1917 réponses à ce sujet

[The Night Mammoth]

Seival wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

Seival wrote...

Who said that your arguments doesn't matter? They matters, but I disagree with them. If you really tired of yelling, then stop it, and keep constructive discussion of the Normandy crash scene. It's as simple as that.

I am being constructive. Every form of critique is constructive. It shows you what you have to improve to make your piece of work better.
I doubt you're really interested in constructive discussion since you've ignored most of my arguments. You have yet to prove that your theory is more likely than any other theory on this scene. I have brought this up at least 20 pages ago already.

Not every form of critique is constructive.

Erm...... no, that's the point of critiquing something, it's always constructive. 

And I already answered all of your arguments, actually. So, if you have some more counter-arguments to the Normandy crash scene theory, go ahead.

By answer you obviously mean "come up with more conjecture and assumptions to fill the gaps". 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 11 juin 2012 - 12:46 .

[78stonewobble]

The scene doesn't make any sense. Unless you put in alot of unfounded speculation.

Also frame 4 explanation doesn't make any sense either: Normandy IS getting damaged. And damage to the propulsion IS a big deal even considering this alternative scenario.

While the last frame and the scenario is interesting I don't see any... "evidence..." Crew didn't age and no sign said "10 years later"...

But I do like the idea of rebuilding better than this stupid crash -.-

[M Hedonist]

Seival wrote...

Not every form of critique is constructive. And I already answered all of your arguments, actually. So, if you have some more counter-arguments to the Normandy crash scene theory, go ahead.

Funny how you're ignoring the argument that's right inside the post you're quoting.

Sauruz wrote...

You have yet to prove that your theory is more likely than any other theory on this scene.

Arguing with you feels like a chore.

[Kurremurre]

I haven't checked through all of the thread, so perhaps I missed something, but from what I've seen you still haven't satisfactorily answered why Joker's eyes are only green AFTER the crash in the Synthesis ending. The best I've seen you present is:

- Why "glowing eyes" must be visible all the time?
- Why Samara is not glowing all the time?
- Why Liara's eyes are not always black?

I'm amazed this would even have to be explained to you.

1) There is no reason to think that the glow of synthetic eyes WOULDN'T be constant. Look at the Illusive Man.

2) You're talking about biotic abilities and mass effect fields. How is this even comparable to synthetic eyes?

3) Liara's eyes only turn black when she... "embraces eternity", which we know does involve physiological changes. There is no comparison here to synthetic eyes with inbuilt sources of light. Joker is quite obviously not mating as he leaves the ship.

This alone should be enough to refute your position.

[kobayashi-maru]

Whether it makes sense or not was never issue for me. The fact the ship being wrecked for no real purpose after battle was. It should have crashed into Harby destroying both to allow Shepard to get to beam. It was character of its own and the final send off was weak. Damage should have at least been done during battle to Earth like Firefly in Serenity.

[Kem1995]

The OP needs to stop the assumptions and what ifs and just face the fact that what we have, doesn't make any sense.

[M Hedonist]

Kem1995 wrote...

The OP needs to stop the assumptions and what ifs and just face the fact that what we have, doesn't make any sense.

He needed to do that at least 6 pages ago. The fact he's still going on is a testimony to his stubbornness.

[Peranor]

Sauruz wrote...

Kem1995 wrote...

The OP needs to stop the assumptions and what ifs and just face the fact that what we have, doesn't make any sense.

He needed to do that at least 6 pages ago. The fact he's still going on is a testimony to his stubbornness.

Stubborn, or just yanking your chain?

[Erield]

Sauruz wrote...

Kem1995 wrote...

The OP needs to stop the assumptions and what ifs and just face the fact that what we have, doesn't make any sense.

He needed to do that at least 6 pages ago. The fact he's still going on is a testimony to his stubbornness.

The fact that your brain hasn't imploded due to the sheer frustration/rage that seems to be coursing through your veins is a testimony to yours, Sauruz.  Your posts in this thread never cease to provide me with amusement.  Your actual posts are enough to get a chuckle, but good ol' Sheogorath was always a favorite of mine.

