55528 réponses à ce sujet

[HellishFiend]

BatmanTurian wrote...

I want to bring up another argument by Literalists that has been coming up (though I know it's by a certain ultratroll that we all love to hate because he never backs up his argument.)

Now they're basically using the Bill Clinton argument ( "It depends what your definition of is is") against the definition of indoctrination. Basically they're saying the " under full control of the Reapers " is not the same as indoctrination and that TIM might be using something else to control Anderson and Shepard. They're basically saying that we jumped to conclusions when we said that " under full reaper control " in the Final Hours App automatically meant indoctrination.

Frankly, I'm sick of this argument and it's become cancerous so I would love if we could figure out a way to handle this B.S.

If they've already made up their minds, it is not worth it to engage anyway. If someone is one the fence, or uninformed, I'd be glad to discuss it with them. But I have no interest in engaging with someone whose goal is to talk me out of believing IT. I'm quite objective enough on my own to consider all the facts and possibilities without having to listen to someone argue their point of view using poor logic and cynicism. 

[BatmanTurian]

alec1898 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

I want to bring up another argument by Literalists that has been coming up (though I know it's by a certain ultratroll that we all love to hate because he never backs up his argument.)

Now they're basically using the Bill Clinton argument ( "It depends what your definition of is is") against the definition of indoctrination. Basically they're saying the " under full control of the Reapers " is not the same as indoctrination and that TIM might be using something else to control Anderson and Shepard. They're basically saying that we jumped to conclusions when we say that " under full reaper control " in the Final Hours App automatically means indoctrination.

Frankly, I'm sick of this argument and it's become cancerous so I would love if we could figure out a way to handle this B.S.

If I could think of any counter-argument, it would be why would the Catalyst show or even mention the Destroy option if it in turn releases him from their hold.

I don't see how that addresses their symantic argument that we are assuming what full reaper control is.

Balance and a few others were in that thread the other night when I argued with this guy about it. Finally I just blew my top, called him intellectually dishonest and not worth debating, closed my browser, and went to do fun stuff because he was wasting my time.

But honestly, if it comes up again, I'd love if we had something to nuke this as soon as it comes up.

[Big G13]

Rifneno wrote...

byne wrote...

Yeah, you hear about how the Reapers are inviting all the remaining leaders on Earth into their superstructures to 'open negotiations'. That won't end well.

It worked extremely well when they tried that crap on Palaven. 

For anyone that doesn't read the codex and haven't heard it mentioned yet, when the Reapers tried that on Palaven they certainly did send ambassadors in.  ...  And the ambassadors were packing atomic bombs.  "Large swathes of territory fell back under turian and krogan control."  Epic.

And yet, my friend, you are still completely against the possibility of a conventional victory? I understand we can't suicide nuke every reaper, but given the amount of time it takes to reap all civilizations, the technological advances gained from building the crucible (even if it is a trap), and the unity of the galaxy (thanks to Shepard), just to name a few, it is conceivable.

[BatmanTurian]

HellishFiend wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

I want to bring up another argument by Literalists that has been coming up (though I know it's by a certain ultratroll that we all love to hate because he never backs up his argument.)

Now they're basically using the Bill Clinton argument ( "It depends what your definition of is is") against the definition of indoctrination. Basically they're saying the " under full control of the Reapers " is not the same as indoctrination and that TIM might be using something else to control Anderson and Shepard. They're basically saying that we jumped to conclusions when we said that " under full reaper control " in the Final Hours App automatically meant indoctrination.

Frankly, I'm sick of this argument and it's become cancerous so I would love if we could figure out a way to handle this B.S.

If they've already made up their minds, it is not worth it to engage anyway. If someone is one the fence, or uninformed, I'd be glad to discuss it with them. But I have no interest in engaging with someone whose goal is to talk me out of believing IT. I'm quite objective enough on my own to consider all the facts and possibilities without having to listen to someone argue their point of view using poor logic and cynicism. 

I agree, but when this comes up and we can't effectively argue against it, it starts becoming a point in their favor because others illogically jump on the bandwagon.

It's just another one of those things where they try to prove one thing wrong to prove the whole interpretation wrong.

[HellishFiend]

Big G13 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

byne wrote...

