1357 réponses à ce sujet

[balance5050]

KingZayd wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

He (the catalyst) is talking about how synthetics will be destroyed; synthetic life, the geth, most technology you rely on, and then he says even you are partly synthetic.

He is implying that the synthetics in Shepards body *may* be destroyed.

Is this accurate to you guys?

When does it say anything about "technology you rely on" when describing the Destroy option? YouTube link please.

You ask, I deliver.

http://www.youtube.c...1tQDPbX4#t=215s

PS. you get the most information with high EMS.

ooh that's interesting. Actually i think there's something interesting going on: a different video with high EMS gives different information. There are a few different tiny variations  in what the Starchild says. in this video for example, he does not:
 

What do you think triggers him to say "most technology you rely one"? since my video is with High EMS it has to be more than just that number right?

Modifié par balance5050, 05 mai 2012 - 11:22 .

[CavScout]

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

davishepard wrote...

He could say that Shepard would die, or would lose everything he is, but he didn't. It's just a commentary, if he knew that Shepard would die too he would just say so. As he didn't, he only comment about him being partially synthetic.

But that's so hard to understand, apparently.

Or, you know, he could be coloring his argument to convince Shepard to not destroy the Reapers.

[sarcasm]But apparently the Catalyst is completely without motive.[/sarcasm]

The Catalyst has a motive, to prevent the destruction of all organic life. It's not hidden though. And it explicitly says it doesn't think the Destroy option will work.

Then apparently it has a motive to stop Shepard from choosing  the destroy option.  It's not so hard to say (after we know this) the Catalyst is leading Shepard to believe that the option to destroy will also kill him/her.  It frames this choice as negative, which it clearly does not with the other two choices.

So the line "Even you are partially synthetic" becomes more than commentary.  It becomes the basis for whether we, as the player, will believe everything else the catalyst says at this point.

It would have Shep pick something other than Destroy because it believes organics will create the synthetics that will wipe them out. It states it outright.

Why attach a hidden motive when none is needed?

[KingZayd]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
A) You don't even have the courtesy to admit when you lied and were caught.
I don't answer/defend strawmen.

A) I didn't lie. I made a mistake. I'm sorry about that. But I wasn't lying. If i was lying, I wouldn't have linked to the thread that contained proof that what I said about you preferring synthesis was wrong. I clearly linked to it because I thought that you were defending it as the superior option. I've admitted that i made a mistake. I'm not a liar, but i'm not infallible.
again, why is it a strawman? it was just a question where a simple "no." would have sufficed.

A) You did lie. I mean, how can you claim you made a "mistake" yet were still able to link to proof of it? Which do you want?
It's a point I never made. The very definition of a straw man.

A) because i remembered the thread and your defending it. I remembered that the thread was about whether or not Synthesis was the best option. I made the mental connection (wrong as it now turns out to be) that you believed Synthesis was the best option. I took the link by searching my forum posts. While I accept it was a mistake, surely you can see there are other explanations than me lying and deciding to link to a thread that showed that what i said wasn't right? I believed it was true, and that the link was evidence of you defending synthesis (which it was), and that that implied you preferred synthesis (which i was wrong about).

It's a question asking if that's your interpretation. It wasn't saying you made that point, it was interpreting (whether correctly or not) things you said, and asking if you truly believed it. Clearly the answer was no, so why didn't you say it? It was not a strawman.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

davishepard wrote...

He could say that Shepard would die, or would lose everything he is, but he didn't. It's just a commentary, if he knew that Shepard would die too he would just say so. As he didn't, he only comment about him being partially synthetic.

But that's so hard to understand, apparently.

Or, you know, he could be coloring his argument to convince Shepard to not destroy the Reapers.

[sarcasm]But apparently the Catalyst is completely without motive.[/sarcasm]

The Catalyst has a motive, to prevent the destruction of all organic life. It's not hidden though. And it explicitly says it doesn't think the Destroy option will work.

