357 réponses à ce sujet

[Hannah Montana]

 WTF is that green wave of turd? 





SHEPARD! 



http://desmond.image...jpg&res=landing

[D24O]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

oH noes, Gooby gon N gooft' hiz hadup

This is what happenes to every one, feel bad.
 

[saracen16]

[quote]The Angry One wrote...

[quote]saracen16 wrote...

Only the Crucible is NOT built on the Catalyst. Its solutions are imposed on it by the Crucible.[/quote]

It tried synthesis before. It flat out says this. [/quote]

It tried "a similar solution". This is what it "flat out" says, TAO. Whether it tried the solution or not is irrelevant.

[quote]Why would an organic design synthesis? Why wouldn't they tell anyone? How does the Crucible force the Catalyst to do anything if nobody has ever encountered it?[/quote]

Because the Crucible has introduced new variables to the Catalyst. The solutions of "destroy" and "control" as well as synthesis itself are not known until the Crucible and Catalyst interface with it. None of the organics of this cycle knew what the Crucible was intended to do, and from the looks of it, there is a big chance that not even those of previous cycles knew what it was intended to do, either.

[quote][quote]But refusal is the most faulty: it is a decision made by a meer organic mind on idealist principles against the real and devastating inevitability that is coming to destroy him and everyone else he loves.[/quote]

By that logic, Shepard should've surrended in ME1.[/quote]

It's not the same. In ME1, we had the means to conventionally beat ONE Reaper. Refusal means using conventional means, the same means every cycle before used and lost against the Reapers, in order to save whatever is left of our ideals in this war and knowing fully that doing so would result in our loss and the continuation of the cycle. As Javik said, Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters.

[quote]
[quote]This has been your argument from the beginning: because the Catalyst.[/quote]

Irrelevant. What I was saying had nothing to do with anything by association. Quit making things up.[/quote]

I'm not making things up. All I have seen are ad hominems and insults levied at the AI construct for being what he is. I have yet to see anything substantial that argues that he is lying. I entertained that possibility right up to the point that he mentions the Crucible has changed him and that he can not make any of the new solutions happen simply because he couldn't: as a machine, he lacks agency to make that moral judgement.

[quote]
[quote]"We have tried a similar solution in the past, but it did not work. The organics were not ready." He gives a reason. Shepard's cycle, however, is full of examples of people integrating with technology: biotic implants, haptic interface prostheses, genetic engineering, ocular implants in soldiers.[/quote]
I debunked this ridiculous nonsense in another topic already. Long story short:
Javik's cycle had the Zha'til. Your ENTIRE point is moot.[/quote]

Ooh, them fighting words. He tried a similar solution BEFORE the Reapers, hence the point isn't really "moot". That "similar solution" is not the same as the Zha'til: the end result of the Zha'til was a race of husks more than anything else. The Zha'til were almost completely synthetic by the time the Reapers manipulated them, not organic. They used the Zha'til as slaves, and there is no indication that the Zha'til were synthites or even their precursors. In fact, the Zha'til were almost COMPLETELY synthetic by the time the Reapers used them. "Few organic traces were left. They were monsters."

[quote]
[quote]That's the Creators' fault for not placing the correct shackles in place, not the Catalyst. It runs through its solutions one by one and tries them out. It has yet to see a failure in the Reaper solution to preserve organic and synthetic life in the long run, compared to the others it has tried but failed for the reasons such as the one it stated above.[/quote]Headcanon.[/quote]

"Headcanon"? It's clear: EDI would never have gained control of the Normandy had Joker released the shackles. By extension, without the proper shackles in place, the Catalyst would not have come up with the Reaper solution. It has tried everything, it states, to stop the organic-synthetic conflict.

[quote][quote]Because you ascribe opinions and expect us to believe them as fact without proof.
[/quote]

You mean like you just did?
This thread is a project-a-thon I swear.[/quote]

Projecting? LOL. Do you even know the meaning of the word? I am presenting proof. You are not. You just want us to believe what you say without proof.

[Solaxe]

The Angry One wrote...

So why do you accept murdering them?

Because they die anyway

The Angry One wrote...
Then don't sit here and claim the endings are viable.

...what

The Angry One wrote...
Heroes? Heroes fight. These were victims. They had no say. They were sacrificed by organics to keep organics safe. Do you honestly think the Geth would've been okay with this?

Geth did fight. And did they have no say in your super epic the best refusal ending? Nope. They weren't sacrificed to keep organics safe, they were sacrificed to keep EVERYONE safe. I bet they would've been okay with this, at least it's better than dying for nothing.

The Angry One wrote...