Yeah, you hear about how the Reapers are inviting all the remaining leaders on Earth into their superstructures to 'open negotiations'. That won't end well.

It worked extremely well when they tried that crap on Palaven. 

For anyone that doesn't read the codex and haven't heard it mentioned yet, when the Reapers tried that on Palaven they certainly did send ambassadors in.  ...  And the ambassadors were packing atomic bombs.  "Large swathes of territory fell back under turian and krogan control."  Epic.

And yet, my friend, you are still completely against the possibility of a conventional victory? I understand we can't suicide nuke every reaper, but given the amount of time it takes to reap all civilizations, the technological advances gained from building the crucible (even if it is a trap), and the unity of the galaxy (thanks to Shepard), just to name a few, it is conceivable.

Disagree. By that logic, the Viatnamese would have been able to take the fight to the United States soil in that real-life war and win. 

Just because you can win an engagement or execute a guerilla strike doesnt mean you can achieve total and complete victory against an opponent. 

Striking back and dealing blows against the Reapers isnt enough. A conventional victory would require completely annihilating them since they would never relent the way conventional forces would in a real-life war. 

Modifié par HellishFiend, 14 mai 2012 - 11:37 .

[HellishFiend]

BatmanTurian wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

I want to bring up another argument by Literalists that has been coming up (though I know it's by a certain ultratroll that we all love to hate because he never backs up his argument.)

Now they're basically using the Bill Clinton argument ( "It depends what your definition of is is") against the definition of indoctrination. Basically they're saying the " under full control of the Reapers " is not the same as indoctrination and that TIM might be using something else to control Anderson and Shepard. They're basically saying that we jumped to conclusions when we said that " under full reaper control " in the Final Hours App automatically meant indoctrination.

Frankly, I'm sick of this argument and it's become cancerous so I would love if we could figure out a way to handle this B.S.

If they've already made up their minds, it is not worth it to engage anyway. If someone is one the fence, or uninformed, I'd be glad to discuss it with them. But I have no interest in engaging with someone whose goal is to talk me out of believing IT. I'm quite objective enough on my own to consider all the facts and possibilities without having to listen to someone argue their point of view using poor logic and cynicism. 

I agree, but when this comes up and we can't effectively argue against it, it starts becoming a point in their favor because others illogically jump on the bandwagon.

It's just another one of those things where they try to prove one thing wrong to prove the whole interpretation wrong.

It's not the worth the headache, in my opinion. The EC will come along and set things straight soon enough. If Bioware had no intention of clarifying, it would be a whole other matter. But for now, I'd rather discuss IT with like-minded folk than work uphill against folk who likely are not going to change their minds no matter what you say. That just takes the fun out of being here on BSN in the first place. 

[Domanese]

Why not just simply put up a picture of the Collectors with the message of "You mean complete control in this fashion? They're indoctrinated as well." Oh and for those who still Control is the best try telling that to David Archer. Im sure he has five words for you.

[Uncle Jo]

Big G13 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

byne wrote...

Yeah, you hear about how the Reapers are inviting all the remaining leaders on Earth into their superstructures to 'open negotiations'. That won't end well.

It worked extremely well when they tried that crap on Palaven. 

For anyone that doesn't read the codex and haven't heard it mentioned yet, when the Reapers tried that on Palaven they certainly did send ambassadors in.  ...  And the ambassadors were packing atomic bombs.  "Large swathes of territory fell back under turian and krogan control."  Epic.

And yet, my friend, you are still completely against the possibility of a conventional victory? I understand we can't suicide nuke every reaper, but given the amount of time it takes to reap all civilizations, the technological advances gained from building the crucible (even if it is a trap), and the unity of the galaxy (thanks to Shepard), just to name a few, it is conceivable.

I can remember Hackett repeating constantly that we never beat them conventionally, that they'll bleed us slowly and was betting our chances of victory on the Crucible (or was he indoctrinated too?).
Even the whole Battle of Earth was, IMO, about gaining time and distacting/holding the Reapers, thus allowing Hackett and the escort to dock the Crucible safely.

[BatmanTurian]

HellishFiend wrote...

