461 réponses à ce sujet

[spockjedi]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

How come you guys are willing to defend the Nihlus scene, but not the TIM scene? Bias, perhaps?

I seriously doubt that TIM's shields were more powerful than Spectre Nihlus' shields.

I agree. Smudboy attacked both.

Modifié par spockjedi, 16 novembre 2012 - 01:29 .

[LinksOcarina]

ABCoLD wrote...

LinksOcarina: Except that destroying the Reapers doesn't accomplish either of those goals, it doesn't preserve life (from the Catalyst's point of view it would be a tremendous waste of life) and it also doesn't stop Chaos. (How would the removal of synthetic life stop 'Chaos' as a force?)

How so? Or rather, how do we know?

The preservation of life through the reapers, I give you that one. It does seem like a waste of the life that the Reapers tried to preserve. As for stopping Chaos, dependant on actions would depend on that answer. This is where the role-playing should take effect; the geth/Quarian crisis and the humanity of EDI come to mind, was it promoted, was it restricted? Depending on previous choices would depend on the outcome for destroy in this case.

So no, there is no way to answer fully, because it comes down to the feelings of the player and the speculation based upon events you created. Is destroying machines and creating a new cycle the way to go, is it the way for organic life to stop synthetic's once and for all? Or is it a way for organics to not make the same mistake twice, and contend with chaos as it comes but with the knowledge of the mistakes made in the past.

Let's face it, its very doubtful the races of the galaxy will create AI's of the magnitude of the Geth in such a short time. In that same vein, there is no guarentee Control or Synthesis will stop chaos either, since it will always be present regardless of what is thrown at them.

So no, I can't answer these questions. I can only speculate. The truth is, destroying the reapers accomplishes the goal for a short term, if you ask me, over a long term, which the other two feel more solid. So yeah, I feel it will stop Chaos, but it is also impossible to stop it at the same time. As for the Catalyst giving it as an option, it did say that it was up to Shepard to choose that fate, so I can only speculate that it was put in as a choice in the end Shepard to make, like what is more important at this junction? 

[ABCoLD]

LinksOcarina wrote...

ABCoLD wrote...

LinksOcarina: Except that destroying the Reapers doesn't accomplish either of those goals, it doesn't preserve life (from the Catalyst's point of view it would be a tremendous waste of life) and it also doesn't stop Chaos. (How would the removal of synthetic life stop 'Chaos' as a force?)

How so? Or rather, how do we know?

The preservation of life through the reapers, I give you that one. It does seem like a waste of the life that the Reapers tried to preserve. As for stopping Chaos, dependant on actions would depend on that answer. This is where the role-playing should take effect; the geth/Quarian crisis and the humanity of EDI come to mind, was it promoted, was it restricted? Depending on previous choices would depend on the outcome for destroy in this case.

So no, there is no way to answer fully, because it comes down to the feelings of the player and the speculation based upon events you created. Is destroying machines and creating a new cycle the way to go, is it the way for organic life to stop synthetic's once and for all? Or is it a way for organics to not make the same mistake twice, and contend with chaos as it comes but with the knowledge of the mistakes made in the past.

Let's face it, its very doubtful the races of the galaxy will create AI's of the magnitude of the Geth in such a short time. In that same vein, there is no guarentee Control or Synthesis will stop chaos either, since it will always be present regardless of what is thrown at them.

So no, I can't answer these questions. I can only speculate. The truth is, destroying the reapers accomplishes the goal for a short term, if you ask me, over a long term, which the other two feel more solid. So yeah, I feel it will stop Chaos, but it is also impossible to stop it at the same time. As for the Catalyst giving it as an option, it did say that it was up to Shepard to choose that fate, so I can only speculate that it was put in as a choice in the end Shepard to make, like what is more important at this junction? 

Except that Chaos isn't defined as synthetic life or warfare, Chaos as defined by the Reapers is organic life being... organicy and lifey.  

In any event, it is impossible to stop, which makes the Crucibles offer of the choice more insane, as he's giving up any chance to try for a better solution later.  It's a very lazy response for an eternally patient program.

[Bourne Endeavor]

LinksOcarina wrote...

ABCoLD wrote...

LinksOcarina: Except that destroying the Reapers doesn't accomplish either of those goals, it doesn't preserve life (from the Catalyst's point of view it would be a tremendous waste of life) and it also doesn't stop Chaos. (How would the removal of synthetic life stop 'Chaos' as a force?)

How so? Or rather, how do we know?

