210 réponses à ce sujet

[Obitim]

Can't Shepard relinquish control on Geth and Edi tho? While keeping the reapers under control?

[flanny]

My question is why the control ending needs an explosion? i mean the star jar even says what your're doing is replacing him, surely this is just done internally in the citadel? why does this destroy the relays?

[elitehunter34]

 There is honestly no reason.  You can play the damn special pleading game all day and say "Oh it makes sense because x or y."  There is absolutely no reason why the Crucible has to conform to do one thing or another.  It isn't like a gun where if theres a bullet in it and you pull the trigger it will fire.  It is more akin to a particle accelerator.  A particle accelerator is so advanced and complex that only those with the proper training will know exactly how it works, what it does and how to use it.  Layperson's only have a basic understanding of "It shoots subatomic particles at each other."  None of us here are experts on what the Crucible is or how it functions.  Even the game's writers can't be.  It is a fictional device using fictional technology.  You cannot just state that it has to do x or y. 

This is why the ending absolutely fails as a moral choice.  Rather than being a moral decision like the decision on Legion's loyalty mission, you are instead left wondering why the Crucible can't save the Geth and EDI or why it only controls the Reapers but not the Geth and EDI.  It's a choice based on arbitrary technological limitations of a device instead of focusing on the morality.  Morality choices only work if we are willing to believe that there is no other option.  Right now there is no reason why there are no better options.  In Mass Effect, there have been plenty of times where there have been clearly superior options.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  Being able to bring peace between the Quarians and the Geth was a perfect example of this.

Legion's loyalty mission perfectly demonstrates what a good moral choice is.  Is it better to forcibly change someones mind and essentially change who they are or is it better to simply destroy them?  This choice is brilliant because it flowed organically from the narrative.  It wasn't a forced choice based on the limitations of a machine.  It also hit home on one of the great themes of Mass Effect: free will vs. control.  Maybe it's morally wrong to do so, but since this is such a dire time you can't worry about such problems.  Maybe rewriting them isn't such a bad thing, maybe it's similar to just forcing someone to accept the facts.  A strong form of persuasion, not mind control.  Maybe it's better to destroy them because they might rebel and disagree with what you have done.  It's truely a wonderful decision because it's truely a moral choice.  You can't complain that there is a better option because there isn't one that can exist without invoking contrivances or an illogical break in the narrative (such as Shepard simply talking them down: even with a high paragon or renegade score this wouldn't have made much sense and would have felt cheap). 

I'm getting so tired of people who call the endings good because it's asking you what you would do to stop the Reapers or something along those lines.  Those people are not realizing that choices are a tool, not inherently good.  If there is one superior option and there is good reason for it to exist, you go for it.  The situation needs to be written in a way that such a choice wouldn't make sense.  That is why it is so hard to force us to make choices in a game like Mass Effect.  Often the situation is written in a way where there is good reason to believe that a superior option should exist.  It's why superior third options often exist in the series because if there wasn't we question why we couldn't do it.  That's why the Virmire decision is somewhat contrived.  Why couldn't the Normandy save the other crew member?  It has extra soldiers.  However, it doesn't bother me that much because the situation was hairy.  Maybe there wasn't enough time to send both.  The situation demanded it enough that it didn't bother me that I had to make a choice.  As I've explained before the end game situation does not give a good enough reason, and can't give a good reason why it can't spare the Geth and EDI.  I don't even want to get into the http://social.biowar...465948]thematic implications[/url] (great post by Strange Aeons about the thematic problems of the choices here) of the endings.  For me, the logical flow of events in a story is the most important, then the thematic implications come next.  A story that breaks theme is fine for me as long as it's done for a rational reason.  Right now, it's not even being done for a rational reason.

Modifié par elitehunter34, 26 juillet 2012 - 01:24 .

[lillitheris]

Disregard, nothing but us dust bunnies here.

Modifié par lillitheris, 26 juillet 2012 - 01:28 .

[dreman9999]

SackofCat wrote...

It is almost as if there were two independent capabilities and mechanisms built into the crucible... One (somehow) targets litebrite and the reapers while the other is some special new kind of energy (well, both are) that is destructive on an unimaginable scale but can be "adjusted" to be selectively destructive (but not too selective)...

The concept of the crucible strains credibility without this...let's say, quirk.

Peaple can comphrend control is just a rewrite of the catalyst system, which includes the mass relays, the citadel and thereapers and destory effects all tech?

[fchopin]

The Geth were not slaves but free AI’s so why would control control them?

[dreman9999]

elitehunter34 wrote...

 There is honestly no reason.  You can play the damn special pleading game all day and say "Oh it makes sense because x or y."  There is absolutely no reason why the Crucible has to conform to do one thing or another.  It isn't like a gun where if theres a bullet in it and you pull the trigger it will fire.  It is more akin to a particle accelerator.  A particle accelerator is so advanced and complex that only those with the proper training will know exactly how it works, what it does and how to use it.  Layperson's only have a basic understanding of "It shoots subatomic particles at each other."  None of us here are experts on what the Crucible is or how it functions.  Even the game's writers can't be.  It is a fictional device using fictional technology.  You cannot just state that it has to do x or y. 

This is why the ending absolutely fails as a moral choice.  Rather than being a moral decision like the decision on Legion's loyalty mission, you are instead left wondering why the Crucible can't save the Geth and EDI or why it only controls the Reapers but not the Geth and EDI.  It's a choice based on arbitrary technological limitations of a device instead of focusing on the morality.  Morality choices only work if we are willing to believe that there is no other option.  Right now there is no reason why there are no better options.  In Mass Effect, there have been plenty of times where there have been clearly superior options.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  Being able to bring peace between the Quarians and the Geth was a perfect example of this.

Legion's loyalty mission perfectly demonstrates what a good moral choice is.  Is it better to forcibly change someones mind and essentially change who they are or is it better to simply destroy them?  This choice is brilliant because it flowed organically from the narrative.  It wasn't a forced choice based on the limitations of a machine.  It also hit home on one of the great themes of Mass Effect: free will vs. control.  Maybe it's morally wrong to do so, but since this is such a dire time you can't worry about such problems.  Maybe rewriting them isn't such a bad thing, maybe it's similar to just forcing someone to accept the facts.  A strong form of persuasion, not mind control.  Maybe it's better to destroy them because they might rebel and disagree with what you have done.  It's truely a wonderful decision because it's truely a moral choice.  You can't complain that there is a better option because there isn't one that can exist without invoking contrivances or an illogical break in the narrative (such as Shepard simply talking them down: even with a high paragon or renegade score this wouldn't have made much sense and would have felt cheap). 

I'm getting so tired of people who call the endings good because it's asking you what you would do to stop the Reapers or something along those lines.  Those people are not realizing that choices are a tool, not inherently good.  If there is one superior option and there is good reason for it to exist, you go for it.  The situation needs to be written in a way that such a choice wouldn't make sense.  That is why it is so hard to force us to make choices in a game like Mass Effect.  Often the situation is written in a way where there is good reason to believe that a superior option should exist.  It's why superior third options often exist in the series because if there wasn't we question why we couldn't do it.  That's why the Virmire decision is somewhat contrived.  Why couldn't the Normandy save the other crew member?  It has extra soldiers.  However, it doesn't bother me that much because the situation was hairy.  Maybe there wasn't enough time to send both.  The situation demanded it enough that it didn't bother me that I had to make a choice.  As I've explained before the end game situation does not give a good enough reason, and can't give a good reason why it can't spare the Geth and EDI.  I don't even want to get into the http://social.biowar...465948]thematic implications[/url] (great post by Strange Aeons about the thematic problems of the choices here) of the endings.  For me, the logical flow of events in a story is the most important, then the thematic implications come next.  A story that breaks theme is fine for me as long as it's done for a rational reason.  Right now, it's not even being done for a rational reason.

The consept of an EMP is outside your understanding then.
Also, you reason for hating the choice mak no sense. The concept of a choice needed to be made on what possible you can do with the event in hand. The virmire choice workd because of the time avalible to one ofyour crew and the vunriablity the narmady would have on landing. You drop a ship in a combat zone and it will get shot.

And with the crucible, the problem with understanding it is on you hand. Control is just a rewrite of the catalyst systems programing. It just like upgrading a network of computers via it's servers. Itjust using what is there already with te powerof the crucible to assist.
Destroy is like an emp. It effect's all tech and programing. If the programing of an AI is corrupted, it will stop working like any computer.

[dreman9999]

elitehunter34 wrote...

 There is honestly no reason.  You can play the damn special pleading game all day and say "Oh it makes sense because x or y."  There is absolutely no reason why the Crucible has to conform to do one thing or another.  It isn't like a gun where if theres a bullet in it and you pull the trigger it will fire.  It is more akin to a particle accelerator.  A particle accelerator is so advanced and complex that only those with the proper training will know exactly how it works, what it does and how to use it.  Layperson's only have a basic understanding of "It shoots subatomic particles at each other."  None of us here are experts on what the Crucible is or how it functions.  Even the game's writers can't be.  It is a fictional device using fictional technology.  You cannot just state that it has to do x or y. 

