381 réponses à ce sujet

[o Ventus]

KingZayd wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Parapsychologists generally agree with the biological view that genetic traits are dispositional — i.e. that they merely encode a disposition to react in certain ways to environmental stimuli, and not actual memory or experience.

As to your question, wouldn't just be evolution and adaptation?

Well, not really.. as the genes are still there, just they're not expressed. 

And yeah, I wasn't saying I believed in that genetic memory. Just that that's what the Mass Effect universe is using. It is Science Fiction after all.

Then I guess I'm misunderstanding your question. Are you asking if there's some way to "delete" unnecessary genes?

Not delete, "turn off", so that it remains, but it's not expressed (the corresponding RNA isn't transcribed and the amino acids aren't made). I got the impression that S-RNA does this, but I don't know how it does this. If there's a system, or if it's random.

Oh, yes. sRNA regulates gene expression. IIRC, it does it by binding to certain mRNAs.

[Taboo]

I do make a decision, but not the one he finds to be most preferable. I choose the one I want.

All the options become valid in this case.

On the flip side, I could easily argue that if you believe him your only option is Synthesis and Destroy is irrelevant. See how that works?

[o Ventus]

jla0644 wrote...

How can you possibly choose any of the options if you think it is lying to you? If you don't trust it, then there is nothing for Shepard to do and the game is over right there. But as appealing as that sounds, it is unfortunately not an option.

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT THE CATALYST LIES.

[Taboo]

o Ventus wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

How can you possibly choose any of the options if you think it is lying to you? If you don't trust it, then there is nothing for Shepard to do and the game is over right there. But as appealing as that sounds, it is unfortunately not an option.

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT THE CATALYST LIES.

I never called anyone a Facist either but the thought process hasn't improved.

He doesn't lie. Ever. He is irrelevant. That makes the choice YOURS.

[KingZayd]

jla0644 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Bad writing can create an interpretation. Bad writing or mistakes can actually be a good thing. It can also result in things like the IT, so I'll have to meet you half way.

It doesn't matter how old he is though. He simply says it WILL happen. That would be a fallacy even if he was as billions of years old. BASIC logical steps are required.

But I think that that was the point. You either trust him or you don't, it's up to you. I don't think Bioware will address it either, or at least in a satisfactory manner.

That's what an interpretation is.

How can you possibly choose any of the options if you think it is lying to you? If you don't trust it, then there is nothing for Shepard to do and the game is over right there. But as appealing as that sounds, it is unfortunately not an option.

And if you think it's not lying but is simply wrong, you're in a similar position. If it's wrong about everything, can you really trust that any of the options are going to do what it says they will do?

You can accept what it says and make your choice, or wait until you get a Mission Failure screen. If you reject what it says and still make a choice, what is your reasoning? It's lying to me but I'm going to jump in the beam anyway? It's wrong but I'm going to shoot the pipe and hope it doesn't open a black hole?

You can come up with a million reasons why it is lying or why it wrong, and they will each be meaningless, because in the end you still have to make a decision.

Reorte wrote...

We're not given any
explanation, let alone a lengthy one. No hints of it throughout the
entire series when the Reapers themselves have had plenty of opportunity
to explain their motives. There is nothing about the Catalyst that
makes me want to believe it. TIM did far better at that. When I played
the game I assumed it was some desperate last-ditch effort to try to
trick me because there's absolutely nothing to suggest that it wouldn't
do that and plenty of reason to think that it would. The far-fetched
explanation just reinforced that view.

See above.

KingZayd wrote...

The Starchild had plenty of time to explain. It didn't.

Because that is how the game was written. Not because it couldn't explain, but because Bioware didn't bother to do it.

Fine, I ignore everything the Starchild says, and I see Anderson shooting at a tube. I like Anderson (and know he wants to destroy the reapers), so I do that too Good thing I apparently have psychic powers.

If the Starchild doesn't give us any reason to believe it's statements about synthetics wrt organics, nor its motives, then it's the Starchild's failure. If the way Bioware wrote him makes him unreliable, then he's unreliable.

