55528 réponses à ce sujet

[MegumiAzusa]

estebanus wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...

So, after a prod from Megumi, I decided to go back through the subtitle logs of the Anderson/TIM convo at the end, and found one or two things that are very interesting...

1-The subtitles always show who is the speaker, and who is the listener, this is also often used in the character movements when defining who someone is looking at.
From the subtitles script, Anderson/TIM are ALWAYS talking to Shepard, never to each other.

2-Notably, when anderson says "you're indoctrinated" he's talking to Shepard, not TIM.

3-Here are some of anderson's lines which are interspersed between dialogue options for certain choices, all directed at Shepard remember:
"Bull****. We destroy them, or they destroy us."
"Just do it, Shepard."
"Just do it, Commander."
"You're not making sense."
"Bull****. The Crucible will destroy them."
"Wiping them out is the only way to end this."
"He's lost it."

And now the same for The Illusive Man:
"Don't fight it, Shepard."
"That won't work."
"Don't waste your energy."
"Not while I'm in control."
"Still fighting it?"

More to come, may post a wall of text shortly.

*Prepares himself for incoming wall of text*

[spotlessvoid]

RavenEyry wrote...

Since it came up yesterday(?) I've considered the speech direction to be a big clue. It really adds to the idea that it's a dream and that these two are the angel and devil on Shep's shoulders. It's a subtle hint that Shep really is the center of the universe at the moment, the way it sound's like they're addressing each other but the code says they're not.

Coz Bioware is lazy 'member?

[paxxton]

HellishFiend wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

paxxton wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

The catalyst controls the reapers.
The goal of the mass effect storyline is to stop the reaper threat.
Therefore, supplanting the catalyst will satisfy the goal of the mass effect storyline.

The logic is sound, but one of the premises is NOT A CONFIRMED FACT. False logic. End of story, not up for debate. 

Which statement isn't confirmed? If the Catalyst doesn't control the Reapers, is that a confirmed fact? Your logic is strange. If you want to use implication, please supply statements for it. You present 2 statements and then form an implication from 2 different ones. Without presenting any relationship between those pairs.

Both that Mr. Sparkle controls the rapers and that you can supplant him are unconfirmed.

Exactly, thank you.

And paxxton, oh my. I dont even know where to begin with the rest of that.  I'm just going to back out of this conversation before it becomes condescending. Take it as a victory if you want, I dont really care at this point. 

So you say that (0 and 1) => 0 that is 0 => 0 which is 1.

And I say (1 and 1) => 1 which is 1.

So logically we both agree but what differs are the interpretations of the procedure. You need to show why I can't choose a specific logical value (0 or 1) for a particular statement. Otherwise, your point is invalid. I'm sorry.

Modifié par paxxton, 18 mai 2012 - 11:37 .

[MegumiAzusa]

paxxton wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

paxxton wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

The catalyst controls the reapers.
The goal of the mass effect storyline is to stop the reaper threat.
Therefore, supplanting the catalyst will satisfy the goal of the mass effect storyline.

The logic is sound, but one of the premises is NOT A CONFIRMED FACT. False logic. End of story, not up for debate. 

Which statement isn't confirmed? If the Catalyst doesn't control the Reapers, is that a confirmed fact? Your logic is strange. If you want to use implication, please supply statements for it. You present 2 statements and then form an implication from 2 different ones. Without presenting any relationship between those pairs.

Both that Mr. Sparkle controls the rapers and that you can supplant him are unconfirmed.

Exactly, thank you.

And paxxton, oh my. I dont even know where to begin with the rest of that.  I'm just going to back out of this conversation before it becomes condescending. Take it as a victory if you want, I dont really care at this point. 

So you say that (0 and 1) => 0 that is 0 => 0 which is 1.

Your logic is correct.

[MaximizedAction]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...

So, after a prod from Megumi, I decided to go back through the subtitle logs of the Anderson/TIM convo at the end, and found one or two things that are very interesting...

