235 réponses à ce sujet

[Krunjar]

Hate to burst peoples bubbles but in mass effect the Technological Singularity is real. For the same reason as Mass effect fields, Biotics and Eezo are real. Because it says so. It's easy to undermine a fictional universe by attacking it's "givens". And i suggest that if you are that opposed to the tech singularity as a plot device then go find another game. I could just as easily undermine the game by finding flaws in other narrative assumptions. It's not fair to the game to do that to justify your criticisms. If this where a documentary proof would be required .. it is not.

[Meltemph]

Krunjar wrote...

Hate to burst peoples bubbles but in mass effect the Technological Singularity is real. For the same reason as Mass effect fields, Biotics and Eezo are real. Because it says so. It's easy to undermine a fictional universe by attacking it's "givens". And i suggest that if you are that opposed to the tech singularity as a plot device then go find another game. I could just as easily undermine the game by finding flaws in other narrative assumptions. It's not fair to the game to do that to justify your criticisms. If this where a documentary proof would be required .. it is not.

It is fair if the approach to a "given" is badly done, movies and books are critiqued all teh time for not doing a good job at fleshing out an idea, ME3 is no different.  Added to that that they killed the continuation of the setting, and criticizing the ending is completely fair.

[Applepie_Svk]

RiouHotaru wrote...


Actually, Javik stated they enslaved their creators and their creator's offspring BEFORE the Reapers arrived.  That was referred to as the "Metacon War".  The Metacon War was going to end in the Protheans favor when the Reapers showed up and wiped them all out.

Also, Javik and the Protheans aren't reliable because Javik inherently hates and distrusts anything related to synthetic intelligence.  His interpretation of events is colored by bias.  For all he knows the Zha and the Zha'til were in harmony with one another, but the Protheans saw it and believed "enslavement".

If anything, the Metacon War is evidence supporting the Organic/Synthetic conflict as a theme.

And there is another twist or bad writing - Javik said that they took power over body their Creators and Codex said that AI it does after what showed up Reapers. It still doesn´t disprove the fact that Reapers could be messing with Zha´til in same way as the Sovereign did with Geths / Heretics and Rachni.

Do you remember what said VIGIL? Vanguar - is the Reaper which is left behind, spreading webs of his influence, planning each little step for decades - centuries and preparing that its master plan.

Otherwise Javik said only what he could see in Memory Shards but not what was realy behind curtain - Vigil know most of what was behind curtain. Keepers, Vanguard, Citadel, Relay ... each question has proper explanation.

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 16 juillet 2012 - 07:10 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Krunjar wrote...

Hate to burst peoples bubbles but in mass effect the Technological Singularity is real. For the same reason as Mass effect fields, Biotics and Eezo are real. Because it says so.

Strange that people might say that, because the Singularity isn't actually present in the game at all except for maybe what might have happened to the Geth if the Quarians hadn't gone Blitzerkrieg on their Dyson Sphere. 

It's certainly not part of the ending except in people's headcanon. 

It's easy to undermine a fictional universe by attacking it's "givens". And i suggest that if you are that opposed to the tech singularity as a plot device then go find another game.

A game that does it better, in the extremely unlikely eventuality that this is actually part of the game. It's not though, so I can stick with Mass Effect. 

I could just as easily undermine the game by finding flaws in other narrative assumptions. It's not fair to the game to do that to justify your criticisms. If this where a documentary proof would be required .. it is not.

That's almost a self-contradicting statement. What you're saying is that you can't find obvious flaws to back up criticisms, but admit criticisms are possible. Despite being able to justify criticisms by finding obvious flaws, we shouln't because it's not fair on the game? Tough. Not my fault BioWare couldn't competently finish their story, 

[TakedaMauro]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Actually, Javik stated they enslaved their creators and their creator's offspring BEFORE the Reapers arrived.  That was referred to as the "Metacon War".  The Metacon War was going to end in the Protheans favor when the Reapers showed up and wiped them all out.

Nowhere in the game is stated that the Metacon War was against the Zha'til. If you take a look to the ME timeline, the Metacon War was conducted against a "hostile race of machine intellingences".

Please refer to the sources before making statements, they are very easy to find via google.

[Eterna]

The Angry One wrote...

The Zha'til were not Reaper approved synthesis, and thus infringed on the Catalyst's copyright.

Edit: When you think about it, the whole Prothean cycle is a farce.

Reapers: "Here we are to save you from the synthetics!"

Protheans: "Uh, we're winning our war against synthetics."

Zha: "We peacefully co-exist with ours in a form of synthesis."

