236 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Yes it was there.  The problem was Sovereign saw the reapers as the pinnacle of evolution.  Synthesis was there but it seemed they saw themselves as examples of it.

Why is that a problem, exactly? The Reapers we have met - Harbinger and Sovereign - clearly believe they are the pinnacle of evolution. Then you meet their creator and he reveals his opinion that they are failures. I find that pretty interesting, personally.

[Blueprotoss]

sdinc009 wrote...

The Quarians and the Geth conflict goes against the presumed assumption of the Leviathan and the Catalyst logic because since the Geth did not wish the destruction of their creators. They wanted nothing but peace and to coexist with the Quarians. It was the Quarians that created the problem and by the end of the series that conflict has been resolved in some form thus proving that in this cycle the assertion of both the Leviathan and the Catalyst is total false.
Oh, and the second, part, that's not a Strawman argument. A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. All I did was provide an example of a artistic medium that has changed the ending from the original version due to an audiences negative reaction. This simply establishes a counterpoint to Bioware's statement that it doesn't want to create a presidence by changing the ending. This example and that of Sir Arthor Conan Doyle are totally valid examples to exastblish an argument to Bioware's statement. And I didn't forget that it was originally a play since I cited the original ending.

If the Quarians and the Geth went against what the Levianthan's foresaw then the Morning War would have never occured.  Also there wouldnt have been self aware AIs killing organics throughout the ME series.  Yet your counterpoint is a strawman and it still is based on your resort on "artistic medium".  Hopefully you still don't forget that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle published his drafts in literary journals like most of the writers in his area and time did.  I hope you still remember that "Little Shop" was written originally as a Broadway musical and at that time most of them didn't have the funding of "Wicked".

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Yes it was there.  The problem was Sovereign saw the reapers as the pinnacle of evolution.  Synthesis was there but it seemed they saw themselves as examples of it.

Why is that a problem, exactly? The Reapers we have met - Harbinger and Sovereign - clearly believe they are the pinnacle of evolution. Then you meet their creator and he reveals his opinion that they are failures. I find that pretty interesting, personally.

It bears out the fact that the kid causes the reapers to become idiots or just mindless drones that have no idea what they're talking about.  Without the kid, the reapers were awesome arrogant nasty creatures-monsters.  Enter the kid, and they become not so well-trained lap dogs created by forcing idiotic programmers (Leviathans) into machines.  The existence of the kid dumbs down the reapers and the Leviathans.

Sovereign saw the reapers as the pinnacle of evolution.  His master sees synthesis as the pinnacle of evolution.  You could see why Sovereign thought that if he indeed was truly intelligent and beyond comprehension and truly powerful.  But then he isn't once you meet the kid and synthesis as the pinnacle is a joke and not true.  There's no such thing.  Once evolution stops, extinction takes over.  Even synthetics evolved in this story.

[CronoDragoon]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Sovereign saw the reapers as the pinnacle of evolution.  His master sees synthesis as the pinnacle of evolution.  You could see why Sovereign thought that if he indeed was truly intelligent and beyond comprehension and truly powerful.  But then he isn't once you meet the kid

That same paragraph could be used for both people who liked and disliked the change. What you're explaining is subversion, a powerful literary tool. Obviously opinions will differ on whether or not the Catalyst subverting the idea of the Reapers worked or not. I have my issues with the Catalyst, but this in particular I did not mind.

I suppose it's sort of like the Dark Knight Rises, and how you felt about Bane turning out to be the second in command.

and synthesis as the pinnacle is a joke and not true.  There's no such thing.  Once evolution stops, extinction takes over.  Even synthetics evolved in this story.

Then don't pick Synthesis as you clearly don't believe what the Catalyst is saying. But that's a separate issue from whether or not Synthesis, as an idea, has been around for the entire series, which it is clear to me it has. I do not believe they had the Synthesis ending in mind while making ME1 obviously, but the idea is well-grounded in the ME plot. Just not...you know...the method of achieving it. 

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Sovereign saw the reapers as the pinnacle of evolution.  His master sees synthesis as the pinnacle of evolution.  You could see why Sovereign thought that if he indeed was truly intelligent and beyond comprehension and truly powerful.  But then he isn't once you meet the kid

That same paragraph could be used for both people who liked and disliked the change. What you're explaining is subversion, a powerful literary tool. Obviously opinions will differ on whether or not the Catalyst subverting the idea of the Reapers worked or not. I have my issues with the Catalyst, but this in particular I did not mind.

