80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Fur28]

masster blaster wrote...

You know what's funny. When Shepard says this little sentence after Destroy was shown to you. " We'll Destroy you without using the crucible."

The brat says " IMPOSSIBLE. You are vastly out numbered."

So basically we have to use the crucible, but not for Destroy. He writes Destroy right off as " You don't want to pick that." But I think it get's mad that Shepard is already considering on not using the crucible ( fake VI Crucible) before the brat can explain Control, and Synthesis.

You see the way I see it.

Destroy seems evil, but in reality it's not. I mean story wise. Control has been proven yes you can control it, but how long until your are corrupted, or it over throughs you. Synthesis has always been shown as " Do not pass and go. Don't do this." Option. Don't get me wrong if over time it happence, then okay, but at the end your forceing the whole galaxy to become Synthesis.

Refuse although it may seem like " No Shepard is not giving up" he/she kind of is." Even though apart from his/her speech, Shepard is just using word, instead of action. Shepard says " .....That I did everything I could to stop you." BS because your rejecting the choice to Destroy the Reaper by not using the crucible because EDI, and the Geth will die/ your Shepard/ the cycle will start over.


Now what's funny is that how does the brat know that in Destroy all Synthetics will be targeted, yet in Control only the Reaper, and there forces are under Shepard's Control. Then in Synthesis everyone is targeted. Um correct me if I am wrong, but if the past cycles were trying to build this crucible, then it should only have Control, and Destroy avaliable.

For Indoctrinated agents in Javiks cycle knew about the crucible/ sabatoge it. Yet in Shepard's cycle TIM does not. Why is that?

But back to what I was saying. It makes no sense for Synthesis to be part of the crucible desgin because only Indoctrinated agents that wanted to control the Reapers, and the non Indoctrinated people that wanted to Destroy the Reapers.

So in reality the crucible should only Destroy or Control the Reapers right. Yet both make no sense.

Destroy. You kill all Synthetics.

Control: Control ONLY the Reapers/ their forces.

I find it hard to believe that if in Destroy we kill All Synthetics, then shouldn't we not Control all Synthetics in Control. Then again we are trusting a brat that everything will be bad in Destroy, but Control, and Synthesis everything will be fine.

because of reasoning like that, one can only come with two explanationes about the ending:
either bad writing
or genius writing with IT
I choose the one wich doesn´t ruin ME universe, and make the franchise end bad like really really bad

[RavenEyry]

I don't know if it CAN shut down the crucible though. It seems that for one reason or another it can only prevent you with words (which certainly worked on some people. "I hate control but it's better than sacrificing some beings that would rather die than submit to the reapers in a war you're told many times can't be won without sacrifice")

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

RavenEyry wrote...

I don't know if it CAN shut down the crucible though. It seems that for one reason or another it can only prevent you with words (which certainly worked on some people. "I hate control but it's better than sacrificing some beings that would rather die than submit to the reapers in a war you're told many times can't be won without sacrifice")

We see the Crucible shut down right after he says "The cycle continues," in refuse.

Considering there was no other visible factors which might cause this I find it safe to assume the Catalyst was responsible.

[MegumiAzusa]

masster blaster wrote...

You know what's funny. When Shepard says this little sentence after Destroy was shown to you. " We'll Destroy you without using the crucible."

The brat says " IMPOSSIBLE. You are vastly out numbered."

So basically we have to use the crucible, but not for Destroy. He writes Destroy right off as " You don't want to pick that." But I think it get's mad that Shepard is already considering on not using the crucible ( fake VI Crucible) before the brat can explain Control, and Synthesis.

You see the way I see it.

Destroy seems evil, but in reality it's not. I mean story wise. Control has been proven yes you can control it, but how long until your are corrupted, or it over throughs you. Synthesis has always been shown as " Do not pass and go. Don't do this." Option. Don't get me wrong if over time it happence, then okay, but at the end your forceing the whole galaxy to become Synthesis.

Refuse although it may seem like " No Shepard is not giving up" he/she kind of is." Even though apart from his/her speech, Shepard is just using word, instead of action. Shepard says " .....That I did everything I could to stop you." BS because your rejecting the choice to Destroy the Reaper by not using the crucible because EDI, and the Geth will die/ your Shepard/ the cycle will start over.


