418 réponses à ce sujet

[Meltemph]

I do find it weird though that in all this time there was not a reaper equivalent of something similar of the rachni variety that would be able to take the reapers on in their own right, you would think if a technological singualrity exists in this universe there would be a biological one. Universe normally does a pretty good job of having something evolve along the same lines but on a different course. But of course, then I am turning the fiction more into a reality, which then breaks the story anymore.

The thing is, we shouldn't have to be nitpicking and arguing about this stuff. This is not a conversation that should be coming up because a game decided to surprise us with this crap at the last second. If they wanted this kind of tone with the game, they should have kept this tone the whole way...but I suspect they couldnt because they knew it wouldnt sell, so they decided to shoe horn this crap in.

[Meltemph]

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.

You realize you essentially just agree'd with me(I'm actually asking, casue I'm not sure if you meant to or not)? They are either doing what they are doing because they are the cycle or they are doing it to survive.

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 mars 2012 - 06:45 .

[UnbornLeviathan]

111987 wrote...

Sam Anders wrote...

They showed you in ME3 that the Quarians struck first, and the Geth just attempted to get the Quarians to leave them alone while doing as little damage as possible.

The Geth were hostile in the trilogy because they were being controlled by the Reapers.

Not true. In both cases, the Geth willingly allied with the Reapers.

The Geth allied with the reapers 500 years before ME 1?

Hollyyyyy-****. I missed that.

[Beast919]

111987 wrote...

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.

So, in essence, I'm held to a higher standard of evidence than a phantom god child introduced to the series in  the last 5 minutes.  K.  Once again you prove that you are utterly devoted to the words he's said and nothing else.

Try making a single argument that does not hinge on his words.  I dare you.

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.

Its what we can *assume* to be true, yes.  But it is not fact.  And by your own argument, even the Reapers do not know they're immortal, so trolololololololol.

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.

lol, talk about thinking things through.  Who's the oldest human in existence?  Someone in the 110's maybe?  So, they were around in the Civil War then?  How bout hanging out with Achilles at Troy?

Harbinger being the oldest Reaper *currently* does not make it fact that he was alive when the Leviathan of Dis was.  If you *assume* that reapers are immortal, this still isn't fact.  Because we don't know how many Reapers existed when the Leviathan died.  Its possible all the older Reapers also died in the conflicts that occured in the past billion years.  Every cycle they're supposed to get more Reapers due to how they are constructed, so how can we possibly understand their numbers and how they've grown over the past billion years?

Do you not understand that even within the confines of your own argument, there is not a *fact* to prove that synthetics were a threat in the past?  Even if Star Child truly did create the Reapers to prevent the potential threat an AI could cause, that does not *prove* that an AI was a threat in the past?

You are basing your entire stance on the words of Star Child.  And even then, you are filling in gaps for him in ways you cannot possibly prove to be true.

That, is why you fail.

[piemanz]

Meltemph wrote...

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.

You realize you essentially just agree'd with me(I'm actually asking, casue I'm not sure if you meant to or not)? They are either doing what they are doing because they are the cycle or they are doing it to survive.

I'm not argueing that their logic 100% right, I'm saying that it's right 'to them' and in the situation Shepard was in that's all that matters. He has absolutely no other option than to hope the crucible did change them, because it was the 'only' hope' of defeating them. So any other option other than the ones he's presented with will result in defeat, and the Reapers carrying on their cycles.

Modifié par piemanz, 17 mars 2012 - 06:57 .

[beyzend]

"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."

this is a classical argument of whether the end justify the means. IMO killing off advanced civilizations to achieve the end of continuing the existence of organics is morally unjustifiable. But I'm not really a philosophy major but I don't see how you can just make the claim "ALL synethics will destroy organics". He makes this claim without any proof whatsoever. What prevents me then saying I believe Bioware and EA is ought to get me, eventually, so I'm justified in pirating the **** out of their games?

Also see: http://en.wikipedia....onsequentialism

I believe if "I'm ****ing alive A.I" is actually possibile it can be taught culture, ethics and morality so it could never turn against the organics. But then what is really the point? A.I is just a masturbation game by the organics really.

[111987]

UnbornLeviathan wrote...

111987 wrote...

Sam Anders wrote...

They showed you in ME3 that the Quarians struck first, and the Geth just attempted to get the Quarians to leave them alone while doing as little damage as possible.

The Geth were hostile in the trilogy because they were being controlled by the Reapers.

Not true. In both cases, the Geth willingly allied with the Reapers.

The Geth allied with the reapers 500 years before ME 1?

Hollyyyyy-****. I missed that.

What???

[beyzend]

It's a false generalization that "all synethics ultimately will destroy all organics"

[GnusmasTHX]

You guys need to look up the definition of "rebel".

The geth and EDI both certainly did rebel, they just had cause to do so.

Saying the geth and EDI didn't rebel is like saying the Rebel Alliance never existed in Star Wars.

[Meltemph]

piemanz wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

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.

