80611 réponses à ce sujet

[paxxton]

It's your birthday today? Best wishes, BleedingUranium.

Modifié par paxxton, 17 septembre 2012 - 08:11 .

[SubAstris]

How long has this been going on? Who started it?

[demersel]

sweet.

[paxxton]

Jusseb wrote...

demersel wrote...

Jusseb wrote...

*grabs popcorn*

Hey! Sharing is caring! Give me some!

Sweet or Salty? 

Only butter-flavored. I once tried sweet popcorn and won't touch that thing again.

EDIT: Apparently demersel disagrees.

Modifié par paxxton, 17 septembre 2012 - 08:21 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

All this arguing is really depressing.

Happy birthday, Bleeding!

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 17 septembre 2012 - 08:16 .

[BleedingUranium]

paxxton wrote...

It's your birthday today? Best wishes, BleedingUranium.

Thanks Paxx

[Iconoclaste]

BleedingUranium wrote...

But... that's the same issue. Again, it doesn't matter if you don't think of them as people. In this universe, they are. Legion (in his last moments) and EDI, are/were just as much people as Shepard, Garrus, Anderson, TIM, Liara, or anyone else. Your disagreement with this is irrelevant to it being both true and a central theme of the Mass Effect story.

As for the rest, the kid and decision chamber can't make sense unless they don't exist in reality.

For the purpose of this argument, seeing the Geth or EDI as "people" is still purely subjective, even from the "Inside ME Universe" perspective. Because entities have thinking capabilities and objectives doesn't make them "people". Is the Catalyst "people"? And this is mostly "playing with words". If you wish to debate something like this, "people", "free will", "thinking". "soul", "living", and lots of other words should be defined first. While we may agree on some concepts, having discussions on such things is bound to raise questions about those. I tell you right away that this is highly irrelevant to IT, especially if you say that  "the Catalyst is a liar" (heck! He's not even "real" from IT's perspective).

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 17 septembre 2012 - 08:21 .

[spotlessvoid]

Iconoclaste wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...
Yet you're personally invested enough in an entertainment product to spend time discussing it on the internet....there are a lot more productive things you could be doing. Everyone has their reasons, but nobody here can claim they're doing anything constructive. This is a diversion from real life. It's compensating for something. Just because you feel your reasons are better doesn't mean you're better.

This is no "diversion" from real life : I can assure you I am well alive here, behind the keyboard, waiting to go get my kid at school in 30 minutes from now. While I'm not typing, most of the time, I play random stuff on my guitar to strenghten my fingers and gain endurance, left hand only. Some other times, I do other things, and I find some food for thought here when some posters I like put their art and creativity at work. But I can't say this happens very often nowadays, and I voiced that recently. I don't really care if this behavior suits you or not, but if you ask me something at least I will try my best to answer politely, to the best of my capacity, most of the time. The fact that I do not share Mr A or Mr B's particular vision on the ending doesn't allow me to jump on anyone's head, but if someone acts like this towards me I will gladly retaliate as I wish.

Im not saying you are trying to escape life. Im saying that this forum isnt an important part of it.Im also saying that you are being pretty judgmental while being demeaning. Science, politics, economics-these are serious subjects that demand rigorous debate and self analysis. Mass effect is a game, this is a thread about a game, which is an entertainment product, and as such it doesnt rrquire the same standards. You have goid things to say, shae them with some humility and grace and you may get your point across

[Iconoclaste]

demersel wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

demersel wrote...
Don't use the "R" word. It is offencive to them. 

R.b.ts, yeah... I read a debate a few days ago about this "AI are sentient, therefore their value equals that of organics" thing. It went far enough to show that some people can't get(h) out of their wounded player mindset to make abstract comments, instead they show their strong feelings that reveal they don't make proper distinction between the realm of  "Virtual world" and reality.

Well, that could be fixed by a simple thought experiment. If they insist that Geth are equal to organics in value of life, let's just repalece them by any other species. Let's say batarians. you shoot that tube - and all the reapers will die, but so will all the batarians. Especially the most polite one. He will die in agony. Would you choose destroy then? 

Worth a try.

[demersel]

Look, boys and gals, it doesn't really matter whether a being is sentient or not. What matters at the end of the day is wether it is in your "I like it and care about it" category or not. It is not the fact that the geth are alive, or not that matters. It the fact that we LIKE them. HK-47 is not alive. But you would have as much difficulties in sacrificing it than you have in sacrificing EDI. Maybe even more. Hell, you could grow to like a toaster and care more about it than about some of the living breathing beings.