Then apparently it has a motive to stop Shepard from choosing  the destroy option.  It's not so hard to say (after we know this) the Catalyst is leading Shepard to believe that the option to destroy will also kill him/her.  It frames this choice as negative, which it clearly does not with the other two choices.

So the line "Even you are partially synthetic" becomes more than commentary.  It becomes the basis for whether we, as the player, will believe everything else the catalyst says at this point.

It would have Shep pick something other than Destroy because it believes organics will create the synthetics that will wipe them out. It states it outright.

Why attach a hidden motive when none is needed?

The reaper/catalyst not wanting to die is not so much a hidden motive.

Do you think the catalyst is indifferent to living or dying? It obviously understands the concept of preserving life, and obviously regard synthetics as a form of life. He himself is a form of synthetic life, so why does he not value his own life?

Modifié par balance5050, 05 mai 2012 - 11:45 .

[ev76]

Balance 5050, yep speculation for everyone! Except cavscout, which if you read he wants unicorns and rainbows when he beats the reapers. He does not want to beat the reapers with blood in his hands. Which means he must of not played mass effect one or two.

[balance5050]

ev76 wrote...

Balance 5050, yep speculation for everyone! Except cavscout, which if you read he wants unicorns and rainbows when he beats the reapers. He does not want to beat the reapers with blood in his hands. Which means he must of not played mass effect one or two.

Agreed. Good points all around.

[balance5050]

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
A) You don't even have the courtesy to admit when you lied and were caught.
I don't answer/defend strawmen.

A) I didn't lie. I made a mistake. I'm sorry about that. But I wasn't lying. If i was lying, I wouldn't have linked to the thread that contained proof that what I said about you preferring synthesis was wrong. I clearly linked to it because I thought that you were defending it as the superior option. I've admitted that i made a mistake. I'm not a liar, but i'm not infallible.
again, why is it a strawman? it was just a question where a simple "no." would have sufficed.

A) You did lie. I mean, how can you claim you made a "mistake" yet were still able to link to proof of it? Which do you want?
It's a point I never made. The very definition of a straw man.

A) because i remembered the thread and your defending it. I remembered that the thread was about whether or not Synthesis was the best option. I made the mental connection (wrong as it now turns out to be) that you believed Synthesis was the best option. I took the link by searching my forum posts. While I accept it was a mistake, surely you can see there are other explanations than me lying and deciding to link to a thread that showed that what i said wasn't right? I believed it was true, and that the link was evidence of you defending synthesis (which it was), and that that implied you preferred synthesis (which i was wrong about).

It's a question asking if that's your interpretation. It wasn't saying you made that point, it was interpreting (whether correctly or not) things you said, and asking if you truly believed it. Clearly the answer was no, so why didn't you say it? It was not a strawman.

In case you didn't already realize, cavscout doesn't even realize the point of the trilogy. And had recently just learned that there are different versions of the endings. Don't stress yourself, this one is far gone to the indoctrination.

Modifié par balance5050, 05 mai 2012 - 11:31 .

[davishepard]

balance5050 wrote...

The reaper/catalyst not wanting to die is not so much a hidden motive.

Do you think the catalyst is indifferent to living or dying? It obviously understands the concept of preserving life, and obviously regard synthetics as a form of life. He himself is a form of synthetic life, so why does he not value his own life?

The Reapers never say "I don't wanna die". Ever. Why this?

The Catalyst may understand the concept, but his focus is to prevent synthetics from killing all organic life. He states no other objective in any ending. 

As for self-preservation, he obviously doesn't have none. Even if your pick destroy option, he don't have any reaction. This makes him different from the Geth. They didn't wanted to die, so fought their creators. What this tells about the Catalyst?

[CavScout]

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
A) You did lie. I mean, how can you claim you made a "mistake" yet were still able to link to proof of it? Which do you want?
It's a point I never made. The very definition of a straw man.

