1357 réponses à ce sujet

[KingZayd]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Are you lying or purposively misremembering?

neither: 
http://social.biowar...dex/11593338/10 

are you lying or purposely misremembering?

Where do I say I selected Sythesis or that I think it is the best ending? You do know I am not the OP of that topic, right?

I know you weren't the OP, but you were defending synthesis. I asked why you were defending synthesis, you then said i was lying or purposely misremembering. But you were. If you hadn't picked synthesis, and were simply defending it for some other reason, why didn't you explain rather than accuse me of lying?

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...
Implying that most of IT is based on such grasping, yes?

The fact that you have gone into evading my questions proves that destroy is the only option where the kid is actively trying to dissuade you.

Telling you the outcome of a decision is not "dissuading" you.

So at face value, Synthesis is the best ending then.

Best for who?

[CavScout]

ohupthis wrote...

CavScout wrote...

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.

did too neener neener.

No it doesn't.

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...


You just said -

"definitely gives reason for potential problems with control, ""if you think you can control us" 

What's the potential problem beside NOT BEING ABLE TO CONTROL THE REAPERS?

Sorry, I'm not with you

K, I'll go slowly.

I was saying that he only says negative things about destroy.

Your rebuttal was the negative thing he says about control was  "if you think you can control us" is meant to imply that there are potential problems with this.

My question to you is what "problems" are implied by the starkid when it comes to control?

A possibility of mismanagement by organics of the Reapers which means that the machines can rebel against them and ultimately kill all organics

Actually that's the problem with destroy not control. You ok?

How? With destroy, Reapers are killed immediately, control they stay. With destroy mismanagement would be impossible because there would be nothing to manage

No, the endings seem to be blurring for you.

With destroy, there is no one to "protect" us from synthetics, mismanagement of our future technology.

With Control, there is there is no negativity depending on if you think you can actually control the reapers.

Areyou saying that the risk involves Shepards mismanagement of the reapers?

When I mean machines I hope it was clear I meant Reapers in that original statement

Also a possible negative of control and synthesis is that you die, I mean, that could be a big deal for some people:lol:

Are you saying that the risk involves Shepards mismanagement of the reapers in control?

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...
Implying that most of IT is based on such grasping, yes?

The fact that you have gone into evading my questions proves that destroy is the only option where the kid is actively trying to dissuade you.

Telling you the outcome of a decision is not "dissuading" you.

So at face value, Synthesis is the best ending then.

Best for who?

Uhm, the galaxy. The kid told me the outcome, it sounds like the best solution.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

CavScout wrote...

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.

did too neener neener.

No it doesn't.

It's implied.

[Clayless]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...



No it doesn't.

It's implied.

No it implies that Shepard may die, at best.

Shepard dies in most, survives in one, and in both cases the Catalyst was telling the truth.

[dreamgazer]

ohupthis wrote...

CavScout wrote...

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.

did too neener neener.

To CavScout's credit, the catalyst doesn't explicitly say "you will die because you're partly synthetic".  He just heavily implies it by bullet-pointing that fact next to the Reapers and geth, and we infer that it happens due to his statement.  

It's still a suggestion of deceit. 

Modifié par dreamgazer, 05 mai 2012 - 10:02 .

[CavScout]

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Are you lying or purposively misremembering?

neither: 
http://social.biowar...dex/11593338/10 

are you lying or purposely misremembering?

Where do I say I selected Sythesis or that I think it is the best ending? You do know I am not the OP of that topic, right?

I know you weren't the OP, but you were defending synthesis. I asked why you were defending synthesis, you then said i was lying or purposely misremembering. But you were. If you hadn't picked synthesis, and were simply defending it for some other reason, why didn't you explain rather than accuse me of lying?

I said, in the post you linked: "That is not evidence of lying.... "

That's support for Synthesis how? You claimed I defended it as the best ending. Where? Link it or stop lying.

