925 réponses à ce sujet

[Khajiit Jzargo]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Not it's not different. Your critizing me for choosing something that has failed before, when the whole plan was doing something that has failed before. That's hypocrosy.

I give up. You keep moving the goal line. You keep changing the rules of the discussion. You are impossible. You are the Council!!!

How so? If anything your doing that. I went back to the roots of the conversation.

We not talks to you. We know all Gavorn's tricks. Go away.

Damn Vorcha 

[robertthebard]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Not it's not different. Your critizing me for choosing something that has failed before, when the whole plan was doing something that has failed before. That's hypocrosy.

I give up. You keep moving the goal line. You keep changing the rules of the discussion. You are impossible. You are the Council!!!

How so? If anything your doing that. I went back to the roots of the conversation.

I just want to point a couple of things out about the initial post in this quote:

First:  you are claiming that Refusal has been chosen before, even though we have no records indicating that anyone has ever used the Crucible before.

Second:  You are saying that the whole plan has failed before, even though we have no evidence, from any source, that anyone ever got far enough with the Crucible to actually try it.  That the blueprints for it have successfully been passed from cycle to cycle meant that each cycle thought it was important enough to carry it over to the next cycle.  A plan that has never been put into motion cannot fail.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

LIARA SAID THE CRUCIBLE FAILED BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T USE IT!!!!!

She wasn't there to know that you didn't use it. She thought you used it and that it didn't work.

:headdesk: :headdesk: :headdesk:

No she said it didn't work.



*Facepalm*

Exactly. Because you didn't use it. She wasn't there to know that you didn't use it. She thought you tried to use it and that it didn't work. Hence, she thought the crucible failed to do what they thought it would do.

:headdesk: :headdesk: :headdesk:

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 18 août 2012 - 07:07 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

LIARA SAID THE CRUCIBLE FAILED BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T USE IT!!!!!

She wasn't there to know that you didn't use it. She thought you used it and that it didn't work.

:

Modifié par Khajiit Jzargo, 18 août 2012 - 07:11 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

robertthebard wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Not it's not different. Your critizing me for choosing something that has failed before, when the whole plan was doing something that has failed before. That's hypocrosy.

I give up. You keep moving the goal line. You keep changing the rules of the discussion. You are impossible. You are the Council!!!

How so? If anything your doing that. I went back to the roots of the conversation.

I just want to point a couple of things out about the initial post in this quote:

First:  you are claiming that Refusal has been chosen before, even though we have no records indicating that anyone has ever used the Crucible before.

Second:  You are saying that the whole plan has failed before, even though we have no evidence, from any source, that anyone ever got far enough with the Crucible to actually try it.  That the blueprints for it have successfully been passed from cycle to cycle meant that each cycle thought it was important enough to carry it over to the next cycle.  A plan that has never been put into motion cannot fail.

I never said Refusal was used, please point to me where I did, I said that fighting the Reapers convetionally has failed which is basically the same thing that happens in Refusal.

When I meant plan, I meant the finishing of the Crucible, it was never done before, until now. So when he tells me choosing refusal and fighting the Reapers conventionally is stupid because it failed before, well that's hypocritical because the whole plan of defeating the Reapers was doing something that failed before.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

LIARA SAID THE CRUCIBLE FAILED BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T USE IT!!!!!

She wasn't there to know that you didn't use it. She thought you used it and that it didn't work.

:headdesk: :headdesk: :headdesk:

No she said it didn't work.



*Facepalm*

Exactly. Because you didn't use it. She wasn't there to know that you didn't use it. She thought you tried to use it and that it didn't work. Hence, she thought the crucible failed to do what they thought it would do.

:headdesk: :headdesk: :headdesk:

Or she though that Shepard tried to use it but the Crucible didn't work, not that he didn't decide to use it, therefore making the next cycle think that using the Crucible is pointless.

Read the bold and underlined

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 18 août 2012 - 07:16 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

LIARA SAID THE CRUCIBLE FAILED BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T USE IT!!!!!

She wasn't there to know that you didn't use it. She thought you used it and that it didn't work.

:headdesk: :headdesk: :headdesk:

No she said it didn't work.



*Facepalm*

Exactly. Because you didn't use it. She wasn't there to know that you didn't use it. She thought you tried to use it and that it didn't work. Hence, she thought the crucible failed to do what they thought it would do.

:headdesk: :headdesk: :headdesk:

Or she though that Shepard tried to use it but the Crucible didn't work, not that he didn't decide to use it, therefore making the next cycle think that using the Crucible is pointless.

Read the bold and underlined

And I agree with that.
The problem was how you worded it. The way you wrote I saw it , and I'm sure other would have too was. 

when you wrote "She said the crucible failed because you didn't use it" I though you meant to say she literally said the Crucible failed because Shepard refused and she knew what happened. And then when you wrote she didn't know what happen, so it made no sense for me. But I get what you mean to say was she thought it failed because you didn't use it.
Word it a tad better next time.

Well we're arguing for no reason because I agree.

[Isichar]

^ Why context is important.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Isichar wrote...

^ Why context is important.

Precisely.

[Dharvy]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Not it's not different. Your critizing me for choosing something that has failed before, when the whole plan was doing something that has failed before. That's hypocrosy.

I give up. You keep moving the goal line. You keep changing the rules of the discussion. You are impossible. You are the Council!!!

But don't you know? To refuse you're effectively becoming like the council. Its a parrellel nugget that you sometimes find in stories even without the writers even intending.

You see you don't trust the Catalyst for whatever reason, (the Council didn't trust Shepard for whatever reason) and then you both can't do what is neccessary to save the life of the Galaxy. If the Catalyst was broadcasting the whole encounter throughout the Galaxy so everyone could see what was going on, unbeknownst to Shepard, the Galaxy would've all been probably as fustrated as you were when you tried to talk to the council and they straight up ignored you and refused, continue doing whatever they was doing and failing the Galaxy.

Maybe the Council didn't feel like sacrificing for a maybe. Maybe this 50k year Giant Synthetics gonna kill us all was to absurd to take seriously. Maybe it was easier to assume Shepard was mistaken and illogical because chances are that this isn't really a problem at all. So they refused to act because they didn't believe the ranting of one person. Do anyone know the ammount of Sacrifice the Galaxy have to undergo to prepare for such a threat? And to make the whole galaxy war ready if the threat is false, the repercussions would be unsurmountable, it'll likely cause war amongst themselves for fear alone of war amongst themselves. To think they didn't even want to cure the Genophage in the midst of the actual Reaper threat and neither the Quarians wanted to stop their war with the Geth in the midst of being on the verge of existinction by the Reapers.

To refuse because of fear or mistrust or not willing to make the sacrifice for an uncertainty, you now have a glimspe into why the Council refused you.  History repeating itself.

[robertthebard]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Not it's not different. Your critizing me for choosing something that has failed before, when the whole plan was doing something that has failed before. That's hypocrosy.

I give up. You keep moving the goal line. You keep changing the rules of the discussion. You are impossible. You are the Council!!!

How so? If anything your doing that. I went back to the roots of the conversation.

I just want to point a couple of things out about the initial post in this quote:

First:  you are claiming that Refusal has been chosen before, even though we have no records indicating that anyone has ever used the Crucible before.

Second:  You are saying that the whole plan has failed before, even though we have no evidence, from any source, that anyone ever got far enough with the Crucible to actually try it.  That the blueprints for it have successfully been passed from cycle to cycle meant that each cycle thought it was important enough to carry it over to the next cycle.  A plan that has never been put into motion cannot fail.

I never said Refusal was used, please point to me where I did, I said that fighting the Reapers convetionally has failed which is basically the same thing that happens in Refusal.

When I meant plan, I meant the finishing of the Crucible, it was never done before, until now. So when he tells me choosing refusal and fighting the Reapers conventionally is stupid because it failed before, well that's hypocritical because the whole plan of defeating the Reapers was doing something that failed before.

