543 réponses à ce sujet

[Netsfn1427]

Maxster_ wrote...

This is called headcanon. You just removing everything from prequels that doesn't fit your headcanon.
And at the same time, you accusing me of doing less, like building assumptions and conjectures on everything that in game, not removing anything.

You are removing evidence from the game, and then making some funny statemens like

Nothing in the game supports this. The evidence in the game says that
the Crucible changed the Catalyst and forced it to present you with the
options the Crucible creates. From the Catalyst saying that the Crucible
changed it, to it saying that it can't make the options happen to the
fact it says the Crucible has created new possibilities. It's all
there. Ignore it at your own peril.

Hypocrisy ftw

Um no. I'm pointing out that ME3 says otherwise. You are disregarding what's in the Leviathan DLC. It contradicts what Vigil says. Speaking of hypocrisy, you're willfully ignoring what's in the later game, given by a more knowledgable source because it contradicts your argument. Why should the info in ME1 be taken over the info in ME3? Because you like ME1 better?

There was a discussion about catalyst excuse, that reapers are force of nature, and thus irresponsible for their actions, as also catalyst himself.

Oh okay, but was that in this thread or over anything I said? Because while I think it can be fun to debate whether the Catalyst was a shackled A.I. or not, it doesn't seem relevant to this conversation.

Edit: stupid quote boxes.

Well, it is relevant to this conversation. It is about ethics.

The topic was about whether it's unfair towards paragon Shepards. The Catalyst has nothing to do with that. If the Catalyst wasn't in the ending and the choices were the same, the topic question would still remain.

Modifié par Netsfn1427, 07 octobre 2012 - 01:03 .

[Maxster_]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Oh, now it is getting fun.
Why are you think, that one fictional character Leviathan(one that talked) is more legit than the other fictional character Vigil?
Because you WANT it to be that way. Thus you are ignoring parts of the prequel game, that doesn't fit in your headcanon.

As for your last question - synthesis. It is space magic, which directly contradicts human sum of knowledge. In comparison, to say, kinetic weapons, or space suits, or even biotics(they are based on fantasy element).

I just won't do a pyramid of quote boxes.

Why is the Leviathan's word more valid or Vigil?  Because they were there at the beginnings of the Reapers. They were made into the first Reaper. Vigil was NOT there because the Protheans were not there.

If the Leviathans, who were there, say there were no relays when the cycles began, then there were no relays. Therefore there was no Citadel trap. It's not a matter of wanting it. It's a matter of what's shown in the game. What you say has been contradicted by later testimony, which because of its source, outweighs it.

Now that I've shown why the Leviathans get more say over Vigil, why should Vigil's word be put over the Leviathans? And "Bioware retconned it" isn't an acceptable answer.

I don't like Synthesis as an ending. But it's no more insane than people being melted into goo some how being able to become a sentinent being with the knowledge of the civilizations stored in DNA. That makes zero sense but I accept it, because it's how the lore works.

Nah, i'll repeat that one.

This is called headcanon. You just removing everything from prequels that doesn't fit your headcanon.
And at the same time, you accusing me of doing less, like building assumptions and conjectures on everything that in game, not removing anything.

You are removing evidence from the game, and then making some funny statemens like

Nothing in the game supports this. The evidence in the game says that
the Crucible changed the Catalyst and forced it to present you with the
options the Crucible creates. From the Catalyst saying that the Crucible
changed it, to it saying that it can't make the options happen to the
fact it says the Crucible has created new possibilities. It's all
there. Ignore it at your own peril.

Hypocrisy ftw

As i said, you are removing evidence from prequel game, to make your headcanon work.

[Maxster_]

[quote]Netsfn1427 wrote...

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

This is called headcanon. You just removing everything from prequels that doesn't fit your headcanon.
And at the same time, you accusing me of doing less, like building assumptions and conjectures on everything that in game, not removing anything.

You are removing evidence from the game, and then making some funny statemens like
[quote]Nothing in the game supports this. The evidence in the game says that
the Crucible changed the Catalyst and forced it to present you with the
options the Crucible creates. From the Catalyst saying that the Crucible
changed it, to it saying that it can't make the options happen to the
fact it says the Crucible has created new possibilities. It's all
there. Ignore it at your own peril. [/quote]
Hypocrisy ftw
[/quote]

Um no. I'm pointing out that ME3 says otherwise. You are disregarding what's in the Leviathan DLC. It contradicts what Vigil says. Speaking of hypocrisy, you're willfully ignoring what's in the later game, given by a more knowledgable source because it contradicts your argument. Why should the info in ME1 be taken over the info in ME3? Because you like ME1 better?
[/quote]
Because, comrade, ME1 is a prequel to ME3.
Retcon - retroactive continuity.

http://en.wikipedia....tive_continuity

Retroactive continuity
Retroactive continuity (retcon for short)[1] is the alteration of previously established facts in a fictional work.[2]
Retcons are done for many reasons, including the accommodation of
sequels or further derivative works in a series, wherein newer authors
or creators want to revise the in-story history to allow a course of
events that would not have been possible in the story's original continuity.
Other reasons might be the reintroduction of popular characters,
resolution of errors in chronology, the updating of a familiar series
for modern audiences, or simplification of an excessively complex
continuity structure.
Retcons are common in pulp fiction, especially comic books published by long-established houses such as DC, Marvel and leading manga
publishers. The long history of popular titles and the plurality of
writers who contribute stories can often create situations that demand
clarification or revision of exposition. Retcons also appear in soap operas, serial drama, movie sequels, professional wrestling, video games, radio series, and other kinds of serial fiction.
Retcons have been criticized as "cheating" on the part of the author,
seen as an effort to purge "unpopular" elements from the storyline and
force literary fads upon the audience, thus hurting suspension of disbelief.


http://en.wikipedia....on_of_disbelief

Suspension of disbelief

Suspension of disbelief or willing suspension of disbelief is a term coined in 1817 by the poet and aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who suggested that if a writer could infuse a "human interest and a semblance of truth" into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgment concerning the implausibility of the narrative. Suspension of disbelief often applies to fictional works of the action, comedy, fantasy, and horror genres. Cognitive estrangement in fiction involves using a person's ignorance or lack of knowledge to promote suspension of disbelief.

