282 réponses à ce sujet

[MegaSovereign]

AlanC9 wrote...

Icemix wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

If the IT is true then how the indoctrination endings (blue and green) are only available to you in certain circumstances while the destroy ending is almost always available?

The better you do the bigger the chance of you being indoctrinated, yes that makes sense right? Oh wait it doesn't...

I'll play. 

Getting higher EMS mean that Shepard has to do more missions, explore the galaxy, and so forth. This takes Shepard longer, and gives the Reapers more time to Indoctrinate Shepard.

Not necessarily. It could just mean you majorly ****ed up by not following to make your decisions wisely. For example earning or losing Krogan support doesn't really affect Shepard's time frame. Also EMS can be boosted by playing multiplayer, something completely unrelated to Shepard's journey in terms of time.

Also, it'd be an incredibly stupid game mechanic. Bioware would basically be catering to the crowd who basically were dicking around the entire series. What kind of message would that send?

[VampireSoap]

UnstableMongoose wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Icemix wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Humans need to believe the future will always be better than the past or present. That's why they invent things like afterlife which will be a paradise awaiting them they just need to behave properly in order to reach it. This hope (you could call it false hope) prevents them from just givng up on life. I also believe humans have evolved to look for ways that give existence meaning.

Ah yes meaning, an old guy in the shy that wants your money. Religion is single handedly the biggest cause of death in human history.

That's not even remotely true. It's actually laughable.

I'm not sure if that's true, but sure there were A LOT of people died because of The Crusade. And judging from what's happening right now in the middle east. I mean, seriously? Religion is harmless?

He didn't say harmless. He said that calling the majority of deaths throughout history religiously-based is laughable. You need to learn to identify what the actual meaning of someone's statements are. He never said harmless. You put that word into his mouth while quoting his statement which clearly shows that he did not say what you're claiming he said. Seriously, what is wrong with you?

Well, I didn't say that he said that either. I was hoping he would come out and say, "Oh no I didn't say religion was harmless..Bla Bla Bla" And then I would ask him, "Then you do think religion is harmful?" And so on.

The fact that you haven't answered my previous post about making claims still makes me wonder.

[Binary_Helix 1]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Yea it really doesn't make any sense. The lower your EMS, the less indoctrination attempts there are...

That might just mean the Reapers don't need to really stop a Shepard with a low EMS. Where as a high EMS Shepard needs to be stopped immeditately.

[steej]

The IT, whilst compelling and potentially plausible, is just a theory.

These wild claims are no more provable than saying the whole thing was just a dream. By the same token you could argue that none of it truly happened and it was all just a work of fiction cooked up by Grandpa to keep his Grandson entertained.

It's human nature to try and make sense out of seemingly senseless situations.
People didn’t get the 'happy ever after' ending the expected, so cooked up some random chain of circumstantial 'evidence' to corroborate their theory that Shepard was in fact Indoctrinated.

What happened happened.

Mass Effect ended that way you made it happen. Just because you didn’t like it doesn’t give you grounds to ‘demand a better ending’ or to dream up some random half-baked theory that somehow, somewhere Shepard is…indoctrinated (no spoiler given ).

Give up.
It's not true.

Modifié par steej, 03 mai 2012 - 09:40 .

[VampireSoap]

steej wrote...

The IT, whilst compelling and potentially plausible, is just a theory.

These wild claims are no more provable than saying the whole thing was just a dream. By the same token you could argue that none of it truly happened and it was all just a work of fiction cooked up by Grandpa to keep his Grandson entertained.

It's human nature to try and make sense out of seemingly senseless situations.
People didn’t get the 'happy ever after' ending the expected, so cooked up some random chain of circumstantial 'evidence' to corroborate their theory that Shepard was in fact Indoctrinated.

What happened happened.

Mass Effect ended that way you made it happen. Just because you didn’t like it doesn’t give you grounds to ‘demand a better ending’ or to dream up some random half-baked theory that somehow, somewhere Shepard is…indoctrinated (no spoiler given ).

Give up.
It's not true.

Well said :wizard:

[Cadence of the Planes]

UnstableMongoose wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Icemix wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Humans need to believe the future will always be better than the past or present. That's why they invent things like afterlife which will be a paradise awaiting them they just need to behave properly in order to reach it. This hope (you could call it false hope) prevents them from just givng up on life. I also believe humans have evolved to look for ways that give existence meaning.

Ah yes meaning, an old guy in the shy that wants your money. Religion is single handedly the biggest cause of death in human history.

That's not even remotely true. It's actually laughable.

I'm not sure if that's true, but sure there were A LOT of people died because of The Crusade. And judging from what's happening right now in the middle east. I mean, seriously? Religion is harmless?

