808 réponses à ce sujet

[dreaming_raithe]

greggm2000 wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

greggm2000 wrote...

My understanding is that some theorie(s) have dark energy not existing at all. So there's that as a possibility.

Maybe, but not really. Some Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) theorists speculate that the energy is just "space replicating", or space growing. String theory, space is continuous, so it can't "grow", but in LQG, space is made up of tiny individual space "quanta" just like you are made up of individual atoms, so space is made up of, um, space atoms, hehe. In this theory, there's not Dark Energy per se, it's just that the space between distance objects is growing, literally. Space creates more space. This gives the appearance of objects accelerating away from each other, thus implies there's an energy responsible. This interpretation is correct, the creation of "new" spacetime could be said to be a type of energy, it's just a different view, I suppose.

No scientist would say that Dark Energy "doesn't exist" the proof is conclusive. Galaxies are accelerating away from each other. SOMETHING is causing it, and that thing is called Dark Energy for lack of a better term.

I thought it was a matter of the mathematics in at least one mainstream theory which explains that acceleration that Dark Energy was invented to explain? .... and (correct me if I'm wrong), isn't the rate of acceleration decreasing at the very largest scales?

I'm not nearly as informed on this as I could be, and I'm certainly no astrophysicist, heh!  So I could be totally wrong in this.

The rate of acceleration is actually increasing. That's part of what led to the hypothesis of dark energy in the first place, as the rate of acceleration wasn't constant, if I recall correctly.

[tractrpl]

Deraldin wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

Vexille, if you had a heart attack, blacked out, and woke up with a new fangled heart that's 10X better than you current heart would you say "That's a violation!" No, you'd say, "Well, at least I'm alive." That's the point, amigo.

Not equivalent. Heart attack is a negative condition and implies that you are fixing something with the transplant. If you want something equivalent, you went to sleep last night just like any other night. When you woke up in the morning you discover you had an organ transplant. The new one works just fine and hey, you're told it's "better" than what you had before, but someone still operated on you without your consent. That is a violation.

Also don't believe Allan's lies! He's evil!

I would say facing annihilation by the Reapers fits the bill of "negative condition". The Red ending is like "Well, we can save your life through a heart transplant, but we'd have to cut your penis off in order for you to live. Or we can give you a roboheart and you get to keep your penis, but you have a robopenis that has all the benefits of your old one but none of it's weaknesses."  That's pretty much how I saw it

[dreaming_raithe]

tractrpl wrote...

Deraldin wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

Vexille, if you had a heart attack, blacked out, and woke up with a new fangled heart that's 10X better than you current heart would you say "That's a violation!" No, you'd say, "Well, at least I'm alive." That's the point, amigo.

Not equivalent. Heart attack is a negative condition and implies that you are fixing something with the transplant. If you want something equivalent, you went to sleep last night just like any other night. When you woke up in the morning you discover you had an organ transplant. The new one works just fine and hey, you're told it's "better" than what you had before, but someone still operated on you without your consent. That is a violation.

Also don't believe Allan's lies! He's evil!

I would say facing annihilation by the Reapers fits the bill of "negative condition". The Red ending is like "Well, we can save your life through a heart transplant, but we'd have to cut your penis off in order for you to live. Or we can give you a roboheart and you get to keep your penis, but you have a robopenis that has all the benefits of your old one but none of it's weaknesses."  That's pretty much how I saw it

I laughed very hard at this mainly because your avatar was krogan. It just seems like something they'd be on board for.

[Vexille]

kimuji wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

Vexille, if you had a heart attack, blacked out, and woke up with a new fangled heart that's 10X better than you current heart would you say "That's a violation!" No, you'd say, "Well, at least I'm alive." That's the point, amigo.

The green ending is a bit more than just adding an artificial limb or organ. Make it sound like an upgrade, remember that synthetics become partly organic too, I don't even know what that means.

this... its changing everyone at the molecular level.

not to mention the amount of "space magic" this ending requires...

