463 réponses à ce sujet

[Blacklash93]

I feel bad for the Catalyst. It's pretty much just the unfortunate manifestation of the writers' ineptitude to string a consistent argument together with their antagonist. If the writers were able to deliver it to offer a compelling yet still disagreeable argument instead of provoke all these accusations of deception and words like "starbrat" we might have had a successful ending in that respect.

[Tirranek]

The Angry One wrote...

Ah yes, the "I understand BioWare's deep ending and you don't" argument never gets old.

Oh sorry, by "never gets old" I meant "is older than a billion year old, old thing."

That is a mighty big stone you just threw at that glass house.

[sth128]

Master Che wrote...

OP,

You have completely missed the point.

Fire has no motive. Fire has no desire. Bombs do not detonate themselves. They are all either instruments or the direct effect of something else. They are not the arsonists. They are not the Nat-sees (wow, this board filters that word out! ).

Someone dies from a gunshot, you don't put the gun in jail.

They are saying that the Reapers are not acting based on their motives. They are merely doing what they are designed to do.

No. It is you who have completely missed the point. The Catalyst consciously chose to destroy each civilization. The Reapers consciously chose to sabotage and indoctrinate people to achieve their goals.

Collectively they consciously chose to bring the destruction to each cycle. They are sentient. They are sapient. They are aware.

You are wrong.

[NM_Che56]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Master Che wrote...

You have completely missed the point.

Fire has no motive. Fire has no desire. Bombs do not detonate themselves. They are all either instruments or the direct effect of something else. They are not the arsonists. They are not the Nat-sees (wow, this board filters that word out! ).

Someone dies from a gunshot, you don't put the gun in jail.

They are saying that the Reapers are not acting based on their motives. They are merely doing what they are designed to do.

Technically, because humans are omnivores, they are "designed to kill". Does this mean we have to?

The problem is that pretty much all ME established Reapers as being *sentient beings*, and last 5 mins just suddenly tries to contradict it all.

Also, I think that making videogame where epic enemy turned out to be just advanced lawnmower on the loose is pretty cheap.

Yes.

But that is another matter.

Humans have will.  Fire does not.  Bombs do not.  The Catalyst is telling you the same holds true for the reapers.  He made them.  You have doubts?

I can respect you sentiment regarding "lawnmowers", but honestly, it's ALL been done before.

[Krunjar]

Depends on how you define a war.

When you poison a nest of ants near youre house is it a war? No it's just you maintaining you're property. It's part of what you do to live youre life fully. It is commonly attempted that for something to be a war rather than simply an extermination there must at least be a chance for either side to succeed.

The same applies to reapers. They are performing the role they are alloted in the universe. Which is essentially glorified pest control. The reapers have no interest in territory or resources. They just want to stop us from getting out of control. Wether you agree with them or not that is their rationale. And theres nothing illogical about it.

The catalyst used a metaphor to explain a concept. Metaphors do not need to and often aren't perfect allegories. But clearly alot of people are too stupid to realise this. I mean seriously arguing with a metaphor is one of those things that appears in alot of comedy sketches to point out people too stupid to realise that it was not meant to be taken literaly.

Modifié par Krunjar, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:41 .

[Naugi]

Rasofe wrote...

Naugi wrote...

sth128 wrote...

Of course bombs do what they do, but Reapers aren't just bombs or fires. They are bombs and fires that choose to destroy. They aren't natural, and they aren't fires.

Its irrelevant what Reapers are, if they do what they are told / programmed / designed to do without having decided to do it themselves then they are just performing a base single minded function (destroy) in the same way fire and bombs do. They dont choose to destroy. They are built to destroy and it is their sole purpose.

The Catalyst is just saying that you cant blame the Reapers for performing their primary function anymore than you can blame a bomb for exploding or fire for burning. Its perfectly logical.

Still think youre confusing the one who pulls the trigger with the bullet.

That's taking it way out of context. In the situation at hand, the Catalyst claims that it did all of this to preserve peace between organics and machines. Shepard can now immediately ask the question that we all wanted to ask originally - "WHAT? You don't call this a war!?" and the reply from the Catalyst is that the extinction is simply a fire that's burning and is at no conflict. Essentially, what I believe it means is that the Reaper Invasion is not so much of a War as a complete Extinction (our particular cycle being excempt considering the completely anamolous amount of casualties the Reapers suffered). It's very fallacious, but there it is.

