80611 réponses à ce sujet

[byne]

So having just beaten ME3 again, I wonder if when all the DLC has finally been released, the stargazer scene will be removed?

Because if all the DLC is out, and I've played it all on that character, the whole 'one more story' thing would be weird if it truly is the end of Shepard's story.

[BatmanTurian]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Its been in multiple sources, stating that.  Not once has anyone from Bioware stated this isn't the case.

Hense while there's no conclusive evidence that was the case, there's even less to show it wasn't.  The fact Dark Energy is mentioned at all in the game suggests it MIGHT have once played a role in the story process, even if it never will.

Please show me the sources where BioWare employees or writers themselves say that dark energy was the original plot for Mass Effect.

Congratulations for not seeing my point.

Seriously, well done.  A master at work.  Only a pro could have retorted like that.

Here's the thing - if you can't disprove something, then you can't state its wrong.  If there's evidence suggesting something, you need counter evidence to oppose it.  You can't counter evidence, even shakey evidence, with no evidence.

But then you don't care about such things, do you?

Don't go all "bravo" on me and trying to lecture me  while you don't even know what "burden of proof" means.

I guess you also believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, right? After all, I have no evidence to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster DOESN'T exist. So that means the Flying Spaghetti Monster DOES, or at least MIGHT exist, right?


Anyway, to get to the point: It's not up to ME to disprove anything, it's up to YOU to prove your claims. You claim things, but there is no evidence to oppose, not even "shakey" evidence. All you have is rumors. If there is even a shred of evidence then by all means, show it to me. Show me the evidence.

This is nothing like an argument between atheists and theists. Strawmanning it up, aren't you?  If Drew has not denied the rumors, which he would have heard about, then there must be some shred of truth to it. Otherwise, you have nothing to back up your opinion.

[BatmanTurian]

RavenEyry wrote...

Heretic_Hanar is actually correct about who burden of proof goes to, not that the topic matters.

No, he's not correct. This isn't a theology discussion.

[DoomsdayDevice]

Guys, the whole dark energy ending is irrelevant, it would just have been a different motivator to side with the Reapers.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

- The Reaper code Legion uses seems like this perfect thing we can use to let the Geth ascend to true AI status and achieve peace, yet again we follow the path / technology the Reapers want us to use. We can try to rationalize it by saying it was reverse engineered, but this is more headcanon than how it is explained in game. I think Reaper code is the synthetics version of indoctrination.

No, considering the Reapers see the Geth and past AI as tools and nothing more they would not want the Geth to ascend to true AI. In fact considering Harbinger talks of the Geth as "an anoyance" it is quite clear their paths do not include AI as anymore than tools for them. They have no plans to ascend them in any way.

Also yes the original Reaper code is akin to Indoctrination and Legion also knows this. Unless he is completely under Reaper control he knows perhaps as the only Geth before the Reapers controlled them exactly how dangerous the Reapers are and he would not do use it lightly. In fact following what we know he actually seems almost guilty for hiding the code from us clearly knowing Shepard would probably not like the idea of it beeing there.

The code as I said is probably akin to the Thanix Cannon or perhaps even better the Reaper IFF. A tool studied, modified and changed to become our own tehcnology in the war.

Also we have had three games of enemy Geth, slowly learning they were victims not agressors and culminating in a choice where one of the prime motivators for not Destroying the Reapers is the Geth. Give them some rest as antagonists allready and focus on something else.

Modifié par Raistlin Majare 1992, 23 novembre 2012 - 06:27 .

[The Heretic of Time]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Its been in multiple sources, stating that.  Not once has anyone from Bioware stated this isn't the case.

Hense while there's no conclusive evidence that was the case, there's even less to show it wasn't.  The fact Dark Energy is mentioned at all in the game suggests it MIGHT have once played a role in the story process, even if it never will.

Please show me the sources where BioWare employees or writers themselves say that dark energy was the original plot for Mass Effect.

Congratulations for not seeing my point.

Seriously, well done.  A master at work.  Only a pro could have retorted like that.

Here's the thing - if you can't disprove something, then you can't state its wrong.  If there's evidence suggesting something, you need counter evidence to oppose it.  You can't counter evidence, even shakey evidence, with no evidence.

But then you don't care about such things, do you?