Now what's funny is that how does the brat know that in Destroy all Synthetics will be targeted, yet in Control only the Reaper, and there forces are under Shepard's Control. Then in Synthesis everyone is targeted. Um correct me if I am wrong, but if the past cycles were trying to build this crucible, then it should only have Control, and Destroy avaliable.

For Indoctrinated agents in Javiks cycle knew about the crucible/ sabatoge it. Yet in Shepard's cycle TIM does not. Why is that?

But back to what I was saying. It makes no sense for Synthesis to be part of the crucible desgin because only Indoctrinated agents that wanted to control the Reapers, and the non Indoctrinated people that wanted to Destroy the Reapers.

So in reality the crucible should only Destroy or Control the Reapers right. Yet both make no sense.

Destroy. You kill all Synthetics.

Control: Control ONLY the Reapers/ their forces.

I find it hard to believe that if in Destroy we kill All Synthetics, then shouldn't we not Control all Synthetics in Control. Then again we are trusting a brat that everything will be bad in Destroy, but Control, and Synthesis everything will be fine.

With the EC there is an iteration happening. When on low ems the Guardian says it's unfocused and uncontrolled, thus targeting everything (even organics with very low ems) and the higher you go the better focus can be achieved. In control with low ems you also see the wave destroying the top of Big Ben. This shows that it's focus still varies.

[BleedingUranium]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Because Shepard resists in Destroy, he stays Shepard, a man of action who does whatever it takes. Shepard is even like this in Control and Synthesis, even if he's siding with the enemy. In Refuse Shepard is broken and unwilling to act. It's the most out of character for him.

Harbinger's okay with Destroy because it means Shepard's still the awesome Commander Shepard he's been after, while he's mad in Refuse because Shepard didn't turn out to be as awesome as Harbinger thought he was, and is now broken.

Yeah Arian said something similar in more words and I generally agree, it's just refuse always seems like a wild card when I think about it.

My main point is how refuse just doesn't make sense in a literal view, even moreso than the others. The stunned pause and 'so be it' seems like Mr. Sparkle was less comfortable about refuse than destroy, despite destroy going against all it stands for. I've no problem with it offering destroy because it's part of the device and it can't not offer, just dissuade. But considering it more of a valid solution than continuing the cycle? That's rather fishy.

It is perfectly capable of not offering Destroy, just deactivate the Crucible if Shepard tries to mess with it as I said.

It could explain Control / Synthesis to Shepard and Shepard could go, "what about that over there?"

"That is for destroying us, but try to touch it and I will shut down the Crucible. It dosent end the cycle and thus my programming cannot allow you to pick it" - Catalyst

It is that simple...yet dosent happen.

Are you guys arguing this from a literal perspective? Because then I'd agree, but what you're saying doesn't apply to IT.

EDIT: Oh, you were, nevermind then

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 29 novembre 2012 - 02:36 .

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Because Shepard resists in Destroy, he stays Shepard, a man of action who does whatever it takes. Shepard is even like this in Control and Synthesis, even if he's siding with the enemy. In Refuse Shepard is broken and unwilling to act. It's the most out of character for him.

Harbinger's okay with Destroy because it means Shepard's still the awesome Commander Shepard he's been after, while he's mad in Refuse because Shepard didn't turn out to be as awesome as Harbinger thought he was, and is now broken.

Yeah Arian said something similar in more words and I generally agree, it's just refuse always seems like a wild card when I think about it.

My main point is how refuse just doesn't make sense in a literal view, even moreso than the others. The stunned pause and 'so be it' seems like Mr. Sparkle was less comfortable about refuse than destroy, despite destroy going against all it stands for. I've no problem with it offering destroy because it's part of the device and it can't not offer, just dissuade. But considering it more of a valid solution than continuing the cycle? That's rather fishy.

It is perfectly capable of not offering Destroy, just deactivate the Crucible if Shepard tries to mess with it as I said.

It could explain Control / Synthesis to Shepard and Shepard could go, "what about that over there?"

"That is for destroying us, but try to touch it and I will shut down the Crucible. It dosent end the cycle and thus my programming cannot allow you to pick it" - Catalyst

It is that simple...yet dosent happen.

Are you guys arguing this from a literal perspective? Because then I'd agree, but what you're saying doesn't apply to IT.

