303 réponses à ce sujet

[v TricKy v]

Stornskar wrote...

XqctaX wrote...

lots of headcanon and speculation presented as facts....
*slowly backing out of this thread*

It's not headcanon, we're using dialogue straight from the game. For instance, I think the "fire is not at war" analogy to be ridiculous, considering Sovereign says they are each a nation, independent and then the Catalyst says:

Starbrat says ...
Perhaps, I control the Reapers. They are my solution

So tell them to stop killing people for a few hours and let's talk ... if he controls them, then why does he have no control over what to do next? If we're making a decision of galactic significance, I want as much information as I can possibly get. Let's call a cease fire and talk things over. And on that note, when Shepard asks who designed the Crucible, we get:

Starbrat says ...
You would not know them, and there is not enough time to explain

WHAT??? The harvesting takes nearly a century, right? Is there a self destruct sequence that has been activated that we don't know about? What's the hurry here, again we're making decisions on a galactic scale and we're just supposed to believe that 1) we don't have time to discuss it, which means we have to 2) just take starbrat's word on everything

Regarding the Crucible's function:

Starbrat says ...

The device that you know as the Crucible is little more than a power source. It's crude, but effective and adaptive in its design

This is the kicker, and why the EC (in my mind) created more questions than it answered - I'll go back to my previous posts in this topic. A battery is interchangable - I can take a motor and provide it power by any number of means as long as those means bring electrons from one side to the other. Changing the battery does not change a motor into a light source. Energy source provides power, the device provides the functionality. This is where we keep being told to use common sense, or listen more closely to what he is saying and pay attention to context ... the point is, we ARE and when we do it makes even less sense

I think you destroyed this thread. There is nothing more to say

[Mazebook]

v TricKy v wrote...


I think you destroyed this thread. There is nothing more to say

yes, talking about things unrelated to this thread destroys it.

It speaks volume that the haters can´t stay on topic and always have to make a diversion.

bunch of hypocrites.

Modifié par maaaze, 26 juillet 2012 - 03:54 .

[davidshooter]

The ending is a disconnected series of images and ideas that the lead writer thought cool. They are naive and ill-conceived. Taken together they are inconsistent and nonsensical. Attempting to make sense of this mess is not worth anyone's time.

[Memnon]

maaaze wrote...

v TricKy v wrote...


I think you destroyed this thread. There is nothing more to say

yes, talking about things unrelated to this thread destroys it.

It speaks volume that the haters can´t stay on topic and always have to make a diversion.

bunch of hypocrites.

I take issue with the term 'hater' though you are free to say whatever you want. I don't hate the game nor Bioware, I hate the endings, and no amount of explanation will change that. You know why it bothers us (well me) so much? Because I am one of the biggest fanboys of Bioware and Mass Effect that there is - I've been an avid fan since 98 in the Baldur's Gate days. I own every Bioware game made since then, most of them collectors editions, and I even have items from the BW store - I preorder everything. I have been the epitome of "take my money" with Bioware for a decade and a half! So I am not some random jerk who just likes to complain about things because I like the sound of ... er, the style of my own text. Mass Effect as a series is beloved by me, and I don't feel the ending - specifically the Catalyst - is worthy of the Mass Effect standard. That is why I am irritated, and that's why I find these half-hearted attempts to defend them irritating. If people like the endings, fine - if they love synthesis, okay ... but don't try to tell me the ending wasn't rushed and sloppy, and doesn't make sense. I'm not buying it ...

[comrade gando]

I dont buy this whole situation. Why does the catalyst smile when you pick control. Is he happy you picked it?

[Humakt83]

maaaze wrote...

v TricKy v wrote...


I think you destroyed this thread. There is nothing more to say

yes, talking about things unrelated to this thread destroys it.

It speaks volume that the haters can´t stay on topic and always have to make a diversion.

bunch of hypocrites.

Call me a hater, will you?

On the contrary I think Catalyst conversation was actually quite clever and made a nice enigma.

[Mazebook]

Humakt83 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

v TricKy v wrote...


I think you destroyed this thread. There is nothing more to say

yes, talking about things unrelated to this thread destroys it.

