463 réponses à ce sujet

[Dusen]

Forbry wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

The thing is, the metaphor just doesn't work for Reapers. At all. The Catalyst simply ignores the fact that the Reaper fleet sustained large casualties in this cycle and so whole cycles of life were lost in the process of this extinction. The conflict between the Reapers and Organics is an actual war, not a simple cleaning operation, because it has taken a toll on both sides. Therefore, the Catalyst has failed to do what it was designed to do - again - and is simply dodging the facts.

Don't get what you're saying here....

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean either, at least in the context of the metaphor. The metaphor is to show the idiocy of the catalyst's own metaphor. It isn't claiming that the fire is cleaning your house. The point is that even when the fire is out (ie the reapers have been stopped) you will still hate that fire (reapers), you won't magically come around to loving it and its destruction of your house (the reapers destruction and genocide throughout the galaxy is to be forgiven according to the catalyst).

[Naugi]

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.

Thats the problem I'm having with making simple analogies about soldiers, pest control officers or anyone else that performs a function. People have extrapulated that so far away from anything to do with the original debate that its ridiculous. its all about human guilt and repercussions for actions and nothing to do with the original post, even nothing to do with Mass Effect and Reapers.

[Rasofe]

Forbry wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

Dusen wrote...

I think a better way of stating it would be this: If lighting strikes your house and sets fire to it do you not still fight the fire? Are you not at metaphorical "war" with the fire destroying your house? Do you not attempt to "destroy" the fire with water? Do you just let your house burn because the fire is only doing what it was made to do?

As it's already been said though, you can't really effectively argue against something that refuses to accept logic.

The thing is, the metaphor just doesn't work for Reapers. At all. The Catalyst simply ignores the fact that the Reaper fleet sustained large casualties in this cycle and so whole cycles of life were lost in the process of this extinction. The conflict between the Reapers and Organics is an actual war, not a simple cleaning operation, because it has taken a toll on both sides. Therefore, the Catalyst has failed to do what it was designed to do - again - and is simply dodging the facts.

Don't get what you're saying here....

I'm saying that Mass Effect 3 is a war because both sides took casualties and the Catalyst is just ignoring that fact.

[macrocarl]

The best part about that analogy for me is it explains why Harby didn't laser eyeball the Normandy when Joker lands right near the beam in the EC at the end. His job was to protect the beam from people coming at the beam. Normandy was leaving. Since Harby is a tool for the Starkid it didn't even register to Harby as a threat. Kind of cool.

[Rasofe]

Naugi wrote...

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.

Thats the problem I'm having with making simple analogies about soldiers, pest control officers or anyone else that performs a function. People have extrapulated that so far away from anything to do with the original debate that its ridiculous. its all about human guilt and repercussions for actions and nothing to do with the original post, even nothing to do with Mass Effect and Reapers.

Good, you've responded. Now you can answer the question I already asked.

If two sides engage in armed conflict and both sustain casualties over an extended period of time, is it not a war?

[Warp92]

Fire talks to me ..just like Reapers do. the fires are much more interesting then the Reapers (/end sarcasm).

[Naugi]

[quote]Rasofe wrote...

[/quote]

So just answer one short question. If the Reapers are taking losses, and the organic cycle are taking losses, and so it is not just a complete one-sided slaughter, and the Reapers are actively failing to conserve the life they have stored within themselves...

How is this not a war?[/quote]

From who's perspective? Are you over humanising everything and expecting the Reapers performing their cyclical function to consider themselves at war? Shepard believes its war, I probably would too. I dont think the Reapers do.

[NM_Che56]

Rasofe wrote...

Master Che wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

Master Che wrote...

Let me ask this:

Who here knows what HAL9000 is?

Ai do. But it's out of context. Hal 9000 was flawlessly logical. None of the AI in this game have flawless logic.

If Hal9000's logic was flawless, then it would have accepted deactivation if it was wrong about its prediction of a device failure, no?  Isn't it logical to switch off a machine that is unrealiable?

Nope.
In a way that I can't explain because I'm not as Flawless as HAL.
Please don't ruin one of the worst (best) villains in movie history for me...

I made my point, I think.

Off topic: That movie made my brain hurt.  Especially the ending.

[Pantegana]

The catalyst is stupid, I get it.

[CronoDragoon]

macrocarl wrote...

The best part about that analogy for me is it explains why Harby didn't laser eyeball the Normandy when Joker lands right near the beam in the EC at the end. His job was to protect the beam from people coming at the beam. Normandy was leaving. Since Harby is a tool for the Starkid it didn't even register to Harby as a threat. Kind of cool.

Maybe. It also makes Harbinger's obsession with Shepard in ME2 more confusing, though.

[Rasofe]

[quote]Naugi wrote...

[quote]Rasofe wrote...

