Ce sujet est fermé
Anyway. Off to bed. If you guys need something to speculate on, you need to look up both Waking Nightmare Theory entries in my signiture. So yeah. Night!! 
Modifié par TJBartlemus, 07 juillet 2012 - 06:29 .
while his logic is correct it's based off of false assumptions voiding his argumentArian Dynas wrote...
Simon_Says wrote...
I think you're forgetting that for the majority of ME2, EDI was shackled by her programming and thus was extremely limited in her possibilities for growth. I'm not saying I believe or agree with what JShepppp wrote but yeah.TJBartlemus wrote...
Schachmatt wrote...
Arian Dynas wrote...
As for this guy's posts... eh. I find it hard to believe that he could manage to defend the logic in the Starchild's argument, which is inherently self-contradictory.
His thoughts are based on the assumption that the poor catalyst is a victim of his programming. I guess he missed the part ingame where it becomes clear that AI's are capable to suceed their original programming.
He acts like the AI can't think for it's self. That's a VI. AI's are sentient and are intelligent. Plus with the fact the Catalyst is the combination of all the knowledge of all those he has reaped (including his creators) I think he is smart enough to make his own decisions.
While this makes it internally consistent logic, that does not make his logic "right"
Rosewind wrote...
masster blaster wrote...
Rosewind wrote...
masster blaster wrote...
Rosewind wrote...
masster blaster wrote...
Rosewind wrote...
TJBartlemus wrote...
Why the sudden slow down of the tread? We have nothing to talk about? We need speculation fuel!!!
Hmmm true *puts on speculation monocle* does Tali still have a zombie love scene or did they actually fixed that?
Wait they had that.
Well I guess Shepard was dreaming the whole ME3 up after all.
Thats what i heard but I also heard it was a hug glitch as well.
Like killing Mordin option was a huge glitch.
How is that the same thing?
Well some literalisty said that has to be a glitch because it supports IT because the Reapers are influencing Shepard to betray his/her friends.
Ahhh I get you, but what kind of person shoots mordin anyway.....
Modifié par masster blaster, 07 juillet 2012 - 06:44 .
Modifié par masster blaster, 07 juillet 2012 - 06:50 .
Arian Dynas wrote...
Unfortunately, it is an aphorism that remains true. Example;
Brodway producer puts this ad in the newspaper.
"Ladies and gentlemen, I wish to apologize for the quality of my last play. It is a horrible, TERRIBLE play. There will be only 5 more showings. I ask that you miss them."
So of course you have to go see it, that's the way plenty of human minds work. He's also being completely honest.
An unfortunate number of people do things out of morbid curiousity, why do you think Mystery Science Theather got popular? They're funny yes, but the mix it with this certain bile fascination, the same kind people get when watching "The Room"
In this case, I am willing to bet you, a ton of people bought ME3 just to see "was the ending really that bad?"
There's a difference between "publicity" and "ugly rumors". Ugly rumors are damaging, they could kill companies or cost sales.
Publicity incites interest.
FFZero wrote...
When I saw that slide of Keiji being alive in the synthesis ending it made me both rage and face palm even more, which at this point I thought was impossible. Everyone having new hybrid DNA suddenly sounds logical when you have people being brought back from the dead from memories stored in greyboxes.
Seriously, I would love to know what the writers were taking when they wrote that ending.
Auralius Carolus wrote...
They better not rate it Teen! They've already dumbed it down to a pseudo-shooter like Gear of War. I want meh blood, gore and Tali Tooshy!
Rosewind wrote...
but what kind of person shoots mordin anyway.....
FFZero wrote...
When I saw that slide of Keiji being alive in the synthesis ending it made me both rage and face palm even more, which at this point I thought was impossible. Everyone having new hybrid DNA suddenly sounds logical when you have people being brought back from the dead from memories stored in greyboxes.
Seriously, I would love to know what the writers were taking when they wrote that ending.
Either.Ardrey wrote...
So with that said, the problem I had with the analogy is that the Reapers are actually the opposite of a cleansing fire. In a cleansing fire, the strong/smart survive and the weak/stupid die to provide nutrients for future life. Also, a cleansing fire is indiscriminate. If the Reapers were really akin to a cleansing fire, they would attack everyone. Only the strong/intelligent would survive to make way for the new galaxy.
