57139 réponses à ce sujet

[HellishFiend]

Also, I should add that even if the universe was infinite in the ME universe, the starbrat's logic would still be wrong for other reasons (it relies on far too many assumptions and very few facts). I really would appreciate it if you guys, to some extent, would just take my word for this. I am somewhat formally educated in logic and also consider it to be a hobby of mine, and I can look very deeply into this and promise you that the starbrat's logic is wrong on so many levels that it would blow my mind if it wasn't intentional on Bioware' part.

[TheConstantOne]

HellishFiend wrote...

TheConstantOne wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Sorry Simon but a lot of that is just wrong. 

• If you are to judge the values/morals of a logical conclusion, first the conclusion must be logically sound. If it were strictly an opinion, that would be another matter. But what is being put up for ethical judgement is a CONCLUSION, not an opinion.
• 1 is not a proven fact. It is a statistical probability. That can be used in the formation of assumptions, but not factual conclusions
• 2, same as above
• 3  is an assumption that is derived from statistical probabilities and historical trends.
• 4-7 is all subjective, which is fine, but it needs to be PRESENTED as being subjective. Starbrat presents it as irrefutable fact, which is flat out wrong

I think that by the time the starchild's logic gets into your head for analysis, you put it in the context of an opinion, when the Starchild is most definitely not presenting it as such. He is presenting it as fact. If it were to be reworded in the manner you guys are interpreting it, that would be fine. Loosely, it would look something like this:

Starbrat: "Based on our experience and analysis, we find it likely that the created will always rebel against their creators. We have also analyzed the development trends of purely Synthetic life, and given those trends, we've concluded if a patricidal synthetic race were to reach the point of Technological Singularity, Synthetic lifeforms would supplant Organic development indefinitely. We've concluded that the safest course of action is to prevent that irreversible scenario from ever having a chance to develop."

Wording it in that fashion changes it from a fallacious conclusion to a logical one, which is then subject to ethical debate. I believe you guys are interpreting the starbrat's drivel as if it were properly worded like above, but it is not. It is worded as a factual conclusion (Like, dogs are mammals, Brian is a dog, therefore Brian is a mammal), which is inarguably fallacious since the premises are NOT FACTS. 

I'm still of the mind that the values and overall reasoning of the Reapers is because of some programming restraint they are forced to follow at the behest of some "other" entity.

However, I am here to come to Simon's defense.  Hellish, you are completely right to say that Reaper Bieber is arguing based on fundamentally statistical arguments.  Yet he is right to say "Organics WILL create synthetics" and "Organics and synthetics WILL go to war".  While these two statements are indeed statistical probabilities, you must keep in mind that the Reapers consider themselves to be eternal.  If time is allowed to reach infinity, then all possibilities for a system will occur.  This is a mathematical fact.  Since the Reapers believe that they will indeed live forever (quote Sovereign: "We have no beginning. We have no end.") then any statistical probability WILL be experienced by them, and it can be considered factual.  It's just a matter of "when." The odds of this occurring must be high enough that the Reapers 
(or their makers) calculate it to occur frequently enough as to have a severe threat to organic life and so consider it a threat that must be dealt with.

If this were an argument with any being besides a Reaper, you be entirely correct Hellish.  After all, it isn't possible for us to truly examine things for an infinite time.  But for the Reapers, this time constraint doesn't apply and so statistics become factual premises

Everything you just said falls apart unless the universe is infinite. Do we have anything that suggests the universe has an infinite life cycle? I dont think we do. 

Actually... yes we do.  It isn't proven yet (and maybe it never will be) but there are theories that suggest the universe is cyclical.  It never truly ends or begins.  It's a pretty mathematically intensive theory, where time develops imaginary number components.  In any case, if the Reapers are far more advanced than us, this theory could have been proven and they would know that the universe is cyclical, thus infinite.  

[Rifneno]

HellishFiend wrote...

Also, I should add that even if the universe was infinite in the ME universe, the starbrat's logic would still be wrong for other reasons (it relies on far too many assumptions and very few facts). I really would appreciate it if you guys, to some extent, would just take my word for this. I am somewhat formally educated in logic and also consider it to be a hobby of mine, and I can look very deeply into this and promise you that the starbrat's logic is wrong on so many levels that it would blow my mind if it wasn't intentional on Bioware' part.

You want us to trust you over a ghost who says jumping into a beam will change the fabric of reality so everyone is half-robot and there'll be eternal peace?  ...  I don't know, you're asking a lot. 