[Udalango]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I also didn't 100% trust the Catalyst.  Should something go wrong and the Reapers continue to run free unchecked, then it was all for naught!  Granted, you can run with this and feel "If I didn't trust the Catalyst, how could I trust that it'd destroy the Reapers."  So I don't really think I don't trust the Catalyst in that he's outright lying to me, but rather I have doubts about the certainty of his suggested outcomes.  I'm skeptical that it will necessarily play out the way he suggests, and if Shepard somehow loses himself while controlling the Reapers, well then that's bad!

This is my problem.  You introduce the NEW Major Antagonist in the last 5 mins, he has 14 lines of dialogue.  WHY SHOULD I TRUST HIM.  Why is there no option for me to tell him to shove off with his "Choice"  
Why cant I tell him what he is doing makes absolutely no sense.  
I just wanted to punch Harbinger in his big stupid face.  I hate the catalyst *Pouty face*

[Big_Choppa]

I felt like the red ending was the only -real- ending. My shepard (Paragon!) would have never stooped to controlling or synthesis. It didn't feel right at all!

[Vexille]

tractrpl wrote...

Deraldin wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

Vexille, if you had a heart attack, blacked out, and woke up with a new fangled heart that's 10X better than you current heart would you say "That's a violation!" No, you'd say, "Well, at least I'm alive." That's the point, amigo.

Not equivalent. Heart attack is a negative condition and implies that you are fixing something with the transplant. If you want something equivalent, you went to sleep last night just like any other night. When you woke up in the morning you discover you had an organ transplant. The new one works just fine and hey, you're told it's "better" than what you had before, but someone still operated on you without your consent. That is a violation.

Also don't believe Allan's lies! He's evil!

I would say facing annihilation by the Reapers fits the bill of "negative condition". The Red ending is like "Well, we can save your life through a heart transplant, but we'd have to cut your penis off in order for you to live. Or we can give you a roboheart and you get to keep your penis, but you have a robopenis that has all the benefits of your old one but none of it's weaknesses."  That's pretty much how I saw it

Red ending is basically asking, do you kill 10 people in order to save 1000?

Also, In my games the Geth were already destroyed, So it was sacrafice EDI to save everyone else in the galaxy OR pretty much rape everyone in the galaxy at the molecular level... I would have tossed EDI out the airlock myself

[dreaming_raithe]

Big_Choppa wrote...

I felt like the red ending was the only -real- ending. My shepard (Paragon!) would have never stooped to controlling or synthesis. It didn't feel right at all!

They're also the options the series has associated with the villains more than anything. Saren strives for Synthesis for the entirety of ME1 and that got him into nothing but trouble, and likewise with the Illusive Man and Control. Javik tells us every Prothean that advocated for controlling the Reapers was indoctrinated, too.

The game itself feels like it's set up to favor destroy, and that's without taking into account the fact that Shepard can live with that choice.

[masseffect420]

M0keys wrote...

Just wondering how Bioware thinks the player avatar commiting total genocide of an entire race of sentient, friendly beings is supposed to give us, as they said at PAX, satisfaction?

Who do they think their player base is? Genocide isn't cool

Thats dumb βཞℴ  ☢ ☢ ☣ ☣   kill them or die!

[kimuji]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

kimuji wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

My assumption is that organics create VIs to make their lives easier, and given enough VIs, eventually one becomes a true AI. Maybe the idea is that as a hybrid, the desire to create VIs in order to free up our spare time, make things easier, and so forth is less prevalent?

That's pretty much my idea, though I remember the Starchild saying: "the created will always rebel against the creators", he uses it as a justification for the Reapers actions. But this is a false statement, the AIs don't rebel for no reason, like you said we use VIs like tools to make our life easier, and so did the Quarians, if these VIs become sentient then they are no longer tools they are slaves. The Geths rebelled against the Quarians because the Quarians tried to wipe them out, not just because the Quarians were their creators. As I said in another thread if the Quarians had never tried to destroy the Geth but the Turians had, then the Geths would have attacked the Turians and not the Quarians. The created only rebel against the creator if the creator makes him a slave or tries to kill him when he become sentient. The rebellion is only inevitable if you give your creations valid motives to do so.

This is a good point, which I think might impact why I think the Catalyst is not truly omnipotent.  It is somehow imperfect in its analysis. 