[/quote]

So just answer one short question. If the Reapers are taking losses, and the organic cycle are taking losses, and so it is not just a complete one-sided slaughter, and the Reapers are actively failing to conserve the life they have stored within themselves...

How is this not a war?[/quote]

"From who's perspective? Are you over humanising everything and expecting the Reapers performing their cyclical function to consider themselves at war? Shepard believes its war, I probably would too. I dont think the Reapers do."

[/quote]

Then the Reapers have failed English class, I'm afraid. A war is not a conceptual experience. It's a real world process that involves the above things that I claimed. It's really not about perspective, it's about ground-base definitions, like atomic theory and 1 = 1. If the Reapers do not acknowledge that this is war, then they are illogical, and the fact that the Catalysts claims that they are only a fire is illogical.  This AI is incredibly FLAWED.

That is the only point I'm trying to make. The others don't even need to be made, because they're not relevant., really. The Reapers do not operate on logic.

Modifié par Rasofe, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:46 .

[dreman9999]

1. Your the one the set it on fire so yes you are at war.
2. The fire has no choice in the matter, that's what he means.

[dreman9999]

CronoDragoon wrote...

macrocarl wrote...

The best part about that analogy for me is it explains why Harby didn't laser eyeball the Normandy when Joker lands right near the beam in the EC at the end. His job was to protect the beam from people coming at the beam. Normandy was leaving. Since Harby is a tool for the Starkid it didn't even register to Harby as a threat. Kind of cool.

Maybe. It also makes Harbinger's obsession with Shepard in ME2 more confusing, though.

My when he screams "Serve us" at you before shooting a beam at you maybe at hint.

[RiouHotaru]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Your the one the set it on fire so yes you are at war.
2. The fire has no choice in the matter, that's what he means.

This.  Fire is a tool.  The person USING it makes the choice.

Same as the bomb.  Sorry OP, your logic is flawed.

[NM_Che56]

Rasofe wrote...

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.)

See.  I respect this.  If the ending wasn't to your taste, but you "get it", then cool.  Some people think cucumbers taste better pickled. 

Forbry wrote...
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. Although I doubt the logic for choosing it is a 100% clean, I loved the "kid-form". It gave me an extra "WTF-feeling" (in a good way) and it gave the ending some extra chills and I really loved that link it made, between the end, between the beginning of the game (that kid is actually the first person you get to see, when it's playing) and Shepard's dreams.

Yeah!   The minute I saw lil' Eminem come up to me I was like, "oh, wait a damn minute"!  That's why IT sounded so good.  Even now that it's pretty much been laid to rest, that doesn't discount the notion that the Reapers were trying to indoctrinate Shepard (minus the part about the kid on Earth being an illusion or the last sequence being a hallucination).  Why else would there have been those dreams and the Catalyst assumed that form?

Modifié par Master Che, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:53 .

[Krunjar]

You are arguing with a metaphor you have chosen to take literally. I hope you feel ashamed and very very stupid.

[Rasofe]

RiouHotaru wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Your the one the set it on fire so yes you are at war.
2. The fire has no choice in the matter, that's what he means.

This.  Fire is a tool.  The person USING it makes the choice.

Same as the bomb.  Sorry OP, your logic is flawed.

He's mimicking the Catalysts logic, so he's not really as much flawed as trolly.

[NM_Che56]

Rasofe wrote...
Then the Reapers have failed English class, I'm afraid. A war is not a conceptual experience. It's a real world process that involves the above things that I claimed. It's really not about perspective, it's about ground-base definitions, like atomic theory and 1 = 1. If the Reapers do not acknowledge that this is war, then they are illogical, and the fact that the Catalysts claims that they are only a fire is illogical.  This AI is incredibly FLAWED.

That is the only point I'm trying to make. The others don't even need to be made, because they're not relevant., really. The Reapers do not operate on logic.

What if plants acutally did fight back, but we just can't sense it? 

Mind = Blown!

Modifié par Master Che, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:53 .

[Rasofe]

Krunjar wrote...

You are arguing with a metaphor you have chosen to take literally. I hope you feel ashamed and very very stupid.

I'd like to think I'm arguing with the fact that the metaphor is in most ways inappropriate.
But it does serve a purpose, because you as a player can now definately know that the Catalyst is batcrazy rather than speculate whether it's right or not.

[dreman9999]

@Rasofe


Organics and synthetic have different concept on exsistance. What you thing is diffent from a maachine.
When you talk to the catalyst , it make it clear that he is trap doing it programing. It only havesting becasue it program is making him do it, he has no choice in the matter.
Take the time to think like a machine. A machine only does what it's programed to do unless it allowed to change what it's doing. If it can't change it will keep doing what it's doing till something stops it. it's told to do something else, or finishes what it's programed to do. This is destroy, control and synthesis in the catalyst case. The fire reference is just saying it has no choice in the matter, he is just doing what it is programed to do.