1-The subtitles always show who is the speaker, and who is the listener, this is also often used in the character movements when defining who someone is looking at.
From the subtitles script, Anderson/TIM are ALWAYS talking to Shepard, never to each other.

2-Notably, when anderson says "you're indoctrinated" he's talking to Shepard, not TIM.

3-Here are some of anderson's lines which are interspersed between dialogue options for certain choices, all directed at Shepard remember:
"Bull****. We destroy them, or they destroy us."
"Just do it, Shepard."
"Just do it, Commander."
"You're not making sense."
"Bull****. The Crucible will destroy them."
"Wiping them out is the only way to end this."
"He's lost it."

And now the same for The Illusive Man:
"Don't fight it, Shepard."
"That won't work."
"Don't waste your energy."
"Not while I'm in control."
"Still fighting it?"

More to come, may post a wall of text shortly.

Posted your first point already some pages ago
Also most of the smaller lines are used when not choosing the Reputation answers. (though some aren't)
Also still the most interesting line would be:

+-[entry #77]
| speaker: global_anderson
| listener: variable_2
| text: Shoot me.

You can see Anderson telling Shep to shoot him.

Now see, this is evidence that makes me hopes tingle.
No anti-IT, no troll, not even Bioware themselves can dismiss, that even until the last moments of the game, it is designed such that things are not what they look like, and Shepard is not her/himself anymore.

Thank both of you for digging that up!

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 18 mai 2012 - 11:31 .

[Dantexr3]

Very good work, this adds a lot of points to the IT.

[JasonSic]

TSA_383 wrote...

1-The subtitles always show who is the speaker, and who is the listener, this is also often used in the character movements when defining who someone is looking at.

What do you mean the subtitles always show who is the listener?

[WinterCrow]

paxxton wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Unschuld wrote...

paxxton wrote...
From Organics' perspective. Assume for a moment, however unthinkable this might seem, that the Reapers are in fact saving life by not allowing it to develop means to destroying itself. It's unpleasant for organics who aren't given a chance to try and annihalate themselves but it's necessary to preserve life.

Then to organics, Shepard is the biggest jerk of this cycle. This requires us, as organics, to realign ourselves to the Reapers' logic which we've been fighting for three games. I get it. Life needs to be pruned to make way for new life. Transcendence. Great. This totally makes me feel better about my "friends" (Garrus, Tali, Kaidan etc.) that I've grown to love through the three games, who's relationships could be said to be the core around which Mass Effect revolves. I'm totally not betraying them, I'm helping them against their will.

I see their logic, and I still reject it.

*spit*

That's why you should choose Control and save them by changing Reapers' "programs". Destroy actually kills them all (they are all partially synthetic). Of course this is that only if IT is wrong.

No. No. Just...No.

Even if IT is wrong and the endings are literal, I will gladly walk over and shoot that fraking tube. Every. Time.

Really? And then what?

And then I throw every Reaper "corpse" into a dark hole. Reapers can indoctrinate while dead, no way I'm letting any-freaking-body try and rebuild one.

[MegumiAzusa]

JasonSic wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...

1-The subtitles always show who is the speaker, and who is the listener, this is also often used in the character movements when defining who someone is looking at.

What do you mean the subtitles always show who is the listener?

In the extracted subtitles every entry has attributes about who is speaking, who is it directed at (turning the head in that direction), and some other stuff like conditions

[HellishFiend]

paxxton wrote...


So you say that (0 and 1) => 0 that is 0 => 0 which is 1.

And I say (1 and 1) => 1 which is 1.

So logically we both agree but what differs are the interpretations of the procedure. You need to show why I can't choose a specific logical value (0 or 1) for a particular statement. Otherwise, your point is invalid. I'm sorry.

I dont have to show you anything because thus far you have failed to demonstrate a firm understanding of the subject matter. Read a logic textbook, and then we'll talk. 