Human war is far more emotional than anything the Reapers do. Human war involves conflict where both sides stand to lose or gain something, where both sides are invested for some reason. In particular human wars tend to feature a lot of hatred and various other human emotions, racism, whatever. The Reapers are killing machines, they are not at war in the human sense at all. They are performing their function, they are not emotionally invested or concerned with loss or gain. They simply arrive, cleanse, and leave without batting an eyelid.

In this sense I can fully understand saying they are not at war. I see it like saying a pest control officer is at war with vermin. Is he? The rats could turn around and say 'you dont call this war??!' but he would just shrug, put down his rat poison and go on to his next job.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Master Che wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Master Che wrote...

You have completely missed the point.

Fire has no motive. Fire has no desire. Bombs do not detonate themselves. They are all either instruments or the direct effect of something else. They are not the arsonists. They are not the Nat-sees (wow, this board filters that word out! ).

Someone dies from a gunshot, you don't put the gun in jail.

They are saying that the Reapers are not acting based on their motives. They are merely doing what they are designed to do.

Technically, because humans are omnivores, they are "designed to kill". Does this mean we have to?

The problem is that pretty much all ME established Reapers as being *sentient beings*, and last 5 mins just suddenly tries to contradict it all.

Also, I think that making videogame where epic enemy turned out to be just advanced lawnmower on the loose is pretty cheap.

Yes.

But that is another matter.

Humans have will.  Fire does not.  Bombs do not.  The Catalyst is telling you the same holds true for the reapers.  He made them.  You have doubts?

I can respect you sentiment regarding "lawnmowers", but honestly, it's ALL been done before.

... and then people say "don't cheapen the reapers! we musn't defeat them". How can you respect a tool, even as a plot device?

[NM_Che56]

sth128 wrote...

Master Che wrote...

OP,

You have completely missed the point.

Fire has no motive. Fire has no desire. Bombs do not detonate themselves. They are all either instruments or the direct effect of something else. They are not the arsonists. They are not the Nat-sees (wow, this board filters that word out! ).

Someone dies from a gunshot, you don't put the gun in jail.

They are saying that the Reapers are not acting based on their motives. They are merely doing what they are designed to do.

No. It is you who have completely missed the point. The Catalyst consciously chose to destroy each civilization. The Reapers consciously chose to sabotage and indoctrinate people to achieve their goals.

Collectively they consciously chose to bring the destruction to each cycle. They are sentient. They are sapient. They are aware.

You are wrong.

No.  I am not. 

My logic is based on what the Catalyst says.  You simply either ignore it or you missed it.  The Catalyst IS the collective conscious of the Reapers.  Look it up in the vids and hear it yourself. 

They have no motives independent of the Catalyst.  They are sapient and aware, but they are not individuals.  They are a collective and the Catalyst is their nexus.  Kind of like how the Geth, prior to Rannoch, were just platforms with different perspectives, but were all Geth.

[NM_Che56]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Master Che wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Master Che wrote...

You have completely missed the point.

Fire has no motive. Fire has no desire. Bombs do not detonate themselves. They are all either instruments or the direct effect of something else. They are not the arsonists. They are not the Nat-sees (wow, this board filters that word out! ).

Someone dies from a gunshot, you don't put the gun in jail.

They are saying that the Reapers are not acting based on their motives. They are merely doing what they are designed to do.

Technically, because humans are omnivores, they are "designed to kill". Does this mean we have to?

The problem is that pretty much all ME established Reapers as being *sentient beings*, and last 5 mins just suddenly tries to contradict it all.

Also, I think that making videogame where epic enemy turned out to be just advanced lawnmower on the loose is pretty cheap.

Yes.

But that is another matter.

Humans have will.  Fire does not.  Bombs do not.  The Catalyst is telling you the same holds true for the reapers.  He made them.  You have doubts?

I can respect you sentiment regarding "lawnmowers", but honestly, it's ALL been done before.

... and then people say "don't cheapen the reapers! we musn't defeat them". How can you respect a tool, even as a plot device?

I never said I respected a tool.  I respect your opinion that demoting the Reapers to "tools" made it feel cheap to you.  I can understand why you feel that way.  I just happen to not share the sentiment.  That's where we will just agree to disagree since there's nothing empirical to make yours or my opinion "wrong".

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Master Che wrote...
My logic is based on what the Catalyst says.  You simply either ignore it or you missed it.  The Catalyst IS the collective conscious of the Reapers.  Look it up in the vids and hear it yourself. 