The phrase "suspension of disbelief" came to be used more loosely in the later 20th century, often used to imply that the burden was on the reader, rather than the writer, to achieve it. This might be used to refer to the willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium, so that these do not interfere with the acceptance of those premises. These fictional premises may also lend to the engagement of the mind and perhaps proposition of thoughts, ideas, art and theories.[1]
[quote]

There was a discussion about catalyst excuse, that reapers are force of nature, and thus irresponsible for their actions, as also catalyst himself.

[/quote]

[quote]
Oh okay, but was that in this thread or over anything I said? Because while I think it can be fun to debate whether the Catalyst was a shackled A.I. or not, it doesn't seem relevant to this conversation.

Edit: stupid quote boxes.

[/quote]

[quote]
Well, it is relevant to this conversation. It is about ethics.

[/quote]

The topic was about whether it's unfair towards paragon Shepards. The Catalyst has nothing to do with that. If the Catalyst wasn't in the ending and the choices were the same, the topic question would still remain.

[/quote]
Well, it is not I who started to put in topic excuse for a catalyst.

Modifié par Maxster_, 07 octobre 2012 - 01:09 .

[Netsfn1427]

Maxster_ wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Oh, now it is getting fun.
Why are you think, that one fictional character Leviathan(one that talked) is more legit than the other fictional character Vigil?
Because you WANT it to be that way. Thus you are ignoring parts of the prequel game, that doesn't fit in your headcanon.

As for your last question - synthesis. It is space magic, which directly contradicts human sum of knowledge. In comparison, to say, kinetic weapons, or space suits, or even biotics(they are based on fantasy element).

I just won't do a pyramid of quote boxes.

Why is the Leviathan's word more valid or Vigil?  Because they were there at the beginnings of the Reapers. They were made into the first Reaper. Vigil was NOT there because the Protheans were not there.

If the Leviathans, who were there, say there were no relays when the cycles began, then there were no relays. Therefore there was no Citadel trap. It's not a matter of wanting it. It's a matter of what's shown in the game. What you say has been contradicted by later testimony, which because of its source, outweighs it.

Now that I've shown why the Leviathans get more say over Vigil, why should Vigil's word be put over the Leviathans? And "Bioware retconned it" isn't an acceptable answer.

I don't like Synthesis as an ending. But it's no more insane than people being melted into goo some how being able to become a sentinent being with the knowledge of the civilizations stored in DNA. That makes zero sense but I accept it, because it's how the lore works.

Nah, i'll repeat that one.

This is called headcanon. You just removing everything from prequels that doesn't fit your headcanon.
And at the same time, you accusing me of doing less, like building assumptions and conjectures on everything that in game, not removing anything.

You are removing evidence from the game, and then making some funny statemens like

Nothing in the game supports this. The evidence in the game says that
the Crucible changed the Catalyst and forced it to present you with the
options the Crucible creates. From the Catalyst saying that the Crucible
changed it, to it saying that it can't make the options happen to the
fact it says the Crucible has created new possibilities. It's all
there. Ignore it at your own peril.

Hypocrisy ftw

As i said, you are removing evidence from prequel game, to make your headcanon work.

And I'll just repeat this: Now that I've shown why the Leviathans get more say over Vigil, why
should Vigil's word be put over the Leviathans? And "Bioware retconned
it" isn't an acceptable answer.

See, I've given my explanation on why what's written in ME3 (by Bioware, not by me) trumps what was in ME1. Now if you could give a reason why ME1 should be given preference over ME3, when Leviathans are more knowledgable than Vigil, it'd really help the discussion along.

[Maxster_]

And I'll just repeat this: Now that I've shown why the Leviathans get more say over Vigil, why
should Vigil's word be put over the Leviathans? And "Bioware retconned
it" isn't an acceptable answer.

See, I've given my explanation on why what's written in ME3 (by Bioware, not by me) trumps what was in ME1. Now if you could give a reason why ME1 should be given preference over ME3, when Leviathans are more knowledgable than Vigil, it'd really help the discussion along.

Because ME1 is a prequel to ME3.


http://en.wikipedia....nuity_(fiction)


In fiction, continuity (also called time-scheme) is consistency of the characteristics of persons, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer over some period of time. It is of relevance to several media.

Continuity is particularly a concern in the production of film and television due to the difficulty of rectifying an error in continuity after shooting has wrapped up. It also applies to other art forms, including novels, comics, and videogames, though usually on a smaller scale.

Most productions have a script supervisor on hand whose job is to pay attention to and attempt to maintain continuity across the chaotic and typically non-linear production shoot. This takes the form of a large amount of paperwork, photographs, and attention to and memory of large quantities of detail, some of which is sometimes assembled into the story bible for the production. It usually regards factors both within the scene and often even technical details including meticulous records of camera positioning and equipment settings. The use of a Polaroid camera was standard but has since been replaced by the advent of digital cameras. All of this is done so that ideally all related shots can match, despite perhaps parts being shot thousands of miles and several months apart. It is a less conspicuous job, though, because if done perfectly, no one will ever notice.

In comic books, continuity has also come to mean a set of contiguous events, sometimes said to be "set in the same universe" (see fictional crossover and fictional universe) or "separate universes" (see intercompany crossover).

