597 réponses à ce sujet

[Ishiken]

111987 wrote...

SolonTheWhite wrote...

111987 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

It's not a small sample size. It's a sample size of billions of years and thousand of cycles. We have knowledge of two cycles, and in both cycles the Reapers assertion has held true.

Huh? Of the 2 sample sizes, the we have no inclination that the geth or the ones in Javiks cycle had a CHANCE of wiping us out. It is all supposition, presented in a light(By the reapers) to try and get you to agree. But your "proof" is incredibly flmisy and requires you to play fortune teller.

The Reaper's proof is their experience...

In the two sample sizes, the AI created weren't yet advanced enough to wipe out organics. But what if in those cycles organics continued to advance? More advanced AI's would have followed, which could have led to the extermination of organics.

Your logic is invalid. It is entirly based on "what ifs". We cannot know until it is given a chanse to happen.

Everyone else's logic seems to be "The Reapers are just lying", without any proof of it. In my mind, that's worse. Which is probably why I don't see fault with the Starchild's logic.

I'm working off the evidence we have at hand. Other people are working off the assumption that evidence is false, despitw having no evidence that said evidence is false.

So if someone walks up to you and states that he is from the future and is immensely powerful, but the world's next Hitler is going to be born in the next hour and he wishes to kill every single newborn to prevent this from happening. You would think that his logic would be sound?

[General User]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

There is no reason to believe that at the end of the game Catalyst would lie to you. C'mon, it was the big reveal. You really think Bioware just filled it with b.s.?

Intentionally?

[sadako]

So....Harbinger, Sovereign and God/Starchild was chilling out after finishing off the Protheans...

Starchild : So, harbinger and sovereign, you know, we have this power to indoctrinate, so it's kinda easy for us to.. y'know, indoctrinate a few agents, plant them, and wait for them to develop synthetics, and just before they manage to do it, we swoop down and stop them before they do.

Harbinger: What's the fun in that? At most, we get to kill a few billion organics.. That's way too little to create a new reaper.

Sovereign: Well we are essentially 'constructed', so maybe we can have smaller versions. I would want a cute small younger brother.

Harbinger: PFFFFTTT!... Don't you enjoy the screams, the fireworks and all that noise? That's what we're fighting for, that's why we do the things we do...

Starchild: ...

Modifié par sadako, 16 mars 2012 - 03:21 .

[111987]

Beast919 wrote...

111987 wrote...

I'm not treating them as Gods. But who would you be more inclined to believe; a person with limited experience, or a person with a lot of experience? And when I say a lot, I mean, like basically infinite experience.

Not the question.  The question is do you accept at face value the stories told you to by a god-child representing a race of Sentient Machines trying to eradicate galatic civilization.

Anything beyond that referring to their "experience" and "infinite knoweldge" is supposition.  The most you have to go on is this has happened before - how many times is unknown, why is unknown.

Taking the murderer of your ancestor's words at face value is about the dumbest concept I can imagine.

Perhaps he's telling the truth.  Perhaps he's lying.

But if we're simply going to assume he's telling the truth, the Mass Effect series ends at Virmire when Shepard first talks to Sovereign. 

It's not just Reaper's logic though. We've seen clear evidence of organics and synthetics fighting, regardless of the reason why, in the two cycles we have definite knowledge on. The pieces fit into place, regardless of how you try to spin it.

Is it more likely that the last two cycles were aberrations, or the norm? I believe it was the norm; you might believe it was an aberration. There's no way to prove it either way.

[OtaconUCF]

111987 wrote...

Everyone else's logic seems to be "The Reapers are just lying", without any proof of it. In my mind, that's worse. Which is probably why I don't see fault with the Starchild's logic.

I'm working off the evidence we have at hand. Other people are working off the assumption that evidence is false, despitw having no evidence that said evidence is false.

I'm not necessarily saying the Reapers are lying, I'm saying they are wrong, or at best misguided.

[forgottenlord]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

@ Forgottenlord; I really wish we could be sitting in a coffee shop right now instead of typing this out; I can tell I would enjoy discussing more than just this topic with you.

Likewise.  PM me if you've got another thread you want me to get involved in.

My original argument was simply that given what we are given in the narrative the Catalyst's conclusions that synthetics or 'the created' will always rebel against their created is a theme explored throughout Mass Effect 1-3. Many people have claimed that it is; for lack of better terms as I'm extremely tired right now; retarded logic, and I was simply trying to provide a basis for which people might get a better understanding and thus more enjoyment out of their experience with the games as a whole.

I agree the theme was explore, I refute the logic that flows from it because I refute the logic that is necessarily a rebellion of created vs creator instead of a slave vs master rebellion.  See Page 8 for my full argument.