You know, even with this new quote added to what you had to say, every time I read the initial post, I still see you talking about Refusal.  Why?  Context is important.  However, in your last sentence, any semblence of sense you may have been starting to make goes out the window.  Why?  Because nobody that we are aware of ever completed the Crucible.  Even if the Protheans had completed it, they couldn't deploy it.  Why?  All the Relays were shut down, and they didn't have control of the Citadel.  Again, the plan was never enacted, because it couldn't be, and the Protheans knew it, otherwise Vendetta wouldn't know.  Nothing that you do after you get to SC has been tried before, in context with what we know, because nobody has ever been there before.  We don't even need SC's word for that, we have Vendetta, who tells us that the Catalyst is the Citadel, and that means they didn't know what was going to happen when the Crucible is attached.  So none of it has ever been tried before, so therefore, it can't fail.

[AlanC9]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Exactly. Because you didn't use it. She wasn't there to know that you didn't use it. She thought you tried to use it and that it didn't work. Hence, she thought the crucible failed to do what they thought it would do.

Hopefully she dies never learning why the Crucible failed.

[SP2219]

robertthebard wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Not it's not different. Your critizing me for choosing something that has failed before, when the whole plan was doing something that has failed before. That's hypocrosy.

I give up. You keep moving the goal line. You keep changing the rules of the discussion. You are impossible. You are the Council!!!

How so? If anything your doing that. I went back to the roots of the conversation.

I just want to point a couple of things out about the initial post in this quote:

First:  you are claiming that Refusal has been chosen before, even though we have no records indicating that anyone has ever used the Crucible before.

Second:  You are saying that the whole plan has failed before, even though we have no evidence, from any source, that anyone ever got far enough with the Crucible to actually try it.  That the blueprints for it have successfully been passed from cycle to cycle meant that each cycle thought it was important enough to carry it over to the next cycle.  A plan that has never been put into motion cannot fail.

I never said Refusal was used, please point to me where I did, I said that fighting the Reapers convetionally has failed which is basically the same thing that happens in Refusal.

When I meant plan, I meant the finishing of the Crucible, it was never done before, until now. So when he tells me choosing refusal and fighting the Reapers conventionally is stupid because it failed before, well that's hypocritical because the whole plan of defeating the Reapers was doing something that failed before.

You know, even with this new quote added to what you had to say, every time I read the initial post, I still see you talking about Refusal.  Why?  Context is important.  However, in your last sentence, any semblence of sense you may have been starting to make goes out the window.  Why?  Because nobody that we are aware of ever completed the Crucible.  Even if the Protheans had completed it, they couldn't deploy it.  Why?  All the Relays were shut down, and they didn't have control of the Citadel.  Again, the plan was never enacted, because it couldn't be, and the Protheans knew it, otherwise Vendetta wouldn't know.  Nothing that you do after you get to SC has been tried before, in context with what we know, because nobody has ever been there before.  We don't even need SC's word for that, we have Vendetta, who tells us that the Catalyst is the Citadel, and that means they didn't know what was going to happen when the Crucible is attached.  So none of it has ever been tried before, so therefore, it can't fail.

I don't quite understand the logic in saying that if something has never been tried before, to achieve a certain goal, it cannot fail?
In fact if something has not been tried and tested it is very likely to fail.  This is just simple logic.  If you're going to try doing something new, it's a good idea to do a couple of trial runs because that something is completely unpredictable in its outcome.

If you are referring to the idea that implementing a tried and tested solution to a problem the enemy does not know about cannot fail, then I would agree with you.  The chances of that plan succeeding would be very high.
With regards to the crucible this is not the case.  No one knows what the crucible does.  Therefore the chances of the crucible having any sort of practical use is actually nonsensical, yet it appears in the narrative, as if by magic, and this is what bad writing is.

The explanation for the crucible is that it was designed by the race of the last cycle, who designed it based on the designs of the cycle before that, and the cycle before that, and the cycle before that.....

The best analogy I can think of is the one mrbtongue used.  A person tells an astronomer that the world is built on the back of a giant turtle.

