418 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Meltemph wrote...

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.

Which doesn't contradict or even contest anything I've said.

The Creator race could very well decide to create the Reaper cycle before they created a singularity that would remove them. And creating the Reapers to replace them can likewise be seen as a singularity that replaced them.

[Beast919]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
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.

I understand what you're saying.  That not every playthrough is the same, nor does every playthrough touch on the same points in the same way (obviously).

What I'm saying, is in my playthrough, repeatedly the notion of controlling the Reapers/using their technology is presented, and  repeatedly it is shot down as being a horrible idea, as being terrifying, cruel, and by my interaction with TIM,  impossible.

Then, in the last minute of gameplay, its suddenly a valid option.

It is so jarring, so unbelieveably out of left field - that is why its absurd.

The fact that Shepard never questions it at all just increases the absurdity.

[Dean_the_Young]

zeta47 wrote...

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 .......

Actually, it's closer to the logic of bank vaults: people will steal money, so devices to keep them from doing so should be made ahead of time.

The principal of 'because X, then Y' is pretty old. And widespread.

[Grayvern]

How would singularity actually make Ai's so superior they were invulnerable given that being semi hard sci fi there are limits of power in the mass effect universe, or the reapers wouldn't be using piddling particle beams they would be using weapons more like the cache weapons or grasers from revelation space.

[111987]

Beast919 wrote...

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.

Seriously, what are you talking about? What about that statement is false???

The Leviathan of Dis, a Reaper, was dated as a billion years old. So that means the Reapers are at least that old. The Reapers reap every 50,000 years, meaning organics keep popping up. What is debateable about this?

The fact that you aren't even countering my points speaks volumes. If you aren't prepared to actually discuss the points, please stop responding to me.

[Meltemph]

The Creator race could very well decide to create the Reaper cycle before they created a singularity that would remove them. And creating the Reapers to replace them can likewise be seen as a singularity that replaced them.

Holy circular logic batman. Do you even realize what you just typed? You have to create a singularity to prevent a singularity? That doesn't even make sense.

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 mars 2012 - 05:55 .

[Beast919]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

Wrong.

I had no dialogue options available at all to question the Catalyst's motives, or even to get further description of what it is he meant.

Meanwhile, even if they weren't the options I wanted (I did not want renegade options, but they were presented to me), I could dispute TIM.

There is a clear, indisputable difference.

In one case, your character listens passively and you have no chance for objection.  In the other, you choose how to object.  Its as simple as that.

[Dean_the_Young]

Beast919 wrote...

I understand what you're saying.  That not every playthrough is the same, nor does every playthrough touch on the same points in the same way (obviously).

What I'm saying, is in my playthrough, repeatedly the notion of controlling the Reapers/using their technology is presented, and  repeatedly it is shot down as being a horrible idea, as being terrifying, cruel, and by my interaction with TIM,  impossible.

Then, in the last minute of gameplay, its suddenly a valid option.

It is so jarring, so unbelieveably out of left field - that is why its absurd.

The fact that Shepard never questions it at all just increases the absurdity.

Shepard does question the possiblity. The Catalyst says 'yes, it is possible.'


Shepard choosing it, or even considering it a valid option, is entirely on the player. If you rejected Reaper control throughout the game on ideological grounds, you are not forced to accept it.

[martiancake]

Has anyone brought up that the geth didn't rebel? Not only that, but the heretics were incided by Sovereign to ally with Saren and attack organics.

And 'they might rebel' isn't really a good reason for genocide.

[piemanz]

Beast919 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
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.

I understand what you're saying.  That not every playthrough is the same, nor does every playthrough touch on the same points in the same way (obviously).

What I'm saying, is in my playthrough, repeatedly the notion of controlling the Reapers/using their technology is presented, and  repeatedly it is shot down as being a horrible idea, as being terrifying, cruel, and by my interaction with TIM,  impossible.

Then, in the last minute of gameplay, its suddenly a valid option.

It is so jarring, so unbelieveably out of left field - that is why its absurd.

The fact that Shepard never questions it at all just increases the absurdity.

But you also have the option to disregard that option and choose to destroy them, so it's kind of irrelevent.

Modifié par piemanz, 17 mars 2012 - 05:56 .

[Tumedus]

AS a quick response to the sample size argument, the god-child actually has a sample size of zero. It has never come to pass that synthetics have destoryed all organic life. It may be a conlusion based on lots of other data, but as they have been culling organics before this supposed cataclysm can ever happen, the reapers have no evidence that a cataclysm will happen.

All they have witness of is conflict bred of two species with free will. Geth/Quarian in that regard is no different than Rachni/Alliance or Turian/Human.

(may have been said already, didn't read everything)

[Skyblade012]

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. 

EDI was created by the Alliance, part of the Hannibal project on Luna.  And EDI makes it sound like she was under attack immediately as she was "waking up".  Either the Alliance's wargames were perceived by her forming mind as an attack, or the Alliance saw what was happening and was already trying to shut her down.  Either way, self defense.

Geth are clearly self defense and have been all along.

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.

The geth already had the opportunity and bypassed it, which is illogical if that is their plan, and machines are very logical.  And, yes, he does say that all will.  "The Created will ALWAYS rebel against the Creators."  Period.  No "most of them, or some of them".  Synthetics always rebel against organics.

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.

Nope.  Because his argument also contains the clause that the synthetics will always win.  Which isn't necessarily true, especially if there are a million cooperative synthetic civilizations helping stop the single one bent on eliminating organic life.

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.

You missed out on an even bigger flaw.

AI creation was already banned by organic life, because of the threat of the geth.  Since the quarians accidently created the geth, determined creation of synthetic life is illegal.

The biggest AI uprising since then was the Hannibal project, an accident which reached about a single moon base, nowhere near a threat to the world.

How do synthetics destroy us if we don't create synthetics?  Enforcing that one ban, even if you have to enforce it with Reapers, makes a lot more sense than wiping out all life.

[Caz Neerg]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

MJF JD wrote...

Geth didnt rebel.

They refused to obey program commands and authority, and destroyed the sovereign authority.

One of them asked a question, and the rest defended themselves when the Quarians decided slaughtering them all was the appropriate answer.  They then had the forbearance to spare the Quarians when they could have finished them.  The Geth are one of the most pacifistic species in the franchise.

[J-Sheridan]

YAY ! Lets justify the holocost while your at it.
I find the apologism for little Hitler appalling.

The Reapers commit multiple counts of genocide on scales beyond comprehension every 50,000 years. Starchild promotes this agenda under the guise of a theory.

Machines will kill Organics.
Thus inorder to prevent this... machines are created that will kill organics...
This is stupid logic.

Might as well tell someone to hold still while you kill them so they MIGHT not be killed later by someone else.

The far more logical solution to this 'problem' would be to have the Reapers act as a police force ensuring that any hostile machines that do decide to go genocidal are stopped. Thus, if the Geth are gonna be stupid and commit intergalactic genocide like the Reapers ALREADY do these Reapers would stop them.

Instead... the Reapers ARE the machines commiting intergalactic genocide based on the faulty logic of another machine which is both circular and competely stupid.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

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.

And you believe disputing the Catalyst is choosing the destroy option? Essentially destorying all synthetic life and technology (Don't even get me started on the plot holes concerning this bloody option). Destroying synthetic life is not a continuation of the theme of organic and synthetic unity. It is a continuation of the Child's logic, that there can never be unity.

[Lugaidster]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

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.

So your saying that we should judge people not by the content of their character but of their constituents? That's just racist to me. Anyone could rebel under those circumstances, you don't have to be a synthetic to do that. Following that logic, organic life is doomed by itself because it will always rebel against each other. We didn't need synthetics to do that...

No.

No, he is not saying that. And he's pointing out the logical flaw for you. Stop insulting him as you agree with what he wrote.

Firstly, I didn't insult anyone. I refered to that line of thought as racist, not him. I made my argument without name calling. If we reached the same conclusion, it doesn't mean that his (or my) reasoning is correct.

Secondly, as I refered to that line of thought as flawed, for the aforementioned reasons, the arguement the Catalyst made is flawed, because sentient beings are by definition conflictive with each other. It doesn't matter if you are a synthetic or not. As such, the argument the Catalyst made is groundless, and using EDI and the Geth as points in favor to it is flawed. They would've done that whether they were synthetic or not.

[Ciiran]

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.

[Beast919]

111987 wrote...

Seriously, what are you talking about? What about that statement is false???

The Leviathan of Dis, a Reaper, was dated as a billion years old. So that means the Reapers are at least that old. The Reapers reap every 50,000 years, meaning organics keep popping up. What is debateable about this?

The fact that you aren't even countering my points speaks volumes. If you aren't prepared to actually discuss the points, please stop responding to me.

All the Leviathan of Dis proves is that there was a Reaper a billion years ago.

That's it.

It proves nothing about what happened 200,000 years ago, 250,000 years ago, or 1,250,000 years ago.

