606 réponses à ce sujet

[deatharmonic]

David7204 wrote...

This garbage is really the best you can you do? I ask you to explain how it's racist, and the explanation you give me is "It's racist, if you don't see it, I'm done"?

I don't know if you are intentionally trying to annoy Fandango or if you missed this but he gave his explanation on the last page...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Really? Destroy is a choice that
validates the Catalysts racist mandate in that it necessitates the
wholesale slaughter all forms of synthetic life.

[Maxster_]

Eryri wrote...

hpjay wrote...

If the catalyst is really insane or stuck in some tragic misunderstanding than we should have been allowed to challenge his basic assumptions about the life, the universe galaxy, and everything.   Instead, and the extended cut made this clear, in terms of narative, we can only listen to and accept his reasons.

Bottom line:  for some of us the idea that two races, two intelligent, sentient, sapient races, cannot peacefully coexist simply because one is based on carbon and the other on silicon, is offfensive.

Agreed. I'm simply not interested in this metaphysical claptrap, shoehorned into an otherwise enjoyable space opera in the last 10 minutes. And in the context of the game, Shepard's experiences with the Geth and Edi should lead to question if the Catalyst's "problem" even exists. 

More funny, that is when one organic race wiping out another - it is not considered as a problem, but when synthetic race wiping out organic one - it is.
And yes, there is no "problem" at all, Catalyst just applies not working "solution" to a non-existant "problem". Because he, as is his creators, is crazy and stupid.

Modifié par Maxster_, 15 juin 2013 - 02:00 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Meh, David's assuming things again so that he has something to argue about. Just another day on the BBA.

Its the manufacturing of what my, or someone else, opinion that annoys me.

Is he well known for this?

He's well known for being undeservedly smug and very argumentative, but I've noticed he assumes things about people's arguments, strawmans, generally stears the argument in a direction that actually gives him something to say. 

It's about the only actual thing he does. David loves to make ad hominem arguments to make himself seem superior. Though through this, he's completely exhausted any possible credibility to his opinion regarding things. I think he'd be a lot easier for people to deal with if they actually just stopped taking him so seriously.

The most I'll say about him is that he has his own... unorthodox interpretation of the games, of stories, and of life in general, and David feels the need to antagonistically enforce his idea's by attacking other people's idea's, and attacking them directly. He really is no different from users such as Auld Wulf or the OP of this thread. Once in a very, very blue moon, he'll actually be reasonable.

Consider him one of those people of the BSN that is known for being outlandish, like the above mentioned. His posts are more comical than anything else most of the time. If anyone takes his posts seriously at this point, I feel sorry for you.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 15 juin 2013 - 02:20 .

[hpjay]

Maxster_ wrote...

Eryri wrote...

hpjay wrote...

If the catalyst is really insane or stuck in some tragic misunderstanding than we should have been allowed to challenge his basic assumptions about the life, the universe galaxy, and everything.   Instead, and the extended cut made this clear, in terms of narative, we can only listen to and accept his reasons.

Bottom line:  for some of us the idea that two races, two intelligent, sentient, sapient races, cannot peacefully coexist simply because one is based on carbon and the other on silicon, is offfensive.

Agreed. I'm simply not interested in this metaphysical claptrap, shoehorned into an otherwise enjoyable space opera in the last 10 minutes. And in the context of the game, Shepard's experiences with the Geth and Edi should lead to question if the Catalyst's "problem" even exists. 

More funny, that is when one organic race wiping out another - it is not considered as a problem, but when synthetic race wiping out organic one - it is.
And yes, there is no "problem" at all, Catalyst just applies not working "solution" to a non-existant "problem". Because he, as is his creators, is crazy and stupid.

  



You seem confused.  No one said that when carbon based life forms are attacking other carbon based life forms, it isn't a problem.  Anytime one group thinks it needs to attack another group, it's a problem; no matter if the groups involved are carbon based or silicon based or some combination of the two.  That is exactly the reason we think " he, as is his creators, is crazy and stupid" at the least.  But the game didn't portray the Citadel Kid and his creators and Reaper brethern as crazy and stupid...  they were portrayed  as seriously reasonable and thier solution was as a legitimate problem that needed to be solved.

Or have I misunderstood you?  I've been known to do that.  

(SQUEEE...  I just refinished ME1.  Shepard's smile as she walks out of the wreckage after the battle with Soveriegn = Awesome.)

Modifié par hpjay, 15 juin 2013 - 02:43 .

