6432 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

Re-read the example I used. Adam and Eve were clearly created, but by an unknown (God). Catalyst was clearly created (artificial AI), but by an unknown. Direct parallel. I also notice you refute it by bringing up God again. <Rolls eyes>

You do not understand how logical arguments work. You made a statement: The Catalyst created the Reapers and is their maker, thus he is a Reaper.

In order to refute that, I only have to provide ONE counter-example to the act of creation meaning the creator is the same as the created. Which I did. Would you like more? Morgoth isn't an orc.

By the way, your Adam and Eve parallel does not work because Adam and Eve were humans when they first gave birth to further humans post-Eden. In order for this to be analogous, the Catalyst would have had to be an actual Reaper when he created the second Reaper.

Of course, there's no reason for me to take you step by step through symbolic logic as I could, because as Dragoon has pointed out the game flat out tells you he isn't a Reaper.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 29 septembre 2012 - 06:04 .

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

In trhis case closer is for us to make. BW ending the story of SHepard like this is just them giving us the pen to write the rest of Sheps story.
That's the point of open end ending. For the veiwer to decide for themselves. It's like how inception left it up to the veiw to pick if the ending was a dream or reality. 

thats BS, Control and Synthesis gets a sense of closure but Destroy, they want us do it for them? Chris already said its not a open ending. We should be allowed to a scene where Shepard is fully alive or die

He just gave his opinion of the ending. Not what spacifily happened. Him saying Shepard is dead is like saying the end of inception is a dream.

It's opened end. If you feel he's dead....then he's dead. If you feel he's alive he's alive.

wanna know the difference between Inception and Mass Effect besides one being a movie and the other a game, Mass Effect gives you choices and the Destroy option lets Shepard live and people knew that. Bioware could have easily done two versions of Destroy like that but no they made them ambiguous and lacked closure while the other endings did give a sense of closure

So what if ones amovie and ones a game. ME beign a game does not mean it can't have an open ended ending.
Yes it gives you choice, but an open ending ending does not defer that choice, if fact it leave it up to th eplayer to choose what happens. They choose the results. You don't need a definate awnser. You make your own.

[Iakus]

GarvakD wrote...

That wobbling, as some moderators or forumgoers from this realm of the internet would say, is equivalent to Shepard's breath scene.  It could be viewed as a living breath or his final, dying breath (even though it was a gasp for air :/).

Hey, if the breath took place while Shepard was surrounded by the Normandy crew and LI, this debate would not be occuring 

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...
So? But did you see it drop? Just becauseit wobble does not mean it dropped.

An open ended  ending ends with a quetions left to the viewer to awnser with clue supporting all assumptions.

Total recall did this as well. Is it's ending a dream or real?

We have no definate awnser, just thjing we have we can mak e assumptions.

guess you never paid attention to the movie, in a dream the top would keep spinning and spinning, the fact that it started to wobble indicated that he was not dreaming, but made all those scene skips to make it look like he was still dreaming or lost in Limbo

It worked for Total Recall, but backfired for ME3

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

In trhis case closer is for us to make. BW ending the story of SHepard like this is just them giving us the pen to write the rest of Sheps story.
That's the point of open end ending. For the veiwer to decide for themselves. It's like how inception left it up to the veiw to pick if the ending was a dream or reality. 

thats BS, Control and Synthesis gets a sense of closure but Destroy, they want us do it for them? Chris already said its not a open ending. We should be allowed to a scene where Shepard is fully alive or die

He just gave his opinion of the ending. Not what spacifily happened. Him saying Shepard is dead is like saying the end of inception is a dream.

It's opened end. If you feel he's dead....then he's dead. If you feel he's alive he's alive.

Poor comparison. Inception had a happy ending.

Yup.  If Inception followed ME3 the last scene would have been Cobb taking a breath on the airplane.

My point here. You point>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>way over here.

[AresKeith]

that's another thing, why would even do an open ending like that to the end of main characters story anyway

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
So? But did you see it drop? Just becauseit wobble does not mean it dropped.

An open ended  ending ends with a quetions left to the viewer to awnser with clue supporting all assumptions.

Total recall did this as well. Is it's ending a dream or real?

