474 réponses à ce sujet

[Seival]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Seival wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Seival wrote...

ME3 ending is good because of its ideas, and because of philosophical questions it raises.

Yeah, murder your friends because equality is impossible, become an all-powerful dictator, or brain-wash the galaxy.

Yeah, Symbolism just makes the ending more epic. Mental conversation fits that concept just perfectly.

Symbolism? What? 

Control and Synthesis are in conflict with your own ethics standards? Choose Destroy then. But don't expect that everyone have the same ethics standards as you.

I'd expect most humans on this planet to be against murdering your allies because the enemy tells you some bullsh*t about you never being able to get along with them ten seconds before you're about to kill him, taking control of a robot army to police the galaxy thus becoming space Idi Amin, or brainwashing the entire galaxy into the enemy's version of a utopia and undermining galactic society completely. 

If you think any of that is morally acceptable, then you have a pretty f*cked up moral code, or you're just stupid. Take your pick. 

I consider Control and Synthesis as the most ethical choices, and do not consider them as "becoming a dictator" or "brainwashing". At the same time Destroy and Refusal choices are alien to me, because I can't roleplay a betrayer.

Why not? That's what happens. You become a dictator, enforcing your will on everyone because the Reapers are all-powerful, or you brainwash everyone into becoming best-friends. Destroy isn't any better. 

Most humans on this planet are still barbarians, so barbaric reaction you described is quite predictable.

Morality which is about "life is much more important than lives" is acceptable. Creating the Reapers isn't even killing people, but rather transforming them into something greater without asking their opinion. Not the best solution, but it works...

...But eventually even the Catalyst admitted that Cycled Harvests were only good as a temporary solution. You have three ways to stop the Cycled Harvests forever. Each of them comes with a price, but what you expected? Galactic-scale deeds can't be easy. In that instance you should forget about your own ethos and ethics, see the big picture, and make the toughest decision in the entire Trilogy... And it looks like you are unable to make that kind of decision. You rather prefer to "pray to the higher forces to change the course of history and punish the invaders"... You know what? Silence will be the answer to you prayers.

[unknown16]

Seival wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Seival wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Seival wrote...

ME3 ending is good because of its ideas, and because of philosophical questions it raises.

Yeah, murder your friends because equality is impossible, become an all-powerful dictator, or brain-wash the galaxy.

Yeah, Symbolism just makes the ending more epic. Mental conversation fits that concept just perfectly.

Symbolism? What? 

Control and Synthesis are in conflict with your own ethics standards? Choose Destroy then. But don't expect that everyone have the same ethics standards as you.

I'd expect most humans on this planet to be against murdering your allies because the enemy tells you some bullsh*t about you never being able to get along with them ten seconds before you're about to kill him, taking control of a robot army to police the galaxy thus becoming space Idi Amin, or brainwashing the entire galaxy into the enemy's version of a utopia and undermining galactic society completely. 

If you think any of that is morally acceptable, then you have a pretty f*cked up moral code, or you're just stupid. Take your pick. 

I consider Control and Synthesis as the most ethical choices, and do not consider them as "becoming a dictator" or "brainwashing". At the same time Destroy and Refusal choices are alien to me, because I can't roleplay a betrayer.

Why not? That's what happens. You become a dictator, enforcing your will on everyone because the Reapers are all-powerful, or you brainwash everyone into becoming best-friends. Destroy isn't any better. 

Most humans on this planet are still barbarians, so barbaric reaction you described is quite predictable.

Morality which is about "life is much more important than lives" is acceptable. Creating the Reapers isn't even killing people, but rather transforming them into something greater without asking their opinion. Not the best solution, but it works...

...But eventually even the Catalyst admitted that Cycled Harvests were only good as a temporary solution. You have three ways to stop the Cycled Harvests forever. Each of them comes with a price, but what you expected? Galactic-scale deeds can't be easy. In that instance you should forget about your own ethos and ethics, see the big picture, and make the toughest decision in the entire Trilogy... And it looks like you are unable to make that kind of decision. You rather prefer to "pray to the higher forces to change the course of history and punish the invaders"... You know what? Silence will be the answer to you prayers.

I may have just joined in on this conversation right now, but what part of Synthesis and Control simply seems morally correct, when we're changing the morals of the Galaxy? Synthesis is just basically removing all species thoughts then implementing another thought, which is basically brainwashing. The last time I played ME3, Shepard didn't ask any species if they were okay with this.