He didn't say harmless. He said that calling the majority of deaths throughout history religiously-based is laughable. You need to learn to identify what the actual meaning of someone's statements are. He never said harmless. You put that word into his mouth while quoting his statement which clearly shows that he did not say what you're claiming he said. Seriously, what is wrong with you?

hahahaa OWNED

[VampireSoap]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Yea it really doesn't make any sense. The lower your EMS, the less indoctrination attempts there are...

That might just mean the Reapers don't need to really stop a Shepard with a low EMS. Where as a high EMS Shepard needs to be stopped immeditately.

Please.....don't stop.....:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[AlanC9]

MegaSovereign wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Icemix wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

If the IT is true then how the indoctrination endings (blue and green) are only available to you in certain circumstances while the destroy ending is almost always available?

The better you do the bigger the chance of you being indoctrinated, yes that makes sense right? Oh wait it doesn't...

I'll play. 

Getting higher EMS mean that Shepard has to do more missions, explore the galaxy, and so forth. This takes Shepard longer, and gives the Reapers more time to Indoctrinate Shepard.

Not necessarily. It could just mean you majorly ****ed up by not following to make your decisions wisely. For example earning or losing Krogan support doesn't really affect Shepard's time frame. Also EMS can be boosted by playing multiplayer, something completely unrelated to Shepard's journey in terms of time.

Also, it'd be an incredibly stupid game mechanic. Bioware would basically be catering to the crowd who basically were dicking around the entire series. What kind of message would that send?

Hey, I'm trying to pretend to believe in IT here. Of course it's a stupid mechanic. You have to believe that Bio's capable of making a stupid plan to believe in IT.

(To disbelieve in IT all you have to believe is that Bio can write bad endings)

[UnstableMongoose]

VampireSoap wrote...

Well, I didn't say that he said that either. I was hoping he would come out and say, "Oh no I didn't say religion was harmless..Bla Bla Bla" And then I would ask him, "Then you do think religion is harmful?" And so on.

The fact that you haven't answered my previous post about making claims still makes me wonder.

I've answered it no less than five times in various forms throughout this thread. I don't feel like double-posting responses when you raise a question that I've already answered in another form.

You just literally admitted that you extrapolated on someone's arguments based on what you thought they would say. I have no respect for you anymore, and I'm going to turn this tactic back on you.

Go back to the hole you crawled out of (which is probably a kitchen) home economics major!

Modifié par UnstableMongoose, 03 mai 2012 - 09:49 .

[VampireSoap]

AlanC9 wrote...

Hey, I'm trying to pretend to believe in IT here. Of course it's a stupid mechanic. You have to believe that Bio's capable of making a stupid plan to believe in IT.

(To disbelieve in IT all you have to believe is that Bio can write bad endings)

Wow...hold on. Poe's law?:lol:  It's difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between parodies of fundamentalism and its genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane.

[Icemix]

Cadence of the Planes wrote...

UnstableMongoose wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Icemix wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Humans need to believe the future will always be better than the past or present. That's why they invent things like afterlife which will be a paradise awaiting them they just need to behave properly in order to reach it. This hope (you could call it false hope) prevents them from just givng up on life. I also believe humans have evolved to look for ways that give existence meaning.

Ah yes meaning, an old guy in the shy that wants your money. Religion is single handedly the biggest cause of death in human history.

That's not even remotely true. It's actually laughable.

I'm not sure if that's true, but sure there were A LOT of people died because of The Crusade. And judging from what's happening right now in the middle east. I mean, seriously? Religion is harmless?

He didn't say harmless. He said that calling the majority of deaths throughout history religiously-based is laughable. You need to learn to identify what the actual meaning of someone's statements are. He never said harmless. You put that word into his mouth while quoting his statement which clearly shows that he did not say what you're claiming he said. Seriously, what is wrong with you?

hahahaa OWNED

You are still around here? Aren't you too busy eating your own words? Anyway, what I said was kinda of an exaggeration. Let me perephrase it. Religion is one of the leading couses of death in human history.

[UnstableMongoose]

Icemix wrote...

You are still around here? Aren't you too busy eating your own words? Anyway, what I said was kinda of an exaggeration. Let me perephrase it. Religion is one of the leading couses of death in human history.

Let me "rephrase" this for you: no. Learn some history and some basic damn biology and then come back and talk. A middle-school education is enough to provide you with the tools to realize the statement that you just made is not only completely impossible to prove, but almost certainly false.

[The Smoking Man]

UnstableMongoose wrote...

You claim that the ending is meaningless because of this ambiguity. This
is equivalent to claiming that a particle has no quantuum state because
it spends its time distributed between two.

So you're saying the ending is meaningful because it spends its time distributed between two different interpretations of it?

