418 réponses à ce sujet

[Beast919]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Shepard shows no endorsement or approval of any of them either. Shepard is tired, exhausted, and near death. You confuse exhaustion for acceptance.

Wrong.  When given the control option Shepard chuckles and says "huh, so the Illusive Man was right after all."  Immediate, unconditional, acceptance.  What part of this is difficult to understand.


No, the Crucible was being set up throughout the entire game as your last and only apparent means for beating the Reapers in a war you could not win conventionally and were already losing. If Shepard doesn't choose to activate the Crucible, then Earth is lost, the galaxy's military forces are broken, and the Reapers will win because the one means of victory is left undone.

Now, some people might want to just let Shepard bleed out on the Citadel... but like the people who wanted to abandon Ferelden, or leave the Collector Base to the Collectors, or to not chase after Saren, they are then distinct from Shepard. Shepard always works to beat the Reapers.

My problem is not that Shepard settles on a choice, as we all know at some point there was going to be a choice, and at some point there were going to be consequences.  But he COMPLETELY LACKED CHARACTER.
If you choose the destroy option, ESPECIALLY if you are a Paragon, you should see how badly it is scaring Shepard, knowing that he is betraying the legacy Legion left behind, knowing that he is sacrificing EDI even though she had become dedicated to their cause.  Instead he's just cool with it.
No matter how you cut it, the endings are a broken story telling element cause they ruin Shepard's character.  Even if the endings are canon, I refuse to accept Shepard would so blindly, and seemingly willingly, accept them.

[Eulalia Danae]

VickerVictory wrote...

I would like to ask... why would a purely synthetic universe be so bad?

Really good question. Along those lines, whose to say that synthetics don't end up playing the creator card and start making some organics?

[Gibb_Shepard]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...


That's an objection of "We don't want your minions to harvest our organs" not "Your logic is flawed an inconsistent with the game's themese, fool".

I have lots of objections I'd like to make in the game. That doesn't mean objections don't exist.

I cannot choose synthesis, simply because it makes the least sense out of all of them. No matter what it tries to represent, i simply can't go with an option that doesn't make a lick of sense and contadicts so many things.

Alright. So how does your personal limitation refute that Synthesis is directly made in the theme of unity of organics and synthetics, and disputes the Catalyst's desires and beliefs?

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't.

Because what synthesis implies is impossible. Cyborg-Geth-men will eventually make AI, and according to the Catalyst, the inevitability will again be present. This time, however, the Reapers won't be there, because there is essentially no organic life left. Which then brings up the point that this idiot just allowed someone to do exactly what he was trying the prevent, which was the extermination of organic life.

It is poor, poor writing. No matter what it was intending, if you step back and think, the intention doesn't come to fruition. 

On top of that, it shouldn't be the player who decide the themes of the story. I shouldn't choose whther or not to solidfy a theme. It should be solidified. I'm not the writer, i'm the participant.

Modifié par Gibb_Shepard, 17 mars 2012 - 06:27 .

[Meltemph]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Singularity is a theroy and an unproven one at that.  How the poo are you comaring this stuff to a technological singularity?

There are many forms of singularity, not just artificial-intelligence. One of the most basic definitions is 'something that radically changes the way things work in ways that can not be predicted beforehand.'

Which has happened at a number of key points in history. An airplane might be a faster blimp, but there was no pre-electricty concept of the internet. Groups that have adopted singularity-technologies developed in ways entirely unpredictable to pre-singularity societies... and those more advanced groups often conquered or assimilated those lesser groups.

umm... Are you one of those people who finds a theroy they like and see it "everywhere"?  Cause seriously, you are touting a theory as a known fact.  Not to mention the way you just defined a singularity rips the whole point out of it.  It becomes so ambiguously generalized that it is a useless descriptor cause it doesnt appropriately help point anything out(well any mroe then saying "well that is new and different").  Also makes it near impossible for people to have a clue where you are coming from if you use singularity THAT flipantly, yet at the same time use it to compare the reapers.

