685 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
The catalyst who control the reapers and made them use deplomacy wih the geth but mind control with the organics and say refering to organics when taking about the conflict at low ems"You bring it on yourselves" doesn't think organics are the problem?

You've moved on to something completely different now. 

It thinks the problem is synthetics wiping out all organics inevitably. 

Whether it thinks organics and their nature are the cause, or synthetics and their nature is, or whether it's something completely different, is for you to decide. 

But that is what it thinks is the problem, synthetics genociding organics. 

What does the star child means when he says at low ems..."You bring this on yourselves"?

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Time and time again I have to stress that people should separate headcanon from lying to oneself, u cannot headcanon something that is so profoundly foul

Eh, yes you can, that's kind of the point of headcanoning stuff. 

What you think happens after is not what happens after. Head cannon can't be used as fact.

Sure. 

Did anyone ever state otherwise? 

Then why are you still using you head cannon to dictate your choice?

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...
Then why are you still using you head cannon to dictate your choice?

Eh? 

I'm using headcanon to form an outcome, because the game sure as hell doesn't give one. 

That's the entire f*cking point of headcanon. There's no problem so long as people don't use it as canon, as fact, and no one is. 

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...
What does the star child means when he says at low ems..."You bring this on yourselves"?

You decide. 

That's still not my point though, so whatever it means is irrelevant. 

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
What does the star child means when he says at low ems..."You bring this on yourselves"?

You decide. 

That's still not my point though, so whatever it means is irrelevant. 

It's releven because the star child says it , like how his statement on synthetics up rising is.

On that point what does it mean?

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...

let's go backto that post on memeories. I never shepard said Shepard would die...The starchild did.

And you agreed, trying to tell me exactly what happens whilst contradicting yourself. 

But I did say there is no limit to everything in the comment "Lose everything you have." And memeories is partof everything you have. If no limit is give to the statement everything....What stops it from being lost?

Nothing, that's why it's open to interpretation, interpret as you will. 

Saying that it's open to interpertation ignores the fact that you not appling how it's interpated. You only give the option to choose a salution , not how they are applied. Shepard is dead by then.

To you. 

Hence my interpretation being different. Shepard isn't dead. You're just contradicting yourself more. 

He has no say on how it's applied and nether do you.

I do, it's called headcanon, the only way to form a conclusion. 

You can interprate the statement how you like but that does menat it'a how it interpraed.

There is no specific meaning. 

And if you imposed that it does you hve toprove when you have the option to choose how your choices are applied.

I don't have to prove anything when it's all speculative and I acknowledge as such.

YOU DO THOUGH. 

Prove to me everything you say is fact. 

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Then why are you still using you head cannon to dictate your choice?

Eh? 

I'm using headcanon to form an outcome, because the game sure as hell doesn't give one. 

That's the entire f*cking point of headcanon. There's no problem so long as people don't use it as canon, as fact, and no one is. 

But didn't you just agree it can't be used as source?

[AngryFrozenWater]

OP, the main problem is the right of self-determination. You take that away from all races. No questions asked. Synthesis is not their choice. It's forced onto them. To me, all your reasoning behind that choice (whether right or wrong), makes it unacceptable because of that.

If it wasn't for the extermination of the geth the only acceptable choice for me would be destruction. The alliance races all got together to destroy the reapers and that's what I would give them.

However, none of the options make sense, because they are solutions to a non-existent problem: the inevitable domination of synthetics over organics. In my game Rannoch proved the reapers were wrong. Yet, destruction kills the geth. Also, according to Javik, the protheans found a way to deal with their synthetics in the Metacom War. That means that, even though two consecutive cycles proved them wrong, the reapers were willing to commit genocide for no reason other than their own reproduction.

And that's where this cyclical maniacal genocidal behavior of the reapers boils down to: The reapers have to exterminate all advanced civilizations just for their reproduction and to stay on top of the food chain. Their fight against synthetics then merely becomes a rationalization - a lie to keep the reapers alive. It seems like they behave like pre-programmed machines, without emotion, ethics, morale or even free will.