Hell, that thread has this post from me. Even better is this one, where I state which ending I think is best!

Why are you lying?

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...
Implying that most of IT is based on such grasping, yes?

The fact that you have gone into evading my questions proves that destroy is the only option where the kid is actively trying to dissuade you.

Telling you the outcome of a decision is not "dissuading" you.

So at face value, Synthesis is the best ending then.

Best for who?

Uhm, the galaxy. The kid told me the outcome, it sounds like the best solution.

That's a personal choice.

[balance5050]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...



No it doesn't.

It's implied.

No it implies that Shepard may die, at best.

Shepard dies in most, survives in one, and in both cases the Catalyst was telling the truth.

My point is that he colors destroy as the worst option, maybe because he doesn't want to die.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...


No it doesn't.

It's implied.

No, it's not.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...
Implying that most of IT is based on such grasping, yes?

The fact that you have gone into evading my questions proves that destroy is the only option where the kid is actively trying to dissuade you.

Telling you the outcome of a decision is not "dissuading" you.

So at face value, Synthesis is the best ending then.

Best for who?

Uhm, the galaxy. The kid told me the outcome, it sounds like the best solution.

That's a personal choice.

If you have two sandwiches and i say "this one is rotten, it will make you sick." I am both telling you the outcome and dissuading you from eating it. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

ThinkIntegral wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

OH FFS, did you not listen to that little idiot?   He clearly states "if you choose Destroy, you wipe out ALL synthetic life", IE: EDI,and the Geth, and "even you are part synthetic".

Starting to remember now? That is dissuasion/don't do it!!

And yet, despite that attempt to dissuade, it still lets you kill it...

SYMBOLICALLY, in your "dream-state", to BREAK INDOCTRINATION, so Shep can FIRE the Crucible, FOR REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ev76]

Destroy is the best ending. It is the one that gets you out of the indoctrination attempt, and it's achievable without having to play multiplayer. Again is not the best way the developers wished to present the ending. But you do get the best ending possible with low ems. Oh and I read the synthesis thread cavscout did not mention synthesis to be his choice, so I believe him to have chosen destroy. All though he does have a set of responses in place that he likes to dish out as rebuttals.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

My point is that he colors destroy as the worst option, maybe because he doesn't want to die.

The Catalyst doesn't think destroy will stop the cycle of destruction. It says so. It doesn't color it, he says that your "children" will create synthetics that will start the chaos again.

It is explicitly said.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...


No it doesn't.

It's implied.

No, it's not.

So what was the point of saying "even you are partially synthetic"?

If he doesn't die then he's blind and paralyzed:
 

[secretagentbw]

My main question about the IT (back to the original post) is that if it is true, doesn't that mean the game is incomplete? If everything from the Citadel to the end is a hallucination, doesn't that mean none of it actually happened and the battle is still happening? Eg. TIM is still alive, Citadel was never opened, Reapers were not destroyed (or whatever the solution is).

The only reason I ask this is because if you choose the 'destroy' option you get the clip of Shepard breathing under a pile or rubble, presumably waking up back in London? Does that mean he/she was somehow transported back to Earth or does that mean he/she never left? I've read most people say you never actually leave and the whole thing is happening inside your head (Citadel, star-kid, red blue green) since its an indoctrination attempt so wouldn't that mean you or someone still needs to get to the Citadel and open it etc to defeat the reapers?

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

My point is that he colors destroy as the worst option, maybe because he doesn't want to die.

The Catalyst doesn't think destroy will stop the cycle of destruction. It says so. It doesn't color it, he says that your "children" will create synthetics that will start the chaos again.

It is explicitly said.

Not even the Geth willingly wanted to shut down, I'm sure its more then his precious cycle that he's worrying about.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...
If you have two sandwiches and i say "this one is rotten, it will make you sick." I am both telling you the outcome and dissuading you from eating it. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

You're implying the Catalyst is doing so by deceit. It isn't. It outright states why it doesn't think the Destroy option is the workable.

