3578 réponses à ce sujet

[gothpunkboy89]

 

Those things don't have anything to do with one another. There's nothing organic about software doing its job.
 

 

Actually it has a lot to do with that. Because we have had this discussion before about how the Catalyst should have been able to prevent events in ME1. Thus causing the contradiction. How ever all the reasons various players gave why the Catalyst should have done X or Y were based on what they would do as organics. They gave it organic reasons like time frames and must being done now.  Which ignores the Catalyst and Reapers both exist out side of what we consider time. Due to the nature of their construction.

 

They also apply the human characteristic of the Catalyst looking at organics in contempt like roaches that need to be squashed ASAP. Rather then the scientist who after all this time is still searching for a better solution then the Reapers. Thus the events of ME 1 would have been a great variation in the galaxy wide experiment. And rather then crush it like a bias human would not wanting their solution to maybe be proven wrong would allow it to continue to see were this variation leads to.

 

This is also true of when presented with the options at the end of ME 3. Anyone assuming the Catalyst is lying to them is doing so because they are adding a human characteristic to it. Rather then the simple logical set up of a machine that would have no reason to lie to anyone. It makes it's argument, gives you the 3 options and informs you of which option it thinks is best. Then it lets you pick because by all data to it you are the only one worthy of making the choice since you were the catalyst that changed the variables.

[themikefest]

Sorry I do not work at Bioware so I can't tell you.

I would be curious to hear from Bioware why the other LI's weren't included. I'm sure I would get a good laugh at the answer just like I would get a good laugh at the answer as to why Shepard has to walk towards the tube while shooting it instead of standing from a distance to shoot at it.
 

But details don't make something turn from good to bad. The detail you're talking about makes the ending more personal, it doesn't make it bad or rushed.

It does make it bad. Bioware is telling me that this character, in the third flashback, is more important than the others. That's not true. In fact none of the characters in the flashbacks, Anderson, Joker and Liara, the Shepard I played, never cared about. Every time I played ME3, before the extended cut was released, I got up and walked away to avoid seeing them.
 

I can give you another example : Tsui Hark's The Blade is consider to be a masterpiece but if you take a look carefully you will sometime see some members staff on the screen. The film doesn't become bad or rushed because of that.

I don't know anything about that Tsui Hark's The Blade thing. So it means nothing to me.
 

I understand that you would have prefered this detail to be fixed since the original ending, but it doesn't really impact on the quality of the writing.

I'm sure I'm not the only one. It doesn't effect the writing, but tells me Bioware, for some reason, chose to ignore the other LI's.

[Ithurael]

Angol, did you read anything from the myriad of sources I gave you in the Harbinger thread? I go over this stuff in great detail, even approaching it from a Post-Structuralist view in some regards. I gave you books, courses, articles, and more information than I thought imaginable but it seems you may not have gotten to it.

 

-High Level writing is not really what you keep saying it is in the context of ME3's ending. Abstract =/= incomprehensible. For more information, please read through the segment on this in the Harbinger thread.

 

-The paradox you are trying to say is not really a paradox it is, mechanically, an Oxymoron (now those can be paradoxes under the right conditions, but those conditions do not exist in ME3s ending). I can see how Mac may have thought what he was writing could have been really cool and paradoxical but it was not. For more information, please read through the segment on this in the Harbinger thread.

 

-Narrative Coherence is the overall consistent and logical flow of a work relative to itself - not writer intent. Rule of Cool however, is how consistent the a segment of the work is to writer intent (Narrative Coherence takes a back seat). ME3's ending breaks its internal narrative coherence- a lot. Both in the Vanilla version and less so in the EC. And, by your own words, for something to be of quality it has to be coherent. However, by your own words again ME3 is poorly made...but that is only if you look at the writing and not the Art. (I don't think I need to represent to you the issue of stating the quality of something not from what it does but based solely on what it is). For more information, please read through the segment on this in the Harbinger thread.

 

-Also, Narrative Coherence is very objective, as is the one true rule of storytelling - "Don't Break the Illusion" You don't need to follow this, but you will never be regarded as a good storyteller. Basically, if a writer cannot pay attention to their own work (and what came before), why should anyone care about what he/she writes after?