This is why the ending absolutely fails as a moral choice.  Rather than being a moral decision like the decision on Legion's loyalty mission, you are instead left wondering why the Crucible can't save the Geth and EDI or why it only controls the Reapers but not the Geth and EDI.  It's a choice based on arbitrary technological limitations of a device instead of focusing on the morality.  Morality choices only work if we are willing to believe that there is no other option.  Right now there is no reason why there are no better options.  In Mass Effect, there have been plenty of times where there have been clearly superior options.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  Being able to bring peace between the Quarians and the Geth was a perfect example of this.

Legion's loyalty mission perfectly demonstrates what a good moral choice is.  Is it better to forcibly change someones mind and essentially change who they are or is it better to simply destroy them?  This choice is brilliant because it flowed organically from the narrative.  It wasn't a forced choice based on the limitations of a machine.  It also hit home on one of the great themes of Mass Effect: free will vs. control.  Maybe it's morally wrong to do so, but since this is such a dire time you can't worry about such problems.  Maybe rewriting them isn't such a bad thing, maybe it's similar to just forcing someone to accept the facts.  A strong form of persuasion, not mind control.  Maybe it's better to destroy them because they might rebel and disagree with what you have done.  It's truely a wonderful decision because it's truely a moral choice.  You can't complain that there is a better option because there isn't one that can exist without invoking contrivances or an illogical break in the narrative (such as Shepard simply talking them down: even with a high paragon or renegade score this wouldn't have made much sense and would have felt cheap). 

I'm getting so tired of people who call the endings good because it's asking you what you would do to stop the Reapers or something along those lines.  Those people are not realizing that choices are a tool, not inherently good.  If there is one superior option and there is good reason for it to exist, you go for it.  The situation needs to be written in a way that such a choice wouldn't make sense.  That is why it is so hard to force us to make choices in a game like Mass Effect.  Often the situation is written in a way where there is good reason to believe that a superior option should exist.  It's why superior third options often exist in the series because if there wasn't we question why we couldn't do it.  That's why the Virmire decision is somewhat contrived.  Why couldn't the Normandy save the other crew member?  It has extra soldiers.  However, it doesn't bother me that much because the situation was hairy.  Maybe there wasn't enough time to send both.  The situation demanded it enough that it didn't bother me that I had to make a choice.  As I've explained before the end game situation does not give a good enough reason, and can't give a good reason why it can't spare the Geth and EDI.  I don't even want to get into the http://social.biowar...465948]thematic implications[/url] (great post by Strange Aeons about the thematic problems of the choices here) of the endings.  For me, the logical flow of events in a story is the most important, then the thematic implications come next.  A story that breaks theme is fine for me as long as it's done for a rational reason.  Right now, it's not even being done for a rational reason.

The consept of an EMP is outside your understanding then.
Also, you reason for hating the choice mak no sense. The concept of a choice needed to be made on what possible you can do with the event in hand. The virmire choice workd because of the time avalible to one ofyour crew and the vunriablity the narmady would have on landing. You drop a ship in a combat zone and it will get shot.

And with the crucible, the problem with understanding it is on you hand. Control is just a rewrite of the catalyst systems programing. It just like upgrading a network of computers via it's servers. Itjust using what is there already with te powerof the crucible to assist.
Destroy is like an emp. It effect's all tech and programing. If the programing of an AI is corrupted, it will stop working like any computer.

[dreman9999]

@elitehunter34 wrote...

 
The consept of an EMP is outside your understanding then.
Also, you reason for hating the choice mak no sense. The concept of a choice needed to be made on what possible you can do with the event in hand. The virmire choice workd because of the time avalible to one ofyour crew and the vunriablity the narmady would have on landing. You drop a ship in a combat zone and it will get shot.

And with the crucible, the problem with understanding it is on you hand. Control is just a rewrite of the catalyst systems programing. It just like upgrading a network of computers via it's servers. Itjust using what is there already with te powerof the crucible to assist.
Destroy is like an emp. It effect's all tech and programing. If the programing of an AI is corrupted, it will stop working like any computer.

[The Twilight God]

Yumi50 wrote...

If you choose destroy, the boy said all synthetic would be gone.
But for Control, only reapers will be controlled?

Where's that logic coming from? 

A. Control is something the Citadel does via the Catalyst using the energy of the Crucible.

Destroy is something the Crucible itself performs without any input from the Catalyst. You just have to disable the Catalyst's premade Crucible suppression device that it built in anticipation for the Crucible that it never expected to ever become a reality. *cough* You have to also remember that Control (TIM) and Synthesis (Saren) are the options it wants you to take. They are the indoctinated choices.

B. Or the Catalyst, being a vindictive lil sob, intentionally makes it where Destroy takes out all synthetics as a last ditch effrot to prevent its assertions from becoming reality even if it's only temporary. The Reapers die with big grins on their faces.

Taboo-XX wrote...

It's easier to blow something up than it is to control it.

That's what Patrick Weekes said.

Yeah, and it's easier to control a geth than a reaper. Patrick's theory is thus shot down.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 26 juillet 2012 - 02:24 .

[BDelacroix]

Because they wanted it to.

[dreman9999]

The Twilight God wrote...

Yumi50 wrote...

If you choose destroy, the boy said all synthetic would be gone.
But for Control, only reapers will be controlled?

Where's that logic coming from? 

A. Control is something the Citadel does via the Catalyst using the energy of the Crucible.

Destroy is something the Crucible itself performs without any input from the Catalyst. You just have to disable the Catalyst's premade Crucible suppression device that it built in anticipation for the Crucible that it never expected to ever become a reality. *cough* You have to also remember that Control (TIM) and Synthesis (Saren) are the options it wants you to take. They are the indoctinated choices.

B. Or the Catalyst, being a vindictive lil sob, intentionally makes it where Destroy takes out all synthetics as a last ditch effrot to prevent its assertions from becoming reality even if it's only temporary. The Reapers die with big grins on their faces.

Taboo-XX wrote...

It's easier to blow something up than it is to control it.

That's what Patrick Weekes said.

Yeah, and it's easier to control a geth than a reaper. Patrick's theory is thus shot down.

1.The crucible is just using the system thats there alreadyto control the reapers. And the starchild has no power over what the crucible does out side of synthesis.
2. Controling  geth is not easy nor permanent.

[elitehunter34]

dreman9999 wrote...

@elitehunter34 wrote...

 
The consept of an EMP is outside your understanding then.
Also, you reason for hating the choice mak no sense. The concept of a choice needed to be made on what possible you can do with the event in hand. The virmire choice workd because of the time avalible to one ofyour crew and the vunriablity the narmady would have on landing. You drop a ship in a combat zone and it will get shot.

And with the crucible, the problem with understanding it is on you hand. Control is just a rewrite of the catalyst systems programing. It just like upgrading a network of computers via it's servers. Itjust using what is there already with te powerof the crucible to assist.
Destroy is like an emp. It effect's all tech and programing. If the programing of an AI is corrupted, it will stop working like any computer.

You're reading comprehension is terrible.  In my post I said that the Virmire choice was somewhat contrived, but I said it was acceptable, and you do not understand my argument at all.  My point is that the Crucible doesn't have to destroy them.  Do you understand that statement?  I am not going to argue with your interpretion of how the Crucible works.  As I've said in about a million other threads and in this one, the Crucible is a powerful device in a fictional universe that works on fictional principles.  It doesn't have to do anything.  The choices are contrived.  You are entirely missing my point.  Until you realize this, I will not further this conversation.  In other threads you have constantly ignored my arguments to continue strawmanning me or bring up this red herring about how I don't understand the ending because I don't agree with your interpretation of how it works, and you are continuing this trend in this thread.  You either truely don't understand what I'm saying, or you are just a troll.  

Modifié par elitehunter34, 26 juillet 2012 - 02:46 .

[V-rcingetorix]

Hmmm...Control is a rewrite (assuming a connection between the Citadel and all Reapers) and Destroy is an EMP?

I know a little about EMP's. Back in 1962, a 1.4 megaton nuke was detonated, causing electrical issues over 1,400 kilometers away. Even when nuclear weapons were being developed (with double shielded communication lines) there were problems with recording data due to the EMP, or "radioflash" as the British called it.

Yet EDI mentions she is watching for "proton storms" and other phenomenon. When questioned as to the danger, she states that if the Normandy is unaware, such phenomenon would be "very bad," but if aware, "not bad."

Assuming the Control and Destroy options have a similar power source (Eezo and H3), let's also assume the Crucible has a similar connection to the Mass Relays as the Mass Relays do to each other. Therefore, whatever decision you make must be proliferated, using the Relays as a vector.

