435 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

David7204 wrote...

He disagrees with you because he agrees with you, huh?

no, he agrees with me that the ending is not speculative but morally ambiguous, you fail to make a distinction between the two

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I wonder if I'll see my list of fallacies addressed...

[ruggly]

I'm pretty sure I didn't ask to be railroaded into sacrificing Shepard in practically every ending. I don't mind that there was clearly a good chance that Shepard was going to die, but don't force me into it In fact, I think Shepard sacrificing themselves in control makes complete sense to me, but in synthesis it just seems really tacky. Plus killing off EDI and the Geth in destroy just to put the other two in a much better light is just contrived. There must have been a better way.

[Dextro Milk]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I wonder if I'll see my list of fallacies addressed...

Not sure if you want to wait around that long. 

[FlamingBoy]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I wonder if I'll see my list of fallacies addressed...

Wouldn't you much rather a circular argument where no one really has any idea what anyone else is talking about!

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

You said the ending of ME 1 isn't ambiguous. Crimzontearz says it is.

Yes

[David7204]

Your 'list of fallacies' is a list of garbled nonsense. A clumsy attempt at feigning credibility by listing off as many pretty vaguely debate-related terms you know or bothered to look up.

[Steelcan]

crimzontearz wrote...

David7204 wrote...

He disagrees with you because he agrees with you, huh?

no, he agrees with me that the ending is not speculative but morally ambiguous, you fail to make a distinction between the two

yes

[Wolfva2]

FlamingBoy wrote...

In no way is me3 is capable of anything close to basic logic or rationality, to build a weapon which you don't know how it works is not a rational militaristic decision.
For a weapon to be built with 3 functions as if making an atomic bomb that either blows up, becomes a theme park, and delievers new born babies to their mother is just as logical.
The catalyst cannot be destroyed (easily), he has "prophecies", he has great "wisdom" of the galaxies past, and he can determine the life and death of every individual in the galaxy. He can be easily classified as a god.

Hindi polythesism ties very closely with juedo-christian beliefs which is all really needs to be said about it.

Ok, inre the lack of logic in building the crucible...I gots nuttin.  I rolled my eyes when I realized that was the mission.  I mean, c'mon.  We're gonna build something that we HOPE is a weapon that MIGHT take out the reapers but we have no clue what it is?!?  Riiiiight.  Then I remembered this is just a story and not a documentary, took a deep breath, and shut my brain off <LOL>.  Sometimes that helps.

I've long said in my opinion the game should have ended with the crucible and citadel meteing up, Anderson dying, and Shepard watching the Earth as the Reapers blew up.  BUT, BW obviously disagreed with me.  I think they made a bad choice, but what can I do about it?  Complain incessantly?  That won't do nothing except make me mad at the game, and something I enjoyed greatly will be diminished until I'm just a seething, roiling pot of vitriol snapping at people on the forum for liking it.

Everything you say about the Catalyst inre it's godhood could apply to say...Hernando Cortez.  I'm sure when the Aztecs saw this man with skin like steel who could kill just by pointing a rod at people they thought he WAS a god.  Beings of vastly greater technology are often seen as gods.  Are they?  Well, I guess that depends on your definition.  The Reapers do nothing that anyone else can't do with the same tech.  So I'd say they aren't.

[crimzontearz]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

You said the ending of ME 1 isn't ambiguous. Crimzontearz says it is.

Yes

just so he stops...you agree that ME1's ending is not ambiguous in the fact that the events are certain and defined but it IS morally ambiguous in its decision to save the destiny ascension and the council or let them die?

[Steelcan]

crimzontearz wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

You said the ending of ME 1 isn't ambiguous. Crimzontearz says it is.

Yes

just so he stops...you agree that ME1's ending is not ambiguous in the fact that the events are certain and defined but it IS morally ambiguous in its decision to save the destiny ascension and the council or let them die?

Precisely

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Your 'list of fallacies' is a list of garbled nonsense. A clumsy attempt at feigning credibility by listing off as many pretty vaguely debate-related terms you know or bothered to look up.

It matters not if I bothered to look them up or knew them already. You still made them. Dismissing them as vague and dismissing me as being clumsy and incompetent doesn't change the fact that you made them.

Now we have the argumentum ad hominem (personal attack) and the argumentum ad lapidem (fallacy of dismissal) to add to the list.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 05 juillet 2013 - 11:53 .

