449 réponses à ce sujet

[PsyrenY]

[quote]ArchLord James wrote...


Nice straw man setup there. Notice how you dont elloborate at all for risk of exposing your own erroneous implications.[/quote]

I didn't think I had to elaborate actually, but all right.

One data point does not prove a trend. The Geth in our cycle are a wonderful thing, but they don't necessarily disprove the Catalyst if he's been seeing the synthetic-organic conflict for eons with just one counterexample in all of that time.

Now, I'm not saying definitively that he has seen this, I'm just saying that we don't know. Would I have liked to bring it up to him and hear his response, absolutely, but I'm not going to discount the possibility that he would respond by showing me a slideshow of thousands of years of that conflict that are outside my frame of reference.

And in the end, it's irrelevant if I can't convince him otherwise. Especially if all Destroy does is "prove him right." My surest way to derail him is Control or Synthesis, leaving the Geth alive.

[quote]
Assosiaction fallacy?  Out of all that was said,  thats all you took away? So basically when you read the above statement all you see is "Well TIM was for control, and TIM was bad, so control must be bad!"  Ok so you also have problems with reading comprehension, but again, that sounds like a personal problem. The argument is much more deep than your giving it credit for. Infact, it is again attacking contradicting themes, not TIM's morals. You really like whacking those straw men dont ya?[/quote]

There is nothing "deep" about it. Once you assume the possibility that Control actually works as advertised, "TIM liked it" is the only real argument you people can come up with against it.
 
[quote]
Ok it is actually usually called Wisdom of Repugnance Fallacy, but anyways. I think most reasonable people would agree that forcing another living being, let alone the entire galaxy, against their free will,  to submit to your experiments is evil. You may not think so, but that only says something about your morals.[/quote]

My morals rank repugnance lower than genocide. That's really all there is to it.

 [quote] 
It does not establish wisdom of repugnance. And yes, I plead guilty to assosiacation fallacy here. THe catalyst admits to being the creator of the reapers and therefore is responsible for their actions. For that very reason I consider him evil and dont trust him. If you trust the reapers afters playing 3 games of mass effect, that says more about you than it does to establish some kind of fallacious reasoning  on my part. Are you saying shepard should just disregard that the catalyst is the king of the reapers for the sake of avoiding a fallacy? Seems like pertinent information that shepard should consider before listening to word out of the kids mouth. But hey thats just me.
[quote]

What reason does he have to lie to you? What reason does he even have to speak to you? If you do nothing, the Crucible is destroyed and the army doomed. You cannot win conventionally, no matter how you try to fanfiction otherwise. You all assume the Catalyst is lying or untrustworthy because you know that none of your arguments work if he's telling the truth. None.

 [quote]
A cookie?
[/quote]

Chocolate Chip please.

[CmnDwnWrkn]

Cypher_CS wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Tigerman123 wrote...

Because the catalyst was created by organics to preserve that form of life?

And why is it then possible to choose synthesis which destroys this form of life?

Red Alert!
Shields up!
Wild Assumption on a Collision Course!

That is not a wild assumption at all.  We are told that synthetics will always rise up and destroy the organics.  So if the organics and synthetics are merged, why wouldn't the synthetic part of this organic/synthetic hybrid tend toward destroying the organic half?

[Leem_0001]

Leem_0001 wrote...

Back

Just read through your replies Cypher and Valkyre4, and whilst I respect these things work for you, they just don't sit well for me.

In an effort to at least understand it, I went back and watched the conversation with Starchild again on Youtube (it has been a while since I have seen it), and whilst it didn't clarify my other points, it did raise other questions for me.

Without antagonising, or fighting, as I think the debate can be a good thing, I have a question about the choices.

If the Starchild believes so strongly that synthetic life will eventually wipe out organic, why does he give Shepard the control or destroy endings? I have seen many on here make arguments about the validity of his reasoning (myself included), and whilst we point to EDI and the Geth, I know the points made by 'pro enders' (not using that in any negative way) are worth heavy consideration. But if Starchild is so sure of this, why not only offer Synthesis? Why even give the other two as options, because it flies in the face of his very purpose?

In Destroy, he basically says that organics will again go on to create synthetics, and warns us about it. But, at the end of the day, it will happen and there will be nothing he can do about it, as the reapers are gone. How is that a solution to him?