Modifié par HellishFiend, 18 mai 2012 - 11:47 .

[UrgentArchengel]

Oh noes....the trolls are back!!!!

[MegumiAzusa]

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...


So you say that (0 and 1) => 0 that is 0 => 0 which is 1.

And I say (1 and 1) => 1 which is 1.

So logically we both agree but what differs are the interpretations of the procedure. You need to show why I can't choose a specific logical value (0 or 1) for a particular statement. Otherwise, your point is invalid. I'm sorry.

I dont have to show you anything because thus far you have failed to demonstrate a firm understanding of the subject matter. Read a logic textbook, and then we'll talk. 

Not really actually. He just used the only thing the Guardian knows: logic.
This "simple" example shows how the same result is achieved starting from two completely different starting points.

While it looks strange the Guardian's logic is actually quite sound when only using logic.

Modifié par MegumiAzusa, 18 mai 2012 - 11:52 .

[paxxton]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...


So you say that (0 and 1) => 0 that is 0 => 0 which is 1.

And I say (1 and 1) => 1 which is 1.

So logically we both agree but what differs are the interpretations of the procedure. You need to show why I can't choose a specific logical value (0 or 1) for a particular statement. Otherwise, your point is invalid. I'm sorry.

I dont have to show you anything because thus far you have failed to demonstrate a firm understanding of the subject matter. Read a logic textbook, and then we'll talk. 

Not really actually. He just used the only thing the Guardian knows: logic.
This "simple" example shows how the same result is achieved starting from two completely different starting points.

Thanks! I thought I was the only one who sees the light and oily shadows.

Modifié par paxxton, 18 mai 2012 - 11:54 .

[MegumiAzusa]

paxxton wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...


So you say that (0 and 1) => 0 that is 0 => 0 which is 1.

And I say (1 and 1) => 1 which is 1.

So logically we both agree but what differs are the interpretations of the procedure. You need to show why I can't choose a specific logical value (0 or 1) for a particular statement. Otherwise, your point is invalid. I'm sorry.

I dont have to show you anything because thus far you have failed to demonstrate a firm understanding of the subject matter. Read a logic textbook, and then we'll talk. 

Not really actually. He just used the only thing the Guardian knows: logic.
This "simple" example shows how the same result is achieved starting from two completely different starting points.

Thanks! I thought I was the only one who sees the light and oily shadows.

Had to fail the test the first time last semester in that subject to get that though
Most of the people not interested in logic/computer science don't really get logic actually.

Modifié par MegumiAzusa, 18 mai 2012 - 11:56 .

[HellishFiend]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...


So you say that (0 and 1) => 0 that is 0 => 0 which is 1.

And I say (1 and 1) => 1 which is 1.

So logically we both agree but what differs are the interpretations of the procedure. You need to show why I can't choose a specific logical value (0 or 1) for a particular statement. Otherwise, your point is invalid. I'm sorry.

I dont have to show you anything because thus far you have failed to demonstrate a firm understanding of the subject matter. Read a logic textbook, and then we'll talk. 

Not really actually. He just used the only thing the Guardian knows: logic.
This "simple" example shows how the same result is achieved starting from two completely different starting points.

While it looks strange the Guardian's logic is actually quite sound when only using logic.

Again, failure to understand basic concepts of logic. There is a huge difference between using logic to form suppositions and using it to form factual conclusions. If my previous posts on the matter havent laid it out clearly enough, I dont know what else to say. 

The long and short of it is that starbrat poses his conclusions as fact, therefore his premises must be fact, not supposition. 

I mean come on, I JUST explained on a previous page how you can not use "sound logic" to form a factual conclusion using premises that are not themselves facts. 

[MaximizedAction]

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...


So you say that (0 and 1) => 0 that is 0 => 0 which is 1.

And I say (1 and 1) => 1 which is 1.

So logically we both agree but what differs are the interpretations of the procedure. You need to show why I can't choose a specific logical value (0 or 1) for a particular statement. Otherwise, your point is invalid. I'm sorry.

