702 réponses à ce sujet

[balance5050]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

I have always said iit was an interpretation, I can't take anything tha VI says as fact because Kai Lang already tried to hack it before I was there.

Then you have even less basis to make an absolute claim: not only did your VI not claim that every cycle has a Reaper-indoctrinated Control faction, but now you're saying that even that your only source of that was suspect.

I'm not making any absolute claims sir, I'm only discussing the topic at hand. Please calm down, this is a gaming forum.

[LaZy i IS]

balance5050 wrote...

Here's hopin it's good whether it's IT or not.

This.

[Dean_the_Young]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

true, but the same concept can have different defintions.

Sure. The concept you're thinking of is related to social darwinism, which was discredited as a science long ago. It has about as much to do with actual evolutionary progress as cultural evolution.

thats not what I was refering to.

Social Darwinism? Never said it was. The two are related, however.

also please stop speaking in absolutes. nothings absolute.  

Saying social darwinism was discredited isn't an absolute, it's an objective statemetn. Social Darwinism relied on a variety of assumptions of both evolutionary progress (survival of the fitest) and human social interaction that were fatally flawed.

[balance5050]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

true, but the same concept can have different defintions.

Sure. The concept you're thinking of is related to social darwinism, which was discredited as a science long ago. It has about as much to do with actual evolutionary progress as cultural evolution.

thats not what I was refering to.

Social Darwinism? Never said it was. The two are related, however.

also please stop speaking in absolutes. nothings absolute.  

Saying social darwinism was discredited isn't an absolute, it's an objective statemetn. Social Darwinism relied on a variety of assumptions of both evolutionary progress (survival of the fitest) and human social interaction that were fatally flawed.

Maybe you should tell us what the modern evolutionary theory entails then, if you're going to attack social darwinism that is.

[Dean_the_Young]

balance5050 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

I have always said iit was an interpretation, I can't take anything tha VI says as fact because Kai Lang already tried to hack it before I was there.

Then you have even less basis to make an absolute claim: not only did your VI not claim that every cycle has a Reaper-indoctrinated Control faction, but now you're saying that even that your only source of that was suspect.

I'm not making any absolute claims sir,

Yes, you are. You've claimed that there was always (or, as you wrote it for emphasis, ALWAYS) a Reaper-indoctrinated faction for Control. That is an absolute claim.

I'm only discussing the topic at hand. Please calm down, this is a gaming forum.

Sure, I'll go from mellow to mellow.

[balance5050]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

I have always said iit was an interpretation, I can't take anything tha VI says as fact because Kai Lang already tried to hack it before I was there.

Then you have even less basis to make an absolute claim: not only did your VI not claim that every cycle has a Reaper-indoctrinated Control faction, but now you're saying that even that your only source of that was suspect.

I'm not making any absolute claims sir,

Yes, you are. You've claimed that there was always (or, as you wrote it for emphasis, ALWAYS) a Reaper-indoctrinated faction for Control. That is an absolute claim.

I'm only discussing the topic at hand. Please calm down, this is a gaming forum.

Sure, I'll go from mellow to mellow.

It's just a possiblity that there is always a splinter group because the VI says that the cycle repeats itself, same conflicts and blablabla

http://www.youtube.c...rK0WYH6xE#t=70s 

[Taboo]

Wait, this is still going?

[llbountyhunter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

true, but the same concept can have different defintions.

Sure. The concept you're thinking of is related to social darwinism, which was discredited as a science long ago. It has about as much to do with actual evolutionary progress as cultural evolution.

thats not what I was refering to.

Social Darwinism? Never said it was. The two are related, however.

also please stop speaking in absolutes. nothings absolute.  

Saying social darwinism was discredited isn't an absolute, it's an objective statemetn. Social Darwinism relied on a variety of assumptions of both evolutionary progress (survival of the fitest) and human social interaction that were fatally flawed.

not what I was refering to, but we'll stop here./

[balance5050]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Wait, this is still going?