It gives you three options, and states the outcomes of each. It is not leading you on.

[Leafs43]

secretagentbw wrote...

My main question about the IT (back to the original post) is that if it is true, doesn't that mean the game is incomplete? If everything from the Citadel to the end is a hallucination, doesn't that mean none of it actually happened and the battle is still happening? Eg. TIM is still alive, Citadel was never opened, Reapers were not destroyed (or whatever the solution is).

The only reason I ask this is because if you choose the 'destroy' option you get the clip of Shepard breathing under a pile or rubble, presumably waking up back in London? Does that mean he/she was somehow transported back to Earth or does that mean he/she never left? I've read most people say you never actually leave and the whole thing is happening inside your head (Citadel, star-kid, red blue green) since its an indoctrination attempt so wouldn't that mean you or someone still needs to get to the Citadel and open it etc to defeat the reapers?

"Incomplete" is the wrong term.

"Episodic" is the correct one.

[balance5050]

secretagentbw wrote...

My main question about the IT (back to the original post) is that if it is true, doesn't that mean the game is incomplete? If everything from the Citadel to the end is a hallucination, doesn't that mean none of it actually happened and the battle is still happening? Eg. TIM is still alive, Citadel was never opened, Reapers were not destroyed (or whatever the solution is).

The only reason I ask this is because if you choose the 'destroy' option you get the clip of Shepard breathing under a pile or rubble, presumably waking up back in London? Does that mean he/she was somehow transported back to Earth or does that mean he/she never left? I've read most people say you never actually leave and the whole thing is happening inside your head (Citadel, star-kid, red blue green) since its an indoctrination attempt so wouldn't that mean you or someone still needs to get to the Citadel and open it etc to defeat the reapers?

Hence the "Extended Cut".... it will be extended;)

[CavScout]

ohupthis wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

OH FFS, did you not listen to that little idiot?   He clearly states "if you choose Destroy, you wipe out ALL synthetic life", IE: EDI,and the Geth, and "even you are part synthetic".

Starting to remember now? That is dissuasion/don't do it!!

And yet, despite that attempt to dissuade, it still lets you kill it...

SYMBOLICALLY, in your "dream-state", to BREAK INDOCTRINATION, so Shep can FIRE the Crucible, FOR REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How can it be "for real" if it is "not real"?

[CavScout]

ev76 wrote...

Destroy is the best ending. It is the one that gets you out of the indoctrination attempt, and it's achievable without having to play multiplayer. Again is not the best way the developers wished to present the ending. But you do get the best ending possible with low ems. Oh and I read the synthesis thread cavscout did not mention synthesis to be his choice, so I believe him to have chosen destroy. All though he does have a set of responses in place that he likes to dish out as rebuttals.

You do not get the best ending with low EMS....

[OH-UP-THIS!]

p__q wrote...

ohupthis wrote...


Are you out of your mind?

read this SLOWLY...............created Synthetics to wipe out organics, to stop the organics from creating synthetics, that would destroy organics.

That hurts just typing it out. sheesh!!

I was just lurking this and feel awkward jumping in but I just wanted to point out the catalyst says that synthetics would eventually wipe out organics, what the reapers do is different they only cull advanced civilastions, they clearly do not wipe out organics completely as the cycle has being going for an incredible amount of time, I'm not saying it's good writing but there is nothing to say that the catalyst isn't correct and that without the reapers organics would eventually create synthetics that would exterminate all organic life in the galaxy from Asari to Thresher maws, extermination of organics and the culling of advanced organics are two clearly different concepts

Weird thought here, who'da believed it,..........................advanced lifeforms, capable of creating AI's that would eventually kill their creators.

OK then, now that earth is thrown back into the stone-age, maybe the neanderthals can create AI's who will eventually kill their creators...................................................oh, wait.