463 réponses à ce sujet

[Carlthestrange]

When fire burns, its bacon time.

[sth128]

Rasofe wrote...

This is a debate, not a duel.

A debate is a duel... with words!

And because this is the internet, there can be only one... MASTER DEBATER!

Cunning linguists unite! For we must pound away at our keyboards until we penetrate the flaws in our opponents' logic, then we shall thrust those differing opinions into the crack of abyss.

Only then can we shoot off our victory cheer atop the heights of climax that is winning an internet debate.

This thread is now about sexual euphemisms:

[Rasofe]

Nyoka wrote...

The created will always rebel against their creators.

Except the created I create, those are just like fire. They only do what they were created to do.

Because I, Starchild, unlike all the other creators out there, have an Artistic Integrity my minions simply will not disobey.

Modifié par Rasofe, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:41 .

[Rasofe]

sth128 wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

This is a debate, not a duel.

A debate is a duel... with words!

And because this is the internet, there can be only one... MASTER DEBATER!

Cunning linguists unite! For we must pound away at our keyboards until we penetrate the flaws in our opponents' logic, then we shall thrust those differing opinions into the crack of abyss.

Only then can we shoot off our victory cheer atop the heights of climax that is winning an internet debate.

This thread is now about sexual euphemisms:

Wow, we all kind of suspected it when you called that other guy a genocidal dictator...
But now we know you're a troll.
8/10 for subtlety.

[Tirranek]

Rasofe wrote...

Damn it, I think I'm getting tired of this argument.

Are we debating whether it's right what the Reapers are doing, whether they are accountable, or whether what the Catalyst said is logical? Because if it is one of the first two, then there's just nothing to debate about. They are absolutely no way that what the Reapers are doing is right or that they are unaccountable. There are no analogies that can be pulled in this situation. In the context of the Mass Effect trilogy, the Reapers are doing the wrong thing, they must be stopped, they are sapient creatures that actively acknowledge their desire to commit genocide, and there is no humanisation involved. They are alien, and they are responsible for their alien ways.

Whereas if it is about logic, see my previous commentary. But I get the sense no one is interested.

Finding it very interesting personally. Now I'm just trying to remember if the games ever show the Reapers have a desire to kill, rather than simply stating that the civilizations cannot prevent their destruction.

[Carlthestrange]

"When fire burns, is it at war?"

"DOES FIRE HAVE A F**KING LASER BEAM?!"

[Silent Fantasy]

Fire has nothing to do with war itself. It's a weapon, a byproduct of fighting, and a naturaly created, and dangerous, thing that happens. No matter how it's created, it has nothing to do with war itself and is always doing what it's supposed to do. Burn. Reapers are tools and are only doing what they were created to do.
Sounds like a good analogy to me, but this fanbase is beyond rediculous, so of course it wont be understood even when it's simple and everyone will whine about it not making sense because they don't have the mind to think about it.

[Tirranek]

Carlthestrange wrote...

"When fire burns, is it at war?"

"DOES FIRE HAVE A F**KING LASER BEAM?!"

"When a laser beam pew pews, is it at war?"

[Rasofe]

Torrible wrote...

http://bauersteven.b...tion-error.html 

The above is a short article that may be relevant to this thread. 

Nyah, I'd rather go with the Self-Serving Bias on this one. Fundamental Attribution Error is something we usually make of other things' motives, that we assume their nature is more influental in their behaviour than their situation. I don't see how this fits into Reapers, who don't really have a situation.

[sth128]

Carlthestrange wrote...

When fire burns, its bacon time.

[Carlthestrange]

Tirranek wrote...

Carlthestrange wrote...

"When fire burns, is it at war?"

"DOES FIRE HAVE A F**KING LASER BEAM?!"

"When a laser beam pew pews, is it at war?"

According to Starchild logic, nope.

[Fawx9]

Tirranek wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

...cut...

No he doesn't, but he's also not saying he's the fire.

Well up until that point Repears weren't a fire either but actual thinking machines that were each a nation.

So no matter what way you look at it the star brat is always guilty and the original incarnation of the Reapers are as well.

The UAVs found in the last 5 minutes, maybe not so much.

Modifié par Fawx9, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:47 .

[NM_Che56]

Rasofe wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

The created will always rebel against their creators.

Except the created I create, those are just like fire. They only do what they were created to do.

Because I, Starchild, unlike all the other creators out there, have an Artistic Integrity my minions simply will not disobey.

About this:

The Leak on the rumored Leviathan DLC states that Leviathan was a ROGUE Reaper...you can't be rogue and be "in line", right?