[Maxster_]

hpjay wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Eryri wrote...

hpjay wrote...

If the catalyst is really insane or stuck in some tragic misunderstanding than we should have been allowed to challenge his basic assumptions about the life, the universe galaxy, and everything.   Instead, and the extended cut made this clear, in terms of narative, we can only listen to and accept his reasons.

Bottom line:  for some of us the idea that two races, two intelligent, sentient, sapient races, cannot peacefully coexist simply because one is based on carbon and the other on silicon, is offfensive.

Agreed. I'm simply not interested in this metaphysical claptrap, shoehorned into an otherwise enjoyable space opera in the last 10 minutes. And in the context of the game, Shepard's experiences with the Geth and Edi should lead to question if the Catalyst's "problem" even exists. 

More funny, that is when one organic race wiping out another - it is not considered as a problem, but when synthetic race wiping out organic one - it is.
And yes, there is no "problem" at all, Catalyst just applies not working "solution" to a non-existant "problem". Because he, as is his creators, is crazy and stupid.

  



You seem confused.

That is your delusion.

 No one said that when carbon based life forms are attacking other carbon based life forms, it isn't a problem.

"Withous us, synthetics will destroy all organics".
Not only this is nonsense ans insanity, it also says, that synthetics will destroy all organics(which is false) and that this is a problem.
When organics destroying organics - is not.

 Anytime one group thinks it needs to attack another group, it's a problem; no matter if the groups involved are carbon based or silicon based or some combination of the two.

And this, of course, is completely unrelated to Catalyst's mumbling.

 That is exactly the reason we think " he, as is his creators, is crazy and stupid" at the least.

No, we think that he, as is his creators, is crazy and stupid - because they are.
For Leviathans - they decided that synthetics will destroy all organics - which never happened - meaning that they are crazy.
And then, when they "diagnosed" a "problem" of "synthetics destroying organics" and "created will always rebel against their creators", - they, then, created a synthetic, which, by their own diagnosis, will definitely rebel against them, - to solve a problem of synthetics rebelling against their creators.
Thus, they are not only crazy, they are also retarded.

 But the game didn't portray the Citadel Kid and his creators and Reaper brethern as crazy and stupid...  they were portrayed  as seriously reasonable and thier solution was as a legitimate problem that needed to be solved.

Sure :lol::lol:

[hpjay]

Maxster_ wrote...

hpjay wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Eryri wrote...

hpjay wrote...

If the catalyst is really insane or stuck in some tragic misunderstanding than we should have been allowed to challenge his basic assumptions about the life, the universe galaxy, and everything.   Instead, and the extended cut made this clear, in terms of narative, we can only listen to and accept his reasons.

Bottom line:  for some of us the idea that two races, two intelligent, sentient, sapient races, cannot peacefully coexist simply because one is based on carbon and the other on silicon, is offfensive.

Agreed. I'm simply not interested in this metaphysical claptrap, shoehorned into an otherwise enjoyable space opera in the last 10 minutes. And in the context of the game, Shepard's experiences with the Geth and Edi should lead to question if the Catalyst's "problem" even exists. 

More funny, that is when one organic race wiping out another - it is not considered as a problem, but when synthetic race wiping out organic one - it is.
And yes, there is no "problem" at all, Catalyst just applies not working "solution" to a non-existant "problem". Because he, as is his creators, is crazy and stupid.

  



You seem confused.

That is your delusion.

 No one said that when carbon based life forms are attacking other carbon based life forms, it isn't a problem.

"Withous us, synthetics will destroy all organics".
Not only this is nonsense ans insanity, it also says, that synthetics will destroy all organics(which is false) and that this is a problem.
When organics destroying organics - is not.

 Anytime one group thinks it needs to attack another group, it's a problem; no matter if the groups involved are carbon based or silicon based or some combination of the two.

And this, of course, is completely unrelated to Catalyst's mumbling.

 That is exactly the reason we think " he, as is his creators, is crazy and stupid" at the least.

No, we think that he, as is his creators, is crazy and stupid - because they are.
For Leviathans - they decided that synthetics will destroy all organics - which never happened - meaning that they are crazy.
And then, when they "diagnosed" a "problem" of "synthetics destroying organics" and "created will always rebel against their creators", - they, then, created a synthetic, which, by their own diagnosis, will definitely rebel against them, - to solve a problem of synthetics rebelling against their creators.
Thus, they are not only crazy, they are also retarded.