Here's the question: If Control simply rewrites the Reapers, does it make an invasive scan of Shepard? Like the old Star Trek transporter question; does it delete the body *here* to make another body *there*? If it has to destroy Shepards' body to make a complete AI copy, then replaces Casper the Ghostly Kid with that AI, then ShepardAI would use the Crucible to re-write the Reapers. One of the potential of the Crucible was to be aware of all Relays and Reapers (codex entry from ME3).

Destroy, however works how? This has always been the big question for me. If it's a raw EMP boom, this would not eliminate the Reapers, Geth or EDI, it would only damage them. A true Electro-Magnetic Pulse would wipe hard drives, RAM, thumb drives, CD-ROM (if used in the future) and all the floppy disks that will undoubtedly be used by some people. But it wouldn't destroy them. Portions of data would be left behind, randomly missed by the EMP. Some Reapers would be spinning in circles, some Geth would be stuttering (like a corrupted MP3 file), but there would be stuff left behind.

In addition, what about shielded areas? I can understand pumping an EMP directly into the Reapers; the Catalyst has a Red Phone directly interfacing with them after all. Since the Catalyst is "mostly intact," I can even see some spillover effect. But a galaxy wide memory wipe? No hard-shielded Geth servers? Remember, the Geth were at war with themselves and the Quarians for 300+ years, and none of them thought to defend their fragile electronic selves from an EMP potential?

Yes, the writers needed a negative aspect to show a cost for choosing Destroy, but wouldn't the cost be high enough to simply wipe Joker's girlfriend, and give amnesia to a significant part of a race that recently became members of the galactic community? Think of the therapy needed by all concerned! You're leaving the Geth at the mercy of the Quarians, effectively re-playing the moral decision you made back on Rannoch.

Besides, turning down Utopia/Dystopia? That is not bad? If you want "sunshine and bunnies," all you have to do is accept that there are bizzarre activation protocols, and that somehow, the Catalyst can't record you as an AI for Synthesis as it could for Control.

Apologies for length, hope this helps. Of course, this is just my opinion

[The Twilight God]

dreman9999 wrote...

1.The crucible is just using the system thats there alreadyto control the reapers. And the starchild has no power over what the crucible does out side of synthesis.
2. Controling  geth is not easy nor permanent.

1. The Crucible's only purpose is Destroy. If not for the Catalyst's suppression device it would have simply fired off as soon as it docked. Control and Synthesis are the Catayst's doing. Both need Shepard, yes, but the technology to enact them are already in the Citadel seperate from the Crucible. The Crucible, in these scenarios, acts as a battery to power them to their full potential vs using that energy to enact Destroy.

2. Reapers are more advanced than Geth. If Reapers can be controlled than the geth can EASILY be controlled. Are you honestly saying the geth are more sophisticated and have better protection than the Reapers? The reaper certainly had no trouble controlling the Geth. You recall the Rannoch plotline, right?

Modifié par The Twilight God, 26 juillet 2012 - 03:12 .

[dreman9999]

elitehunter34 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

@elitehunter34 wrote...

 
The consept of an EMP is outside your understanding then.
Also, you reason for hating the choice mak no sense. The concept of a choice needed to be made on what possible you can do with the event in hand. The virmire choice workd because of the time avalible to one ofyour crew and the vunriablity the narmady would have on landing. You drop a ship in a combat zone and it will get shot.

And with the crucible, the problem with understanding it is on you hand. Control is just a rewrite of the catalyst systems programing. It just like upgrading a network of computers via it's servers. Itjust using what is there already with te powerof the crucible to assist.
Destroy is like an emp. It effect's all tech and programing. If the programing of an AI is corrupted, it will stop working like any computer.

You're reading comprehension is terrible.  In my post I said that the Virmire choice was somewhat contrived, but I said it was acceptable, and you do not understand my argument at all.  My point is that the Crucible doesn't have to destroy them.  Do you understand that statement?  I am not going to argue with your interpretion of how the Crucible works.  As I've said in about a million other threads and in this one, the Crucible is a powerful device in a fictional universe that works on fictional principles.  It doesn't have to do anything.  The choices are contrived.  You are entirely missing my point.  Until you realize this, I will not further this conversation.  In other threads you have constantly ignored my arguments to continue strawmanning me or bring up this red herring about how I don't understand the ending because I don't agree with your interpretation of how it works, and you are continuing this trend in this thread.  You either truely don't understand what I'm saying, or you are just a troll.  

