80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Dwailing]

spotlessvoid wrote...

" The point is that the Reapers are wrong and can't control Shepard. How is that particularly bad? Ifind it impressive."

I find it trite and childish. Invincible Shepard...pointless and stupid. So Shepard can fail spectacularly in the suicide mission, but not the end?

Turns Shepard into a bit of a Marty Stu/Mary Sue, doesn't it?

[Xilizhra]

It seems to be perfectly able to turn off the beam, turn on the elevator, close the arms in control etc... So it does have control over citadel functions.

To an extent, but it couldn't close the arms by itself before; it had to have the Reapers do so for it. It also doesn't seem inclined to do anything to help the Reapers in ME1. All in all, I think it only acts on the Citadel for actions related directly to Shepard, and either finding a new solution or failing to do so.

I find it trite and childish. Invincible Shepard...pointless and stupid. So Shepard can fail spectacularly in the suicide mission, but not the end?

Of course you can fail spectacularly in the end. It's called critical mission failure.

[Rifneno]

spotlessvoid wrote...

" The Catalyst is like astock trading/managing computer: it can run and control many important things on its own, but can't physically affect itself or its hardware."

Then how did such a pathetic thing manage to harvest the Leviathan into the first reaper? Lol

OMG, stop arguing the facts and just accept the awesomeness and perfectness that is synthesis!  </sarcasm>

[Dwailing]

Xilizhra wrote...

It seems to be perfectly able to turn off the beam, turn on the elevator, close the arms in control etc... So it does have control over citadel functions.

To an extent, but it couldn't close the arms by itself before; it had to have the Reapers do so for it. It also doesn't seem inclined to do anything to help the Reapers in ME1. All in all, I think it only acts on the Citadel for actions related directly to Shepard, and either finding a new solution or failing to do so.

Wait, it refuses to help its servants, but it helps Shepard?  Why would it help Shepard?  I mean, if he's so special to it, why does it not tell the Reapers to stop trying to kill him?

Modifié par Dwailing, 11 octobre 2012 - 05:27 .

[Xilizhra]

Dwailing wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

" The point is that the Reapers are wrong and can't control Shepard. How is that particularly bad? Ifind it impressive."

I find it trite and childish. Invincible Shepard...pointless and stupid. So Shepard can fail spectacularly in the suicide mission, but not the end?

Turns Shepard into a bit of a Marty Stu/Mary Sue, doesn't it?

I might buy your desire for protagonist plot integrity if you weren't transparently arguing for the invalidation of all endings aside from your own.

Wait, it refuses to help its servants, but it helps Shepard?  Why would
it help Shepard?  I mean, if he's so special to it, why does it not tell
the Reapers to stop killing him?

Probably because only Shepard's making it to the Catalyst by herself proved her worth enough to show the Catalyst that the cycles would stop working.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 11 octobre 2012 - 05:27 .

[spotlessvoid]

" Of course you can fail spectacularly in the end. It's called critical mission failure."

Your lameness knows no boundaries

[demersel]

masster blaster wrote...

Xil you do realize the Citadel IS a TRAP. Hell in ME1 you find out it's a trap to trap the galactic leader inone spot, and take them out/ get all the info on the current cycle. Ya the Reapers taking the Citadel, and TIM letting Shepard talk to the Prothean VI, ( which TIM could have Destroyed it, oh wait Reapers want to have Shepard, so they set a trap up) and it all doesn't add up if you think literaly.

Actually i think that TIM being indoctrinated is still using shepard as a failsafe - like he planned from the start with the lazarus project - And in any case it was in fact TIM that saved the galaxy, by bringing shepard back from the dead. 

Think about it - why do it at all? Lazarus project base (ME2 openeing) is very telling in that sense - TIM might have suspected that he maybe was compromised. Think about cerberus structure (from ME1 and ME2 codex) - independent cells that have no contact with each other. Each working on some other projects. S(Sometimes those projects even overlap - so if one fails - then there is one with a better solution) - Lazarus was a personal failsafe for TIM (at least in the very beginning, he may have forgotten about it way before the project was completed and shepard was brought back)  

[Dwailing]

Xilizhra wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

" The point is that the Reapers are wrong and can't control Shepard. How is that particularly bad? Ifind it impressive."

I find it trite and childish. Invincible Shepard...pointless and stupid. So Shepard can fail spectacularly in the suicide mission, but not the end?

Turns Shepard into a bit of a Marty Stu/Mary Sue, doesn't it?

I might buy your desire for protagonist plot integrity if you weren't transparently arguing for the invalidation of all endings aside from your own.

Look, I HATE literal Destroy.  I hate ALL the literal endings.  The only reason I support Destroy is because I believe in IT.  THAT'S IT.

And I'm not arguing for the invalidation of all other endings.  We think the other ending choices are just as valid as Destroy.  It's just that they don't lead to victory, at least not for Shepard.

To say that IT would be invalidating the endings other than Destroy would be like saying that the fact that assigning the non-optimal squadmate for one of the tasks in the suicide mission leads to that squadmate dying invalidates the choice to choose that squadmate for the task.

Modifié par Dwailing, 11 octobre 2012 - 05:32 .

[Ithurael]

Xilizhra wrote...

It seems to be perfectly able to turn off the beam, turn on the elevator, close the arms in control etc... So it does have control over citadel functions.

To an extent, but it couldn't close the arms by itself before; it had to have the Reapers do so for it. It also doesn't seem inclined to do anything to help the Reapers in ME1. All in all, I think it only acts on the Citadel for actions related directly to Shepard, and either finding a new solution or failing to do so.

Or - big step here - it didn't open the arms in ME1 because there was a different head writer who was a story writer not a character writer? Maybe?

Or hey, it could just be space magic!

[Rifneno]

Dwailing wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

" The point is that the Reapers are wrong and can't control Shepard. How is that particularly bad? Ifind it impressive."

I find it trite and childish. Invincible Shepard...pointless and stupid. So Shepard can fail spectacularly in the suicide mission, but not the end?

Turns Shepard into a bit of a Marty Stu/Mary Sue, doesn't it?

I might buy your desire for protagonist plot integrity if you weren't transparently arguing for the invalidation of all endings aside from your own.

Look, I HATE literal Destroy.  I hate ALL the literal endings.  The only reason I support Destroy is because I believe in IT.  THAT'S IT.

True story, man.  True story.  All the literal ending are completely revolting.

I guess if I had to take the endings literally, I'd pick control-into-destroy.  Take control then immediately send every last Reaper into the supermassive black hole.

[spotlessvoid]

" Might buy your desire for protagonist plot integrity if you weren't transparently arguing for the invalidation of all endings aside from your own."

Translation: I might try to make sense but I can't do it without getting my feelings hurt over being tricked.

It's not us who wrote the ending. Bioware did. They also wrote the while game. Thus, it's THEM who invalidate control and synthesis

[Ithurael]

Dwailing wrote...

Look, I HATE literal Destroy.  I hate ALL the literal endings.  The only reason I support Destroy is because I believe in IT.  THAT'S IT.

And I'm not arguing for the invalidation of all other endings.  We think the other ending choices are just as valid as Destroy.  It's just that they don't lead to victory, at least not for Shepard.

I am starting to believe that almost all ITers are really anti-enders who may still be in the denial phase. The rest of us are in the barganing or anger phase:wizard:

I can only imagine what would happen if Bioware's next ME was a prequel and they state again that the end of ME was the RGB EC

speculations....

[spotlessvoid]

spotlessvoid wrote...

" Of course you can fail spectacularly in the end. It's called critical mission failure."

Your lameness knows no boundaries

qft

[Xilizhra]

It's not us who wrote the ending. Bioware did. They also wrote the while game. Thus, it's THEM who invalidate control and synthesis

They've invalidated nothing unless they canonize IT. Which they haven't done yet.

Look, I HATE literal Destroy. I hate ALL the literal endings. The only reason I support Destroy is because I believe in IT. THAT'S IT.

And I'm not arguing for the invalidation of all other endings. We think the other ending choices are just as valid as Destroy. It's just that they don't lead to victory, at least not for Shepard.

If all lead to victory, then I'll support IT.

[BatmanTurian]

Ithurael wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

It seems to be perfectly able to turn off the beam, turn on the elevator, close the arms in control etc... So it does have control over citadel functions.

To an extent, but it couldn't close the arms by itself before; it had to have the Reapers do so for it. It also doesn't seem inclined to do anything to help the Reapers in ME1. All in all, I think it only acts on the Citadel for actions related directly to Shepard, and either finding a new solution or failing to do so.

Or - big step here - it didn't open the arms in ME1 because there was a different head writer who was a story writer not a character writer? Maybe?

Or hey, it could just be space magic!

Or, hey, the Catalyst space boy doesn't exist and is a creation of Harbinger, who is a Leviathan Reaper and is actually the orginal AI that the Leviathans mentioned uploaded into its own creation when it harvested the Leviathans. But sure, that's a stretch you'd say, except that Leviathan says the Reapers have perfected what Leviathans could do. Yeah, no way Harbinger could create a dream-like area using your own memories to manipulate you when he's made of Leviathans.

[Dwailing]

Ithurael wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

Look, I HATE literal Destroy.  I hate ALL the literal endings.  The only reason I support Destroy is because I believe in IT.  THAT'S IT.