Besides, we already know that the Catalyst is fallible and it pretty much conceeds this fact.

It's a rogue AI.  It was created to solve a problem.  It's solution...well, he tell you the creators, the first true reaper, didn't approve. That sounds like "rebel".  Also, the Catalyst was created and he sorta rebelled, did he not?   I mean, if you made a computer program and all of a sudden it decided it was going ot delete your files and reorganize stuff on it's own without your approval, you would call that "rebellion"...or a virus.  But eitherway, something you didn't want to happen.

[sth128]

Rasofe wrote...

Wow, we all kind of suspected it when you called that other guy a genocidal dictator...
But now we know you're a troll.
8/10 for subtlety.

That was clearly a 10/10

But when a discussion reaches the Godwin threshold, I don't see any point in continuing. So I end the cycle by destroying all credibility so that new threads and new life forms may emerge.

Just like a picture of cleansing fire, I bring balance.

[EDIT]

Err "new life forms"? I meant "new articles"... Sorry I was thinking about bacon... Damn you and your bacon!

ps. I never called anyone a dictator. I said "in the making", meaning "not there yet". Don't put words in my mouth, only bacon.

Modifié par sth128, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:54 .

[Tirranek]

Carlthestrange wrote...

Tirranek wrote...

Carlthestrange wrote...

"When fire burns, is it at war?"

"DOES FIRE HAVE A F**KING LASER BEAM?!"

"When a laser beam pew pews, is it at war?"

According to Starchild logic, nope.

I agree.

[Rasofe]

Silent Fantasy wrote...

Fire has nothing to do with war itself. It's a weapon, a byproduct of fighting, and a naturaly created, and dangerous, thing that happens. No matter how it's created, it has nothing to do with war itself and is always doing what it's supposed to do. Burn. Reapers are tools and are only doing what they were created to do.
Sounds like a good analogy to me, but this fanbase is beyond rediculous, so of course it wont be understood even when it's simple and everyone will whine about it not making sense because they don't have the mind to think about it.

That's because it's wrong!
No one wants to spend 3 games fighting what is in fact just tools. Even now there is still good reason to believe they're not just tools, but fleet of monstrous alien entities whose roots reach back into the mistake of a flawed-logic AI. The Catalyst created the Reapers, but I don't see why we should believe that it leads them. It is rather that they have a prime directive to cleanse and preserve all life in the galaxy repeatedly, and it does not even seem as though they understand why they do it (or at least aren't willing to really explain). Only that they are order that brings order to chaos.

Its still fallacy because they were supposed to stop synthetics from whiping out organic life in a conflict, but by engaging in war - and by being destroyed - they not only whipe out organic life, but also allow their own destruction thus not reaching their objective to preserve life. HENCE THEY ARE ILLOGICAL.

[NM_Che56]

Silent Fantasy wrote...

Fire has nothing to do with war itself. It's a weapon, a byproduct of fighting, and a naturaly created, and dangerous, thing that happens. No matter how it's created, it has nothing to do with war itself and is always doing what it's supposed to do. Burn. Reapers are tools and are only doing what they were created to do.
Sounds like a good analogy to me, but this fanbase is beyond rediculous, so of course it wont be understood even when it's simple and everyone will whine about it not making sense because they don't have the mind to think about it.

Some people seem to stuck on flaming the game and the ending because it didn't end they way they wanted it to.  They don't even want to hear anything that will go against their bias.

[Rasofe]

sth128 wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

Wow, we all kind of suspected it when you called that other guy a genocidal dictator...
But now we know you're a troll.
8/10 for subtlety.

That was clearly a 10/10

But when a discussion reaches the Godwin threshold, I don't see any point in continuing. So I end the cycle by destroying all credibility so that new threads and new life forms may emerge.

Just like a picture of cleansing fire, I bring balance.

I never give 10/10, a 9/10 doesn't stop at Godwin, just feasts on it, a 10/10 succesfully turns everyone else into trolls in one large troll revolution.

To your credit, yes, this thread needs to die. But I am so hungry for acknowledgement of my writing I can't leave...
Don't Judge ME!!!

[Tirranek]

sth128 wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

Wow, we all kind of suspected it when you called that other guy a genocidal dictator...
But now we know you're a troll.
8/10 for subtlety.

That was clearly a 10/10

But when a discussion reaches the Godwin threshold, I don't see any point in continuing. So I end the cycle by destroying all credibility so that new threads and new life forms may emerge.

Just like a picture of cleansing fire, I bring balance.

