1057 réponses à ce sujet

[ImmovableMover]

Dressing the Catalysts lame excuse for what the reapers are doing in some fancy new words does not suddenly make it logical or reasonable, neither does going into superfluous detail.

The Catalyst's plan is still ridiculously stupid, self-contradictory and fixes nothing.

[Jackums]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

You're talking about a possibility, whereas the Catalyst says it's a certainty. 

Your point and explanation does not match up with what you're trying to prove. The serpent brings to evidence, it's basic obvious reasoning is dubious at best, I have examples of peaceful synthetics, and the idea of a sungularity in any from is never brought up. 

Why should I put stock into anything it says? It tries to explain the new defining conflict of the entire series in three lines of illogical and ambiguous dialogue, and it does a poor job of it. Themes are important in fiction, sticking to them moreso. This is not a theme in this fiction. I ignore the problem and continue with my choice as if it never even spoke the words "synthetics will wipe out all organics", and the narrative is better for it. 

Nothing is a certainty. The Catalyst is wrong in assuming it a certainty. But that doesn't invalidate the fact that's it's extremely likely and/or possible. The Catalyst cannot know it to be a certainty until it happens, at which point stopping it will be too late. That's the problem with event horizons.

But as I said, I was merely explaining the logic behind it all. The Catalyst's reasons are valid.

[Jackums]

The Angry One wrote...

A common trait among pro-enders. Insult and provoke, then claim the other party is doing that when we mock your efforts.
This is what BioWare is appealing to now. Super.

You must have missed the part where you're the one shoving your ignorant claims down others' throats, simply for having differing views, and flame-baiting left and right.

This is what BioWare is appealing to now. Super.

Modifié par JackumsD, 29 mai 2012 - 03:49 .

[JPR1964]

There is no justice in genocide...

JPR out!

[someguy1231]

As I've said elsewhere, if you need to explain why an ending is good, then it isn't.

[Cypher_CS]

someguy1231 wrote...

As I've said elsewhere, if you need to explain why an ending is good, then it isn't.

Thank for that completely relevant and insightful addition to the topic at hand.
Oh, you must have entered here by mistake, because this thread is not about how good or bad the endings are....

[Taboo]

JShepppp wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

He's still wrong on one aspect.

But I'll never spoil the fun.

It involves the singularity.

Then you could pick destroy, no problem. I'm guessing you mean that the singularity (a) won't happen or ( doesn't mean organics will be wiped out. There's no real response to (a) as the entire thing is more of a philosophical argument ("it hasn't happened yet" - can't be proven) and for ( that could be true but the Catalyst doesn't want to take the chance. Either way, destroy is the symbolic manifestation of disagreeing entirely with the Catalyst, imho. 

But if I haven't interpreted your intention properly, let me know. I'm always both happy and curious to hear other points of view.

Synthetics will be created, yes, but he doesn't seem to offer much credence to his thought process. He does not

A: Provide a process that he used to arrive at this conclusion
B: Provide reliable statistics for a singularity happening.

A singularity would be unpreductable, I assume he bases his logic that Synthetics WILL wipe out organics. They could just as easily sit in their Dyson sphere and progress until they leave the dimension in a level five civilization.

The Geth are dead in my playthrough ( there is a long list of things you have to do to make peace or something, guess who goofed?).

I have no doubt that new Synthetics will be created but that isn't my lightbulb over the head thought here.

The Star Gazer scene has been clarified to take place ten thousand years in the future and in all the endings. By attempting to canonize all the Shepard's Bioware has also provided me with a ten thousand year grace period. The assumption that I see Synthesis fans using is that we will be safe only for several hundred years. Ten thousand years is a LONG time.

The Synthetics created in the meantime, could easily be treated better than the Quarians treated the Geth. Remember it was they who struck first, not the Geth.

[JShepppp]

 I see Angry One, Cypher, and Jackums have had an interesting debate spanning the last few pages. I'd like to weigh in, but I was wondering if The Angry One could kind of list the points that he/she disagrees with, then I'll try to answer them too?

[Cypher_CS]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Star Gazer scene has been clarified to take place ten thousand years in the future and in all the endings. By attempting to canonize all the Shepard's Bioware has also provided me with a ten thousand year grace period. The assumption that I see Synthesis fans using is that we will be safe only for several hundred years. Ten thousand years is a LONG time.

The Synthetics created in the meantime, could easily be treated better than the Quarians treated the Geth. Remember it was they who struck first, not the Geth.

Come on man.

You know this isn't about 500 years or even 10000 years.
It doesn't matter what the grace period is. It's an eventuality.

Also, you KNOW it's not about how well they are treated or mistreated.