With Control, I agree with the other guy, who does Shepard think he is enforcing Galaxy laws on everyone with his pet Reapers? This seems like the Renegade/Dictator option, by keeping everyone supressed under a crazy man's laws.

The only possible Paragon option seems to be destroy. When at Earth, species such as Husks, Collectors and Reapers aren't even alive anymore, they are like remote control cars, controlled by the Catalyst. The only way to make sure that the Reapers never kill anybody again is to Destroy them. Although some people may not agree with me because they're so butthurt over EDI dying: Machines can be rebuilt again. I mean at least EDI's memory core could be rebuilt, that cannot be said over Organics without turning them into Husks. With this option, it means all Organics can continue doing what makes them so interesting: rebuild, live and give life.

[Seival]

unknown16 wrote...

I may have just joined in on this conversation right now, but what part of Synthesis and Control simply seems morally correct, when we're changing the morals of the Galaxy? Synthesis is just basically removing all species thoughts then implementing another thought, which is basically brainwashing. The last time I played ME3, Shepard didn't ask any species if they were okay with this.

With Control, I agree with the other guy, who does Shepard think he is enforcing Galaxy laws on everyone with his pet Reapers? This seems like the Renegade/Dictator option, by keeping everyone supressed under a crazy man's laws.

The only possible Paragon option seems to be destroy. When at Earth, species such as Husks, Collectors and Reapers aren't even alive anymore, they are like remote control cars, controlled by the Catalyst. The only way to make sure that the Reapers never kill anybody again is to Destroy them. Although some people may not agree with me because they're so butthurt over EDI dying: Machines can be rebuilt again. I mean at least EDI's memory core could be rebuilt, that cannot be said over Organics without turning them into Husks. With this option, it means all Organics can continue doing what makes them so interesting: rebuild, live and give life.

The point is that there are no universal morality and ethics rules. Your ethos dictates you its own rules, indoctrinating you with them from your very birth. But it doesn't mean all those rules are right.

You may call the choices dictatorship or brainwashing, but you can't say that dictatorship and brainwashing are always bad things. We can judge each particular case only when we see the results. And results are partially visible in the epilogues...

...And please, don't try to counter-argument using examples from modern or old human societies. Humanity is still too primitive to produce any valuable examples on the matter.

Modifié par Seival, 08 décembre 2012 - 02:39 .

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...

The point is that there are no universal morality and ethics rules. Your ethos dictates you its own rules, indoctrinating you with them from your very birth. But it doesn't mean all those rules are right.

You may call the choices dictatorship or brainwashing, but you can't say that dictatorship and brainwashing are always bad things. We can judge each particular case only when we see the results. And results are partially visible in the epilogues...

...And please, don't try to counter-argument using examples from modern or old human societies. Humanity is still too primitive to produce any valuable examples on the matter.

If there is no universal morality, or rules of ethics, why is it that wiki, the largest sum of human knowledge ever conceived that can be gained access to with a mouse click, disagree's with this notion?

Moral universalism

Sooooooo, Univeral moral's do exist......... Someone even went to the trouble of noting them down. Awkwaaaaaard!

And now we come to Seiv. And funnily enough, the proof that Univeral moralism exists also shines a light on the stance that Seiv has been taking this whole time.

Moral nihilism

For the benefit of those without time to read Wiki, here's the first sentence.

"Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism or amoralism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral"

Now, one might say that if nihilism and universalism both exist, then neither can exist. As both stance's seem to contradict one another. However, we live in a world of contradictions. As a result, both concept's exist, locked in a battle for supremacy in our social structures.

Yet dispite these seemingly black and white outlooks, there is a middle ground area. Moral relativism

A quick description: "Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.

So now we see, contrary to Seiv's self held belief, that nothing exists other than nihilism, perhap's he would like to go back over his previous statment and rethink a few things.

Humanity is not primitive, you said it yourself in the same paragraph. Modern. We are modern humanity. Not past or future. We are of the now and the term modern reflect's our stature.

Asking someone not to counter argue is one of the worst things you can do in a debate.

And...........  will you stop hating. The amount of loathing for Mass Effect, the human race coupled with your statement's that it is alright to violate another individual is, frankly, still as shocking now as when you said you would like to see people in concentration camps to be synthesised. This type of thinking should go on a philosophy forum where stuff like this can be argued about till the cows come home.

