685 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

jla0644 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

jtav wrote...

You must trust the Catalyst to be more or less telling the truth about any consequences or you couldn't make a choice at all.

And what's wrong with that exactly?

Whether you trust the Catalyst is an integral question, but it has nothing to do with the merits of Synthesis. So, kindly, don’t derail with that argument.

Yes, it does....To use the crucible to proform Synthesis is his Idea. Whether or not he is telling the truth about it is an issue no matter what.

If  you conclude that it is lying to you about synthesis, then you have to assume it's lying to you about the other two choices. Then what do you do? You still have to choose one.

The game forces us to accept what it tells us, which means all 3 choices are viable. It doesn't really show us what any of them do, but we have to assume they all result in ending the Reaper threat, at least temporarily. How this occurs is open to anyone's interpretation. This is where the "speculation"  they wanted comes in to play.

And that's my point. All the choices are lies...
And no the game does force you to beleive him, it forces you to make a choice. That doesn't mean you beleive him at all. You can still defy him by not giving to his will.

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Wait...Did you miss the comment"You will die. You will control us but lose everythin gyou have"?
What does that vague , open to interprtation comment mean, and what is everything? Isn't you oun memeories that can be lost part of that everything?

Wow, you still singing this tune? 

I'm still asking this because one one has awnsered this in  away that proves control is a good salution.

To you, no one has given an interpretation that suits your view of things. 

So why ask people? 

You acknowledge it's vague and open to anyone's take on the subject, and a soon as someone tries you dismiss it. 

I've told you multiple times what I take from that phrase, but you've always said I'm wrong, for some reason, which is stupid because you're now asking a contradictory and self-defeating question, in a failed attempt to prove a point, a point you don't actually reveal. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 02 juin 2012 - 04:14 .

[Jenonax]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You rarely have any evidence of what superpowered or semi-divine characters in video games are telling you, to say nothing of actual proof.

They are neither of those.  They only believe themselves to be.

I say you're using this "there is no proof" argument solely because you do not like the consequences. It has no weight because in the situation we're in, there can be no proof of the premise, if there can ever be.

But there could have been, if the trilogy had been planned to come to this conclusion in the first place.  They wrote the trilogy blind and now are surpised when the ending doesn't quite fit.  There absolutely could have been proof.  They should have written it in before the eleventh hour.

I agree that we should be able to question the Catalyst about how our apparent counter-evidence on Rannoch fits into its reasoning and demand an answer that makes sense, but in the end we have two alternatives: we can accept its reasoning and make an informed decision, at the risk of it being ill-informed, or make a decision based on a die roll because if the Catalyst lies, all options are suspect. I choose the former because it makes for a better story. "Press random button for your ending"? Not with me.

You will find no argument with me there. 

But it comes down to a question of trust.  Which is earned not given.  The game expects me to simply give the Catalyst trust and follow blindly what he says, when he has given me every reason to not trust him.  Trust is important in decision making.  This is not a purely intellectual decision to make, it comes bundled up with all thise annoying things called emotions.  What will our friends think of my choice?  Will they hate me or love me afterwards?

Trust is important.  I don't trust him, so the decision is all the harder to make for me.

Modifié par Jenonax, 02 juin 2012 - 04:13 .

[dreman9999]

jtav wrote...

We speak often of losing everything. Home. Family. Friends. Lovers. Shepard will have to give up everything to become the new Catalyst. It's the godhood ending of TOB in new clothes.

And I'm not ignoring what's been done. But you give mercy to people precise;y because they don't deserve it. That's why it's mercy. If I can make the Reapers less murderous, I should do so.

Again, was there ever a limit to what everything is?  Last time I checked memories can be lost as well and is part of everything.

[The Angry One]

Lord Goose wrote...

I would rather say "like Reapers". Reapers clearly aren't exactly what Catalyst wanted to see, because in that case he should have "reaperised everything".

But yeah. No harvesting, and everybody are free to live as they live now. Reapers had accomplished their goals.

Yeah they're free to live in their changed, Reaper approved state while their Reaper masters are free to pillage and terrorise other galaxies.

At least from Catalyst's perspective.

The Catalyst is a racist, genocidal maniac. I don't care about his perspective.

