1256 réponses à ce sujet

[clennon8]

The Reapers aren't people. They're ancient ghouls. The tragedy isn't slaying them now. The tragedy transpired eons ago, when they were constructed.

I realize you pro-Synths would really like to regain the moral high ground, but you aren't getting any traction here. You're much better off sticking to "But the geth!"

[Taboo]

Heeden wrote...

I always thought it went something along the lines of;

Harvest race >>> Process genetic/cellular memories in to virtual from >>> Form some sort of abstract algorithm for the Reapers base personality >>> Whatever magic makes AI happen >>> Shackle Reaper to enact the cycle

The control option changes the shackles to Shepards preferences (all the Reapers get a What-Would-Shepard-Do bracelet), Synthesis removes the shackles and allows free-will to reign.

Yes. It's just like the Cybermen from Doctor Who. They are completely incapable of knowing what they are doing. And do you know what happens when they become self aware? They panic. They freak out.

The Doctor believes it is more ethical to Destroy them, and I agree with him. I would never allow a race to exist with that amount of self hatred, especially when I caused it.

Nor will I control them, and be the same as the Catalyst.

[clennon8]

This is reminding me a bit of the story line in season 2 of The Walking Dead. The patriarchal doctor with the barn full of zombie family members. He doesn't want to kill them. He wants to cure them.

[memorysquid]

o Ventus wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

1)  They should follow their own rules.  They did not, in several instances, because it is a very complex story with multiple authors.  The author is the ultimate arbiter of what happens or not in a work of fiction.  Not saying synthesis or reaping are well written or even adequately defined within the canon.  They are not.  Just saying of the choices presented, synthesis struck me as the one that didn't entail genocide or the insane and repeatedly failed hubris I talked both Saren and TIM into killing themselves over, and watched fail in every single attempt. [Overlord, Tali's dad, TIM, etc.]

2)  I mean like Sovereign saying "We are each a nation unto ourselves," and "Our existence is beyond your comprehension."  Couple that with his statements on how they are harvesting civilizations, memory contained in DNA, etc., and the best you can say is that Reaper's have an unknown internal state, but there must be some reason for all that goopifying.

1. That doesn't excuse anything. Walters and Weekes both admitted to using the Wiki when checking details. Multiple writers should at best entail different styles of telling the story, not "this part of the game is goddamn retarded, while this part is brilliant".

2. I interpret those lines as Sovereign referring to the Reapers as an organization. It paints him as half brain-damaged to refer to himself in first person, then in third person, then back to first person. There very well may not be a reason for the gooping. If they're trying to process and "rescue" humans, then why are they going out of their way to slaughter them wholesale?

1. I explain; I don't excuse.  Crap writing is just that, but ME is still heads and tails over most games I've played and even many novels I've read.

2. Rannoch reaper says they are your salvation but we just don't get it and you learn elsewhere that DNA contains memories.  Sure they could all be full of it, but short of Bioware writing this as the Usual Suspects with the final reveal completely hidden, why waste all that exposition if not to inform the reader?  Some of what Sovereign spews is obviously a lie meant to demoralize.  "We are each a nation unto ourselves" remains a reference to each single Reaper's state of being though and "Our existence is beyond your comprehension" means just that.  

They don't slaughter wholesale and the game references that several times.  They go all out to wreck resistance and then they start the harvesting.  No need to goop anyone at all if they are just annihilating life and what would the point even be then?  Wiping out life themselves so that synthetics don't do it a few 10K years later?  They straight out say they left humans, asari, etc. alone last time and only harvest the mature civilizations.  That isn't wholesale slaughter.

And actually the Starchild straight out says that they don't kill organic life they harvest and store it making way for new civilizations.  So the canon is plain.  Either Starchild is lying, which makes vanishingly little sense, or the people are stored in some form in the Reapers and destroy wipes them out.  So destroy is basically multiple galacticide - I guess that is why they colored it red.

[Bill Casey]

memorysquid wrote...

And actually the Starchild straight out says that they don't kill organic life

Bekenstein...

[Taboo]

The Starchild. Doesn't. Lie.

He presents a fallacy. There is a difference.

Shepard addressed the issue with the destruction of the Reapers. He/She says they died THOUSANDS of years ago. This is in-game, on Rannoch. Stop ****ing around and go listen to it.

[clennon8]

Starchild isn't "lying." How many times must that point be conceded? But he is stupid and crazy and wrong.

