390 réponses à ce sujet

[Bigdoser]

The Revolut wrote...

Bigdoser wrote...

In the future I can see development teams using me3 ending as a case study of what not to do. Developers are already making jabs at me3's ending. 

Exactly.

I point to Repo Men as to how to tell a good story, even with a bitter ending.

Heck even dragon's dogma ending is better. 

Modifié par Bigdoser, 24 juin 2012 - 10:23 .

[Sisterofshane]

Razerath wrote...

So you're saying that because you think ( without ANY proof and leaving LOGIC aside ) that there is no reason to believe Starchild you would doom the future generations by just sitting down and bleeding out? Wouldn't even take the chance? I mean, how much worse can it get for organics anyways?

Actually, you are the one saying without any logic and proof that rejecting the options that come from the crucible that would spell certain doom.  As far as the game goes, we must make one of the three choices in order to advance the plot of "shepards story", but in an (and I luse the term very loosely here) RPG we typically call  that "railroading". 

The "critical mission failure" screen tells us that we do NOT have the option to not make a choice, but there are many us who feel here that, because of the way the ending was presented, we SHOULD have a choice to reject the Catalyst and accept the consequences, even if they happen to be that the cycle continues and the Reapers are successful in "harvesting" our known galaxy.

You cannot deny the facts that the Angry One has presented, that the Catalyst is the defacto leader of the Reapers, whose tactics have included mental and physical manipulation of organics for at least the last billion years (if we are to believe the age of the Leviathan of Dis).  It is a being that is apparently capable of technological feats that none of us really understand or can recreate.  Its entire assessment of the Crucible and it's capabilities seem to revolve around its singular focus - which is to stop AI from wiping out organic life.

Giving us more information and a chance to investigate might give those of us that are skeptical the information that we need to make the choice that you "assume" is so logical - that to end the threat that we MUST pick one of the three options.

[The Angry One]

Razerath wrote...

It's NOT murder.

It's salvation through destruction. If all the people in the world lived for 400 years we would run out of resources on this planet and people would be killed at a tender age of 200 so that more people could ever live. Or should we all just selfishly live our 400 years, screw the planet and screw our children?

Sacrifices must be made for the greater good.

Nuking cities from orbit is for the greater good?
Murdering people is for the greater good?
Mutilating and torturing people mentally and physically is for the greater good?
Parading innocent men, women and children into DEATH CAMPS and MELTING THEM INTO GOO is for the greater good?

You cannot seriously think like this, it is unbelievably despicable.
This is murder. You are not justified in murdering and torturing people. Ever. For any reason.
I sincerely hope you are never put in charge of anyone or anything.

[Razerath]

Grimwick wrote...

Razerath wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Razerath wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

Means to an end, we aren't talking about an AI who feels like organics do but rather feels organics have a right to feel. Get it?

I am forcing myself to calm down and not express what I truly feel right now.

I will simply state.. nothing justifies that. Nothing. If you think it does, then I suggest nobody bother debating with you as it's a lost cause.

You're selfish then. Those are my true feelings. You're basically saying that I am going to live my life even if that means no one else gets the chance in the future.

Even if trillions have to die, it's so trillions more can live.

Oh for pete's sake.

1 trillion = 1 trillion.

Therefore if the original trillion survive it is exactly the same as the second trillion not being there but without the killing.

Your argument makes no sense.

I mean, if exactly 456 trillion people died its because 9835739487534987534987539487534 trillion can live in the future? Good god, I didn't think I would have to explain that. Way to read too deeply into words, like you probably did with the ending.

IT crusader, right?

That argument is based on the premise that 9835739487534987534987539487534 trillion people exist. That is obviously not the case.

In fact, arguing ethics on what-if scenarios is fruitless. I could equally argue that by killing those 465 trillion organics you are killing their offspring and their offspring's offspring...

In fact, because that original 465 trillion started as  465 trillion whereas that other number of people started much smaller the total number of offspring of the first 465 trillion outnumbers them over a certain time period.

So you're killing more potential lives by killing that original 465 trillion.

And no I don't support IT. I simply support logic.

Since the beginning of organic life up until Shepard wipes the Reapers out much much much less organic life has been lived than what could be lived in the future. That is the point I am trying to make.

Simple version. The universe is still very young compared to how old it will probably get. So the Reapers have killed 10% of organic life that will ever exist... so that the rest of the 90% can live.

[Grimwick]

Razerath wrote...
It's NOT murder.

It's salvation through destruction. If all the people in the world lived for 400 years we would run out of resources on this planet and people would be killed at a tender age of 200 so that more people could ever live. Or should we all just selfishly live our 400 years, screw the planet and screw our children?