In Control, Shpeard only controls the Reapers, so synthetic life (Geth etc, and newlyy formed in the future) will go on. How is that a solution to him?

It doesn't really solve anything, he is just kind of, I don't know, bowing out and letting us get on with it (which is what many of us wanted). So why do we need to enslave the reapers or destroy our friends to do it? If he controls the Reapers, why not send them back to Dark Space, deactivate them, or something? It's the same end result - organics and synthetics go on, and the future remains to be seen.

Genuine questions up for debate.

Anyone? Genuine questions up for debate here

[Eire Icon]

Jenonax wrote...

You think not listening to the Catalyst is ridiculous.  I believe listening to it is ridiculous.  Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

The fact that he is your enemy is not irrelevant, it is in fact all that exists at that point in time.  It comes down to Shepard and him.  You're right, Shepard has few options at this point.  It comes down to believe the Catalyst or don't.  I don't.  I will never believe him because I have no reason to believe him and every reason to think that doing what he wants will lead to my destruction.  Shepard does not know the consequences of his so called choice because it comes from an unreliable source.  Shepard knows that he is the creator of the reapers, he knows that the Catalyst means destruction because we've had three games worth of being told Reapers = bad.  There's no grey area here.  The Reapers are the enemy.  The Catalyst is the enemy, therefore I have no basis to do what he says.

Yep its just different opinions no argument there

But for me

If you don't choose everyone is doomed regardless

If you do choose worst case scenario is everyone is still doomed, best case you stop the war

You have nothing to loose by choosing as your doomed anyway

[Tigerman123]

Synthesis doesn't eradicate organic life, it changes certain aspects, but it doesn't fundamentally alter your 'soul'. Humans have used technology to improve their capacity to store and transmit information since the invention of writing; given that it's likely the primary enhancements are to intelligence and the addition of some kind of inbuilt wireless communication, this is simply a further extension of that, except sub dermal. People alter their bodies for convenience even at present, whether through using the pill to control their reproductive cycle, hormones to alter their gender, or pacemakers and cochlear implants

If you dislike the implied changes, or just don't think that Shepard should make the choice for others, don't pick it. That doesn't mean that all life is transformed into an aberration.

[PsyrenY]

AlexXIV wrote...

The Reapers were his solution, not Synthesis. Synthesis is your solution, thanks to the Crucible.
Well if the Reapers are Starbrats solution and also the cycles, then the question resurfaces why organics are imporant to it. If organics are a flaw of nature or whatever then only organics would protect other organics. Because to all others they are worthless.

He's trying to maintain organic life as a going concern. Perhaps he was programmed to "protect organic life from synthetics" and whoever did so didn't put enough safeguards to keep him from coming up with Reaping as a solution. Or perhaps he decided to protect organics on his own. 

In the end it's irrelevant, because the Crucible changed him. Reaping is no longer the solution - he says so himself. He gives you the choice (provided the Crucible is functional enough) and while he leans toward Synthesis himself, he doesn't really care which one you go with.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 03 mai 2012 - 03:41 .

[Eire Icon]

kmol wrote...

Eire Icon wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Tigerman123 wrote...

Because the catalyst was created by organics to preserve that form of life?

And why is it then possible to choose synthesis which destroys this form of life?

It dosen't destroy life it evolves it

Which is not preserving it.

Joker and EDI looked fine to me

[Lenseflare]

Synthesis

On one hand you could make the assumption that you make a "minor" alteration with the intention of preserving galaxy life.

On the other hand you could make the assumption that you make such a major alteration that life as we know it is redundant.

No matter, we as players are not given enough information to claim that either is the correct statement, which perhaps is what "ticks" most people off.

Its a gamble, like playing a game of dice, where you don't really know what the stakes are,
but you throw the dice anyhow, they hit the table... and thats the end of the game.

[JamesFaith]

Leem_0001 wrote...

Without antagonising, or fighting, as I think the debate can be a good thing, I have a question about the choices.

If the Starchild believes so strongly that synthetic life will eventually wipe out organic, why does he give Shepard the control or destroy endings. I have seen many on here make arguments about the validity of his concerns, and whilst some point to EDI and the Geth, I know the points made by 'pro enders' (not using that in any negative way) are worth heavy consideration. But if Starchild is so sure of this, why not only offer Synthesis? Why even give the other two as options, because it flies in the face of his very purpose.

