365 réponses à ce sujet

[TheRealJayDee]

Repearized Miranda wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

As I said in another thread, if you need to explain why an ending is good, then it isn't. A good ending should be self-evident and need no explanation.

It's the exactly like jokes.  If you have to explain it, it isn't funny.

True, but there are people who just don't get it. Even the funniest of jokes are explained because of this, but as you said, the explanation ruins it. However, sometimes you do have to do that and that's nicer than calling the ones who didn't get it "Idiots!"

In this situation, BW (though not calling folks such names although with the way some are "protesting") are explaining it because well some didn't get it. Not everybody thinks the ending is good nor does everyone think it's bad. They just didn't get it.

If everybody got the joke, we could all go home regardless if it evokes laughter. What does make this bad is that everybody will just go "Oh, okay!" now and this doesn't sound like a good reaction, but don't fault the comedian totally if the joke isn't received well if at all.

It's the artist to audience relationship. This relationship doesn't exist if both sides don't come to an agreement. They're extending a branch, but not everyone is going to take it.

Well, if the larger part of your audience either doesn't get the joke or thinks it's unfunny **** you might regret telling the joke in the first place.

I don't think most of the people who are unsatisfied with the ending "didn't get it", and even if there is a mentionable group of that sort the overall reaction still doesn't tell good things about Bioware's ability to finish their story.

Well, but since what we get is only "explanation" Bioware might share your view about the majority of their customers being "idiots who just don't get it". If so they're not extending a branch, they're slapping their fans in the face with it.

[StarcloudSWG]

The Catalyst's logic is inherently faulty.

It has not, and *cannot* be proven that synthetic life will always seek to eradicate all organic life. The error within the internal logic is this:

I have seen synthetics, when created, rebel against their creators.
Synthetics will always rebel against their creators. <--- Logical fallacy, hasty generalization.

Therefore I will set up conditions where, through the use of our technology, created synthetic life will tend strongly to rebel against their creators. <--- self fulfilling prophecy. 'By using the technology of the mass relays, your societies develop along the paths we desire.'

If that does not succeed, my creations will ensure that the created rebel against the creators. <---- sovereign and the Geth. WTF.

And because of all this evidence that I have seen and manufactured, I can confidently state that the Created will always attempt to wipe out organic life, everywhere. <--- argumentum ad baculum, argumentum ad ignorantium.

That's the Catalyst's argument. It's based on one hasty generalization, and a conclusion drawn out of fear and ignorance.

In actual fact, the Catalyst can *never* know what lies beyond the 'technological singularity' it fears so much. That's why it's called a singularity. Beyond that point, everything could change. Everything could stay the same. Synthetic life might decide on its own to uplift organic life. Organic life might willingly merge with synthetic life. Everyone might become energy beings. No one knows, no one can know.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 16 mai 2012 - 02:29 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Want to know why it's faulty logic?

Because synthetics never wiped out all organics.... ever. With or without the Reapers, it's never happened (otherwise, why do any organics still exist?).  They're trying to prevent something that's never happened while claiming that it absolutely will happen.

Faulty logic.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 16 mai 2012 - 03:11 .

[Slayer299]

There is nothing soundproof about the cyclical logic that the Starbrat uses and the arguments fail on the very arguments you use to support them.

Argument 3 - Yes, let's not destroy the created, let's wipeout not only the person who created them, but his entire race because that's saving us from being destroyed and in-effect by the very synthetics organics are being protected from.

Argument 2 - The Startwit's logic is without any proof other than "it said so", hardly a reason to accept its word as uncontrovertably true. See also Argument 1 above.

[Abirn]

Ok Mr Logic. Why didn't starchild just open the citadel relay trap to begin with. What was the whole point of the first two games, If the star child was just sitting in the citadel this whole time why not just open the relay himself.

[Veneke]

Repearized Miranda wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

As I said in another thread, if you need to explain why an ending is good, then it isn't. A good ending should be self-evident and need no explanation.

It's the exactly like jokes.  If you have to explain it, it isn't funny.

True, but there are people who just don't get it. Even the funniest of jokes are explained because of this, but as you said, the explanation ruins it. However, sometimes you do have to do that and that's nicer than calling the ones who didn't get it "Idiots!"

In this situation, BW (though not calling folks such names although with the way some are "protesting") are explaining it because well some didn't get it. Not everybody thinks the ending is good nor does everyone think it's bad. They just didn't get it.

If everybody got the joke, we could all go home regardless if it evokes laughter. What does make this bad is that everybody will just go "Oh, okay!" now and this doesn't sound like a good reaction, but don't fault the comedian totally if the joke isn't received well if at all.