[Seival]

Kurremurre wrote...

I haven't checked through all of the thread, so perhaps I missed something, but from what I've seen you still haven't satisfactorily answered why Joker's eyes are only green AFTER the crash in the Synthesis ending. The best I've seen you present is:

- Why "glowing eyes" must be visible all the time?
- Why Samara is not glowing all the time?
- Why Liara's eyes are not always black?

I'm amazed this would even have to be explained to you.

1) There is no reason to think that the glow of synthetic eyes WOULDN'T be constant. Look at the Illusive Man.

2) You're talking about biotic abilities and mass effect fields. How is this even comparable to synthetic eyes?

3) Liara's eyes only turn black when she... "embraces eternity", which we know does involve physiological changes. There is no comparison here to synthetic eyes with inbuilt sources of light. Joker is quite obviously not mating as he leaves the ship.

This alone should be enough to refute your position.

My point on this matter is that some visible manifestations of some object's properties don't have to be constant. TIM's eyes doesn't disprove anything. And it doesn't really matter if the manifestations were of organic or synthetic nature.

...And Synthesis make everyone only half-synthetic anyway. So the glows could be not synthetic in nature.

[M Hedonist]

Erield wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

Kem1995 wrote...

The OP needs to stop the assumptions and what ifs and just face the fact that what we have, doesn't make any sense.

He needed to do that at least 6 pages ago. The fact he's still going on is a testimony to his stubbornness.

The fact that your brain hasn't imploded due to the sheer frustration/rage that seems to be coursing through your veins is a testimony to yours, Sauruz.  Your posts in this thread never cease to provide me with amusement.  Your actual posts are enough to get a chuckle, but good ol' Sheogorath was always a favorite of mine.

I guess the cat's out of the bag on that one! Who puts cats in bags anyhow? Cats HATE bags.

[Rafficus III]

Not saying I agree with you TC, but while we're one the subject of the Normandy: did anyone notice how the tail end is damaged in the explosions, yet looks fine after the crash landing while the unscathed front (during the relay explosions) is now charred after it's landing?

[Erield]

Seival wrote...

My point on this matter is that some visible manifestations of some object's properties don't have to be constant. TIM's eyes doesn't disprove anything. And it doesn't really matter if the manifestations were of organic or synthetic nature.

...And Synthesis make everyone only half-synthetic anyway. So the glows could be not synthetic in nature.

So in the Synthesis ending, everyone gets green glowy eyes that are organic in nature?  That...that makes as much sense as Synthesis does!

[Seival]

Erield wrote...

Seival wrote...

My point on this matter is that some visible manifestations of some object's properties don't have to be constant. TIM's eyes doesn't disprove anything. And it doesn't really matter if the manifestations were of organic or synthetic nature.

...And Synthesis make everyone only half-synthetic anyway. So the glows could be not synthetic in nature.

So in the Synthesis ending, everyone gets green glowy eyes that are organic in nature?  That...that makes as much sense as Synthesis does!

New synthetic parts of living beings' bodies could cause the glowing that has organic nature. Why not?

[Alexius]

Even if I ignored all the signs that lead me to believe that the explosion happens right away, you still need to fill in too many blanks with too much information that just isn't there.

Your explanation is too far fetched and that's not what should be happening in the ending. Before the ending it's not in ME storytelling to leave the player wondering what just happened. The narrative is pretty straightforward till that point. So if I see the Normandy fleeing from an explosion just after I saw the relays explode, I think it's safe to assume that the ship is running away from the very same explosions I saw two seconds ago for the simple reason that they don't want to get fried.

[The Night Mammoth]

Seival wrote...

Erield wrote...

Seival wrote...

My point on this matter is that some visible manifestations of some object's properties don't have to be constant. TIM's eyes doesn't disprove anything. And it doesn't really matter if the manifestations were of organic or synthetic nature.

