463 réponses à ce sujet

[The Smitchens]

Dusen wrote...

That being said it seems like the Catalyst in-game side-stepped Shepard's question in order to argue semantics. It really doesn't matter whether the Reapers were at "war" or whether they thought they were just gardening, no, the real question is why the Catalyst thought it would be better to kill organics to save them from being killed by their own created synthetics vs just fighting the created synthetics.

I think therein lies my only real problem with the EC content.  The conversation with the catalyst throws the pacing way off and now it's this big, long winded discussion.  I appreciate the extra info and perspective, but I often find myself anxious to get a move on and since all the conversations from the citadel on can't be sped through it only makes it even longer.

I really hate to make this accusation and I've passed up many times where I've felt it justifiably fits, but I think that a lot of people just need to be spoon fed their plot devices.  The moment you have to read between the lines people start throwing plot hole accusations around.  Sometimes it is a plot hole.  Sometimes it's not.  Either way I just see the demise of imagination.  And that's what science fiction is.  Imagination.

In response to the latter part of your comment, to me (by the powers of my imagination) the reason the reapers are around and doing what they do is because their inventors failed at controlling synthetics.  In every case they flat out failed.  The catalyst said so itself.  So they deduced reapers were necessary.  When you consider the prothean's war as well as the quarians and the geth, it's obvious they just sucked at controlling synthetics.  They made a rash decision under the assumption that all future generations would suffer the same fate as theirs.

To me that much is obvious.  The creators of the reapers failed and made a stupid decision in the process that would result in the death of beyond trillions.

Modifié par The Smitchens, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:14 .

[Dusen]

The Smitchens wrote...

I think therein lies my only real problem with the EC content.  The conversation with the catalyst throws the pacing way off and now it's this big, long winded discussion.  I appreciate the extra info and perspective, but I often find myself anxious to get a move on and since all the conversations from the citadel on can't be sped through it only makes it even longer.

I really hate to make this accusation and I've passed up many times where I've felt it justifiably fits, but I think that a lot of people just need to be spoon fed their plot devices.  The moment you have to read between the lines people start throwing plot hole accusations around.  Sometimes it is a plot hole.  Sometimes it's not.  Either way I just see the demise of imagination.  And that's what science fiction is.  Imagination.

In response to the latter part of your comment, to me (by the powers of my imagination) the reason the reapers are around and doing what they do is because their inventors failed at controlling synthetics.  In every case they flat out failed.  The catalyst said so itself.  So they deduced reapers were necessary.  When you consider the prothean's war as well as the quarians and the geth, it's obvious they just sucked at controlling synthetics.  They made a rash decision under the assumption that all future generations would suffer the same fate as theirs.

To me that much is obvious.  The creators of the reapers failed and made a stupid decision in the process that would result in the death of beyond trillions.

It's not that I need to be fed plot devices, it's just that those devices should make sense within the framing of the plot. That feeds into one of my biggest complaints with the entirety of Mass Effect 3, in that Shepard never once brings up the Geth-Quarian peace nor does he ever mention EDI's lovelife to the catalyst. Personally, if I was in that situation and presented with the idiotic ramblings of the catalyst, those two events would be the first things I would mention. Why Bioware decided to ignore those two massive plot points that they themselves devoted a large portion of the game to can only be explained by the idea that they wrote themselves into some dank, dark corner from whence they did not have the talent to write themselves out of.

Modifié par Dusen, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:23 .

[Urdnot Amenark]

sth128 wrote...

Or is it simply doing what it was created to do?

So if I set fire to your house, it's not war, it's not conflict. It is simply doing what it was created to do.
What is the difference between the cultural and ethnic genocide wiping out the entire galaxy and the cultural and ethnic genocide going on in parts of the world? Can we also justify away those killings as "cleansing fire restoring the balance"?

