284 réponses à ce sujet

[o Ventus]

MisterJB wrote...

LelianaHawke wrote...

Often trading is much more profitable for advancement than war. Synthetics would surely realize this.

Synthetics don't *have* to go to war to get what they want. If they want security, they can develop shielding. If they want resources, they can trade.

Do humans trade with animals? of course not.

Are animals free thinking, with working economies?

Of course not. Well, some types of apes imitate human economies on a micro-scale, but we aren't committing genocide on them are we?

[T-Raks]

A BTW: a synthetic trying to understand what is infinity would maybe explode.

[frylock23]

MisterJB wrote...

LelianaHawke wrote...

Often trading is much more profitable for advancement than war. Synthetics would surely realize this.

Synthetics don't *have* to go to war to get what they want. If they want security, they can develop shielding. If they want resources, they can trade.

Do humans trade with animals? of course not.

Logic does not create. That's the big weakness an AI has. It can only extrapolate and refine what already exists for it in the hard world if its data. It cannot create something new.

Ever wonder why the Reapers did not change anything about themselves in all those billions of years particularly when they had 50,000 year periods of downtime where they could theoretically do nothing but naval gaze and figure out how to improve themselves? Why didn't they come up with better designs and weaons? Couldn't they at least figure out the meaning of life? Maybe they couldn't. Maybe all they could do is go endlessly over those things they already had data for and try to make it more efficient and that's why they never change. Maybe that's why they have to so carefully guide the development of organic life because if they didn't it might develop technologies for which they had no counter and no means of adapting to in time.

Maybe synthetic life needs organic life to create new things for it develop, and thus, the Geth could not wipe out the Creators because they need them if they are ever to become more than just Geth. Maybe that was why the heretics turned to the Reapers because they couldn't develop beyond what they had been without something new and the Reapers were that.

[MisterJB]

o Ventus wrote...
1. No it isn't. Look at the definition of the word "tyrannical". It's not anything like a real world government. Among the 3 council races, it's probably closest to communism than anything. It isn't like the Council has a secret Cabal or the Illuminati, ready to kill the underground resistance.

The Council passes laws meant to favor the three ruling powers without the input of any of the lesser species that have no choice but to obey them. They even have a secret police, the Spectres, meant to keep the Council in power.
That is tyranny.

2. None spring to mind. The Holocaust had nothing to do with survival. The St. Valentine's Day massacre had nothing to do with survival. The Russian gulags had nothing to do with survival.

Morning War, in the name of survival. Krogan Rebellions, in the name of survival. Genophage, in the name of survival. First Contact War, in the name of survival. Hell, even the Reapers do what they do in the name of survival.

3. Construction =/= advancement, AFAWK, the geth only had the 1 heretic station. Even then, heretics =/= mainstream geth. If they had Rannoch, why would they bother expanding out in space? They also have 1 fleet. Count it, 1 fleet. That fleet also already existed since the geth were constructed as both a labor force and tools of war. The geth only added to it after winning the Morning War.

Legions says the geth don't live on the occupied worlds, Tali ends her pilgrimage by finding technology the geth have developed themselves.
And the fact that they have deardnoughts 30% larger than our already makes them dangerous by default.

[Shallyah]

The Catalyst is wrong, that's all there's to it.

The Catalyst thinks he is right because some billion of years ago synthetics wiped out organics (or were about to) and someone created it and in turn it created the Reapers to guard the Galaxy from ever happening again.

Forever more, the Reapers simply harvested without asking why, before what happened once could happen again, without giving anyone the opportunity to try again and do it better, to do what their cold programs and lines of code told them to do.

My ending is Destroy because I believe asari, turians, salarians, humans and everyone else can do better.

If you have no faith, if you believe the Catalyst, if you rather admit the Reapers are right and organics deserve to live eternally chained, pick Control.

If you are a coward and do not think organics could create a thriving future for the Galaxy and prefer to turn everyone into half-synthetics, sacrificing everyone's own identity out of fear, pick Synthesis.

The ones that have the balls, that believe in what we are and are proud of it will pick Destroy. You really aren't going to change anyone's opinions, because it is simply a matter of faith. You are afraid of the warnings of the catalyst, we chose to not pay heed and prove we are better.

In my Galaxy, the Geth upload themselves into the suits of quarians to help them improve their immune systems, and I encouraged a friend to have a romantic relationship with an AI. The Catalyst tells me peace between synthetics and organics is not possible, and I give him my middle finger and send him to Hell.

