275 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Vigilant111 wrote...

@ Dreman: Even though morality is subjective, a common moral standard must be maintained

The Catalyst is not a simple puppet controlled by the Leviathans, it has sufficient free will to turn against its own creators

BTW, I do not understand the last point you made

You're not understand there is no such thing as a global common moral standard. Every tiny bit of morality is subjective.

The catalyst just does not have any moral at all. from moral standards to more ground. Moral standard only esists in groups, it's not globlely. Morality is not objective in any way, not even common moral stadards.


Even the game tells you this.


The last bit I stated to night walker generally means we can only control ourselves, we have no full control over the world around us.

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 octobre 2012 - 08:03 .

[Nightwriter]

Are numbers how the cool kids are doing it these days?

dreman9999 wrote...

1.That does not mean morality is pointless. It means ther is no absoult awnser. No absolute correct way. That does not mean there is not morals. It just means nothing is black or white.

2.That still mean it's not at fault. If it's just doing waht it's programed to do, that mean it can be held in a case of moralality.

3.Destory and control is not new way to get to its goal. Synthesis is. We only help it if we pick synthesis.Remeber, it's goal is to perserve all lifr. Destroy and control conflict with it.

4.Yes it does. You want to have a way to destroy it with no compromise. The fact that you do upsets you. The fact of the matter is it the only way and you want to control the event in a way that you don't have to comprimise.

5.It's not about feeling that you won, it's about stopping it.

6.A story inheritly is made so it's simular to reality. If reality is an incoherent poorly written mess, story will fallow that concept to be more real.

7.The only reaso why you saying the sacrific isin the end of ME3 is because you want the ending done you way. You don't get to choose what you face, not in a game or in life.
And if it the endings problem is bigger than sacrifice and realism, then you need to understand that all you complaint cover the issues of sacrifice and realism. 

1. Turns out we were battling a nonentity for three games. Lame.

2. Turns out we were battling a nonentity for three games. Lame.

3. Synthesis achieves its original mission goal. Control achieves its more recent goal of keeping synthetics from wiping out organics. Destroy diverts its goal, but it also diverts mine.

4. Yep. You discovered my dark secret. I didn't want to drink the kid's Kool-Aid.

5. So your position is that we shouldn't get to feel like we won? Well then I guess that's the final nail in the coffin of our disagreement from here to forever, then.

6. Realism in fiction is there to serve dramatic entertainment. Realism in fiction is not there to provide an excuse for poor writing.

7. Actually, by the fifth page of this thread, we had established that if you subtracted the Catalyst I would have felt better about the endings. How this proved to you that I just wanted the endings done my way is anyone's guess.

All I have been saying to you, over and over, is that a) the Catalyst was a bad device and its complete intellectual vacancy is disappointing. Yet somehow you manage to say that "all I complain over" is sacrifice and realism.

------

Dude, I don't have an exhaustive list of criteria that my debate opponents need to meet. They don't need to be grammar geniuses or Harvard grads. All I really need to know is their arguments are coherent and sincere, and that they will listen to what I'm saying.

If you can't do even that, I don't see much point in conversing with you.

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...
1.But that still is an example of moral conflict there. No one really want there Shepard to die. Not wanting to die and finding out the choice to stop the reapers form destroying everyone is moral conflict.

3.I'm sorry but it waswell made clear that the only people TIM wanted fighting for him he wants indoctrianted. Yoube losing your free will to work for him.

4.Even it you say you get what I'm saying your still not getting it. If there is no issue with people picking it, why have issue with it?

1. Everything is moral conflict in your eyes. A dog taking a crap on the side of the road is moral conflict to you. You are like Knight Commander Meredith, every where you turn you she morallity like she sees blood magic. Don't take it the wrong way, some people do feel moral conflict with the choices but I was just asking you where besides that one trailer (which can be taken different ways) does BW state that they intended moral conflict.

3. The way BW made it turn out to be yes. What I have been sayin gis that they should have made it one side or the other. But they wanted Cerberus to be indoctrinated bad guys when they didn't have to be. As Cerberus is now due to BW writing, you would probably become a mindless husk but it didn't have to be that way.

4. Did you even read my last post. I said I don't like it and think that BW shouldn't have included it but since they did if people like it they can choose it.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Nightwriter wrote...

All I have been saying to you, over and over, is that a) the Catalyst was a bad device and its complete intellectual vacancy is disappointing. Yet somehow you manage to say that "all I complain over" is sacrifice and realism.

Quid pro quo

[dreman9999]

Nightwriter wrote...

