Erixxxx wrote...
If something has occured 100% of the time over the course of several million years, perhaps billions, you will assume that events will continue to play out this way. And you will act on the information you have.
The Revolut wrote...
There is no logic to enact such a thing.
It is predicated upon the appeal to probability, therefore a logical fallacy. That is the point you have been missing the entire time.
What is so illogical about the Catalyst and the Cycle is that it too is based upon the appeal to probability being absolute; also, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
What part of this are you not getting?
The Revolut wrote...
Erixxxx wrote...
If something has occured 100% of the time over the course of several million years, perhaps billions, you will assume that events will continue to play out this way. And you will act on the information you have.
If something occurred 100% by your own design, it would then become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Thus, making it a logical fallacy.
Modifié par thisisme8, 25 juin 2012 - 01:40 .
thisisme8 wrote...
Ok, life lesson time. No matter how logical we are, we have to deal with illogical occurences. And when any occurence reaches a point where the consequences of it are too high to ignore, then the historical evidence of the occurence trumps logical fallacy argument.
thisisme8 wrote...
The Revolut wrote...
Erixxxx wrote...
If something has occured 100% of the time over the course of several million years, perhaps billions, you will assume that events will continue to play out this way. And you will act on the information you have.
If something occurred 100% by your own design, it would then become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Thus, making it a logical fallacy.
But that didn't happen. Once the cycle was enacted, the created didn't destroy the creators.
The Revolut wrote...
If something occurred 100% by your own design, it would then become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Thus, making it a logical fallacy.
The Revolut wrote...
Are you kidding me? The cycle remained the same, virtually, throughout billions of years. Synthetics have killed organics in all of them, following that logic.
Erixxxx wrote...
The Revolut wrote...
If something occurred 100% by your own design, it would then become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Thus, making it a logical fallacy.
Prior to the Cycle. Prior.
thisisme8 wrote...
The Revolut wrote...
Are you kidding me? The cycle remained the same, virtually, throughout billions of years. Synthetics have killed organics in all of them, following that logic.
To be clear, the cycle prevents "the created" from destroying "the creators." The Reapers are seperate, so them harvesting and destroying civilizations does not counter their own cycle.
brummyuk19 wrote...
The actual story behind Mass Effect is pretty good, and the writing is ok in it's self. The star childs logic is sound, it was just the WAY it was presented to the player that was bad. We were not told much, told to accept something as if it were truth and not given any way to deny or rebel against it, we just had to accept it. How that was played out was poor, and I hope the EC will rectify that.
But as a whole, I can see myself replaying Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3 again if the EC fills in the plot holes and gives us the closure we want. Also it would be nice to see more of our war assets in battle. Other than that, I have no problem with the writing.
The logic is sound once you have all the details, it's just the fact I had to come on the internet and read for hours to understand it that annoyed me, because of how poorly it was put across.
Thoughts?
yeah with the reapers doing it so yeah the starbrat was rightThe Revolut wrote...
thisisme8 wrote...
The Revolut wrote...
Erixxxx wrote...
If something has occured 100% of the time over the course of several million years, perhaps billions, you will assume that events will continue to play out this way. And you will act on the information you have.
If something occurred 100% by your own design, it would then become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Thus, making it a logical fallacy.
But that didn't happen. Once the cycle was enacted, the created didn't destroy the creators.
Are you kidding me? The cycle remained the same, virtually, throughout billions of years. Synthetics have killed organics in all of them, following that logic.
darthoptimus003 wrote...
yeah with the reapers doing it so yeah the starbrat was right
but he is the one who as murderd countless lives not the synthetics we created
his problem is he doesnt see that that he is the one that is causing this
all of thisJamieCOTC wrote...
brummyuk19 wrote...
The actual story behind Mass Effect is pretty good, and the writing is ok in it's self. The star childs logic is sound, it was just the WAY it was presented to the player that was bad. We were not told much, told to accept something as if it were truth and not given any way to deny or rebel against it, we just had to accept it. How that was played out was poor, and I hope the EC will rectify that.
But as a whole, I can see myself replaying Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3 again if the EC fills in the plot holes and gives us the closure we want. Also it would be nice to see more of our war assets in battle. Other than that, I have no problem with the writing.