If we want to get more philosophical, while you and I can come to the conclusion that the created will always rebel against the creators for no reason is false, but it doesn't necessarily make the statement "the created will always rebel against the creators" false.  I wouldn't be surprised that it's because of mistakes that the organics make that cause this conflict to happen, not because of an innate desire for synthetics to destroy their creators.  The Catalyst is simply describing an outcome, not the causes that lead to such an outcome.  He might not even entirely understand the causes.

That's why we need a chance to tell him and point this out! 

Well now I can hear my bed calling me, and I must respond to his summoning (am I his slave? I should rebel!). It has been a pleasure to speak with you, we had an interesting chat, thank you. 

[Allan Schumacher]

pikey1969 wrote...

It doesn't neccessarily make his conclusion correct either.

Absolutely! 

Two, is on a more meta-scale. If I read the conversations with the Catalyst correctly, he's the outcome of a technological singularity. Anything beyond the Technological Singularity is just as much a realm of the unknown outside the bounds of science, perhaps even more so than the origin of the universe. Now, unlike many, I really appreciated the introduction of the catalyst, even in the last 5 minutes of the triology, because of the fact that Technological Singularity was introduced as the root cause of all of the 'reaper hassle'. But the options he offers, rather the options offered to the player as a conclusion seemed to rather trivialize this concept, barring the Destroy option, which is basically a 'cop-out' for hoping for the best nature of organics, an acceptable solution given the uncertain nature of the concept of 'Technological Singularity'.

Interesting.  I hadn't thought of it quite like this.

That said, given the 'flawed' nature of the Catalyst's logic, would/could it not have been within the realm of possibility that Shepard could have simply asked the Catalyst to back off?

Meh, I dunno, maybe it's that inner 'unicorn/happy ending lover' in me that doesn't want to kill off the Geth, but alas.

Possibly.  What we would have liked in the ending is going to influence our perspective, but with the entire plot being about buying time to prepare the Crucible, I think I would have been disappointed is it turns out we were able to win with just our fleet.  I think it undervalues how threatening the Reapers actually are.

I'm okay with the fact that we could have chosen to tell the Catalyst to pike off (the same way I'm okay with telling The Master that I'm okay with his super mutant plan).  Ultimately though, I would have only liked the idea if it resulted in the Reapers eventually winning (maybe low EMS is just outright defeat, while higher EMS is organizing the crucible plans, and Liara's memento, and shooting it off for the next cycle to find).


Also, for everyone... Be nice to poor Deraldin.  He's just mad because my Adept totally roflstomped his crappy little Engineer in Multiplayer.   My back was tired of carrying the load!

[pavi132]

I wish I could have refused to even entertain anything the Starchild threw at me. I would rather have sat my ass on the Citadel ignoring the Starchild while looking out at a galaxy united fighting the Reapers. Maybe everyone would be wiped out and maybe the cycle would continue. But you know what? At least the entire galaxy would die together as one, not compromising who they were, not turning to sacrifice each other as in the destruction ending. I played through the game with two major goals, 1) broker peace and unite the people of the galaxy, and 2) never compromise who I was for anything or anyone. The way the endings are, no matter what I chose, those were ripped from me as destruction would destroy the peace I had worked so hard to accomplish and control or synthesis would go against who my Shepard was. He would not force synthesis on people and would definitely not allow the threat to remain in any capacity by following through with what TIM wanted, which was to control the reapers, for whatever reason. Unfortunately the endings took that away from my Shepard entirely.

[greggm2000]

Vexille wrote...

Red ending is basically asking, do you kill 10 people in order to save 1000?

Also, In my games the Geth were already destroyed, So it was sacrafice EDI to save everyone else in the galaxy OR pretty much rape everyone in the galaxy at the molecular level... I would have tossed EDI out the airlock myself

Red ending is alternatively saying, "Do you trust the godchild". I was inclined to accept Synthesis as being the least worse choice, but after thinking about it, my Shep decided that what the godchild was saying wasn't making a lot of sense, that something didn't add up.. and if it in fact isn't telling the truth, then the best chance for a good outcome is to do what she came there to do, so I picked Destroy.

[tractrpl]

Allan, in my own "headcanon" I controlled the Reapers only to command them to self-destruct or dive into the nearest star. In this way, I was able to destroy the reapers without sacrificing the Geth. Do you think, as an inside Bioware man, that such an idea would be a...possible loophole for this? Or will Bioware say "No, you can't force the Reapers to destroy themselves" or something?

