1214 réponses à ce sujet

[Ericus]

JBONE29 wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

I suppose I'll open by saying that the epilogue speeches are handled quite well. Hackett's is regal and proud. Shepard's is compelling and retrospective. EDI's is my favorite, mainly just for those last few lines -- very emotional.

Eventhough it does go against what they have been arguing; namely that life is life reguardless of whether it's synthetic or organic.

By having EDI say that she is now alive completely goes against the argument that she was alive from the moment she gained sentience.

Agreed.  It also makes a mockery out of the relationship she was having with Joker over the course of ME3 (if you encouraged that of course).  Are we to believe that she felt nothing, and was just having a relationship with Joker to 'optimize his flight skills' as dictated by her programming?  I would rather think we were witnessing the natural evolution of a unique entity.

[wizardryforever]

Ericus wrote...

JBONE29 wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

I suppose I'll open by saying that the epilogue speeches are handled quite well. Hackett's is regal and proud. Shepard's is compelling and retrospective. EDI's is my favorite, mainly just for those last few lines -- very emotional.

Eventhough it does go against what they have been arguing; namely that life is life reguardless of whether it's synthetic or organic.

By having EDI say that she is now alive completely goes against the argument that she was alive from the moment she gained sentience.

Agreed.  It also makes a mockery out of the relationship she was having with Joker over the course of ME3 (if you encouraged that of course).  Are we to believe that she felt nothing, and was just having a relationship with Joker to 'optimize his flight skills' as dictated by her programming?  I would rather think we were witnessing the natural evolution of a unique entity.

EDI only felt alive before.  Now she actually is alive.  It's the difference between an imitation and the real thing.  She may understand the underlying reasons for emotions and feel them in a rudimentary way, but only through synthesis can she truly experience emotions.  In addition to my earlier analogy, another one is like knowing what fire is, but you don't truly understand it until you burn yourself.

Modifié par wizardryforever, 16 août 2012 - 12:58 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

LiarasShield wrote...

Two wrongs don't make a right friends perhaps you need another lesson

We get it. You feel that altering people is as bad as letting the Reapers kill them.

The rest of us don't, so we're not doing anything 'wrong' when we select one of the Catalyst's endings.

[LiarasShield]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Two wrongs don't make a right friends perhaps you need another lesson

We get it. You feel that altering people is as bad as letting the Reapers kill them.

The rest of us don't, so we're not doing anything 'wrong' when we select one of the Catalyst's endings.

Then perhaps you're all renegade and I'm the only one paragon on this perception or debate between what we believe is right or not

[DirtyPhoenix]

Ericus wrote...

JBONE29 wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

I suppose I'll open by saying that the epilogue speeches are handled quite well. Hackett's is regal and proud. Shepard's is compelling and retrospective. EDI's is my favorite, mainly just for those last few lines -- very emotional.

Eventhough it does go against what they have been arguing; namely that life is life reguardless of whether it's synthetic or organic.

By having EDI say that she is now alive completely goes against the argument that she was alive from the moment she gained sentience.

Agreed.  It also makes a mockery out of the relationship she was having with Joker over the course of ME3 (if you encouraged that of course).  Are we to believe that she felt nothing, and was just having a relationship with Joker to 'optimize his flight skills' as dictated by her programming?  I would rather think we were witnessing the natural evolution of a unique entity.

This is what i read in another thread regarding this.

SilentMobius wrote...
I see a lot of people still unclear about Synthesis after the EC, personally I think it was explained much better (Though as you say, the visuals were... questionable) While Mass Effect, in general, is a little sloppy with the terminology the things that thesynthetics gain at each point of the story fits well into current philosophy and IMHO explains synthesis (once the EC clarified it):


EDI went from being a VI to an AI on luna, she gained sapience and gained the ability to reason (classical Sapience)
The Geth gained individuality fromthe Reaper code upgrade (the ability for a single runtime to think independently, however they didn't lose their ability to become even more in the consensus) they remained sapient hence they didn't lose anything of their nature
Synthesis didn't add organic parts to synthetics it just re-based their platforms on the "new framework" that allows their platforms to be capable of supporting sentient software
Organicswere re-based on the new framework that could include their organics but didn't replace it. The framework could function without the organic parts (Opening up the possibility of imortality down the like) but also worked in concert (as you saw in the EC sequence, the elements of the "new framework" encircled the organic DNA helix. Organics are augumented, nothing is replaced.
[/list]Catalyst quote: (Critical bits in bold)

*The Energy of the Crucible, released this way, will alter the matrix of all organic life in the galaxy.
*Organics seek perfection through technology, Synthetics seen perfection through understanding.
*Organics will be perfected by integrating fully with synthetic technology.
*Synthetics, in turn will have finally have full understanding of organics.

The Reason the Catalyst failed to create synthesis is because it couldn't. The whole point of synthesis was to create a new type of platform that catered to organic-style thinking while still supporting existing organic and synthetic consciousnesses. The Catalyst and the Reapers can't think like organics, therefore all their attempts ended up like the husk/banshee/marauder/collector, techno-organic machines, nothing more

People say that EDI was definately having emotions before synthesis but people (sapients) without empathy can still desire it. I interpreted EDI's attempts at "human" interaction as acting on a "want" and trying to understand without actually feeling. Even in ME3 when Shepard give colloquial advice like a couple requiring "chemistry" EDI doesn't get it, because she doesn't have the empathy to feel hence she has to ask to be told.

Y'see I don't see the Geth story as sentience vs sapience, I see that as individuality vs gestalt, and I think that story is done reasonably well in hindsight. Geth have no identity and no intelligence without a sizeable group of them, hence cooperation is natural and almost required. the heretic situation illustrates that therewill be fractures in their unity, illustrating theneed to be capable of individual self-sufficiency. The Quarian attack panic's them and they make a bad call and lose their self determination.Only a Geth platform-cluster acting as an isolated individual succeeds in saving them. Then it sacrifices it's own identity to save the consensus even though it had achieved individuality illustrating that individuality and the consensus are not mutually exclusive. Hence the Geth embrace it as an "upgrade" each runtime is now capable of sapience on its own, but is still part of the consensus, it's as if the Geth got a1000-fold processing upgrade (Where 1000 Geth were needed for sapience,now only 1 is) Now Legion was already 1000 runtimes, and I believe he was still 1000 runtimes and yet a single entity, hence I'd say that Legion was much more capable of understanding emotions compared to EDI and maybe even blossoming into sentience just before he died, but only just It's almost like the ME universe is positing a "sociopath gap" in the computational ability of AI

Axis of increasing computational power:
Dumb terminal -----> VI --> Sapient AI =======> Sentient AI

Between sapient and sentient is where the intellect is sapient enough to think for itself but not sentient enough to relate to other intellects with empathy. Which would explain why most AI's turn out badly. Synthesis short-circuits that problem by providing a usable base framework and getting it everywhere.

This also satisfies the problem of people re-creating AI. It's just like genetically engineering a severely autistic organic, possible, but not useful, additionally the technology of the framework give a path of "growth" for the nascent AI where it can eventually escape its limited perception. Hence minimising "killer" AI.

Modifié par pirate1802, 16 août 2012 - 01:44 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

LiarasShield wrote...
debate between what we believe is right or not

Fine. I posit that changing others without their concent, while questionable, is preferrable to letting them die from a moral perspective.

I posit that destroying some of your own forces, while sad, is morally preferable to letting all of them die.

I posit that taking control of the Reapers is not in and of itself evil.

[LiarasShield]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...
debate between what we believe is right or not

Fine. I posit that changing others without their concent, while questionable, is preferrable to letting them die from a moral perspective.

I posit that destroying some of your own forces, while sad, is morally preferable to letting all of them die.

I posit that taking control of the Reapers is not in and of itself evil.

guess at best lets agree to disagree cause we can argue about this for all eternity lol and I have more then enough time besides when I'm at my job to argue with all of you about the three core choices lol

[SeptimusMagistos]

LiarasShield wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...
debate between what we believe is right or not

Fine. I posit that changing others without their concent, while questionable, is preferrable to letting them die from a moral perspective.

I posit that destroying some of your own forces, while sad, is morally preferable to letting all of them die.

I posit that taking control of the Reapers is not in and of itself evil.

guess at best lets agree to disagree cause we can argue about this for all eternity lol and I have more then enough time besides when I'm at my job to argue with all of you about the three core choices lol

Fair enough. You don't feel like arguing metaethics anymore than I do.

Please stop implying that we're evil for having different ethics than you?

[LiarasShield]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...
debate between what we believe is right or not

Fine. I posit that changing others without their concent, while questionable, is preferrable to letting them die from a moral perspective.

I posit that destroying some of your own forces, while sad, is morally preferable to letting all of them die.

I posit that taking control of the Reapers is not in and of itself evil.

guess at best lets agree to disagree cause we can argue about this for all eternity lol and I have more then enough time besides when I'm at my job to argue with all of you about the three core choices lol

Fair enough. You don't feel like arguing metaethics anymore than I do.