Sacrifices must be made for the greater good.

As I said before:

That argument is based on the premise that 9835739487534987534987539487534 trillion people exist. That is obviously not the case.

In fact, arguing ethics on what-if scenarios is fruitless. I could equally argue that by killing those 465 trillion organics you are killing their offspring and their offspring's offspring...

In fact, because that original 465 trillion started as  465 trillion whereas that other number of people started much smaller the total number of offspring of the first 465 trillion outnumbers them over a certain time period.

So you're killing more potential lives by killing that original 465 trillion.

You cannot justify eugenics by those means.

EDIT - WTF? It isn't murder? I don't know what you think murder means but it is murder by any definition.

Modifié par Grimwick, 24 juin 2012 - 10:26 .

[jpraelster93]

He quoted the reapers and said the reapers are good why are we still arguing with him

[DirtySHISN0]

[Ticonderoga117]

Razerath wrote...
It's NOT murder.

It's salvation through destruction. If all the people in the world lived for 400 years we would run out of resources on this planet and people would be killed at a tender age of 200 so that more people could ever live. Or should we all just selfishly live our 400 years, screw the planet and screw our children?

Sacrifices must be made for the greater good.

Oh, so those red laser beams were harmless? Those piles of bodies weren't real? The Protheans turned Collectors were still the same people they were 50k years ago instead of mindless machines?

It was never about "Well those poor organics might run out of resources". They killed because other Synthetics might beat them to it.

[Grimwick]

Razerath wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Razerath wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Razerath wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

Means to an end, we aren't talking about an AI who feels like organics do but rather feels organics have a right to feel. Get it?

I am forcing myself to calm down and not express what I truly feel right now.

I will simply state.. nothing justifies that. Nothing. If you think it does, then I suggest nobody bother debating with you as it's a lost cause.

You're selfish then. Those are my true feelings. You're basically saying that I am going to live my life even if that means no one else gets the chance in the future.

Even if trillions have to die, it's so trillions more can live.

Oh for pete's sake.

1 trillion = 1 trillion.

Therefore if the original trillion survive it is exactly the same as the second trillion not being there but without the killing.

Your argument makes no sense.

I mean, if exactly 456 trillion people died its because 9835739487534987534987539487534 trillion can live in the future? Good god, I didn't think I would have to explain that. Way to read too deeply into words, like you probably did with the ending.

IT crusader, right?

That argument is based on the premise that 9835739487534987534987539487534 trillion people exist. That is obviously not the case.

In fact, arguing ethics on what-if scenarios is fruitless. I could equally argue that by killing those 465 trillion organics you are killing their offspring and their offspring's offspring...

In fact, because that original 465 trillion started as  465 trillion whereas that other number of people started much smaller the total number of offspring of the first 465 trillion outnumbers them over a certain time period.

So you're killing more potential lives by killing that original 465 trillion.

And no I don't support IT. I simply support logic.

Since the beginning of organic life up until Shepard wipes the Reapers out much much much less organic life has been lived than what could be lived in the future. That is the point I am trying to make.

Simple version. The universe is still very young compared to how old it will probably get. So the Reapers have killed 10% of organic life that will ever exist... so that the rest of the 90% can live.

That's an incorrect statement. If the reapers didn't kill the original race then that race would go on to reproduce for the entire span of the universe's lifetime (assuming constant resources). That is the only scenario with the largest possible number of organics. Therefore you kill more future organics with the reapers than without.

[Bigdoser]

jpraelster93 wrote...

He quoted the reapers and said the reapers are good why are we still arguing with him

Personally I find his post's funny and want to see how long this goes for. 

[Razerath]

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

It's NOT murder.

It's salvation through destruction. If all the people in the world lived for 400 years we would run out of resources on this planet and people would be killed at a tender age of 200 so that more people could ever live. Or should we all just selfishly live our 400 years, screw the planet and screw our children?

Sacrifices must be made for the greater good.

Nuking cities from orbit is for the greater good?
Murdering people is for the greater good?
Mutilating and torturing people mentally and physically is for the greater good?
Parading innocent men, women and children into DEATH CAMPS and MELTING THEM INTO GOO is for the greater good?

You cannot seriously think like this, it is unbelievably despicable.
This is murder. You are not justified in murdering and torturing people. Ever. For any reason.
I sincerely hope you are never put in charge of anyone or anything.

You are way to emotional to have this conversation. I also believe that you are way too emotional to understand the sacrifice embedded into the game and that is the reason you don't understand the ending. The facts are there, the proof is there. What ends up happening is salvation through destruction.

