303 réponses à ce sujet

[Grimwick]

Aaaah maaaze, how I have missed your nonsensical approach to argumentation.

When you say there is no evidence you are flat out wrong - as has been shown in the first page of your post. Your solution to this problem makes far less sense and is frankly counter-current to logic.

[Seival]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Seival wrote...

maaaze wrote...
there was no lift? What do you mean? than how did he get there?

But I agree that the lift is also a symbol.

it symbolises the combined effort and sacrifices of this and all the previous Cycles that made it possible to take Shaperd to a place from where you can end the cycle. their combined strenght literally lifted Shaperd up to where he could win.

I meant that the "lift" was as symbolical as "control rods", "glass tube", and "pillar of light". And everything starting from the "lift" and till the end of conversation with the original Catalist was a "dream sequence", a way in which the original Catalist prefered to communicate with Shepard - mentally, not physically...

...So, Shepard mentally tells the Catalist about her decision (touching control rods in the dream for example), then the Catalist itself triggers the explosion, and allows the explosion to have the effect, chosen by Shepard.



Welcome to the Deus Ex Machina ending concept. Conventional victory is not possible. And that's why ME Trilogy ending is really brilliant.

Ok exactly where in ME 1-3 did the story stop being about real events that occurred within the ME universe and start being about symbolism and fantasy and be totally replaced with magical events?  I didn't get the DLC for that for ME1 and 2 and the beginning of 3.

Sci-fi story never tells about real events actually. It always tell about some possible events and rise some important phylosophical questions. Unlike fantasy, true sci-fi is always symbolical. And fantasy is actually all about action or adventure. That's why I consider ME Trilogy as the Sci-fi, and Star Wars as a Fantasy.

[Grimwick]

Seival wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Seival wrote...

maaaze wrote...
there was no lift? What do you mean? than how did he get there?

But I agree that the lift is also a symbol.

it symbolises the combined effort and sacrifices of this and all the previous Cycles that made it possible to take Shaperd to a place from where you can end the cycle. their combined strenght literally lifted Shaperd up to where he could win.

I meant that the "lift" was as symbolical as "control rods", "glass tube", and "pillar of light". And everything starting from the "lift" and till the end of conversation with the original Catalist was a "dream sequence", a way in which the original Catalist prefered to communicate with Shepard - mentally, not physically...

...So, Shepard mentally tells the Catalist about her decision (touching control rods in the dream for example), then the Catalist itself triggers the explosion, and allows the explosion to have the effect, chosen by Shepard.



Welcome to the Deus Ex Machina ending concept. Conventional victory is not possible. And that's why ME Trilogy ending is really brilliant.

Ok exactly where in ME 1-3 did the story stop being about real events that occurred within the ME universe and start being about symbolism and fantasy and be totally replaced with magical events?  I didn't get the DLC for that for ME1 and 2 and the beginning of 3.

Sci-fi story never tells about real events actually. It always tell about some possible events and rise some important phylosophical questions. Unlike fantasy, true sci-fi is always symbolical. And fantasy is actually all about action or adventure. That's why I consider ME Trilogy as the Sci-fi, and Star Wars as a Fantasy.

Flat out wrong there.

[Seival]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Seival wrote...

Disagree. You are talking about conventional victory, which is not possible. I strongly believe that any type of conventional victory can only ruin ME Trilogy artistic value.

Just like conventional victories ruined the art in ME1, 2, and the other parts of 3?  You know the true art of the games--all those other touching meaningful stories, totally ruined because people actually fired real weapons and didn't use imaginary devices that transparent god boy AIs said would help the reapers (him) and not help the galaxy.

Really?  Just whose artistic vision exists in the end of ME3?  The person that wrote the Babylon 5 ending of Chaos and Order?  Or whoever wrote the Deus ex game ending?  Or the Matrix Revolutions writer?  Or the fans that helped to write the EC by speculating what the original endings hopefully wouldn't mean?  You know why Joker would ever run away--oh yeah that's right someone on here said that he was doing a crash test of a relay and it would be in the EC, I forgot. 

