381 réponses à ce sujet

[mass perfection]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Joe Del Toro wrote...
By that logic, all the choices are vengeance driven because in every one of them we are led to believe the Reapers are stopped.

Don't make laugh. Synthesis sets them free - and they leave. Which indicates that they'd been controlled in some way by the Catalyst. And *that* should give you pause.

The Reapers aren't "monsters". They're the enslaved minds of countless organic species. Think about what you're killing - the living history of advanced organic life in the galaxy since the time the Reapers first appeared. If that's not abominable, I don't know what is.

Yeah, I know there are counterarguments against this. But they're no better than mine. And some are worse.

You're forcing change on everyone in the galaxy with Synthesis.

[KingZayd]

TaradosGon wrote...

I wouldn't chose Destroy because it's just a short term solution. If the Catalyst is telling me that a synthetic vs. organic conflict is inevitable, and has existed long enough to see this trend repeated countless times, and the Prothean VI also validates this claim, then killing the Reapers and Geth is just a short term solution and it would be arrogant/ignorant for Shepard to go "nuh uh!" Then a later generation will just have to deal with the problem themselves.

Actually it's a very long term solution. To the true problem: The Reapers.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

mass perfection wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Joe Del Toro wrote...
By that logic, all the choices are vengeance driven because in every one of them we are led to believe the Reapers are stopped.

Don't make laugh. Synthesis sets them free - and they leave. Which indicates that they'd been controlled in some way by the Catalyst. And *that* should give you pause.

The Reapers aren't "monsters". They're the enslaved minds of countless organic species. Think about what you're killing - the living history of advanced organic life in the galaxy since the time the Reapers first appeared. If that's not abominable, I don't know what is.

Yeah, I know there are counterarguments against this. But they're no better than mine. And some are worse.

You're forcing change on everyone in the galaxy with Synthesis.

If they are alive inside they contain nothing but pain. They are like communicating with the memory shard and seeing the moment when each one of them died. Given that the reapers guided the technological paths of each cycle, I would not imagine that the history would be any different from this cycle. If all that is left of them is "You do not understand. We represent order. You represent chaos. Every advanced organic civilization must be harvested to bring order to the chaos" then put them out of their misery.

But how does one read their "history"? Catalyst should have had the history of each race archived, but the catalyst did not care. The reapers even deprived us of the evolutionary tracks of life on those worlds by depriving us of a fossil record. They changed the evolutionary paths. They were meddlers. The Catalyst played god.

In two scenarios it can still happen. He says "the cycle will end." But what if he decides a new solution needs to happen? What then? Do you trust him? I say throw him out the air lock.

[Carlthestrange]

Destroy: Genocide (They're the enemy, it doesn't really matter)
Control: Mass slavery (Still the enemy, i'd rather enslave them than let them kill me)
Synthesis: Forced evolution upon all life in the galaxy (Not cool by my standing)

Its either us or them. Screw ethics.

[TaradosGon]

KingZayd wrote...

Actually it's a very long term solution. To the true problem: The Reapers.

The reapers are a symtom, not a cause. The Prothean VI on Thessia tells you that the same basic conflicts have occurred over and over again in a different manner and that it cannot be a matter of chance and that it goes beyond the Reapers.

The Catalyst explores this further and seems to be speaking specifically about a synthetic vs. organic conflict that inevitably arises (and apparently not by chance, if the Prothean VI's words are used in conjunction).

The Catalyst says that the Reapers were his solution to this pattern. Eliminate the Reapers and the pattern still continues though a different solution would be required.

They speak too cryptically about what this force is that pushes synthetics into war with organics rather than such conflicts arising by chance, so I can't state what that is.

But if I flipped a coin 1,000 times and it came up heads each and every time, it would be natural to suspect that I am manipulating the outcome in some way rather than assuming that I'm just EXTREMELY lucky. I can't imagine too many people wanting to wager that the next coin toss will be tails.

If the Prothean VI and Catalyst are both telling me that this conflict arises in every cycle going back millions of years. It seems weird for Shepard to just maintain that it won't happen to them. Bringing the Geth in as allies against a common enemy does not mean that they will remain allies after that foe is gone, no more so than Wreav will remain an ally. If you side with Tali in ME2, Legion even warns her that the Geth will deal with the Quarians after the Reapers are delt with. And that says nothing about any future AI that is constructed.