Genuine questions up for debate.

Beacuse you already know about first two option - Destruction was planned from moment when construction of Crucible started, and possibility of Control was pushed ahead by TIM. And because Catalyst reading your mind at some level (he picked child form from your memories), he know you knowing it. If he concealed them and offerred you only Synthesis, Shepard would never trust him and rather choose other two option.

In fact this is one of the oldest salesman tricks. He give you option he know you already considering (Control and Destroy) and then tell you third option, which looks good for you at some level too, but is also more profitable to him. Admiting, that there is other option, create semblance of honest (car salesmans are masters in this type of persuasion) and this "showing of his own weakness"  force many people to reconsidering their first choices and think about third option too.  It's psychological trick and only card Catalyst can play, because he can't physically force Shepard chose Synthesis, but he can lure you to consider it as new option.

[Jenonax]

Eire Icon wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

You think not listening to the Catalyst is ridiculous.  I believe listening to it is ridiculous.  Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

The fact that he is your enemy is not irrelevant, it is in fact all that exists at that point in time.  It comes down to Shepard and him.  You're right, Shepard has few options at this point.  It comes down to believe the Catalyst or don't.  I don't.  I will never believe him because I have no reason to believe him and every reason to think that doing what he wants will lead to my destruction.  Shepard does not know the consequences of his so called choice because it comes from an unreliable source.  Shepard knows that he is the creator of the reapers, he knows that the Catalyst means destruction because we've had three games worth of being told Reapers = bad.  There's no grey area here.  The Reapers are the enemy.  The Catalyst is the enemy, therefore I have no basis to do what he says.

Yep its just different opinions no argument there

But for me

If you don't choose everyone is doomed regardless

If you do choose worst case scenario is everyone is still doomed, best case you stop the war

You have nothing to loose by choosing as your doomed anyway

Can't argue with you there.

The ending is lousy.  Shepard's characterisation goes out the window and the situation we as players are put in is unforgivable.  Choose your own flavour of doom!  Hoorah.  Just what we all wanted.  

[AlexXIV]

Cypher_CS wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Tigerman123 wrote...

Because the catalyst was created by organics to preserve that form of life?

And why is it then possible to choose synthesis which destroys this form of life?

Red Alert!
Shields up!
Wild Assumption on a Collision Course!

It's not assumption. One life form is replaced by another. You can call it evolution, but matter of factly it didn't evolve. The Reapers merged synthetics and organics to what they think is the goal of evolution. However, they thought that the same time evolution could not manage it on it's own and they had to interfere. I mean either somethings evolves or it is manipulated. If you manipulate evolution you can harldy call it evolution anymore. Point is, synthetic parts hinder evolution. Because the tasks they fulfill cannot be fulfilled by organic parts anymore, hence they cannot develop. However, I think Bioware stated. They are neither synthetic nor organic, these terms don't exist anymore, only life, whatever that means. We don't even know if people can still die or live for ever or whatever. Or if everyone is suddenly infertile. Because growth without decay would ultimately lead to a lack of ressources. However, it doesn't make much sense if you look at it closely, which is what I claim pro-enders do. They don't look closely.

[Eire Icon]

Leem_0001 wrote...

[Back

Just read through your replies Cypher and Valkyre4, and whilst I respect these things work for you, they just don't sit well for me.

In an effort to at least understand it, I went back and watched the conversation with Starchild again on Youtube (it has been a while since I have seen it), and whilst it didn't clarify my other points, it did raise other questions for me.

Without antagonising, or fighting, as I think the debate can be a good thing, I have a question about the choices.

If the Starchild believes so strongly that synthetic life will eventually wipe out organic, why does he give Shepard the control or destroy endings? I have seen many on here make arguments about the validity of his reasoning (myself included), and whilst we point to EDI and the Geth, I know the points made by 'pro enders' (not using that in any negative way) are worth heavy consideration. But if Starchild is so sure of this, why not only offer Synthesis? Why even give the other two as options, because it flies in the face of his very purpose?

In Destroy, he basically says that organics will again go on to create synthetics, and warns us about it. But, at the end of the day, it will happen and there will be nothing he can do about it, as the reapers are gone. How is that a solution to him?

In Control, Shpeard only controls the Reapers, so synthetic life (Geth etc, and newlyy formed in the future) will go on. How is that a solution to him?

It doesn't really solve anything, he is just kind of, I don't know, bowing out and letting us get on with it (which is what many of us wanted). So why do we need to enslave the reapers or destroy our friends to do it? If he controls the Reapers, why not send them back to Dark Space, deactivate them, or something? It's the same end result - organics and synthetics go on, and the future remains to be seen.

Genuine questions up for debate

Anyone? Genuine questions up for debate here

For Control Shepard still controls the Reapers. If the Catalyst is correct, and Organics do create Syntethics who rebel against them etc, Shepard can bring the Reapers back. The Reaper solution is still there

For Destroy I do agree this was one of my problems with the ending, it dosen't resolve the chaos. My own interpretation is that its a "On your head be it type of option" - If Organics do create Syntethics who rebel against them etc again maybe the Catalyst will return, maybe they will be left to their own fate, maybe maybe maybe.........too many maybe's on this one

[Leem_0001]

[quote]Optimystic_X wrote...

[quote]AlexXIV wrote...

The Reapers were his solution, not Synthesis. Synthesis is your solution, thanks to the Crucible.[/quote]
Well if the Reapers are Starbrats solution and also the cycles, then the question resurfaces why organics are imporant to it. If organics are a flaw of nature or whatever then only organics would protect other organics. Because to all others they are worthless.[/quote]

He's trying to maintain organic life as a going concern. Perhaps he was programmed to "protect organic life from synthetics" and whoever did so didn't put enough safeguards to keep him from coming up with Reaping as a solution. Or perhaps he decided to protect organics on his own. 

In the end it's irrelevant, because the Crucible changed him. Reaping is no longer the solution - he says so himself. He gives you the choice (provided the Crucible is functional enough) and while he leans toward Synthesis himself, he doesn't really care which one you go with.

[/quote]

But by that logic, if he doesn't care, then surely he wouldn't give any choice at all  - he would just let things progress, let the Reapers keep going and see what happens. He has to still have a stake in this, whether it is caring as we understand it, or some form of programming etc.

This is my issue - because Control and Destroy still mean synthetic life will continue (in destroy it will be rebuilt etc) and, if he is to be believed (and I'm not saying he is) then synthetics will wipe out organics if either of these are picked. It doesn't flow with his reasoning of having the Reapers in the first place.

[Cypher_CS]

Leem_0001 wrote...

If the Starchild believes so strongly that synthetic life will eventually wipe out organic, why does he give Shepard the control or destroy endings? I have seen many on here make arguments about the validity of his reasoning (myself included), and whilst we point to EDI and the Geth, I know the points made by 'pro enders' (not using that in any negative way) are worth heavy consideration. But if Starchild is so sure of this, why not only offer Synthesis? Why even give the other two as options, because it flies in the face of his very purpose?

I've explained this several times.
It's not the Catalyst's choice to give.
His is only Synthesis.
The Destroy is the original intention of the Crucible - using the Catalyst (i.e. the Citadel, a Mass Relay hub which connect the entire network of MRs and the Reapers).
The Control is the "sabotaged" intention of the Crucible - using the same methods, but to transmit something different than the Kill Switch. Created by Cerberus-like groups throughout the cycles (it's in the game!).
Synthesis is it's only addition to the equation.

 

Leem_0001 wrote... 
In Destroy, he basically says that organics will again go on to create synthetics, and warns us about it. But, at the end of the day, it will happen and there will be nothing he can do about it, as the reapers are gone. How is that a solution to him?

It's not.
See above.

 

Leem_0001 wrote... 
In Control, Shpeard only controls the Reapers, so synthetic life (Geth etc, and newlyy formed in the future) will go on. How is that a solution to him?

Not sure it only controls the reapers. It stands to reason, interface wise, if the Destroy kills both Geth (as they have Reaper code) and whatever else applicable, the same will work with Control.
But, again, see above. It is NOT a good solution for it.

Leem_0001 wrote... 
It doesn't really solve anything, he is just kind of, I don't know, bowing out and letting us get on with it (which is what many of us wanted). So why do we need to enslave the reapers or destroy our friends to do it? If he controls the Reapers, why not send them back to Dark Space, deactivate them, or something? It's the same end result - organics and synthetics go on, and the future remains to be seen.

