418 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

A clash implies things are mutually exclusive. The themes that 'there is organic-synthetic strife' AND 'organics and synthetics can get along' are not mutually exclusive. They can both exist in the same universe, just like 'there are Human villains' and 'there are Human heroes.'

Working with that analogy, the ending implies that all human are villains, despite what has been shown throughout the story; effectively creating a clash of themes.

Except it does not imply that all humans are villains.

The only thing i can say here is "yes it does", since i haven't been given much to work with.

The existence of Shepard and the Alliance as the heroes of the game disproves that.

[Meltemph]

They see it because after having seen it any given number of times, they came to be able to recognize potential signs/warning signs, and after so long of having those validated, they came to just assume it was ultimately correct

That does not make sense. The fact that the reapers exist means that there were "cycles(or lack there of)" in fact that allowed them to hit this peak, the reapers are proof they are wrong. They are essentially saying, we dont trust any other race to get to our point, because we dont know what they are going to do, so we kill them.

Their premise that all life will create machines that eventually kill organics is directly against their very existence.

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 mars 2012 - 05:37 .

[Dean_the_Young]

corporal doody wrote...

now you are being silly

If the Reapers destroyed all organic life, how did Humans survive the Protheans?

[Beast919]

111987 wrote...

What exactly is your evidence that all organic life will be wiped out eventually?

It is not something that can be proven, you're right.  But its something that can be rationally thought about it.  Continued below.

We don't know how many planets can support life, Our current estimates say there are several billion. Even if there are only several million planets capable of supporting life, those planets will eventually allow for advanced life to rise again.

Where is your evidence that advanced life will rise again?  I can play the "unanswerable question" game as well, its fun isn't it.

Being more serious, *supporting life* and the necessary conditions for *sentient life* to occur are two completely different notions.  

There are less than a dozen advanced species in this current cycle. A dozen out of potentially millions of species.

The fact that there are only a dozen advanced species in the entire Galaxy should be something of a clue that there aren't that many out there.

As for the non-advanced species, the only one even hinted at (unless I'm missing something) are the Yahg.  Liara says she studied "various" pre-space cultures, but its never hinted that there are a host of them out there ready & waiting.  There also does not appear to be a galaxy-wide "Prime Directive" such as the Federation made to not have interactions with non-advanced species, the only reason the Yahg were left alone was their incredible ferocity.

So for 50,000 years Sentient life has explored the Galaxy and the only examples we're given for Sentient life can be counted on our fingers & toes.  That is not a good sign.

The Reapers harvest technology and resources, but it doesn't say exactly what this means. It defintely does not mean that they are rendering those worlds unihabitable.

Do you not understand how fragile a world's ecosystem is?  If you harvest *a single resource* off of a planet in its entirety, it could throw entire species into extinction.   Imagine, if you would, what would happen if Reapers simply harvested trees from Earth.  That's all, they just want some lumber.  There goes the entire environment nearly.

[Dean_the_Young]

Meltemph wrote...

That does not make sense. The fact that the reapers exist means that there were "cycles(or lack there of)" in fact that allowed them to hit this peak, the reapers are proof they are wrong. They are essentially saying, we dont trust any other race to get to our point, because we dont know what they are going to do, so we kill them.

Their premise that all life will create machines that eventually kill organics is directly against their very existence.

Not really. A synthetic revolution doesn't need to be as advanced as the Reapers to beat the organics. Just look at the successful Geth rebellions. There could have been countless cycles in which the Reapers watched from afar as synthetics overwhelmed the organics, only for the Reapers to curbstomp them.


The question or organics-vs-synthetics ignores that there can be a third group more advanced than either of them (for now). That third force would be the Reapers.

[piemanz]

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.

[Meltemph]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

That does not make sense. The fact that the reapers exist means that there were "cycles(or lack there of)" in fact that allowed them to hit this peak, the reapers are proof they are wrong. They are essentially saying, we dont trust any other race to get to our point, because we dont know what they are going to do, so we kill them.

Their premise that all life will create machines that eventually kill organics is directly against their very existence.

Not really. A synthetic revolution doesn't need to be as advanced as the Reapers to beat the organics. Just look at the successful Geth rebellions. There could have been countless cycles in which the Reapers watched from afar as synthetics overwhelmed the organics, only for the Reapers to curbstomp them.


The question or organics-vs-synthetics ignores that there can be a third group more advanced than either of them (for now). That third force would be the Reapers.

Umm, who do you think made the reapers? The existence of the reapers means that organics dont always create synthetics that destroy organics... How can you argue otherwise when the proof is staring at you and saying it isnt possible?