Reapers: "Nonsense! Synthetics will destroy you all. We're here to save you by preserving you in Reaper form! Well except you, Zha. Because reasons. Not you either, Protheans because you have weird DNA. It's your own fault really. Don't worry, we'll make you into zombie minions instead! BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT!"

People who deny the catalysts reasoning are so short sighted, they're like the people who deny global warming because it's snowing at their house.
 
 The Protheans won against those synthetics, but they would have eventually created more synthetics and the conflict would have occured again, the difference being that the synthetics they created later may be too advanced to be stopped.

You can't use one example and then expect every occurence of events afterwords to follow that same example.

[The Night Mammoth]

Eterna5 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

The Zha'til were not Reaper approved synthesis, and thus infringed on the Catalyst's copyright.

Edit: When you think about it, the whole Prothean cycle is a farce.

Reapers: "Here we are to save you from the synthetics!"

Protheans: "Uh, we're winning our war against synthetics."

Zha: "We peacefully co-exist with ours in a form of synthesis."

Reapers: "Nonsense! Synthetics will destroy you all. We're here to save you by preserving you in Reaper form! Well except you, Zha. Because reasons. Not you either, Protheans because you have weird DNA. It's your own fault really. Don't worry, we'll make you into zombie minions instead! BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT!"

People who deny the catalysts reasoning are so short sighted, they're like the people who deny global warming because it's snowing at their house.

People who do that are just idiots. 

Because they deny the evidence.

I see no evidence to support the Catalyst, so................ nice analogy. 
 

The Protheans won against those synthetics,

Not the point being made. Try again. 

but they would have eventually created more synthetics and the conflict would have occured again, the difference being that the synthetics they created later may be too advanced to be stopped.

Prove it. 

You can't use one example and then expect every occurence of events afterwords to follow that same example.

Strange, because isn't that pretty much what the Catalyst is doing? And people who support the Catalyst?

Except, of course, people who support the Catalyst are doing so without even having a single example to extrapolate from in the first place. 

[Memnon]

Eterna5 wrote...
People who deny the catalysts reasoning are so short sighted, they're like the people who deny global warming because it's snowing at their house.
 
 The Protheans won against those synthetics, but they would have eventually created more synthetics and the conflict would have occured again, the difference being that the synthetics they created later may be too advanced to be stopped.

You can't use one example and then expect every occurence of events afterwords to follow that same example.

So the Catalyst saw a few cold days, predicted a new ice age was coming and decided to wipe out all life on the planet except the ants and cockroaches

Modifié par Stornskar, 16 juillet 2012 - 07:51 .

[What a Succulent Ass]

People who deny the catalysts reasoning are so short sighted, they're like the people who deny global warming because it's snowing at their house.

This is, without doubt, the most EGREGIOUS OF ALL FALSE ANALOGIES I HAVE EVER SEEN ON BSN.

Congratulations, sir!

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 16 juillet 2012 - 07:54 .

[Eterna]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

The Zha'til were not Reaper approved synthesis, and thus infringed on the Catalyst's copyright.

Edit: When you think about it, the whole Prothean cycle is a farce.

Reapers: "Here we are to save you from the synthetics!"

Protheans: "Uh, we're winning our war against synthetics."

Zha: "We peacefully co-exist with ours in a form of synthesis."

Reapers: "Nonsense! Synthetics will destroy you all. We're here to save you by preserving you in Reaper form! Well except you, Zha. Because reasons. Not you either, Protheans because you have weird DNA. It's your own fault really. Don't worry, we'll make you into zombie minions instead! BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT!"

People who deny the catalysts reasoning are so short sighted, they're like the people who deny global warming because it's snowing at their house.

People who do that are just idiots. 

Because they deny the evidence.

I see no evidence to support the Catalyst, so................ nice analogy. 
 

The Protheans won against those synthetics,

Not the point being made. Try again. 

but they would have eventually created more synthetics and the conflict would have occured again, the difference being that the synthetics they created later may be too advanced to be stopped.

Prove it. 

You can't use one example and then expect every occurence of events afterwords to follow that same example.

Strange, because isn't that pretty much what the Catalyst is doing? And people who support the Catalyst?

Except, of course, people who support the Catalyst are doing so without even having a single example to extrapolate from in the first place. 

 In the three cycles we know of, all of them had problems with synthetics. It just so happens the first case of it is usually shut down. 

 People will build machines, the machines will become more advanced. That's how technology works, it's always moving forward. The geth were stopped, but who's to say the synthetics afterwards could be?

The reapers always reap organics before they can advance to the point in which they create unstoppable synthetics.

[Eterna]

Random Jerkface wrote...

People who deny the catalysts reasoning are so short sighted, they're like the people who deny global warming because it's snowing at their house.