Today, maintaining strong plot and character continuity is also a high priority for many writers of long-running television series.

Modifié par Maxster_, 07 octobre 2012 - 01:13 .

[Netsfn1427]

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
Because, comrade, ME1 is a prequel to ME3.
Retcon - retroactive continuity.

http://en.wikipedia....tive_continuity

Retroactive continuity
Retroactive continuity (retcon for short)[1] is the alteration of previously established facts in a fictional work.[2]
Retcons are done for many reasons, including the accommodation of
sequels or further derivative works in a series, wherein newer authors
or creators want to revise the in-story history to allow a course of
events that would not have been possible in the story's original continuity.
Other reasons might be the reintroduction of popular characters,
resolution of errors in chronology, the updating of a familiar series
for modern audiences, or simplification of an excessively complex
continuity structure.
Retcons are common in pulp fiction, especially comic books published by long-established houses such as DC, Marvel and leading manga
publishers. The long history of popular titles and the plurality of
writers who contribute stories can often create situations that demand
clarification or revision of exposition. Retcons also appear in soap operas, serial drama, movie sequels, professional wrestling, video games, radio series, and other kinds of serial fiction.
Retcons have been criticized as "cheating" on the part of the author,
seen as an effort to purge "unpopular" elements from the storyline and
force literary fads upon the audience, thus hurting suspension of disbelief. [/quote]

So is Luke Skywalker being Darth Vader's son a retcon based on Obi-Wan's speech in Episode IV? If so, does it ruin the lore?

[quote]
http://en.wikipedia....on_of_disbelief

Suspension of disbelief

Suspension of disbelief or willing suspension of disbelief is a term coined in 1817 by the poet and aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who suggested that if a writer could infuse a "human interest and a semblance of truth" into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgment concerning the implausibility of the narrative. Suspension of disbelief often applies to fictional works of the action, comedy, fantasy, and horror genres. Cognitive estrangement in fiction involves using a person's ignorance or lack of knowledge to promote suspension of disbelief.

The phrase "suspension of disbelief" came to be used more loosely in the later 20th century, often used to imply that the burden was on the reader, rather than the writer, to achieve it. This might be used to refer to the willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium, so that these do not interfere with the acceptance of those premises. These fictional premises may also lend to the engagement of the mind and perhaps proposition of thoughts, ideas, art and theories.[1] [/quote]

I'm aware of suspension of disbelief. But that's an opinion. It varies on the person to what is acceptable and what is not. To this discussion, it's largely irrelevant. It's obvious ME3 broke your suspension of disbelief. It didn't stretch mine any further than being able to travel faster than the speed of light or how the Reapers were created.

[quote]

There was a discussion about catalyst excuse, that reapers are force of nature, and thus irresponsible for their actions, as also catalyst himself.

[/quote]

[quote]
Oh okay, but was that in this thread or over anything I said? Because while I think it can be fun to debate whether the Catalyst was a shackled A.I. or not, it doesn't seem relevant to this conversation.

Edit: stupid quote boxes.

[/quote]

[quote]
Well, it is relevant to this conversation. It is about ethics.

[/quote]

The topic was about whether it's unfair towards paragon Shepards. The Catalyst has nothing to do with that. If the Catalyst wasn't in the ending and the choices were the same, the topic question would still remain.

[/quote]
Well, it is not I who started to put in topic excuse for a catalyst.

[/quote]

And I didn't either. I merely said the Catalyst was changed by the Crucible. I didn't talk about its ethics pre-Crucible, just that it did what it was programmed to do. I don't care about its morality.

[Netsfn1427]

Maxster_ wrote...

And I'll just repeat this: Now that I've shown why the Leviathans get more say over Vigil, why
should Vigil's word be put over the Leviathans? And "Bioware retconned
it" isn't an acceptable answer.

See, I've given my explanation on why what's written in ME3 (by Bioware, not by me) trumps what was in ME1. Now if you could give a reason why ME1 should be given preference over ME3, when Leviathans are more knowledgable than Vigil, it'd really help the discussion along.

Because ME1 is a prequel to ME3.


http://en.wikipedia....nuity_(fiction)


In fiction, continuity (also called time-scheme) is consistency of the characteristics of persons, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer over some period of time. It is of relevance to several media.

Continuity is particularly a concern in the production of film and television due to the difficulty of rectifying an error in continuity after shooting has wrapped up. It also applies to other art forms, including novels, comics, and videogames, though usually on a smaller scale.

Most productions have a script supervisor on hand whose job is to pay attention to and attempt to maintain continuity across the chaotic and typically non-linear production shoot. This takes the form of a large amount of paperwork, photographs, and attention to and memory of large quantities of detail, some of which is sometimes assembled into the story bible for the production. It usually regards factors both within the scene and often even technical details including meticulous records of camera positioning and equipment settings. The use of a Polaroid camera was standard but has since been replaced by the advent of digital cameras. All of this is done so that ideally all related shots can match, despite perhaps parts being shot thousands of miles and several months apart. It is a less conspicuous job, though, because if done perfectly, no one will ever notice.

In comic books, continuity has also come to mean a set of contiguous events, sometimes said to be "set in the same universe" (see fictional crossover and fictional universe) or "separate universes" (see intercompany crossover).

Today, maintaining strong plot and character continuity is also a high priority for many writers of long-running television series.

That isn't a reason. All it boils down to is that you don't LIKE what Bioware put out in ME3. That's your opinion. But if you want to have a discussion on the plot of the series, then what's in ME3 is going to be part of it. And if it overrides what's in ME1, then guess what? The specific ME1 info is no longer relevant.