We're done? I'm not trying to be mean to you or anything but I don't want to make you this upset.

[The Angry One]

jpraelster93 wrote...

He quoted the reapers and said the reapers are good why are we still arguing with him

I know he's a troll... but.. perhaps part of me is frightened by the notion that this is what.. certain writers actually think.

[Bigdoser]

Guys I think its harbinger in disguise.

[Ticonderoga117]

Grimwick wrote...

The Revolut wrote...

Bigdoser wrote...

In the future I can see development teams using me3 ending as a case study of what not to do. Developers are already making jabs at me3's ending. 

Exactly.

I point to Repo Men as to how to tell a good story, even with a bitter ending.

Halo: Reach had a good bittersweet ending in that respect. In fact, we all knew how it would end but it managed to make it uplifting and graceful.

And badass. Number 6 went down swinging, not stopping just because it seemed pointless.

Shepard... are you  taking notes? An engineer and a super-soldier have done your job better. You have one thing these two didn't, a GIANT GALACTIC ARMADA. Use it!

[The Angry One]

Razerath wrote...

You are way to emotional to have this conversation. I also believe that you are way too emotional to understand the sacrifice embedded into the game and that is the reason you don't understand the ending. The facts are there, the proof is there. What ends up happening is salvation through destruction.

We're done? I'm not trying to be mean to you or anything but I don't want to make you this upset.

I am emotional about the idea that innocent people must be murdered for an ideal.
The fact that the ending is broken and that the Catalyst is not trustworthy has nothing to do with emotion.

YOU are making assumptions to justify capitulation to the Reapers and their unproven, untrustworthy and illogical agenda. Period.

[Razerath]

Grimwick wrote...

Razerath wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Razerath wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Razerath wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

Means to an end, we aren't talking about an AI who feels like organics do but rather feels organics have a right to feel. Get it?

I am forcing myself to calm down and not express what I truly feel right now.

I will simply state.. nothing justifies that. Nothing. If you think it does, then I suggest nobody bother debating with you as it's a lost cause.

You're selfish then. Those are my true feelings. You're basically saying that I am going to live my life even if that means no one else gets the chance in the future.

Even if trillions have to die, it's so trillions more can live.

Oh for pete's sake.

1 trillion = 1 trillion.

Therefore if the original trillion survive it is exactly the same as the second trillion not being there but without the killing.

Your argument makes no sense.

I mean, if exactly 456 trillion people died its because 9835739487534987534987539487534 trillion can live in the future? Good god, I didn't think I would have to explain that. Way to read too deeply into words, like you probably did with the ending.

IT crusader, right?

That argument is based on the premise that 9835739487534987534987539487534 trillion people exist. That is obviously not the case.

In fact, arguing ethics on what-if scenarios is fruitless. I could equally argue that by killing those 465 trillion organics you are killing their offspring and their offspring's offspring...

In fact, because that original 465 trillion started as  465 trillion whereas that other number of people started much smaller the total number of offspring of the first 465 trillion outnumbers them over a certain time period.

So you're killing more potential lives by killing that original 465 trillion.

And no I don't support IT. I simply support logic.

Since the beginning of organic life up until Shepard wipes the Reapers out much much much less organic life has been lived than what could be lived in the future. That is the point I am trying to make.

Simple version. The universe is still very young compared to how old it will probably get. So the Reapers have killed 10% of organic life that will ever exist... so that the rest of the 90% can live.

That's an incorrect statement. If the reapers didn't kill the original race then that race would go on to reproduce for the entire span of the universe's lifetime (assuming constant resources). That is the only scenario with the largest possible number of organics. Therefore you kill more future organics with the reapers than without.

At any point those countless lives could create hundreds of seperate Reaper kinds of antagonists. Any number of those could end organic life for GOOD.

[The Angry One]

Razerath wrote...

At any point those countless lives could create hundreds of seperate Reaper kinds of antagonists. Any number of those could end organic life for GOOD.

"At any point, any couple alive today could conceive the next Hitler. So let's kill everybody. It's the only way to be sure."

This is essentially your argument.

[DoktorAffentanz]

Razerath wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

It's NOT murder.

It's salvation through destruction. If all the people in the world lived for 400 years we would run out of resources on this planet and people would be killed at a tender age of 200 so that more people could ever live. Or should we all just selfishly live our 400 years, screw the planet and screw our children?

Sacrifices must be made for the greater good.

Nuking cities from orbit is for the greater good?
Murdering people is for the greater good?
Mutilating and torturing people mentally and physically is for the greater good?
Parading innocent men, women and children into DEATH CAMPS and MELTING THEM INTO GOO is for the greater good?

