545 réponses à ce sujet

[Mobius-Silent]

BigBadMammogram wrote...
No, thats an arbitrary rule assigned to the ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Typically, if you say something like 'a car is little more than a seat', people laugh, because sarcastic understatements are usually funny. Saying a .50 calibur sniper rifle is just 'a way to reach out and touch someone' is another understatment. Saying that something that can modify the most advanced AI in the galaxy is 'little more than a crude power supply' either cannot be taken seriously, or its horrible writing.

You could easily say "A car is little more than an internal combustion engine" because the rest is trivial in complexity.

In the same way, destroy, control and synthesis involve only three things

1. Enough power
2. Software 
3. Large enough Mass effect field generators

That is _all_ thats needed. in a situation like that it would be perfectly resonable to say that the Cruble is "Little more that a power source" because that "little more" is the software, dwarfed in complexity by the power supply and the field emmiters but still part of the Crucible.

Simply put, as poorly written as the end of ME3 is, it _can_ make sense after the EC, if you choose to ignore those elements that _let_ the EC make sense that of course, it will seem to make less sense...

[BigBadMammogram]

Geneaux486 wrote...

I disagree, and that's basically what our argument boils down to.

Then your ability to suspend your disbelief is epic. You can ignore the 50 or so plotholes, the bad writing, the fact that the main adversary just lets you win, the false advertising, the complete lack of an ending(pre-EC), and the fact that synthesis makes absolutely no sense at all.

I dont know if I should congradulate you or feel sorry for you...

[Ticonderoga117]

Geneaux486 wrote...
If the plans survive as data being stored and/or broadcast across multiple networks, taking into account possible backups and portable versions (hell, the Illusive Man and the Alliance each had a copy of the Crucible plans, and Vendetta seemed to have them to), it doesn't seem so unlikely to me.  The Protheans tucked the plans away in a system the Reapers had no reason to visit during that extinction cycle, a sound plan that would likely work each time, even if the Reapers got wind of the plans in some form or another.

So, these plans somehow survived being transmitted to a system meant to be isolated, along networks the Reapers could infiltrate?

Besides, they still knew about it in the prothean cycle, they would've prepared for that and destroyed it if it appeared in our cycle. As soon as it appears, it would've been destroyed.

But it isn't, because the writers demand it.

[Ticonderoga117]

Mobius-Silent wrote...
You could easily say "A car is little more than an internal combustion engine" because the rest is trivial in complexity.

No you can't. A car is MUCH more than an engine. It has wheels, a frame, a body, a steering system, a gear box, complex computer controls.... no. "Little more than an engine" would imply you have an engine, and maybe the radiator and what not.

[BigBadMammogram]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

BigBadMammogram wrote...
No, thats an arbitrary rule assigned to the ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Typically, if you say something like 'a car is little more than a seat', people laugh, because sarcastic understatements are usually funny. Saying a .50 calibur sniper rifle is just 'a way to reach out and touch someone' is another understatment. Saying that something that can modify the most advanced AI in the galaxy is 'little more than a crude power supply' either cannot be taken seriously, or its horrible writing.

You could easily say "A car is little more than an internal combustion engine" because the rest is trivial in complexity.

In the same way, destroy, control and synthesis involve only three things

1. Enough power
2. Software 
3. Large enough Mass effect field generators

That is _all_ thats needed. in a situation like that it would be perfectly resonable to say that the Cruble is "Little more that a power source" because that "little more" is the software, dwarfed in complexity by the power supply and the field emmiters but still part of the Crucible.

Simply put, as poorly written as the end of ME3 is, it _can_ make sense after the EC, if you choose to ignore those elements that _let_ the EC make sense that of course, it will seem to make less sense...

No, saying a dirtbike is 'little more than a combustion engine' is accurate, saying that about a car is silly. Believe it or not, the engine is not the most complicated part.

And really big mass effect field generators would not give you the ability to pull off synthesis. How does a mass effect field rewrite synthetics beings? Or DNA? It doesnt, it just changes gravity, and lets you push or pull things around.

For the other two, sure, power and software are the only thing that is required. So why are they brand new, recently created options? The citadel was already a giant mass effect relay, so it had at least enough power to destroy any reaper nearby, and the starbrat can already control the reapers.

[Fawx9]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

BigBadMammogram wrote...
No, thats an arbitrary rule assigned to the ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Typically, if you say something like 'a car is little more than a seat', people laugh, because sarcastic understatements are usually funny. Saying a .50 calibur sniper rifle is just 'a way to reach out and touch someone' is another understatment. Saying that something that can modify the most advanced AI in the galaxy is 'little more than a crude power supply' either cannot be taken seriously, or its horrible writing.

You could easily say "A car is little more than an internal combustion engine" because the rest is trivial in complexity.

In the same way, destroy, control and synthesis involve only three things

1. Enough power
2. Software 
3. Large enough Mass effect field generators

That is _all_ thats needed. in a situation like that it would be perfectly resonable to say that the Cruble is "Little more that a power source" because that "little more" is the software, dwarfed in complexity by the power supply and the field emmiters but still part of the Crucible.

Simply put, as poorly written as the end of ME3 is, it _can_ make sense after the EC, if you choose to ignore those elements that _let_ the EC make sense that of course, it will seem to make less sense...

Uhh no.

The software would be the mosty complex thing in this whole system. The cucible didn't come with on OS already installed. Someone had to design and come up with the magic algorithms to get that thing to fire.

You are completly trivilazing what would be required for something like that to be built to try nd make your point.

Also cars these days are a lot more than just the engine. If your computer breaks you probably lost most functions that you never knew you relied on so much.

PS The fact that the hardware and software engineers didn't figure out what functions the crucible had just points to the Citidal being the one doing the grunt work.

Unless they are copy pasting the software out of data caches found in the plans then there is nio good excuse why one of them didn't try to figure out what this thing does.

Modifié par Fawx9, 15 août 2012 - 11:09 .

[Geneaux486]

You can ignore the 50 or so plotholes, the bad writing, the fact that the main adversary just lets you win, the false advertising, the complete lack of an ending(pre-EC), and the fact that synthesis makes absolutely no sense at all.

All opinions, not facts. Your assesment of the story is not an objective truth, no one's is.  The fact that we disagree says nothing about me other than that I disagree with you.  If you think that merits pity, then honestly that says more about you than it does about me.

So, these plans somehow survived being transmitted to a system meant to be isolated, along networks the Reapers could infiltrate?

Clearly, since they did. There is no previously established fact saying that such a thing is impossible, and the Reapers are well-established to be fallible in thier methods, despite all their power, so yeah, no contradiction of lore there.

EDIT:  Hey Mobius, how've you been?

Modifié par Geneaux486, 15 août 2012 - 11:12 .

[BigBadMammogram]

Geneaux486 wrote...

You can ignore the 50 or so plotholes, the bad writing, the fact that the main adversary just lets you win, the false advertising, the complete lack of an ending(pre-EC), and the fact that synthesis makes absolutely no sense at all.

All opinions, not facts. Your assesment of the story is not an objective truth, no one's is.  The fact that we disagree says nothing about me other than that I disagree with you.

So, these plans somehow survived being transmitted to a system meant to be isolated, along networks the Reapers could infiltrate?

Clearly, since they did. There is no previously established fact saying that such a thing is impossible, and the Reapers are well-established to be fallible in thier methods, despite all their power, so yeah, no contradiction of lore there.

Alright, so what about data corruption over time? Thousands of cycles worked on this thing without knowing what it did. So they could have easily screwed it up without knowing, and the next cycle would have just built on top of their mistakes. Compound that over thousands of cycles, and you end up with a completely incomprehensible garbled mess.

Maybe thats how bioware wrote the story!

[Ticonderoga117]

Geneaux486 wrote...
Clearly, since they did. There is no previously established fact saying that such a thing is impossible, and the Reapers are well-established to be fallible in thier methods, despite all their power, so yeah, no contradiction of lore there.

Not impossible, but extremely unlikely. And that's for one cycle. Takign into account multiple cycles... it's stupid.

Honestly, I could buy this a lot better if it was just a Prothean device.

[robertthebard]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...
They knew about the Reapers, but not about their use of the Citadel.  Their study of the Citadel came after the invasion, their unlocking of the secrets of Mass Relay technology came before.  Beside the point really, as the existence of the Crucible proves to us that at least one other species in another cycle learned enough about the Citadel and Mass Relays to design the Crucible to utilize them.

Yeah, and when they had access to the Citadel and found out it's part in the Reaper invasion, they did NOT find evidence of the functions. So, this shows that everything involving the Crucible was thought up in ME3 because "To hell with the Lore that came before, I want my stupid endings!"

Nor did they find evidence of a super-AI inhabitting the Citadel.

And outside of ME3, where was there evidence of the protheans knowing about the Reapers?

Eden Prime, in ME 1.  Yes, you learn about them from the beacon, which was left by, you guessed it, the Protheans.  You do realize that this is the very first mission you undertake, and it takes you most of the game to figure out what it all means.  Should I remind you about Ilos and Vigil? 

[Geneaux486]

Alright, so what about data corruption over time? Thousands of cycles worked on this thing without knowing what it did.

We know that our cycle didn't know what it did. We have no idea how much previous cycles were able to discern (and seeing as how they were able to modify and improve it, they figured out more than we did), nor do we know how complete the instructions we obtained after the Illusive Man sabotaged the facility and tried to corrupt the data actually were.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 15 août 2012 - 11:15 .

[BigBadMammogram]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Not impossible, but extremely unlikely. And that's for one cycle. Takign into account multiple cycles... it's stupid.

Honestly, I could buy this a lot better if it was just a Prothean device.

It still would have been a bad implementation of a deus ex machina, but it would make a lot more sense. It would even explain why we decided to use it.

[BigBadMammogram]

robertthebard wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...
They knew about the Reapers, but not about their use of the Citadel.  Their study of the Citadel came after the invasion, their unlocking of the secrets of Mass Relay technology came before.  Beside the point really, as the existence of the Crucible proves to us that at least one other species in another cycle learned enough about the Citadel and Mass Relays to design the Crucible to utilize them.

Yeah, and when they had access to the Citadel and found out it's part in the Reaper invasion, they did NOT find evidence of the functions. So, this shows that everything involving the Crucible was thought up in ME3 because "To hell with the Lore that came before, I want my stupid endings!"

Nor did they find evidence of a super-AI inhabitting the Citadel.

And outside of ME3, where was there evidence of the protheans knowing about the Reapers?

Eden Prime, in ME 1.  Yes, you learn about them from the beacon, which was left by, you guessed it, the Protheans.  You do realize that this is the very first mission you undertake, and it takes you most of the game to figure out what it all means.  Should I remind you about Ilos and Vigil? 

The beacons were built after the invasion, as a warning to the next cycle. Not before. He meant 'knowing about the Reapers before the invasion?'

[Geneaux486]

BigBadMammogram wrote...
It still would have been a bad implementation of a deus ex machina, but it would make a lot more sense. It would even explain why we decided to use it.

The Crucible isn't even a deus ex machina.  It's introduced at the beginning of the game as an idea that's slowly made into reality throughout the story, who's origins are heavily touched on, which does not perfectly solve the problem regardless of how you use it. 

Modifié par Geneaux486, 15 août 2012 - 11:17 .

[robertthebard]

BigBadMammogram wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

"The Crucible changed me, created new possibilities, but I can't make them happen."
A simple power source cant do that.

 
Again, this is an arbitrary rule you've assigned to the Mass Effect universe.  Unless you are one of the writers, you lack the authority to pass it off as an in-game fact. 

So they still contradict each other.

 
Not a fact.

No, thats an arbitrary rule assigned to the ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Typically, if you say something like 'a car is little more than a seat', people laugh, because sarcastic understatements are usually funny. Saying a .50 calibur sniper rifle is just 'a way to reach out and touch someone' is another understatment. Saying that something that can modify the most advanced AI in the galaxy is 'little more than a crude power supply' either cannot be taken seriously, or its horrible writing.

I think a very important fact is being overlooked here.  If saying a car is little more than a seat is funny, why is it funny?  You say here that it is a sarcastic understatement, but, my question is what else is there to a car other than a seat?  There's a lot more to it than that, right?  So why does "little more than a power source" have to mean "all it is is a power source"?  This is a logical fallacy.  What it cannot be is taken at face value.  Because if it is, then a sniper rifle really is just a way to reach out and touch someone.

[Ticonderoga117]

robertthebard wrote...
Eden Prime, in ME 1.  Yes, you learn about them from the beacon, which was left by, you guessed it, the Protheans.  You do realize that this is the very first mission you undertake, and it takes you most of the game to figure out what it all means.  Should I remind you about Ilos and Vigil? 

That message was post-invasion. Not before.
Try again.

[BigBadMammogram]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Alright, so what about data corruption over time? Thousands of cycles worked on this thing without knowing what it did.

We know that our cycle didn't know what it did. We have no idea how much previous cycles were able to discern (and seeing as how they were able to modify and improve it, they figured out more than we did), nor do we know how complete the instructions we obtained after the Illusive Man sabotaged the facility and tried to corrupt the data actually were.

So, assuming the data was only slightly corrputed by the illusive man, we were able to modify it(to fix it) without knowing what the hell it does. So other cycles could do that too. Except the only way to know if our modifications are correct, is by firing the thing. Other cycles would have had the same problem. And from what the game tells us, its only been fired at most, once.

Second question. If the other cycles were able to pass down instructions on what this thing does, why couldnt the protheans? That indicates that some data gets lost between cycles, which leads to corruption of the data.

[Fawx9]

robertthebard wrote...

BigBadMammogram wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

"The Crucible changed me, created new possibilities, but I can't make them happen."
A simple power source cant do that.

 
Again, this is an arbitrary rule you've assigned to the Mass Effect universe.  Unless you are one of the writers, you lack the authority to pass it off as an in-game fact. 

So they still contradict each other.

 
Not a fact.

No, thats an arbitrary rule assigned to the ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Typically, if you say something like 'a car is little more than a seat', people laugh, because sarcastic understatements are usually funny. Saying a .50 calibur sniper rifle is just 'a way to reach out and touch someone' is another understatment. Saying that something that can modify the most advanced AI in the galaxy is 'little more than a crude power supply' either cannot be taken seriously, or its horrible writing.

I think a very important fact is being overlooked here.  If saying a car is little more than a seat is funny, why is it funny?  You say here that it is a sarcastic understatement, but, my question is what else is there to a car other than a seat?  There's a lot more to it than that, right?  So why does "little more than a power source" have to mean "all it is is a power source"?  This is a logical fallacy.  What it cannot be is taken at face value.  Because if it is, then a sniper rifle really is just a way to reach out and touch someone.

Are you implying that the AI was making a joke?

[robertthebard]

BigBadMammogram wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...
They knew about the Reapers, but not about their use of the Citadel.  Their study of the Citadel came after the invasion, their unlocking of the secrets of Mass Relay technology came before.  Beside the point really, as the existence of the Crucible proves to us that at least one other species in another cycle learned enough about the Citadel and Mass Relays to design the Crucible to utilize them.

Yeah, and when they had access to the Citadel and found out it's part in the Reaper invasion, they did NOT find evidence of the functions. So, this shows that everything involving the Crucible was thought up in ME3 because "To hell with the Lore that came before, I want my stupid endings!"

Nor did they find evidence of a super-AI inhabitting the Citadel.

And outside of ME3, where was there evidence of the protheans knowing about the Reapers?

Eden Prime, in ME 1.  Yes, you learn about them from the beacon, which was left by, you guessed it, the Protheans.  You do realize that this is the very first mission you undertake, and it takes you most of the game to figure out what it all means.  Should I remind you about Ilos and Vigil? 

The beacons were built after the invasion, as a warning to the next cycle. Not before. He meant 'knowing about the Reapers before the invasion?'

Oh, it says "and outside of ME 3, where was there any evidence of the Protheans knowing about the Reapers?.  I read it to say what it says, not what I thought he might mean.  Clear communication is mandatory in a non-verbal communication setting.

[Geneaux486]

So, assuming the data was only slightly corrputed by the illusive man, we were able to modify it(to fix it) without knowing what the hell it does. So other cycles could do that too. Except the only way to know if our modifications are correct, is by firing the thing. Other cycles would have had the same problem. And from what the game tells us, its only been fired at most, once.

Or other cycles simply learned more about the thing than we could.

Second question. If the other cycles were able to pass down instructions on what this thing does, why couldnt the protheans? That indicates that some data gets lost between cycles, which leads to corruption of the data.

Or the Protheans did pass it down, and that part was lost when the Illusive Man tampered with the data. Case in point, he knew the Crucible was capable of controlling the Reapers before we did.

All that aside, I'm merely speculating on these things, nothing is fact other than that it is possible for these things to happen. If it's not impossible, it's not a plothole. What you call an unanswerable question I call an unanswered question, simple as that. Is it bad writing?  That's up to each of us, there's no objective answer to that question.  That's really all I'm saying.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 15 août 2012 - 11:25 .

[robertthebard]

Fawx9 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

I think a very important fact is being overlooked here.  If saying a car is little more than a seat is funny, why is it funny?  You say here that it is a sarcastic understatement, but, my question is what else is there to a car other than a seat?  There's a lot more to it than that, right?  So why does "little more than a power source" have to mean "all it is is a power source"?  This is a logical fallacy.  What it cannot be is taken at face value.  Because if it is, then a sniper rifle really is just a way to reach out and touch someone.

Are you implying that the AI was making a joke?

Maybe. 

However, the problem I see with this line of conversation is that "little more" is being interpreted to mean "all it is".

[Fawx9]

robertthebard wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

I think a very important fact is being overlooked here.  If saying a car is little more than a seat is funny, why is it funny?  You say here that it is a sarcastic understatement, but, my question is what else is there to a car other than a seat?  There's a lot more to it than that, right?  So why does "little more than a power source" have to mean "all it is is a power source"?  This is a logical fallacy.  What it cannot be is taken at face value.  Because if it is, then a sniper rifle really is just a way to reach out and touch someone.

Are you implying that the AI was making a joke?

Maybe. 

However, the problem I see with this line of conversation is that "little more" is being interpreted to mean "all it is".

That's because thats what it generally means, unless you are being sarcastic when you say it.

[BigBadMammogram]

robertthebard wrote...

I think a very important fact is being overlooked here.  If saying a car is little more than a seat is funny, why is it funny?  You say here that it is a sarcastic understatement, but, my question is what else is there to a car other than a seat?  There's a lot more to it than that, right?  So why does "little more than a power source" have to mean "all it is is a power source"?  This is a logical fallacy.  What it cannot be is taken at face value.  Because if it is, then a sniper rifle really is just a way to reach out and touch someone.

Wow... You know, I generally try not to be rude on these forums(I dont always suceed), but wow... Just wow...

I'll... try... to spell it out for you.

Saying a sniper rifle is 'a way to reach out and touch someone' is generally considered funny because its ridiculous, and it leaves out a lot of details about exactly what it does.

Now for this line:
"The crucible is little more than a power supply"
If that sentence is meant to be taken literally, and the crucible is able to provide completely new options to the most advanced AI in the galaxy, then that statement makes no sense. Bad writing.
If that sentence is not meant to be taken literally, then the writers are trying to make a joke. The galaxy is dying around shepard while he bleeds to death, and they want to make you laugh. They are saying something ridiculous and leaving out a lot of details about exactly what it does. Again, thats horrible writing.

[BigBadMammogram]

Geneaux486 wrote...

So, assuming the data was only slightly corrputed by the illusive man, we were able to modify it(to fix it) without knowing what the hell it does. So other cycles could do that too. Except the only way to know if our modifications are correct, is by firing the thing. Other cycles would have had the same problem. And from what the game tells us, its only been fired at most, once.

Or other cycles simply learned more about the thing than we could.

Second question. If the other cycles were able to pass down instructions on what this thing does, why couldnt the protheans? That indicates that some data gets lost between cycles, which leads to corruption of the data.

Or the Protheans did pass it down, and that part was lost when the Illusive Man tampered with the data. Case in point, he knew the Crucible was capable of controlling the Reapers before we did.

All that aside, I'm merely speculating on these things, nothing is fact other than that it is possible for these things to happen. If it's not impossible, it's not a plothole. What you call an unanswerable question I call an unanswered question, simple as that. Is it bad writing?  That's up to each of us, there's no objective answer to that question.  That's really all I'm saying.

I say that unanswered questions that are absolutely critical to explaining why you have to pick one of these options offered by your enemy, and why you should trust him, a plothole. I also call it bad writing.

In addition, there is a severe lack of an explanation as to why we decided to even build the thing. All the questions I ask are perfectly valid reasons to say 'no, we should put our resources somewhere else. This thing probably wont work'. So these questions need answers

Modifié par BigBadMammogram, 15 août 2012 - 11:33 .

[robertthebard]

BigBadMammogram wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

I think a very important fact is being overlooked here.  If saying a car is little more than a seat is funny, why is it funny?  You say here that it is a sarcastic understatement, but, my question is what else is there to a car other than a seat?  There's a lot more to it than that, right?  So why does "little more than a power source" have to mean "all it is is a power source"?  This is a logical fallacy.  What it cannot be is taken at face value.  Because if it is, then a sniper rifle really is just a way to reach out and touch someone.

Wow... You know, I generally try not to be rude on these forums(I dont always suceed), but wow... Just wow...

I'll... try... to spell it out for you.

Saying a sniper rifle is 'a way to reach out and touch someone' is generally considered funny because its ridiculous, and it leaves out a lot of details about exactly what it does.

Now for this line:
"The crucible is little more than a power supply"
If that sentence is meant to be taken literally, and the crucible is able to provide completely new options to the most advanced AI in the galaxy, then that statement makes no sense. Bad writing.
If that sentence is not meant to be taken literally, then the writers are trying to make a joke. The galaxy is dying around shepard while he bleeds to death, and they want to make you laugh. They are saying something ridiculous and leaving out a lot of details about exactly what it does. Again, thats horrible writing.

So tell me, what is the other function of a sniper rifle?  Really, that's all they do, reach out and fatally touch someone.  It's not like they can then be used to escape from where you're sniping from, barring reaching out and touching anyone that might have seen the muzzle flash.  If something is "little more than..." then there is something else to it besides the descriptor used.  It may not be much of anything at all, but it does have additional qualities other than what is defined by whatever descriptor used.  In your very own example of a sarcastic understatement, that a car is more than just a seat.  It is, of course, much more than a seat.  However, it could just be an understatement, instead of a sarcastic understatement.  It could be that the "little more" is what enables it to make changes.