136 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

The Razman wrote...
Not the same analogy as what's going on in Mass Effect 3, but if you knew Iran would 100% become a problem in the future, would you nuke it?

No that would be like using a sledgehammer on a problem you could take care of with a scalpel.
If I had godlike powers and not the reasoning of a child I could come up with something with a little more finnese.

[ArthurBDD]

You don't have to like the Starchild's reasons for doing what it did. The Starchild is offering you options to end the cycle, which is what you want. That you don't like them is very much a "I want to have an omelette, but I don't want to break these eggs" situation.

The problem is that the choice offered is artificially set up to be between three different philosophical extremes. Destroy is sheer Luddite vandalism, Control is outright megalomania, whereas Synthesis is goofy transhumanism.

There's no real compelling reason why the Destroy wave couldn't be targeted only to Reapers, beyond the writers decided that that wasn't how it worked because SACRIFICE DOOD SACRIFICE.

[ArthurBDD]

The Razman wrote...

I asked you to take the Starchild's assertion that it will 100% happen as irrefutable. That is what the Starchild believes, for whatever reason.

Why should we believe the starchild? Reapers and AIs and other super-advanced entities have all been proven to be fallible over the course of the series, why would the Starchild be any different?

[The Razman]

BobSmith101 wrote...

The Razman wrote...
Not the same analogy as what's going on in Mass Effect 3, but if you knew Iran would 100% become a problem in the future, would you nuke it?

No that would be like using a sledgehammer on a problem you could take care of with a scalpel.
If I had godlike powers and not the reasoning of a child I could come up with something with a little more finnese.

Which could all fail.

Imagine that Iran will develop a superweapon in the future, that will 100% kill everyone on the planet. You could send the UN in, be diplomatic, impose sanctions, denounce them, threaten them, all of those "finnese" options ... but they all have a chance of failure. In all of those scenarios, there's a chance that Iran might succeed anyway, and if they do ... then we're all screwed. No last minute alternative options, no takebacks ... we're all gone, dusted, done for.

The only 100% way of being sure that humanity doesn't die is to nuke Iran, right here, right now. What do you do?

[Farbautisonn]

The Razman wrote...
If you choose not to believe him, then you've pretty much screwed yourself over for everything that you've been working for the entire game. Meeting the Catalyst is what you wanted. You fought Kai Leng and the Illusive Man and all of that stuff so you could activate the Crucible and hope that it did something that could stop the Reapers.

-No.  What I have been working for the entire game is finding a way to save the galaxy. Not a way to destroy organic life as we know it, to wipe it out. Starchild gives me no reason to belive him. He doesnt even make sense.

What you want is to come all that way and then say "On second thoughts ... even though stopping the Reapers is the only thing that matters to me, I don't believe you when you're telling me you're giving me a way, and I'd rather let civilisation die". And while Sheperd letting humanity and galactic civilisation die because he wants to be a dick at the final moment would make an amusing easter egg ... it's not really a practical option, is it?

-Stopping the reapers is the goal. However you end up destroying the galaxy in the progress (if you presume that the energy release is en par to "arrival")  or at the very least throwining it into a dark age costing billions of lives, organic and synthetic. And yet Starchild grants that TIM was right and that the reapers can be controlled. So logic here dictates that we ask starchild to just reign in his hounds and ****** off. We got this far, We proved him wrong and we proved ourselves able to take the fight to him. Is there any reason why this all powerfull being cant reign in his machines? I dont see any?

You don't have to like the Starchild's reasons for doing what it did. The Starchild is offering you options to end the cycle, which is what you want. That you don't like them is very much a "I want to have an omelette, but I don't want to break these eggs" situation.

-Dont do analogies. Please. It allways end up crap and doesnt further discourse except to turn threads into pissing contests.

Starchild is offering me his terms. His options. His "omniscience" even if organics by his own admission in this cycle has surprised him. He is giving me a dictate and I have zero reason to take his word for any of it, much less a vague promise that the "circle will be broken".

[ArthurBDD]

 

The Razman wrote...

