263 réponses à ce sujet

[Catamantaloedis]

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

I tried to make a simple analogy, and it seems my efforts failed or you just dont want to mention that your criticism was not valid. 

All of the endings were implausible. Therefore you can not criticize one ending in particular for being impossible when they all were.

So am I supposed to criticize all 3 of them in a thread that focuses on only one of them? Logical fallacy, you win again.

No you dont criticize 1 for a flaw which all three share. Saying you rather destroy the Reapers is somewhat valid. Specifically, calling out control for being implausible is disingenuous because all the endings are implausible.

[ReXspec]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

So you admit that you criticized Control alone for being implausible, even though you realize that all of the endings are implausible?

And you really believe that this is perfectly logical? I feel sorry for your parents.

What in the hell are you talking about? Of course I'm only going to mention Control, talking about Synthesis or Destroy is derailing a Control thread. I mentioned Destroy and Synthesis in passing (Again, pointing out that they are implausible), and you decided to draw it into a separate discussion.

You're blaming me for something that's your fault.

So if three of your colleagues make food for you, from which you pick the best, and even though all the food tastes absolutely terrible, you would only call the food of the colleague you hate the most "disgusting", simply because you like him the least correct?

This is not disingenuous in the least is it?

You are being logically obtuse!  OF COURSE it's disengenuous, but not on Ventus' part!  That is the writers fault!  They came up with the logic that you just elaborated on--it makes no sense!  they forced the players to choose between the lesser of three evils.

It's disingenuous on his part because he criticizes control for being implausible when all of the endings are implausible. Synthesis being the most implausible of all, of course. 

And control is the lesser of these evils. In fact, it is almost entirely good.

No, it's obviously not because you are betting all sapients life existence on a russian roullette that the Reapers will not start their harvest again, rather than annhilating them and gaurunteeing the safety and prosperity of all organics.

[Catamantaloedis]

ReXspec wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If its just the initial command to stop attacking, but the Reapers are no longer under his direct control afterwards, then that just makes the Destroy ending redundant. Both would result in the Reapers just more or less "going away". The only difference being that in Destroy you get the added bonus of the death of all synthetics. That doesnt make sense.

Destroy kills all the Reapers.  This is implied when the star brat says, "I know you thought about destroying us."  This means are they wiped out of existence for good.

I don't like destroy, but it makes the most sense because that was the objective in the first place:  "We destroy them, or they destroy us."  There is no getting around this.

But you are half-correct--Control would result in little more than the Reapers "going away" for an indeterminate amount of time before coming back and beginning their harvest again.  Choosing control doesn't make sense.  That is exactly the problem a lot of folks have with Control.

Where is it suggested that the Reapers will be able to come back? There is no evidence for it whatsoever. 

There is evidence that somehow Shepard is able to control the Reapers after his bodily death, and if this is through the imposition of his current morals on the Reapers' code or through a conscious control of them, then this should ensure that they never return and that they do what Shepard would have done.

There is no evidence that they WON'T come back if he chooses control either.  Would you rather make the choice that garuntees the death of the Reapers, or place your bets on keeping them alive and hope they never restart the Cycle?  There is no grey-area here:  The choice is pretty damn obvious.

The fact that the Catayst says that Shepard can control them after his death, is evidence that they wont be coming back. It suggests a fundamental change in the Reapers.

Both of the other choices are final, why would Control be any different?

[o Ventus]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

I never would have guessed that I would have to post this three times:

Kid: You will die; you will control us but you will lose everything you have.
Sheperd: But the Reapers will obey me?
Kid: Yes.

That isn't evidence, as it is said BEFORE SHEPARD SACRIFICES HIMSELF.

In order to be evidence, it has to be incontrovertible and irrefutable. Common sense dictates that you can't support or deny something said BEFORE the event takes place, because you have no basis to work from.

Congratulations, you've proved your idiocy.

[Catamantaloedis]

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

I never would have guessed that I would have to post this three times:

Kid: You will die; you will control us but you will lose everything you have.
Sheperd: But the Reapers will obey me?
Kid: Yes.

That isn't evidence, as it is said BEFORE SHEPARD SACRIFICES HIMSELF.

In order to be evidence, it has to be incontrovertible and irrefutable. Common sense dictates that you can't support or deny something said BEFORE the event takes place, because you have no basis to work from.