The preservation of life through the reapers, I give you that one. It does seem like a waste of the life that the Reapers tried to preserve. As for stopping Chaos, dependant on actions would depend on that answer. This is where the role-playing should take effect; the geth/Quarian crisis and the humanity of EDI come to mind, was it promoted, was it restricted? Depending on previous choices would depend on the outcome for destroy in this case.

So no, there is no way to answer fully, because it comes down to the feelings of the player and the speculation based upon events you created. Is destroying machines and creating a new cycle the way to go, is it the way for organic life to stop synthetic's once and for all? Or is it a way for organics to not make the same mistake twice, and contend with chaos as it comes but with the knowledge of the mistakes made in the past.

Let's face it, its very doubtful the races of the galaxy will create AI's of the magnitude of the Geth in such a short time. In that same vein, there is no guarentee Control or Synthesis will stop chaos either, since it will always be present regardless of what is thrown at them.

So no, I can't answer these questions. I can only speculate. The truth is, destroying the reapers accomplishes the goal for a short term, if you ask me, over a long term, which the other two feel more solid. So yeah, I feel it will stop Chaos, but it is also impossible to stop it at the same time. As for the Catalyst giving it as an option, it did say that it was up to Shepard to choose that fate, so I can only speculate that it was put in as a choice in the end Shepard to make, like what is more important at this junction? 

Except the Catalyst defined its whole solution on the premise of absolution, which sees synthetics rebel and ultimately destroy organics. Destroy only serves as a short term solution to this supposed problem, while completely undermining the entire purpose of the cycle. In an instant, the Catalyst has rendered it and Reaper's existence utterly meaningless, meanwhile the story becomes pointless.

Putting aside the solution devised by the Catalyst is an enormous logical fallacy. There is no speculation, just an unfortunate reality due to horrendous writing.

[LinksOcarina]

ABCoLD wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

ABCoLD wrote...

LinksOcarina: Except that destroying the Reapers doesn't accomplish either of those goals, it doesn't preserve life (from the Catalyst's point of view it would be a tremendous waste of life) and it also doesn't stop Chaos. (How would the removal of synthetic life stop 'Chaos' as a force?)

How so? Or rather, how do we know?

The preservation of life through the reapers, I give you that one. It does seem like a waste of the life that the Reapers tried to preserve. As for stopping Chaos, dependant on actions would depend on that answer. This is where the role-playing should take effect; the geth/Quarian crisis and the humanity of EDI come to mind, was it promoted, was it restricted? Depending on previous choices would depend on the outcome for destroy in this case.

So no, there is no way to answer fully, because it comes down to the feelings of the player and the speculation based upon events you created. Is destroying machines and creating a new cycle the way to go, is it the way for organic life to stop synthetic's once and for all? Or is it a way for organics to not make the same mistake twice, and contend with chaos as it comes but with the knowledge of the mistakes made in the past.

Let's face it, its very doubtful the races of the galaxy will create AI's of the magnitude of the Geth in such a short time. In that same vein, there is no guarentee Control or Synthesis will stop chaos either, since it will always be present regardless of what is thrown at them.

So no, I can't answer these questions. I can only speculate. The truth is, destroying the reapers accomplishes the goal for a short term, if you ask me, over a long term, which the other two feel more solid. So yeah, I feel it will stop Chaos, but it is also impossible to stop it at the same time. As for the Catalyst giving it as an option, it did say that it was up to Shepard to choose that fate, so I can only speculate that it was put in as a choice in the end Shepard to make, like what is more important at this junction? 

Except that Chaos isn't defined as synthetic life or warfare, Chaos as defined by the Reapers is organic life being... organicy and lifey.  

In any event, it is impossible to stop, which makes the Crucibles offer of the choice more insane, as he's giving up any chance to try for a better solution later.  It's a very lazy response for an eternally patient program.

Not really. It's more of a response to the actions of outsiders that is forcing the change to it. The Catalyst basically said it failed, and now it needs a new solution. It's like a programmer finding a major flaw in his software that basically is destroying it, so he needs to wipe completely and start over again. 

And it goes on the unknown principle as well. One of the best ideas behind it is something I call a "lifeboat" society; where you basically are living subsistantly to survive. So everything is mapped out; hunting routes, how many people in your town, who you trade with, when the crops should be grown, and so forth.

Deviation from this is difficult, because there are too many unknowns. So say you go down to the lake today and fish instead of on the normal hunting route, where you know you can find fresh game. If you fish you might catch more and feed more, you might not. That is the risk you take. So it's wiser to stay subsistant and go the safe route in your choices, because you know you can survive that. That is why its like a lifeboat, nothing changes for the better, but you are not in danger of dying either.