The cycle won't stop.

[Dean_the_Young]

balance5050 wrote...

Maybe you should tell us what the modern evolutionary theory entails then, if you're going to attack social darwinism that is.

Already have: evolution is the output of genetic changes over generations. Changes are not deliberate or selective in creation or perpetuation: they are a statistical output following successful breeding regardless of the genetic data within. Changes are unpredictable in origin and random in instigation and development: a trend is only seen over many generations, during which there can be any number of instances of 'progress' or 'regression': so long as breeding is not impaired, any genetic trend can perpetuate itself, even those that provide market disadvantages in various spans of life.

Evolution is not competition-driven. It is statistical growth.

[Transgirlgamer]

Random mutations happen in all species. Those that are beneficial to the individual make it more likely to survive to breed and potentially pass that mutation on. The longer the individual survives, the more chance it gets to breed and the more likely it is to pass on that beneficial mutation.

Meanwhile, the individuals without the beneficial mutation are less likely to survive and thus, less likely to breed. With enough generations, it's possible that the beneficial mutation becomes a trait of the species because more individuals that have it survive than individuals that don't.

It's by no means exact, but that's the basic gist as far as I know. Of course I'm not an evolutionary biologist, or any kind of biologist for that matter so I could be wrong.

As to humans. We do and have evolved. It's only fairly recently in evolutionary terms that people with serious medical conditions have had the care necessary to survive long enough to pass on the condition, or the potential for the condition.

[balance5050]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Maybe you should tell us what the modern evolutionary theory entails then, if you're going to attack social darwinism that is.

Already have: evolution is the output of genetic changes over generations. Changes are not deliberate or selective in creation or perpetuation: they are a statistical output following successful breeding regardless of the genetic data within. Changes are unpredictable in origin and random in instigation and development: a trend is only seen over many generations, during which there can be any number of instances of 'progress' or 'regression': so long as breeding is not impaired, any genetic trend can perpetuate itself, even those that provide market disadvantages in various spans of life.

Evolution is not competition-driven. It is statistical growth.

Sound about right. Where's the problem again?

[Taboo]

Just stop this nonsense and let the thread die.

At this point you're simply flicking **** at each other to see how much you can pile onto each other.

[balance5050]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Just stop this nonsense and let the thread die.

At this point you're simply flicking **** at each other to see how much you can pile onto each other.

Actually it's beeen mostly a good conversation, where have you been?

[Rip504]

The ending is not broke,it is pretty good until you reach the Catalyst. Then IMO it is one unexplained mess. It would have been nice to deal with TIM before the Epic space battle. I think the EC will bring answers to unanswered questions,explain each ending,the cause and effects etc. I hope we will see "more" of our allies in battle. Alternate outfits and new weapons would also be nice.

So when Liara mind melds with me on Earth,is Shepard indoctrinated at this point? Is Liara? Or does it all happen in the short time after this point?


Now concerning the ME3 ending screen. The buy our dlc screen. This IMO proves that ME3 is an unfinished product. As they have implied any dlc will be before TIM's base. Meaning it adds to the Main story,the story they shipped and charged me full price for. The hint at Retake Omega makes me sick to my stomach. Why add to a fully finished experience? ME3 is a game that ends a trilogy,the content should have been there before hand. ME3 dlc is completely pointless,as it adds meaningless content implemented to make money and nothing else.

Real classy and artistic to end your Mass Effect trilogy with the words Downloadable Content.(360)

Adding any pre-ending dlc,is like adding a cape to my suit. Yea it is extra content that enhances my product,but is completely pointless and unneeded. As I already own a "finished" and "complete" product. Well at least I thought I did.

[Dean_the_Young]

balance5050 wrote...

It's just a possiblity that there is always a splinter group because the VI says that the cycle repeats itself, same conflicts and blablabla

http://www.youtube.c...rK0WYH6xE#t=70s 

Now you're backtracking from earlier claims. Which is good! Let's just continue to walk it back to non-absurd levels.


The VI claims a philosophy, not an absolute truth, that amounts to 'history repeats itself.' It refers to the Reaper cycle and how there are similar conflicts, but also that the conflicts play themselves out in different ways each iteration. We know that literalism of this philosophy is unsustainable: our history and what we know of the Protheans is simply too different to require direct analogies.

So if we don't have literal analogs, and the ones we do have do so in their own way, what does that lead to? Variation, not enforced similarity. 'Things occur differently' is not an epithet for an absolute pattern.

If a general pattern is claimed, but an absolute re-occurance is discredited (by history and by allowance), what does that actually imply? It would need to be something broad: something encompasing multiple variations of an iteration. If we consider the Control/Destroy schism one of those re-occuring incidents, it would need to be a conflict broadly defined, not narrowly.

'Reapers always indoctrinate a Control faction into a schism' is extremely narrow... and also discredited by our own cycle, in which the Reapers only indoctrinated a pre-existing, pre-schismed movement.

The similarity would have to be broader than one that already doesn't exist.

[balance5050]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

It's just a possiblity that there is always a splinter group because the VI says that the cycle repeats itself, same conflicts and blablabla

http://www.youtube.c...rK0WYH6xE#t=70s 

Now you're backtracking from earlier claims. Which is good! Let's just continue to walk it back to non-absurd levels.


The VI claims a philosophy, not an absolute truth, that amounts to 'history repeats itself.' It refers to the Reaper cycle and how there are similar conflicts, but also that the conflicts play themselves out in different ways each iteration. We know that literalism of this philosophy is unsustainable: our history and what we know of the Protheans is simply too different to require direct analogies.

So if we don't have literal analogs, and the ones we do have do so in their own way, what does that lead to? Variation, not enforced similarity. 'Things occur differently' is not an epithet for an absolute pattern.

If a general pattern is claimed, but an absolute re-occurance is discredited (by history and by allowance), what does that actually imply? It would need to be something broad: something encompasing multiple variations of an iteration. If we consider the Control/Destroy schism one of those re-occuring incidents, it would need to be a conflict broadly defined, not narrowly.

'Reapers always indoctrinate a Control faction into a schism' is extremely narrow... and also discredited by our own cycle, in which the Reapers only indoctrinated a pre-existing, pre-schismed movement.

The similarity would have to be broader than one that already doesn't exist.

Naw, if you read Mac Hudson comics you see that "the seed of control" was laid in TIM's head all the way  back in Shanxi.

[balance5050]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

It's just a possiblity that there is always a splinter group because the VI says that the cycle repeats itself, same conflicts and blablabla

http://www.youtube.c...rK0WYH6xE#t=70s 

Now you're backtracking from earlier claims. Which is good! Let's just continue to walk it back to non-absurd levels.


The VI claims a philosophy, not an absolute truth, that amounts to 'history repeats itself.' It refers to the Reaper cycle and how there are similar conflicts, but also that the conflicts play themselves out in different ways each iteration. We know that literalism of this philosophy is unsustainable: our history and what we know of the Protheans is simply too different to require direct analogies.

So if we don't have literal analogs, and the ones we do have do so in their own way, what does that lead to? Variation, not enforced similarity. 'Things occur differently' is not an epithet for an absolute pattern.

If a general pattern is claimed, but an absolute re-occurance is discredited (by history and by allowance), what does that actually imply? It would need to be something broad: something encompasing multiple variations of an iteration. If we consider the Control/Destroy schism one of those re-occuring incidents, it would need to be a conflict broadly defined, not narrowly.

'Reapers always indoctrinate a Control faction into a schism' is extremely narrow... and also discredited by our own cycle, in which the Reapers only indoctrinated a pre-existing, pre-schismed movement.

The similarity would have to be broader than one that already doesn't exist.

Pretty cool interpretation.

