1483 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I don't know. Look at Saren, he made huge efforts not to get indoctrinated and look how that ended. My policy with Reaper tech is "Destroy everything you can and stay away from the rest".

 

The man was using Sovereign as a bloody flagship. He really wasn't taking precautions to put it simply.

 

My policy is that of utility. Can I get some kind of gain from the technology that is worth the risk I will be inevitably putting on myself? Can I minimize or contain said risks? I couldn't with the Collector Base. That's why I destroyed it. But I believe I can with lesser, smaller fragments of technology. And I believe I can use it to give us an edge or advantage.

[Dance Craze]

More importantly why do you have 4 testicles. I'd get that checked out if I were you.

 

Or pass some around to the less fortunate

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

oh sure, I bet Dr. K, Rana Thonoptis, TIM had the same philosophy. (along with everybody else who has ever worked with Reaper Tech throughout the Trilogy)



"Oh, we just need to be super careful and there's no way we'll get indoctrinated. Only careless idiots get indoctrinated....."

Except they weren't careful with it. They took short cuts. They were in a hurry. Safety was never a priority with Cerberus.

[Mcfly616]

Except they weren't careful with it. They took short cuts. They were in a hurry. Safety was never a priority with Cerberus.

please, list some in-game instance when it is stated that indoctrination can be avoided if one is "safely" researching Reaper Tech....


Bryson isn't one of them, so...



Go ahead and tell me where in the MEU it gives any notion that there is in fact a safe way to research Reaper tech. Because throughout the trilogy it hasnt been presented in any other form but dangerous and risky.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Except they weren't careful with it. They took short cuts. They were in a hurry. Safety was never a priority with Cerberus.

 

That's probably my biggest issue with Cerberus. Their lack of safety or catching features or containment measures. 

 

It pays to invest in a bit of safety and security. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

please, list some in-game instance when it is stated that indoctrination can be avoided if one is "safely" researching Reaper Tech....


Bryson isn't one of them, so...



Go ahead and tell me where in the MEU it gives any notion that there is in fact a safe way to research Reaper tech. Because throughout the trilogy it hasnt been presented in any other form but dangerous and risky.

 

You've changed your argument. Before, it was 'Reaper tech cannot be studied. Indoctrination will always occur.' 

 

Now, it's 'Reaper tech cannot be studied without fear or risk of indoctrination.'

 

Now it is something that I can hold to be semi-valid. But there is another thing: I am postulating that the inherent risk of studying Reaper technology can be minimized. I've provided my evidence to state why I believe such. You've arbitrarily dismissed the evidence without making a counter-argument. The evidence is not refuted by a counter-claim. You need evidence to prove why it's not evidence.

 

As for your examples on why it wasn't possible to have any precautions, I already refuted that statement by showing that no precautions were taken to begin with in all listed examples.

[Mcfly616]

That's probably my biggest issue with Cerberus. Their lack of safety or catching features or containment measures. 
 
It pays to invest in a bit of safety and security.

where in your video did it state that Bryson was doing constant hands-on research/work/studying on the Sovereign fragment? Oh wait....it doesn't.

It only reiterates what I've already stated. That he kept it in protective shielding....


I'll ask again, where in the series does it state that there is a safe way to directly work with Reaper tech?

[Mcfly616]

Massively, twist it however you like....you're the one with the burden of proof. And you haven't provided it...

[MassivelyEffective0730]

where in your video did it state that Bryson was doing constant hands-on research/work/studying on the Sovereign fragment? Oh wait....it doesn't.

It only reiterates what I've already stated. That he kept it in protective shielding....


I'll ask again, where in the series does it state that there is a safe way to directly work with Reaper tech?

 

It doesn't state that. It's not relevant to state that. But where exactly does it state that he doesn't? Because he keeps it in shielding? That's hardly an argument. Ann Bryson also mentions regular psychiatric evaluations. Why would these be necessary if the shielding was in place? Why would Dr. Bryson, a scientist known for studying the Reapers and Leviathan, only be interested in a piece of a Reaper for its aesthetic value? Why would EDI ask if appropriate measures to prevent indoctrination from taking place be said at all? You're saying that because something isn't stated to happen, it must not happen at all. But the inverse - the opposite - is never stated as well. This claim is circular reasoning. You're begging the question on why you're moving the goalpost for the evidence I've provided.

 

And again, you've changed your argument. You've stated that it's not possible to study Reaper technology without certainty of indoctrination. Now you've stated that studying it isn't safe, but you've open the possibility of preventative measures and precautions to minimize the risk. Which argument are you making? Make one and stick to it.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Massively, twist it however you like....you're the one with the burden of proof. And you haven't provided it...

 

I've provided my evidence. I've elaborated on why it's evidence. You haven't adequately disproved why it's not evidence. You've only begged the question of why it's not evidence without stating why.

 

And denying an argument isn't making an argument either. You're moving the goalposts here.