Synthetics don't seek revenge, but in this case they'll see societies that will sacrifice their kind for their own survival.

again not their own survival. Synthetics die because well.. that was a sad "side effect".  My Shep made peace with synthetics instead of sacrificing them, so new synthetics wouldn't see organics this way.

The Angry One wrote...


You quoted me and said something irrelevant, yes.

Irrelevant for you it seems

The Angry One wrote...
Using bad logic is not being logical.

"There's a conflict" "I must find a solution" It's a logic.

Modifié par Solaxe, 22 août 2012 - 08:59 .

[shepdog77]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

shepdog77 wrote...

@ The Angry One

Since you blocked me I'll have to reply to your message here. It's impossible to argue with you civilly because you believe your opinions to be cold hard facts. It would be more productive to discuss the endings with a boiling tea kettle.

lol as opposed to these other pro-enders debating her?

Everyone has their own opinion about the endings.  Discussing and arguing over opinions is what this forum is for.  

I understand if someone hates it, but going around saying that it being bad is a fact is asinine.

Modifié par shepdog77, 22 août 2012 - 09:01 .

[Govalon]

ATiBotka wrote...

Govalon wrote...

By choosing Destroy, I don't kill the geth. Starbrat does.

No, you kill them. You're the one who shoot the tube.

Yep, I dont shoot the geth. I kill the tube. Refusers can have their fantasy of not killing whole galaxy by letting the reapers kill everyone. I too aply insane logic then

[ghost9191]

Govalon wrote...

By choosing Destroy, I don't kill the geth. Starbrat does.

+1

i just shot the damn tube, if by my action the geth were destroyed well sucks, but same can be said bout refuse. geth are destroyed in both endings due to shepards actions

[Wayning_Star]

Well, just because of this thread, I'm jumping into the beam again out of purist spite..lol

(just to see the looks on other players faces when they ... turn. BWaahhehahhahahahhhh!!)

[The Angry One]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Sure it was. It gave you three options to stop the cycles and all of them did.

Let me say pre-emptively that I'm not interested in arguments about how the cycles are still metaphorically taking place.

Let's set aside that and your attempt to dismiss arguments that completely invalidate yours.
The fact remains, these solutions are not needed. None of them. The Catalyst could just go away. It doesn't, due to it's broken logic. It forces a choice based on this logic,

No I didn't. I've gone the length of this convo only pointing it out once where applicable, not in every argument you ever made.

So why harp on about it?

It can only not be viable if it is output is inherently negative.

Or if it doesn't freaking work at all to begin with.

Wat?

First of all, if it knows it is negative, then it has already stopped and thought that it is wrong. Why? Who knows what conclusion he reached. Maybe it's simply wrong "for some organic reason I do not understand."

Second, it being negative may not have been enough reason for him to change his mind. Called "choosing the lesser of two evils" ... something that is done all the time.

All it states is it knows they don't approve. But it knows best. That's it.


I think people tend to be very stupid.

One time I made a statement about how political systems work, and a bunch of dullards came out believing that I support dictatorships. I said no such thing, nor do I think it.

So, no. I reject the notion that I say what you say. Meanwhile, you are known to make **** up.

Okay look, I'm not going to deal with your personal issues, I suggest you talk with the professionals about that.

> Synth Compendium discussion: would it be better if Javik commits suicide (through Echo Shard conversation) in synthesis ending or not?
> Butthurt One slander: those worthless synthites want to assassinate Javik!!!!

That was a different discussion to the one I referred to. Of course, you just assume because you have to troll me all the time.

Also when it's written down it's called libel.

[Wayning_Star]

I feel you're pain guys/gals, too bad synthesis ends up canon... I must just be lucky that way,eh?

[ghost9191]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Well, just because of this thread, I'm jumping into the beam again out of purist spite..lol

(just to see the looks on other players faces when they ... turn. BWaahhehahhahahahhhh!!)

most i got out of this thread was arguments on refuse vs. all other endings, not just synthesis

[ATiBotka]

Govalon wrote...

ATiBotka wrote...

Govalon wrote...

By choosing Destroy, I don't kill the geth. Starbrat does.

No, you kill them. You're the one who shoot the tube.

Yep, I dont shoot the geth. I kill the tube.

You killed the tube? The tube is alive?

[Wayning_Star]

The Angry One wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Sure it was. It gave you three options to stop the cycles and all of them did.

Let me say pre-emptively that I'm not interested in arguments about how the cycles are still metaphorically taking place.

Let's set aside that and your attempt to dismiss arguments that completely invalidate yours.
The fact remains, these solutions are not needed. None of them. The Catalyst could just go away. It doesn't, due to it's broken logic. It forces a choice based on this logic,

No I didn't. I've gone the length of this convo only pointing it out once where applicable, not in every argument you ever made.