We are discussing plot of the video game here. And the next person, woh uses the word hipocrit better have been saving some african children from aids and hunger insted of using it.

Modifié par demersel, 17 septembre 2012 - 08:27 .

[Arashi08]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Arashi08 wrote...

"To know yet to think that one does not know is best; Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty." Lao Tzu

I felt like I didn't make much sense earlier but this quote illustrated what I was trying to say about 11 or so hours ago, not prefectly, but I'm not really a word person lol

There is relative "knowledge" in this world, that renders healthcare, transportation, agriculture, computing and such into reality. The works of philosophers are fun to read, but are often put back in their "theoric context" by the people who actually work their brains out to invent and build the world we live in. Go tell a soldier that what he's doing is "philosophically wrong", and then take a walk in the real world.

I don't understand what this has to do with my use of that quote.  I daresay your examples only strengthen its meaning.  Yes it is true that knowledge allowed these things to come to pass, but theyare by no means perfect.


Healthcare is at the center of a big debate in the US  insurance companies can regulate who gets coverage and who doesn't but a government funded one can lead to low quality care (please let's not start a debate over this, it is just an example and it isn't necessarily my views on the subject). 

Transportation gets people to places faster, but it does send alot of pollutants into the air,

Agriculture give us our produce and innovations in agriculture have kept us from starving throughout history, but we also resort to using pesticides and genetically modified produce just to keep bugs off of it, heedless of the longterm effect on our health.

Computing is great, since we wouldn't be having this conversation without it.  but one could also argue that the evolution of social networking has caused humanity to become more distant and more reliant on the internet to communicate.  A real community of people could be replaced by an internet "community"  where noone truly knows another, not to mention the anonymity allows certain people to feel like they can be a hateful as they want with impunity.  one could say it cuts us off from our empathy and true understanding of people.

Now we can throw arguments and counter-arguments over these subjects all day but the point is that we don't have a perfect ANYTHING that w've built or invented.  in fact alot of what we've created could arguably do more harm to us than good.  That's not to diminish the hard work and sacrifice of the people that made it possible (who by the way couldn't have built anything without the thinkers and dreamers who came up with the idea in the first place.) 

the point of the quote was to say it is better to look at things objectively and NOT believe you have all the answers.  whereas believeing you know exactly what you;re doing when you don't creates problems.  Often the goal of alot of these innovations is money, not the betterment of humankind.  maybe the one who dreamed it up wanted to make something that benefitted people, but often along the way the ones with the money to see it built are just in it for more money.  not to say that is always the case, but you can't deny that money does seem to supercede empathy when it comes to progress.

Perhaps people just think too much with logic and not enough with compassion and understanding of the consequences.  That's what I think anyway, maybe it is wrong, but my experience through life so far has lead me to this philosophy. 

Make of that what you will.

[Iconoclaste]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Im not saying you are trying to escape life. Im saying that this forum isnt an important part of it.Im also saying that you are being pretty judgmental while being demeaning. Science, politics, economics-these are serious subjects that demand rigorous debate and self analysis. Mass effect is a game, this is a thread about a game, which is an entertainment product, and as such it doesnt rrquire the same standards. You have goid things to say, shae them with some humility and grace and you may get your point across

Some players on the IT thread, believe it or not, are actually adressing these "real world themes" themselves, in all kinds of situations. I don't see you annoyed by that either.

I saw comments on Bioware being "hypocrites", "liars", bad writers / designers / PR and all kinds of other nice things that do not really belong to the nice, pure entertainment universe you depict. Unless you really believe Mass Effect was made to infuriate players, the endings had many satisfied, even more with EC. Saying they are all too "dumb" to get "IT", repeatedly, does nothing to help gain credit, and it is not an appeal for peaceful debate. I'm not pointing at you specifically, but I think you can easily go back in all 3 IT threads and have a look for yourself on who has been the most insulting to Bioware and all players who chose differently.

Off to school now.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 17 septembre 2012 - 08:36 .

[paxxton]

Iconoclaste wrote...

demersel wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

demersel wrote...
Don't use the "R" word. It is offencive to them. 

R.b.ts, yeah... I read a debate a few days ago about this "AI are sentient, therefore their value equals that of organics" thing. It went far enough to show that some people can't get(h) out of their wounded player mindset to make abstract comments, instead they show their strong feelings that reveal they don't make proper distinction between the realm of  "Virtual world" and reality.