The astronomer says, "what's THAT turtle standing on?"

The person replies, "Another turtle."

Then the astronomer says "But what's THAT turtle standing on?"

And the person says, "It's turtles all the way down."

The crucible was built on the back of a giant turtle, and it's turtles all the way down.

[Goneaviking]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
1-How can they keep failing? He could destroy the crucible and all it's plans if he wanted too.
2-The catalyst hasn't communicated with TIM and Saren, but they have two similarities. They both believed in the Reapers or got to close and failed.

I'm pretty sure that in one dialogue stream the catalyst indicates that it had believed the plans for the crucible destroyed with the protheans, but that they were more resourceful than it believed. That the protheans had preserved the plans from previous cycles and managed to pass it on to ours makes a pretty powerful argument that eventually the organics are going to pull it off. 
Can you imagine if the Asari had made the Crucible a thousand years earlier? The Reapers' mission would have failed while they were still napping out in dark space, and they probably would have become the Asari's slave soldiers or some such. That was entirely within the realm of the possible given what we learn during the game.
And the crucible's design schematics aren't the only information we could pass down, how much of a boost would it give the next cycle if they produced thanix cannons centuries ahead of Harbinger showing up to crash their party? The ongoing research would put them a lot closer to a conventional victory than we ever got. What about knowledge of indoctrination? The Protheans knew enough about it to detect it's effect on non-protheans, who's to say we won't have learned how to do that and passed it on to the next cycle before we're finally extinguished?
One of the minor themes of Mass Effect seems to be that the past is never really dead: Hidden knowledge is discovered, extinct species are sometimes able to gain a new purchase on life, old crimes are avenged/corrected and so on.
However you play, the clock is obviously running down on the Reapers and by the time you meet him the Catalyst has already figured it out.


As for Saren and TIM. They were both indoctrinated. They spent entirely too much time in the company of reapers, or playing around with reaper technology, they were allowed a semblance of free will so as not to damage their utility - much like the coloniest on Feros and allowed to believe their own particular delusions.
But the Catalyst can't be said to have lied to either of them. There is no evidence to support that the Catalyst has a history of deceit at all.
I certainly would never fault someone for playing a Shepard that doesn't trust it, but the only evidence that it should be distrusted is that it's an enemy. Reason enough to deceive Shepard? Yes. Proof that he is/would? No.

Modifié par Goneaviking, 18 août 2012 - 11:40 .

[robertthebard]

SP2219 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

You know, even with this new quote added to what you had to say, every time I read the initial post, I still see you talking about Refusal.  Why?  Context is important.  However, in your last sentence, any semblence of sense you may have been starting to make goes out the window.  Why?  Because nobody that we are aware of ever completed the Crucible.  Even if the Protheans had completed it, they couldn't deploy it.  Why?  All the Relays were shut down, and they didn't have control of the Citadel.  Again, the plan was never enacted, because it couldn't be, and the Protheans knew it, otherwise Vendetta wouldn't know.  Nothing that you do after you get to SC has been tried before, in context with what we know, because nobody has ever been there before.  We don't even need SC's word for that, we have Vendetta, who tells us that the Catalyst is the Citadel, and that means they didn't know what was going to happen when the Crucible is attached.  So none of it has ever been tried before, so therefore, it can't fail.

I don't quite understand the logic in saying that if something has never been tried before, to achieve a certain goal, it cannot fail?
In fact if something has not been tried and tested it is very likely to fail.  This is just simple logic.  If you're going to try doing something new, it's a good idea to do a couple of trial runs because that something is completely unpredictable in its outcome.

If you are referring to the idea that implementing a tried and tested solution to a problem the enemy does not know about cannot fail, then I would agree with you.  The chances of that plan succeeding would be very high.
With regards to the crucible this is not the case.  No one knows what the crucible does.  Therefore the chances of the crucible having any sort of practical use is actually nonsensical, yet it appears in the narrative, as if by magic, and this is what bad writing is.