So why harp on about it?

It can only not be viable if it is output is inherently negative.

Or if it doesn't freaking work at all to begin with.

Wat?

First of all, if it knows it is negative, then it has already stopped and thought that it is wrong. Why? Who knows what conclusion he reached. Maybe it's simply wrong "for some organic reason I do not understand."

Second, it being negative may not have been enough reason for him to change his mind. Called "choosing the lesser of two evils" ... something that is done all the time.

All it states is it knows they don't approve. But it knows best. That's it.


I think people tend to be very stupid.

One time I made a statement about how political systems work, and a bunch of dullards came out believing that I support dictatorships. I said no such thing, nor do I think it.

So, no. I reject the notion that I say what you say. Meanwhile, you are known to make **** up.

Okay look, I'm not going to deal with your personal issues, I suggest you talk with the professionals about that.

> Synth Compendium discussion: would it be better if Javik commits suicide (through Echo Shard conversation) in synthesis ending or not?
> Butthurt One slander: those worthless synthites want to assassinate Javik!!!!

That was a different discussion to the one I referred to. Of course, you just assume because you have to troll me all the time.

Also when it's written down it's called libel.

can't hurt you cause it's not your real name/identity, besides, Bioware releases all posts from liability, in a sense,even more crippling libel.

[Hannah Montana]

ghost9191 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Well, just because of this thread, I'm jumping into the beam again out of purist spite..lol

(just to see the looks on other players faces when they ... turn. BWaahhehahhahahahhhh!!)

most i got out of this thread was arguments on refuse vs. all other endings, not just synthesis

Haters gonna hate.

[Solaxe]

DinoSteve wrote...


This, anything else makes you a ****ty human and an even worse solider.

Yup, murdering entire Galaxy along with your species makes you proud human and heroic soldier.

dying like a retard doesn't mean you're a hero

[ghost9191]

ATiBotka wrote...

Govalon wrote...

ATiBotka wrote...

Govalon wrote...

By choosing Destroy, I don't kill the geth. Starbrat does.

No, you kill them. You're the one who shoot the tube.

Yep, I dont shoot the geth. I kill the tube.

You killed the tube? The tube is alive?

as much as the geth are <_<

yeah yeah , don';t even say it

[Applepie_Svk]

Solaxe wrote...
"There's a conflict" "I must find a solution" It's a logic.

Yes There is a conflcit - But he was programmed to bring a peace and oversee the relationship betwen both sides and not to sweep off the table problem by ''genocide'' pardon ''harvest''... again pardon ''preservation''
It´s not logic - it´s failure which lead him into changing his programming to path he knew to execute.

[MegaSovereign]

The Angry One wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...


I can use that example against you. EDI doesn't like the fact that you sacrificed the Geth, but you don't see her starting conflict with the organics on the Normandy...

Do you know why that is? The Reapers. This problem takes priority over petty racism.

That and EDI has already developed a relationship with the crew.
Also, so what, if they don't have a common enemy bad things will happen? 

New synthetics will see it this way as well because they're not friggen human. They're beings of math and logic.

The WORST that will happen is that the new synthetics will want to be isolated from organics out of initial mistrust. They won't start a friggen war. That's absurd.

Unlike the Catalyst or it's apologists am not an absolutist. I don't know for sure it'll start a conflict.
But it won't help. It won't be the best start and the legacy of betrayal will always linger.

Why would it lie? Are you joking?

Come on. You know the answer to that. The Catalyst would rather you not pick Destroy because it's not a permanent solution to his problem. It has plenty of reasons to lie and or exaggerate about hypothetical future conflicts with synthetics.

It's not permanent, but it is a solution. It believes the supposed positivity of synthesis will override anything else anyway.

Look new synthetics would regret the decision but would understand why it had to be done. Either way synthetics were going to be destroyed. The collateral damage was a necessity in order to keep future generations of both organics and synthetics alive.

We can use real life examples to show that we can overcome racial tensions if we don't let the past control our future.

[Hannah Montana]

Solaxe wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...


This, anything else makes you a ****ty human and an even worse solider.

Yup, murdering entire Galaxy along with your species makes you proud human and heroic soldier.

dying like a retard doesn't mean you're a hero

I would not talk if I was you.
The Reapers are using your body for sloppy seconds.

[Govalon]

ATiBotka wrote...

Govalon wrote...

ATiBotka wrote...

Govalon wrote...

By choosing Destroy, I don't kill the geth. Starbrat does.

No, you kill them. You're the one who shoot the tube.

Yep, I dont shoot the geth. I kill the tube.

You killed the tube? The tube is alive?

If it ever was, I made sure it is not anymore.

