435 réponses à ce sujet

[Wolfva2]

[quote]StreetMagic wrote...

SNIP
[/quote]

Personally, I get the idea why they used the boy in dreams.

No one addresses why that makes the Catalyst worth listening to though. He (or it) is the one that killed the boy. No matter what you feel about kids or not, that's not important. The fact that they expect us to listen to this machine, just on appearance alone, is silly. That he's even using that facade makes the Catalyst look even more twisted. To me anyways.
[/quote]

There's a reason I deleted that post; do you mind editing out the deleted quote?  And SHEESH but you move fast; I deleted it within 2, 3 minutes of loading it! <LOL>

As far as your points;  He explains he takes on the visage so as to be more understandable and sympathetic looking so Shep would listen to him.  Heck, if he'd'v'e appeared as a cuttlefish Shep would probably have shot him, which means we'd all be kvetching about how we were 'forced' to pick refuse and the cycle continued. 

[o Ventus]

David7204 wrote...

The dreams were stupid. But I have no issue at all with the Reapers being explained by a child.

In fact, I sort of like that they're explained in very simple, non-technical terms. It's the way God would speak. Or Satan.

Yeah, non-technical terms used to describe what is supposed to be a highly advanced piece of technology capable of altering all life in the galaxy down to a molecular level. 

You know, like science fiction. Non-technical terms.

[Wolfva2]

StreetMagic wrote..

Not sure I understand. Do you think that's alright? I can't tell.

With all of your talk about law enforcement and feeling empathy for children, I'd think you'd be the first to see through this and call it for what it is. B.S. If you were pinned down with a child killer, one that you've devoted a great deal of your life hunting, and he said some weird nonsense about how he's just as friendly as the child he killed, are you going to believe him? You don't have to carry out justice right then and there, but at the very least, you'd think he's crazy and either deserves to be imprisoned or put in a loony bin. You wouldn't say.. "You know what? This guys's alright."

Or at least I hope you wouldn't.

Well, I'd like to thank you for deleting the quote of my reply that I had already deleted on my end.  I'd like to, but seeing as how you didn't I won't.  Way to not be classy.

It's BS for an author to use accepted writing strategies to elicit an emotional responce from his audience?  Since when?  Ok, I think I understand.  You want to play a 1st person shooter where you run around going 'PEW PEW' and never feeling anything.  That's fine.  Nothing wrong with that.  I just don't understand why you bought a ROLE PLAYING GAME, and why you're complaining about having to play a role in said RPG.  Honestly, if you want to play COD, then get COD, not a Bioware game.

The Catalyst isn't the reapers.  It's what created the reaper.  It's a computer program, not some maniacal cliched supervillain twirling it's flowing handlebar mustache going, "MUAHAHAHA!  I'll get you and your little dog to! MUAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAH!"  It's a program that came up with an asinine solution due to insufficient data and poor programming.  It is not a murderer.  Murderers kill for a variety of reasons, not the least being the rush of the kill.  By it's own programming parameters, it's not a villain; it is preserving life by preventing organics creating sentients which will destroy ALL life.  I've used the breast cancer analogy before.  Life is the patient, organics are the breast tissue, and synthetics are breast cancer.  The Reapers are simply doing a masectomy.

[Arcian]

o Ventus wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The dreams were stupid. But I have no issue at all with the Reapers being explained by a child.

In fact, I sort of like that they're explained in very simple, non-technical terms. It's the way God would speak. Or Satan.

Yeah, non-technical terms used to describe what is supposed to be a highly advanced piece of technology capable of altering all life in the galaxy down to a molecular level. 

You know, like science fiction. Non-technical terms.

David has no grasp on science whatsoever.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

StreetMagic wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

As far as your points;  He explains he takes on the visage so as to be more understandable and sympathetic looking so Shep would listen to him.  Heck, if he'd'v'e appeared as a cuttlefish Shep would probably have shot him, which means we'd all be kvetching about how we were 'forced' to pick refuse and the cycle continued. 