...And Synthesis make everyone only half-synthetic anyway. So the glows could be not synthetic in nature.

So in the Synthesis ending, everyone gets green glowy eyes that are organic in nature?  That...that makes as much sense as Synthesis does!

New synthetic parts of living beings' bodies could cause the glowing that has organic nature. Why not?

Why? 

You have literally no proof. 

[Kurremurre]

Seival wrote...

Kurremurre wrote...

I haven't checked through all of the thread, so perhaps I missed something, but from what I've seen you still haven't satisfactorily answered why Joker's eyes are only green AFTER the crash in the Synthesis ending. The best I've seen you present is:

- Why "glowing eyes" must be visible all the time?
- Why Samara is not glowing all the time?
- Why Liara's eyes are not always black?

I'm amazed this would even have to be explained to you.

1) There is no reason to think that the glow of synthetic eyes WOULDN'T be constant. Look at the Illusive Man.

2) You're talking about biotic abilities and mass effect fields. How is this even comparable to synthetic eyes?

3) Liara's eyes only turn black when she... "embraces eternity", which we know does involve physiological changes. There is no comparison here to synthetic eyes with inbuilt sources of light. Joker is quite obviously not mating as he leaves the ship.

This alone should be enough to refute your position.

My point on this matter is that some visible manifestations of some object's properties don't have to be constant. TIM's eyes doesn't disprove anything. And it doesn't really matter if the manifestations were of organic or synthetic nature.

...And Synthesis make everyone only half-synthetic anyway. So the glows could be not synthetic in nature.

And my point on this matter is that this objection is rendered irrelevant by the fact that you're comparing apples and oranges; it's a weak analogy. TIM's eyes don't disprove anything, but they are the closest analogy we have to Joker's eyes. My point is that TIM's eyes are more relevant to the discussion than Liara's eyes or Samara's biotics.

Re "half-synthetic": if you actually look at Joker you will see that he looks as he always has, but with green light here and there to show that he's half-synthetic. We therefore have every reason in the world to think that the light is due to the new, synthetic alteration. In other words, it is indeed synthetic in nature.

[Kem1995]

Sauruz wrote...

Kem1995 wrote...

The OP needs to stop the assumptions and what ifs and just face the fact that what we have, doesn't make any sense.

He needed to do that at least 6 pages ago. The fact he's still going on is a testimony to his stubbornness.

True. What bugs me is that the OP just ignores certain posts, I understand there is a lot going on and a lot of people raise good points but some people have questions the very concept of the Normandy Crash scene and the OP out right ignores the post and responds to other posts. Maybe I missed some responses through the pages but if your going to start a support thread you need to back up your points with evidence and proof. Not what if's and this could happen etc.

[M Hedonist]

You know, I was there for that whole sordid affair. Marvelous times! Ninjas, space magic, a giant microphone and a ghost child... Oh, and the wine! To die for.

Modifié par Sauruz, 11 juin 2012 - 02:02 .

[Kem1995]

Seival wrote...

Erield wrote...

Seival wrote...

My point on this matter is that some visible manifestations of some object's properties don't have to be constant. TIM's eyes doesn't disprove anything. And it doesn't really matter if the manifestations were of organic or synthetic nature.

...And Synthesis make everyone only half-synthetic anyway. So the glows could be not synthetic in nature.

So in the Synthesis ending, everyone gets green glowy eyes that are organic in nature?  That...that makes as much sense as Synthesis does!

New synthetic parts of living beings' bodies could cause the glowing that has organic nature. Why not?

No, just no. The key word in that sentance is could.

What we know from ME1-3 is, anyone with glowing eyes similar to Saren and TIM, are indoctrinated or are in the process of being idoctrinated, be it a rapid one or a very slow one.

One point I'd like to make about synthesis is that, everything being merged together is pretty much allowing the reapers and their own genetic code to overpower everything else, similar to what they did on Rannoch with the Geth. The reaper code allowed them to use the geth how they wanted, who's to say this wouldn't happen during synthesis? I haven't looked much into it cause I really don't like synthesis..