But it goes one step further when you have interference. Lets say your game trail was destroyed by a natural disaster. Now you need to find a new hunting ground but you can't waste time. This is when you go to the pond and start figuring out when the fish are biting.  This is when you change your patterns to match your current perdicament. It is Chaos rearing its head and adapting to it. 

I always likened the Catalyst into one of these situations. For the Catalyst, trusting in an organic to choose the new destiny for the universe is being that hunter choosing to go to the pond, its a risk it was willing to take. Shepards intrusion is like the disaster that is forcing it as well, so whatever happens it will take time to adjust but then things should go back into a cycle. 

So again, its not that its poor or crazy logic, its more of the fact that its now time for desparation and the need to return to the status quo, because the Catalyst knows that it can't survive with the current path any further. The refusal ending is somewhat exemplary of this; the next cycle wins. We don't know what was chosen, or how they did it, but it was because of Shepard's history and Liara's actions that the cycle was able to prepare for the onslaught. So it can't be patient anymore, it has to act to stay afloat on that lifeboat or it will sink and die without giving the reigns to someone it can trust, without providing a choice to those who desire it. 

And Shepard, for his part, is emblematic of that Chaos because of what it means to be organic. Wars and synthetics are not inherently chaos, but the reaction from organics is, which is the key point. So when reaching that apex it boils down to what lessons organics can learn from this dichotomy of life. And that is where we can only speculate because in the end, warfare, jealousy, chaos and all of these negative connotations will still exist, but what changed is how we are equipped to deal with them. 

ETA: 

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Except the Catalyst defined its whole solution on the premise of absolution, which sees synthetics rebel and ultimately destroy organics. Destroy only serves as a short term solution to this supposed problem, while completely undermining the entire purpose of the cycle. In an instant, the Catalyst has rendered it and Reaper's existence utterly meaningless, meanwhile the story becomes pointless.

Putting aside the solution devised by the Catalyst is an enormous logical fallacy. There is no speculation, just an unfortunate reality due to horrendous writing.

Destroy is choosing the pond while the game trail is intact, it's not a safe bet and a huge risk. It is also not his choice, but Shepard's choice in this instance to go that route. It is a short term solution to the problem. No question. That's kind of the point to it. It's not supposed to be ideal in the least, in fact, with Shepard surviving it's perhaps the most selfish of the endings and shows short-sightedness to the big picture of the "lifeboat" vs the "individual".

So you're right, its short term. But does it really undermine the cycle? This is where it depends upon what is learned by the cycle, by Shepard and by organics at this point. This is where the speculation comes from, and lets be honest, the EC did show peace and slow progress in rebuilding the galaxy.

Also, the logical fallacy behind all of this is also on the reigns of Shepard then, not just the Catalyst. I mean, logically speaking after hearing the Catalyst talk, does it make sense to destroy everything when the risk is so great for it to happen again? Again there is no guarentee, but the risk is there for it and is higher than the other two options. In many ways destroy is the most chaotic choice because of those caveats to it. So yeah, short term gains but then the answer to the question is pretty clear then, so why make that choice to begin with? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 16 novembre 2012 - 02:53 .

[LinksOcarina]

I'm also sorry for the long post, I hate being so wordy because I feel like sometimes i'm either rambling or not getting my point across in the end.

Anyway, off to bed, been fun.

[RiouHotaru]

Smudboy once again makes a video where he needlessly nitpicks every single minor and rather irrelevant point, and completely MISSES other points as well. Honestly, the "issues" he claims to bring to the table have explanations. Good luck actually trying to tell him that.

I'm surprised anyone gives this guy any credit. Does anyone remember his short-lived stint on the forum board? He'd make blanket statements, call for evidence to back up counter-arguments, than constantly moved the goalposts whenever people DID debunk his arguments, while insulting them.

He was banned for good reason. He has a very vocal opinion of what HE thinks the ME-verse should be. Don't even get me started on how he praises ME1 and utterly glosses over it's own glaring plotholes.

[RiouHotaru]

huntrrz wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Actually, it translates into how horrendously poorly written the ending is. Skip to the Catalyst portion and he makes a completely valid argument.

And a broken clock is right twice a day.  I was bemused when people started recommending his first ME3 videos because they agreed with his opinion.  I remember his interminable nitpicking at ME2, and the imperious manner he took when debating people here about it.

I couldn't give too figs that we might agree by coincidence every now and then.  I have no interest in listening to another of his screeds.

And even his moments regarding the Catalyst are silly.  Him "calling out" the fire analogy is missing the point, he takes it so literally that I have to stop and wonder if he actually missed the symbolism or is purposefully ignoring it to justify his argument.