It's not the worth the headache, in my opinion. The EC will come along and set things straight soon enough. If Bioware had no intention of clarifying, it would be a whole other matter. But for now, I'd rather discuss IT with like-minded folk than work uphill against folk who likely are not going to change their minds no matter what you say. That just takes the fun out of being here on BSN in the first place. 

Alright, I guess.

[Rifneno]

Uncle Jo wrote...

@Rifneno
"I know, right? I haven't seen a load of c*** that big since that scene in Jurassic Park with the sick triceratops".

LMAO

Thanks, I've been waiting at least a week for the opportunity to use that joke.



Poor Jeff Goldblum. What a ****ty situation.

... Hmm. They never told us what was wrong with that poor animal did they? That was my favorite dinosaur as a kid too.

Salient Archer wrote...

’ve always entertained the thought that the moderators and even the dev’s stop by on occasion to check out how we’re all going in IT-land and what they think of it all, could we take Mr.Priestly’s presence as conformation that we’re being watched [cue twilight zone theme] or that we’re a little too close to the truth!? [My tinfoil-hat is on snug today]

I'm sure that if IT is correct, they're keeping a close eye on us to see what we pick up on. As an amateur writer, and knowing several others, after doing a "hinting at but not confirmed" angle it's tons of fun to watch readers (err players) speculate and analyze and see what they notice. I even vaguely recall one of the Dragon Age writers popping in on a speculation thread about the Primeval Thaig and saying he loves reading speculation. And I'm sure given that we make up 99.5% of the fanbase who don't only open their mouth to spew venom like a spitting cobra, it's got to be a nice break from the usual "feedback."

BatmanTurian wrote...

Frankly, I'm sick of this argument and it's become cancerous so I would love if we could figure out a way to handle this B.S.

We have. *tosses BatmanTurian a black widow*

Big G13 wrote...

And yet, my friend, you are still completely against the possibility of a conventional victory? I understand we can't suicide nuke every reaper, but given the amount of time it takes to reap all civilizations, the technological advances gained from building the crucible (even if it is a trap), and the unity of the galaxy (thanks to Shepard), just to name a few, it is conceivable.

Yes, I'm 100% against it. I realize that having a unified galaxy is a massive advantage the Reapers don't normally face, but it's still not nearly enough. The element of surprise is also a massive advantage in war, but some pissant group of a few thousand terrorist couldn't bring down the US government with that alone either. And make no mistake, the sheer military power difference between organics/geth and the Reapers is just as wide a gap as that. The outcome would be the same too: they'd be reeling from it for a very long time to come, but the outcome of the war would never be in question.

Domanese wrote...

Why not just simply put up a picture of the Collectors with the message of "You mean complete control in this fashion? They're indoctrinated as well." Oh and for those who still Control is the best try telling that to David Archer. Im sure he has five words for you.

"Square root of 906.01 equals 30.1"?

[BatmanTurian]

Rifneno wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Frankly, I'm sick of this argument and it's become cancerous so I would love if we could figure out a way to handle this B.S.

We have. *tosses BatmanTurian a black widow* 

if only....

[ArthurVon]

You are all indoctrinated by capitalism and banks.

[byne]

Rifneno wrote...

Yes, I'm 100% against it. I realize that having a unified galaxy is a massive advantage the Reapers don't normally face, but it's still not nearly enough. The element of surprise is also a massive advantage in war, but some pissant group of a few thousand terrorist couldn't bring down the US government with that alone either. And make no mistake, the sheer military power difference between organics/geth and the Reapers is just as wide a gap as that. The outcome would be the same too: they'd be reeling from it for a very long time to come, but the outcome of the war would never be in question.

I still say whether or not you think conventional victory is possible depends on how many Reapers you think there actually are.

It'd be nice if Bioware had bothered telling us that. Or really anything about the Reapers at all, other than the crazy stuff godchild spews.

Modifié par byne, 14 mai 2012 - 11:54 .

[Alex Arterius]

So tell me guys.
I don't really come to this thread much (or the old one, should I say).

But what kinda percentage of people here do think this is what Bioware were going for with the ending? And how many think it's not true and just a coincidence? Just wondering on the split really.

Thanksssss

[Big G13]

HellishFiend wrote...