The crucible was made by past race that had no love of synthetics. What your not understand is what it does is outside our hands. No of the pst races ever had any understanding or a comprihention of conexsists of synthectic life. Say it make no sense why the crucible destorys all synthetic life is a statement hat ignores the concept of the hate pastorganics had for synthetics. Just look at Javik and you'll understand why it destorys all synthetic life. The crucilbein destory is a weapon that affects all tech. That like a weapon  that affect organics organs when compare to what it's like to an AI.

[dreman9999]

The Twilight God wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1.The crucible is just using the system thats there alreadyto control the reapers. And the starchild has no power over what the crucible does out side of synthesis.
2. Controling  geth is not easy nor permanent.

1. The Crucible's only purpose is Destroy. If not for the Catalyst's suppression device it would have simply fired off as soon as it docked. Control and Synthesis are the Catayst's doing. Both need Shepard, yes, but the technology to enact them are already in the Citadel seperate from the Crucible. The Crucible, in these scenarios, acts as a battery to power them to their full potential vs using that energy to enact Destroy.

2. Reapers are more advanced than Geth. If Reapers can be controlled than the geth can EASILY be controlled. Are you honestly saying the geth are more sophisticated and have better protection than the Reapers? The reaper certainly had no trouble controlling the Geth. You recall the Rannoch plotline, right?

1. the crucible perpose is to control the reapers or destory them. The catalyst has no power over this. Control is not the catalyst doing at all in any way. He has no control in the matter of destory or control.
2.The way the reapers are control is with a massive override and rewrite of everything down to the back ups by connecting into it's main systems. Even the geth were control this way by the reapers on rennoch. If we have acces with the main system of a machines ofcourse we can control it. What question is left is how easy is it to get to the mains system of a machine. That is not an easy task with  the reapers or the geth.

[dreman9999]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

Hmmm...Control is a rewrite (assuming a connection between the Citadel and all Reapers) and Destroy is an EMP?

I know a little about EMP's. Back in 1962, a 1.4 megaton nuke was detonated, causing electrical issues over 1,400 kilometers away. Even when nuclear weapons were being developed (with double shielded communication lines) there were problems with recording data due to the EMP, or "radioflash" as the British called it.

Yet EDI mentions she is watching for "proton storms" and other phenomenon. When questioned as to the danger, she states that if the Normandy is unaware, such phenomenon would be "very bad," but if aware, "not bad."

Assuming the Control and Destroy options have a similar power source (Eezo and H3), let's also assume the Crucible has a similar connection to the Mass Relays as the Mass Relays do to each other. Therefore, whatever decision you make must be proliferated, using the Relays as a vector.

Here's the question: If Control simply rewrites the Reapers, does it make an invasive scan of Shepard? Like the old Star Trek transporter question; does it delete the body *here* to make another body *there*? If it has to destroy Shepards' body to make a complete AI copy, then replaces Casper the Ghostly Kid with that AI, then ShepardAI would use the Crucible to re-write the Reapers. One of the potential of the Crucible was to be aware of all Relays and Reapers (codex entry from ME3).

Destroy, however works how? This has always been the big question for me. If it's a raw EMP boom, this would not eliminate the Reapers, Geth or EDI, it would only damage them. A true Electro-Magnetic Pulse would wipe hard drives, RAM, thumb drives, CD-ROM (if used in the future) and all the floppy disks that will undoubtedly be used by some people. But it wouldn't destroy them. Portions of data would be left behind, randomly missed by the EMP. Some Reapers would be spinning in circles, some Geth would be stuttering (like a corrupted MP3 file), but there would be stuff left behind.

In addition, what about shielded areas? I can understand pumping an EMP directly into the Reapers; the Catalyst has a Red Phone directly interfacing with them after all. Since the Catalyst is "mostly intact," I can even see some spillover effect. But a galaxy wide memory wipe? No hard-shielded Geth servers? Remember, the Geth were at war with themselves and the Quarians for 300+ years, and none of them thought to defend their fragile electronic selves from an EMP potential?

Yes, the writers needed a negative aspect to show a cost for choosing Destroy, but wouldn't the cost be high enough to simply wipe Joker's girlfriend, and give amnesia to a significant part of a race that recently became members of the galactic community? Think of the therapy needed by all concerned! You're leaving the Geth at the mercy of the Quarians, effectively re-playing the moral decision you made back on Rannoch.

Besides, turning down Utopia/Dystopia? That is not bad? If you want "sunshine and bunnies," all you have to do is accept that there are bizzarre activation protocols, and that somehow, the Catalyst can't record you as an AI for Synthesis as it could for Control.