One thing I will add is that I think the execution of the story was poorly done. It certainly could have been written better, and maybe things could have been placed in better context as the story pulled us to the Catalyst's eventual motivation reveal. I just wanted to provide a few bullet points so that people can gloss over it and debate the philosophical question that the Catalyst represents in that final conversation.

As to your final questions; I do not believe that Catalyst was justified by the amount of time we are given with him (it) without the ability to question it directly in-game. I simply wished to provide a basis for finding that understanding based on what little we were given in relation to Catalyst's importance in the story, if that makes sense.

In short; I'm doing the job Bioware should have done, or should be doing right now.

Fair enough.  Though I maintain that it's hard to accept meta arguments when BioWare isn't doing it's job to provide you legs to stand on.

[Zine2]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

There is no reason to believe that at the end of the game Catalyst would lie to you. C'mon, it was the big reveal. You really think Bioware just filled it with b.s.?

Why not?

It is already lying to you when it says that Created and Creator will always fight. That's not the case in the cycle just before yours.

[Genera1Nemesis]

General User wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

There is no reason to believe that at the end of the game Catalyst would lie to you. C'mon, it was the big reveal. You really think Bioware just filled it with b.s.?

Intentionally?

Yeah. Imagine that. It was the very end of the game BIG reveal. No story teller in his right mind would fill that part of his story with lies. That's worse than "all of it just being a dream" ending, because wy would you lie at that point in the narrative?

[111987]

Ishiken wrote...

111987 wrote...

SolonTheWhite wrote...

111987 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

It's not a small sample size. It's a sample size of billions of years and thousand of cycles. We have knowledge of two cycles, and in both cycles the Reapers assertion has held true.

Huh? Of the 2 sample sizes, the we have no inclination that the geth or the ones in Javiks cycle had a CHANCE of wiping us out. It is all supposition, presented in a light(By the reapers) to try and get you to agree. But your "proof" is incredibly flmisy and requires you to play fortune teller.

The Reaper's proof is their experience...

In the two sample sizes, the AI created weren't yet advanced enough to wipe out organics. But what if in those cycles organics continued to advance? More advanced AI's would have followed, which could have led to the extermination of organics.

Your logic is invalid. It is entirly based on "what ifs". We cannot know until it is given a chanse to happen.

Everyone else's logic seems to be "The Reapers are just lying", without any proof of it. In my mind, that's worse. Which is probably why I don't see fault with the Starchild's logic.

I'm working off the evidence we have at hand. Other people are working off the assumption that evidence is false, despitw having no evidence that said evidence is false.

So if someone walks up to you and states that he is from the future and is immensely powerful, but the world's next Hitler is going to be born in the next hour and he wishes to kill every single newborn to prevent this from happening. You would think that his logic would be sound?

Way to change the argument. There is definite proof that the reapers are immensely powerful, and have been around for billions of years.

Also, I think people are misunderstanding my argument. I'm not saying what the Reapers are doing is good or right. I'm saying it makes sense for them.

[Genera1Nemesis]

Zine2 wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

There is no reason to believe that at the end of the game Catalyst would lie to you. C'mon, it was the big reveal. You really think Bioware just filled it with b.s.?

Why not?

It is already lying to you when it says that Created and Creator will always fight. That's not the case in the cycle just before yours.

I also didn't recall him saying that EVERY created being would rebel against their creators. All it takes is one.

[OtaconUCF]

Zine2 wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

There is no reason to believe that at the end of the game Catalyst would lie to you. C'mon, it was the big reveal. You really think Bioware just filled it with b.s.?

Why not?

It is already lying to you when it says that Created and Creator will always fight. That's not the case in the cycle just before yours.

Only if you narrowly take it to explicitly mean *the* race that was created fighting *the* race that created them. The meaning of the assertion, as Catalyst broadens what he says later in the conversation, is a more general synthetics will rise up to kill a more general organics.

[111987]

OtaconUCF wrote...

111987 wrote...

Everyone else's logic seems to be "The Reapers are just lying", without any proof of it. In my mind, that's worse. Which is probably why I don't see fault with the Starchild's logic.

I'm working off the evidence we have at hand. Other people are working off the assumption that evidence is false, despitw having no evidence that said evidence is false.

I'm not necessarily saying the Reapers are lying, I'm saying they are wrong, or at best misguided.

I think they are misguided.

[SolonTheWhite]

111987 wrote...

SolonTheWhite wrote...

111987 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

It's not a small sample size. It's a sample size of billions of years and thousand of cycles. We have knowledge of two cycles, and in both cycles the Reapers assertion has held true.