ChopyChopZ wrote...
Did anyone mention the Song being called Wake up...(its played during Star child's rant) and i'm sorry if I'm mentioning old facts, I haven't been on the forum in a month so once again sorry.
Modifié par shepdog77, 07 juillet 2012 - 09:13 .
shepdog77 wrote...
ChopyChopZ wrote...
Did anyone mention the Song being called Wake up...(its played during Star child's rant) and i'm sorry if I'm mentioning old facts, I haven't been on the forum in a month so once again sorry.
I would assume it's called "Wake Up" because when you're lifted up to the Crucible the Catalyst tells you to "wake up."
Modifié par Arian Dynas, 07 juillet 2012 - 09:51 .
Arian Dynas wrote...
Rifneno, Superman64, while rightfully loathed and indeed incredibly pathetic, has NOTHING on ET for the Atari.
That game, nearly on it's own, killed the videogame industry, resulting in the crash of 84.
Even a person who has never played it before could finish the incredibly boring, formulaic game in under 6 minutes.
dorktainian wrote...
Maybe 'Indoctrination' is just grasping at straws after all?
Rifneno wrote...
Arian Dynas wrote...
Rifneno, Superman64, while rightfully loathed and indeed incredibly pathetic, has NOTHING on ET for the Atari.
That game, nearly on it's own, killed the videogame industry, resulting in the crash of 84.
Even a person who has never played it before could finish the incredibly boring, formulaic game in under 6 minutes.
I know the legend of ET. But I'm also taking the era into account. The ancient Atari systems had some truly jawdropping games, it's not as if ET was alone. It just got the most attention because it was a game version of a big movie. Atari also had a game where you played as General Custer and the object was to rape an Indian woman tied to a pole. I'm not kidding. Atari didn't exactly have a high quality standard. When you compare two games that are so many generations of technology apart, that has to be taken into account. Pong pretty much created the industry and nowadays you'd get smacked if you made something so simplistic as a test for Learning Java 101.dorktainian wrote...
Maybe 'Indoctrination' is just grasping at straws after all?
You think that Harbinger is sparing Shepard because he's fighting the Catalyst's control and we're the ones grasping at straws? Jesus tapdancing Christ. I don't even know what to say to something that incredibly absurd.
Rifneno wrote...
I know the legend of ET. But I'm also taking the era into account. The ancient Atari systems had some truly jawdropping games, it's not as if ET was alone. It just got the most attention because it was a game version of a big movie. Atari also had a game where you played as General Custer and the object was to rape an Indian woman tied to a pole. I'm not kidding. Atari didn't exactly have a high quality standard. When you compare two games that are so many generations of technology apart, that has to be taken into account. Pong pretty much created the industry and nowadays you'd get smacked if you made something so simplistic as a test for Learning Java 101.
Andromidius wrote...
Rifneno wrote...
I know the legend of ET. But I'm also taking the era into account. The ancient Atari systems had some truly jawdropping games, it's not as if ET was alone. It just got the most attention because it was a game version of a big movie. Atari also had a game where you played as General Custer and the object was to rape an Indian woman tied to a pole. I'm not kidding. Atari didn't exactly have a high quality standard. When you compare two games that are so many generations of technology apart, that has to be taken into account. Pong pretty much created the industry and nowadays you'd get smacked if you made something so simplistic as a test for Learning Java 101.
Yeah, bad games in the early 80's were very common and almost to be expected. Its like early automobiles - they were unreliable, uncomfortable and barely worked at the best of times. Quality was the exception rather then the rule (I think only Asteroid, Pacman and Space Invaders are the only games to really come out of that period looking decent).
Nowadays there's no excuse. The industry has moved on, has more funding, has more tools that make the process of game developement much easier and much more reliable. If a car manufacturer released vehicles that were as unreliable and prone to breakdown and just generally terrible in quality on all levels they'd get panned for it. Maybe even sued if the vehicle is so unreliable its dangerous or fails to live up to the adverts (in terms of Fuel Milage, etc).
Its time the video game industry caught up. Quality should be expected, not a pleasent suprise. Not to mention should be testdrivable before purchase.
And yeah, I expect quality even from companies I love - Bethesda for example really need to learn the concept of 'bug testing'. They are truely the Alfa Romeo of game designers - amazing when it works, but most of the time you're just trying to get it running!