Good question why it doesn't just send them back.
Although, it is answered, or implied.
The Catalyst's sole purpose is the Solution.
It was what it was created for, or whatever it's origin is.
It has no other motivation - like feelings of hate or wanting to win.
It's all about the solution.
Now, if we've come to a crossroads of sorts.
Obviously it won't send out the signal to retreat - cause that nullifies the solution.
If Shepard does it, by Destroying or Controlling, that's something this non-corporeal being can't do anything about. Apparently (yes, it can be explained better, and should be). But with Synthesis, the solution (again, should be explained better) changes. There's no need for the cycle anymore.

[webhead921]

Leem_0001 wrote...



Without antagonising, or fighting, as I think the debate can be a good thing, I have a question about the choices.

If the Starchild believes so strongly that synthetic life will eventually wipe out organic, why does he give Shepard the control or destroy endings? I have seen many on here make arguments about the validity of his reasoning (myself included), and whilst we point to EDI and the Geth, I know the points made by 'pro enders' (not using that in any negative way) are worth heavy consideration. But if Starchild is so sure of this, why not only offer Synthesis? Why even give the other two as options, because it flies in the face of his very purpose?

In Destroy, he basically says that organics will again go on to create synthetics, and warns us about it. But, at the end of the day, it will happen and there will be nothing he can do about it, as the reapers are gone. How is that a solution to him?

In Control, Shpeard only controls the Reapers, so synthetic life (Geth etc, and newlyy formed in the future) will go on. How is that a solution to him?

It doesn't really solve anything, he is just kind of, I don't know, bowing out and letting us get on with it (which is what many of us wanted). So why do we need to enslave the reapers or destroy our friends to do it? If he controls the Reapers, why not send them back to Dark Space, deactivate them, or something? It's the same end result - organics and synthetics go on, and the future remains to be seen.



Anyone? Genuine questions up for debate here

I think a lot of people have inferred that the starchild does not give shepard any options at all, the crucible is what creates the options.  Starchild is just presenting the three different paths shepard could take.  The crucible is what gives shepard the opportunity to control/destroy the reapers or synthesize.

[Leem_0001]

Eire Icon wrote...

Leem_0001 wrote...

[Back

Just read through your replies Cypher and Valkyre4, and whilst I respect these things work for you, they just don't sit well for me.

In an effort to at least understand it, I went back and watched the conversation with Starchild again on Youtube (it has been a while since I have seen it), and whilst it didn't clarify my other points, it did raise other questions for me.

Without antagonising, or fighting, as I think the debate can be a good thing, I have a question about the choices.

If the Starchild believes so strongly that synthetic life will eventually wipe out organic, why does he give Shepard the control or destroy endings? I have seen many on here make arguments about the validity of his reasoning (myself included), and whilst we point to EDI and the Geth, I know the points made by 'pro enders' (not using that in any negative way) are worth heavy consideration. But if Starchild is so sure of this, why not only offer Synthesis? Why even give the other two as options, because it flies in the face of his very purpose?

In Destroy, he basically says that organics will again go on to create synthetics, and warns us about it. But, at the end of the day, it will happen and there will be nothing he can do about it, as the reapers are gone. How is that a solution to him?

In Control, Shpeard only controls the Reapers, so synthetic life (Geth etc, and newlyy formed in the future) will go on. How is that a solution to him?

It doesn't really solve anything, he is just kind of, I don't know, bowing out and letting us get on with it (which is what many of us wanted). So why do we need to enslave the reapers or destroy our friends to do it? If he controls the Reapers, why not send them back to Dark Space, deactivate them, or something? It's the same end result - organics and synthetics go on, and the future remains to be seen.

Genuine questions up for debate

Anyone? Genuine questions up for debate here

For Control Shepard still controls the Reapers. If the Catalyst is correct, and Organics do create Syntethics who rebel against them etc, Shepard can bring the Reapers back. The Reaper solution is still there

For Destroy I do agree this was one of my problems with the ending, it dosen't resolve the chaos. My own interpretation is that its a "On your head be it type of option" - If Organics do create Syntethics who rebel against them etc again maybe the Catalyst will return, maybe they will be left to their own fate, maybe maybe maybe.........too many maybe's on this one

Ah, but on the Control option, would Shepard actually interfere? lol. Mine defended the Geth and EDI etc, so I don't see my Shep coming back as the Reapers to wipe out synthetics, and certainly not to harvest organics again. A lot of variables there too to be honest.