Congratulations, you've proved your idiocy.

The Catalyst says you can destroy the Reapers. When you pick destroy, the Reapers are destroyed.
The Catalyst says you can synthesize life. When you pick synthesis, life is synthesized.
The Catalyst says you can control the Reapers. When you pick control, Shepard dies, and you don't control the Reapers because the Catalyst was lying.

I think I get it now.

[ReXspec]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

The fact that the Catayst says that Shepard can control them after his death, is evidence that they wont be coming back. It suggests a fundamental change in the Reapers.

Both of the other choices are final, why would Control be any different?

He says no such thing.  He says they will obey him, but does not clarify what that actually entails.  It's the same with all the other damn endings as far as not being clear what they actually entail.  The only damn thing we know for sure is that the Reapers DIE if we pick destroy.  That does not leave the blaring chance that they will return and finish the job.

Control =/= equal finality.  Control = inevitability.  Inevitability in the regard that, as long as the Reaper's exist, that presents a huge risk that the Cycle will continue.

[o Ventus]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

I tried to make a simple analogy, and it seems my efforts failed or you just dont want to mention that your criticism was not valid. 

All of the endings were implausible. Therefore you can not criticize one ending in particular for being impossible when they all were.

So am I supposed to criticize all 3 of them in a thread that focuses on only one of them? Logical fallacy, you win again.

No you dont criticize 1 for a flaw which all three share. Saying you rather destroy the Reapers is somewhat valid. Specifically, calling out control for being implausible is disingenuous because all the endings are implausible.

Like I said (Idiot), I'm specifically calling out Control because that is the focus of the thread. If the thread were about Synthesis or Destroy, then I would discuss them at large. I've already told you how I think Destroy and Synthesis are implausible, so what exactly are you trying to tell me?

If I were talking to a biology professor, and suddenly shifted the conversation to military history, how would I be, in any way, contributing to the discussion?

[OH-UP-THIS!]

In ANY choice but RED, the Reapers are still ALIVE.

Kill them, or be killed, your choice.

Sounds pretty straight forward.

just to add some context to your analogy.........................I definitely don't want YOU running the show, if you get my drift.

[o Ventus]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

I never would have guessed that I would have to post this three times:

Kid: You will die; you will control us but you will lose everything you have.
Sheperd: But the Reapers will obey me?
Kid: Yes.

That isn't evidence, as it is said BEFORE SHEPARD SACRIFICES HIMSELF.

In order to be evidence, it has to be incontrovertible and irrefutable. Common sense dictates that you can't support or deny something said BEFORE the event takes place, because you have no basis to work from.

Congratulations, you've proved your idiocy.

The Catalyst says you can destroy the Reapers. When you pick destroy, the Reapers are destroyed.
The Catalyst says you can synthesize life. When you pick synthesis, life is synthesized.
The Catalyst says you can control the Reapers. When you pick control, Shepard dies, and you don't control the Reapers because the Catalyst was lying.

I think I get it now.

You must be Superman. You've made a leap in logic similar to a leap over a skyscraper.

[Catamantaloedis]

ReXspec wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

The fact that the Catayst says that Shepard can control them after his death, is evidence that they wont be coming back. It suggests a fundamental change in the Reapers.

Both of the other choices are final, why would Control be any different?

He says no such thing.  He says they will obey him, but does not clarify what that actually entails.  It's the same with all the other damn endings as far as not being clear what they actually entail.  The only damn thing we know for sure is that the Reapers DIE if we pick destroy.  That does not leave the blaring chance that they will return and finish the job.

Control =/= equal finality.  Control = inevitability.  Inevitability in the regard that, as long as the Reaper's exist, that presents a huge risk that the Cycle will continue.

Would continuing with their harvesting be obeying Shepard? It would not.

There is no reason to believe that Control is not final. The other endings are clearly final. The Reapers will not be undestroyed. Life will not be unsynthesized. Why would the Reapers stop obeying Shepard suddenly and without any indication?

[Bill Casey]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Why?

Let me guess...because TIM would have wanted to do the same thing?

I guess if TIM likes ice cream then god forbid shepard ever going near it.

Seriously, I'm tired of this reasoning. It's beyond stupid. If there is a way to practically end the Reaper war without doing the most damage to the Galaxy, then why wouldn't you take it?

