1027 réponses à ce sujet

[humes spork]

Femlob wrote...

Because Mac Walters.

In other words you can't actually defend your own assertions, and rely upon appeals against the writer. Which, in the end, supports the conclusion none of this is based on logic or rationality but rather emotion.

[savionen]

RiouHotaru wrote...

That's not an argument, nor is that evidence.  Are you saying it's bad writing that the Catalyst chose to interact with Shepard at all?

Because this sounds suspiciously like the arguments that the Reapers should've just waited for Shepard to die before invading back when ME2 was out.  Attributing thought processes to a character that only someone ridiculously Genre Savvy would make isn't a good argument.

Well, like 70% of ME3 is bad writing, and the entire plot is poorly designed, so....

Modifié par savionen, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:15 .

[Femlob]

humes spork wrote...

Femlob wrote...

Because Mac Walters.

In other words you can't actually defend your own assertions, and rely upon appeals against the writer. Which, in the end, supports the conclusion none of this is based on logic or rationality but rather emotion.

I just did, you tool. Look a few posts back.

[humes spork]

Femlob wrote...

It does; it even has basis in reality. It's a stupid f*cking plot device that shouldn't have existed in the first place. So if I'm given the opportunity to shoot it in the face so I won't have to listen to its inane ramblings, you can bet your last buck I'll do just that.

...in other words, you're still metagaming.

[RiouHotaru]

savionen wrote...

Well, like 70% of ME3 is bad writing, and the entire plot is poorly designed, so....

That's debateable.

And regardless, it's still not an argument. The ending clearly indicates the Catalyst is trustworthy. My Shepard picks Destroy, does what is indicated, and the result the Catalyst claims will occur does happen. Therefore the Catalyst wasn't lying.

And that's not even metagaming.

Modifié par RiouHotaru, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:18 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

JackumsD wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

In my opinion they are not equally valid. Synthesis and Control have some serious ethical issues that do not exist in Destroy. These have been discussed to death in other threads and do not need to be discussed here.

Control poses no ethical issues. Perhaps the Renegade Control outcome, but that's non-existent in the Paragon version. And Destroy is just as questionable in that it's effectively committing genocide.

Bear in mind I'm going by the scenario in my own game. I don't play paragon or renegade. I play almost pure neutral leaning slightly renegade (45/55). I don't like the P/R scale. Now EDI asks you for advice on stuff and will pretty much adapt the moral stance you take, and so she adapted my more neutral stances. I had the conversation with EDI where she said that it would be worth non-functionality to defeat the reapers. I had really gotten to know EDI on the play through. I took EDI on almost every mission. Thus I concluded that if I had a conversation with EDI she would have agreed to Destroy and not Synthesis, since a rewrite of organics without consent would be equally as repulsive as a rewrite of her without consent, and just wanted time to say goodbye to Jeff.

I wouldn't trust myself with Control: it wouldn't end well. I would have explained this to EDI as well. But there was no time for that conversation. So I had to go by the last one that has the results highlighted in bold. Without metagaming, I have to go with what I told The Illusive Man. "No one person should have that much power."

I did not commit genocide with the Destroy ending since the Geth were not there. This is important. That's the third destroy scenario.

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Refuse, however, is a prideful sacrifice of trillions of lives for the sake of your personal "honor". It is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I do no see a point in delaying a chance for victory. It could take hundreds more cycles before another gets to where you are.

So you could be condemning quadrillions to death by refusing to play. Like Javik said, ask the trillions of dead souls if honor matters. Their silence is your answer.

I agree, 100%.

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

So I say take the chance. You know refusal means certain death for all. So what have you got to lose by shooting the red tube? Nothing. I'm not a gambling woman, but here I'll play the game. Deal me in.

I have no problem with Destroy at all. Personally I wouldn't choose it, for various reasons, but unlike Refuse, it's valid enough for me to see why others may choose it. I'm pro-Control (Paragon).

EDIT: I like your sig, by the way, especially the bold.

"Godlike Power and Armada; Galactic Molecular Eugenics; Genocide in 2 scenarios; or Full Retard (Refuse)"

 

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:19 .

[Ryzaki]

It...kind of is horrible contrived and nonsencial writing.

