byne wrote...
So, I'm playing New Vegas, and was talking to Caesar, and he told me that he was the thesis, the NCR is his antithesis, and when he attacks Hoover Dam, there will be Synthesis.
As if I needed another reason to not side with Caesar, he starts spouting off about synthesis.
demersel wrote...
byne wrote...
So, I'm playing New Vegas, and was talking to Caesar, and he told me that he was the thesis, the NCR is his antithesis, and when he attacks Hoover Dam, there will be Synthesis.
As if I needed another reason to not side with Caesar, he starts spouting off about synthesis.
Just stick with House - he's an allright guy.
Modifié par BleedingUranium, 22 novembre 2012 - 02:08 .
Guest_SwobyJ_*
Modifié par SwobyJ, 22 novembre 2012 - 02:10 .
SwobyJ wrote...
Hey everyone.
I've had like one major project due each day lately (...) so I haven't been able to catch up on this thread.
Butttt, in my Psychology class, we were shown an interesting TED talk.
View it in the context of the 'Citadel' actually being a walk through Shepard's mind, and the Catalyst choice being a visualization of both Shepard's, and the player's mental process and reaction to being given choice of such magnitude.
I think this video is VERY important, thematically.
www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html
"When our fears are bounded, we're prudent; we're cautious; we're thoughtful. When our fears are unbounded and overblown, we're reckless, and we're cowardly."
And lol from the comments: "SYNTHESIS ONLY WORKS UP TO A CERTAIN LEVEL."
"Once we make a decision on something, our mind will then synthesise happiness and exaggerate the goodness of the thing we have chosen, therefore making it now appear better than it initially seemed in relation to the things we didn't choose. This then distorts our perception of the happiness values we associate with the outcome of such a decision, which will then lead to future decisions being based upon a distorted perception, therefore not basing future decisions rationally on the natural happiness values that we would have once associated with each outcome. So to conclude, dont be ignorant to this process which goes on in our minds, as it can lead to a wildly distorted perception in which the things we think certain things are so much better than the alternative."
If you're wondering about my point, its that if the Catalyst is Harbinger, he is preying on our 'greatest strength and weakness', hope.
We/Shepard envision a beautiful future regardless of the choice, because EMS = HOPE. It's not a realistic description in any choice (even Destroy, in some ways), but the PLAYER will accept what the game shows, because the player wants *oh so badly* for something good to come out of this trilogy, and Shepard's story.
Even if Shepard may actually be knocked out in rubble on London and the Galactic Fleet is in a big ol' trap. That's the nightmare scenario that both Shepard, and the players, are trying to escape, and Harbinger offers us the 'solution', which really isn't a solution at all. But...its the only way that Harbinger can claim Shepard's mind, if he wants to use it for a Reaper.
SwobyJ wrote...
Sorry, but these comments are so interesting!
"But it´s not lying, it´s a defence to endure the hardness of life. Sometimes the truth is to hard to bear. We are blinded by it, it hurts us. We can´t endure all the truth sometimes, so we have defences to help us settle with reality. If you are an optimist, you would say it leaves you time to find what you want later, if you are pesimistic, it might mean that you conform and lose.
I choose both."
"Watching this video made me question how emotions even work. Emotions are controlled by the limbic system in the brain, it is also known as the “emotional center.” The hypothalamus controls molecules that make you feel happy or unhappy. The brain produces chemicals that are connected with the physiological processes of the body so it can sense what the body is feeling."
"Whoa. This is unsettling.
If we can really be happy when we get what we want, and when we don't get what we want (and i know this myself to be true) then I hope that every person is UNHAPPY forever.
Why? Because if we convinced ourselves that every single thing we didn't get is actually not important and we are happier with the opposite result, then there would be stagnation. What should drive us? Why should we strive for being better persons, better bosses?
This is exactly what every totalitarism system wants, every dictator's dream. A people that will, when faced with fear and force will bend their happiness to protect themselves.
Then, what this means is that unhappy people, those who don't accommodate to circumstances and keep fighting them they will be unhappy and tragic, yes, but they will be the catalyst of change, and of better worlds.
As they say, Ignorance is Bliss. But I made my choice a long time ago; to be unhappy but to maintain my ability to change my surroundings. "
WOW. Put that into the Indoctrination Theory, and you'll see how disturbing the 'Catalyst' is. Final boss, indeed.
Guest_SwobyJ_*
Modifié par SwobyJ, 22 novembre 2012 - 02:22 .
Guest_SwobyJ_*
Rifneno wrote...
SwobyJ wrote...
Sorry, but these comments are so interesting!