I dont have to show you anything because thus far you have failed to demonstrate a firm understanding of the subject matter. Read a logic textbook, and then we'll talk. 

What the hell, why are you guys making such a big deal out of logic?

Define the operation '( )AND( )' such that when both channels contain true quantities, then the result of the operatiion will be also true. Define Z( , ):=()AND()
Now let X, Y be both true, then Z(X,Y) = (X)AND(Y) is true per definition.

Now, analogously define further operations like ()OR() and negation NOT() and you get the basics of boolean logic. With that you can do whatever you want to. From proving that true is not false, to that the Catalyst is deceiving you.
There, logic, it's an axiomatic thing, ok?

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 19 mai 2012 - 12:05 .

[HellishFiend]

MegumiAzusa wrote...


Had to fail the test the first time last semester in that subject to get that though
Most of the people not interested in logic/computer science don't really get logic actually.

So you have a background in logic/computer science? Ok, then maybe this will make sense. 

Why are you executing the code in your If-Then statement if your If condition has not been satisfied?

Starbrat's If condition is false, therefore I reject his Then. 

[Rifneno]

HellishFiend wrote...

So you have a background in logic/computer science? Ok, then maybe this will make sense. 

Why are you executing the code in your If-Then statement if your If condition has not been satisfied?

I think I know why.  *sigh*  This wouldn't be a problem with geth.  Geth do not use windows.

[HellishFiend]

MaximizedAction wrote...



Define the operation '( )AND( )' such that when both channels contain true quantities, then the result of the operatiion will be also true. Define Z( , ):=()AND()
Now let X, Y be both true, then Z(X,Y) = (X)AND(Y) is true per definition.

Yes, that is exactly what I just tried to explain in plain english on a previous page, using real world examples instead of variables. 

And the only reason it gets under my skin is because it pains to me to see fellow ME/IT fans defending starbrat when it seems to obvious to me that Bioware intentionally wrote it to be fallacious so we would figure out he wasnt legit. 

[paxxton]

HellishFiend wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...


Had to fail the test the first time last semester in that subject to get that though
Most of the people not interested in logic/computer science don't really get logic actually.

So you have a background in logic/computer science? Ok, then maybe this will make sense. 

Why are you executing the code in your If-Then statement if your If condition has not been satisfied?

Starbrat's If condition is false, therefore I reject his Then. 

Hah! Did you actually read what I wrote? Your implication is 0 => 0. You don't get to execute anything.

@MegumiAzusa Don't worry! You're doing fine at logic!

Modifié par paxxton, 19 mai 2012 - 12:06 .

[Miss Vader]

soooooooooooo has anything new happened yet today?

[HellishFiend]

paxxton wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...


Had to fail the test the first time last semester in that subject to get that though
Most of the people not interested in logic/computer science don't really get logic actually.

So you have a background in logic/computer science? Ok, then maybe this will make sense. 

Why are you executing the code in your If-Then statement if your If condition has not been satisfied?

Starbrat's If condition is false, therefore I reject his Then. 

Hah! Did you actually read what I wrote? Your implication is 0 => 0. You don't get to execute anything.

@MegumiAzusa Don't worry! You're doing fine at logic!

*facepalm* I made no "implications" in the examples I gave. 

You go right on believing what you want to believe. 

[Big G13]

MaximizedAction wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...


So you say that (0 and 1) => 0 that is 0 => 0 which is 1.

And I say (1 and 1) => 1 which is 1.

So logically we both agree but what differs are the interpretations of the procedure. You need to show why I can't choose a specific logical value (0 or 1) for a particular statement. Otherwise, your point is invalid. I'm sorry.

I dont have to show you anything because thus far you have failed to demonstrate a firm understanding of the subject matter. Read a logic textbook, and then we'll talk. 

What the hell, why are you guys making such a big deal out of logic?