[AusitnDrake]

Eulalia Danae wrote...

VickerVictory wrote...

I would like to ask... why would a purely synthetic universe be so bad?

Really good question. Along those lines, whose to say that synthetics don't end up playing the creator card and start making some organics?

And those organics destroy the synthetics only to create synthetics of there own. An endless cycle of creation destroying creator. As who is to say the organics could not be created in a way to adapt and evolve faster then their synthetic creators. With each creation surpassing the last.

Modifié par AusitnDrake, 17 mars 2012 - 06:29 .

[Beast919]

Eulalia Danae wrote...

VickerVictory wrote...

I would like to ask... why would a purely synthetic universe be so bad?

Really good question. Along those lines, whose to say that synthetics don't end up playing the creator card and start making some organics?

I haven't seen anyone answer this question.  Its essentailly a justified holocaust of the good guys as a method of birth control for the bad guys.  "Hey if we kill all these people, these other people don't win!"  Logic.

[Grayvern]

Singularity in terms of AI growth at the level of the mass effect universe doesn't matter because at this point they are pushing at the laws of physics.

Whatever the advantages of AI can probably be countered in a conventional space war by simply using shackeled AI targeting computers, etc, etc.

Anything drastically more powerful and there is no possible reason for AI to wipe out organics except as and accident in a roadside picnic kind of way at which point it is unpredictable enough to count as a natural force rather than the tangible threat the reapers clearly fear.

Modifié par Grayvern, 17 mars 2012 - 06:35 .

[Vergil_dgk]

Ciiran wrote...

I've seen the argument here a few times and something bothered me about it.
"Peace between the Geth and the Quarians and EDIs personality proves that synthetics does not always rebel against their creators." or variations of the same sentiment.

First off, both did. Geth rebelled against quarians and EDI against Cerberus/TIM. That they were justified to do so is irrelevant. The point is that the power or the potential power of synthetics could be catastrophic. 

Secondly, the Catalyst never claimed that all synthetics always wipe out all organics, nor that it happens straight away. The Geth or indeed EDI, could very well end up gunning for total oranic destruction in 500 years, or 5 years, or never.

It does not matter. If you can show me 1 000 000 synthetic civilizations that act peacefully and only fight in self defence and the Catalyst can show you just one that is act as organocidal devil-machines, he wins the argument. His reasoning is that all it takes is one and he sacrifies all advanced organic civilizations every 50 000 years to prevent that. Neither the Geth, nor EDI, disproves anything.

Here is how his argument actually fails. Logically I mean. His premise might still be correct.
His argument is unfalsifiable. That's a big no no when constructing arguments. It's a clever rethorical device, but that does not make it true. Whatever example we fling at him he will respond "they might do it in the future or another synthetic will do it in the future. Eventually". Whatever we say and whenever we say it the Catalyst will never be proven wrong.

The real problem with this? It can be used to rationalize almost everything. He could exchange synthetics with "organics sprung from war like societies" and be just as right with the motivation that other civilizations will buff them. Like what was done with the Krogan. And given enough time he would be correct, and most importantly, his argument could not be disproven.

The problem with the ending isn't the claim (while ludicrous) that synthetics will always rebel against organics. The problem is that this stuff is delivered in the dying seconds of the game, by a clear enemy who was just killed billions and whom you have no reason to trust - and yet you have no choice but to accept what he says. It's ridioulous storytelling. If this was the true reason for the cycle, it should have been hinted at and then established a long time before. The way it's presented is insulting, frankly.

[Meltemph]

VickerVictory wrote...

I would like to ask... why would a purely synthetic universe be so bad?

It wouldnt be so bad, but we have no idea what it means. It would still require resources and there are still a limited amount of resources, so eventually it would run into the same problems as organics, which would mean theree would eventually be a need to choose what lives and what dies(who gets "fed" and who does not).