[David7204]

"Nitpicking" would be pointing out a problem that Mass Effect and Mass Effect alone has. Or pointing out a problem and at least acknowledging that it's widespread throughout the industry. Which might be petty, but is nonetheless valid.

However, if it's pointing out a problem that is shared by many or most AAA games and pretending Mass Effect alone exhibits it, that's not nitpicking. That's just idiocy and hypocrisy. And sadly, the BSN and this clown's videos are filled with such complaints.

Modifié par David7204, 16 novembre 2012 - 03:29 .

[Obadiah]

I don't find the video terribly compelling. As others have said, it seems more like pointless nitpicking.

[Tomwew]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Smudboy once again makes a video where he needlessly nitpicks every single minor and rather irrelevant point, and completely MISSES other points as well. Honestly, the "issues" he claims to bring to the table have explanations. Good luck actually trying to tell him that.

I'm surprised anyone gives this guy any credit. Does anyone remember his short-lived stint on the forum board? He'd make blanket statements, call for evidence to back up counter-arguments, than constantly moved the goalposts whenever people DID debunk his arguments, while insulting them.

He was banned for good reason. He has a very vocal opinion of what HE thinks the ME-verse should be. Don't even get me started on how he praises ME1 and utterly glosses over it's own glaring plotholes.

actually his videos on ME1 pointed out a lot of plotholes i completely missed like the witness of nihlus' murder being completely forgotten about by shep when he brought accusations against seren, a sworn testimony surely would have added some measure of validity to his claims.

although i'll admit some of smudboy's complaints i'd look over (the odd angle the mako flips at in ec, tali having blood on her, magic avenger and predator that appear in cutscenes etc.) and they could be considered nitpicks, he also raiises a lot of valid issues. yes most have been discussed to death on this very site, but that makes them no less valid and neither does his perceived pretension or arrogance. his videos serve as a good reference for everything (no matter how 'minute') wrong with ME3

as for his points having explanations? can you explain how the catalyst destroying the leviathans saves the leviathans? because they are 'preserved'? ignoring the fact that being melted down to liquid soylent green is death and nothing more, by the catalyst's own admission the leviathan's did not want to be reapers, but harbinger seems to have no problem with it, meaning the will of the leviathan, the beliefs and practices they once had are gone. in every way they are dead and gone and what remains is a robot with people bits for fuel, he's self-contradictory in many many ways and i've yet to see a single in depth positive analysis of mass effect three's ending, if you have one that refutes (let's say half) of smudboy's issues i'd be delighted to read it.

[Tomwew]

David7204 wrote...

"Nitpicking" would be pointing out a problem that Mass Effect and Mass Effect alone has. Or pointing out a problem and at least acknowledging that it's widespread throughout the industry. Which might be petty, but is nonetheless valid.

However, if it's pointing out a problem that is shared by many or most AAA games and pretending Mass Effect alone exhibits it, that's not nitpicking. That's just idiocy and hypocrisy. And sadly, the BSN and this clown's videos are filled with such complaints.

just because a problem is widespread doesn't make it less of a problem, and drawing attention to these problems is the first step in rectifying them, for mass effect and gaming in general. and nitpicking is going out of your way to find faults in something that has no major flaws, what smudboy does is lay out all the faults, major, minor and medier.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The catalyst is an insane idiot AI that uses circular logic. It and its death machines deserve one thing: to be expunged from existence forever. It was created by a bunch of stupid cuttlefish. He did miss something in the video -- the cuttlefish still thought that creating the stupid idiotic kid was a good idea, unless he's saving that for his Leviathan critique.

I really like how in this video Smudboy played a full out renegade Shepard. He must be as disgusted as I am with the way the story got written. Starboy.... what a joke. Thank you Smudboy for pointing out the obvious again. Nitpicking? Not in any manner.

[Tomwew]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The catalyst is an insane idiot AI that uses circular logic. It and its death machines deserve one thing: to be expunged from existence forever. It was created by a bunch of stupid cuttlefish. He did miss something in the video -- the cuttlefish still thought that creating the stupid idiotic kid was a good idea, unless he's saving that for his Leviathan critique.

I really like how in this video Smudboy played a full out renegade Shepard. He must be as disgusted as I am with the way the story got written. Starboy.... what a joke. Thank you Smudboy for pointing out the obvious again. Nitpicking? Not in any manner.

Leviathan: "(it's) purpose is not being fulfilled"
one dialogue choice later: "(the intelligence) still serves it's purpose"
self contradicting, insane non logic doesn't fall far from the tree.