 But the game didn't portray the Citadel Kid and his creators and Reaper brethern as crazy and stupid...  they were portrayed  as seriously reasonable and thier solution was as a legitimate problem that needed to be solved.

Sure :lol::lol:

 At this point you might as well be speaking a completely different language.  Aside from using the same words here and there your posts and mine seem to be about completely different things.

[Draining Dragon]

Sacrifice was never a primary theme of Mass Effect.

The primary theme was unity. That would be why, you know, we were cleaning up everybody's back yards for them.

[Iakus]

David7204 wrote...

Maybe so. That doesn't mean picking Destroy is supporting a 'racist mantra.'

I wonder how many people don't think genociding all synthetic life to save organics isn't racist, but think Ashley WIlliams's "bear and the dog" analogy is?

Modifié par iakus, 15 juin 2013 - 06:20 .

[jtav]

Well if you don't think AIs could have personhood, but aliens could if they existed...

[Reorte]

Maxster_ wrote...

hpjay wrote...

 But the game didn't portray the Citadel Kid and his creators and Reaper brethern as crazy and stupid...  they were portrayed  as seriously reasonable and thier solution was as a legitimate problem that needed to be solved.

Sure :lol::lol:

It depends upon what view you're taking as to whether or not that's correct. The intention was to portray them as hpjay said - that's what the audience was supposed to think. Unfortunately that's not what happened because the audience was mostly rather more intelligent than given credit for and didn't just lap up any old nonsense because it tried to be said with a straight face.

It's a classic case of a story claiming one think for a character yet unintentionally making him something else, such as if a writer keeps telling us a character is a genius yet constantly makes him behave like an idiot.

[Reorte]

iakus wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Maybe so. That doesn't mean picking Destroy is supporting a 'racist mantra.'

I wonder how many people don't think genociding all synthetic life to save organics is racist, but think Ashley WIlliams's "bear and the dog" analogy is?

Her analogy is racist because of the assumtion that it's a valid analogy. A very big difference between an alien and a dog is that the alien is sapient and the dog is not. The Destroy decision though is making a choice against the Reapers (who would kill the synthetics anyway) and, given that the alternatives are even worse and you've 100% only got those choices to pick, is not racist.

Whether something is racist or not is 100% down to the motivation behind the action and not the action itself.

[Maxster_]

Reorte wrote...

iakus wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Maybe so. That doesn't mean picking Destroy is supporting a 'racist mantra.'

I wonder how many people don't think genociding all synthetic life to save organics is racist, but think Ashley WIlliams's "bear and the dog" analogy is?

Her analogy is racist because of the assumtion that it's a valid analogy. A very big difference between an alien and a dog is that the alien is sapient and the dog is not. The Destroy decision though is making a choice against the Reapers (who would kill the synthetics anyway) and, given that the alternatives are even worse and you've 100% only got those choices to pick, is not racist.

Irrelevant.
Analogy was about interstellar politics, and it is completely correct, given the lore and history of MEU.
And of course, there is nothing racist in it.

Whether something is racist or not is 100% down to the motivation behind the action and not the action itself.

This is false.
Look at the genocide examples(or rights inequality set in laws) in human history, and say that actions doesn't matters.

[Benchpress610]

It’s always amused me how some people attribute to piece of writing a meaning that was never intended by the writer. I imagine whoever wrote the ending of ME3 having a good chuckle reading all these far flung interpretations and deep meaning of what he/they wrote….You’re right OP, I don’t get it. I have no clue what that whole deranged episode at the end means. My opinion, whoever wrote it has no clue either. At least I haven’t heard anyone from BioWare addressing the issue. Their silence speaks volumes.
 
About sacrifice; if you perceive the main theme of the ending as sacrifice, then that’s YOUR own interpretation and that’s fine. As they say: perception is reality. However that doesn’t invalidates other people’s perception and make it less relevant for their interpretation.  
 
My view is, although there are some instances of sacrifice through the series and the end, it is not the main theme. Sacrifice implies giving something dear or of value in exchange for a greater good in the eyes of the giver. It also implies the action being VOLUNTARY. Shepard doesn’t choose to die. He’s just given the choice of how to die and the implications of each choice. He’s just handed down a verdict and a death sentence of which he absolutely has no say in the matter. If you want to call that sacrifice, I’d say is more like this type of sacrifice (WARNING: graphic, violent content)

[Iakus]

Benchpress610 wrote...