I am looking at it from a litteral perspective. Go a page back where I had longer post describing why from a litteral perspective the Catalyst allowing us to choose Destroy and Control dosent make a goddamn lick of sense.

[MegumiAzusa]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

I don't know if it CAN shut down the crucible though. It seems that for one reason or another it can only prevent you with words (which certainly worked on some people. "I hate control but it's better than sacrificing some beings that would rather die than submit to the reapers in a war you're told many times can't be won without sacrifice")

We see the Crucible shut down right after he says "The cycle continues," in refuse.

Considering there was no other visible factors which might cause this I find it safe to assume the Catalyst was responsible.

Problem here is that it also can be used to assume the Guardian is indeed benevolent or else it would just turn it off before you can destroy them.

[masster blaster]

What I find funny is. If you count all the Reaper this war has killed, then the Catalyst is doing a ****** poor *** job of preserveing all Organics, and Synthetic life. I mean Shepard allown with some help took down 6-7 Reaper in all. That's not to mention all the Reapers that the galaxy has killed altogether. The brat's logic therefor is bs because it want to preserve Organics, and Synthetics, yet it's unsing the Reapers that have them preserved in for harvesting the organics/Synthetics of every cycle. Nowing full well they can die/ be lost forever.

[RavenEyry]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Are you guys arguing this from a literal perspective? Because then I'd agree, but what you're saying doesn't apply to IT.

Yeah I was saying how literal refuse makes no sense as an option and Raistlin was pointing out how literal destroy is also baffling.

And this is without getting into the effects once it's chosen.

[SixG90]

FFZero wrote...

Jusseb wrote...

So when is this next DLC coming out?

The next one should be out soon-ish, probably late january/early february. It’s already in the testing stage by the sounds of things.

I think it'll be near Xmas, remember that gift box in Vancouver map?
November had a.. cake? And we got Omega in November, soo...

[MegumiAzusa]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Because Shepard resists in Destroy, he stays Shepard, a man of action who does whatever it takes. Shepard is even like this in Control and Synthesis, even if he's siding with the enemy. In Refuse Shepard is broken and unwilling to act. It's the most out of character for him.

Harbinger's okay with Destroy because it means Shepard's still the awesome Commander Shepard he's been after, while he's mad in Refuse because Shepard didn't turn out to be as awesome as Harbinger thought he was, and is now broken.

Yeah Arian said something similar in more words and I generally agree, it's just refuse always seems like a wild card when I think about it.

My main point is how refuse just doesn't make sense in a literal view, even moreso than the others. The stunned pause and 'so be it' seems like Mr. Sparkle was less comfortable about refuse than destroy, despite destroy going against all it stands for. I've no problem with it offering destroy because it's part of the device and it can't not offer, just dissuade. But considering it more of a valid solution than continuing the cycle? That's rather fishy.

It is perfectly capable of not offering Destroy, just deactivate the Crucible if Shepard tries to mess with it as I said.

It could explain Control / Synthesis to Shepard and Shepard could go, "what about that over there?"

"That is for destroying us, but try to touch it and I will shut down the Crucible. It dosent end the cycle and thus my programming cannot allow you to pick it" - Catalyst

It is that simple...yet dosent happen.

Are you guys arguing this from a literal perspective? Because then I'd agree, but what you're saying doesn't apply to IT.

I am looking at it from a litteral perspective. Go a page back where I had longer post describing why from a litteral perspective the Catalyst allowing us to choose Destroy and Control dosent make a goddamn lick of sense.

In IT only offering destroy doesn't make sense either.

[RavenEyry]

masster blaster wrote...

What I find funny is. If you count all the Reaper this war has killed, then the Catalyst is doing a ****** poor *** job of preserveing all Organics, and Synthetic life. I mean Shepard allown with some help took down 6-7 Reaper in all. That's not to mention all the Reapers that the galaxy has killed altogether. The brat's logic therefor is bs because it want to preserve Organics, and Synthetics, yet it's unsing the Reapers that have them preserved in for harvesting the organics/Synthetics of every cycle. Nowing full well they can die/ be lost forever.

And that it's not preserving even preserving all species. It's believed to have failed to make a prothean reaper and are there even enough batarians left to make a destroyer out of them?

[MegumiAzusa]

mrs.N7 wrote...

FFZero wrote...