What I have is this: The Reapers ARE trying to kill us (the people of the Milky Way) off, as they have killed many before us. Synthetics are not. This self-described controller of the things trying to kill us off tells us that the Reapers aren't the problem, but a solution to the nasty synthetics who would kill all organic life. He just says that, and gives nothing to back it up. Naturally, I decide to destroy the Reapers.

[KingZayd]

o Ventus wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Parapsychologists generally agree with the biological view that genetic traits are dispositional — i.e. that they merely encode a disposition to react in certain ways to environmental stimuli, and not actual memory or experience.

As to your question, wouldn't just be evolution and adaptation?

Well, not really.. as the genes are still there, just they're not expressed. 

And yeah, I wasn't saying I believed in that genetic memory. Just that that's what the Mass Effect universe is using. It is Science Fiction after all.

Then I guess I'm misunderstanding your question. Are you asking if there's some way to "delete" unnecessary genes?

Not delete, "turn off", so that it remains, but it's not expressed (the corresponding RNA isn't transcribed and the amino acids aren't made). I got the impression that S-RNA does this, but I don't know how it does this. If there's a system, or if it's random.

Oh, yes. sRNA regulates gene expression. IIRC, it does it by binding to certain mRNAs.

Ok cool, do you know what determines whether or not the sRNA is made to bind to these mRNAs?

[o Ventus]

KingZayd wrote...

Ok cool, do you know what determines whether or not the sRNA is made to bind to these mRNAs?

Nope.

[KingZayd]

o Ventus wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Ok cool, do you know what determines whether or not the sRNA is made to bind to these mRNAs?

Nope.

Ah.. that's unfortunate.. That was what I was originally asking about

[frylock23]

jla0644 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Bad writing can create an interpretation. Bad writing or mistakes can actually be a good thing. It can also result in things like the IT, so I'll have to meet you half way.

It doesn't matter how old he is though. He simply says it WILL happen. That would be a fallacy even if he was as billions of years old. BASIC logical steps are required.

But I think that that was the point. You either trust him or you don't, it's up to you. I don't think Bioware will address it either, or at least in a satisfactory manner.

That's what an interpretation is.

How can you possibly choose any of the options if you think it is lying to you? If you don't trust it, then there is nothing for Shepard to do and the game is over right there. But as appealing as that sounds, it is unfortunately not an option.

And if you think it's not lying but is simply wrong, you're in a similar position. If it's wrong about everything, can you really trust that any of the options are going to do what it says they will do?

You can accept what it says and make your choice, or wait until you get a Mission Failure screen. If you reject what it says and still make a choice, what is your reasoning? It's lying to me but I'm going to jump in the beam anyway? It's wrong but I'm going to shoot the pipe and hope it doesn't open a black hole?

You can come up with a million reasons why it is lying or why it wrong, and they will each be meaningless, because in the end you still have to make a decision.

Congratulations! You have discovered why the ending is a massive failure.

You are forced to treat the Catalyst as if what it says is infallible and perfectly true and right, but as we've repeatedly pointed out over and over ... there is no good reason for any thinking being with half a brain to simply accept what it says at face value. At this point, your only real option is to shut off the game.

[Necrotron]

My character just refuses to be a monster and a war criminal who commits genocide in order to perserve life. My Shepard would find another way or die trying, but the game doesn't give me that option.

[Lord Goose]

Fine, I ignore everything the Starchild says, and I see
Anderson shooting at a tube. I like Anderson (and know he
wants to destroy the reapers), so I do that too Good thing I
apparently have psychic powers.

We don't acually know what shooting the tube may do, if we choose to ignore the Catalyst. Basically, Shepard in a room with unknown objects with unknown properteries. Decide to shoot the tube in spur of the moment is... not rational. Also, Anderson is heavily pro-organic/anti-synthetic (that's covered in novels).

ARE trying to kill us

He didn't deny it, right?
Besides, if the geth are alive, Destroy is still unethical, even if problem brought up by Catalyst doesn't seems to be relevant, unless you choose to believe that geth wouldn't die, but Reapers would.