The only 100% way of being sure that humanity doesn't die is to nuke Iran, right here, right now. What do you do?

 

I laugh at how artificial the dilemma is.

Modifié par ArthurBDD, 03 avril 2012 - 11:30 .

[AkiKishi]

ArthurBDD wrote...

The Razman wrote...

I asked you to take the Starchild's assertion that it will 100% happen as irrefutable. That is what the Starchild believes, for whatever reason.

Why should we believe the starchild? Reapers and AIs and other super-advanced entities have all been proven to be fallible over the course of the series, why would the Starchild be any different?

Dark Energy works. The looming threat of the destruction of everything 100% guarenteed if nothing is done about it and accelerated by EZ0. If that was the explanation , then it has merit. Of course Shepard still had no right to sacrifice humanity to solve the problem, but then he had no right to GREEN , RED, BLUE either.

[The Razman]

ArthurBDD wrote...

You don't have to like the Starchild's reasons for doing what it did. The Starchild is offering you options to end the cycle, which is what you want. That you don't like them is very much a "I want to have an omelette, but I don't want to break these eggs" situation.

The problem is that the choice offered is artificially set up to be between three different philosophical extremes. Destroy is sheer Luddite vandalism, Control is outright megalomania, whereas Synthesis is goofy transhumanism.

There's no real compelling reason why the Destroy wave couldn't be targeted only to Reapers, beyond the writers decided that that wasn't how it worked because SACRIFICE DOOD SACRIFICE.

There's no real compelling reason why chemotherapy can't be targeted just to cancer cells and not destroy all kinds of other things in the body. Except that's just not how it works.

I'm not sure what you want? You're angry that there wasn't an ending option that let you go "Ah, there's the 'defeat the Reapers with no strings attached' button, just what I was looking for". Did you ever think that might have been the point?

[AkiKishi]

The Razman wrote...
Imagine that Iran will develop a superweapon in the future, that will 100% kill everyone on the planet. You could send the UN in, be diplomatic, impose sanctions, denounce them, threaten them, all of those "finnese" options ... but they all have a chance of failure. In all of those scenarios, there's a chance that Iran might succeed anyway, and if they do ... then we're all screwed. No last minute alternative options, no takebacks ... we're all gone, dusted, done for.

The only 100% way of being sure that humanity doesn't die is to nuke Iran, right here, right now. What do you do?

I think our definitons of finesse are a little different.

Logic does not compute it's a false premise.

[ArthurBDD]

Dark Energy works. The looming threat of the destruction of everything 100% guarenteed if nothing is done about it and accelerated by EZ0. If that was the explanation , then it has merit. Of course Shepard still had no right to sacrifice humanity to solve the problem, but then he had no right to GREEN , RED, BLUE either.

The Dark Energy ending would honestly have been much better for a whole lot of reasons.

- The canon had already well-established some facts about Dark Energy, so you're not just taking Starchild at his word. After all, there's no quest where you convince Dark Energy and regular energy to make up and be friends, unlike the Quarian/Geth war!

- If the Reapers are reacting to such an incredibly dire threat, it makes a little more sense that they would take such extreme actions in response to it.

- The what ifs and speculations surrounding both endings are actually interesting. If you sacrifice humanity, you're left with wondering what if there's a better alternative; if you go ahead and destroy the Reapers in the hope that the people of the galaxy can collectively come up with a better solution, you're left with wondering whether that's even possible.

[lumen11]

ArthurBDD wrote...

You don't have to like the Starchild's reasons for doing what it did. The Starchild is offering you options to end the cycle, which is what you want. That you don't like them is very much a "I want to have an omelette, but I don't want to break these eggs" situation.

The problem is that the choice offered is artificially set up to be between three different philosophical extremes. Destroy is sheer Luddite vandalism, Control is outright megalomania, whereas Synthesis is goofy transhumanism.

There's no real compelling reason why the Destroy wave couldn't be targeted only to Reapers, beyond the writers decided that that wasn't how it worked because SACRIFICE DOOD SACRIFICE.

