264 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

iSousek wrote...


No,necessarily it wouldn't. You can't say for certain what any post-Geth sythetic would feel on the question. You stil fail to understan what I mean by cultural contextualization of events. There is a chance that AI would completely understand what Shepard did and saw it as rational. They are not the Geth, nor should they feel anything for the geth. They might saw Geth as a nothing but a colterall. Especially if they are created in a post-destroy culture which will likely over-emphasize how destroying Reapers was imperative.

I can not ephisize how important this is (culture of ones upbringing)

Considering I'm human and I can't see the logic or rationality of it, how could I expect them to.  It isn't that they'd feel for the geth, but in deciding to destroy a whole race to save your own (organic) race, you have just created the exact set up for the conflict.  Not all synthetics would be killer robots, but they would be individuals.  You put a numeric value on all synthetic's heads.  And don't forget it was all synthetics and not just the get-EDI, and any other AI.  That does have to change things. 

If I kill all humans-all races, and one day some humans are discovered alive somewhere.  And they learn that I killed all humans to save my own race, I do think they will see they are a lower class of people in my eyes.  You are making a cold calculation that some life is more valuable.  Synthetics live with some major strikes against them already.  Some people would never recognize them as alive.  Some had been created to be used and thrown away.  But they have yet to be specifically created to be people.  The logic of it is that there is no logical reason for destroying the best example of why the kid is wrong.  And I darn sure wouldn't want to try to justify it to the geth before killing them or to some unknown synthetic race in the future. 

As I said, I'd have a hard time making the Krogan and the Rachni and Batarians feel secure and they're organic.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 24 août 2012 - 07:41 .

[Jadebaby]

IsaacShep wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Currently, that's the best result of refuse. Doesn't mean it can't change. And if it doesn't. I'll headcanon it. Becuase the rest of the endings are headcanon. I am actually permitted to headcanon anything I want and call it canon.

Then why don't you headcanon that Shep tells Reapers to fly into a blackhole after using them to rebuild the Glaxy?

Because I don't believe in using people, and Reapers are abominations. Also because that would cheapen the Reapers.

Or that Quarians revive the Geth somehow and Cerberus enegnieers revive EDI somehow? Hey, if you can retcon everyone dying in Refuse in your headcanon, you won't have a problem with anything else

Because I still have faith in BioWare that they will make it right. And only once that faith is completely gone will I resort to canonizing fanfiction. But it wouldn't be a 'retcon'. It would just be a different ending, a "successful" refuse ending.

[Jadebaby]

cerberus1701 wrote...

At some point, he flipped and decided the most expedient way to deal with it was just to Reaper them all and the rest is history.

And, because he couldn't achieve peace the one time he tried he "knows" it can't be done. because, if it were. then he'd have to accept being a failure when it comes to the very reason for his existence.

This much we agree on.

[shepskisaac]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Because I don't believe in using people, and Reapers are abominations. Also because that would cheapen the Reapers.

I think killing everyone is more much, much more immoral and significant.

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Because I still have faith in BioWare that they will make it right. And only once that faith is completely gone will I resort to canonizing fanfiction. But it wouldn't be a 'retcon'. It would just be a different ending, a "successful" refuse ending.

But you said "if they don't I will just headcanon". So in case they don't do anything else, why do you pick Refusal that kills trillions of lives?

[Quething]

IsaacShep wrote...
I think killing everyone is more much, much more immoral and significant.

Good thing Shepard doesn't kill anyone, then, isn't it?

[jumpingkaede]

 Seems like it'd be pretty easy for the Quarians to rebuild the Geth since they did it once already.

No harm no foul.  

[Marauder Shieldz]

RiptideX1090 wrote...

Shepard proved Starchild wrong. The stupid little Dues Ex Machina should have shut down since his primary programming was basically completed by someone else.

