155 réponses à ce sujet

[Xamufam]

zambot wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

zambot wrote...
Besides, there are plenty of sci-fi authors that envision a future where ultimate knowledge = peace.

Name some of them and the works that mention that ...

Seriously?  Themes of transendence and enlightened civilizations that have grown past war are abundant.  Let's start with Star Trek.  The entire backstory of the Federation is that Earth has become an eglatarian, enlightened utopia that has long dispensed with the need for war.  Most of the conflict in Star Trek is about humanity encountering less enlightened civilizations and protecting the utopia on Earth.

Utopia Justifies the Means
Brainwashing For The Greater Good
Crapsaccharine World

synthesis isnt a utopia but a dystopia waiting to happen

[Ieldra]

Except, Troxa, that there is no evidence at all that these tropes are actually in effect...

[Xamufam]

update

[No_MSG]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

OP, drop your synthesis = brainwash argument unless you can give more compelling evidence. I'll quote what I've said in another thread to make your search for counter-arguments easier.

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Troxa wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

There is also too much bad blood between Salarians/Turians and Krogan. The Genophage brainwashes them to co operate.

There is also too much bad blood between Quarians and Geth. Legion uploading the reaper code actually brainwashed the quarians and geth into co operating.

Not the same
Would you willingly cooperate with something that killed friends & family

Because the geth didn't kill friends and family? Because the Krogan didn't kill family back in the Rebellions?

Look at control. No one is shooting at the reapers either. 

The reason people are overlooking Krogan and the Geth is because they are actively keeping other people alive.  If some guy kills my family, then starts taking bullets for me, I'm going to let them take the bullets, and worry about the rest if they and I survive.

However, if some guy is, say, trying to eat my face, and a green beam knocks him off of me, when I stand up, I'm going to resume the fight.  I'm not just going to stand around, and then basically fist bump the guy.

[Kamfrenchie]

Geneaux486 wrote...

NO, WRONG !

Do not compare the atomic bomb and the crucible.

Replay ME3 and listen to what Hackett says about the uncertainty surrounding the use of the atomic bomb.  That is the source of my comparison, and the reason why it is accurate.

As for the rest of your post, I can't tell which number responds to what, so you need to rethink your formatting methods. 

So because hackett says it it's right ? Hacket > hitory books?

Hackett is wrong, the writers are wrong, the US would never had used the  bomb if thy wern't sure of he consequences, they wouldn't use it if it risked killing everyone.

Answer my arguments instead of saying "duh hacket says so"
*
My number just answer every answer of your quote answers to avoid a long quote. Not that hard to figure it out

[DirtyPhoenix]

No_MSG wrote...

The reason people are overlooking Krogan and the Geth is because they are actively keeping other people alive.  If some guy kills my family, then starts taking bullets for me, I'm going to let them take the bullets, and worry about the rest if they and I survive.

However, if some guy is, say, trying to eat my face, and a green beam knocks him off of me, when I stand up, I'm going to resume the fight.  I'm not just going to stand around, and then basically fist bump the guy.

And what if he helps you rebuild your shattered world. Would you still want to put a bullet into him? That seems so Wreav-ish.

[Kamfrenchie]

No_MSG wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

OP, drop your synthesis = brainwash argument unless you can give more compelling evidence. I'll quote what I've said in another thread to make your search for counter-arguments easier.

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Troxa wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

There is also too much bad blood between Salarians/Turians and Krogan. The Genophage brainwashes them to co operate.

There is also too much bad blood between Quarians and Geth. Legion uploading the reaper code actually brainwashed the quarians and geth into co operating.

Not the same
Would you willingly cooperate with something that killed friends & family

Because the geth didn't kill friends and family? Because the Krogan didn't kill family back in the Rebellions?

Look at control. No one is shooting at the reapers either. 

The reason people are overlooking Krogan and the Geth is because they are actively keeping other people alive.  If some guy kills my family, then starts taking bullets for me, I'm going to let them take the bullets, and worry about the rest if they and I survive.

However, if some guy is, say, trying to eat my face, and a green beam knocks him off of me, when I stand up, I'm going to resume the fight.  I'm not just going to stand around, and then basically fist bump the guy.

also the geth either killed in self defense, or if they were heretic, got killed.


The krogans that took prt in the rebellion are all dead.

Your comparison is wrong radical disconnect, compare the reapers with the ****s and the nuremberg trials

[DirtyPhoenix]

ignore

Modifié par pirate1802, 21 juillet 2012 - 01:51 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Kamfrenchie wrote...
also the geth either killed in self defense, or if they were heretic, got killed.

That is how Shepard views it, and he is correct. But do the Quarians view them like that? Prior to ME3? To them the Geth are maniacal robots who drove them off their home systems. An incorrect view but thats what they think.

The krogans that took prt in the rebellion are all dead.