Well, all the forms of artificial life you meet have been at the very least enhanced by reaper tech, no? It isn't that you're permanently destroying artificial life, your 'just' removing the reaper-influenced synthetics of this cycle. Seems reasonable enough to me.

You're right, of course, that these options have been contrived as a philosophical choice. But remember, from the point of view of the starchild it would only make sense to offer the most longterm, and therefore almost inevitably abstract to the point of philosophical, kind of options.

I'm not even going to touch the dictator comparison.

Modifié par lumen11, 03 avril 2012 - 11:38 .

[ArthurBDD]

The Razman wrote...

There's no real compelling reason why chemotherapy can't be targeted just to cancer cells and not destroy all kinds of other things in the body. Except that's just not how it works.

There's a honking big difference there, buddy. Chemotherapy is a real thing bound by the scientific barriers of the real world, which nobody can do anything about. The Destroy wave is a fictional thing in a fictional universe whose parameters are entirely decided by the writers. Get the difference?

I'm not sure what you want? You're angry that there wasn't an ending option that let you go "Ah, there's the 'defeat the Reapers with no strings attached' button, just what I was looking for". Did you ever think that might have been the point?

No, I'm angry there wasn't a "I reject your logic, Starchild, and I am going to try and beat you my own way" option. I have absolutely, 100%, completely, totally, positively, NO objections to there being strings attached to that option - perhaps even worse strings than going along with Starchild, but it profoundly annoys me that right at the end, no matter how you've played Shepard, you are forced to simply accept the Starchild's logic one way or another.

[Arkitekt]

Farbautisonn wrote...

Starchild is offering me his terms. His options. His "omniscience" even if organics by his own admission in this cycle has surprised him. He is giving me a dictate and I have zero reason to take his word for any of it, much less a vague promise that the "circle will be broken".

Yes, this is the basic problem with it. This is why I have the deep conviction that the RED destroy option shouldn't have been framed by the starchild, but a renegade interrupt that Shepard creates in the moment. I don't mind killing the Geth in a renegade interrupt ending. It fits.

The GREEN synthesis option should be scrapped entirely, but IF YOU REALLY INSIST UPON IT, then make it a paragon interrupt created by Shepard.

The BLUE control option should be the *ONLY* option available to you via the godchild. "We know you are here to control us". It should be the only ending where the Reapers survive unscathed (the green makes certain "modifications" to them... ah just frakkin scrap the green ending!!).

Bah, just rewrite the endings... goddamn.

[D.I.Y_Death]

BobSmith101 wrote...
Logic does not compute it's a false premise.

So is Starchild, why dodge the question? Because if faced with a "nuke nation x to save nations y and z" you'd nuke x or because you wouldn't nuke nation x and get nations y and z potentially killed?
Morally gray is gray.

[ArthurBDD]

D.I.Y_Death wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
Logic does not compute it's a false premise.

So is Starchild, why dodge the question? Because if faced with a "nuke nation x to save nations y and z" you'd nuke x or because you wouldn't nuke nation x and get nations y and z potentially killed?
Morally gray is gray.

Morally gray is morally gray, but situations as simplistic and clear-cut as proposed aren't morally gray, they're morally ludicrous. They're the sort of ridiculous, simplistic thought experiments you get when philosophy 101 students try to get deep.

[The Razman]

Farbautisonn wrote...

-No.  What I have been working for the entire game is finding a way to save the galaxy. Not a way to destroy organic life as we know it, to wipe it out. Starchild gives me no reason to belive him. He doesnt even make sense.

Welcome to the dilemma. There's no easy way of saving the galaxy this time. You can't just whip out a can of whoop-ass and make everything ok. If you want to save the galaxy, you're going to have to do something you don't want to do.

-Stopping the reapers is the goal. However you end up destroying the galaxy in the progress (if you presume that the energy release is en par to "arrival")  or at the very least throwining it into a dark age costing billions of lives, organic and synthetic. And yet Starchild grants that TIM was right and that the reapers can be controlled. So logic here dictates that we ask starchild to just reign in his hounds and ****** off. We got this far, We proved him wrong and we proved ourselves able to take the fight to him. Is there any reason why this all powerfull being cant reign in his machines? I dont see any?