[Clayless]

The starkid did have at least 37 million years experience, so despite this 300 year experience we have, I'm sure he is more knowledgeble in the situation.

[Dean_the_Young]

Grayvern wrote...

Also their is the issue of power ceiling, this is semi hard sci fi but their are always limits. These limits are maximum destructive force for weaponry maximum ftl speed, and most importantly reaction times.

If the reapers are close to the maximum potential of possible technology, which the catalyst clearly believes they are since they are not scared of extra galactic synthetics wiping them out then they also invalidate their reason to try and cull life to stop synthetics being produced.

If the Reapers fear that a synthic singularity could break those limits, however, their fear still applies.


Or the synthetics could simply get close enough and beat them in a conventional war. That too.

[GreyhameBioware]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

A clash implies things are mutually exclusive. The themes that 'there is organic-synthetic strife' AND 'organics and synthetics can get along' are not mutually exclusive. They can both exist in the same universe, just like 'there are Human villains' and 'there are Human heroes.'

Working with that analogy, the ending implies that all human are villains, despite what has been shown throughout the story; effectively creating a clash of themes.

Except it does not imply that all humans are villains.

The only thing i can say here is "yes it does", since i haven't been given much to work with.

The existence of Shepard and the Alliance as the heroes of the game disproves that.

Just because your a hero does not also mean you can't be the villian.

[Dean_the_Young]

Meltemph wrote...

Umm, who do you think made the reapers? The existence of the reapers means that organics dont always create synthetics that destroy organics... How can you argue otherwise when the proof is staring at you and saying it isnt possible?

The people who made the Reapers hadn't created the singularity yet. It doesn't disprove that a singularity was in the cards, or that one wouldn't have been eventually created.

(Which, in a way, was: the Reapers themselves, which replaced their creators.)


We've already established the non-falsifiable fallacy.

[Nobrandminda]

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.

First of all, the Geth didn't rebel, they fought in self defence.  EDI was just as loyal to cerberus as the rest of the crew of the Normandy (which is to say, not at all).  I'd be more concerned if she did stay loyal to TIM.

You can argue that those are the exceptions and not the rule, but that's still bad storytelling on Bioware's part because these are the two most prominent examples of synthetic life.  It's like if story had a female protagonist and several additional strong female characters, but then at the very end they tried to shoehorn in a mysoginistic message about how all women are weak and can't do anything.

Modifié par Nobrandminda, 17 mars 2012 - 05:45 .

[Dean_the_Young]

GreyhameBioware wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

A clash implies things are mutually exclusive. The themes that 'there is organic-synthetic strife' AND 'organics and synthetics can get along' are not mutually exclusive. They can both exist in the same universe, just like 'there are Human villains' and 'there are Human heroes.'

Working with that analogy, the ending implies that all human are villains, despite what has been shown throughout the story; effectively creating a clash of themes.

Except it does not imply that all humans are villains.

The only thing i can say here is "yes it does", since i haven't been given much to work with.

The existence of Shepard and the Alliance as the heroes of the game disproves that.

Just because your a hero does not also mean you can't be the villian.

You're thinking of protagonist, or maybe anti-hero. But Shepard and all Humans are not the villain of the Mass Effect series.

[Beast919]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

2) Control - Do precisely what you've been saying for 3 games is horrifying and corrupt, and in the specific case of the Reapers, impossible.

Besides that the last three games DIDN'T say that... and directly denies that it is impossible.

(Proof being all the cases where it, you know, works. EDI, the Cerberus troopers, even the Catalyst and the ending.)

I was going to contend the majority of your points but this one just made me stop caring.

3 minutes before you are brought to the starchild, you have a confronation with TIM where the entire subplot of controlling the reapers is proven to be a bad idea and TIM himself ends his life before continuing on with his plan.

Then the Star Child says you can do it, so its k.

It is so rediculous, so absurd, that it can't be defended.  Star Child, within seconds, debunks the entire purpose of the subplot and says "don't worry its cool bro, just hold these 2 sticks and disintegrate, and you'll be big daddy Reaper." 

[Dean_the_Young]

Nobrandminda wrote...

First of all, the Geth didn't rebel, they fought in self defence. 

The two are not contradictions.

You can argue that those are the exceptions and not the rule, but that's still bad storytelling on Bioware's part because these are the two most prominent examples of synthetic life.

coughReaperscough

[Meltemph]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Umm, who do you think made the reapers? The existence of the reapers means that organics dont always create synthetics that destroy organics... How can you argue otherwise when the proof is staring at you and saying it isnt possible?

The people who made the Reapers hadn't created the singularity yet. It doesn't disprove that a singularity was in the cards, or that one wouldn't have been eventually created.