You seem to miss the Catalyst's point, and you use rather banal examples at that. You setting fire to my house would be an act of conflict or war, but the fire I used to set fire to your home isn't capable of making that decision and therefore shouldn't be held accountable for it. The Reapers thus, are simply a tool used by the Catalyst to carry out the deeds it wishes; they in essence aren't truly capable of acting for themselves apart from the will of the Catalyst and only act in the preservation of the "Solution". What the Catalyst does with Reapers is certainly a justifiable act of war - by GOD I wish the writer of that line never existed - but what the Reapers are doing is only reflective of their inherent nature and one could argue that they aren't consciously capable of acting otherwise.

But, to subvert your question: is killing a Reaper - as Shepard has destroyed several - genocide, since they each are a "nation" unto themselves and essentially represent a civilization each?

[saracen16]

sth128 wrote...

Or is it simply doing what it was created to do?

So if I set fire to your house, it's not war, it's not conflict. It is simply doing what it was created to do.

When bombs exploded over London in WW2, it was not war, it was not conflict. The bombs were simply doing what they were created to do.



^ Not war (from Catalyst's view).

Natural fire has no mind. Natural fire does not select to burn some but not others. Natural fire does not choose to come back at specific times. Likening the Reapers to fire is a depravity that distorts the very fabric of ethical meaning.

What is the difference between the cultural and ethnic genocide wiping out the entire galaxy and the cultural and ethnic genocide going on in parts of the world? Can we also justify away those killings as "cleansing fire restoring the balance"?

I think it's more of an analogy that explains the inevitability of the Reapers. They are too strong to consider their cycle a series of "wars". The organics fight with them, but the Reapers are unconventional and too powerful. They're engaging the organics above their terms, which is why defeating the Reapers means levelling the playing field with something just as powerful: the Crucible.

[Dusen]

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

But, to subvert your question: is killing a Reaper - as Shepard has destroyed several - genocide, since they each are a "nation" unto themselves and essentially represent a civilization each?

Not to me, it would be a mercy killing. Shepard honestly says it best to the Rannoch Reaper (which just occurred to me that it was after that point where the Reaper's characterization started to crumble from great and terrifying to pathetic and laughable). On Rannoch he states something along the lines that the race the reapers were created from are dead, they died thousands of years ago and they can now rest in peace.

[Urdnot Amenark]

Dusen wrote...

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

But, to subvert your question: is killing a Reaper - as Shepard has destroyed several - genocide, since they each are a "nation" unto themselves and essentially represent a civilization each?

Not to me, it would be a mercy killing. Shepard honestly says it best to the Rannoch Reaper (which just occurred to me that it was after that point where the Reaper's characterization started to crumble from great and terrifying to pathetic and laughable). On Rannoch he states something along the lines that the race the reapers were created from are dead, they died thousands of years ago and they can now rest in peace.

I think I know what you're talking about. I kinda agree as to how the Reapers were slowly downgraded from Cthulhus to Space Beetles; really killed any sense of awe or intrigue about them. I remember spending hours just speculating on their origins, and I think it would probably have been best to leave that aspect of them completely unknown, with a few hints here and there.

[The Smitchens]

Dusen wrote...

The Smitchens wrote...

I think therein lies my only real problem with the EC content.  The conversation with the catalyst throws the pacing way off and now it's this big, long winded discussion.  I appreciate the extra info and perspective, but I often find myself anxious to get a move on and since all the conversations from the citadel on can't be sped through it only makes it even longer.

I really hate to make this accusation and I've passed up many times where I've felt it justifiably fits, but I think that a lot of people just need to be spoon fed their plot devices.  The moment you have to read between the lines people start throwing plot hole accusations around.  Sometimes it is a plot hole.  Sometimes it's not.  Either way I just see the demise of imagination.  And that's what science fiction is.  Imagination.

In response to the latter part of your comment, to me (by the powers of my imagination) the reason the reapers are around and doing what they do is because their inventors failed at controlling synthetics.  In every case they flat out failed.  The catalyst said so itself.  So they deduced reapers were necessary.  When you consider the prothean's war as well as the quarians and the geth, it's obvious they just sucked at controlling synthetics.  They made a rash decision under the assumption that all future generations would suffer the same fate as theirs.