Reapers are undead killing machines. Those people who were liquified and fused into organic metal died a long, long time ago. Destroying the Reapers is a friggin act of mercy.

Modifié par clennon8, 15 juin 2012 - 05:13 .

[shepdog77]

Modifié par shepdog77, 15 juin 2012 - 04:51 .

[Taboo]

^ LOL

[memorysquid]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Starchild. Doesn't. Lie.

He presents a fallacy. There is a difference.

Shepard addressed the issue with the destruction of the Reapers. He/She says they died THOUSANDS of years ago. This is in-game, on Rannoch. Stop ****ing around and go listen to it.

Shepard says it, sure.  But he's wrong.  Did he know the Catalyst even existed on Rannoch?  Had the Catalyst schooled him in the real deal yet?  No.  Shepard is cluelessly guessing through most of the game, behind the curve of the Collectors, Reapers and TIM for the vast majority of everything.  His point of view in one dialogue tree is that those people were dead and now rest easy, sure.  Nothing in game necessitates him being right and the Catalyst outright contradicts him; tells him he's wrong on a number of topics like the Reapers can be controlled, organics are not slaughtered, etc.  Unless the game canon includes life after death, you can't interpret him literally anyway.  Paragon Shepard contradicts Renegade Shepard frequently.  Is your point of view that anything out of Shepard's mouth is true in game?

Here's a possibility: the gooped people died and then their consciousness was reconstituted in the Reapers thus making sense of Reaper claims about being a nation unto themselves, we are legion - just like legion that collection of VIs said, etc.  Would Shepard know about that?  No.  Would it make sense of what Sovereign, the Rannoch reaper and the Catalyst say?  Yes.

What is the Catalyst's fallacy?  Where is he being illogical in game?

[Taboo]

A is probable/therefore A is absolute.

That is a logical fallacy known as appeal to probability. He isn't lying or trying to be manipulative. He's just a machine caught in a loop. Nothing he says has any relevance to the situation at hand, at least about the Singularity.

[memorysquid]

Bill Casey wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

And actually the Starchild straight out says that they don't kill organic life

Bekenstein...

True enough.  I miswrote.  Sub in that he "...rebuts Shepard's claim that they are wiping out all life..."  for the blanket universal I typed.  They obviously kill lots of organics that they won't be rendering into goop, which the Starchild wasn't denying with that claim.

[Vigilant111]

memorysquid wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Starchild. Doesn't. Lie.

He presents a fallacy. There is a difference.

Shepard addressed the issue with the destruction of the Reapers. He/She says they died THOUSANDS of years ago. This is in-game, on Rannoch. Stop ****ing around and go listen to it.

Shepard says it, sure.  But he's wrong.  Did he know the Catalyst even existed on Rannoch?  Had the Catalyst schooled him in the real deal yet?  No.  Shepard is cluelessly guessing through most of the game, behind the curve of the Collectors, Reapers and TIM for the vast majority of everything.  His point of view in one dialogue tree is that those people were dead and now rest easy, sure.  Nothing in game necessitates him being right and the Catalyst outright contradicts him; tells him he's wrong on a number of topics like the Reapers can be controlled, organics are not slaughtered, etc.  Unless the game canon includes life after death, you can't interpret him literally anyway.  Paragon Shepard contradicts Renegade Shepard frequently.  Is your point of view that anything out of Shepard's mouth is true in game?

Here's a possibility: the gooped people died and then their consciousness was reconstituted in the Reapers thus making sense of Reaper claims about being a nation unto themselves, we are legion - just like legion that collection of VIs said, etc.  Would Shepard know about that?  No.  Would it make sense of what Sovereign, the Rannoch reaper and the Catalyst say?  Yes.

What is the Catalyst's fallacy?  Where is he being illogical in game?

Biggest fallacy: Catalyst has no way of knowing the future, countless so-called cycles don't mean s**t

[clennon8]

Bah. All these contortions to justify an act of unmitigated arrogance. "I think the Reapers are blameless and deserve to be free! Because a ghost kid I just met said a couple of things! Therefore I will remove choice from everyone else in the galaxy! Yay me!"

