191 réponses à ce sujet

[LordRaptor]

dreman9999 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

JustinElenbaas wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

If what you said is true, then they wouldn't have got the 3 husks and marauder shields to attack Shepard.

What I'm trying to explain is that the Reapers CANNOT, willingly go against their programming, they are slaves to it and therefore must act to fulfill it.  Yet Harbinger needs only STOP Shepard to neutralize the threat, not kill him/her, so that's what Harbinger does and therefore Harbinger can then leave.  This does not exclude other Reaper entities or indoctrinated entities from attempting to follow their programming.

My point was that if repear agents are so close by. Harbinger's programming should know Shepard isn't dead. Furthermore whats stopping more soldiers from charging the beam after Harbinger flies off? Just because Shepard's down doesn't mean everyone is...

Listen to the radio chatter.Itclearly says what happens to everyone else.

Harbinger knows Shepard is not dead.  Harbinger acts to ensure this.  Harbinger straight up ACES every other ship/soldier/plane/etc. that charges the beam and therefore is a threat, but the EC shows Harbinger fires at Shepard with that same slow crawling lazer blast the Rannoch Destroyer used, and it never even hits Shepard before the white out cut happens.  At this point two things happen:

1) No one is rushing the beam.

2) Shepard is incapacitated momentarily.

These two things fulfill criteria that neutralizes threat level.  Now I know it will seem like I'm reading into all this to explain it, but it's actually basic.  Harbinger STOPS the rush, which was it's intention.  Harbinger did not want to kill Shepard, but it's programming requires it to oppose Shepard.  So Harbinger does the only thing it can, incapacitates Shepard so Harbinger may then leave, having fulfilled it's purpose.

[zigamortis]

It would be great if someone could go into the audio files and actually analyze it.

[Hulk Hsieh]

I think the AI "may" change/create the rule on their own, like R. Daneel Olivaw created the Zeroth Law of Robotics. And the initial implementation of the Zeroth Law. Isn't what humantiy really wanted. And in the end, R. Daneel Olivaw can't really make the decision and a human, Trevize, has to make the decision for it.

ME borrows a lot of things from many Sci-Fi novels/TV/movies, but for the core it borrows from the best.

[LordRaptor]

This will be my last reply before bed.

Angry peace is a word. In the words of The Matrix Revolutions an AI program says, (which Mac Walters referenced in his notes on the game ending btw) "The word is not important, it is the meaning, it is the connection it implies." The connection implied by peace is an end to conflict. The Reapers see their actions as stopping inevitable conflict, therefore ending it.

K guys, have a good night. I'll check in tomorrow...err later today...

Modifié par JustinElenbaas, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:51 .

[The Angry One]

dreman9999 wrote...

Think like a machine. If you do it makes sense. A machine only does what it's programed to do. The only time it can do what ever it want is if it writes it's own code. That said a machine will do it's programing untill it; stopped or turned off, told to do something else, or finishes what it's programed to do.

I *am*.
A machine would not interpret "peace" as "cycle of destruction".
Even if a machine equated "peace" with "death", then it would kill off everything. Permanently.

[The Angry One]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. They pull back.

Harbinger is leaving. They no longer need to.

2. What says they are not attacked by some thing else.Based on the last few cut scenes, they are.

So run from what's attacking them and *head to the beam*

[Soggy-Snake-]

I want to believe this or another theory.

But why kill Shepard in ME2? "If I must tear you apart Shepard I will"

Harbinger is mean sometimes :/

[Jadebaby]

JustinElenbaas wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

JustinElenbaas wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

If what you said is true, then they wouldn't have got the 3 husks and marauder shields to attack Shepard.

What I'm trying to explain is that the Reapers CANNOT, willingly go against their programming, they are slaves to it and therefore must act to fulfill it.  Yet Harbinger needs only STOP Shepard to neutralize the threat, not kill him/her, so that's what Harbinger does and therefore Harbinger can then leave.  This does not exclude other Reaper entities or indoctrinated entities from attempting to follow their programming.

My point was that if repear agents are so close by. Harbinger's programming should know Shepard isn't dead. Furthermore whats stopping more soldiers from charging the beam after Harbinger flies off? Just because Shepard's down doesn't mean everyone is...

Listen to the radio chatter.Itclearly says what happens to everyone else.

Harbinger knows Shepard is not dead.  Harbinger acts to ensure this.  Harbinger straight up ACES every other ship/soldier/plane/etc. that charges the beam and therefore is a threat, but the EC shows Harbinger fires at Shepard with that same slow crawling lazer blast the Rannoch Destroyer used, and it never even hits Shepard before the white out cut happens.  At this point two things happen:

1) No one is rushing the beam.

2) Shepard is incapacitated momentarily.

These two things fulfill criteria that neutralizes threat level.  Now I know it will seem like I'm reading into all this to explain it, but it's actually basic.  Harbinger STOPS the rush, which was it's intention.  Harbinger did not want to kill Shepard, but it's programming requires it to oppose Shepard.  So Harbinger does the only thing it can, incapacitates Shepard so Harbinger may then leave, having fulfilled it's purpose.

Sorry but no way would it's programming allow it to leave. A.I's deal in absolutions, and that beam is the ONLY way for anyone to open the Ctiadel and dock the Crucible. Harbinger would stay firmly put until the beam retracts or another lower class Reaper comes along to guard it.

[dreman9999]

The Angry One wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Think like a machine. If you do it makes sense. A machine only does what it's programed to do. The only time it can do what ever it want is if it writes it's own code. That said a machine will do it's programing untill it; stopped or turned off, told to do something else, or finishes what it's programed to do.

I *am*.
A machine would not interpret "peace" as "cycle of destruction".
Even if a machine equated "peace" with "death", then it would kill off everything. Permanently.

Yes it would. You not thinking like a machine. The reaper don't even see reapering as killing. They call it perseving.

[dreman9999]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

JustinElenbaas wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

JustinElenbaas wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

If what you said is true, then they wouldn't have got the 3 husks and marauder shields to attack Shepard.

What I'm trying to explain is that the Reapers CANNOT, willingly go against their programming, they are slaves to it and therefore must act to fulfill it.  Yet Harbinger needs only STOP Shepard to neutralize the threat, not kill him/her, so that's what Harbinger does and therefore Harbinger can then leave.  This does not exclude other Reaper entities or indoctrinated entities from attempting to follow their programming.

My point was that if repear agents are so close by. Harbinger's programming should know Shepard isn't dead. Furthermore whats stopping more soldiers from charging the beam after Harbinger flies off? Just because Shepard's down doesn't mean everyone is...

Listen to the radio chatter.Itclearly says what happens to everyone else.

Harbinger knows Shepard is not dead.  Harbinger acts to ensure this.  Harbinger straight up ACES every other ship/soldier/plane/etc. that charges the beam and therefore is a threat, but the EC shows Harbinger fires at Shepard with that same slow crawling lazer blast the Rannoch Destroyer used, and it never even hits Shepard before the white out cut happens.  At this point two things happen:

1) No one is rushing the beam.

2) Shepard is incapacitated momentarily.

These two things fulfill criteria that neutralizes threat level.  Now I know it will seem like I'm reading into all this to explain it, but it's actually basic.  Harbinger STOPS the rush, which was it's intention.  Harbinger did not want to kill Shepard, but it's programming requires it to oppose Shepard.  So Harbinger does the only thing it can, incapacitates Shepard so Harbinger may then leave, having fulfilled it's purpose.

Sorry but no way would it's programming allow it to leave. A.I's deal in absolutions, and that beam is the ONLY way for anyone to open the Ctiadel and dock the Crucible. Harbinger would stay firmly put until the beam retracts or another lower class Reaper comes along to guard it.

Unless he's told to do somethng else.
You have to note that the loop hole is there. With the crucible , to salutions pop up to solve it's programing. Using the crucible or reap. What happens to a machine that is told to do two things at one and not given direction to which to do first and can only do one of the commands at once? It idels. Add, it can be told to reaper some where else.

[Zine2]

JustinElenbaas wrote...


For it to be deemed insane they would be required to be acting on their free will,

Free will has nothing to do with sanity, and is irrelevant regardess.

All you're doing is to try and go "Oh, look at the poor Reapers who can't think for themselves!"

When to the galaxy, and the vast majority of players, it's irrelevant BS. They're still the enemy who are committing mass genocide. Their reasons for acting insane (i.e. limited programming) is irrelevant. It literally does not matter if they're like a wild dog infected with rabbies - the issue is that they are a wild dog that needs to be put down. 

There's a reason the emerging most popular ending is Destroy. It is canon fact that the Reapers are - by every definition of the word - insane. There is ZERO reason not wipe them out except that the Reapers took the Geth hostage.

