352 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Iconoclaste wrote...

And since the Reapers were never allowed to witness by themselves what they prevented from happening, they "can't" be lying about these issues, they are merely "limited" to their perspective, which happen to coincide with the organic's perspective, in a definite space and time. What may or may not happen elsewhere is irrelevant to them and to the organics targeted.

These are time les machine...Their perspective is vastly larger then orgaincs. The fact the we are finite make it clear we will neverbe on the same level pf perspective as a reaper.

[Iconoclaste]

dreman9999 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

The Catalyst is using many words indicating he doesn't know the outcomes himself : maybe you can/ you can't. He is proposing solutions he "thinks" will do what he says, but everything is tainted with these "possible..." outcomes. He's not "lying" in that way, he's just not allowing debate on open issues from those "can, can't, maybe".

No....heIS Making it clear that he does know what will happen, especially with the control choice and the systhises choice.

He never said that Shepard would effectively "control" them, he merely said Shepard can give it a try. "Maybe" he can control them, but he WILL die, and lose "everything he is and has". Shepard answers "I can do it".

[Iconoclaste]

dreman9999 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

And since the Reapers were never allowed to witness by themselves what they prevented from happening, they "can't" be lying about these issues, they are merely "limited" to their perspective, which happen to coincide with the organic's perspective, in a definite space and time. What may or may not happen elsewhere is irrelevant to them and to the organics targeted.

These are time les machine...Their perspective is vastly larger then orgaincs. The fact the we are finite make it clear we will neverbe on the same level pf perspective as a reaper.

They may be old, but their perspective is only a 50 000 years "loop".

[Iconoclaste]

They mostly witness a stage of evolution every advanced species have reached, so their level of "knowledge" should be mostly the same as the "organics" regarding a specific cycle, because neither witnessed anything beyond that point in evolution.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 19 avril 2012 - 08:18 .

[dreman9999]

Meltemph wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

count_4 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
And I can say with out worries we are too finite to make that assumption. We beings who are just starting to understand the universe can't say anything definete about current stated being permanent. We only been in exsistence for a micro second compeard to the rest of the universe. We can't say that life will find away....Just that life will always try to find a way to live.

Don't need to understand the entire universe to know that a) Eradicating all organic life is pretty much impossible and Even if it weren't, organic matter and thus organic life will always arise again over time.

Again, we are finte...We don't know if it is or isn't possible...Also, reapers were taking about just the galexy not the universe.

The reapers are finite too.  They are snythetic, created.  They will have an end, as does all things in the universe.

Can you point me to their begining? Was  Date to when they were made stated?
But hey, let's take it another direction.......No matter how you cut it, the reaper have a much more vast perspective then organics, more infomation, seen more,created more, and development drematicly more then organics.
They only real flaw the reapers have is that they plateaued due tothe fact that they have reach perfection...That's their one flaw.....Remeber the calibration contest  Garrus and Legion had? That's is an illistration of our advantage. Regardless to that, they really have seen more and lie long then use.. The fact that they no more brings upthe fact that they know more.

Modifié par dreman9999, 19 avril 2012 - 08:29 .

[dreman9999]

Iconoclaste wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

The Catalyst is using many words indicating he doesn't know the outcomes himself : maybe you can/ you can't. He is proposing solutions he "thinks" will do what he says, but everything is tainted with these "possible..." outcomes. He's not "lying" in that way, he's just not allowing debate on open issues from those "can, can't, maybe".

No....heIS Making it clear that he does know what will happen, especially with the control choice and the systhises choice.

He never said that Shepard would effectively "control" them, he merely said Shepard can give it a try. "Maybe" he can control them, but he WILL die, and lose "everything he is and has". Shepard answers "I can do it".

Yes, he does. It's not a what if.  And let's add the fact that the reaper want Synthiese anyway.

Modifié par dreman9999, 19 avril 2012 - 08:24 .

[Elyiia]

dreman9999 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

The Catalyst is using many words indicating he doesn't know the outcomes himself : maybe you can/ you can't. He is proposing solutions he "thinks" will do what he says, but everything is tainted with these "possible..." outcomes. He's not "lying" in that way, he's just not allowing debate on open issues from those "can, can't, maybe".

No....heIS Making it clear that he does know what will happen, especially with the control choice and the systhises choice.

He never said that Shepard would effectively "control" them, he merely said Shepard can give it a try. "Maybe" he can control them, but he WILL die, and lose "everything he is and has". Shepard answers "I can do it".

Yes, he does. It not a what if. 

When Shepard asks about control, he says something then Shepard asks "But I could control them" Star-Jar tells him "Yes, but you would lose everything." Controlling the Reapers isn't a maybe, it's a definite.