Unless they are all 1 synthetic, I'm not sure how it would be much different, other then their wars looking a hell of a lot different then ours. Might not even be able to call ti a war, more like "deleting partitions" or something. either way, I dont see how the fundamental problems would be gone, unless the universe decided to change the laws of matter.

[VickerVictory]

Eulalia Danae wrote...

VickerVictory wrote...

I would like to ask... why would a purely synthetic universe be so bad?

Really good question. Along those lines, whose to say that synthetics don't end up playing the creator card and start making some organics?

An interresting point. In the end, I don't see why all the races cry end of the world each time there is a machine race getting in. They betrey organics, organics betray organics so what? When there's a war between organics the weakest lose and if there is a war between synthetics and organics, well, the synthetics just have another advantage.


Basically: We must destroy synthetics to preserve war.
wat?
Well, like geth, why would they want war in the first place? We teach by example may I add.

[Dean_the_Young]

Beast919 wrote...

Wrong. When given the control option Shepard chuckles and says "huh, so the Illusive Man was right after all." Immediate, unconditional, acceptance. What part of this is difficult to understand.

Apparently your concept of acceptance.

The Reaper can be controlled is a fact: the properness is not conceeded. Conceeding the Reaper can be controlled is not conceeding that controlling them is a good idea.

My problem is not that Shepard settles on a choice, as we all know at some point there was going to be a choice, and at some point there were going to be consequences. But he COMPLETELY LACKED CHARACTER.
If you choose the destroy option, ESPECIALLY if you are a Paragon, you should see how badly it is scaring Shepard, knowing that he is betraying the legacy Legion left behind, knowing that he is sacrificing EDI even though she had become dedicated to their cause. Instead he's just cool with it.

Shepard is half-dead in those scenes, not 'cool.' The entire finale at that point is that Shepard is draging him or herself forward. Vim and Vigour are not part of the formula.

Besides which, unless your forgetting Arrival and Virmire and a few other places, Paragon Shepard has grit teeth and sacrificed others before. It is in-character for Shepard to make the necessary decisions.



Of course, choosing the destroy option is, you know, your choice. Your Paragon doesn't have to do it happily, or at all.

[b]
No matter how you cut it, the endings are a broken story telling element cause they ruin Shepard's character. Even if the endings are canon, I refuse to accept Shepard would so blindly, and seemingly willingly, accept them.

So roleplay a half-dead Shepard who's just too tired to get into a loud debate in his final minutes. Just like how you roleplayed a Shepard with moral objections to the Collector Base, or not, when destroying it.

You've had to roleplay within the restrictions given to you so far. Don't stop now.




And with that, I head to bed.

[VickerVictory]

AusitnDrake wrote...

Eulalia Danae wrote...

VickerVictory wrote...

I would like to ask... why would a purely synthetic universe be so bad?

Really good question. Along those lines, whose to say that synthetics don't end up playing the creator card and start making some organics?

And those organics destroy the synthetics only to create synthetics of there own. An endless cycle of creation destroying creator. As who is to say the organics could not be created in a way to adapt and evolve faster then their synthetic creators. With each creation surpassing the last.

I believe Darwin called this "Evolution"... In the end the reapers by wanting to prevent this kind of cycle is the harbinger of conservatism, stillness and imperfection.

[xsdob]

The catalyst also stated that organics were destroyed to make way for new lifeforms. I liked the endings just fine, but I think that they should have just stopped it their and called it a day. He could even bring up examples of how an unchecked galactic civilization could be catastrophic, IE: krogan uplifting, rachni wars, prothean imperialism, cultural and technological stagnation, even human expansion would all be arguments he could make for the reapers existence.

But synthetics work fine with me, since all the synthetics throughout history have at some point wiped out life, the reapers are just the best at it.

[111987]

[quote]Beast919 wrote...


LOL....the problem is you can't think for yourself.  Sure, your scenario is possible.  You know what else is possible?