[Boradam]

Nekroso22 wrote...
You mean the Extended Cut that will not change the endings? Bioware doesn't have the time or the money to give the endings the reworking treatment they need.

I honestly hope Bioware doesn't use the IT because it won't fix the endings and it will introduce too many new variables in the story.

I disagree with you; the variables being introduced in the EC (if IT is true) have been there since Mass Effect first was released with Saren, we've been exposed to all sorts of Reaper tech along the series and franchise so it all turning out to be a indoctrination attempt isn't all too far fetched or forced.

[SubAstris]

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

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 .

Considering throughout ME3 you can actually capture reaper artifacts for Glygh to study ON THE SHIP, I don't think that "vicinity" is the issue.

That's right, you're actually using reaper tech upgrades.

Yes, but if they are capable of indoctrinating the crew, they wouldn't be used. But if that is the case, the Reaper tech is indoctrinating us, why doesn't the whole crew become indoctrinated? Surely all the crew would succumb to indoctrination before Shep?

That's the thing. You don't know if it's happening until it's too late. Let's say we rule out the little artifacts. That still leaves a lot of time around Reapers.

A couple of hours (even with increased effects of indoctrination from adrenaline)= Lots of time around Reapers?

[marcelo_sdk]

SubAstris wrote...

NeoDobby 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 (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.

I think what people are possibly forgetting about the "oily shadows" comment is that the Rachni sense things very differently to humans. They interpret sensory data in terms of music and images; from what I got from it it seems like they were talking about death rather than indoctrination.

About the Quarians and the Geth, the Geth Consensus mission makes it clear that the Quarians start their degradation of the Geth which led to them uprising. The Geth are essentially, not under Reaper control, a peaceful race and don't really want to hurt the Quarians. This is one of the reasons why what the Catalyst says doesn't seem to make sense because it goes against something like that in-game

I don't know the exact amount of time, although I know that the game was originally meant to be released Fall/Autumn 2011, and came out beginning of March. That's a quite long time to be delayed, in gaming terms, and you can bet EA was pushing very hard to get it released as fast as possible. I would be a bit weary about using a lot of information from outside game material, such as comics, because the fact is the vast majority of people who play ME have only played the games (me included). Doesn't mean other parts are wrong, but BW know they are making a game for those people primarily, and if they can't get the story without referring to a comic, then they have failed.

I think differently. You are not forced to read/play other media, but you are not forced to play the games too. So, like the games itself, the informations are important and were put under our dispposal, if you bought it or not, your problem.

Of course the main lore is in the trilogy, and you can understand the history in a crude way playing only the games. But the comics, the books, the DLCs, they all have important information to understand what we saw and what we'll possibly see.

[HellishFiend]

Rifneno wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Also, I should add that even if the universe was infinite in the ME universe, the starbrat's logic would still be wrong for other reasons (it relies on far too many assumptions and very few facts). I really would appreciate it if you guys, to some extent, would just take my word for this. I am somewhat formally educated in logic and also consider it to be a hobby of mine, and I can look very deeply into this and promise you that the starbrat's logic is wrong on so many levels that it would blow my mind if it wasn't intentional on Bioware' part.

You want us to trust you over a ghost who says jumping into a beam will change the fabric of reality so everyone is half-robot and there'll be eternal peace?  ...  I don't know, you're asking a lot. 

Well said. 

[Kyzee]

HellishFiend wrote...

Also, I should add that even if the universe was infinite in the ME universe, the starbrat's logic would still be wrong for other reasons (it relies on far too many assumptions and very few facts). I really would appreciate it if you guys, to some extent, would just take my word for this. I am somewhat formally educated in logic and also consider it to be a hobby of mine, and I can look very deeply into this and promise you that the starbrat's logic is wrong on so many levels that it would blow my mind if it wasn't intentional on Bioware' part.

Heck, you don't even have to take your word for it. If you made peace between the Geth and the Quarians, when the StarChild states that synthetics and organics will always fight each other, all Shepard has to do is point out the flippin' window (so to speak) at that point. Right there, StarChild's argument falls apart. It was one of the reasons the whole scene drove me made--I couldn't challenge this obvious flawed assertion.

[Earthborn_Shepard]

really, guys, I feel kind of lost here please just tell me whether or not there has been anything new, an interview, a suspicious tweet, new evidence, stuff like that...

[HellishFiend]

TheConstantOne wrote...

Actually... yes we do.  It isn't proven yet (and maybe it never will be) but there are theories that suggest the universe is cyclical.  It never truly ends or begins.  It's a pretty mathematically intensive theory, where time develops imaginary number components.  In any case, if the Reapers are far more advanced than us, this theory could have been proven and they would know that the universe is cyclical, thus infinite.  