And that's really all there's to it till we see EC DLC, in which to be honest, what we're going to see is that Destroy is even better than what it already seems.

Modifié par Shallyah, 28 mai 2012 - 09:07 .

[MisterJB]

o Ventus wrote...
Are animals free thinking, with working economies?

Of course not. Well, some types of apes imitate human economies on a micro-scale, but we aren't committing genocide on them are we?

We certainly aren't taking them into account when we plan our expansion.

[T-Raks]

Shallyah wrote...

The Catalyst is wrong, that's all there's to it.

The Catalyst thinks he is right because some billion of years ago synthetics wiped out organics (or were about to) and someone created it and in turn it created the Reapers to guard the Galaxy from ever happening again.

Forever more, the Reapers simply harvested without asking why, before what happened once could happen again, without giving anyone the opportunity to try again and do it better, to do what their cold programs and lines of code told them to do.

My ending is Destroy because I believe asari, turians, salarians, humans and everyone else can do better.

If you have no faith, if you believe the Catalyst, if you rather admit the Reapers are right and organics deserve to live eternally chained, pick Control.

If you are a coward and do not think organics could create a thriving future for the Galaxy and prefer to turn everyone into half-synthetics, sacrificing everyone's own identity out of fear, pick Synthesis.

The ones that have the balls, that believe in what we are and are proud of it will pick Destroy. You really aren't going to change anyone's opinions, because it is simply a matter of faith. You are afraid of the warnings of the catalyst, we chose to not pay heed and prove we are better.

In my Galaxy, the Geth upload themselves into the suits of quarians to help them improve their immune systems, and I encouraged a friend to have a romantic relationship with an AI. The Catalyst tells me peace between synthetics and organics is not possible, and I give him my middle finger and send him to Hell.

And that's really all there's to it till we see EC DLC, in which to be honest, what we're going to see is that Destroy is even better than what it already seems.

Agreed. It comes down to those who believe that organics are a problem for the galaxy to be solved and those who think organics can adapt to any problem they face. The latter chose destroy.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

lol at people who believe the starchild without and evidence

[Sisterofshane]

MisterJB wrote...

o Ventus wrote...
Are animals free thinking, with working economies?

Of course not. Well, some types of apes imitate human economies on a micro-scale, but we aren't committing genocide on them are we?

We certainly aren't taking them into account when we plan our expansion.

You are overgeneralizing.  We do take them into account, and more than you probably realize.

Did you know that when a new public works project (say a nuclear power plant) breaks ground,, that every worker on the projectis given a pamphlet they are to memorize, and within this pamphlet is descriptions of endangered wildlife?  What are they supposed to do if they run into said wildlife?  They are to report to the foreman, and the project is essentially shut down whilst a comittee is established to determined if the site in question is in fact a protected habitat for the endangered species.  I wouldn't call that "no consideration".

We also already hold land "sacred" from development as wildlife preserves, and have enacted many conservation efforts that go into rebuilding habitats and populations that are endanger.  This is not what I would call "no consideration".

Like I said before, once a certain level of understanding about one's impact and environment is gained, then there is a natural effort to preserve.  We have come to understand that ecosystems are fragile, and are necessary in order to maintain a certain balance to our world.  So would a synthetic understand that it would be more detrimental to the galaxy to try to wipe out all organic life.

[Robhuzz]

Which chaos will return in 50.000 years exactly?

Oh you mean the stuff it made up to justify it's mass genocide it releases on the galaxy every 50k years caused by supreme shortsightedness?

Yeah I'm not worried. In my opinion destroy is the only good choice there.

Modifié par Robhuzz, 28 mai 2012 - 09:15 .

[Ravenmyste]

problem with the endings in my eyes is that

if you choose contro-l it could be seen as humanity getting a powerplay on the universe now that Shepard is in control of the reapers if you choose control..

synthesis- there is no uniqueness to one race nothing to say about race down to dna there all the same regardless of the planet there born on and that could cause alot discomfort in all races now that they are just one race that was forced on them i mean all races of the universe pride them selves on their races achievements but you are taking away.. to me this is wrong to do to any one race

destroy- to me seem like it would be the best option due to 3 things

anything with reaper tech was destroyed i.e fried circuits but this also applies to all tech gained by use of reaper tech. hello geth/edi/ normandy anything that uses reaper tech will gets fried so we loose edi twice first her body and then her ai core that is on the Normandy..

now the good things they can be rebuilt or i hope they can with enough time. secondly the citadel/relays was a technology trap if you look at in hindsight.

relays was preventing races from using their own technology advances to move around the universe when they was able to get to the relays sure it gave advances but they seem to grow stagnant and become reliant on them, see when the protheians fought the reapers they would shut down the relays to trap them in a galaxy,so they could make the harvesting easier on the reapers because they didnt advance once they found the relays and the cycle was repeating it self and it was even said that all races didnt really need the relays anymore due advancements in ftl, but the advancements was slowing down due to the relays being there.