You've been harking on about the same thing's from the same POV for month's. It's not finding a home here. Stop hating BSN and it's forum users!

This thread is supposed to be a discussion on the ending of ME3 being planned and Shir'ra's prophecy. Not a chance to project more of your bleak life's outlook into social media.

Modifié par Redbelle, 08 décembre 2012 - 05:17 .

[Seival]

Redbelle wrote...

Seival wrote...

The point is that there are no universal morality and ethics rules. Your ethos dictates you its own rules, indoctrinating you with them from your very birth. But it doesn't mean all those rules are right.

You may call the choices dictatorship or brainwashing, but you can't say that dictatorship and brainwashing are always bad things. We can judge each particular case only when we see the results. And results are partially visible in the epilogues...

...And please, don't try to counter-argument using examples from modern or old human societies. Humanity is still too primitive to produce any valuable examples on the matter.

If there is no universal morality, or rules of ethics, why is it that wiki, the largest sum of human knowledge ever conceived that can be gained access to with a mouse click, disagree's with this notion?

Moral universalism

Sooooooo, Univeral moral's do exist......... Someone even went to the trouble of noting them down. Awkwaaaaaard!

And now we come to Seiv. And funnily enough, the proof that Univeral moralism exists also shines a light on the stance that Seiv has been taking this whole time.

Moral nihilism

For the benefit of those without time to read Wiki, here's the first sentence.

"Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism or amoralism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral"

Now, one might say that if nihilism and universalism both exist, then neither can exist. As both stance's seem to contradict one another. However, we live in a world of contradictions. As a result, both concept's exist, locked in a battle for supremacy in our social structures.

Yet dispite these seemingly black and white outlooks, there is a middle ground area. Moral relativism

A quick description: "Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.

So now we see, contrary to Seiv's self held belief, that nothing exists other than nihilism, perhap's he would like to go back over his previous statment and rethink a few things.

Humanity is not primitive, you said it yourself in the same paragraph. Modern. We are modern humanity. Not past or future. We are of the now and the term modern reflect's our stature.

Asking someone not to counter argue is one of the worst things you can do in a debate.

And...........  will you stop hating. The amount of loathing for Mass Effect, the human race coupled with your statement's that it is alright to violate another individual is, frankly, still as shocking now as when you said you would like to see people in concentration camps to be synthesised. This type of thinking should go on a philosophy forum where stuff like this can be argued about till the cows come home.

You've been harking on about the same thing's from the same POV for month's. It's not finding a home here. Stop hating BSN and it's forum users!

This thread is supposed to be a discussion on the ending of ME3 being planned and Shir'ra's prophecy. Not a chance to project more of your bleak life's outlook into social media.

Here is an interesting quote on the matter:

"Arrgh!" Jason growled. "It's impossible to talk to you, much less enjoy any comprehensible exchange of ideas. We aren't even speaking the same language. Aside from who is right and who is wrong, for the moment, we should go back to basics and at least agree on the meaning of the terms that we are using. To begin with—can you define the difference between ethics and ethos?"

"Of course," Mikah snapped, a glint of pleasure in his eyes at the thought of a good rousing round of hair-splitting. "Ethics is the discipline dealing with what it good or bad, or right or wrong—or with moral duty and obligation. Ethos means the guiding beliefs, standards or ideals that characterize a group or community."

"Very good, I can see that you have been spending the long spaceship-nights with your nose buried in the books. Now make sure the difference between those two terms is very clear, because it is the heart of the little communications problem we have here. Ethos is inextricably linked with a single society and cannot be separated from it, or it loses all meaning. Do you agree?"

"Well...."

"Come, come—you have to agree on the terms of your own definition. The ethos of a group is just a catch-all term for the ways in which the members of a group rub against each other. Right?"

Mikah reluctantly produced a nod of acquiescence.

"Now that we agree about that we can push on one step further. Ethics, again by your definition, must deal with any number of societies or groups. If there are any absolute laws of ethics, they must be so inclusive that they can be applied to any society. A law of ethics must be as universal of application as is the law of gravity."

"I don't follow you...?"