Apologies for length, hope this helps. Of course, this is just my opinion

With the emp concept. Think about this with the concept of an AI. wITH AN AI , programing and hard ware is their brain. Any delition of corruption to it would be like a lobotamy with organics. The question is how deep the affect is with synthtics or how effective the weapon is. What you brought up is a concept of  whether the attacks are truely that effective. With the plot , it's up to the writers . 

Control is more like an amplified version of the device legion used to have Shepard interact with the geth consensus. The question that is left is howmuch power is need to make an AI like the catalyst...That's also up to the writer.

[fr33stylez]

Why doesn't Shepard die in all versions of Destroy if it's some kind of indiscriminate wave? What makes the Reapers and the Geth/EDI so similar, when we are told Reapers are synthetic/organic hybrids?

[fchopin]

Maybe he does, all we see is one breath and nothing else.

[elitehunter34]

dreman9999 wrote...
The crucible was made by past race that had no love of synthetics. What your not understand is what it does is outside our hands. No of the pst races ever had any understanding or a comprihention of conexsists of synthectic life. Say it make no sense why the crucible destorys all synthetic life is a statement hat ignores the concept of the hate pastorganics had for synthetics. Just look at Javik and you'll understand why it destorys all synthetic life. The crucilbein destory is a weapon that affects all tech. That like a weapon  that affect organics organs when compare to what it's like to an AI.

Your ability to strawman astounds me.

[The Twilight God]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. the crucible perpose is to control the reapers or destory them. The catalyst has no power over this. Control is not the catalyst doing at all in any way. He has no control in the matter of destory or control.

1. Where is it ever stated that the Crucible's purpose was ever to control the reapers? Indoctrinated TIM? Whose only argument is "I just know it does just because". He knows the option is there because he's a reaper thrall at that point and they are telling him it's there. He wouldn't have bothered with Sanctuary if he knew all he had to do was grab some electro handles and presto change-o. There is nothing said by Vendetta or any other character stating that the Crucible can control the reapers. The control option has always been a reaper plot to decieve and sow division. Vendetta does say this on Thessia. 

The Catlayst is the one who built the control panel. Notice it's on the Citadel, not the Cruicible. It was already there before you ever arrived. Control is the Catalyst's option just like Synthesis. I repeat,  the control concole is pre-built INTO THE CITADEL. The Control option is highly dependent on the existence of the Star Child. If nobody know about him why they hell would there be an option to take his place built into the Crucible? The only thing preventing Destroy from auto occuring is the Crucible suppression device. Otherwise it would have just activated upon docking and destroyed the reapers.

dreman9999 wrote...

2.The way the reapers are control is with a massive override and rewrite of everything down to the back ups by connecting into it's main systems. Even the geth were control this way by the reapers on rennoch. If we have acces with the main system of a machines ofcourse we can control it. What question is left is how easy is it to get to the mains system of a machine. That is not an easy task with the reapers or the geth.

So what's your point? The ease or difficult of the task is irrelevent. If we take the endings at face value the reapers are controlled. It happens.

My point still stands. If Control can control reapers and does so with a blast that hits everyone, including the geth, how can you sit here and say controlling the geth as well is ludicrous? What is ludicrous is the idea that it's easier to control a reaper than a geth.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 26 juillet 2012 - 06:02 .

[dreman9999]

elitehunter34 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
The crucible was made by past race that had no love of synthetics. What your not understand is what it does is outside our hands. No of the pst races ever had any understanding or a comprihention of conexsists of synthectic life. Say it make no sense why the crucible destorys all synthetic life is a statement hat ignores the concept of the hate pastorganics had for synthetics. Just look at Javik and you'll understand why it destorys all synthetic life. The crucilbein destory is a weapon that affects all tech. That like a weapon  that affect organics organs when compare to what it's like to an AI.

Your ability to strawman astounds me.

No, this is a fact. We don't decide what the crucible does in any way. We never had a say. Which one of the 3 ways I can be used is the only say we have. All we did is just put it together. Saying this is not a straw man. That's the reality ofit. What the crucible does is not up to us, it never was.

[dreman9999]

The Twilight God wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. the crucible perpose is to control the reapers or destory them. The catalyst has no power over this. Control is not the catalyst doing at all in any way. He has no control in the matter of destory or control.