And I'm not arguing for the invalidation of all other endings.  We think the other ending choices are just as valid as Destroy.  It's just that they don't lead to victory, at least not for Shepard.

I am starting to believe that almost all ITers are really anti-enders who may still be in the denial phase. The rest of us are in the barganing or anger phase:wizard:

I can only imagine what would happen if Bioware's next ME was a prequel and they state again that the end of ME was the RGB EC

speculations....

We're not in denial.  Denial implies, if you ask me, that we are refusing to accept the literal endings because we don't want to.  That's not why we refuse to accept the literal endings.  The reason we refuse to accept the literal endings is because we have a ****-ton of evidence that suggests that the endings are not meant to be taken literally, including at least one quote from BioWare that states that there are elements of Mass Effect 3 that are not meant to be taken literally.

[BatmanTurian]

Xilizhra wrote...

It's not us who wrote the ending. Bioware did. They also wrote the while game. Thus, it's THEM who invalidate control and synthesis

They've invalidated nothing unless they canonize IT. Which they haven't done yet.

Look, I HATE literal Destroy. I hate ALL the literal endings. The only reason I support Destroy is because I believe in IT. THAT'S IT.

And I'm not arguing for the invalidation of all other endings. We think the other ending choices are just as valid as Destroy. It's just that they don't lead to victory, at least not for Shepard.

If all lead to victory, then I'll support IT.

All could lead to victory, but still at a price. That has always been with IT. The point is not to fall into the trap in the first place.

[spotlessvoid]

The Catalyst: Super powerful AI that crushes the galaxy's apex race and turns then into a Reaper


Then later:
"can someone change the tv channel I can't reach the remote

[Rifneno]

Ithurael wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

Look, I HATE literal Destroy.  I hate ALL the literal endings.  The only reason I support Destroy is because I believe in IT.  THAT'S IT.

And I'm not arguing for the invalidation of all other endings.  We think the other ending choices are just as valid as Destroy.  It's just that they don't lead to victory, at least not for Shepard.

I am starting to believe that almost all ITers are really anti-enders who may still be in the denial phase. The rest of us are in the barganing or anger phase:wizard:

I can only imagine what would happen if Bioware's next ME was a prequel and they state again that the end of ME was the RGB EC

speculations....

Here's some speculations: why do people who can't even spell "psychology" keep so grossly misusing the Kübler-Ross model that they might as well be reading off their refrigerator warranty?

[BatmanTurian]

Ithurael wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

Look, I HATE literal Destroy.  I hate ALL the literal endings.  The only reason I support Destroy is because I believe in IT.  THAT'S IT.

And I'm not arguing for the invalidation of all other endings.  We think the other ending choices are just as valid as Destroy.  It's just that they don't lead to victory, at least not for Shepard.

I am starting to believe that almost all ITers are really anti-enders who may still be in the denial phase. The rest of us are in the barganing or anger phase:wizard:

I can only imagine what would happen if Bioware's next ME was a prequel and they state again that the end of ME was the RGB EC

speculations....

how can it be a prequel and then state the end of ME? Prequel would happen before the events of the ME series.

Also it won't be a prequel, because that would be boring, have no humans to sympathize with (unless First Contact, but even then we know the end result), and nobody would buy it.

[spotlessvoid]

" If all lead to victory, then I'll support IT."


Waaaaaahhhhh, but I dont wanna lose

[Dwailing]

Xilizhra wrote...

Look, I HATE literal Destroy. I hate ALL the literal endings. The only reason I support Destroy is because I believe in IT. THAT'S IT.

And I'm not arguing for the invalidation of all other endings. We think the other ending choices are just as valid as Destroy. It's just that they don't lead to victory, at least not for Shepard.

If all lead to victory, then I'll support IT.

It seems as if you're implying that we can change IT just because you don't like it.  We can't.  We can only change IT to react to new evidence, evidence which you have not provided.  See, this isn't just some crazy fan theory that we invented.  This is a crazy possiblity for the endings that the fans developed based on evidence.  There's a big difference.

[BatmanTurian]

spotlessvoid wrote...

The Catalyst: Super powerful AI that crushes the galaxy's apex race and turns then into a Reaper


Then later:
"can someone change the tv channel I can't reach the remote

He got lazy?

" my manservants are busy. Do you mind changing the channel, honored guest?"

[Rifneno]

spotlessvoid wrote...

" If all lead to victory, then I'll support IT."


Waaaaaahhhhh, but I dont wanna lose

Playing a game of monopoly with her would probably end in a news story involving a police helicopter.

[BatmanTurian]

I'm out. Have fun argu- I mean debating.