They have no motives independent of the Catalyst.  They are sapient and aware, but they are not individuals.  They are a collective and the Catalyst is their nexus.  Kind of like how the Geth, prior to Rannoch, were just platforms with different perspectives, but were all Geth.

So, do they have governing free will or not?

[Dougy Fresh]

Tirranek wrote...

Dougy Fresh wrote...

The catalyst started the fire however.... Boom roasted.

That still doesn't make the fire itself at war with you.

The reapers are the fire, they only know destruction, like fire.

A qoute from the catalyst

"My creators gave them form. I gave them function. They in return gave me purpose."

The catalyst is a master of deception and manipulation.

[NM_Che56]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Master Che wrote...
My logic is based on what the Catalyst says.  You simply either ignore it or you missed it.  The Catalyst IS the collective conscious of the Reapers.  Look it up in the vids and hear it yourself. 

They have no motives independent of the Catalyst.  They are sapient and aware, but they are not individuals.  They are a collective and the Catalyst is their nexus.  Kind of like how the Geth, prior to Rannoch, were just platforms with different perspectives, but were all Geth.

So, do they have governing free will or not?

Apparently no, since they are only doing what they were created to do.  This is what the Catalyst says.

(Humorously: It's not like they have barbeques, company parties, or go to Disney World in between cycles). 

They harvest, hibernate, harvet, etc. 

[NM_Che56]

Dougy Fresh wrote...

Tirranek wrote...

Dougy Fresh wrote...

The catalyst started the fire however.... Boom roasted.

That still doesn't make the fire itself at war with you.

A qoute from the catalyst

"My creators gave them form. I gave them function. They in return gave me purpose."

THANK YOU!

[Little Princess Peach]

Olaf_de_IJsbeer wrote...

The Catalyst is so blatantly bat**** insane that, in my opinion, there are no other options but to Destroy his ass or to pick Refusal.

I have to agree with Olaf down with starbrat <_<
Besides he manipulates shepard with his twisted logic

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Master Che wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...
So, do they have governing free will or not?

Apparently no, since they are only doing what they were created to do.  This is what the Catalyst says.

(Humorously: It's not like they have barbeques, company parties, or go to Disney World in between cycles). 

They harvest, hibernate, harvet, etc. 

I hardly see how you can cheapen them more than you've just described. Especially from what they were presented in ME1 and ME2.
The whole epic journey ended being fight with windmills... Or more accurately, with electric fan previous civilization left on...

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:49 .

[N7Gold]

Tirranek wrote...

Dougy Fresh wrote...

The catalyst started the fire however.... Boom roasted.

That still doesn't make the fire itself at war with you.

The Catalyst claimed to be in control of the Reapers, they are his solution. Fire doesn't have a mind of it's own, it will consume everything until there's nothing left. The Reapers represent fire, and the Catalyst is the arsonist. It's not the fire's fault that it is causing so much destruction, it's the Catalyst, the arsonist who is to blame.

Modifié par N7Gold, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:50 .

[Jorji Costava]

I'm glad someone brought this up; the new catalyst conversation was my least favorite part of the extended cut, and this silly argument (which seems to be presented as a real zinger; you can't answer it at all) is a big reason why. I don't think it's just meant to establish that the reapers are blameless or anything like that. My guess is that it's a direct response from the developers to the "Yo Dawg" meme. The impression a lot of people got from the original cut is that the catalyst's solution is to bring about the very thing he intends to prevent, which is dumb; hence, "yo dawg." This argument by the catalyst is, I think, intended to show that this isn't so, because 'war' is different from 'conflict.'

The context of the conversation is that the catalyst is telling you it created the cycle to prevented an inevitable organic/synthetic war. Shepard's response is that this solution is totally idiotic: "We're at war now!" The catalyst's response, that when fire burns, it's not really war, completely misses the point. It's basically a "no true Scotsman" maneuver. So what if it's merely 'conflict,' as opposed to war? How does that make things any better? It would be the equivalent of saying, "In order to prevent a war that will cause 100,000 deaths, I will bring about a natural disaster that will cause 100,000 deaths." The fact that the deaths in the natural disaster aren't due to the intentional actions of some group of beings doesn't seem to make that outcome preferable at all.

[Omega2079]

Fire can't be reasoned with.

[Tirranek]

Master Che wrote...

Dougy Fresh wrote...

Tirranek wrote...

Dougy Fresh wrote...

The catalyst started the fire however.... Boom roasted.

That still doesn't make the fire itself at war with you.

A qoute from the catalyst

"My creators gave them form. I gave them function. They in return gave me purpose."