You realize you essentially just agree'd with me(I'm actually asking, casue I'm not sure if you meant to or not)? They are either doing what they are doing because they are the cycle or they are doing it to survive.

I'm not argueing that they're logic 100% right, I'm saying that it's right 'to them' and in the situation shepard was in thats all that matters. He has absolutely no other option than to hope the cataylst did change them because it was the 'only' hope' of defeating them. So any other option other than the ones he's presented with will result in defeat and the Reapers carring on their cycles.

Oh I agree with Shep having to choose one, I'm jsut saying the only one that makes any sense is the destroy one... Now a brain fried Shep at that point probably cant connect all the dots like we can, so it would make sense if you roleplay him that way.  But I do find it somewhat scary, that actual people chose the other options(assuming they thought it through) because any other option means these things exist and no matter how you slice it, one thing they have shown through the enitre series is that they put survival(namely theri own) as the main priority.

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 mars 2012 - 06:52 .

[AusitnDrake]

UnbornLeviathan wrote...

111987 wrote...

Sam Anders wrote...

They showed you in ME3 that the Quarians struck first, and the Geth just attempted to get the Quarians to leave them alone while doing as little damage as possible.

The Geth were hostile in the trilogy because they were being controlled by the Reapers.

Not true. In both cases, the Geth willingly allied with the Reapers.

The Geth allied with the reapers 500 years before ME 1?

Hollyyyyy-****. I missed that.

I think he was refering to them being hostile during the time of ME1. In which case the Heretics did follow Soveriegn out of the view that it was the pinnacle of their evolution. Though not the geth as a whole. Sovereign wanted them to fight organics at least towards a goal, and they followed with fervor. The geth in ME3 were taken control of though as the reapers infected their network with a code to make them obey the reapers.

[LUIGI9393]

The logic of the catalyst it's not a great example of logic.
Now, we have to suppose that at least once the Synth destroyed all the organic life, this is the only thing that would prove that the catalyst was right.
But since there is still organic life in the galaxy and since the reapers have been created by someone we have to suppose that Synth never eradicated organic life, so the assumption of the Catalyst is false or at the best unproven.
And since the Metacon war was won by the organics, the Prothean, and since what we know about Geth and IDA, and since we know that the synt threath in the human cycle and in the Prothean Cycle was caused by the Reapers (in fact the reapers helped the Za'til or whatever their name was when they were loosing the war, and pushed the Geth to war when they were pacifist and isolationist) we can assume that Catalyst said a bunch or crap.
Or at least bioware did.

If Aristotle could see the ending of mass effect he would do a
facepalm.

[FRancium]

We can argue both ways and go on and on, but the glaring lack of conversation between Shepard and Spacekid is the terrible part.
We have a lot to say, and Shepard has always used his words sharper than guns, even talking Saren and TIM into killing themselves. How are we to believe that Shep isn't even going to question Spacekid's stance at all?

That's what i hate about the ending.

[111987]

Beast919 wrote...

111987 wrote...

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.

So, in essence, I'm held to a higher standard of evidence than a phantom god child introduced to the series in  the last 5 minutes.  K.  Once again you prove that you are utterly devoted to the words he's said and nothing else.

Try making a single argument that does not hinge on his words.  I dare you.

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.

Its what we can *assume* to be true, yes.  But it is not fact.  And by your own argument, even the Reapers do not know they're immortal, so trolololololololol.

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.

lol, talk about thinking things through.  Who's the oldest human in existence?  Someone in the 110's maybe?  So, they were around in the Civil War then?  How bout hanging out with Achilles at Troy?

Harbinger being the oldest Reaper *currently* does not make it fact that he was alive when the Leviathan of Dis was.  If you *assume* that reapers are immortal, this still isn't fact.  Because we don't know how many Reapers existed when the Leviathan died.  Its possible all the older Reapers also died in the conflicts that occured in the past billion years.  Every cycle they're supposed to get more Reapers due to how they are constructed, so how can we possibly understand their numbers and how they've grown over the past billion years?

Do you not understand that even within the confines of your own argument, there is not a *fact* to prove that synthetics were a threat in the past?  Even if Star Child truly did create the Reapers to prevent the potential threat an AI could cause, that does not *prove* that an AI was a threat in the past?

You are basing your entire stance on the words of Star Child.  And even then, you are filling in gaps for him in ways you cannot possibly prove to be true.

That, is why you fail.

Okay, I am sorry, but you are simply not worth debating. You arguments are just horrible, and you are trolling.

[Meltemph]

AusitnDrake wrote...

UnbornLeviathan wrote...

111987 wrote...

Sam Anders wrote...

They showed you in ME3 that the Quarians struck first, and the Geth just attempted to get the Quarians to leave them alone while doing as little damage as possible.

The Geth were hostile in the trilogy because they were being controlled by the Reapers.

Not true. In both cases, the Geth willingly allied with the Reapers.

The Geth allied with the reapers 500 years before ME 1?