[Taboo]

Yes, and so is enslaving the Reapers. That's worse than killing them.

You hold that bull**** maxim, "Nobody else dies today". They die the moment you take control of them.

[o Ventus]

Lord Goose wrote...

He didn't deny it, right?
Besides, if the geth are alive, Destroy is still unethical, even if problem brought up by Catalyst doesn't seems to be relevant, unless you choose to believe that geth wouldn't die, but Reapers would.

I'm fairly certain karma can forgive killing something that itself is responsible for quintillions upon quintillions of deaths.

[KingZayd]

Lord Goose wrote...

Fine, I ignore everything the Starchild says, and I see
Anderson shooting at a tube. I like Anderson (and know he
wants to destroy the reapers), so I do that too Good thing I
apparently have psychic powers.

We don't acually know what shooting the tube may do, if we choose to ignore the Catalyst. Basically, Shepard in a room with unknown objects with unknown properteries. Decide to shoot the tube in spur of the moment is... not rational. Also, Anderson is heavily pro-organic/anti-synthetic (that's covered in novels).

ARE trying to kill us

He didn't deny it, right?
Besides, if the geth are alive, Destroy is still unethical, even if problem brought up by Catalyst doesn't seems to be relevant, unless you choose to believe that geth wouldn't die, but Reapers would.

Anderson is also pro-destroying the Reapers, and based on what I'm told, the Crucible is some sort of weapon that kills reapers. That's its purpose. We've hooked it up to the Citadel (Catalyst), and now it's ready to work. I trust my apparent psychic visions, more than this Starchild that refused to leave us alone.

He did say that he was protecting us( a different us, organics). And what he did say on that topic wasn't convincing. Synthetics WILL wipe out organic life without them to stop? I don't know, sounds like "Don't do this, you need us!" to me.

I wouldn't say Destroy is unethical. Yes it's not perfect, but if you're choosing it, its because in your opinion it's the only choice. Saying the Geth will die, is like holding a bunch of hostages, only easier because I can't verify the hostage is even in any danger (Even then, if what the Starchild say is true, the Geth would have eventually wiped us out anyway ). That said, I have a galaxy full of living people in the balance to think about. If the Reapers are around, then everyone is at risk, and apparently we can't beat them without a crucible, and I can only use this crucible once.

If instead of the Geth, it was all humans. I would make the same choice. It's not pleasant, and I would be upset if they died. But the Reapers would threaten EVERYONE. Including the Geth and the Humans.

[ThinkIntegral]

frylock23 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

If the Geth survives, then why the **** does the Catalyst tell you all synthetic life will die.

The **** is Bioware trying to pull.

God ****ing dammit I hate how ****ing vague this ****ing ending is.

I'm all out of ****s to give.

Excuse my french.

He says you CAN kill the Geth.

CAN.

Problem?

Maybe he says you "can" because if you're willing to kill the Reapers then you would clearly be willing to utterly wipe out any other synthetic race, too? Thus, if you "can" kill the Reapers, then you "can" kill the Geth? It's a stretch ...

What in the hell are you getting at?

[Taboo]

ThinkIntegral wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

If the Geth survives, then why the **** does the Catalyst tell you all synthetic life will die.

The **** is Bioware trying to pull.

God ****ing dammit I hate how ****ing vague this ****ing ending is.

I'm all out of ****s to give.

Excuse my french.

He says you CAN kill the Geth.

CAN.

Problem?

Maybe he says you "can" because if you're willing to kill the Reapers then you would clearly be willing to utterly wipe out any other synthetic race, too? Thus, if you "can" kill the Reapers, then you "can" kill the Geth? It's a stretch ...

What in the hell are you getting at?

You don't have to kill the Geth if you don't want to.

INTERPRETATIONS!

[ThinkIntegral]

Taboo-XX wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

frylock23 wrote...
Maybe he says you "can" because if you're willing to kill the Reapers then you would clearly be willing to utterly wipe out any other synthetic race, too? Thus, if you "can" kill the Reapers, then you "can" kill the Geth? It's a stretch ...

