739 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
It would be fallacious and contrived if I ws making the argument you claim I was making... but I wasn't.

Fair enough.  I apologize.  However, it is a good example of how use of imflammatory and provocative use of language can lead to misunderstandings and a toxic atmosphere on the board, as Deathsaurar rightly pointed out.

Tell you what. Grow some thicker skin towards opposing viewpoints, internalize the definition of a strawman argument before you use it against others, and learn to temper that temper, and I'll accept that apology.

[Farangbaa]

I really like the LSD-trip explanation better.

[Possessed Turian]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
It would be fallacious and contrived if I ws making the argument you claim I was making... but I wasn't.

Fair enough.  I apologize.  However, it is a good example of how use of imflammatory and provocative use of language can lead to misunderstandings and a toxic atmosphere on the board, as Deathsaurar rightly pointed out.

Tell you what. Grow some thicker skin towards opposing viewpoints, internalize the definition of a strawman argument before you use it against others, and learn to temper that temper, and I'll accept that apology.

why do you guys have to take the seriousness out of the page, and you guys arn't the first. on a more serious note. shepard was indoctrinated in ME2 on the IFF. the prothean beacon gave shepard the ability to fight back.

[Farangbaa]

Possessed Turian wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
It would be fallacious and contrived if I ws making the argument you claim I was making... but I wasn't.

Fair enough.  I apologize.  However, it is a good example of how use of imflammatory and provocative use of language can lead to misunderstandings and a toxic atmosphere on the board, as Deathsaurar rightly pointed out.

Tell you what. Grow some thicker skin towards opposing viewpoints, internalize the definition of a strawman argument before you use it against others, and learn to temper that temper, and I'll accept that apology.

why do you guys have to take the seriousness out of the page, and you guys arn't the first. on a more serious note. shepard was indoctrinated in ME2 on the IFF. the prothean beacon gave shepard the ability to fight back.

On the IFF? 

[CronoDragoon]

ElSuperGecko wrote...
I'm pretty sure many anti-IT'ers would, in the same way many dismiss the events of Arrival with "LOL, didn't play it, didn't happen".

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't. They'd be crowing victory.

The fact remains that the Extended Cut slides were not shipped with the
game, and not all Mass Effect players will have had the opportunity
to experience them.

Mass Effect 2 and 3 weren't shipped with 1, are they canon? You're drawing arbitrary lines on what can consider canon or not canon. "DLCs aren't canon because some players didn't buy the DLC" is not a sound argument. Some people haven't played ME1 but played ME2 or 3. Is ME1 not canon for them? Canon is what BW says is canon.

DLC is fine and dandy - I've happily bought and played all of it, for all the Mass Effect games, so I take it into account when I assess my experience and my decisions.  I'm also well aware that the vast majority of Mass Effect players have not and do not .  Quite a lot of Mass Effect 3 players will not have even played the previous games in the series.  They're not going to justify what they did/did not do by referring to material they did/did not play.

I'm not sure where this justification topic is coming in. I haven't made any commentary on how someone RPing Shepard should justify their decision at the Crucible.

Get the context right.  I asserted that it might not be true, yes.  I also asserted that it might be true, and that either way, it's irrelevant when it comes to making Shepard's final decision.

You're shouting at air. I don't care about Shepards making their decision in this thread. I'm answering your ridiculous claim that the EC slides might not have happened. Thus, whether or not you have that information at the time of the decision is irrelevant to your claim of "EC slides might not be true".

In other words, "I have no valid counter-argument, so I'm going to be snide instead".  I don't need to take solace in anything, I'm perfectly happy with my experience of Mass Effect, as far as I'm concerned it's one of the most entertaining and enjoyable games I've ever played.  Deal with that.

What actually happened is I made a snide counter-argument which you missed. The counter-argument is: you misunderstood that quote.

So you like the game: okay, dealt with! If only ITers displayed the same level of adaption to fact.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 06 décembre 2013 - 04:15 .

[Possessed Turian]

Psychevore wrote...

Possessed Turian
why do you guys have to take the seriousness out of the page, and you guys arn't the first. on a more serious note. shepard was indoctrinated in ME2 on the IFF. the prothean beacon gave shepard the ability to fight back.

On the IFF? 

on the IFF mission you were on a Reaper. the Reaper could bring up kenitic barrier meaning it is still alive. The reaper tryed to indoctrinate you, but you recieved the frame work from the prothean beacon. as for your team they survived because the reaper was to busy with you 

[ElSuperGecko]

CronoDragoon wrote...
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't. They'd be crowing victory.

Wait - Anti-IT'ers would crow victory if an IT DLC was released? 

I'm not sure where this justification topic is coming in. I haven't made any commentary on how someone RPing Shepard should justify their decision at the Crucible.

Then you're not addressing the point I was making, and are instead warbling off in an entirely different direction.

You're shouting at air. I don't care about Shepards making their decision in this thread. I'm answering your ridiculous claim that the EC slides might not have happened. Thus, whether or not you have that information at the time of the decision is irrelevant to your claim of "EC slides might not be true".

Now who's shouting at air?  Where did I make this claim exactly?  Show me.  I specifically said "the EC slides show what they show".  I have been talking about the EC slides being irrelevant when it comes to making the decision presented to you by the Catalyst.  Which you've just said above you're not actually interested in debating.

What actually happened is I made a snide counter-argument which you missed. The counter-argument is: you misunderstood that quote.

I didn't misunderstand anything - I was pointing out OTHERS use of that quote. "I've seen others say..."  I offered no opinion on it myself.  So your "snide counter-argument" is not actually a "counter-argument", just snide.  And as such, it - like the rest of your post, since you're not actually arguing the point, just arguing - can be safely ignored.

You were right about one thing, though; this WAS good! 

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 06 décembre 2013 - 05:33 .

[Kel Riever]

The thing is, love it or hate it, IT is wishful thinking.

It didn't happen. You either approve of the badly written ending or you don't. Handwaving it away with IT, as enticing a thought as it is, just denies what happened.

[AlanC9]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...
Fair enough.  I apologize.  However, it is a good example of how use of imflammatory and provocative use of language can lead to misunderstandings and a toxic atmosphere on the board, as Deathsaurar rightly pointed out.

Tell you what. Grow some thicker skin towards opposing viewpoints, internalize the definition of a strawman argument before you use it against others, and learn to temper that temper, and I'll accept that apology.

I think you might be mistaking an expedient rhetorical strategy for a thin skin here.

[AlanC9]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

I'm not sure where this justification topic is coming in. I haven't made any commentary on how someone RPing Shepard should justify their decision at the Crucible.

Then you're not addressing the point I was making, and are instead warbling off in an entirely different direction.

I didn't see what you were getting at there either. Why did you bring that up?

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 décembre 2013 - 05:52 .

[CronoDragoon]

ElSuperGecko wrote...
Wait - Anti-IT'ers would crow victory if an IT DLC was released? 

Woops, misread that. In this case, if IT DLC were released and BW said it was a continuation, then anti-ITers would indeed accept it. Because they should, because it's canon.

Now who's shouting at air?  Where did I make this claim exactly?  Show me.  I specifically said "the EC slides show what they show".  I have been talking about the EC slides being irrelevant when it comes
to making the decision presented to you by the Catalyst.  Which you've just said above you're not actually interested in debating.

So you admit the EC slides are fact? And that in turn this means the Catalyst is not lying about what the Crucible does? Cool, debate over. Continue with debating what you seem interested in debating.

I didn't misunderstand anything - I was pointing out OTHERS use of that quote. "I've seen others say..."  I
offered no opinion on it myself.  So your "snide counter-argument" is not actually a "counter-argument", just snide.  And as such, it - like the rest of your post, since you're not actually arguing the point, just arguing - can be safely ignored.

How is it not a counter-argument? "Others say this and if this is true...!" "Well, it isn't true." That's a counter-argument, although you're right that you never claimed it's what you believe.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 06 décembre 2013 - 06:05 .

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...
Wait - Anti-IT'ers would crow victory if an IT DLC was released? 

Woops, misread that. In this case, if IT DLC were released and BW said it was a continuation, then anti-ITers would indeed accept it. Because they should, because it's canon.

"Accept" doesn't mean "purchase' or "like", of course. (Incidentally, do people actually pretend that Arrival didn't happen? I've never seen that; many of us have Shepards who didn't do Arrival, but that just means it happened to someone else.)