Please stop implying that we're evil for having different ethics than you?

If you promise to not think all people who chose refuse chose it just to doom the galaxy or out of pure evil or spite or think that the galaxy wasn't worth saving then I may do that

[DirtyPhoenix]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...
debate between what we believe is right or not

Fine. I posit that changing others without their concent, while questionable, is preferrable to letting them die from a moral perspective.

I posit that destroying some of your own forces, while sad, is morally preferable to letting all of them die.

I posit that taking control of the Reapers is not in and of itself evil.

Totally read those lines in Walter Bishop's voice. I agree. It can be said that all the three coloured choices are renegade, but being renegade doesn't automatically maketh them evil.

[LiarasShield]

pirate1802 wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...
debate between what we believe is right or not

Fine. I posit that changing others without their concent, while questionable, is preferrable to letting them die from a moral perspective.

I posit that destroying some of your own forces, while sad, is morally preferable to letting all of them die.

I posit that taking control of the Reapers is not in and of itself evil.

Totally read those lines in Walter Bishop's voice. I agree. It can be said that all the three coloured choices are renegade, but being renegade doesn't automatically maketh them evil.

Well I'm paragon so obviously their is a major reason why I do not like any of those renegade choices lol

[DirtyPhoenix]

Ericus wrote...

Agreed.  It also makes a mockery out of the relationship she was having with Joker over the course of ME3 (if you encouraged that of course).  Are we to believe that she felt nothing, and was just having a relationship with Joker to 'optimize his flight skills' as dictated by her programming?  I would rather think we were witnessing the natural evolution of a unique entity.

Ofcourse you are. The three coloured choices take synthetics on three different routes.

Destroy: Synthetics are set back on evolutionary path (destroyed).
Control: They are where they were. Unaltered.
Synthesis: Synthetics are evolved beyond their original state.

EDI's character undergoes an evolution which reaches its pinnacle in synthesis.

[DirtyPhoenix]

LiarasShield wrote...

Well I'm paragon so obviously their is a major reason why I do not like any of those renegade choices lol

My paragon Shep picked Control. :|

[Seival]

My favorite Shepard is also Paragon, and she chose Control

[LiarasShield]

Not everyone who chose refuse wanted to doom the galaxy or anything of the sort and the more you try to make one ending seem better then another you're going to have others who don't share your view fight with you and vice versa

[Pitznik]

LiarasShield wrote...

Not everyone who chose refuse wanted to doom the galaxy or anything of the sort and the more you try to make one ending seem better then another you're going to have others who don't share your view fight with you and vice versa

What you did matters more than what you wanted.

[LiarasShield]

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Not everyone who chose refuse wanted to doom the galaxy or anything of the sort and the more you try to make one ending seem better then another you're going to have others who don't share your view fight with you and vice versa

What you did matters more than what you wanted.

How you believe and feel about the choices is different then I feel about them I chose refuse because of my paragon believes and morals you chose whatever ending because of what you believed unless you really do want a eternal debate I think you should leave it at that

[Comsky159]

I don't believe it; but now I have a vague comprehension of what control entails, I've come to really like the paragon control ending. Fits my Shepard nigh perfectly I feel

[Pitznik]

LiarasShield wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Not everyone who chose refuse wanted to doom the galaxy or anything of the sort and the more you try to make one ending seem better then another you're going to have others who don't share your view fight with you and vice versa

What you did matters more than what you wanted.

How you believe and feel about the choices is different then I feel about them I chose refuse because of my paragon believes and morals you chose whatever ending because of what you believed unless you really do want a eternal debate I think you should leave it at that

It is not about beliefs, but about results. Noone will care you wanted to do something good, with trillions of people dead. If you want to sacrifice yourself for the ideal, go ahead, but there is a whole galaxy depending on you.

[LiarasShield]

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Not everyone who chose refuse wanted to doom the galaxy or anything of the sort and the more you try to make one ending seem better then another you're going to have others who don't share your view fight with you and vice versa

What you did matters more than what you wanted.

How you believe and feel about the choices is different then I feel about them I chose refuse because of my paragon believes and morals you chose whatever ending because of what you believed unless you really do want a eternal debate I think you should leave it at that

It is not about beliefs, but about results. Noone will care you wanted to do something good, with trillions of people dead. If you want to sacrifice yourself for the ideal, go ahead, but there is a whole galaxy depending on you.