They still hate the Turians and Salarians with all their guts though.

Your comparison is wrong radical disconnect, compare the reapers with the ****s and the nuremberg trials

No he is correct. To an average Quarian or Krogan, prior to the reaper's arrivaal (and probably even after) his biggest enemy is a Geth and a Turian/Salarian, because they don't have the galactic overview we and Shepard have. To them reapers are a distant threat (until they actually start landing on their planet) compared to their traditional enemies. And yet they cooperate.

[Kamfrenchie]

pirate1802 wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...
also the geth either killed in self defense, or if they were heretic, got killed.

That is how Shepard views it, and he is correct. But do the Quarians view them like that? Prior to ME3? To them the Geth are maniacal robots who drove them off their home systems. An incorrect view but thats what they think.

The krogans that took prt in the rebellion are all dead.

They still hate the Turians and Salarians with all their guts though.

Your comparison is wrong radical disconnect, compare the reapers with the ****s and the nuremberg trials

No he is correct. To an average Quarian or Krogan, prior to the reaper's arrivaal (and probably even after) his biggest enemy is a Geth and a Turian/Salarian, because they don't have the galactic overview we and Shepard have. To them reapers are a distant threat (until they actually start landing on their planet) compared to their traditional enemies. And yet they cooperate.

yeah, but then this cooperation could be temporary, nohing says there won't be war later. Ad they cooperae to defeat the reapers.

And they have objective excuses, the reapers don't.

gain, lawed comparison. The reapers should be judged like the ****s.

Geth nd krogans are different

Modifié par Kamfrenchie, 21 juillet 2012 - 02:07 .

[Geneaux486]

Kamfrenchie wrote...
So because hackett says it it's right ? Hacket > hitory books?

Hackett is wrong, the writers are wrong, the US would never had used the  bomb if thy wern't sure of he consequences, they wouldn't use it if it risked killing everyone.

Scientists acknowleged the possibility that the bomb could ignite Earth's atmosphere, but they did it anyway.  That's not something that was made up for Hackett's speech in ME3, it's the truth.

My number just answer every answer of your quote answers to avoid a long quote. Not that hard to figure it out

I already knew that.  My point was that if you're not going to put the effort into your presentation, I'm not going to put effort into deciphering it.  Who cares if it's a long quote?  Doesn't stop me from responding to posts point by point.  If you're gonna do it, do it up!

[Memnon]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Scientists acknowleged the possibility that the bomb could ignite Earth's atmosphere, but they did it anyway.  That's not something that was made up for Hackett's speech in ME3, it's the truth.

The atomic bomb was designed based on knowledge and math that had been available since the 1800s. They knew the fundamental concept behind atomic binding energy, and had an idea as to what the results of fission would be - that is the reason they devoted so much time and so many resources towards the Manhattan Project. This is not comparable to the Crucible in any way, the plans to which were (luckily) found in some ancient ruins, the purpose and function of which were completely unknown even AFTER it was built. We diverted galaxy-wide resources and manpower towards a device that for all we know could have just been a massive space jungle-gym for the Leviathan asolescents. I don't know why people keep making this comparison, it is not applicable

Modifié par Stornskar, 21 juillet 2012 - 02:45 .

[Geneaux486]

Stornskar wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Scientists acknowleged the possibility that the bomb could ignite Earth's atmosphere, but they did it anyway.  That's not something that was made up for Hackett's speech in ME3, it's the truth.

The atomic bomb was designed based on knowledge and math that had been available since the 1800s. They knew the fundamental concept behind atomic binding energy, and had an idea as to what the results of fission would be - that is the reason they devoted so much time and so many resources towards the Manhattan Project. This is not comparable to the Crucible in any way, the plans to which were (luckily) found in some ancient ruins, the purpose and function of which were completely unknown even AFTER it was built. We diverted galaxy-wide resources and manpower towards a device that for all we know could have just been a massive space jungle-gym for the Leviathan asolescents. I don't know why people keep making this comparison, it is not applicable

And the Crucible engineers knew that the device would generate massive amounts of energy and use the Mass Relays.  Nobody's saying the atomic bomb has the exact same circumstances, but there are similarities, hence why the comparison still works.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 21 juillet 2012 - 03:19 .

[zambot]

Troxa wrote...

zambot wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

zambot wrote...
Besides, there are plenty of sci-fi authors that envision a future where ultimate knowledge = peace.

Name some of them and the works that mention that ...

Seriously?  Themes of transendence and enlightened civilizations that have grown past war are abundant.  Let's start with Star Trek.  The entire backstory of the Federation is that Earth has become an eglatarian, enlightened utopia that has long dispensed with the need for war.  Most of the conflict in Star Trek is about humanity encountering less enlightened civilizations and protecting the utopia on Earth.