To me that much is obvious.  The creators of the reapers failed and made a stupid decision in the process that would result in the death of beyond trillions.

It's not that I need to be fed plot devices, it's just that those devices should make sense within the framing of the plot. That feeds into one of my biggest complaints with the entirety of Mass Effect 3, in that Shepard never once brings up the Geth-Quarian peace nor does he ever mention EDI's lovelife to the catalyst. Personally, if I was in that situation and presented with the idiotic ramblings of the catalyst, those two events would be the first things I would mention. Why Bioware decided to ignore those two massive plot points that they themselves devoted a large portion of the game to can only be explained by the idea that they wrote themselves into some dank, dark corner from whence they did not have the talent to write themselves out of.

Three thoughts come to mind.

1. The catalyst is a VI programmed by narrow minded people that failed to control synthetics and made the reapers under the assumption that all synthetics are going to be problematic.  Would bringing this up to something that is designed to see this as a problem by default really make a difference?

2.  Would it really matter if it was brought up?  The means to stop the reapers would be the same.  Arguing about the victory most likely wouldn't make him say "you're right, let's get out of here."  They are still built for one purpose and are going to follow through with it anyway just because that's their design.

3. Only if you successfully barter peace between the two is there no conflict.  If you choose to annihilate either the geth or the quarians then the reapers are proven right, so it's not like the game can't be played to give them credibility.

[movieguyabw]

o Ventus wrote...

Arguing against unlogic doesn't work.

This.

The same thing ran through my mind, briefly, when Starbrat said that line to me.  Took me half a second to realize it was pointless arguing with him, though.

[Heeden]

kyban wrote...

I think that's more or less what the OP is getting at. Should we then be mad at the catalyst? From this perspective he certainly seems like the villain.

But the Catalyst was created by someone else, and is only performing his function, albeit in a way I assume his creators never intended. Ultimately what we have is A Mess, no-one around at the moment is really to blame for it but we have the job of cleaning it up/

As for the reapers "being the fire that was told where to burn" I don't buy that line, because according to Sovereign "You will end because WE demand it." He sure didn't sound like a worker bee incapable if independant thought.

He demands it because that is his programming. Fire demands you give up your carbon so it can merge it with oxygen, but it doesn't possess the language to express it.

[The Smitchens]

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

You seem to miss the Catalyst's point, and you use rather banal examples at that. You setting fire to my house would be an act of conflict or war, but the fire I used to set fire to your home isn't capable of making that decision and therefore shouldn't be held accountable for it. The Reapers thus, are simply a tool used by the Catalyst to carry out the deeds it wishes; they in essence aren't truly capable of acting for themselves apart from the will of the Catalyst and only act in the preservation of the "Solution". What the Catalyst does with Reapers is certainly a justifiable act of war - by GOD I wish the writer of that line never existed - but what the Reapers are doing is only reflective of their inherent nature and one could argue that they aren't consciously capable of acting otherwise.

It's an analogy.  It's no different than the age old argument "do guns kill people or do people using guns kill people."

Fire is but a tool in the process.  The fire itself has no say.  It's just a chemical reaction that happens when X circumstances are met.  We're not talking about the people behind the fire.  The fire itself has no say.

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

But, to subvert your question: is killing a
Reaper - as Shepard has destroyed several - genocide, since they each
are a "nation" unto themselves and essentially represent a civilization
each?

No.  Genocide is the holocaust.  Ethnic cleansing for example.  What the reapers do to us is genocide.  They are there to irradicate us to make the galaxy reflect how they see fit.

What we are doing is called self defense.  Fighting back in response to their offense.  We did not seek them out and kill them.  They came to us with their agenda.

People should really look up the definition of genocide.

[Urdnot Amenark]

movieguyabw wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Arguing against unlogic doesn't work.

This.

The same thing ran through my mind, briefly, when Starbrat said that line to me.  Took me half a second to realize it was pointless arguing with him, though.