It speaks volume that the haters can´t stay on topic and always have to make a diversion.

bunch of hypocrites.

Call me a hater, will you?

On the contrary I think Catalyst conversation was actually quite clever and made a nice enigma.

i did not speak to anyone specifically... i was talking about argueing through diversion...motivated by hating.

[Shaigunjoe]

Stornskar wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

If you don't want to believe the catalyst when it said the crucible changed him, why believe it when it says it is mearly a power source?

I think we're mixing arguments here - you have to make an assumption before you go down one road or the other. For the sake of argument, I think we're assuming the Catalyst is not lying ... so the Crucible is a power source, etc. But with that assumption in mind, it makes absolutely no sense why these options exist or how they exist, or how the original designers of the Crucible knew how to design the interface. I mean ... why do you have to SHOOT a tube to execute the destroy option? When I'm designing control interfaces I generally tend to provide operators options that don't explode when you interact with them ...

Well, that makes more sense than whoever I quoted, where it sounded like, fact: crucible is a power source because the catalyst says so.  fact: the catalyst lies.  It was like one of those old logical conundrums you use to outsmart a robot in star trek.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 26 juillet 2012 - 04:07 .

[Uncle Jo]

maaaze wrote...

i did not speak to anyone specifically... i was talking about argueing through diversion...motivated by hating.

So anyone who doesn't agree with you is a hater?

[davidshooter]

maaaze wrote...


yes, talking about things unrelated to this thread destroys it.

It speaks volume that the haters can´t stay on topic and always have to make a diversion.

bunch of hypocrites.

So let me get this straight,

you start a thread on whether the final choices originate from the Crucible or the Catalyst.

Someone replies with actual quotes from the Cataylst speaking of the Crucible.

He then comments on what he thinks they mean and why he thinks there is a problem.

And you reply it's a diversion?

LOL!

[Mazebook]

Uncle Jo wrote...

maaaze wrote...

i did not speak to anyone specifically... i was talking about argueing through diversion...motivated by hating.

So anyone who doesn't agree with you is a hater?

no! where did i say that?

[AresKeith]

davidshooter wrote...

maaaze wrote...


yes, talking about things unrelated to this thread destroys it.

It speaks volume that the haters can´t stay on topic and always have to make a diversion.

bunch of hypocrites.

So let me get this straight,

you start a thread on whether the final choices originate from the Crucible or the Catalyst.

Someone replies with actual quotes from the Cataylst speaking of the Crucible.

He then comments on what he thinks they mean and why he thinks there is a problem.

And you reply it's a diversion?

LOL!

I guess he's one of those people where he's always right and were wrong

[3DandBeyond]

maaaze wrote...

v TricKy v wrote...


I think you destroyed this thread. There is nothing more to say

yes, talking about things unrelated to this thread destroys it.

It speaks volume that the haters can´t stay on topic and always have to make a diversion.

bunch of hypocrites.

Ok I may have missed it but this is the very essence of hypocrisy.  You have as yet not addressed one single thing anyone has said in rebuttal to your assertions. 

If the kid is 100% believable and says the crucible is merely a power source then how can it change everyone's "DNA"?

If it can change the "DNA" and can allow Shepard to control the reapers, then it cannot be merely a power source and the kid is not 100% credible.

That's not hating anyone.  People have put a lot of effort into explaining things and all you can say is they are haters because they explain their reasons and not just opinions. 

You threw out an idea.  Your opinion.  It is up to you to prove your idea.  Others have state why they see it as wrong.  You could at least act like you want to have a discussion and add more to this than just your opinions.  That's not proof of your idea.

[SubAstris]

comrade gando wrote...

I dont buy this whole situation. Why does the catalyst smile when you pick control. Is he happy you picked it?

How do you know he smiles? You can't really tell if you just play the game

[3DandBeyond]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

If you don't want to believe the catalyst when it said the crucible changed him, why believe it when it says it is mearly a power source?

I think we're mixing arguments here - you have to make an assumption before you go down one road or the other. For the sake of argument, I think we're assuming the Catalyst is not lying ... so the Crucible is a power source, etc. But with that assumption in mind, it makes absolutely no sense why these options exist or how they exist, or how the original designers of the Crucible knew how to design the interface. I mean ... why do you have to SHOOT a tube to execute the destroy option? When I'm designing control interfaces I generally tend to provide operators options that don't explode when you interact with them ...

