1357 réponses à ce sujet

[SubAstris]

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

Well indirectly killed the Child on Earth, it is unclear whether he controls every individual Reaper's actions or delegates responsibility somewhat to the Reaper themselves. Regardless, you should assume that what a character is saying is true unless the narrative distinctively tells you otherwise. Just because he has committed horrendous actions doesn't mean that everything he says is complete bull.

[/quote]

no but he hasn't given me any reason to trust him.  also, why should you automatically assume that every character is telling the truth unless you're explicitly told so? i know it's science fiction, but i think you're taking it a little far. Everybody lies.

It doesn't matter that he might not have directly killed the Child on Earth. He still gave the order (if he indeed controls the reapers). He's similarly responsible for the deaths of many other children, and grownups too.

I actually think he's manipulating you with half-truths as well as lies. Without them killing us earlier, it's quite possible that we (like the Quarians) would start a stupid war and get ourselves killed by some synthetics. But I don't believe that this is their true motivation, and nothing in my encounter warranted my beginning to trust this abomination,

[/quote]

I'll give you an example. You know that scene when you meet Garrus for the 1st time in ME1? Did you initially assume that he was lying to begin? About working for C-Sec for example? If you didn't, then why assume the Catalyst is lying, despite having the same prior information on it as for Garrus?

Evidence in game?

[/quote]
[/quote]

Was there a reason I shouldn't have trusted Garrus?

[/quote]

My point exactly

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
That is not evidence that he is lying.... not trusting someone is not proof that they are lying...

my point is there isn't evidence that he isn't either.

So you can't show he is lying....

oh i can show to a pretty reasonable extent, that if he isn't lying, then the mass effect universe doesn't make sense/ is just ridiculous.

Again, you can't show it lying.

"Hey, grab this lightning and you can control million year old death machines!"

"Hey, jump into this f***in laser and everyone becomes a cyborg!"

"Yeah, just shoot those tubes over there, that's how to PROPERLY activate this highly advanced tech."

Symbology man, don't spare the reapers, we fight or we die.

Modifié par balance5050, 05 mai 2012 - 08:50 .

[OH-UP-THIS!]

balance5050 wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

--smooth editing there....

Clarification can mean anything. IT just happens to not change the ending but only clarify them. No "massive battle and long missions" needed what so ever.

(Although that would be a pleasant surprise that would redeem bioware for most the fans.)

A few perhaps, but myself on the other hand, would NOT want some half-arsed battle-cut-scene, with Harby.

No don't put words in my mouth, all I want from this abomination is knowing what happened, as a result of EVERYTHING we just did, not some inane badly editted cut-scenes.

?
I wasn't putting words in your mouth.

No not you personally, sorry that came out wrong.

i was referring to our collective Anti-IT bunch.

No worries, things get heated in here.

I personally like debating this because of the metagame. More then looking for clues I feel like we're shepard trying to convince the council about the reaper threat, or trying to convince Saren that he's indoctrinated. It's fun to me!

Don't let the indoctrinated affect your resolve ohupthis, keep fighting the good fight!

your forum nic is actually quite appropriate, especially around these parts LOL.

I'm trying, I really am, but sometimes the indoctrinated can't break-free long enough to see reason. 
 
Oh well, some other day perhaps?

[Leafs43]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
That is not evidence that he is lying.... not trusting someone is not proof that they are lying...

my point is there isn't evidence that he isn't either.

So you can't show he is lying....

oh i can show to a pretty reasonable extent, that if he isn't lying, then the mass effect universe doesn't make sense/ is just ridiculous.

Again, you can't show it lying.

Catalyst says Shepherd will die due to his synthetic implant if he chooses destroy.

Shepherd doesn't die in destroy


Catalyst found to be lying.

Undeniable evidence.

Modifié par Leafs43, 05 mai 2012 - 08:51 .