Modifié par Ravenmyste, 28 mai 2012 - 09:21 .

[Obeded the 2nd]

frylock23 wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

Just something I was wondering about the endings.
Destroy is the worst long-term choice even the catalyst says this, in case you missed it he said that the chaos will come back in about 50,000 years.

Problem is the game shows good guys and bad guys.
The bad guys are the illsive man and so on.
The good guys are anderson and hackett.
Hackett at one point says " dead Reapers is how we win this."
This is perhaps proof that the game is foreshadowing that you should destroy the reapers.
However one persons opinion is important but what really gets me is when anderson says "Bull****, they destroy us or we destroy them"
This is huge as this is the very last moment before you pick an option, at the very last minute a good guy is telling you to destroy them.

I know this may have been brought up but I find this very intresting for the good guys to pick something that is actually an option that will kill all organic life.
In case you didn't know foreshadowing is when something futher along in the story is hinted at and we all respect Hackett and Anderson and they are telling us to destroy the Reapers.

The argument against this may be that they didn't know that destroy would be as bad as this, however that is easily shutdown when we take this as an actual story and reliase that Bioware may be showing that Destory is the best option.

Thing is  Bioware knew about the ending when they made all these scenes so I believe we are being shown that destroy is the way to go.
BTW I really like the ending and feel this adds to a much harder choice when making the ending choice.

How do you know all life will be wiped out in 50,000 years? The only ones wiping out all life are the Catalyst and his Reaper Cabal. We can only guess at what will happen in 50,000 years without them. Remember, you have no proof beyond his word.

I don't know about you, but when I was in debate, my coach taught me that to win an argument, you needed to offer actual proof of your assertions beyond simply making them. All the Catalyst does in make his assertion. Stop being in awe of the supposed intelligence you perceive him to have and pretend for one second that he's just another guy on the street telling you this. You'd quite rightly laugh at him. Just because he's a Reaper AI doesn't suddenly make him beyond reproach.

The catalyst says that future organics will create synthetics and the chaos will come back.

[Ravenmyste]

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

Just something I was wondering about the endings.
Destroy is the worst long-term choice even the catalyst says this, in case you missed it he said that the chaos will come back in about 50,000 years.

Problem is the game shows good guys and bad guys.
The bad guys are the illsive man and so on.
The good guys are anderson and hackett.
Hackett at one point says " dead Reapers is how we win this."
This is perhaps proof that the game is foreshadowing that you should destroy the reapers.
However one persons opinion is important but what really gets me is when anderson says "Bull****, they destroy us or we destroy them"
This is huge as this is the very last moment before you pick an option, at the very last minute a good guy is telling you to destroy them.

I know this may have been brought up but I find this very intresting for the good guys to pick something that is actually an option that will kill all organic life.
In case you didn't know foreshadowing is when something futher along in the story is hinted at and we all respect Hackett and Anderson and they are telling us to destroy the Reapers.

The argument against this may be that they didn't know that destroy would be as bad as this, however that is easily shutdown when we take this as an actual story and reliase that Bioware may be showing that Destory is the best option.

Thing is  Bioware knew about the ending when they made all these scenes so I believe we are being shown that destroy is the way to go.
BTW I really like the ending and feel this adds to a much harder choice when making the ending choice.

How do you know all life will be wiped out in 50,000 years? The only ones wiping out all life are the Catalyst and his Reaper Cabal. We can only guess at what will happen in 50,000 years without them. Remember, you have no proof beyond his word.

I don't know about you, but when I was in debate, my coach taught me that to win an argument, you needed to offer actual proof of your assertions beyond simply making them. All the Catalyst does in make his assertion. Stop being in awe of the supposed intelligence you perceive him to have and pretend for one second that he's just another guy on the street telling you this. You'd quite rightly laugh at him. Just because he's a Reaper AI doesn't suddenly make him beyond reproach.

The catalyst says that future organics will create synthetics and the chaos will come back.

 actually  he only asumes that

[T-Raks]

Obeded the 2nd wrote...


The catalyst says that future organics will create synthetics and the chaos will come back.

In your master you believe.

[Obeded the 2nd]

Ravenmyste wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

Just something I was wondering about the endings.
Destroy is the worst long-term choice even the catalyst says this, in case you missed it he said that the chaos will come back in about 50,000 years.

Problem is the game shows good guys and bad guys.
The bad guys are the illsive man and so on.
The good guys are anderson and hackett.
Hackett at one point says " dead Reapers is how we win this."
This is perhaps proof that the game is foreshadowing that you should destroy the reapers.
However one persons opinion is important but what really gets me is when anderson says "Bull****, they destroy us or we destroy them"
This is huge as this is the very last moment before you pick an option, at the very last minute a good guy is telling you to destroy them.

I know this may have been brought up but I find this very intresting for the good guys to pick something that is actually an option that will kill all organic life.
In case you didn't know foreshadowing is when something futher along in the story is hinted at and we all respect Hackett and Anderson and they are telling us to destroy the Reapers.

The argument against this may be that they didn't know that destroy would be as bad as this, however that is easily shutdown when we take this as an actual story and reliase that Bioware may be showing that Destory is the best option.

Thing is  Bioware knew about the ending when they made all these scenes so I believe we are being shown that destroy is the way to go.
BTW I really like the ending and feel this adds to a much harder choice when making the ending choice.

How do you know all life will be wiped out in 50,000 years? The only ones wiping out all life are the Catalyst and his Reaper Cabal. We can only guess at what will happen in 50,000 years without them. Remember, you have no proof beyond his word.

I don't know about you, but when I was in debate, my coach taught me that to win an argument, you needed to offer actual proof of your assertions beyond simply making them. All the Catalyst does in make his assertion. Stop being in awe of the supposed intelligence you perceive him to have and pretend for one second that he's just another guy on the street telling you this. You'd quite rightly laugh at him. Just because he's a Reaper AI doesn't suddenly make him beyond reproach.

The catalyst says that future organics will create synthetics and the chaos will come back.

 actually  he only asumes that

No, he never says " I think" or anything like that, he says it as fact.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

Just something I was wondering about the endings.
Destroy is the worst long-term choice even the catalyst says this, in case you missed it he said that the chaos will come back in about 50,000 years.

Problem is the game shows good guys and bad guys.
The bad guys are the illsive man and so on.
The good guys are anderson and hackett.
Hackett at one point says " dead Reapers is how we win this."
This is perhaps proof that the game is foreshadowing that you should destroy the reapers.
However one persons opinion is important but what really gets me is when anderson says "Bull****, they destroy us or we destroy them"
This is huge as this is the very last moment before you pick an option, at the very last minute a good guy is telling you to destroy them.

I know this may have been brought up but I find this very intresting for the good guys to pick something that is actually an option that will kill all organic life.
In case you didn't know foreshadowing is when something futher along in the story is hinted at and we all respect Hackett and Anderson and they are telling us to destroy the Reapers.

The argument against this may be that they didn't know that destroy would be as bad as this, however that is easily shutdown when we take this as an actual story and reliase that Bioware may be showing that Destory is the best option.

Thing is  Bioware knew about the ending when they made all these scenes so I believe we are being shown that destroy is the way to go.
BTW I really like the ending and feel this adds to a much harder choice when making the ending choice.

How do you know all life will be wiped out in 50,000 years? The only ones wiping out all life are the Catalyst and his Reaper Cabal. We can only guess at what will happen in 50,000 years without them. Remember, you have no proof beyond his word.

I don't know about you, but when I was in debate, my coach taught me that to win an argument, you needed to offer actual proof of your assertions beyond simply making them. All the Catalyst does in make his assertion. Stop being in awe of the supposed intelligence you perceive him to have and pretend for one second that he's just another guy on the street telling you this. You'd quite rightly laugh at him. Just because he's a Reaper AI doesn't suddenly make him beyond reproach.

The catalyst says that future organics will create synthetics and the chaos will come back.

yes because deciding the fate of the galaxy, on the word of a being who wanted to harvest all advanced life without any proof is an Awesome idea

just Awesome, remind me to never let you save the galaxy.

[Obeded the 2nd]

T-Raks wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...


The catalyst says that future organics will create synthetics and the chaos will come back.

In your master you believe.

The Catalyst is the best charcter in Mass Effrect!

[Obeded the 2nd]

DinoSteve wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

Just something I was wondering about the endings.
Destroy is the worst long-term choice even the catalyst says this, in case you missed it he said that the chaos will come back in about 50,000 years.

