57139 réponses à ce sujet

[Iconoclaste]

ExtendedCut wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Missing the point. The writers goofed. They themselves couldn't decide this thing for themselves. Ultiamately, they made an illogical decision which I doubt they can defend. EDI's survival of destroy jut proves bad writing, nothing more.

I should be more clear: there are no concrete hints foreshadowings within the narrative for the player to logically reason that the Cataylst is deceiving them in any way.

All the interview said was that it was a concious decision to have EDI survive, Weekes disagreed because he said that she is part reaper tech, NOT because she is synthetic. EDI is synthetic, it was a decision to keep her in the end, kid says synthetics will die. Open your eyes man cause your logic stinks. (I hate this attitude)

Agreed.  There was no interview where anyone actually admitted that they goofed.  So unless you (HYR2) know one the Bioware head-honchos personally, you can't know this.  Therefore, it is logical to assume that the Starkid lied.

If you start going that way, then you will have to establish in all dialogue when the Catalyst is lying, and when he is not. Good luck, sincerely.

[Simon_Says]

SS2Dante wrote...

Because we've had this argument like 10 times and it always escalates and goes on for like 12 pages. I think the starchilds reasoning is perfectly sound BUT I will NOT go into it again

Anyway, either way I don't think his reasoning is a super solid argument one way or the other, so *shrug*

I'd actually like to make one last comment.

Dante, you're right. The Starbrat's reasoning could be sound. But its logic is obviously framed around a value system incompatible with our own. That's the crux of the problem. That's why the reapers, and the Starbrat by extension, are the enemy. That's why it can't be trusted.

[Rosewind]

Kid is still creepy ><, and he has no feet ......

[byne]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

@'hunter

Let me reiterate: Shepard has no way to defeat the Reapers, until the Catalysts provides it to him/her. On the other hand, the Catalyst could have withheld the solution-paths, thereby letting the crucible fail and ensure the Reapers' victory/continued dominance. But he didn't. And in some cases, it's only one solution: destroy, which makes Indoctrination Headcanon almost completely nonsensical.

The more I think about this, the more I believe it holds no water.

So are you yet another 'Reapers cant be defeated conventionally' person?

I absolutely hate that line of thinking. It really only exists to justify the introduction of the Crucible as a magical Reaper off-switch (something we were specifically told we would not get).

Reading the codex about the Reaper War and Reaper vulnerabilities, it makes it seem that its very possible to defeat the Reapers conventionally.

[SS2Dante]

byne wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

Utterly irrelevant who strikes first. Results are the same. Moral reasoning, not logical reasoning.

What are the results? cause if it's that synthetics win everytime then you're wrong.

"Eventually, the Protheans faced a hostile machine intelligence which threatened to overwhelm them. To defeat the machines, the Protheans decided to unite all of the galaxy's sentient organic life under their empire. Organic races that resisted the Protheans were soundly crushed. In time, each of the servant races assimilated into Prothean culture and came to think of themselves as Prothean. The Prothean Empire held its own against the machines in a conflict known as the "Metacon War"."

Nope, synthetics don't need to win every time.

Only once.

Dante, when you asked me if I wanted you to get into this all again, I was about to say no, it never helps, and then my internet died. How about now that my internet is back you stop?

Because claiming it is logical to slaughter trillions of organics over billions of years on the off-chance that if you dont do it, synthetics might, is going to make my head explode.

And I like my head.

It's where I keep my brain.

I do keep trying to get people to stop discussing the issue. i just don't like it being used as evidence fot IT because it's incredibly weak compared to all the other stuff.

Your summation of the notion I think is meant  to show it's silly, but sounds about right to me. The only difference is that you use "off-chance" whereas I would use the word "probability".

BUT YES. Please let us move on. I'm going to walk my dog, for the love of God Byne please redirect this thread while I'm away. Someone posted a picof Anderson and a cerburus agent that I'm curious about, perhaps investigate that?

[IronSabbath88]

Hm, I see unpleasant people have invaded the thread again.

I think it's time for another long break.

[SS2Dante]

Simon_Says wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

Because we've had this argument like 10 times and it always escalates and goes on for like 12 pages. I think the starchilds reasoning is perfectly sound BUT I will NOT go into it again

Anyway, either way I don't think his reasoning is a super solid argument one way or the other, so *shrug*

I'd actually like to make one last comment.

Dante, you're right. The Starbrat's reasoning could be sound. But its logic is obviously framed around a value system incompatible with our own. That's the crux of the problem. That's why the reapers, and the Starbrat by extension, are the enemy. That's why it can't be trusted.