Starbrat thinks what he's doing is the best solution. He was created to solve X problem. However he lets Shep make 2 choices that don't solve the issue at all and at best postpone it. (Control and Synthesis) if Shep should choose to go No he turns off the Crucible and continue the cycle.

If Starbrat was actually following his programming he'd offer Shep Synthesis and nothing else. But he doesn't. Even though doing such is detrimental to his supposed goal of preserving organics.

That nonsense about Shep showing his solution won't work anymore is garbage. He holds all the cards. His solution is working just fine. Shep isn't actually a threat to him unless he allows Shep to be a threat.

It's like if someone holds a gun to your head and you manage to grab hold of the gun they decide to back off because "you've shown me." wut? JUST PULL THE DAMN TRIGGER!

Heck all Starbrat had to do was leave Shep there and the Crucible would've been destroyed in enough time.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:19 .

[Femlob]

humes spork wrote...

Femlob wrote...

It does; it even has basis in reality. It's a stupid f*cking plot device that shouldn't have existed in the first place. So if I'm given the opportunity to shoot it in the face so I won't have to listen to its inane ramblings, you can bet your last buck I'll do just that.

...in other words, you're still metagaming.

Great job not quoting my entire post, but only the part that underlines your opinion.

I swear, people like you will be the death of me.

[The Heretic of Time]

Ryzaki wrote...

Oh yes it clearly makes sense to keep wasting resources (on a life or death situation no less) on something that didn't work vs developing weapons and ships that are guaranteed to work if you get enough of them. Oh yes you are clearly so much more intelligent *slow clap*

O my god, are you serious? 

Researching why the previous cycle failed if the very first thing any logical civilisation would do when they're faced with a situation like this.

Why didn't the Crucible work?

That's a very important question and the answer might be the key to solving the Reaper threat. Basic logic 101 my friend, it's not rocket science.

vs developing weapons and ships that are guaranteed to work if you get enough of them

LMAO! Stop pulling BS out of your ass. 

Like I said, the Reaper won't let you advance that far. When you're advanced enough to rival the Reapers, they're already busy harvesting your ass. 

Ryzaki wrote...

This is assuming that the sTarbrat didn't modify the Citadel to make it so the Crucible doesn't work (hilariously enough not doing so would be far more idiotic than any decision Shep could've made).

This is assuming that the Starbrat CAN even do such a thing. All evidence points out that this ISN'T the case.

Ryzaki wrote...

As for them LTAO we'll see how they feel about the same RGB choices.

They seemed to have no problem with the RGB choices, because they obviously chose one of them and ended the Reaper cycle, as is seen in the Rejection epilogue.

Ryzaki wrote...

You really think the Reapers will sit on their asses waiting for the Crucible to be rebuilt? LOL you funny! You also seem to have no concept of subtly or stealth but given your posts I'm not surprised. You seem the dense sort.

A single Crucible can easily be hidden from the Reapers. TONS of conventional firepower to rival the Reaper can NOT be hidden. Basic logic 101, something you seem to have trouble with. 

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:23 .

[Ryzaki]

Wrong. The epilogue doesn't say how they defeated the reapers. They could've used a superweapon that has nothing at all to do with the Crucible. They could've destroyed the Reapers conventionally. It's left open. Only twitter decided to say how they won.

But really you're whole post is on a level of obnoxiousness that I don't feel like dealing with. I've been banned enough for fighting.

NVM the only way they can figure out the Crucible doesn't work IS BY WASTING RESOURCES BUILDING IT AND ATTACHING IT TO THE CITADEL IN WHICH CASE IF IT DOESN'T WORK AND THE REAPERS SEE THAT THEY'RE ****ED!

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:23 .

[humes spork]

RiouHotaru wrote...

It's still not an argument. The ending clearly indicates the Catalyst is trustworthy. My Shepard picks Destroy, does what is indicated, and the result the Catalyst claims will occur does happen. Therefore the Catalyst wasn't lying.

But that's a metagame argument, Shepard can't know that at the time s/he makes the decision! Confirming the truth-value of the Catalyst's statements is metagaming, and has no place in this discussion!

Because the Catalyst must be malevolent because Reapers, and we can only facially assume what it says is false without considering or confirming the truth-value of its claims or considering the entire breadth of potential outcomes based upon an unknown variable!

