ashwind wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
The mere fact that you accept the catalysts existence means you acknowledge the reapers at minimum are reading Shepard's mind.
How else does the catalyst show up as the child from his dreams and the beginning of the game? Would be quite the coincidence.
The mere fact that ITer cannot comprehend the catalyst shows how shallow their thought process are.
Leafs43 wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
I've already given you the explanation.
At this point you resemble a bible thumper.
You don't have anything.
It's just bad writing at the end. Nothing more, nothing less.
That's what happens when you don't have peer review.
Your explanation is "bad writing".
That has nothing to do with the context of the game. Like I said before, feel free to come up with an explanable solution within the context of the game. Yet you keep avoiding it like the plague.
But keep slinging ad hominems. They make your point better.
Taboo-XX wrote...
It's called bad writing and imitation.
The Catalyst resembles The Architect from The Matrix.
It's just bad.
THAT BAD.
LucasShark wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
I've already given you the explanation.
At this point you resemble a bible thumper.
You don't have anything.
It's just bad writing at the end. Nothing more, nothing less.
That's what happens when you don't have peer review.
Your explanation is "bad writing".
That has nothing to do with the context of the game. Like I said before, feel free to come up with an explanable solution within the context of the game. Yet you keep avoiding it like the plague.
But keep slinging ad hominems. They make your point better.
You aren't getting this are you? Bad writing is a perfectly valid explanation because EVERYTHING we see of the ME universe is written by someone. They could have made the Catalyst appear as the pink elephants from Dumbo and it would still be "in context" and still be "bad writing".
dreamgazer wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
It's called bad writing and imitation.
The Catalyst resembles The Architect from The Matrix.
It's just bad.
THAT BAD.
Practically all art is a form of imitation.
And it's mentally engaging. MENTALLY ENGAGING.
See, I can do that too!
Alien1099 wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
The mere fact that you accept the catalysts existence means you acknowledge the reapers at minimum are reading Shepard's mind.
How else does the catalyst show up as the child from his dreams and the beginning of the game? Would be quite the coincidence.
It's clear to me that you have been indoctrinated by the indoctrinists to make you think everybody else is indoctrinated but its actually you who's lost the ability to make sense of anything.
. In other news. Why do you same handful of IT fanatics keep posting threads where you antoganize people that disagree and circle jerk those that do? I've never actually been in the main thread.... Is there a secret drinking game or something?
Taboo-XX wrote...
dreamgazer wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
It's called bad writing and imitation.
The Catalyst resembles The Architect from The Matrix.
It's just bad.
THAT BAD.
Practically all art is a form of imitation.
And it's mentally engaging. MENTALLY ENGAGING.
See, I can do that too!
Not when I can look at the comparison and see it so openly.
There is nothing wrong with good imiatation.
But bad...
Bad imitation...
Leafs43 wrote...
LucasShark wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
I've already given you the explanation.
At this point you resemble a bible thumper.
You don't have anything.
It's just bad writing at the end. Nothing more, nothing less.
That's what happens when you don't have peer review.
Your explanation is "bad writing".
That has nothing to do with the context of the game. Like I said before, feel free to come up with an explanable solution within the context of the game. Yet you keep avoiding it like the plague.
But keep slinging ad hominems. They make your point better.
You aren't getting this are you? Bad writing is a perfectly valid explanation because EVERYTHING we see of the ME universe is written by someone. They could have made the Catalyst appear as the pink elephants from Dumbo and it would still be "in context" and still be "bad writing".
All bad writing aside, it still does not explain how it happens.
LucasShark wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
LucasShark wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
I've already given you the explanation.
At this point you resemble a bible thumper.
You don't have anything.
It's just bad writing at the end. Nothing more, nothing less.
That's what happens when you don't have peer review.
Your explanation is "bad writing".
That has nothing to do with the context of the game. Like I said before, feel free to come up with an explanable solution within the context of the game. Yet you keep avoiding it like the plague.
But keep slinging ad hominems. They make your point better.
You aren't getting this are you? Bad writing is a perfectly valid explanation because EVERYTHING we see of the ME universe is written by someone. They could have made the Catalyst appear as the pink elephants from Dumbo and it would still be "in context" and still be "bad writing".
All bad writing aside, it still does not explain how it happens.
Yes it does: the catalyst could have been a floating eyeball if the writer wantd it to be.
That aside: I did give you an explanation and you ignored it.
TO reiterate: we've seen mind-interacting technology and life forms before in the universe, with no reapers present.
- Prothean beacons
- The geth consensus
- Asari Joining
- Rachni comunication
- Thorian mind control
- Project Overlord
All of those involve beings or technologies interfacing with the mind. How does "retrieving a memory = reapers" with these already present in the universe? You can't make that jump.