Well, that makes more sense than whoever I quoted, where it sounded like, fact: crucible is a power source because the catalyst says so.  fact: the catalyst lies.  It was like one of those old logical conundrums you use to outsmart a robot in star trek.

You quoted, no you paraphrased what I said and cherry picked what I said.  You ignored the rest of my statement.  I even further clarified and repeated what I said and you've ignored that.  And in saying the catalyst lies you are in fact agreeing with me.  I've said that repeatedly.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 26 juillet 2012 - 04:40 .

[Mazebook]

 

davidshooter wrote...

maaaze wrote...


yes, talking about things unrelated to this thread destroys it.

It speaks volume that the haters can´t stay on topic and always have to make a diversion.

bunch of hypocrites.

So let me get this straight,

you start a thread on whether the final choices originate from the Crucible or the Catalyst.

Someone replies with actual quotes from the Cataylst speaking of the Crucible. 

He then comments on what he thinks they mean and why he thinks there is a problem.

And you reply it's a diversion?

LOL!

 

No...these are diversions.

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

So the Crucible designers added a feature that somehow transcends known (for mass effect and reality) science and somehow transformers every organic in the galaxy into a hybrids, fixes their defects, like the genophage, and is also complex enough to be able to reprogram every know type of synthetic into understanding organics. I don't think so.

You are not alone, I think that this forum came throught that same circle atleast dozen times, but there is certain groups which wish to return to same nonsense again - once is not enough... 
 
Just a presence of Catalyst disproving relevance of previous two games and here we go again... Leave my CATALYST ALONE !

...It´s not thing you can comperhend...

Bathaius wrote...

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

v TricKy v wrote...

So he holds the cards. You can only end it the ways he presented you. He doesnt let you explore it further. Maybe there is an other possibility which he didnt mentioned? You have to take his word that there is nothing more to it.

Exactly. If synthesis is possible, magic is possible. A magical beam that ONLY destroys or disables Reapers is possible.

But that's not on the table. To destroy them, you have to destroy every synthetic life form. After two games building them up as a form of life just as valid as organic life. That sucks. And the other choices are worse.

They really wanted bittersweet for the ending.  I think for some Shepards who chose not to recognize synthetics are 'living', the destroy choice is easy.  For most of us, that choice is very, very hard.

I don't personally 'like' the choices we were given (I prefer happy endings), but my only qualm is how they are presented (through only one source, the same source who created the Reapers and likely indocrinated the Illusive Man).

In the end though, you can either choose to trust the catalyst (and pick a choice) or refuse (and have a future cycle win), so at least there is some sweet in the bitter.  I border on choosing Control (if I assume the catalyst is truthful) or refuse.  Refuse feels more logical to me to pick, but I prefer the resolution Control brings (if I metagame it).

 

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

D24O wrote...
Yeah, I'm pretty much in accordance with you. If they had made the Catalyst a more neutral party, instead of the avatar of the reapers, it would be much easier to make a more rational choice, not one based off the hatred of your enemy, and IMO it would've been much better recieved.

I still would've picked destroy. Why? Because the Reapers are the problem. They are a problem every 50K years, give or take.

Synthetics can't hold a candle to that. So the Reapers gotta go.

 

jasonxxsatanna wrote...

For me I always thought the star brat was either a rouge AI , if IT was not true, but any way maybe BW should have made the star child take on 3 different appearances based on your choices from the game , either looking like your love interest, your enemy, like Saren, or a buddy / supervisor maybe Anderson, Hackett ,I think it would have made the whole ending easier to stomach

 

and many more replies that have nothing to do with the thread.

Modifié par maaaze, 26 juillet 2012 - 04:42 .

[Shaigunjoe]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

If you don't want to believe the catalyst when it said the crucible changed him, why believe it when it says it is mearly a power source?