Arian Dynas wrote...
Agree with the comments about quality. Except Bethesda, I usually never have problems until I start modding. There are a few exceptions but, well Skyrim 300+ hours of gameplay and a game world roughly the size of, I beleive it was Rhode Island? That's ALOT to bug test
dorktainian wrote...
I'll share this post on here cos it makes Mass Effect 3 and all before it mean something.
"My theory: I believe that the reason Harbinger doesn't kill Shepard or fire on the Normandy is because it is fighting against the Catalyst's control. The final 'beam run' scene is occuring while Harbinger is in an internal struggle against the Catalyst. Just like Benezia in ME1 harbinger used the collective consciousness of the entire civilization it is built from to lock away part of its mind so that it could use it at some point to destroy the Catalyst. Firing on the Normandy would have surely killed Shepard.
My explanation: Firstly, all Reapers are the collective product of the harvesting of their respective civilizations. We can more or less safely assume that this was done against their will. So each individual Reaper has essentially become enslaved and controlled against their will to carry out the Catalyst's goals. The means of control is likely a form of indoctrination since this would mean the Catalyst does not have to monitor or maintain direct control of each Reaper. By indoctrinating the Reapers the Catalyst can have them willingly do what it wants because they now believe it is the right thing to do instead of constantly engaging in direct control. The form of control doesn't even have to be indoctrination really but it does seem like the most efficient way to achieve dominance and maintain control.
At the point of firing on Shepard Harbinger is trying to fight off the Catalyst's control. Harbinger is initially firing on Shepard because it is obeying the Catalyst but overpowers the control at the last second, barely allowing Shepard to survive. Harbinger then flies away (when it must have known Shepard would have lived) in order to allow Shepard to get to the beam and stop the Catalyst. Harby didn't fire on the Normandy because that would have killed Shepard. Having Harbinger, as possibly the first harvested civilization, help stop the continuation of the cycle is a great potential plot element. I say potential because this is only a theory afterall.
Also, Harbinger can be heard saying something before firing on Shepard. There are a lot of interpretations but one of the most prominant is "save us". This would definitely make sense given my explanation.
The reason Harbinger was trying to Kill Shepard throughout ME2 and calling him a 'jive turkey' and all that was because he was still under the Catalyst's control. He had no reason to think that Shepard could potentially stop the cycle so he didn't try to combat the Catalyst. He only did so at the end because he figured this was his best chance. He's seen what Shepard is capable of so puts everything he has into fighting control at the last minute as a final 'hail Mary'.
So basically, Harbinger doesn't blow up the Normandy or kill Shepard because he is defying the control of the Catalyst in order to end the cycles and stop all future organics from the same fate.
I believe this theory fits in with all aspects of the Mass Effect lore without requiring any great leaps in logic. It is thematically satisfying (for me at least) and most importantly addresses the issue of why Harbinger didn't kill Shepard or the Normandy."
Thanks to The Eruptionist for that post. Makes a hell of a lot of sense and I believe is actually what happened. Maybe 'Indoctrination' is just grasping at straws after all?
TJBartlemus wrote...
Okay rule 1 in programming shackles for AI's. An AI should be not able to harm his creators/ other organics. In the fact that he accomplished this and created the first Reapers out of his creators means that he is either unshackled, he has gone rogue or his logic is broken. Either way. Don't trust him.
SubAstris wrote...
TJBartlemus wrote...
Okay rule 1 in programming shackles for AI's. An AI should be not able to harm his creators/ other organics. In the fact that he accomplished this and created the first Reapers out of his creators means that he is either unshackled, he has gone rogue or his logic is broken. Either way. Don't trust him.
His logic is clearly broken; if it wasn't then we would want the Reaper cycles to continue. That doesn't mean everything he says is false though
Arian Dynas wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
TJBartlemus wrote...
Okay rule 1 in programming shackles for AI's. An AI should be not able to harm his creators/ other organics. In the fact that he accomplished this and created the first Reapers out of his creators means that he is either unshackled, he has gone rogue or his logic is broken. Either way. Don't trust him.
His logic is clearly broken; if it wasn't then we would want the Reaper cycles to continue. That doesn't mean everything he says is false though
It does however ruin his credibility as a being whom you can trust.
Retour en haut