463 réponses à ce sujet

[NM_Che56]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...


Some ancient race made a powerful construct which went haywire and now laying waste to the galaxy.
You were trying to stop it, but you were unable to stop it without sacrificing something in the end.

And there you have it!  THIS is the franchise.

Ingvarr, please make this into a bumper sticker and pass them around!

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Raging Nug wrote...
Just depends on your perspective. If I have an anthill out front and I need to take it out before it destroys my garden, am I at war with those ants? Maybe, but again, that's philosophy.

Are the ants sentient? If not, leave philosophy out of it.

[Rasofe]

Raging Nug wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

No it's moronic.

It's like saying that the liquour store deserves to be robbed because it has money that would attract thieves. Thieves only do what thieves do, and liquour stores shouldn't have money, they should have liquour.

Thinking of it in terms of right and wrong complicated the issue. You see it as 'deserves', I simply accept it as an eventuality. Thieves are thieves because they steal, and they steal for various reasons - doesn't mean they're at war with liquor stores. XD

PERFECT SENSE.

A-thank you ;D

The Reapers and the Catalyst were created with the purpose to prevent war between synthetics and organics. The catalysts solution is to have the Reapers war with the organics, but only every 50 000 years.

Right, except you're wrong. The Catalyst was created to ensure the preservation of life, and it does so by storing civilizations and cultures inside the Reaper in a different form. The prevention of war would be preferable, but it's more of a secondary objective. What matters is the life itself.

The claim that it is NOT war doesn't stand. If we're talking EXTINCTION, that's different, that's arguable, but it certainly is WAR and a fire analogy is illogical.

Just depends on your perspective. If I have an anthill out front and I need to take it out before it destroys my garden, am I at war with those ants? Maybe, but again, that's philosophy.

But that's not what it SAID!

How do you think Shepard prompts the Catalyst to make that stupid analogy in the first place!? He says "don't you call this war?" And if we're talking about whether it is performing it's duty, it's core purpose, then it's sacrificed  whole cycles of populations to destroy this one cycle, instead of considering alternatives or acknowledging that what had initially been an attempt to simply preserve life has in fact turned into a war that destroys it - FOR BOTH SIDES - because both Reapers and Organics are dying in significant numbers in this conflict!

What it should've done - and what would be far more satisfying - is that it would admit that what had earlier been an attempt for salvation had turned into a chaos that threatens to undo all that it's been tasked to do. That would've been better than an analogy that isn't logical.

[NM_Che56]

If my dog humps my leg, is it at war with my leg?

[Argable]

Master Che wrote...

If my dog humps my leg, is it at war with my leg?

Well THAT puts a different light on the reapers' interest in organic civilization.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Argable wrote...

Master Che wrote...

If my dog humps my leg, is it at war with my leg?

Well THAT puts a different light on the reapers' interest in organic civilization.

You've obviously missed that Synthesis thread.

[Rasofe]

sth128 wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

I agree, it's a bit silly that you have to end on such an epic game fighting an enemy that doesn't really deserve hate, but must be destroyed.

It IS kind of Star Trekky though, but only to a very small, superficial degree.

What's really Star Trek-ky is the fact that they had this metaphor / conversation in one of the TNG episodes.

I'm think the one where Data made his girlfriend / daughter, and asked Dr. Beaverly ask "what is life"? She said "it consumes, reproduces, dies, etc." and Data said "fire consumes fuel, reproduces itself to create more fire, then dies when no more fuel remain. Is fire alive"?

Then Doc slapped Data across the face and fused him with some organic bits and created the Borg.

Or something like that.

Soz, only watched ToS.
Picard is just too dull... He's trying to be Kirk, Spock and McCoy at the same time and that's like trying to make a Shepard-Garrus-Wrex amalgalm. The result is a monstrosity.

[NM_Che56]

Another thought about sovereign: do u think it was addressing Shepard as an individual or as an avatar of the reaper collective consciousness; I.e. the catalyst?

[Rasofe]

As an individual.

[NM_Che56]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Argable wrote...

Master Che wrote...

If my dog humps my leg, is it at war with my leg?

Well THAT puts a different light on the reapers' interest in organic civilization.

You've obviously missed that Synthesis thread.

My dog is trying to create new DNA on my leg?

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Master Che wrote...

Another thought about sovereign: do u think it was addressing Shepard as an individual or as an avatar of the reaper collective consciousness; I.e. the catalyst?

I am willing to bet that in ME1 and ME2 they intended them as individuals.

In ME3 they did not know.

Now after EC they will probably say, yes, it was catalyst all along.

[NM_Che56]

Rasofe wrote...

As an individual.

See, now I'm not so sure.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Try asking Gamble on Twitter about it, just beware if you won't like the answer, because it will become canon and we will point it in your face every time

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:43 .