Since Joker and Garrus leaving even when ordered still makes very little sense I think the art in that is like a ****** painting.

But since the catalyst in a dream or outside of a dream is the only one that knows what the crucible is, doesn't get the reapers to destroy it, and the choices that are a part of the citadel, his home all solve his problem the whole dream is more like a real hallucination.

ME1 and ME2 were not ending of the story. Middle-quests don't require epic non-conventional victories. And I can only consider  ME1+ME2+ME3 as one persistent game.

[Seival]

Grimwick wrote...

Seival wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Seival wrote...

maaaze wrote...
there was no lift? What do you mean? than how did he get there?

But I agree that the lift is also a symbol.

it symbolises the combined effort and sacrifices of this and all the previous Cycles that made it possible to take Shaperd to a place from where you can end the cycle. their combined strenght literally lifted Shaperd up to where he could win.

I meant that the "lift" was as symbolical as "control rods", "glass tube", and "pillar of light". And everything starting from the "lift" and till the end of conversation with the original Catalist was a "dream sequence", a way in which the original Catalist prefered to communicate with Shepard - mentally, not physically...

...So, Shepard mentally tells the Catalist about her decision (touching control rods in the dream for example), then the Catalist itself triggers the explosion, and allows the explosion to have the effect, chosen by Shepard.



Welcome to the Deus Ex Machina ending concept. Conventional victory is not possible. And that's why ME Trilogy ending is really brilliant.

Ok exactly where in ME 1-3 did the story stop being about real events that occurred within the ME universe and start being about symbolism and fantasy and be totally replaced with magical events?  I didn't get the DLC for that for ME1 and 2 and the beginning of 3.

Sci-fi story never tells about real events actually. It always tell about some possible events and rise some important phylosophical questions. Unlike fantasy, true sci-fi is always symbolical. And fantasy is actually all about action or adventure. That's why I consider ME Trilogy as the Sci-fi, and Star Wars as a Fantasy.

Flat out wrong there.

You should learn more about what sci-fi really is. It's not just a setting with spaceships and lasers. Star Wars is a fantasy, not sci-fi, because it's just an adventure without any philosophical questions. And games like ME Trilogy, or DE:HR are sci-fi.

Modifié par Seival, 27 juillet 2012 - 11:02 .

[Xandurpein]

Seival wrote...

Sci-fi story never tells about real events actually. It always tell about some possible events and rise some important phylosophical questions. Unlike fantasy, true sci-fi is always symbolical. And fantasy is actually all about action or adventure. That's why I consider ME Trilogy as the Sci-fi, and Star Wars as a Fantasy.

Traditionally both Fantasy and traditional Science Fiction are symbolical. The difference is that Science fiction usually speculates about society and, as the name implies, about the impact of technology on society, while Fantasy is closer to myths and symbolizes personal, psychological development.

Today these boundaries hardly exist anymore. Space Opera is usually the term for SF stories more resembling myths and traditional fantasy, but set in a futuristic environment, like Star Wars. There are also Fantasy-themed storeis that specualtes about "what if" scenarios in societies, rather than mythical subjects.

Edit: One of the notable difference between Science fiction and Fantasy is that Science Fiction relies solely on non-supernatural explanations, while Fantasy includes magic and supernatural explanations. You could argue that they tried to change Star Wars from Fantasy to Science Fiction with the introduction of the midi-chlorians, although it would still be Space Opera.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 27 juillet 2012 - 11:17 .

[Ang3l o Xn6]

the crucible make nosense same as the catalyst so what are you arguing for ?

[wright1978]

Nope the crucible was clearly designed to destroy. Catalyst offers 2 means of changing the nature of the beam to Synthesis or control.

[tyrvas]

Seival wrote...

tyrvas wrote...

Seival wrote...

tyrvas wrote...

what about this...

tyrvas wrote...