The explanation for the crucible is that it was designed by the race of the last cycle, who designed it based on the designs of the cycle before that, and the cycle before that, and the cycle before that.....

The best analogy I can think of is the one mrbtongue used.  A person tells an astronomer that the world is built on the back of a giant turtle.

The astronomer says, "what's THAT turtle standing on?"

The person replies, "Another turtle."

Then the astronomer says "But what's THAT turtle standing on?"

And the person says, "It's turtles all the way down."

The crucible was built on the back of a giant turtle, and it's turtles all the way down.

Poor choice of words on my part, again, context is important.  The post I'm quoting implies that something that has never been tried has already failed before.  I have never tried to go to the moon.  So I haven't failed to go.  That does not imply that by trying, I won't fail, but I can't possibly fail at something that I don't try to do.  In context, we have nothing that says that the Crucible has ever been attached to the Citadel, therefore, it has never failed to work.  We do know that the previous cycle didn't complete it, and couldn't, because they lost the Relays and the Citadel in the initial attack.  They discovered, or perhaps somebody before them did, that the Citadel was the Catalyst, Vendetta tells us, but since they didn't have access to the Citadel, there was no way they could use it, even if they did finish it, so it didn't fail.  So, in context with the conversation, the "it's already failed before" arguement is built on turtles.  The last line of my post above should have read:  "...it can't have already failed".

[Harorrd]

You have the following,

GREEN - Galaxy wide genocide

RED - mechanical genocide

BLU - religious and cultural genocide

[Dharvy]

Harorrd wrote...

You have the following,

GREEN - Galaxy wide genocide

RED - mechanical genocide

BLU - religious and cultural genocide

Refuse - Truly indoctrinated, just like TIM, couldn't make a choice even if you wanted to. (The "So be it" by Harbinger is him showing his control.) They implanted that belief regarding the choices to make it easier to refuse. You know, to make it seem like its by choice.

Modifié par Dharvy, 19 août 2012 - 02:30 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Goneaviking wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
1-How can they keep failing? He could destroy the crucible and all it's plans if he wanted too.
2-The catalyst hasn't communicated with TIM and Saren, but they have two similarities. They both believed in the Reapers or got to close and failed.

I'm pretty sure that in one dialogue stream the catalyst indicates that it had believed the plans for the crucible destroyed with the protheans, but that they were more resourceful than it believed. That the protheans had preserved the plans from previous cycles and managed to pass it on to ours makes a pretty powerful argument that eventually the organics are going to pull it off. 
Can you imagine if the Asari had made the Crucible a thousand years earlier? The Reapers' mission would have failed while they were still napping out in dark space, and they probably would have become the Asari's slave soldiers or some such. That was entirely within the realm of the possible given what we learn during the game.
And the crucible's design schematics aren't the only information we could pass down, how much of a boost would it give the next cycle if they produced thanix cannons centuries ahead of Harbinger showing up to crash their party? The ongoing research would put them a lot closer to a conventional victory than we ever got. What about knowledge of indoctrination? The Protheans knew enough about it to detect it's effect on non-protheans, who's to say we won't have learned how to do that and passed it on to the next cycle before we're finally extinguished?
One of the minor themes of Mass Effect seems to be that the past is never really dead: Hidden knowledge is discovered, extinct species are sometimes able to gain a new purchase on life, old crimes are avenged/corrected and so on.
However you play, the clock is obviously running down on the Reapers and by the time you meet him the Catalyst has already figured it out.


As for Saren and TIM. They were both indoctrinated. They spent entirely too much time in the company of reapers, or playing around with reaper technology, they were allowed a semblance of free will so as not to damage their utility - much like the coloniest on Feros and allowed to believe their own particular delusions.
But the Catalyst can't be said to have lied to either of them. There is no evidence to support that the Catalyst has a history of deceit at all.
I certainly would never fault someone for playing a Shepard that doesn't trust it, but the only evidence that it should be distrusted is that it's an enemy. Reason enough to deceive Shepard? Yes. Proof that he is/would? No.

I already agree that the I think the Reapers were the ones to destroy the plans, I stated that I believe that the Reapers aren't incapable of destroying plans however.