Don't go all "bravo" on me and trying to lecture me  while you don't even know what "burden of proof" means.

I guess you also believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, right? After all, I have no evidence to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster DOESN'T exist. So that means the Flying Spaghetti Monster DOES, or at least MIGHT exist, right?


Anyway, to get to the point: It's not up to ME to disprove anything, it's up to YOU to prove your claims. You claim things, but there is no evidence to oppose, not even "shakey" evidence. All you have is rumors. If there is even a shred of evidence then by all means, show it to me. Show me the evidence.

This is nothing like an argument between atheists and theists. Strawmanning it up, aren't you?  If Drew has not denied the rumors, which he would have heard about, then there must be some shred of truth to it. Otherwise, you have nothing to back up your opinion.

Yes, this is EXACTLY like an argyment between atheists and theists. I'm not strawmanning up anything.

Drew is not obligated to deny or confirm anything. He is no longer with BioWare, so he doesn't have to say anything. Which means that the fact that he chose to keep his mouth shut also doesn't mean a damn thing.

If this "Drew hasn't denied it" is the best you got, than I'm not impressed. "Drew hasn't denied it" is no evidence, it's not even shakey evidence, it's completely meaningless.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 23 novembre 2012 - 06:29 .

[BatmanTurian]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Guys, the whole dark energy ending is irrelevant, it would just have been a different motivator to side with the Reapers.

Fine.

[demersel]

Doomsday, I've edited my post about GLYPH a bit.

[byne]

magnetite wrote...

byne wrote...

So having just beaten ME3 again, I wonder if when all the DLC has finally been released, the stargazer scene will be removed?

Because if all the DLC is out, and I've played it all on that character, the whole 'one more story' thing would be weird if it truly is the end of Shepard's story.

From what I recall, that scene is a nod to space exploration. Not really related to the story in any way. Not sure if you guys knew, but the Stargazer is Buzz Aldrin, second man on the moon.

I knew that, but either way, he promises to tell one more story about Shepard. If all the DLC has been released, there shouldnt be any more stories to tell, so if they leave it in,  it'd be odd.

[DoomsdayDevice]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

- The Reaper code Legion uses seems like this perfect thing we can use to let the Geth ascend to true AI status and achieve peace, yet again we follow the path / technology the Reapers want us to use. We can try to rationalize it by saying it was reverse engineered, but this is more headcanon than how it is explained in game. I think Reaper code is the synthetics version of indoctrination.

No, considering the Reapers see the Geth and past AI as tools and nothing more they would not want the Geth to ascend to true AI. In fact considering Harbinger talks of the Geth as "an anoyance" it is quite clear their paths do not include AI as anymore than tools for them. They have no plans to ascend them in any way.

Also yes the original Reaper code is akin to Indoctrination and Legion also knows this. Unless he is completely under Reaper control he knows perhaps as the only Geth before the Reapers controlled them exactly how dangerous the Reapers are and he would not do use it lightly. In fact following what we know he actually seems almost guilty for hiding the code from us clearly knowing Shepard would probably not like the idea of it beeing there.

The code as I said is probably akin to the Thanix Cannon or perhaps even better the Reaper IFF. A tool studied, modified and changed to become our own tehcnology in the war.

Also we have had three games of enemy Geth, slowly learning they were victims not agressors and culminating in a choice where one of the prime motivators for not Destroying the Reapers is the Geth. Give them some rest as antagonists allready and focus on something else.

What do you think about the fact that, no matter how hard you try, you cannot eradicate the Reaper code in the Geth consensus entirely? There will always be 'roots' left, that you cannot reach with the weapon.

Design oversight? I think not.

[RavenEyry]

magnetite wrote...
From what I recall, that scene is a nod to space exploration. Not really related to the story in any way. Not sure if you guys knew, but the Stargazer is Buzz Aldrin, second man on the moon.

Yeah, it's a nice little speech, but I'm sure I've heard him make the same speech before, just with out the references to Shepard.

[demersel]

Hanar, everytime you post this picture of extreme head desk - i really wish, you'd do it for real instead. The thought is so plesant, i have to restrain myself from annoying you on purpose.

[BatmanTurian]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Its been in multiple sources, stating that.  Not once has anyone from Bioware stated this isn't the case.