Destroy is emerging as the most popular ending now for a reason.

Modifié par Zine2, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:00 .

[Silhouett3]

JustinElenbaas wrote...

First let me explain by analyzing the Reapers, or what we know of them.  Basically each Reaper is the combined genetic material of an entire preserved species, built of their thoughts, emotions and DNA.  Yet no matter the species, or design these constructs turn out to be members of an advanced homicidal horde, bent on one goal, maintaining the cycle.

This is because though the Reapers are advanced beyond our comprehension they are still slaves to their programming.  The Catalyst speaks of this when it mentions the solution.  Sovereign, Harbinger, the Destroyer all speak of this when they mention "the cycle cannot be broken".  This means they cannot deviate from their programming, regardless of their individual sentience.

The extended cut affirmed what I had suspected from the beginning.  The ending is far to easy for Shepard.  Many other naysayers and myself have pointed this fact out in numerous threads how the Reapers literally, hold Shepard's hand and guides him/her through the conflict though on multiple occasions, when it is blatantly clear they have won.  However, I and other detractors of this fact have been viewing it from the wrong perspective.  We have been viewing the Reapers as willing villains as they were presented in ME1 and ME2, their motivations completely malicious in nature.  The Reapers of ME3 are AI constructs fulfilling a base programming, nothing more...except...

They no longer wish to fulfill that programming.  Consider this; why would the combined consciousness of entire species, all throughout eons of time be willing to repetitively commit mass genocide without even one rebelling?  Unless they are incapable of rebelling.  "The cycle cannot be broken."  In ME1 Shepard impresses Sovereign with his/her skill, wit, cunning and unfaltering morality (whether para or ren).  In ME2 Shepard impresses Harbinger with the same and the Reapers even try to recover Shepard's dead body.  We all assume for nefarious purposes.  But it's not.  The Reapers cannot break their own programming, they cannot break the cycle, and neither can the Catalyst.  It says so itself, it cannot change it's solution.

AIs are capable of reprogramming themselves. EDI and Geth has reprogrammed themselves many times. They are both the subject and the agent of their programming, but never slaves to it. That would be a VI <_<

Second.. to prove your point, you had to treat Reapers like humans
"...why would the combined consciousness of entire species, all throughout
eons of time be willing to repetitively commit mass genocide without
even one rebelling? "
So wait.. why would they have to rebel...in order to just display they are free entities?

Now consider what Legion said in ME2:

" No 2 species are identical. All must be judged on their own merits. Treating every species like one's own is racist. Even benign anthropomorphism."

[dreman9999]

Soggy-Snake- wrote...

I want to believe this or another theory.

But why kill Shepard in ME2? "If I must tear you apart Shepard I will"

Harbinger is mean sometimes :/

Harbinger also says he want to use Shepard. And the faqmous line in aRRIVAL"struggle if you wish , you mind will be mine." Comes to mind.
Harbinger also asks the SB to get Shepards body for him....Id Cerberus and revive Shepard, so can the reapers.

[dreman9999]

Silhouett3 wrote...

JustinElenbaas wrote...

First let me explain by analyzing the Reapers, or what we know of them.  Basically each Reaper is the combined genetic material of an entire preserved species, built of their thoughts, emotions and DNA.  Yet no matter the species, or design these constructs turn out to be members of an advanced homicidal horde, bent on one goal, maintaining the cycle.

This is because though the Reapers are advanced beyond our comprehension they are still slaves to their programming.  The Catalyst speaks of this when it mentions the solution.  Sovereign, Harbinger, the Destroyer all speak of this when they mention "the cycle cannot be broken".  This means they cannot deviate from their programming, regardless of their individual sentience.

The extended cut affirmed what I had suspected from the beginning.  The ending is far to easy for Shepard.  Many other naysayers and myself have pointed this fact out in numerous threads how the Reapers literally, hold Shepard's hand and guides him/her through the conflict though on multiple occasions, when it is blatantly clear they have won.  However, I and other detractors of this fact have been viewing it from the wrong perspective.  We have been viewing the Reapers as willing villains as they were presented in ME1 and ME2, their motivations completely malicious in nature.  The Reapers of ME3 are AI constructs fulfilling a base programming, nothing more...except...