Hollyyyyy-****. I missed that.

I think he was refering to them being hostile during the time of ME1. In which case the Heretics did follow Soveriegn out of the view that it was the pinnacle of their evolution. Though not the geth as a whole. Sovereign wanted them to fight organics at least towards a goal, and they followed with fervor. The geth in ME3 were taken control of though as the reapers infected their network with a code to make them obey the reapers.

Doesnt that just prove the Reapers are the problem? >.>  The geth are not a constant in this galaxy, the reapers are, so to give them authority of choice about chosing to work with the reapers seems...problematic.

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 mars 2012 - 06:55 .

[beyzend]

111987 wrote...

UnbornLeviathan wrote...

111987 wrote...

Sam Anders wrote...

They showed you in ME3 that the Quarians struck first, and the Geth just attempted to get the Quarians to leave them alone while doing as little damage as possible.

The Geth were hostile in the trilogy because they were being controlled by the Reapers.

Not true. In both cases, the Geth willingly allied with the Reapers.

The Geth allied with the reapers 500 years before ME 1?

Hollyyyyy-****. I missed that.

What???

Not according to the mass effect wiki: 
http://masseffect.wi...ki/Geth#History 

[graciegrace]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

This is a story. In a story we must be shown, not told.

What are we shown? That organics and machines can make peacer. That organics and machines can even fall in love.

Then we are TOLD that synthetics will always kill organics. It's poor story-telling and is a thematic inconsistency of the highest degree.

Someone who understands story writing?  You're my new favorite person.  This post so much.

[Beast919]

GnusmasTHX wrote...

You guys need to look up the definition of "rebel".

The geth and EDI both certainly did rebel, they just had cause to do so.

Saying the geth and EDI didn't rebel is like saying the Rebel Alliance never existed in Star Wars.

The geth fighting for survival is nothing like the Rebel Alliance.

The rebels could have existed peacefully under the Empire, if they so chose.  They fought not only to save the races which were being persecuted, but also to advance their own ideals.  The geth fought singularly for survival.  They stopped their war even after they had won, once it was clear that survival was achieved.

While I won't comment on whether or not that is technically a rebellion, since I'm too lazy to look up the actual definition, I will say its *nothing* like the Rebel Alliance.

[beyzend]

I mean seriously **** the Starchild, killing off civilizations--probably the amount killed numbered in the trillions--just for some philosophy 101 bull****.

[GnusmasTHX]

Beast919 wrote...

GnusmasTHX wrote...

You guys need to look up the definition of "rebel".

The geth and EDI both certainly did rebel, they just had cause to do so.

Saying the geth and EDI didn't rebel is like saying the Rebel Alliance never existed in Star Wars.

The geth fighting for survival is nothing like the Rebel Alliance.

The rebels could have existed peacefully under the Empire, if they so chose.  They fought not only to save the races which were being persecuted, but also to advance their own ideals.  The geth fought singularly for survival.  They stopped their war even after they had won, once it was clear that survival was achieved.

While I won't comment on whether or not that is technically a rebellion, since I'm too lazy to look up the actual definition, I will say its *nothing* like the Rebel Alliance.

That flew right over you. Both of them are rebellions, I made no mention of their motivations.

re·bel·lion[/i]/riˈbelyən/Noun:An act of violent or open resistance to an established government or ruler.The action or process of resisting authority, control, or convention: "an act of teenage rebellion".

[Grayvern]

The real issue is how could a semi intelligent machine literally come up with the dumbest way possible to achieve it's stated ends, given the inherant risks to cyclic genocide and AI development. 

Modifié par Grayvern, 17 mars 2012 - 06:59 .

[LUIGI9393]

it's derp logic.

[Beast919]

GnusmasTHX wrote...

That flew right over you. Both of them are rebellions, I made no mention of their motivations.

re·bel·lion[/i]/riˈbelyən/Noun:An act of violent or open resistance to an established government or ruler.The action or process of resisting authority, control, or convention: "an act of teenage rebellion".

As I said I wasn't contending the actual definition of rebellion or how it applied to the Geth.

I just didn't, and still don't, understand why you would even bring up Star Wars

[Meltemph]

Grayvern wrote...

The real issue is how could a semi intelligent machine literally come up with the dumbest way possible to achieve it's stated ends.

Well the end is, is survival, the thing even states it(Just tries to say, I want you to survive as well...as me).  The problem is it doesnt realize what IT is, quite literally.  What the reapers are doing makes sense, for them, he does not make sense for us.  Everyhting outside of "their" survival is fluff.

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 mars 2012 - 07:02 .

[Grayvern]

I would argue what they are doing makes sense for the dark energy, environmental pollution metaphor, or if they were trying to prevent the galaxy being noticed by an extra gallactic threat .

As is their strategy is deeply flawed when they could simply rule over organic life keeping it contained and at a low level of tech.

Modifié par Grayvern, 17 mars 2012 - 07:08 .