264 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

So...you disagree? You would say that a character getting shot in the head and surviving at the very beginning of a story is a DEM?

Modifié par David7204, 01 mai 2013 - 02:21 .

[Argolas]

David7204 wrote...

That is not plot armor. The fact that whoever took that shot couldn't make his point without rotating the camera to a non-canonical position should demonstrate it doesn't count for much.

It's rather intended to be a little joke in a video about something else (click if interested). However, knocking out two heavily armed and well-trained soldiers with one punch each despite they are wearing helmets, isn't that plot armor?

[PsyrenY]

iakus wrote...

I guess the Wilson recording that mentioned they restarted Shepard's neurological activity is just a minor detail...
"Greatest achievement in medical history" or somesuch? 

Not to mention the recording on Chronos where TIM's toady specifically states that Shepard is brain-dead. 

[AshenShug4r]

Optimystic_X wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

He
never stipulates what that is, and I'm not taking the chance that he
means something that I think he means. I'll sacrifice people to build a
better future with a vision and a destiny that we are in control of and
based on our terms.

Shepard actually gets a vision of
Synthesis in EC, just like s/he gets visions of the other two endings.
So yes, you do actually see what he means and can make an informed
choice without metagaming.

I can't believe what I'm reading. A 'vision' is all it takes for you to trust the mastermind behind billions of years of genocide on a galactic scale?

mind=blown. This is the nature of people who choose synthesis.

[robertthebard]

David7204 wrote...

So...you disagree? You would say that a character getting shot in the head and surviving at the very beginning of a story is a DEM?

Where are you pulling this from?  When in the story doesn't make a DeM, why does, the definition I provided shows that rather plainly.  It also explains what makes a DeM.  I have indicated that I have a friend that survived getting shot in the head.  Nothing about surviving that can be a DeM, since I have actually seen it happen, therefore it cannot be contrived, even if it did come out of nowhere.  So your hypothetical isn't really all that applicable to getting spaced, with your air tank leaking, and then falling several miles to a planet's surface.  You are going to ridiculous lengths to try to disprove something, but the farther you reach, the more obvious the reach is.

The Lazarus DeM happened one time.  It happened because, for whatever reason, BioWare decided we had to be Cerberus lap dogs for that game, and they knew most people wouldn't want to work for/with terrorists, so they did what they had to do to force you to do it.  They even gave you the false hope that you could walk away, and you can, after the SM.  I would have walked one hell of a lot sooner.  How else were they going to force you to work for/with Cerberus?  So, to solve their problem, they killed Shepard, and then, presto, Lazarus DeM.  Something that was never used before, or even hinted at, and was never used again.  That means it came out of nowhere, and hey, you know, being dead for 2 years isn't that big a deal, right?  However, since they really need Shepard to be alive, it is, after all, Shepard's story, they space magic Shepard back to life.

[robertthebard]

Optimystic_X wrote...

iakus wrote...

I guess the Wilson recording that mentioned they restarted Shepard's neurological activity is just a minor detail...
"Greatest achievement in medical history" or somesuch? 

Not to mention the recording on Chronos where TIM's toady specifically states that Shepard is brain-dead. 

Well, you see, Shepard didn't know he was dead, so it wasn't an insoluble problem.  It didn't become apparent that Shepard was dead until after Shepard wasn't dead, so, you know, it can't be a DeM.

[cljqnsnyc]

David7204 wrote...

cljqnsnyc wrote...

My Shep saved everyone and made no deals with the enemy. He remained true to himself, his friends, and allies. He didn't gain an allies' trust just to stab them in the back with genocide in the end. He didn't tell TIM he was wrong for trying to "control" the enemy, only to be proven the biggest hypocrite of all time later on. He didn't choose to take away the choices of the entire galaxy and transform them all into the new master race. He didn't say to hell with the galaxy and give it the biggest kiss off ever with his refusal....which leads to even more genocide than another of the silly starchild's schemes.