Jusseb wrote...

So when is this next DLC coming out?

The next one should be out soon-ish, probably late january/early february. It’s already in the testing stage by the sounds of things.

I think it'll be near Xmas, remember that gift box in Vancouver map?
November had a.. cake? And we got Omega in November, soo...

Or it just shows when they do special ops.
Pumpkin = Halloween op
Cake = N7 Day op
etc

[RavenEyry]

mrs.N7 wrote...

I think it'll be near Xmas, remember that gift box in Vancouver map?
November had a.. cake? And we got Omega in November, soo...

Pumpkin in october meant nothing so I wouldn't expect the gift to mean anything.

[Fur28]

RavenEyry wrote...

I don't know if it CAN shut down the crucible though. It seems that for one reason or another it can only prevent you with words (which certainly worked on some people. "I hate control but it's better than sacrificing some beings that would rather die than submit to the reapers in a war you're told many times can't be won without sacrifice")

remember, that people were indoctrinated into believing thay could control the reapers or "advance" the beings of the galaxy, consequentenly failing tha universe and continuing the cycle. A minute of silence to our fallen indoctrinated shepards

but yeah seems that super advanced AI cant do anything but say things and try to make it sound wise

[MegumiAzusa]

RavenEyry wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Are you guys arguing this from a literal perspective? Because then I'd agree, but what you're saying doesn't apply to IT.

Yeah I was saying how literal refuse makes no sense as an option and Raistlin was pointing out how literal destroy is also baffling.

And this is without getting into the effects once it's chosen.

How is literal destroy baffling?

[BleedingUranium]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Because Shepard resists in Destroy, he stays Shepard, a man of action who does whatever it takes. Shepard is even like this in Control and Synthesis, even if he's siding with the enemy. In Refuse Shepard is broken and unwilling to act. It's the most out of character for him.

Harbinger's okay with Destroy because it means Shepard's still the awesome Commander Shepard he's been after, while he's mad in Refuse because Shepard didn't turn out to be as awesome as Harbinger thought he was, and is now broken.

Yeah Arian said something similar in more words and I generally agree, it's just refuse always seems like a wild card when I think about it.

My main point is how refuse just doesn't make sense in a literal view, even moreso than the others. The stunned pause and 'so be it' seems like Mr. Sparkle was less comfortable about refuse than destroy, despite destroy going against all it stands for. I've no problem with it offering destroy because it's part of the device and it can't not offer, just dissuade. But considering it more of a valid solution than continuing the cycle? That's rather fishy.

It is perfectly capable of not offering Destroy, just deactivate the Crucible if Shepard tries to mess with it as I said.

It could explain Control / Synthesis to Shepard and Shepard could go, "what about that over there?"

"That is for destroying us, but try to touch it and I will shut down the Crucible. It dosent end the cycle and thus my programming cannot allow you to pick it" - Catalyst

It is that simple...yet dosent happen.

Are you guys arguing this from a literal perspective? Because then I'd agree, but what you're saying doesn't apply to IT.

I am looking at it from a litteral perspective. Go a page back where I had longer post describing why from a litteral perspective the Catalyst allowing us to choose Destroy and Control dosent make a goddamn lick of sense.

In IT only offering destroy doesn't make sense either.

It's generally accepted that with EMS that low Harbinger doesn't care and Shepard dies anyway. Like Refuse, Shepard failed to live up to the awesome leader he was supposed to be, and is useless to them.

[BleedingUranium]

RavenEyry wrote...

mrs.N7 wrote...

I think it'll be near Xmas, remember that gift box in Vancouver map?
November had a.. cake? And we got Omega in November, soo...

Pumpkin in october meant nothing so I wouldn't expect the gift to mean anything.

Retaliation wants a word with you

[masster blaster]

Wait Raven they are preserved a ground troops. Yes the Protheans/ the huskifed races are being preserved, and are fighting in a war that the brat deni's it's war, but a harvest ( that makes me feel so much better. Not) is okay.

[masster blaster]

Oh and if the brat wanted to preserve us, then he should have used cryo pods and preserve each race, not turn them into a Reaper/ huskify the past cycle races.

[Fur28]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

mrs.N7 wrote...

FFZero wrote...

Jusseb wrote...

So when is this next DLC coming out?