Not sure I understand. Do you think that's alright? I can't tell.

With all of your talk about law enforcement and feeling empathy for children, I'd think you'd be the first to see through this and call it for what it is. B.S. If you were pinned down with a child killer, one that you've devoted a great deal of your life hunting, and he said some weird nonsense about how he's just as friendly as the child he killed, are you going to believe him? You don't have to carry out justice right then and there, but at the very least, you'd think he's crazy and either deserves to be imprisoned or put in a loony bin. You wouldn't say.. "You know what? This guys's alright."

Or at least I hope you wouldn't.

I goes to this and I agree with Samara's code here.

If I am chasing a mass murderer, do I need to know he's a loving father?

[Wolfva2]

I'd agree with you on that Julia. Not that it really applies here. I was explaining that those with a protector mindset, the cops, soldiers, firemen, etc, tend to feel empathy for children. How that explanation of WHY the authors used the child has anything to do with your actions when you meet the catalyst I dunno. Completely seperate topic.

Frankly, it's my own stupid fault. I know better then try to explain things that have to be experienced. Which is why I edited out my first responce of the day. I can't explain color to a man blind from birth, an orgasm to a frigid person, or how good a cold beer on a hot day is to a tea totaling innuit. Nor can I explain WHY people who spend their lives trying to protect others would actually give a damn about some kid they don't know. That I would even need to explain I'm talking about SHEPARD and not the player inre the ventkid turns this whole thing into a Jobian comedy of errors. One that just depresses me.

[Wolfva2]

StreetMagic wrote..

Classy? I haven't look at this thread since I replied. Don't take it so personally. I didn't mean anything by not deleting a quote I didn't know you deleted yourself.

Can the BS.  My askng you to delete the quote since the subject had passed on and it was irrelevant  is IN your response.  Unless you're claiming you're not looking at whatever it is you're responding to.  Or that you are completely clueless about the edit function.

[ioannisdenton]

Catalyst is NOT an just A.I. what is wrong with you people?
It says it is an a.i as much shepard is an animal.
It is a sapient construct designed to solve a problem. It's masters , the leviathans were arrogant enough to create it.
it is not bad.
Reason we most hate the catalyst is due to original miminalistic vague ending and the minimlistic catalyst dialogue. oh and No leviathans. at it's current form it is good. Ask the people who FIRST finished leviathan and then ended the game.

[FlamingBoy]

Arcian wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The dreams were stupid. But I have no issue at all with the Reapers being explained by a child.

In fact, I sort of like that they're explained in very simple, non-technical terms. It's the way God would speak. Or Satan.

Yeah, non-technical terms used to describe what is supposed to be a highly advanced piece of technology capable of altering all life in the galaxy down to a molecular level. 

You know, like science fiction. Non-technical terms.

David has no grasp on science whatsoever.

Lets not be unfair to david (and others), its not an issue of knowing science or not (Almost no sci-fi is scientifically legitamate, however it is legitamate in the world they create and bioware is expected to follow those rules, they did not).

Its about the fact that Mass Effect was a primarly science/'sociological based universe. Mass Effect never dealt with the issues of religion, they vaguely (VERY vaguely) dealt with spiritualility....

What does this mean?
It means that it was inapporpriate for bioware to tackle the issues of spiritualility (in this case the hypothetical organics vs synthetics) in the final moments of the game with out actually some moments of forshadowing. When I say forshadowing I mean in terms of the main theme, this was not the case in mass effect 3.

Modifié par FlamingBoy, 05 juillet 2013 - 09:27 .

[Wolfva2]

ioannisdenton wrote...

Catalyst is NOT an just A.I. what is wrong with you people?
It says it is an a.i as much shepard is an animal.
It is a sapient construct designed to solve a problem. It's masters , the leviathans were arrogant enough to create it.
it is not bad.
Reason we most hate the catalyst is due to original miminalistic vague ending and the minimlistic catalyst dialogue. oh and No leviathans. at it's current form it is good. Ask the people who FIRST finished leviathan and then ended the game.