We have no definate awnser, just thjing we have we can mak e assumptions.

guess you never paid attention to the movie, in a dream the top would keep spinning and spinning, the fact that it started to wobble indicated that he was not dreaming, but made all those scene skips to make it look like he was still dreaming or lost in Limbo

It worked for Total Recall, but backfired for ME3

1. As I said, an open ended endin provieds proof on all assumption of the ending. Because you don't see it means you don't not. It does not matter if it wobbled. All arguments are valid.

2. ME ending opened is not the problem with it. It problem was it's ending was not finished when it came out.

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

that's another thing, why would even do an open ending like that to the end of main characters story anyway

Inception, total recall, Blade runner.


It's not a taboo. Maybe if you try say wants wrong with doing that would help.

Modifié par dreman9999, 29 septembre 2012 - 06:10 .

[CronoDragoon]

GarvakD wrote...
I just imagine my Shepard(s) toughing it out (within limits.  A man can only go so long without water and food.  Or bleeding out) to witness the fruits of his labor. The destruction of Reapers. Galactic peace Reunite with crew and LI. I'm not letting my friends live without me. I think they'd miss me. A boatload of people owe me drinks. I promised Tali a house (her father already let her down, horribly...and I'm better). And I do enjoy living. 

"And if the day ever comes when you're tempted to sell me out, remember this: whatever their price, I'll beat it. I like living."

You can expect to see me in this thread for another several months despite naysayers.  Maybe their right.  Maybe we can't win this.  But we'll fight regardless.Because submission is not preferable to extinction.

Heh. We imagine the same thing, but one of us can live with it and the other can't. The world is a funny place. 

[HiddenInWar]

I've never interacted with this thread before but...I really do feel bad for bioware. They've received so much seething hatred for this, and the negativity reportedly is what caused the leaders of BW to leave. That's pretty unsettling. I'm not hating on anyone in this thread for criticizing but, this does seem like a big bioware-related discussion thread, so just my two cents.

[CronoDragoon]

dreman9999 wrote...
Blade runner.

Let's hope the ME3 endings never approach the Blade Runner clash, where the director believes one thing whereas the actor and scriptwriter believe another.

[Iakus]

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...
Yup.  If Inception followed ME3 the last scene would have been Cobb taking a breath on the airplane.

[/quote]My point here. You point>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>way over here.
[/quote]

Is it really?  Inception leaft far more room to believe a happy ending than ME3 did.  It did ambiguity well, because it only takes a small leap of faith to believe th ehappiness is true.

 ME3 requires an elaborate amount of headcanon to overcome a multitude of obstaclees to reach the happiness.  That Shepard doesn't bleed out or otherwise die of his/her injuries.  That Shepard isn't written off as dead.  That a rescue team can find the hidden location he/she is trapped in.    

 All Inception requires is belief the top fell.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

 ME3 requires an elaborate amount of headcanon to overcome a multitude of obstaclees to reach the happiness.  That Shepard doesn't bleed out or otherwise die of his/her injuries.  That Shepard isn't written off as dead.  That a rescue team can find the hidden location he/she is trapped in.    

 All Inception requires is belief the top fell.

Sounds like your Shepard died like a wuss. Bleed out? Please! He's the goddamn Shepard.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 29 septembre 2012 - 06:31 .

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...

 ME3 requires an elaborate amount of headcanon to overcome a multitude of obstaclees to reach the happiness.  That Shepard doesn't bleed out or otherwise die of his/her injuries.  That Shepard isn't written off as dead.  That a rescue team can find the hidden location he/she is trapped in.    

 All Inception requires is belief the top fell.

Sounds like your Shepard died like the wuss he was. Bleed out? Please! He's the goddamn Shepard.

My Shepard is human.  Not a relentless undead cyborg.  Not a messiah.  Just a guy who wanted to get it done and go home.  But that wasn't artistic enough or something.

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...

 ME3 requires an elaborate amount of headcanon to overcome a multitude of obstaclees to reach the happiness.  That Shepard doesn't bleed out or otherwise die of his/her injuries.  That Shepard isn't written off as dead.  That a rescue team can find the hidden location he/she is trapped in.    

 All Inception requires is belief the top fell.

Sounds like your Shepard died like the wuss he was. Bleed out? Please! He's the goddamn Shepard.