THANK YOU. I'm totally cool with that, and absolutely agree.

[balance5050]

SS2Dante wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

Utterly irrelevant who strikes first. Results are the same. Moral reasoning, not logical reasoning.

What are the results? cause if it's that synthetics win everytime then you're wrong.

"Eventually, the Protheans faced a hostile machine intelligence which threatened to overwhelm them. To defeat the machines, the Protheans decided to unite all of the galaxy's sentient organic life under their empire. Organic races that resisted the Protheans were soundly crushed. In time, each of the servant races assimilated into Prothean culture and came to think of themselves as Prothean. The Prothean Empire held its own against the machines in a conflict known as the "Metacon War"."

Nope, synthetics don't need to win every time.

Only once.

But, it didn't even happen once, there are still organics around no?

[His Name was HYR!!]

balance5050 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Missing the point. The writers goofed. They themselves couldn't decide this thing for themselves. Ultiamately, they made an illogical decision which I doubt they can defend. EDI's survival of destroy jut proves bad writing, nothing more.

I should be more clear: there are no concrete hints foreshadowings within the narrative for the player to logically reason that the Cataylst is deceiving them in any way.

All the interview said was that it was a concious decision to have EDI survive, Weekes disagreed because he said that she is part reaper tech, NOT because she is synthetic. EDI is synthetic, it was a decision to keep her in the end, kid says synthetics will die. Open your eyes man cause your logic stinks.

No, we can use the interview to make conclusions. The destroy path was supposed to eliminate all synthetics with reaper-tech, as we gather from the interview. But they left EDI alive, and there's no good explanation as for why. Failing that good reason, EDI's survival is bad writing.

[llbountyhunter]

SS2Dante wrote...

byne wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

Utterly irrelevant who strikes first. Results are the same. Moral reasoning, not logical reasoning.

What are the results? cause if it's that synthetics win everytime then you're wrong.

"Eventually, the Protheans faced a hostile machine intelligence which threatened to overwhelm them. To defeat the machines, the Protheans decided to unite all of the galaxy's sentient organic life under their empire. Organic races that resisted the Protheans were soundly crushed. In time, each of the servant races assimilated into Prothean culture and came to think of themselves as Prothean. The Prothean Empire held its own against the machines in a conflict known as the "Metacon War"."

Nope, synthetics don't need to win every time.

Only once.

Dante, when you asked me if I wanted you to get into this all again, I was about to say no, it never helps, and then my internet died. How about now that my internet is back you stop?

Because claiming it is logical to slaughter trillions of organics over billions of years on the off-chance that if you dont do it, synthetics might, is going to make my head explode.

And I like my head.

It's where I keep my brain.

I do keep trying to get people to stop discussing the issue. i just don't like it being used as evidence fot IT because it's incredibly weak compared to all the other stuff.

Your summation of the notion I think is meant  to show it's silly, but sounds about right to me. The only difference is that you use "off-chance" whereas I would use the word "probability".

BUT YES. Please let us move on. I'm going to walk my dog, for the love of God Byne please redirect this thread while I'm away. Someone posted a picof Anderson and a cerburus agent that I'm curious about, perhaps investigate that?

aaannnnd the probability is not in favor of the star brats logic. but yeah lets stop now.

[balance5050]

Iconoclaste wrote...

ExtendedCut wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Missing the point. The writers goofed. They themselves couldn't decide this thing for themselves. Ultiamately, they made an illogical decision which I doubt they can defend. EDI's survival of destroy jut proves bad writing, nothing more.

I should be more clear: there are no concrete hints foreshadowings within the narrative for the player to logically reason that the Cataylst is deceiving them in any way.

All the interview said was that it was a concious decision to have EDI survive, Weekes disagreed because he said that she is part reaper tech, NOT because she is synthetic. EDI is synthetic, it was a decision to keep her in the end, kid says synthetics will die. Open your eyes man cause your logic stinks. (I hate this attitude)

Agreed.  There was no interview where anyone actually admitted that they goofed.  So unless you (HYR2) know one the Bioware head-honchos personally, you can't know this.  Therefore, it is logical to assume that the Starkid lied.

If you start going that way, then you will have to establish in all dialogue when the Catalyst is lying, and when he is not. Good luck, sincerely.

I don't believe a single thing he says, so there.

[llbountyhunter]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Missing the point. The writers goofed. They themselves couldn't decide this thing for themselves. Ultiamately, they made an illogical decision which I doubt they can defend. EDI's survival of destroy jut proves bad writing, nothing more.

I should be more clear: there are no concrete hints foreshadowings within the narrative for the player to logically reason that the Cataylst is deceiving them in any way.

