]

GorrilaKing wrote...

Even though it''s the supposedly "good" ending, with everyone living, it still seems quite horrific to me.

---Medics desperately trying to knit an injured soldier back together...green light passes through them...and, apart from the trauma of suddenly being composed of bio-mechanical parts, they don't know how the man's body works now!

---Geth suffering systems failure due to delays between the newly-introduced nerve strains and artificial ganglia.

----Normandy's computer core turning into half a brain (EDI is not her body, she IS the Normandy, her processors and blue box are stored onboard). Does that mean she needs a neurosurgeon and a technician to repair her damage? The same goes for Geth ships, since they are part of the Consensus or at least have individual Geth inside them.

---Children! How traumatising would it be for a young child to suddenly undergo a change of your looks and the way your entire body works...and see the change in your own parents??? I see psych wards practically exploding.

And these are just the things that come to mind immediately. The idea is just...terrifying, if you think too much about it.

And on another note...the Catalyst can create a beam of energy that somehow manages to affect any organic and synthetic thing in the universe....and yet it cannot simply switch into "kill reapers, leave other synthetics intact" mode??? Really, what the hell??

Synthesis.... forcing your DNA on the entire galaxy.   Yeah, Shepard is a real hero.

[TrollDemon]

The reason why I didn't choose Synthesis was because the Reapers are still alive and they just leave.

It's like when they get hit by the green light all of a sudden the Reapers go "Technological singularity averted. Time to go to other places"

I refuse to let something like the Reapers exist when I have the chance to destroy them. Especially after it's been hammered in all three installments that the Reapers must be stopped.

[liggy002]

Yeah, our galaxy is saved but another galaxy is screwed and will be harvested.

[Pockles]

Never liked Synthesis.

[PsyrenY]

KingZayd wrote...
By counsel i meant what it tells you about the choices. The Joker-EDI scene is just what Shepard imagines after he jumps (or imagines jumping into the beam). Even if you think the Joker-EDI scene is real, there is no guarrantee that the reapers won't come and kill everyone again.

1) I already told you that I completely discount IDT as nothing more than fanwank. So telling me what Shepard "imagines" is pointless. What we see is what happens.

2) Well, their leader tells you that it will end the cycle, but you don't trust him so... Unfortunately, if you're holding out for third-party verification, you're unlikely to get any. So I suppose picking Destroy (though that is still an option he presents) is valid if for some reason you think he's being deceitful, though I still fail to see what he would have to gain by doing so.

drewelow wrote...
But, there are other issues that highlight the fact that the starchild is seriously untrustworthy, such as its use of the term "ascendance" to describe civilizations that have been destroyed and turned into its slaves for a billion years.  Control + ascendance = utter breakdown of the integrity of the starchild, and in the synthesis ending.  (Granted, you could argue that the writers meant well, and just screwed up, but that's a big, big screw up.)

He genuinely believes he is ascending these races. Whether he is WRONG is another matter.

drewelow wrote... 
My general point:  Shepard had reason to believe he/she was about to win, at the point the starchild appears.

Shepard's last statement before the Catalyst appears is that s/he doesn't know how to activate the Crucible. That doesn't sound like victory to me. S/he then passes out.

drewelow wrote...  
Quick summary of issues with dialog:  DNA doesn't work like that, evolution doesn't work like that, ascendance doesn't work like that, etc.

Arthur C. Clarke, blah blah.

drewelow wrote...  
I said:
Not easily explained, except by space magic.  To provide more detail:

(a) Assuming that anybody deduced the starchilds presence is silly.  The protheans would have done a lot more than just messing with the keepers, they probably would have tried to destroy the Citadel.   Also, even if a previous race had in some ridiculous manner (other than space magic) guessed at this, they'd need a lot of details to be able to develop an interface... unless we're talking space magic.
( random side effect = DEEP space magic

...then I went on to explain why space magic is generally accepted at the beginning, but not at the end of a story.

Mass Effect runs on space magic, denying it just because it doesn't do what you want it to do in this instance is disingenuous.