 

-Trying to play off your arguments as writer intent falls very much under the "Intentional Fallacy" (something that arose out of Post-Structuralism and something I was hoping you would know about). For more information, please read through the segment on this in the Harbinger thread.

 

I know you work as a literature teacher, and that is really great. But sometimes I think you cast aside the mechanics and requirements of writing in favor of the enjoyment and interpretation of the output of writing (eg the story and your interpretation of it) and you may have a tiny bit of romanticized idealism mixed in there. Enjoying something is great, but all narratives/stories are held to the same standard of Narrative Coherence. I know you will disagree on this, but you need to know that there is a big difference between your interpretations and the writing itself. One precedes the other.

 

Finally, trying to eschew anything here that proves you or your views incorrect (pertaining to narrative coherence, tropes, anything cited on the internet) as "Not real Knowledge" is what we call "poisoning the well" (and also this or this since you apparently don't accept wikipedia) and is a form of an Ad-Hom. So, maybe you should not be so quick to judge here Angol, just because something cited proves you wrong does not mean it is instantly false, read into it, try to see if what is being presented is consistent across other channels of information as well (Never use yourself as a source in this regard as it could lead to an echo-chamber effect)

 

As always Angol, good to see you back fighting the good fight

[Vanilka]

Actually it has a lot to do with that. Because we have had this discussion before about how the Catalyst should have been able to prevent events in ME1. Thus causing the contradiction. How ever all the reasons various players gave why the Catalyst should have done X or Y were based on what they would do as organics. They gave it organic reasons like time frames and must being done now.  Which ignores the Catalyst and Reapers both exist out side of what we consider time. Due to the nature of their construction.

Yes, because making sure that your plan goes as supposed to is sooo organic.
 

They also apply the human characteristic of the Catalyst looking at organics in contempt like roaches that need to be squashed ASAP. Rather then the scientist who after all this time is still searching for a better solution then the Reapers. Thus the events of ME 1 would have been a great variation in the galaxy wide experiment. And rather then crush it like a bias human would not wanting their solution to maybe be proven wrong would allow it to continue to see were this variation leads to.

Literally nobody said that. Quote a person that said something like that.
 

This is also true of when presented with the options at the end of ME 3. Anyone assuming the Catalyst is lying to them is doing so because they are adding a human characteristic to it. Rather then the simple logical set up of a machine that would have no reason to lie to anyone. It makes it's argument, gives you the 3 options and informs you of which option it thinks is best. Then it lets you pick because by all data to it you are the only one worthy of making the choice since you were the catalyst that changed the variables.

 

That has nothing to do with human characteristics. Finding that you can't trust something isn't the same as thinking it's lying. The thing is that you don't know the circumstances and possible consequences, the thing's precise motivations, methods, etc.

 

And even if people assumed that the thing was lying, we had other synthetics omit truth and deceive before, so in MEU it's not impossible for synthetics and thus isn't an incorrect assumption.

[rossler]

Well, of course they're not going to say the endings are crap.

 

They just disagree with you. Nothing wrong with having a different opinion. That's good that they aren't yes men. 

[gothpunkboy89]

Yes, because making sure that your plan goes as supposed to is sooo organic.
 

Literally nobody said that. Quote a person that said something like that.
 

 

That has nothing to do with human characteristics. Finding that you can't trust something isn't the same as thinking it's lying. The thing is that you don't know the circumstances and possible consequences, the thing's precise motivations, methods, etc.

 

And even if people assumed that the thing was lying, we had other synthetics omit truth and deceive before, so in MEU it's not impossible for synthetics and thus isn't an incorrect assumption.

 

 

When it ignores the point of the experiment and it comes down to being right rather then getting the correct data then yes it is sooo organic. Which is why under ideal set ups any findings are tested again and again by other people to ensure the data is correct and they didn't allow bias to filter into the results which would change it.

 

Literally people did. But if you don't believe me then feel free to make another thread here asking that question about the Catalyst causing a contradiction/problem in existing in ME 1 and see the reasons why people state it causes problems and why the Catalyst should have done X or Y during the events of ME 1.