I don't think many people really believe the whole "it happened in Arrival so all the relays must have destroyed all life in the galaxy" thing, do they? You slammed an asteroid into that one, while you released all the energy for a specific purpose in the other. It's like blowing up a nuclear reactor versus expending all its energy at once (I know that's not how nuclear reactions work, but it's an analogy in terms we can understand).

Anyway, the Starchild specifically says he can't, and won't, implement any of the options. He never relinquishes that you're right about anything ... just that the fact that you're standing there means the Reaper solution won't work anymore, so you have to choose a new solution. I don't think stamping your feet at the creator of the Reapers about why he won't just do it himself is a particularly valid complaint about the ending, is it?

Starchild is offering me his terms. His options. His "omniscience" even if organics by his own admission in this cycle has surprised him. He is giving me a dictate and I have zero reason to take his word for any of it, much less a vague promise that the "circle will be broken".

He never claims omniscience, omnipotance, or any other god-like quality. People on here are the ones who've embellished him with such qualities, for whatever reason.

That you have zero reason to believe any of it really doesn't matter. If Ashley or Liara or anyone else was there, they would chip in and say "Do we really have any choice?" You don't have to believe it ... this is the way of stopping the Reapers, take it or leave it. If you leave it, all galactic civilisation is destroyed for definite. Not really a choice.

[The Razman]

BobSmith101 wrote...

The Razman wrote...
Imagine that Iran will develop a superweapon in the future, that will 100% kill everyone on the planet. You could send the UN in, be diplomatic, impose sanctions, denounce them, threaten them, all of those "finnese" options ... but they all have a chance of failure. In all of those scenarios, there's a chance that Iran might succeed anyway, and if they do ... then we're all screwed. No last minute alternative options, no takebacks ... we're all gone, dusted, done for.

The only 100% way of being sure that humanity doesn't die is to nuke Iran, right here, right now. What do you do?

I think our definitons of finesse are a little different.

Logic does not compute it's a false premise.

I am asking you to participate in a hypothetical scenario. Do you not understand the terms, or ...?

[The Razman]

ArthurBDD wrote...

There's a honking big difference there, buddy. Chemotherapy is a real thing bound by the scientific barriers of the real world, which nobody can do anything about. The Destroy wave is a fictional thing in a fictional universe whose parameters are entirely decided by the writers. Get the difference?

Indeed. By the writers. Not by you.

No, I'm angry there wasn't a "I reject your logic, Starchild, and I am going to try and beat you my own way" option. I have absolutely, 100%, completely, totally, positively, NO objections to there being strings attached to that option - perhaps even worse strings than going along with Starchild, but it profoundly annoys me that right at the end, no matter how you've played Shepard, you are forced to simply accept the Starchild's logic one way or another.

I'm willing to listen to your suggestions to what would make a logical "I am going to try and beat you my own way" option.

[D.I.Y_Death]

ArthurBDD wrote...

D.I.Y_Death wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
Logic does not compute it's a false premise.

So is Starchild, why dodge the question? Because if faced with a "nuke nation x to save nations y and z" you'd nuke x or because you wouldn't nuke nation x and get nations y and z potentially killed?
Morally gray is gray.

Morally gray is morally gray, but situations as simplistic and clear-cut as proposed aren't morally gray, they're morally ludicrous. They're the sort of ridiculous, simplistic thought experiments you get when philosophy 101 students try to get deep.

Then since you're unable to adapt and open dialogue in this instance lets tone down his example.

Say it's a zombie apocalypse. You're leading a group of people, you're worn out, hungry, low on ammunition and not enough clothes to last the upcoming winter. You have people in desperate need of antibiotics and other medical supplies or they will die.

You come accross another group who has everything you need and is relatively unarmed. Your group has children the other does not but both have equal numbers. If you don't get supplies your group will be dead within the week and you haven't seen any other survivors for 2 months.

You try to convince them to trade or share some supplies but they don't want to, they're now walking away from you and your chance is slipping away.