This is, without doubt, the most EGREGIOUS OF ALL FALSE ANALOGIES I HAVE EVER SEEN ON BSN.

Congratulations, sir!

No it's not. People are using what they see as examples for the concept as a whole. 

Saying "The geth made peace so the catalyst was wrong!" is pretty much the same as saying "It's snowing in June outside of my house so global warming is false!"

[The Night Mammoth]

Eterna5 wrote...


 In the three cycles we know of, all of them had problems with synthetics. It just so happens the first case of it is usually shut down.

Problems yes. They also had problems between organics. We have NO examples of anything that could approximate to anything like what the Catalyst talks about. Unless you have an example of a hyper advanced species of machine trying to wipe out every spec of organic life. You don't, obviously. The Catalyst might be right, but it doesn't provide any sort of backing or basis or proof for any of its assertions. 

People will build machines,

Prove it. 

the machines will become more advanced.

Prove it. 

That's how technology works, it's always moving forward. The geth were stopped, but who's to say the synthetics afterwards could be?

Stopped? When? Why do they need to be stopped? 

The reapers always reap organics before they can advance to the point in which they create unstoppable synthetics.

Prove it.

[The Night Mammoth]

Eterna5 wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

People who deny the catalysts reasoning are so short sighted, they're like the people who deny global warming because it's snowing at their house.

This is, without doubt, the most EGREGIOUS OF ALL FALSE ANALOGIES I HAVE EVER SEEN ON BSN.

Congratulations, sir!

No it's not. People are using what they see as examples for the concept as a whole. 

Saying "The geth made peace so the catalyst was wrong!" is pretty much the same as saying "It's snowing in June outside of my house so global warming is false!"

Aha! 

Now you've made a different point. 

[Eterna]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...


 In the three cycles we know of, all of them had problems with synthetics. It just so happens the first case of it is usually shut down.

Problems yes. They also had problems between organics. We have NO examples of anything that could approximate to anything like what the Catalyst talks about. Unless you have an example of a hyper advanced species of machine trying to wipe out every spec of organic life. You don't, obviously. The Catalyst might be right, but it doesn't provide any sort of backing or basis or proof for any of its assertions. 

People will build machines,

Prove it. 

the machines will become more advanced.

Prove it. 

That's how technology works, it's always moving forward. The geth were stopped, but who's to say the synthetics afterwards could be?

Stopped? When? Why do they need to be stopped? 

The reapers always reap organics before they can advance to the point in which they create unstoppable synthetics.

Prove it.

People will obviously build machines....are you daft or something? And yes, they will become more advanced, that's how technology works. 

Saying "prove it" to every single one of responses is a flimsy counter at best, I could go around and say prove to me That they won't do what I've said.

[Eterna]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

People who deny the catalysts reasoning are so short sighted, they're like the people who deny global warming because it's snowing at their house.

This is, without doubt, the most EGREGIOUS OF ALL FALSE ANALOGIES I HAVE EVER SEEN ON BSN.

Congratulations, sir!

No it's not. People are using what they see as examples for the concept as a whole. 

Saying "The geth made peace so the catalyst was wrong!" is pretty much the same as saying "It's snowing in June outside of my house so global warming is false!"

Aha! 

Now you've made a different point. 

No? That was my point from the start.

[What a Succulent Ass]

Eterna5 wrote...

No it's not. People are using what they see as examples for the concept as a whole. 

Saying "The geth made peace so the catalyst was wrong!" is pretty much the same as saying "It's snowing in June outside of my house so global warming is false!"

No. And that's a gross simplification of climate change, by the way.

Climate change:

- Is an observable phenomenon
- Can be quantified
- Has occurred multiple times in Earth's history.

Climate change is tangible. Were anyone saying that synthetics and organics will never conflict because there is peace with the geth, you might almost have a point. Instead, you're harkening a baseless, pseudo-philosophical assertion (one who's conclusion is absolute annihilation--seriously?) to an measurable known.

No. Just no.

[TakedaMauro]

Eterna5 wrote...

People who deny the catalysts reasoning are so short sighted, they're like the people who deny global warming because it's snowing at their house.
 
 The Protheans won against those synthetics, but they would have eventually created more synthetics and the conflict would have occured again, the difference being that the synthetics they created later may be too advanced to be stopped.

You can't use one example and then expect every occurence of events afterwords to follow that same example.

And that's exactly what the catalyst is doing.

I guess logic and you are not close friends, uh?

[Eterna]

TakedaMauro wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

People who deny the catalysts reasoning are so short sighted, they're like the people who deny global warming because it's snowing at their house.
 
 The Protheans won against those synthetics, but they would have eventually created more synthetics and the conflict would have occured again, the difference being that the synthetics they created later may be too advanced to be stopped.

