439 réponses à ce sujet

[Eterna]

 Yep. Tonight on of my friends came over and I convinced her to play the end of ME3. When the Starkid appeared she said the typical "wut"

 I was sure she would end up being confused by what she said, but I couldn't believe the words that came out of her mouth. She said, and I quote: "Oh I get it, so the Reapers are like fire. They burn away the bigger trees so the smaller trees have a chance to grow".

 I literally laughed out loud and so did she when the Catalyst said his cleansing fire line. She ended up picking synthesis. She said the ending was pretty good, but depressing. 

 So my question is, why cant you guys comprehend the Catalysts logic when a complete newbie to the series can? 

Modifié par Eterna5, 02 janvier 2013 - 05:12 .

[millsenberry]

let her invest 100+ hours into a character & then see if she still understands?

[JasonSic]

How many girlfriends do you have?

[Zazzerka]

She played only the ending? Then she had zero context.

With only the Catalyst's conversation to go on, it sounds more legitimate. Synthetics will always rebel, this is why, here is how we can fix it.

Did she also achieve peace on Rannoch? Did she follow EDI's development?

[KiwiQuiche]

Because she didn't play the games, get introduced to the lore, characters and universe and then have it all butchered to sh!t in the conclusion.

And yes, how many girlfriends do you have?

EDIT: Unless you are one of those "I have a friend who is female thus I must constantly refer to her as girlfriend so everyone knows her gender because reasons"

Modifié par KiwiQuiche, 01 janvier 2013 - 09:58 .

[Fnork]

First troll of 2013 ?

[Eterna]

GT Zazzerka wrote...

She played only the ending? Then she had zero context.

With only the Catalyst's conversation to go on, it sounds more legitimate. Synthetics will always rebel, this is why, here is how we can fix it.

Did she also achieve peace on Rannoch? Did she follow EDI's development?

I told her what the Geth were and who EDI was. Not in great detail but she got the overall picture. Anyways, you don't need those to understand the Catalysts point. 

[Eterna]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Because she didn't play the games, get introduced to the lore, characters and universe and then have it all butchered to sh!t in the conclusion.

And yes, how many girlfriends do you have?

You don't need to know the characters, lore and universe to understand his point. 

Also I'm gay, I use the word girlfriend just to imply that she is a girl. 

[KiwiQuiche]

Eterna5 wrote...

GT Zazzerka wrote...

She played only the ending? Then she had zero context.

With only the Catalyst's conversation to go on, it sounds more legitimate. Synthetics will always rebel, this is why, here is how we can fix it.

Did she also achieve peace on Rannoch? Did she follow EDI's development?

I told her what the Geth were and who EDI was. Not in great detail but she got the overall picture. Anyways, you don't need those to understand the Catalysts point. 

So you just summerized up those characters in a few sentences and she automatically knows their depth and personalities and importance.

...what the hell, yes you do need to understand them, that way you know how stupidly wrong Starbrat is.

[Eterna]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

GT Zazzerka wrote...

She played only the ending? Then she had zero context.

With only the Catalyst's conversation to go on, it sounds more legitimate. Synthetics will always rebel, this is why, here is how we can fix it.

Did she also achieve peace on Rannoch? Did she follow EDI's development?

I told her what the Geth were and who EDI was. Not in great detail but she got the overall picture. Anyways, you don't need those to understand the Catalysts point. 

So you just summerized up those characters in a few sentences and she automatically knows their depth and personalities and importance.

...what the hell, yes you do need to understand them, that way you know how stupidly wrong Starbrat is.

He isn't wrong though, The geth did rebel and almost cause the extinction of their creators. Would peace have been achieved without Shepard? Or would the Quarians have just died? 

Shepard being an exception to the rule does not disprove the rule.  The whole Galaxy bends to shepards whims, but what happens if SHepard isn't there?

Modifié par Eterna5, 01 janvier 2013 - 10:02 .

[millsenberry]

i know the majority of you have seen this, but this sums up the catalyt's logic perfectly.