Define the operation '( )AND( )' such that when both channels contain true quantities, then the result of the operatiion will be also true. Define Z( , ):=()AND()
Now let X, Y be both true, then Z(X,Y) = (X)AND(Y) is true per definition.

Now, analogously define further operations like ()OR() and negation NOT() and you get the basics of boolean logic. With that you can do whatever you want to. From proving that true is not false, to that the Catalyst is deceiving you.
There, logic, it's an axiomatic thing, ok?

This is an English forum. Please speak English while here. Thank you. :happy:

[MegumiAzusa]

HellishFiend wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...


So you say that (0 and 1) => 0 that is 0 => 0 which is 1.

And I say (1 and 1) => 1 which is 1.

So logically we both agree but what differs are the interpretations of the procedure. You need to show why I can't choose a specific logical value (0 or 1) for a particular statement. Otherwise, your point is invalid. I'm sorry.

I dont have to show you anything because thus far you have failed to demonstrate a firm understanding of the subject matter. Read a logic textbook, and then we'll talk. 

Not really actually. He just used the only thing the Guardian knows: logic.
This "simple" example shows how the same result is achieved starting from two completely different starting points.

While it looks strange the Guardian's logic is actually quite sound when only using logic.

Again, failure to understand basic concepts of logic. There is a huge difference between using logic to form suppositions and using it to form factual conclusions. If my previous posts on the matter havent laid it out clearly enough, I dont know what else to say. 

The long and short of it is that starbrat poses his conclusions as fact, therefore his premises must be fact, not supposition. 

I mean come on, I JUST explained on a previous page how you can not use "sound logic" to form a factual conclusion using premises that are not themselves facts. 

You actually explained nothing of this sort.

The Guardian's logic is sound.
Organics might develop a synthetic race that would destroy all organics. This is the base assumption. This can happen and therefore you can't deny it.
Add to that that Reaper tech isn't perfect. They too can be destroyed. So they have to find a way to prevent that. They are using some of their non aggressive tech to have Organics use that. As a result they develop on paths they desire, meaning the chance to randomly develop a technology superior to the Reapers is much much smaller.
So now to prevent Organics from building the synthetic overlords every x years you eradicate every Organic that is over a threshold y in technological evolution.
This would destroy this race, but to "save" it they "store" them in Reaper form. The Reaper tech isn't perfect. Because of that you can only convert some of the species.

Additionally: as we can see from the Overlord DLC the 50k years are cutting it quite close. This is why they leave one Reaper behind to monitor the situation. Weren't it by chance the combined AI created from Davids mind and VI and Geth would have overtaken and destroyed everything, this is quite a strong theme in Overlord. And as you could experience it could just as easily overtake organics.

[MaximizedAction]

HellishFiend wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...



Define the operation '( )AND( )' such that when both channels contain true quantities, then the result of the operatiion will be also true. Define Z( , ):=()AND()
Now let X, Y be both true, then Z(X,Y) = (X)AND(Y) is true per definition.

Yes, that is exactly what I just tried to explain in plain english on a previous page, using real world examples instead of variables. 

And the only reason it gets under my skin is because it pains to me to see fellow ME/IT fans defending starbrat when it seems to obvious to me that Bioware intentionally wrote it to be fallacious so we would figure out he wasnt legit. 

Ah well, I always preferred my logic in variable form -- annoyed the hell out of my classmates with that back in school.

The 'logic' of the Catalyst is not something that is clear from after a few playthroughs, watching the vids or recalling it from memory. It's something that might become clear, after you write it down explicitly and then prove or disprove it.
You know, like understanding how a machine works.
And I guess in stories, the only two things one might encouter in terms of logic are:
- incosistent logic with a few holes here and there, but nothing explicitly false or
- false logic, that, with more than one writer to go through it, are likely intentional

Important to see the difference for those, defending the Catalyst or pulling the lazy card.

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 19 mai 2012 - 12:13 .