[KingZayd]

ThinkIntegral wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
That is not evidence that he is lying.... not trusting someone is not proof that they are lying...

my point is there isn't evidence that he isn't either.

So you can't show he is lying....

oh i can show to a pretty reasonable extent, that if he isn't lying, then the mass effect universe doesn't make sense/ is just ridiculous.

You know if it was lying or even wanted to lie, it wouldn't even have bother to lift Shepard to the outside on the bottom of the Presidium. The Reapers were already winning.  In other words, why even bother to fool Shepard when it was already winning?

If it wasn't lying it had no reason to bring Shepard upstairs either. The only answer that makes sense is indoctrination.

[balance5050]

There's a reason to not trust starbrat.

[ThinkIntegral]

KingZayd wrote...

Was there a reason I shouldn't have trusted Garrus? everything he was saying seemed reasonable, and I don't think I had any prior information about Garrus's actions that would make me distrust him?

When the lift was moving upwards, and the Starchild was approaching, I was neutral. The Starchild then said he controlled the reapers, and they were his solution. That automatically means he is responsible for the reapers' actions. That shifts my position into one of distrust. Nothing he said gave me a reason to trust him. So i didn't.

As he said before distrust doesn't per se equal lying.  It can be tarnishing to credibility, but that doesn't mean it's lying for that instance.   If it is lying, then the Crucible didn't work.  Your whole point in building that thing ended up a failure, the whole point of building that thing for that game is a failure and rendered almost moot.

Going beyond the game, I guess Mac Walters could write something like that, but then that shows he's an even crappier writer.  There'd be no real internal logic to the story he wove, no structure.

[Sable Phoenix]

CavScout wrote...

Sable Phoenix wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Sable Phoenix wrote...
In essence, until BioWare out and out says otherwise, the Indoctrination Theory is just as valid an interpretation of the ending as the literallist one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

... did you even read the excerpt I posted?

It doesn't make your comments anymore valid.

Just because you say so, does not make it so.  Offer something to support your claim, otherwise it's mere sound and fury, signifying nothing.

And since my comment was directly referring to the excerpt from the essay that I posted, it might behoove you to address that instead.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 05 mai 2012 - 08:52 .

[OH-UP-THIS!]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Again, if it's all a dream state, created by the Reapers, why are they putting in the "Win" button for Shep to use? Why doesn't the Catalyst just omit the Destroy ending option?

The mind always creates a "way out" or "another solution" the hallucination isn't Harbinger's doing alone, it's also coming from Shepard, built around the framework of what we already know, if the choice wasn't present, Shepard would know something was up and the simulation would fail.

In other words, Shepard must choose to side with the reapers as does Saren, Benezia, and TIM.

You're just making things up now....

Woops, they've discovered our masterplan, quick head for the escape pods,..............oh wait.

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
That is not evidence that he is lying.... not trusting someone is not proof that they are lying...

my point is there isn't evidence that he isn't either.

So you can't show he is lying....

oh i can show to a pretty reasonable extent, that if he isn't lying, then the mass effect universe doesn't make sense/ is just ridiculous.

Again, you can't show it lying.

"Hey, grab this lightning and you can control million year old death machines!"

"Hey, jump into this f***in laser and everyone becomes a cyborg!"

"Yeah, just shoot those tubes over there, that's how to PROPERLY activate this highly advanced tech."

Symbology man, don't spare the reapers, we fight or we die.

What exactly in the narrative disproves that these things can happen?

[CavScout]

ohupthis wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Again, if it's all a dream state, created by the Reapers, why are they putting in the "Win" button for Shep to use? Why doesn't the Catalyst just omit the Destroy ending option?

GAH!! again read this very slowly, let it sink in,OK?  The Destroy option is the only way to break their hold on Sheps' mind, its only SYMBOLIC, not literal, as in if the EMS is too low, the entire Earth, all inhabitants, and allies are vaporized, I don't see that as a win, IN ANY FORM!!