And making a cost-benefit analysis of the potential outcomes of the truth-value of the Catalyst's claims is a logical fallacy and irrational!

Modifié par humes spork, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:24 .

[Grimwick]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

You really think the Reapers will sit on their asses waiting for the Crucible to be rebuilt? LOL you funny! You also seem to have no concept of subtly or stealth but given your posts I'm not surprised. You seem the dense sort.

A single Crucible can easily be hidden from the Reapers. TONS of conventional firepower to rival the Reaper can NOT be hidden. Basic logic 101, something you seem to have trouble with. 

I don't see much logic in that wild assertion there...

[savionen]

@Heretic Hanar

If the Reapers automatically step in when the organics are capable of synthetics, why did they allow the creation of the Crucible?

I... don't understand. What if they just pooled all their resources to make one huge-ass guided railgun that kills Reapers whenever they come within range? Would they have stopped that?

Modifié par savionen, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:23 .

[RiouHotaru]

Ryzaki wrote...

It...kind of is horrible contrived and nonsencial writing.

Starbrat thinks what he's doing is the best solution. He was created to solve X problem. However he lets Shep make 2 choices that don't solve the issue at all and at best postpone it. (Control and Synthesis) if Shep should choose to go No he turns off the Crucible and continue the cycle.

If Starbrat was actually following his programming he'd offer Shep Synthesis and nothing else. But he doesn't. Even though doing such is detrimental to his supposed goal of preserving organics.

Whether Control and Synthesis are "not solving the issue" is a topic for another thread, and again, debatable.  Also, it's been proposed that the Catalyst doesn't turn off the Crucible himself in Reject.  Remember, he states the Crucible is nothing more than a massive generator.  It's far more likely he simply does what Shepard does in Reject: nothing.

Also, offering Shepard the three choices is a part of his programming.  He realizes his proposed solution isn't going to work, and needs a new solution.  The Crucible (being a power source) gives him the ability to impliment one of three new solutions.  However, his programming means he can't pick the new solution himself, it has to come from an external source: Shepard.

[elitehunter34]

humes spork wrote...

Femlob wrote...

Except there's nothing anyone can offer that will disprove it.

Why did the Catalyst talk to Shepard in the first place?

The Catalyst can bring up Shepard for absolutely any reason he wants. Maybe he  brought up Shepard just to toy with him, to give Shepard hope only to watch Shepard die.  Maybe the Catalyst could be leading Shepard into a trap that because the Catalyst was able to alter the function of the Crucible.  Maybe the Catalyst was just bored and wanted to talk to someone.  Why does it matter so much that the Catalyst chose to talk to Shepard?  You and a couple others keep bringing up this point, but it's a moot point because you can't prove that the only reason the Catalyst would bring up Shepard is because he wants to be honest.  This is a story, you can't say that the Catalyst has to do x or y because you think it makes sense.

[savionen]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

It...kind of is horrible contrived and nonsencial writing.

Starbrat thinks what he's doing is the best solution. He was created to solve X problem. However he lets Shep make 2 choices that don't solve the issue at all and at best postpone it. (Control and Synthesis) if Shep should choose to go No he turns off the Crucible and continue the cycle.

If Starbrat was actually following his programming he'd offer Shep Synthesis and nothing else. But he doesn't. Even though doing such is detrimental to his supposed goal of preserving organics.

Whether Control and Synthesis are "not solving the issue" is a topic for another thread, and again, debatable.  Also, it's been proposed that the Catalyst doesn't turn off the Crucible himself in Reject.  Remember, he states the Crucible is nothing more than a massive generator.  It's far more likely he simply does what Shepard does in Reject: nothing.

Also, offering Shepard the three choices is a part of his programming.  He realizes his proposed solution isn't going to work, and needs a new solution.  The Crucible (being a power source) gives him the ability to impliment one of three new solutions.  However, his programming means he can't pick the new solution himself, it has to come from an external source: Shepard.

The solution would continue working if he didn't let Shepard go up the elevator....

Doesn't destroying all Reapers and synthetics seem like a pretty drastic plan change when supposedly the Reapers can automatically win in conventional battle anyway?

Kill Shepard, destroy the Crucible information. Now we can go back to 1 billion years of Reaping again.