A) because i remembered the thread and your defending it. I remembered that the thread was about whether or not Synthesis was the best option. I made the mental connection (wrong as it now turns out to be) that you believed Synthesis was the best option. I took the link by searching my forum posts. While I accept it was a mistake, surely you can see there are other explanations than me lying and deciding to link to a thread that showed that what i said wasn't right? I believed it was true, and that the link was evidence of you defending synthesis (which it was), and that that implied you preferred synthesis (which i was wrong about).

It's a question asking if that's your interpretation. It wasn't saying you made that point, it was interpreting (whether correctly or not) things you said, and asking if you truly believed it. Clearly the answer was no, so why didn't you say it? It was not a strawman.

A)I never said I picked Synthesis nor did I ever claim it was the best ending. In fact, the thread you post has me saying clearly that I do not think it is the best. You claimed otherwise. You don't even have the courtesy or courage to just retract the statement and move on. You cling to your original claims and say you were right, just in a different way.

B)It not just a question, it was ascribing a position to me that I never said or claimed. I know why you'll defend it, like your lies about me you don't see the problem with ascribing to others positions they never made.

[Joccaren]

The only contradiction in this is circular.
You're whole "Asking for solid proof for something that doesn't have solid proof".
We aren't just talking in game here. We're talking Meta-gaming too. There is nothing that I have heard that has made me think IT was Bioware's original plan.

I have nothing against the theory - I will be disappointed if Bioware implements it as its simply taking the easy way out at this point - but I do not believe it was Bioware's original plan.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
It would have Shep pick something other than Destroy because it believes organics will create the synthetics that will wipe them out. It states it outright.

Why attach a hidden motive when none is needed?

The reaper/catalyst not wanting to die is not so much a hidden motive.

Do you think the catalyst is indifferent to living or dying? It obviously understands the concept of preserving life, and obviously regard synthetics as a form of life. He himself is a form of synthetic life, so why does he not value his own life?

It's not a motive, hidden or otherwise, because it's just being made up....

PS: I do not think the Catalyst values life as Shep (or you or I) would. The cycles sorta prove that.

[balance5050]

davishepard wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

The reaper/catalyst not wanting to die is not so much a hidden motive.

Do you think the catalyst is indifferent to living or dying? It obviously understands the concept of preserving life, and obviously regard synthetics as a form of life. He himself is a form of synthetic life, so why does he not value his own life?

The Reapers never say "I don't wanna die". Ever. Why this?

The Catalyst may understand the concept, but his focus is to prevent synthetics from killing all organic life. He states no other objective in any ending. 

As for self-preservation, he obviously doesn't have none. Even if your pick destroy option, he don't have any reaction. This makes him different from the Geth. They didn't wanted to die, so fought their creators. What this tells about the Catalyst?

When life becomes sentient, it realises that it doesn't want to die. This si expressed when the Geth no longer wanted to shut down.

A. are you suggesting that the Reapers aren't sentient, that they have no desire to endure? Are you suggesting that the OLDEST AI isn't sentient?

B. The kid actually does react, he immediatly dissapears, fades away. In control and synthesis, however, it zooms in on his (catalyst) face and he smirks.

Modifié par balance5050, 05 mai 2012 - 11:38 .

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Jangocat wrote...

Indoctrination's just a theory by fans grasping at straws trying to give meaning to the lame ending. The Shepard I played had much to much willpower to ever be indoctrinated. Even when TIM was controlling Shepard's body at the end Shepard's mind was still his own.

There's no contradiction, I just do not agree with nor accept your theory. I swear you IT theory guys are like religious fanatics trying to convert people. We don't want to be converted, we simply do not believe in your theory.

If BioWare officially makes it part of the story with downloadable content I won't like it, but it won't be fan theory anymore. Until then it's just fan fiction I do not like, and don't want to encourage BioWare to do.