 

The ball is in your court. Are you going to make an adequate argument? Or do you concede that I have the current superior argument?

[Mcfly616]

It's not evidence because it never says he did any extensive research on it. I've asked you multiple times to give an in-game example of Reaper tech being safely studied and researched....and all you've come up with (your so-called evidence) is that it doesn't say that Bryson didn't. That's not proof in any way whatsoever.



Your proof is nothing more than an assumption based on the lack of in-game confirmation. Making your point entirely moot.

[Mcfly616]

Like I said, base your argument on in-game evidence and not lack thereof.


Otherwise you have no proof to your claim.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Is there anything in the game to suggest that you can't investigate the Reaper fragments with the shield up?

 

Also, apparently the Turians managed to work on several large pieces of Sovereign in order to develop the Thanix weapons with no reports of Indoctrination.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

It's not evidence because it never says he did any extensive research on it. I've asked you multiple times to give an in-game example of Reaper tech being safely studied and researched....and all you've come up with (your so-called evidence) is that it doesn't say that Bryson didn't. That's not proof in any way whatsoever.



Your proof is nothing more than an assumption based on the lack of in-game confirmation. Making your point entirely moot.

 

You conveniently dismissed my evidence about the Reaper on Cronos. Regardless, yes my evidence is indeed inferred. I told you why it was inferred. You're now cherry picking, already after changing the parameters of your argument.

 

I've provided evidence that supports my claim (even if direct evidence is non-existent). The parameters of your argument are akin to an common defense tactic taken in criminal trials: because there was no witness to a crime, and because the defendant hasn't pleaded guilty, there is no evidence that he in fact committed the crime. You're dismissing my argument by calling it an assumption. I have made an inductive reasoning based argument to establish why claim is likely, while you have made no real argument to say why it's a certainty that it's not. You're going to need a hefty amount of deductive logic and evidence to support that claim. My point stands until you make a real argument against it.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Like I said, base your argument on in-game evidence and not lack thereof.


Otherwise you have no proof to your claim.

 

That's a Nirvana fallacy. You're limiting evidence to one kind of possible outcome. If it's not directly stated in game, it can't be true. No other evidence can be accepted when presented.

 

Does it have to be directly stated in game? He's a scientist. He keeps a piece of a Reaper in his lab. He's had it within his possession for the last 2+ years. He's fascinated by Reapers and Leviathan. He was not indoctrinated (nor were any of his staff, at least not by the Reaper Artifact). He took appropriate measures to ensure the fragment could not indoctrinate anyone. He had himself and his daughter (and others possibly in his staff) take part in psychiatric evaluations at regular intervals to make sure he wasn't being indoctrinated. Inductive reasoning tells me that all of this is supporting the claim that he did indeed study the Reaper fragment. And he was not indoctrinated because he took proper precautions when studying the Reaper fragment. This tells me that you can indeed have proper precautionary measures to minimize, if not completely negate, the threat of Reaper indoctrination. That, in essence, is my argument.

 

Your argument is that because it is never directly stated that he studied the Reaper fragment, my claim can't possibly be true. You provided no evidence to prove your own argument. You've changed the argument, and dismissed my evidence by moving goalposts to explain how mine isn't correct, while holding your own claim as likely (without evidence.) 

 

Make an argument. Don't attack mine, deconstruct it. If you can, I'll concede. If you can't, then I've won the argument. Stop shifting the burden of proof back on to me. I've given my evidence. Give me yours.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Is there anything in the game to suggest that you can't investigate the Reaper fragments with the shield up?

 

Also, apparently the Turians managed to work on several large pieces of Sovereign in order to develop the Thanix weapons with no reports of Indoctrination.

 

Indeed. Thanks for the second part. It provides further evidence for my claim. 

[Obadiah]

Uh, no. When I see Mordin making a strong argument for the genophage in ME2, then come ME3 no mention is made of the points he brought up and the only character still advocating for it is a shrill racist, it's pretty obvious what's going on. And this is coming from someone who is anti-genophage. When I see Gerrel pose a stronger argument for reclaiming Rannoch in ME2, then Xen poses a weak one in ME3, it's the same story.

The dalatrass should have brought up some of these points. Instead of saying the Krogan were "no longer useful," she should have truthfully said that the Krogan tried to finish what the Rachni started. A cure undermines Wrex's societal reforms - we should have been able to question him on whether it was the right thing to do, even if we couldn't change his mind. If his back is against the wall, let's talk to him and hear him explain why. Same with Gerrel, Raan, and Legion - all we can get from Raan is fleet composition. Let's hear from her about the near-extermination of her people, the centuries of isolationism, the heretics, and the enormous shadow it casts on any kind of peace process. Let's talk to Legion and learn why they did those things, and whether they've learned from past mistakes. Let's call up Gerrel and see what alternatives (if any) they had to war, challenge him for getting them in this situation and hear his reasoning for it to judge for ourselves instead of simply punching him like an ignorant thug.