• ...
• ...
• ...
• ...
• ... This reinforces the concept that no particular interpretation of the ending, so long as it is founded on reasonable principles, can be thrown out at this juncture.

Yay, a second time I get to reply to this claim! So, if this claim is true, then there is, in fact, a multitude of meaninful interpretations of the ending that can possibly be true, yet each one of these interpretations is mutually exclusive with each other. Thus, I obviously can't accept all of them; I also can't accept just one of them, as has been well established already. With no compelling reason to assign any meaninful interpretation to the ending, it has no meaning.

Although, you can consider that BW's writers would know the meaning behind the ending, except in the highly unlikely event that they didn't put much thought into that aspect (but with the ending seemingly not having much thought put into it on the surface, you never know); and for them to know the meaning clearly implies there is one. But, without the writers giving actual confirmation of any interpretation, which would require nothing less than BW showing us the rest of the ending where we see the aftermath of the Crucible firing in greater detail, for all intents and purposes everyone ouside of BW can regard this conclusion as having the same implications as the one where the ending is meaninless anyway.

[VampireSoap]

UnstableMongoose wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

Well, I didn't say that he said that either. I was hoping he would come out and say, "Oh no I didn't say religion was harmless..Bla Bla Bla" And then I would ask him, "Then you do think religion is harmful?" And so on.

The fact that you haven't answered my previous post about making claims still makes me wonder.

I've answered it no less than five times in various forms throughout this thread. I don't feel like double-posting responses when you raise a question that I've already answered in another form.

You just literally admitted that you extrapolated on someone's arguments based on what you thought they would say. I have no respect for you anymore, and I'm going to turn this tactic back on you.

Go back to the hole you crawled out of (which is probably a kitchen) home economics major!

Ok, since you are so reluctant. Let me say it for you. Your answer to my question is YES ---- I was making a claim when I denied you as my father. And...I have nothing more to say to you, since I don't have illusion of convincing someone like you with pure logic.

But I do have something I want to say to other people who are reading this, please think about what kind of person you are aligning yourself with before you form your opinion.

Modifié par VampireSoap, 03 mai 2012 - 09:57 .

[UnstableMongoose]

The Smoking Man wrote...
So you're saying the ending is meaningful because it spends its time distributed between two different interpretations of it?

Yep, actually. That is precisely what I'm saying. Something that can be shown to have more than one meaning has, by very definition, crossed the threshold of meaningless. If it was meaningless there would be zero interpretations, or every single possible interpretation would have to be devoid of meaning.

[UnstableMongoose]

VampireSoap wrote...

Ok, since you are so reluctant. Let me say it for you. You answer to my question is YES ---- I was making a claim when I denied you as my father. And...I have nothing more to say to you, since I don't have illusion of convincing someone like you with my incomplete understanding of pure logic.

But I do have something I want to say to other people who are reading this, please think about what kind of person you are aligning yourself with before you form your opinion.

Fixed.

It's still typical to actually tell freshmen what the problems with their theses are outright, correct? Or should I have been more Socratic in terms of instruction?

[The Smoking Man]

UnstableMongoose wrote...

The Smoking Man wrote...
So you're saying the ending is meaningful because it spends its time distributed between two different interpretations of it?

Yep, actually. That is precisely what I'm saying. Something that can be shown to have more than one meaning has, by very definition, crossed the threshold of meaningless. If it was meaningless there would be zero interpretations, or every single possible interpretation would have to be devoid of meaning.

So you're saying the ending is every interpretation, or is iterating through each interpretation over time?

UnstableMongoose wrote...

Icemix wrote...

You are still around here? Aren't you too busy eating your own words? Anyway, what I said was kinda of an exaggeration. Let me perephrase it. Religion is one of the leading couses of death in human history.

Let me "rephrase" this for you: no. Learn some history and some basic damn biology and then come back and talk. A middle-school education is enough to provide you with the tools to realize the statement that you just made is not only completely impossible to prove, but almost certainly false.

He probably meant to claim it's one of the leading causes of death inflicted by other humans, which there would be a much stronger case for.

[Icemix]

UnstableMongoose wrote...

Icemix wrote...

You are still around here? Aren't you too busy eating your own words? Anyway, what I said was kinda of an exaggeration. Let me perephrase it. Religion is one of the leading couses of death in human history.

Let me "rephrase" this for you: no. Learn some history and some basic damn biology and then come back and talk. A middle-school education is enough to provide you with the tools to realize the statement that you just made is not only completely impossible to prove, but almost certainly false.

We can argue about that all you want. The fact is, if religion never existed, there would be a lot less dead people for no ****ing reason whatsoever.