I suppose it's sort of like the Dark Knight Rises, and how you felt about Bane turning out to be the second in command.

and synthesis as the pinnacle is a joke and not true.  There's no such thing.  Once evolution stops, extinction takes over.  Even synthetics evolved in this story.

Then don't pick Synthesis as you clearly don't believe what the Catalyst is saying. But that's a separate issue from whether or not Synthesis, as an idea, has been around for the entire series, which it is clear to me it has. I do not believe they had the Synthesis ending in mind while making ME1 obviously, but the idea is well-grounded in the ME plot. Just not...you know...the method of achieving it. 

I have no problem in theory using that as a tool, but not at the last minute of three games-it's not used effectively here.  It debases the whole idea of what you've been doing or thinking about for 3 games.  It set up the reapers as giant nightmares with intelligence.  If the game had foreshadowed some other purpose behind them and had it been more obvious that they were deluded themselves along the way, that would have worked better.  It would have been more appropriate to have had a confrontation (I didn't say boss fight) with a reaper even before meeting the kid that indicated they were mistaken in what they thought.

You have no hint that the reapers are other than what they say they are.  The kid ruins the basis for 3 games.  We tend to see monsters as mindless zombie like creatures that do what they do for no particular reason (well zombies need to eat brains, but they just hunger for them).  Intelligent autonomous zombies that show arrogance and contempt are infinitely more interesting than being turned back into dumbed down controlled zombies with no ability to act autonomously.  Sovereign was deluded, so perhaps he was indoctrinated.  And Harbinger and so on.

Generally, when stories do this kind of thing they lay the groundwork for it.  Even heroes can find out they have been used and controlled by others to do things that were bad, but that they thought were good.  But that's a big part of the puzzle and along the way you see them starting to come to terms with it.

I look at the movie "Ghost".  The best friend of the male protagonist (who was murdered) is the reason why he was murdered.  He is the female protagonist's real connection in life to her lost husband.  She sees him as good, but the viewer knows he isn't.  Well before she learns he's the bad guy, the viewer and the ghost of the woman's husband know it.  The story becomes about her finding that out and him being stopped from harming her-her husband's ghost trying to warn her.

This is a simplistic tale but it shows that BW could have used a few cutscenes done tastefully or some dialogue somewhere early on to indicate even that the reapers were acting with a hive mind or that Sovereign was mistaken.  Since they would have had to have gone back and changed things in ME1 and 2, that was out.  They should then have started early on in ME3 with something, somewhere to suggest it.  Even indications that the attacks were very well coordinated, that the reapers were acting like an army under orders.  They could even have used TIM early on on Mars to say that Shepard didn't fully understand what they were up against-that Sovereign and Harbinger had not been completely truthful.  There was more at work here than others understood, but the crucible might help take care of that.  He could really have provided some useful information.  Or EDI could have gotten info from EVA's databanks.  And the Rachni Queen could have shed light on what the Rachni witnessed during Prothean times.  And the dying reaper on Rannoch could have even said a few things about doing what they must, what is required of them.

But they dumped all of this stuff on us at the last minute, as if saying there was a catalyst (which is supposed to help make thing happen-things that you want to happen), was enough.  It wasn't.

I never said Synthesis as an idea wasn't around-sure it was, but the very first inklings of it lead to Saren shooting himself and Sovereign being destroyed along with either the Council and the Destiny Ascension or part of the fleet.  I wouldn't say this is the best basis for Shepard deciding to choose it.

And it's really silly to just say, "then don't choose it".  I'm sorry but you know I have similar complaints about Control and Destroy as presented.  Neither of those are any more appealing to a certain type of Shepard that had very early on rejected them as the way you solve problems.  Control is also rejected in ME1 as is this idea that you can decide to kill a bunch of people as if they are expendable, to save another group of people.  Destroy wants you to think it's about numbers and to decide that in truth synthetic life is not as important as organic life.  Why did I cry over Legion in one minute, but then decide his sacrifice didn't matter in the next?  And Control is the most consistently rejected idea of all.  It is at worst indoctrination-but indoctrination is a metaphor of the corrosive nature of control.  It is something that destroys both the one wielding it and the one under it, eventually.  And Control presented as an end choice does not only involve controlling reapers, but it also controls the people of the galaxy.  Fear and uncertainty.  The horror of these killers acting as guardians.  Reapers fixing everything, there by increasing their influence-the continuance of reaper tech's importance.  Even someone who begins as a benevolent dictator who gets to decide all things can go bad. 