Modifié par Leafs43, 25 mai 2012 - 01:35 .
Okay, I'm game, how do you explain the fact that the "catalyst" shows itself in the form of the child, if Shepard is not imagining it and the reapers aren't inside his/her head?ashwind wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
The mere fact that you accept the catalysts existence means you acknowledge the reapers at minimum are reading Shepard's mind.
How else does the catalyst show up as the child from his dreams and the beginning of the game? Would be quite the coincidence.
The mere fact that ITer cannot comprehend the catalyst shows how shallow their thought process are.
Leafs43 wrote...
LucasShark wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
LucasShark wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
I've already given you the explanation.
At this point you resemble a bible thumper.
You don't have anything.
It's just bad writing at the end. Nothing more, nothing less.
That's what happens when you don't have peer review.
Your explanation is "bad writing".
That has nothing to do with the context of the game. Like I said before, feel free to come up with an explanable solution within the context of the game. Yet you keep avoiding it like the plague.
But keep slinging ad hominems. They make your point better.
You aren't getting this are you? Bad writing is a perfectly valid explanation because EVERYTHING we see of the ME universe is written by someone. They could have made the Catalyst appear as the pink elephants from Dumbo and it would still be "in context" and still be "bad writing".
All bad writing aside, it still does not explain how it happens.
Yes it does: the catalyst could have been a floating eyeball if the writer wantd it to be.
That aside: I did give you an explanation and you ignored it.
TO reiterate: we've seen mind-interacting technology and life forms before in the universe, with no reapers present.
- Prothean beacons
- The geth consensus
- Asari Joining
- Rachni comunication
- Thorian mind control
- Project Overlord
All of those involve beings or technologies interfacing with the mind. How does "retrieving a memory = reapers" with these already present in the universe? You can't make that jump.
The thing that controls the reapers happens to be able to retrieve memories.
See, you just admitted the catalyst has the potential to read minds and it just happens to control the reapers
Was that really so hard?
Just because I believe IT, doesn't make me wrong all the time.
Taboo-XX wrote...
It's an attempt to create an emotional connection between Shepard and said being. It links him to the child he could not save.
It's a very blunt attempt at being philosophical.
Whether it is deep or not is up to you.
I do not think it is.
Taboo-XX wrote...
It's an attempt to create an emotional connection between Shepard and said being. It links him to the child he could not save.
It's a very blunt attempt at being philosophical.
Whether it is deep or not is up to you.
I do not think it is.
LucasShark wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
LucasShark wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
LucasShark wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
I've already given you the explanation.
At this point you resemble a bible thumper.
You don't have anything.
It's just bad writing at the end. Nothing more, nothing less.
That's what happens when you don't have peer review.
Your explanation is "bad writing".
That has nothing to do with the context of the game. Like I said before, feel free to come up with an explanable solution within the context of the game. Yet you keep avoiding it like the plague.
But keep slinging ad hominems. They make your point better.
You aren't getting this are you? Bad writing is a perfectly valid explanation because EVERYTHING we see of the ME universe is written by someone. They could have made the Catalyst appear as the pink elephants from Dumbo and it would still be "in context" and still be "bad writing".
All bad writing aside, it still does not explain how it happens.
Yes it does: the catalyst could have been a floating eyeball if the writer wantd it to be.
That aside: I did give you an explanation and you ignored it.
TO reiterate: we've seen mind-interacting technology and life forms before in the universe, with no reapers present.
- Prothean beacons
- The geth consensus
- Asari Joining
- Rachni comunication
- Thorian mind control
- Project Overlord
All of those involve beings or technologies interfacing with the mind. How does "retrieving a memory = reapers" with these already present in the universe? You can't make that jump.
The thing that controls the reapers happens to be able to retrieve memories.
See, you just admitted the catalyst has the potential to read minds and it just happens to control the reapers
Was that really so hard?
Just because I believe IT, doesn't make me wrong all the time.
Ugh: No, I did not, mind reading is not the same as retrieving an image via electronic means. That doesn't even have to be the explanation: in the case of technology like the Geth consensus, it isn't even a concious manipulation on its part. It i Shepard's mind doing the filtering. There: no mind reading required.
Leafs43 wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
It's an attempt to create an emotional connection between Shepard and said being. It links him to the child he could not save.
It's a very blunt attempt at being philosophical.
Whether it is deep or not is up to you.
I do not think it is.
And that emotional connection becomes the catalyst how exactly? (You're almost there, it's okay to agree)
dreamgazer wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
It's an attempt to create an emotional connection between Shepard and said being. It links him to the child he could not save.
