329 réponses à ce sujet

[saracen16]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

That's pretty rude, all I did was respond to your point and you get fresh with me? 

My apologies. I thought you were talking about me walking away from the debate.

But to respond to your point, that's true, but even refusing to make a decision is a choice as well that has ramifications.

Refusing leads to the inevitable defeat of the current cycle, but also the defeat of the Reapers in the next cycle, without sacrificing the soul of their species.

How do you know that they will not use the Crucible? The chance still exists, and it's clear that they won't be able to beat the Reapers conventionally (i.e. "not sacrificing the soul of their species").

One of the biggest reasons why the Reapers can't be beaten conventionally is because they always take the cycle by surprise. I have argued that at the end of Mass Effect 1, if the galaxy united right then and there and began preparing for the arrival of the Reapers however way they could, there's a chance they could've won. During the 2.5 years they had to prepare, there is so much they could've done to ready themselves, including setting up traps, superweapons, massive fleets, etc.

The Reapers are too powerful and too numerous to care. They've been able to accept losses over Thessia and throughout the course of this war, to the extent that by the time you get to Earth, they have ceased control over all other systems. I doubt that any unification towards that goal would be possible: the Reapers have worked over countless cycles and have become efficient at carrying it out.

Now if Liara's set up multiple time capsules on multiple planets like she did, there's a good chance that the next cycle was warned about the Reapers waaaay in advance. We're probably talking at least a decade up to a century at least. Not only that but Liara probably had details on the Reapers themselves and certain weakpoints etc etc. There's no doubt in my mind the next cycle won conventionally. I'm sure it wasn't easy though. It was probably a very tough, very intense battle. But the Reapers aren't unstoppable.

I doubt that. We only managed to become civilized in the last 3000 years or so. Many of the other races have had similar qualms. The Protheans had a united galaxy under their helm and even then were only able to barely place a dent into the Reaper's plans.

Also i doubt the next cycle would bother much with the Crucible if Liara specifically said it didn't work.

"I only hope the information in this capsule is enough to help you before it's too late." That includes the plans for the Crucible.

Like I said, chances are they didn't use the Crucible. At the time they were warned about the Reapers, which was probably well in advance, they had the choice to either win through conventional victory and preparation, or put their faith into something that you were just informed did not work.

And again, the Reapers are not stupid. The reason they chose the 50,000-year mark is because the societies present have evolved with the Reapers' own technology to a point that they can be harvested for the sake of "preventing tech singularity". Never mind the fact that the organics rely on numbers, supply lines, and planets, while the Reapers themselves do not.

[RiouHotaru]

The problem is that she often states her position as irrefutable, and when it is properly challenged, she just sticks to it. Prime example being the position that Synthesis removes self-determination (which is arguable at best) but Refusal does not (despite Refusal removing the right for people to decide to LIVE).

I also wouldn't have a problem if she didn't use logical fallacies all over the place. I do my best not to get nasty, but her vitrol seems to cause a spike in everyone else's. Anyway, off-topic...

[Wayning_Star]

[/quote]
Her motivations for selecting an ending option are her own. I will not comment on those. You better ask her about that yourself. No doubt she does not agree with mine, but we fail to see why we should get nasty about that. Come to think of it: I forgot to add being nasty to the list. Assume it being inserted up there.[/quote]

kind of off topic, but it's a point well taken, but I've been witness to other 'sub arguement' and the gist of the original controversy lost in subjectives and emotional outburst totally unrelated and actually alien to the conversation. LIke the 'getting nasty' comment just made, it's irrelevant, but inserted into the original quest. A 'deviation' as it is.  We should try to avoid those, but don't. I simply don't read TAO's post anymore because of that habitat.

[iSousek]

saracen16 wrote...

And again, the Reapers are not stupid. The reason they chose the 50,000-year mark is because the societies present have evolved with the Reapers' own technology to a point that they can be harvested for the sake of "preventing tech singularity". Never mind the fact that the organics rely on numbers, supply lines, and planets, while the Reapers themselves do not.

Actually, a 50k year mark is a retcon. In ME 1 it was established that a scout Reaper will stay behind and periodically awaken to assess the state of galactic civilization. The fact that the last harvest occoured aproximately 50k years ago is a historical accident.

Then, in ME 2 it was retconned that reapers 'awake' every 50k years.

From a strategical point of view, this is a bad move, especially if you are staying in hybernation for those 50k years. Nothing guarantees how will the civilization look like even with a dominant power leaving them clues that determines the scientific discourse and technological development. There are countless thing that could go wrong if reaper simply slept for 50k years, and than just show up.

[Wayning_Star]

saracen16 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

That's pretty rude, all I did was respond to your point and you get fresh with me? 

My apologies. I thought you were talking about me walking away from the debate.

But to respond to your point, that's true, but even refusing to make a decision is a choice as well that has ramifications.

Refusing leads to the inevitable defeat of the current cycle, but also the defeat of the Reapers in the next cycle, without sacrificing the soul of their species.

How do you know that they will not use the Crucible? The chance still exists, and it's clear that they won't be able to beat the Reapers conventionally (i.e. "not sacrificing the soul of their species").

One of the biggest reasons why the Reapers can't be beaten conventionally is because they always take the cycle by surprise. I have argued that at the end of Mass Effect 1, if the galaxy united right then and there and began preparing for the arrival of the Reapers however way they could, there's a chance they could've won. During the 2.5 years they had to prepare, there is so much they could've done to ready themselves, including setting up traps, superweapons, massive fleets, etc.

The Reapers are too powerful and too numerous to care. They've been able to accept losses over Thessia and throughout the course of this war, to the extent that by the time you get to Earth, they have ceased control over all other systems. I doubt that any unification towards that goal would be possible: the Reapers have worked over countless cycles and have become efficient at carrying it out.

Now if Liara's set up multiple time capsules on multiple planets like she did, there's a good chance that the next cycle was warned about the Reapers waaaay in advance. We're probably talking at least a decade up to a century at least. Not only that but Liara probably had details on the Reapers themselves and certain weakpoints etc etc. There's no doubt in my mind the next cycle won conventionally. I'm sure it wasn't easy though. It was probably a very tough, very intense battle. But the Reapers aren't unstoppable.

I doubt that. We only managed to become civilized in the last 3000 years or so. Many of the other races have had similar qualms. The Protheans had a united galaxy under their helm and even then were only able to barely place a dent into the Reaper's plans.

Also i doubt the next cycle would bother much with the Crucible if Liara specifically said it didn't work.

"I only hope the information in this capsule is enough to help you before it's too late." That includes the plans for the Crucible.

Like I said, chances are they didn't use the Crucible. At the time they were warned about the Reapers, which was probably well in advance, they had the choice to either win through conventional victory and preparation, or put their faith into something that you were just informed did not work.

And again, the Reapers are not stupid. The reason they chose the 50,000-year mark is because the societies present have evolved with the Reapers' own technology to a point that they can be harvested for the sake of "preventing tech singularity". Never mind the fact that the organics rely on numbers, supply lines, and planets, while the Reapers themselves do not.

I kind of lost the ball on that issue, the reapers do that on purpose would mean that they're predatory, if they do it because of their programming, then they're subjects to an order.

If we lay out stuff for a rabbit to eat, putting a box trap over the food, then we're hunting... Are the reapers hunting or just playing along with the catalysts' failed strategy? 

reapars bad: hunting/farming?

reapers stupid: playing over again like a broken record?

[AngryFrozenWater]

Here's another thing: Attaching emotion to arguments in an attempt to invalidate them is a cheap trick, usually applied when someone runs out of real arguments.

Come on, boys. Stay on topic.

[saracen16]

iSousek wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

And again, the Reapers are not stupid. The reason they chose the 50,000-year mark is because the societies present have evolved with the Reapers' own technology to a point that they can be harvested for the sake of "preventing tech singularity". Never mind the fact that the organics rely on numbers, supply lines, and planets, while the Reapers themselves do not.

Actually, a 50k year mark is a retcon. In ME 1 it was established that a scout Reaper will stay behind and periodically awaken to assess the state of galactic civilization. The fact that the last harvest occoured aproximately 50k years ago is a historical accident.

Then, in ME 2 it was retconned that reapers 'awake' every 50k years.

From a strategical point of view, this is a bad move, especially if you are staying in hybernation for those 50k years. Nothing guarantees how will the civilization look like even with a dominant power leaving them clues that determines the scientific discourse and technological development. There are countless thing that could go wrong if reaper simply slept for 50k years, and than just show up.

Galactic civilization evolves based on one singular advanced technology (that of the Reapers), and no galactic civilization except the Protheans have been able to emulate the efforts of the Reapers, and only on a small scale. This is something predictable for the Reapers, but not for us. Our technological evolution is limited by Reaper tech, the only technology we know of that is advanced. "Your civilization is based on the technology of mass relays, our technology. By using it, your society develops along the paths we desire."

The only way you defeat the Reapers is to release that hold and use their tech against them.

Modifié par saracen16, 23 août 2012 - 07:12 .

[Wayning_Star]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Here's another thing: Attaching emotion to arguments in an attempt to invalidate them is a cheap trick, usually applied when someone runs out of real arguments.

Come on, boys. Stay on topic.

best that you don't testify for your own defense..as this post is off the wall. Only you know what it is you're attempting with it.. a form of deceit.

busted.. Next!

[Wayning_Star]

iSousek wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

And again, the Reapers are not stupid. The reason they chose the 50,000-year mark is because the societies present have evolved with the Reapers' own technology to a point that they can be harvested for the sake of "preventing tech singularity". Never mind the fact that the organics rely on numbers, supply lines, and planets, while the Reapers themselves do not.

Actually, a 50k year mark is a retcon. In ME 1 it was established that a scout Reaper will stay behind and periodically awaken to assess the state of galactic civilization. The fact that the last harvest occoured aproximately 50k years ago is a historical accident.

Then, in ME 2 it was retconned that reapers 'awake' every 50k years.

From a strategical point of view, this is a bad move, especially if you are staying in hybernation for those 50k years. Nothing guarantees how will the civilization look like even with a dominant power leaving them clues that determines the scientific discourse and technological development. There are countless thing that could go wrong if reaper simply slept for 50k years, and than just show up.

I could'a swore that one reaper stays around to monitor and then report progress? Did I miss something there?

edit: help if I could read, duh. I didn't see that first statement, at least not in the pretense of the second and third 'retcon' notes. I've always been confused when poster use the 'retconned' in statements.

I've always had doubts about the 50k stipulation, it seems arbitrary and frankly silly, as the races must attain a level high enough to inflict the cycle, that is, create chaos. If they don't it would seem weird for the reapers to harvest for no reason? Unless they're just out on a hunting expo or something?

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 23 août 2012 - 07:26 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Wayning_Star wrote...

best that you don't testify for your own defense..as this post is off the wall. Only you know what it is you're attempting with it.. a form of deceit.

busted.. Next!

And your personal attacks continue.

Busted... Next.

[SpamBot2000]

Agree with the OP. There is no win in abject surrender.

[Eterna]

garf wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

I like the Catalyst. People don't like the Catalyst because he presents 3 (4) options that require players Shepards to get their hands dirty with no get out of jail free card that they're spoon fed at every major decision.

That's why you see so much "My Shepard had to give up everything he/she believed in and it's thematically revolting! QQ"

That is an insulting dissmisal of my point point of view. I agree with those who label this a troll post NOT because you disagree with me. but because you shoehorn meaning into my position and belittle that opinion based on your own imposed interpretation. It makes your post no better than a statment by Colin Moriarity or any of the other IGNorant.

If you actually care to discuss your differences you'll come up with a better word choice.  as to why you think previous game play was always a 'get out of jail free card' until then ... well... I'm probably giving this post more attention than it deserves.

Nah, I could rant on for hours how previous choices in the series always gave you a way out and how the ending is fine, but it wouldn't matter because you'd just use your own headcannon to say I am wrong.

Hardly worth my time.

[garf]

Eterna5 wrote...

garf wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

I like the Catalyst. People don't like the Catalyst because he presents 3 (4) options that require players Shepards to get their hands dirty with no get out of jail free card that they're spoon fed at every major decision.

That's why you see so much "My Shepard had to give up everything he/she believed in and it's thematically revolting! QQ"

That is an insulting dissmisal of my point point of view. I agree with those who label this a troll post NOT because you disagree with me. but because you shoehorn meaning into my position and belittle that opinion based on your own imposed interpretation. It makes your post no better than a statment by Colin Moriarity or any of the other IGNorant.

If you actually care to discuss your differences you'll come up with a better word choice.  as to why you think previous game play was always a 'get out of jail free card' until then ... well... I'm probably giving this post more attention than it deserves.

Nah, I could rant on for hours how previous choices in the series always gave you a way out and how the ending is fine, but it wouldn't matter because you'd just use your own headcannon to say I am wrong.

Hardly worth my time.

Then why'd you respond at all, except to be inflammatory? If it walks like troll...

[garf]

and why are you guys still talking about someone who you claim is not worth talking to?

still trying to 'win' an argument that you claimed to be a bigger person by walking away from?

[XqctaX]

The Angry One wrote...

inb4 "But teh Catalyst is flawed AI! I headcanoned that it's shackled to feel better about working with it and will now post this as fact!!!"

10/10 

[TheShadowWolf911]

ah sod it.

Synthesis does not equal peace, at least not in terms of organics fighting.

let me use a example from South Park (bear with me for a minute)

due to Ms. Garrison getting together with that one guy (the aethiest) all religion is eventually wiped out, so as many aethiests have said, no more war right? wrong, there are now 3 warring factions, all aethiest, still killing each other. Nothing has changed.

my point? You can can take away every possible reason for war, but Humanity, as well as the other Sapient species in Mass Effect, would still find reasons to murder each other.

Synthesis would not lead to peace

[Jadebaby]

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Yep.

The stream of reaper apologists on this forum lately has been disgraceful.

[Jadebaby]

By the Catalyst's flawed logic if we pick destroy and kill the Geth, then inevitably the Reapers will be created again. No, the only way to TRUELY defeat the Reapers and ensure it never happens again is to defeat them WITHOUT killing the Geth.

[Jadebaby]

TheShadowWolf911 wrote...

ah sod it.

Synthesis does not equal peace, at least not in terms of organics fighting.

let me use a example from South Park (bear with me for a minute)

due to Ms. Garrison getting together with that one guy (the aethiest) all religion is eventually wiped out, so as many aethiests have said, no more war right? wrong, there are now 3 warring factions, all aethiest, still killing each other. Nothing has changed.

my point? You can can take away every possible reason for war, but Humanity, as well as the other Sapient species in Mass Effect, would still find reasons to murder each other.

Synthesis would not lead to peace

i luv it when people use South Park to back up facts of life

They speak so much truth, and do it in such a comical way.

[TheShadowWolf911]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

TheShadowWolf911 wrote...

ah sod it.

Synthesis does not equal peace, at least not in terms of organics fighting.

let me use a example from South Park (bear with me for a minute)

due to Ms. Garrison getting together with that one guy (the aethiest) all religion is eventually wiped out, so as many aethiests have said, no more war right? wrong, there are now 3 warring factions, all aethiest, still killing each other. Nothing has changed.

my point? You can can take away every possible reason for war, but Humanity, as well as the other Sapient species in Mass Effect, would still find reasons to murder each other.

Synthesis would not lead to peace

i luv it when people use South Park to back up facts of life

They speak so much truth, and do it in such a comical way.

if you want another example, Nobunaga Oda, a aethiest Warlord from the Sengoku era, just wanted to take over Japan, he only wanted power, i don't think (i could be wrong here) anyone provoked him. Hell, he was referred to as the Demon King.

well i suppose what i REALLY meant is everyone would still be killing each other over power (among other reasons), everyone being able to co exist means nothing.

[spotlessvoid]

Conflict is based on competition over resources, directly and indirectly. Additionally, these innate characteristics you ascribe to humans are based on lower brain function.