 

Can't trust and thinking it is lying is the same thing. You only assume people you can't trust are lying to you. If Anderson told something to Shepard he/she wouldn't automatically asume Anderson is lying because Shepard trusts him. How ever if TIM told Shepard something he/she would automatically assume TIM is lying because Shepard doesn't trust him.

 

Omitting information is not the same a lying. If your grandmother were to die of a heart attack during an old folks orgy and I simply inform you she died of a heart attack. I'm not actually lying to you even though I omitted information. It is a very very very thin line that separates the two. But in game there are examples of synthetics omitting information but never out right lying about things.

[Vanilka]

They just disagree with you. Nothing wrong with having a different opinion. That's good that they aren't yes men. 

 

I'm not saying they're right or wrong or anything. I'm just saying that it's difficult, if not impossible, for an employee to state an honest opinion concerning the work of their company because being negative could get them into trouble. If they genuinely feel that way, then I'm happy for them!

[BloodyMares]

They just disagree with you. Nothing wrong with having a different opinion. That's good that they aren't yes men. 

 

Not really. If they have an opinion, they are usually quiet about it. They don't say "the ending is perfect and makes total sense". In most of the interviews I watched they try to be neutral and don't really say whether they personally like the ending or not. 

[BloodyMares]

Omitting information is not the same a lying. If your grandmother were to die of a heart attack during an old folks orgy and I simply inform you she died of a heart attack. I'm not actually lying to you even though I omitted information. It is a very very very thin line that separates the two. But in game there are examples of synthetics omitting information but never out right lying about things.

You and your examples...no need to be gross.

[Iakus]

Seriously dude you need to stop quoting that guy.  If this was a political discussion it would be like quoting Sarah Palin. And some how expecting what she says to have any meaning to anyone what isn't a far right hard core conservative.

Poisoning the Well

[Vanilka]

When it ignores the point of the experiment and it comes down to being right rather then getting the correct data then yes it is sooo organic.

This is not at all what we started talking about and it is not the point of the post you responded to. It also has nothing to do with what I said. The whole point was that the plan relied on the Reapers entering the Milky Way through the Citadel relay and the Reapers had absolutely nothing to make sure that's going to work out besides Sovereign despite the Catalyst itself sitting on the Citadel. This has been discussed into great detail already anyway. But I see you prefer to derail instead.
 

Literally people did.

And yet again you fail to provide any proof. I can spout unfounded statements, too.
 

But if you don't believe me then feel free to make another thread here asking that question about the Catalyst causing a contradiction/problem in existing in ME 1 and see the reasons why people state it causes problems and why the Catalyst should have done X or Y during the events of ME 1.

Why should I? You claim that people said things that never got actually said and that you never back up with actual proof. Plus, the response wasn't even about contradictions, but about people anthropomorphising the Catalyst. You don't even follow your own posts. 
 

Can't trust and thinking it is lying is the same thing. You only assume people you can't trust are lying to you.

No, sometimes you can't trust something simply because you don't know all the necessary data to make an informed decision or because there is a super ancient synthetic that thinks completely differently from you and thus you can't predict what it'll do and why. Or both. Or whatever.
 

If Anderson told something to Shepard he/she wouldn't automatically asume Anderson is lying because Shepard trusts him. How ever if TIM told Shepard something he/she would automatically assume TIM is lying because Shepard doesn't trust him.

And? Is there any point to this?
 

Omitting information is not the same a lying.

Lying by omission is a thing. Plus, I don't need that as a proof either way, because EDI did actively deceive people, proving synthetics can do that. 
 

If your grandmother were to die of a heart attack during an old folks orgy and I simply inform you she died of a heart attack.

Why you'd think making this sort of analogy is necessary is beyond me.

[rossler]

Not really. If they have an opinion, they are usually quiet about it. They don't say "the ending is perfect and makes total sense". In most of the interviews I watched they try to be neutral and don't really say whether they personally like the ending or not. 

 

They did defend their employees and all the hard work they put into the game as a whole. That's just another way to say they're proud of the product they made. 

 

They did say that the answers were in the game if you look for them though. 

[Iakus]

 

They did say that the answers were in the game if you look for them though. 