I am aware of idea, that it is possible to new organic life to develop, but... let's face it, Mass Effect is not "hard science fantasy" which takes into account all possibilities. Because, Catalyst goal is stupid in the first place, since it only concerns ONE galaxy of myriads of others. Well, its possible to argue that where are Catalysts in all the Galaxies, but... Thats too far into speculations.

Mass Effect may not be hard science, but it began as an internally plausable world. It didn't deserve to end like this.

Modifié par The Angry One, 02 juin 2012 - 04:18 .

[Lord Goose]

I'm still asking this because one one has awnsered this in away that proves control is a good salution.

You amaze me.
Catalyst clearly says, that if you choose destroy all organic life in the galaxy would be wiped out by synthetics. And you pay no attention to what.
Now, Catalyst says something really ambigous, and you interpret it in the worst possible way, and demand to prove that it is not true.

1. In Control ending we see Reapers flying away from Earth.
2. After we receive message that Shepard has stopped Reaper's threat.

If Shepard really lost everything, including the memory, where is only one logical solution. He doesn't need memory and everything to make Reapers go away and stop their threat.

[jla0644]

dreman9999 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Wait...Did you miss the comment"You will die. You will control us but lose everythin gyou have"?
What does that vague , open to interprtation comment mean, and what is everything? Isn't you oun memeories that can be lost part of that everything?

Wow, you still singing this tune? 

I'm still asking this because one one has awnsered this in  away that proves control is a good salution.

So, no one can prove to your satisfaction that your own interpretation of an admittedly vague comment is wrong, and you assume this means your interpretation is the only correct one?

I assumed that comment to mean Shepard would lose everything about his/her previous life, friends, possessions, etc. I did not assume it to mean that Shep would cease to exist in any form. Otherwise, how would he/she control the Reapers at all? If from the moment he/she touches those rods and disintgrates, Shepard ceases to exist, then control is not a viable option, and I don't believe that is what Bioware intended. Shepard's essence or spirit, if you will, is still present, and that is what controls the Reapers.

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Wait...Did you miss the comment"You will die. You will control us but lose everythin gyou have"?
What does that vague , open to interprtation comment mean, and what is everything? Isn't you oun memeories that can be lost part of that everything?

Wow, you still singing this tune? 

I'm still asking this because one one has awnsered this in  away that proves control is a good salution.

To you, no one has given an interpretation that suits your view of things. 

So why ask people? 

You acknowledge it's vague and open to anyone's take on the subject, and a soon as someone tries you dismiss it. 

I've told you multiple times what I take from that phrase, but you've always said I'm wrong, for some reason, which is stupid because you're now asking a contradictory and self-defeating question, in a failed attempt to prove a point, a point you don't actually reveal. 

All I do is point out the the comment everything is not given a limit. You guys get wrong becouse you apply whatyou think the limit is even when you never given the option of it. That's why you get the question wrong.

[Xellith]

The thing is that how do you know that what you are seeing is even really happening?

[The Angry One]

Lord Goose wrote...

If Shepard really lost everything, including the memory, where is only one logical solution. He doesn't need memory and everything to make Reapers go away and stop their threat.

So you can stop the Reapers while forgetting why you need to stop the Reapers and that you need to at all.

What?

[dreman9999]

jla0644 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Wait...Did you miss the comment"You will die. You will control us but lose everythin gyou have"?
What does that vague , open to interprtation comment mean, and what is everything? Isn't you oun memeories that can be lost part of that everything?

Wow, you still singing this tune? 

I'm still asking this because one one has awnsered this in  away that proves control is a good salution.

So, no one can prove to your satisfaction that your own interpretation of an admittedly vague comment is wrong, and you assume this means your interpretation is the only correct one?

I assumed that comment to mean Shepard would lose everything about his/her previous life, friends, possessions, etc. I did not assume it to mean that Shep would cease to exist in any form. Otherwise, how would he/she control the Reapers at all? If from the moment he/she touches those rods and disintgrates, Shepard ceases to exist, then control is not a viable option, and I don't believe that is what Bioware intended. Shepard's essence or spirit, if you will, is still present, and that is what controls the Reapers.

But was there even a limit given to everything. Saying he lose just every thing his past life is putting a limit into someting that was never given a limit. Nothing say how much was lost. Get it.
My point is memories are part of everything.

[Lord Goose]

Yeah they're free to live in their changed, Reaper approved state while their Reaper masters are free to pillage and terrorise other galaxies.

Speculation.

