57139 réponses à ce sujet

[Uncle Jo]

TheConstantOne wrote...


I often considered Starkid's logic to be skewed because his logic itself was somewhat constrained.  He may be an AI but he could be shackled to a particualr directive similarly to how EDI was in ME 2.  The logic he uses is how he justifies what the Reapers do.  My personal take: the Reapers don't trust the galaxy to rest in the hands of solely organics or synthetics.  They want to preserve their dominance and their own vision of synthesis.  This is also how I interpreted the smile the kid has when you choose control: even if you take the Reapers in a different direction, they are still the most powerful beings in the galaxy and will be calling the shots to some extent.

This could be their true intent: They want to dominate everything for whatever reason. They don't give a damn about the preservation/salvation/whatsoever of the organics. They harvest them before they could become a threat and merely use them to enhance themselves. So synthesis and control are lies. There is one way to deal with them--> destroy.

[SS2Dante]

HellishFiend wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Pascal219 wrote...

twitter.com/#!/trutriciahelfer/status/195630840527589377

Nice!

Not really helpful to either side, is it?

EDIT - actually, if she does her extra lines and the Shep VO's don't then it hurts IT. Unless they've already recorded their dialogue, but...:S

I just think it's cool that theyre already recording dialog. Obviously that tweet in and of itself is not any indicator beyond the fact that EDI will have more dialog... 

It COULD indicate that whatever theyre doing, they already have it storyboarded and more or less ready to be put together. 

At the very least, it means we get some voice acting in the DLC, so that's fractionally more substantial than the previous worst case scenario

[TheConstantOne]

Nauks wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

I can't bear to watch some of the Renegade things.  The hardest things for me to watch are the killings of Mordin and Legion.  I swear I die a little inside every time I watch those on YouTube.

I could never go full Renegade in ME3, I'd need therapy to deal with all the horrible sheet I'd have Shepard do >
Renegades really get the shaft in ME3 tbh, so much pure wrongness, on the other hand, pure Paragon is too saint like too, Paragade for me thankyou.

My preffered Shep has a paragon personality on the whole but can be considered paragade given the mix of the major decisions.  The killing Mording moment for the genophage sabotage is the WORST moment of the game.  However, that's because Wrex was live in my renegade playthrough.  If Wreav was in charge...I'd feel bad but I think I'd go through with the sabotage

[Simon_Says]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

paxxton wrote...
Since when morality and logic are the same thing???

This is why many people have a missconception about logic, they can't separate it from morality.

Good morality is logical. For everything one does or does not do, they should have a valid reason for it.

Logical analysis can lead to good morality. For example, murder is wrong because if it was allowed, the promise of safety and security that all human societies depend upon is undermined, and everyone suffers for that. Ergo, murder must not be allowed.

The two go hand in hand in situations like this. What the Catalyst argues is neither logical nor moral, and hence makes no sense.

Modifié par Simon_Says, 26 avril 2012 - 11:51 .

[SS2Dante]

Dwailing wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

What part of "synthetics killing off organics so that organics aren't killed off by synthetics" makes sense?

They do not kill all organics so there is no paradox.

Actually, there is a paradox, because what I said did not imply that the reapers killed everything off. And the excuse that they leave less advanced species alone is BS. What about huskified harvesters? Or the Krogan, who are only capable of space travel due to outside intervention?

Argument still stands: genocide of several species because they might create synthetics that destroy everything is hypocritical in the extreme.

Take another look at Palaven. How is that justifiable?!

Since when morality and logic are the same thing???

This is why many people have a missconception about logic, they can't separate it from morality.

^This^

Sometimes you just have to say, "Screw logic, I'm going to do what feels right."  And sometimes, that actually does pay off.  (cough) War Assets (cough)  

Not saying you don't, but that's a human/organic trait that I don't expect the starchild to share. Hence my belief that his cycle is perfectly logical.

[paxxton]

Dwailing wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

What part of "synthetics killing off organics so that organics aren't killed off by synthetics" makes sense?

They do not kill all organics so there is no paradox.

Actually, there is a paradox, because what I said did not imply that the reapers killed everything off. And the excuse that they leave less advanced species alone is BS. What about huskified harvesters? Or the Krogan, who are only capable of space travel due to outside intervention?

Argument still stands: genocide of several species because they might create synthetics that destroy everything is hypocritical in the extreme.

Take another look at Palaven. How is that justifiable?!

Since when morality and logic are the same thing???

This is why many people have a missconception about logic, they can't separate it from morality.

^This^

Sometimes you just have to say, "Screw logic, I'm going to do what feels right."  And sometimes, that actually does pay off.  (cough) War Assets (cough)  

There is actually a theory that states the more War Assets you gather the worse. High EMS means every fleet is stuck in the Sol System (after Destroy) while the Reapers purge other systems.