"I didn't think you would when I got to this point. You people who prattle about your Universal Laws never really consider the exact meaning of the term. My knowledge of the history of science is very vague, but I'm willing to bet that the first Law of Gravity ever dreamed up stated that things fell at such and such a speed, and accelerated at such and such a rate. That's not a law, but an observation that isn't even complete until you add 'on this planet.' On a planet with a different mass there will be a different observation. The law of gravity is the formula F=m1*m2/d**2, and this can be used to compute the force of gravity between any two bodies anywhere. This is a way of expressing fundamental and unalterable principles that apply in all circumstances. If you are going to have any real ethical laws they will have to have this same universality. They will have to work on Cassylia or Pyrrus, or on any planet or in any society you can find. Which brings us back to you. What you so grandly call—with capital letters and a flourish of trumpets—'Laws of Ethics' aren't laws at all, but are simple little chunks of tribal ethos, aboriginal observations made by a gang of desert sheepherders to keep order in the house—or tent. These rules aren't capable of any universal application, even you must see that. Just think of the different planets that you have been on and the number of weird and wonderful ways people have of reacting to each other—then try and visualize ten rules of conduct that would be applicable in all these societies. An impossible task. Yet I'll bet that you have ten rules you want me to obey, and if one of them is wasted on an injunction against saying prayers to carved idols I can imagine just how universal the other nine are. You aren't being ethical if you try to apply them wherever you go—you're just finding a particularly fancy way to commit suicide!"



--- Harry Harrison, "Ethical Engineer", 1963.

Modifié par Seival, 08 décembre 2012 - 06:14 .

[Seival]

...Oh, and in case you didn't notice, all ME3 ending discussions end up becoming the philosophical discussions. Each starts with something related to the ending, and several pages later people are already discussing moral and ethics. You have to deal with it

[Redbelle]

I notice you didn't refute the assertion that your moral outlook is nihilistic.

And you have misused the term quote.

To quote means to repeat the exact words of another with the acknowledgement of the source.

A quotation is a phrase or a sentence from a book or a speech that reflects the author's profound thoughts.

The problem with Sha'ira's words being used as a prophecy, is that she ultimately did not make a prophecy. She gave him at the start and I quote. 'A gift of words. An affirmation of who you are and what you will become'.

Ok, sounds like a prophecy so far. But wait! This is what she say's at the end of reading Shep's Rene/Para aura.

'This may be who you are, but it is not what you will become. It only forms the basis of your future greatness'.

So she say's she will tell Shep who he will become.......... then tell's him that it is not what he will become. Then tells him he will be great.

Yeahbutnobutyeah!

In a nutshell Sha'ira exercises the rabbinic teachings of Maimonides who uses inspired wording.

We have seen no evidence of divine leaning's to provide her with the gift of forthsight. We only have testimoney of NPC's reading script that she is....... really awesome.

And while Seiv's youtube vid of this matter, (coloured as it is to imply his non-moral moral view), is a technical acheivement, it none the less attempt's to pull off the idea that Sha'ira is a prophet by taking the voice from someone other than Sha'ira and dubbing it over Sha'ira. If you look carefully you can see the lip synching is off. Plus the dialogue comes directly from Deionarra from Planescape Torment. Released back in 1999.

This is another of Seiv's attempts to make people come around to his way of thinking. Only now, he's used deceit.

And I know he won't understand this based on his nihilistic view's. But deceiving other's to win favour in a debate is morally repugnant. The argument's should win or lose based on their merit's. Not because they are mis-represented.

Modifié par Redbelle, 08 décembre 2012 - 07:59 .

[Zan51]

Seival you REALLY need to read the most important part of Harry's book. You know the bit that says, "All characters and events in this book are fictitious. Any resemblance to people living or dead is strictly coincidental."

We professional authors often write about evil protagonists, does that mean we embrace their evil? Or that it is part of us? Of course not, you have to be naive in the extreme to even think so!

Harry was a lovely person, bright and bubbly and full of life every time I met him at the main British SF conventions over the Easter weekend. He bounced about the con, talking to anyone, with his 2 little dogs with him. He was lovely, and loved life. Your paraphrasing may be how universal ethics began, and how we began, as tribes that became nations, but tell me you don't see the world we have now, the technology, and the thinking and ethics as far removed from that, in the Western World at least, as possible.

You are the nihilist.

[Dr_Extrem]

Zan51 wrote...