[Raging Nug]

Rasofe wrote...

But that's not what it SAID!

Somehow it's what I understood. If you want, I can probably get a quote to show you why it's what I understood.

How do you think Shepard prompts the Catalyst to make that stupid analogy in the first place!? He says "don't you call this war?" And if we're talking about whether it is performing it's duty, it's core purpose, then it's sacrificed  whole cycles of populations to destroy this one cycle, instead of considering alternatives or acknowledging that what had initially been an attempt to simply preserve life has in fact turned into a war that destroys it - FOR BOTH SIDES - because both Reapers and Organics are dying in significant numbers in this conflict!

Are they dying in significant numbers? I don't think we ever get a casualty list. Reapers 'are' dying, yes, but not very many, and only because this one cycle has been problematic. I think the fact that this one cycle has been deemed as a potential threat is reason enough for them to want it done and dealt with, lest everything they've worked for be destroyed.

What it should've done - and what would be far more satisfying - is that it would admit that what had earlier been an attempt for salvation had turned into a chaos that threatens to undo all that it's been tasked to do. That would've been better than an analogy that isn't logical.

This doesn't make sense to me. Sorry, what?

[sth128]

Master Che wrote...

Noted.  I'll alert CNN of the retraction. 

Supreme court has struck down Obama-care! We read the first page! LOLOL!

The fact that there's butt hurt doesn't mean it's not clear.  It means some people are dullards.

I imagine they think the same about you, but they are always wrong and you are always right, right?

As for the whole "sovereign" and "being independent".

TIM thought he was calling all of the shots, right?
Saren?
How about Matriarch Benezia? 

What am I saying?

Since we're quoting Sovereign, it also said the "we have no beginning"...hello Catalyst? I think I found the beginning.

Again, assuming the Catalyst is not lying. I posted previously analyzing the two situations.

And where does the cycle (indoc. cycle, not THE cycle) end if you go down this path? Maybe the Catalyst isn't in control either, but being controlled by something else, somewhere.

How do we know Shepard is conscious? How do we know he is not being indoctrinated and imagining the whole thing? Unless you are suggesting IT (and if you are I will declare Godwin the third time), we have to take something as the actual truth. I am more inclined to believe giant cuttlefish we've been fighting for all that time than a ghost kid who popped into existence in the last 5 minutes, spouting illogical reasoning and incorrect metaphors.

And if Star Kid is calling ALL the shots, then he IS declaring war on us. It doesn't matter what he think himself is, be a fire or a ghostly child, he is the direct cause of countless deaths and destruction. He expect us to accept him as natural as fire and to simply surrender because he said so?

That's the best a super intelligence can come up with? He was charged with finding a better solution to the organic / synthetic conflict, he failed for eons upon eons.

Then one day a human comes along and suddenly by altering "the variables" (without doing it on purpose, mind you), we devised THREE solutions (two if you believe cycle comes back in destruction)?

That's like me walking into MIT one day, trip on a wire and as I hurriedly grasp at something to hold on to, the random streaks made by my fingers presents the grand unifying theory of all forces while simultaneously explaining the nature of dark matter and dark energy.

Shepard is THAT lucky?

[Rasofe]

Master Che wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

As an individual.

See, now I'm not so sure.

You can place your faith in my infinite wisdom.

[Rasofe]

Raging Nug wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

But that's not what it SAID!

Somehow it's what I understood. If you want, I can probably get a quote to show you why it's what I understood.

How do you think Shepard prompts the Catalyst to make that stupid analogy in the first place!? He says "don't you call this war?" And if we're talking about whether it is performing it's duty, it's core purpose, then it's sacrificed  whole cycles of populations to destroy this one cycle, instead of considering alternatives or acknowledging that what had initially been an attempt to simply preserve life has in fact turned into a war that destroys it - FOR BOTH SIDES - because both Reapers and Organics are dying in significant numbers in this conflict!

Are they dying in significant numbers? I don't think we ever get a casualty list. Reapers 'are' dying, yes, but not very many, and only because this one cycle has been problematic. I think the fact that this one cycle has been deemed as a potential threat is reason enough for them to want it done and dealt with, lest everything they've worked for be destroyed.

What it should've done - and what would be far more satisfying - is that it would admit that what had earlier been an attempt for salvation had turned into a chaos that threatens to undo all that it's been tasked to do. That would've been better than an analogy that isn't logical.

This doesn't make sense to me. Sorry, what?

I won't go into the details. It's quite simple though.
The Catalyst was taked to preserve life from synthetics.
It's solution were the Reapers, who kill organics and preserve their life in Reaper form (allegedly).
In this particular cycle, it managed to lose an anomalous quantity of Reapers. Each Reaper is made from an entire species. So in this war, how much life was ACTUALLY lost?