What in the hell are you getting at?

You don't have to kill the Geth if you don't want to.

INTERPRETATIONS!

You have an....interesting way of interpreting that statement about the Destroy option

Modifié par ThinkIntegral, 18 juin 2012 - 01:20 .

[Lord Goose]

enslaving the Reapers

I really fail to understand that argument. Enslavement, as far as I get, is act of stripping somebody of free will. But in case of Reapers, they were already under Catalysts control. So their freedom remains the same in Control. It is also possible to make their situation similiar to the jailed criminals, who're technically, under control of guards and wardens.

Yes it's not perfect, but if
you're choosing it, its because in your opinion it's the only
choice. Saying the Geth will die, is like holding a bunch of
hostages, only easier because I can't verify the hostage is
even in any danger (Even then, if what the Starchild say is
true, the Geth would have eventually wiped us out anyway ). That said, I have a galaxy full of living people in
the balance to think about. If the Reapers are around, then
everyone is at risk, and apparently we can't beat them
without a crucible, and I can only use this crucible once.

But that is exactly that Renegade does all the time. Kill heretic geth, just in case, that they would turn against us, kill the Rachni Queen, just in case she will turn up as her ancestors, sabotage cure for genophage, just to make sure that Krogan Rebellions will not repeat itself (well, also because Earth need Salarian fleets). Kill the geth, just to eliminate all risks of Reaper's return.

kills the reapers. Its it purpose

As far as I know, it is not clear, that Crucible was supposed to do.
Also, we don't see the results of the visions, so it is still requires fair amount of irrationality to choose shoot the tube. If you remove Catalyst out of equation, Shepard basically arrived in unknown place, saw vision of the Anderson, and decided to blew up the tube. Which is even worse than the current ending, IMO.

[frylock23]

ThinkIntegral wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

frylock23 wrote...
Maybe he says you "can" because if you're willing to kill the Reapers then you would clearly be willing to utterly wipe out any other synthetic race, too? Thus, if you "can" kill the Reapers, then you "can" kill the Geth? It's a stretch ...

What in the hell are you getting at?

You don't have to kill the Geth if you don't want to.

INTERPRETATIONS!

You have an....interesting way of interpreting that statement about the Destroy option

What was I getting at? *sigh*

Something like what your least favorite classroom teacher was getting at when every time you asked if you could go to the bathroom she would reply, "I don't know. Can you go to the bathroom?"

Does that help?

[MegaSovereign]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Yes, and so is enslaving the Reapers. That's worse than killing them.

You hold that bull**** maxim, "Nobody else dies today". They die the moment you take control of them.

Good. I want them dead. Who doesn't?

The sig is referring to the fact that you're saving synthetic life and the Citadel.

[ThinkIntegral]

frylock23 wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

frylock23 wrote...
Maybe he says you "can" because if you're willing to kill the Reapers then you would clearly be willing to utterly wipe out any other synthetic race, too? Thus, if you "can" kill the Reapers, then you "can" kill the Geth? It's a stretch ...

What in the hell are you getting at?

You don't have to kill the Geth if you don't want to.

INTERPRETATIONS!

You have an....interesting way of interpreting that statement about the Destroy option

What was I getting at? *sigh*

Something like what your least favorite classroom teacher was getting at when every time you asked if you could go to the bathroom she would reply, "I don't know. Can you go to the bathroom?"

Does that help?

Yes it does. I was asking to verify your line of thinking and interpretation of that statement.

[High Kicks]

Its so fishy.

And, here's something I always thought was funny.
Blue = Good
Red = Bad
TIM was shown during Control. With Destroy, you see Anderson.
Control=Blue
Destroy=Red

We all know TIM is dirty mofo. And, When ever you respond to TIM with a paragon attitude, he's always calling an Idealist and how wrong you are.Meanwhile, he chose control. The Blue ending.

We all know that Anderson is a goody two shoes. But, he's shown in the Destroy ending. The Red one.