A) Reapers did fight Reapers.  We have ZERO evidence to support them being nonviolent towards their kind for all time forever.  Not only that, but it is *incredibly* unlikely that there is a society in existence that never fought within its own bounds.
[/quote]

You're making things up again. Because we have not been shown that Reapers fight each other, the burden of providing evidence is on you. That's how debates work. If you have an idea that goes against the norm, you have to provide evidence explaining why the norm is wrong.

[quote]Beast919 wrote...
We once again are assuming Reaper's spoken word is truth.  We have no proof a Reaper is immortal.  We know one claims this, but no proof.  Secondly, we have no proof that this isn't a recent evolution.  Its quite possible Reapers, in the past, were not immortal, but evolved to that state later. [/quote]

What other form of proof could possibly exist? You can't prove something will never die unless you yourself are immortal, but even then, you don't really know if YOU are immortal. We've been told many times the Reapers are immortal. That's what the game has told us, so that's what we have to go off of.

[quote]Beast919 wrote...

C) Why.  Why must it have been an organic.  Why not a synthetic?  Perhaps, PERHAPS, the Leviathan of Dis was a casualty in the war that caused the Reapers to see Synthetics as a threat? WHO KNOWS?!

D) Even if the Leviathan was killed by an organic species, this proves NOTHING ABOUT THE CYCLE OF PURGING. 
It very well could have died in an organic uprising that caused them to
think they couldn't babysit organics, and instead had to purge them. 
WHO KNOWS?!


No, because Harbinger is the oldest Reaper in existence. Thus synthetics have already been shown to be a threat before the Leviathan of Dis.  Please think through your arguments better.

Modifié par 111987, 17 mars 2012 - 06:35 .

[Eulalia Danae]

AusitnDrake wrote...

Eulalia Danae wrote...

VickerVictory wrote...

I would like to ask... why would a purely synthetic universe be so bad?

Really good question. Along those lines, whose to say that synthetics don't end up playing the creator card and start making some organics?

And those organics destroy the synthetics only to create synthetics of there own. An endless cycle of creation destroying creator. As who is to say the organics could not be created in a way to adapt and evolve faster then their synthetic creators. With each creation surpassing the last.

And at least then they get to go out by their own design so to speak, by consequence of their own choices and actions. I always find more satisfaction in stories that take that approach.

[xsdob]

VickerVictory wrote...

AusitnDrake wrote...

Eulalia Danae wrote...

VickerVictory wrote...

I would like to ask... why would a purely synthetic universe be so bad?

Really good question. Along those lines, whose to say that synthetics don't end up playing the creator card and start making some organics?

And those organics destroy the synthetics only to create synthetics of there own. An endless cycle of creation destroying creator. As who is to say the organics could not be created in a way to adapt and evolve faster then their synthetic creators. With each creation surpassing the last.

I believe Darwin called this "Evolution"... In the end the reapers by wanting to prevent this kind of cycle is the harbinger of conservatism, stillness and imperfection.

And that makes them good and intimedating villains, because of their
flawed and infallable logic. Their logic that "We are the solution to
the problem, so any solution we use is the right answer."

Modifié par xsdob, 17 mars 2012 - 06:36 .

[Tocquevillain]

Der Estr Bune wrote...

I agree that the Geth/EDI are not valid examples of why it's wrong, but I don't agree that it only has to happen once. If anything, I think the whole thing is probably proof that it has happened multiple times in the past. The God-Child has such a massive sample size, it's sort of naive to say, "This 300-year span invalidates the millenia of data he has!".

This was on the first page, but it's so true. Mass Effect is not just the three years of time you play through. It's about millions of years of repeated history coming to an end, and starting anew.

[Dean_the_Young]

Alright, maybe one more.

Meltemph wrote...
umm... Are you one of those people who finds a theroy they like and see it "everywhere"?  Cause seriously, you are touting a theory as a known fact.

No, I'm touting a model like a model. 'Singularity' isn't just a prediction of the future, other forms of it are models for looking at the past.