In two of the 3 options they can leave without being punished for the crimes they have committed against trillions of sentient beings and in those two options Shepard dies, like mentioned above, for no reason at all. In the third option, destruction, the geth and EDI would be punished for, again, no reason at all. Even Shepard could die. That means that in two options, the reapers always win, and in the third, destruction, they'll reach their idiosyncratic goal once more.

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
What does the star child means when he says at low ems..."You bring this on yourselves"?

You decide. 

That's still not my point though, so whatever it means is irrelevant. 

It's releven because the star child says it , like how his statement on synthetics up rising is.

Nope. 

Your interpretation of it is irrelevant to the point. The serpent sees synthetics wiping you all organic life as the problem. That is the point. You can speculate on the cause of it all you want, but I don't care. 

On that point what does it mean?

I have no idea. Your guess is as good as mine. 

[Bigdoser]

I don't like any of the choices since I can't trust anything the catalyst says I mean he has been genociding the galaxy for billions of years and turning races into reapers he considers it acension.  Picking any choice is me agreeing with him and I think personally he is full of crap. 

Control:I will die and I will lose everything that I am but I will be able to control the reapers. WTH

Synthesis: I am raping the galaxy on the a genetic level without their consent so that option goes out of the window.

Destroy:So shooting the tube of the machine that we built will destroy the reapers. How the hell does that work!? Shooting the machine we built destroys the reapers that makes no sense.

Modifié par Bigdoser, 02 juin 2012 - 05:41 .

[Lord Goose]

And if you imposed that it does you hve toprove when you have the option to choose how your choices are applied.

You're basically asking to prove negative. Relax, that's impossible. Also, try to prove that Reapers are getting up after hurt by red light beam, tenfold stronger.

[Ieldra]

The Angry One wrote...
The Reaper philosophy has been vindicated in synthesis. Fact.

Not fact, but *your* interpretation. The cycle, not Synthesis, was the Catalyst's solution. Synthesis is a solution built into the Crucible. And yeah, I know you're going to reply that the Catalyst made the plans for the Crucible, but that's pure invention as well.

So stop treating your inventions and speculations as fact. Or are you unable to see that other people might actually think different from you? Yes, I'm speculating. I never said otherwise. I said that Synthesis can be a good ending if interpreted in a certain way. But you, you insist that I accept your reasoning based on an interpretation different from mine, you insist that I treat *your* interpretation as canon. Are you really serious about this, or has your moral outrage over the Synthesis clouded your judgment?

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

let's go backto that post on memeories. I never shepard said Shepard would die...The starchild did.

And you agreed, trying to tell me exactly what happens whilst contradicting yourself. 

But I did say there is no limit to everything in the comment "Lose everything you have." And memeories is partof everything you have. If no limit is give to the statement everything....What stops it from being lost?

Nothing, that's why it's open to interpretation, interpret as you will. 

Saying that it's open to interpertation ignores the fact that you not appling how it's interpated. You only give the option to choose a salution , not how they are applied. Shepard is dead by then.

To you. 

Hence my interpretation being different. Shepard isn't dead. You're just contradicting yourself more. 

He has no say on how it's applied and nether do you.

I do, it's called headcanon, the only way to form a conclusion. 

You can interprate the statement how you like but that does menat it'a how it interpraed.

There is no specific meaning. 

And if you imposed that it does you hve toprove when you have the option to choose how your choices are applied.

I don't have to prove anything when it's all speculative and I acknowledge as such.

YOU DO THOUGH. 

Prove to me everything you say is fact. 

Point to mean in the story where you given the choice to pick th thing you lose out of everything and well can keep going? And no the choices are not it.

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...
But didn't you just agree it can't be used as source?

I suppose, but I never stated anything different. You're imagining an argument. 

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...
Point to mean in the story where you given the choice to pick th thing you lose out of everything and well can keep going? And no the choices are not it.

Why? 

I'm not the one trying to prove anything. You're making the point about what Shepard loses, and the meaning of the sentence the serpent utters, and then imposing a singular view on everyone whilst contradicting yourself with every post. 

You prove your assertion, I don't have to prove anything because I'm not making one. 

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
What does the star child means when he says at low ems..."You bring this on yourselves"?

You decide. 

That's still not my point though, so whatever it means is irrelevant. 