"But it´s not lying, it´s a defence to endure the hardness of life. Sometimes the truth is to hard to bear. We are blinded by it, it hurts us. We can´t endure all the truth sometimes, so we have defences to help us settle with reality. If you are an optimist, you would say it leaves you time to find what you want later, if you are pesimistic, it might mean that you conform and lose.
I choose both."
"Watching this video made me question how emotions even work. Emotions are controlled by the limbic system in the brain, it is also known as the “emotional center.” The hypothalamus controls molecules that make you feel happy or unhappy. The brain produces chemicals that are connected with the physiological processes of the body so it can sense what the body is feeling."
"Whoa. This is unsettling.
If we can really be happy when we get what we want, and when we don't get what we want (and i know this myself to be true) then I hope that every person is UNHAPPY forever.
Why? Because if we convinced ourselves that every single thing we didn't get is actually not important and we are happier with the opposite result, then there would be stagnation. What should drive us? Why should we strive for being better persons, better bosses?
This is exactly what every totalitarism system wants, every dictator's dream. A people that will, when faced with fear and force will bend their happiness to protect themselves.
Then, what this means is that unhappy people, those who don't accommodate to circumstances and keep fighting them they will be unhappy and tragic, yes, but they will be the catalyst of change, and of better worlds.
As they say, Ignorance is Bliss. But I made my choice a long time ago; to be unhappy but to maintain my ability to change my surroundings. "
WOW. Put that into the Indoctrination Theory, and you'll see how disturbing the 'Catalyst' is. Final boss, indeed.
No no, you're just reading too much into it. It's bad writing. </cro-magnon>
Guest_SwobyJ_*
BleedingUranium wrote...
This is amazing! This needs to go on the front page!
Modifié par SwobyJ, 22 novembre 2012 - 02:41 .
SwobyJ wrote...
I feel like I've hit a gold mine here. And... I highly respect Bioware at this point. Yep, I'm a firm ITer now.
NOW. 
Guest_SwobyJ_*
demersel wrote...
SwobyJ wrote...
I feel like I've hit a gold mine here. And... I highly respect Bioware at this point. Yep, I'm a firm ITer now.
Riiiight.
Yes, more often then not an apple is just an apple.SwobyJ wrote...
Rifneno wrote...
SwobyJ wrote...
Sorry, but these comments are so interesting!
"But it´s not lying, it´s a defence to endure the hardness of life. Sometimes the truth is to hard to bear. We are blinded by it, it hurts us. We can´t endure all the truth sometimes, so we have defences to help us settle with reality. If you are an optimist, you would say it leaves you time to find what you want later, if you are pesimistic, it might mean that you conform and lose.
I choose both."
"Watching this video made me question how emotions even work. Emotions are controlled by the limbic system in the brain, it is also known as the “emotional center.” The hypothalamus controls molecules that make you feel happy or unhappy. The brain produces chemicals that are connected with the physiological processes of the body so it can sense what the body is feeling."
"Whoa. This is unsettling.
If we can really be happy when we get what we want, and when we don't get what we want (and i know this myself to be true) then I hope that every person is UNHAPPY forever.
Why? Because if we convinced ourselves that every single thing we didn't get is actually not important and we are happier with the opposite result, then there would be stagnation. What should drive us? Why should we strive for being better persons, better bosses?
This is exactly what every totalitarism system wants, every dictator's dream. A people that will, when faced with fear and force will bend their happiness to protect themselves.
Then, what this means is that unhappy people, those who don't accommodate to circumstances and keep fighting them they will be unhappy and tragic, yes, but they will be the catalyst of change, and of better worlds.
As they say, Ignorance is Bliss. But I made my choice a long time ago; to be unhappy but to maintain my ability to change my surroundings. "
WOW. Put that into the Indoctrination Theory, and you'll see how disturbing the 'Catalyst' is. Final boss, indeed.
No no, you're just reading too much into it. It's bad writing. </cro-magnon>
My boyfriend thinks I may be reading too much into it
Rifneno wrote...
No. <sigh> Okay, do you know how velocity works? The faster you go, the bigger the impact with something is? You know how if you drop a penny off the grand canyon, it can break rocks at the bottom from the velocity? Okay, now what do you think happens if you hit so much as an insect at FASTER THAN LIGHT speed? Light speed is about 185,000 miles per second. Per second. If they hit a gnat then it would hit with more force than a nuclear weapon. This is why no one uses FTL in an atmosphere. Not even the Reapers. And yes, BW is aware of this. It's mentioned on CDN.
Guest_SwobyJ_*
MegumiAzusa wrote...