Seival you REALLY need to read the most important part of Harry's book. You know the bit that says, "All characters and events in this book are fictitious. Any resemblance to people living or dead is strictly coincidental."

We professional authors often write about evil protagonists, does that mean we embrace their evil? Or that it is part of us? Of course not, you have to be naive in the extreme to even think so!

Harry was a lovely person, bright and bubbly and full of life every time I met him at the main British SF conventions over the Easter weekend. He bounced about the con, talking to anyone, with his 2 little dogs with him. He was lovely, and loved life. Your paraphrasing may be how universal ethics began, and how we began, as tribes that became nations, but tell me you don't see the world we have now, the technology, and the thinking and ethics as far removed from that, in the Western World at least, as possible.

You are the nihilist.

he/she is not even a "real" nihilist ..

a nihilist would also question the facts, the catalyst provides - this nihilist would be skeptical, on how the catalyst comes to its conclusions and facts. a nihilist would also say, that none of the decisions are right, because no political, religious and/or philosophical teaching can be the real way to live life.

seival is more a follower of nietsches approach on nihilism .. but nietsche was only focused on the moral and religious parts of nihilism. this is mixed with some sides of russian nihilism, wich strives for equalty and scientific achievement inside an atheistic community, while rejecting authority. 

sadly, seival seems to pick the more ... questionable parts of both philosophies.

[Seival]

Zan51 wrote...

Seival you REALLY need to read the most important part of Harry's book. You know the bit that says, "All characters and events in this book are fictitious. Any resemblance to people living or dead is strictly coincidental."

We professional authors often write about evil protagonists, does that mean we embrace their evil? Or that it is part of us? Of course not, you have to be naive in the extreme to even think so!

Harry was a lovely person, bright and bubbly and full of life every time I met him at the main British SF conventions over the Easter weekend. He bounced about the con, talking to anyone, with his 2 little dogs with him. He was lovely, and loved life. Your paraphrasing may be how universal ethics began, and how we began, as tribes that became nations, but tell me you don't see the world we have now, the technology, and the thinking and ethics as far removed from that, in the Western World at least, as possible.

You are the nihilist.

Right now I see different countries and different communities inside those countries. Even in the age of technological advancement we are still divided the same way as many years ago. Each community is unique ethos, that's why we still have no centralized planetary government and only one country called "Humanity"...

...Real life is the excellent example. It's the proof that there are no universal ethical rules, and Harry Harrison based his books on real life observations.

...Universal ethical rules can exist only if there is only one persistent community left. And that is a part of utopia, which can't be achieved by conventional means.

Modifié par Seival, 09 décembre 2012 - 02:01 .

[ShepGrimr]

Taboo-XX wrote...

They made this up as they went along. The same thing occurred with Battlestar Galactica.

No one and I mean no one would have put up with this nonsensical ending for FIVE years.

I agree esp the original writers from me1 and 2

[Zan51]

Seival wrote...

Right now I see different countries and different communities inside those countries. Even in the age of technological advancement we are still divided the same way as many years ago. Each community is unique ethos, that's why we still have no centralized planetary government and only one country called "Humanity"...

...Real life is the excellent example. It's the proof that there are no universal ethical rules, and Harry Harrison based his books on real life observations.

...Universal ethical rules can exist only if there is only one persistent community left. And that is a part of utopia, which can't be achieved by conventional means.

And the EU is such a success, yeah. Oh and I used to live in the UK till i moved to the USA. Central Governments are theoreticlly good ides, but impractical. You cannot impose "one size of everything suits everyone" because it doesn't work, only folk like you who think conformity is your god can't see the glaring truth in the fact we are individuals and individual nations and nothing can make us one homogenous mass. We can pull in the same direction for a purpose, though. Well most of us, those not still living in the past.
And just how the hell do YOU know what Harry baed his books on, hmm? Ever meet him, spend an evening with him? I have and I do not presume to say what you are saying about him.

You gotta learn to tell fiction from reality or you will be doomed.....

Modifié par Zan51, 09 décembre 2012 - 07:41 .

[Dr_Extrem]

Zan51 wrote...

Seival wrote...

Right now I see different countries and different communities inside those countries. Even in the age of technological advancement we are still divided the same way as many years ago. Each community is unique ethos, that's why we still have no centralized planetary government and only one country called "Humanity"...