Are numbers how the cool kids are doing it these days?

dreman9999 wrote...

1.That does not mean morality is pointless. It means ther is no absoult awnser. No absolute correct way. That does not mean there is not morals. It just means nothing is black or white.

2.That still mean it's not at fault. If it's just doing waht it's programed to do, that mean it can be held in a case of moralality.

3.Destory and control is not new way to get to its goal. Synthesis is. We only help it if we pick synthesis.Remeber, it's goal is to perserve all lifr. Destroy and control conflict with it.

4.Yes it does. You want to have a way to destroy it with no compromise. The fact that you do upsets you. The fact of the matter is it the only way and you want to control the event in a way that you don't have to comprimise.

5.It's not about feeling that you won, it's about stopping it.

6.A story inheritly is made so it's simular to reality. If reality is an incoherent poorly written mess, story will fallow that concept to be more real.

7.The only reaso why you saying the sacrific isin the end of ME3 is because you want the ending done you way. You don't get to choose what you face, not in a game or in life.
And if it the endings problem is bigger than sacrifice and realism, then you need to understand that all you complaint cover the issues of sacrifice and realism. 

1. Turns out we were battling a nonentity for three games. Lame.

2. Turns out we were battling a nonentity for three games. Lame.

3. Synthesis achieves its original mission goal. Control achieves its more recent goal of keeping synthetics from wiping out organics. Destroy diverts its goal, but it also diverts mine.

4. Yep. You discovered my dark secret. I didn't want to drink the kid's Kool-Aid.

5. So your position is that we shouldn't get to feel like we won? Well then I guess that's the final nail in the coffin of our disagreement from here to forever, then.

6. Realism in fiction is there to serve dramatic entertainment. Realism in fiction is not there to provide an excuse for poor writing.

7. Actually, by the fifth page of this thread, we had established that if you subtracted the Catalyst I would have felt better about the endings. How this proved to you that I just wanted the endings done my way is anyone's guess.

All I have been saying to you, over and over, is that a) the Catalyst was a bad device and its complete intellectual vacancy is disappointing. Yet somehow you manage to say that "all I complain over" is sacrifice and realism.

------

Dude, I don't have an exhaustive list of criteria that my debate opponents need to meet. They don't need to be grammar geniuses or Harvard grads. All I really need to know is their arguments are coherent and sincere, and that they will listen to what I'm saying.

If you can't do even that, I don't see much point in conversing with you.

1-2. What does  that matter. Al thematter is stopping them.

3.Synthesis is a garente it goalis met. Control does not have a garantee and is faulty. Having someone else control the reapers doe not mean all life will be preserved. That opens the option for the Shepard AI to have the option to kill off races.
Destroy in no way diverts your goal. You want to stop the reapers. Destory does that.


5.My argement is th epoint was never to feelthat we won. It that we stopped the reapers.

6.Poor writing in the case is subjective. Nothingin the ending of ME3 in ending is inheritly bad writing.

7.So you're say that if you had the 4 choices in the end of the game offer by someone else, you'll like the endings?


"All I have been saying to you, over and over, is that a) the Catalyst was a bad device and its complete intellectual vacancy is disappointing. Yet somehow you manage to say that "all I complain over" is sacrifice and realism. "

The point I'm argueing about is that catalyst is not the key to the fault of the ending. We would have gotten the the same 4 choice no matter what.  The catalyst only job is just to be the voice box of the reapers.
And what it pointed out is the reaper are just machines doing what they are programed to do. They turned out to not be inheritly evil but moraless machines. You issue here is that you plain just want them to be the bad guy. But ME never was about inheritly good or evil concepts. Even Saren was not the bad guy. Even TIM's objetive can be seen in a moraly correct way but his action are morally bad.
The entire point of it is that beings are no labled as good or evil, they just can do good and evil action no matter what morality they believe.

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 octobre 2012 - 08:28 .

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1.But that still is an example of moral conflict there. No one really want there Shepard to die. Not wanting to die and finding out the choice to stop the reapers form destroying everyone is moral conflict.

3.I'm sorry but it waswell made clear that the only people TIM wanted fighting for him he wants indoctrianted. Yoube losing your free will to work for him.

4.Even it you say you get what I'm saying your still not getting it. If there is no issue with people picking it, why have issue with it?

1. Everything is moral conflict in your eyes. A dog taking a crap on the side of the road is moral conflict to you. You are like Knight Commander Meredith, every where you turn you she morallity like she sees blood magic. Don't take it the wrong way, some people do feel moral conflict with the choices but I was just asking you where besides that one trailer (which can be taken different ways) does BW state that they intended moral conflict.