All the interview said was that it was a concious decision to have EDI survive, Weekes disagreed because he said that she is part reaper tech, NOT because she is synthetic. EDI is synthetic, it was a decision to keep her in the end, kid says synthetics will die. Open your eyes man cause your logic stinks.

No, we can use the interview to make conclusions. The destroy path was supposed to eliminate all synthetics with reaper-tech, as we gather from the interview. But they left EDI alive, and there's no good explanation as for why. Failing that good reason, EDI's survival is bad writing.

OR, there can be a good reason to leave it that does not mean bad writing. such as IT. either one is plausible.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 02 mai 2012 - 06:57 .

[balance5050]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Missing the point. The writers goofed. They themselves couldn't decide this thing for themselves. Ultiamately, they made an illogical decision which I doubt they can defend. EDI's survival of destroy jut proves bad writing, nothing more.

I should be more clear: there are no concrete hints foreshadowings within the narrative for the player to logically reason that the Cataylst is deceiving them in any way.

All the interview said was that it was a concious decision to have EDI survive, Weekes disagreed because he said that she is part reaper tech, NOT because she is synthetic. EDI is synthetic, it was a decision to keep her in the end, kid says synthetics will die. Open your eyes man cause your logic stinks.

No, we can use the interview to make conclusions. The destroy path was supposed to eliminate all synthetics with reaper-tech, as we gather from the interview. But they left EDI alive, and there's no good explanation as for why. Failing that good reason, EDI's survival is bad writing.

The kid says that the Geth will die to, he even says "most technology you rely on", not just reapers tech. So from this we can conclude the kid is lying.

[byne]

SS2Dante wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

Because we've had this argument like 10 times and it always escalates and goes on for like 12 pages. I think the starchilds reasoning is perfectly sound BUT I will NOT go into it again

Anyway, either way I don't think his reasoning is a super solid argument one way or the other, so *shrug*

I'd actually like to make one last comment.

Dante, you're right. The Starbrat's reasoning could be sound. But its logic is obviously framed around a value system incompatible with our own. That's the crux of the problem. That's why the reapers, and the Starbrat by extension, are the enemy. That's why it can't be trusted.

THANK YOU. I'm totally cool with that, and absolutely agree.

My last comment on this will be this:

How many times have synthetics cleansed the galaxy of all organic life?

Not once.

Sure, we cant prove that it wouldnt have eventually happened, but that is because the Reapers come in and kill everyone beforehand.

If I broke into your house and destroyed your television, claiming it was going to attract wild tigers to eat your family, you cant actually prove I was wrong, because the television no longer exists, and so you'll never know if wild tigers were really going to come and eat you.

Just because I cant be proven wrong doesnt make my logic sound. Just because godchild cant be proven wrong, it doesnt make his logic sound either.

[Iconoclaste]

balance5050 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

ExtendedCut wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Missing the point. The writers goofed. They themselves couldn't decide this thing for themselves. Ultiamately, they made an illogical decision which I doubt they can defend. EDI's survival of destroy jut proves bad writing, nothing more.

I should be more clear: there are no concrete hints foreshadowings within the narrative for the player to logically reason that the Cataylst is deceiving them in any way.

All the interview said was that it was a concious decision to have EDI survive, Weekes disagreed because he said that she is part reaper tech, NOT because she is synthetic. EDI is synthetic, it was a decision to keep her in the end, kid says synthetics will die. Open your eyes man cause your logic stinks. (I hate this attitude)

Agreed.  There was no interview where anyone actually admitted that they goofed.  So unless you (HYR2) know one the Bioware head-honchos personally, you can't know this.  Therefore, it is logical to assume that the Starkid lied.

If you start going that way, then you will have to establish in all dialogue when the Catalyst is lying, and when he is not. Good luck, sincerely.

I don't believe a single thing he says, so there.

Provided you understand what he's talking about. But I'll keep it for future reference. 

[balance5050]

Iconoclaste wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

I don't believe a single thing he says, so there.

Provided you understand what he's talking about. But I'll keep it for future reference. 

What more do I need to know other than Organics = feul and a means to reproduce, that's all anyone should need to know when dealing with reapers. 

Modifié par balance5050, 02 mai 2012 - 07:02 .

[Iconoclaste]

balance5050 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

I don't believe a single thing he says, so there.

Provided you understand what he's talking about. But I'll keep it for future reference. 

What more do I need to know other than Organics = feul and a means to reproduce, that's all anyone should need to know when dealing with reapers.

And now, you believe that part?