Well, that could be fixed by a simple thought experiment. If they insist that Geth are equal to organics in value of life, let's just repalece them by any other species. Let's say batarians. you shoot that tube - and all the reapers will die, but so will all the batarians. Especially the most polite one. He will die in agony. Would you choose destroy then? 

Worth a try.

Just go for Control and everything will be fine. You even get Reaper toys to play with at no additional cost.

On a more serious note, how does Control distinguish between Reapers and synthetics like EDI or the geth? If it doesn't, then maybe choosing Control poses a similar moral dilemma as Destroy. Is it better to live and obey someone's will or die and lose everything? Ponder that for a while.

Modifié par paxxton, 17 septembre 2012 - 08:32 .

[WhiteKnyght]

Iconoclaste wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...
( ... )

This is something I'm really "comfortable" with, and if I remember well, some IT supporters on the 1st thread viewed the endings in a similar fashion.The IT "schisms" did not happen out of the blue! But what you propose doesn't call for the "upcoming Boss Battle" which most ITers remaining here now are hoping for, so you're bound to face the usual denial barrier even if what you propose includes some good part of "indoctrination".

I tried to propose a "solution" for the "All a dream" but I know it will get nowhere, because I believe the "core" of the ITers remaining are still hell-bent on this "final boss battle" that can only happen in hypothetic future DLC or game.

Well devs have already said they aren't adding any more to the ending. Besides the face-off with the Illusive Man is similar to a boss conflict anyway. It's just that TIM is a thinker, not a fighter. Beating his logic and outwitting him would be more difficult for Shepard than just having something to shoot at.

People like spotlessvoid over there(guy doesn't even get my name right. Grey is a title relating to the Grey Wardens, I'm more commonly known as Nayr) like any insecure person, hears somethig that contradicts or shakes his faith and his response is to get angry about it and make attacks. Then turn around and accuse their challenger of things. So I compared IT to Elvis, so what? It's feasibly possible that a super wealthy and connected man could fake his death and that coffin in Memphis could be empty. Unlikely, but possible.

Back to the subject at hand, the interpretation I just gave allows both interpretations, literal and theoretical, to coexist harmoniously. It also would make sense of the elaborately designed chamber and the fact that the Catalyst took the form of the dead child that Shepard has felt guilty over for the entire game.

It's also got a proof of concept given by the Geth consensus stage, and Leviathan, who pulled Shepard into the "dark and cold" realm that Hadley, the miners, and Ann Bryson talked about. Seeing as Reaper Indoctrination is a more refined version of the Leviathan's entrhallment(thralls don't have to stay in range of the object that indoctrinated them). But the fact that Leviathan was strong enough to usurp control of Reaper forces from the Reapers themselves suggests that the range refinement has a tradeoff and means the signal strength is weaker. Forgive me if I'm getting a little rambley in my post. Sharing what I know on some things make me consider other options and they are worth throwing into the big-pot-o-ideas.

[spotlessvoid]

Iconoclaste wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Im not saying you are trying to escape life. Im saying that this forum isnt an important part of it.Im also saying that you are being pretty judgmental while being demeaning. Science, politics, economics-these are serious subjects that demand rigorous debate and self analysis. Mass effect is a game, this is a thread about a game, which is an entertainment product, and as such it doesnt rrquire the same standards. You have goid things to say, shae them with some humility and grace and you may get your point across

Some players on the IT thread, believe it or not, are actually adressing these "real world themes" themselves, in all kinds of situations. I don't see you annoyed by that either.

I saw comments on Bioware being "hypocrites", "liars", bad writers / designers / PR and all kinds of other nice things that do not really belong to the nice, pure entertainment universe you depict.

And why shouldnt people be allowed to have an opinion on the creators of a product they spent a lot of money on? My point is twofold. This is a thread about an entertainment product, not something important. Fun is just as important as accurracy. My main point is you went about expressing your views on forum etiquette in a really aggressive way and it isnt going to prompt anyone to want to think about what you say.

[spotlessvoid]

The geth consensus is a virtual world with a visual representation. That's not proof that the end is a physical world with a virtual representation. Doesn't mean the idea is wrong. Just that it's only speculation that links the two concepts.

Modifié par spotlessvoid, 17 septembre 2012 - 08:55 .

[neilthecellist]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Im not saying you are trying to escape life. Im saying that this forum isnt an important part of it.Im also saying that you are being pretty judgmental while being demeaning. Science, politics, economics-these are serious subjects that demand rigorous debate and self analysis. Mass effect is a game, this is a thread about a game, which is an entertainment product, and as such it doesnt rrquire the same standards. You have goid things to say, shae them with some humility and grace and you may get your point across

Some players on the IT thread, believe it or not, are actually adressing these "real world themes" themselves, in all kinds of situations. I don't see you annoyed by that either.