Big G13 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

byne wrote...

Yeah, you hear about how the Reapers are inviting all the remaining leaders on Earth into their superstructures to 'open negotiations'. That won't end well.

It worked extremely well when they tried that crap on Palaven. 

For anyone that doesn't read the codex and haven't heard it mentioned yet, when the Reapers tried that on Palaven they certainly did send ambassadors in.  ...  And the ambassadors were packing atomic bombs.  "Large swathes of territory fell back under turian and krogan control."  Epic.

And yet, my friend, you are still completely against the possibility of a conventional victory? I understand we can't suicide nuke every reaper, but given the amount of time it takes to reap all civilizations, the technological advances gained from building the crucible (even if it is a trap), and the unity of the galaxy (thanks to Shepard), just to name a few, it is conceivable.

Disagree. By that logic, the Viatnamese would have been able to take the fight to the United States soil in that real-life war and win. 

Just because you can win an engagement or execute a guerilla strike doesnt mean you can achieve total and complete victory against an opponent. 

Striking back and dealing blows against the Reapers isnt enough. A conventional victory would require completely annihilating them since they would never relent the way conventional forces would in a real-life war. 

I understand your point but given the size of the battlefield and the focus of a RL war, I don't think the analogy can be directly applied. The focus of RL wars on Earth are resources of the land. In the reaper war it is survival of all life. In RL wars the battle field is a country or the planet. In the reaper war it is the whole galaxy. That makes the possibility of stretching out your enemy much more feasible. Also, the reapers don't have a home world (that we know of) because each is a nation unto itself, and yet, the level of coordination shows some chain of command in effect.  Any thing with a chain of command can be disrupted. Thats how America won the revolution. Stretch out the enemy, kill the commanders, and with some help from the French, America became a nation. IMHO. 

[HellishFiend]

Alex Arterius wrote...

So tell me guys.
I don't really come to this thread much (or the old one, should I say).

But what kinda percentage of people here do think this is what Bioware were going for with the ending? And how many think it's not true and just a coincidence? Just wondering on the split really.

Thanksssss

I'm very convinced this was Bioware's plan from the start. And it's based on highly compelling evidence, precedent, and context. NOT wishful thinking, as many Anti-IT would have you believe. 

[HellishFiend]

Big G13 wrote...
I understand your point but given the size of the battlefield and the focus of a RL war, I don't think the analogy can be directly applied. The focus of RL wars on Earth are resources of the land. In the reaper war it is survival of all life. In RL wars the battle field is a country or the planet. In the reaper war it is the whole galaxy. That makes the possibility of stretching out your enemy much more feasible. Also, the reapers don't have a home world (that we know of) because each is a nation unto itself, and yet, the level of coordination shows some chain of command in effect.  Any thing with a chain of command can be disrupted. Thats how America won the revolution. Stretch out the enemy, kill the commanders, and with some help from the French, America became a nation. IMHO. 

Then we'll just agree to disagree because I will never think that a conventional victory against the reapers will be possible with the information that we have available. 

[Arian Dynas]

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

WHAT THE HELL PRIESTLEY

I mean what

just what

My thoughts exactly. I'm here people, and back with a vengeance.

[MaximizedAction]

Uncle Jo wrote...

DJBare wrote...

It's enough for those in fear of their lives, probably most of the population, remember the propaganda at Grissom acadamy?, "Students of Grissom acadamy, only cerburus can protect you, the aliance soldiers will just get you killed"; one of the students asks "what if he is right"; it's only because Shepard is their to convince her otherwise that things work out, now imagine that kind of propaganda on a much larger and more powerful scale, you want to protect your family, friends, children, things are looking extremely grim, it's not too difficult to convince people in fear of their lives.

Very true. Was I dreaming or did I hear somewhere in the game (i think it was on the citadel, TV-News) that the Reapers were proposing the Earth leaders a kind of cease-fire/armistice negociations?

Late answer, but EDI tells you about that on the bridge, either during or after the Palavan missions.

[Aaleel]

HellishFiend wrote...

Alex Arterius wrote...

So tell me guys.
I don't really come to this thread much (or the old one, should I say).