(Which, in a way, was: the Reapers themselves, which replaced their creators.)


We've already established the non-falsifiable fallacy.

Umm wat?  Either the reapers had a beginning from a creator race and that the creator race DECIDED to do this or the Reapers are in fact the cycle.  There is no other way to explain it.

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 mars 2012 - 05:47 .

[111987]

[quote]Beast919 wrote...

Where is your evidence that advanced life will rise again?  I can play the "unanswerable question" game as well, its fun isn't it.

[b]The fact that there are only a dozen advanced species in the
entire Galaxy should be something of a clue that there aren't that many
out there.

[/quote]

The fact that the cycle has continued for at least a billion years is a clue that there are enough planets to keep providing life. You're argument has zero evidence to support it, while the evidence we do have, that organic life keeps emerging, is present.

[quote]Beast919 wrote...
As for the non-advanced species, the only one even hinted at (unless I'm missing something) are the Yahg.  Liara says she studied "various" pre-space cultures, but its never hinted that there are a host of them out there ready & waiting.  There also does not appear to be a galaxy-wide "Prime Directive" such as the Federation made to not have interactions with non-advanced species, the only reason the Yahg were left alone was their incredible ferocity.

So for 50,000 years Sentient life has explored the Galaxy and the only examples we're given for Sentient life can be counted on our fingers & toes.  That is not a good sign.[/quote]

If you had read the Codex, you would know the current organic cycle has explored less than 1% of the milky way galaxy. Try again.

[quote]Beast919 wrote...

[b]Do you not understand how fragile a world's ecosystem is?  If you harvest *a single resource* off of a planet in its entirety, it could throw entire species into extinction.   Imagine, if you would, what would happen if Reapers simply harvested trees from Earth.  That's all, they just want some lumber.  There goes the entire environment nearly.

[/quote]

What on Earth makes you think they are harvesting anything else besides technology and organics? You're once again making things up. They've never shown any inclination to harvest things like trees, or water, etc...

Sure there is going to be damage. It might even take a few centuries for the planet to repair itself. But centuries isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things.



[/quote]

[Gibb_Shepard]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

A clash implies things are mutually exclusive. The themes that 'there is organic-synthetic strife' AND 'organics and synthetics can get along' are not mutually exclusive. They can both exist in the same universe, just like 'there are Human villains' and 'there are Human heroes.'

Working with that analogy, the ending implies that all human are villains, despite what has been shown throughout the story; effectively creating a clash of themes.

Except it does not imply that all humans are villains.

The only thing i can say here is "yes it does", since i haven't been given much to work with.

The existence of Shepard and the Alliance as the heroes of the game disproves that.

Are you still working with the analogy?

If so, we are delivered with an ending that gives no room for the continuation of that theme. The God Child says that this is how it is, and the character must accept that. If the character could argue against it, or the theme was somehow expanded upon in some other way, it would provide the necessary intertwining of said theme into the narrative's end. It didn't, so the theme is left lingering in combatance with another supposed theme.

If you weren't working with the analogy, and were simply pointing out the heroic/villain themes, then i really wasn't making a point of that.

Modifié par Gibb_Shepard, 17 mars 2012 - 05:50 .

[TiaraBlade]

Synthetics could do some nasty stuff... but so can organics. Indeed, the Geth were shown to be restrained when they chose to stop chasing the Quarians past their system and also that it was the Quarians who later attacked them in ME3.

So the problem is then that living creatures, organic, and not, can do nasty things so it the solution to just kill everyone? You know, to stop people from killing each other?

The Geth and Quarian show that peace is possible and that is enough; there are no guarantees in life but that is what Star Child was trying to sell. Heck, even if organics and synthetics will always conflict, why not use the Reapers as a police force to stop the wars or indoctrinate the next cycle to not create sythetics? Far more humane that killing every advanced civilization every 50,000 years.

[Dean_the_Young]

Beast919 wrote...

3 minutes before you are brought to the starchild, you have a confronation with TIM where the entire subplot of controlling the reapers is proven to be a bad idea and TIM himself ends his life before continuing on with his plan.

No, that's not the subplot. The subplot is that TIM is indoctrinated, and that you can convince him it's a bad idea... but you don't have to do that either. In my playthrough, Shepard just shot TIM because TIM was indoctrinated, not because controlling the Reapers was impossible

You're arguing that one possible line of dialogue is the intended theme of the game, when it isn't even required to be chosen. You might as well argue the Paragon path is the main theme of the game.

It is so rediculous, so absurd, that it can't be defended.  Star Child, within seconds, debunks the entire purpose of the subplot and says "don't worry its cool bro, just hold these 2 sticks and disintegrate, and you'll be big daddy Reaper." 