IMO

Catalyst for Peace = Super Computer Brain (AI), built as part of the Citadel.
Creators add 2 failsafes to Catalyst for Peace,
Override Switch = Control
Shut Down / Kill Switch = Destroy

1) Catalyst was programmed to find a Solution to the organic/synthetic problem,
It's best solution upto now... Harvesting the Galaxy every 50,000 years or so.

2) Catalyst was not programmed to Override itself or Destroy itself.
Only organics can use the failsafes, Catalyst says so, it cannot make
the changes only Shepard can.

Now Catalyst says his been changed because of the Crucible and Shepard.
In other words it has been HACKED, and offers Shepard the availabe options.

Shep can, Destroy, Control or try out one of the Catalyst previously failed solutions Synthesis,
which the Catalyst says is the final evolution BUT it had tried it before and FAILED....

Disagree. You are talking about conventional victory, which is not possible. I strongly believe that any type of conventional victory can only ruin ME Trilogy artistic value.

OK, but I am not talking about conventional victory.
I was just explaining IMO why the RGB options are there.
I did not add refuse because we know the outcome, FLAWED cycle continues.

Well, I can consider successful hack attempt only as a conventional victory. But this is just my opinion.

Simple answer..
It is only successful depending on the choice you make.
The Crucible is doing it's job & the Citadel Relay AI is waiting for your reply.

Remember you still have the 4th option, Refuse = SO BE IT!, which has three variants;

i)  Refuse all available options = SO BE IT!!
Ii) Shoot Catalyst = SO BE IT!
iii)  Do nothing and admire the nice view you have here = SO BE IT!

All three '4th option' variants lead to the continuation of the Catalyst's flawed solution 'the reaper cycle'
with chance that the next organic cycle ends the reaper threat, how they do it, well it's up to them now.
So, again it all depends on you and the choice you've made, and if you feel it was successful.

Modifié par tyrvas, 27 juillet 2012 - 02:09 .

[Mazebook]

Grimwick wrote...

Aaaah maaaze, how I have missed your nonsensical approach to argumentation.

When you say there is no evidence you are flat out wrong - as has been shown in the first page of your post. Your solution to this problem makes far less sense and is frankly counter-current to logic.

if you have nothing to add ... say nothing...thank you.

Modifié par maaaze, 27 juillet 2012 - 03:31 .

[Mazebook]

wright1978 wrote...

Nope the crucible was clearly designed to destroy. Catalyst offers 2 means of changing the nature of the beam to Synthesis or control.

control is also a function of the crucible...why would the catalyst want to be replaced?

It would go against his programming.

Control was always a viable alternativ to destroy if it was possible...the crucible and Shaperd willpower makes this possible.

Modifié par maaaze, 27 juillet 2012 - 02:40 .

[tyrvas]

maaaze wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Nope the crucible was clearly designed to destroy. Catalyst offers 2 means of changing the nature of the beam to Synthesis or control.

control is also a function of the crucible...why would the catalyst want to be replaced?

It would go against his programming.

Control was always a viable alternativ to destroy if it was possible...the crucible and Shepard makes this possible.

had to edit your last sentence, hope you don't mind.
Shepard has the will/mind power to override the catalyst, don't think many others would be capable,
many seem to have tried before and all got indoctrinated to follow the Catalyst Reaper Cycle solution.

[Mazebook]

tyrvas wrote...

maaaze wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Nope the crucible was clearly designed to destroy. Catalyst offers 2 means of changing the nature of the beam to Synthesis or control.

control is also a function of the crucible...why would the catalyst want to be replaced?

It would go against his programming.

Control was always a viable alternativ to destroy if it was possible...the crucible and Shepard makes this possible.

had to edit your last sentence, hope you don't mind.
Shepard has the will/mind power to override the catalyst, don't think many others would be capable,
many seem to have tried before and all got indoctrinated to follow the Catalyst Reaper Cycle solution.

Thanks...you are correct...
will edit my post.

[elitehunter34]

elitehunter34 wrote...