[o Ventus]

memorysquid wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

1)  They should follow their own rules.  They did not, in several instances, because it is a very complex story with multiple authors.  The author is the ultimate arbiter of what happens or not in a work of fiction.  Not saying synthesis or reaping are well written or even adequately defined within the canon.  They are not.  Just saying of the choices presented, synthesis struck me as the one that didn't entail genocide or the insane and repeatedly failed hubris I talked both Saren and TIM into killing themselves over, and watched fail in every single attempt. [Overlord, Tali's dad, TIM, etc.]

2)  I mean like Sovereign saying "We are each a nation unto ourselves," and "Our existence is beyond your comprehension."  Couple that with his statements on how they are harvesting civilizations, memory contained in DNA, etc., and the best you can say is that Reaper's have an unknown internal state, but there must be some reason for all that goopifying.

1. That doesn't excuse anything. Walters and Weekes both admitted to using the Wiki when checking details. Multiple writers should at best entail different styles of telling the story, not "this part of the game is goddamn retarded, while this part is brilliant".

2. I interpret those lines as Sovereign referring to the Reapers as an organization. It paints him as half brain-damaged to refer to himself in first person, then in third person, then back to first person. There very well may not be a reason for the gooping. If they're trying to process and "rescue" humans, then why are they going out of their way to slaughter them wholesale?

1. I explain; I don't excuse.  Crap writing is just that, but ME is still heads and tails over most games I've played and even many novels I've read.

2. Rannoch reaper says they are your salvation but we just don't get it and you learn elsewhere that DNA contains memories.  Sure they could all be full of it, but short of Bioware writing this as the Usual Suspects with the final reveal completely hidden, why waste all that exposition if not to inform the reader?  Some of what Sovereign spews is obviously a lie meant to demoralize.  "We are each a nation unto ourselves" remains a reference to each single Reaper's state of being though and "Our existence is beyond your comprehension" means just that.  

They don't slaughter wholesale and the game references that several times.  They go all out to wreck resistance and then they start the harvesting.  No need to goop anyone at all if they are just annihilating life and what would the point even be then?  Wiping out life themselves so that synthetics don't do it a few 10K years later?  They straight out say they left humans, asari, etc. alone last time and only harvest the mature civilizations.  That isn't wholesale slaughter.

And actually the Starchild straight out says that they don't kill organic life they harvest and store it making way for new civilizations.  So the canon is plain.  Either Starchild is lying, which makes vanishingly little sense, or the people are stored in some form in the Reapers and destroy wipes them out.  So destroy is basically multiple galacticide - I guess that is why they colored it red.

1. I concede to the point, somewhat. ME is both **** and amazing, depending on who wrote what.

2. I don't know. Why don't you ask the Catalyst why he insists on us making 1 of 3 poorly informed choices with NO exposition? Ask the people who live on Bekenstein if they got uplifted. Or Tiptree. or Taetrus. Or... pretty much any other colony that isn't a major military or manufacturing center. Ask the refugee girl on the Citadel. The people at the memorial wall. Like Shepard said to Miranda on the Citadel, "Millions of people lost their lives within minutes", and a majority of those people were NOT military.

3. Pro-synths need to STOP suggesting that we think the Catalyst is lying. He can be wrong and follow false logic, which he does. The burden of proof rests on his shoulders in regards to the tech singularity, and he doesn't produce a single shred of evidence that it's ever happened, or even come close. sShepard, on the other hand, has numerous points of reference to his POV.

Modifié par o Ventus, 15 juin 2012 - 05:33 .

[memorysquid]

Taboo-XX wrote...

A is probable/therefore A is absolute.

That is a logical fallacy known as appeal to probability. He isn't lying or trying to be manipulative. He's just a machine caught in a loop. Nothing he says has any relevance to the situation at hand, at least about the Singularity.

I didn't reference the Singularity; I was talking about storing the harvested people in Reapers as a lie, which is why I was confused by your non sequitur claim.

Sure he's wrong about the Singularity; the Geth and EDI are both counter-evidence. At least until they stab the trusting organics in the back. "I like seeing humans crawl."

[memorysquid]

o Ventus wrote...

2. I don't know. Why don't you ask the Catalyst why he insists on us making 1 of 3 poorly informed choices with NO exposition? Ask the people who live on Bekenstein if they got uplifted. Or Tiptree. or Taetrus. Or... pretty much any other colony that isn't a major military or manufacturing center. Ask the refugee girl on the Citadel. The people at the memorial wall. Like Shepard said to Miranda on the Citadel, "Millions of people lost their lives within minutes", and a majority of those people were NOT military.