[Maxster_]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...
Because, comrade, ME1 is a prequel to ME3.
Retcon - retroactive continuity.

http://en.wikipedia....tive_continuity

Retroactive continuity
Retroactive continuity (retcon for short)[1] is the alteration of previously established facts in a fictional work.[2]
Retcons are done for many reasons, including the accommodation of
sequels or further derivative works in a series, wherein newer authors
or creators want to revise the in-story history to allow a course of
events that would not have been possible in the story's original continuity.
Other reasons might be the reintroduction of popular characters,
resolution of errors in chronology, the updating of a familiar series
for modern audiences, or simplification of an excessively complex
continuity structure.
Retcons are common in pulp fiction, especially comic books published by long-established houses such as DC, Marvel and leading manga
publishers. The long history of popular titles and the plurality of
writers who contribute stories can often create situations that demand
clarification or revision of exposition. Retcons also appear in soap operas, serial drama, movie sequels, professional wrestling, video games, radio series, and other kinds of serial fiction.
Retcons have been criticized as "cheating" on the part of the author,
seen as an effort to purge "unpopular" elements from the storyline and
force literary fads upon the audience, thus hurting suspension of disbelief.

So is Luke Skywalker being Darth Vader's son a retcon based on Obi-Wan's speech in Episode IV? If so, does it ruin the lore?

That part was delivered for a fee after fan's outrage?

Well, it is relevant to this conversation. It is about ethics.

The topic was about whether it's unfair towards paragon Shepards. The Catalyst has nothing to do with that. If the Catalyst wasn't in the ending and the choices were the same, the topic question would still remain.

Well, it is not I who started to put in topic excuse for a catalyst.

And I didn't either. I merely said the Catalyst was changed by the Crucible. I didn't talk about its ethics pre-Crucible, just that it did what it was programmed to do. I don't care about its morality.

So, AI have no free will? It is incapable of independent thought process? Self awareness?
Well, it is a VI then.
And this directly contradicts what Catalyst said about himself. That he is not just an AI, but an advanced AI.

[Netsfn1427]

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

So is Luke Skywalker being Darth Vader's son a retcon based on Obi-Wan's speech in Episode IV? If so, does it ruin the lore?
[/quote]
That part was delivered for a fee after fan's outrage?
[/quote]

How it's delivered makes no difference to it's impact on the lore. It exists, whether you like it or not. So dismissing it because you say its a recon is not an acceptable argument. It would be no more acceptable than if I dismissed Vader being Luke's father.

[quote]

So, AI have no free will? It is incapable of independent thought process? Self awareness?
Well, it is a VI then.
And this directly contradicts what Catalyst said about himself. That he is not just an AI, but an advanced AI.
[/quote]

The Leviathans and Catalyst both say its an A.I. I don't know if it was shackled or not. It could have been shackled and still followed it's directives correctly. Or it could have broken free of its shackling. Regardless, I do not understand why this is relevant. Shackled or not, it was changed by the Crucible.

Modifié par Netsfn1427, 07 octobre 2012 - 01:44 .

[Maxster_]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

And I'll just repeat this: Now that I've shown why the Leviathans get more say over Vigil, why
should Vigil's word be put over the Leviathans? And "Bioware retconned
it" isn't an acceptable answer.

See, I've given my explanation on why what's written in ME3 (by Bioware, not by me) trumps what was in ME1. Now if you could give a reason why ME1 should be given preference over ME3, when Leviathans are more knowledgable than Vigil, it'd really help the discussion along.

Because ME1 is a prequel to ME3.


http://en.wikipedia....nuity_(fiction)


In fiction, continuity (also called time-scheme) is consistency of the characteristics of persons, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer over some period of time. It is of relevance to several media.

Continuity is particularly a concern in the production of film and television due to the difficulty of rectifying an error in continuity after shooting has wrapped up. It also applies to other art forms, including novels, comics, and videogames, though usually on a smaller scale.

Most productions have a script supervisor on hand whose job is to pay attention to and attempt to maintain continuity across the chaotic and typically non-linear production shoot. This takes the form of a large amount of paperwork, photographs, and attention to and memory of large quantities of detail, some of which is sometimes assembled into the story bible for the production. It usually regards factors both within the scene and often even technical details including meticulous records of camera positioning and equipment settings. The use of a Polaroid camera was standard but has since been replaced by the advent of digital cameras. All of this is done so that ideally all related shots can match, despite perhaps parts being shot thousands of miles and several months apart. It is a less conspicuous job, though, because if done perfectly, no one will ever notice.

In comic books, continuity has also come to mean a set of contiguous events, sometimes said to be "set in the same universe" (see fictional crossover and fictional universe) or "separate universes" (see intercompany crossover).

Today, maintaining strong plot and character continuity is also a high priority for many writers of long-running television series.

That isn't a reason. All it boils down to is that you don't LIKE what Bioware put out in ME3. That's your opinion. But if you want to have a discussion on the plot of the series, then what's in ME3 is going to be part of it. And if it overrides what's in ME1, then guess what? The specific ME1 info is no longer relevant.

It is all the reason.
Someone likes constistent story with a consistent lore. Someone likes soap opera with regular retcons.
But like you specific work of fiction or not is irrelevant to consistency state of said fiction and consistency state of lore of that fiction.
It is objectively bad. It is breaking suspension of disbelief, for a part of audience(and for ME3, that was a very large part).
As bad as dumbing down characters to fit nonsensical plot. Like Harberinger, Hackett, Anderson, Udina.

[Netsfn1427]

Maxster_ wrote...

It is all the reason.
Someone likes constistent story with a consistent lore. Someone likes soap opera with regular retcons.
But like you specific work of fiction or not is irrelevant to consistency state of said fiction and consistency state of lore of that fiction.
It is objectively bad. It is breaking suspension of disbelief, for a part of audience(and for ME3, that was a very large part).
As bad as dumbing down characters to fit nonsensical plot. Like Harberinger, Hackett, Anderson, Udina.