So, he's not an artificial intelligence, he's a sapient construct. 
<blink><blink>
<blink>
<blink><blink><blink>

Flamingboy, did they really tack on spirituality issues?  I don't see it.  What is so spiritual about the catalyst?  Or reapers?  

Modifié par Wolfva2, 05 juillet 2013 - 09:46 .

[FlamingBoy]

StreetMagic wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

Its about the fact that Mass Effect was a primarly science/'sociological based universe. Mass Effect never dealt with the issues of religion, they vaguely (VERY vaguely) dealt with spiritualility....

What does this mean?
It means that it was inapporpriate for bioware to tackle the issues of spiritualility (in this case the hypothetical organics vs synthetics) in the final moments of the game with out actually some moments of forshadowing. When I say forshadowing I mean in terms of the main theme, this was not the case in mass effect 3.

That's something I've never seen brought up, but it sort of makes sense. I kind of wonder if Walters thinks on these sort of lines himself, and couldn't help but inject some of it once he became a lead. It's hard to tell. He doesn't explicitly talk about spirituality, but it seems like he emphasizes emotional and social information, rather than technical/scientific. He's not an egghead. Like when talking prerelease ME3, he wanted to explore Shep's inner struggles and weariness. He seems to bring up the romance/relationship stuff up in talks too. He's more comfortable with "people related matters" in general. I don't know if it equates to a spiritual mindset, but it could indicative of the type of information he places value on.

Not to mention that he dropped the dark energy angle, because he thought no one would understand. That sounds like projection to me.

I wasn't clear, when I say the term spiritualility or relgious exploration in storytelling, I mean the conflict that comes as a result of those 2 things.  That was the problem with me3, it wasn't the exploration on what makes a persons soul, or what makes religion, belief, or faith. It was dogma pure and simple, and you as the readers were expected to swallow it with out question.

I can only think of one instance of characters dealing with "spirituality" and that was Samara code in me2. She dealt with the moral issues of what she was doing while following a strict code it showed the effect it had on her psyche and asari society... like all religious conflict it was interesting.

Dogma is never interesting, especially not in storytelling.

[FlamingBoy]

Wolfva2 wrote...

ioannisdenton wrote...

Catalyst is NOT an just A.I. what is wrong with you people?
It says it is an a.i as much shepard is an animal.
It is a sapient construct designed to solve a problem. It's masters , the leviathans were arrogant enough to create it.
it is not bad.
Reason we most hate the catalyst is due to original miminalistic vague ending and the minimlistic catalyst dialogue. oh and No leviathans. at it's current form it is good. Ask the people who FIRST finished leviathan and then ended the game.

So, he's not an artificial intelligence, he's a sapient construct. 
<blink><blink>
<blink>
<blink><blink><blink>

Flamingboy, did they really tack on spirituality issues?  I don't see it.  What is so spiritual about the catalyst?  Or reapers?  

With all do respect if you cannot see the religious references and spiritual implication within the ending of me3... well I have no desire to guide you through it.
But I will answer your questions. To the best of my abilities

Catalyst?
The catalyst was implied to be all knowing or a seer if you will, a genie that grants wishes. Evidence of this, in the story 1000 arabian nights there is a famous story of Aladdin in which he rubs a lamp for 3 wishes.
3 wishes, lamp, genie
3 functions, crucible, catalyst

This is just one of many

Edit: in islam, genies also known as Jinn are believed to be the 3rd sentient race created by god.

Reapers?
The reapers are among the most arrogant antagonists I have ever encountered in storytelling, but what makes them different is there power is justified. Just like a god, the reapers power are real and they are beyond the current understanding of sentient life. They are superior in every concievable way (except they are not "organic")
How could this not be a definition of a god?




I know talking about religion and spirtuality makes some (most) people uncomfortable. However ignoring the issue which is in the ending will serve no purpose


Edit: for autrocious spelling, apologies.

Modifié par FlamingBoy, 05 juillet 2013 - 10:26 .

[MrStoob]

Only a religious person will see religious implications where there are none, IMHO by definition.

Modifié par MrStoob, 05 juillet 2013 - 10:12 .

[FlamingBoy]

MrStoob wrote...

Only a religious person will see religious implications where there are none, IMHO by definition.

Is that implying a "religious" person is somehow bad
Perhaps you should educate yourself in your history and if not yours, the history of the world. To deny the existance of biblical (and qu'ranic) references with in Mass Effect is pure denial.

[dorktainian]

I consider Shepards journey to be the Hero's journey.

He will return. Now we are at the stage of it being a Catastrophe.

The tide will turn. Be sure of that.

[FlamingBoy]

In case I get some idiot jumping on me, when I say "history" I do not mean that in a literal sense.

[Wolfva2]

FlamingBoy wrote...

With all do respect if you cannot see the religious references and spiritual implication within the ending of me3... well I have no desire to guide you through it.
But I will answer your questions. To the best of my abilities

Catalyst?
The catalyst was implied to be all knowing or a seer if you will, a genie that grants wishes. Evidence of this, in the story 1000 arabian nights there is a famous story of Aladdin in which he rubs a lamp for 3 wishes.
3 wishes, lamp, genie
3 functions, crucible, catalyst

This is just one of many

Edit: in islam, genies also known as Jinn are believed to be the 3rd sentient race created by god.

Reapers?
The reapers are among the most arrogant antagonists I have ever encountered in storytelling, but what makes them different is there power is justified. Just like a god, the reapers power are real and they are beyond the current understanding of sentient life. They are superior in every concievable way (except they are not "organic")
How could this not be a definition of a god?




I know talking about religion and spirtuality makes some (most) people uncomfortable. However ignoring the issue which is in the ending will serve no purpose


Edit: for autrocious spelling, apologies.

Welllll, that's one way to look at it.  Of course, a comprehensive data base can also be considered 'all knowing', but I'm not about to consider Wiki.com a god. 

Reapers aren't like gods.  They're more like....giant thresher machines that are harvesting the wheat.  To them, WE are wheat.  Yes, they're very much more powerful then we are.  So?  Doesn't mean they're gods.

My definition of a 'god' is a being that requires active worship to survive.  The Leviathans very neatly fit that description, but you didn't address them so 'nuff said.  Now, YOU may consider Reapers gods.  There are plenty of examples from our own history where people, confronted by technologically advanced civilisations thought they were confronting gods or their messengers.  BUT:  At no time were the reapers shown as gods, or demons.  Instead, they are shown as technologically advanced synthetic organisms.  There is nothing spiritual about them.  They're just advanced bio-machines. 

I enjoy a good religion/spirtuality discussion.  But in this, I still don't see it.  What I DO see, and no offense is meant, is a person who thinks in highly spiritual terms judging the game through the ruby red lens of spiritualism.

[Wolfva2]

FlamingBoy wrote...

MrStoob wrote...

Only a religious person will see religious implications where there are none, IMHO by definition.

Is that implying a "religious" person is somehow bad
Perhaps you should educate yourself in your history and if not yours, the history of the world. To deny the existance of biblical (and qu'ranic) references with in Mass Effect is pure denial.

I think Stoob is 100% correct.  Of course, I basically said exactly what HE said, albeit MUCH more verbosely...<LOL>.

A religious person will see religious implications where there are none.  That YOU knee jerk react that to be a bad thing, and assume that you are being attacked, is intereseting.  He's not attacking you, he's stating a fact.  Nor did he deny any references, biblical or qu'ronic. 

Take a deep breath and step back.  No one is attacking you.  For a change <G>.