"But we've moved beyond Godwins. We've proven that even when a discussion mentions Hitler, it can still progress beyond that. We've learned to overcome it by ourselves" "....soooo, which bit do I shoot?"

[Forbry]

Tirranek wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Tirranek wrote...
It's not a question of just or unjust. It's about their fundemental nature. Just because you can't blame fire doesn't mean you shouldn't fight it.

Well, its kind of a big deal becase BW made it so that you can't fight it.
Basically, they make you to bow either to madman or some non-sentient automation/natural disaster. Which is not really entertaining conclusion to epic series.
It's like making a positive game overall, then BAMM - "Natural disaster happens! Choose your ending - who suffers and in what fashion!"

Thing is, I really don't see that last scene as bowing at all. It's not a perfect analogy by any means, but the scene with the Catalyst made me think more of a captain surrendering their ship. Despite its lack of emotion (fear) at Shepard being there, its clear every option makes it redundant. The hold up comes from whether you think the relative lack of animosity or fear stops it from being a victory.

Beautifully put! I also saw it kinda like that.  In the ens, Shepard holds the stir and has to choose the ship's direction. 

[SNascimento]

Silent Fantasy wrote...

Fire has nothing to do with war itself. It's a weapon, a byproduct of fighting, and a naturaly created, and dangerous, thing that happens. No matter how it's created, it has nothing to do with war itself and is always doing what it's supposed to do. Burn. Reapers are tools and are only doing what they were created to do.
Sounds like a good analogy to me, but this fanbase is beyond rediculous, so of course it wont be understood even when it's simple and everyone will whine about it not making sense because they don't have the mind to think about it.

.
Exactly my thoughts... but I think people are just trying to be funny or something. 
.
It can be understand as the fire that burn a terrain for a new crop. It makes sense. 

[Torrible]

Rasofe wrote...

Torrible wrote...

http://bauersteven.b...tion-error.html 

The above is a short article that may be relevant to this thread. 

Nyah, I'd rather go with the Self-Serving Bias on this one. Fundamental Attribution Error is something we usually make of other things' motives, that we assume their nature is more influental in their behaviour than their situation. I don't see how this fits into Reapers, who don't really have a situation.

Self-serving bias is actually the fundamental attribution error reversed and the article talks about that as well. The fundamental attribution error is relevant to this thread because some people here have decided the Catalyst did all that harvesting because of his evil nature, ignoring the situation he was in: that he was programmed/cursed to obey his prime directive.

Modifié par Torrible, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:10 .

[MadRabbit999]

Why do people keep assuming that the logic of the Catalyst has to be perfect and infallible?

Last I heard he was an AI, not the "All knowing being", and AI is no different than the human brain but with the ability of thinking much faster, have better memory, etc.. etc... but still he comes to conclusions the same way we do, by "Thinking" and just like we do, he can make mistakes and say lots of crap.

[Rasofe]

Master Che wrote...

Silent Fantasy wrote...

Fire has nothing to do with war itself. It's a weapon, a byproduct of fighting, and a naturaly created, and dangerous, thing that happens. No matter how it's created, it has nothing to do with war itself and is always doing what it's supposed to do. Burn. Reapers are tools and are only doing what they were created to do.
Sounds like a good analogy to me, but this fanbase is beyond rediculous, so of course it wont be understood even when it's simple and everyone will whine about it not making sense because they don't have the mind to think about it.

Some people seem to stuck on flaming the game and the ending because it didn't end they way they wanted it to.  They don't even want to hear anything that will go against their bias.

I don't believe the premise of a rogue ancient AI is bad, I just feel it's been done before. No one demands a HAL, and Catalyst is more like a Star Trek AI (Which raises the question, if Kirk could talk all those advanced machines into submission, why can't Shepard talk this one into surrender? Oh well.)

It's also irritatant it shows up as a stupid child. But I think what the team meant with this is that the head villain is not in fact just another Reaper.

[Rasofe]

MadRabbit999 wrote...

Why do people keep assuming that the logic of the Catalyst has to be perfect and infallible?

Last I heard he was an AI, not the "All knowing being", and AI is no different than the human brain but with the ability of thinking much faster, have better memory, etc.. etc... but still he comes to conclusions the same way we do, by "Thinking" and just like we do, he can make mistakes and say lots of crap.

I don't assume so, I would even say that it's thinking is completely illogical.
AI's are supposed to function on mathematics completely, so they should technically be infallible unless their core premises for their maths is wrong.

Also, why do Geth have 10 based math? 6 based math makes more sense since the Geth and Quarians have only 3 fingers on each hand.