[MaximizedAction]

SS2Dante wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Pascal219 wrote...

twitter.com/#!/trutriciahelfer/status/195630840527589377

Nice!

Not really helpful to either side, is it?

EDIT - actually, if she does her extra lines and the Shep VO's don't then it hurts IT. Unless they've already recorded their dialogue, but...:S

I just think it's cool that theyre already recording dialog. Obviously that tweet in and of itself is not any indicator beyond the fact that EDI will have more dialog... 

It COULD indicate that whatever theyre doing, they already have it storyboarded and more or less ready to be put together. 

At the very least, it means we get some voice acting in the DLC, so that's fractionally more substantial than the previous worst case scenario

Is there any pre-rendered cinematic scene in ME3 that involves voice acting? If no, then there might be a chance of gameplay...

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 26 avril 2012 - 10:34 .

[Domanese]

Pascal219 wrote...

twitter.com/#!/trutriciahelfer/status/195630840527589377

That's interesting but that could also be in reference to "Take Back Omega DLC" couldn't it?

[TheConstantOne]

EpyonX3 wrote...

Against every moral fiber in my body, I'm going to play Renegade for the first time in the ME series. I usually youtube renegade options but I figured I'd go full tyrant myself.

Be prepared for a gut wrenching experience.... Renegade was fun in ME 2, though

[SS2Dante]

Simon_Says wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

paxxton wrote...
Since when morality and logic are the same thing???

This is why many people have a missconception about logic, they can't separate it from morality.

Good morality is logical. For everything one does or does not do, they should have a valid reason for it.

Logical analysis can lead to good morality. For example, murder is wrong because if it was allowed, the promise of safety and security that all human societies depend upon is undermined, and everyone suffers for that. Ergo, murder must not be allowed.

The two go hand in hand.

Kill 10 innocent people to save 20. What is the logical and what is the moral answer?

[paxxton]

Simon_Says wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

paxxton wrote...
Since when morality and logic are the same thing???

This is why many people have a missconception about logic, they can't separate it from morality.

Good morality is logical. For everything one does or does not do, they should have a valid reason for it.

Logical analysis can lead to good morality. For example, murder is wrong because if it was allowed, the promise of safety and security that all human societies depend upon is undermined, and everyone suffers for that. Ergo, murder must not be allowed.

The two go hand in hand.

Let's not go into discussing systems theory.

Modifié par paxxton, 26 avril 2012 - 10:36 .

[Dwailing]

TheConstantOne wrote...

Nauks wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

I can't bear to watch some of the Renegade things.  The hardest things for me to watch are the killings of Mordin and Legion.  I swear I die a little inside every time I watch those on YouTube.

I could never go full Renegade in ME3, I'd need therapy to deal with all the horrible sheet I'd have Shepard do >
Renegades really get the shaft in ME3 tbh, so much pure wrongness, on the other hand, pure Paragon is too saint like too, Paragade for me thankyou.

My preffered Shep has a paragon personality on the whole but can be considered paragade given the mix of the major decisions.  The killing Mording moment for the genophage sabotage is the WORST moment of the game.  However, that's because Wrex was live in my renegade playthrough.  If Wreav was in charge...I'd feel bad but I think I'd go through with the sabotage

Oh, you got SCREWED big time by killing Mordin while Wrex was leader.  My advice, if you want to sabotage the Genophage, kill Wrex, destroy Maelon's data.  Wreav becomes leader, Eve dies due to lack of proper treatment, Mordin can be persuaded to permit sabotage without need to kill him.  Win-win.   You know, except for all the deaths that you will cause.  You monster.

[MegumiAzusa]

TheConstantOne wrote...

Nauks wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

I can't bear to watch some of the Renegade things.  The hardest things for me to watch are the killings of Mordin and Legion.  I swear I die a little inside every time I watch those on YouTube.

I could never go full Renegade in ME3, I'd need therapy to deal with all the horrible sheet I'd have Shepard do >
Renegades really get the shaft in ME3 tbh, so much pure wrongness, on the other hand, pure Paragon is too saint like too, Paragade for me thankyou.

My preffered Shep has a paragon personality on the whole but can be considered paragade given the mix of the major decisions.  The killing Mording moment for the genophage sabotage is the WORST moment of the game.  However, that's because Wrex was live in my renegade playthrough.  If Wreav was in charge...I'd feel bad but I think I'd go through with the sabotage

If Wrex would be dead I still wouldn't shoot Mordin but make it clear that curing is a mistake.

[HellishFiend]

SS2Dante wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

paxxton wrote...
Since when morality and logic are the same thing???

This is why many people have a missconception about logic, they can't separate it from morality.

Good morality is logical. For everything one does or does not do, they should have a valid reason for it.