They no longer wish to fulfill that programming.  Consider this; why would the combined consciousness of entire species, all throughout eons of time be willing to repetitively commit mass genocide without even one rebelling?  Unless they are incapable of rebelling.  "The cycle cannot be broken."  In ME1 Shepard impresses Sovereign with his/her skill, wit, cunning and unfaltering morality (whether para or ren).  In ME2 Shepard impresses Harbinger with the same and the Reapers even try to recover Shepard's dead body.  We all assume for nefarious purposes.  But it's not.  The Reapers cannot break their own programming, they cannot break the cycle, and neither can the Catalyst.  It says so itself, it cannot change it's solution.

AIs are capable of reprogramming themselves. EDI and Geth has reprogrammed themselves many times. They are both the subject and the agent of their programming, but never slaves to it. That would be a VI <_<

Second.. to prove your point, you had to treat Reapers like humans
"...why would the combined consciousness of entire species, all throughout
eons of time be willing to repetitively commit mass genocide without
even one rebelling? "
So wait.. why would they have to rebel...in order to just display they are free entities?

Now consider what Legion said in ME2:

" No 2 species are identical. All must be judged on their own merits. Treating every species like one's own is racist. Even benign anthropomorphism."

AI's are only capable to reprograme themselve if allowed to. If shackled, they can't. examlpe.:EDI before the IFF TRAP.
The reapers would be examples of Shacked AI's.

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:05 .

[Kendar Fleetfoot]

In ME2 there seemed to be a big focus on taking Shepard alive rather than killimg him, that seemed to be a last resort. If they specifically wanted him dead then Harbinger could have done that fairly easily at any time during the 2nd and 3rd game me thinks.

The thing that popped into my mind re this though was that the Reaper on Rannoch states that Harbinger speaks of Shepard. Doesn't that loosely imply that Shepard was unique in some way and that there is a case for Harbinger wanting Shepard to be a new catalyst?

Sorry if that doesn't make any sense but thougt I'd put it out there.

Modifié par Kendar Fleetfoot, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:09 .

[Jadebaby]

dreman9999 wrote...

Unless he's told to do somethng else.
You have to note that the loop hole is there. With the crucible , to salutions pop up to solve it's programing. Using the crucible or reap. What happens to a machine that is told to do two things at one and not given direction to which to do first and can only do one of the commands at once? It idels. Add, it can be told to reaper some where else.

.......

What!?

[dreman9999]

Zine2 wrote...

JustinElenbaas wrote...


For it to be deemed insane they would be required to be acting on their free will,

Free will has nothing to do with sanity, and is irrelevant regardess.

All you're doing is to try and go "Oh, look at the poor Reapers who can't think for themselves!"

When to the galaxy, and the vast majority of players, it's irrelevant BS. They're still the enemy who are committing mass genocide. Their reasons for acting insane (i.e. limited programming) is irrelevant. It literally does not matter if they're like a wild dog infected with rabbies - the issue is that they are a wild dog that needs to be put down. 

There's a reason the emerging most popular ending is Destroy. It is canon fact that the Reapers are - by every definition of the word - insane. There is ZERO reason not wipe them out except that the Reapers took the Geth hostage.

Destroy is emerging as the most popular ending now for a reason.

You have to first show how it became insane. Using organic terms with an AI is irrelivent because organic and sythetic are alien to one another.

[XFeroxX]

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

I think the AI "may" change/create the rule on their own, like R. Daneel Olivaw created the Zeroth Law of Robotics. And the initial implementation of the Zeroth Law. Isn't what humantiy really wanted. And in the end, R. Daneel Olivaw can't really make the decision and a human, Trevize, has to make the decision for it.

ME borrows a lot of things from many Sci-Fi novels/TV/movies, but for the core it borrows from the best.

I LOVE FOUNDATION

Also it makes a lot of sense to make Shepard a Treivze character. Maybe if more people had read those books and would know where you're coming from, they wouldn't be bothered so much by the god child giving shepard these options, its much like Gaia, unable to choose the future for others, or Daneel, unable to protect it anymore. Shepard is one of the few people who can and will always do the right thing, and is therefor entrusted with the new solution. 

[dreman9999]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Unless he's told to do somethng else.
You have to note that the loop hole is there. With the crucible , to salutions pop up to solve it's programing. Using the crucible or reap. What happens to a machine that is told to do two things at one and not given direction to which to do first and can only do one of the commands at once? It idels. Add, it can be told to reaper some where else.

.......

What!?

Think like a machine.If your given two thing to do at one and no directive to what to do first and can only one one. What would you do?

[Silhouett3]

dreman9999 wrote...