Modifié par millsenberry, 01 janvier 2013 - 10:02 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Eterna5 wrote...

GT Zazzerka wrote...

She played only the ending? Then she had zero context.

With only the Catalyst's conversation to go on, it sounds more legitimate. Synthetics will always rebel, this is why, here is how we can fix it.

Did she also achieve peace on Rannoch? Did she follow EDI's development?

I told her what the Geth were and who EDI was. Not in great detail but she got the overall picture. Anyways, you don't need those to understand the Catalysts point. 

Then any understanding of the Catalyst's point its worthless without an understanding of everything else. 

Also, I'm confused as to where you found any logic to understand. The Catalyst doesn't convey a logical argument or idea, it just asserts something without proof or explanation. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 01 janvier 2013 - 10:03 .

[Eterna]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

GT Zazzerka wrote...

She played only the ending? Then she had zero context.

With only the Catalyst's conversation to go on, it sounds more legitimate. Synthetics will always rebel, this is why, here is how we can fix it.

Did she also achieve peace on Rannoch? Did she follow EDI's development?

I told her what the Geth were and who EDI was. Not in great detail but she got the overall picture. Anyways, you don't need those to understand the Catalysts point. 

Then any understanding of the Catalyst's point its worthless without an understanding of everything else. 

Why?

[Fnork]

Why did you leave out the part about the inevitable conflict between organics and synthetics the Catalyst keeps harping on ? See how she does with her forest fire analogy once you point that out.

Also, if people say Starjar doesn't make much sense that doesn't mean they don't understand what he's saying.

[Eterna]

Fnork wrote...

Why did you leave out the part about the inevitable conflict between organics and synthetics the Catalyst keeps harping on ? See how she does with her forest fire analogy once you point that out.

Also, if people say Starjar doesn't make much sense that doesn't mean they don't understand what he's saying.

But the Geth did rebel. Shepard making peace between the two doesn't make the catalyst wrong. 

[KiwiQuiche]

Eterna5 wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

GT Zazzerka wrote...

She played only the ending? Then she had zero context.

With only the Catalyst's conversation to go on, it sounds more legitimate. Synthetics will always rebel, this is why, here is how we can fix it.

Did she also achieve peace on Rannoch? Did she follow EDI's development?

I told her what the Geth were and who EDI was. Not in great detail but she got the overall picture. Anyways, you don't need those to understand the Catalysts point. 

So you just summerized up those characters in a few sentences and she automatically knows their depth and personalities and importance.

...what the hell, yes you do need to understand them, that way you know how stupidly wrong Starbrat is.

He isn't wrong though, The geth did rebel and almost cause the extinction of their creators. Would peace have been achieved without Shepard? Or would the Quarians have just died? 

Shepard being an exception to the rule does not disprove the rule.  The whole Galaxy bends to shepards whims, but what happens if SHepard isn't there?

Geth rebelled since the Quarians were trying to kill them all because they have become self-aware. Dude.

Then there is no Mass Effect series, duh.

[Carlos3lance]

It's not that we don't comprehend..Sure, it makes sense. If you remember that prothean sphere in Me1, the one you insert Sha'ira's trinket in, it gives you a flashback of prehistorical man being studied by the protheans.

Mankind and other races in that stage were left alone to grow and prosper while protheans and their supporting races were whiped out.

From a cold, calculating perspective, the measure is like landscaping. But come on, pulling weeds and chopping up trees can't possibly apply to sentient races

We, who are invested wholly in the ME universe and it's characters are a bit to attached to let that fly - someone new who just got into it might not be as biased.

[The Night Mammoth]

Eterna5 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

GT Zazzerka wrote...

She played only the ending? Then she had zero context.

With only the Catalyst's conversation to go on, it sounds more legitimate. Synthetics will always rebel, this is why, here is how we can fix it.

Did she also achieve peace on Rannoch? Did she follow EDI's development?

I told her what the Geth were and who EDI was. Not in great detail but she got the overall picture. Anyways, you don't need those to understand the Catalysts point. 