Logical analysis can lead to good morality. For example, murder is wrong because if it was allowed, the promise of safety and security that all human societies depend upon is undermined, and everyone suffers for that. Ergo, murder must not be allowed.

The two go hand in hand.

Kill 10 innocent people to save 20. What is the logical and what is the moral answer?

Logically, there is insufficient information. Are the 10 people important in some way? Are they more valuable in society or in whatever context the problem is posed in? Logic requires you have all the information, or at least enough to come to a conclusion. 

Morally, its entirely subjective by nature. 

[Dwailing]

SS2Dante wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

paxxton wrote...
Since when morality and logic are the same thing???

This is why many people have a missconception about logic, they can't separate it from morality.

Good morality is logical. For everything one does or does not do, they should have a valid reason for it.

Logical analysis can lead to good morality. For example, murder is wrong because if it was allowed, the promise of safety and security that all human societies depend upon is undermined, and everyone suffers for that. Ergo, murder must not be allowed.

The two go hand in hand.

Kill 10 innocent people to save 20. What is the logical and what is the moral answer?

Well, ultimately, you would kill ten and save ten.  Logical answer would be to judge the "values" of each life.  Moral answer would be to kill the son of a ----- who told you to kill those ten in the first place. 

Edit: Or turn him in to the authorities.  To be honest, there is no right answer.  It's a no win situation.

Modifié par Dwailing, 26 avril 2012 - 10:41 .

[Nauks]

Dwailing wrote...

I'm pure Paragon with a couple exceptions.  I punched Admiral Han'Gerral, I shot Udina, I interrupted Kai Leng, etc.  I actually thought the option of punching Admiral Gerrel should be a Paragon interrupt, like punching Zaeed in ME2.

Indeed, some of the interrupts are way skewed, they should make them neutral or w/e, both triggers.

[waldstr18]

HellishFiend wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

paxxton wrote...
Since when morality and logic are the same thing???

This is why many people have a missconception about logic, they can't separate it from morality.

Good morality is logical. For everything one does or does not do, they should have a valid reason for it.

Logical analysis can lead to good morality. For example, murder is wrong because if it was allowed, the promise of safety and security that all human societies depend upon is undermined, and everyone suffers for that. Ergo, murder must not be allowed.

The two go hand in hand.

Kill 10 innocent people to save 20. What is the logical and what is the moral answer?

Logically, there is insufficient information. Are the 10 people important in some way? Are they more valuable in society or in whatever context the problem is posed in? Logic requires you have all the information, or at least enough to come to a conclusion. 

Morally, its entirely subjective by nature. 

there is no right answer here. there is a ted talk about that. harvard philosophy lecture. go google it.

[Dwailing]

Nauks wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

I'm pure Paragon with a couple exceptions.  I punched Admiral Han'Gerral, I shot Udina, I interrupted Kai Leng, etc.  I actually thought the option of punching Admiral Gerrel should be a Paragon interrupt, like punching Zaeed in ME2.

Indeed, some of the interrupts are way skewed, they should make them neutral or w/e, both triggers.

I always wondered why there weren't situations where you had to choose Paragon or Renegade for the interrupt.

[Simon_Says]

SS2Dante wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

paxxton wrote...
Since when morality and logic are the same thing???

This is why many people have a missconception about logic, they can't separate it from morality.

Good morality is logical. For everything one does or does not do, they should have a valid reason for it.

Logical analysis can lead to good morality. For example, murder is wrong because if it was allowed, the promise of safety and security that all human societies depend upon is undermined, and everyone suffers for that. Ergo, murder must not be allowed.

The two go hand in hand.

Kill 10 innocent people to save 20. What is the logical and what is the moral answer?

You kill 10 people to save 20. If your value system values more lives as preferable to fewer lives then this is both moral -and- logical.

[MegumiAzusa]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Is there any pre-rendered cinematic scene in ME3 that involves voice acting? If no, then there might be a chance of gameplay...

Sure there is, some parts of the fleets reporting in for example.

[TheConstantOne]

Uncle Jo wrote...

TheConstantOne wrote...


I often considered Starkid's logic to be skewed because his logic itself was somewhat constrained.  He may be an AI but he could be shackled to a particualr directive similarly to how EDI was in ME 2.  The logic he uses is how he justifies what the Reapers do.  My personal take: the Reapers don't trust the galaxy to rest in the hands of solely organics or synthetics.  They want to preserve their dominance and their own vision of synthesis.  This is also how I interpreted the smile the kid has when you choose control: even if you take the Reapers in a different direction, they are still the most powerful beings in the galaxy and will be calling the shots to some extent.

This could be their true intent: They want to dominate everything for whatever reason. They don't give a damn about the preservation/salvation/whatsoever of the organics. They harvest them before they could become a threat and merely use them to enhance themselves. So synthesis and control are lies. There is one way to deal with them--> destroy.