You can treat a Psychopath as well as possible, but he still won't know wrong from right.

[Taboo]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Star Gazer scene has been clarified to take place ten thousand years in the future and in all the endings. By attempting to canonize all the Shepard's Bioware has also provided me with a ten thousand year grace period. The assumption that I see Synthesis fans using is that we will be safe only for several hundred years. Ten thousand years is a LONG time.

The Synthetics created in the meantime, could easily be treated better than the Quarians treated the Geth. Remember it was they who struck first, not the Geth.

Come on man.

You know this isn't about 500 years or even 10000 years.
It doesn't matter what the grace period is. It's an eventuality.

Also, you KNOW it's not about how well they are treated or mistreated.

You can treat a Psychopath as well as possible, but he still won't know wrong from right.

A ten thousand grace period is more than enough for me. Shepard is long gone. I will not force a change on the galaxy to prevent such things. It is up to them to deal with the new threat if it emerges in ten thousand years.

[JShepppp]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Synthetics will be created, yes, but he doesn't seem to offer much credence to his thought process. He does not

A: Provide a process that he used to arrive at this conclusion
B: Provide reliable statistics for a singularity happening.

You are correct about A and B.

A singularity would be unpreductable, I assume he bases his logic that Synthetics WILL wipe out organics. They could just as easily sit in their Dyson sphere and progress until they leave the dimension in a level five civilization.

I'm assuming the level five is a hyperbolic reference to the Kardashev Scale lol, which was nice. 

They could just as easily sit there too, yes. But war is not a random, nearly-impossible occurrence. We see that peace is only possible in rather extenuating circumstances. The Quarians only back off in the face of imminent death if you create peace; if the Reaper code wasn't there, they would've wiped the Geth out. The Geth probably would've just retreated in, but what about down the line, if for whatever reason the Quarians wanted revenge, organics wanted the energy in the Dyson sphere, or just got plain scared? Or future synthetics created? Things could still go wrong, and war is a natural option in conflict because we've seen it happen again and again. The past has shown us that war and peace will both occur. It's the war that's worrisome. Time is irrelevant.

The Catalyst seems to just be unwilling to take that chance. Basically, it's like allowing a man you once fought with, regardless of whether or not he didn't want to, then allowing him to build a gun/bomb and roam the city freely while you go around with just your fists. The guy could be the biggest pacifist in the world, but there's a severe disproportionality in the power. If the guy wanted to kill you, he could do so easily. The analogy isn't perfect, but it's kind of similar to the technological singularity in the sense that synthetics would have uncomprehensible levels of power over organics.

The Geth are dead in my playthrough ( there is a long list of things you have to do to make peace or something, guess who goofed?).

I have no doubt that new Synthetics will be created but that isn't my lightbulb over the head thought here.

The Star Gazer scene has been clarified to take place ten thousand years in the future and in all the endings. By attempting to canonize all the Shepard's Bioware has also provided me with a ten thousand year grace period. The assumption that I see Synthesis fans using is that we will be safe only for several hundred years. Ten thousand years is a LONG time.

Not too sure what you're trying to say here (sorry) but I think you're saying that even with Destroy, we at least have 10 thousand years without "destroying ourselves by the synthetics we created". Remember though that they don't even have space travel, so who's to say that they have synthetics too? I'm not saying you're wrong in your idea. I just don't think we have enough info to extrapolate what it means. Perhaps it means the technology to create the relays is just that far advanced/critical that a unified galactic civilization ceases to exist for over ten thousand years. 

The Synthetics created in the meantime, could easily be treated better than the Quarians treated the Geth. Remember it was they who struck first, not the Geth.

They could be, just like the synthetics could wipe out the organics after the singularity. Let's assume that they did create synthetics without having space travel back up yet. We don't have a concrete reason why organics have to be nice or otherwise to the synthetics. We can assume that some will want to be nice and some won't. This is difficult to go down though because I'm not sure about the technological singularity and stuff in this context.

Modifié par JShepppp, 29 mai 2012 - 05:16 .

[Taboo]

The Star Gazer scene says nothing about the Relays staying in the shape that they are know. Ten thousand years is a long time, and judging from all our Reapers corpses lying around, someone is going to use them to make some advancements. They don't explode in the Destroy ending, they shut down. I seem to recall they have some pretty fantastic FTL drives yes? Who's to say we can't use that technology or even better it in ten thousand years.

I base my assumptions on one thing, it's open ended for a reason. I am no more correct than you are. All interpretations are valid.

It is YOUR canon.

[covertdrizzt]

The star brat being logical....we have dismissed this claim

[The Angry One]

JackumsD wrote...

You must have missed the part where you're the one shoving your ignorant claims down others' throats, simply for having differing views, and flame-baiting left and right.