Then you went on to talk about irrelevancy, which is not the same argument. You questioned whether the Catalyst is lying, which is demonstrable given the EC slides. If all you wanted to say was that what happens after is irrelevant to making the decision in the moment, then don't try and fit in a separate point.

I think the argument is that if you assume the slides are lies too you can still assume that the Catalyst is lying. For some ITers that's how the causality seems to work; they really, really want the Catalyst to be lying, so they make whatever assumptions are required to make it so.

[LinksOcarina]

AlanC9 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...
Wait - Anti-IT'ers would crow victory if an IT DLC was released? 

Woops, misread that. In this case, if IT DLC were released and BW said it was a continuation, then anti-ITers would indeed accept it. Because they should, because it's canon.

"Accept" doesn't mean "purchase' or "like", of course. (Incidentally, do people actually pretend that Arrival didn't happen? I've never seen that; many of us have Shepards who didn't do Arrival, but that just means it happened to someone else.)

Then you went on to talk about irrelevancy, which is not the same argument. You questioned whether the Catalyst is lying, which is demonstrable given the EC slides. If all you wanted to say was that what happens after is irrelevant to making the decision in the moment, then don't try and fit in a separate point.

I think the argument is that if you assume the slides are lies too you can still assume that the Catalyst is lying. For some ITers that's how the causality seems to work; they really, really want the Catalyst to be lying, so they make whatever assumptions are required to make it so.

This assumes the catalyst IS lying in the end as well, which honestly there is still no proof or credit to that either. 

[jtav]

@Alan

I think in this case "Arrival didn't happen" means it didn't happen to Shepard. Some early ITers tried to say the indoctrination process began with Rho and tried to insist completing Arrival was canon regardless of the game presenting an alternate scenario where Alliance marines did it.

[ImaginaryMatter]

LinksOcarina wrote...

This assumes the catalyst IS lying in the end as well, which honestly there is still no proof or credit to that either. 

I don't believe in the IT, but I've always been a little sympathetic to this point. Although there's no proof that the Catalyst is lying, there is also very little reason to believe what it's saying is true -- actually I don't think there is any. The Catalyst basically shows up, tells Shepard that it is the collective consciousness of his/her enemy, proceeds to spout off some stuff about an underlying meta-physical conflict between Organics and Synthetics, explains that the Reapers are actually 'preserving' life, and then give some solutions which all seem to require Shepard dying in some way to activate them; also that shooting this tube some how activates complex machinery.

I know Shepard is bleeding out, but it seems very unlikely that he never once thought to ask why the Catalyst should be trusted.

*edited because I screwed up the quotations*

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 06 décembre 2013 - 06:52 .

[Vicious]

SwobyJ wrote...

Vicious wrote...

I don't care about justifying Shepard's actions. The EC slides are fact. Deal with it.

indeed, people fanfic like crazy with the EC slides. Synthesis is the best ending for the galaxy, fitting it's place as the hardest one to get. Destroy is the worst and completely pointless if you have other options. Don't try to fanfic past that, 'synthesis removes diversity' blahblah. Endings slides don't say it, it didn't happen.

There was a reference back in ME2 of how much easier it would be if all the races just had the same DNA. Spoken by a Turian, no less. 

...but noooo, the universe loves diversity.

highly unlikely the turian was versed in space magic. or was thinking of space magic when he said that.

best not to fanfic past anything the ending slides say. it is what it is.

Modifié par Vicious, 06 décembre 2013 - 06:52 .

[CronoDragoon]

Regarding "what to decide in the moment": I tend to think strict RP'ing is worthless in situations where authorial intent is clear, but I'll suspend this belief for the moment. You essentially have three relevant scenarios:

Scenario 1: The Catalyst is lying and has control over what the Crucible does.

This scenario is far-fetched. You'd have to assume the Catalyst brings Shepard up and presents the choices which all lead to Synthesis as some form of ultimate troll. In this scenario Shepard is screwed and needs to Refuse for the 00.0000001% chance they win, or if he believes Synthesis actually will be better, pick any of the options.

Scenario 2: The Catalyst is lying and does not control the choices.

In this scenario you can either Refuse or choose one of the options hoping it leads to a beneficial end despite having no - I repeat: none whatsoever - clue what they do. You can attempt to play the Sherlock bluff mindgame if you want, but I don't trust myself to call an AI's buff. Close your eyes and throw darts, or go with Refuse for the 00.000001% chance. It's hard to assess probability of success in this instance because all 3 choices could do something you want, or none, or 1 or 2.

Scenario 3: The Catalyst is telling the truth about the immediate effects of the Crucible.

Pick what sounds best because it's been presented honestly. Refuse is most likely out of the question. All 3 choices are better for anyone but strict, STRICT deontologists, but that type of ethics is impossible for every Shepard.

Basically it comes down to: is the probability of Scenario 3 greater than the probability of choosing a beneficial solution that you like in Scenario 2.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 06 décembre 2013 - 09:49 .

[AlanC9]

jtav wrote...

@Alan

I think in this case "Arrival didn't happen" means it didn't happen to Shepard. Some early ITers tried to say the indoctrination process began with Rho and tried to insist completing Arrival was canon regardless of the game presenting an alternate scenario where Alliance marines did it.

Oh. Wow. Sounds a bit desperate.

[AlanC9]

LinksOcarina wrote...

I think the argument is that if you assume the slides are lies too you can still assume that the Catalyst is lying. For some ITers that's how the causality seems to work; they really, really want the Catalyst to be lying, so they make whatever assumptions are required to make it so.

This assumes the catalyst IS lying in the end as well, which honestly there is still no proof or credit to that either. 

Sure. The objective is to make the Catalyst into a lying liar who lies, by whatever means necessary. Talking about proof with an ITer is essentially futile because the conclusion drives the evidence, not the other way around.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 décembre 2013 - 08:36 .

[Deathsaurer]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Regarding "what to decide in the moment": I tend to think strict RP'ing is worthless in situations where authorial intent is clear, but I'll suspend this belief for the moment. You essentially have three relevant scenarios:

Scenario 1: The Catalyst is lying and has control over what the Crucible does.

This scenario is far-fetched. You'd have to assume the Catalyst brings Shepard up and presents the choices which all lead to Synthesis as some form of ultimate troll. In this scenario Shepard is screwed and needs to Refuse for the 00.0000001% chance they win.

Scenario 2: The Catalyst is lying and does not control the choices.

In this scenario you can either Refuse or choose one of the options hoping it leads to a beneficial end despite having no - I repeat: none whatsoever - clue what they do. You can attempt to play the Sherlock bluff mindgame if you want, but I don't trust myself to call an AI's buff. Close your eyes and throw darts, or go with Refuse for the 00.000001% chance. It's hard to assess probability of success in this instance because all 3 choices could do something you want, or none, or 1 or 2.

Scenario 3: The Catalyst is telling the truth.

Pick what sounds best because it's been presented honestly. Refuse is most likely out of the question. All 3 choices are better for anyone but strict, STRICT deontologists, but that type of ethics is impossible for every Shepard.

Basically it comes down to: is the probability of the Catalyst telling the truth greater than the probability of choosing a beneficial solution that you like in Scenario 2.

Scenario 4: You have no idea if it is telling the truth but it doesn't matter anyways.

The battle was lost as soon as Harbinger and his buddies decided it wasn't worth their time to participate in the space battle. You have nothing to lose here. Pick whatever sounds like you can live with just in case it works. If it doesn't work it's not like you're any worse off cause the battle is just mop up at this point.


The best approach IMO.

[ElSuperGecko]

CronoDragoon wrote...
Regarding "what to decide in the moment": I tend to think strict RP'ing is worthless in situations where authorial intent is clear, but I'll suspend this belief for the moment. You essentially have three relevant scenarios:..

Too simplistic. There's more.

4: The Catalyst is telling the truth but is wrong - the problem ("chaos") it was created to solve isn't truly inevitable. War between synthetics and organics is not guaranteed to happen. Or the Catlayst's own logic faulty, because there are variables is does not take into account.

5: The Catalyst is telling the truth but is trying to influence our decision - it wants us to do what is best for it, not best for us. It dimsisses Destroy as "not stopping the chaos". It's unenthusiastic about Control. But Synthesis! Holy of holies! It's the perfect solution!

....or it's lying and any of the above, or any of the above and it controls the Crucible, or any of the above and it doesn't, and so forth,and so on. We have a metric crapton of context for the Catalyst conversation, not least the war that's going on around us as we speak to it. How you interpret that context determines how you react to the Catalyst, and how you react to it's "explanations" and it's "solutions".

For me? I don't actually believe it is lying. But I don't accept it's arguments, and I don't buy into it's idea of inevitable conflict. I think it is being evasive with some of it's answers. I think it's prior actions show a lack of an "organic perspective" which led to creating the Reapers and the unimaginably horrific cycle of extinction. I think that lack of perspective leaves holes and flaws in it's logic, which is why it's "original solution" failed. I think that lack of perspective leaves it's new,"perfect solution" similarly flawed, but it is needs Shepard to act in order to put it into motion. So I think is attempting to influence Shepard's decision. I think it is playing favorites. And that it has an agenda.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

IT is a better ending, but it's not the one that was written, or intended.

If I were them, I wouldn't make an "official" statement, either, since it has plenty of negative potential consequences, and no real positive ones, given that the trilogy will not receive any further updates.

[Deathsaurer]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
Regarding
"what to decide in the moment": I tend to think strict RP'ing is
worthless in situations where authorial intent is clear, but I'll
suspend this belief for the moment. You essentially have three relevant
scenarios:..

Too simplistic. There's more.

4: The Catalyst is telling the truth but is wrong - the problem ("chaos") it was created to solve isn't truly inevitable. War between synthetics and organics is not guaranteed to happen. Or the Catlayst's own logic faulty, because there are variables is does not take into account.

5: The Catalyst is telling the truth but is trying to influence our decision - it wants us to do what is best for it, not best for us. It dimsisses Destroy as "not stopping the chaos". It's unenthusiastic about Control. But Synthesis! Holy of holies! It's the perfect solution!

....or it's lying and any of the above, or any of the above and it controls the Crucible, or any of the above and it doesn't, and so forth,and so on. We have a metric crapton of context for the Catalyst conversation, not least the war that's going on around us as we speak to it. How you interpret that context determines how you react
to the Catalyst, and how you react to it's "explanations" and it's "solutions".

For me? I don't actually believe it is lying. But I don't accept it's arguments, and I don't buy into it's idea of
inevitable conflict. I think it is being evasive with some of it's answers. I think it's prior actions show a lack of an "organic perspective" which led to creating the Reapers and the unimaginably horrific cycle of extinction. I think that lack of perspective leaves holes and flaws in it's logic, which is why it's "original solution"
failed. I think that lack of perspective leaves it's new,"perfect solution" similarly flawed, but it is needs Shepard to act in order to put it into motion. So I think is attempting to influence Shepard's decision. I think it is playing favorites. And that it has an agenda.

While true I don't think any of that is particularly important for picking something. I personally think Leviathan was enough to make be believe it believes what it says but that doesn't factor into my choice at all. I don't agree with their views on why the whole mess started and I don't agree with the way their creation does things even if it thinks it's for the the best. I pick what suits my Shepard's character not what the Catalyst wants.

Modifié par Deathsaurer, 06 décembre 2013 - 08:48 .

[AlanC9]

ElSuperGecko wrote...
4: The Catalyst is telling the truth but is wrong - the problem ("chaos") it was created to solve isn't truly inevitable. War between synthetics and organics is not guaranteed to happen. Or the Catlayst's own logic faulty, because there are variables is does not take into account.
5: The Catalyst is telling the truth but is trying to influence our decision - it wants us to do what is best for it, not best for us. It dimsisses Destroy as "not stopping the chaos". It's unenthusiastic about Control. But Synthesis! Holy of holies! It's the perfect solution!

These are just subsets of 3. I suppose decision-making might be a bit different under 4, though I don't see what difference 5 makes. 

Actually, you haven't offered any defect in three-point scheme, since CronoDragoon wasn't getting into how Shepard should evaluate the choices beyond whether they're real or not. Your own interpretation is not different from point 3, unless you think "presented honestly" means something beyond the Catalyst telling the truth as it understands the truth, which is all I think CronoDragoon meant.

FWIW, your interpretation is identical to mine.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 décembre 2013 - 09:00 .