Yes, more often then not an apple is just an apple.SwobyJ wrote...
Rifneno wrote...
SwobyJ wrote...
Sorry, but these comments are so interesting!
"But it´s not lying, it´s a defence to endure the hardness of life. Sometimes the truth is to hard to bear. We are blinded by it, it hurts us. We can´t endure all the truth sometimes, so we have defences to help us settle with reality. If you are an optimist, you would say it leaves you time to find what you want later, if you are pesimistic, it might mean that you conform and lose.
I choose both."
"Watching this video made me question how emotions even work. Emotions are controlled by the limbic system in the brain, it is also known as the “emotional center.” The hypothalamus controls molecules that make you feel happy or unhappy. The brain produces chemicals that are connected with the physiological processes of the body so it can sense what the body is feeling."
"Whoa. This is unsettling.
If we can really be happy when we get what we want, and when we don't get what we want (and i know this myself to be true) then I hope that every person is UNHAPPY forever.
Why? Because if we convinced ourselves that every single thing we didn't get is actually not important and we are happier with the opposite result, then there would be stagnation. What should drive us? Why should we strive for being better persons, better bosses?
This is exactly what every totalitarism system wants, every dictator's dream. A people that will, when faced with fear and force will bend their happiness to protect themselves.
Then, what this means is that unhappy people, those who don't accommodate to circumstances and keep fighting them they will be unhappy and tragic, yes, but they will be the catalyst of change, and of better worlds.
As they say, Ignorance is Bliss. But I made my choice a long time ago; to be unhappy but to maintain my ability to change my surroundings. "
WOW. Put that into the Indoctrination Theory, and you'll see how disturbing the 'Catalyst' is. Final boss, indeed.
No no, you're just reading too much into it. It's bad writing. </cro-magnon>
My boyfriend thinks I may be reading too much into it
MegumiAzusa wrote...
Yes, more often then not an apple is just an apple.SwobyJ wrote...
Rifneno wrote...
SwobyJ wrote...
Sorry, but these comments are so interesting!
"But it´s not lying, it´s a defence to endure the hardness of life. Sometimes the truth is to hard to bear. We are blinded by it, it hurts us. We can´t endure all the truth sometimes, so we have defences to help us settle with reality. If you are an optimist, you would say it leaves you time to find what you want later, if you are pesimistic, it might mean that you conform and lose.
I choose both."
"Watching this video made me question how emotions even work. Emotions are controlled by the limbic system in the brain, it is also known as the “emotional center.” The hypothalamus controls molecules that make you feel happy or unhappy. The brain produces chemicals that are connected with the physiological processes of the body so it can sense what the body is feeling."
"Whoa. This is unsettling.
If we can really be happy when we get what we want, and when we don't get what we want (and i know this myself to be true) then I hope that every person is UNHAPPY forever.
Why? Because if we convinced ourselves that every single thing we didn't get is actually not important and we are happier with the opposite result, then there would be stagnation. What should drive us? Why should we strive for being better persons, better bosses?
This is exactly what every totalitarism system wants, every dictator's dream. A people that will, when faced with fear and force will bend their happiness to protect themselves.
Then, what this means is that unhappy people, those who don't accommodate to circumstances and keep fighting them they will be unhappy and tragic, yes, but they will be the catalyst of change, and of better worlds.
As they say, Ignorance is Bliss. But I made my choice a long time ago; to be unhappy but to maintain my ability to change my surroundings. "
WOW. Put that into the Indoctrination Theory, and you'll see how disturbing the 'Catalyst' is. Final boss, indeed.
No no, you're just reading too much into it. It's bad writing. </cro-magnon>
My boyfriend thinks I may be reading too much into it
Andromidius wrote...
Rifneno wrote...
No. <sigh> Okay, do you know how velocity works? The faster you go, the bigger the impact with something is? You know how if you drop a penny off the grand canyon, it can break rocks at the bottom from the velocity? Okay, now what do you think happens if you hit so much as an insect at FASTER THAN LIGHT speed? Light speed is about 185,000 miles per second. Per second. If they hit a gnat then it would hit with more force than a nuclear weapon. This is why no one uses FTL in an atmosphere. Not even the Reapers. And yes, BW is aware of this. It's mentioned on CDN.
Its also why the Quarians were stuck in an engagement with the Geth at Rannoch. They couldn't jump to FLT because they were contained inside the system by Geth forces, and every time ships tried to reach the Relay they were blasted to pieces.
Consistancy.
Guest_SwobyJ_*
Modifié par SwobyJ, 22 novembre 2012 - 03:04 .