[dreman9999]

Iconoclaste wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

And since the Reapers were never allowed to witness by themselves what they prevented from happening, they "can't" be lying about these issues, they are merely "limited" to their perspective, which happen to coincide with the organic's perspective, in a definite space and time. What may or may not happen elsewhere is irrelevant to them and to the organics targeted.

These are time les machine...Their perspective is vastly larger then orgaincs. The fact the we are finite make it clear we will neverbe on the same level pf perspective as a reaper.

They may be old, but their perspective is only a 50 000 years "loop".

Multiple 50000 years loops...That still mean they exsisted vastly longer then we have. Mean they still have seen more. They still have a much vaster perspective then organics.

[dreman9999]

Iconoclaste wrote...

They mostly witness a stage of evolution every advanced species have reached, so their level of "knowledge" should be mostly the same as the "organics" regarding a specific cycle, because neither witnessed anything beyond that point in evolution.

Someone here is ignoring that fact that they had to study organics to be able to make the mass relay trap work...

[dreman9999]

Iconoclaste wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

The Catalyst is using many words indicating he doesn't know the outcomes himself : maybe you can/ you can't. He is proposing solutions he "thinks" will do what he says, but everything is tainted with these "possible..." outcomes. He's not "lying" in that way, he's just not allowing debate on open issues from those "can, can't, maybe".

No....heIS Making it clear that he does know what will happen, especially with the control choice and the systhises choice.

He never said that Shepard would effectively "control" them, he merely said Shepard can give it a try. "Maybe" he can control them, but he WILL die, and lose "everything he is and has". Shepard answers "I can do it".

No, he's say he can but Shep will lose everthing he is doing so.

[Siegdrifa]

Elyiia wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...
From what i remember we have no proof she denied being a AI, and like i said, i think anybody questionned her directly, some crew member had suspiscions.

The Geths in ME2 told us we they provided false information about a salarian godess, but they never claimed it was "true".

EDI fill the role of a VI in the normady because she do the tasks of a VI, it's true, so she could maintain this degree of knwoledge, the fact is she can do a lot more, like many people " on a job ", they fill the roll, but doesn't mean can't do "more".

Misleading, or allowing someone to think somethat isn't true, is lying.

No, if it refer to something true, people are free to make their assumption, many people call it lie of omiscion, but it's not lie as denial wich is 100% false.
That's why Legion said there was a hole when Shep asked about the N7 armor, it's obvious it's "more" than that, but Legion refer as something true to avoid the subject (may be because he doesn't undertand it all himself yet).

I'm just playng the evil advocate here, i personnaly don't believe any life could be "sapient" if they can't lie (doesn't mean they have to lie either, but they could be able to).

[Elyiia]

Siegdrifa wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...
From what i remember we have no proof she denied being a AI, and like i said, i think anybody questionned her directly, some crew member had suspiscions.

The Geths in ME2 told us we they provided false information about a salarian godess, but they never claimed it was "true".

EDI fill the role of a VI in the normady because she do the tasks of a VI, it's true, so she could maintain this degree of knwoledge, the fact is she can do a lot more, like many people " on a job ", they fill the roll, but doesn't mean can't do "more".

Misleading, or allowing someone to think somethat isn't true, is lying.

No, if it refer to something true, people are free to make their assumption, many people call it lie of omiscion, but it's not lie as denial wich is 100% false.
That's why Legion said there was a hole when Shep asked about the N7 armor, it's obvious it's "more" than that, but Legion refer as something true to avoid the subject (may be because he doesn't undertand it all himself yet).

I'm just playng the evil advocate here, i personnaly don't believe any life could be "sapient" if they can't lie (doesn't mean they have to lie either, but they could be able to).

A lie of omission is a lie, you're basically just arguing semantics.

[pistolols]

he's telling the truth because he allows us to destroy the reapers even though doing that won't solve his chaos problem. It's hard to imagine this would be an option if he was attemping to deceive us. Especially considering he could just leave shepard unconscious and eventually the reapers will destroy the crucible and continue the cycle. This leads me to believe he is telling the truth. It's also very curious how he states "The crucible changed me". My interpretation of that line has not been popular on this forum, but to me the obvious implications of an AI saying it's been "changed" is the only way the ending makes sense.

[Iconoclaste]

Maybe it would be good to have those "14 lines of text" full dialogue (with options) instead of blindy interpreting upon our memory? I remember this dialogue been posted on a few occasions, anyone can find that?

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 19 avril 2012 - 08:35 .

[dreman9999]

Siegdrifa wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...
From what i remember we have no proof she denied being a AI, and like i said, i think anybody questionned her directly, some crew member had suspiscions.

The Geths in ME2 told us we they provided false information about a salarian godess, but they never claimed it was "true".

EDI fill the role of a VI in the normady because she do the tasks of a VI, it's true, so she could maintain this degree of knwoledge, the fact is she can do a lot more, like many people " on a job ", they fill the roll, but doesn't mean can't do "more".