Present the arguments in their entirety. Don't limit the synopses to those facts and arguments which only support one side.

 

You've described two games worth of exposition conversations, most of which we've already had, that would go nowhere.... because "roleplaying". This is what I call an unreasonable expectation.

 

Even without the previous two games, we were given all the information necessary to make a decision, from in-game advocates and the codex.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

You've described two games worth of exposition conversations, most of which we've already had, that would go nowhere.... because "roleplaying". This is what I call an unreasonable expectation.

 

Well, isn't that what Mass Effect is supposed to be about? Roleplaying? The story would be another throwaway invasion story if not for that aspect. I didn't play the game for my love of the story. I played it for my love of being able to play and define characters in an interesting setting. That's what Mass Effect was about.

[Iamjdr]

I could never say no to more conversation options..

[Obadiah]

Well, isn't that what Mass Effect is supposed to be about? Roleplaying? The story would be another throwaway invasion story if not for that aspect. I didn't play the game for my love of the story. I played it for my love of being able to play and define characters in an interesting setting. That's what Mass Effect was about.

The way I look at it, ME3 is the final act. Conversation development here is focused more on this story, than the exposition and counter-arguments of MEU's history, which was already done in ME1 and ME2. There is plenty of opportunity to define your character in ME3 already without more added conversations.

[von uber]

I didn't like the way the quarian / geth struggle was done in me3; very one sided.

It's like cerberus in me2; I have a friend (who never played me1) who couldn't understand why I never trusted them in me2. Selective information was supplied to nudge you in a particular direction.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I didn't like the way the quarian / geth struggle was done in me3; very one sided.

It's like cerberus in me2; I have a friend (who never played me1) who couldn't understand why I never trusted them in me2. Selective information was supplied to nudge you in a particular direction.

 

In ME2 though, you have the ability to at least be defiant and critical of them at every opportunity. In ME3, I have to be an alliance stooge whether I want to be or not. And I don't mean being trapped to work with them. I mean I can't even define what my Shepard's opinion of them is. I can't define what my Shepard's opinion on many things are. It's a sever limitation to the RP ability. There is no 'opportunity' to define my Shepard. It's either be a choirboy for the alliance, or irrational psychopath that does things for the lulz. There's no practical, utilitarian, machiavellian options to choose from, or any ability to defend past associations. ME3 is a bloody joke at allowing the player to define their own Shepard. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

The way I look at it, ME3 is the final act. Conversation development here is focused more on this story, than the exposition and counter-arguments of MEU's history, which was already done in ME1 and ME2. There is plenty of opportunity to define your character in ME3 already without more added conversations.

 

Then why can't I define my character? Tell me where this supposed opportunity is? The way I look at it, Mass Effect was never about the story. It was about the talking and interactions with people and defining the player. There is no defining my Shepard the way I could in ME1 and ME2. I'm stuck having a Shepard bothered about the child. I'm stuck with a Shepard that hates Cerberus. I'm stuck with a Shepard that has nightmares about PTSD. I'm stuck with a Shepard who's an alliance lapdog. I'm stuck with a Shepard who can't define his relationships with other characters (ala DA:O or ME2). I'm stuck with a Shepard that isn't my Shepard.

[von uber]

But taken further I couldn't sign up with an asari commando unit instead of cerberus in me2.
Or put miranda and jack in the airlock then head back to the alliance / council with a brand new cruiser and intel on abductions and continue investigating as a SPECTRE.
Or sack it all in and go live on illium with liara until the reapers arrived.
And so on.

(I do get your point though).

[MassivelyEffective0730]

But taken further I couldn't sign up with an asari commando unit instead of cerberus in me2.
Or put miranda and jack in the airlock then head back to the alliance / council with a brand new cruiser and intel on abductions and continue investigating as a SPECTRE.
Or sack it all in and go live on illium with liara until the reapers arrived.
And so on.

(I do get your point though).

 

See, there's a difference between being able to make story options a reality and wishing for more agency in defining Shepard and his opinions and relationships with characters. I'm fine having to work with the alliance in ME3. I get the narrative railroading in making him work with the alliance (and Cerberus). 

 

I'm not fine with being made to like them. All of these issues come back to my Shepard and how I can play him. I'd love to be smug to the council about the Reapers. I'd love to call out the alliance and why I think they suck and why I think Cerberus had it right. I'd love to be able to define my relationship with the squadmates. I'd love to have the ability to express more opinions and ideas. 

 

As ME2 let you do. ME2 let you define your Shepard in a manner where he could quite easily get behind Cerberus' ideals and support them, or he could be staunchly pro-alliance and pro-Council and condemn them as terrorists. I don't have that ability in ME3.

 

Lack of player agency for my character. Defining who he is, what he is, who he loves, who he hates, why he fights, what he believes in, what he despises, etc. That's one of my biggest complaints about ME3. The lack of player agency. The game spends too much time defining my Shepard for me.