55528 réponses à ce sujet

[gunslinger_ruiz]

Salient Archer wrote...
Does averaging 15 minute firebase glacier speed runs against Reapers on gold qualify for elite?

Yes. You bastard

[Dam0299]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Dam0299 wrote...

@Heretic_Hanar:

I always saw the 3 endings as a game harbinger had for Shepard within their own minds, with one in which Shepard can win yet still within the rules harbinger allows (if Shepard choose destroy then he/she wins and breaks out much like killing Saran disables Sovereign, Therefor breaking Indoctrination for Shepard). By outright rufusing to play the game he had constructed within Shepards mind, You can see the outright anger the catalyst has by its pause before yelling (most likely harbinger broke character due to rage at Shepard) So rather then attempting to indoctrinate Shepard any further, Harbinger sees it as a lost cause and just kills shepard outright, while he/she is unconscious/walking around hallucinating. Just my opinion, you in no way need to share it.


-By game I mean the same way James Moriarty and Sherlock Holmes would refer to one as.

And why in the world would Harbinger play a game with Shepard that allows Shepard to win if he picks the proper option? Does Harbinger not care about his cycle anymore? Does Harbinger not want to win this war and continue the cycle? 

Here is a more pressing problem: Why indoctrinating Shepard at all? Why not just kill him and be done with it?


I swear, the whole indoctrination "theory" doesn't make any sense at all, especially not after the EC.

Harbinger does not technically allow Shepard to win, The choice to destroy the reapers is there because that is something the Shepard has been trying to do since he/she first discovered the reapers in ME1, to not have the option to destroy them at all, would make it easy in my opinion to let shepard know something was not right. Indoctrination works by forceing others to change their way of thought, in this case choosing to control or synthesis all life, rather then destroying the reapers. The Catalyst shows destroy in a very negative way, in a attempt to make shepard NOT choose it, while almost gold plating the other two choices so you would pick them.

The reason to indoctrinate shepard is simple, Shepard is a hero to most people in the galaxy, to have him/her on the reapers side would be the biggest blow to enemy morale, and one of the best soldiers now fighting for them.

And if the Indoctrination theory does not make sense to you, might I ask why you bother going to forums about it?

[Arian Dynas]

[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...

[quote]Arian Dynas wrote...

We simply do not have the means to do so, and while Shepards who choose Refuse have the wisdom to not be seduced by Synthesis or Control, they lack the conviction to follow through with Destroy, now that a consequence has been tacked on. Shepard is by his very nature a man of action, he simply would NOT choose to do nothing, every option you have ever been given whether Paragon or Renegade was stil Shepard doing something, you merely chose the method he did so.
[/quote]

This is just plain not true. There are plenty of moments in Mass Effect where a Paragon or Renegade decision is equal do doing nothing, or lets say: NOT doing something.

In ME1, you could choose to NOT save the council (neutral or renegade).
In ME2, you could choose to NOT save the workers during Zaeed's mission (renegade).
In ME3, you could choose to NOT stop Legion from uploading the Reaper code (paragon).

These are just 3 different examples from all 3 games, there are many more.
[/quote]

You are misunderstanding.

ME1, neutral is choosing to do nothing, and judging by the "Neutral Shepard is a Jerk" meme, it always turns out badly.

In ME1 choosing NOT to save the council is choosing to focus on Sovereign, it's not a choice to do nothing, it's that each is mutually exclusive.

In ME2,  choosing not to save the workers is choosing to go directly after Vido Santiago, refusing to take action would be letting the refinery and workers burn while Santiago escapes.

in ME3 choosing to let Legion go on what he is doing is NOT inaction, it is making the choice to give him time to do what he needs to while you negotiate with the Quarians.

[quote]
In Refuse, it's not really that you do nothing. You REJECT the Catalyst. You REJECT everything he says, that INCLUDES the Destroy option. 
[/quote]

No, you merely give him this line about certain things you will not do, basically making the claim that "even if it is necessary, I am not going to be the one to pull the trigger."

I think Javik had something to say about that; "You think you can leave this war with your honor intact? Stand amongst the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask if honor matters. The Silence is your answer."

Shepard, as a character, if offered the choice between living (using the Crucible, even in Destroy, the majority live, even if some die.) or letting everyone die because he didn't want to be the one to commit "genocide", would choose to save everyone, because as Bioware themselves have stated, whether Paragon or Renegade, Shepard is a hero, he saves people and has humanity's best interests at heart. A Renegade may kick a merc through a plate glass window to his death, but he still is interested in stopping the Reapers and saving human kind.

Reject still requires one thing that Destroy does not. Destroy is completely unattractive, you could do everything Destroy does with less consequences and even still sort of live with Control, and Synthesis is supposedly a paradise. Even in Reject, Shepard is, by the nature of his argument, accepting the Guardian's premisis that Destroy will kill all synthetic life.

Destroy as an option is only ONLY attractive if you assume you are being lied to.

And what reason would you have to listen to, let alone believe a creature indirectly responsible for the deaths of uncounted quintillions of sapient beings, something that by it's own admission murdered and betrayed it's creators? 

Could you really believe in the good intentions of a being that advocated the use of the Collectors? Or Dragon's Teeth? Husks? The Reapers themselves? Slaughter ships? Banshees? This is the kind of **** that makes Hitler look like a nice guy by comparison and you choose to TRUST this thing?


[quote]
If the Catalyst is indeed indoctrinating you and lying about the Control and Synthesis option, then why would he speak the truth about the Destroy option? There are only 2 options:

1) Either the Catalyst is lying outright, which means ALL 3 options are INVALID and not to be trusted, INCLUDING Destroy.

2) Or the Catalyst speaks the truth, which means ALL 3 options are valid, INCLUDING Control and Synthesis.
[quote]

Notice that the Guardian actually actively tries to drive you completely away from Destroy, going "Yeah, you could do what you came here to do, but there's alot of things about it that suck that you didn't consider. Here, try one of my far better options instead."

Also. Learn logic. I can see False Dichotomy and Argumentum ad Logicam here alone.

[quote]
If you ever played Mass Effect 1, then I will simply remind you of something Vigil told you.

"Your future relies on stopping them. Not understanding them."
[/quote]

And how is this related to this discussion? If they indoctrination "theory" isn't true (and it isn't) then all 3 Crucible options stops the Reapers, so all 3 options are valid.
And even Refusal is valid if you honestly believe you have the power to destroy the conventionally, or if you simply do not trust the Catalyst. No option, no decision deviates from what Vigil said. 
[/quote]

Synthesis requires understanding by it's very nature. Shepard welcomes understanding between Reapers and Organics (since we've already likely achived understanding with synthetics by this point if you've been doing things right.)

As does Control. Shepard chooses to understand the Reapers by becoming them.

Refuse still requires Shepard accepting the Guardian's premises.

[Arian Dynas]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

We simply do not have the means to do so, and while Shepards who choose Refuse have the wisdom to not be seduced by Synthesis or Control, they lack the conviction to follow through with Destroy, now that a consequence has been tacked on. Shepard is by his very nature a man of action, he simply would NOT choose to do nothing, every option you have ever been given whether Paragon or Renegade was stil Shepard doing something, you merely chose the method he did so.

No, destroy is now tainted as well, in the sense it definitely kills the Geth and now represents greed, in that to achieve your goal, you're willing to sacrifice an entire species to get there.

I agree that Shepard is a person of action, but refusal is an action in itself.

Refusal is NOT an action, even in the game files it's referred to as "Opt out"

You make a choice, you do not make an action.

[MaximizedAction]

Salient Archer wrote...
Does averaging 15 minute firebase glacier speed runs against Reapers on gold qualify for elite?

Dang!
Maybe that's it. With every additional minute it takes me to finish on gold, the chanecs of the game glitching on me increase. So I need to improve to your level, then I'll be able to finish games on gold BEFORE the game crashes/glitches/disconnects on me.

[Rifneno]

GDI. More of this "conventional victory is possible if we only believe in the power of love and togetherness!" I hate everything.

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Did anyone actually read my post about how I don't think there are 10000 reapers? Anyway I'll be back later.

Yes. And no offense, but I wrote it off because it's the same as the other many, many times people have stated it for the same reason as the other times: there's no fact behind it. It's just "I don't think there's that many." I'm using known facts for my ballpark estimate. You aren't.

Dam0299 wrote...

While we do not really know how old the oldest reaper really is, currently. We have to at least assume the the Leviathan is at least older then 37 million (if they did tests then thats a pretty big stretch from 1 billion to 37 million, and they call themselves scientists ). But you seem to forget that the bulk of the reaper forces are NOT at earth, just before you return to the Sol system after storming the Illusive mans base, the galaxy map shows that the reapers are invading/occupied EVERY star system on the map, save for the one the illusive mans base was in. If i was to guess they would have a bit more then 750 capital ships, though i agree 10000 would be a stretch.

What. The Leviathan of Dis is not the derelict Reaper at Mnemosyne. That's why they call it the Leviathan of Dis, not the Leviathan of Hawking Eta. By this logic, it's a stretch to say humans were around 75,000 years ago because Ric Flair is only 400.

10,000 is a stretch why? Because we only see multiple capital ships everytime we're on a major city? Do the math on how many colonized planets there are and how many major cities galaxy-wide. Oh yeah, and that less than 1% of the galaxy is explored by known races, meaning the Reapers are also engaged with tons of entire civilizations we don't even know exist at the same time. I say again: 10,000 ia a conservative estimate. There's probably a hell of a lot more than that.

demersel wrote...

Actually we'll never find out whether we have what it takes to beat them or we don't, unless we try it. It is not as if we just sit at the table and count our assets, and then and end of the day go like - "damn! we're 3 cruisers short, it is not enough, we'll fail.... Oh, well....guess it is up to the next cycle". When you're at war - you fight it.

We'll never know if three drunks armed with pool cues are enough to take down the entire United Stated Air Force unless they try.

Actually, yes we do know. They're not enough. And we're not 3 cruisers short. We're tens of thousands of dreadnoughts short. If you don't realize how incredibly outmatched we are in a straight up fight, then you haven't paid any attention to the series.

[Arian Dynas]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

And why in the world would Harbinger play a game with Shepard that allows Shepard to win if he picks the proper option? Does Harbinger not care about his cycle anymore? Does Harbinger not want to win this war and continue the cycle? 

Here is a more pressing problem: Why indoctrinating Shepard at all? Why not just kill him and be done with it?


I swear, the whole indoctrination "theory" doesn't make any sense at all, especially not after the EC.

Harbinger is not playing a game with Shepard. He is manipulating him, but Shepard's mind does have certain requirements. If there was no way out, aside from poor game design (no way to win) Shepard's mind would reject it. This is not Harbinger projecting these images onto the inside of Shepard's skull, this is Harbinger worming his way into Shepard's mind, which is slowly establishing images from past experiences to attempt to make sense of what is happening.

Indoctrinating Shepard would make the whole thing easy.

Yes the Reapers COULD kill Shepard, but they would not only make him a martyr (people fight hard for martyrs) but they would waste not only a powerful potential resource in the creation of a human Reaper, but indoctrinating Shepard and making him turn traitor would mean they could not only manipulate the allied forces to limit their own casualties and make the whole cycle move quicker, they could also shatter allied morale if Shepard was ever revealed to be a traitor.

If it doesn't make any sense, it's because you aren't open to listening.

[The Heretic of Time]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

We simply do not have the means to do so, and while Shepards who choose Refuse have the wisdom to not be seduced by Synthesis or Control, they lack the conviction to follow through with Destroy, now that a consequence has been tacked on. Shepard is by his very nature a man of action, he simply would NOT choose to do nothing, every option you have ever been given whether Paragon or Renegade was stil Shepard doing something, you merely chose the method he did so.