[Necrotron]

All I can say when I view this final video is, finally, someone who sees the catalyst for what he truly is.

[dorktainian]

Do we give these idiot writers more credit than they deserve. You can polish a poo all you like but (as well as getting all messy and smelly) it will still be a poo.

Smudboy says it how he sees it. As a yorkshireman i can really appreciate the time and effort he has put into these videos and the fact he says exactly what he thinks.

Yeah he might annoy at times... but nearly all of his points (if a little too nitpicky) are completely valid. Personally i didn't like his analysis of ME2 but can understand where he's coming from.

Every point he's made about ME3 has been bang on as far as i'm concerned. Don't forget also he is not the only one on youtube taking mass effect 3 apart at every level and criticising it.

What he does do is hold the line. He wont bow down and toe the 'Greatest Video Game Series in History' line thats spun. Yeah he may get annoying at times but he is sticking to his guns...not like that idiot angry joe who went from 'it sucks' to 'bioware rocks'

[LeandroBraz]

I don't believe you guys listen to this guy. His channel live of criticizing ME, He just like the attention it give to him (and probably money). He will found issues on Bioware games even if the issues aren't there, because this is what keep his channel up. There's some stuffs that is truth in his videos, but this stuffs are lost in the middle of a lot of BS, after all, he need to find content for his videos.

For example, I remember when he criticized ME2 because every character was able to hack and give a analyses of Jack's cell on purgatory, since not everyone would have this knowledge, and other meaningless arguments. This is a game! Games use a lot of suspension of disbelief for gameplay purpose. It's just convenient for gameplay purpose to have any squad doing the hack, not only engineers or whatever. I'm a lot more amazed by how you can see the same cutscene with a variety of squads participating on it, with they own way to saying stuffs, then concerned about their hacking skills...

[LeandroBraz]

Wow!! Just wow!!! I saw like 20 seconds of the video and... wow, seriously??? Can't you guys see how full of BS this guy is??

The idea of the video is showing what the extended cut didn't? answered? What he wanted? The game to have 3 hours of explanations of why the bodies are on the citadel, what are the things we see there, this stuffs he is talking about? He want Bioware to release a extended cut explaining and letting clear every single stuff that show up in the end? WTF?

Use your imagination. Why the bodies are there? What is that stuffs on the Citadel? I'm don't know, you tell me, what is your theory?


Seriously, knowing that people actually listen to what this guy say make sick...


edit: by the way, he ever heard about Mass Effect fields?

Modifié par LeandroBraz, 16 novembre 2012 - 12:30 .

[Jadebaby]

Rather listen to him than anyone who says the ME3 ending is good. Coz unless it's because of Indoctrination. They can't prove it's good.

[LeandroBraz]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Rather listen to him than anyone who says the ME3 ending is good. Coz unless it's because of Indoctrination. They can't prove it's good.

It's good. It don't reach the expectations Bioware created, I'ts not even close of the potential this game had and Bioware wasted, but anylizing the game by itself, it's a good game ending.. 

[Oni Changas]

not like that idiot angry joe who went from 'it sucks' to 'bioware rocks'

Yeah, that really disappointed me. Joe should know better, yet he basically made himself the poster boy for those that took to the EC without asking questions or thinking about the events within it.

And to further prove Smudboy's points I'd like to point out MrBTongue if you want a video analysing ME3 in a more tasteful and respectful manner.

[dorktainian]

MrBTongue is brilliant.

[Soultaker08]

what calendar is he using.. íts obviously missing pages after the third month

[LinksOcarina]

OniTYME wrote...

not like that idiot angry joe who went from 'it sucks' to 'bioware rocks'

Yeah, that really disappointed me. Joe should know better, yet he basically made himself the poster boy for those that took to the EC without asking questions or thinking about the events within it.

And to further prove Smudboy's points I'd like to point out MrBTongue if you want a video analysing ME3 in a more tasteful and respectful manner.

Entertainers should not be the benchmark for critical analysis. In the end their purpose is to entertain, not to enrich. 

[Jadebaby]

LeandroBraz wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Rather listen to him than anyone who says the ME3 ending is good. Coz unless it's because of Indoctrination. They can't prove it's good.

It's good. It don't reach the expectations Bioware created, I'ts not even close of the potential this game had and Bioware wasted, but anylizing the game by itself, it's a good game ending.. 

lol you had me till then, you're kidding right? Is that "because IT"?

I agree with the previous posters.. You should watch MrB tongue. He analyzes just the ending to tell you why it's bad. And he does it in a much more appropriate manner than smudboy.