What do you do?

Modifié par D.I.Y_Death, 03 avril 2012 - 11:53 .

[ArthurBDD]

The Razman wrote...

ArthurBDD wrote...

There's a honking big difference there, buddy. Chemotherapy is a real thing bound by the scientific barriers of the real world, which nobody can do anything about. The Destroy wave is a fictional thing in a fictional universe whose parameters are entirely decided by the writers. Get the difference?

Indeed. By the writers. Not by you.

Sure, not by me, but that doesn't mean I don't find it silly when the writers concoct absurd parameters for the way the Catalyst works solely for the sake of giving me a tough choice.

No, I'm angry there wasn't a "I reject your logic, Starchild, and I am going to try and beat you my own way" option. I have absolutely, 100%, completely, totally, positively, NO objections to there being strings attached to that option - perhaps even worse strings than going along with Starchild, but it profoundly annoys me that right at the end, no matter how you've played Shepard, you are forced to simply accept the Starchild's logic one way or another.

I'm willing to listen to your suggestions to what would make a logical "I am going to try and beat you my own way" option.

Attempt a victory with conventional forces, combined with Shepard on the station trying to find the Starchild's physical form (if it's some sort of super-advanced AI it must have a main processor somewhere) and shut the thing down, hoping against hope that with the loss of their guiding mind the Reapers will at the very least be confused.

Might cause a ridiculous amount of casualties, might not even work. I'd say if it does work the fleet should be decimated and massive casualties take place across the galaxy as the Reapers fight their equivalent of a massive civil war over who gets to lead them in the absence of their creator. The other life forms of the galaxy hide and bide their time, waiting for the day when they can emerge and take out the few, weakened survivors of the Reaper civil war. It's a grim, punishing, unrelenting future, but the mass relays are still there and the rebuilding of the galaxy is viable.

[ArthurBDD]

D.I.Y_Death wrote...

You try to convince them to trade or share some supplies but they don't want to, they're now walking away from you and your chance is slipping away.

What do you do?

Wonder what the hell this example has to do with the ME3 ending.

But even then, you're making a false dichotomy between turning to banditry and dying. How about keep exploring, keep salvaging, see if there's an alternative? We have a week, those guys must have found their supplies somewhere, let's see if we can follow their tracks backwards and see where they came from.

[D.I.Y_Death]

ArthurBDD wrote...

D.I.Y_Death wrote...

You try to convince them to trade or share some supplies but they don't want to, they're now walking away from you and your chance is slipping away.

What do you do?

Wonder what the hell this example has to do with the ME3 ending.

But even then, you're making a false dichotomy between turning to banditry and dying. How about keep exploring, keep salvaging, see if there's an alternative? We have a week, those guys must have found their supplies somewhere, let's see if we can follow their tracks backwards and see where they came from.

The example demonstrates the moral complexity of survival at the expense of others. How many are you willing to sacrifice? Do you feel the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few in dire and extreme circumstances?

Stop mimicing Sheldon off of Big Bang, no one likes this much pointless dissemination.

[Farbautisonn]

The Razman wrote...
Welcome to the dilemma. There's no easy way of saving the galaxy this time. You can't just whip out a can of whoop-ass and make everything ok. If you want to save the galaxy, you're going to have to do something you don't want to do.

-Thats not a dilemma. And no Im not asking for "easy". Im asking for "makes sense, is logical". Im not saving the galaxy. Im dooming it. Im either destroying it, forcing it into becoming a hybrid, or giving the reapers what they wanted all along (me), plus causing galaxywide destruction.. And I have no guarantees of my sacrifice being worth a damn. The choise make no sense when compared to the logical straighforward one: "Call off your hounds". I do not see the need for any of the destruction to happen. I dont see the need for me to merge, I do not see the need for me to destroy the reapers or merge all life into a synthetic reapear esque existence. Just... go away. There is no logic that prevents that from being an option.