No, destroy is now tainted as well, in the sense it definitely kills the Geth and now represents greed, in that to achieve your goal, you're willing to sacrifice an entire species to get there.

I agree that Shepard is a person of action, but refusal is an action in itself.

Refusal is NOT an action, even in the game files it's referred to as "Opt out"

You make a choice, you do not make an action.

You can discuss semantics all you like, in the end it doesn't matter. Refuse is as much a valid choice or action as "let the council die" (ME1, final decision, renegade), or "David stays with the project" (ME2, overlord decision, renegade), or "let legion upload the code" (ME3, rannoch decision, paragon).

All of those decisions I just pointed out is Shepard doing noting, yet exactly by doing nothing he makes all the difference. So what you said earlier about Shepard being a man of action and always doing something is completely wrong.

[gunslinger_ruiz]

"Operation Broadside begins at 10am PST Friday July 13 and ends at 4am PST Monday July 16."

Going to bed for now, but I'll be up and giving 'em hell if I'm not sleeping or working this weekend.

Stand tall. Stand together. I'll see you in the warzone.

[Arian Dynas]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

We simply do not have the means to do so, and while Shepards who choose Refuse have the wisdom to not be seduced by Synthesis or Control, they lack the conviction to follow through with Destroy, now that a consequence has been tacked on. Shepard is by his very nature a man of action, he simply would NOT choose to do nothing, every option you have ever been given whether Paragon or Renegade was stil Shepard doing something, you merely chose the method he did so.

No, destroy is now tainted as well, in the sense it definitely kills the Geth and now represents greed, in that to achieve your goal, you're willing to sacrifice an entire species to get there.

I agree that Shepard is a person of action, but refusal is an action in itself.

Refusal is NOT an action, even in the game files it's referred to as "Opt out"

You make a choice, you do not make an action.

You can discuss semantics all you like, in the end it doesn't matter. Refuse is as much a valid choice or action as "let the council die" (ME1, final decision, renegade), or "David stays with the project" (ME2, overlord decision, renegade), or "let legion upload the code" (ME3, rannoch decision, paragon).

All of those decisions I just pointed out is Shepard doing noting, yet exactly by doing nothing he makes all the difference. So what you said earlier about Shepard being a man of action and always doing something is completely wrong.

From here on in I'm just going to point out the fallacies in your arguments. Until you can learn what logic is it's not worth arguing with you. It's like trying to do math with someone who fundamentally misunderstands what numbers are.

Anyway; False Analogy, Argumentum ad Logicum, and Ignoratio Elenchi.

EDIT: Oh and for extra fun? Your opener, referring to us as "Cultists"? Argumentum ad Hominem.

Modifié par Arian Dynas, 13 juillet 2012 - 10:35 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Indoctrinating Shepard would make the whole thing easy.

No it doesn't.

Arian Dynas wrote... 

Yes the Reapers COULD kill Shepard, but they would not only make him a martyr (people fight hard for martyrs) but they would waste not only a powerful potential resource in the creation of a human Reaper, but indoctrinating Shepard and making him turn traitor would mean they could not only manipulate the allied forces to limit their own casualties and make the whole cycle move quicker, they could also shatter allied morale if Shepard was ever revealed to be a traitor.

And how does this matter at all? Did you not argue againt Refusal because the Reaper War CANNOT be won conventionally? Did you not saying something about "bacteria on cosmic winds" an all that? The Reapers surely know this as well. So why go through all the trouble if they can just kill Shepard and be done with it?

Kiling Shepard, the hero of this cycle, and ditching his corpse with the rest of the corpses on the Citadel, will shatter the morale of humanity as much as indoctrinating him would, and it's a lot easier too.

Your "theory" makes the Reapers seem even more retarded than they already are in ME3.

If it doesn't make any sense, it's because you aren't open to listening.