You just contradicted yourself. In order for what you said earlier to bear any weight, the universe MUST be infinite. You admit it isnt proven, therefore your logic is flawed. And like I said, there are MANY reasons why starbrat's logic is flawed, and the nature of a statistical probability not being the same as an inevitability is only one of those things. 

What if Organics were to develop a failsafe against Technological Singularity before Technological Singularity had a chance to occur? Thats yet another possibility that destroys starbrats logic. 

I cant stress enough:

Because starbrat is presenting his conclusion as an irrefutable factual conclusion, it is WRONG.

[BatmanTurian]

SubAstris wrote...

1) Admittedly, for very short periods of time in relation to the events of the ME Trilogy
2) So why take any precautions before going near a Reaper artifact? I was always under the impression that close proximity to indoctrinated artifacts boosted the signal, quickening indoctrination
3) We still don't know how much faster it quickens it anyway, so argument not destroyed

None of your points really matter. Indoctrination is plausible using the logic I've supplied I.E. reaper/artifact + Red Sand/adrenaline +proximity= slow-to-medium-to fast indoctrination.

The speed may depend on the individual or the amount of time spend around the indoctrinating machines. The indoctrination process, if slow as is implied by all the tech being handled and fighting around, can be explained  through a metaphor. A barrel is placed under a dripping faucet. The drips continue and at first there is nothing. As time goes on, the barrel becomes more and more filled. At some point, it overflows and that is when the individual's mind and will is destroyed or (if the reapers want a long-term agent) the individual must make a choice to side with the Reapers or be destroyed.

[Hihoshi101]

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

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 .

Considering throughout ME3 you can actually capture reaper artifacts for Glygh to study ON THE SHIP, I don't think that "vicinity" is the issue.

That's right, you're actually using reaper tech upgrades.

Yes, but if they are capable of indoctrinating the crew, they wouldn't be used. But if that is the case, the Reaper tech is indoctrinating us, why doesn't the whole crew become indoctrinated? Surely all the crew would succumb to indoctrination before Shep?

That's the thing. You don't know if it's happening until it's too late. Let's say we rule out the little artifacts. That still leaves a lot of time around Reapers.

A couple of hours (even with increased effects of indoctrination from adrenaline)= Lots of time around Reapers?

This is also relative time... While it only takes use a few hours to get through various reaper encounters think of how much faster time usually passes in video games. Even though it only takes us a few days to beat ME3 the character refer to time passed in months...

Also if you do space exploration you are constantly being chased by reapers...I call that close proximity

[Boradam]

RedDeadRemix wrote...

Final push to page 2000

Hammer squads, go go go!!

HOLD THE LINE, HOLD THE LINE!

WATCH OUT, THAT INCOMING LOCK IS TARGETING OUR POSTING SYSTEMS!

[Hihoshi101]

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

really, guys, I feel kind of lost here please just tell me whether or not there has been anything new, an interview, a suspicious tweet, new evidence, stuff like that...

cube maps that have trees in the final area and they are in game you can see the trees in the reflections

[BatmanTurian]

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

1) Admittedly, for very short periods of time in relation to the events of the ME Trilogy
2) So why take any precautions before going near a Reaper artifact? I was always under the impression that close proximity to indoctrinated artifacts boosted the signal, quickening indoctrination
3) We still don't know how much faster it quickens it anyway, so argument not destroyed

[/quote]

None of your points really matter. Indoctrination is plausible using the logic I've supplied I.E. reaper/artifact + Red Sand/adrenaline +proximity= slow-to-medium-to fast indoctrination.

The speed may depend on the individual or the amount of time spent around the indoctrinating machines. The indoctrination process, if slow as is implied by all the tech being handled and fighting around, can be explained  through a metaphor.

A barrel is placed under a dripping faucet. The drips continue and at first there is nothing. As time goes on, the barrel becomes more and more filled. At some point, it overflows and that is when the individual's mind and will is destroyed or (if the reapers want a long-term agent) the individual must make a choice to side with the Reapers or be destroyed.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 03 mai 2012 - 09:58 .

[blooregard]

Nekroso22 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Nekroso22 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Nekroso22 wrote...

Tempting fate here, but whatever.

I don't like the Indoctrination Theory.I don't want "clarification" on these bad endings and I certainly don't think that the theory itself can save Mass Effect. While it is admirable that there has been such an outpouring of support and research involved in its creation, I can't help but feel as though it dances around the heart of the problem, which is the ending itself.

The endings do not make sense, and no amount of conjecture or theorizing can fix them. They need to be completely redone so that they mesh better with the story of Mass Effect. Bioware has made it clear that they do not intend to do this, which is not surprising. It's not that they wouldn't if they could; Bioware has made some great games in the past and I think they really do want to make the best games they can. The resources and time required to redo the ending, however, aren't really feasible from a business standpoint. The game is out, and it is what it is. Bioware messed up on this one and we can only hope that they learn from it.

That's not to say that all this theorizing and research has to go to waste, though. Fan fiction, tabletop RPG's, mods and books are all outlets for this type of thing.

Thank you for your opinion. After almost 2000 pages pouring over evidence, I'm certain your post, in which you offer no conclusive proof against it, will change our minds about how likely it is that IT is correct.

I would feel silly right now if I was trying to disprove it, but I wasn't and I'm not. I was pointing out how, even with the internal consistency of the IT, the endings of Mass Effect are broken at their core and cannot be fixed by tweaking and glossing over.

Well, you are free to have your opinion and I am free to believe you are wrong and are not considering all of the possible outcomes of an Extended Cut.

You mean the Extended Cut that will not change the endings? Bioware doesn't have the time or the money to give the endings the reworking treatment they need.

I honestly hope Bioware doesn't use the IT because it won't fix the endings and it will introduce too many new variables in the story.

Explain these "new variables" in greater detail please.

[lex0r11]

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

really, guys, I feel kind of lost here please just tell me whether or not there has been anything new, an interview, a suspicious tweet, new evidence, stuff like that...

Sorry, if I have mislead you with my post. There is nothing new that I know of.

And Blue Baby says the summary of all the posts will have to wait, she is waiting for page 2000.

[Boradam]

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

really, guys, I feel kind of lost here please just tell me whether or not there has been anything new, an interview, a suspicious tweet, new evidence, stuff like that...

Speculation mostly:

1.) Major Coates is a prime canidate for an indoctrinated soldier.
2.) Anderson might also be a indoctrinated soldier.
3.) Some evidence and screenshots pointing to the likely possibility of Shepard being in London waking up after the destroy ending.

That's kind of it as far as I know.

[MintyCool]

You guys are still discussing these issues?


It's sunny. Step outside. Obtain a little perspective....

Checkmate.

Modifié par MintyCool, 03 mai 2012 - 09:57 .

[polor89]

Kyzee wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Also, I should add that even if the universe was infinite in the ME universe, the starbrat's logic would still be wrong for other reasons (it relies on far too many assumptions and very few facts). I really would appreciate it if you guys, to some extent, would just take my word for this. I am somewhat formally educated in logic and also consider it to be a hobby of mine, and I can look very deeply into this and promise you that the starbrat's logic is wrong on so many levels that it would blow my mind if it wasn't intentional on Bioware' part.

Heck, you don't even have to take your word for it. If you made peace between the Geth and the Quarians, when the StarChild states that synthetics and organics will always fight each other, all Shepard has to do is point out the flippin' window (so to speak) at that point. Right there, StarChild's argument falls apart. It was one of the reasons the whole scene drove me made--I couldn't challenge this obvious flawed assertion.

Well if the IT is true then the starchild is part of the dream and ...you cant really argue with someone on dream you just go with it and that is what shepard did -_--_--_-

[BatmanTurian]

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

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 .

Considering throughout ME3 you can actually capture reaper artifacts for Glygh to study ON THE SHIP, I don't think that "vicinity" is the issue.

That's right, you're actually using reaper tech upgrades.

Yes, but if they are capable of indoctrinating the crew, they wouldn't be used. But if that is the case, the Reaper tech is indoctrinating us, why doesn't the whole crew become indoctrinated? Surely all the crew would succumb to indoctrination before Shep?

That's the thing. You don't know if it's happening until it's too late. Let's say we rule out the little artifacts. That still leaves a lot of time around Reapers.

A couple of hours (even with increased effects of indoctrination from adrenaline)= Lots of time around Reapers?

That's actually a lot, considering some artifacts have been known to indoctrinate and turn organics into husks within minutes and hours.

[lex0r11]

MintyCool wrote...


You guys are still discussing these issues?


It's sunny. Step outside. Obtain a little perspective....

Checkmate.

It's almost midnight over here. So...

Modifié par lex0r11, 03 mai 2012 - 09:57 .

[estebanus]

For the next page... We will hold the line!

Modifié par estebanus, 03 mai 2012 - 09:58 .