If it's not real, why do the Reapers even make it an option?

[dreamgazer]

balance5050 wrote...

There's a reason to not trust starbrat.

Several.  I know I wouldn't trust a glowing stranger, one that looked like the Earth-slain child from my nightmares, with the fate of the galaxy.

[SubAstris]

Leafs43 wrote...


Catalyst says Shepherd will die due to his synthetic implant if he chooses destroy.

Shepherd doesn't die in destroy


Catalyst found to be lying.

Undeniable evidence.

He says that he is PARTLY synthetic...he never says he will die

[KingZayd]

[quote]
[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...
[quote]SubAstris wrote... 
Well indirectly killed the Child on Earth, it is unclear whether he controls every individual Reaper's actions or delegates responsibility somewhat to the Reaper themselves. Regardless, you should assume that what a character is saying is true unless the narrative distinctively tells you otherwise. Just because he has committed horrendous actions doesn't mean that everything he says is complete bull.
[/quote]

no but he hasn't given me any reason to trust him.  also, why should you automatically assume that every character is telling the truth unless you're explicitly told so? i know it's science fiction, but i think you're taking it a little far. Everybody lies.

It doesn't matter that he might not have directly killed the Child on Earth. He still gave the order (if he indeed controls the reapers). He's similarly responsible for the deaths of many other children, and grownups too.

I actually think he's manipulating you with half-truths as well as lies. Without them killing us earlier, it's quite possible that we (like the Quarians) would start a stupid war and get ourselves killed by some synthetics. But I don't believe that this is their true motivation, and nothing in my encounter warranted my beginning to trust this abomination,

[/quote]

I'll give you an example. You know that scene when you meet Garrus for the 1st time in ME1? Did you initially assume that he was lying to begin? About working for C-Sec for example? If you didn't, then why assume the Catalyst is lying, despite having the same prior information on it as for Garrus?

Evidence in game?

[/quote]


Was there a reason I shouldn't have trusted Garrus?

[/quote]

My point exactly

[/quote]

I told you my reasons for not trusting the Catalyst. Those reasons don't apply to Garrus. Garrus is not a serial genocide. Garrus doesn't appear to me as the image of the child that's been haunting my dreams. Garrus has helped me frequently, rather than tried to kill me (directly or not). Garrus started off neutral, and earned my trust with time. The Starchild started off neutral too (i knew nothing about it) and with each sentence, earned my distrsust.


also this quote column is irritatingly broken each time i try and quote you.

Modifié par KingZayd, 05 mai 2012 - 08:57 .

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
That is not evidence that he is lying.... not trusting someone is not proof that they are lying...

my point is there isn't evidence that he isn't either.

So you can't show he is lying....

oh i can show to a pretty reasonable extent, that if he isn't lying, then the mass effect universe doesn't make sense/ is just ridiculous.

Again, you can't show it lying.

"Hey, grab this lightning and you can control million year old death machines!"

"Hey, jump into this f***in laser and everyone becomes a cyborg!"

"Yeah, just shoot those tubes over there, that's how to PROPERLY activate this highly advanced tech."

Symbology man, don't spare the reapers, we fight or we die.

What exactly in the narrative disproves that these things can happen?

A million years of people thinking they can control the reapers and people thinking that Organics + Synthetics is the pinnacle of evolution, only to find out they were indoctrinated.

Modifié par balance5050, 05 mai 2012 - 08:54 .

[CavScout]

dreamgazer wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Sable Phoenix wrote...
In essence, until BioWare out and out says otherwise, the Indoctrination Theory is just as valid an interpretation of the ending as the literallist one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

You could argue that "the ending should be taken literally" is also a theory at this point.  Therefore, you have two conflicting theories that both require a burden of proof.

You didn't read the link, did you?

[OH-UP-THIS!]

[quote]CavScout wrote...

[quote]balance5050 wrote...

[quote]CavScout wrote...

[quote]ohupthis wrote...

[quote]ev76 wrote...

KingZayd nicely put. Destroy option rejects indoctrination, choosing control or synthesis embraces it.[/quote]


Yep I like it as well.

Considering that perfectly describes the Catalysts logic, I'm not surprised.

[/quote]

One may disagree with the Catalyst, but the logic it uses is not circular.... you may what to use a dictionary.[/quote]


You might consider the line "pot calling kettle", again. star-twit uses circular-illogic to convince the few that, blue or green is better

Modifié par ohupthis, 05 mai 2012 - 08:56 .

[CavScout]

ev76 wrote...

Cavscout But you can't prove he isn't lying either. Why? because you must make a final choice. You either trust him and choose control or synthesis or you don't and choose destroy.

You are asserting he is lying. You have the burden of proof.

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...


Catalyst says Shepherd will die due to his synthetic implant if he chooses destroy.

Shepherd doesn't die in destroy


Catalyst found to be lying.

Undeniable evidence.

He says that he is PARTLY synthetic...he never says he will die

But why say that at all if not to make dissuade you from choosing destroy?

Modifié par balance5050, 05 mai 2012 - 08:56 .

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Again, you can't show it lying.

"Hey, grab this lightning and you can control million year old death machines!"

"Hey, jump into this f***in laser and everyone becomes a cyborg!"

"Yeah, just shoot those tubes over there, that's how to PROPERLY activate this highly advanced tech."

Symbology man, don't spare the reapers, we fight or we die.

Again, you can't show it lying.

[Leafs43]

SubAstris wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...


Catalyst says Shepherd will die due to his synthetic implant if he chooses destroy.

Shepherd doesn't die in destroy


Catalyst found to be lying.

Undeniable evidence.

He says that he is PARTLY synthetic...he never says he will die

Shepherd's entire face is a synthetic implant.

Shepherd cannot survive without a face.

[SubAstris]

KingZayd wrote...


I told you my reasons for not trusting the Catalyst. Those reasons don't apply to Garrus. Garrus is not a serial genocide. Garrus doesn't appear to me as the image of the child that's been haunting my dreams. Garrus has helped me frequently, rather than tried to kill me (directly or not). Garrus started off neutral, and earned my trust with time. The Starchild started off neutral too (i knew nothing about it) and with each sentence, earned my distrsust.


also this chat column is irritatingly broken each time i try and quote you.

The Catalyst might be a serial murderer, however that doesn't mean he is lying. You need to show that with other evidence. If Hitler said 2+2=4, are you therefore not going to believe him?

[CavScout]

Leafs43 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Again, you can't show it lying.

Catalyst says Shepherd will die due to his synthetic implant if he chooses destroy.

Shepherd doesn't die in destroy


Catalyst found to be lying.

Undeniable evidence.

Catalyst never says Shepperd will die to his synthetic parts. Like your claims of circular reasoning, you are making up dialog that never occurred.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Again, you can't show it lying.

"Hey, grab this lightning and you can control million year old death machines!"

"Hey, jump into this f***in laser and everyone becomes a cyborg!"

"Yeah, just shoot those tubes over there, that's how to PROPERLY activate this highly advanced tech."

Symbology man, don't spare the reapers, we fight or we die.

Again, you can't show it lying.

I can prove he's acting ignorant to things that he knows already.

Catalyst: "What are you doing here?"

He already knows the answer to this....
And he brought you up there himself anyway with a nonsensical magic floating elevator. 

[SubAstris]

Leafs43 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...


Catalyst says Shepherd will die due to his synthetic implant if he chooses destroy.

Shepherd doesn't die in destroy


Catalyst found to be lying.

Undeniable evidence.

He says that he is PARTLY synthetic...he never says he will die

Shepherd's entire face is a synthetic implant.

Shepherd cannot survive without a face.

You aren't making much sense, are you saying his nose is not organic?