No, it just doesn't make any sense and I've already pointed out why on multiple occasions (read my long post and try to refute that). You just aren't open to critique on your precious dogma. Like I said, IT is like a religion, a cult. You guys only believe in it because you WANT to believe in it. But anyone who sees ME3 for what is it (a mediocre game with a horrible and ridiculously bad plot full with plotholes) also sees that the IT is simply a ridiculous attempt at salvaging this completely mediocre story with a crappy ending.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 13 juillet 2012 - 10:37 .

[Arian Dynas]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Indoctrinating Shepard would make the whole thing easy.

No it doesn't.

Argumentum ad Lapidem.

Arian Dynas wrote... 

Yes the Reapers COULD kill Shepard, but they would not only make him a martyr (people fight hard for martyrs) but they would waste not only a powerful potential resource in the creation of a human Reaper, but indoctrinating Shepard and making him turn traitor would mean they could not only manipulate the allied forces to limit their own casualties and make the whole cycle move quicker, they could also shatter allied morale if Shepard was ever revealed to be a traitor.

And how does this matter at all? Did you not argue againt Refusal because the Reaper War CANNOT be won conventionally? Did you not saying something about "bacteria on cosmic winds" an all that? The Reapers surely know this as well. So why go through all the trouble if they can just kill Shepard and be done with it?

Just because we cannot win does not mean we cannot do damage.

You also demonstrate a lack of understanding of human psychology.

If it doesn't make any sense, it's because you aren't open to listening.

No, it just doesn't make any sense and I've already pointed out why on multiple occasions (read my long post and try to refute that). You just aren't open to critique on your precious dogma. Like I said, IT is like a religion, a cult. You guys only believe in it because you WANT to believe in it.

Argumentum ad Hominem, Argumentum ad Lapidem, should I go on? I've got more.

Modifié par Arian Dynas, 13 juillet 2012 - 10:40 .

[RavenEyry]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
If they indoctrination "theory" isn't true (and it isn't)

Please don't state opinion as fact. It leads discussions to bad places.

[Arian Dynas]

RavenEyry wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
If they indoctrination "theory" isn't true (and it isn't)

Please don't state opinion as fact. It leads discussions to bad places.

It's also a logical fallacy. For those too lazy to look it up it's called Argumentum ad Lapidem, dismissal of arguments without solid counter evidence.

[RavenEyry]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
You just aren't open to critique on your precious dogma.

Neither are you since you get all ranty when someone disagrees with you.

[Rifneno]

Ahh. Here I was feeling bad for bumping an argument that was going on when I went to bed and I find you guys are arguing with a troglodyte. Thanks, makes me feel better.

[Arian Dynas]

RavenEyry wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
You just aren't open to critique on your precious dogma.

Neither are you since you get all ranty when someone disagrees with you.

It's kind of sad really, I don't even need to punch holes in his argument, he does it for me.

[The Heretic of Time]

Arian Dynas wrote...

From here on in I'm just going to point out the fallacies in your arguments.

Because you know I'm right and can't defend your theory, so you just go on the offense, right? Whatever.

Anyway; False Analogy,

No it isn't. I'm not even using an analogy in the first place. You can try to wave of my argument as "false analogy" in the hope you don't have to refute is conventionally, but that's not going to work with me mister. So how about you be a good boy and try to show me where that "false analogy" is? Try to refute it, I dare you.

Argumentum ad Logicum,

It's argumentum at logicAm, with an 'A'. Do you even know what you're talking about or do you just use fancy words to look intellectually superior without having a single clue of what you're actually saying?

and Ignoratio Elenchi.

Which would be you. You're the one who uses ignoratio elenchi, which I already pointed out in my previous posts.

[Arian Dynas]

Rifneno wrote...

Ahh. Here I was feeling bad for bumping an argument that was going on when I went to bed and I find you guys are arguing with a troglodyte. Thanks, makes me feel better.

It is to our gregarious elation to grant indulgence to your Schadenfreude.

[The Heretic of Time]

Arian Dynas wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
If they indoctrination "theory" isn't true (and it isn't)

Please don't state opinion as fact. It leads discussions to bad places.