But what kinda percentage of people here do think this is what Bioware were going for with the ending? And how many think it's not true and just a coincidence? Just wondering on the split really.

Thanksssss

I'm very convinced this was Bioware's plan from the start. And it's based on highly compelling evidence, precedent, and context. NOT wishful thinking, as many Anti-IT would have you believe. 

No way they planned the IT.  If they did, they wouldn't need to be calling all the voice actors/actresses back.  It would have been finished, and ready to go.  They never would have let things get this bad.

At the very best IMHO, it could have been an intention that was abandoned due to time constraints, and now they would be going in an piecing some of what they started together, and now building onto that with whatever work they're doing now.  

[DJBare]

alec1898 wrote...

If I could think of any counter-argument, it would be why would the Catalyst show or even mention the Destroy option if it in turn releases him from their hold.

He does not, all this is taking place inside Shepard's mind, destroy is Shepard's fight against indoctrination, it's just that Shepard does not perceive it that way, the catalyst attempts to convince Shepard through suggestions that the options are new, easy for Shepard to believe because his mind conjured them, I believe only one option is put there by the catalyst and that's synthesis(full indoctrination, game over), control I believe is also presented by Shepard unconscious, perhaps for the renegade, but as exampled by TIM, it's a fools errand and will probably end up with Shepard being indoctrinated anyway.
Need to remember that as far as IT is concerned, none of it is real, it's a battle against indoctrination taking place within Shepard's mind.

Modifié par DJBare, 15 mai 2012 - 12:06 .

[HellishFiend]

Aaleel wrote...

No way they planned the IT.  If they did, they wouldn't need to be calling all the voice actors/actresses back.  It would have been finished, and ready to go.  They never would have let things get this bad.

At the very best IMHO, it could have been an intention that was abandoned due to time constraints, and now they would be going in an piecing some of what they started together, and now building onto that with whatever work they're doing now.  

Thank you for your opinion, I'll stick with mine, thanks. 

Them calling the VA's back when they did makes perfect sense if one considers the fact that Bioware has stated they wanted to use fan feedback to shape the story. 

Modifié par HellishFiend, 15 mai 2012 - 12:06 .

[The Invisible Commando]

Alex Arterius wrote...

So tell me guys.
I don't really come to this thread much (or the old one, should I say).

But what kinda percentage of people here do think this is what Bioware were going for with the ending? And how many think it's not true and just a coincidence? Just wondering on the split really.

Thanksssss

I really doubt this was in their minds and make that clear. I think people want to believe in an infalable Bioware that has made an ending so genious the eyes can not process it. IT is looking for hidden messages and secret codes that prove the ending is awsome.

There is not magic trick here, its just a Dues Ex rush job trying to make an ending that looked cool but made no sense. Now Bioware is forced to fix it at EA's expence. If I had said Shepard is indoctrinated after ME2, these same people would have laughed at the thought. I am sorry we got a bad ending, but we need not look for ways to make it work by force.

[MegumiAzusa]

Rifneno wrote...

Domanese wrote...

Why not just simply put up a picture of the Collectors with the message of "You mean complete control in this fashion? They're indoctrinated as well." Oh and for those who still Control is the best try telling that to David Archer. Im sure he has five words for you.

"Square root of 906.01 equals 30.1"?

No. "Quiet - please make it stop."

Modifié par MegumiAzusa, 15 mai 2012 - 12:07 .

[Big G13]

HellishFiend wrote...

Big G13 wrote...
I understand your point but given the size of the battlefield and the focus of a RL war, I don't think the analogy can be directly applied. The focus of RL wars on Earth are resources of the land. In the reaper war it is survival of all life. In RL wars the battle field is a country or the planet. In the reaper war it is the whole galaxy. That makes the possibility of stretching out your enemy much more feasible. Also, the reapers don't have a home world (that we know of) because each is a nation unto itself, and yet, the level of coordination shows some chain of command in effect.  Any thing with a chain of command can be disrupted. Thats how America won the revolution. Stretch out the enemy, kill the commanders, and with some help from the French, America became a nation. IMHO. 

Then we'll just agree to disagree because I will never think that a conventional victory against the reapers will be possible with the information that we have available. 

Fair enough. Thanks for the talk.