No it's not. Besides the fact ME was always a space soap opera and pop sci-fi (if the relatively shallow romances didn't tip you off) this doesn't give you the right to, in a debate about the plot of a series, to disregard the plot of the said series because you dislike it.

Again, to bring it back to Star Wars, if I didn't like the Vader/Luke reveal, I'm not entitled to discuss the plot and pretend the reveal never happened. Heck, I had my own ideas on how Vader fell prior to the prequel trilogy. I didn't like what they did in the prequels, nor did I like the retcons they had. But if I discuss the plot of the Star Wars series with someone, I cannot pretend those movies don't exist.

That's what you're doing. You're willfully ignoring plot points in ME3 and the Leviathan DLC because you find it stupid and don't like the way it's delivered. While you're entitled to dislike it, you can't enter into a discussion about ME3 and ignore them. 

[Maxster_]

[quote]Netsfn1427 wrote...

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
[quote]
So is Luke Skywalker being Darth Vader's son a retcon based on Obi-Wan's speech in Episode IV? If so, does it ruin the lore?
[/quote]
That part was delivered for a fee after fan's outrage?
[/quote]

How it's delivered makes no difference to it's impact on the lore. It exists, whether you like it or not. So dismissing it because you say its a recon is not an acceptable argument. It would be no more acceptable than if I dismissed Vader being Luke's father.
[/quote]
Really?
We have perfect example of the direct opposite - ME3. EAWare destroyed their entire core fanbase.
As it could have slight effect on the lore itself, method of deliverance is have a great effect on audience. And authors with no audience(i'm not saying that EAWare already arrived at that point, but they will be there soon enough) - is a failed authors.
[quote]

So, AI have no free will? It is incapable of independent thought process? Self awareness?
Well, it is a VI then.
And this directly contradicts what Catalyst said about himself. That he is not just an AI, but an advanced AI.
[/quote]

The Leviathans and Catalyst both say its an A.I. I don't know if it was shackled or not. It could have been shackled and still followed it's directives correctly. Or it could have broken free of its shackling. Regardless, I do not understand why this is relevant. Shackled or not, it was changed by the Crucible.

[/quote]
If it is incapable of independent thought process and not self-aware - it is a VI. Basically, a computer program, like MS Excel. And nothing more.
And, batteries not changing programming of a device. It is unscientific bull****.

[Netsfn1427]

Maxster_ wrote...
Really?
We have perfect example of the direct opposite - ME3. EAWare destroyed their entire core fanbase.
As it could have slight effect on the lore itself, method of deliverance is have a great effect on audience. And authors with no audience(i'm not saying that EAWare already arrived at that point, but they will be there soon enough) - is a failed authors.

I'm going to say this simply: Leviathan is canon. Ignore it at your own peril.

If it is incapable of independent thought process and not self-aware - it is a VI. Basically, a computer program, like MS Excel. And nothing more.
And, batteries not changing programming of a device. It is unscientific bull****.

And batteries changing the Catalyst, unscientific or not, is stated in game. Again, dismiss it at your own peril.

[Maxster_]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

It is all the reason.
Someone likes constistent story with a consistent lore. Someone likes soap opera with regular retcons.
But like you specific work of fiction or not is irrelevant to consistency state of said fiction and consistency state of lore of that fiction.
It is objectively bad. It is breaking suspension of disbelief, for a part of audience(and for ME3, that was a very large part).
As bad as dumbing down characters to fit nonsensical plot. Like Harberinger, Hackett, Anderson, Udina.

No it's not. Besides the fact ME was always a space soap opera and pop sci-fi (if the relatively shallow romances didn't tip you off) this doesn't give you the right to, in a debate about the plot of a series, to disregard the plot of the said series because you dislike it.

But you are doing just that. By retconning out Vigil and Sovereign.
And that's why you are a hypocrite.
So, because you like the plot of the series in general, specifically the 3rd part - that gives you a right to ignore evidence from the game.
And because i don't like the 3rd part of the series, i have no right to make even a conjectures.

Again, to bring it back to Star Wars, if I didn't like the Vader/Luke reveal, I'm not entitled to discuss the plot and pretend the reveal never happened. Heck, I had my own ideas on how Vader fell prior to the prequel trilogy. I didn't like what they did in the prequels, nor did I like the retcons they had. But if I discuss the plot of the Star Wars series with someone, I cannot pretend those movies don't exist.

You cannot. But a part of audience, including me, perfectly can.
It is, as you can see, very similar with ME3.
Also that means, that EAWare will never get back that audience.

That's what you're doing. You're willfully ignoring plot points in ME3 and the Leviathan DLC because you find it stupid and don't like the way it's delivered. While you're entitled to dislike it, you can't enter into a discussion about ME3 and ignore them. 

Of course i'm ignoring that shoehorned paid DLC, which never was in the game. I will not be practically extorted like with Javik DLC ever again. And EAWare will never get more of my money.
They can now mutilate and butcher their series any way they want, i don't care. Like with Lucas and prequels.

And i perfectly can ignore something that was never in the game. As i can perfectly ignore anything that was never in a film.

Modifié par Maxster_, 07 octobre 2012 - 02:02 .

[PinkysPain]

silentassassin264 wrote...
Imagine at this point when all hope is lost for Japan, the United States offers to end the war, keep Imperial Japan completely intact, no war crimes tribunals or any retribution at all as long as the offer General Tojo as a sacrifice to America.  Do you think Hirohito would have thought about that for more than three seconds?  That would be without a doubt flawless victory since he was facing imminent destruction and got a reprieve when he did not deserve it.