 Not to mention the way you just defined a singularity rips the whole point out of it.  It becomes so ambiguously generalized that it is a useless descriptor cause it doesnt appropriately help point anything out(well any mroe then saying "well that is new and different"). 

It's an ambigous concept, not a useless descriptor. Which is why specific singularities are identified in the context and manner they're being talked about. The Reaper-feared singularity isn't the only form of singularity: it's an interpretation, but still shares common trends with the more general category.

Also makes it near impossible for people to have a clue where you are coming from if you use singularity THAT flipantly, yet at the same time use it to compare the reapers.

Which is why I refer to the singularity in question.

[Killer3000ad]

MJF JD wrote...

Geth didnt rebel.

[Grayvern]

Again mass effect is semi hard sci fi meaning in universe lore has some acceptance of the laws of physics arguably limiting the pinnacle of technology in such a way that AI's thinking will never be the be all and end all in any war.

[Ciiran]

Vergil_dgk wrote...
The problem with the ending isn't the claim (while ludicrous) that synthetics will always rebel against organics. The problem is that this stuff is delivered in the dying seconds of the game, by a clear enemy who was just killed billions and whom you have no reason to trust - and yet you have no choice but to accept what he says. It's ridioulous storytelling. If this was the true reason for the cycle, it should have been hinted at and then established a long time before. The way it's presented is insulting, frankly.

Agreed.

[VickerVictory]

Meltemph wrote...

VickerVictory wrote...

I would like to ask... why would a purely synthetic universe be so bad?

It wouldnt be so bad, but we have no idea what it means. It would still require resources and there are still a limited amount of resources, so eventually it would run into the same problems as organics, which would mean theree would eventually be a need to choose what lives and what dies(who gets "fed" and who does not).

Unless they are all 1 synthetic, I'm not sure how it would be much different, other then their wars looking a hell of a lot different then ours. Might not even be able to call ti a war, more like "deleting partitions" or something. either way, I dont see how the fundamental problems would be gone, unless the universe decided to change the laws of matter.

Well, I don't think synthetics would go at war with themselves. Too much population? Well then we stop CTRL+C/CTRL+V. Plus, they aren't as abstracted as we are, I think that a computer could just say "We calculate we have 75% chances of winning, war: Y/N?" which would be followed by "You have won, have a pleasant day." Because war always costs more in ressources than it seems to give.

Plus, lets not forget that a program takes considerably less ressources and place than an organic.

[piemanz]

Meltemph wrote...

piemanz wrote...

Ciiran wrote...

piemanz wrote...

If anything the geth prove the catalyst is right. he says "the created will always rebel against the creators" which happened whith the geth, and that the solution is a solution to "chaos". He then says that sythetics will eventually destroy organics, but that doesn't necessarily mean the sythetics will start out as the agressors, only that they will eventually prevail.

Yes, that was my point. The thread derailed quite quickly. :-)

It's now argued wether the Catalysts solution is right. My original post only pointed out that his argument (in itself) was not disprovable.

Yea, it did derail quickly , but I don't think anyones argueing that what the Reapers are doing is 'moraly right, only that it's logical a logical conclusion to come to, to bring about a certain balance to the galaxy.

Umm... WHAT?  It is infact not a logical conclusion unless the conclusion is for self preservations sake(and only for the reapers self preservation).  The existence of itself(reapers) should be proof that outside of self preservation it' not logic that is having them do this but is fear and imagination.  Otherwise you are arguing that the only way to prevent a singularity from destroying the galaxy is to have a singularity destroy possible singularites.  IF you dont see the flaw in this line of thinking...Umm well I guess that ship has sailed.  At worst there will be another singularity doing this(A massive theory) or at best you just wipped out the cycle for a very, very, long time.

The only LOGICAL conclusion Shep should be making about this is destroying them, anything else is borderline(I dont mean this, honestly, as an insult to people who are fine with this) insane or at the minimum genocidle.  you should feel HORRIBLE that these are your only choices(looking at your writers), but it is the only sane one, because the only other options is to have these logically broken(Or a self preservationist at all costs) organic-synthetics still around.