Hense while there's no conclusive evidence that was the case, there's even less to show it wasn't.  The fact Dark Energy is mentioned at all in the game suggests it MIGHT have once played a role in the story process, even if it never will.

Please show me the sources where BioWare employees or writers themselves say that dark energy was the original plot for Mass Effect.

Congratulations for not seeing my point.

Seriously, well done.  A master at work.  Only a pro could have retorted like that.

Here's the thing - if you can't disprove something, then you can't state its wrong.  If there's evidence suggesting something, you need counter evidence to oppose it.  You can't counter evidence, even shakey evidence, with no evidence.

But then you don't care about such things, do you?

Don't go all "bravo" on me and trying to lecture me  while you don't even know what "burden of proof" means.

I guess you also believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, right? After all, I have no evidence to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster DOESN'T exist. So that means the Flying Spaghetti Monster DOES, or at least MIGHT exist, right?


Anyway, to get to the point: It's not up to ME to disprove anything, it's up to YOU to prove your claims. You claim things, but there is no evidence to oppose, not even "shakey" evidence. All you have is rumors. If there is even a shred of evidence then by all means, show it to me. Show me the evidence.

This is nothing like an argument between atheists and theists. Strawmanning it up, aren't you?  If Drew has not denied the rumors, which he would have heard about, then there must be some shred of truth to it. Otherwise, you have nothing to back up your opinion.

Yes, this is EXACTLY like an argyment between atheists and theists. I'm not strawmanning up anything.

Drew is not obliged to deny or confirm anything. He is no longer with BioWare, so he doesn't have to say anything. Which means that the fact that he chose to keep his mouth shut also doesn't mean a damn thing.

If this "Drew hasn't denied it" is the best you got, than I'm not impressed. "Drew hasn't denied it" is no evidence, it's not even shakey evidence, it's completely meaningless.

Then by your standards, you yourself have nothing to back up your claim. You've supplied nohing to counter what I've said other than " He doesn't have to." Just because he doesn't have to, doesn't mean he might not do it anyway. If he's not tied to Bioware anymore, he has even less reason to keep his mouth shut about it.


Also, still nothing like an argument between atheists and theists. This is a concept with something you can find clear evidence on, unlike "God" which requires faith and not facts.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 23 novembre 2012 - 06:33 .

[byne]

This whole dark energy discussion has basically devolved into "Nuh uh!" "Uh huh!"

Its kind of annoying.

[The Heretic of Time]

demersel wrote...

Hanar, everytime you post this picture of extreme head desk - i really wish, you'd do it for real instead. The thought is so plesant, i have to restrain myself from annoying you on purpose.

Oh trust me, I've done that for real a couple of times, or at least felt the urge to do so.

Also, I find it rather creepy that thinking about me headdesking somehow turns you on... 

[DoomsdayDevice]

Hey Hanar, a number of pages back, I actually replied to and agreed with your supposition that renegades would be less susceptible to indoctrination. =)

[BatmanTurian]

byne wrote...

This whole dark energy discussion has basically devolved into "Nuh uh!" "Uh huh!"

Its kind of annoying.

And this never happens when we engage trolls about IT?

[byne]

BatmanTurian wrote...

byne wrote...

This whole dark energy discussion has basically devolved into "Nuh uh!" "Uh huh!"

Its kind of annoying.

And this never happens when we engage trolls about IT?

Sure, but at least then its fun arguing with trolls. Hanar isnt a troll anymore though.

[The Heretic of Time]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Yes, this is EXACTLY like an argyment between atheists and theists. I'm not strawmanning up anything.

Drew is not obliged to deny or confirm anything. He is no longer with BioWare, so he doesn't have to say anything. Which means that the fact that he chose to keep his mouth shut also doesn't mean a damn thing.

If this "Drew hasn't denied it" is the best you got, than I'm not impressed. "Drew hasn't denied it" is no evidence, it's not even shakey evidence, it's completely meaningless.

Then by your standards, you yourself have nothing to back up your claim. You've supplied nohing to counter what I've said other than " He doesn't have to." Just because he doesn't have to, doesn't mean he might not do it anyway. If he's not tied to Bioware anymore, he has even less reason to keep his mouth shut about it.

