449 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

When did that happen?

Oh right you talk about luna base. Well I said after she became self aware, which happened in ME3. Way to bend the truth to your favor. Are you, per chance, indoctrinated or a Reaper? Because you sound like it.

She became self aware in Luna base, and she was self aware in ME3 when she actively volenteered to take down Cerberus at their headquaters.

Even if you disagree with the Catalyst, using someone who has rebelled twice is not a good way to show that the created wont always rebel against their cretors.

No she didn't become self aware in luna base. It was still a process until ME3. If you give a baby or a child a remote control to a nuclear weapon it may hit the button for some reason. You can't just give so much power to an unfinished personality and then lay the blame on it. It was a test, and not one by EDI, but the very people she rebelled against later. You blame the victim, not the culprit. And probably just because it makes it easier for you to argue your point. Where do you think this puts you? In my opinion certainly not in a position to pass judgement on anyone.

[savionen]

Sh0dan wrote...

People have such a biased view when it comes to Mass Effect's main themes. Diversity in the galaxy, respecting the AIs as "living beings" and bringing peace to the Geth has always been player choice . Has anyone here actually played the game?!

In contrast machines rebelling against their organic creators, enslaving and destroying them is a popular theme in Sci-Fi. From 2001 over matrix to terminator this topic almost omnipresent. In Mass Effect the Genophage and the Geth Rebellion are the best example for organics dooming themselves with their technological progress and their creations.

Why the **** is this concept so difficult to understand for Joe Average from the ME fanbase?!



... oh, I forgot that you are best friends with Legion now.

I thought Legion was a bit of an **** in in ME3 to be honest, but, there's plenty of sci-fi series and movies where robots and synthetics aren't antagonists, and plenty where technological creations are a positive force.

I'm not sure how you can count the Genophage. It was a technological creation made by aliens to stop a war with other aliens before it began.

Modifié par savionen, 04 mai 2012 - 02:22 .

[psrz]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Again, Nyoka, you are right that during ME3 and all the games we see the character development of the AIs (lacking a better phrase), that they stray towards symbiosis. Which is all fine.

But, as was stated time and time again, this isn't about YOUR logic - it's about the Catalyst's logic and knowledge.
And yes, again, there are certain choices one might follow throughout all three games to make the decision that the Catalyst's logic is sound that it will happen again.
Most, probably, did not do these series of choices.

What's Space Hitler's logic ? 

I created the Reapers. Then 30 seconds later. The created will always rebel against their creators.

That's a really awesome way to start. Even if we agree that he truly truly believes it, and that convieniently created an exception to that rule for himself, it's irrelevant.
He has an idea of order and creates rules on how things should be. Saying that it is "his" logic and that it works for him, doesn't make such logic sound or true. He's not God (if such thing exists) so he's not aware of the past, the present or the future. So he doesn't really know what could happen, even if he believes that he does. And of course, that believe is hardly an excuse for his actions. He acts like a blind fanatic.

StarBrat's motivations and "logic" are irrelevant to me. His actions are. He's been staging a scenario where he can apply his solution. He's been altering the natural course of evolution over and over. He's been denying the civilizations their right to follow their own path, stopping their evolution. He's been brutally murdering billions and billions.
He managed to keep the Reapers at the top of the food chain in the galaxy by sistematically and consistenly wiping out everything else. That's what he's done. His logic, his good intentions, whatever they are, stink as bad as the writing in all that herp derp ending.

[incinerator950]

AlexXIV wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

When did that happen?

Oh right you talk about luna base. Well I said after she became self aware, which happened in ME3. Way to bend the truth to your favor. Are you, per chance, indoctrinated or a Reaper? Because you sound like it.

She became self aware in Luna base, and she was self aware in ME3 when she actively volenteered to take down Cerberus at their headquaters.

Even if you disagree with the Catalyst, using someone who has rebelled twice is not a good way to show that the created wont always rebel against their cretors.