The starchild is the King Of The Repears...who have murdered billions upon billions. This is someone you will even listen to and deal with on any level? Not my Shep.

I choose MEHEM. Shep remains the same character I started years ago...the ultimate Paragon. No deals with the enemy, no betrayal of friends and allies, no hypocrisy, no new master race.

NO SILLY STARCHILD!

It's great that people made the choices they can live with for their own personal reasons. I'm glad the modding community afforded me the option to make a choice I can live with.

Your Shepard is a complete idiot, then.

...and I really care what you think.

[PsyrenY]

AshenShug4r wrote...

I can't believe what I'm reading. A 'vision' is all it takes for you to trust the mastermind behind billions of years of genocide on a galactic scale?

mind=blown. This is the nature of people who choose synthesis.

I'm not trusting him. I'm trusting the Crucible, which changed him.

How many times do you people have to be told that he is just the mouthpiece before it penetrates your skulls?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Optimystic_X wrote...

AshenShug4r wrote...

I can't believe what I'm reading. A 'vision' is all it takes for you to trust the mastermind behind billions of years of genocide on a galactic scale?

mind=blown. This is the nature of people who choose synthesis.

I'm not trusting him. I'm trusting the Crucible, which changed him.

How many times do you people have to be told that he is just the mouthpiece before it penetrates your skulls?

Worst idea for a mouth piece ever. 

Pro-tip: Using the antagonist as a mouthpiece for the final option is a narrative no-no.

Also, the Crucible is just a power source. It does nothing on its own. When combined with the Citadel (and Catalyst) it builds up its charge. The Catalyst realizes that the Crucible is able to turn that power to suit its own ends. I doubt it was built for anything other than destroy to begin with. It just so happens that the Catalyst see's that he has a power source to invoke his ideal solution. Out of all the options, though actually control has a "wtf". There's just two handles conveniently sitting at the bottom of the Citadel. What's with that? 

No, the Catalyst is more than the mouthpiece of the possibilities (minus destroy). 

Why can't you realize that?

[David7204]

robertthebard wrote...

Where are you pulling this from?  When in the story doesn't make a DeM, why does, the definition I provided shows that rather plainly.  It also explains what makes a DeM.  I have indicated that I have a friend that survived getting shot in the head.  Nothing about surviving that can be a DeM, since I have actually seen it happen, therefore it cannot be contrived, even if it did come out of nowhere.  So your hypothetical isn't really all that applicable to getting spaced, with your air tank leaking, and then falling several miles to a planet's surface.  You are going to ridiculous lengths to try to disprove something, but the farther you reach, the more obvious the reach is.

The Lazarus DeM happened one time.  It happened because, for whatever reason, BioWare decided we had to be Cerberus lap dogs for that game, and they knew most people wouldn't want to work for/with terrorists, so they did what they had to do to force you to do it.  They even gave you the false hope that you could walk away, and you can, after the SM.  I would have walked one hell of a lot sooner.  How else were they going to force you to work for/with Cerberus?  So, to solve their problem, they killed Shepard, and then, presto, Lazarus DeM.  Something that was never used before, or even hinted at, and was never used again.  That means it came out of nowhere, and hey, you know, being dead for 2 years isn't that big a deal, right?  However, since they really need Shepard to be alive, it is, after all, Shepard's story, they space magic Shepard back to life.

First of all, you ought to be a little less blatently obvious with your biases. Being so transparent only confirms my suspicions that that you're trying to come up with reasoning to justify your dislike of something; in this case, Shepard working with Cerberus. Trying to make evidence fit the conclusion instead of making your conclusion fit the evidence. It takes away from the legitimancy of your argument.

Secondly, the context within the narrative matters a great deal, and that's just the end of it. I'm sorry if your dictionary definition doesn't fully articulate that. Perhaps you should look someplace where such things are explained more throughly, such as TV tropes? (You'll of course notice that the Lazarus project is entirely absent from the examples list on the DEM page.)