It's releven because the star child says it , like how his statement on synthetics up rising is.

Nope. 

Your interpretation of it is irrelevant to the point. The serpent sees synthetics wiping you all organic life as the problem. That is the point. You can speculate on the cause of it all you want, but I don't care. 

On that point what does it mean?

I have no idea. Your guess is as good as mine. 

But he still says we  bring it on ourselve , the next statement does negate that. What does that mean? Note this is when he explaines why he did what he did with the reapers.

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
What does the star child means when he says at low ems..."You bring this on yourselves"?

You decide. 

That's still not my point though, so whatever it means is irrelevant. 

No it's not. Untill you give a reason why it's irrelivent it can't be irrelivent. And everything he star child says is relivent.

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...
But he still says we  bring it on ourselve , the next statement does negate that. What does that mean? Note this is when he explaines why he did what he did with the reapers.

I don't know what it means, you believe what you want. 

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
What does the star child means when he says at low ems..."You bring this on yourselves"?

You decide. 

That's still not my point though, so whatever it means is irrelevant. 

No it's not. Untill you give a reason why it's irrelivent it can't be irrelivent. And everything he star child says is relivent.

I already told you why. 

The Catalyst has a problem. You tried to deny that was the problem. You were wrong. 

The sentence you quoted is likely to do with the cause of the problem. That is irreleant to the original point. 

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Point to mean in the story where you given the choice to pick th thing you lose out of everything and well can keep going? And no the choices are not it.

Why? 

I'm not the one trying to prove anything. You're making the point about what Shepard loses, and the meaning of the sentence the serpent utters, and then imposing a singular view on everyone whilst contradicting yourself with every post. 

You prove your assertion, I don't have to prove anything because I'm not making one. 

Yes, you are...I brought upthe fact that there is no limit indected in the comment "EVERYTHING YOU  HAVE" and  nothing points to the exclution of memories. Yes saying it's not but have no proof that it excludes it. Then you say the player decides what it means but never gave any proof to the player given a choice to how it's applied.
Get my point. You told me that the player dicied how the choice is applied butthe player was never given a choice of how it was applied. How can you say that with no proof?

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
What does the star child means when he says at low ems..."You bring this on yourselves"?

You decide. 

That's still not my point though, so whatever it means is irrelevant. 

No it's not. Untill you give a reason why it's irrelivent it can't be irrelivent. And everything he star child says is relivent.

I already told you why. 

The Catalyst has a problem. You tried to deny that was the problem. You were wrong. 

The sentence you quoted is likely to do with the cause of the problem. That is irreleant to the original point. 

But that doesn't mean that what he says is irrlevent. Not you just said made the comment"You bring it on your selves " irrelevent. You don't even have proof that the catalyst has the problem.

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...
Yes, you are...I brought upthe fact that there is no limit indected in the comment "EVERYTHING YOU  HAVE" and  nothing points to the exclution of memories. Yes saying it's not but have no proof that it excludes it. Then you say the player decides what it means but never gave any proof to the player given a choice to how it's applied.
Get my point. You told me that the player dicied how the choice is applied butthe player was never given a choice of how it was applied. How can you say that with no proof?

How can I say that with no proof? 

Do you see a well explained aftermath upon choosing control? Do you have all the finicky details and clear, well reasoned explanations behind everything?

Of course not.

So it's down the player to interpret and speculate the outcome. Is that difficult to understand? 

You're trying to impose one point of view, one that you fail to prove as fact. You're the one trying to prove something, burden of proof etc. 

[mass perfection]

 Synthesis turns everyone into Reapers.

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...
But that doesn't mean that what he says is irrlevent. Not you just said made the comment"You bring it on your selves " irrelevent. You don't even have proof that the catalyst has the problem.

I know what the Catalys thinks is the problem, and I was telling you what it is. 

That sentence, considering you could interpret it in a number of ways, and that you didn't actually give one, makes it irrelevant to the original point. 

That's all, I'm not continuing this pointless debate. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 02 juin 2012 - 06:00 .

[The Night Mammoth]

mass perfection wrote...

 Synthesis turns everyone into Reapers.

Evidently not.