Controlling a vast army of techno organic Cthulhu who have spent billions of years corrupting minds is not practical. Doing it because a ghost child who says he controls the Reapers tells you that you can, but you will die and lose everything you have is completely insane...

Everything working out ruins the Mass Effect universe...

That's beside the core thematic issues, and the fact that the Reapers brainwash people into thinking they can control them...

It's objectively stupid from a standpoint of general fiction...
It is a violation of common sense and pure hubris and megalomania personified...

It is utterly broken as a literary concept...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 03 juin 2012 - 04:48 .

[Omanisat]

ohupthis wrote...

In ANY choice but RED, the Reapers are still ALIVE.

Kill them, or be killed, your choice.

Sounds pretty straight forward.

just to add some context to your analogy.........................I definitely don't want YOU running the show, if you get my drift.

Don't get involved, it's not worth it.

Trust me, save yourself the flaming.

[Catamantaloedis]

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

I tried to make a simple analogy, and it seems my efforts failed or you just dont want to mention that your criticism was not valid. 

All of the endings were implausible. Therefore you can not criticize one ending in particular for being impossible when they all were.

So am I supposed to criticize all 3 of them in a thread that focuses on only one of them? Logical fallacy, you win again.

No you dont criticize 1 for a flaw which all three share. Saying you rather destroy the Reapers is somewhat valid. Specifically, calling out control for being implausible is disingenuous because all the endings are implausible.

Like I said (Idiot), I'm specifically calling out Control because that is the focus of the thread. If the thread were about Synthesis or Destroy, then I would discuss them at large. I've already told you how I think Destroy and Synthesis are implausible, so what exactly are you trying to tell me?

If I were talking to a biology professor, and suddenly shifted the conversation to military history, how would I be, in any way, contributing to the discussion?

We are comparing the merits of Control to Synthesis and Destroy. That is the difference. If you can't see the difference and admit that you can't criticize one specifically for the flaws shared by all of them, then you should just stop posting because I will be done dealing with such a dim mind. 

[ReXspec]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

I never would have guessed that I would have to post this three times:

Kid: You will die; you will control us but you will lose everything you have.
Sheperd: But the Reapers will obey me?
Kid: Yes.

That isn't evidence, as it is said BEFORE SHEPARD SACRIFICES HIMSELF.

In order to be evidence, it has to be incontrovertible and irrefutable. Common sense dictates that you can't support or deny something said BEFORE the event takes place, because you have no basis to work from.

Congratulations, you've proved your idiocy.

The Catalyst says you can destroy the Reapers. When you pick destroy, the Reapers are destroyed.
The Catalyst says you can synthesize life. When you pick synthesis, life is synthesized.
The Catalyst says you can control the Reapers. When you pick control, Shepard dies, and you don't control the Reapers because the Catalyst was lying.

I think I get it now.

YOU DON'T GET IT!

We don't even know if the Catalyst is telling the truth with the other endings!  ALL THE OTHER CHOICES SUCKED BECAUSE OF THIS, AND MANY OTHER REASONS!

Control is the worst of this, because it is the most ambiguous and ominous on what Control actually entails!

Will the Reapers return?  What happened to Shepard?  What will happen with the Reapers? 

WE 

DON'T

KNOW.

Stop saying your damn headcanon is "fact" and calling everyone else fools for not accepting your truth!

[Catamantaloedis]

Bill Casey wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Why?

Let me guess...because TIM would have wanted to do the same thing?

I guess if TIM likes ice cream then god forbid shepard ever going near it.

Seriously, I'm tired of this reasoning. It's beyond stupid. If there is a way to practically end the Reaper war without doing the most damage to the Galaxy, then why wouldn't you take it?

Controlling a vast army of techno organic Cthulhu who have spent billions of years corrupting minds is not practical. Doing it because a ghost child who says he controls the Reapers tells you that you can, but you will die and lose everything you have is completely insane...

Everything working out ruins the Mass Effect universe...

That's beside the core thematic issues, and the fact that the Reapers brainwash people into thinking they can control them...

It's objectively stupid from a standpoint of general fiction...
It is a violation of common sense and pure hubris and megalomania personified...

Its no more insane than believing that the Catalyst will synthesize all life or destroy its own creations because you made it to its platform.