[seek37]

Ok, i'm not a scientist/physicist but i do have a basic understanding of physics. Light is a form of energy, this is pretty easy to understand since there are real life lasers they use to cut diamonds, and the light from the sun warms the earth, and can even cause concrete to heat up to a point which will burn human flesh. If you look at the galactic map as the explosions are happening you will see that the light from these explosions are moving at a rate that is faster than the speed of light since the distance between those little spec's of stars are still thousands if not millions of light-years away (i am assuming we are seeing this scene as in a omniscient realtime sort of way, and not taking into account the time it would take for light to reach the distance which the "camera" is positioned). While in the middle of relay jump if we assume they enter a mass-less corridor which allows ships to move between relays at faster than light speeds, then yes maybe the normandy could (maybe) out run this explosion. but once out of the corridor they would be toast. light (photons) occurs when a large amount of energy is applied to an atom causing it's electrons to become "excited." depending on the level of energy applied different wavelengths of color can be seen, the color is important since it signifies a uniform wavelength which in turn signifies that it is organized, "tight", and concentrated. High energy lasers give off large amounts of radiation. I do not know if it is plausible to really create light that travels faster than light, but going off of what i do know: the faster an object moves the more kinetic energy (energy an object possesses due to being in motion = (1/2) mass x velocity^2) it has and this energy can be tranferred via collision. so it's not surprising to hear that light can knock electrons out of orbit, think about what that means: ofc radiation, but more importantly electromagnetic radiation is caused by the acceleration of charged particles ie: electrons which are considered to create the "strongest" version of this due to their small mass they can accelerate at greater magnitudes with less force. And electromagnetic pulses destroy electronics. What we know about what light can do in real life is limited by it's speed, here it is not, so the implications of light traveling greatly faster than what is necessary to cut diamonds, or alter the very basic component of matter are... f'ing nuts for lack of better words. even if for w/e reason this light-splosion isn't as organized and concentrated as a laser, it's still moving at a rate faster than light. If something is moving that fast it wouldn't surprise me if it would just make tissue paper out of most objects, let alone fry the normandy's computers leading engine failure and the crash landing. but edi could be alive depending on your choice... space magicks... I dunno if this post even has a point but I worked on it so here it is... conclusion is that if this game had a shred of logic in the end, the normandy would at the very least be completely disabled.

[Seival]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Seival wrote...

Erield wrote...

Seival wrote...

My point on this matter is that some visible manifestations of some object's properties don't have to be constant. TIM's eyes doesn't disprove anything. And it doesn't really matter if the manifestations were of organic or synthetic nature.

...And Synthesis make everyone only half-synthetic anyway. So the glows could be not synthetic in nature.

So in the Synthesis ending, everyone gets green glowy eyes that are organic in nature?  That...that makes as much sense as Synthesis does!

New synthetic parts of living beings' bodies could cause the glowing that has organic nature. Why not?

Why? 

You have literally no proof. 

That's why it called a theory. I have my own vision of the scene, and I share it with the others. I'm not here to tell everyone that "I know the final truth"

[The Night Mammoth]

Seival wrote...

That's why it called a theory. I have my own vision of the scene, and I share it with the others. I'm not here to tell everyone that "I know the final truth"

You know theories usually have some sort of basis to prove them plausible? 

You have literally nothing.

So what you have isn't a 'theory' it's just baseless nonsense. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 11 juin 2012 - 02:48 .

[Seival]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Seival wrote...

That's why it called a theory. I have my own vision of the scene, and I share it with the others. I'm not here to tell everyone that "I know the final truth"

You know theories usually have some sort of basis to prove them plausible? 

You have literally nothing.

No, I think that you literally didn't want to understand all my arguments. Why? Because you don't like the scene, and want it to be removed more, then to try to understand it.

Modifié par Seival, 11 juin 2012 - 02:50 .

[Aetas Mutuo]