[Vexille]

greggm2000 wrote...

Vexille wrote...

Red ending is basically asking, do you kill 10 people in order to save 1000?

Also, In my games the Geth were already destroyed, So it was sacrafice EDI to save everyone else in the galaxy OR pretty much rape everyone in the galaxy at the molecular level... I would have tossed EDI out the airlock myself

Red ending is alternatively saying, "Do you trust the godchild". I was inclined to accept Synthesis as being the least worse choice, but after thinking about it, my Shep decided that what the godchild was saying wasn't making a lot of sense, that something didn't add up.. and if it in fact isn't telling the truth, then the best chance for a good outcome is to do what she came there to do, so I picked Destroy.

I agree... I mean isnt it "fishy" that the 2 endings god child prefer are the ones that involve Shep killing himself...
hes the enemy.

Can you imagine say... Superman killing himself because Lex Luther told him it will solve everything? Why on earth would Shep commit suicide just because the head reaper told him too...

[Last Vizard]

M0keys wrote...

Just wondering how Bioware thinks the player avatar commiting total genocide of an entire race of sentient, friendly beings is supposed to give us, as they said at PAX, satisfaction?

Who do they think their player base is? Genocide isn't cool

The ending doesn't make any sense anyway, all relays blew up and killed everyone anyway... plus....

[Alanosborn1991]

Red is the best ending and it isnt genocide.

Same reason killing zombies isnt murder, its self defense and they are already dead. All the people or races of species that are in Reapers are DEAD. They do not care what happens to them. And we shouldnt try to perserve Reapers to honor lost species because then we would all get indoctrinated.

If I was in a Reaper as a statistic in a smoothie of people I would want you to kill me too.

Also whats stopping the Quarians from building new geth to replace the ones that die in Reaper killing red energy? Then they can use what they learned in the Morning War to make sure it doesnt happen again.

Modifié par Alanosborn1991, 08 avril 2012 - 05:00 .

[CmdrPwn]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It is because of the growth of the Geth and Quarians that my "obvious" choice was now not so obvious.  I also refused to believe the Catalyst's statements about the inevitability of synthetics and organics to destroy each other.  In fact, when Shepard says "Maybe" in response to the Catalyst's claims, it was my exact same thought.  I had grown to appreciate the Geth and Quarians because I was able to help resolve the 300 year conflict with them.  They were able to move on, which gave me hope that synthetic-organic conflict was not inevitable.

I thought "maybe" as well to the Catalyst's claims.  Just because the Geth and Quarians were able to make peace doesn't mean it would last forever though.  The Catalyst is probably right that your children will eventually create A.I. again if you destroy them all.  Especially if your children want to colonize the galaxy.  I'm not sure if it's inevitable that A.I. will eventually turn against organics, but it's definitely a strong possiblity (which the Catalyst has probably witnessed numerous times).  Javik also said they had the same problems during his cycle and they had to make a sun go supernova so they wouldn't leave their solar system.

[kalasaurus]

Big_Choppa wrote...

I felt like the red ending was the only -real- ending. My shepard (Paragon!) would have never stooped to controlling or synthesis. It didn't feel right at all!

I don't like the idea of playing god in control and synthesis.  I don't think my Shepard, or any being-synthetic or organic- should have the power to decide genetic destiny of the galaxy.  Control can be a neutral stance, but Shepard gives up his/her humanity and assumes the control of reapers- corrupted abominations of past species enslaved by the Catalyst.

Destroy is unforgivable.  It turns Shepard into a monster by committing genocide against an entire race.  But, if my Shepard has to be the villain to end the reaper threat and stop the cycles indefinitely, then so be it.  I would have preferred if she just died in the process too.

[Allan Schumacher]

Udalango wrote...

This is my problem.  You introduce the NEW Major Antagonist in the last 5 mins, he has 14 lines of dialogue.  WHY SHOULD I TRUST HIM.  Why is there no option for me to tell him to shove off with his "Choice"  
Why cant I tell him what he is doing makes absolutely no sense.  
I just wanted to punch Harbinger in his big stupid face.  I hate the catalyst *Pouty face*

That's fair.  Just hypothetically, but would that ending have still satisfied you if it resulted in the Reapers winning?