...Real life is the excellent example. It's the proof that there are no universal ethical rules, and Harry Harrison based his books on real life observations.

...Universal ethical rules can exist only if there is only one persistent community left. And that is a part of utopia, which can't be achieved by conventional means.

And the EU is such a success, yeah. Oh and I used to live in the UK till i moved to the USA. Central Governments are theoreticlly good ides, but impractical. You cannot impose "one size of everything suits everyone" because it doesn't work, only folk like you who think conformity is your god can't see the glaring truth in the fact we are individuals and individual nations and nothing can make us one homogenous mass. We can pull in the same direction for a purpose, though. Well most of us, those not still living in the past.
And just how the hell do YOU know what Harry baed his books on, hmm? Ever meet him, spend an evening with him? I have and I do not presume to say what you are saying about him.

You gotta learn to tell fiction from reality or you will be doomed.....

have you experienced seivals thread on "why harry harrison would love mass effect 3 endings"?

i guess not ... if you have time, search for it in this section of the forums ... golden!


btw .. harry harrison would may like the endings - but not in context with mass effect as a whole.

[The Night Mammoth]

Seival wrote...

Most humans on this planet are still barbarians, so barbaric reaction you described is quite predictable.

Wow, did one of your parents swing you against a wall by the legs as a child? That sentence has absolutely no worth or meaning, I doubt you know what you're even saying. 

Morality which is about "life is much more important than lives" is acceptable.

The Catalyst has no morals, it's a machine acting on the programming given by the Leviathans. 

Creating the Reapers isn't even killing people, but rather transforming them into something greater without asking their opinion. Not the best solution, but it works...

Kelly Chambers looked really peaceful when she was being melted down into putty, those blood splatters must have just been my imagination. 

Completely ignoring the trillions of people the Reapers actually kill, or turn into husks. 

...But eventually even the Catalyst admitted that Cycled Harvests were only good as a temporary solution.

It doesn't seem to be doing anything to change that. 

Until Shepard comes along and threatens to kill it, and all the Reapers, which really adds to its credibility. 

You have three ways to stop the Cycled Harvests forever. Each of them comes with a price, but what you expected? Galactic-scale deeds can't be easy. In that instance you should forget about your own ethos and ethics, see the big picture, and make the toughest decision in the entire Trilogy...

Or, now this might absolutely blow your mind, I don't make a decision at all, because the entire concept of being forced to make this choice is complete and utter bullsh*t. There's nothing fantastically amazing about being forced to replace one morally reprehensible situation with another of your choosing all over some concept you've just been introduced to that doesn't even make any sense. 

And it looks like you are unable to make that kind of decision. You rather prefer to "pray to the higher forces to change the course of history and punish the invaders"... You know what? Silence will be the answer to you prayers.

Not unable to, no. 

I choose 'eject disc'. I reject the version of Mass Effect presented to me. Think of my acts as you will. 

[xtorma]

Ah yes. The unquestionable wisdom of the Asari space hooker.

[Seival]

@The Night Mammoth

If ME Universe was real, "eject disc" would not be an option. So, I guess that if you were Commander Shepard, then you would just sit near the Catalyst and cry. I suppose you would find comfort in whining about dire fate and ignoring the Catalyst, instead of choosing something you don't like to stop the Cycled Harvests forever...

...No offence, but that is pathetic. And please, don't tell me that "Mass Effect is just a game". If the story really means nothing to you, then you would not dwell on it. You would just finish the game and started to play another one, like nothing happened.

Mass Effect is very deep and instructive story that requires serious attitude. So think what would you do in the end if ME Universe was real, and forget about "eject disc" option.

Modifié par Seival, 09 décembre 2012 - 09:31 .

[Maver790]

xtorma wrote...

Ah yes. The unquestionable wisdom of the Asari space hooker.

LMAOOO

/thread

[The Night Mammoth]

Seival wrote...

@The Night Mammoth

If ME Universe was real, "eject disc" would not be an option. So, I guess that if you were Commander Shepard, then you would just sit near the Catalyst and cry. I suppose you would find comfort in whining about dire fate and ignoring the Catalyst, instead of choosing something you don't like to stop the Cycled harvests...

Wow, is your entire argumentative strategy just to ignore everything the opposition says and strawman the f*ck out of their posts?