For your counterpooints:
(a) It's no sillier that determining you need the Citadel, the first structure to fall in every reaping, to begin with. Also, I'm glad you mentioned the keepers - there is a perfect example of designing for something you can't see. How did the Ilos folks develop the program to modify the keepers while not being on the Citadel? How did they even determine that the Keepers were the cause of their downfall, if everyone there was dead before they even realized they were under attack? So you see, it's possible for bright enougn minds to deduce information (or merely hypothesize it) without having to be physically located at the thing they're studying.

( Merely throwing out the term "space magic" does not bother me in the slightest, because the Crucible is but the latest example of such in the series.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 19 avril 2012 - 05:32 .

[Ender99]

Yep, Bioware's ending of choice was for Shepard to forcibly alter the genetics of every creature in the galaxy without their consent. I don't see an ethical issue there. -sarcasm hand raised-

[CSunkyst]

Optimystic_X wrote...

CSunkyst wrote...
What's wrong with writing in a difficult to earn option where defiance in the face of a murderous entity leads to victory?  Do you just hate the idea of an emotionally satisfying ending?  If you don't like it then pick synthesis and violate the entire galaxy.

To me, Synthesis IS "emotionally satisfying." I've advanced the universe thousands, perhaps millions of years in an instant, and ended millions more years of pointless bloodshed and conflict. What could be better?

Yeah, to YOU, not to the other 98.5% of people who felt like the endings, all of them, punched us in the gut then took our wallets. 

If I had chosen synthesis, I'd I feel like I robbed humanity of it's.... humanity and turned all life into a creepy organic/emotionless machine hybrid in order to prevent millions of years of pointless bloodshed that wouldn't necessarily have happened anyway because Edi and the Geth are walking proof that the Catalyst's logic was horribly flawed, so I would have fundamentally violated all organic life everywhere in ways none of us even understand and also I pointlessly died...  all for nothing.

So I hope you can see how that ending WASN'T emotionally satisfying for most players. 

The endings are REALLY unsatisfying and completely fall apart when you realise "technological singularity" is kind of BS.  Bioware is telling us "Here players, this is how you can stop the problem of synthetics" Me: "huh?!?!?  But synthetics aren't a "problem" we've been geting along just fine with the robots for the last two games, the catalyst and his "toys" seem to be the only real problem here"  The ending let us resolve an issue that MOST players never saw as being an issue in the first place, just some BS Casey and Mac tacked on at the last minute.

I chose destroy incidentally.  Mostly out of spite to be perfectly honest, I despised all of the ending"s"

Modifié par CSunkyst, 19 avril 2012 - 06:32 .

[CSunkyst]

What about new life that evolves after the catalyst destroyed the Mass Effect universe? Aren't they just going to create "harmful AI" that will destroy everything? Or is the synthesized humanity going to hunt down and kill any new life that evolves? Y'know because we're synthetic now, and because we have robo-DNA (it really makes perfect sense) according the Catalyst logic doesn't that mean we'd have to kill any fully organic life we come across? Because that's what all synthetics inevitably will do.

Modifié par CSunkyst, 19 avril 2012 - 06:39 .

[ArchDuck]

Optimystic_X wrote...

drewelow wrote...  
Quick summary of issues with dialog:  DNA doesn't work like that, evolution doesn't work like that, ascendance doesn't work like that, etc.

Arthur C. Clarke, blah blah.

How is that even an answer? 

Modifié par ArchDuck, 19 avril 2012 - 06:53 .

[PsyrenY]

CSunkyst wrote...

What about new life that evolves after the catalyst destroyed the Mass Effect universe? Aren't they just going to create "harmful AI" that will destroy everything? Or is the synthesized humanity going to hunt down and kill any new life that evolves? Y'know because we're synthetic now, and because we have robo-DNA (it really makes perfect sense) according the Catalyst logic doesn't that mean we'd have to kill any fully organic life we come across? Because that's what all synthetics inevitably will do.

If you go by the Drake Equation, the chances of us coming across a civilization that has already been overrun by their own AIs approaches 100% on a long enough timeline. This is because the chance of any civilization being overrun by AI similarly approaches 100% given enough time.

In other words, the Catalyst's logic, while not perfect, is not nearly as far off base as people think. Give this a read.

ArchDuck wrote...

How is that even an answer? 

Third law.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 19 avril 2012 - 06:56 .