Then quite simply LEAVE, and don't bother adding to this conversation, instead of just showing us you know what a Keyboard is.K?

[balance5050]

Joccaren wrote...

The only contradiction in this is circular.
You're whole "Asking for solid proof for something that doesn't have solid proof".
We aren't just talking in game here. We're talking Meta-gaming too. There is nothing that I have heard that has made me think IT was Bioware's original plan.

I have nothing against the theory - I will be disappointed if Bioware implements it as its simply taking the easy way out at this point - but I do not believe it was Bioware's original plan.

"Even in November, the team wasa working on an ending sequence where you lost control to the reaper"

it WAS a plan at some point, even if it was abandoned.

[Sisterofshane]

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

davishepard wrote...

He could say that Shepard would die, or would lose everything he is, but he didn't. It's just a commentary, if he knew that Shepard would die too he would just say so. As he didn't, he only comment about him being partially synthetic.

But that's so hard to understand, apparently.

Or, you know, he could be coloring his argument to convince Shepard to not destroy the Reapers.

[sarcasm]But apparently the Catalyst is completely without motive.[/sarcasm]

The Catalyst has a motive, to prevent the destruction of all organic life. It's not hidden though. And it explicitly says it doesn't think the Destroy option will work.

Then apparently it has a motive to stop Shepard from choosing  the destroy option.  It's not so hard to say (after we know this) the Catalyst is leading Shepard to believe that the option to destroy will also kill him/her.  It frames this choice as negative, which it clearly does not with the other two choices.

So the line "Even you are partially synthetic" becomes more than commentary.  It becomes the basis for whether we, as the player, will believe everything else the catalyst says at this point.

It would have Shep pick something other than Destroy because it believes organics will create the synthetics that will wipe them out. It states it outright.

Why attach a hidden motive when none is needed?

It's not so much attaching a hidden motive as it is allowing us to know the nature (and thereby the restrictions) of the Catalyst.  It shows us that the Catalyst has the ability to mislead us.  It is not bound by anything that would force it to tell us the complete truth.  (Think like in ME2 when EDI intentionally "eggs on" Joker - yes, she technically didn't lie, but niether did she really have all her cards layed out on the table)

It's singular motivation should have no bearing upon what Shepard's mission has been - to stop the cycle and allow organics the right to self-determinate.  It therefore has to persuade us to make the option it believes is best.

[This is all total speculation, but] One thing we are missing here is that the Catalyst, as I believe, no longer has control of the Reapers (thanks to the Crucible).  It needs Shepard to either choose to continue the cycle (with Control), or to end the "conflict" all together.

So really, the ending you choose should not come down to whether or not you believe it to be really happening, but rather if you believe in the Catalyst and it's theory regarding the organic/synthetic conflict.

[KingZayd]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
A) You did lie. I mean, how can you claim you made a "mistake" yet were still able to link to proof of it? Which do you want?
It's a point I never made. The very definition of a straw man.

A) because i remembered the thread and your defending it. I remembered that the thread was about whether or not Synthesis was the best option. I made the mental connection (wrong as it now turns out to be) that you believed Synthesis was the best option. I took the link by searching my forum posts. While I accept it was a mistake, surely you can see there are other explanations than me lying and deciding to link to a thread that showed that what i said wasn't right? I believed it was true, and that the link was evidence of you defending synthesis (which it was), and that that implied you preferred synthesis (which i was wrong about).

It's a question asking if that's your interpretation. It wasn't saying you made that point, it was interpreting (whether correctly or not) things you said, and asking if you truly believed it. Clearly the answer was no, so why didn't you say it? It was not a strawman.

A)I never said I picked Synthesis nor did I ever claim it was the best ending. In fact, the thread you post has me saying clearly that I do not think it is the best. You claimed otherwise. You don't even have the courtesy or courage to just retract the statement and move on. You cling to your original claims and say you were right, just in a different way.