Except of course Hirohito was the defacto leader of the war effort and in it's failure was thoroughly humiliated ... now humiliation while sitting on the throne was of course vastly preferred to a broken neck, but he would have preferred it to have never gotten to that point to begin with. He simply took the best option available ...

Just like alt-f4 is the best option available in ME3.

Modifié par PinkysPain, 07 octobre 2012 - 02:08 .

[Maxster_]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...
Really?
We have perfect example of the direct opposite - ME3. EAWare destroyed their entire core fanbase.
As it could have slight effect on the lore itself, method of deliverance is have a great effect on audience. And authors with no audience(i'm not saying that EAWare already arrived at that point, but they will be there soon enough) - is a failed authors.

I'm going to say this simply: Leviathan is canon. Ignore it at your own peril.

No, it is not. It was never in the game.

If it is incapable of independent thought process and not self-aware - it is a VI. Basically, a computer program, like MS Excel. And nothing more.
And, batteries not changing programming of a device. It is unscientific bull****.

And batteries changing the Catalyst, unscientific or not, is stated in game. Again, dismiss it at your own peril.

And that is why i calling ME3 nonsensical retarded mess ridden with plotholes, which mocking science, scientific method and engineering(and programming as a part of that).

And i have every right to say that. And this is truth.

Modifié par Maxster_, 07 octobre 2012 - 02:09 .

[silentassassin264]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Estelindis wrote...

Getorex wrote...

 If you are at war with X and you get together to discuss terms for ending the war and X sets ALL the terms and conditions and you set none. You lost.  Simple as that. The kid is completely and fully capable of stopping the Reapers, but wont. You have no say so it is all on his terms. That makes you the LOSER.

Consider: this kid thing obviously has control over the Reapers.  The little tike could make them do whatever he wants.  He is offering to let YOU choose an action on HIS terms, provided you kill yourself in all cases.  If you tell the tike you want to control the Reapers and send them on their way...there is no reason the tike couldn't do that.  The result is the same whether the tike does it or Shepard does it, except the tike takes his pound of flesh and sees you dead in making doing so.  OR the tike could accept your wish and do it himself without anyone dying to do so.  Exact same effect either way but the kid demands a pointless victor-determined human sacrifice to do it.  

This was extremely well said.

Well said?  That is stupid as heck.  Consider WW2.  At the end, Japan had no allies left and had Russia preparing to invade from the north and the United States bombing.  After two nukes it is very apparent the Japan is facing a superweapon the likes the world has never seen and has no chance to win even without factoring in that Russia is about to invade as well.  

Imagine at this point when all hope is lost for Japan, the United States offers to end the war, keep Imperial Japan completely intact, no war crimes tribunals or any retribution at all as long as the offer General Tojo as a sacrifice to America.  Do you think Hirohito would have thought about that for more than three seconds?  That would be without a doubt flawless victory since he was facing imminent destruction and got a reprieve when he did not deserve it.  Sure he has to accept the conditions of the United States who could have accepted an unconditional victory and just ended all hostilities but the conditions are basically nothing and he can walk out of hell without much of a singe.  

Actually, it was a very hard decision for the Japanese people. They were, and are, a proud, intelligent race that prized honor over almost anything. Remember the Kamikaze's? The phrase: banzai (blood for the Emperor)?
 Surrendering was one of the hardest choices they ever made, and the only reason they did so was because they couldn't fight an atomic warhead.

It is probable that without the a-bomb, WW2 would have gone on another year or more.

Bringing ME3 into the mix...the ending feels very much like a surrender, I'm sorry. As someone pointed out, the Reapers hold the high ground, they have the hostages (threatening to kill them) and all the galaxy can do is add to the ending menu. Which the ghostly matre'de offers.

Actually Japan was seeking a surrender before the nukes were fired.  The problem was that they were seeking a surrender that was like the one I presented.  They wanted to set conditions that left them largely intact and being able to play it off like a mutual end of hostilities.  The United States rejected it and wanted an unconditional surrender because we were winning.  With or without nukes, Japan does not come close to stopping us.  If the United did what I presented, the Japanese would have taken it because they got to save face.  That was the whole point.

Estelindis wrote...

I don't think that's remotely analogous to the ME3 ending.  It would only be analogous if America had declared war on various nations throughout the world at intervals of, say, fifty years, totally unprovoked, and wiped out each nation that it fought completely and utterly without mercy, before finally turning to Japan and attempting to do the same.  Another reason it's not analogous is that the scenario you present has literally no down-side for Japan apart from the loss of a single life.  There are numerous drawbacks to the three endings even if you ignore what happens to Shepard.

Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War (not Spain itself but Cuba and Phillipines).  Then we didn't really gain anything from world war one but WW2 would have been right on target for our bloodthirsty expansion (cut out the civil war because that was us cannabilizing ourself).  

Lulz aside, control has the same thing as my situation, with one lost of life and war over making it look like you won.  Same with synthesis.  Destroy is the only one with drawbacks outside of Shepard.  It isn't a perfect analogy but it is quite similar.

PinkysPain wrote...

Except of course Hirohito was the defacto leader of the war effort and in it's failure was thoroughly humiliated ... now humiliation while sitting on the throne was of course vastly preferred to a broken neck, but he would have preferred it to have never gotten to that point to begin with. He simply took the best option available ...

Just like alt-f4 is the best option available in ME3.

Yes Hirohito larged failed.  But if he got a option to make it look like he fought America to a stand still and it was a mutual surrender, that would have been a victory to him.  

Modifié par silentassassin264, 07 octobre 2012 - 02:10 .

[Netsfn1427]

Maxster_ wrote...