Huh? Of the 2 sample sizes, the we have no inclination that the geth or the ones in Javiks cycle had a CHANCE of wiping us out. It is all supposition, presented in a light(By the reapers) to try and get you to agree. But your "proof" is incredibly flmisy and requires you to play fortune teller.

The Reaper's proof is their experience...

In the two sample sizes, the AI created weren't yet advanced enough to wipe out organics. But what if in those cycles organics continued to advance? More advanced AI's would have followed, which could have led to the extermination of organics.

Your logic is invalid. It is entirly based on "what ifs". We cannot know until it is given a chanse to happen.

Everyone else's logic seems to be "The Reapers are just lying", without any proof of it. In my mind, that's worse. Which is probably why I don't see fault with the Starchild's logic.

I'm working off the evidence we have at hand. Other people are working off the assumption that evidence is false, despitw having no evidence that said evidence is false.

No your logic is not based off of evidance. It is based off of the starchilds statement that he has seen it happen over and over again. Ok for the sake of argument lets say it is true. The Starchild has observed synthetics kill organics over and over agian. That is still not enough evidance to say it will ALWAYS happen this way. Only a sith deals in absolutes. There is no reason to believe the Geth cannot be different, and the evidance that is outlined in the Geth history seems to suggest they have never been anything but peacfull.

[sadako]

Hitler's actions make sense for them.
A madman's actions make sense for themselves.

Your point?

[General User]

111987 wrote...

Beast919 wrote...

111987 wrote...

I'm not treating them as Gods. But who would you be more inclined to believe; a person with limited experience, or a person with a lot of experience? And when I say a lot, I mean, like basically infinite experience.

Not the question.  The question is do you accept at face value the stories told you to by a god-child representing a race of Sentient Machines trying to eradicate galatic civilization.

Anything beyond that referring to their "experience" and "infinite knoweldge" is supposition.  The most you have to go on is this has happened before - how many times is unknown, why is unknown.

Taking the murderer of your ancestor's words at face value is about the dumbest concept I can imagine.

Perhaps he's telling the truth.  Perhaps he's lying.

But if we're simply going to assume he's telling the truth, the Mass Effect series ends at Virmire when Shepard first talks to Sovereign. 

It's not just Reaper's logic though. We've seen clear evidence of organics and synthetics fighting, regardless of the reason why, in the two cycles we have definite knowledge on. The pieces fit into place, regardless of how you try to spin it.

Is it more likely that the last two cycles were aberrations, or the norm? I believe it was the norm; you might believe it was an aberration. There's no way to prove it either way.

In the last two cycles, organics triumphed over synthetics and organics and synthetics managed to find accomodation respectively.  Neither of which fits the StarKid's mold.

[Beast919]

111987 wrote...

Beast919 wrote...

111987 wrote...

I'm not treating them as Gods. But who would you be more inclined to believe; a person with limited experience, or a person with a lot of experience? And when I say a lot, I mean, like basically infinite experience.

Not the question.  The question is do you accept at face value the stories told you to by a god-child representing a race of Sentient Machines trying to eradicate galatic civilization.

Anything beyond that referring to their "experience" and "infinite knoweldge" is supposition.  The most you have to go on is this has happened before - how many times is unknown, why is unknown.

Taking the murderer of your ancestor's words at face value is about the dumbest concept I can imagine.

Perhaps he's telling the truth.  Perhaps he's lying.

But if we're simply going to assume he's telling the truth, the Mass Effect series ends at Virmire when Shepard first talks to Sovereign. 

It's not just Reaper's logic though. We've seen clear evidence of organics and synthetics fighting, regardless of the reason why, in the two cycles we have definite knowledge on. The pieces fit into place, regardless of how you try to spin it.

Is it more likely that the last two cycles were aberrations, or the norm? I believe it was the norm; you might believe it was an aberration. There's no way to prove it either way.

THE REASON WHY IS THE ENTIRE CRUX OF THE REAPER ARGUMENT.  If you're saying the Quarians making Geth, panicing, trying to murder them, then coming to peace with them after trying to murder them a second time is the same as the Geth trying to dominate all organic life as we know it.....

I really am done with you.  You simply don't think through what you're saying.

The past two cycles have proven that AI *DO NOT* have an inherant thirst for organic blood nor the capability to followthrough on it.

[Examurai]

Whats with this dark energy theory I've been hearing about? I mean reading through the forums some people mentions this, was this what the ending was meant to be originally before they changed or something.

[111987]

SolonTheWhite wrote...


No your logic is not based off of evidance. It is based off of the starchilds statement that he has seen it happen over and over again.

Which is the only evidence we have.