B)It not just a question, it was ascribing a position to me that I never said or claimed. I know why you'll defend it, like your lies about me you don't see the problem with ascribing to others positions they never made.

A) I claimed wrongly. I retracted the statement and apologised. I keep saying i was mistaken, not that I was right. It's you who refuses to move on and insist that I was lying.

It is just a question. It was ascribing a position based on your previous answer. The correct answer was "no" not "straw man", and now you start using "ad hominem"s against me. I didn't lie before, and I did see a problem with it, which is why I apologised.

[ev76]

cavscout the internets chuck Norris! not starting just finished it. remember I can be obtuse but it doesn't make me right lol!

[CavScout]

ev76 wrote...

Balance 5050, yep speculation for everyone! Except cavscout, which if you read he wants unicorns and rainbows when he beats the reapers. He does not want to beat the reapers with blood in his hands. Which means he must of not played mass effect one or two.

Much like KingZayd you now have to resort to lies.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...
In case you didn't already realize, cavscout doesn't even realize the point of the trilogy. And had recently just learned that there are different versions of the endings. Don't stress yourself, this one is far gone to the indoctrination.

Why resort to outright lies?

[balance5050]

Can we assume that since the Catalyst is the oldest A.I. and controls the reapers, that it is quite possibly that it is also the most intelligent A.I.?

Modifié par balance5050, 05 mai 2012 - 11:44 .

[KingZayd]

balance5050 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

He (the catalyst) is talking about how synthetics will be destroyed; synthetic life, the geth, most technology you rely on, and then he says even you are partly synthetic.

He is implying that the synthetics in Shepards body *may* be destroyed.

Is this accurate to you guys?

When does it say anything about "technology you rely on" when describing the Destroy option? YouTube link please.

You ask, I deliver.

http://www.youtube.c...1tQDPbX4#t=215s

PS. you get the most information with high EMS.

ooh that's interesting. Actually i think there's something interesting going on: a different video with high EMS gives different information. There are a few different tiny variations  in what the Starchild says. in this video for example, he does not:
 

What do you think triggers him to say "most technology you rely one"? since my video is with High EMS it has to be more than just that number right?

Yeah. It'll have to be based on certain decisions you've made, in the game... but which ones?

[CavScout]

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
A) You did lie. I mean, how can you claim you made a "mistake" yet were still able to link to proof of it? Which do you want?
It's a point I never made. The very definition of a straw man.

A) because i remembered the thread and your defending it. I remembered that the thread was about whether or not Synthesis was the best option. I made the mental connection (wrong as it now turns out to be) that you believed Synthesis was the best option. I took the link by searching my forum posts. While I accept it was a mistake, surely you can see there are other explanations than me lying and deciding to link to a thread that showed that what i said wasn't right? I believed it was true, and that the link was evidence of you defending synthesis (which it was), and that that implied you preferred synthesis (which i was wrong about).

It's a question asking if that's your interpretation. It wasn't saying you made that point, it was interpreting (whether correctly or not) things you said, and asking if you truly believed it. Clearly the answer was no, so why didn't you say it? It was not a strawman.

A)I never said I picked Synthesis nor did I ever claim it was the best ending. In fact, the thread you post has me saying clearly that I do not think it is the best. You claimed otherwise. You don't even have the courtesy or courage to just retract the statement and move on. You cling to your original claims and say you were right, just in a different way.

B)It not just a question, it was ascribing a position to me that I never said or claimed. I know why you'll defend it, like your lies about me you don't see the problem with ascribing to others positions they never made.

A) I claimed wrongly. I retracted the statement and apologised. I keep saying i was mistaken, not that I was right. It's you who refuses to move on and insist that I was lying.

It is just a question. It was ascribing a position based on your previous answer. The correct answer was "no" not "straw man", and now you start using "ad hominem"s against me. I didn't lie before, and I did see a problem with it, which is why I apologised.