[sdinc009]

Blueprotoss wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...

The Quarians and the Geth conflict goes against the presumed assumption of the Leviathan and the Catalyst logic because since the Geth did not wish the destruction of their creators. They wanted nothing but peace and to coexist with the Quarians. It was the Quarians that created the problem and by the end of the series that conflict has been resolved in some form thus proving that in this cycle the assertion of both the Leviathan and the Catalyst is total false.
Oh, and the second, part, that's not a Strawman argument. A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. All I did was provide an example of a artistic medium that has changed the ending from the original version due to an audiences negative reaction. This simply establishes a counterpoint to Bioware's statement that it doesn't want to create a presidence by changing the ending. This example and that of Sir Arthor Conan Doyle are totally valid examples to exastblish an argument to Bioware's statement. And I didn't forget that it was originally a play since I cited the original ending.

If the Quarians and the Geth went against what the Levianthan's foresaw then the Morning War would have never occured.  Also there wouldnt have been self aware AIs killing organics throughout the ME series.  Yet your counterpoint is a strawman and it still is based on your resort on "artistic medium".  Hopefully you still don't forget that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle published his drafts in literary journals like most of the writers in his area and time did.  I hope you still remember that "Little Shop" was written originally as a Broadway musical and at that time most of them didn't have the funding of "Wicked".

Strawman Argument: "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."
Well seems like you reply certainly covers that definition to the letter. Misrepresenting my position, check. Reply is an informal fallacy, check again.

"If the Quarians and the Geth went against what the Levianthan's foresaw then the Morning War would have never occured."  False
The Morning War can still occur as can any other conflict with AI that exists within the story and disprove the Leviathan's and the Catalyst because it is the outcome of the conflicts that does so not the existence of them. Organics survive each altercation dispite the claim that synthetics should be the ones to annihilate all organics.

"Yet your counterpoint is a strawman and it still is based on your resort on "artistic medium"."False
My counter point is no where near the defition of a strawman argument. That is simply evidence nothing more. It's an example cited as reference used to counter the original claim. It's not a fallacy nor does it misrepresent Biowares position. Bioware says it does not want to change the ending because it would set a precidence. I simply cite an example that shows the precidence has already been set, thus disproving the original claim. That's not strawman it's simple reasoning.

The last bit of the reply is nothing more than a deflection and totally irrelevant to the point. I've already stated that I'm aware it was originally a play, but the amount of funding it had has no bearing on anything mentioned and neither does your statement about Sir Arthor Conan Doyle publishing in literary journals.

[Blueprotoss]

sdinc009 wrote...

Strawman Argument: "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."
Well seems like you reply certainly covers that definition to the letter. Misrepresenting my position, check. Reply is an informal fallacy, check again.

If you're really looking for a real strawman then you should be loooking at your comments since they're filled with strawmen.  I see that its easier for some people like you to change the argument in your favor when it actually isn't in your favor.

sdinc009 wrote...

"If the Quarians and the Geth went against what the Levianthan's foresaw then the Morning War would have never occured."  False
The Morning War can still occur as can any other conflict with AI that exists within the story and disprove the Leviathan's and the Catalyst because it is the outcome of the conflicts that does so not the existence of them. Organics survive each altercation dispite the claim that synthetics should be the ones to annihilate all organics.

If that was false then the Geth won't have retaliated to the Quarians retaliation to starte the Morning War.  The Geth also wouldn't have thrown the Quarians off of their home planet of Rannoch.  Its easy to say that synthetics won't overthrow us because the singlarity hasn't occured, but its not impossible just like how the organic children of parent organics revolt and fight.

sdinc009 wrote...

"Yet your counterpoint is a strawman and it still is based on your resort on "artistic medium"."False
My counter point is no where near the defition of a strawman argument. That is simply evidence nothing more. It's an example cited as reference used to counter the original claim. It's not a fallacy nor does it misrepresent Biowares position. Bioware says it does not want to change the ending because it would set a precidence. I simply cite an example that shows the precidence has already been set, thus disproving the original claim. That's not strawman it's simple reasoning.