THANK YOU!

I can see that point, but giving function to a force doesn't mean that the tool is at war with you. He 'made the fire', so to speak. He's the opposing side of the conflict.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Omega2079 wrote...

Fire can't be reasoned with.

Well, apparently you can't reason with Reapers either?

[sth128]

Master Che wrote...

No.  I am not. 

My logic is based on what the Catalyst says.  You simply either ignore it or you missed it.  The Catalyst IS the collective conscious of the Reapers.  Look it up in the vids and hear it yourself. 

They have no motives independent of the Catalyst.  They are sapient and aware, but they are not individuals.  They are a collective and the Catalyst is their nexus.  Kind of like how the Geth, prior to Rannoch, were just platforms with different perspectives, but were all Geth.

You are wrong, and here's a video proving you are wrong.

The Geth are also individuals, except they can combine their collective processing power to achieve greater intelligence, much like groups of people making better decisions because of the combined experiences and perspectives.

The Catalyst designed the "solution" and put it into (mass?) effect. He decided to "set fire" to each cycle. He is clearly NOT the fire. Saying "it's you who decided to go to war with the Reapers" is irrelevant and sidestepping the problem. We were not aware of the Catalyst's existence before the last 5 minutes.

Currently USA is at war with terrorist groups. Assuming we don't know every cell leader and financial contributor to their cause, does that mean we aren't at war with them? And that the terrorists should not be blamed for the destruction they caused?

[Dougy Fresh]

N7Gold wrote...

Tirranek wrote...

Dougy Fresh wrote...

The catalyst started the fire however.... Boom roasted.

That still doesn't make the fire itself at war with you.

The Catalyst claimed to be in control of the Reapers, they are his solution. Fire doesn't have a mind of it's own, it will consume everything until there's nothing left. The Reapers represent fire, and the Catalyst is the arsonist. It's not the fire's fault that it is causing so much destruction, it's the Catalyst, the arsonist who is to blame.

So are you saying that the reapers are just in their actions? That because that is what they are created to do makes it ok to wipe out civilzations? 

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Tirranek wrote...
I can see that point, but giving function to a force doesn't mean that the tool is at war with you. He 'made the fire', so to speak. He's the opposing side of the conflict.

The tool is not in war with you, but owner of the tool is surely is?

[Naugi]

sth128 wrote...

Naugi wrote...
Its irrelevant what Reapers are,

Wrong. It is entirely relevant. In fact that is the point. Reapers claim themselves to be "each a nation - independent, free of all weakness".

Just like a soldier cannot use the excuse "I was only following orders" to commit crimes against humanity, neither can Reapers (or Catalyst) to claim "we were only following our directives" and be free of guilty intent.

The Catalyst is just saying that you cant blame the Reapers for performing their primary function anymore than you can blame a bomb for exploding or fire for burning. Its perfectly logical.

And that is the stupidest argument of all time. You cannot circumvent guilt by saying you have no intent. Even when you accidentally run over someone, that is still manslaughter and punishable by law.

Even if the Reapers are mindless machines (which they aren't) and can't choose to NOT destroy (but they can, that's why humans are around), their action will still have meaning.

Catalyst is illogical. He controls the Reapers. He controls where they set fire. He cannot claim himself the fire. He has intent and he has killed.

You are wrong.

Everything you said is confused imo, you have an interesting way of adding an unrealistic slant to everything and then believing it to be fact.

Soldiers say they were just following orders all the time. Most soldiers have no desire to kill anyone whatsoever but they do so because its what they are there to do. They perform that function regardless of wanting to. Otherwise you're claiming soldiers like killing people or choose to independant of being soldiers, which is insane.

Reapers dont feel guilt I 'd bet on that.

Your manslaughter line is equally insane. If you ACCIDENTALLY run someone over and kill them you are only punished because you cant kill someone without being punished in most countries, because of the law. There is however absolutely no guilt inolved in an true accident. Seriously twisted there.

Again, Reapers dont feel guilt, neither does the catalyst, both are performing functions. You're not able to remove your own human emotions that are clouding your ability to think like an AI / Reaper.

Reapers are like any of the great film baddies, Aliens, Predators, Jaws ... guilt and emotion doesnt come into it, they do one thing, kill / hunt just because its what they do, not because theyre so emotionally complicated.

[Tirranek]

Omega2079 wrote...

Fire can't be reasoned with.

Yeah, just like the Reapers actually. There isn't a single moment when their attitude deviates, even slightly.