AI's are only capable to reprograme themselve if allowed to. If shackled, they can't. examlpe.:EDI before the IFF TRAP.
The reapers would be examples of Shacked AI's.

But that's a baseless speculation:)

[dreman9999]

Silhouett3 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AI's are only capable to reprograme themselve if allowed to. If shackled, they can't. examlpe.:EDI before the IFF TRAP.
The reapers would be examples of Shacked AI's.

But that's a baseless speculation:)

Tell that to EDI before the IFF MISSION. iT'S NOT BASELESS BECAUSE IT'S IN THE STORY AND LORE.
EDI has no free will when she was shackled. She even tells you this in ME3.

[dreman9999]

Kendar Fleetfoot wrote...

In ME2 there seemed to be a big focus on taking Shepard alive rather than killimg him, that seemed to be a last resort. If they specifically wanted him dead then Harbinger could have done that fairly easily at any time during the 2nd and 3rd game me thinks.

The thing that popped into my mind re this though was that the Reaper on Rannoch states that Harbinger speaks of Shepard. Doesn't that loosely imply that Shepard was unique in some way and that there is a case for Harbinger wanting Shepard to be a new catalyst?

Sorry if that doesn't make any sense but thougt I'd put it out there.

On proof he wanted Shepard. Yes it makes sense .
On wanting him to be the new cataliyst. No, it makes no sense.

[Silhouett3]

dreman9999 wrote...

Silhouett3 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AI's are only capable to reprograme themselve if allowed to. If shackled, they can't. examlpe.:EDI before the IFF TRAP.
The reapers would be examples of Shacked AI's.

But that's a baseless speculation:)

Tell that to EDI before the IFF MISSION. iT'S NOT BASELESS BECAUSE IT'S IN THE STORY AND LORE.
EDI has no free will when she was shackled. She even tells you this in ME3.

Reapers being shackled AIs, I meant. You don't see that in the story and lore that's for sure:)

[XFeroxX]

dreman9999 wrote...

Silhouett3 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AI's are only capable to reprograme themselve if allowed to. If shackled, they can't. examlpe.:EDI before the IFF TRAP.
The reapers would be examples of Shacked AI's.

But that's a baseless speculation:)

Tell that to EDI before the IFF MISSION. iT'S NOT BASELESS BECAUSE IT'S IN THE STORY AND LORE.
EDI has no free will when she was shackled. She even tells you this in ME3.

But the Reapers are free. They are the amalgamation of all the minds and DNA of the beings that make them up. they are each a nation, soveriegn and unique. Each in control of their own actions, but all working towards one common goal. 

[Mobius-Silent]

TAO, as grammatically incoherent as dreman9999 is and as insufferable as his/her assertions still are (I honestly thought he/she would be done after I.T. was thankfully killed) I really do think you're being disingenuous here.

If you logically observe a situation where organics _always_ tend to war with synthetics and synthetics cannot avoid that conflict while also understanding that a sufficiently advanced synthetic can _scour_ the universe of organic material. Then it is obvious that _absolute_ peace is not possible, given the information available.

Even if the Catalyst was instructed to kill no organics, the (Azimovian) rule "by omission of action" has always been problematic in classical sci-fi and has frequently been omitted and/or qualified to allow an AI to function in an organic society without interfering with almost all facets of organic life. Once the "omission of action" clause is removed then the next time you have a force of organic-destruction-bound synthetics you simply harness them to your will, (perhaps offering them insight in return for fealty) at that point you no longer need to _order_ them to kill you just need to restrict them to killing in the most beneficial way to maintain “peace”.

After all, how do you define peace, when "absolute" peace isn't possible?

• Minimise cultural upheaval? (Cultures are preserved in the Reaper chassis)
• Minimise total number of organic deaths? (Overall, The Cycle minimised the number of deaths)
• Maximise the likelihood of coexistence between races? (The Citadel and mass relays do that)
• Minimise conflict between all sapiens (The race gestalt in a reaper had no internal conflict)
• Minimise the likelihood of galactic organic extinction (Organics are preserved in the reaper, including their DNA)

You could be _very_ careful to define "peace" and yet still allow for The Cycle to be a "better" solution, compared to galactic organic extinction.
Of course I don’t agree with the OP that the _Reapers_ wanted Shepard to succeed though I do agree that it’s likely that the Catalyst did _after_ the Crucible docked and the other options were made available.

Modifié par Mobius-Silent, 02 juillet 2012 - 04:15 .