It’s always amused me how some people attribute to piece of writing a meaning that was never intended by the writer. I imagine whoever wrote the ending of ME3 having a good chuckle reading all these far flung interpretations and deep meaning of what he/they wrote….You’re right OP, I don’t get it. I have no clue what that whole deranged episode at the end means. My opinion, whoever wrote it has no clue either. At least I haven’t heard anyone from BioWare addressing the issue. Their silence speaks volumes.
 

Wonder if they'll still be chuckling as they try to win back the fans they alienated in ME3

[Maxster_]

iakus wrote...

Benchpress610 wrote...

It’s always amused me how some people attribute to piece of writing a meaning that was never intended by the writer. I imagine whoever wrote the ending of ME3 having a good chuckle reading all these far flung interpretations and deep meaning of what he/they wrote….You’re right OP, I don’t get it. I have no clue what that whole deranged episode at the end means. My opinion, whoever wrote it has no clue either. At least I haven’t heard anyone from BioWare addressing the issue. Their silence speaks volumes.
 

Wonder if they'll still be chuckling as they try to win back the fans they alienated in ME3

The question is - do they really need their former fanbase?

[Benchpress610]

iakus wrote...

Benchpress610 wrote...

It’s always amused me how some people attribute to piece of writing a meaning that was never intended by the writer. I imagine whoever wrote the ending of ME3 having a good chuckle reading all these far flung interpretations and deep meaning of what he/they wrote….You’re right OP, I don’t get it. I have no clue what that whole deranged episode at the end means. My opinion, whoever wrote it has no clue either. At least I haven’t heard anyone from BioWare addressing the issue. Their silence speaks volumes.
 

Wonder if they'll still be chuckling as they try to win back the fans they alienated in ME3

Guess not....

[Draining Dragon]

How can you be racist against machines?

They aren't alive. No matter how intelligent a machine is, it's not alive.

[Paranoidal nemesis]

txgoldrush wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Sacrifice is what you made it to be, not what it is. Fact and opinion are very different things.

In reality, the ending was about listining to the nonsensical story of Holographic kid and then shooting attube/grab two electrified rods/jump into a beam to produce a red/blue/green wave, that's it.

No, you refuse to except facts.

Nevermind Hudson described ME3 as "victory through sacrifice"....his exact words.

You can accept that sacrifice is the main theme, or you can continue to be ignorant about it, refusing to accept this fact.

Once again, tell me, why does the three main endings all end in taking about sacrifice with the memorial wall scene?

Maybe because, its the main theme.

Then Hudson must be sadly mistake about what the meaning of victory is.  Here is the word he should have used...

Ultimatum: a final proposition, condition, or demand; especially[/i] :[/b] one whose rejection will end negotiations and cause a resort to force or other direct action.

[Mcfly616]

Draining Dragon wrote...

Sacrifice was never a primary theme of Mass Effect.

The primary theme was unity.

there is no "primary" theme of Mass Effect. It's completely subjective

[TheProtheans]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Draining Dragon wrote...

Sacrifice was never a primary theme of Mass Effect.

The primary theme was unity.

there is no "primary" theme of Mass Effect. It's completely subjective

Bulls**t, speculation is the primary theme of Mass effect.
It is a fact!

[hpjay]

Draining Dragon wrote...

How can you be racist against machines?

They aren't alive. No matter how intelligent a machine is, it's not alive.

I'm a machine based on the chemistry of carbon and I'm alive...  I think.  So EDI and Legion are machines based on the physics of silicon.  A couple of spots on the periodic table shouldn't make a difference.

[hpjay]

Benchpress610 wrote...

It’s always amused me how some people attribute to piece of writing a meaning that was never intended by the writer.

 

It matters less what the autor put there and matters more what the reader/player finds there.  Read Robert Frost's Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening.  That poem is rich with interpretation.  It means allot of different things to alot of different people.  But to Frost it was simply a poem about a guy going thru the woods...  he didn't intend any deeper meaning.

[FlamingBoy]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Draining Dragon wrote...

Sacrifice was never a primary theme of Mass Effect.

The primary theme was unity.

there is no "primary" theme of Mass Effect. It's completely subjective

Yes subjectiveness, you know else is subjective the meaning of the bulkhead in shepards quarters

Could it be a metaphor of inpentrability of shepards personality which can only be pierce by a reaper phaser, hence the reapers as a result are dentists

Dentistry is the main theme! Rejoice fellow players!!! I have found the answer with out logical fact, but through hiding my far flung theory behind the fact I am subjective.....