The logic is sound once you have all the details, it's just the fact I had to come on the internet and read for hours to understand it that annoyed me, because of how poorly it was put across.
Thoughts?
You're right. We were told, not shown. EC won't fix what's wrong w/ the game. It will possibly give clarity and closure, but it won't fix it. That has been my biggest pet peeve w/ the writing style since ME2. We are told things, but never shown them. Shepard should have found out on his or her own how to defeat the Reapers. The three choices could still be the same and we could even make room for spacekid, but w/ Shepard just standing there blinding accepting what s/he is told is what really kills the ending for me. That and the singularity BS, but that's another thread.
The Revolut wrote...
thisisme8 wrote...
Ok, life lesson time. No matter how logical we are, we have to deal with illogical occurences. And when any occurence reaches a point where the consequences of it are too high to ignore, then the historical evidence of the occurence trumps logical fallacy argument.
...So basically just deal with it.
What a brilliant goddamned argument you have.
The Revolut wrote...
It still occurred within the cycle.
When does Shepard descend into desperation? the dreams are just weird, and nobody cares about the people on Earth... other than Anderson that is. Shepards reaction to Kai "beating" us on Thessia was quite a shock to me.thisisme8 wrote...
Here's the sad thing about all these debates in the forums:
Between the main writer, the scene writer, the script writer, and the voice actor, so many things can change. Maybe the tone or the emphasis on a piece of dialogue or bit of information. Naturally, a smaller team will produce a tighter story (ME1 for example). But while the players sit here and over-analyze ever single word and image and background prop, we miss some of the major themes that the main writer wanted to come across.
Take for example, what I believe to be a major theme in ME3 that nobody talks about: Shepard's descent into desperation and despair. I thought it was so well written and played out, but people would rather argue over the design of a hallway in the Citadel.
So sad.
The Revolut wrote...
thisisme8 wrote...
The Revolut wrote...
Are you kidding me? The cycle remained the same, virtually, throughout billions of years. Synthetics have killed organics in all of them, following that logic.
To be clear, the cycle prevents "the created" from destroying "the creators." The Reapers are seperate, so them harvesting and destroying civilizations does not counter their own cycle.
The created still killed creators.
and dont say javiks story because he said that that revolt was put down hard and permanatlyErixxxx wrote...
The Revolut wrote...
It still occurred within the cycle.
Give me one concrete example of it happening before ours.
thisisme8 wrote...
The Revolut wrote...
thisisme8 wrote...
Ok, life lesson time. No matter how logical we are, we have to deal with illogical occurences. And when any occurence reaches a point where the consequences of it are too high to ignore, then the historical evidence of the occurence trumps logical fallacy argument.
...So basically just deal with it.
What a brilliant goddamned argument you have.
I'm not sure if you are even reading what I write.
You say the Catalyst is illogical because regardless of historical evidence and the astronomically high probability of something continuing to occur, your english textbook says that his argument has no validity because of his choice of words.
Ok, if the Catalyst said, "From what I've seen, synthetics have always destroyed their creators." Would that make him suddenly logical?
Modifié par The Revolut, 25 juin 2012 - 01:58 .
Erixxxx wrote...
The Revolut wrote...
It still occurred within the cycle.
Give me one concrete example of it happening before ours.
The Revolut wrote...
It would make him less incorrect.
Honestly, there's no sense in continuing to say anything other than repeating my talking points. You've done nothing but argue past or ignore them for the last hour.
The Revolut wrote...
Jesus, don't even start that. You have yet to predicate any of your argument on concrete evidence.
Furthermore, it is a logical extension based upon the premise that the cycles are inherently similar.
which the cycles are not thanks to the reapersThe Revolut wrote...
Erixxxx wrote...
The Revolut wrote...
It still occurred within the cycle.
Give me one concrete example of it happening before ours.
Jesus, don't even start that. You have yet to predicate any of your argument on concrete evidence.
Furthermore, it is a logical extension based upon the premise that the cycles are inherently similar.
thisisme8 wrote...
That's the problem, you repeat the same thing regardless of the subject or context. When I broke your argument down and showed that you have no substance, you countered with a childish retort. For all your talk of logic, you have no idea how it actually works within context. You can only spew what you learned in english class about speech-giving instead of critically thinking about the subject matter at hand.
Retour en haut