3. The way BW made it turn out to be yes. What I have been sayin gis that they should have made it one side or the other. But they wanted Cerberus to be indoctrinated bad guys when they didn't have to be. As Cerberus is now due to BW writing, you would probably become a mindless husk but it didn't have to be that way.

4. Did you even read my last post. I said I don't like it and think that BW shouldn't have included it but since they did if people like it they can choose it.

1., You missed my point. You stated that conflict does not mean that it always a conflictof moral. That is true, but ME never has any conflict in it that does nto question morals.

3.They are the one to pick want events and moivations happen inthe story. If they say jining cerberus mean you'll become an indoctrianated slave, then joining cerberus you become an indoctinated slave. It does not matter that they could do it in another way. They did it this way and such we need to fallow with the game story.

4.And that's my point. You still have issues with BW have it in the game.

[Nightwriter]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

All I have been saying to you, over and over, is that a) the Catalyst was a bad device and its complete intellectual vacancy is disappointing. Yet somehow you manage to say that "all I complain over" is sacrifice and realism.

Quid pro quo

Well, that seems rather like accusing him of being deliberately stupid. I try to avoid accusations of that sort unless the evidence is overwhelming. I mean, it's kind of harsh.

[ld1449]

Nightwriter wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

All I have been saying to you, over and over, is that a) the Catalyst was a bad device and its complete intellectual vacancy is disappointing. Yet somehow you manage to say that "all I complain over" is sacrifice and realism.

Quid pro quo

Well, that seems rather like accusing him of being deliberately stupid. I try to avoid accusations of that sort unless the evidence is overwhelming. I mean, it's kind of harsh.

So by your standard how close is he getting? He went over the hill ages ago in my book

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1.But that still is an example of moral conflict there. No one really want there Shepard to die. Not wanting to die and finding out the choice to stop the reapers form destroying everyone is moral conflict.

3.I'm sorry but it waswell made clear that the only people TIM wanted fighting for him he wants indoctrianted. Yoube losing your free will to work for him.

4.Even it you say you get what I'm saying your still not getting it. If there is no issue with people picking it, why have issue with it?

1. Everything is moral conflict in your eyes. A dog taking a crap on the side of the road is moral conflict to you. You are like Knight Commander Meredith, every where you turn you she morallity like she sees blood magic. Don't take it the wrong way, some people do feel moral conflict with the choices but I was just asking you where besides that one trailer (which can be taken different ways) does BW state that they intended moral conflict.

3. The way BW made it turn out to be yes. What I have been sayin gis that they should have made it one side or the other. But they wanted Cerberus to be indoctrinated bad guys when they didn't have to be. As Cerberus is now due to BW writing, you would probably become a mindless husk but it didn't have to be that way.

4. Did you even read my last post. I said I don't like it and think that BW shouldn't have included it but since they did if people like it they can choose it.

1., You missed my point. You stated that conflict does not mean that it always a conflictof moral. That is true, but ME never has any conflict in it that does nto question morals.

3.They are the one to pick want events and moivations happen inthe story. If they say jining cerberus mean you'll become an indoctrianated slave, then joining cerberus you become an indoctinated slave. It does not matter that they could do it in another way. They did it this way and such we need to fallow with the game story.

4.And that's my point. You still have issues with BW have it in the game.

1. My comment wasn't meant to say it can. It was meant to say that people can interpret that differently and that doesn't necessarily mean morally. Plus just because they said that doesn't really mean they intended moral conflict it was just for marketing which in a lot of cases the ME3 advertising wasn't true so why should this time be any different.

3. Yes that is true. My point was that they didn't have to do it that way, and possibly a better way. I know they did it the way they did but they could have done it better. IMO choosing control contradicts what you fought for in ME3.

4. My point was that they included it, I understand that. The choice itself erases peoples free will but people still have the choice to choose it. As I stated though i don't think they should have included it and I bet that if synthesis was not included when the game was released then you would not have cared about that that choice was not there because you had no idea that it was possible. What I am saying is that if you went back in time and first played ME3 and synthesis wasn't a choice in the end you would not have cared that it wasn't an available choice because you didn't know it existed.

[Nightwriter]

ld1449 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

All I have been saying to you, over and over, is that a) the Catalyst was a bad device and its complete intellectual vacancy is disappointing. Yet somehow you manage to say that "all I complain over" is sacrifice and realism.