[humes spork]

AlexXIV wrote...

That's good for you. I don't care, but good for you. Though I am not suprised judging by your language that you would judge the validity of a point on the language, not on the point as such. Because that's why you talk like that, no? You think because you use this educated language you don't need to argue because the language alone makes you right. That's comfortable, and ... good for you.

No, I said the assumptions people make about others, the attitude they take, how they construct arguments and the charity with which they treat others and their arguments often enough speak for themselves as to their credibility and the validity of their points.

I never mentioned vocabulary or grammar. Food for thought.

Modifié par humes spork, 03 mai 2012 - 03:40 .

[Eire Icon]

Jenonax wrote...

Eire Icon wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

You think not listening to the Catalyst is ridiculous.  I believe listening to it is ridiculous.  Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

The fact that he is your enemy is not irrelevant, it is in fact all that exists at that point in time.  It comes down to Shepard and him.  You're right, Shepard has few options at this point.  It comes down to believe the Catalyst or don't.  I don't.  I will never believe him because I have no reason to believe him and every reason to think that doing what he wants will lead to my destruction.  Shepard does not know the consequences of his so called choice because it comes from an unreliable source.  Shepard knows that he is the creator of the reapers, he knows that the Catalyst means destruction because we've had three games worth of being told Reapers = bad.  There's no grey area here.  The Reapers are the enemy.  The Catalyst is the enemy, therefore I have no basis to do what he says.

Yep its just different opinions no argument there

But for me

If you don't choose everyone is doomed regardless

If you do choose worst case scenario is everyone is still doomed, best case you stop the war

You have nothing to loose by choosing as your doomed anyway

Can't argue with you there.

The ending is lousy.  Shepard's characterisation goes out the window and the situation we as players are put in is unforgivable.  Choose your own flavour of doom!  Hoorah.  Just what we all wanted.  

As I said I didn't like the ending either, too many unanswered questions, no closure, it was incomplete no question

[AlexXIV]

Tigerman123 wrote...

Synthesis doesn't eradicate organic life, it changes certain aspects, but it doesn't fundamentally alter your 'soul'. Humans have used technology to improve their capacity to store and transmit information since the invention of writing; given that it's likely the primary enhancements are to intelligence and the addition of some kind of inbuilt wireless communication, this is simply a further extension of that, except sub dermal. People alter their bodies for convenience even at present, whether through using the pill to control their reproductive cycle, hormones to alter their gender, or pacemakers and cochlear implants

If you dislike the implied changes, or just don't think that Shepard should make the choice for others, don't pick it. That doesn't mean that all life is transformed into an aberration.

Soul. What is that supposed to mean? Let's leave religious terms out of the discussion because I would have to ask you to prove the existance of a soul and we both know you couldn't.

They don't just upgrade an organic. They change their genetic code in a way that is pretty much impossible by our knowledge. Because they merge organic DNA with ... well if anorganic had an DNA then that, but they don't. The result, as it is a result of pure fiction, could be ANYTHING.

Also, assuming that synthetics and organics have different thought processes, which is what the Starbrat suggests. Which is why synthetics wipe us out eventually. Then a mixture of synthetic and organic would also have different thought process than an organic. Which means organics officially don't exist anymore. Neither synthetics.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 03 mai 2012 - 03:56 .

[Cypher_CS]

Alex14, we've been interfering with evolution for at least 200 years now, and it's still going strong and is still considered to be evolution.

Hell, there was an article on io9 just this week regarding this:
http://io9.com/59066...g?tag=evolution

[Cypher_CS]

Also, Alex, as long as you're already going to io9 for a read, read their article on XNA.
Not the same thing as suggested in Synthesis, but a damn interesting read in that direction - if you allow for some imagination.

[PsyrenY]

Leem_0001 wrote...

But by that logic, if he doesn't care, then surely he wouldn't give any choice at all  - he would just let things progress, let the Reapers keep going and see what happens. He has to still have a stake in this, whether it is caring as we understand it, or some form of programming etc.