Utopia Justifies the Means
Brainwashing For The Greater Good
Crapsaccharine World

synthesis isnt a utopia but a dystopia waiting to happen

OP, different people believe different things.  There are plenty of authors that do not believe utopias are possible, or that attempted utopias all become dystopias.  That is a great thing.  Society would be terribly boring if all great authors believed the exact same things about the future.  The writers of ME3 clearly created a utopia at the end with synthesis.  Whether it lasts or not is entirely head canon and is up to the player to imagine.

[Memnon]

Geneaux486 wrote...

And the Crucible engineers knew that the device would generate massive amounts of energy and use the Mass Relays.  Nobody's saying the atomic bomb has the exact same circumstances, but there are similarities, hence why the comparison still works.

My recollection is that they understood that it somehow utilized the Mass Relays, but we were told about the energy aspect of it by the Catalyst. 

[Xamufam]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Scientists acknowleged the possibility that the bomb could ignite Earth's atmosphere, but they did it anyway.  That's not something that was made up for Hackett's speech in ME3, it's the truth.

The atomic bomb was designed based on knowledge and math that had been available since the 1800s. They knew the fundamental concept behind atomic binding energy, and had an idea as to what the results of fission would be - that is the reason they devoted so much time and so many resources towards the Manhattan Project. This is not comparable to the Crucible in any way, the plans to which were (luckily) found in some ancient ruins, the purpose and function of which were completely unknown even AFTER it was built. We diverted galaxy-wide resources and manpower towards a device that for all we know could have just been a massive space jungle-gym for the Leviathan asolescents. I don't know why people keep making this comparison, it is not applicable

And the Crucible engineers knew that the device would generate massive amounts of energy and use the Mass Relays.  Nobody's saying the atomic bomb has the exact same circumstances, but there are similarities, hence why the comparison still works.

lol no idoesn't the scientist knew how the a-bomb would react einstein tried even to hide it becuese of the power of the bomb.

A nuclear weapon is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission or a combination of fission and fusion. Both reactions release vast quantities of energy from relatively small amounts of matter.

they had to know how the atom worked & how the energy was handled before making the a-bomb
The scientist just wasn't prepared how powerful it was so after that many physicists dropped out of physic because physic was stained

It wasn't the sccientist saying that it will burn the athmospere but the peoples conspiracy theories

We didn't know anything about the crucible

Modifié par Troxa, 21 juillet 2012 - 03:56 .

[Memnon]

zambot wrote...
OP, different people believe different things.  There are plenty of authors that do not believe utopias are possible, or that attempted utopias all become dystopias.  That is a great thing.  Society would be terribly boring if all great authors believed the exact same things about the future.  The writers of ME3 clearly created a utopia at the end with synthesis.  Whether it lasts or not is entirely head canon and is up to the player to imagine.

This concept of ultimate knowledge = peace doesn't make sense to me. What is ultimate knowledge anyways? That is as much a philosophical abstract as the concept of a technological singularity ... the entire premise behind science and discovery as that the more you learn, the more you realize how little you know and need to learn more. If you have "ultimate knowledge" then there is no incentive to discover new things, to learn new things, to experiment, or advance - you become stagnant, which in my mind is the opposite of utopian peace

Even more - just having "knowledge" is pointless. You could download the entire contents of the Encyclopedia Britannica to every human being on earth, that still isn't going to change their individual goals, desires, dreams, and motivations. If at the push of a button I could tell you the per capita income of Kuala Lumpur, that's not going to affect how much I love playing soccer and learning about new technologica advances. Knowing things is useless without being able to apply it in a practical manner, or being willing to take risks and experiment with new things. If you take a PhD who has done nothing but teach and research his entire life, and put him in the fast-paced world of the private sector he would be worthless. This concept of knowledge = everything is naive, there is much more involved than just knowing

Modifié par Stornskar, 21 juillet 2012 - 03:56 .

[SwitchN7]

It's a Goddamn game...A few years ago you were going into sewers for coins and rescuing a 8 bit princess and loving it via Mario...and Luigi.

[Geneaux486]

My recollection is that they understood that it somehow utilized the Mass Relays, but we were told about the energy aspect of it by the Catalyst.

They knew the energy aspect before they knew about the Mass Relay usage. Hackett mentioned it in one of the first debriefings.

lol no idoesn't the scientist knew how the a-bomb would react einstein tried even to hide it becuese of the power of the bomb.

A nuclear weapon is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission or a combination of fission and fusion. Both reactions release vast quantities of energy from relatively small amounts of matter.

they had to know how the atom worked & how the energy was handled before making the a-bomb
The scientist just wasn't prepared how powerful it was so after that many physicists dropped out of physic because physic was stained

It wasn't the sccientist saying that it will burn the athmospere but the peoples conspiracy theories

We didn't know anything about the crucible

See my earlier points about how we did know the basic reaction the Crucible would have. Already proven, shouldn't have to be proven, stated in the game multiple times.

