299 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

o Ventus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

You can't change the catalyst mind. Nothing can. It's shackled. Trying to argue with the catalyst is like trying to convince a car locked in accileration to stop. The catalyst has no will of his own, He is just a tool. That is what my second point is pointing out. 
Yes , you can argue with him but the catalyst is not in a state were he has the control of himself to be able to change.

And I was never arguing against any of that, so why are you telling me these things?

Because you ignored my second point saying only the first point was relative. Both points are relative.

[o Ventus]

dreman9999 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

You can't change the catalyst mind. Nothing can. It's shackled. Trying to argue with the catalyst is like trying to convince a car locked in accileration to stop. The catalyst has no will of his own, He is just a tool. That is what my second point is pointing out. 
Yes , you can argue with him but the catalyst is not in a state were he has the control of himself to be able to change.

And I was never arguing against any of that, so why are you telling me these things?

Because you ignored my second point saying only the first point was relative. Both points are relative.

You replied to one of my posts and only 1/2 of your post had anything to do with mine. Yes, I'm going to ignore it. People tend to do that.

Modifié par o Ventus, 25 août 2012 - 06:58 .

[Cassandra Saturn]

i sense the distrubance in Force..

[dreman9999]

o Ventus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

You can't change the catalyst mind. Nothing can. It's shackled. Trying to argue with the catalyst is like trying to convince a car locked in accileration to stop. The catalyst has no will of his own, He is just a tool. That is what my second point is pointing out. 
Yes , you can argue with him but the catalyst is not in a state were he has the control of himself to be able to change.

And I was never arguing against any of that, so why are you telling me these things?

Because you ignored my second point saying only the first point was relative. Both points are relative.

You replied to one of my posts and only 1/2 of your post had anything to do with mine. Yes, I'm going to ignore it. People tend to do that.

As I just said. Both my points did have everything do do with your post. the first point illustarated what Shepard can do. The second point illustrated the reality of the situation.

My second point counters your "But it did not change anything" responce.

[dreman9999]

BringBackNihlus wrote...

Bad people who do bad things like the endings.

People who try to make an arguement based on morality vs morality are bad.

[Feanor_II]

I did..... Originals where terrible narratively terrible and although the EC is fine could be a bit better, but I liked them, I mean, the concept of the endings..... including the death of the protagonist that seems to have angered soooooo many people, it's not even the first game that ends that way!

Modifié par Feanor_II, 25 août 2012 - 07:06 .

[o Ventus]

dreman9999 wrote...

My second point counters your "But it did not change anything" responce.

If you were countering something that I said, you would be refuting it or arguing against it. You said the exact same thing I did in regards to the Catalyst, just worded differently.

[dreman9999]

Feanor_II wrote...

I did..... Originals where terrible narratively terrible and the EC could be a bit better, but I liked them..... including the death of the protagonist that seems to have angered soooooo many people, it's not even the first game that ends that way!

"I love red dead redemption because of how the main charater dies at the end but I hate ME3 because of how the main character dies at the end."=]

[dreman9999]

o Ventus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

My second point counters your "But it did not change anything" responce.

If you were countering something that I said, you would be refuting it or arguing against it. You said the exact same thing I did in regards to the Catalyst, just worded differently.

You never said anything about the condition of the catalyst untill I brought it up.

[o Ventus]

dreman9999 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

My second point counters your "But it did not change anything" responce.

If you were countering something that I said, you would be refuting it or arguing against it. You said the exact same thing I did in regards to the Catalyst, just worded differently.

You never said anything about the condition of the catalyst untill I brought it up.

Yes I did, just not in that post.

Not that it matters anyway, the state of the Catalyst is irrelevant to my point.

[dreman9999]

o Ventus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

My second point counters your "But it did not change anything" responce.

If you were countering something that I said, you would be refuting it or arguing against it. You said the exact same thing I did in regards to the Catalyst, just worded differently.

You never said anything about the condition of the catalyst untill I brought it up.

Yes I did, just not in that post.

Not that it matters anyway, the state of the Catalyst is irrelevant to my point.

Sorry, don't see it. And the state of the catalyst have everthing to do with you post if  you post as a responce...
"
And even Shepard's "arguing" with the Catalyst is 1-sided out of Shepard's favor, and is thus ultimately pointless." 
My second poit pre-empts  that statement you made.

[Lionfranky]

Is it that most who felt disgusted with endings left the forum? I keep feeling original ending is objectively bad. Well, I try not to be a jerk, but the quality kinda forces me to... or lies from the devs.... Can people here who like even original ending can defend this?
http://social.biowar...index/10056886/

[AtreiyaN7]

I liked Synthesis before and after the EC. It's not as if people who like/are okay with the endings aren't aware of the issues and flaws. I have, in fact, repeatedly agreed with a number of them. However, I found the subjects of transhumanism, humanity arising/developing in AIs and subsequent questions about life and the nature of sentience to be interesting - interesting enough so as to outweigh the flaws that existed in the original endings. Besides, I didn't mind using my imagination to fill in the gaps (and I actually found it entertaining to come up with hypotheses on how things could possibly work on the science side of things).

P.S. I really do have to laugh at the "character assassination of the protagonist" thing - seems a tad melodramatic/silly to me.
P.P.S. If anyone suddenly starts demanding justifications for liking the ending and/or Synthesis specifically... *points at blog link in her signature*

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 25 août 2012 - 07:17 .

[Jadebaby]

I didn't like it, I loved it

[dreman9999]

Lionfranky wrote...

Is it that most who felt disgusted with endings left the forum? I keep feeling original ending is objectively bad. Well, I try not to be a jerk, but the quality kinda forces me to... or lies from the devs.... Can people here who like even original ending can defend this?
http://social.biowar...index/10056886/

1. The old ending never exsisted.

2. BW stated time and time agein that nothing they said before release was final and can change over time. BW once had an overpower boost for biotic in ME3 and the canned it. The same can be said for other things.

[dreman9999]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

I liked Synthesis before and after the EC. It's not as if people who like/are okay with the endings aren't aware of the issues and flaws. I have, in fact, repeatedly agreed with a number of them. However, I found the subjects of transhumanism, humanity arising/developing in AIs and subsequent questions about life and the nature of sentience to be interesting - interesting enough so as to outweigh the flaws that existed in the original endings. Besides, I didn't mind using my imagination to fill in the gaps (and I actually found it entertaining to come up with hypotheses on how things could possibly work on the science side of things).

P.S. I really do have to laugh at the "character assassination of the protagonist" thing - seems a tad melodramatic/silly to me.
P.P.S. If anyone suddenly starts demanding justifications for liking the ending and/or Synthesis specifically... *points at blog link in her signature*

Counter point: It(synthesis)is going to happen on it's own over time, why force it now?

[Obadiah]

o Ventus wrote...
...
No it wasn't. Prior to ME3, the largest presence that synthetics vs. organics had was the geth/quarian conflict, and even that hadn't been seen on-screen until Tali's loyalty mission in ME2 (Which is entirely optional). Up until the end, it has 1 miniquest in ME1, a loyalty mission in ME2, and a set of side missions in ME3 along with 2 priority missions. Even then, the synthetics do not eradicate the organics of their own volition, as the Catalyst insists. In fact, logistically speaking, it's far more common for peace to be made or for the organics to overtake the synthetics in this situation. 

So while it may be present as a theme, it has never, ever been a major theme, and it's even presented as an "anti-theme" (for lack of a better descriptor) in ME3.
...

The major plot of Mass Effect 1 was Synthetics (Geth and Soveriegn) vs Organics (Alliance races). We spent a fair amount of the game fighting them, and trying to determine why we are fighting them. They had allies in Saren, Benezia, the Asari that followed her, and the Krogan - all, it turns out, indoctrinated and controlled by Soveriegn. The climax is a massive battle in which the synthetics (Geth ships and Soveriegn) attack the Citadel in order to allow an armada of synthetic Reapers into the galaxy.

In Mass Effect 2, we find out that it was a minority of Geth, but in the context of Mass Effect 1 we didn't yet know that. In addition, in Mass Effect 3 we find out that the Reapers will destory the Geth, but, again, in Mass Effect 1 we didn't yet know that.

Modifié par Obadiah, 25 août 2012 - 07:25 .

[Dried Donkey]

I thought it was alright, didn't hate it

[Jadebaby]

Dried Donkey wrote...

I thought it was alright, didn't hate it

Be the leaf!

[o Ventus]

Obadiah wrote...

o Ventus wrote...
...
No it wasn't. Prior to ME3, the largest presence that synthetics vs. organics had was the geth/quarian conflict, and even that hadn't been seen on-screen until Tali's loyalty mission in ME2 (Which is entirely optional). Up until the end, it has 1 miniquest in ME1, a loyalty mission in ME2, and a set of side missions in ME3 along with 2 priority missions. Even then, the synthetics do not eradicate the organics of their own volition, as the Catalyst insists. In fact, logistically speaking, it's far more common for peace to be made or for the organics to overtake the synthetics in this situation. 

So while it may be present as a theme, it has never, ever been a major theme, and it's even presented as an "anti-theme" (for lack of a better descriptor) in ME3.
...

The major plot of Mass Effect 1 was Synthetics (Geth and Soveriegn) vs Organics (Alliance races). We spent a fair amount of the game fighting them, and trying to determine why we are fighting them. They had allies in Saren, Benezia, the Asari that followed her, and the Krogan - all, it turns out, indoctrinated and controlled by Soveriegn. But Shep spent an aweful lot of time fighting Geth. The climax is a massive battle in which the synthetics attack to Citadel, in order to allow an armada of synthetic Reapers into the galaxy.

In Mass Effect 2, we find out that it was a minority of Geth, but in the context of Mass Effect 1 we didn't yet know that.

The context of ME1 is largely irrelevant. The Catalyst explicitly says that synthetics will always rebel and battle their creators. Key word being rebel. The only legitimate example of a rebelling synthetic in the franchise is EDI. The geth did not "rebel" against the quarians, the Luna VI did not "rebel" against the Alliance, etc. Vendetta (I think it was Vendetta, it might have been Javik) affirms this when it says that synthetics cannot ever peacefully coexist with organics.

"synthetics vs. organics" is probably a wrong way to describe it. On a fundamental level, it's no different than organics vs. organics or synthetics vs. synthetics. "Synthetics rebelling against organics" is more accurate.

[Dried Donkey]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Dried Donkey wrote...

I thought it was alright, didn't hate it

Be the leaf!

[MerchantGOL]

Edi is the luna vi which did rebel, and what about the slot machine on the citadel, and overlord their are plenty of examples,

[o Ventus]

MerchantGOL wrote...

Edi is the luna vi which did rebel, and what about the slot machine on the citadel, and overlord their are plenty of examples,

EDI (as the Luna VI) gained sentience whilst in the middle of a live-ammunition training exercise. She even says it herself that coming to life while under fire was "confusing". That isn't a rebellion. EDI (as a full AI) only rebelled against Cerberus.

The gambling AI on the Citadel only turned hostile because it's partner AI was "murdered" (I think it's creator was also killed by C-Sec, unless that's another side quest). Again, not a rebellion, and certainly not against it's creators.

Overlord involved interfacing a geth VI with a human brain. That's still not a rebellion, that's David's mind going insane from the VI being inside it.