Its like they're trying to throw you off? And that the Catalyst isn't meant to be listened to at all. If it wasn't there to give you that half ass explanation and it was just a control panel with the same three choices that just gave you the basics. Hit the Red one and it destroys the Reaper. Hit the Blue and it Controls the Reapers. Hit the Green one and...I dunno. Space magic happen. I think I lot more people would have picked Destroy. Well, at least the boy scouts would. Because its the right thing to do.

And you're not so bogged down with consequences you don't even get to see unfold.

Shoulda just kept it simple.

[KingZayd]

Lord Goose wrote...

Yes it's not perfect, but if
you're choosing it, its because in your opinion it's the only
choice. Saying the Geth will die, is like holding a bunch of
hostages, only easier because I can't verify the hostage is
even in any danger (Even then, if what the Starchild say is
true, the Geth would have eventually wiped us out anyway ). That said, I have a galaxy full of living people in
the balance to think about. If the Reapers are around, then
everyone is at risk, and apparently we can't beat them
without a crucible, and I can only use this crucible once.

But that is exactly that Renegade does all the time. Kill heretic geth, just in case, that they would turn against us, kill the Rachni Queen, just in case she will turn up as her ancestors, sabotage cure for genophage, just to make sure that Krogan Rebellions will not repeat itself (well, also because Earth need Salarian fleets). Kill the geth, just to eliminate all risks of Reaper's return.

kills the reapers. Its it purpose

As far as I know, it is not clear, that Crucible was supposed to do.
Also, we don't see the results of the visions, so it is still requires fair amount of irrationality to choose shoot the tube. If you remove Catalyst out of equation, Shepard basically arrived in unknown place, saw vision of the Anderson, and decided to blew up the tube. Which is even worse than the current ending, IMO.

And in this case, I believe the Renegade would be right. Paragon does not necessarily mean good, and Renegade doesn't necessarily mean bad.

My almost pure paragon chooses destroy, because unlike the heretic geth, unlike the Rachni Queen, the Reapers cannot be beaten without this Crucible. The game tells us this over and over again.
I believe the galaxy could handle the Geth if they were to screw with us with their increased numbers (although I think rewriting the Geth is more renegade really. My character chose to boost the "True" Geth, in the hopes of help against the Reapers. Hardest choice in the game for me)
I believe the galaxy could handle the Rachni, as they have done before.
The game has told me repeatedly, that the Reapers cannot be stopped without the Crucible. In the end, my Paragon makes the tough choice to protect life in the galaxy. Not just organic life, but synthetic life too (if the Geth survive, otherwise future synthetic life).

We're building the crucible to destroy the Reapers. We don't know how, but that is our intent. An Anderson vision isn't much to base the choice on I agree, but either I'm psychic, or I'm insane. If I'm psychic, then I shoot shoot the tubes. If I'm insane, well then there's no way to decide and I have to question everything. It averages out as copying Anderson.

[KaeserZen]

What I like about ending-originated debate is that because the set of ethics you have set yourself throughout the games is personal, the debate over which ending is more ethic can not come to a consensus, and therefore will last forever.

I was inclined to chose Synthesis at first, because Destroy was giving so much collateral, and Control just seemed wrong and risky. Then, as I limped toward the jumping point, I really felt urged to go for Destroy, like an unvisible Mass Effect pulling me towards the right.

And I felt good about it, I felt an undomitable force of rebellion within me woke me up and let me see how choosing Synthesis would actually make me a pawn within the grand scheme of the Catalyst : merging synthetics with organics.

It was the utmost act of defiance within my mindset, that way, we would have it our way.

Still, it felt like picking the lesser of 3 evils as people mentionned.

[Taboo]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Yes, and so is enslaving the Reapers. That's worse than killing them.

You hold that bull**** maxim, "Nobody else dies today". They die the moment you take control of them.

Good. I want them dead. Who doesn't?

The sig is referring to the fact that you're saving synthetic life and the Citadel.

At the cost of others. You're no different than the Destroy people. You enslave to save.