You can't use one example and then expect every occurence of events afterwords to follow that same example.

And that's exactly what the catalyst is doing.

I guess logic and you are not close friends, uh?

Except the catalyst has been right so far and every cycle we know of has had issues with rebellious synthetics.

[The Night Mammoth]

Eterna5 wrote...

People will obviously build machines....are you daft or something?

No, just asking you to back up your assertions.

And yes, they will become more advanced, that's how technology works.

Why? Proof please, a little analytical and critical thought with a reasoned explanation behind the premise would be nice. 

Saying "prove it" to every single one of responses is a flimsy counter at best, I could go around and say prove to me That they won't do what I've said.

You could, but you'd be wrong to do so. 

I'm not making assertions. You are. Burden of proof; guess where it lies? As above, I'd like to see some sort of well reasoned case put forward. I can't exactly debate anything if no one provides anything to analyze.

[What a Succulent Ass]

WHICH CYCLES?

Because surely you aren't counting the rebellions it caused.

That, and rebellion =/= absolute extinction. The whole idea is just ****ing ludicrous.

[The Night Mammoth]

Eterna5 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

People who deny the catalysts reasoning are so short sighted, they're like the people who deny global warming because it's snowing at their house.

This is, without doubt, the most EGREGIOUS OF ALL FALSE ANALOGIES I HAVE EVER SEEN ON BSN.

Congratulations, sir!

No it's not. People are using what they see as examples for the concept as a whole. 

Saying "The geth made peace so the catalyst was wrong!" is pretty much the same as saying "It's snowing in June outside of my house so global warming is false!"

Aha! 

Now you've made a different point. 

No? That was my point from the start.

Yes, to answer your question. 

Saying that people who use the Geth solely as an example to disprove the Catalyst is a different point to the one you appeared to make before.

Which was either that people are using the Geth to say all synthetics will be like them; which is wrong, or that people who deny the Catalyst on any grounds are idiots; which is also wrong.  

[Eterna]

Random Jerkface wrote...

WHICH CYCLES?

Because surely you aren't counting the rebellions it caused.

That, and rebellion =/= absolute extinction. The whole idea is just ****ing ludicrous.

The catalyst says synthetics will always rebel against their creators. In the three cycles we know of this is true, even the catalyst turned on its creator.

[The Night Mammoth]

Eterna5 wrote...

TakedaMauro wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

People who deny the catalysts reasoning are so short sighted, they're like the people who deny global warming because it's snowing at their house.
 
 The Protheans won against those synthetics, but they would have eventually created more synthetics and the conflict would have occured again, the difference being that the synthetics they created later may be too advanced to be stopped.

You can't use one example and then expect every occurence of events afterwords to follow that same example.

And that's exactly what the catalyst is doing.

I guess logic and you are not close friends, uh?

Except the catalyst has been right so far

Not really, as evident by the existence of organic life in any capacity. 

and every cycle we know of has had issues with rebellious synthetics.

And issues with organics as well. 

So why are synthetics the problem? I'll ask a third time. 

[Eterna]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

People who deny the catalysts reasoning are so short sighted, they're like the people who deny global warming because it's snowing at their house.

This is, without doubt, the most EGREGIOUS OF ALL FALSE ANALOGIES I HAVE EVER SEEN ON BSN.

Congratulations, sir!

No it's not. People are using what they see as examples for the concept as a whole. 

Saying "The geth made peace so the catalyst was wrong!" is pretty much the same as saying "It's snowing in June outside of my house so global warming is false!"

Aha! 

Now you've made a different point. 

No? That was my point from the start.

Yes, to answer your question. 

Saying that people who use the Geth solely as an example to disprove the Catalyst is a different point to the one you appeared to make before.

Which was either that people are using the Geth to say all synthetics will be like them; which is wrong, or that people who deny the Catalyst on any grounds are idiots; which is also wrong.  

My point was that people who deny the catalyst on the basis of the geth are just as stupid as the people who deny global warming because it snows at odd times.

[The Night Mammoth]

Eterna5 wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

WHICH CYCLES?

Because surely you aren't counting the rebellions it caused.

That, and rebellion =/= absolute extinction. The whole idea is just ****ing ludicrous.

The catalyst says synthetics will always rebel against their creators. In the three cycles we know of this is true,

Yes is it. 

I don't know how many times I've asked this question, but why the hell does this actually matter? Let them rebel. The specific times we know of the synthetics are justified to do so. They have never tried to wipe out all organic life or ever succeeded, so the fact that rebelions have occured is irrelevant. 

even the catalyst turned on its creator.

Which basically undermines its own existence as a solution to anything, and its premise. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 16 juillet 2012 - 08:28 .