Maaze you're initial premise wrong. The control and destroy apparatuses did not come from the Crucible. Synthesis is simply the beam down the middle. When the Crucible docked you can see that these apparatuses weren't on the Crucible, so they had to come from the Citadel. The Crucible allows these options to happen, but it didn't create them. Look at this part. The Crucible is on the top and the rest are on the bottom. There is no way these apparatuses came from the Crucible.

If this is true than this means that the these apparatuses were built into the Citadel. The Citadel was created by the Reapers. The Reapers created the Citadel and the Mass Relays as stated in Mass Effect 1. We have no proof to suggest otherwise. This means that the apparatuses were put on the Citadel at some point in time by someone and the Reapers didn't notice, care, or bizarrely put them in themselves.  Because of this, this means that the Crucible did not create them, it only powers them.  Whether or not the Catalyst created them is unknown.

Perhaps this isn't what the writers intended, but this is what it looks like. Until proven otherwise this is what we have to believe. You cannot ignore visual evidence and there is no other direct evidence that proves otherwise.

maaze since you still haven't addressed my posts I'm just going to quote a modified version (added some stuff to improve clarity) of my post so you can see it.

[Mazebook]

elitehunter34 wrote...

elitehunter34 wrote...

Maaze you're initial premise wrong. The control and destroy apparatuses did not come from the Crucible. Synthesis is simply the beam down the middle. When the Crucible docked you can see that these apparatuses weren't on the Crucible, so they had to come from the Citadel. The Crucible allows these options to happen, but it didn't create them. Look at this part. The Crucible is on the top and the rest are on the bottom. There is no way these apparatuses came from the Crucible.

If this is true than this means that the these apparatuses were built into the Citadel. The Citadel was created by the Reapers. The Reapers created the Citadel and the Mass Relays as stated in Mass Effect 1. We have no proof to suggest otherwise. This means that the apparatuses were put on the Citadel at some point in time by someone and the Reapers didn't notice, care, or bizarrely put them in themselves.  Because of this, this means that the Crucible did not create them, it only powers them.  Whether or not the Catalyst created them is unknown.

Perhaps this isn't what the writers intended, but this is what it looks like. Until proven otherwise this is what we have to believe. You cannot ignore visual evidence and there is no other direct evidence that proves otherwise.

maaze since you still haven't addressed my posts I'm just going to quote a modified version (added some stuff to improve clarity) of my post so you can see it.

thank you...I thought I adressed this already in another reply (not from you but someelse who basicly said the same thing)...but i will try to formulate a clearer response that caters to your reasoning.

Maaze you're initial premise wrong. The control and destroy apparatuses did not come from the Crucible. Synthesis is simply the beam down the middle. When the Crucible docked you can see that these apparatuses weren't on the Crucible, so they had to come from the Citadel. The Crucible allows these options to happen, but it didn't create them. Look at this part. The Crucible is on the top and the rest are on the bottom. There is no way these apparatuses came from the Crucible. 

I never argued that the trigger mechanism were on the crucible. They are not.

These triggers are ether repurposed meachnism of the Citadel that had originally different purposes.

[for example : the tube could just be designed to transport unused energy to be taken some where else on the citadel...however, if you shoot that tube the explosive energy causes a chain reaction with the beam that results in energy wave that is leathal to synthetics. If you want, I can make similar examples for control and synthesis.]

Or [like tyrvas pointed out]  these mechanisms were set in place by the original creators of the catalyst as a failsave.

These arguements are backed up by the statement that the crucible is adaptive. meaning it uses parts of the citadel to fullfill its design.

Ether way...there is no evidence that the Catalyst set up these mechanisms.

And I remind you ...Mechanism he himself can not activate...and he still produces even if Synthesis is not possible.

If this is true than this means that the these apparatuses were built into the Citadel. The Citadel was created by the Reapers. The Reapers created the Citadel and the Mass Relays as stated in Mass Effect 1. We have no proof to suggest otherwise. This means that the apparatuses were put on the Citadel at some point in time by someone and the Reapers didn't notice, care, or bizarrely put them in themselves.  Because of this, this means that the Crucible did not create them, it only powers them.  Whether or not the Catalyst created them is unknown.