But you are doing just that. By retconning out Vigil and Sovereign.
And that's why you are a hypocrite.
So, because you like the plot of the series in general, specifically the 3rd part - that gives you a right to ignore evidence from the game.
And because i don't like the 3rd part of the series, i have no right to make even a conjectures.

Actually, no. What I'm doing is stating what Vigil said is incorrect based on events that came later. You cannot argue that the Leviathans have less weight than Vigil, especially if you say it is a retcon. A retcon indicates that continunity was changed. By your own logic, the retcon proves the Leviathans override Vigil.

I'm not dismissing it because I dislike the ME1 plot. The Vigil conversation is one of my favorite moments of the game. But having played ME3, I will not dismiss what has been told to me by that game. It's more recent and the one that completes the story, regardless of your opinion of it.

Of course i'm ignoring that shoehorned paid DLC, which never was in the game. I will not be practically extorted like with Javik DLC ever again. And EAWare will never get more of my money.
They can now mutilate and butcher their series any way they want, i don't care. Like with Lucas and prequels.

And i perfectly can ignore something that was never in the game. As i can perfectly ignore anything that was never in a film.

Ignore it all you want. It's canon. So you'll be wrong. I never bought any of the books that accompanied Mass Effect. But what happened in them is still canon.

Modifié par Netsfn1427, 07 octobre 2012 - 02:14 .

[Netsfn1427]

Maxster_ wrote...

No, it is not. It was never in the game.

So by your logic, what happened in the ME novels are not canon. Or the comics. But we both know they are. Likewise, the DLC is canon. "It wasn't in the game" doesn't work for Bioware lore.

And that is why i calling ME3 nonsensical retarded mess ridden with plotholes, which mocking science, scientific method and engineering(and programming as a part of that).

And i have every right to say that. And this is truth.

Oh you can say whatever you want. But don't discuss the plot and expect to be taken seriously if you dismiss canon because you don't like the way it was delivered.

[Maxster_]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

But you are doing just that. By retconning out Vigil and Sovereign.
And that's why you are a hypocrite.
So, because you like the plot of the series in general, specifically the 3rd part - that gives you a right to ignore evidence from the game.
And because i don't like the 3rd part of the series, i have no right to make even a conjectures.

Actually, no. What I'm doing is stating what Vigil said is incorrect based on events that came later. You cannot argue that the Leviathans have less weight than Vigil, especially if you say it is a retcon. A retcon indicates that continunity was changed. By your own logic, the retcon proves the Leviathans override Vigil.

I'm not dismissing it because I dislike the ME1 plot. The Vigil conversation is one of my favorite moments of the game. But having played ME3, I will not dismiss what has been told to me by that game. It's more recent and the one that completes the story, regardless of your opinion of it.

What I'm doing is stating what Vigil said is incorrect based on events that came later.

This is called headcanon.

You cannot argue that the Leviathans have less weight than Vigil, especially if you say it is a retcon.

It was never in ME3 game.

Of course i'm ignoring that shoehorned paid DLC, which never was in the game. I will not be practically extorted like with Javik DLC ever again. And EAWare will never get more of my money.
They can now mutilate and butcher their series any way they want, i don't care. Like with Lucas and prequels.

And i perfectly can ignore something that was never in the game. As i can perfectly ignore anything that was never in a film.

Ignore it all you want. It's canon. So you'll be wrong. I never bought any of the books that accompanied Mass Effect. But what happened in them is still canon.

As i said, retcons are bad for consistence and integrity, and breaking suspension of disbelief. And it is bad for a work of fiction.
And a lot of people prefer consistence and integrity to contradictions and retcons.
Preferences is irrelevant to objectivity.

Modifié par Maxster_, 07 octobre 2012 - 02:33 .

[Maxster_]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

No, it is not. It was never in the game.

So by your logic, what happened in the ME novels are not canon. Or the comics. But we both know they are. Likewise, the DLC is canon. "It wasn't in the game" doesn't work for Bioware lore.

Yeah, what not happened in game is not a canon for a game.
What is not happened in a film, is not a canon for a film. This is why Star Wars Expanded Universe is not a canon.

And that is why i calling ME3 nonsensical retarded mess ridden with plotholes, which mocking science, scientific method and engineering(and programming as a part of that).

And i have every right to say that. And this is truth.

Oh you can say whatever you want. But don't discuss the plot and expect to be taken seriously if you dismiss canon because you don't like the way it was delivered.

Taken seriously? By some hypocrite, who ignoring evidence in the game, to make his headcanon work, and then "forbids" those who don't like ME3 to make even a conjectures?
No, thanks, i don't need that from someone like you

Modifié par Maxster_, 07 octobre 2012 - 02:33 .

[Netsfn1427]

Maxster_ wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

But you are doing just that. By retconning out Vigil and Sovereign.
And that's why you are a hypocrite.
So, because you like the plot of the series in general, specifically the 3rd part - that gives you a right to ignore evidence from the game.
And because i don't like the 3rd part of the series, i have no right to make even a conjectures.

Actually, no. What I'm doing is stating what Vigil said is incorrect based on events that came later. You cannot argue that the Leviathans have less weight than Vigil, especially if you say it is a retcon. A retcon indicates that continunity was changed. By your own logic, the retcon proves the Leviathans override Vigil.

I'm not dismissing it because I dislike the ME1 plot. The Vigil conversation is one of my favorite moments of the game. But having played ME3, I will not dismiss what has been told to me by that game. It's more recent and the one that completes the story, regardless of your opinion of it.

What I'm doing is stating what Vigil said is incorrect based on events that came later.

This is called headcanon.

You cannot argue that the Leviathans have less weight than Vigil, especially if you say it is a retcon.

It was never in ME3 game.