[o Ventus]

TaradosGon wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Actually it's a very long term solution. To the true problem: The Reapers.

The reapers are a symtom, not a cause. The Prothean VI on Thessia tells you that the same basic conflicts have occurred over and over again in a different manner and that it cannot be a matter of chance and that it goes beyond the Reapers.

The Catalyst explores this further and seems to be speaking specifically about a synthetic vs. organic conflict that inevitably arises (and apparently not by chance, if the Prothean VI's words are used in conjunction).

The Catalyst says that the Reapers were his solution to this pattern. Eliminate the Reapers and the pattern still continues though a different solution would be required.

They speak too cryptically about what this force is that pushes synthetics into war with organics rather than such conflicts arising by chance, so I can't state what that is.

But if I flipped a coin 1,000 times and it came up heads each and every time, it would be natural to suspect that I am manipulating the outcome in some way rather than assuming that I'm just EXTREMELY lucky. I can't imagine too many people wanting to wager that the next coin toss will be tails.

If the Prothean VI and Catalyst are both telling me that this conflict arises in every cycle going back millions of years. It seems weird for Shepard to just maintain that it won't happen to them. Bringing the Geth in as allies against a common enemy does not mean that they will remain allies after that foe is gone, no more so than Wreav will remain an ally. If you side with Tali in ME2, Legion even warns her that the Geth will deal with the Quarians after the Reapers are delt with. And that says nothing about any future AI that is constructed.

Vendetta tells you the same thing the Catalyst does (Only the Catalyst tells you the conflict itself) and theysuffer from the same problem. Neither of them provide conclusive evidence to their claims.

Hell, the Catalyst is actually more trustworthy in this regard.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

In the last cycle the Protheans were turning the tide against the Zha'til then the Reapers arrived.

And in this cycle, the Quarians had turned the tide against the Geth then the Reapers arrived.

Hence the reapers have consistently prevented organics from solving the problem on their own.

[Taboo]

o Ventus wrote...

Vendetta tells you the same thing the Catalyst does (Only the Catalyst tells you the conflict itself) and theysuffer from the same problem. Neither of them provide conclusive evidence to their claims.

Hell, the Catalyst is actually more trustworthy in this regard.

This.

No one ever shows any realiable data. Ever.

[TaradosGon]

It wouldn't matter if they did, and I think that's the point.

[KingZayd]

TaradosGon wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Actually it's a very long term solution. To the true problem: The Reapers.

The reapers are a symtom, not a cause. The Prothean VI on Thessia tells you that the same basic conflicts have occurred over and over again in a different manner and that it cannot be a matter of chance and that it goes beyond the Reapers.

The Catalyst explores this further and seems to be speaking specifically about a synthetic vs. organic conflict that inevitably arises (and apparently not by chance, if the Prothean VI's words are used in conjunction).

The Catalyst says that the Reapers were his solution to this pattern. Eliminate the Reapers and the pattern still continues though a different solution would be required.

They speak too cryptically about what this force is that pushes synthetics into war with organics rather than such conflicts arising by chance, so I can't state what that is.

But if I flipped a coin 1,000 times and it came up heads each and every time, it would be natural to suspect that I am manipulating the outcome in some way rather than assuming that I'm just EXTREMELY lucky. I can't imagine too many people wanting to wager that the next coin toss will be tails.

If the Prothean VI and Catalyst are both telling me that this conflict arises in every cycle going back millions of years. It seems weird for Shepard to just maintain that it won't happen to them. Bringing the Geth in as allies against a common enemy does not mean that they will remain allies after that foe is gone, no more so than Wreav will remain an ally. If you side with Tali in ME2, Legion even warns her that the Geth will deal with the Quarians after the Reapers are delt with. And that says nothing about any future AI that is constructed.

The creator of the reapers is the one that says the reapers are a symptom, not the problem. Not exactly the most unbiased source is he?

The fact is, the reapers are responsible for all this extinction. Not synthetics. You say the Prothean VI foreshadowed the controller of the reapers. What does he say?


Vendetta: "Though I believe the Reapers are only servants of the
pattern, not its master."

Shepard: "So who is the Master?" 

Vendetta: "Unknown. Its presence is inferred rather than observed. The only certainty
is its intention: Galactic Annihilation. 