Galaxy is saved. There will be no organics genocide. You're supposed to be happy about it/.

The Catalyst is a racist, genocidal maniac. I don't care about his perspective.

He is just sort of... god-like. Not in Christian sense, but rather in philosophical. Perfect being, who don't care about emotions and feelings of lesser existences. His actions were logical, although it was machine-like logic, free of dout and unable to see new possibilities.

Mass Effect may not be hard science, but it began as a plausable world. It didn't deserve to end like this.

I don't remember even single instances about somebody looking beyound this galaxy.

[Jenonax]

lillitheris wrote...

It’s got f—all to do with what Synthesis actually does. Like I said, it’s an important topic (more important than the details of any of the choices, really), but it’s tiresome to have to sift through it in every single thread.

The thread title is whether or not Synthesis makes sense.  Making sense of something requires context.  Part of context is questioning who information is given by.  Are they a trustworthy source?

Sorry if its tiresome but thats the way the argument went.  Skip to the end if the middle's boring you.

[dreman9999]

The Angry One wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

If Shepard really lost everything, including the memory, where is only one logical solution. He doesn't need memory and everything to make Reapers go away and stop their threat.

So you can stop the Reapers while forgetting why you need to stop the Reapers and that you need to at all.

What?

...Thanks for making that point.

[Lord Goose]

So you can stop the Reapers while forgetting why you need to stop the Reapers and that you need to at all.

What?

I was only trying to be logical.

1. Shepard loses everything.
2. Reapers are flying away.
3. Shepard stopped their threat.

Ergo, he doesn't need everything to stop the invasion.

Personally, I favour the interpretation, whrere Shepard grabbed control rods, simply give them single order like: "go away forever", and died.

[The Angry One]

Lord Goose wrote...

Speculation.

Fact. They have been changed. The Reapers approve of this change.

Galaxy is saved. There will be no organics genocide. You're supposed to be happy about it/.

All organics have just been exterminated permanently.
You mean no hybrid genocide. That's speculation, since they can just make synthetics that will overthrow them, according to Catalyst non-logic.

He is just sort of... god-like. Not in Christian sense, but rather in philosophical. Perfect being, who don't care about emotions and feelings of lesser existences. His actions were logical, although it was machine-like logic, free of dout and unable to see new possibilities.

If it were perfect then it wouldn't be basing everything it does on slippery slope fallacies and arguments from authority.
Moreover, I don't care what it is. It is a mass murderer and I will treat it as such.

I don't remember even single instances about somebody looking beyound this galaxy.

What?

[jla0644]

dreman9999 wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Wait...Did you miss the comment"You will die. You will control us but lose everythin gyou have"?
What does that vague , open to interprtation comment mean, and what is everything? Isn't you oun memeories that can be lost part of that everything?

Wow, you still singing this tune? 

I'm still asking this because one one has awnsered this in  away that proves control is a good salution.

So, no one can prove to your satisfaction that your own interpretation of an admittedly vague comment is wrong, and you assume this means your interpretation is the only correct one?

I assumed that comment to mean Shepard would lose everything about his/her previous life, friends, possessions, etc. I did not assume it to mean that Shep would cease to exist in any form. Otherwise, how would he/she control the Reapers at all? If from the moment he/she touches those rods and disintgrates, Shepard ceases to exist, then control is not a viable option, and I don't believe that is what Bioware intended. Shepard's essence or spirit, if you will, is still present, and that is what controls the Reapers.

But was there even a limit given to everything. Saying he lose just every thing his past life is putting a limit into someting that was never given a limit. Nothing say how much was lost. Get it.
My point is memories are part of everything.

LOL., then don't choose Control. But don't tell me how I have to interpret something that you have already admitted is vague. I don't think "everything" includes Shepard's mind, spirit, essence, whatever you want to call it. If you want to think it does, good for you.

[Jenonax]

Lord Goose wrote...

So you can stop the Reapers while forgetting why you need to stop the Reapers and that you need to at all.

What?

I was only trying to be logical.

1. Shepard loses everything.
2. Reapers are flying away.
3. Shepard stopped their threat.

Ergo, he doesn't need everything to stop the invasion.

Personally, I favour the interpretation, whrere Shepard grabbed control rods, simply give them single order like: "go away forever", and died.

What stops them from coming back if Shepard's forgotten everything?

[The Angry One]

I was only trying to be logical.