My Shepard is human.  Not a relentless undead cyborg.  Not a messiah.  Just a guy who wanted to get it done and go home.  But that wasn't artistic enough or something.

Your Shepard was a person that die and was remade with better parts. Your Shep can servive a hell of alot of thing because he/she is partly synthetic. Have some fath in Miranda's work.

[dreman9999]

[quote]iakus wrote...

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...
Yup.  If Inception followed ME3 the last scene would have been Cobb taking a breath on the airplane.

[/quote]My point here. You point>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>way over here.
[/quote]

Is it really?  Inception leaft far more room to believe a happy ending than ME3 did.  It did ambiguity well, because it only takes a small leap of faith to believe th ehappiness is true.

 ME3 requires an elaborate amount of headcanon to overcome a multitude of obstaclees to reach the happiness.  That Shepard doesn't bleed out or otherwise die of his/her injuries.  That Shepard isn't written off as dead.  That a rescue team can find the hidden location he/she is trapped in.    

 All Inception requires is belief the top fell.

[/quote]And ME3 ending does not do that? You can't imagine Shepard living?

[N7 Lisbeth]

CronoDragoon wrote...

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

Re-read the example I used. Adam and Eve were clearly created, but by an unknown (God). Catalyst was clearly created (artificial AI), but by an unknown. Direct parallel. I also notice you refute it by bringing up God again. <Rolls eyes>

By the way, your Adam and Eve parallel does not work because Adam and Eve were humans when they first gave birth to further humans post-Eden. In order for this to be analogous, the Catalyst would have had to be an actual Reaper when he created the second Reaper.

What part of progenitor do you not understand? That's exactly what I'm saying, by extention, he is a Reaper. The first Reaper. He is a crazy AI robot creature, they are crazy AI robot creatures.

Modifié par N7 Lisbeth, 29 septembre 2012 - 06:46 .

[dreman9999]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

Re-read the example I used. Adam and Eve were clearly created, but by an unknown (God). Catalyst was clearly created (artificial AI), but by an unknown. Direct parallel. I also notice you refute it by bringing up God again. <Rolls eyes>

By the way, your Adam and Eve parallel does not work because Adam and Eve were humans when they first gave birth to further humans post-Eden. In order for this to be analogous, the Catalyst would have had to be an actual Reaper when he created the second Reaper.

What part of progenitor do you not understand? That's exactly what I'm saying, by extention, he is a Reaper. The first Reaper. He is a crazy AI robot creature, they are crazy AI robot creatures.

Some one needs to play leviathen....The catalyst is not the first reaper. Even he ays he's not the first reaper.

Added, heis just a machine blindly doing what it's programed to do. It has no moral, just absolute logic.

Modifié par dreman9999, 29 septembre 2012 - 06:50 .

[N7 Lisbeth]

dreman9999 wrote...

And ME3 ending does not do that? You can't imagine Shepard living?

No. Nobody goes back for Shepard, but that does happen in Inception.

To spin it another way, in Blade Runner, not only do we see Deckard leave with the girl on his arm, but he narrates the ending. Someone else narrates the ending in ME3's destruction, Shepard is mysteriously absent from all rebuilding efforts.

There is a giant hole for closure in ME3's endings, or more specifically, Destroy. (I find the other two too abhorant to touch.)

[N7 Lisbeth]

dreman9999 wrote...
Some one needs to play leviathen....The catalyst is not the first reaper. Even he ays he's not the first reaper.

Taking the enemy's words at face value again, are we?

I mean, if it said it wasn't a Reaper, then that must be legit, right? Do you understand the use of "by extention"?

Modifié par N7 Lisbeth, 29 septembre 2012 - 06:51 .

[dreman9999]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

And ME3 ending does not do that? You can't imagine Shepard living?

No. Nobody goes back for Shepard, but that does happen in Inception.

To spin it another way, in Blade Runner, not only do we see Deckard leave with the girl on his arm, but he narrates the ending. Someone else narrates the ending in ME3's destruction, Shepard is mysteriously absent from all rebuilding efforts.

There is a giant hole for closure in ME3's endings, or more specifically, Destroy. (I find the other two too abhorant to touch.)