Quid pro quo

Well, that seems rather like accusing him of being deliberately stupid. I try to avoid accusations of that sort unless the evidence is overwhelming. I mean, it's kind of harsh.

So by your standard how close is he getting? He went over the hill ages ago in my book

Well, my experience with him is limited to this thread.

And also it feels weird talking about him like he's not looking at his computer screen right now.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Nightwriter wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

All I have been saying to you, over and over, is that a) the Catalyst was a bad device and its complete intellectual vacancy is disappointing. Yet somehow you manage to say that "all I complain over" is sacrifice and realism.

Quid pro quo

Well, that seems rather like accusing him of being deliberately stupid. I try to avoid accusations of that sort unless the evidence is overwhelming. I mean, it's kind of harsh.

Just saying it's a logic you can't really argue with, though not cause it's valid.

[dreman9999]

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1.But that still is an example of moral conflict there. No one really want there Shepard to die. Not wanting to die and finding out the choice to stop the reapers form destroying everyone is moral conflict.

3.I'm sorry but it waswell made clear that the only people TIM wanted fighting for him he wants indoctrianted. Yoube losing your free will to work for him.

4.Even it you say you get what I'm saying your still not getting it. If there is no issue with people picking it, why have issue with it?

1. Everything is moral conflict in your eyes. A dog taking a crap on the side of the road is moral conflict to you. You are like Knight Commander Meredith, every where you turn you she morallity like she sees blood magic. Don't take it the wrong way, some people do feel moral conflict with the choices but I was just asking you where besides that one trailer (which can be taken different ways) does BW state that they intended moral conflict.

3. The way BW made it turn out to be yes. What I have been sayin gis that they should have made it one side or the other. But they wanted Cerberus to be indoctrinated bad guys when they didn't have to be. As Cerberus is now due to BW writing, you would probably become a mindless husk but it didn't have to be that way.

4. Did you even read my last post. I said I don't like it and think that BW shouldn't have included it but since they did if people like it they can choose it.

1., You missed my point. You stated that conflict does not mean that it always a conflictof moral. That is true, but ME never has any conflict in it that does nto question morals.

3.They are the one to pick want events and moivations happen inthe story. If they say jining cerberus mean you'll become an indoctrianated slave, then joining cerberus you become an indoctinated slave. It does not matter that they could do it in another way. They did it this way and such we need to fallow with the game story.

4.And that's my point. You still have issues with BW have it in the game.

1. My comment wasn't meant to say it can. It was meant to say that people can interpret that differently and that doesn't necessarily mean morally. Plus just because they said that doesn't really mean they intended moral conflict it was just for marketing which in a lot of cases the ME3 advertising wasn't true so why should this time be any different.

3. Yes that is true. My point was that they didn't have to do it that way, and possibly a better way. I know they did it the way they did but they could have done it better. IMO choosing control contradicts what you fought for in ME3.

4. My point was that they included it, I understand that. The choice itself erases peoples free will but people still have the choice to choose it. As I stated though i don't think they should have included it and I bet that if synthesis was not included when the game was released then you would not have cared about that that choice was not there because you had no idea that it was possible. What I am saying is that if you went back in time and first played ME3 and synthesis wasn't a choice in the end you would not have cared that it wasn't an available choice because you didn't know it existed.

1. That just you saying that not everyone has moral conflict over every event place for moral conflit. I get that. As I said before morality is subjective.
That doesnot mean bw should nt try for it. Which they are.

3.Patato..pataato....
It comes down to opinion...

4."What I am saying is that if you went back in time and first played ME3 and synthesis wasn't a choice in the end you would not have cared that it wasn't an available choice because you didn't know it existed."
 That would be the same with any of the choices.
Point being it's not lesser for having it.

Modifié par dreman9999, 03 octobre 2012 - 12:41 .

[dreman9999]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

All I have been saying to you, over and over, is that a) the Catalyst was a bad device and its complete intellectual vacancy is disappointing. Yet somehow you manage to say that "all I complain over" is sacrifice and realism.

Quid pro quo

Well, that seems rather like accusing him of being deliberately stupid. I try to avoid accusations of that sort unless the evidence is overwhelming. I mean, it's kind of harsh.

Just saying it's a logic you can't really argue with, though not cause it's valid.

Do you even understand my arguements at all?

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 octobre 2012 - 11:08 .

[MegaSovereign]

dreman9999 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

All I have been saying to you, over and over, is that a) the Catalyst was a bad device and its complete intellectual vacancy is disappointing. Yet somehow you manage to say that "all I complain over" is sacrifice and realism.