3. Pro-synths need to STOP suggesting that we think the Catalyst is lying. He can be wrong and follow false logic, which he does. The burden of proof rests on his shoulders in regards to the tech singularity, and he doesn't produce a single shred of evidence that it's ever happened, or even come close. sShepard, on the other hand, has numerous points of reference to his POV.

1. Agree.
2. I think that about making a snap decision with little data is a question for the writers.  Shep seems to get it, in game.  If I don't, oh well.  And for the selective slaughter, I guess it is like triage - they save who they can with the resources they have.  They obviously know they are vulnerable and can't "save" everyone.
3. I didn't say anything about him lying re: the singularity.  I said either he is lying about people being stored in Reapers or that destroy = multiple galacticide.  No false logic is going to make him misunderstand what the Reaper process, "his solution" does.

[memorysquid]

clennon8 wrote...

Bah. All these contortions to justify an act of unmitigated arrogance. "I think the Reapers are blameless and deserve to be free! Because a ghost kid I just met said a couple of things! Therefore I will remove choice from everyone else in the galaxy! Yay me!"

Well destroy = multiple galacticide, killing a close friend and a race of allies all without their consent and control = maintaining Reaper subjugation and subjecting the universe to your Reaper tyranny without their consent.  Gee, let's hope you're a benevolent tyrant and don't get corrupted unlike the two people you convinced to suicide for trying or the various total failures of said control attempts you've had to slaughter your way through.  In short, whatever you do, affects the entire galaxy and ignores everyone else's consent.  You solicit no one's opinion but your own and the Catalyst's.

[Taboo]

The Geth are dead in my playthrough...

Just the Reapers here.

And possibly EDI.

[memorysquid]

Killing the Geth was obviously wrong. The Quarians tried to ice them for slipping control and then acted indignant that their slaves happened to be self-aware and resist being killed. The Quarians should have been wiped if anything; they were the aggressors in every instance. So your Shep is already a genocide. I was talking about the people referring to synthesis as some kind of morally repugnant act; your Shep's already crossed that incarnadine sea.

[Taboo]

I didn't have a choice. Tali was exiled in ME2. It's either the Quarians or the Geth. Tali being alive is good, and the Quarians I felt, were more trustworthy. That was my fault.

You've already commited genocide, completing Mass Effect 2 requires that.

[clennon8]

memorysquid wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Bah. All these contortions to justify an act of unmitigated arrogance. "I think the Reapers are blameless and deserve to be free! Because a ghost kid I just met said a couple of things! Therefore I will remove choice from everyone else in the galaxy! Yay me!"

Well destroy = multiple galacticide, killing a close friend and a race of allies all without their consent and control = maintaining Reaper subjugation and subjecting the universe to your Reaper tyranny without their consent.  Gee, let's hope you're a benevolent tyrant and don't get corrupted unlike the two people you convinced to suicide for trying or the various total failures of said control attempts you've had to slaughter your way through.  In short, whatever you do, affects the entire galaxy and ignores everyone else's consent.  You solicit no one's opinion but your own and the Catalyst's.

You haven't read my earlier posts in this thread.  In short:  I don't condone Control.  Destroy doesn't make me feel great about myself, but I'd rather kill a few million geth than force genetic change with unknowable consequences onto quintillions of life forms.  You can peddle your false equivalence fallacy elsewhere.  Also, my response to Save the Reapers! will continue to be lolwut for the rest of time.

Modifié par clennon8, 15 juin 2012 - 06:06 .

[o Ventus]

memorysquid wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

2. I don't know. Why don't you ask the Catalyst why he insists on us making 1 of 3 poorly informed choices with NO exposition? Ask the people who live on Bekenstein if they got uplifted. Or Tiptree. or Taetrus. Or... pretty much any other colony that isn't a major military or manufacturing center. Ask the refugee girl on the Citadel. The people at the memorial wall. Like Shepard said to Miranda on the Citadel, "Millions of people lost their lives within minutes", and a majority of those people were NOT military.

3. Pro-synths need to STOP suggesting that we think the Catalyst is lying. He can be wrong and follow false logic, which he does. The burden of proof rests on his shoulders in regards to the tech singularity, and he doesn't produce a single shred of evidence that it's ever happened, or even come close. sShepard, on the other hand, has numerous points of reference to his POV.