...No offence, but that is pathetic. And please, don't tell me that "Mass Effect is just a game". If the story really means nothing to you, then you would not dwell on it. You would just finish the game and started to play another one, like nothing happened.

Mass Effect is just a game. Your point is irrelevant to anything I've said thus far.

Mass Effect is very deep and instructive story that requires serious attitude. So think what would you do in the end if ME Universe was real, and forget about "eject disc" option.

I have a few other options in mind and none of them involve the Crucible.

Playing along to the bullsh*t for a second, if I were Commander Shepard then god forbid I ever get into such a f*cking stupid situation as that.

[Seival]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Seival wrote...

@The Night Mammoth

If ME Universe was real, "eject disc" would not be an option. So, I guess that if you were Commander Shepard, then you would just sit near the Catalyst and cry. I suppose you would find comfort in whining about dire fate and ignoring the Catalyst, instead of choosing something you don't like to stop the Cycled harvests...

Wow, is your entire argumentative strategy just to ignore everything the opposition says and strawman the f*ck out of their posts?

...No offence, but that is pathetic. And please, don't tell me that "Mass Effect is just a game". If the story really means nothing to you, then you would not dwell on it. You would just finish the game and started to play another one, like nothing happened.

Mass Effect is just a game. Your point is irrelevant to anything I've said thus far.

Mass Effect is very deep and instructive story that requires serious attitude. So think what would you do in the end if ME Universe was real, and forget about "eject disc" option.

I have a few other options in mind and none of them involve the Crucible.

Playing along to the bullsh*t for a second, if I were Commander Shepard then god forbid I ever get into such a f*cking stupid situation as that.

Without Crucible and without cooperation with the Catalyst you and the entire Galactic Civilization will be harvested. It looks like you just have no strength to make a tough choice...

...Ending makes sense. But what doesn't make sense at all - is some people negative reaction to the ending.

Modifié par Seival, 09 décembre 2012 - 10:16 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Seival wrote...

Without Crucible and without cooperation with the Catalyst you and the entire Galactic Civilization will be harvested. You just have no strength to make a tough choice. I would understand if that was too hard for you in real life, but in game...

Could you try to be a bit more patronising and arrogant in your next post? It suits you. 

...Ending makes sense.

In what context? 

But what doesn't make sense at all - is some people negative reaction to the ending.

Add intolerant to patronising and arrogant. Opinions, everyone has them, I acknowledge your right to say and voice yours, no matter how f*cking strange it is. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 09 décembre 2012 - 10:17 .

[Dr_Extrem]

well . i guess in some universe, the endings make sense ...

just like playing colors in intruments made out of milk ...

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 09 décembre 2012 - 10:47 .

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Seival wrote...

@The Night Mammoth

If ME Universe was real, "eject disc" would not be an option. So, I guess that if you were Commander Shepard, then you would just sit near the Catalyst and cry. I suppose you would find comfort in whining about dire fate and ignoring the Catalyst, instead of choosing something you don't like to stop the Cycled harvests...

Wow, is your entire argumentative strategy just to ignore everything the opposition says and strawman the f*ck out of their posts?

...No offence, but that is pathetic. And please, don't tell me that "Mass Effect is just a game". If the story really means nothing to you, then you would not dwell on it. You would just finish the game and started to play another one, like nothing happened.

Mass Effect is just a game. Your point is irrelevant to anything I've said thus far.

Mass Effect is very deep and instructive story that requires serious attitude. So think what would you do in the end if ME Universe was real, and forget about "eject disc" option.

I have a few other options in mind and none of them involve the Crucible.

Playing along to the bullsh*t for a second, if I were Commander Shepard then god forbid I ever get into such a f*cking stupid situation as that.

Without Crucible and without cooperation with the Catalyst you and the entire Galactic Civilization will be harvested. It looks like you just have no strength to make a tough choice...

...Ending makes sense. But what doesn't make sense at all - is some people negative reaction to the ending.

You have no idea who many times I've started to respond. Only to remember that I'm dealing with someone whose banner say's he is the Catalyst. And hit the close button.

[Seival]

Do you think we will meet Sha'ira in the upcoming DLC?

...I think that would be very interesting.

[The Night Mammoth]

You have no idea whether it would be interesting or not.

[Seival]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

You have no idea whether it would be interesting or not.

Sha'ira always has something interesting to say. But usually you have to wait for months to arrive at the long-awaited meeting.