472 réponses à ce sujet

[Shaigunjoe]

ZIPO396 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

ZIPO396 wrote...

Which ah kinda never really work.

They do work, bad things may happen, but they do work, for centuries actually.

I was just being silly really. I just mean no system works permanently.

Can't argue with that!  What you said about the geth platforms being a city reminds me of the Dr. Who episode "Lets Kill Hitler".

[The Angry One]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Looks like you have to be reminded again that the synthesis does not create hybrids seen before.  Those examples are null and void.

And again you have to be reminded that the method in which they become hybrids is irrelevant. They were hybrids all the same, perhaps more so than what we get in synthesis, because they were organic minds directly interfaced with AIs.

But by all means continue to pretend you're dealing with high concepts here while you scutter about treating Peter F. Hamilton books as Mass Effect canon.

[Shaigunjoe]

The Angry One wrote...
And again you have to be reminded that the method in which they become hybrids is irrelevant.

Wrong, that is the most relevent things.  Guess what those previous hybrids had?  The same DNA framework.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 25 avril 2012 - 02:39 .

[ZIPO396]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Prothean cycle. The Zha'till. True hybrids, co-existing with organic hosts. They did not take over their organic hosts until the Reapers forced them to.

This cycle. The Geth.

I have two synthetic races that disprove everything the Catalyst says, from two cycles. What does the Catalyst have?

Looks like you have to be reminded again that the synthesis does not create hybrids seen before.  Those examples are null and void.

Actually one was an example of a hybrid race where the AI's weren't hostile. Saying it can happen. And the other was an example of a completely synthetic race that can either be destroyed or made peaceful. Thus arguing that the Catalysts logic on that they'll automatically kill organics is wrong. Seeing as how the Catalyst gives no examples of them doing it.

[mauro2222]

pistolols wrote...

GuitarShredUK wrote...

A) Control - never in a million years would any of my Shepards even consider this.

Your Shepard rewrote the geth.  Clearly you must not know him very well.

It's not the same, and what if the choose Destroy?

[ZIPO396]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

ZIPO396 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

ZIPO396 wrote...

Which ah kinda never really work.

They do work, bad things may happen, but they do work, for centuries actually.

I was just being silly really. I just mean no system works permanently.

Can't argue with that!  What you said about the geth platforms being a city reminds me of the Dr. Who episode "Lets Kill Hitler".

I was just thinking of how Sovereign goes on about the Reapers being nations. So I just broke down really. Basic Geth=cities. Legion maybe a small nation/citystate.

[Shaigunjoe]

ZIPO396 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Prothean cycle. The Zha'till. True hybrids, co-existing with organic hosts. They did not take over their organic hosts until the Reapers forced them to.

This cycle. The Geth.

I have two synthetic races that disprove everything the Catalyst says, from two cycles. What does the Catalyst have?

Looks like you have to be reminded again that the synthesis does not create hybrids seen before.  Those examples are null and void.

Actually one was an example of a hybrid race where the AI's weren't hostile. Saying it can happen. And the other was an example of a completely synthetic race that can either be destroyed or made peaceful. Thus arguing that the Catalysts logic on that they'll automatically kill organics is wrong. Seeing as how the Catalyst gives no examples of them doing it.

I was just saying that the previous examples don't mean anything when trying to find examples as to what synthesis would produce. 

[dreman9999]

The Angry One wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. EC is th ending....So yes he is one of the writes working on EC.

The current ending is not the EC. That is what he talked about.
I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

2.Agein, not the point of th argument. And if you do want to argue it, show me facts. Show me info on past cycles and what happen before this cycle  that indecated this. And for the last time, they are the same, and if you stillthink is different, link me to something that says it is.
Also, the last time I looked, the reapers don't want to debate what they believe.

Prothean cycle. The Zha'till. True hybrids, co-existing with organic hosts. They did not take over their organic hosts until the Reapers forced them to.

This cycle. The Geth.

I have two synthetic races that disprove everything the Catalyst says, from two cycles. What does the Catalyst have?

1. But EC clearifies th eending. I f he is trying to do so during the interview, that means he is working on EC.

2. That is not proof at all. Look up the defination of rebel. Also, note that he prothean may of attack the zha anyway even if the zha"till did not exsist based on the protheans nature. Also, consider what a galexy would be like if the older races from the past cycle were allowed to live.  I'm thinking small pond, big fishes eating little fishes.