SolonTheWhite wrote...
Ok for the sake of argument lets say it is true. The Starchild has observed synthetics kill organics over and over agian. That is still not enough evidance to say it will ALWAYS happen this way. Only a sith deals in absolutes. There is no reason to believe the Geth cannot be different, and the evidance that is outlined in the Geth history seems to suggest they have never been anything but peacfull.

When it's happened every time for billions of years, I'm gonna be betting on the side that "it happens again."

[Beast919]

111987 wrote...

When it's happened every time for billions of years, I'm gonna be betting on the side that "it happens again."

Betting on the wrods of your murderer.  Good strat.

Oh hey, by the way, I've seen that every 100 years or so people in your area make crazy robots that kill them so I'm gonna swing by in the next few days and devour your soul so you can be preserved.  K? K.

[Genera1Nemesis]

Anyone ever watch Terminator and stuff? In those we create just ONE AI, or Synthetic for the non-racist crowd. Why in those fictions does it only require one, but in Mass Effect it has to be what, something really special to be made that wants to destroy life? I'm pretty sure if Skynet could build ships they'd be taking over the galaxy in a nano-second.

[General User]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

General User wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...
There is no reason to believe that at the end of the game Catalyst would lie to you. C'mon, it was the big reveal. You really think Bioware just filled it with b.s.?

Intentionally?

Yeah. Imagine that. It was the very end of the game BIG reveal. No story teller in his right mind would fill that part of his story with lies. That's worse than "all of it just being a dream" ending, because wy would you lie at that point in the narrative?

I don't think they filled the ending with lies.  I think they filled it with b.s.  Utter nonsense.  Pure garbage.  The fact that doing so was unintentional makes the situation just sad, nothing more or less.

Modifié par General User, 16 mars 2012 - 03:31 .

[111987]

Beast919 wrote...

THE REASON WHY IS THE ENTIRE CRUX OF THE REAPER ARGUMENT.  If you're saying the Quarians making Geth, panicing, trying to murder them, then coming to peace with them after trying to murder them a second time is the same as the Geth trying to dominate all organic life as we know it.....

I really am done with you.  You simply don't think through what you're saying.

The past two cycles have proven that AI *DO NOT* have an inherant thirst for organic blood nor the capability to followthrough on it.

Ugh...okay. Are you just forgetting about the whole heretic Geth thing? Remember, the Heretic Geth CHOSE to follow Sovereign and attack organics. They weren't forced to; they CHOSE it. That right there supports the Starchild's thinking.

The past two cycles have shown different cases of synthetics and organics warring against each other.

[forgottenlord]

111987 wrote...

Everyone else's logic seems to be "The Reapers are just lying", without any proof of it. In my mind, that's worse. Which is probably why I don't see fault with the Starchild's logic.

I'm working off the evidence we have at hand. Other people are working off the assumption that evidence is false, despitw having no evidence that said evidence is false.

Apologies if this has already been hashed.  I didn't get a chance to go through the now 14 pages worth of debate

On page 8, I went into, at length, my arguments why starchild's claims don't make sense - I don't want to repeat them here, but I went through extensive effort to try and counter starchild's arguments - and none of them are based upon starchild's claims being false but rather overly simplistic.  In effect, I'm arguing that Starchild isn't nearly as advanced or smart as it thinks it is.

[111987]

Beast919 wrote...

111987 wrote...

When it's happened every time for billions of years, I'm gonna be betting on the side that "it happens again."

Betting on the wrods of your murderer.  Good strat.

Oh hey, by the way, I've seen that every 100 years or so people in your area make crazy robots that kill them so I'm gonna swing by in the next few days and devour your soul so you can be preserved.  K? K.

Remember, when I said this we were working under the assumption that what the Starchild said is true. Don't take things out of context please.

[SolonTheWhite]

111987 wrote...

SolonTheWhite wrote...


No your logic is not based off of evidance. It is based off of the starchilds statement that he has seen it happen over and over again.

Which is the only evidence we have.

SolonTheWhite wrote...
Ok for the sake of argument lets say it is true. The Starchild has observed synthetics kill organics over and over agian. That is still not enough evidance to say it will ALWAYS happen this way. Only a sith deals in absolutes. There is no reason to believe the Geth cannot be different, and the evidance that is outlined in the Geth history seems to suggest they have never been anything but peacfull.

When it's happened every time for billions of years, I'm gonna be betting on the side that "it happens again."

It can happen in the next cycle. You can even say it is LIKELY to happen in the next cycle. But you cannot say it WILL happen in the next cycle. There is no reason not to let things play out and see if the Geth can be different. Everything in their history says they have never been anything but peacfull.