I'm just curious if people are more "I just want to say no to the Catalyst" or if it's more of a "I want to say no to the Catalyst and find an alternative way to victory!"  I'm okay with the former, but I struggle to imagine how Shepard could find an alternative at that junction since so many events are already set into motion.

You could argue that "doing nothing" on the Crucible counts, but I wouldn't consider anything that says "Critical Mission Failure" to be a viable ending :\\

[tractrpl]

Alanosborn1991 wrote...

Red is the best ending and it isnt genocide.

Same reason killing zombies isnt murder, its self defense and they are already dead. All the people or races of species that are in Reapers are DEAD. They do not care what happens to them. And we shouldnt try to perserve Reapers to honor lost species because then we would all get indoctrinated.

If I was in a Reaper as a statistic in a smoothie of people I would want you to kill me too.

They're not talking about genocide on the Reapers, they're talking about Genocide on the Geth.

[Deraldin]

Alanosborn1991 wrote...

Red is the best ending and it isnt genocide.

Same reason killing zombies isnt murder, its self defense and they are already dead. All the people or races of species that are in Reapers are DEAD. They do not care what happens to them. And we shouldnt try to perserve Reapers to honor lost species because then we would all get indoctrinated.

If I was in a Reaper as a statistic in a smoothie of people I would want you to kill me too.

Also whats stopping the Quarians from building new geth to replace the
ones that die in Reaper killing red energy? Then they can use what they
learned in the Morning War to make sure it doesnt happen again.

I may have missed someone, but I'm pretty sure the genocide that people are referring to in this case is the destruction of the Geth, not the Reapers.

And nothing is stopping the Quarians from creating more Geth if they have the knowledge to do so.

Modifié par Deraldin, 08 avril 2012 - 05:01 .

[Alanosborn1991]

Your right Allan Schumacher and even though it isnt implied that what Starchild says is true, the ultimate F U to the Reapers is the destroy ending which stops the Reapers and allows us to chart our own path.

To all the whiners who say they dont get to tell the child NO! Thats what the destroy ending is

[tractrpl]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm just curious if people are more "I just want to say no to the Catalyst" or if it's more of a "I want to say no to the Catalyst and find an alternative way to victory!"  I'm okay with the former, but I struggle to imagine how Shepard could find an alternative at that junction since so many events are already set into motion.

You could argue that "doing nothing" on the Crucible counts, but I wouldn't consider anything that says "Critical Mission Failure" to be a viable ending :

Allan, could you respond to my inquiry regarding using control to command the Reapers to suicide. Would that be plausible? I haven't seen anything from Bioware suggesting that I couldn't use that bit of "headcanon".

[Last Vizard]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Udalango wrote...

This is my problem.  You introduce the NEW Major Antagonist in the last 5 mins, he has 14 lines of dialogue.  WHY SHOULD I TRUST HIM.  Why is there no option for me to tell him to shove off with his "Choice"  
Why cant I tell him what he is doing makes absolutely no sense.  
I just wanted to punch Harbinger in his big stupid face.  I hate the catalyst *Pouty face*

That's fair.  Just hypothetically, but would that ending have still satisfied you if it resulted in the Reapers winning?

I'm just curious if people are more "I just want to say no to the Catalyst" or if it's more of a "I want to say no to the Catalyst and find an alternative way to victory!"  I'm okay with the former, but I struggle to imagine how Shepard could find an alternative at that junction since so many events are already set into motion.

You could argue that "doing nothing" on the Crucible counts, but I wouldn't consider anything that says "Critical Mission Failure" to be a viable ending :

Just got back to Australia after traveling around Europe and Hongkong... Just finished ME3 to discover the ending, I walked to the middle point where each path leads to a different choice and was like... wait what? so I turned around and tried shooting the kid thing because I thought this was some mind trick with me lying on the floor infront of the activation pannel lol my brother and I can't make sense of the plotholes and character behaviour at the end.

I choose the "Red energy shinny ending" because its the only thing that will justify all the death over every cycle... I will make synthetics to kill organics so synthetics don't kill organics.....  lol what?