It's also a logical fallacy. For those too lazy to look it up it's called Argumentum ad Lapidem, dismissal of arguments without solid counter evidence.

Which is what you do all the time. I'm still waiting for a proper rebuttal from your side. Still waiting...

[RavenEyry]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Which is what you do all the time. I'm still waiting for a proper rebuttal from your side. Still waiting...

No, I've never called this anything more than my interpretation of the plot of a game I purchased with my own money and have the right to derive enjoyment from in any way I wish. I also enjoy discussing my opinion with level headed individuals.

[Arian Dynas]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

From here on in I'm just going to point out the fallacies in your arguments.

Because you know I'm right and can't defend your theory, so you just go on the offense, right? Whatever.

Anyway; False Analogy,

No it isn't. I'm not even using an analogy in the first place. You can try to wave of my argument as "false analogy" in the hope you don't have to refute is conventionally, but that's not going to work with me mister. So how about you be a good boy and try to show me where that "false analogy" is? Try to refute it, I dare you.

 

Appeal to force, Amphiboly, Argumentum ad Hominem.

 
Argumentum ad Logicum,

It's argumentum at logicAm, with an 'A'. Do you even know what you're talking about or do you just use fancy words to look intellectually superior without having a single clue of what you're actually saying?

Amphiboly, Argumentum ad Hominem.

 
and Ignoratio Elenchi.

Which would be you. You're the one who uses ignoratio elenchi, which I already pointed out in my previous posts.

And Argumentum ad Hominem for the hat trick.

Would you perhaps like to be the subject of a paper I am doing for a logic class as an example for logical fallacies?

EDIT: Oh, and I am sure you can come up with a better insult than "No you!"

Modifié par Arian Dynas, 13 juillet 2012 - 10:56 .

[lex0r11]

Come on, Heretic_Hanar.

You come in here calling people cultist and this thread silly and you expect answers?

Mocking posts get mocking responses, it's only appropriate.

Modifié par lex0r11, 13 juillet 2012 - 10:51 .

[Rifneno]

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

"Operation Broadside begins at 10am PST Friday July 13 and ends at 4am PST Monday July 16."

Going to bed for now, but I'll be up and giving 'em hell if I'm not sleeping or working this weekend.

Stand tall. Stand together. I'll see you in the warzone.

Hmm.  I'm still on the fence whether I even want to bother with another MP weekend.  I haven't played ME MP since EC came out and disgusted me away from the game, and I'm sick of getting ****ed with operation rewards anyway.  I've missed one weekend but got all the others.  I've gotten 1 valiant, 1 hurricane and 5 <insert any ban-worthy adjective here> eagles.  Not sure it's worth the effort to pull off a Reaper gold just so I can email EA about not getting a commendation pack, get a commendation pack, and find it's full of pictures of the random number generator in bed with my girlfriend.

Mmmm.  Bitter.

[Lord Goose]

The sheer size of the explosions behind/around the Citadel ring. Regardless of it's origin (either the Crucible exploding or part of the Citadel exploding or both) it's big enough to envelop more than the Docking Ring. Shepard would be atomized by it unless he/she grew at least Cruiser grade kinetic barriers and that's being generous with my speculating.

But the Citadel is not that evaporated by the impact.
http://s55.radikal.r...3bb1ea79851.jpg

(sorry for subtitles, forgot to disable them).

It is seriously damaged, but not completely destroyed.

Also, I didn't mean, that Shepard has personal kinetic barrier. I was talking about this Q&A from unofficial interview.

-Did anyone on the Citadel survive?

-Yes. We would never, ever do anything that made the player feel, on replay, that it would be better for everyone on the Citadel if they just died. The Citadel has emergency shelters and kinetic barriers - even if it blows up, millions might survive. You should assume that everyone plot-important on the Citadel survived.

So, basically, I do not think it is a huge stretch to assume that room where Shepard was had powerful kinetic barriers, and, thus, he survived the blast.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 13 juillet 2012 - 10:54 .