It simply won't admit that it is not serving the purpose it was meant to accomplish. Hence it fails and should admit it has failed rather than spew nonsense about how Fire Burns But Doesn't Mean To.

[sth128]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Argable wrote...

Master Che wrote...

If my dog humps my leg, is it at war with my leg?

Well THAT puts a different light on the reapers' interest in organic civilization.

You've obviously missed that Synthesis thread.

SYNTHESIS ACHIEVED

[Rasofe]

When War Burns, is It on Fire?

[sth128]

Rasofe wrote...

Soz, only watched ToS.
Picard is just too dull... He's trying to be Kirk, Spock and McCoy at the same time and that's like trying to make a Shepard-Garrus-Wrex amalgalm. The result is a monstrosity.

I... He... The...

HOW DARE YOU SIR!?

:lol:

[sth128]

Rasofe wrote...

When War Burns, is It on Fire?

When bacon burns, it is on fire... And the cycle of om nom nom must continue.

[Raging Nug]

Rasofe wrote...
It's solution were the Reapers, who kill organics and preserve their life in Reaper form (allegedly).

So far so good.

In this particular cycle, it managed to lose an anomalous quantity of Reapers. Each Reaper is made from an entire species. So in this war, how much life was ACTUALLY lost?

Depends on how the life is actually preserved. The cultures are probably shared between the Reapers collectively, but I think losing a few Reapers compared to losing ALL of them (which a lot of people here on the BSN are fans of doing with the Destroy option) is simply an acceptable loss. I don't see another course of action here, do you?

It simply won't admit that it is not serving the purpose it was meant to accomplish. Hence it fails and should admit it has failed rather than spew nonsense about how Fire Burns But Doesn't Mean To.

It only fails if you pick Destroy or Refuse. The other two are fine with respect to this problem.

[Raging Nug]

sth128 wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

When War Burns, is It on Fire?

When bacon burns, it is on fire... And the cycle of om nom nom must continue.

Bacon is not a thing you can comprehend.

[Boneyaards]

But literally speaking, the fire is not at war with you and it is not seeking conflict. It is simply being used as a tool to instigate conflict. A fire has no conscience and cannot dictate who or what it destroys. But, as organic beings who possess advanced thought-process, we are able to harness fire and use it for OUR war and strife. Fire has an unpredictable and destructive nature. 

When you see a human who is a serial killer, there is a chance that you can stop his homicidal nature. Whether that be through torture, punishment, or psychological alterations. You cannot simply tell a fire just to stop destroying things. It does not listen, because it has no mind. It simply destroys because that is exactly what it was created to do. (Fortunately for us humans, we have harnessed the power of fire to a point where it actually can help us.) If we want a fire to stop obliterating anything in it's path, we have to destroy it. 

So regarding your examples in a more general sense, bombs that are dropped on innocent civilians do not seek war, or conflict. The bomb does not have a though-process before it is dropped that says "HEY! I am a bomb, and I want to incinerate all these civilians in the hopes that an all-out-war breaks loose." It is simply created to destroy, and has no other purpose. It is us, the humans, that seek war and use bombs, fire, weapons, etc.. as tools to help us carry out our thirst for blood.

[Rasofe]

Raging Nug wrote...

Rasofe wrote...
It's solution were the Reapers, who kill organics and preserve their life in Reaper form (allegedly).

So far so good.

In this particular cycle, it managed to lose an anomalous quantity of Reapers. Each Reaper is made from an entire species. So in this war, how much life was ACTUALLY lost?

Depends on how the life is actually preserved. The cultures are probably shared between the Reapers collectively, but I think losing a few Reapers compared to losing ALL of them (which a lot of people here on the BSN are fans of doing with the Destroy option) is simply an acceptable loss. I don't see another course of action here, do you?

It simply won't admit that it is not serving the purpose it was meant to accomplish. Hence it fails and should admit it has failed rather than spew nonsense about how Fire Burns But Doesn't Mean To.

It only fails if you pick Destroy or Refuse. The other two are fine with respect to this problem.

The Catalyst itself fails to accomplish its task by continuing the Reaper Invasion despite the obvious fact that doing so will cost whole cycles of life. If it was so calculating that it is willing to sacrifice one cycle, why doesn't it retreat, wait untill those synthetics do rise up against their masters,  then return back and clean up the mess again while the two sides are at war with each other, divided and conquerable?

It could also make it possible that it is WRONG and the cycle is completely hoax, but I guess it would never admit to it because then it loses purpose and that's like, everything to an AI.

So yeah.

If the Catalyst can't do this because of programming, then at least it shouldn't try to use an analogy that ISN'T TRUE in a situation THAT DOESN'T NEED IT.