57139 réponses à ce sujet

[NeoDobby]

Unschuld wrote...

marcelo_sdk wrote...

Unschuld wrote...

marcelo_sdk wrote...

That's my point. It's not about the Geth turning to the "good" side, it's about showing that synthetics will not necessarily, as the Catalyst says, turn agains their creators.

In fact, in the Quarian-Geth case, it's more like the creators turned against their creations.

If I had a 6 foot tall toaster that suddenly asked me one day if it had a soul, I'd be pretty freaked out too. Oh, and apparently thinking toasters are not only dangerous, but illegal.

How can I argue with a guy that compares the Geth with "giant toasters".

Anyway, to answer your question: I understand the Quarians were scared, but I don't see that as reason to wipe out the Geth.

Well, easy. They were seen as creations, like a robot or a car. Tools. So...

EpyonX3 wrote... 
They refused to shut down when commanded. So they were forced off.

This.

Of course the Geth have evolved differently now, and are closer to organic-like sentience, but at the time it was a purely understandable reaction.

The Geth gained awareness and with it a sense of self-preservation, but the Quarians only saw the dangers of it. One could say the Quarians are at fault here, but it takes a bit of understanding and most of all time to accept a race of machines as living, sentient beings. I'm not sure which side I would have taken then, but I'm glad there is the possibility to resolve the conflict in a peaceful manner.

[Tirian Thorn]

UrgedDuke wrote...

my birth page!

Wow, I'm old.... we're well past the year that correspondes to my birth year.... 

[SubAstris]

NeoDobby wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

It is better than BW can't possibly be lazy response from some ITers...

But seriously, BW should have at least told us why the Conduit on Ilos wasn't at least considered, even if it was to be discarded later.

I think BW wanted to leave at least some information open for discussion/interpretation or for players to find the (intended) logical explanation on their own. I wouldn't want every tiny bit of explanation to be shoved into my face. I even think that if IT turns out to be true, there won't be an explanation to questions like:

- When exactly did the Indoctrination process start?

- Why were there only 1, 2, all 3 choices given in the dream?

1) I still think a lot needs to be known about how indoctrination actually works (which is one of the reasons I am reluctant to accept IT, we don't know that much about it, and if it was really BW's intention I don't think we would have a lot of these questions)

2) Precisely, why have infinite. Of course, this comes down to game mechanics and resources, which some IT theorists, I am not accusing you directly, think are irrelevant

[EpyonX3]

SS2Dante wrote...

Epyon, did you see gunslingers post a while back? His friend found a very odd ending. Basically he played with default Shepard and had over 6000 EMS at the end of the game and got control and synthesis, but not destroy at the ending. Sooooo either his friend made a big mistake or was lying or something or we still haven't figured out what exactly goes into the ending choices.

That I didn't see. That seems impossible given the way we think the engine works. You can't get synthesis without getting either destory or control at least in my experience.

I'll try messing around but I think this one's going to be just as hard to replicate as EDI being alive after picking destory.

I would ask if his friend can share his save file with us. It'll be easier to compare and see what's different than a normal one.

[Simon_Says]

HellishFiend wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

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. 

I said it before and I'll say it again: "value systems" have no business in a logical analysis. Logic is a mathematical process that determines if an argument is valid or invalid. Values are opinions and do not affect whether or not logic is well formed or poorly formed. Starbrat's logic can be picked apart and destroyed regardless of the value system or objectivity of the analyst.

But this isn't strictly logical analysis. We're analyzing the Catalyst's/Reapers' reasoning and judgment calls.

Think of it more this way.

1. Organics will create synthetics.
2. Synthetics and organics will go into conflict.
3. A singularity with unchecked growth and aggression will threaten all organic life.
4. Preserving organic life is important.
5. Reaperizing a species preserves what is important about that species and provides a better form of existence.
6. The needs of the galaxy outweigh the needs of its current inhabitants.
7. The reapers know better than anyone else and have a responsibility/authority over all other life.

Therefore the reapers must implement a plan that prevents hard-takeoff singularities from forming.

And they judgement call they decided upon was to reaperize civilizations at a certain technological level. Yes, there are numerous premises that aren’t strictly factual.

#1 and #2 are verified truths
#3 is something they don’t want to risk verifying. It’s like assuming that human civilization will not endure a global nuclear exchange. You have plenty reason to believe it and not test it out.*
#4, #5, #6, and #7 are all based on the reapers’ value system.

Obviously #5, #6, and #7 clash with our own value systems. But without further information to examine them these remain fundamentally subjective premises. They could appear correct to the reapers and incorrect to us. So from our perspective the argument isn’t sound. But it is valid. (There are strict definitions of these terms.)

Validity: A property of arguments. An argument is valid if the conclusion must be true in any circumstance in which the premises are true.
Soundness:  An argument is sound if it is valid and all of its premises are true.

I of course still don't buy it. But the possibility is open that the Catalyst was laying down the genuine reaper agenda and that it does make sense, from their point of view. And this doesn't contradict IT, since remember that indoctrination is all about altering the subject's values and perspective to align with those of the reapers.

* It actually got pretty close to being confirmed, if you remember Project Overlord.

Modifié par Simon_Says, 03 mai 2012 - 08:10 .

[EpyonX3]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

UrgedDuke wrote...

my birth page!

Wow, I'm old.... we're well past the year that correspondes to my birth year.... 

Mine was past before I could post it. 1984 if you're wondering.

What happens when we reach page 2000? Y2K?

[Nauks]

Haven't been on in a while, the Anderson and Coates theories are interesting, one or both of them possibly being indoctrinated.

In a perfect world, this was/is the DLC they talked about having to postpone to deal with the current "ending" etc.
This hypothetical DLC would be something leading up to the final Shepard indoctrination reveal, their sturggle on Earth, and gradual defeat by the Reapers and so on.

[paxxton]

Unschuld wrote...

Well, easy. They were seen as creations, like a robot or a car. Tools. So...

EpyonX3 wrote... 
They refused to shut down when commanded. So they were forced off.

This.

Of course the Geth have evolved differently now, and are closer to organic-like sentience, but at the time it was a purely understandable reaction.

What was understandable about the Quarians killing the Geth only because they developed in an unforeseen direction? It was rather barbaric. The Geth didn't seek hostilities with the Quarians.

Modifié par paxxton, 03 mai 2012 - 08:03 .

[BatmanTurian]

SubAstris wrote...

NeoDobby wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

It is better than BW can't possibly be lazy response from some ITers...

But seriously, BW should have at least told us why the Conduit on Ilos wasn't at least considered, even if it was to be discarded later.

I think BW wanted to leave at least some information open for discussion/interpretation or for players to find the (intended) logical explanation on their own. I wouldn't want every tiny bit of explanation to be shoved into my face. I even think that if IT turns out to be true, there won't be an explanation to questions like:

- When exactly did the Indoctrination process start?

- Why were there only 1, 2, all 3 choices given in the dream?

1) I still think a lot needs to be known about how indoctrination actually works.

This is a really bad argument. We know how it works. All of our villians have been indoctrinated. Indoctrination has been explained in the codex. We saw it first hand on humans at Object Rho. I think it's more like you don't understand the concept of it or how it works. Hint: it's similar to demonic possession except not super-natural.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 03 mai 2012 - 08:04 .

[Boradam]

I just noticed that Anderson says: "They're controlling you!" while in the control room, I always thought of him as talking to TIM, but then I realized it might be Anderson trying to tell Shepard that he's being indoctrinated. Also sorry if this was brought up before, I'm kind of too lazy to dig.

Modifié par Boradam, 03 mai 2012 - 08:06 .

[balance5050]

Simon_Says wrote...

* It actually got pretty close to being confirmed, if you remember Project Overlord.

Project Overlord was caused by uploading a human conciousness to a VI. This shows me personally that Synthesis is a pipe dream.

[MaximizedAction]

Boradam wrote...

I just noticed that Anderson says: "They're controlling you!" while in the control room, I always thought of him as talking to TIM, but then I realized it might be Anderson trying to tell Shepard that he's being indoctrinated. Also sorry if this was brought up before, I'm kind of too lazy to dig.

Yeah, this has been mentioned before. Some even suggest Anderson said this to the camera, or, us the players.

[BatmanTurian]

Boradam wrote...

I just noticed that Anderson says: "They're controlling you!" while in the control room, I always thought of him as talking to TIM, but then I realized it might be Anderson trying to tell Shepard that he's being indoctrinated. Also sorry if this was brought up before, I'm kind of too lazy to dig.

It's fine. it's been brought up but it can go either way. Individual pieces of the accepted evidence of IT can be explained away by themselves but  when they are put altogether up on a metaphorical stage and you look at the whole thing, it's hard to refute (unless you want to take the lazy argument, which is Bioware screwed up/is lazy/wasn't even trying very hard at the ending).

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 03 mai 2012 - 08:09 .

[balance5050]

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

NeoDobby wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

It is better than BW can't possibly be lazy response from some ITers...

But seriously, BW should have at least told us why the Conduit on Ilos wasn't at least considered, even if it was to be discarded later.

I think BW wanted to leave at least some information open for discussion/interpretation or for players to find the (intended) logical explanation on their own. I wouldn't want every tiny bit of explanation to be shoved into my face. I even think that if IT turns out to be true, there won't be an explanation to questions like:

- When exactly did the Indoctrination process start?

- Why were there only 1, 2, all 3 choices given in the dream?

1) I still think a lot needs to be known about how indoctrination actually works.

This is a really bad argument. We know how it works. All of our villians have been indoctrinated. Indoctrination has been explained in the codex. We saw it first hand on humans at Object Rho. I think it's more like you don't understand the concept of it or how it works. Hint: it's similar to demonic possession except not super-natural.

Indoctrination is different for everyone as well, it largely takes adavanteage of your personal hopes and desires and turns them against you.

Since Shepard only goals are

A. Destroy the reapers and

B. Unite/save the galaxy.

It would be extremly hard for the reapers to turn those desires into a benefit to the reapers. But the ending shows that they found a way to fool him, by using the thoughts of saving everyone against him.

[SS2Dante]

EpyonX3 wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

Epyon, did you see gunslingers post a while back? His friend found a very odd ending. Basically he played with default Shepard and had over 6000 EMS at the end of the game and got control and synthesis, but not destroy at the ending. Sooooo either his friend made a big mistake or was lying or something or we still haven't figured out what exactly goes into the ending choices.

That I didn't see. That seems impossible given the way we think the engine works. You can't get synthesis without getting either destory or control at least in my experience.

I'll try messing around but I think this one's going to be just as hard to replicate as EDI being alive after picking destory.

I would ask if his friend can share his save file with us. It'll be easier to compare and see what's different than a normal one.

Yep, that's what I understood to be the truth as well. Oh, sorry, one detail I forgot is that his TIM shot Anderson, I think.

[BatmanTurian]

balance5050 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

NeoDobby wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

It is better than BW can't possibly be lazy response from some ITers...

But seriously, BW should have at least told us why the Conduit on Ilos wasn't at least considered, even if it was to be discarded later.

I think BW wanted to leave at least some information open for discussion/interpretation or for players to find the (intended) logical explanation on their own. I wouldn't want every tiny bit of explanation to be shoved into my face. I even think that if IT turns out to be true, there won't be an explanation to questions like:

- When exactly did the Indoctrination process start?

- Why were there only 1, 2, all 3 choices given in the dream?

1) I still think a lot needs to be known about how indoctrination actually works.

This is a really bad argument. We know how it works. All of our villians have been indoctrinated. Indoctrination has been explained in the codex. We saw it first hand on humans at Object Rho. I think it's more like you don't understand the concept of it or how it works. Hint: it's similar to demonic possession except not super-natural.

Indoctrination is different for everyone as well, it largely takes adavanteage of your personal hopes and desires and turns them against you.

Since Shepard only goals are

A. Destroy the reapers and

B. Unite/save the galaxy.

It would be extremly hard for the reapers to turn those desires into a benefit to the reapers. But the ending shows that they found a way to fool him, by using the thoughts of saving everyone against him.

Yes. For Saren it was " I want to protect everyone, especially my own skin, So I'm going to work with these things so we can be immortal and also put Humans in their place. Plus I get to be special and that's great because I always thought I was a special snowflake that did whatever it took to accomplish my goals."

For TIM, it was " I want to control the Reapers so that I can use them against the other races to put humanity on top because thirty years ago, Turians were jerks to me and my friends during a war that was fundamentally a misunderstanding. "

For Kai Leng it was " I want to survive at any cost. We evolve or we die." Which sounds like a blunt version of Saren's opinion.

[Rifneno]

SS2Dante wrote...

They do, presumably. The relay is linked to the citadel, which is inactive, as you said, so can't be used until the sleeper reaper (heh) does it's stuff. And as someone else said long distance relays are pair-bonded, so they can't use it to jump to any other relays.

Hmm. This brings up an interesting question I've never considered or heard anyone else consider. What's the maximum distance the relays can manage? The codex tells us that primary relays can go thousands of light years. Still, that's kind of short compared to what they'd need for that invasion plan. The Milky Way has a diameter of 100-125,000 light years. The Citadel isn't even on the outer rim, it's closer to the center. And the Reapers were apparently pretty damned deep into intergalactic space. So... how the hell far does the Citadel trap relay go?!

I'm kind of worried we'll find out they have mass relays with eezo cores big enough to propel them between various galaxies.

byne wrote...

The council in ME2 also mentions that even Vigil shut down on Ilos and no longer worked when they sent research teams there.

You know what'd be hilarious? If Vigil was actually working fine but did the whole "Indoctrinated presence detected, shutting down" thing at whoever the Council sent over.

Unschuld wrote...

Of course the Geth have evolved differently now, and are closer to organic-like sentience, but at the time it was a purely understandable reaction.

Chucking grenades at other quarians for disagreeing was understandable?

[Tirian Thorn]

EpyonX3 wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

UrgedDuke wrote...

my birth page!

Wow, I'm old.... we're well past the year that correspondes to my birth year.... 

Mine was past before I could post it. 1984 if you're wondering.

What happens when we reach page 2000? Y2K?

1978 

[DJBare]

balance5050 wrote...
Indoctrination is different for everyone as well, it largely takes adavanteage of your personal hopes and desires and turns them against you.

Since Shepard only goals are

A. Destroy the reapers and

B. Unite/save the galaxy.

It would be extremly hard for the reapers to turn those desires into a benefit to the reapers. But the ending shows that they found a way to fool him, by using the thoughts of saving everyone against him.

B gives the Reapers some leverage, especially if you favor the destroy option but do not want to sacrifice EDI and the geth.

[SS2Dante]

Kind of off-topic but I was checking foreshadowing in other media with this type of twist and I saw this list of Fight Club foreshadowing

(obviously don't click if you haven't seen the movie)
http://www.11points....s_in_fight_club

Now, I already knew most of these things but number 8 struck me as rather similar to the Anderson Shepard bullet situation (just pointing out that this kind of thing has been done before, to an extent, obv this isn't evidence of any kind)

[ThisOneIsPunny]

Boradam wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Wow! Only 7 more pages and we're done. Let's make random post to achieve this goal faster.

THE END IS NIGH! We need a Marauder Shields to save us from the multi-colored thread locks! 

Repent, the end is nigh!

[SubAstris]

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

NeoDobby wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

It is better than BW can't possibly be lazy response from some ITers...

But seriously, BW should have at least told us why the Conduit on Ilos wasn't at least considered, even if it was to be discarded later.

I think BW wanted to leave at least some information open for discussion/interpretation or for players to find the (intended) logical explanation on their own. I wouldn't want every tiny bit of explanation to be shoved into my face. I even think that if IT turns out to be true, there won't be an explanation to questions like:

- When exactly did the Indoctrination process start?

- Why were there only 1, 2, all 3 choices given in the dream?

1) I still think a lot needs to be known about how indoctrination actually works.

This is a really bad argument. We know how it works. All of our villians have been indoctrinated. Indoctrination has been explained in the codex. We saw it first hand on humans at Object Rho. I think it's more like you don't understand the concept of it or how it works. Hint: it's similar to demonic possession except not super-natural.

For example, we don't how much being closer to the Reaper artifacts will quicken indoctrination compared to be away. And answer for such a question would to decide whether the indoctrination of Shepard would even be possible at the end. So no, we don't know everything or even sufficiently to provide good arguments for IT .

[MaximizedAction]

SS2Dante wrote...

Kind of off-topic but I was checking foreshadowing in other media with this type of twist and I saw this list of Fight Club foreshadowing

(obviously don't click if you haven't seen the movie)
http://www.11points....s_in_fight_club

Now, I already knew most of these things but number 8 struck me as rather similar to the Anderson Shepard bullet situation (just pointing out that this kind of thing has been done before, to an extent, obv this isn't evidence of any kind)

Awesome movie!
Asignment for every IT sceptic: watch the movie! Then dare calling David Fincher a lazy director...

So, ME3 might become the Fight Club of video games?

[NeoDobby]

SubAstris wrote...

NeoDobby wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

It is better than BW can't possibly be lazy response from some ITers...

But seriously, BW should have at least told us why the Conduit on Ilos wasn't at least considered, even if it was to be discarded later.

I think BW wanted to leave at least some information open for discussion/interpretation or for players to find the (intended) logical explanation on their own. I wouldn't want every tiny bit of explanation to be shoved into my face. I even think that if IT turns out to be true, there won't be an explanation to questions like:

- When exactly did the Indoctrination process start?

- Why were there only 1, 2, all 3 choices given in the dream?

1) I still think a lot needs to be known about how indoctrination actually works (which is one of the reasons I am reluctant to accept IT, we don't know that much about it, and if it was really BW's intention I don't think we would have a lot of these questions)

That's were we diverge: I think we know enough about indoctrination to understand that Shepard could be in the process of indoctrination and that there are various hints to that (like the oily shadows in the dreams, to mention just one). The ending was left this way with the goal of "lots of speculation from everyone", so there is no wonder there are multiple ways to interpret the ending. So there is the possibility that all the evidence that we IT guys are seeing are just red herrings or maybe they point to something entirely different we haven't come up with yet.

There will always be some questions that won't be answered, either because this is sci-fi and there is obviously some technoligy we don't have and thus cannot be explained with scientific knowledge we have. Some of it has to come down to suspension of disbelief, and I understand that the writers stop at a level that goes deep enough to make it believable. Other questions aren't answered to leave room for interpretation. As I said, I think there's enough info about indoctination to make our interpretation plausible. But if it isn't enough for you, I can live with that. Maybe we won't even have a definite answer to the question "Is IT true?" after the EC comes out. We'll just have to wait.

Another example: I think they never precisely told us who attacked first in the conflict of the Quarians and Geth. I'm ok to leave it at that and let everyone make up their mind about it.

SubAstris wrote...

2) Precisely, why have infinite. Of course, this comes down to game mechanics and resources, which some IT theorists, I am not accusing you directly, think are irrelevant

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You mean infinite endings? Yeah, of course there has to be some limit, but the question "Why were there only 1, 2, all 3 choices given in the dream?" was one of the examples I gave for what might not be answered. In this case, I meant that they won't explain which decisions led to a particular combination of ending options we are presented in the Citadel.

Game mechanics: yes, there are limits, I think the Final Hours App even says that they tried to implement a gameplay section where the player loses control of Shepard. Which is ok, they might have put that in the dialogue with Anderson and TIM.

Resources: I think Bioware asked for 6 months more time in the end and only got 3, so time is a factor to be considered, too. (I think Arian said that, so you'd have to ask him for a source)

I agree that those have an impact on how the game turns out in the end. We may never know what limits made the developers to change which plans. But I think that this shouldn't have an impact (or maybe no too big impact) to our interpretation. What counts in the end is the information about the world and the events in it that is canon, and by that I mean what is in the game or in the books and comics that were released alongside. There is even some ARG-content like the ANN-Website that can be considered.