1. Shepard loses everything.
2. Reapers are flying away.
3. Shepard stopped their threat.

Ergo, he doesn't need everything to stop the invasion.

Or the Catalyst is a liar. Or it's all a trick. There are many interpretations to this horrible scene.

Personally, I favour the interpretation, whrere Shepard grabbed control rods, simply give them single order like: "go away forever", and died.

Harbinger: "ORDER COUNTERMANDED, RESUME HARVESTING."

[dreman9999]

Lord Goose wrote...

So you can stop the Reapers while forgetting why you need to stop the Reapers and that you need to at all.

What?

I was only trying to be logical.

1. Shepard loses everything.
2. Reapers are flying away.
3. Shepard stopped their threat.

Ergo, he doesn't need everything to stop the invasion.

Personally, I favour the interpretation, whrere Shepard grabbed control rods, simply give them single order like: "go away forever", and died.

The reaper flying away doesn't mean it's over I hope you know... It can mean the reaper just left the allied fleet stuck in the sol sytem as they rebuild...
Added, yu don't even know what you see at the end is real.

[dreamgazer]

The Angry One wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

If Shepard really lost everything, including the memory, where is only one logical solution. He doesn't need memory and everything to make Reapers go away and stop their threat.

So you can stop the Reapers while forgetting why you need to stop the Reapers and that you need to at all.

What?

Unless there's a moment upon the "melding" process where Shepard is imprinted with coding that explicitly states: "Control Reapers with organic preservation in mind", as per Shepard's wishes.

(shrug) I don't trust it, or control's longevity or reliability after-the-fact, but that's not a big stretch.

[jla0644]

The Angry One wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

Speculation.

Fact. They have been changed. The Reapers approve of this change.

Or they realize it solves the problem they were created to address, and that they no longer have any purpose. It doesn't have to be an evil thing, like "Yes we approve of this change, we will now allow you to exist" unless that's how you choose to see it.

Modifié par jla0644, 02 juin 2012 - 04:25 .

[Jenonax]

Xellith wrote...

The thing is that how do you know that what you are seeing is even really happening?

Its happening.  Its literally what they meant to do as ****ty as it is.

IT is a great fan theory.  But I hope to be proven otherwise.  Great way to just let us all have our own personal headcannons.

[Ieldra]

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...

You must trust the Catalyst to be more or less telling the truth about any consequences or you couldn't make a choice at all.

With no proof? We can say at the least he beleive it will happen but it doesn't mean it will happen.

You rarely have any evidence of what superpowered or semi-divine characters in video games are telling you, to say nothing of actual proof.

I say you're using this "there is no proof" argument solely because you do not like the consequences. It has no weight because in the situation we're in, there can be no proof of the premise, if there can ever be. I agree that we should be able to question the Catalyst about how our apparent counter-evidence on Rannoch fits into its reasoning and demand an answer that makes sense, but in the end we have two alternatives: we can accept its reasoning and make an informed decision, at the risk of it being ill-informed, or make a decision based on a die roll because if the Catalyst lies, all options are suspect. I choose the former because it makes for a better story. "Press random button for your ending"? Not with me.

Yes, we are given proof from these other 
superpowered or semi-divine characters in video games.

And on another point, are you really ignoring everything the reaper did while under the starchilds control? You really going to ignore this because the star child waves this shiny new tech infront of you?

I choose for the future, not for the past. If a future that I envision as good and desirable has as its price that I let the Reapers go, then I have absolutely no problem with it. Also, if their will had been subverted by the Catalyst as I hypothesize, they might not actually be responsible. And lastly, ever since Legion told me what the Reapers were, I found them interesting. They were enemies I would have destroyed if nececessary, but fortunately it turns out it isn't necessary.

[The Angry One]

jla0644 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

Speculation.

Fact. They have been changed. The Reapers approve of this change.

Or they realize it solves the problem they were created to address, and that they no longer have any purpose. It doesn't have to be an evil thing, like "Yes we approve of this change, we will now allow you to exist" unless that's how you choose to see it.

That's how the Catalyst words it. "Synthesis is the final evolution of life". It desires this, and it controls the Reapers. We also know that the Reapers themselves are for this. "We are your genetic destiny."
These are all in the game and are facts. The life form that results from synthesis is one that the Reapers approve of. They disengage because they now tolerate us.