TIM and Saren became Indoctrinated because they reasoned with the Reapers, the same thing Shepard is doing by accepting the catalyst ultimatum.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

robertthebard wrote...

SP2219 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

You know, even with this new quote added to what you had to say, every time I read the initial post, I still see you talking about Refusal.  Why?  Context is important.  However, in your last sentence, any semblence of sense you may have been starting to make goes out the window.  Why?  Because nobody that we are aware of ever completed the Crucible.  Even if the Protheans had completed it, they couldn't deploy it.  Why?  All the Relays were shut down, and they didn't have control of the Citadel.  Again, the plan was never enacted, because it couldn't be, and the Protheans knew it, otherwise Vendetta wouldn't know.  Nothing that you do after you get to SC has been tried before, in context with what we know, because nobody has ever been there before.  We don't even need SC's word for that, we have Vendetta, who tells us that the Catalyst is the Citadel, and that means they didn't know what was going to happen when the Crucible is attached.  So none of it has ever been tried before, so therefore, it can't fail.

I don't quite understand the logic in saying that if something has never been tried before, to achieve a certain goal, it cannot fail?
In fact if something has not been tried and tested it is very likely to fail.  This is just simple logic.  If you're going to try doing something new, it's a good idea to do a couple of trial runs because that something is completely unpredictable in its outcome.

If you are referring to the idea that implementing a tried and tested solution to a problem the enemy does not know about cannot fail, then I would agree with you.  The chances of that plan succeeding would be very high.
With regards to the crucible this is not the case.  No one knows what the crucible does.  Therefore the chances of the crucible having any sort of practical use is actually nonsensical, yet it appears in the narrative, as if by magic, and this is what bad writing is.

The explanation for the crucible is that it was designed by the race of the last cycle, who designed it based on the designs of the cycle before that, and the cycle before that, and the cycle before that.....

The best analogy I can think of is the one mrbtongue used.  A person tells an astronomer that the world is built on the back of a giant turtle.

The astronomer says, "what's THAT turtle standing on?"

The person replies, "Another turtle."

Then the astronomer says "But what's THAT turtle standing on?"

And the person says, "It's turtles all the way down."

The crucible was built on the back of a giant turtle, and it's turtles all the way down.

Poor choice of words on my part, again, context is important.  The post I'm quoting implies that something that has never been tried has already failed before.  I have never tried to go to the moon.  So I haven't failed to go.  That does not imply that by trying, I won't fail, but I can't possibly fail at something that I don't try to do.  In context, we have nothing that says that the Crucible has ever been attached to the Citadel, therefore, it has never failed to work.  We do know that the previous cycle didn't complete it, and couldn't, because they lost the Relays and the Citadel in the initial attack.  They discovered, or perhaps somebody before them did, that the Citadel was the Catalyst, Vendetta tells us, but since they didn't have access to the Citadel, there was no way they could use it, even if they did finish it, so it didn't fail.  So, in context with the conversation, the "it's already failed before" arguement is built on turtles.  The last line of my post above should have read:  "...it can't have already failed".

Besides using the Crucible, the plan on how were defeating the Reapers is a repitition of what previous cycles did who failed.

How you ask?

No Cycle has ever been able to deploy the Crucible.
Cycles who have reason with the Reapers have failed.
Finding the Catalyst has failed.

Yet Shepard tries all these things in order to win the war even though they have fail.

So how once more I ask, can I be criticized for refusing and taking a chance with my allies because "it has failed before" even though Shepard's plans are based on doing things that have failed countless cycles?

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Dharvy wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Not it's not different. Your critizing me for choosing something that has failed before, when the whole plan was doing something that has failed before. That's hypocrosy.

I give up. You keep moving the goal line. You keep changing the rules of the discussion. You are impossible. You are the Council!!!

But don't you know? To refuse you're effectively becoming like the council. Its a parrellel nugget that you sometimes find in stories even without the writers even intending.

You see you don't trust the Catalyst for whatever reason, (the Council didn't trust Shepard for whatever reason) and then you both can't do what is neccessary to save the life of the Galaxy. If the Catalyst was broadcasting the whole encounter throughout the Galaxy so everyone could see what was going on, unbeknownst to Shepard, the Galaxy would've all been probably as fustrated as you were when you tried to talk to the council and they straight up ignored you and refused, continue doing whatever they was doing and failing the Galaxy.

Maybe the Council didn't feel like sacrificing for a maybe. Maybe this 50k year Giant Synthetics gonna kill us all was to absurd to take seriously. Maybe it was easier to assume Shepard was mistaken and illogical because chances are that this isn't really a problem at all. So they refused to act because they didn't believe the ranting of one person. Do anyone know the ammount of Sacrifice the Galaxy have to undergo to prepare for such a threat? And to make the whole galaxy war ready if the threat is false, the repercussions would be unsurmountable, it'll likely cause war amongst themselves for fear alone of war amongst themselves. To think they didn't even want to cure the Genophage in the midst of the actual Reaper threat and neither the Quarians wanted to stop their war with the Geth in the midst of being on the verge of existinction by the Reapers.

To refuse because of fear or mistrust or not willing to make the sacrifice for an uncertainty, you now have a glimspe into why the Council refused you.  History repeating itself.

I hate faulty comparisons. Let's compare  trusting your enemy that's destroying the galaxy and trusting a person who just saved the galaxy....

[robertthebard]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Besides using the Crucible, the plan on how were defeating the Reapers is a repitition of what previous cycles did who failed.

How you ask?

No Cycle has ever been able to deploy the Crucible.
Cycles who have reason with the Reapers have failed.
Finding the Catalyst has failed.

Yet Shepard tries all these things in order to win the war even though they have fail.

So how once more I ask, can I be criticized for refusing and taking a chance with my allies because "it has failed before" even though Shepard's plans are based on doing things that have failed countless cycles?

Who else had found the Catalyst?  Before you can state that it failed, you're going to have to document that somebody actually found it.  Finding out about it is obvious, but who else found it?  If you can't document that anyone else has ever talked to SC, then the bolded part of your statement is a lie.  If that part is a lie, then I am left with no choice but to believe that the rest of your statements are also lies.  After all, I have no reason to believe you.  You make wild claims, and either don't support them, or claim that they meant something else.

Here's what's wrong with your current post:

No Cycle has ever been able to deploy the Crucible.  The problem here is that we just did.  We are standing at SC because we have deployed the Crucible.  Therefore, this statement is false, and any conclusions drawn from this statement will also be false.

Cycles who have reason with the Reapers have failed.  Document the cycles that tried to reason with the Reapers.  Before we get into the "what about people like TIM, who are indoctrinated for trying to control them that happens every cycle" arguement, all you have to do to get indoctrinated is spend sufficient time around Reapers, or Reaper tech.  However, since you claim there are cycles that did attempt this, I'd like to see your sources.

[Dharvy]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
Besides using the Crucible, the plan on how were defeating the Reapers is a repitition of what previous cycles did who failed.

How you ask?

No Cycle has ever been able to deploy the Crucible.
Cycles who have reason with the Reapers have failed.
Finding the Catalyst has failed.

Yet Shepard tries all these things in order to win the war even though they have fail.

So how once more I ask, can I be criticized for refusing and taking a chance with my allies because "it has failed before" even though Shepard's plans are based on doing things that have failed countless cycles?

How you ask? Easily. No cycle was ready for the Reapers including yours so depending on your allies is utterly ridiculous when they are not prepared to take on the Reapers. They, all the previous cycles, probably depended on the Crucible because it was probably more doable then trying to win the war you're not prepared for and you have no hope of actually winning outside of, say, using a weapon that can possibly harm all the Reapers?

Again they all failed with the Crucible because they didn't have the little extra time to get the whole galaxy together to build the thing and the Citadel and relays open to them that this cycle seems to have.

You're being criticized because you have a small window of opportunity to get farther, and you have gotten farther, than every previous cycle and yet you're falling back on incredibably less favorable odds. Your small window of opportunity netted you the Crucible and being able to deploy it. It did not net you enough time to actually reliably depend on your allies because they were all universally unprepared.

Modifié par Dharvy, 19 août 2012 - 10:48 .

[Goneaviking]

[quote]Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

[/quote]I already agree that the I think the Reapers were the ones to destroy the plans, I stated that I believe that the Reapers aren't incapable of destroying plans however.

TIM and Saren became Indoctrinated because they reasoned with the Reapers, the same thing Shepard is doing by accepting the catalyst ultimatum.

[/quote]

The reapers have tried, and failed, to destroy knowledge of the crucible at least once and most likely multiple times since we know the plans were past down from cycle to cycle before they reached the Protheans and then us. The reapers could destroy the plans, but the catalyst would have to be an absolute moron to assume that they'll be more successful this time given how much more successful the current cycle has proven itself to be than it's predecessors.

Even if they somehow did manage to pull it off this time, the Catalyst now knows that the crucible will work and that a future cycle might (probably will) manage to create a similar device that may defang the reapers at a (much) later date. Which would render all the time between now and it's successful deployment a waste.

May as well get it over with now, because the Catalyst now realizes that it's operation is going to fail eventually.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Goneaviking wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

I already agree that the I think the Reapers were the ones to destroy the plans, I stated that I believe that the Reapers aren't incapable of destroying plans however.

TIM and Saren became Indoctrinated because they reasoned with the Reapers, the same thing Shepard is doing by accepting the catalyst ultimatum.


The reapers have tried, and failed, to destroy knowledge of the crucible at least once and most likely multiple times since we know the plans were past down from cycle to cycle before they reached the Protheans and then us. The reapers could destroy the plans, but the catalyst would have to be an absolute moron to assume that they'll be more successful this time given how much more successful the current cycle has proven itself to be than it's predecessors.

Even if they somehow did manage to pull it off this time, the Catalyst now knows that the crucible will work and that a future cycle might (probably will) manage to create a similar device that may defang the reapers at a (much) later date. Which would render all the time between now and it's successful deployment a waste.

May as well get it over with now, because the Catalyst now realizes that it's operation is going to fail eventually.

Why? They're going to change their solutions just because they can't destroy plans? They can destroy cycles, and not plans. And is it moronic for the Catalyst to believe that? Shepard just finish accomplishing something that failed countless times, why can't the catalyst do it.

Modifié par Khajiit Jzargo, 19 août 2012 - 11:31 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Dharvy wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
Besides using the Crucible, the plan on how were defeating the Reapers is a repitition of what previous cycles did who failed.

How you ask?

No Cycle has ever been able to deploy the Crucible.
Cycles who have reason with the Reapers have failed.
Finding the Catalyst has failed.

Yet Shepard tries all these things in order to win the war even though they have fail.

So how once more I ask, can I be criticized for refusing and taking a chance with my allies because "it has failed before" even though Shepard's plans are based on doing things that have failed countless cycles?

How you ask? Easily. No cycle was ready for the Reapers including yours so depending on your allies is utterly ridiculous when they are not prepared to take on the Reapers. They, all the previous cycles, probably depended on the Crucible because it was probably more doable then trying to win the war you're not prepared for and you have no hope of actually winning outside of, say, using a weapon that can possibly harm all the Reapers?

Again they all failed with the Crucible because they didn't have the little extra time to get the whole galaxy together to build the thing and the Citadel and relays open to them that this cycle seems to have.

You're being criticized because you have a small window of opportunity to get farther, and you have gotten farther, than every previous cycle and yet you're falling back on incredibably less favorable odds. Your small window of opportunity netted you the Crucible and being able to deploy it. It did not net you enough time to actually reliably depend on your allies because they were all universally unprepared.

If you can say that, then I can say previous cycles have failed before because they didn't have a united galaxy like us. 
Cycles have failed because they couldn't deployed it, except the Protheans, because they reasoned with the Reapers and became indoctrinated.