Then any understanding of the Catalyst's point its worthless without an understanding of everything else. 

Why?

Because there's no context. Like being told the answer to a question without being told what the question is. 

So she knows what some character at the end of the story said, but how can she then apply that to anything? How can she comment on its worth as part of the narrative, or as an idea? 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 01 janvier 2013 - 10:08 .

[Jadebaby]

Eterna5 wrote...

 Yep. Tonight on of my girlfriends came over and I convinced her to play the end of ME3. When the Starkid appeared she said the typical "wut"

 I was sure she would end up being confused by what she said, but I couldn't believe the words that came out of her mouth. She said, and I quote: "Oh I get it, so the Reapers are like fire. They burn away the bigger trees so the smaller trees have a chance to grow."

this isn't understanding the catalysts logic.. This is an STO (stating the obvious). It's clear to anyone with half a brain that this is what the catalyst is doing. its the motivation of *why* it has to do this that is flawed.

so what did we learn here? That your girlfriend has half a brain.

Well done, good thread.

Modifié par Jade8aby88, 01 janvier 2013 - 10:08 .

[Eterna]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

GT Zazzerka wrote...

She played only the ending? Then she had zero context.

With only the Catalyst's conversation to go on, it sounds more legitimate. Synthetics will always rebel, this is why, here is how we can fix it.

Did she also achieve peace on Rannoch? Did she follow EDI's development?

I told her what the Geth were and who EDI was. Not in great detail but she got the overall picture. Anyways, you don't need those to understand the Catalysts point. 

So you just summerized up those characters in a few sentences and she automatically knows their depth and personalities and importance.

...what the hell, yes you do need to understand them, that way you know how stupidly wrong Starbrat is.

He isn't wrong though, The geth did rebel and almost cause the extinction of their creators. Would peace have been achieved without Shepard? Or would the Quarians have just died? 

Shepard being an exception to the rule does not disprove the rule.  The whole Galaxy bends to shepards whims, but what happens if SHepard isn't there?

Geth rebelled since the Quarians were trying to kill them all because they have become self-aware. Dude.

Then there is no Mass Effect series, duh.

The circumstances doesn't change the fact that they rebelled and almost drove an organic species to extinction.  If Shepard wasn;t there the Quarians would have went extinct. 

[The Night Mammoth]

Eterna5 wrote...

The circumstances doesn't change the fact that they rebelled and almost drove an organic species to extinction.  If Shepard wasn;t there the Quarians would have went extinct. 

If the Reapers weren't there the Quarians could well have wiped out the Geth. 

But instead they chose to forcibly take control of them and use the Geth as weapons against the Quarians, comepelling them to wipe out a species of organics, an action which contradicts their purpose and objective in two ways.

[KiwiQuiche]

Eterna5 wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...



He isn't wrong though, The geth did rebel and almost cause the extinction of their creators. Would peace have been achieved without Shepard? Or would the Quarians have just died? 

Shepard being an exception to the rule does not disprove the rule.  The whole Galaxy bends to shepards whims, but what happens if SHepard isn't there?

Geth rebelled since the Quarians were trying to kill them all because they have become self-aware. Dude.

Then there is no Mass Effect series, duh.

The circumstances doesn't change the fact that they rebelled and almost drove an organic species to extinction.  If Shepard wasn;t there the Quarians would have went extinct. 

Oh yes it does. They didn't just go "Huh lets kill all the Creators 'cause durr" one day. The Geth asked a question about their soul and the Quarians flew off the handle and tried to kill them all. The Geth in response kicked the sh!t out the Quarians. Also, the Geth spared the Quarians when the Quarians would have killed all the Geth if they had remained passive.

Did your gf know that, or just the "The robots a race created tried to kill them on noes"

Modifié par KiwiQuiche, 01 janvier 2013 - 10:12 .

[Darth Malice113]

*sigh*

[Fnork]

Safe to say that if she missed that part she doesn't understand the Catalyst while everyone here seems to have a clue. What's the point of this thread again ?