Also, still nothing like an argument between atheists and theists. This is a concept with something you can find clear evidence on, unlike "God" which requires faith and not facts.

*facepalm*

You really just don't get it, do you?  Okay, I give up. This discussion has become rather pointless and frustrating. I could as well have been talking to a wall, the result would have been the same, except I would have facepalmed and headdesked less I suppose.

So yeah, Byne is right. Lets just stop this.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 23 novembre 2012 - 06:38 .

[BatmanTurian]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Yes, this is EXACTLY like an argyment between atheists and theists. I'm not strawmanning up anything.

Drew is not obliged to deny or confirm anything. He is no longer with BioWare, so he doesn't have to say anything. Which means that the fact that he chose to keep his mouth shut also doesn't mean a damn thing.

If this "Drew hasn't denied it" is the best you got, than I'm not impressed. "Drew hasn't denied it" is no evidence, it's not even shakey evidence, it's completely meaningless.

Then by your standards, you yourself have nothing to back up your claim. You've supplied nohing to counter what I've said other than " He doesn't have to." Just because he doesn't have to, doesn't mean he might not do it anyway. If he's not tied to Bioware anymore, he has even less reason to keep his mouth shut about it.

Also, still nothing like an argument between atheists and theists. This is a concept with something you can find clear evidence on, unlike "God" which requires faith and not facts.

*facepalm*

You really just don't get it, do you?  Okay, I give up. This discussion has become rather pointless and frustrating. I could as well have been talking to a wall, the result would have been the same, except I would have facepalmed and headdesked less I suppose.

Yeah, feels exactly the same because you don't understand what I'm saying at all, it seems.

[Rifneno]

RavenEyry wrote...

byne wrote...
I thought Karpyshyn said it was?

A quick google reveals the starter of the rumour appears to be someone on Something Awful who said they were Karpyshyn.

Nice. Case closed as far as I'm concerned.

byne wrote...

You'd think if that person was lying, and multiple sites reported what he said, that Karpyshyn would have come out and said that he never said that.

LOL no. If writers denied every false rumor and impersonating idiot on the Internet, they'd never have time to do anything else.

BatmanTurian wrote...

And where is your evidence to prove this? Do you have facts or just your opinion to back it up? A lot of people throw their opinion up as fact on this board. Opinions are not facts.

As sick as it makes me to defend HH on anything, the burden of proof is not on him. It's on anyone that claims dark energy was the original plot. If you want to say dark energy has or had some major role, it's up to you to prove it. Not the other way around.

[The Heretic of Time]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Hey Hanar, a number of pages back, I actually replied to and agreed with your supposition that renegades would be less susceptible to indoctrination. =)

That's cool. However, the idea of renegades being less susceptible to indoctrination doesn't add up, because Saren got indoctrinated quite easily. I guess one big difference is that Saren spend all of his time inside or near a reaper, as where Shepard doesn't. That might be a difference.

But yeah, my point is that however you want to look at the endings, the Starbrat doesn't have anything to make the Destroy option look like the worst option. If the geth are already destroyed on Rannoch than the Destroy option is the one single option with the least strings attached to it. The only downside of Destroy in that case is EDI, who is just 1 friendly AI. Well, in that case, I'd say: "Sorry EDI, but sucks to be you. I'm gonna blow this mountain into space and if that means you're gonna get fried too then so be it."

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 23 novembre 2012 - 06:44 .

[BatmanTurian]

Rifneno wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

And where is your evidence to prove this? Do you have facts or just your opinion to back it up? A lot of people throw their opinion up as fact on this board. Opinions are not facts.

As sick as it makes me to defend HH on anything, the burden of proof is not on him. It's on anyone that claims dark energy was the original plot. If you want to say dark energy has or had some major role, it's up to you to prove it. Not the other way around.

The burden of proof is on both parties, if anything.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 23 novembre 2012 - 06:46 .

[The Heretic of Time]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

And where is your evidence to prove this? Do you have facts or just your opinion to back it up? A lot of people throw their opinion up as fact on this board. Opinions are not facts.

As sick as it makes me to defend HH on anything, the burden of proof is not on him. It's on anyone that claims dark energy was the original plot. If you want to say dark energy has or had some major role, it's up to you to prove it. Not the other way around.

The burden of proof is on both parties, if anything.

Nope.