SwobyJ wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
Yes, more often then not an apple is just an apple.SwobyJ wrote...
Rifneno wrote...
SwobyJ wrote...
Sorry, but these comments are so interesting!
[...]
WOW.[/b] Put that into the Indoctrination Theory, and you'll see how disturbing the 'Catalyst' is. Final boss, indeed.
No no, you're just reading too much into it. It's bad writing. </cro-magnon>
My boyfriend thinks I may be reading too much into it
I actually agree. However, this isn't nearly so much the case in fictional writing.
SwobyJ wrote...
I've said it before but I've always wavered or allowed other interpretations, but by now, I have much more certainty.
Guess that makes me an IT zealot now, or something. I guess.
It's not about being negative. It's about his reaction as stated above.BleedingUranium wrote...
Why are you always so negative? This isn't even about IT directly, it's about the writer's abilities to pull of something like this, and why it works.
Modifié par MegumiAzusa, 22 novembre 2012 - 03:07 .
SwobyJ wrote...
BleedingUranium wrote...
This is amazing! This needs to go on the front page!
I tweeted my original post of this to Casey Hudson. I hope he reads it, even if I don't get acknowledgement that he has done so.
EDIT: The video was originally filmed in 2004....
Guest_SwobyJ_*
"Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, The flag is moving. The other said, The wind is moving. The sixth patriarch, Huineng, happened to be passing by. He told them, Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving"
You try to press the concepts you know into the concepts of the ending which are uncertain by choice. My point is still that you cannot say either one is correct. Therefor saying "It has to be X" has no meaning. "This (could) point(s) to X" would still make much more sense.
Modifié par SwobyJ, 22 novembre 2012 - 03:14 .
Guest_SwobyJ_*
Andromidius wrote...
SwobyJ wrote...
BleedingUranium wrote...
This is amazing! This needs to go on the front page!
I tweeted my original post of this to Casey Hudson. I hope he reads it, even if I don't get acknowledgement that he has done so.
EDIT: The video was originally filmed in 2004....
Yeah, the video was posted in 2006 on that site. So no-one can pull the 'someone made this to conform to their own bias about ME3' card - which would still be ridiculous if it was made last week!
demersel wrote...
Andromidius wrote...
Rifneno wrote...
No. <sigh> Okay, do you know how velocity works? The faster you go, the bigger the impact with something is? You know how if you drop a penny off the grand canyon, it can break rocks at the bottom from the velocity? Okay, now what do you think happens if you hit so much as an insect at FASTER THAN LIGHT speed? Light speed is about 185,000 miles per second. Per second. If they hit a gnat then it would hit with more force than a nuclear weapon. This is why no one uses FTL in an atmosphere. Not even the Reapers. And yes, BW is aware of this. It's mentioned on CDN.
Its also why the Quarians were stuck in an engagement with the Geth at Rannoch. They couldn't jump to FLT because they were contained inside the system by Geth forces, and every time ships tried to reach the Relay they were blasted to pieces.
Consistancy.
Exaclty. That is why all the ships zapping out in a second in the EC ndings is kind of huge deal.
If you come with that one could just argue that this stuff is in there to let people think they figured it out while they are dead wrong. Point is still you cannot know.SwobyJ wrote...
Yeah I'm quite aware of that philosophy.
It doesn't apply to creative writing.
MegumiAzusa wrote...
SwobyJ wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
Yes, more often then not an apple is just an apple.SwobyJ wrote...
Rifneno wrote...
SwobyJ wrote...
Sorry, but these comments are so interesting!
[...]
WOW.[/b] Put that into the Indoctrination Theory, and you'll see how disturbing the 'Catalyst' is. Final boss, indeed.
No no, you're just reading too much into it. It's bad writing. </cro-magnon>
My boyfriend thinks I may be reading too much into it
I actually agree. However, this isn't nearly so much the case in fictional writing.SwobyJ wrote...
I've said it before but I've always wavered or allowed other interpretations, but by now, I have much more certainty.
Guess that makes me an IT zealot now, or something. I guess.
"Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, The flag is moving. The other said, The wind is moving. The sixth patriarch, Huineng, happened to be passing by. He told them, Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving"
You try to press the concepts you know into the concepts of the ending which are uncertain by choice. My point is still that you cannot say either one is correct. Therefor saying "It has to be X" has no meaning. "This (could) point(s) to X" would still make much more sense.It's not about being negative. It's about his reaction as stated above.BleedingUranium wrote...
Why are you always so negative? This isn't even about IT directly, it's about the writer's abilities to pull of something like this, and why it works.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut