748 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

Repeating things does not make an argument either. Repeated garbage is still garbage.

Tell me, if the Catalyst wanted to destroy the Crucible, why would he tell Shepard about Synthesis and Control at all? Why tell Shepard he's the leader of the Reapers at all? Why not just pretend to be a VI of the Crucible and instruct Shepard that 'pushing this button' or whatever destroys the Reapers when in reality it destroys the Crucible or activates Synthesis?

Why involve Shepard at all? Why not just kill him or her and do it himself?

[Indy_S]

I don't understand what rules Destroy or Control out but keeps Synthesis in. I think I'll side with David in this one. I don't think the Catalyst is lying but for different reasons.

I prefer to look at the situation in game theory. If Destroy's not Destroy than there are three other options: one of the others is Destroy, both of the others are Destroy or none of the others are Destroy. In the case of the last one, you've got nothing to lose so you may as well go all in anyway. So I look at the other options. By its telling, Control seems to upset the Catalyst's plans as fundamentally as Destroy does so I doubt that it's anything but what it's labelled. The Catalyst seems to be pushing you towards Synthesis so unless it's a bluff relying on you not believing the Catalyst, it's unlikely to be Destroy. Therefore, if Destroy's not Destroy, I'd pick it anyway.

[Erez Kristal]

The illusion of choice is the main mass effect theme. In order to calm shepard and make him more obident. the catalyst had to sound like a source of authority, it isnt some simple vi. its the overlord of the reapers. an avatar worthy of shepard notice.

The catalyst never wanted to destroy the crucible, it want shepard to jump into the beam. in order for this to work, the crucible needs to be complete(enough war assets) and shepard has to do it willingly. if the catalyst cannot have shepard jumping into the beam. it would rather see shepard killed and the crucible destroyed.

Despite what you would like to think shooting an important tube or jumping into the beam takes a large amount of trust. imagine your reaction if a simple vi told you to do this instead of the catalyst.

[David7204]

So you're arguing that the Catalyst tells Shepard he's the leader of the Reapers because Shepard is more likely to trust the leader of the Reapers than a VI...

[KaiserShep]

Don't forget grabbing onto the electric handlebars of death.

[Erez Kristal]

Indy_S wrote...

I don't understand what rules Destroy or Control out but keeps Synthesis in. I think I'll side with David in this one. I don't think the Catalyst is lying but for different reasons.

I prefer to look at the situation in game theory. If Destroy's not Destroy than there are three other options: one of the others is Destroy, both of the others are Destroy or none of the others are Destroy. In the case of the last one, you've got nothing to lose so you may as well go all in anyway. So I look at the other options. By its telling, Control seems to upset the Catalyst's plans as fundamentally as Destroy does so I doubt that it's anything but what it's labelled. The Catalyst seems to be pushing you towards Synthesis so unless it's a bluff relying on you not believing the Catalyst, it's unlikely to be Destroy. Therefore, if Destroy's not Destroy, I'd pick it anyway.

Synthesis isnt ruled out because its the most favorable solution for the catalyst

[David7204]

Tell me, why exactly do you think the Catalyst goes through all this work to dump a body in the beam? Why doesn't he simply have the Reapers fetch one? Or just have an indocrinated human do it?

Modifié par David7204, 13 juillet 2013 - 11:11 .

[Erez Kristal]

David7204 wrote...

So you're arguing that the Catalyst tells Shepard he's the leader of the Reapers because Shepard is more likely to trust the leader of the Reapers than a VI...

just like countries negotiate peace treaties with ex terrorists. thats life for you. and you still have failed to produce why you think the catalyst is to be trusted.

David7204 wrote...

Tell me, why exactly do you think the Catalyst goes through all this work to dump a body in the beam? Why doesn't he simply have the Reapers fetch one? Or just have an indocrinated human do it? 

It has to be done willingly, shepard needs to be alive. during acts of faith or prayers the human brain has an increase activiity(shown by science researches) 

http://www.huffingto..._n_1974621.html

Modifié par erezike, 13 juillet 2013 - 11:15 .

[David7204]

As I just said, I don't have to prove the Catalyst is telling the truth. It's assumed by default. I only have to show that your reasoning in attempted to prove the Catalyst is lying is invalid.

The notion that 'countries negoitiate peace treaties with ex-terrorists' (which is in and of itself an incredibly shoddy claim) is completely irrelavant to this situation.

Modifié par David7204, 13 juillet 2013 - 11:15 .

[Ledgend1221]

How can people claim the catalyst is lying?
When a character gives info that is not contradicted by any in-game source then it must be taken as true.

[Erez Kristal]

David7204 wrote...

As I just said, I don't have to prove the Catalyst is telling the truth. It's assumed by default. I only have to show that your reasoning in attempted to prove the Catalyst is lying is invalid.

The notion that 'countries negoitiate peace treaties with ex-terrorists' (which is in and of itself an incredibly shoddy claim) is completely irrelavant to this situation.

How can you assume such thing by default, if anything you should assume the catalyst is lying by default since it is your enemy and has been wiping out all organics since it was created using any tactic it had at its disposel.
Believing it by default without any backing is naive and wishful thinking.

[David7204]

We're discussing whether Shepard can deduce if the Catalyst is speaking the truth or not.

[Erez Kristal]

Ledgend1221 wrote...

How can people claim the catalyst is lying?
When a character gives info that is not contradicted by any in-game source then it must be taken as true.

What info? Cutscenes?
Thats meta-gaming. 

[David7204]

erezike wrote...

David7204 wrote...

As I just said, I don't have to prove the Catalyst is telling the truth. It's assumed by default. I only have to show that your reasoning in attempted to prove the Catalyst is lying is invalid.

The notion that 'countries negoitiate peace treaties with ex-terrorists' (which is in and of itself an incredibly shoddy claim) is completely irrelavant to this situation.

How can you assume such thing by default, if anything you should assume the catalyst is lying by default since it is your enemy and has been wiping out all organics since it was created using any tactic it had at its disposel.
Believing it by default without any backing is naive and wishful thinking.

Hardly. It's a very basic principal of logical and legal reasoning. You don't assume anyone is lying until you've deduced reason for lying. You don't assume anyone is guilty until you've deduce reason for being guilty. And even then, it's a long way from proof.

Modifié par David7204, 13 juillet 2013 - 11:23 .

[Ledgend1221]

erezike wrote...

Ledgend1221 wrote...

How can people claim the catalyst is lying?
When a character gives info that is not contradicted by any in-game source then it must be taken as true.

What info? Cutscenes?
Thats meta-gaming. 

So where's the in-game source that proves the catalyst wrong?

[Erez Kristal]

I have written what it has gain by lying. you have failed to produce what it has to gain by telling the truth about control and destroy

[KaiserShep]

erezike wrote...

Ledgend1221 wrote...

How can people claim the catalyst is lying?
When a character gives info that is not contradicted by any in-game source then it must be taken as true.

What info? Cutscenes?
Thats meta-gaming. 

Which cutscenes in ME3 do not involve Shepard? 

[David7204]

And your reasoning is stupid nonsense. There's no point in making Destroy blow up the Crucible or kill Shepard. If the Catalyst wanted Shepard dead, he could kill him or her in a hundred different ways. If he wanted to blow up the Crucible, he could do it himself. There's nothing he stands to gain from it.

There's utterly no reason for him to admit he's the leader of the Reapers unless he's telling the truth. The idea that Shepard is more likely to have faith in him because he's the leader of the Reapers is stupid. He could pretend to be from an earlier race, perhaps that build the Crucible. He could pretend to be a VI. He could simply not appear at all.

If he wanted Shepard to activate Synthesis and was lying to do it, why would he present Destroy at all?

Modifié par David7204, 13 juillet 2013 - 11:28 .

[Erez Kristal]

Ledgend1221 wrote...

erezike wrote...

Ledgend1221 wrote...

How can people claim the catalyst is lying?
When a character gives info that is not contradicted by any in-game source then it must be taken as true.

What info? Cutscenes?
Thats meta-gaming. 

So where's the in-game source that proves the catalyst wrong?

Hudson  “the endings left a lot to the player’s imagination.”

KaiserShep wrote...


Which cutscenes in ME3 do not involve Shepard? 

the cutscenes after shepard dies.

Modifié par erezike, 13 juillet 2013 - 11:29 .

[Ledgend1221]

erezike wrote...

Ledgend1221 wrote...

erezike wrote...

Ledgend1221 wrote...

How can people claim the catalyst is lying?
When a character gives info that is not contradicted by any in-game source then it must be taken as true.

What info? Cutscenes?
Thats meta-gaming. 

So where's the in-game source that proves the catalyst wrong?

Hudson [color=rgb(51, 51, 51)"> ]“the endings left a lot to the player’s imagination.”[/color]

You: Boloacks.

[Erez Kristal]

David7204 wrote...

And your reasoning is stupid nonsense. There's no point in making Destroy blow up the Crucible or kill Shepard. If the Catalyst wanted Shepard dead, he could kill him or her in a hundred different ways. If he wanted to blow up the Crucible, he could do it himself. There's nothing he stands to gain from it.

There's utterly no reason for him to admit he's the leader of the Reapers unless he's telling the truth. The idea that Shepard is more likely to have faith in him because he's the leader of the Reapers is stupid. He could pretend to be from an earlier race, perhaps that build the Crucible. He could pretend to be a VI. He could simply not appear at all.

If he wanted Shepard to activate Synthesis and was lying to do it, why would he present Destroy at all?

David, just because you have yet to comprehend, doesnt make it stupid. i will try to explain it more slowly this time...
The catalyst and the reapers do not want shepard dead... they want him integrated into the white beam in order to complete their masterplan.

He has to jump willingly in order for it to work.
He needs to agree to work with the reapers. if his heart is still set on destroy or control then he doesnt truly want to work with the reapers and they would rather have him dead and try again in the next cycle...

[Erez Kristal]

Ledgend1221 wrote...

You: Boloacks.

Where is your in game source which tells you he was right?
Why would you think the catalyst wass honest without meta-gaming the ending cutscenes

[David7204]

So again, what does the Catalyst gain by presenting Destroy and Control at all? Isn't Shepard far more likely to accept Synthesis if there's no other option to end the conflict?

[Ledgend1221]

erezike wrote...

Ledgend1221 wrote...

You: Boloacks.

Where is your in game source which tells you he was right?
Why would you think the catalyst wass honest without meta-gaming the ending cutscenes

You can't find anything to support your flawed idea.
You're just posting nonsense now.

[DirtySHISN0]

 

Dear god, this again.