Yet again more pro-ender hypocrisy.
It's not my fault you can't understand the simple concept that there's no such thing as absolute certainty, and it's funny how you accuse me of flame-baiting while calling what I say ignorant.

This is what BioWare is appealing to now. Super.

Seeing as BioWare aren't appealing to me any longer, your attempt at verbal reversal has failed.

[The Angry One]

JShepppp wrote...

 I see Angry One, Cypher, and Jackums have had an interesting debate spanning the last few pages. I'd like to weigh in, but I was wondering if The Angry One could kind of list the points that he/she disagrees with, then I'll try to answer them too?

My main issue is simply that the Catalyst assumes that a technological singularity will inevitably lead to conflict, and then the extermination of all organic life.
Neither of these is certain, the latter is basically impossible and has never happened.

The Catalyst needs more for it's claims than an argument from authority. It has none.

[draken-heart]

logically you can say that the Catalyst is Shepard's doubt about the war against the reapers, trying to convince him/her (and in essence, the player) that it is pointless to fight them..

[JShepppp]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Star Gazer scene says nothing about the Relays staying in the shape that they are know. Ten thousand years is a long time, and judging from all our Reapers corpses lying around, someone is going to use them to make some advancements. They don't explode in the Destroy ending, they shut down. I seem to recall they have some pretty fantastic FTL drives yes? Who's to say we can't use that technology or even better it in ten thousand years.

I base my assumptions on one thing, it's open ended for a reason. I am no more correct than you are. All interpretations are valid.

It is YOUR canon.

I think there was a quote where the child basically asked if she (I think it was a girl?) could one day travel among the stars. I took it to mean that space travel isn't there yet. 

I haven't yet heard of anyone who thinks it's not a dark age. If that's the case, you are indeed correct that your interpretation is just as valid. As I stated before, the entire sequence is relatively spotty with its indications. 

[Fixers0]

His logic can't be flawed as he doesn't use one.

[frylock23]

They could just as easily sit there too, yes. But war is not a random, nearly-impossible occurrence. We see that peace is only possible in rather extenuating circumstances. The Quarians only back off in the face of imminent death if you create peace; if the Reaper code wasn't there, they would've wiped the Geth out. The Geth probably would've just retreated in, but what about down the line, if for whatever reason the Quarians wanted revenge, organics wanted the energy in the Dyson sphere, or just got plain scared? Or future synthetics created? Things could still go wrong, and war is a natural option in conflict because we've seen it happen again and again. The past has shown us that war and peace will both occur. It's the war that's worrisome. Time is irrelevant.

The Catalyst seems to just be unwilling to take that chance. Basically, it's like allowing a man you once fought with, regardless of whether or not he didn't want to, then allowing him to build a gun/bomb and roam the city freely while you go around with just your fists. The guy could be the biggest pacifist in the world, but there's a severe disproportionality in the power. If the guy wanted to kill you, he could do so easily. The analogy isn't perfect, but it's kind of similar to the technological singularity in the sense that synthetics would have uncomprehensible levels of power over organics.

Then if the Catalyst is really worried about war. His solutions should all be couched in those terms. They shouldn't be couched in the organic v. synthetic dialogue. Because the way you seem to be phrasing the real issue here is the inevitability of a hyper-destructive conflict, and that can occur no matter who the participants are: sythetic or organic.

Since, the Catalyst doesn't use simple conflict as his problem, we have to assume that the fundamental problem is oragnics and synthetics being somehow unable to coexist and this is where the narrative sort of falls apart because we have no basis to reach that conclusion based on what we've seen in the game aside from the Reapers whose Leader is the one currently telling us that we can't get along. Well, yeah, we kind of understand that the Reapers can't get along with anyone else, but the Reapers are not representative of all synthetics since they are busy wiping them out, too.

Not too sure what you're trying to say here (sorry) but I think you're saying that even with Destroy, we at least have 10 thousand years without "destroying ourselves by the synthetics we created". Remember though that they don't even have space travel, so who's to say that they have synthetics too? I'm not saying you're wrong in your idea. I just don't think we have enough info to extrapolate what it means. Perhaps it means the technology to create the relays is just that far advanced/critical that a unified galactic civilization ceases to exist for over ten thousand years.

Stargazer shows up the same after all the endings, and so it's an established 10K period of apparent peace after all of them. Also keep in mind that if you think that they don't have those technologies after destroy in the Stargazer, then they also wouldn't after Control or Synthesis because Stargazer is exactly the same in all three.