[ATiBotka]

ghost9191 wrote...

as much as the geth are <_<

yeah yeah , don';t even say it

So, you think the geth are just machines? Okay.

[Solaxe]

Hannah Montana wrote...

I would not talk if I was you.
The Reapers are using your body for sloppy seconds.

If you say so, mr/ms Overthinking Theory

[Wayning_Star]

ghost9191 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Well, just because of this thread, I'm jumping into the beam again out of purist spite..lol

(just to see the looks on other players faces when they ... turn. BWaahhehahhahahahhhh!!)

most i got out of this thread was arguments on refuse vs. all other endings, not just synthesis

oh, none of the choices matter till Bioware gets around to filling in the blanks,explaining what is what with the MEU concerning the endgame. They hoped to expand with DLC, but they had the cart ahead of the horse on the deciding factors on all things MEU.

Destroyers just want their lb of flesh, its a non starter tho, and they, kindof know that, but still rave against the machine. The game simply moots'em with the catalyst cycle dictum.. rendering them to a 'tempest in a teacup... poor dears..

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 22 août 2012 - 09:08 .

[The Angry One]

saracen16 wrote...

It tried "a similar solution". This is what it "flat out" says, TAO. Whether it tried the solution or not is irrelevant.

It is all that's relevant.

Because the Crucible has introduced new variables to the Catalyst. The solutions of "destroy" and "control" as well as synthesis itself are not known until the Crucible and Catalyst interface with it. None of the organics of this cycle knew what the Crucible was intended to do, and from the looks of it, there is a big chance that not even those of previous cycles knew what it was intended to do, either.

Don't deflect the question. How can it do this if nobody encountered the Catalyst?
Also, "The Crucible is little more than a power source."

It's not the same. In ME1, we had the means to conventionally beat ONE Reaper. Refusal means using conventional means, the same means every cycle before used and lost against the Reapers, in order to save whatever is left of our ideals in this war and knowing fully that doing so would result in our loss and the continuation of the cycle. As Javik said, Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters.

The other Reapers are still out there. They are coming. Saren offered a solution for survival. You disregarded it with flawed human logic.

I'm not making things up. All I have seen are ad hominems and insults levied at the AI construct for being what he is. I have yet to see anything substantial that argues that he is lying. I entertained that possibility right up to the point that he mentions the Crucible has changed him and that he can not make any of the new solutions happen simply because he couldn't: as a machine, he lacks agency to make that moral judgement.

It lies about the nature of the Crucible (either it changed it, or it's merely a power source).
It lies about ascending civilisations (ignoring the ones it kills).
It misdirects on it's motivations. ("Synthetics will destroy all organic life ---- conflict is bad ---- we preserve BOTH organics and synthetics).

It lies. Provably so. Ad hominem? Against the Catalyst? Seriously? We criticise what it does and what it says.

Ooh, them fighting words. He tried a similar solution BEFORE the Reapers,

Assumption.

hence the point isn't really "moot". That "similar solution" is not the same as the Zha'til: the end result of the Zha'til was a race of husks more than anything else. The Zha'til were almost completely synthetic by the time the Reapers manipulated them, not organic. They used the Zha'til as slaves, and there is no indication that the Zha'til were synthites or even their precursors. In fact, the Zha'til were almost COMPLETELY synthetic by the time the Reapers used them. "Few organic traces were left. They were monsters."

The REAPERS turned them into monsters. THEY were the ones who turned them against the Zha.

"Headcanon"? It's clear: EDI would never have gained control of the Normandy had Joker released the shackles. By extension, without the proper shackles in place, the Catalyst would not have come up with the Reaper solution. It has tried everything, it states, to stop the organic-synthetic conflict.

Still headcanon. Why does it need shackles for this?

Projecting? LOL. Do you even know the meaning of the word? I am presenting proof. You are not. You just want us to believe what you say without proof.

You are presenting nothing but HEADCANON and ASSUMPTION and attacking anyone who disagrees with it.
I have had it up to here with your dishonesty. I will not respond to you again and I question why I did now as arguing with you is a waste of time, you counter everyone else's facts with pure fanfiction and get upset when we don't swallow it.

Modifié par The Angry One, 22 août 2012 - 09:10 .

[fchopin]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Sorry, geth. You have to go. It's the only way to get rid of the reapers. I'll try to restore your backups, OK?

With love,

Shepard-Commander.

I agree with you 100%.
 
Sorry Geth and EDI but the reapers have to die whatever the cost.
 
Legion is my favourite character in ME3, i think Bioware made a mistake in having Legion sacrifice himself because it would have made the ending even harder to choose if Legion was still alive.
Shepard-Commander.