1. Where is it ever stated that the Crucible's purpose was ever to control the reapers? Indoctrinated TIM? Whose only argument is "I just know it does just because". He knows the option is there because he's a reaper thrall at that point and they are telling him it's there. He wouldn't have bothered with Sanctuary if he knew all he had to do was grab some electro handles and presto change-o. There is nothing said by Vendetta or any other character stating that the Crucible can control the reapers. The control option has always been a reaper plot to decieve and sow division. Vendetta does say this on Thessia. 

The Catlayst is the one who built the control panel. Notice it's on the Citadel, not the Cruicible. It was already there before you ever arrived. Control is the Catalyst's option just like Synthesis. I repeat,  the control concole is pre-built INTO THE CITADEL. The Control option is highly dependent on the existence of the Star Child. If nobody know about him why they hell would there be an option to take his place built into the Crucible? The only thing preventing Destroy from auto occuring is the Crucible suppression device. Otherwise it would have just activated upon docking and destroyed the reapers.

dreman9999 wrote...

2.The way the reapers are control is with a massive override and rewrite of everything down to the back ups by connecting into it's main systems. Even the geth were control this way by the reapers on rennoch. If we have acces with the main system of a machines ofcourse we can control it. What question is left is how easy is it to get to the mains system of a machine. That is not an easy task with the reapers or the geth.

So what's your point? The ease or difficult of the task is irrelevent. If we take the endings at face value the reapers are controlled. It happens.

My point still stands. If Control can control reapers and does so with a blast that hits everyone, including the geth, how can you sit here and say controlling the geth as well is ludicrous? What is ludicrous is the idea that it's easier to control a reaper than a geth.

1. TIM stated this over and over again. He tested out the theory  And In the end he was right. The catalyst never has any power or control over control in any way. Control takes all it's power from him. In factif you have save the reaper base and have low ems, the only option you have is to control the reapers. That alone makes it afact that the starchild has no say over control.
2.I didn't say thatcontrolin geth is ludicious. I'm saying that the geth are not part of the catalyst system  and is outside of it's control. The rewrite is of everything in the catalyst system, that's the citadel, mass relays and the reapers.
It like update networked computers via it's serveres. How do you do that to a computer that's not in is server or reconiced as part of it's system.

[V-rcingetorix]

dreman9999 wrote...

V-rcingetorix wrote...

~snip~

With the emp concept. Think about this with the concept of an AI. wITH AN AI , programing and hard ware is their brain. Any delition of corruption to it would be like a lobotamy with organics. The question is how deep the affect is with synthtics or how effective the weapon is. What you brought up is a concept of  whether the attacks are truely that effective. With the plot , it's up to the writers . 

Control is more like an amplified version of the device legion used to have Shepard interact with the geth consensus. The question that is left is howmuch power is need to make an AI like the catalyst...That's also up to the writer.

Yes, an EMP would lobotomize an AI. However, it would not lobotomize completely, some data would be left behind. This is where the organic/synthetic comparison breaks down.

If a human undergoes lobotomy, a single unit of irreplaceable memories is lost. Not just the unique experiences, the unique genetic structure from which the data was gathered can not be replaced, and the experiences colored by that platform are gone. There is some data left, but getting that data is impossible, at least currently. Organic brains can't be wired up to a laptop and downloaded, defragged and re-uploaded with thought control for better performance.

A synthetic brain, on the other hand, can do that. I do not mean to say the "person" will be exactly like s/he was before, but s/he will have elements of what s/he had been before.

Example: a space shuttle Columbia was destroyed while coming home (takes brave people to be astronauts!). Much of the shuttle was destroyed, the hardware was heated, burned, slammed and exposed to the elements for prolonged periods of time.

However, some of the computer data was recovered, enough to help determine what happened.

Here's my comparison: a Space Shuttle computer has less capacity than a standard laptop. A current standard laptop is to a Geth as a solar calculator is to a laptop.

Granted, the Geth had potentially an EMP burst, but they did not ALL have re-entry problems. EDI may have caught the main part of the blast via her Reaper hardware, but the Geth only had software, and who knows what backup.

Final point. If data can be recovered from a primitive (by comparison) shuttle computer that has gone through a boatload of damage, why not a Geth which has not? An EMP does not physically burn things; channeling an EMP could, but the physical effect is limited to the vector, not the target. There are literally millions of Geth platforms, each with thousands of Geth code. Self-repair aside, it iw more than possible (to my line of thinking) that the separate codes could be brought together.

Isn't that what Admiral Zor'ah was doing in ME2? Taking blasted Geth parts and reconstructing the Geth?