I had one of those genuinely confused "are you serious?" moments when I heard that line. I was trying my hardest to take the Catalyst serious, but after hearing that nonsense I couldn't help but laugh while I picked apart all the silliness of that argument.

[NM_Che56]

When jOhnson burns, is it the clap?

[Urdnot Amenark]

The Smitchens wrote...

It's an analogy.  It's no different than the age old argument "do guns kill people or do people using guns kill people."

Fire is but a tool in the process.  The fire itself has no say.  It's just a chemical reaction that happens when X circumstances are met.  We're not talking about the people behind the fire.  The fire itself has no say.

Hence why I made my point about it being illogical to use the argument made by the original poster. Did you honestly read or just skim?

No.  Genocide is the holocaust.  Ethnic cleansing for example.  What the reapers do to us is genocide.  They are there to irradicate us to make the galaxy reflect how they see fit.

This deserves a big "duh". But to play devil's advocate, the Reapers aren't here to "eradicate us", just destroy all species that have reached a certain level of advancement in technology and store them in a gestalt of their species. 

I think I'll ignore the last comment.

[DiebytheSword]

Better then to compare a Reaper to a loaded gun, its the Catalyst/GUARDIAN's intentions that are deadly.

[Dusen]

1. The catalyst is a VI programmed by narrow minded people that failed to control synthetics and made the reapers under the assumption that all synthetics are going to be problematic.  Would bringing this up to something that is designed to see this as a problem by default really make a difference?

There's no reason to assume that its creators were narrow minded just because their AI turned on them. Either way, it's a valid argument that Shepard should have brought up when confronted with the catalyst. That is problematic as far as characterization goes considering that Shepard almost always questions his enemy's motives, regardless of how hopeless the situation is. Using that logic we should've given up in the first game, I mean why should we have expected there to be any way to defeat a seasoned SPECTRE like Saren, especially when he has an army of Geth and Krogan, and is being led by the ancient, semi-godlike Reapers? On top of that, the Catalyst is obviously open to changing his programming considering that he has built into himself (the citadel) the choice to either be overwritten by another entity (control) or be destroyed and have all his plans be for naught (destroy).

2.  Would it really matter if it was brought up?  The means to stop the reapers would be the same.  Arguing about the victory most likely wouldn't make him say "you're right, let's get out of here."  They are still built for one purpose and are going to follow through with it anyway just because that's their design.

If it could bring a peacefull end to the conflict, why not bring it up? Sure, the catalyst could reject it, but at least then you could say you tried, as it stands now, unless you choose the refuse ending Shepard blindly follows everything the catalyst says with little hesitation beyond a simple "maybe, perhaps, I don't know, etc.". Shepard, contrary to his usual character, does nothing to challenge the catalyst's views. Shepard has made a habit out of doing the impossible, including convincing many enemies along the way that they, and their ideals are wrong and misguided.

3. Only if you successfully barter peace between the two is there no conflict.  If you choose to annihilate either the geth or the quarians then the reapers are proven right, so it's not like the game can't be played to give them credibility.

This would have made your choices actually matter. If you manage to barter peace then you are given a way to peacefully solve the conflict. If you don't, then you might just be screwed as far as ending the Reaper conflict. As it stands now, there is virtually no reason for the entire Quarian-Geth part of the game as it has no effect on the outcome of the endings, even thought those endings are directly linked thematically to that part of the game. The simple fact that you CAN play the game in a way that proves the Reapers wrong is HUGE! It should have had major ramifications during that talk with the catalyst, instead it was pointless and never event mentioned.

[Sajuro]

The bomb itself wasn't like "F*** you Hiroshima" fire and bombs are an act of war but they hold no malice to what **** they **** up.

[Applepie_Svk]

 Ressurecting thread:wizard:

BTW: So hilarious OP gg laugh after month later 

[RebelTitan428]

last night when i farted on my girlfriends pillow, it wasnt me who farted on the pillow, the fart was simply doing what it was created to do...