You can either accept what the Catalyst says, or you can make up whatever the hell you want.

[Catamantaloedis]

ReXspec wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

I never would have guessed that I would have to post this three times:

Kid: You will die; you will control us but you will lose everything you have.
Sheperd: But the Reapers will obey me?
Kid: Yes.

That isn't evidence, as it is said BEFORE SHEPARD SACRIFICES HIMSELF.

In order to be evidence, it has to be incontrovertible and irrefutable. Common sense dictates that you can't support or deny something said BEFORE the event takes place, because you have no basis to work from.

Congratulations, you've proved your idiocy.

The Catalyst says you can destroy the Reapers. When you pick destroy, the Reapers are destroyed.
The Catalyst says you can synthesize life. When you pick synthesis, life is synthesized.
The Catalyst says you can control the Reapers. When you pick control, Shepard dies, and you don't control the Reapers because the Catalyst was lying.

I think I get it now.

YOU DON'T GET IT!

We don't even know if the Catalyst is telling the truth with the other endings!  ALL THE OTHER CHOICES SUCKED BECAUSE OF THIS, AND MANY OTHER REASONS!

Control is the worst of this, because it is the most ambiguous and ominous on what Control actually entails!

Will the Reapers return?  What happened to Shepard?  What will happen with the Reapers? 

WE 

DON'T

KNOW.

Stop saying your damn headcanon is "fact" and calling everyone else fools for not accepting your truth!

If the Cataylst is lying about the other endings as well, which you would be hard pressed to prove, then their is no ending and you are left with nothing except for speculation and guesses.

The only thing which you can do is accept that the Cataylst is telling the truth, or make up whatever the hell you want. 

I dont have any headcanon. I'm simply following what the Cataylst says. It says the Reapers will obey me, therefore they will. 

Modifié par Catamantaloedis, 03 juin 2012 - 04:49 .

[Mahrac]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

I tried to make a simple analogy, and it seems my efforts failed or you just dont want to mention that your criticism was not valid. 

All of the endings were implausible. Therefore you can not criticize one ending in particular for being impossible when they all were.

So am I supposed to criticize all 3 of them in a thread that focuses on only one of them? Logical fallacy, you win again.

No you dont criticize 1 for a flaw which all three share. Saying you rather destroy the Reapers is somewhat valid. Specifically, calling out control for being implausible is disingenuous because all the endings are implausible.

Like I said (Idiot), I'm specifically calling out Control because that is the focus of the thread. If the thread were about Synthesis or Destroy, then I would discuss them at large. I've already told you how I think Destroy and Synthesis are implausible, so what exactly are you trying to tell me?

If I were talking to a biology professor, and suddenly shifted the conversation to military history, how would I be, in any way, contributing to the discussion?

We are comparing the merits of Control to Synthesis and Destroy. That is the difference. If you can't see the difference and admit that you can't criticize one specifically for the flaws shared by all of them, then you should just stop posting because I will be done dealing with such a dim mind. 

Except s/he is not championing destroy or synthesis, just opposing control. S/he has no need to mention either of the other two choices

[Catamantaloedis]

Mahrac wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

I tried to make a simple analogy, and it seems my efforts failed or you just dont want to mention that your criticism was not valid. 

All of the endings were implausible. Therefore you can not criticize one ending in particular for being impossible when they all were.

So am I supposed to criticize all 3 of them in a thread that focuses on only one of them? Logical fallacy, you win again.

No you dont criticize 1 for a flaw which all three share. Saying you rather destroy the Reapers is somewhat valid. Specifically, calling out control for being implausible is disingenuous because all the endings are implausible.

Like I said (Idiot), I'm specifically calling out Control because that is the focus of the thread. If the thread were about Synthesis or Destroy, then I would discuss them at large. I've already told you how I think Destroy and Synthesis are implausible, so what exactly are you trying to tell me?

If I were talking to a biology professor, and suddenly shifted the conversation to military history, how would I be, in any way, contributing to the discussion?

We are comparing the merits of Control to Synthesis and Destroy. That is the difference. If you can't see the difference and admit that you can't criticize one specifically for the flaws shared by all of them, then you should just stop posting because I will be done dealing with such a dim mind. 