Just because it's somewhat of a self fullfilling prophecy doesn't necessarily make them wrong, if anything it backs up their claim because they're the living embodiment of it. Of course it doesn't necessarily make them right either. But their solution 'in their eyes', is allowing civilasations to grow and advance then  'ascend' to Reaperdom, they don't see it as mass murder. I guess to them, it's more preferable than organics being in a permanant state of being erradicated.

[Beast919]

Dean_the_Young wrote...


The Reaper can be controlled is a fact: the properness is not conceeded. Conceeding the Reaper can be controlled is not conceeding that controlling them is a good idea.

The problem is that A) He immediately accepts its possibility as fact.  Not a single doubt.  And  He doesn't once voice concern over it.  Not voicing concern after, as you so kindly pointed out, already having questioned the Star Child before, implies that he does not have a concern to voice.

Shepard is half-dead in those scenes, not 'cool.' The entire finale at that point is that Shepard is draging him or herself forward. Vim and Vigour are not part of the formula.

Watch the endings again.  Watch how he approaches all 3 ending choices.  He shows determination, he shows gut, he shows willingness to do it.  Yet he couldn't afford a grimace, a look of indecision, or shock, or horror, 5 seconds earlier?  Your argument is absurd.

Besides which, unless your forgetting Arrival and Virmire and a few other places, Paragon Shepard has grit teeth and sacrificed others before. It is in-character for Shepard to make the necessary decisions.

"Paragon Shepard has grit teeth and sacrificed others before"
And always said something about it .  Or shown remorse.  Or had *any* emotion whatsoever.


Of course, choosing the destroy option is, you know, your choice. Your Paragon doesn't have to do it happily, or at all.

Cept he does do it happily.  He actually gets excited by doing it and starts gettin pumped up and not being "half dead" like you said.  And afterwards not a single damn was given as the entire Geth species was genocided.  Not even a 4 second cutscene of some of them exploding while they rebuilt Rannoch. 

So roleplay a half-dead Shepard who's just too tired to get into a loud debate in his final minutes. Just like how you roleplayed a Shepard with moral objections to the Collector Base, or not, when destroying it.

You've had to roleplay within the restrictions given to you so far. Don't stop now.


No, I haven't.  The story they've told was good enough for me.  Because it all flowed.  When you destroyed the Collector Base you were quite explicitly displaying your objections to it.  He says it.  Straight out.  When you choose to keep it, you are inherantly fine with it due to its potential to save lives.  He says so.  Straight out.

When Shepard made a tough call, he treated it as such, reacted to it as such, and showed emotion.  At the end, there's none of that.  He even brings up EDI & the Geth when prompted by the Destroy option, but displays *ZERO* emotion about it, nor are you given the typical paragon/renegade path to pick from (even if it was just for 1 line of dialogue) to express your opinion and give him character.  Its just void.  A void.



And with that, I head to bed.

[VickerVictory]

xsdob wrote...

VickerVictory wrote...

AusitnDrake wrote...

Eulalia Danae wrote...

VickerVictory wrote...

I would like to ask... why would a purely synthetic universe be so bad?

Really good question. Along those lines, whose to say that synthetics don't end up playing the creator card and start making some organics?

And those organics destroy the synthetics only to create synthetics of there own. An endless cycle of creation destroying creator. As who is to say the organics could not be created in a way to adapt and evolve faster then their synthetic creators. With each creation surpassing the last.

I believe Darwin called this "Evolution"... In the end the reapers by wanting to prevent this kind of cycle is the harbinger of conservatism, stillness and imperfection.

And that makes them good and intimedating villains, because of their
flawed and infallable logic. Their logic that "We are the solution to
the problem, so any solution we use is the right answer."

A paradox! Who needs that damn crucible when you have the ultimate anti-machine weapon! Let them root is dark space for eternity while they try to figure that one out