It's a Goddamn game...A few years ago you were going into sewers for coins and rescuing a 8 bit princess and loving it via Mario...and Luigi.

Once we stopped having to work for those mushrooms and fire flowers we developed a sense of entitlement. That's when things started to go downhill XD

[Xamufam]

SwitchN7 wrote...

It's a Goddamn game...A few years ago you were going into sewers for coins and rescuing a 8 bit princess and loving it via Mario...and Luigi.

A book writer would have shot himself after making such mistakes becuse he would have lost all his creability & integrity same goes for writing for a game

Modifié par Troxa, 21 juillet 2012 - 04:03 .

[zambot]

Stornskar wrote...

zambot wrote...
OP, different people believe different things.  There are plenty of authors that do not believe utopias are possible, or that attempted utopias all become dystopias.  That is a great thing.  Society would be terribly boring if all great authors believed the exact same things about the future.  The writers of ME3 clearly created a utopia at the end with synthesis.  Whether it lasts or not is entirely head canon and is up to the player to imagine.

This concept of ultimate knowledge = peace doesn't make sense to me. What is ultimate knowledge anyways? That is as much a philosophical abstract as the concept of a technological singularity ... the entire premise behind science and discovery as that the more you learn, the more you realize how little you know and need to learn more. If you have "ultimate knowledge" then there is no incentive to discover new things, to learn new things, to experiment, or advance - you become stagnant, which in my mind is the opposite of utopian peace

Even more - just having "knowledge" is pointless. You could download the entire contents of the Encyclopedia Britannica to every human being on earth, that still isn't going to change their individual goals, desires, dreams, and motivations. If at the push of a button I could tell you the median income of Kuala Lumpur, that's not going to affect how much I love playing soccer and learning about new technologica advances. Knowing things is useless without being able to apply it in a practical manner, or being willing to take risks and experiment with new things. If you take a PhD who has done nothing but teach and research his entire life, and put him in the fast-paced world of the private sector he would be worthless. This concept of knowledge = everything is naive, there is much more involved than just knowing

I do not diagree.  I believe it is a misguided notion, but nonetheless, it is real.  There are plenty of people who actually believe that by educating the world, world peace will be achieved.  Plenty of people actually believe in the idealism of a socialist utopia. 

Your notion that utopia would lead to boredome/stagnation and eventually crumble is one I've heard before and can't find fault with.  I still believe that any utopia is false because basic human nature makes utopia impossible.  But this isn't your view or my view being expressed in the ending.  I watch synthesis and see the writers' vision for a socialist utopia based on the assumption that knowledge and understanding necessarily leads to peace.  Even though I disagree with it, I don't reject it because of its theme.   

[Memnon]

SwitchN7 wrote...

It's a Goddamn game...A few years ago you were going into sewers for coins and rescuing a 8 bit princess and loving it via Mario...and Luigi.

The Mass Effect franchise is not just a game to many people, insomuch as Star Wars is not just a movie ... sorry if you feel otherwise

[Geneaux486]

Troxa wrote...

SwitchN7 wrote...

It's a Goddamn game...A few years ago you were going into sewers for coins and rescuing a 8 bit princess and loving it via Mario...and Luigi.

A book writer would have shot himself after making such mistakes becuse he would have lost all his creability & integrity same goes for writing for a game

The writers of ME3 didn't make more mistakes than any other fallible human writer.  They wrote a story that not everyone loved.  Like every other writer ever.

The Mass Effect franchise is not just a game to many people, insomuch as Star Wars is not just a movie ...

That isn't Bioware's problem.  They wrote the story, they put the time and effort into making it, they get to decide how it ends, just as we can decide not to buy it if we don't find it satisfactory.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 21 juillet 2012 - 04:10 .

[Memnon]

Geneaux486 wrote...
That isn't Bioware's problem.  They wrote the story, they put the time and effort into making it, they get to decide how it ends, just as we can decide not to buy it if we don't find it satisfactory.

You contradicted yourself with your first and last statments - they established a very popular franchise with a passionate fanbase. Every game developer is looking for that kind of reception. The way the series ended was not popular to many, so I would imagine people will be hesitant to invest in their products in the future. That IS Bioware's problem

Modifié par Stornskar, 21 juillet 2012 - 04:16 .

[Xamufam]

Geneaux486 wrote...

See my earlier points about how we did know the basic reaction the Crucible would have. Already proven, shouldn't have to be proven, stated in the game multiple times.

It wasn't the scientist saying that it will burn the athmospere but the peoples conspiracy theories
The scientist knew that the energy realese would be huge but not that huge

Modifié par Troxa, 21 juillet 2012 - 04:26 .