Once again instead of accepting that we have different views you seem to keep pushing what you did in destroy doesn't make you better you commited genocide on your forces and you have severly damaged the mass relays without the reapers knowledge to repair or rebuild them your forces will slowly die in earths dead solar system

Or die from runing out of resources in the hope of rebuilding the relays doesn't make you any better


Control you control the very monsters who have torn the galaxy apart and you think were all gonna sing cumbiaya now that the reapers are our protectors And what of the new catalyst what he or she does go rogue and eventually turn on the galaxy with the reapers then what

Yes shepard fought for freedom and lost in her cycle but as the new catalyst you could use the reapers to destroy constant cycles none of you are in the better or clearer then anyone else

And Synthesis I don't even have to keep repeating

[Pitznik]

LiarasShield wrote...


Once again instead of accepting that we have different views you seem to keep pushing what you did in destroy doesn't make you better you commited genocide on your forces and you have severly damaged the mass relays without the reapers knowledge to repair or rebuild them your forces will slowly die in earths dead solar system

Or die from runing out of resources in the hope of rebuilding the relays doesn't make you any better


Control you control the very monsters who have torn the galaxy apart and you think were all gonna sing cumbiaya now that the reapers are our protectors And what of the new catalyst what he or she does go rogue and eventually turn on the galaxy with the reapers then what

Yes shepard fought for freedom and lost in her cycle but as the new catalyst you could use the reapers to destroy constant cycles none of you are in the better or clearer then anyone else

And Synthesis I don't even have to keep repeating

Of course it makes me better. Whatever bleak future you will paint, it is still much better than everyone dead and harvested. Shepard AI going rogue is a risk indeed, but it is still a risk, not certain death. People who will die because of destroyed relays won't be nearly as many as the whole galaxy. There is no freedom when all the free people are dead. All the ideals like morals, ethics, freedom exist to serve the people, to make people's life better and meaningful. Without the people, those are just empty words, devoid of meaning and significance.

If you can't or don't want to discuss any longer, feel free to stop posting, but I won't admit that you're right. You're not.

Modifié par Pitznik, 16 août 2012 - 01:45 .

[LiarasShield]

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...


Once again instead of accepting that we have different views you seem to keep pushing what you did in destroy doesn't make you better you commited genocide on your forces and you have severly damaged the mass relays without the reapers knowledge to repair or rebuild them your forces will slowly die in earths dead solar system

Or die from runing out of resources in the hope of rebuilding the relays doesn't make you any better


Control you control the very monsters who have torn the galaxy apart and you think were all gonna sing cumbiaya now that the reapers are our protectors And what of the new catalyst what he or she does go rogue and eventually turn on the galaxy with the reapers then what

Yes shepard fought for freedom and lost in her cycle but as the new catalyst you could use the reapers to destroy constant cycles none of you are in the better or clearer then anyone else

And Synthesis I don't even have to keep repeating

Of course it makes me better. Whatever bleak future you will paint, it is still much better than everyone dead and harvested. Shepard AI going rogue is a risk indeed, but it is still a risk, not certain death. People who will die because of destroyed relays won't be nearly as many as the whole galaxy. There is no freedom when all the free people are dead, All the ideal like morals, ethics, freedom exist to serve the people, to make people's life better and meaningful. Without the people, those are just empty words, devoid of meaning and significance.

If you can't or don't want to discuss any longer, feel free to stop posting, but I won't admit that you're right. You're not.

I didn't say you had to admit that I'm right I simply said perhaps you should agree we have different views and just let go because you traping your forces in a nearly dead solar system and flat out killing the geth makes you so much better then me its load of crap

I wanted all organics and synthetics to be able to do their own choices not force full on manipulation of them both or mess with power that humans were never ment to have or genocide or forcing everybody to be the same

You're no better then me we can sit back here and argue all day long you could simply agree that we think differently or we can keep exchanging words during this whole thread

[DirtyPhoenix]

Lol, for some reason, we always come back to refusal xD
LiarasShield, I understood your reasons to choose refusal. Obviously, we all don't view all the ending choices in the same way, if we did there would be no arguments regarding them on BSN. The important thing is, if you think your reason is justified, if you can convince yourself then that's all there is to it.

Now how about we talk of the BAD side of our favourite endings for a change?

Modifié par pirate1802, 16 août 2012 - 01:59 .

[LiarasShield]

Trust me I have today off if someone really wants to have debate with me the entire day we can do so lol.

[DirtyPhoenix]

I was almost moved to tears when I saw Liara-hologram in the refusal ending. :'( Poor Liara..
Well I meant all of us, destroyers, controllers and synthesizers not just you xD