Modifié par David7204, 01 mai 2013 - 07:18 .

[PsyrenY]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Worst idea for a mouth piece ever.

I agree he was a bad choice. I would have preferred the Virmire Casualty, Saren's ghost, or even pre-implant TIM, explain the Crucible options instead.

But I'm willing to to look past the messenger to the message itself, as logic requires.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Also, the Crucible is just a power source. It does nothing on its own.

It's "little more than a power source." Not quite the same as "doing nothing." It is in fact something besides a big battery, or he would have said "nothing more than a  power source" as you are trying to imply.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The Catalyst realizes that the Crucible is able to turn that power to suit its own ends. I doubt it was built for anything other than destroy to begin with.

He realizes it is capable of Synthesis, yes.

Your second statement doesn't follow. (1) the Crucible, not the Catalyst, created the possibilities. Therefore they must be endemic to the device, not to him. (2) If he created the possibilities, he has no reason to reveal Destroy or Control to you. He even tells you that he doesn't like the idea of you having Control, but the Crucible would force him to accept it. Can a simple battery, however large, coerce anyone?

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

No, the Catalyst is more than the mouthpiece of the possibilities (minus destroy). 

Why can't you realize that? 

See above.

I do acknowledge that he sees Synthesis as ideal, This is understandable, given what Synthesis does, and what he perceives to be the galaxy's main problem - neverending, cyclical conflict between synthetics and organics. Before synthesis, he saw his task as essentially hopeless, because we'd never advance fast enough to synthesize on our own before inventing AI that would destroy us. The Crucible is the shortcut that keeps us in the race.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Optimystic_X wrote...

I agree he was a bad choice. I would have preferred the Virmire Casualty, Saren's ghost, or even pre-implant TIM, explain the Crucible options instead.

But I'm willing to to look past the messenger to the message itself, as logic requires.


It's "little more than a power source." Not quite the same as "doing nothing." It is in fact something besides a big battery, or he would have said "nothing more than a  power source" as you are trying to imply.


He realizes it is capable of Synthesis, yes.

Your second statement doesn't follow. (1) the Crucible, not the Catalyst, created the possibilities. Therefore they must be endemic to the device, not to him. (2) If he created the possibilities, he has no reason to reveal Destroy or Control to you. He even tells you that he doesn't like the idea of you having Control, but the Crucible would force him to accept it. Can a simple battery, however large, coerce anyone?


See above.

I do acknowledge that he sees Synthesis as ideal, This is understandable, given what Synthesis does, and what he perceives to be the galaxy's main problem - neverending, cyclical conflict between synthetics and organics. Before synthesis, he saw his task as essentially hopeless, because we'd never advance fast enough to synthesize on our own before inventing AI that would destroy us. The Crucible is the shortcut that keeps us in the race.

I'm not willing to look past the messenger, because I believe the messenger is every bit as capable of twisting the message as he is to revealing it. Or revealing it from his own perspective without taking into account another's perspective. Or not understanding another's perspective. He's the messenger as in he is relaying what the Crucible can do with his own opinion of the options inflected.

Without meta-gaming, as I've stated before, how am I to know what the hell he means by perfect or ordered? His perfect solution might involve turning everyone and everything in the galaxy into empty husks. It fixes his problem though right? No more conflict? Perhaps he has no grasp on the organic's concept of perfection? And his own statements that, again as I've stated, don't make scientific or biological sense. As soon as he's saying those things, there are warning lights going off in my Shepard's head. Along with the whole forcing it upon a galaxy, as well as being told that 'things will be better' if I just vaporize myself in a beam. And lastly it is what he, the creator of my enemy wants. I don't believe his problem. I believe he's the problem. All of these tell me that the beam is NOT the way to go.

I think he realizes that the Crucible is a power source. Just that. A power source. I think he's able to tweak his own systems on the Citadel though to make synthesis possible. I think he is the progenitor of Synthesis from the Crucible. And as to why he would reveal the existence of Control or Destroy, I think he is compelled to state that they are possible due to programming constraints. 