Quid pro quo

Well, that seems rather like accusing him of being deliberately stupid. I try to avoid accusations of that sort unless the evidence is overwhelming. I mean, it's kind of harsh.

Just saying it's a logic you can't really argue with, though not cause it's valid.

Do you even understand may arguements at all?

It's October bro.

[What a Succulent Ass]

This thread has devolved into a hot(ter?) mess.

All this illogic rn.

[TNT1991]

Random Jerkface wrote...

This thread has devolved into a hot(ter?) mess.

All this illogic rn.

 

I know, right?  

But, I want to see how this thread ends.This is more exciting than the superbowl...

Modifié par TNT1991, 03 octobre 2012 - 03:08 .

[MegaSovereign]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

lol, dreman9999 and his illogic are at it again.

How did they get past our defenses?:

[mrs_anomaly]

MegaSovereign wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

All I have been saying to you, over and over, is that a) the Catalyst was a bad device and its complete intellectual vacancy is disappointing. Yet somehow you manage to say that "all I complain over" is sacrifice and realism.

Quid pro quo

Well, that seems rather like accusing him of being deliberately stupid. I try to avoid accusations of that sort unless the evidence is overwhelming. I mean, it's kind of harsh.

Just saying it's a logic you can't really argue with, though not cause it's valid.

Do you even understand may arguements at all?

It's October bro.

2pts goes to MegaSovereign 

Modifié par mrs_anomaly, 03 octobre 2012 - 12:04 .

[dreman9999]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

lol, dreman9999 and his illogic are at it again.

How am I being illogical?

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreman9999 wrote...

Do you even understand my arguements at all?

I do and I don't mean to imply that I question your intelligence so let me say right now I apologies if I gave that impression. However I don't find your arguments to be valid and the persepctive you express about the games seems, at least to me, to lack evidence. You also ,again from my view point, seem to interpret what people that debating you say in fairly strange strange and diverging ways from the actual argument, or just regugitate the exact same argument over and over again regardless of the discussion. I don't think you're stupid I do take issue with you argumentative style however.

[Massa FX]

Shhh... let's not attract attention. I'm having a blast reading this thread. I do NOT want the comedic genius to end the tirades. This is Awesome.

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. That just you saying that not everyone has moral conflict over every event place for moral conflit. I get that. As I said before morality is subjective.
That doesnot mean bw should nt try for it. Which they are.

3.Patato..pataato....
It comes down to opinion...

4."What I am saying is that if you went back in time and first played ME3 and synthesis wasn't a choice in the end you would not have cared that it wasn't an available choice because you didn't know it existed."
 That would be the same with any of the choices.
Point being it's not lesser for having it.

1. Since neither of us work for BW and neither of us developed ME3 then we cannot say one way or the other what they intended. The only reason people argue with your moral conflict points is that you asay that in every post. I don't want to sound rude but people don't take you seriously because of that. 

4. by that statement my point was that the choice itself destroys everybodies free will but with the choice there you have the free will to choose it even though you would be erasing everybodies free will to do so and IMO that goes completely against what ME has stood for. Fighting for everybodies ability to choose their own fate.

Yes the game is not worse for having the option but IMO it would be better if the option wasn't there for the reasons I stated above. That's just my opinion but I hope you try to understand my view in your reply

[Morty Smith]

dreman9999 wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

lol, dreman9999 and his illogic are at it again.

How am I being illogical?

The things you bring up aren´t illogical, mostly, but your arguments are all over the place, just not at the spot.

Kinda like, www.youtube.com/watch

[shodiswe]

mrs_anomaly wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I'm gonna build a time machine, and I'm gonna make you whole.

Who did you romance, by the way?

The time machine: probably the best Valentine's gift ever  lol


I have multiple Sheps- this particular femShepard is my canon one I suppose. She is absolutely in love with Kaidan. My other femSheps romanced Thane . 
My sole maleShep romanced Liara 

I didn't realize there was a survival of Shepard possible- if that is the case I might have hope for this ending (which I will be finishing TONIGHT). I am not sure though- my military stat is only 5000+..I think it's 5800 or something and my overal readiness indicated by the green progress bar is 98% IIRC. 

The green bar isn't indicatign readiness, it grows as you pickup more military assets.

If you havn't played Multiplayer then your readiness will be at 50%, and with 5000 Military strength you would have 2500 Effective millitary strength. AKA EMS

With 5800 military strenth you would have 2650 EMS