She also claimed EDI and the geth survive the Red ending.  So I'm going to take that with a hefty dose of salt.

[rossler]

She also claimed EDI and the geth survive the Red ending.  So I'm going to take that with a hefty dose of salt.

 

I didn't see them get killed by the Crucible's wave of destruction. 

 

So yeah, it's not hard to believe they survived. 

[kal_reegar]

If Shepard chooses to destroy the Reapers, EDI perishes along with all other synthetics throughout the galaxy and her name is then added to the Memorial Wall.

[rossler]

If Shepard chooses to destroy the Reapers, EDI perishes along with all other synthetics throughout the galaxy and her name is then added to the Memorial Wall.

 

And the crew on the Normandy suddenly knows the implications of the Crucible without actually being where Shepard was? Yeah, I find that hard to believe. 

[Vanilka]

If Shepard chooses to destroy the Reapers, EDI perishes along with all other synthetics throughout the galaxy and her name is then added to the Memorial Wall.

 

I think that wasn't present in the original ending, though, was it? That's also our only proof, as far as I know. No heartbreaking scenes of EDI collapsing in Joker's arms or the geth all falling to the ground as their little flashlight heads stop glowing. On the other hand... yeah, that'd probably make me cry. 

[Iakus]

I didn't see them get killed by the Crucible's wave of destruction. 

 

So yeah, it's not hard to believe they survived. 

EDI doesn't come out of the ship with Joker like she does in teh other endings

 

EDI's name appears on the memorial wall and is not present at the memorial itself.

 

Rannoch slides do not show geth.

 

So yeah, they die. 

[rossler]

EDI doesn't come out of the ship with Joker like she does in teh other endings

 

EDI's name appears on the memorial wall and is not present at the memorial itself.

 

Rannoch slides do not show geth.

 

So yeah, they die. 

 

Sure, sure. 

 

You know that EDI has two parts. One is that mobile platform she controls remotely, and the other is her real form on the Normandy which is housed in the server room behind the med bay. 

[kal_reegar]

 

And the crew on the Normandy suddenly knows the implications of the Crucible without actually being where Shepard was? Yeah, I find that hard to believe. 

 

What Jessica Merizan (or Mac Wlaters, or Hudson, or Weekes) tweet, or write in a book or say to their friends while being drunk is totally irrelevant.

Only in-game info are relevant, imho.

 

Edi and all synthetics died in destroy ending, no doubt.

[gothpunkboy89]

You and your examples...no need to be gross.

 

What is gross about it?

 

Besides points like that get what I'm attempting to say across very well.

[gothpunkboy89]

Poisoning the Well

 

Not so much. Please try again. Because that guy who is continually referenced to people similarly minded who want to dislike the game and it's writing it all seems fair balanced and makes sense. For anyone not in that mentality how ever the bias and problems become apparent. I could have used Trump that is low hanging fruit everything considered.

 

Both people play very heavily to the core base. The problem is that core base is the only one who doesn't think they are complete idiots and full of ****. And that is the parallel I was drawing. For Natureguy it is a valid thing. For everyone else who doesn't think just like him is is like someone referencing something that was said on Fox News and being surprised why people might not find it a credible source do to the obvious bias for one side and view point.

 

Politics and conspiracy theory is were this set up flourishes uncontrollably.

[Iakus]

Sure, sure. 

 

You know that EDI has two parts. One is that mobile platform she controls remotely, and the other is her real form on the Normandy which is housed in the server room behind the med bay. 

Do you also know that in a Low-EMS control ending where EDI is one of the companions that "dies" in the beam run, she doesn't appear on the memorial scene, but her name isn't on the memorial either?

 

So yeah, they thought of that.

[rossler]

Edi and all synthetics died in destroy ending, no doubt.

Why is that? The Reaper's creator said so? And you believed him? I thought there was a line added in the Extended Cut where Shepard clearly states "I don't believe you", when talking with it. 

[themikefest]

Why is that? The Reaper's creator said so? And you believed him? I thought there was a line added in the Extended Cut where Shepard clearly states "I don't believe you", when talking with it. 

Shepard says that in reference to destroying the reapers without using the crucible

https://youtu.be/5XNyvUblf28?t=7m50s