Yes, I made up the video that I linked. And all that stuff with the Leviathans was just in my head.

You seem to be confused with headcanon and actual canon. See the Leviathan DLC was written by Bioware, not me. Or you. And it overrides Vigil. So it's canon.

It's as much canon as Mass Effect:Evolution or any other novel and comic except Deception, which Bioware has since declared not canon due to its problems.

As i said, retcons are bad for consistence and integrity, and breaking suspension of disbelief. And it is bad for a work of fiction.
And a lot of people prefer consistence and integrity to contradictions and retcons.
Preferences is irrelevant to objectivity.

How you feel about retcons is irrelevant to a discussion about the lore in its current form. If Bioware comes back and retcons the Leviathans then the Leviathans' information will be as irrelevant as Vigil's quote about the Citadel trap. But until that happens it's canon.

[Netsfn1427]

Maxster_ wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

No, it is not. It was never in the game.

So by your logic, what happened in the ME novels are not canon. Or the comics. But we both know they are. Likewise, the DLC is canon. "It wasn't in the game" doesn't work for Bioware lore.

Yeah, what not happened in game is not a canon for a game.
What is not happened in a film, is not a canon for a film. This is why Star Wars Expanded Universe is not a canon.

But what happens in the ME books and novels IS canon. Bioware has never stated otherwise, except in the case of Deception.

Taken seriously? By some hypocrite, who ignoring evidence in the game, to make his headcanon work, and then "forbids" those who don't like ME3 to make even a conjectures?
No, thanks, i don't need that from someone like you

No. If you want me to take your argument seriously, then you can't dismiss what's in Leviathan. You can cry and moan all you want how it's DLC, it's still canon. You keep repeating headcanon. Citing Leviathan is citing Bioware's own written story. That's not headcanon. You however, keep clinging to something that has been overriden by the writers of the game themselves.

But I guess your idea for what happens is more relevant than what the actual game writers actually put in their continuity.

Modifié par Netsfn1427, 07 octobre 2012 - 02:38 .

[Maxster_]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

But you are doing just that. By retconning out Vigil and Sovereign.
And that's why you are a hypocrite.
So, because you like the plot of the series in general, specifically the 3rd part - that gives you a right to ignore evidence from the game.
And because i don't like the 3rd part of the series, i have no right to make even a conjectures.

Actually, no. What I'm doing is stating what Vigil said is incorrect based on events that came later. You cannot argue that the Leviathans have less weight than Vigil, especially if you say it is a retcon. A retcon indicates that continunity was changed. By your own logic, the retcon proves the Leviathans override Vigil.

I'm not dismissing it because I dislike the ME1 plot. The Vigil conversation is one of my favorite moments of the game. But having played ME3, I will not dismiss what has been told to me by that game. It's more recent and the one that completes the story, regardless of your opinion of it.

What I'm doing is stating what Vigil said is incorrect based on events that came later.

This is called headcanon.

You cannot argue that the Leviathans have less weight than Vigil, especially if you say it is a retcon.

It was never in ME3 game.

Yes, I made up the video that I linked. And all that stuff with the Leviathans was just in my head.

You seem to be confused with headcanon and actual canon. See the Leviathan DLC was written by Bioware, not me. Or you. And it overrides Vigil. So it's canon.

No, i'm not confusing anything.
Your headcanon is a conjectures you made.
And those conjectures based on something, that is not in the game.

It's as much canon as Mass Effect:Evolution or any other novel and comic except Deception, which Bioware has since declared not canon due to its problems.

Yeah, exactly that. Like an Expanded Universe, which is easily discarded by Lucas.

As i said, retcons are bad for consistence and integrity, and breaking suspension of disbelief. And it is bad for a work of fiction.
And a lot of people prefer consistence and integrity to contradictions and retcons.
Preferences is irrelevant to objectivity.

How you feel about retcons is irrelevant to a discussion about the lore in its current form. If Bioware comes back and retcons the Leviathans then the Leviathans' information will be as irrelevant as Vigil's quote about the Citadel trap. But until that happens it's canon.

I said preferences. And i meant, you like something or not.
As for EAWare retconning things - of course they can. They are the authors.

They retconned ME1 into oblivion with mere existance of the Catalyst.
And look, how good that turned out for them and their audience . Artists is nothing without audience, you know.

[Maxster_]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

No, it is not. It was never in the game.

So by your logic, what happened in the ME novels are not canon. Or the comics. But we both know they are. Likewise, the DLC is canon. "It wasn't in the game" doesn't work for Bioware lore.

Yeah, what not happened in game is not a canon for a game.
What is not happened in a film, is not a canon for a film. This is why Star Wars Expanded Universe is not a canon.

But what happens in the ME books and novels IS canon. Bioware has never stated otherwise, except in the case of Deception.

It was never in the games. As almost everything in Expanded Universe.

Taken seriously? By some hypocrite, who ignoring evidence in the game, to make his headcanon work, and then "forbids" those who don't like ME3 to make even a conjectures?
No, thanks, i don't need that from someone like you

No. If you want me to take your argument seriously, then you can't dismiss what's in Leviathan. You can cry and moan all you want how it's DLC, it's still canon. You keep repeating headcanon. Citing Leviathan is citing Bioware's own written story. That's not headcanon. You however, keep clinging to something that has been overriden by the writers of the game themselves.

But I guess your idea for what happens is more relevant than what the actual game writers actually put in their continuity.

Somehow i do not see on my copy of ME3 any sing of Leviathans. And haven't seen them in game.
If they are canon, where are they? Please point me a system, where i can find those mythical Leviathans.
I found Vigil on Ilos in ME1. I've never seen anything about leviathans in ME3. Where are they? Why can't i find them?
Please tell me.