I think we're mixing arguments here - you have to make an assumption before you go down one road or the other. For the sake of argument, I think we're assuming the Catalyst is not lying ... so the Crucible is a power source, etc. But with that assumption in mind, it makes absolutely no sense why these options exist or how they exist, or how the original designers of the Crucible knew how to design the interface. I mean ... why do you have to SHOOT a tube to execute the destroy option? When I'm designing control interfaces I generally tend to provide operators options that don't explode when you interact with them ...

Well, that makes more sense than whoever I quoted, where it sounded like, fact: crucible is a power source because the catalyst says so.  fact: the catalyst lies.  It was like one of those old logical conundrums you use to outsmart a robot in star trek.

You quoted me and cherry picked what I said.  You ignored the rest of my statement.  I even further clarified and repeated what I said and you've ignored that.  And in saying the catalyst lies you are in fact agreeing with me.  I've said that repeatedly.

Oh the irony of cherry picking.

[3DandBeyond]

maaaze wrote...

--snipped

replies that have nothing to do with the thread.

Well you created the thread.  It is therefore up to you to maintain the topic by actually having a discussion about what people state.  Others may wander off topic because you aren't addressing what they say.  Sorry, but you just keep coming back to "that's my opinion.  I'm entitled to it."  Please discuss what people have said in response to your opinions.

[Applepie_Svk]

Uncle Jo wrote...

maaaze wrote...

i did not speak to anyone specifically... i was talking about argueing through diversion...motivated by hating.

So anyone who doesn't agree with you is a hater?

Look here - 
http://social.biowar...1355/4#13333650 

[3DandBeyond]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Oh the irony of cherry picking.

The discussion in another thread is of no import here.

[Mazebook]

3DandBeyond wrote...

maaaze wrote...

v TricKy v wrote...


I think you destroyed this thread. There is nothing more to say

yes, talking about things unrelated to this thread destroys it.

It speaks volume that the haters can´t stay on topic and always have to make a diversion.

bunch of hypocrites.

Ok I may have missed it but this is the very essence of hypocrisy.  You have as yet not addressed one single thing anyone has said in rebuttal to your assertions. 

If the kid is 100% believable and says the crucible is merely a power source then how can it change everyone's "DNA"?

If it can change the "DNA" and can allow Shepard to control the reapers, then it cannot be merely a power source and the kid is not 100% credible.

That's not hating anyone.  People have put a lot of effort into explaining things and all you can say is they are haters because they explain their reasons and not just opinions. 

You threw out an idea.  Your opinion.  It is up to you to prove your idea.  Others have state why they see it as wrong.  You could at least act like you want to have a discussion and add more to this than just your opinions.  That's not proof of your idea.

No they are stating things that are just not true... like it is just a power source...which it is not...it is a little more than that...even more in combination with the citadel.

if people would stop making stuff up...this discussion would be much less confussing.

Modifié par maaaze, 26 juillet 2012 - 04:47 .

[Shaigunjoe]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Oh the irony of cherry picking.

The discussion in another thread is of no import here.

Not what I was referring to.

[elitehunter34]

Maaze are you going to complain about the people who are off topic or are you going to address the people who address your argument? I raised some counterpoints and you have yet to address it, yet you are complaining about people going off topic. I sincerely hope you aren't just ignoring those who have addressed your points.

[Mazebook]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

maaaze wrote...

i did not speak to anyone specifically... i was talking about argueing through diversion...motivated by hating.

So anyone who doesn't agree with you is a hater?

Look here - 
http://social.biowar...1355/4#13333650 

how nice of you bringing things constantly out of context...you sir are a blight.

[davidshooter]

maaaze wrote...

 

davidshooter wrote...

maaaze wrote...


yes, talking about things unrelated to this thread destroys it.

It speaks volume that the haters can´t stay on topic and always have to make a diversion.

bunch of hypocrites.

So let me get this straight,

you start a thread on whether the final choices originate from the Crucible or the Catalyst.

Someone replies with actual quotes from the Cataylst speaking of the Crucible. 

He then comments on what he thinks they mean and why he thinks there is a problem.

And you reply it's a diversion?

LOL!

 

No...these are diversions.

You didn't quote those posts when you made your comment about diversions.

You quoted the post I described.

Nice try at ..................a diversion though.