I saw comments on Bioware being "hypocrites", "liars", bad writers / designers / PR and all kinds of other nice things that do not really belong to the nice, pure entertainment universe you depict.

And why shouldnt people be allowed to have an opinion on the creators of a product they spent a lot of money on? My point is twofold. This is a thread about an entertainment product, not something important. Fun is just as important as accurracy. My main point is you went about expressing your views on forum etiquette in a really aggressive way and it isnt going to prompt anyone to want to think about what you say.

This.

Also, this:

[paxxton]

A while, I said...

[Ace7]

paxxton wrote...

A while, I said...

I'm fine, say's I...

[paxxton]

Ace7 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

A while, I said...

I'm fine, say's I...

A while, I said...

[Restrider]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...
( ... )

This is something I'm really "comfortable" with, and if I remember well, some IT supporters on the 1st thread viewed the endings in a similar fashion.The IT "schisms" did not happen out of the blue! But what you propose doesn't call for the "upcoming Boss Battle" which most ITers remaining here now are hoping for, so you're bound to face the usual denial barrier even if what you propose includes some good part of "indoctrination".

I tried to propose a "solution" for the "All a dream" but I know it will get nowhere, because I believe the "core" of the ITers remaining are still hell-bent on this "final boss battle" that can only happen in hypothetic future DLC or game.

Well devs have already said they aren't adding any more to the ending. Besides the face-off with the Illusive Man is similar to a boss conflict anyway. It's just that TIM is a thinker, not a fighter. Beating his logic and outwitting him would be more difficult for Shepard than just having something to shoot at.

People like spotlessvoid over there(guy doesn't even get my name right. Grey is a title relating to the Grey Wardens, I'm more commonly known as Nayr) like any insecure person, hears somethig that contradicts or shakes his faith and his response is to get angry about it and make attacks. Then turn around and accuse their challenger of things. So I compared IT to Elvis, so what? It's feasibly possible that a super wealthy and connected man could fake his death and that coffin in Memphis could be empty. Unlikely, but possible.

Back to the subject at hand, the interpretation I just gave allows both interpretations, literal and theoretical, to coexist harmoniously. It also would make sense of the elaborately designed chamber and the fact that the Catalyst took the form of the dead child that Shepard has felt guilty over for the entire game.

It's also got a proof of concept given by the Geth consensus stage, and Leviathan, who pulled Shepard into the "dark and cold" realm that Hadley, the miners, and Ann Bryson talked about. Seeing as Reaper Indoctrination is a more refined version of the Leviathan's entrhallment(thralls don't have to stay in range of the object that indoctrinated them). But the fact that Leviathan was strong enough to usurp control of Reaper forces from the Reapers themselves suggests that the range refinement has a tradeoff and means the signal strength is weaker. Forgive me if I'm getting a little rambley in my post. Sharing what I know on some things make me consider other options and they are worth throwing into the big-pot-o-ideas.

This version of IT is partly plausible, still there are things missing.
For example the whole Normandy pick-up scene, the beam hit (Shepard not dying to it and "serve us"), the Citadel resembling past events, Andersons appearance on the Citadel, the ambiguity of dialogue, the abdominal wounds of Anderson/Shepard, Kaidan/Ash corpses, Major Coats' corpse...
You can explain it with bad writing or symbolism. But when you are already in the realm of letting symbolism into these sequences, who is to say that it is not even more than plain symbolism, but a whole other stage of reality. The whole shift in atmosphere happens after the beam hit, so I assume it is safe to say that throughout a theme you are at the same stage of reality/virtuality. Compare it to the sequence in the Geth Consensus. You had the boxed architecture, the increased gamma/brightness etc.

On a side note, I think Jessica Merizan stated that she had a playthrough, where the events after TIM/Anderson were IT to her.

Furthermore: Congrats to Bleeding Uranium (though I am not sure how a heavy metal can bleed).

[demersel]

I'm feeling kinky tonight... I think i'll choose control a couple of times.))

[Ace7]

Grand evenin for it though..

[paxxton]

So anyone pondered what I wrote earlier. For a while, I said...

[Ace7]

paxxton wrote...

Ace7 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

A while, I said...

I'm fine, say's I...

A while, I said...

Is it time yet?