It's a very blunt attempt at being philosophical.
Whether it is deep or not is up to you.
I do not think it is.
I still find it interesting that I've seen you start threads exploring the morality of all the endings and what they do to the audience, especially destroy, and you still don't see it as philosophically contemplative. Very strange.
The catalyst taking that form links Shepard to more than just the one boy.
And you simply choose to ignore the fact that there isn't any other degree of psychology to the catalyst's speech. There's complexity there, too.
No, it's not perfect. But repeatedly saying "BAD BAD BAD" is ignoring some damn intriguing elements. And I, also, know a thing or two about science-fiction, narratives, interpretation, and communicating with an audience in the cinematic form.
Leafs43 wrote...
LucasShark wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
LucasShark wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
LucasShark wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
I've already given you the explanation.
At this point you resemble a bible thumper.
You don't have anything.
It's just bad writing at the end. Nothing more, nothing less.
That's what happens when you don't have peer review.
Your explanation is "bad writing".
That has nothing to do with the context of the game. Like I said before, feel free to come up with an explanable solution within the context of the game. Yet you keep avoiding it like the plague.
But keep slinging ad hominems. They make your point better.
You aren't getting this are you? Bad writing is a perfectly valid explanation because EVERYTHING we see of the ME universe is written by someone. They could have made the Catalyst appear as the pink elephants from Dumbo and it would still be "in context" and still be "bad writing".
All bad writing aside, it still does not explain how it happens.
Yes it does: the catalyst could have been a floating eyeball if the writer wantd it to be.
That aside: I did give you an explanation and you ignored it.
TO reiterate: we've seen mind-interacting technology and life forms before in the universe, with no reapers present.
- Prothean beacons
- The geth consensus
- Asari Joining
- Rachni comunication
- Thorian mind control
- Project Overlord
All of those involve beings or technologies interfacing with the mind. How does "retrieving a memory = reapers" with these already present in the universe? You can't make that jump.
The thing that controls the reapers happens to be able to retrieve memories.
See, you just admitted the catalyst has the potential to read minds and it just happens to control the reapers
Was that really so hard?
Just because I believe IT, doesn't make me wrong all the time.
Ugh: No, I did not, mind reading is not the same as retrieving an image via electronic means. That doesn't even have to be the explanation: in the case of technology like the Geth consensus, it isn't even a concious manipulation on its part. It i Shepard's mind doing the filtering. There: no mind reading required.
Well, looks like I have to rewind it just a bit for you.
How would the catalyst know of Shepard wanting to destroy the reapers if it was just a simple projection?
Modifié par LucasShark, 25 mai 2012 - 01:45 .
LucasShark wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
It's an attempt to create an emotional connection between Shepard and said being. It links him to the child he could not save.
It's a very blunt attempt at being philosophical.
Whether it is deep or not is up to you.
I do not think it is.
And that emotional connection becomes the catalyst how exactly? (You're almost there, it's okay to agree)
For the umpteenth time: His argument is from an artists standpoint: it doesn't matter HOW the image appears, it is symbolic OUTSIDE the context of the event.
Leafs43 wrote...
And from a scietific view as an observer it needs to have a catalyst (no pun intended)
Leafs43 wrote...
LucasShark wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
It's an attempt to create an emotional connection between Shepard and said being. It links him to the child he could not save.
It's a very blunt attempt at being philosophical.
Whether it is deep or not is up to you.
I do not think it is.
And that emotional connection becomes the catalyst how exactly? (You're almost there, it's okay to agree)
For the umpteenth time: His argument is from an artists standpoint: it doesn't matter HOW the image appears, it is symbolic OUTSIDE the context of the event.
And from a scietific view as an observer it needs to have a catalyst (no pun intended)
Leafs43 wrote...
The mere fact that you accept the catalysts existence means you acknowledge the reapers at minimum are reading Shepard's mind.
How else does the catalyst show up as the child from his dreams and the beginning of the game? Would be quite the coincidence.
LucasShark wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
LucasShark wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
It's an attempt to create an emotional connection between Shepard and said being. It links him to the child he could not save.
It's a very blunt attempt at being philosophical.
Whether it is deep or not is up to you.
I do not think it is.
And that emotional connection becomes the catalyst how exactly? (You're almost there, it's okay to agree)
For the umpteenth time: His argument is from an artists standpoint: it doesn't matter HOW the image appears, it is symbolic OUTSIDE the context of the event.
And from a scietific view as an observer it needs to have a catalyst (no pun intended)
Oh for the love of... If it's a litterary device, science doesn't bloody enter into it!
Retour en haut