Modifié par savionen, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:26 .

[WYLDMAXX]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Femlob wrote...

Except there's nothing anyone can offer that will disprove it.

But you haven't offered any definitive proof he's untrustworthy.  So far the ONLY evidence used to mistrust the Catalyst is a relationship to the Reapers, which is tentative at best.  The Catalyst didn't make them, his only connection is that they're a "solution" to the problem posed to him by his creators.

This constant assertion he's "deranged" has no basis in fact.

Run through the ending again. Catalyst states that he created the Reapers.

[humes spork]

elitehunter34 wrote...

This is a story, you can't say that the Catalyst has to do x or y because you think it makes sense.

...would you agree this also extends to the assertion the Catalyst must necessarily be lying?

[RiouHotaru]

elitehunter34 wrote...

humes spork wrote...

Femlob wrote...

Except there's nothing anyone can offer that will disprove it.

Why did the Catalyst talk to Shepard in the first place?

The Catalyst can bring up Shepard for absolutely any reason he wants. Maybe he  brought up Shepard just to toy with him, to give Shepard hope only to watch Shepard die.  Maybe the Catalyst could be leading Shepard into a trap that because the Catalyst was able to alter the function of the Crucible.  Maybe the Catalyst was just bored and wanted to talk to someone.  Why does it matter so much that the Catalyst chose to talk to Shepard?  You and a couple others keep bringing up this point, but it's a moot point because you can't prove that the only reason the Catalyst would bring up Shepard is because he wants to be honest.  This is a story, you can't say that the Catalyst has to do x or y because you think it makes sense.

But that's what TAO is arguing.  She's arguing that Reject is the only choice that "makes sense" based on the assertion that the Catalyst is malicious/manipulative/lying/deranged/whatever negative adjective you please.

For her it "makes sense" to claim the Catalyst is inherently deceitful, when we've shown that NONE of the actions taken by the Catalyst indicate such intent.

Also, your assertion that he did so "just 'cause" makes even less sense.

[Ryzaki]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

It...kind of is horrible contrived and nonsencial writing.

Starbrat thinks what he's doing is the best solution. He was created to solve X problem. However he lets Shep make 2 choices that don't solve the issue at all and at best postpone it. (Control and Synthesis) if Shep should choose to go No he turns off the Crucible and continue the cycle.

If Starbrat was actually following his programming he'd offer Shep Synthesis and nothing else. But he doesn't. Even though doing such is detrimental to his supposed goal of preserving organics.

Whether Control and Synthesis are "not solving the issue" is a topic for another thread, and again, debatable.  Also, it's been proposed that the Catalyst doesn't turn off the Crucible himself in Reject.  Remember, he states the Crucible is nothing more than a massive generator.  It's far more likely he simply does what Shepard does in Reject: nothing.

Also, offering Shepard the three choices is a part of his programming.  He realizes his proposed solution isn't going to work, and needs a new solution.  The Crucible (being a power source) gives him the ability to impliment one of three new solutions.  However, his programming means he can't pick the new solution himself, it has to come from an external source: Shepard.

The issue of Synthetics and Organics finding peace with one another? Uh...it's not really arguable. Destroy simply destroys all Synthetics (and more can be rebuilt) and Control simply controls the Reapers (sure Shep can curbstomp any new angry Synthetics but that doesn't stop the conflict from arising in the first place).

He says little more not nothing more. If you look at the designs the pieces that allow Shep to choose what are on the Crucible itself not the Catalyst. Prothy VI even tells you that a indoctrinated splinter group working on the Crucible wanted to control the Reapers (makes sense they'd build that design in).

No it's not part of his programming. The Crucible gave those choices. Not the Citadel. (Which means some indoctrinated sods put in the Synthesis and Control options in the first place). The Citadel sees opportunity and decides to go with it. Refusal makes it clear that if the Catalyst didn't want that thing functional he could turn it off.

[RiouHotaru]

WYLDMAXX wrote...

Run through the ending again. Catalyst states that he created the Reapers.

No he didn't.  The dialog goes as follows:

"My creators gave them form, I give them function, they give me purpose."

"My creators gave them form."

[TaradosGon]

I agree that without meta-gaming refuse is the only reasonable option.