Neither problem is inherently unsolvable

[sharkboy421]

TheShadowWolf911 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

TheShadowWolf911 wrote...

ah sod it.

Synthesis does not equal peace, at least not in terms of organics fighting.

let me use a example from South Park (bear with me for a minute)

due to Ms. Garrison getting together with that one guy (the aethiest) all religion is eventually wiped out, so as many aethiests have said, no more war right? wrong, there are now 3 warring factions, all aethiest, still killing each other. Nothing has changed.

my point? You can can take away every possible reason for war, but Humanity, as well as the other Sapient species in Mass Effect, would still find reasons to murder each other.

Synthesis would not lead to peace

i luv it when people use South Park to back up facts of life

They speak so much truth, and do it in such a comical way.

if you want another example, Nobunaga Oda, a aethiest Warlord from the Sengoku era, just wanted to take over Japan, he only wanted power, i don't think (i could be wrong here) anyone provoked him. Hell, he was referred to as the Demon King.

well i suppose what i REALLY meant is everyone would still be killing each other over power (among other reasons), everyone being able to co exist means nothing.

You are correct, Nobunaga just wanted more power for himself and went about killing the rival clans around him.  His successor Hideyoshi did the same thing, except he didn't kill everyone.  But anyways yes the point stands, there will always be reasons for people to fight.

[garf]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Conflict is based on competition over resources, directly and indirectly. Additionally, these innate characteristics you ascribe to humans are based on lower brain function.

Neither problem is inherently unsolvable

nor is it automatically solved by everyone getting green glowy space circuitry... unless there's more to synthesis that a simple 'merger'.

[Redbelle]

My main problem with the ending is that it goes off on a tangent...... without really going anywhere while on that tangent........ Confused? Let me explain.

MGS3, the Sorrow boss fight. Everyone should at least be familier with the Tactial Espionage Action Stealth em Up. You creep around, avoid contact and jump out behind the enemy for take downs, or you take all the guns given to you and go Ape.Then we get to the Sorrow.

This part of the game is completely different in terms of gameplay. You lose all your items, You have to fight everyone you killed up to that point. Your radio chatter is more unusual than usual and the graphic's have gone all ghostly. It was a change of pacing from the madcap flee the base.

When I first saw Shep take the hit and then saw him through a shakey cam stagger back up with only a pistol for company my first thought was, 'the gameplay has altered'. Followed by 'BW are up to something clever. Alas, my expectations in the climatic portal rush were high, and given the dream scenes previous and BW's story telling bursting biceps I was eager to continue my journey. But the rest of the journey was a bit of a damp squib, and for one reason.

Shepard was not my Shepard. I couldn't run, shoot my selected guns, use my powers. All these things I'd taken for granted were now denied. and replaced with nothing of any subsance. No new ability, no story to engage with to explain why and how this had happened. My Shepard was a guy who, stripped down to the core, was an alliance soldier who fought war with war. Not some sparkly disco lava lamp star child Cataguffin. Every problem that could not be avoided was solved by a gun......... and before you cry, 'But it's my story and I don't want to solve problems with guns. Diplomacy for the win!!!' Check the description of the game. It's a cover shooter. Every Shepard has fought through wave after wave of faceless mooks who all probably have an Austin Powers 'no one thinks of their families' snipet.

Talking was one part of Mass Effect. And it did it well. No argument. So having the option to talk was a welcome choice. But to not have the option to fight? This is not a welcome 'no choice'. Shepard is a soldier, not Captain Picard.

Earlier I mentioned MGS. Now I'm going to add another game. Devil May Cry. You can fight through the ending credits.

The summary is this. I expected something epic. I got the Mass Effect Universe, sort of (Vehicle Section come back. I miss you). But BW did not raise their game. They didn't grow the game or experiment with ways you could use the in game mechanics to achieve different gameplay modes. BW have arguably hit the ceiling in what their RPG shooter can do in ME2. I wonder if they just ran out of creative steam when their deadlines loomed.

[Mazebook]

Just in to say what I always say...

these are not his choices...it is the crucibles...he just gives context.