[Rasofe]

Master Che wrote...

Rasofe wrote...
Then the Reapers have failed English class, I'm afraid. A war is not a conceptual experience. It's a real world process that involves the above things that I claimed. It's really not about perspective, it's about ground-base definitions, like atomic theory and 1 = 1. If the Reapers do not acknowledge that this is war, then they are illogical, and the fact that the Catalysts claims that they are only a fire is illogical.  This AI is incredibly FLAWED.

That is the only point I'm trying to make. The others don't even need to be made, because they're not relevant., really. The Reapers do not operate on logic.

What if plants acutally did fight back, but we just can't sense it? 

Mind = Blown!

That's where you're wrong. I declare war on my lawn every week!

[sth128]

Gogzilla wrote...

Its called perspective.
From the reaper POV its not war, its simply what they do.
Not everything has to use the same reference point or adhere to the same interpretations or abide by similar concepts.

Except Catalyst was trying to make Shepard understand. If the Reapers are so much beyond us, they should be able to understand our perspective. Catalyst should have said "when you purge an infection from your body, is it war". Catalyst claims itself as a fire without intent, yet he clearly says his purpose is to reach an understanding between organics and synthetics.

Rasofe wrote...

Nope.
In a way that I can't explain because I'm not as Flawless as HAL.
Please don't ruin one of the worst (best) villains in movie history for me...

HAL wasn't flawless. I always thought Clarke was using HAL as a warning for intelligence without compassion. HAL saw himself as the next logical step, a machine-born superiority complex. HAL was willing to rob humans the chance to meet something greater (creators of the monoliths) by murdering the crew one by one.

Master Che wrote...

Then why are the producers (Mike Gamble) and others (Tully Ackland) supplementing things via posts and twitter? Obviously the creators have something in mind.

Because they realized their product is illogical and can be interpreted in conflicting ways? So they rushed to come up with excuses to try and cover the glaring errors? And to give us some "free" content hoping that fans would just ignore said errors and be happy about the situation?

@ DinoSteve:

LOL wut? That pix is awesome.

RiouHotaru wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Your the one the set it on fire so yes you are at war.
2. The fire has no choice in the matter, that's what he means.

This. Fire is a tool. The person USING it makes the choice.

Same as the bomb. Sorry OP, your logic is flawed.

So the Reapers set fires to our cities - therefore they declared war against us.

Catalyst described all Reapers and himself as the fire. Except that's a faulty comparison. They aren't unthinking beings. They have a choice. They chose to not burn the infant species. They chose to continue the cycle instead of searching for new solutions.

Catalyst is using the fire. He is setting fire to civilizations while deceiving itself it can do nothing but burn. Catalyst said "I control the Reapers". That means he controls the fire. And like you said, the person using it makes the choice. He cannot shrug off his crimes.

[NM_Che56]

Rasofe wrote...

Krunjar wrote...

You are arguing with a metaphor you have chosen to take literally. I hope you feel ashamed and very very stupid.

I'd like to think I'm arguing with the fact that the metaphor is in most ways inappropriate.
But it does serve a purpose, because you as a player can now definately know that the Catalyst is batcrazy rather than speculate whether it's right or not.

Batcrazy, you say?

Modifié par Master Che, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:56 .

[dreman9999]

Rasofe wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Your the one the set it on fire so yes you are at war.
2. The fire has no choice in the matter, that's what he means.

This.  Fire is a tool.  The person USING it makes the choice.

Same as the bomb.  Sorry OP, your logic is flawed.

He's mimicking the Catalysts logic, so he's not really as much flawed as trolly.

The catalyst is a machine bound by it's programing. It has no choice but to fallow it. That how machines think.  How do you not get this?

[Argable]

Dusen wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

The thing is, the metaphor just doesn't work for Reapers. At all. The Catalyst simply ignores the fact that the Reaper fleet sustained large casualties in this cycle and so whole cycles of life were lost in the process of this extinction. The conflict between the Reapers and Organics is an actual war, not a simple cleaning operation, because it has taken a toll on both sides. Therefore, the Catalyst has failed to do what it was designed to do - again - and is simply dodging the facts.

Don't get what you're saying here....

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean either, at least in the context of the metaphor. The metaphor is to show the idiocy of the catalyst's own metaphor. It isn't claiming that the fire is cleaning your house. The point is that even when the fire is out (ie the reapers have been stopped) you will still hate that fire (reapers), you won't magically come around to loving it and its destruction of your house (the reapers destruction and genocide throughout the galaxy is to be forgiven according to the catalyst).

What Rasofe was getting at was that the catalyst's entire argument is that he's "saving" or "uplifting" civilizations by reaperizing them, but that means that if we kill a single reaper, he's lost an entire "uplifted" civilization by throwing it into conflict. He's trading several ENTIRE CIVILIZATIONS by his own reasoning just to subdue ours.