So Vendetta would probably agree: Destruction is the right choice.

The cycle referred to is the Reaper cycle. Synthetic annhilation of organic life is not a cycle.

Synthetics vs Organics is purely a distraction from the true problem: Reapers.

The Starchild gives no reason for why synthetics will wipe out organics. Not "cryptic" reasoning. NO reasoning.

The fact is, if the reapers aren't destroyed, then they remain the most dangerous force in the galaxy. That same dangerous force that we need a crucible to beat. Oh, what's that? we used up our crucible on something else? oops.

Modifié par KingZayd, 17 juin 2012 - 08:25 .

[Taboo]

TaradosGon wrote...

It wouldn't matter if they did, and I think that's the point.

You can't say **** like that and expect me to take it at face value.

They are contradicted in game lore anyway.

It's **** writing.

[TaradosGon]

The Catalyst comes off as a hyper-rationale entity whereas Shepard has emotion and values free will. That's obvious from their conversation.

What data do you want the Catalyst to show? You want him to bring up a pie graph of the outcome of all organic vs. synthetic wars before and after the creation of the Reapers? Or to show mathematical formulas that show that the synthetic vs. organic trend is statistically significant?

And more importantly, Shepard would not care. That's the whole point of the final conversation. People need hope. Even if the future was written 100% that organics were to be wiped out by synthetics, under no circumstances is Shepard going to be like "yeah, your data is convincing, I guess you should just harvest our genetic material now and preserve it in reaper form, rather than letting us get wiped out later and having it go to waste."

His attitude seems more like that of  "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it."

Modifié par TaradosGon, 17 juin 2012 - 08:20 .

[Taboo]

Here, a post I made, taken from another thread.

 Possible =/= Probable

For such a powerful being, he is entirely incapable of presenting data.

He wipes out civilizations when he notices a hyperbolic growth curve, that is to say when rapid improvement occurs, he sends the Reapers in. He does not account for:

Energy limits
Social limits
Resources

Those all go into what we call a feedback loop. Hyperbolic growth is NOT a sign of an oncoming singularity.Hyperbolic growth and feedback loops have EVERYTHING to do with a singularity.

Furthermore he presents an absolute, which you cannot do. NOR can you bet against the infinite. This is a logical fallacy known as an Appeal to Probability. Probability is not a fallacy, but declaring something without info is.

A is probable/therefore A is absolute.

This is a logical fallacy. No head canon is needed. This is basic scientific method.

He does not present:

A: The methods he used to arrive at his conclusion.

B: Accurate numbers for the probability of a singularity.

He has a **** ton of things going against him. He is a machine caught in a loop. He has not taken in new information since he began harvesting. He has no relevant data to present to me.

He doesn't lie, ever, he's just irrelevant.

[TaradosGon]

This would be the worst story ever told if he needs to sit down with Shepard and pull out all of his data. And check any kind of statistical equations that were done, etc.

[Taboo]

TaradosGon wrote...

This would be the worst story ever told if he needs to sit down with Shepard and pull out all of his data. And check any kind of statistical equations that were done, etc.

Too bad the fallacy he presents needs no data. 

Simply betting against the infinite makes him fallacious.

[Reorte]

TaradosGon wrote...

The Catalyst comes off as a hyper-rationale entity whereas Shepard has emotion and values free will. That's obvious from their conversation.

The Catalyst comes of as nothing of the sort when what it says ranges through paranoid, meangingless, and nonsensical.

What data do you want the Catalyst to show? You want him to bring up a pie graph of the outcome of all organic vs. synthetic wars before and after the creation of the Reapers? Or to show mathematical formulas that show that the synthetic vs. organic trend is statistically significant?

When something claiming to be the force behind your enemy wants you to trust it it's going to have to say something pretty impressive to get that trust.

And more importantly, Shepard would not care. That's the whole point of the final conversation. People need hope. Even if the future was written 100% that organics were to be wiped out by synthetics, under no circumstances is Shepard going to be like "yeah, your data is convincing, I guess you should just harvest our genetic material now and preserve it in reaper form, rather than letting us get wiped out later and having it go to waste."

Then why have the Catalyst at all?

[TaradosGon]

They come across as scarcely different than the Borg of Star Trek to me, other than having what in their mind is a benevolent intention.