Again how is that false when Bioware has always treated their games the same from the start of Baldur's Gate and to the end of ME3.  Bioware hasn't changed their quality in games while I see that some of their "fans" want way too much.  Strawmen are never the answer especially when logic fallacies only cause ignorance to be used.

sdinc009 wrote...

The last bit of the reply is nothing more than a deflection and totally irrelevant to the point. I've already stated that I'm aware it was originally a play, but the amount of funding it had has no bearing on anything mentioned and neither does your statement about Sir Arthor Conan Doyle publishing in literary journals.

Thats far from a deflection and irrelevant based on how "Little Shop" started as a Broadway Musical not a movie and it didn't have the budget of "Wicked" to do so with that origina plan.  Also there wasn't a deflection or irrelevance to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle based on how most of his works weren't finished when he published his drafts in literary journals like what most writers did in Europe did during that time period.  Ironically the deflections are coming from you since you are interested in opinion not the facts.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 13 octobre 2012 - 05:48 .

[Blueprotoss]

Paulomedi wrote...

!But they dumped all of this stuff on us at the last minute, as if saying there was a catalyst (which is supposed to help make thing happen-things that you want to happen), was enough. It wasn't."

It wasn't near enough, in a game that dumbed down everything (Cerberus, Characters, Reapers, Catalyst) to appeal to a wider audience.

This is what makes me angry...They stupified their own story to sell more, and call it "artistic integrity".

If it was really last minute then the Reapers would have had an actual leader that was established in ME1 and ME2.  Plus the Crucible was at the beginning of ME3 anyways.

If thats the case then you should be talking about ME2 based on how it did expand to a wider audience.  There's also a thing called DLC to expand on the story with opional content like what was previously done in ME1 and ME2.

I'm pretty sure you're most mad based on way too high expectations and there's nothing wrong with admitting to that.  Btw Bioware to say its "artistic integrity" is a strawman because ME3 was handled the same way as every Bioware game was handled.

[sdinc009]

@Blueprotoss

Well, I was hoping to avoid this, but you are clearly nothing but another troll. Yoou pick apart my thread, but offer no counter arguements to it just insults and empty claims. You say I use strawman arguments, but provide no examples to prove it. I cite examples and provide evidence to support my arguments you do not. You claim not to implement defective tactics, but it is clearly apparent in your posts that you do. You say I'm basing my posts on opinion, but how can that be an accuarate claim when my original post was nothing more than article from Yahoo news? I didn't write that article, I just read it and saw it's relevance to this issue so thought I would share it with the community, nothing more. I didn't write the article so how is this based on my opinion? Oh well, I'm done feeding the troll, getting back to logical discussions instead of attempting to reason with the unreasonable.

[in it for the lolz]

It is a sad thing when a gaming company spits on it's own game and on it's fanbase. But no matter, it will come back to haunt Bioware when they end up going being dumped by EA and losing their jobs. And that day will be coming soon...

[Blueprotoss]

sdinc009 wrote...

@Blueprotoss

Well, I was hoping to avoid this, but you are clearly nothing but another troll. Yoou pick apart my thread, but offer no counter arguements to it just insults and empty claims. You say I use strawman arguments, but provide no examples to prove it. I cite examples and provide evidence to support my arguments you do not. You claim not to implement defective tactics, but it is clearly apparent in your posts that you do. You say I'm basing my posts on opinion, but how can that be an accuarate claim when my original post was nothing more than article from Yahoo news? I didn't write that article, I just read it and saw it's relevance to this issue so thought I would share it with the community, nothing more. I didn't write the article so how is this based on my opinion? Oh well, I'm done feeding the troll, getting back to logical discussions instead of attempting to reason with the unreasonable.

I love how you started out on abusing the word "troll" because I'm clearly not insulting people and I'm staying mostly on topic, which means you would be the "troll" here.  It sounds like you don't know what a strawman is even when you slightly twist the argument into your favor by using opinion and logic doesn't like opinions.  Maybe you should do some research before you try to walk the walk since you obviously don't know how to talk the talk.  Ironically you lost when you only foucsed on opinion.

in it for the lolz wrote...

It is a sad thing when a gaming company spits on it's own game and on it's fanbase. But no matter, it will come back to haunt Bioware when they end up going being dumped by EA and losing their jobs. And that day will be coming soon...

Yet some of Bioware's "fans" have been spitting on them since Baldur's Gate 2 and what Bioware did with ME3 was far from spitting since everyone can't be happy.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 15 octobre 2012 - 04:13 .