The only time it is suggested that the citadel was truly build by the reapers, is when Soverign says...that they relay on technology they created and build by them.

This goes against the Idea that the creators of the catalyst set up a failsave.
we don´t know if he was simply told that they had build it or if he himself was the first reaper.

If he was the first reaper than he was part of the creator of the Catalyst. which means he could have put failsaves in place before he became a reaper.

If not, he could just assume this (or be told by the first reaper) and truly believes it because being a reaper makes your selfreflection entirly based on superiority and therefore concludes that they build these things themself.

I admit i have no real evidance to back this up...but it is in the realm of possibilty...to much about the reapers is still unknown.

My own Idea that these things were just repurposed still stands and is backed up by the adaptive statement.

Perhaps this isn't what the writers intended, but this is what it looks like. Until proven otherwise this is what we have to believe. You cannot ignore visual evidence and there is no other direct evidence that proves
otherwise.

I hope i could make it clear that i don´t ignore these visual evidence. I incorparte them into my arguement.

nevertheless it is always fun to argue with you. 

[edited for clarity]

Modifié par maaaze, 27 juillet 2012 - 03:45 .

[elitehunter34]

maaaze wrote...
I never argued that the trigger mechanism were on the crucible. They are not.

These triggers are ether repurposed meachnism of the Citadel that had originally different purposes.

[for example : the tube could just be designed to transport unused energy to be taken some where else on the citadel...however, if you shoot that tube the explosive energy causes a chain reaction with the beam that results in energy wave that is leathal to synthetics. If you want, I can make similar examples for control and synthesis.]

Or [like tyrvas pointed out]  these mechanisms were set in place by the original creators of the catalyst as a failsave.

These arguements are backed up by the statement that the crucible is adaptive. meaning it uses parts of the citadel to fullfill its design.

Ether way...there is no evidence that the Catalyst set up these mechanisms.

And I remind you ...Mechanism he himself can not activate...and he still produces even if Synthesis is not possible.

Yes I understand but what i was getting at is that in your OP you say "these option originate from the Crucible and its designers."  That is not true.  I think you should change it to something along the lines of  "The apparatuses of Destroy and Control are repurposed by the Crucible to perform what they do in the endings," because this is actually what you seem to be trying to say to me in your reply to my post:  "[for example : the tube could just be designed to transport unused energy to be taken some where else on the citadel...however, if you shoot that tube the explosive energy causes a chain reaction with the beam that results in energy wave that is leathal to synthetics. If you want, I can make similar examples for control and synthesis.]"

Modifié par elitehunter34, 27 juillet 2012 - 03:58 .

[tyrvas]

elitehunter34 wrote...

elitehunter34 wrote...

Maaze you're initial premise wrong. The control and destroy apparatuses did not come from the Crucible. Synthesis is simply the beam down the middle. When the Crucible docked you can see that these apparatuses weren't on the Crucible, so they had to come from the Citadel. The Crucible allows these options to happen, but it didn't create them. Look at this part. The Crucible is on the top and the rest are on the bottom. There is no way these apparatuses came from the Crucible.

If this is true than this means that the these apparatuses were built into the Citadel. The Citadel was created by the Reapers. The Reapers created the Citadel and the Mass Relays as stated in Mass Effect 1. We have no proof to suggest otherwise. This means that the apparatuses were put on the Citadel at some point in time by someone and the Reapers didn't notice, care, or bizarrely put them in themselves.  Because of this, this means that the Crucible did not create them, it only powers them.  Whether or not the Catalyst created them is unknown.

Perhaps this isn't what the writers intended, but this is what it looks like. Until proven otherwise this is what we have to believe. You cannot ignore visual evidence and there is no other direct evidence that proves otherwise.

maaze since you still haven't addressed my posts I'm just going to quote a modified version (added some stuff to improve clarity) of my post so you can see it.

The control and destroy apparatuses did not come from the Crucible.
I agree, control & destroy are the original failsafes added to the Catalyst by the Creators.