[VampireSoap]

Guys, stop wasting time with the likes of him. How can you reason with a guy who can not even tell who makes the claim in an argument?

[UnstableMongoose]

Icemix wrote...

UnstableMongoose wrote...

Icemix wrote...

You are still around here? Aren't you too busy eating your own words? Anyway, what I said was kinda of an exaggeration. Let me perephrase it. Religion is one of the leading couses of death in human history.

Let me "rephrase" this for you: no. Learn some history and some basic damn biology and then come back and talk. A middle-school education is enough to provide you with the tools to realize the statement that you just made is not only completely impossible to prove, but almost certainly false.

We can argue about that all you want. The fact is, if religion never existed, there would be a lot less dead people for no ****ing reason whatsoever.

That is quite possibly the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard.

What about all the good that has come of religion? What of the Civil Rights movement, started in Baptist churches in the southern United States? What of Ghandi's movement, religiously charged? What of the involvement of Catholicism in the liberation of Poland from Soviet control? What of the fact that religious organizations have always been and remain the largest source of philanthrophy in the world? What of the Arab caliphates and medieval monasteries, both sources of great advancement in science and learning?

You can say something cute about the Crusades. I'll tell you Stalin was an atheist. I guarantee that I can match you blow-for-blow without breaking a sweat here.

You just made a blanket statement, ignoring thousands of immediate and obvious counter-arguments.

But, I digress. This hardly has anything to do with the thread at hand.

Modifié par UnstableMongoose, 03 mai 2012 - 10:13 .

[The Smoking Man]

Icemix wrote...

We can argue about that all you want. The fact is, if religion never existed, there would be a lot less dead people for no ****ing reason whatsoever.

Actually, nobody died for no reason due to religion; if they died for no reason, then their deaths would have happened irrespective of religion's existence or nonexistence, for if it was dependent on it, then there would be a reason for their deaths, that being religion. Furthermore, while it is easier to count the death toll due to religion, counting lives it has actually prevented from dying due to its influence is practically impossible, thereby making the comparative death toll if the alternative had happened equally impossible to determine.

Modifié par The Smoking Man, 03 mai 2012 - 10:31 .

[ldreg]

Well I'm not so good on english, but I will try anyway.
I reacted on relegion. So I will just tell my idea, please also react to it or maybe give me some points.

My personal feeling about relegion it' interesting, good too know about, I think it is fun too read alot of it because I also love fiction. A funny thought we maybe wouldn't have fantasy games today because many of us like magic, unknown power. Because of relegion I have something to compare with, we dont need relegion "anymore"; note I said anymore.

You learn from lessons and relegion is like a lesson for us to know what wrong is, so we need relegion to have answers to whats right. It's also true that relegion have some good rules/stories/movemeents but they only strenghen that we don't need relegion. Just our own power is great power not a power that we have never seen. And every day we prove something.

edit note; so relegion for me is a pre-state to learn true answers

Modifié par ldreg, 03 mai 2012 - 10:29 .

[Binary_Helix 1]

VampireSoap wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Yea it really doesn't make any sense. The lower your EMS, the less indoctrination attempts there are...

That might just mean the Reapers don't need to really stop a Shepard with a low EMS. Where as a high EMS Shepard needs to be stopped immeditately.

Please.....don't stop.....:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I'm not so sure it's that dumb. I'm aware the IT is laughable to you but most players with high EMS selected the synthesize option which according to IT is the worst choice. It's almost exactly what Saren believed in ME1.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 03 mai 2012 - 10:36 .

[UnstableMongoose]

The Smoking Man wrote...

Icemix wrote...

We can argue about that all you want. The fact is, if religion never existed, there would be a lot less dead people for no ****ing reason whatsoever.

Actually, nobody died for no reason due to religion; if they died for no reason, then their deaths would have happened irrespective of religion's existence or nonexistence, for if it was dependent on it, then there would be a reason for their deaths, that being religion. Furthermore, while it is easier to count the death toll due to religion, counting lives it has actually prevented from dying due to its influence is practically impossible, thereby making the comparative death toll if the alternative had happened equally impossible to determine.

The Smoking Man speaks the truth.

[Icemix]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Yea it really doesn't make any sense. The lower your EMS, the less indoctrination attempts there are...

That might just mean the Reapers don't need to really stop a Shepard with a low EMS. Where as a high EMS Shepard needs to be stopped immeditately.

Please.....don't stop.....:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I'm not so sure it's that dumb. I'm aware the IT is laughable to you but most players with high EMS selected the synthesize option which according to IT is the worst choice. It's almost exactly what Saren believed in ME1.

Probably because a lot of people with high EMS were misled to believe that the ending with the highers EMS requirement, actually results in the best outcome, which is obviously not the case.