1. Agree.
2. I think that about making a snap decision with little data is a question for the writers.  Shep seems to get it, in game.  If I don't, oh well.  And for the selective slaughter, I guess it is like triage - they save who they can with the resources they have.  They obviously know they are vulnerable and can't "save" everyone.
3. I didn't say anything about him lying re: the singularity.  I said either he is lying about people being stored in Reapers or that destroy = multiple galacticide.  No false logic is going to make him misunderstand what the Reaper process, "his solution" does.

2. That's retarded. Not to mention pointless. Anyone who isn't military they can round up in slaughterhouse ships, they don't need to kill them all.

3. Destroy only invokes genocide upon the geth. I perosnally interpret that as the brutal calculus of war, like how I determined that the 5th fleet is more important than the Destiny Ascension. Not all of the right decisions are easy. Besides, the species inside the Reapers are dead. Nothing remains of them except for biomass. Each Reaper exists as a single entity. If it were a true gestalt intelligence, it would affirm as such in the choice of words it uses when referring to itself. Harbinger doesn't do this. Neither does Sovereign. Legion and the geth do. 

Modifié par o Ventus, 15 juin 2012 - 06:10 .

[Belisarius09]

people who say synthesis is good make me want to vomit.

I sincerely hope you're never put in a position of power where you have any say over even the smallest factors of anyone's lives.

[Ieldra]

memorysquid wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Aaaaaaaand there goes any credibility you may have had up to this point.

No offense to you, but your argument deflates like a wet balloon when you say "Just accept it".

When you misquote me, it is not very helpful to your own credibility.  I said to 'just accept it in game terms,' meaning 'they wrote the universe so it works like they say; you can't fight that.'  If they say that tasting skin flakes will let Javik feel Grunt's adolescent struggles, then it happens just like that.  It's called a work of fiction for a reason; they make it all up. 

There's in game evidence that Reapers are a collection of individual consciousnesses; there's in game evidence that DNA carries memory; there's in game evidence that Reapers are full of DNA goop.  Reaping is a synonym for harvesting, as well as death.

So trying to rule out the internal state of being of a Reaper as being precisely some type of mega-Matrix storing a galaxy worth of people as practically improbable is odd.  The objection was that multiple consciousnesses could not arise from rendered people goop.  Why the hell not?  The whole premise of the game is sci-fi hand waving magic and the objections most people are levying to synthesis have nothing to do with anything in the game.  They've made it logically possible that Reapers contain whole galaxies' worth of consciousness.  Someone objecting to the practicality of that based on speculations about how consciousness really works in a human brain makes little sense in a fictive work.

If I may add: it isn't even necessary to accept that DNA contains memories. The people on the Collector base had been there for days or even weeks. Plenty of time to read the information stored in their brain. Also, mind uploading has been a staple of SF for some time. It may even be possible in the real world some time in the future. Who knows.

Otherwise, this deserves to be repeated: there is actual in-game evidence that Reaper are uploaded and conjoined minds. Between Sovereign, the Catalyst and Legion's statements, it all pans out. If anything, the hypothesis that they're like zombies is the odd one with lesser evidence. That evidence may have more emotional impact, but that shouldn't count for anything.

The same for the Reapers being controlled: being set free, they immediately stop their attacks and leave.

@clennon8, o Ventus et al:
Note that I understand the reasoning for Destroy - the "ruthless calculus of war" and the judgment that letting the Reapers go is A Bad Thing and that it's best for the galaxy if they're just gone. It's not my perspective, but I understand. What I'd like others to accept is that it's quite possible to reasonably adopt a different perspective, that this different perspective is supported by in-game evidence and that that perspective doesn't make you evil, fascist or any such thing.

You don't see me trolling the forums with "people who choose Destroy are all evil genocidal monsters" or "I hate this decision with the power of a trillion suns". I could, you know. Except that I don't look at things like that. Results matter, and if you think that it's best for the galaxy if the Reapers are dead, and that this is important enough to take on the responsibility for killing them all, whatever that may mean, that's that. I may argue against it, but I won't condemn anyone for it. I'm not expecting anyone to agree that Synthesis is the best decision, but I damn well expect people to accept that other perspectives than theirs are possible and reasonable. We won't get anywhere with these debates if people insist on "my morality is superior and everything else is evil". In the real word, such an attitude lead people to fly airplanes into skyscrapers.