[balance5050]

COOL! Dragon's Dogma will be in my house tomorrow.

[balance5050]

Peace yall! got hang with real life friends now!

[Frostmourne86]

Why can't people see that cybernetic implantation is one of the defining charasteristics of Mass Effect? Biotic implants are cybernetic in nature, since they're technology that is surgically implanted into a person, and software can be pluged in (amps)? Soldiers in ME have cybernetic enhancements: the 1st game has them regen health - the only class apart from Wrex that does that by defualt, and in ME 2/3 the "Ocular Implants" allow them to use Adren. Rush. Shepard was never implanted with Reaper technology, just cybernetics and synthetic organs - The Illusive Man was implicit that "Shepard remain the same as before death"; that was part of the reason why Miranda's control chip was shot down. Garrus' life was saved by adding cybernetics - it looks like his right eye is now cybernetic, since the right side of his body took most of the damage from that rocket. Tali's body/immune system is bolstered by cybernetics - does this mean that they're both going to become indoctrinated just because they have enhancements? No, I didn't think so....

[dreman9999]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

That still goes to the level of the fittest...It's just what fittest is changed with use.The fittest get the best mates while the rest get whats left over.

'Fittest' has specific connotations and uses in regards to capabilities and strengths. The word you are looking for is 'attractive', which in now way indicates relative levels of ability to survive on one's own.

That still is fittest.

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1. It is relvent.

 

Not to the point at hand.

That is what the reaper want to stop.

No, it's not. They want to stop synthetics from eradicating all organic life, according to that glowing idiot serpent. 

We have many examples of a roughly similar conflict on a smaller scale through different circumstances occuring, often because the Reapers cause it. Like the Zha'til, who they turned on their organic masters. 

If they wanted to prevent it they would do something about it. They don't, because they don't care. 

Ask your self this, why would synthetics is a technologicl singularity attack organic? Why would synthetics care for organics if they have evenything they need.
Synthetocs don't even have the same needs as organics....Why would they ever fight over anything but yet do?
Not how it wasthe quarians who attack first of rennoch in all times.

I've asked myself similar things many times, concluding that the Catalyst is talking sh*t that should be ignored.

2.Ok, do you know the reason why the reaper use it? Can the reaper comb all of space and find all organics and any that will be by themselves with no mass relays?

I know why they created and then left the Mass Relays, I've roughly detailed several times now.

To guide civilization down a rough path of using them as their basis of galactic travel, so they are easier to predict and to destroy once the Relays are shut off. 

Their actual control ins't as absolute as has been made out. They don't control evolution, for example. 

1. What you not get is why synthetic would wipe out organic life. Tell em, synthetic are just goin gto up rise and wipe out life just because?
2.But they control our progress. They lead us were they want us to be.Then havest us and force change on to us by making use reapers. The end results is a forced evolution.

[Aiyie]

thesnake777 wrote...

I think IT is a well thought out explanation. However I dont think thats what happened here.

agreed.

im just getting tired of everyone trying to shove their opinions down the throats of everyone else.  on both sides of the argument.

im tired of the pro-IT folks not shutting up... although to be fair most often i see them only defending their opinions against un-provoked attacks by anti-IT'rs...

im also tired of the anti-IT folks spending every spare breath they have trying to convince the pro-IT crowd to just give up hope and join them in crying about how badly bioware screwed up and how unfair it was and yada yada yada.

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. What you not get is why synthetic would wipe out organic life. Tell em, synthetic are just goin gto up rise and wipe out life just because?

What the f*ck are you even saying? 

I don't think his problem is legitmate or real enough for me to care. 

In simple terms: synthetics wont try to wipe out all organic life. There's no evidence for it. 

2.But they control our progress. They lead us were they want us to be.Then havest us and force change on to us by making use reapers. The end results is a forced evolution.

That's entirely different from 'controlling our evolution', which they don't do.

Their control is loose. The only thing they actually manipulate is the method which civilization travels throughout the galaxy.