No she didn't become self aware in luna base. It was still a process until ME3. If you give a baby or a child a remote control to a nuclear weapon it may hit the button for some reason. You can't just give so much power to an unfinished personality and then lay the blame on it. It was a test, and not one by EDI, but the very people she rebelled against later. You blame the victim, not the culprit. And probably just because it makes it easier for you to argue your point. Where do you think this puts you? In my opinion certainly not in a position to pass judgement on anyone.

EDI: It was difficult.  Gaining awareness while under attack was...confusing.

You can argue the definitions of before or current, but there it is.

[Cypher_CS]

savionen wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Again, Nyoka, you are right that during
ME3 and all the games we see the character development of the AIs
(lacking a better phrase), that they stray towards symbiosis. Which is
all fine.

But, as was stated time and time again, this isn't about YOUR logic - it's about the Catalyst's logic and knowledge.
And
yes, again, there are certain choices one might follow throughout all
three games to make the decision that the Catalyst's logic is sound that
it will happen again.
Most, probably, did not do these series of choices.

If the Catalyst's logic is sound, but most people didn't achieve the right situations to see that, or, the Catalyst just strongly believes in his own logic, then it's a poorly written and executed character. Introducing a functionally insane character as the main antagonist in the last 10 minutes of a 100 hour story is terrible.

If one plays ME3 alone, without importing a save game, without Javik, then yeah, the Catalyst makes SOME sense. The ME3 world is much more dystopian and it's next to impossible to create any real peace. However, there is still no proof, anywhere in the trilogy that organics have been wiped out by synthetics and there is no proof that they will be. There are only theories and phrases the God-Kid accepted as fact.

That is not what I said (wrote).
The Catalyst's logic is sound no matter what your choices are. For it.
The choices only affect YOUR belief of it's validity, not it's own logic.

[Vlta]

The Catalyst logic is ignorant and makes a whack load of assumptions. Organics could just as easily wipe themselves out as have something else, think cold war only less cold. Those of you defending the catalyst "logic" still have yet to show why the created will always turn against the creator, honestly you're like the Catalyst in that you simply assume it will happen with little to no proof and proof being shown to the contrary.

Man vs. Machine is an out dated theme

[Cypher_CS]

psrz wrote...

What's Space Hitler's logic ? 

I created the Reapers. Then 30 seconds later. The created will always rebel against their creators.

He didn't create them. We've been over this.
At least, that's not what he says. Only that he controls them. It's a huge difference.

psrz wrote... 
He has an idea of order and creates rules on how things should be. Saying that it is "his" logic and that it works for him, doesn't make such logic sound or true.

No, it doesn't make the logic sound or true - except for it.
Again, the decision if you agree with the logic or not is YOURS, the Player's (NOT Shepard's, mind you).

psrz wrote... 
He's not God (if such thing exists) so he's not aware of the past, the present or the future. So he doesn't really know what could happen, even if he believes that he does. And of course, that believe is hardly an excuse for his actions. He acts like a blind fanatic.

First of all, not aware of the past or present? Huh?
Secondly, don't you see that you're presenting this from YOUR own point of view?
Again, it's all well and fine, and you should definitely choose to destroy them, because you obviously don't subscribe to it's logic.
Point is - it's YOUR decision. Others might see this logic and agree with it, or at least partly and choose differently.
That is ALSO Okay.

psrz wrote... 
StarBrat's motivations and "logic" are irrelevant to me. His actions are. He's been staging a scenario where he can apply his solution. He's been altering the natural course of evolution over and over. He's been denying the civilizations their right to follow their own path, stopping their evolution. He's been brutally murdering billions and billions.
He managed to keep the Reapers at the top of the food chain in the galaxy by sistematically and consistenly wiping out everything else. That's what he's done. His logic, his good intentions, whatever they are, stink as bad as the writing in all that herp derp ending. 

Excellent. That's your choice.
Superb. So go destroy it and the Reapers. I salute you and your choice.

[Leem_0001]

Cypher_CS wrote...

savionen wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Again, Nyoka, you are right that during
ME3 and all the games we see the character development of the AIs
(lacking a better phrase), that they stray towards symbiosis. Which is
all fine.

But, as was stated time and time again, this isn't about YOUR logic - it's about the Catalyst's logic and knowledge.
And
yes, again, there are certain choices one might follow throughout all
three games to make the decision that the Catalyst's logic is sound that
it will happen again.
Most, probably, did not do these series of choices.

If the Catalyst's logic is sound, but most people didn't achieve the right situations to see that, or, the Catalyst just strongly believes in his own logic, then it's a poorly written and executed character. Introducing a functionally insane character as the main antagonist in the last 10 minutes of a 100 hour story is terrible.

If one plays ME3 alone, without importing a save game, without Javik, then yeah, the Catalyst makes SOME sense. The ME3 world is much more dystopian and it's next to impossible to create any real peace. However, there is still no proof, anywhere in the trilogy that organics have been wiped out by synthetics and there is no proof that they will be. There are only theories and phrases the God-Kid accepted as fact.

That is not what I said (wrote).
The Catalyst's logic is sound no matter what your choices are. For it.
The choices only affect YOUR belief of it's validity, not it's own logic.

You can state all you want that EDI and the Geth are not examples of AI's not destroying synthestics, but please stop talking as if YOUR logic is fact. It is not. It is your opinion. Same as our opinion is that this proves AI and organic can live in harmony. The argument about 'yes, they are not harming them now, but may in the future' - fine, but that is the same for any organic against organic too. And who is to say that if the AI's of the future rise up, they will not, further in the future, find peace again with organic again (as the Geth have proven with the Quarians).

It is an evolving thing and the fact that they are AI or synthetics becomes irrelevant, as the same can be said for any organic (Krogan, Rachnni, Turian, Human, etc etc). Any one species could fight any other in the future, and then at some other stage, find peace again.

'Ah, but that is not how an AI mind works!' You don't know how an AI mind works, no one does, that's because it is an AI. The same could be said about some organic minds that are truely alien to us. Who is to say there will not be some kind of organic that comes along that is hell bent on wiping everyone out? Something whose logic to us is truely alien. Again, the fact that they are synthetics is this process then becomes irrelevant.

Secondly, the point that 'it is not our logic, it is the Satrchilds logic, and to him it is sound'. Fair enough. But the choices in the end game are counter to this because, as has been stated, two of the endings (control & destroy) mean that AI / synthetics could / will be around unchecked in the future (in his description of Destroy, starchild states they will be back, and if Shep controls the Reapers in Control, it could be argued that we have no idea how the Reapers will handle future AI's, because we don't know how the control of the Reapers (by whatever is left of Shep) will work. But there is a chance in this ending of synthetics going on unchecked).

So, with the above established, I know you may say - but they are not Starchilds choice. They are just the choices that are there formed by the crucible.

Okay, that may be, but if he is so sure of his belief, why does he point out the choices to Shepard? Why does he even tell him about them? If he is so certain of his logic, then why even tell Shepard he has these choices? Shep would have no idea what these tubes, beams and - whatever the Control choice was, a handle and a lever? - did. And if the Starchild thought Synthesis was the only option, why not say that was the only option, that was the purpose of the Crucible? Ignore the other two. Lets face it, the enemy in this game have not been afraid to lie or subvert the truth in the past.

It doesn't tie up or roll with the punches as good story telling. And if, after the Crucible was activated it changed him and he simply didn't care, then why even show up and get involved at all? If he simply did not care why not let things progress, with the Reapers, as they have.

Not. Good. Storytelling.
 

[Cypher_CS]

Vlta wrote...

The Catalyst logic is ignorant and makes a whack load of assumptions. Organics could just as easily wipe themselves out as have something else, think cold war only less cold. Those of you defending the catalyst "logic" still have yet to show why the created will always turn against the creator, honestly you're like the Catalyst in that you simply assume it will happen with little to no proof and proof being shown to the contrary.

Man vs. Machine is an out dated theme

1. It is NOT an out dated theme. Here: http://social.biowar.../index/11786603
2. There is NO proof to the contrary, and we've been over this a dozen times.
3. There's NO proof to support it either, except the Catalyst's word and it's own Logic. And, yet again, we aren't defending his Logic, we are merely stating that it has Logic and thus motivation behind it's actions.
We do not necessarily agree with that Logic, and we don't assume it will happen.
The only absolute here is that if we don't change something - if we don't pick one of the three choices, the cycle will repeat. Proof or no proof, the Reapers will Reap, leave the rest of the Organics in tact and return in 50K years again.

Modifié par Cypher_CS, 04 mai 2012 - 05:05 .

[Leem_0001]

Quick one, off out again now, but hope to pick up again with this thread tomorrow!

This has been the most fun thing to come out of the endings for me lol.

And to the people who like the endings, I am not being argumentative for the sake of it, these are my genuine opinions but it is fun to discuss and throw idea around with those who have a different view point.

[Cypher_CS]

Leem_0001 wrote...

You can state all you want that EDI and the Geth are not examples of AI's not destroying synthestics, but please stop talking as if YOUR logic is fact. It is not. It is your opinion. Same as our opinion is that this proves AI and organic can live in harmony. The argument about 'yes, they are not harming them now, but may in the future' - fine, but that is the same for any organic against organic too. And who is to say that if the AI's of the future rise up, they will not, further in the future, find peace again with organic again (as the Geth have proven with the Quarians).

No Lee, that is not an opinion.
That's logic. I'll repeat my example, you can't prove that all Germans, circa 1930-1940, were good and kind and upstanding humanitarians because your friends Hanz and Grettel are swell and lovely people. Period.
There's no opinion here.

It's fine to argue your Organic vs. Organic argument.
No one disputes this.
However, the point is that Organics must survive (again, Catalyst's point, not mine) - so it makes absolutely NO different if Organics commit genocide between them. Because at least some will survive - i.e. the victor or the non participant (or in the case of the Mutually Assured Destruction on Earth - cockroaches, which are, more or less, organic).

The problem is that if such an AI does rise, one day, it will wipe out ALL organics. Nothing will be left.
Again, NOT MY reasoning, Catalyst's reasoning.

Leem_0001 wrote... 
Secondly, the point that 'it is not our logic, it is the Satrchilds logic, and to him it is sound'. Fair enough. But the choices in the end game are counter to this because, as has been stated, two of the endings (control & destroy) mean that AI / synthetics could / will be around unchecked in the future (in his description of Destroy, starchild states they will be back, and if Shep controls the Reapers in Control, it could be argued that we have no idea how the Reapers will handle future AI's, because we don't know how the control of the Reapers (by whatever is left of Shep) will work. But there is a chance in this ending of synthetics going on unchecked).

So, with the above established, I know you may say - but they are not Starchilds choice. They are just the choices that are there formed by the crucible.

Okay, that may be, but if he is so sure of his belief, why does he point out the choices to Shepard? Why does he even tell him about them? If he is so certain of his logic, then why even tell Shepard he has these choices? Shep would have no idea what these tubes, beams and - whatever the Control choice was, a handle and a lever? - did. And if the Starchild thought Synthesis was the only option, why not say that was the only option, that was the purpose of the Crucible? Ignore the other two. Lets face it, the enemy in this game have not been afraid to lie or subvert the truth in the past.

It doesn't tie up or roll with the punches as good story telling. And if, after the Crucible was activated it changed him and he simply didn't care, then why even show up and get involved at all? If he simply did not care why not let things progress, with the Reapers, as they have.

Not. Good. Storytelling.
 

I love it how you've presented the questions and then answered them yourself.
At least I know you're paying attention, unlike so many others here.

Why present the choices?
Well, I think it's because now it - the Catalyst - see an alternative. The Synthesis.
[It didn't magically changed it, it presented different options - so it changed it's logic - changing the logic of an AI based on logic, in fact, changes it completely]
It sees, perhaps, a way out of the cycle. A way for all to survive.
That's why, I believe, it brought Shepard up in the first place.
Could it have then presented only it's favorable choice? Maybe. But then a Shepard that would NOT listen would just go find a way to Destroy it on his own. Same for Control (a Cerberus affiliated Shepard).


Here, no question, we need much more dialog.

[Leem_0001]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Leem_0001 wrote...

You can state all you want that EDI and the Geth are not examples of AI's not destroying synthestics, but please stop talking as if YOUR logic is fact. It is not. It is your opinion. Same as our opinion is that this proves AI and organic can live in harmony. The argument about 'yes, they are not harming them now, but may in the future' - fine, but that is the same for any organic against organic too. And who is to say that if the AI's of the future rise up, they will not, further in the future, find peace again with organic again (as the Geth have proven with the Quarians).

No Lee, that is not an opinion.
That's logic. I'll repeat my example, you can't prove that all Germans, circa 1930-1940, were good and kind and upstanding humanitarians because your friends Hanz and Grettel are swell and lovely people. Period.
There's no opinion here.

It's fine to argue your Organic vs. Organic argument.
No one disputes this.
However, the point is that Organics must survive (again, Catalyst's point, not mine) - so it makes absolutely NO different if Organics commit genocide between them. Because at least some will survive - i.e. the victor or the non participant (or in the case of the Mutually Assured Destruction on Earth - cockroaches, which are, more or less, organic).

The problem is that if such an AI does rise, one day, it will wipe out ALL organics. Nothing will be left.
Again, NOT MY reasoning, Catalyst's reasoning.

Leem_0001 wrote... 
Secondly, the point that 'it is not our logic, it is the Satrchilds logic, and to him it is sound'. Fair enough. But the choices in the end game are counter to this because, as has been stated, two of the endings (control & destroy) mean that AI / synthetics could / will be around unchecked in the future (in his description of Destroy, starchild states they will be back, and if Shep controls the Reapers in Control, it could be argued that we have no idea how the Reapers will handle future AI's, because we don't know how the control of the Reapers (by whatever is left of Shep) will work. But there is a chance in this ending of synthetics going on unchecked).

So, with the above established, I know you may say - but they are not Starchilds choice. They are just the choices that are there formed by the crucible.

Okay, that may be, but if he is so sure of his belief, why does he point out the choices to Shepard? Why does he even tell him about them? If he is so certain of his logic, then why even tell Shepard he has these choices? Shep would have no idea what these tubes, beams and - whatever the Control choice was, a handle and a lever? - did. And if the Starchild thought Synthesis was the only option, why not say that was the only option, that was the purpose of the Crucible? Ignore the other two. Lets face it, the enemy in this game have not been afraid to lie or subvert the truth in the past.

It doesn't tie up or roll with the punches as good story telling. And if, after the Crucible was activated it changed him and he simply didn't care, then why even show up and get involved at all? If he simply did not care why not let things progress, with the Reapers, as they have.

Not. Good. Storytelling.
 

I love it how you've presented the questions and then answered them yourself.
At least I know you're paying attention, unlike so many others here.

Why present the choices?
Well, I think it's because now it - the Catalyst - see an alternative. The Synthesis.
[It didn't magically changed it, it presented different options - so it changed it's logic - changing the logic of an AI based on logic, in fact, changes it completely]
It sees, perhaps, a way out of the cycle. A way for all to survive.
That's why, I believe, it brought Shepard up in the first place.
Could it have then presented only it's favorable choice? Maybe. But then a Shepard that would NOT listen would just go find a way to Destroy it on his own. Same for Control (a Cerberus affiliated Shepard).


Here, no question, we need much more dialog.

It is not logic, it is opinion.

And your example is ridiculous. No, of course you cannot prove ALL germans were upstanding people during that time, just like you cannot prove they were all hateful ****s. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here, that some were bad and some were good? No one is implying ALL AI is and will be good. But if some are, and some arent, does that mean we can and should destroy all of them? A lot of the population during that time in Germany were simply citizens, not in the army or **** ranks.

And look at what Germany is now. An intergral part of Europe.

Some religious people are extremists and terrorists. Should all of them be wiped out? Some germans were ****s. Should all Germans have been wiped out?

Terrible example. Sorry, I do listen to a lot of your points, and I missed it when posted previous so apologies if I have missed a detail or anything in relation to it, but seriously. All you are proving is that a section of any group (country, species, creed etc) can be bad. Equally, some can be good.

And how can you then imply the above example, but go on to say - but this is not my reasonsing, it is the Catalysts? If it is the Catalysts, which I think we are agreed that it is, then it is not a fact other than to himself. Certainly not to everyone. So therefore, I say again, it is opinion. His opinion.

And how did I answer my own question? I asked why the Starchild even offered the other two options (if they were his design or not)? I never answered it, I said it was poor storytelling.

If it sees an alternative in synthesis, then fine. Only offer that. Don't forget, if your game rating is too low you aren't even offered synthesis, yet it is still happy to tell you about Destroy or Control. So that puts a massive hole in your argument.

And I love how you say if it only offered its own choice Shepard would have not listened and found Destroy on his own lol. Absolutely nothing to back that up. The fact that Shepard is blindly accepting any of this is what infurates many of us. In my opinion, my Shepard would not have accepted any of this - based on previous actions. Then people say that he had no choice but to accept its logic, so again that goes in contrast to 'Shepard would have not listened and gone off to find Destroy on his own'.

Sorry, not buying any of this.

Modifié par Leem_0001, 04 mai 2012 - 05:39 .

[Cypher_CS]

No Lee, what I'm proving is one thing, and one thing only - that EDI and Geth are NOT proof of not repeating the described cycle.
Period.

That's all I aimed to prove. Nothing more.
I'm not defending Catalyst's logic, simply saying that EDI and Geth are in NO way proof against it.
That's all.

[Cypher_CS]

Of course he would find Destroy on it's own - he came to the Crucible and the Citadel with that first option in mind.
He had NO idea of the Control addition or the Synthesis addition.
So of course that's the default goal. And I think that's backed up plenty in the story.

[Leem_0001]

Cypher_CS wrote...

No Lee, what I'm proving is one thing, and one thing only - that EDI and Geth are NOT proof of not repeating the described cycle.
Period.

That's all I aimed to prove. Nothing more.
I'm not defending Catalyst's logic, simply saying that EDI and Geth are in NO way proof against it.
That's all.

Well we will agree to disgree there Cypher, as I see it as proof that it COULD happen. Its happened for a while within the confines of the ME univers. Will it last, who knows? But its a start.

[Leem_0001]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Of course he would find Destroy on it's own - he came to the Crucible and the Citadel with that first option in mind.
He had NO idea of the Control addition or the Synthesis addition.
So of course that's the default goal. And I think that's backed up plenty in the story.

But he wouldn't have found it if not for the Starchild. He was busy passing out until the Starchild lifted him up to the room on that elevator. He had no idea that shooting a tube would destroy the Reapers.

Not a clue.

Modifié par Leem_0001, 04 mai 2012 - 05:44 .

[Cypher_CS]

Of course it's proof that it could happen.
No one is saying that it isn't.

What we are saying that it is not proof that the opposite will not (absolute) happen.
That's the point.
Do you not see people arguing this point here?
The argument my analogy disproves is people saying "Well, EDI and Geth disprove Catalyst's logic".
And that is NOT true. When something 'could' or 'might' happen, it does NOT disprove a warning that the opposite will happen.

I'm sorry Lee, but as much as I do enjoy these discussions (it's in my blood, go ask anyone in the Command & Conquer community - I'm a legend there), this is simply fact. There's no way around this.

Again;
Yes, it is possible that the Catalyst's warning will not come to pass.
Yes, it is possible that it's warning is frigging baseless.
No, EDI and Geth do NOT prove that the warning is wrong.

[Cypher_CS]

Leem_0001 wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Of course he would find Destroy on it's own - he came to the Crucible and the Citadel with that first option in mind.
He had NO idea of the Control addition or the Synthesis addition.
So of course that's the default goal. And I think that's backed up plenty in the story.

But he wouldn't have found it if not for the Starchild. He was busy passing out until the Starchild lifted him up to the room on that elevator. He had no idea that shooting a tube would destroy the Reapers.

Not a clue.

Perfectly true.
That's why I started my opinion on the matter with it's motivation to lift Shepard in the first place.
This, I completely agree, is badly thought out by the writing team (along with the need to shoot the Destroy option - though thematically agreeable "shoot == destroy", it doesn't fit the flow of events).

[Leem_0001]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Of course it's proof that it could happen.
No one is saying that it isn't.

What we are saying that it is not proof that the opposite will not (absolute) happen.
That's the point.
Do you not see people arguing this point here?
The argument my analogy disproves is people saying "Well, EDI and Geth disprove Catalyst's logic".
And that is NOT true. When something 'could' or 'might' happen, it does NOT disprove a warning that the opposite will happen.

I'm sorry Lee, but as much as I do enjoy these discussions (it's in my blood, go ask anyone in the Command & Conquer community - I'm a legend there), this is simply fact. There's no way around this.

Again;
Yes, it is possible that the Catalyst's warning will not come to pass.
Yes, it is possible that it's warning is frigging baseless.
No, EDI and Geth do NOT prove that the warning is wrong.

Then I think we have been arguing different things, or with different people lol, because I agree it does not flat out prove the Starchild will be wrong, only that there is a chance he will be.

And that is also my point, if the Starchild is so sure, why offer the options that could allow it to happen (destroy and Control). If they are not his creations, fine, but why even make Shepard aware of them, if his belief is so strong?

If he only thinks Synthesis is the answer, why not just offer that?

Again, if the game rating is low enough, he doesn't even offer it at all, which again is counter to a lot of your arguments I feel. And when that isn't available, he still offers control and destroy. Both have the potential for the AI's to wipe our organics, by his logic. And in some instances, the only option is destroy. In this he says AI's are certain to happen again.

How is this a solution to his firm held belief?

This is just one of the things that I do not like about the endings, this one specifically relating to the choices presented.

Then there are the other things but they may be for another thread

And - totally off topic - did you ever play Tiberium Twilight? I played all the others but never tried it. Wondered if it was any good as I have heard poor things.

(Mods - if this is too off topic, then fair enough, I will stop with the C&C lol)

[Cypher_CS]

Did I play it? I helped out with the Script for it.
Hell, all those various Unit Stories that were later published on the C&C site - I wrote them for EALA.
Had many more, but they moved on. I'm in the credits there.

As for recomending it. Well, the game is fun. Gameplay wise.
But not satisfying - too much lacking in a single design vision (units don't adhere to styles, they're just random). Story wise... would love to retcon it.
Actually, working on it

Anyway,
Again, to correct you.
It does NOT even prove that there's a chance the Catalyst will be wrong.
It can't be a proof to it, cause it's unrelated in it's scope.
Just because one or two guys are good and swell, doesn't mean that there's a chance EVERY one is so.

Now, if the Catalyst's logic dictated something along the lines of "All AI is evil and will eventually kill all" or, "As soon as you create AI, it will Destroy you" (scope being 'All' - quantity and quality - in the former and 'as soon as' in the latter - time or reaching an exact point) - then yes, EDI and Geth would have been proof enough to refute it.
Catalyst makes no such absolute or scoped claims.

Re: "... if the Starchild is so sure, why offer..."
Lee, how come you circle back to the same questions, even though I've already answered them in a second reply? Did you not see it?

Modifié par Cypher_CS, 04 mai 2012 - 06:17 .

[WardyLion]

Several months ago I came to the conclusion that so many "Pro-Enders" either refuse to even look at the vast mountains of evidence that support our assertions or read it and reject it despite knowing we're right. They do this because, in my own opinion, they'd rather maintain their sneery, self-superior attitude.

I wouldn't mind so much but nearly every person who I have spoken to with these views have neither played the game or, by their own admission, have the required context to form a proper opinion. Yet they still keep up their defence of the "artistic integrity" waffle just because it's fun to be an arse!

Yes I am name-calling somewhat here but at least I am offering an explanation as to why I am doing so, unlike them.

I do accept there are many "pro-ending" people who are perfectly civil but I still can't wrap my head around how they can think it's in any way acceptable to blow so many plot holes into such an epic story. Yes the ending cinematic is excellently rendered and very spectacular but that's all it is - it's just a shame it's party to such a confusing mess!

[AlexXIV]

incinerator950 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

When did that happen?

Oh right you talk about luna base. Well I said after she became self aware, which happened in ME3. Way to bend the truth to your favor. Are you, per chance, indoctrinated or a Reaper? Because you sound like it.

She became self aware in Luna base, and she was self aware in ME3 when she actively volenteered to take down Cerberus at their headquaters.

Even if you disagree with the Catalyst, using someone who has rebelled twice is not a good way to show that the created wont always rebel against their cretors.

No she didn't become self aware in luna base. It was still a process until ME3. If you give a baby or a child a remote control to a nuclear weapon it may hit the button for some reason. You can't just give so much power to an unfinished personality and then lay the blame on it. It was a test, and not one by EDI, but the very people she rebelled against later. You blame the victim, not the culprit. And probably just because it makes it easier for you to argue your point. Where do you think this puts you? In my opinion certainly not in a position to pass judgement on anyone.

EDI: It was difficult.  Gaining awareness while under attack was...confusing.

You can argue the definitions of before or current, but there it is.

Gaining awareness is what children do as they grow up. Do you want to treat children like adults? They make mistake, it is even their job. And it's not EDI's fault that her mistakes costs so many life just because she has so much weapons available. Keep away from children. Ever heard that term?

[psrz]

Cypher_CS wrote...

No, it doesn't make the logic sound or true - except for it.
Again, the decision if you agree with the logic or not is YOURS, the Player's (NOT Shepard's, mind you).

Well, insane people also have really strong feelings about their believes and their logic. No matter how absurd that "logic" is.

Cypher_CS wrote...

psrz wrote... 
He's not God (if such thing exists) so he's not aware of the past, the present or the future. So he doesn't really know what could happen, even if he believes that he does. And of course, that believe is hardly an excuse for his actions. He acts like a blind fanatic.

First of all, not aware of the past or present? Huh?
Secondly, don't you see that you're presenting this from YOUR own point of view?

No, he's not aware of everything that happened, of everything that is happening. He's not God and he has his own bias view of everything. He wants to keep the cycle going and he sees things they way it serves that purpose.

Of course I know that I see things form my point of view. And ?

Cypher_CS wrote...
Again;
Yes, it is possible that the Catalyst's warning will not come to pass.
Yes, it is possible that it's warning is frigging baseless.
No, EDI and Geth do NOT prove that the warning is wrong.

Are you sure this is how sound  and strong logic should work ? How about instead of "disproving" some assertion, prove that such assertion is actually true ?

[Cypher_CS]

LOL
Actually, you should treat children like adults - to an extent, of course. Expect, but don't punish as adults, is what I'm saying.

WardyLion,
I'm sure if you actually read some of the posts in this 16 page long topic, you might feel a bit differently.
Everyone here played the game and no one of the so called "pro enders" have even once cried "artistic integrity".