You cannot seriously think like this, it is unbelievably despicable.
This is murder. You are not justified in murdering and torturing people. Ever. For any reason.
I sincerely hope you are never put in charge of anyone or anything.

You are way to emotional to have this conversation. I also believe that you are way too emotional to understand the sacrifice embedded into the game and that is the reason you don't understand the ending. The facts are there, the proof is there. What ends up happening is salvation through destruction.

We're done? I'm not trying to be mean to you or anything but I don't want to make you this upset.

There is no proof for ***** sake!!!! The Star-Brat, being the Star-Brat proves only that he's the friggin' Star-Brat!!! That doesn't prove anything he said!!!

[Razerath]

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

At any point those countless lives could create hundreds of seperate Reaper kinds of antagonists. Any number of those could end organic life for GOOD.

"At any point, any couple alive today could conceive the next Hitler. So let's kill everybody. It's the only way to be sure."

This is essentially your argument.

No, it's not because not one human can wipe out ALL organic life forever. I'm talking about a bigger threat.

Dude seriously, if you can't keep up with what I am saying, get out.

[Grimwick]

Razerath wrote...
At any point those countless lives could create hundreds of seperate Reaper kinds of antagonists. Any number of those could end organic life for GOOD.

Finally we get to the root of the argument:

AN APPEAL TO PROBABILITY.

You are making a logical fallacy by justifying a solution (genocide of all things) on this possibility.

It's just wrong. There isn't a yes or no or an opinion to be had. It is uncategorically wrong.

There's no point in trying to defend this, there really isn't.

Modifié par Grimwick, 24 juin 2012 - 10:32 .

[Razerath]

DoktorAffentanz wrote...

Razerath wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

It's NOT murder.

It's salvation through destruction. If all the people in the world lived for 400 years we would run out of resources on this planet and people would be killed at a tender age of 200 so that more people could ever live. Or should we all just selfishly live our 400 years, screw the planet and screw our children?

Sacrifices must be made for the greater good.

Nuking cities from orbit is for the greater good?
Murdering people is for the greater good?
Mutilating and torturing people mentally and physically is for the greater good?
Parading innocent men, women and children into DEATH CAMPS and MELTING THEM INTO GOO is for the greater good?

You cannot seriously think like this, it is unbelievably despicable.
This is murder. You are not justified in murdering and torturing people. Ever. For any reason.
I sincerely hope you are never put in charge of anyone or anything.

You are way to emotional to have this conversation. I also believe that you are way too emotional to understand the sacrifice embedded into the game and that is the reason you don't understand the ending. The facts are there, the proof is there. What ends up happening is salvation through destruction.

We're done? I'm not trying to be mean to you or anything but I don't want to make you this upset.

There is no proof for ***** sake!!!! The Star-Brat, being the Star-Brat proves only that he's the friggin' Star-Brat!!! That doesn't prove anything he said!!!

The proof is in the pudding. The whole situation is the proof that something needs to be done once and FOR ALL.

[clarkusdarkus]

How can one just simply merge into a new DNA for all living things......do those in synthesis even have freewill or are they determined by a code....seems mass genocide to me, taking peoples lives and turning them into robotic gimps. Salvation through destruction....mwahaha....come on, you dont go round changing people's identity's, everyone has there own freewill....without it we might aswell be sheep.

[Bigdoser]

"The proof is in the pudding." Ah there we go this is a troll topic!

[The Angry One]

Razerath wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

At any point those countless lives could create hundreds of seperate Reaper kinds of antagonists. Any number of those could end organic life for GOOD.

"At any point, any couple alive today could conceive the next Hitler. So let's kill everybody. It's the only way to be sure."

This is essentially your argument.

No, it's not because not one human can wipe out ALL organic life forever. I'm talking about a bigger threat.

Dude seriously, if you can't keep up with what I am saying, get out.

How about you keep up with what we're saying, sparky?

Alright, you want it spelled out for you?

At any point any couple alive today could conceive a person who goes on to build a bomb that can wipe out all life in the universe. This person holds the world to ransom, does not get what they demand and activates the bomb. All life in the universe is destroyed. All because we selfishly didn't kill everybody now.

This is what you are saying. Keep up.

[Ticonderoga117]

Razerath wrote...
The proof is in the pudding. The whole situation is the proof that something needs to be done once and FOR ALL.

Yeah, the situation involving the Reapers. Not an AI race. Not an organic race. The. Reapers. They are the problem. GlowBoy says otherwise.