Misleading, or allowing someone to think somethat isn't true, is lying.

No, if it refer to something true, people are free to make their assumption, many people call it lie of omiscion, but it's not lie as denial wich is 100% false.
That's why Legion said there was a hole when Shep asked about the N7 armor, it's obvious it's "more" than that, but Legion refer as something true to avoid the subject (may be because he doesn't undertand it all himself yet).

I'm just playng the evil advocate here, i personnaly don't believe any life could be "sapient" if they can't lie (doesn't mean they have to lie either, but they could be able to).

That's called warping the truth...That still is lieing.
And the whole thing Legion state was not "It's obious it's more truth to it" thing....
It's more of a fact that Legion really doen't know or understand why.The statement"No data avalible" is not saying he won't say...I him saying I don't know.

Modifié par dreman9999, 19 avril 2012 - 08:37 .

[dreman9999]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Maybe it would be good to have those "14 lines of text" full dialogue (with options) instead of blindy interpreting upon our memory? I remember this dialogue been posted on a few occasions, anyone can find that?

I'm tubing it. It not a maybe....It stated as a definated. The starkid is sayin git like he beleive it will happen. Even more so with sysnthisis.

[dreman9999]

pistolols wrote...

he's telling the truth because he allows us to destroy the reapers even though doing that won't solve his chaos problem. It's hard to imagine this would be an option if he was attemping to deceive us. Especially considering he could just leave shepard unconscious and eventually the reapers will destroy the crucible and continue the cycle. This leads me to believe he is telling the truth. It's also very curious how he states "The crucible changed me". My interpretation of that line has not been popular on this forum, but to me the obvious implications of an AI saying it's been "changed" is the only way the ending makes sense.

Yes, he is telling us the truth because he is allowing us to do what we were going to do anyway./SARCAUM...Like he had the ability to stop us. He really is not in control...Shep is. The fact that he is giving you more options shows he want to try to give the illustion of control. He seem to be giving you 3 options but he relly is just giving you 2 more. Out of a 3 option he stand to lose the most with destroy. He wants tou to questionthe option to make it seem to be offering it. The truth is the option is what you truly  chose to do before the star kid came up.
He  only tries to make it seem he is offering it so he can discredit it. It's the option he place most of the negative things on to.

[shodiswe]

The end sequences does indicate that some of it might be somewhat true, however... However since most of the choices affect the very being and social behaviour of all life in the galaxy it's hard to say what exactly they did.. The lack of closure beothers me.. But im more bothered by the fact that I can't have a real conversation with the catalyst... Something is wrong with my Shepard at that point...

I wish I could have seen more specific war assets in play... Since most of the story is about bringing the whole galaxy together to fight the reapers.

And additionaly I think the end mission on earth could have been more epic and spectacular, but to me the story is what matters in this game, and that epic nes woudl have to be derived from something relevant to the story.

[Iconoclaste]

Edit : not that yet

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 19 avril 2012 - 08:52 .

[ashwind]

The StarKid is telling The Trurh, but not only the Truth and definitely not the entire Truth.

That is what I thought when I first saw him...

=P

[Iconoclaste]

Ok, I got the final part :

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Catalyst: "The Crucible changed me. Created...new possibilities. I know you've thought about destroying us. You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want. Including the Geth. Even you are partly synthetic."

Shepard: "But the Reapers will be destroyed?"

Catalyst: "Yes, but the peace won't last. Soon, your children will create synthetics, and then the chaos will come back."

Shepard: "Maybe..."

Catalyst: "Or do you think you can control us?"

Shepard: "Huh. So the Illusive Man was right after all."

Catalyst: "Yes. But he could never have taken control...because we already controlled him."

Shepard: "But I can..."

Catalyst: "You will die. You will control us, but you will lose everything you have."

Shepard: "But the Reapers will obey me?"

Catalyst: "Yes. There is another solution."

Shepard: "Yeah?"

Catalyst: "Synthesis."

Shepard: "And that is?"

Catalyst: "Add your energy to the Crucible's. Everything you are will be absorbed, and then sent out. The chain reaction will combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework. A new...DNA."

Shepard: "I...don't know."

Catalyst: "Why not? Synthetics are already part of you. Can you imagine your life without them?"

Shepard: "And there will be peace?"

Catalyst: "The cycle will end. Synthesis is the final evolution of life. But we need each other to make it happen. You have a difficult decision. Releasing the energy of the Crucible will end the cycle, but it will also destroy the mass relays. The paths are open. But you have to choose."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming the Catalyst doesn't see "harvesting" as "killing", maybe we should not infer that his answers are based on our perspective, but rather on those of an entity who knows things we don't, and whom answers will inevitably require interpretation to fit our own relative perspective.