[balance5050]

Iconoclaste wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

I don't believe a single thing he says, so there.

Provided you understand what he's talking about. But I'll keep it for future reference. 

What more do I need to know other than Organics = feul and a means to reproduce, that's all anyone should need to know when dealing with reapers.

And now, you believe that part?

Yes, I believe the info I learned from the collector base. Info I knew before talking to starbrat.

Modifié par balance5050, 02 mai 2012 - 07:09 .

[Tirian Thorn]

byne wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

Because we've had this argument like 10 times and it always escalates and goes on for like 12 pages. I think the starchilds reasoning is perfectly sound BUT I will NOT go into it again

Anyway, either way I don't think his reasoning is a super solid argument one way or the other, so *shrug*

I'd actually like to make one last comment.

Dante, you're right. The Starbrat's reasoning could be sound. But its logic is obviously framed around a value system incompatible with our own. That's the crux of the problem. That's why the reapers, and the Starbrat by extension, are the enemy. That's why it can't be trusted.

THANK YOU. I'm totally cool with that, and absolutely agree.

My last comment on this will be this:

How many times have synthetics cleansed the galaxy of all organic life?

Not once.

Sure, we cant prove that it wouldnt have eventually happened, but that is because the Reapers come in and kill everyone beforehand.

If I broke into your house and destroyed your television, claiming it was going to attract wild tigers to eat your family, you cant actually prove I was wrong, because the television no longer exists, and so you'll never know if wild tigers were really going to come and eat you.

Just because I cant be proven wrong doesnt make my logic sound. Just because godchild cant be proven wrong, it doesnt make his logic sound either.

Wait, wait, backup. 

You mean that at some point - based on extensive computer simulations- that eventually televisions will broadcast a signal to wild tigers who will then come and kill my family and eat us.

WHAT ELSE HAVEN’T YOU TOLD US!!!!!?

Modifié par Tirian Thorn, 02 mai 2012 - 07:08 .

[SubAstris]

It seems to be clear. The Catalyst's argument has good logical structure, the problem is that some of his premises, such as "synthetics will destroy all organics" are unsupported and contradict what has been established in the lore

[Iconoclaste]

balance5050 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

What more do I need to know other than Organics = feul and a means to reproduce, that's all anyone should need to know when dealing with reapers.

And now, you believe that part?

Yes, I believe the info I learned from the collector base.

Did you see an original Reaper on the Collector base? I didn't. Did you see humanoid Reapers in ME3?

[balance5050]

Iconoclaste wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

What more do I need to know other than Organics = feul and a means to reproduce, that's all anyone should need to know when dealing with reapers.

And now, you believe that part?

Yes, I believe the info I learned from the collector base.

Did you see an original Reaper on the Collector base? I didn't. Did you see humanoid Reapers in ME3?

No to both, I just learned how reapers were made in the base, which leads into why they reap. (feul, reproduction, survival)

Modifié par balance5050, 02 mai 2012 - 07:12 .

[Unschuld]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

only 2 *flaws? 


1. if shepard becomes a bigger threat is it not logical to try harder to make him lose?
2. edi can survive at the end of destroy. liar.

1.) I don't follow.
2.) LOL yeah, because the writers couldn't make up their own minds about that. Patrick Weekes said it himself, he argued she should have died. Why the blatant inconsistency took place is beyond me, but knowing that, it's hardly ground to call him a liar.

1. Two words: Reverse. Psychology.

[Tirian Thorn]

SubAstris wrote...

It seems to be clear. The Catalyst's argument has good logical structure, the problem is that some of his premises, such as "synthetics will destroy all organics" are unsupported and contradict what has been established in the lore

Sovereign and other Reapers have asserted on numerous occasions that Shepard could not possibly comprehend the Reapers' existence and purpose.

Yet the Star-Child easily explains this supposedly difficult concept to Shepard in a matter of lines in a very simple and straight-forward manner.

Were the Reapers programmed to just spew nonsense if anyone ever spoke to them?
 
If so, why? It seems more likely that the explanation offered by the Child is not true.

Modifié par Tirian Thorn, 02 mai 2012 - 07:14 .

[Iconoclaste]

balance5050 wrote...

No to both, I just learned how reapers were made in the base, which leads into why they reap. (feul, reproduction)

This is basically what the Catalyst tells you : they take advanced species in a way shocking in Shepard's view, but they are not "killed". If they were killed, then Sovereign would be a liar too. I know the Reapers are a deceptive bunch, but the kid must have been the worst, even suggesting the Reapers could be destroyed when nodding to the red tube.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 02 mai 2012 - 07:15 .