I don't think many people really believe the whole "it happened in Arrival so all the relays must have destroyed all life in the galaxy" thing, do they? You slammed an asteroid into that one, while you released all the energy for a specific purpose in the other. It's like blowing up a nuclear reactor versus expending all its energy at once (I know that's not how nuclear reactions work, but it's an analogy in terms we can understand).

-Unfortunately we are never told the mechanics of this feat so if we are to attack the question with any kind of scientific merit we have to rely on past empirical evidence. That destroying a mass relay causes significant damage if not outright destruction of the system in which it resides. I dont get your analogy. How do you expend all the energy residing in a nuclear station in an instant... if not through a violent reaction such as an explosion?... so please. Knock off the analogies. They serve as red heerings and strawmen in this discussion. Nothing more.

Anyway, the Starchild specifically says he can't, and won't, implement any of the options. He never relinquishes that you're right about anything ... just that the fact that you're standing there means the Reaper solution won't work anymore, so you have to choose a new solution. I don't think stamping your feet at the creator of the Reapers about why he won't just do it himself is a particularly valid complaint about the ending, is it?

-I have to choose a solution... crafted by him. The supposed master of the reapers. Is he telling me he cannot controll the reapers? Or rather that he wont? In both cases I have even less reason to place any faith in him.  I think its a very valid complaint. His machines, his game. He can end it or put it on hold. But no. Instead of doing the obvious, he forces us into becomming accomplices, he forces his choises upon up. If he is so powerfull can you give me a reason why this would be an illogical request? 

He never claims omniscience, omnipotance, or any other god-like quality. People on here are the ones who've embellished him with such qualities, for whatever reason.

That you have zero reason to believe any of it really doesn't matter. If Ashley or Liara or anyone else was there, they would chip in and say "Do we really have any choice?" You don't have to believe it ... this is the way of stopping the Reapers, take it or leave it. If you leave it, all galactic civilisation is destroyed for definite. Not really a choice.

-Really? He has been doing this for 37 million years and hasnt for once considered that he is going about this the wrong way. He uses his tools to wipe out advanced life every 50k years. If that isnt having a god complex I have no Idea what is.

Erm... Yes it matters. Because if you dont believe him, then you have zero reason to do any of the things he say. Furthermore since he can controll the machines and never gives that option to you, as in "go over there press the red button and they leave", he is actively trying to decieve you by omission. As for your "If" well... thats an "if" . He controlls the reapers and he withholds the option to just retract them. Why? Why arent you given permission to press the "disengage" button?  All of your argumentation falls flat if you dont believe him and we have zero reason to do so.

Modifié par Farbautisonn, 03 avril 2012 - 12:11 .

[D.I.Y_Death]

Farbautisonn wrote...

I don't think many people really believe the whole "it happened in Arrival so all the relays must have destroyed all life in the galaxy" thing, do they? You slammed an asteroid into that one, while you released all the energy for a specific purpose in the other. It's like blowing up a nuclear reactor versus expending all its energy at once

(I know that's not how nuclear reactions work, but it's an analogy in terms we can understand).

-Unfortunately we are never told the mechanics of this feat so if we are to attack the question with any kind of scientific merit we have to rely on past empirical evidence. That destroying a mass relay causes significant damage if not outright destruction of the system in which it resides. I dont get your analogy. How do you expend all the energy residing in a nuclear station in an instant... if not through a violent reaction such as an explosion?... so please. Knock off the analogies. They serve as red heerings and strawmen in this discussion. Nothing more.

I'm going to assume you missed the underlined text there because this makes the analogy valid. Also analogies are not strawmen or red herrings, they establish context in which a situation is taken which is important for this topic.

Modifié par D.I.Y_Death, 03 avril 2012 - 12:18 .

[Farbautisonn]

D.I.Y_Death wrote...

I'm going to assume you missed the underlined text there because this makes the analogy valid. Also analogies are not strawmen or red herrings, they establish context in which a situation is taken which is important for this topic.

-Ermn... no. If the "analogy" had merit it would be able to illuminate the problem. However by stating "I know thats not how it works", then you have de facto created a strawman. You are asking me to address a hypothetical situation you yourself realize is null and void.

Geddit?