I would point out that the usage of an animated character to be part of this dialogue adds something to it that a simple "Reaper voice" would not have accomplished with this simple text. The "attitude" of "Star Child" can be taken into account, his body language, pauses in speech etc. leave more room to interpretation than just the text.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 19 avril 2012 - 09:06 .

[Siegdrifa]

Elyiia wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

Siegdrifa wrote...
From what i remember we have no proof she denied being a AI, and like i said, i think anybody questionned her directly, some crew member had suspiscions.

The Geths in ME2 told us we they provided false information about a salarian godess, but they never claimed it was "true".

EDI fill the role of a VI in the normady because she do the tasks of a VI, it's true, so she could maintain this degree of knwoledge, the fact is she can do a lot more, like many people " on a job ", they fill the roll, but doesn't mean can't do "more".

Misleading, or allowing someone to think somethat isn't true, is lying.

No, if it refer to something true, people are free to make their assumption, many people call it lie of omiscion, but it's not lie as denial wich is 100% false.
That's why Legion said there was a hole when Shep asked about the N7 armor, it's obvious it's "more" than that, but Legion refer as something true to avoid the subject (may be because he doesn't undertand it all himself yet).

I'm just playng the evil advocate here, i personnaly don't believe any life could be "sapient" if they can't lie (doesn't mean they have to lie either, but they could be able to).

A lie of omission is a lie, you're basically just arguing semantics.

But i think this is the core of the problem, i would totaly agree with you that AI could "lie by omission". But it doesn't seem they can lie with denial, than can't say "no" when it's "yes".
To allow them to "lie" they need to refer as something true, alway, if they could lie by denial, they wouldn't bother lie by omiscion, they would just BS us quietly. But this is why it make the conversation intresting the EDI and Geths, because they can't BS 100%
EDI admit she was the "rogue VI" from ME1 because we learn it, it seems the AI have info they don't want us to know like anybody, but the difference is, they can't seem to BS us straight, so they try to avoid those subject but always refering as something true of it, but if they get cornered by the right sharp question, they couldn't escape.

Mr Walters said on the catalyst, that he wrote more dialogue but Mr Hudson said it should be only high level discussion.
At that point, lie to us is not making sens, but i can't belive the catalyst, it doesn't mean what is think is right even if he think it is true. And the only justification for allowing this AI to speak his nonsens to us without explanation, is because in ME AI can't BS us straight.

What bother me, it's what the catalyst told us totaly throw our talk with sovereign on Vermire to the toilet:
" we have no begining and we have no end " " we are beyond you comprehension " " there is a another realm of existant  " " we are each a nation, independant, free of all weackness ".
I think the dark energy concept would have kept that intact... because the catalyst speach changed the fearsome sapient reapers as giant eraser nearly mindless to reset the score every 50k years.

[Cazychel]

The Angry One wrote...

You can't, because his assertions are unprovable. He uses logical fallacies, assumptions and circular logic to justify it's psychopathic insanity.

The mere fact that organic life was never totally exterminated before the Reapers existed disproves everything it claims.

That is not true. From a logical standpoint you can only assume that it has not happened yet. But the theory of "Technological Singularity" states that, given enough time, it will undoubtedly happen. The only logical fallacy of the star child here is, that it cannot be prevented. It still will happen, because the Reapers can only postpone the event as long as they exist, but not prevent it.

[halbert986]

I like to think he's lying. But I doubt bioware would just sit on their hands through all this. Price drop, charities, petitions, everyone basically calling it the worst ending ever.

They're losing money. I applaud them if that doesn't matter and they've got something epic in store, but I find that really really hard to believe.

[The Night Mammoth]

Cazychel wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

You can't, because his assertions are unprovable. He uses logical fallacies, assumptions and circular logic to justify it's psychopathic insanity.

The mere fact that organic life was never totally exterminated before the Reapers existed disproves everything it claims.

That is not true. From a logical standpoint you can only assume that it has not happened yet.

Which is a hollow argument when there's nothing to prove it will other than base assumptions and the notion of infinite time. Eventually, the sun will engulf the Earth. Should we blow up the sun, or Earth, to prevent this? 

But the theory of "Technological Singularity" states that, given enough time, it will undoubtedly happen.

No, it doesn't. A prevailing theme on these boards is the use of the theory to explain what the Catalyst is talking about. This is wrong, it is not what the theory infers. 

The only logical fallacy of the star child here is, that it cannot be prevented. It still will happen, because the Reapers can only postpone the event as long as they exist, but not prevent it.

You could say that about ANYTHING. From the point of the reader, we have literally nothing to prove the Catalyst right, in-game. Literally nothing. Why should I believe what the Catalyst is saying when nothing is says has any substance and everything about it seems deceptive?