The Citadel was created by the Reapers.
Original 'reapers' where synthetic representations of the Creators.
Creators built part of (if not all) the Citadel with their 'synthetic reapers' to house the Catalyst of Peace.

Catalyst of Peace, makes goo out of Creators and reaperizes them into the 1st true reaper.
Catalyst solution requires a huge trap, Catalyst  indoctrinates a species to build/repair/maintain the Citadel
and it has millions of years to create the citadel-relay-trap we now know about,

Synthesis is simply the beam down the middle.
The beam down the middle is the power from the Crucible, 
This power beam seems to have changed the Catalyst or so he says, (I believe beam 'hacked' it's system),
allowing it to present the two original options which if done eliminate the Catalyst.
Catalyst then adds the new 'variable' option Synthesis, which in turn is one of it's failed solutions,
but may work only if Shepard becomes part of the beam.
What the Catalyst does here is use the 'hack' to its advantage by presenting his goal Synthesis as an option.

EDIT: just noticed both maaze and your replies....
thanks for the reference maaze.

Modifié par tyrvas, 27 juillet 2012 - 04:06 .

[Mazebook]

elitehunter34 wrote...

maaaze wrote...
I never argued that the trigger mechanism were on the crucible. They are not.

These triggers are ether repurposed meachnism of the Citadel that had originally different purposes.

[for example : the tube could just be designed to transport unused energy to be taken some where else on the citadel...however, if you shoot that tube the explosive energy causes a chain reaction with the beam that results in energy wave that is leathal to synthetics. If you want, I can make similar examples for control and synthesis.]

Or [like tyrvas pointed out]  these mechanisms were set in place by the original creators of the catalyst as a failsave.

These arguements are backed up by the statement that the crucible is adaptive. meaning it uses parts of the citadel to fullfill its design.

Ether way...there is no evidence that the Catalyst set up these mechanisms.

And I remind you ...Mechanism he himself can not activate...and he still produces even if Synthesis is not possible.

Yes I understand but what i was getting at is that in your OP you say "these option originate from the Crucible and its designers."  That is not true.  I think you should change it to something along the lines of  "The apparatuses of Destroy and Control are repurposed by the Crucible to perform what they do in the endings," because this is actually what you seem to be trying to say to me in your reply to my post:  "[for example : the tube could just be designed to transport unused energy to be taken some where else on the citadel...however, if you shoot that tube the explosive energy causes a chain reaction with the beam that results in energy wave that is leathal to synthetics. If you want, I can make similar examples for control and synthesis.]"

well it is ultimatly an arguement about semantics ...because if you repurpose something, you ultimatly changing it´s functions...so you are creating new possiblitys that were not there before...therefore you created these functions.

but you are right...your suggested titel is much clearer but a little to long;). I will edit the OP along these lines.

I have a question for you...do you think this interpretation is valid?
and do you still think that arguement that the Catalyst made these choices is also valid? 

[elitehunter34]

maaaze wrote...
well it is ultimatly an arguement about semantics ...because if you repurpose something, you ultimatly changing it´s functions...so you are creating new possiblitys that were not there before...therefore you created these functions.

but you are right...your suggested titel is much clearer but a little to long;). I will edit the OP along these lines.

I have a question for you...do you think this interpretation is valid?
and do you still think that arguement that the Catalyst made these choices is also valid? 

Well there really is no reason to believe that the Catalyst created them.  Control and Destroy are the antithesis of his goals.  I don't think that the interpretation that the Catalyst made the choices is valid.  It just doesn't make any sense why he would make Destroy or Control.

Personally, I still think there are many, many problems with the Crucible and the Catalyst and the ending in general, but this particular issue isn't one of them.  A lot of the people who don't like the endings focus on the wrong things and make a lot of bad arguments.

[Mazebook]

UPDATED OP.