It certainly is one option.  I wouldn't write control and synthesis off as lies though.  Synthesis brings all life to the level the Reapers view as ideal but were unable to achieve (perhaps because their makers didn't want the Reapers to achieve this vision of perfection?  Food for thought.)  Control  takes away the Reapers' current goal but still keeps them (the peak of evoltuion) at the top of the galactic food chain.

But that's just my take.  I'm not an IT person (I do enjoy the discussions however, that's why I hop on from time to time) and while I think Reaper Bieber wasn't being entirely straight with us, I don't think he was outright lieing either. 

[Dwailing]

Dwailing wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

paxxton wrote...
Since when morality and logic are the same thing???

This is why many people have a missconception about logic, they can't separate it from morality.

Good morality is logical. For everything one does or does not do, they should have a valid reason for it.

Logical analysis can lead to good morality. For example, murder is wrong because if it was allowed, the promise of safety and security that all human societies depend upon is undermined, and everyone suffers for that. Ergo, murder must not be allowed.

The two go hand in hand.

Kill 10 innocent people to save 20. What is the logical and what is the moral answer?

Well, ultimately, you would kill ten and save ten.  Logical answer would be to judge the "values" of each life.  Moral answer would be to kill the son of a ----- who told you to kill those ten in the first place. 

Edit: Or turn him in to the authorities.  To be honest, there is no right answer.  It's a no win situation.

I'm going to quote myself here just to make sure you all see this.  I should point out that the last part was partially a joke, hence, the Hudson Smiley.  

[SS2Dante]

@HellishFiend answered that perfectly, and though it was meant to set up the discussion I've decided to abort that course because @Paxxxtons right and this could go on for a while. I'll give my one metaphor for the situation and leave it.

You see a bomb heading towards a crowd of 10,000 people. The bomb has a 50/50 chance of hitting them. You can stop the bomb, if you kill one person in front of you. Do you do it?

That's how the Reapers would view the situation, but worse. The number of people they kill is statistically tiny compared to the number they save, and the odds of synthetics destroying everything on a large enough timeline are practically 100%

Anyhoo, basically the point is that the starchilds logic is not outright "stupid" or "crazy" as a lot of people claim. Debatable, yes, but not intellectually contemptible. 

EDIT - arrg like 10 fixes to mistakes while typing

Modifié par SS2Dante, 26 avril 2012 - 10:50 .

[TheConstantOne]

Dwailing wrote...

TheConstantOne wrote...

Nauks wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

I can't bear to watch some of the Renegade things.  The hardest things for me to watch are the killings of Mordin and Legion.  I swear I die a little inside every time I watch those on YouTube.

I could never go full Renegade in ME3, I'd need therapy to deal with all the horrible sheet I'd have Shepard do >
Renegades really get the shaft in ME3 tbh, so much pure wrongness, on the other hand, pure Paragon is too saint like too, Paragade for me thankyou.

My preffered Shep has a paragon personality on the whole but can be considered paragade given the mix of the major decisions.  The killing Mording moment for the genophage sabotage is the WORST moment of the game.  However, that's because Wrex was live in my renegade playthrough.  If Wreav was in charge...I'd feel bad but I think I'd go through with the sabotage

Oh, you got SCREWED big time by killing Mordin while Wrex was leader.  My advice, if you want to sabotage the Genophage, kill Wrex, destroy Maelon's data.  Wreav becomes leader, Eve dies due to lack of proper treatment, Mordin can be persuaded to permit sabotage without need to kill him.  Win-win.   You know, except for all the deaths that you will cause.  You monster.

Hahaha, Wreav is just disastrous for the galaxy and a horrible person.  I can't trust working with someone that terrible.
That being said I kept the collector base in my canon playthrough feeling that the cerberus fallout if they misused the tech would be worth saving every species from extinction hahaha. Oh contextual situations...how you reveal my flaws

[Simon_Says]

SS2Dante wrote...

Your entire argument is based on emotional and moral grounds, not calculations of likelihood. 

SS2Dante wrote...

...and the odds of synthetics destroying everything on a large enough timeline are practically 100%

What data do we even have to use for the calculations of likelihood?

That's right, practically none. The starbrat claims that the created will always rebel against their creators, eventually leading to destruction. No evidence to back this up, despite some (not plenty, honestly) to the contrary. So we can't take this statement to be a conclusion derived from fact. It's an assumption. A possibly false one at that.

The problem with the Catalyst is that, with the information presented, there are simply too many unanswered questions and too few answers from this character to safely assume it even knows what the hell it's talking about, or what it's real intentions are.

Modifié par Simon_Says, 26 avril 2012 - 10:49 .