This is my issue - because Control and Destroy still mean synthetic life will continue (in destroy it will be rebuilt etc) and, if he is to be believed (and I'm not saying he is) then synthetics will wipe out organics if either of these are picked. It doesn't flow with his reasoning of having the Reapers in the first place.

I agree with you, they likely won't end the cycle. (Though there is still a chance that they might.) But he mentions them anyway because the Crucible (a) changed him and ( made him see that "my solution (Reapers) won't work anymore." 

Perhaps that is true, or perhaps the Crucible merely messed with him enough to make him think it is true. It doesn't matter; what matters is that since you plugged it in, he gave up on Reapers and instead let you choose one of the three, because Shepard asked him "how can I stop the Reapers," not "how can I end the cycle."

[AlexXIV]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Alex14, we've been interfering with evolution for at least 200 years now, and it's still going strong and is still considered to be evolution.

Hell, there was an article on io9 just this week regarding this:
http://io9.com/59066...g?tag=evolution

And we know that it will always be fine how? We are only beginning. At some point we may screw up in a horrible way. The reason we interefere with evolution is simply self purpose. We are lazy and impatient. That's what motivates scientific progress like nothing else. It is not about improving our life or the world. It is about how we can get more out of life. At some point I dare say it will bite us in the behind. Hell it may even have bitten us already and we just didn't notice yet because the consequences cannot be seen. Meddling with things we don't understand has always been dangerous and unpredictable. And I dare say so far we have been lucky. But this luck may not hold forever.

[CapnManx]

Leem_0001 wrote...

Back

Just read through your replies Cypher and Valkyre4, and whilst I respect these things work for you, they just don't sit well for me.

In an effort to at least understand it, I went back and watched the conversation with Starchild again on Youtube (it has been a while since I have seen it), and whilst it didn't clarify my other points, it did raise other questions for me.

Without antagonising, or fighting, as I think the debate can be a good thing, I have a question about the choices.

If the Starchild believes so strongly that synthetic life will eventually wipe out organic, why does he give Shepard the control or destroy endings? I have seen many on here make arguments about the validity of his reasoning (myself included), and whilst we point to EDI and the Geth, I know the points made by 'pro enders' (not using that in any negative way) are worth heavy consideration. But if Starchild is so sure of this, why not only offer Synthesis? Why even give the other two as options, because it flies in the face of his very purpose?

In Destroy, he basically says that organics will again go on to create synthetics, and warns us about it. But, at the end of the day, it will happen and there will be nothing he can do about it, as the reapers are gone. How is that a solution to him?

In Control, Shpeard only controls the Reapers, so synthetic life (Geth etc, and newlyy formed in the future) will go on. How is that a solution to him?

It doesn't really solve anything, he is just kind of, I don't know, bowing out and letting us get on with it (which is what many of us wanted). So why do we need to enslave the reapers or destroy our friends to do it? If he controls the Reapers, why not send them back to Dark Space, deactivate them, or something? It's the same end result - organics and synthetics go on, and the future remains to be seen.

Genuine questions up for debate.

With a low EMS (too low to get 'Sythesis, I mean), 'bowing out' is exactly what it is doing; either by letting Shep take over, or by letting Shep destroy the Reapers.  Its plan has been messed up, and so it's giving in. 

With a higher EMS, I expect it presented the 'Destroy' option, simply because that's what Shep went there to do; and it knew it couldn't stop Shepard just shooting up the place anyway.  It took the opportunity to explain what would happen if that route was chosen in an effort to dissuade Shepard.

It offers Control because the Reapers get to carry on, but with a new perspective on things; I've never chosen Control, but from what I understand, it is implied that Shep will feel compelled to return and carry on the Reapers mission sooner or later.  That doesn't mean Shep becomes just another Reaper; he/she would still have an influence of some kind.  From the Catalyst's perspective, this might be a way of fixing the flaw in the solution that led to the Cruicible being built.

[humes spork]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Alex14, we've been interfering with evolution for at least 200 years now, and it's still going strong and is still considered to be evolution.

You're joking, right? We've been bending Mother Nature over the kitchen table since the dawn of human civilization. Hell, human civilization's built on it.

When's the last time anyone ate an auroch, again?