[crimzontearz]

Steelcan wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

You said the ending of ME 1 isn't ambiguous. Crimzontearz says it is.

Yes

just so he stops...you agree that ME1's ending is not ambiguous in the fact that the events are certain and defined but it IS morally ambiguous in its decision to save the destiny ascension and the council or let them die?

Precisely

he fails to see the difference....I am not sure why at this point

[Wolfva2]

David7204 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

ambiguity ≠ speculative

in ME1 you can choose to sacrifice 10000 alien people including the council for the certainty of killing sovereign and saving human lives

THAT is ambiguous without pissing people off and taking away their emotional payoff. TYVM.

AND you still get called on it

Really? Steelcan here seems to disagree. Clearly, we don't have a consensus on what 'moral ambiguity' actually means.

<ROTFLOL>  And THAT my friends is the BSN in a nutshell.  There is NO consensus about anything, really.  And yet a large number of people here seem to think that if ONLY BW would do what THEY want then the game would be perfect and everyone would love it.

People keep saying we can ask for this, or ask for that.  Well, those who got what they asked for didn't get it because they asked (not counting EC).  They got it because they just happened to want what BW had already decided to provide.  Those who didn't get what they wanted weren't ignored...or rather, they were ignored just like everyone else.

[FlamingBoy]

Wolfva2 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

In no way is me3 is capable of anything close to basic logic or rationality, to build a weapon which you don't know how it works is not a rational militaristic decision.
For a weapon to be built with 3 functions as if making an atomic bomb that either blows up, becomes a theme park, and delievers new born babies to their mother is just as logical.
The catalyst cannot be destroyed (easily), he has "prophecies", he has great "wisdom" of the galaxies past, and he can determine the life and death of every individual in the galaxy. He can be easily classified as a god.

Hindi polythesism ties very closely with juedo-christian beliefs which is all really needs to be said about it.

Ok, inre the lack of logic in building the crucible...I gots nuttin.  I rolled my eyes when I realized that was the mission.  I mean, c'mon.  We're gonna build something that we HOPE is a weapon that MIGHT take out the reapers but we have no clue what it is?!?  Riiiiight.  Then I remembered this is just a story and not a documentary, took a deep breath, and shut my brain off <LOL>.  Sometimes that helps.

I've long said in my opinion the game should have ended with the crucible and citadel meteing up, Anderson dying, and Shepard watching the Earth as the Reapers blew up.  BUT, BW obviously disagreed with me.  I think they made a bad choice, but what can I do about it?  Complain incessantly?  That won't do nothing except make me mad at the game, and something I enjoyed greatly will be diminished until I'm just a seething, roiling pot of vitriol snapping at people on the forum for liking it.

Everything you say about the Catalyst inre it's godhood could apply to say...Hernando Cortez.  I'm sure when the Aztecs saw this man with skin like steel who could kill just by pointing a rod at people they thought he WAS a god.  Beings of vastly greater technology are often seen as gods.  Are they?  Well, I guess that depends on your definition.  The Reapers do nothing that anyone else can't do with the same tech.  So I'd say they aren't.

Yay, we agree that the crucible is the dumbest thing in history of videogames , also the fact its a "not a documentary" does not excuse its illogicalness.
I can complain about whatever I want whenever I want, for as long as I want. And that is all that can really be said about it.

Well Cortez was considered a god by the Aztecs and their king montezuma. However Cortez is definable as a human, unfortunetly history knows very little about the actual man, as very little was written down at the time. Hence he is difficult to talk about.

The reapers are a higher form of existance, they are immortal (in ancient stories Gods could only be killed by physical force), not only can they decide the life and death of the universe but they can choose how that universe lives through the crucible. Hence they can synthesis people to "make them in their image".

The reapers are not literal gods. That I agree with, but their is an artistic impression implying god like tendencies for the them.

[Wolfva2]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I wonder if I'll see my list of fallacies addressed...

Betcha Miranda's phone number you wont.....

[crimzontearz]

Wolfva2 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

ambiguity ≠ speculative

in ME1 you can choose to sacrifice 10000 alien people including the council for the certainty of killing sovereign and saving human lives

THAT is ambiguous without pissing people off and taking away their emotional payoff. TYVM.

AND you still get called on it

Really? Steelcan here seems to disagree. Clearly, we don't have a consensus on what 'moral ambiguity' actually means.