Borg want to assimilate sentient life and add their knowledge and advantages to their own. The Reapers are harvesting life and that life "ascends" into Reaper form. Borg refer to themselves as "we are the Borg." The "individual" Reapers refer to themselves as "we," such as "we are Harbinger." The resistance to the Borg is on the grounds of preserving individuality and that free will and individuality are important enough to a person that they would rather die than become a drone. Shepard opposes the Catalyst on the grounds that he/she wants to retain their own form and that they need hope.

Borg do this to achieve a state of "perfection."
The reapers are doing this to store life and prevent extinction of organics.

When it comes to the Catalyst/Shepard conversation, I don't get the impression that the Catalyst can really relate to Shepard's values as a human/someone that posses free will. He has a solution in which life will be stored in a seemingly immortal form and "ascend" (sounds nice) and that he's preventing their extinction by synthetics. I don't think he realizes how fundamentally offensive his solution is to someone with free will and I don't think he's accounting for that because he doesn't understand it. Even if he was preventing something that had a high probability but was not guaranteed, I don't think he understands why there would be an issue with having life ascend into Reaper form.

Like in Minority Report in which crimes can be predicted before they happen, there's still something morally disgusting about holding someone accountable for something that they haven't done yet. Which is why I say that it doesn't matter what evidence the Catalyst has. Shepard's not going to accept the Catalyst's solution to prevent something that hasn't happened yet, even if the Catalyst showed 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that all organics will be wiped out by synthetics without the Reapers to intervene.

If several of the most world renowned cellular biologists showed me data that my cells are behaving in such a way that demonstrate that I will develop cancer within 5 years and die a most excruciating death, but then offer me the alternative to executed in a painless manner now (and that offer is forever taken off the table if I don't accept it now) I would probably still take my chances with cancer, no matter what evidence was shown to me, because of hope that somehow things will miraculously turn out ok.

I think a lot of people would make a similar decision.

Faced with the choice of immediately being processed into a Reaper or destroying the Reapers and facing a guaranteed extinction at the hands of synthetic creations. I'd probably still take the latter option.

But the Catalyst gives you two other options both of which I feel are better than destroy. Because if the Catalyst's predictions are correct, then the Reapers could be useful. You are wagering that the Catalyst that has been doing this for "countless" cycles is wrong whereas Shepard didn't even know what a Reaper was until 3 years earlier.

Modifié par TaradosGon, 17 juin 2012 - 09:10 .

[Taboo]

It doesn't matter. A fallacy is a fallacy. Unless he provides data he has nothing.

Scientists not being able to decide whether or not the Gimlin film of Bigfoot is legitimate or not gives more credence.

There is more evidence that a giant hairy ape is out wandering the Pacific Northwest than the possibility of a singularity that will kill us.

[robertm2]

op i think anderson would slap you in the face for this thread. destroy is the only logical option. destroying synthetics and people being trapped on planets is nothing but acceptable losses. better to send everyone back to the stone age then to take any risks.

[Arondell]

Reorte wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Control.Save them all!

Possibly, although a renegade Shepard controlling the Reapers isn't going to be much better than a Reaper victory. If you trust that it works at all...

Actually one of the points I thought odd about control is that there are no apparent description of the limits.  Couldn't you just tell the reapers to blow themselves up?   If not  that how about have them all fly into the Sun?  Maybe just have them all drop their shields and stop shooting or just plain tell them to shut down?  What can't you do with control that you could do more directly with destroy?

[BatmanTurian]

TaradosGon wrote...

They come across as scarcely different than the Borg of Star Trek to me, other than having what in their mind is a benevolent intention.

Borg want to assimilate sentient life and add their knowledge and advantages to their own. The Reapers are harvesting life and that life "ascends" into Reaper form. Borg refer to themselves as "we are the Borg." The "individual" Reapers refer to themselves as "we," such as "we are Harbinger." The resistance to the Borg is on the grounds of preserving individuality and that free will and individuality are important enough to a person that they would rather die than become a drone. Shepard opposes the Catalyst on the grounds that he/she wants to retain their own form and that they need hope.

Borg do this to achieve a state of "perfection."
The reapers are doing this to store life and prevent extinction of organics.

When it comes to the Catalyst/Shepard conversation, I don't get the impression that the Catalyst can really relate to Shepard's values as a human/someone that posses free will. He has a solution in which life will be stored in a seemingly immortal form and "ascend" (sounds nice) and that he's preventing their extinction by synthetics. I don't think he realizes how fundamentally offensive his solution is to someone with free will and I don't think he's accounting for that because he doesn't understand it. Even if he was preventing something that had a high probability but was not guaranteed, I don't think he understands why there would be an issue with having life ascend into Reaper form.

Like in Minority Report in which crimes can be predicted before they happen, there's still something morally disgusting about holding someone accountable for something that they haven't done yet. Which is why I say that it doesn't matter what evidence the Catalyst has. Shepard's not going to accept the Catalyst's solution to prevent something that hasn't happened yet, even if the Catalyst showed 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that all organics will be wiped out by synthetics without the Reapers to intervene.

If several of the most world renowned cellular biologists showed me data that my cells are behaving in such a way that demonstrate that I will develop cancer within 5 years and die a most excruciating death, but then offer me the alternative to executed in a painless manner now (and that offer is forever taken off the table if I don't accept it now) I would probably still take my chances with cancer, no matter what evidence was shown to me, because of hope that somehow things will miraculously turn out ok.

I think a lot of people would make a similar decision.

Faced with the choice of immediately being processed into a Reaper or destroying the Reapers and facing a guaranteed extinction at the hands of synthetic creations. I'd probably still take the latter option.

But the Catalyst gives you two other options both of which I feel are better than destroy. Because if the Catalyst's predictions are correct, then the Reapers could be useful. You are wagering that the Catalyst that has been doing this for "countless" cycles is wrong whereas Shepard didn't even know what a Reaper was until 3 years earlier.

Don't you fricking realize that turning an entire race into goo to make more Reapers, then turning the rest into husks and killing the rest off is effectively extinction? There is no life in that organic soup, just a bunch of DNA, amino acids, organic slush. The organics' essence is not preserved, not even individually since their brains are blendered into the goo too. Can't have a conciousness without synapses. You also can't breed without reproductive organs, which also go into the reaper slurpee. Without reproduction, there is only extinction.

The Reapers themselves are the Synthetics forcing extinction on organics. This is so plainly obvious that you have to be stupid or a Reaper apologist to disagree.

[Arondell]

frylock23 wrote...


Don't put your negative impressions of people on the rest of us.

Neither should you assume all people are so altruistic.  Which is kind of the point to renegade options which I've noticed some people enjoy using. 

[BatmanTurian]

Arondell wrote...

frylock23 wrote...


Don't put your negative impressions of people on the rest of us.

Neither should you assume all people are so altruistic.  Which is kind of the point to renegade options which I've noticed some people enjoy using. 

I only use renegade for punching allied aliens in the stomache that order their subordinates to shoot at a ship I'm still inside.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 17 juin 2012 - 09:45 .

[TaradosGon]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Don't you fricking realize that turning an entire race into goo to make more Reapers, then turning the rest into husks and killing the rest off is effectively extinction? There is no life in that organic soup, just a bunch of DNA, amino acids, organic slush. The organics' essence is not preserved, not even individually since their brains are blendered into the goo too. Can't have a conciousness without synapses. You also can't breed without reproductive organs, which also go into the reaper slurpee. Without reproduction, there is only extinction.

The Reapers themselves are the Synthetics forcing extinction on organics. This is so plainly obvious that you have to be stupid or a Reaper apologist to disagree.

I never argued any of your points to the contrary, so I don't know what your point is.

[BatmanTurian]

TaradosGon wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Don't you fricking realize that turning an entire race into goo to make more Reapers, then turning the rest into husks and killing the rest off is effectively extinction? There is no life in that organic soup, just a bunch of DNA, amino acids, organic slush. The organics' essence is not preserved, not even individually since their brains are blendered into the goo too. Can't have a conciousness without synapses. You also can't breed without reproductive organs, which also go into the reaper slurpee. Without reproduction, there is only extinction.

The Reapers themselves are the Synthetics forcing extinction on organics. This is so plainly obvious that you have to be stupid or a Reaper apologist to disagree.

I never argued any of your points to the contrary, so I don't know what your point is.

My point is that they have never been and never will be benevolent. They are performing a self-fulfilling prophecy. They aren't protecting organics from synthetics. They are the synthetics doing the killing. Therefore, Catalyst's logic is BS.