Except s/he is not championing destroy or synthesis, just opposing control. S/he has no need to mention either of the other two choices

You people are dimwitted. 

You can't compare three different pair of shoes to see which one is the best, and criticize the color of only one of the shoes as being ugly, and use this to argue against the merit of those shoes, even though all pair of shoes are the exact same color. 

Modifié par Catamantaloedis, 03 juin 2012 - 04:51 .

[ReXspec]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If the Cataylst is lying about the other endings as well, which you would be hard pressed to prove, then their is no ending and you are left with nothing except for speculation and guesses.

BINGO.  YOU HAVE IT RIGHT THERE.  THAT IS EXACTLY WHY MOST OF US ARE HERE, GENIUS.

Because the endings were broken and we're left with exactly ^THIS^.

Seriously, can someone quote this?  This is the first time Cata said something that made sense.

Modifié par ReXspec, 03 juin 2012 - 04:52 .

[Bill Casey]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Its no more insane than believing that the Catalyst will synthesize all life or destroy its own creations because you made it to its platform.

I don't believe those things either...

[Catamantaloedis]

ReXspec wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If the Cataylst is lying about the other endings as well, which you would be hard pressed to prove, then their is no ending and you are left with nothing except for speculation and guesses.

BINGO.  YOU HAVE IT RIGHT THERE.  THAT IS EXACTLY WHY MOST OF US ARE HERE, GENIUS.

Because the endings were broken and we're left with exactly ^THIS^.

Seriously, can someone quote this?  This is the first time Cata said something that made sense.

Except it doesnt make sense, because there is no evidence nor reason to believe that the Catalyst is lying except for being in denial because you hate the endings. 

I hate the endings too. That doesn't mean that I should doubt that they are genuine.

Modifié par Catamantaloedis, 03 juin 2012 - 04:54 .

[Mahrac]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

You people are dimwitted. 

You can't compare three different pair of shoes to see which one is the best, and criticize the color of only one of the shoes as being ugly, and use this to argue against the merit of those shoes, even though all pair of shoes are the exact same color. 

Yes we can. We are only saying that all three are ugly. You are saying that one pair is good looking, and the other two are ugly. Since we have the same opinion on two pairs, there is no reason to discuss them

Modifié par Mahrac, 03 juin 2012 - 04:56 .

[Catamantaloedis]

Mahrac wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

You people are dimwitted. 

You can't compare three different pair of shoes to see which one is the best, and criticize the color of only one of the shoes as being ugly, and use this to argue against the merit of those shoes, even though all pair of shoes are the exact same color. 

YEs we can. we are only saying that all three are ugly, and are ignoring the other two. you are saying that one pair is good looking, and the other two are ugly. Since we have the same opinion on two pairs, there is no reason to discuss them

Except I'm not talking about the color of that pair of shoes because they are all ugly. I'm talking about the other merits of the shoes, not focusing on a flaw shared by all of them. These are the only three pairs of shoes available, of course. So therefore I must pick one.

I cannot be told to not pick the best pair of shoes because it shares the same ugly color of all the shoes. 

Modifié par Catamantaloedis, 03 juin 2012 - 04:58 .

[Lord_Frostwind]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

It isn't "humanity's Reaper fleet", it's Shepard's.

And Shepard is a human. Moral Shepards would use the fleet for the good of their species first and foremost.

This old ME2 Cerberus Loyalist approves

Though I am planning on using the Reaper tech to construct myself a new Avatar, people tend to get intimidated when I speak to them through Harbinger.

[D24O]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Mahrac wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

You people are dimwitted. 

You can't compare three different pair of shoes to see which one is the best, and criticize the color of only one of the shoes as being ugly, and use this to argue against the merit of those shoes, even though all pair of shoes are the exact same color. 

YEs we can. we are only saying that all three are ugly, and are ignoring the other two. you are saying that one pair is good looking, and the other two are ugly. Since we have the same opinion on two pairs, there is no reason to discuss them

Except I'm not talking about the color of that pair of shoes because they are all ugly. I'm talking about the other merits of the shoes, not focusing on a flaw shared by all of them. These are the only three pairs of shoes available, of course. So therefore I must pick one.

I cannot be told to not pick the best pair of shoes because it shares the same ugly color of all the shoes. 

That metaphor is starting to hurt my head.