Offtopic :

elitehunter34 wrote...

maaaze wrote...
well it is ultimatly an arguement about semantics ...because if you repurpose something, you ultimatly changing it´s functions...so you are creating new possiblitys that were not there before...therefore you created these functions.

but you are right...your suggested titel is much clearer but a little to long. I will edit the OP along these lines.

I have a question for you...do you think this interpretation is valid?
and do you still think that arguement that the Catalyst made these choices is also valid?

Well there really is no reason to believe that the Catalyst created them. Control and Destroy are the antithesis of his goals. I don't think that the interpretation that the Catalyst made the choices is valid. It just doesn't make any sense why he would make Destroy or Control.

Personally, I still think there are many, many problems with the Crucible and the Catalyst and the ending in general, but this particular issue isn't one of them. A lot of the people who don't like the endings focus on the wrong things and make a lot of bad arguments.

I agree that the ending is not flawless...but i think the flaws are subjective and not as general as many people claim it to be.

Modifié par maaaze, 27 juillet 2012 - 04:42 .

[TheRealJayDee]

maaaze wrote...

I can back up my arguement. Others failed to deliver a compelling arguement against this.

That so?

[Mazebook]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

maaaze wrote...

I can back up my arguement. Others failed to deliver a compelling arguement against this.

That so?

feel free to leave your arguement why you think the catalyst created these choises here.

[3DandBeyond]

maaaze wrote...

TheRealJayDee wrote...

maaaze wrote...

I can back up my arguement. Others failed to deliver a compelling arguement against this.

That so?

feel free to leave your arguement why you think the catalyst created these choises here.

Why when it's been done repeatedly and you have yet to provide any proof independent of what the kid says that shows otherwise.  Again, prove that the choices were created by someone else without using anything the kid says.  Prove that someone knows or that somewhere else there is info that shows somebody else created the choices.

[Mazebook]

3DandBeyond wrote...

maaaze wrote...

TheRealJayDee wrote...

maaaze wrote...

I can back up my arguement. Others failed to deliver a compelling arguement against this.

That so?

feel free to leave your arguement why you think the catalyst created these choises here.

Why when it's been done repeatedly and you have yet to provide any proof independent of what the kid says that shows otherwise.  Again, prove that the choices were created by someone else without using anything the kid says.  Prove that someone knows or that somewhere else there is info that shows somebody else created the choices.

Show me one piece of evidence that is not cluttered with personal opinion how the ending makes no sense.

It makes no sense because your interpretation makes no sense.
In makes NO sense that the Catalyst created Destroy or Control...that these are his choices.
and  nowhere in the Game it is suggested that these are his choices.

Not only that...but there is a ton of evidence that these are not his choices!

I will not again repeat them all...read my responses on by one.

and then, if you like..give me one piece of evidence to the contrairy that is not cluttered with...oh the ending makes no sense...nonsense.

[3DandBeyond]

maaaze wrote...

Show me one piece of evidence that is not cluttered with personal opinion how the ending makes no sense.

It makes no sense because your interpretation makes no sense.
In makes NO sense that the Catalyst created Destroy or Control...that these are his choices.
and  nowhere in the Game it is suggested that these are his choices.

Not only that...but there is a ton of evidence that these are not his choices!

I will not again repeat them all...read my responses on by one.

and then, if you like..give me one piece of evidence to the contrairy that is not cluttered with...oh the ending makes no sense...nonsense.

This is what you constantly do.  I have along with others repeatedly given you explanation.  All you come back with is it makes no sense.

I have asked you several times to provide proof in the game that anyone other than the kid can authenticate what the citadel/crucible do.

It is irrelevant and not proof to say that the choices are real because he says one is destroy and one is control and he would not make them.  He is telling you they are destroy and control, but you have no proof they are.

Again, provide proof other than what the kid says that shows the choices were not made by the kid.

You say there's evidence but have not provided it ever.  Anything based on what the kid says is not proof.


My proof is there is no one other than the kid that knows what the choices will do or that knows they exist.  They are in his house, a place that is a part of him.  This is enough evidence to make them suspect.  And that's enough.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 27 juillet 2012 - 08:16 .