Problem is the game shows good guys and bad guys.
The bad guys are the illsive man and so on.
The good guys are anderson and hackett.
Hackett at one point says " dead Reapers is how we win this."
This is perhaps proof that the game is foreshadowing that you should destroy the reapers.
However one persons opinion is important but what really gets me is when anderson says "Bull****, they destroy us or we destroy them"
This is huge as this is the very last moment before you pick an option, at the very last minute a good guy is telling you to destroy them.

I know this may have been brought up but I find this very intresting for the good guys to pick something that is actually an option that will kill all organic life.
In case you didn't know foreshadowing is when something futher along in the story is hinted at and we all respect Hackett and Anderson and they are telling us to destroy the Reapers.

The argument against this may be that they didn't know that destroy would be as bad as this, however that is easily shutdown when we take this as an actual story and reliase that Bioware may be showing that Destory is the best option.

Thing is  Bioware knew about the ending when they made all these scenes so I believe we are being shown that destroy is the way to go.
BTW I really like the ending and feel this adds to a much harder choice when making the ending choice.

How do you know all life will be wiped out in 50,000 years? The only ones wiping out all life are the Catalyst and his Reaper Cabal. We can only guess at what will happen in 50,000 years without them. Remember, you have no proof beyond his word.

I don't know about you, but when I was in debate, my coach taught me that to win an argument, you needed to offer actual proof of your assertions beyond simply making them. All the Catalyst does in make his assertion. Stop being in awe of the supposed intelligence you perceive him to have and pretend for one second that he's just another guy on the street telling you this. You'd quite rightly laugh at him. Just because he's a Reaper AI doesn't suddenly make him beyond reproach.

The catalyst says that future organics will create synthetics and the chaos will come back.

yes because deciding the fate of the galaxy, on the word of a being who wanted to harvest all advanced life without any proof is an Awesome idea

just Awesome, remind me to never let you save the galaxy.

I know it's the best idea since sliced bread!

[Vox Draco]

Obeded the 2nd wrote...
The Catalyst is the best charcter in Mass Effrect!

You Sir, are by far the most entertaining person here on BSN! Thank you, I can go to sleep with a smile now!

[StevenG_CT]

Ravenmyste wrote...

anything with reaper tech was destroyed i.e fried circuits but this also applies to all tech gained by use of reaper tech. hello geth/edi/ normandy anything that uses reaper tech will gets fried so we loose edi twice first her body and then her ai core that is on the Normandy..

The game is actually rather ambiguous about the specifics about what happens when you choose the destroy ending. The Star Child tells you that it will destroy all synthetic life including the Reapers and the Geth. He also comments that the player is partly synthetic due to implants. Unfortunately it is left up to the player to classify what defines synthetic life.

This creates a problem as "life" in general is difficult to objectively define. Depending on one's individual point of view on the topic you could end up with a very different end result.

[T-Raks]

Yup, it's always a good idea to listen to someone who when facing the conflict of synthetics trying to wipe out all organics decides to wipe out all advanced organics because he doesn't like their evolutionary state instead of deactivating the synthetics trying to wipe out all organics.

[T-Raks]

Vox Draco wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...
The Catalyst is the best charcter in Mass Effrect!

You Sir, are by far the most entertaining person here on BSN! Thank you, I can go to sleep with a smile now!

Yup, the question whether this is a troll thread or not is solved, so it may be time to go to sleep.

[kal_reegar]

in the long term all the stars will die and life with them.
so, who cares about tech-singularity ect? 1000 year from now, 100000000 yeas... i don't give a f*uck.
that's what organics do.

i want the reapers dead (hate them) and shepard alive (love myself)
I also don't trust the starbrat. Little nonsensical space-ghost.

so, red ending.

[Obeded the 2nd]

T-Raks wrote...

Vox Draco wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...
The Catalyst is the best charcter in Mass Effrect!

You Sir, are by far the most entertaining person here on BSN! Thank you, I can go to sleep with a smile now!

Yup, the question whether this is a troll thread or not is solved, so it may be time to go to sleep.

Na, it was just a troll post.

[Ravenmyste]

[quote]


 actually  he only asumes that

[/quote]

No, he never says " I think" or anything like that, he says it as fact.


[/quote]


  yes and its  fact know he assuming that their will  be synthetic  uprising like that with anunnous had done to them reapers where created by them{ the first space faring race that created them i.e the keepers}

he just saying  you can destroy us but you children will make  synthetics to, right here is assuming that they w dont allow  Ai to be created and or not  get impeeded by something there alot factors in the  saying so you have to call it asumption

Modifié par Ravenmyste, 28 mai 2012 - 09:41 .