And honestly, this is my perception of the Catalyst's issue:

The Problem, and the lack of method.

The Catalyst's lack of explanation for our dilemma. He proposes that the only way to prevent a singularity is to merge synthetics and organics. He fails, however to provide two things:

A: The procedure he used to arrive at his conclusion. That is to say he did not show his work.

B: He does not provide any accurate numbers for the possibility of a singularity occuring. He simply states that it will happen.

For this reason alone I simply cannot take what he has to say at face value. He is neither right or wrong. He has no ability to comment on the matter. His opinion is irrelevant. He has no basis in science or reality. If you want to prove something you must show how you arrived at your conlusion and provide data to support your claims.

*after the bolded part is taken from Taboo-XX's argument against Synthesis.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 01 mai 2013 - 10:41 .

[Uncle Jo]

David7204 wrote...

The answer to both questions is that to limit the power of organics.

Why do the Reapers lead organics down a certain path? Well, this is pretty much the same thing Legion says in ME 2. The Reapers give the Relays to organics because it ensures they will be used. It ensures that organic technology will develop along predictable paths. Without relays, there's a much greater chance organics will develop technology the Reapers don't anticipate, technology the Reapers don't know how to counter. You want your enemies to be predictable. And it also allows the Reapers to take that technology away when they invade, and deprive organics of something they've been grown dependent on.

As for the second question, it's necessity. They have to. They Reapers allow civilization to continue as long as they can, but if they wait too long, the civilization will eventually match and maybe even surpass them. They end the civilizations when they do simply because if they didn't, organics would be too powerful.

That's pretty much what I've expected as motive for the Reapers. It fits very well with Sovereign's lines on Virmire. I'd take this any day.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 01 mai 2013 - 12:31 .

[robertthebard]

David7204 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Where are you pulling this from?  When in the story doesn't make a DeM, why does, the definition I provided shows that rather plainly.  It also explains what makes a DeM.  I have indicated that I have a friend that survived getting shot in the head.  Nothing about surviving that can be a DeM, since I have actually seen it happen, therefore it cannot be contrived, even if it did come out of nowhere.  So your hypothetical isn't really all that applicable to getting spaced, with your air tank leaking, and then falling several miles to a planet's surface.  You are going to ridiculous lengths to try to disprove something, but the farther you reach, the more obvious the reach is.

The Lazarus DeM happened one time.  It happened because, for whatever reason, BioWare decided we had to be Cerberus lap dogs for that game, and they knew most people wouldn't want to work for/with terrorists, so they did what they had to do to force you to do it.  They even gave you the false hope that you could walk away, and you can, after the SM.  I would have walked one hell of a lot sooner.  How else were they going to force you to work for/with Cerberus?  So, to solve their problem, they killed Shepard, and then, presto, Lazarus DeM.  Something that was never used before, or even hinted at, and was never used again.  That means it came out of nowhere, and hey, you know, being dead for 2 years isn't that big a deal, right?  However, since they really need Shepard to be alive, it is, after all, Shepard's story, they space magic Shepard back to life.

First of all, you ought to be a little less blatently obvious with your biases. Being so transparent only confirms my suspicions that that you're trying to come up with reasoning to justify your dislike of something; in this case, Shepard working with Cerberus. Trying to make evidence fit the conclusion instead of making your conclusion fit the evidence. It takes away from the legitimancy of your argument.

Secondly, the context within the narrative matters a great deal, and that's just the end of it. I'm sorry if your dictionary definition doesn't fully articulate that. Perhaps you should look someplace where such things are explained more throughly, such as TV tropes? (You'll of course notice that the Lazarus project is entirely absent from the examples list on the DEM page.)

Maybe because they felt it was so blatantly obvious that it didn't need mentioning?  Apparently, they were wrong.

[Argolas]

Updated the OP. A few things rephrased, a lot of quotes and pictures added for illustration. Maybe too many?