A)You linked to the thread as proof. Only when called on the lie did you "admit" to a mistake but then you just claimed to have worked the accusation poorly but that the basis of it was still sound.

B)It's not just a question, it saying I claimed a position I didn't.

[KingZayd]

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

davishepard wrote...

He could say that Shepard would die, or would lose everything he is, but he didn't. It's just a commentary, if he knew that Shepard would die too he would just say so. As he didn't, he only comment about him being partially synthetic.

But that's so hard to understand, apparently.

Or, you know, he could be coloring his argument to convince Shepard to not destroy the Reapers.

[sarcasm]But apparently the Catalyst is completely without motive.[/sarcasm]

The Catalyst has a motive, to prevent the destruction of all organic life. It's not hidden though. And it explicitly says it doesn't think the Destroy option will work.

Then apparently it has a motive to stop Shepard from choosing  the destroy option.  It's not so hard to say (after we know this) the Catalyst is leading Shepard to believe that the option to destroy will also kill him/her.  It frames this choice as negative, which it clearly does not with the other two choices.

So the line "Even you are partially synthetic" becomes more than commentary.  It becomes the basis for whether we, as the player, will believe everything else the catalyst says at this point.

It would have Shep pick something other than Destroy because it believes organics will create the synthetics that will wipe them out. It states it outright.

Why attach a hidden motive when none is needed?

why does it care? there is a hidden motive either way.

[Iconoclaste]

balance5050 wrote...

Can we assume that since the Catalyst is the oldest A.I. and controls the reapers, that it is quite possibly that it is also the most intelligent A.I.?

Now come on... Have you been reading the threads lately? Seems the Catalyst is not on par with a lawnmower for its logic.

[KingZayd]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
A) You did lie. I mean, how can you claim you made a "mistake" yet were still able to link to proof of it? Which do you want?
It's a point I never made. The very definition of a straw man.

A) because i remembered the thread and your defending it. I remembered that the thread was about whether or not Synthesis was the best option. I made the mental connection (wrong as it now turns out to be) that you believed Synthesis was the best option. I took the link by searching my forum posts. While I accept it was a mistake, surely you can see there are other explanations than me lying and deciding to link to a thread that showed that what i said wasn't right? I believed it was true, and that the link was evidence of you defending synthesis (which it was), and that that implied you preferred synthesis (which i was wrong about).

It's a question asking if that's your interpretation. It wasn't saying you made that point, it was interpreting (whether correctly or not) things you said, and asking if you truly believed it. Clearly the answer was no, so why didn't you say it? It was not a strawman.

A)I never said I picked Synthesis nor did I ever claim it was the best ending. In fact, the thread you post has me saying clearly that I do not think it is the best. You claimed otherwise. You don't even have the courtesy or courage to just retract the statement and move on. You cling to your original claims and say you were right, just in a different way.

B)It not just a question, it was ascribing a position to me that I never said or claimed. I know why you'll defend it, like your lies about me you don't see the problem with ascribing to others positions they never made.

A) I claimed wrongly. I retracted the statement and apologised. I keep saying i was mistaken, not that I was right. It's you who refuses to move on and insist that I was lying.

It is just a question. It was ascribing a position based on your previous answer. The correct answer was "no" not "straw man", and now you start using "ad hominem"s against me. I didn't lie before, and I did see a problem with it, which is why I apologised.

A)You linked to the thread as proof. Only when called on the lie did you "admit" to a mistake but then you just claimed to have worked the accusation poorly but that the basis of it was still sound.

B)It's not just a question, it saying I claimed a position I didn't.

I didn't see it was wrong, until you told me. And I believed you were taking issue with the defending synthesis part, and I didn't check what I said in the post you responded to. When you linked back to my post about your considering synthesis to be the superior option, I realised I had made a mistake. I make a lot of posts. I don't keep the exact wording in my head.

no it didn't say. it asked "Are you saying that Shepard is part AI?". It's an easy question surely?