[Applepie_Svk]

RebelTitan428 wrote...

last night when i farted on my girlfriends pillow, it wasnt me who farted on the pillow, the fart was simply doing what it was created to do...

YOU WoN ONE INTERNET !

[RebelTitan428]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

RebelTitan428 wrote...

last night when i farted on my girlfriends pillow, it wasnt me who farted on the pillow, the fart was simply doing what it was created to do...

YOU WoN ONE INTERNET !

when she yelled at me "what the hell are you doing!?"  i said in a low mono-toned voice "It is not a thing your mind can comprehend"

Modifié par RebelTitan428, 26 août 2012 - 03:54 .

[Mazebook]

oh...this thread again...not one of the OPs brightest moments...

RebelTitan428 wrote...

last night when i farted on my girlfriends pillow, it wasnt me who farted on the pillow, the fart was simply doing what it was created to do...

you being the creator of the fart, so you are responsible for it.

The Catalyst just did what he was created to do...as are the reapers. They have no free will. that was the point of the analogy.

Modifié par maaaze, 26 août 2012 - 04:10 .

[RebelTitan428]

maaaze wrote...

oh...this thread again...not one of the OPs brightest moments...

RebelTitan428 wrote...

last night when i farted on my girlfriends pillow, it wasnt me who farted on the pillow, the fart was simply doing what it was created to do...

you being the creator of the fart, so you are responsible for it.

The Catalyst just did what he was created to do...as are the reapers. They have no free will. that was the point of the analogy.

i created no such thing, "it is a genetic mutation, it's life is measured in seconds, and nano-seconds....it filters, and dies"

[Mazebook]

RebelTitan428 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

oh...this thread again...not one of the OPs brightest moments...

RebelTitan428 wrote...

last night when i farted on my girlfriends pillow, it wasnt me who farted on the pillow, the fart was simply doing what it was created to do...

you being the creator of the fart, so you are responsible for it.

The Catalyst just did what he was created to do...as are the reapers. They have no free will. that was the point of the analogy.

i created no such thing, "it is a genetic mutation, it's life is measured in seconds, and nano-seconds....it filters, and dies"

no you farted...live up to it. You could have taking it in and go to the bathroom...but you choose not to do it.

You have free will..the catalyst has not.

[RebelTitan428]

maaaze wrote...

RebelTitan428 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

oh...this thread again...not one of the OPs brightest moments...

RebelTitan428 wrote...

last night when i farted on my girlfriends pillow, it wasnt me who farted on the pillow, the fart was simply doing what it was created to do...

you being the creator of the fart, so you are responsible for it.

The Catalyst just did what he was created to do...as are the reapers. They have no free will. that was the point of the analogy.

i created no such thing, "it is a genetic mutation, it's life is measured in seconds, and nano-seconds....it filters, and dies"

no you farted...live up to it. You could have taking it in and go to the bathroom...but you choose not to do it.

You have free will..the catalyst has not.

okay back on topic, the catalyst manages to contradict everything that has been established about the reapers in a manner of 5 minutes.
free will or not it is just bad writing

[Mazebook]

RebelTitan428 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

RebelTitan428 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

oh...this thread again...not one of the OPs brightest moments...

RebelTitan428 wrote...

last night when i farted on my girlfriends pillow, it wasnt me who farted on the pillow, the fart was simply doing what it was created to do...

you being the creator of the fart, so you are responsible for it.

The Catalyst just did what he was created to do...as are the reapers. They have no free will. that was the point of the analogy.

i created no such thing, "it is a genetic mutation, it's life is measured in seconds, and nano-seconds....it filters, and dies"

no you farted...live up to it. You could have taking it in and go to the bathroom...but you choose not to do it.

You have free will..the catalyst has not.

okay back on topic, the catalyst manages to contradict everything that has been established about the reapers in a manner of 5 minutes.
free will or not it is just bad writing

this is not the topic...but i bite

there was nothing to contradict because the motivations of the reapers were unclear prior to the catalyst.
It is good writing in my opinion to give opposing force a motivation behind their doing.