In Inception we don't know if its a dream or not.

In Blade runner we don't know if Deckard is really human or not.

ME3 is open ended bacause we don't have an indication if Shepard lived or died.  We dicide if he lived or died. 
And opened end ending inheritly have a hole for an ending. That what makes it open ended.

Modifié par dreman9999, 29 septembre 2012 - 06:57 .

[CronoDragoon]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

What part of progenitor do you not understand? That's exactly what I'm saying, by extention, he is a Reaper. The first Reaper.

By extension of what? By extension of him creating the first Reaper, that makes him a Reaper....? I do not understand the underlying logic here, since it's clear that there is no causal relationship between the identity of the creator and the created in general terms.

 He is a crazy AI robot creature, they are crazy AI robot creatures.

 Nice try moving the goalposts there, but that's a separate comparison, especially since you have now established by your Adam and Eve comparison that you believe the Catalyst had the same structure and programming/coding as Harbinger.

Or are you just saying that because he harvested the Leviathans that he is, spiritually, the first one who reaped?

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 29 septembre 2012 - 07:02 .

[dreman9999]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Some one needs to play leviathen....The catalyst is not the first reaper. Even he ays he's not the first reaper.

Taking the enemy's words at face value again, are we?

I mean, if it said it wasn't a Reaper, then that must be legit, right? Do you understand the use of "by extention"?

If it creator say it. It's a fact. 
And it creators said it.


Leviathan: The intelligence was envisioned as another tool
Shepard:And now we all pay the price of you mistake
Leviathan: There was no mistake. It still serves it's perpose

And on it's programing aka perpose...



Leviathan:  To counter this problem we creater an intelligence with the mandate to perserve life at any cost.

That basicly means  they made a shackled  AI to solve a problem with no limit ever given to how. 
It's shackled. 

That proves the catalystis not lieing.

Modifié par dreman9999, 29 septembre 2012 - 06:57 .

[Redbelle]

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...

[quote]iakus wrote...

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...
Yup.  If Inception followed ME3 the last scene would have been Cobb taking a breath on the airplane.

[/quote]My point here. You point>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>way over here.
[/quote]

Is it really?  Inception leaft far more room to believe a happy ending than ME3 did.  It did ambiguity well, because it only takes a small leap of faith to believe th ehappiness is true.

 ME3 requires an elaborate amount of headcanon to overcome a multitude of obstaclees to reach the happiness.  That Shepard doesn't bleed out or otherwise die of his/her injuries.  That Shepard isn't written off as dead.  That a rescue team can find the hidden location he/she is trapped in.    

 All Inception requires is belief the top fell.

[/quote]And ME3 ending does not do that? You can't imagine Shepard living?
[/quote]

Inception's ending was text book. Leave the top spinning for far longer than it could have concievably spun. Then add the distinctive sound it makes when it begins to wobble. Fade to black.

I never saw the top wobble and that and the sound I heard as the story hit the end credits lends a brilliant 'is he or isn't he dreaming' question, that frankly, doesn't matter. The story of how he reunited with his children was told and resolved in a brilliant fashion.............. But it niggles........... is he dreaming? Is everything he ever wanted his wish fulfilment.......... he saw the childrens faces for once so it might not be a dream............. unless he's so far into it he can't kick himself out of it.

Wonderful ambiguity that hits you literally at the last second giving you no time to think 'If this is the question what is the answer'. Inceptions primary plot was resolved but the underlying concept of the movie stays with us thanks to that ending.

[Iakus]

dreman9999 wrote...

iakus wrote...

 ME3 requires an elaborate amount of headcanon to overcome a multitude of obstaclees to reach the happiness.  That Shepard doesn't bleed out or otherwise die of his/her injuries.  That Shepard isn't written off as dead.  That a rescue team can find the hidden location he/she is trapped in.    

 All Inception requires is belief the top fell.

And ME3 ending does not do that? You can't imagine Shepard living?

Not easily, no.  What with the whole irregular breathing, walked into an explosion after being frakked up by a Reaper laser, partly-buried under rubble and trapped in a strange part of the Citadel with no aid nearby, assuming anyone knows he's still alive and knew where to look to begin with.

Otherwise, it's no problem imagining Shepard living.