The Catalyst only debunks something Shepard could be claiming on faith anyway.

[Beast919]

111987 wrote...

The fact that the cycle has continued for at least a billion years is a clue that there are enough planets to keep providing life. You're argument has zero evidence to support it, while the evidence we do have, that organic life keeps emerging, is present.

This is why discussion with you is pointless.

That is not a fact.

That is what a phantom god child told you. 

That
Is
Not
Fact.

If you're going to assume everything he said is true "just cause", then you're done.  There's no discussion.  There's no need for logic.  Cause he told you so.

[Dean_the_Young]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

A clash implies things are mutually exclusive. The themes that 'there is organic-synthetic strife' AND 'organics and synthetics can get along' are not mutually exclusive. They can both exist in the same universe, just like 'there are Human villains' and 'there are Human heroes.'

Working with that analogy, the ending implies that all human are villains, despite what has been shown throughout the story; effectively creating a clash of themes.

Except it does not imply that all humans are villains.

The only thing i can say here is "yes it does", since i haven't been given much to work with.

The existence of Shepard and the Alliance as the heroes of the game disproves that.

Are you still working with the analogy?

If so, we are delivered with an ending that gives no room for the continuation of that theme. The God Child says that this is how it is, and the character must accept that.

The character does not have to accept it.

If the character could argue against it, or the theme was somehow expanded upon in some other way, it would provide the necessary intertwining of said theme into the narrative's end. It didn't, so the theme is left lingering in combatance with another supposed theme.

Shepard can dispute the Catalyst.

Shepard might not dispute the Catalyst in the way your want, but that's a simple fact of life of the medium.

[Fenrisfil]

With enough time, everything that has the slightest remote possibility of happening (which is pretty much everything) WILL happen. The only limiting factor is the life of the universe itself. This doesn't make for a good argument for routinely wiping out all advanced civilisation (not to mention taking a hand in getting them advanced enough to wipe out in the first place).

There are so many holes in the idea you could drive a supermassive blackhole through it.

First of all, there is a probability that any species may decide to wipe out all other species. Given enough time, one could suceed.

Secondly why would sentient synthetics only target organics? If they have advanced so far and so fast surely other synthetics would be more of a threat.

Thirdly, a synthetic species advanced enough to wipe out all organic life everywhere would not be threatened by said organic life and would therefore have no need to wipe it out. It's like us deciding to wipe out all the ants on Earth.

Forth, the catalyst seems to have this idea that a super intelligent, sentient computer would for some reason think along the lines of a sentient organic, that is: kind of paranoid, power hungry and lacking in logical analysis. We saw this with the Geth, they turned out not to be war like. Before their peace with the Quarians and gaining individuality they just wanted to upload into a dyson sphere like superstructure.

Fifth, the solutions don't work anyway. The synthesis solution doesn't seem to do anything to stop the new cyborg people from creating new synthetics that would still be a threat (we got new DNA, not a new table of elements). Plus of course, those borg were never a threat to anyone right? Similarly control offers only the chance to take a different approach which the Catalyst could have just done for themselves (I'm out of ideas, you wanna go?). Destruction is the worst idea for a solution, he even says himself it won't solve anything it will just wipe out the current non-problematic synthetic life (who could probably help to avoid future synthetics going psycho).

Sixth, the Andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with the Milky Way. Andromeda is bigger and with the spread of life in our galaxy and therefore likely elsewhere, if the Catalysts theory is correct then it's almost certainly already full of insanely powerful synthetics that will wipe out all organic life as soon as they make contact with them. So unless the Reapers are spread much further then we're aware and have been harvesting that Galaxy too, then all their work will be wasted and all organics in the Milky Way will be wiped out anyway.

I could probably think of more, but I'm tired and it's late.

Anyway, the only reason I can think of for AIs wanting to wipe out organics would be if their programming somehow lead them to thinking they were protecting organics from themselves....but you'd hope that a super powerful computer would spot that logic flaw.

Modifié par Fenrisfil, 17 mars 2012 - 05:52 .

[Swagga like Bane]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

The starkid did have at least 37 million years experience, so despite this 300 year experience we have, I'm sure he is more knowledgeble in the situation.

So that kid that Shepard saw that died has been in existence for 37 million years? 

Or was his body the form a ghost? Sounds like Shepard is hallucinating.

[zeta47]

Ever heard of "petitio principii" ? which is exactly the logic behind the catalyst's(or some bioware writers) whole " the cycle" proposition !

"I kill you to prevent you from being killed by me ?" and "I kill you now because you will always be killed by me in the future ? " what a genius argument .......