Modifié par dreman9999, 25 avril 2012 - 02:43 .

[CapnManx]

Perhaps the Catalyst speaks from personal experience? Something must have happened to its own Creators after all. Then maybe it spends a few thousand years going over events in its mind, wondering if it could have been avoided; and eventually concludes that the destruction of the dominant organic lifeforms of the day was an inevitable result of its creation.

[dreman9999]

CapnManx wrote...

Perhaps the Catalyst speaks from personal experience? Something must have happened to its own Creators after all. Then maybe it spends a few thousand years going over events in its mind, wondering if it could have been avoided; and eventually concludes that the destruction of the dominant organic lifeforms of the day was an inevitable result of its creation.

Thank you, someone with some sense.

[ZIPO396]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

I was just saying that the previous examples don't mean anything when trying to find examples as to what synthesis would produce. 

Ah right. Yeah not sure about what synthesis would do really. I just  think the Catalyst oversimplified when it said DNA. Still don't find it  feasable and it doesn't solve his problem anyway so it's untenable for  an ending he would actually offer.[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie]

Modifié par ZIPO396, 25 avril 2012 - 02:45 .

[d-boy15]

destroy in ME3 not much different from destroy in ME2

it's different on what is you willing to sacrifice. in ME2, you sacrifice a chance for humanity to
advanced and oppurtunity to lean more about the reapers. in ME3 the cost for destroy is the
geth and EDI, you willing to take a risk about synthatic & organic conflict.

I don't know why people think that paragon is always about saving life... in ME1 last paragon
choice also, sacrifice fifth fleet to protect the council. you even choose to lost 1000 overhere
to save 10 overthere for greater purpose, it's a ruthless calculus.

Modifié par d-boy15, 25 avril 2012 - 02:47 .

[The Angry One]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
And again you have to be reminded that the method in which they become hybrids is irrelevant.

Wrong, that is the most relevent things.  Guess what those previous hybrids had?  The same DNA framework.

Hence, different METHOD. Same RESULT.

Also, I see you still won't even try to explain how a Geth will share this DNA. Platform or program. I'd actually be very amused to see you try and explain how DNA can be applied to software.

[mauro2222]

CapnManx wrote...

Perhaps the Catalyst speaks from personal experience? Something must have happened to its own Creators after all. Then maybe it spends a few thousand years going over events in its mind, wondering if it could have been avoided; and eventually concludes that the destruction of the dominant organic lifeforms of the day was an inevitable result of its creation.

This is what I also believe, but the fact that he doesn't listen it's clear sign of his failed mind.

[dreman9999]

d-boy15 wrote...

destroy in ME3 not much different from destroy in ME2

it's different on what you willing to sacrifice. in ME2, you sacrifice a chance for humanity to
advanced and oppurtunity to lean more about the reapers. in ME3 the cost for destroy is the
geth and EDI, you willing to take a risk about synthatic & organic conflict.

I don't know why people think that paragon is always about saving life... in ME1 last paragon
choice also, sacrifice fifth fleet to protect the council. you even choose to lost 1000 overhere
to save 10 overthere for greater purpose, it's a ruthless calculus.

I askedthis a billion times already, what proof is there that the Star child is telling the truth?

[Orumon]

Samtheman63 wrote...

Being alive means you eventually die, machines don't die they are always destroyed/shutdown/broke in one way or another

You are aware that it's actually only one part in our genes (that controls cell replication) that prevents us from living forever barring accident, and it's actually foreseeably solvable. Granted, then the next major problem becomes cancer on a much grander scale than ever before, but hey, one step at a time.

Or That it's only the complexity of our brains that prevents us from resurrecting people with their minds intact (fixing or even replacing the heart is comparatively easy, since muscles actually keep very well.) Again, these problems will be solved in time.

Dying is just a failure of systems. You lungs fail, you die. Your liver fails, you die, PAINFULLY. You heart fails, you die. You kidneys fail, you die.

Human bodies (brains especially) are perhaps some of the most efficient machines parts in the known world, considering what they're made from.

[dreman9999]

mauro2222 wrote...

CapnManx wrote...

Perhaps the Catalyst speaks from personal experience? Something must have happened to its own Creators after all. Then maybe it spends a few thousand years going over events in its mind, wondering if it could have been avoided; and eventually concludes that the destruction of the dominant organic lifeforms of the day was an inevitable result of its creation.

This is what I also believe, but the fact that he doesn't listen it's clear sign of his failed mind.

The reapers are here to impose their beieifs, not debate it. Last time I check, it's clear they fell that we are bacteria.

[The Angry One]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. But EC clearifies th eending. I f he is trying to do so during the interview, that means he is working on EC.

Speculation.

2. That is not proof at all. Look up the defination of rebel.

Sigh. Listen to the damn Catalyst.
He says that the created will always rebel against the creators thus synthetics will exterminate all organic life, hence the need for the Reaper cycle.
Except that he's using an incredibly stupid leap in logic to get from A (synthetics rebelling) to B (synthetics killing everything, everywhere).

Also, note that he prothean may of attack the zha anyway even if the zha"till did not exsist based on the protheans nature. Also, consider what a galexy would be like if the older races from the past cycle were allowed to live.  I'm thinking small pond, big fishes eating little fishes.

So what? The Protheans did not practice genocide, they conquered.
The Council uplifted and welcomed new species as equals.

[d-boy15]

dreman9999 wrote...

d-boy15 wrote...

destroy in ME3 not much different from destroy in ME2

it's different on what you willing to sacrifice. in ME2, you sacrifice a chance for humanity to
advanced and oppurtunity to lean more about the reapers. in ME3 the cost for destroy is the
geth and EDI, you willing to take a risk about synthatic & organic conflict.

I don't know why people think that paragon is always about saving life... in ME1 last paragon
choice also, sacrifice fifth fleet to protect the council. you even choose to lost 1000 overhere
to save 10 overthere for greater purpose, it's a ruthless calculus.

I askedthis a billion times already, what proof is there that the Star child is telling the truth?

no proof, the fact that reaper return to reap galaxy every 50000 years prove that what starchild predict never
really happen. that why I tell that in this choice you just willing to take a risk about what it said.

they say the pattern repeat itself every cycle but all because of repers influnce and the one that show about
rebel of synthatic that not from reapers influence is the geth, which already counter starchild logic.

Modifié par d-boy15, 25 avril 2012 - 02:55 .

[dreman9999]

mauro2222 wrote...

pistolols wrote...

GuitarShredUK wrote...

A) Control - never in a million years would any of my Shepards even consider this.

Your Shepard rewrote the geth.  Clearly you must not know him very well.

It's not the same, and what if the choose Destroy?

It is that same. It exactly the same thing. Rewriting the geth is the same as control. Destory is th same thing as destorying the geth.

[Icinix]

Unloading a few rounds into the Starchilds head and ESCaping out of the game provides the most satisfaction with a much more acceptable level of speculation and player fill in the blanks.

[CapnManx]

mauro2222 wrote...

CapnManx wrote...

Perhaps the Catalyst speaks from personal experience? Something must have happened to its own Creators after all. Then maybe it spends a few thousand years going over events in its mind, wondering if it could have been avoided; and eventually concludes that the destruction of the dominant organic lifeforms of the day was an inevitable result of its creation.

This is what I also believe, but the fact that he doesn't listen it's clear sign of his failed mind.

Perhaps.  It could also be a sign that, over the course of a few million years, it has already considered anything Shepard could come up with.

[GuitarShredUK]

pistolols wrote...

GuitarShredUK wrote...

A) Control - never in a million years would any of my Shepards even consider this.

Your Shepard rewrote the geth.  Clearly you must not know him very well.

True, but its not the same thing - rewriting the heretic geth ends their disagreements and makes them stronger as a whole. Being able to control all of the Reapers is just crazy. Even just on principle, like I said goes against everything you do and say as Shepard against the villains that are present in the trilogy, and also just because some deus ex character gives you an extra option to make the choice harder. 

[Catroi]

1 I am not a genocidal maniac
2 I won't change the whole galaxy's DNA without asking anyone
3 I'm not TIM I know controlling the reapers is a bad idea

[Shaigunjoe]

The Angry One wrote...

Hence, different METHOD. Same RESULT.

How do we know its the same result?

Also, I see you still won't even try to explain how a Geth will share this DNA. Platform or program. I'd actually be very amused to see you try and explain how DNA can be applied to software.

I never said geth had DNA, you seem to think the catalyst is just taking the standard double helix and wraps it around them, but that isn't what happens at all.  There is no single explanation, you can draw influence from the Hamiliton books as the biteks can reproduce (using a form of DNA) and are linked to humanity, but thats just one example, feel free to use your imagination.