[Taboo]

JShepppp wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Star Gazer scene says nothing about the Relays staying in the shape that they are know. Ten thousand years is a long time, and judging from all our Reapers corpses lying around, someone is going to use them to make some advancements. They don't explode in the Destroy ending, they shut down. I seem to recall they have some pretty fantastic FTL drives yes? Who's to say we can't use that technology or even better it in ten thousand years.

I base my assumptions on one thing, it's open ended for a reason. I am no more correct than you are. All interpretations are valid.

It is YOUR canon.

I think there was a quote where the child basically asked if she (I think it was a girl?) could one day travel among the stars. I took it to mean that space travel isn't there yet. 

I haven't yet heard of anyone who thinks it's not a dark age. If that's the case, you are indeed correct that your interpretation is just as valid. As I stated before, the entire sequence is relatively spotty with its indications. 

He could just as easily mean that he's to damn young to be doing anything.

It isn't a new dark age. The only things destroyed in the destroy ending are synthetics and the relays. Patrick Weekes has stated that travel will still exist, at least in the interview that someone conducted.

FTL in Mass Effect is what, twelve times faster than the speed of light? The Reapers came from Dark space in what, Six months? Given the fact that they are still around, I'd imagine we'd seeing some interesting devolpments.

[The Angry One]

I'm sorry, but using prevention of war and chaos as the Catalyst's motives goes out the window when you remember the Reapers are 2km death machines that stomp on buildings, shoot down ships, level colonies, cause mass amounts of collateral damage, outright murder billions and control synthetics to murder yet more.

I don't care if it's on a 50,000 year cycle. Making war, conflict, destruction and genocide predictable does not make it better.

Taboo-XX wrote...


It isn't a new dark age. The only
things destroyed in the destroy ending are synthetics and the relays.
Patrick Weekes has stated that travel will still exist, at least in the
interview that someone conducted.

Patrick Weekes didn't write the ending, and Patrick Weekes completely forgot where the Citadel was when he claimed that the wards would survive. He also claimed that the speed of 12 ly/day was never mentioned in the game, when it is. In the codex.
Mac Walters wrote the ending, and Mac Walters wrote "The Crucible will cause a galactic dark age".

As much as I admire Weekes' work, he's wrong about this. Probably because he doesn't want Walters' dark age any more than we do, but again he didn't write the ending.

FTL in Mass Effect is what,
twelve times faster than the speed of light? The Reapers came from Dark
space in what, Six months? Given the fact that they are still around,
I'd imagine we'd seeing some interesting devolpments.

Reapers are more than twice as fast as Citadel ships.

Modifié par The Angry One, 29 mai 2012 - 05:58 .

[Taboo]

We made an estimate about how many people he's killed.

We arrived at two quintillion lives.

[The Night Mammoth]

JackumsD wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

You're talking about a possibility, whereas the Catalyst says it's a certainty. 

Your point and explanation does not match up with what you're trying to prove. The serpent brings to evidence, it's basic obvious reasoning is dubious at best, I have examples of peaceful synthetics, and the idea of a sungularity in any from is never brought up. 

Why should I put stock into anything it says? It tries to explain the new defining conflict of the entire series in three lines of illogical and ambiguous dialogue, and it does a poor job of it. Themes are important in fiction, sticking to them moreso. This is not a theme in this fiction. I ignore the problem and continue with my choice as if it never even spoke the words "synthetics will wipe out all organics", and the narrative is better for it. 

Nothing is a certainty. The Catalyst is wrong in assuming it a certainty. But that doesn't invalidate the fact that's it's extremely likely and/or possible. The Catalyst cannot know it to be a certainty until it happens, at which point stopping it will be too late. That's the problem with event horizons.

And thus the problem with the entire concept is puts forward. 

It comes down to proving how probable, that's not something it can do. 

But as I said, I was merely explaining the logic behind it all. The Catalyst's reasons are valid.

It's the reasons I question, not the logic of how it interprets them. 

I also question its solution, being largely contradictory with its purpose, and counter-productive to the justification for massive genocide. 

[The Angry One]

Taboo-XX wrote...

We made an estimate about how many people he's killed.

We arrived at two quintillion lives.

True, though I was thinking of billions per cycle. The total number makes the Catalyst the worst mass murderer of all time.
In fact is there any fictional character that has killed more?

[Taboo]

The Angry One wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

We made an estimate about how many people he's killed.

We arrived at two quintillion lives.

True, though I was thinking of billions per cycle. The total number makes the Catalyst the worst mass murderer of all time.
In fact is there any fictional character that has killed more?

No. Even Ozymandias cared about people in Watchmen. His solution didn't brutally murder everyone.

We made an estimate based upon the cycle. He is responsible for two quintillion deaths.

That's hundreds and hundreds of Hitlers.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 29 mai 2012 - 06:02 .