It's the artist to audience relationship. This relationship doesn't exist if both sides don't come to an agreement. They're extending a branch, but not everyone is going to take it.

This is definitely off-topic, but I have to ask - what are we supposed to be getting? With a joke, you're meant to 'get' the punchline. With the current ending what's to get? That's a serious question btw. I'm still looking for an explanation of the ending from someone who likes it as is that doesn't revolve around mass speculation/guesswork and hand-waving over the Catalyst.

TBH, It'd probably be more accurate to say that Bioware told us half the joke, half the punchline and then wondered why we didn't 'get' it.

[Pandaman102]

Nothing logical about attacking the supposed victim rather than the supposed criminal. Want to prevent synthetic life from always wiping out organic life?

Kill all synthetic life.

There's a system in place to wipe out entire civilizations, take that and scale it down to crush every synthetic uprising instead. Less effort, less resources.

[Asebstos]

Pandaman102 wrote...

Nothing logical about attacking the supposed victim rather than the supposed criminal. Want to prevent synthetic life from always wiping out organic life?

Kill all synthetic life.

There's a system in place to wipe out entire civilizations, take that and scale it down to crush every synthetic uprising instead. Less effort, less resources.

Or why not just show up and say "Hey dudes, if you make AIs we'll obliterate you"?

It isn't like they had a 'no interference' policy, what with giving future civilizations the relays and citadel and such.

[Yezdigerd]

What I find the most amusing about the catalyst premise."Synthetics will always evolve, rebel and destroy their creators" yet the supragenius reapers starchild controls seems to be perfectly shackled nonevolving for all eternity.
I also wonder why starchild doesn't just zap all synthetics with the red beam when they get out of control. Seems more efficient then centuries of organic genocide, for their own good.
Or why its not enough to bomb them back to the stone age. Sure exterminating a species will stop them from making crazy robots, thats logical. Yet what exactly is it Starbrat is trying to preserve?
Clearly not organics themselves.The process of organic evolution? How and why would crazy robots destroy that?

[Fixers0]

 Might want to post this flowchart again:

[Subject M]

Much can be said about the analysis of the catalyst. The problems are that

1)The Catalyst does not provided to us with great enough detail for a satisfying review (what does it mean with "always rebel against it creators" How do the Catalyst and the Reapers fit into the equation of synthetics destroying all organics, do they not consider themselves synthetics? What is the Catalyst/Reaper disposition towards organics and synthetics in general? and so on)

2) Life its not locked in the categories of organic and synthetic (cybernetic organic-synthetic synthesis is the way out remember) When life transcend this boundary (my guess is that Geth and Quarians would be the first races to do so/merge if they where left alone by the crucibles intervention) it has escaped any eventual conflict derived from belonging to either category

3) The catalysts reasoning does not fit well with the story of ME2-ME3. It would have if the Geth and EDI would have inevitably been portrayed as increasingly menacing and non-approving of organic behavior or characteristics.

Modifié par Subject M, 16 mai 2012 - 10:33 .

[OlympusMons423]

Edi says in the game that everything is so vast that in some corners 1+1 could equal 3. This is actually a scientific theory. So in some ways, even if the logic of the Reaper is so faulty to us, and our world with its rule.... it may not be to them or their place or origin. IMO we spend too much time getting caught up on their reasons. Its doesn't really matter, even if they had a solid reason for it... such as our technology and travel was creating too much dark energy that would eventually overtake everything.... They want to kill us and we want to survive. That is all we need to really know at the end of this. Shepard should never forget this themselves. They might not be trying to fix it forever, but for the moment, or the next 500,00 years...yes they would. Beside, if the Reapers did pass over this cycle, that gives the next cycle a lot of time to come up with something. The initiative would start to shift neavy in our favor as organic, and new Geth or Edi like life forms

[SalsaDMA]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Well, if the larger part of your audience either doesn't get the joke or thinks it's unfunny **** you might regret telling the joke in the first place.

Yeah. How well does a stand-up comedian fare if the jokes he tells his audience aren't received well? It can get pretty ugly in a comedy-club if the 'artist' misreads his audience or just plainly suck at being funny...

[Hunter of Legends]

The Razman wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

The Razman wrote...
organic life is never going to wipe itself out.

This is an unsupportable claim. You can say the probability of organic life wiping itself out it X or Y but you cannot say NEVER.

That is a logical fallacy.

Fine.

Organic life is never going to wipe itself out on purpose. Done.

This is also another falsehood.

What part of "never say never" did you not understand?

[ZackG312]

If the created always rebel against the creators why havent the Reapers killed the space brat.

[TheRealJayDee]

Lots of speculations for erveryone...