Thread: Mass Effect 3
View Single Post
Old December 15 2010, 06:23 AM   #96
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Mass Effect 3

-Brett- wrote: View Post
The shuttle ride to nowhere was a legitimate plot problem.

Taking Sovereign literally when it says it's kind have no origin and deriving plot issues from that is stretching.
You mean you don't believe him on the basis of incredulity.
...that's not least not for me. I'm searching for a more reasonable explanation.

TheGodBen wrote: View Post
It doesn't mean it's being honest either, and considering that it's trying to kill my entire species because it "demands it" I have no reason to trust it at all.
It's testimony. To invalidate it you must have opposing testimony or evidence to the contrary. Incredulity is the most thinnest vapor-less reason for disbelief. I'm sorry I see no other choice given the evidence to take him at his word.

I'm not planning to, unless you want to defend the supposed merits of creationism. My point was that any idiot can abuse reality to support their philosophy, it happens in the real world all the time, so why should I trust Sovereign when it could be doing exactly the same thing?
I don't know what you're talking about, honestly.
Do you have any real reason other than your dislike of Sovereign's behavior to find his statements false?

You can't just accept what Sovereign says at face value, it is a villain, they're not well known for telling the truth.
As an objective observer I have no choice.
Untill he says something contradictory to previous statements are what I know is true in the game...I must take it at face value. That's the nature of a unbiased judgment.

Except the Reapers would have been infinitely bigger than the universe itself. Not to mention that the Reapers, like all physical objects, are composed of atoms, and atoms didn't exist at the beginning of the universe.
How do you know this?
How do you know that their form hasn't evolved or that they they've changed themselves to enter our universe? They maybe Avatars.

Of course, it is possible that the consciousness of the Reapers existed from the beginning and that their ships are just physical constructs that came later,
ah so you do understand what I'm saying.

I do, but only because I disregard the notion that the Reapers are gods or eternal. I just consider them to be a different form of life, albeit a very condescending one. (Which is actually the same way I'd view any so-called gods that ending up being real.)
I understand but this just took the form of a belief and how am I supposed to compare a belief to testimony of Sovereign as anything more than an opposing opinion?

I walked past a guy in town a couple of weeks ago that claimed I was going to burn for eternity in a fiery pit. Doesn't mean he's right. I'm almost certain that he's not.
That's just as much a confidence statement as his proclamation.

No, it just means that Shepard knows it's pointless to confront the Council once they've made their mind up about something. If Shepard being proved right continually in the first game isn't enough to convince the Council, what hope would he have now? It doesn't mean that there's no evidence that the Reapers are real, just that the Council are going to deny it for as long as they can get away with it.' not a direct inference and the syllogism would have a hard time standing up to logic. Like my statement it's merely a possible meaning.

Without the contradiction by Shepard it's an acquiescence to the facts they've given. He may not think it's worth contradicting but there is no basis now to say the council's objections are false.

I think it's perfectly explained by Udina in ME1 when he sided with the Council in grounding the Normandy so as not to risk the influence humanity had gained. Even if Anderson is chosen to join the Council, one man cannot overcome the bureaucracy inherent in the system.
Ugh...that's far from perfect as explanations go. You had to regress all they way back to ME1 to explain a completely independent decision in ME2 of a clear and present danger that isn't acted upon.

You see you're looking at a New Yorker Suit jacket that's full of lose threads and saying" That looks good." when I rather see shoddy workmanship and bad tailoring. This isn't air tight.

There are problems with ME2, I'm perfectly willing to admit that. The narrative structure wasn't as good as in the first game, it was a little absurd how each character had a personal errand they wanted you to go on, the human Reaper looked silly... but overall, I felt it was a better game. I don't see the contradictions you mention as I do not believe they exist, at least not in the way you explain them. don't believe...they exist.

Oh, well. I laid it out as objectively as I could. There were some interesting theories but the mesh isn't perfect. The first game will be a classic for what seems to be a perfectly composed plot, reveals and twist. I think it's too bad that the Second Game couldn't at least hold the continuity. On it's own ME2 is an good game made better by the downloadable content but it's barely a match for the perfection of the first game because of these contradictions and like you said these character quest that were nothing more than high artillery errands. But still worth the play and many many ways.
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote