165 réponses à ce sujet

[General User]

o Ventus wrote...

General User wrote...

There are ads on the internet that talk to me.  And no Reaper ever formed an opinion that wasn't issued to it by it's builders.  They were just robots following their programming.

Something that hasn't been said yet.

Every single Reaper so far (Sovereign, Harbinger, nameless Destroyer on Rannoch, etc) has shared the same "opinion" (that organics must be eradicated). If someone is going to argue "opinions = life", then why haven't we fought any hipster Reapers?

Aye.  Thousands upon thousands of Reapers, made from as many species, stretching back millions and millions of years, all of the marching in lock step.  Same thoughts, same actions, same opinions, even the same physical appearance (or nearly so).  That's not life.  That's mass production.

Killing all the Reapers is the moral equivilent of destroying all an enemy's ships (with no crews on board too).  Controling the Reapers is the moral equivilent to hijacking an enemy's computer network.

[M Hedonist]

lx_theo wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

lx_theo wrote...


Them talking to you and forming opinions isn't life to you? Shame.

Reapers are lovecraftian horror creatures. Even when not alive anymore they are still able to indoctrinate people and mess up their minds. From what we have gathered over the course of the trilogy, assuming peaceful coexistence with them as possible is foolish.

The Reapers are a tool. Of they can no longer serve their purpose, then I see them simply wandering off back to dark space. No need for coexistance. But also no need for genocide (of Geth as well) or enslavement.

What if somebody finds a way to take control of them again? They're monstrosities that do abominable things to organics - even after their death, without their own conscience. I'd rather just get rid off them permanently than risking anyone using them for their plans again (heck, maybe that's how the 'Catalyst' got into possession of them in the first place).

Modifié par Sauruz, 27 avril 2012 - 10:59 .

[o Ventus]

General User wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

General User wrote...

There are ads on the internet that talk to me.  And no Reaper ever formed an opinion that wasn't issued to it by it's builders.  They were just robots following their programming.

Something that hasn't been said yet.

Every single Reaper so far (Sovereign, Harbinger, nameless Destroyer on Rannoch, etc) has shared the same "opinion" (that organics must be eradicated). If someone is going to argue "opinions = life", then why haven't we fought any hipster Reapers?

Aye.  Thousands upon thousands of Reapers, made from as many species, stretching back millions and millions of years, all of the marching in lock step.  Same thoughts, same actions, same opinions, even the same physical appearance (or nearly so).  That's not life.  That's mass production.

Killing all the Reapers is the moral equivilent of destroying all an enemy's ships (with no crews on board too).  Controling the Reapers is the moral equivilent to hijacking an enemy's computer network.

Not to mention that the Reapers having opinions would undermine the entire purpose of their existence.

[lx_theo]

[quote]The Angry One wrote...

[quote]lx_theo wrote...

Then you had heretics who sides with the Reapers... Yeah, they're completely capable of agreeing with it happening.[/quote]

You have organics siding with Reapers too. I guess all organics are evil.
[/quote]
No, both are capable of being adn doing that. What synthetics have is the techonogical singularity to give them the edge.

[quote]
[quote]Okay... No. It's a plenty legitimate argument. Technological Singularity means that there would be a point where the Synthetics weould have to choose between letting organics continue on, or to kill them all off. At some point in history, the latter will be picked.[/quote]

And sufficiently advanced humans will have a choice between letting the universe continue, or blowing it up. At some point in history, the latter will be picked.
[/quote]
Sure, if they don't value their own lives enough to stop themselves, they very well could. Difference is that synthetic's superiority would likely lead to enough not valuing organic's life to go ahead with it.

[quote]
[quote]Exactly. The solution is the proof of the decision to exterminate. It means it has existed, and has had enough of a possibility to warrant the solution of the Reapers. Even argument has two sides, like now. If there is no extermination opinion, there is no solution option.[/quote]

Except it's self defeating, because AIs decided not to, whatever the method the Catalyst chooses.
[/quote]
Some synthetics decided not to. Doesn't mean there couldn't have been a splinter where the supporters of the solution won, though the other side could have easily won as well.
[quote]
[quote]
Life started once. It can start again.
[/quote]

Then the Catalyst has no purpose.
[/quote]
No, the purpose is to stop it from happening. Not to restore it. If Synthetics get to the point rhey do it, they will most likely be able to hold control and stop life from arising. Obviously, at some point they were defeated or wiped out by something, but they as likely to win out as they are to lose.

The Catalyst stops it from getting to that point.
[quote]
[quote]
Yes, it a prediction that there will eventually be intolerant enough opinions to go through with it. Thank you.
[/quote]

You can start making sense any time now.
[/quote] I did, you just refuse to listen to the reasoning.
[quote]
[quote]The discrepency of the technological singularity is not there, so it can't happen any more than an organic wiping out an organics can.

[/quote]

Garbage. A pure machine will be more efficient than a hybrid. Even if they were at an equal level, machines can mass produce themselves. Maybe they'll make nanomachines to swarm hybrid worlds and dissolve them into goo. Hey I can make idiotic doomsday scenarios too.

I will state AGAIN that the technological singularity is an UNKNOWN. It is not a guaranteed AI will take over the universe scenario.
[/quote]
No. Organics have upsides synthetics don't have. Synthetics have upsides organics do not. The problem is that the Synthetic upsides give them an edge. If the two were combined, they would gain each other's advantages and ultimately be better than either before.

It is an inevibility. Why would it not be?

[lx_theo]

Sauruz wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

lx_theo wrote...


Them talking to you and forming opinions isn't life to you? Shame.

Reapers are lovecraftian horror creatures. Even when not alive anymore they are still able to indoctrinate people and mess up their minds. From what we have gathered over the course of the trilogy, assuming peaceful coexistence with them as possible is foolish.

The Reapers are a tool. Of they can no longer serve their purpose, then I see them simply wandering off back to dark space. No need for coexistance. But also no need for genocide (of Geth as well) or enslavement.

What if somebody finds a way to take control of them again? They're monstrosities that do abominable things to organics - even after their death, without their own conscience. I'd rather just get rid off them permanently than risking anyone using them for their plans again (heck, maybe that's how the 'Catalyst' got into possession of them in the first place).

That's like saying that you'd want to wipe out organics because they can be indoctrinated and controlled as an army. Its still genocide or enslavement even for dangerous stuff.

Existence of anything allows its ability to be a threat. the argument can be used to justify taking out anything. You could get staplers banned if you made their threat seem strong enough.

[lx_theo]

o Ventus wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

The Angry One wrote...


If organics were exterminated before, how are we here now?

Life started once. It can start again.

Assuming the older synthetics that wiped out organic life in the past just sort of stopped doing their jobs and left us to grow and advance.

Obviosuly they would have. Whatever implemented the Reapers as a solution would have needed them out of the way to do it.

Then why kill organics? If they're capable of eliminating the synthetics, why not just... eliminate the synthetics?

Don't know if they did it themselves. Something wiped them out. It doesn't necessarily mean what implemented the Reapers solution did.

If they did, however, then I think it likely would be an option, but not the one they chose. Why they'd kill organics is likely because they don't value the individual life of an organic. Somewhere in their different perspective they would have thought that harvesting was preferrable to being simply wiped out.

Not what I would have choose, but its good to try adn understand why they chose that direction.

[nuculerman]

First, let me say I appreciate the healthy debate.  Now onto your points.

The Angry One wrote...

There is no logical conclusion to evolution. Not in real life, and not in the game.

There is.  There is always a winner in game theory.  And if a species has reached the pinnacle of intellectual evolution, there is absolutely no need for physical evolution.  If I'm smart enough to react successfully to any change in my environment, no random mutation in my species is going to spread.  Again, I don't think you totally grasp the concept of evolution.  It's logical conclusion is the end of evolution.

The Catalyst flat out says that the only way to achieve peace is to make that which is different the same.
This is not opinion, this is what is stated. The implcations are there

The implications are there taken out of context.  The context of the argument is that both lifeforms are not equal.  Synthetics are nigh infinitely more intelligent, and thus will always reach a state where they find organic life meaningless in the grand scheme of things.  The issue is humans can only evolve so far, where as Geth/EDI can evovle almost infinitely.  So the differences between the two as it stands now will not create the end of life.  The difference between the species, once synthetics have evolved way past where organics can ever reach, will lead to the end of all organic life.

I am in constant amusement of ending defenders assuming those they disagree with are ignorant. Projecting much?
I never said anything about Casey Hudson, that's where you are assuming. I am saying that there are implications, which there are.

Yes, well it's a defense mechanism for the assumption everyone who is pro synthesis is morally repulsive.  Which, if you haven't noticed, is the topic of about 50% of the anti-synthesis threads on this forum, which make up like a 15% of all topics.  

And your conclusions do rest on assumptions you've made.  As do mine.  

Even if we could, it would not be the pinnacle of evolution! It would be a form of life successful in some areas and less viable in others, the same as all life is everywhere.

Again, I don't think you're really getting evolution.  If you're capacity for intelligence has reached a pinnacle, you're more viable than any physical trait could make you.  Example is the quarians.  They've not only stopped their physical evolution, but regressed it.  If you can find a solution to a change in your environment faster than a genetic mutation, the genetic mutation is never going to spread through your population, and thus the evolutionary change is never going to happen.  It's assumed synthesis has made everyone -that- smart, which is the whole point to begin with.

Again, the argument is that you rewrote everyone's genetic code so it's impossible for any mutation to make them SMARTER.  Thus, this is the end of evolution.  I suggest Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene," if you're interested in the subject.

You can believe or disagree with what he says, but they are intolerant.

They aren't.  This isn't actually a counterpoint.  You just restated your opinion.  Please describe how they're intolerant if the following is axiomatic:

1. All organic races which have been allowed to develop synthetic life unchecked have eventually been wiped out.
2. All synthetic life will evolve far beyond the capacity of organic life, and thus find organic life meaningless in the grand scheme of the universe.

These are the truths we're supposed to accept.  If you don't, you're making an assumption.  You couldn't possibly know those two axioms are false.  Personally I agree with the notion those two axioms are far fetched, but I disagree that they're necessarily false.

Animals are not sapient, and do not demonstrate this in any way.
If they could, do you think humans would take this lying down? There are humans who protect and preserve animals NOW, let alone if they were provably intelligent.

The Catalyst's beliefs stem from it's philosophy that sentient beings cannot get along because they are different, the difference being organic and synthetic. THAT is racist, THAT is intolerant and THAT is utterly reprihensible.

Intelligence is qualitative.  To beings with nigh infinite intellect, we would seem incredibly stupid.

And again, I think it was presented terribly.  And I cannot fault anyone for interpreting it as you have.  And I certainly cannot claim my interpretation is definitely right.  However, the difference between organic and synthetic is not the problem I think the catalyst was trying to get across.  It was the difference in the evolution of the two, and how the evolution of synthetic has almost infinite more potential than the evolution of an organic, and that eventual seperation in intellect leads to the inevitable conflict.  I don't think the argument was the Geth will eventually kill us.  I think the argument was the Geth's 1,000th iteration from now, which is almost infinitely more intelligent than us, will eventually kill us.

[Meltemph]

The idea that snythetics WILL eventually decide that organics are useless is a psychological red haring. This is all placated on the idea that Frankenstein will just decide to wipe out all organics, it is based on nothing other then someones own bias's to the human race. There is nothing to indicate that synthetics will ever want to destroy all organics, outside of Hollywood.

At worst synthetics would see us as a resource to be managed, but to destroy all organics would be as useless of a task as trying to destroy all stars. Beyond all this, all synthesis would do is enable a being to create an even more advanced form of synthetic life(artificial, either being inorganic or organic) and on even a greater scale. The idea that synthesis beings would all the sudden lose the ability to build even MORE advanced forms of tools, I find incredibly confusing as to how someone would come to this conclusion.

[o Ventus]

Meltemph wrote...

At worst synthetics would see us as a resource to be managed, but to destroy all organics would be as useless of a task as trying to destroy all stars.

Great.

So we're going from Terminator, to The Matrix. 

[lx_theo]

Meltemph wrote...

The idea that snythetics WILL eventually decide that organics are useless is a psychological red haring. This is all placated on the idea that Frankenstein will just decide to wipe out all organics, it is based on nothing other then someones own bias's to the human race. There is nothing to indicate that synthetics will ever want to destroy all organics, outside of Hollywood.

At worst synthetics would see us as a resource to be managed, but to destroy all organics would be as useless of a task as trying to destroy all stars. Beyond all this, all synthesis would do is enable a being to create an even more advanced form of synthetic life(artificial, either being inorganic or organic) and on even a greater scale. The idea that synthesis beings would all the sudden lose the ability to build even MORE advanced forms of tools, I find incredibly confusing as to how someone would come to this conclusion.

Its a well established theory that was developed outside of hollywood. 

Early theories even go back to the invention of the calculator in mid 1800s

[Meltemph]

o Ventus wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

At worst synthetics would see us as a resource to be managed, but to destroy all organics would be as useless of a task as trying to destroy all stars.

Great.

So we're going from Terminator, to The Matrix. 

This is the only somewhat rationel explination I can come up with, but even that is based on nothing, but my own biases.

[Meltemph]

lx_theo wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

The idea that snythetics WILL eventually decide that organics are useless is a psychological red haring. This is all placated on the idea that Frankenstein will just decide to wipe out all organics, it is based on nothing other then someones own bias's to the human race. There is nothing to indicate that synthetics will ever want to destroy all organics, outside of Hollywood.

At worst synthetics would see us as a resource to be managed, but to destroy all organics would be as useless of a task as trying to destroy all stars. Beyond all this, all synthesis would do is enable a being to create an even more advanced form of synthetic life(artificial, either being inorganic or organic) and on even a greater scale. The idea that synthesis beings would all the sudden lose the ability to build even MORE advanced forms of tools, I find incredibly confusing as to how someone would come to this conclusion.

Its a well established theory that was developed outside of hollywood. 

Early theories even go back to the invention of the calculator in mid 1800s

Well ya... Just like people believed in vampires.

[lx_theo]

Meltemph wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

The idea that snythetics WILL eventually decide that organics are useless is a psychological red haring. This is all placated on the idea that Frankenstein will just decide to wipe out all organics, it is based on nothing other then someones own bias's to the human race. There is nothing to indicate that synthetics will ever want to destroy all organics, outside of Hollywood.

At worst synthetics would see us as a resource to be managed, but to destroy all organics would be as useless of a task as trying to destroy all stars. Beyond all this, all synthesis would do is enable a being to create an even more advanced form of synthetic life(artificial, either being inorganic or organic) and on even a greater scale. The idea that synthesis beings would all the sudden lose the ability to build even MORE advanced forms of tools, I find incredibly confusing as to how someone would come to this conclusion.

Its a well established theory that was developed outside of hollywood. 

Early theories even go back to the invention of the calculator in mid 1800s

Well ya... Just like people believed in vampires.

Vampires are perfectly possible (not necessarily on Earth, but aliens could be), just very unlikely to be real in the way we percieve them.

Being apart of made up stories and such don't disclude the possibility of actual existence.

[Meltemph]

Vampires are perfectly possible (not necessarily on Earth, but aliens could be), just very unlikely to be real in the way we percieve them.

Being apart of made up stories and such don't disclude the possibility of actual existence.

Just because it is possible to make up any possible non-falsifiable claim doesn't give them merit. I think you may have watched too much Stargate Atlantis(Good show though).

[its the beast]

paxbanana3915 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Early script notes say that synthesis is "becoming one with the Reapers".
Their intentions are clear, if they try to backpeddle then it'll just be more dishonesty.

Huh. If that's true, why didn't they just stick with the Dark Energy plot?

 Judging from
what i've heard on BSN in the past, it sounds like when the early script was
leaked (thanks a lot Microsoft<_<) it was using the dark energy idea but the fans
who read that script said it had so many flaws it wasn't even coherent anymore,
thus forcing bioware to drastically alter their plans in a panicked frenzy in
an attempt to save what would seemed to be an even larger failure than the one
they accomplished with the ending they gave us...

[M Hedonist]

lx_theo wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

lx_theo wrote...


Them talking to you and forming opinions isn't life to you? Shame.

Reapers are lovecraftian horror creatures. Even when not alive anymore they are still able to indoctrinate people and mess up their minds. From what we have gathered over the course of the trilogy, assuming peaceful coexistence with them as possible is foolish.

The Reapers are a tool. Of they can no longer serve their purpose, then I see them simply wandering off back to dark space. No need for coexistance. But also no need for genocide (of Geth as well) or enslavement.

What if somebody finds a way to take control of them again? They're monstrosities that do abominable things to organics - even after their death, without their own conscience. I'd rather just get rid off them permanently than risking anyone using them for their plans again (heck, maybe that's how the 'Catalyst' got into possession of them in the first place).

That's like saying that you'd want to wipe out organics because they can be indoctrinated and controlled as an army. Its still genocide or enslavement even for dangerous stuff.

Existence of anything allows its ability to be a threat. the argument can be used to justify taking out anything. You could get staplers banned if you made their threat seem strong enough.

The derelict reaper in ME2 shows us that the mere existence of a reaper can destroy and corrupt organics. The reapers' mere existence is a threat to every living being. They wouldn't have to be 'corrupted' to do bad, they are a source of corruption themselves, just bringing them into contact with organics can be extremely dangerous.
There's no reason to justify their existence as we never see any indication that they have some form of self-determination. If a reaper doesn't stop corrupting organics after its death, we have to assume reapers can't stop themselves from doing that.

[lx_theo]

Sauruz wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

That's like saying that you'd want to wipe out organics because they can be indoctrinated and controlled as an army. Its still genocide or enslavement even for dangerous stuff.

Existence of anything allows its ability to be a threat. the argument can be used to justify taking out anything. You could get staplers banned if you made their threat seem strong enough.

The derelict reaper in ME2 shows us that the mere existence of a reaper can destroy and corrupt organics. The reapers' mere existence is a threat to every living being. They wouldn't have to be 'corrupted' to do bad, they are a source of corruption themselves, just bringing them into contact with organics can be extremely dangerous.
There's no reason to justify their existence as we never see any indication that they have some form of self-determination. If a reaper doesn't stop corrupting organics after its death, we have to assume reapers can't stop themselves from doing that.

Fair point, though I don't think you ever need to justify the existence of life, only be weary of its threat.

Modifié par lx_theo, 27 avril 2012 - 11:36 .

[feliciano2040]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Yeah, people who do synthesis are going along with Saren and the reapers.

Y U MAKE ME LOSE FAITH IN HUMANITY !?

Seriously people, stop saying this, Saren's ramblings were indoctrination blabber.

If the reapers had any intentions, it was to harvest organics and preserve them, not blur the differences between organics and synthetics.

[Meltemph]

its the beast wrote...

paxbanana3915 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Early script notes say that synthesis is "becoming one with the Reapers".
Their intentions are clear, if they try to backpeddle then it'll just be more dishonesty.

Huh. If that's true, why didn't they just stick with the Dark Energy plot?

 Judging from
what i've heard on BSN in the past, it sounds like when the early script was
leaked (thanks a lot Microsoft<_<) it was using the dark energy idea but the fans
who read that script said it had so many flaws it wasn't even coherent anymore,
thus forcing bioware to drastically alter their plans in a panicked frenzy in
an attempt to save what would seemed to be an even larger failure than the one
they accomplished with the ending they gave us...

It is stuff like this that almost always has me wondering if companies are doign this as a publicity stunt.  Script leaks, game leaks, and ect.  I mean companies in the tech industry do this quite often(Looking at you Apple), I could definitely see video game companies doing it as well.

[lx_theo]

Meltemph wrote...

Vampires are perfectly possible (not necessarily on Earth, but aliens could be), just very unlikely to be real in the way we percieve them.

Being apart of made up stories and such don't disclude the possibility of actual existence.

Just because it is possible to make up any possible non-falsifiable claim doesn't give them merit. I think you may have watched too much Stargate Atlantis(Good show though).

I don't really watch many sci-fis, honestly.

The claim has lots of  merit and discussion about it. Its vable, but hard for many to picture until we can see the opposing type of life as a threat. That's why its explored in hollywood, so it can be placed in a setting where technology can actually make a difference to people to the extent it needs to.

And the point you made about there being a technological threshold for synthetics being silly... One of the common points of the theory is that they keep developing better and better synthetic type life until it reaches the point that organics are seen as not worthwhile even as a resource.

Its a legitimate theory. That's not to say it will happen, but not an unreasonable prediction of how events could unfold. Over enough times of repeating history, it will likely happen eventually. 

But beyond that I don't have a whole lot to say on the legitimacy of the theory.

[Meltemph]

Seriously people, stop saying this, Saren's ramblings were indoctrination blabber.
If the reapers had any intentions, it was to harvest organics and preserve them, not blur the differences between organics and synthetics. 

Actually, since we dont know the meaning of anything in terms of the ending, there as just as much of a reason to think that any idea the reapers are for are setup to be massive bad consequences.  I mean honestly, we think the child is nothing but good intentions for pretty simple reasons(and non-falsifiable one way or the other).  Those reasons being:

He is an info dump.
The crucible somehow changed him and we assume for the better.
He "explains" the options for destroy.
He brings us up with the light elevator.


That isnt really much to go off of, speicially since the endings are incredibly ambigous.  All we see is the reapers stop attacking(for how long who knows) or we see the reapers seemingly fall down dead, followed by an incredibly confusing normandy scene. Honestly, the only thing people are arguing in these types of topics is their eugenics fantasies or distastes.  Anything else is throwing mud at the air and hoping something sticks.

Modifié par Meltemph, 27 avril 2012 - 11:55 .

[lx_theo]

its the beast wrote...

paxbanana3915 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Early script notes say that synthesis is "becoming one with the Reapers".
Their intentions are clear, if they try to backpeddle then it'll just be more dishonesty.

Huh. If that's true, why didn't they just stick with the Dark Energy plot?

 Judging from
what i've heard on BSN in the past, it sounds like when the early script was
leaked (thanks a lot Microsoft<_<) it was using the dark energy idea but the fans
who read that script said it had so many flaws it wasn't even coherent anymore,
thus forcing bioware to drastically alter their plans in a panicked frenzy in
an attempt to save what would seemed to be an even larger failure than the one
they accomplished with the ending they gave us...

I remember reading they made the change well before the scripts were leaked, and that was only an early draft.

Who really knows, though?

[o Ventus]

feliciano2040 wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Yeah, people who do synthesis are going along with Saren and the reapers.

Y U MAKE ME LOSE FAITH IN HUMANITY !?

Seriously people, stop saying this, Saren's ramblings were indoctrination blabber.

If the reapers had any intentions, it was to harvest organics and preserve them, not blur the differences between organics and synthetics.

Oh god. The entire premise of hravesting people to preserve them (Even though liquefying people destroys the brain, and thus memories, thoughts, ideals, etc...) is stupid in itself. Even ME2's prime motivator for the Reaper's genocides (It's their way of reproducing) was better than this, even though it was also retarded.

I honestly prefer their original M.O.: None. They were just really big machines that kill people, just cuz.

[Meltemph]

And the point you made about there being a technological threshold for synthetics being silly... One of the common points of the theory is that they keep developing better and better synthetic type life until it reaches the point that organics are seen as not worthwhile even as a resource.

Huh? That doesn't make sense. A resource is a resource, unless you are arguing that the universe as well evolves to the point of never needing resources. Besides that, there is nothing to infer that synthetics will ever be like that... Unless you are talking about organic synthetics, THEN I would completely agree with you. As for inorganic synthetics, any idea that they would have a deep fascination with their creators. Outside of them being their creators, there is nothing short of a psychological head game, which ones perceptions on humanity plays the role of ones conclusions.

Its a legitimate theory. That's not to say it will happen, but not an unreasonable prediction of how events could unfold. Over enough times of repeating history, it will likely happen eventually.

It is only legitimate to those who believe or want it to be legitimate. We have nothing else to go by.

[feliciano2040]

o Ventus wrote...

Oh god. The entire premise of hravesting people to preserve them (Even though liquefying people destroys the brain, and thus memories, thoughts, ideals, etc...) is stupid in itself. Even ME2's prime motivator for the Reaper's genocides (It's their way of reproducing) was better than this, even though it was also retarded.

This.

Is the point a lot of people are missing.

The Catalyst can't make a reasonable choice, like Doctor Manhattan from Watchmen, he is so detached from the struggles of the beings he is trying to preserve, that his methods become nothing more than calculus, he realizes this at the end, and gives Shepard the choice, because he, as a creature of both synthetic and organic construction, is the only one that is capable of making a decision that is pertinent to all living creatures in the galaxy.

Modifié par feliciano2040, 28 avril 2012 - 12:05 .