The next one should be out soon-ish, probably late january/early february. It’s already in the testing stage by the sounds of things.

I think it'll be near Xmas, remember that gift box in Vancouver map?
November had a.. cake? And we got Omega in November, soo...

Or it just shows when they do special ops.
Pumpkin = Halloween op
Cake = N7 Day op
etc

probably we´ll get gifts in missions instead of data packages, and a volus santa for banner

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

I don't know if it CAN shut down the crucible though. It seems that for one reason or another it can only prevent you with words (which certainly worked on some people. "I hate control but it's better than sacrificing some beings that would rather die than submit to the reapers in a war you're told many times can't be won without sacrifice")

We see the Crucible shut down right after he says "The cycle continues," in refuse.

Considering there was no other visible factors which might cause this I find it safe to assume the Catalyst was responsible.

Problem here is that it also can be used to assume the Guardian is indeed benevolent or else it would just turn it off before you can destroy them.

He is never even hinted at beeing benevolent in any shape or form, ever. From a litteral perspective he murdered his creators and every single other beeing in every cycle for millions of years instead of searchng for a different solution. That is not benevolent in any shape or form.

In fact he would have been just as happy to murder Shepard and continue the cycle. He would have succeded had Shepard not been the luckiest man in the world who survives a precision beam of death from a hyper advanced AI, same AI not even bothering to check for lifesigns before taking of like a moron.

Oh and he directly tries to murder Shepard again minutes later this time through TIM.

There is no hint of benevolence.

Also it still goes directly aaginst its progrmaming in allowing Control and Destroy to be an option since those two do not solve the problem at the core of its programming.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Are you guys arguing this from a literal perspective? Because then I'd agree, but what you're saying doesn't apply to IT.

Yeah I was saying how literal refuse makes no sense as an option and Raistlin was pointing out how literal destroy is also baffling.

And this is without getting into the effects once it's chosen.

How is literal destroy baffling?

AI created to prevent synthetics from killing organics, also says itself that its purpose is to preserve all Organic and Synthetic species...offers you choice to destroy all synthetics including all the supposedly preserved races...but makes sure to point out that it will not end the cycle in any way and the nightmare will come again.

In short not only is it allowing something to happen which will go against its core programming (since the cycle of Synthetics killing organics will not end) but also something which will destroy every single one of the species its cliams it is its purpose to preserve.

[Fur28]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Are you guys arguing this from a literal perspective? Because then I'd agree, but what you're saying doesn't apply to IT.

Yeah I was saying how literal refuse makes no sense as an option and Raistlin was pointing out how literal destroy is also baffling.

And this is without getting into the effects once it's chosen.

How is literal destroy baffling?

AI created to prevent synthetics from killing organics, also says itself that its purpose is to preserve all Organic and Synthetic species...offers you choice to destroy all synthetics including all the supposedly preserved races...but makes sure to point out that it will not end the cycle in any way and the nightmare will come again.

In short not only is it allowing something to happen which will go against its core programming (since the cycle of Synthetics killing organics will not end) but also something which will destroy every single one of the species its cliams it is its purpose to preserve.

when did the child say he wanted to preserve the syntethics too?

edit: i´ve noticed being on the top page it´s something to celebrate so... i´m toppity tippers yay:P

Modifié par Fur28, 29 novembre 2012 - 02:57 .

[BatmanTurian]

someone go into banshee's words of awesome and post my words on why the ec slides can't be trusted to be what actually happens, namely because the narrators speak in future tense about what they HOPE will happen rather than what ACTUALLY happens. Also my words on why trusting the " Catalyst" to be telling the truth when he has you making a choice at gunpoint and at least two (possibly three- yes, even refuse where you simply succumb and are too morally paralyzed to make a choice) of the choices allign virtually identically to Reaper goals. Still on xbox app until this afternoon or I would do it myself. Also HH uses circular logic like a typical theist. "It happened because it said it happened." Uh huh, sounds legit. It`s not like a writer has ever fooled his readers- oh wait. Fight Club. Literalist belief is based on taking an ending at it's word when the writer's themselves say the ending is not meant to be taken literally and we are meant to speculate rather than just nod our heads and eat up what's being fed to us. When the author says not to take the ending literally and you do it anyway and harrass the ones who don't, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. ( also disliking the trope used is not a valid defense )