It simply states that a Reaper existed a billion years ago.

That's how *facts* work.

Now, in storyland, the Star Child tells you the Reapers did all these things because they were created to do these things.

That's called a "story", not a "fact."

[Tony208]

I get it now!

The Reapers are the singularity! And they're trying to prevent the next one which will eventually destroy all life because they won't be as nice as the Reapers. And Shepard is trying to destroy all that. I knew Shepard was evil from day one, Marauder Shields is the true hero in all of this.

My mind is blown.

[Beast919]

piemanz wrote...

But you also have the option to disregard that option and choose to destroy them, so it's kind of irrelevent.

My point was that no matter which option I chose, I was abandoning my morals or breaking a theme.  No option was available that made any sense to my Shepard, yet he never questioned a single one.  Nor did he show signs of regret.

That's horrific storytelling.

At the end of the game, no matter what you've done, no matter what stance you've taken, you're ok with the 3 options.  That's nonsense.

[Grayvern]

Seriously it's not the logical problem as I have been saying serveral assertions of the catalyst from a universe perspective simply can't have proof.

Does the Mass Effect universe allow for synthetics to harness so much power that organic made space ships with focused shackeled VI's AI's will never be able to touch them.

Why aren't the reapers scared of an extra galactic synthetic threat.

Modifié par Grayvern, 17 mars 2012 - 06:00 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Beast919 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

Wrong.

I had no dialogue options available at all to question the Catalyst's motives, or even to get further description of what it is he meant.

Which is not the same as not disputing the catalyst. Again, you're confusing not having the dispute you want with a dispute at all.

There's even a dialogue point for it. I believe the Renegade is 'we don't want to be protected', while the Paragon goes something along the lines of free will making us organic.

Meanwhile, even if they weren't the options I wanted (I did not want renegade options, but they were presented to me), I could dispute TIM.

You were also a bit less almost-dead with TIM.

Shepard at the Catalyst is dead man walking.

There is a clear, indisputable difference.

Since I'm disputing, clearly it is.

In one case, your character listens passively and you have no chance for objection.  In the other, you choose how to object.  Its as simple as that.

The nature of objections have always been restricted in Mass Effect. Shepard might object weakly for your taste in the conduit decision, but you're still within the contraints of the medium.

You're just experiencing what every pro-Cerberus player feels during the TIM scenes: the lack of congruance between what you want to say versus what yo ucan.

[111987]

Beast919 wrote...

111987 wrote...

Seriously, what are you talking about? What about that statement is false???

The Leviathan of Dis, a Reaper, was dated as a billion years old. So that means the Reapers are at least that old. The Reapers reap every 50,000 years, meaning organics keep popping up. What is debateable about this?

The fact that you aren't even countering my points speaks volumes. If you aren't prepared to actually discuss the points, please stop responding to me.

All the Leviathan of Dis proves is that there was a Reaper a billion years ago.

That's it.

It proves nothing about what happened 200,000 years ago, 250,000 years ago, or 1,250,000 years ago.

It simply states that a Reaper existed a billion years ago.

That's how *facts* work.

Now, in storyland, the Star Child tells you the Reapers did all these things because they were created to do these things.

That's called a "story", not a "fact."

As I've pointed out to you in the past, Chorban's work with the Reapers proves the Reapers activate the Citadel trap and reap every 50,000 years. They always leave a vanguard behind to monitor organic progress. So...why would they activate the Citadel if there was no reaping to be done.

Common sense buddy, common sense...

[Beast919]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Which is not the same as not disputing the catalyst. Again, you're confusing not having the dispute you want with a dispute at all.

There's even a dialogue point for it. I believe the Renegade is 'we don't want to be protected', while the Paragon goes something along the lines of free will making us organic.

Wrong.  I'm referring to the point at which the child offers the choices.

From the point he offers the first one all the way through to the end you have no control over what Shepard says.

[Dean_the_Young]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

And you believe disputing the Catalyst is choosing the destroy option? Essentially destorying all synthetic life and technology (Don't even get me started on the plot holes concerning this bloody option).

It's plot magic, not a plot hole. Much of the game was setting up that the Catalyst would have massive damage potential.


Disputing the catalyst comes from Shepard going 'I don't agree with your motives' in the conversation, in the P/R form that it is delivered with.

Destroying synthetic life is not a continuation of the theme of organic and synthetic unity. It is a continuation of the Child's logic, that there can never be unity.

So choose, you know, Synthesis. The ending that actually is built around unifying synthetic and organic.

Not all endings need to, or should, carry the same themes in the same manner.