I elaborated on the idea in other threads, but in short I think:

Without meta-gaming ---> Refuse
With meta-gaming ---> Control (kinda evil) or Synthesis (peaches and cream)

You have no reason to trust that the Catalyst, who has a history of wanting you dead (through the Reapers) is going to give you three favorable options.

Saren thought the Reapers were upgrading him, but instead they controlled him through his implants. Now when the Catalyst starts speaking of combining synthetics and organic life through synthesis, I have no reason to think that everything's going to be OK and that he won't just turn around and indoctrinate me.

And the Catalyst talks about how he controls the Reapers yet that the Reapers store the collective memory of entire species. When he starts telling you that your body will die but that your mind and memories will be preserved in the Reaper, you have no reason to believe that he's telling the truth and that he's not just harvesting you into a Reaper that stays under his Control.

And why would I believe that the pipe is going to destroy the Reapers? When does the big villain that has a history of wanting me dead ever just turn around and volunteer information as to how to kill him? When Palpatine goads Luke to kill him because he was unarmed, did anyone really expect him to just sit there and die?

Now, with meta-gaming. All three of these very suspicious scenarios turn out to be true...
And if you believe everything that he says, then Control and Synthesis are really the only options, because refuse is suicide and destroy doesn't fix anything.

However, if you pick Control, then Shepard talks about how he will fight those that threaten the future of the many. I took this to mean that if synthetics ever did rise up as the Catalyst predicted, then Shepard-Reapers would be there to put an end to them or at least put them in their place.

Synthesis on the other hand would just immediately lead to peace and everyone could sit around the campfire and sing kumbaya.

[humes spork]

Femlob wrote...

Great job not quoting my entire post, but only the part that underlines your opinion.

I swear, people like you will be the death of me.

You mean responding to the part of your post I personally hadn't been spending the last twenty or so pages against? I'm terribly sorry you personally didn't get a copypasta of my last buttload of posts, but I'm in no particular mood to provoke the wrath of the mods by linking and quoting myself ad nauseum. I guess you'll just have to deal.

But in a nutshell, you don't have to prove the truth-value of the Catalyst's claims. All that is required is to consider the potential outcomes of whether it's lying or not -- think of it as Schrodinger's starbrat if you have to -- relative to the decision put before you and notice that you lose nothing by assuming the Catalyst's statements to be true. It's goddamn Pascal's wager reframed, to my extreme displeasure to admit being an atheist.

That's entirely discounting the notion that the Catalyst had the choice to engage Shepard when it had nothing to gain by doing so, purely for the sake of argument. "Because Mac Walters", you say; that's a metagame argument and outside the scope of this discussion as OP explicitly put it. If metagaming is off the table, "because Mac Walters" as a metagame argument is equally off the table.

Modifié par humes spork, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:34 .

[elitehunter34]

humes spork wrote...

elitehunter34 wrote...

This is a story, you can't say that the Catalyst has to do x or y because you think it makes sense.

...would you agree this also extends to the assertion the Catalyst must necessarily be lying?

Yes.  But I never said that the Catalyst must be lying.  What's your point.

[The Heretic of Time]

Ryzaki wrote...

Wrong. The epilogue doesn't say how they defeated the reapers. They could've used a superweapon that has nothing at all to do with the Crucible. They could've destroyed the Reapers conventionally. It's left open. Only twitter decided to say how they won.

Occam's Razor applies here. The Crucible is their only known hope. Therefor it's logical to assume they used it. Mike Gamble simply confirmed what we already knew.

Ryzaki wrote...

NVM the only way they can figure out the Crucible doesn't work IS BY WASTING RESOURCES BUILDING IT AND ATTACHING IT TO THE CITADEL IN WHICH CASE IF IT DOESN'T WORK AND THE REAPERS SEE THAT THEY'RE ****ED!

Yeah, no. That's what we have blueprints for. A blueprint should be able to tell you how the machine is build and how it's supposed to work. You can find out any flaws in the design of the Crucible by simply analysing it's blueprint.

I'm sure glad our real-life architects are smarter than you. If all our architects would think like you, we would waste tons of resources on building incomplete buildings only to find out that it collapses because someone didn't pay attention when checking it's blueprint.