<ROTFLOL>  And THAT my friends is the BSN in a nutshell.  There is NO consensus about anything, really.  And yet a large number of people here seem to think that if ONLY BW would do what THEY want then the game would be perfect and everyone would love it.

People keep saying we can ask for this, or ask for that.  Well, those who got what they asked for didn't get it because they asked (not counting EC).  They got it because they just happened to want what BW had already decided to provide.  Those who didn't get what they wanted weren't ignored...or rather, they were ignored just like everyone else.

you.....REALLY should read our posts

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Wolfva2 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I wonder if I'll see my list of fallacies addressed...

Betcha Miranda's phone number you wont.....

Too late. It got "addressed."

And two more fallacies were added to the list in doing so.

Now, the number to Miranda's private estate is where now?

[FlamingBoy]

crimzontearz wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

ambiguity ≠ speculative

in ME1 you can choose to sacrifice 10000 alien people including the council for the certainty of killing sovereign and saving human lives

THAT is ambiguous without pissing people off and taking away their emotional payoff. TYVM.

AND you still get called on it

Really? Steelcan here seems to disagree. Clearly, we don't have a consensus on what 'moral ambiguity' actually means.

<ROTFLOL>  And THAT my friends is the BSN in a nutshell.  There is NO consensus about anything, really.  And yet a large number of people here seem to think that if ONLY BW would do what THEY want then the game would be perfect and everyone would love it.

People keep saying we can ask for this, or ask for that.  Well, those who got what they asked for didn't get it because they asked (not counting EC).  They got it because they just happened to want what BW had already decided to provide.  Those who didn't get what they wanted weren't ignored...or rather, they were ignored just like everyone else.

you.....REALLY should read our posts

But that would mean we are not insane entitled brats, that the illusion would be shattered.

It may kill them!

[JPN17]

There's several reasons why. I'll outline the worst, most of which I'm sure have already been stated, but I'm not going to read 12 pages.

The god kid says it is part of the citadel. Why doesn't it control the citadel relay? This calls into question the plot of ME1 and if it's "just an oversight" then it makes the reapers really really stupid.

No one besides the leviathans (who were added post game mind you) knew about god kid's existence. How could all the species in the galaxy build a device to interact with an AI they didn't know existed? In a similar vein you could argue how ridiculous the idea of the crucible is, but that's a separate argument.

God kid is introduced way too late in the story. It's been talked about ad nauseum on here, but adding major characters and plot points that late in the story is usually considered bad.

God kid solves the problem for you. In the end none of the choices you make any difference. You reach the end and god kid hands you the solution on a platter. You can make the argument that god kid is the hero by solving the reaper problem. All you do is choose. Now granted your choices, in the form of EMS, affect which choices you have open to you, but the ends are all so functionally similar (reapers quit attacking, galaxy is rebuilt, relays are fixed) that the differences are artificial and make very little difference. The only ending that is drastically different is refusal. IMO there should have been no choice to make at the end of the game, your ending would have been based on choices made throughout the trilogy.

There's other stuff I could bring up as well, but they've been talked about so much that I don't really think it's necessary. Those points are the ones that stand out to me the most after all this time.

[David7204]

If you're following a plan, you can easily build a device to interact with something you don't know exists.

Also, the Catalyst is really not a 'new' character is any meaningful sense. He's the voice of the Reapers, and the Reapers have been a part of the story since the very beginning. Since the Reapers don't exhibit any signs of individuality or dissent, one leader is valid in speaking for all of them.

Modifié par David7204, 06 juillet 2013 - 12:50 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Also, the Catalyst is really not a 'new' character is any meaningful sense.

Except for the part where he appears in the last 10 minutes and is barely foreshadowed at all without Leviathan DLC.

[FlamingBoy]

The catalyst is a new character, he doesn't speak like a reaper. He is a new perspective on a race with very little information. In technical terms perhaps he is the same, but that is of little interest to the reader.

[David7204]

Barely foreshadowed? Nonsense. A Reaper AI hidden on the Citadel has been extensively foreshadowed as within the Reapers methods.

I don't see how the fact that the leader of the Reapers residing on the Citadel instead of within a Reaper 'shell' makes any meaningful difference.

[David7204]

FlamingBoy wrote...

The catalyst is a new character, he doesn't speak like a reaper. He is a new perspective on a race with very little information. In technical terms perhaps he is the same, but that is of little interest to the reader.

And that perspective was foreshadowed from the very beginning. It should have always been obvious that the Reapers were more than just pointless killing machines.