But nope, we have to have forced sacrifice on top of the heaps of death and suffering and loss already. It's not like Mordin, Legion, and Thane are all dead or anything, or billions who died in the war. Nah, we had to have that one last insult to add to injury.

[Jadebaby]

IsaacShep wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Because I don't believe in using people, and Reapers are abominations. Also because that would cheapen the Reapers.

I think killing everyone is more much, much more immoral and significant.

But you said "if they don't I will just headcanon". So in case they don't do anything else, why do you pick Refusal that kills trillions of lives?

I fail to see why you needed to divide this when you're basically saying the same thing.

But anyway, to both. In both instances, Refuse wont kill everybody.

Stop trolling, you're pissing me off.

Modifié par Jade8aby88, 24 août 2012 - 08:08 .

[CronoDragoon]

jumpingkaede wrote...

 Seems like it'd be pretty easy for the Quarians to rebuild the Geth since they did it once already.

No harm no foul.  

The new geth were upgraded with Reaper code, though. Could the quarians rebuild them as they were? Even so, it wouldn't be the same individuals that were wiped out from the beam.

[cerberus1701]

jumpingkaede wrote...

 Seems like it'd be pretty easy for the Quarians to rebuild the Geth since they did it once already.

No harm no foul.  

But they aren't the same Geth. Their personalities don't 'copy,' so you may as well say that just because humans can eventually create more humans, nothing is lost if you kill a billion people.

[Jadebaby]

jumpingkaede wrote...

 Seems like it'd be pretty easy for the Quarians to rebuild the Geth since they did it once already.

No harm no foul.  

There is actually, because then the Geth will discover that you believe they are disposable because you can just 'build' them again. Regardless of the emotional side of this (because some people feel they don't have emotions), I don't think they'd take kindly to it.

[CitizenThom]

I just think it's absurd that a technology sophisticated enough to control, destroy or synthesize, isn't sophisticated enough to kill the bad machines and only the bad machines.

The destroy choice should have been presented with the consequence being that the collection of histories and memories supposedly stored in the Reapers (how is that accomplished exactly starchild?) being destroyed as well. If the Reapers are in fact directed by starchild, Destroy should have simply killed the starchild, which would turn the Reapers inert, and have no effect on the Geth or EDI, or anyone's tech implants.

Modifié par CitizenThom, 24 août 2012 - 08:14 .

[jumpingkaede]

I was being facetious.

I have no idea how it would work because I have no idea how Destroy works.

[MegaSovereign]

So you're saying new synthetics and organics will never be able to be at peace because of historical racial tensions?

Organics are usually the ones to initiate the conflicts. If organics act a lot more civil and rationally toward the new synthetics then conflict will not always be inevitable.

I think the consequence behind the Destroy ending itself is a bit lame and contrived, but I don't think the Catalyst was right about technological singularity being a certain inevitability.

[F4H bandicoot]

If you think Shep is dead too, there will be no consequences, because no body apart from him knew what happened.

I would also think that throughout history similar things have happened on a smaller scale, with leaders having to sacrifice squads for the geater good, they then get labelled as heroes due to their actions, this is how  see the aftermath of the Destroy ending.

Modifié par F4H bandicoot, 24 août 2012 - 08:23 .

[shepskisaac]

Nyoka wrote...

Synthesis is his favorite. Control bugs him. Destruction is definitely the worst one in his opinion, not as effective as synthesis. But those are the new solutions the crucible made available nonetheless. "My solution won't work anymore. We find a new solution", and then he presents the three colors. Doesn't make sense for him to say "we find a new solution" and then start talking about something that isn't a solution.

But Destroy isn't a solution. He says it H-I-M-S-E-L-F - soon your children will create new synthetics blah blah. And Control is only a solution if Shep does exactly what the Catalyst's been doing  - the cycles - which he doesn't. So no, there are not any solutions. Only Synthesis in his eyes is a new solution.

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Stop trolling, you're pissing me off.

So now when you don't like someone's argument you're gonna say he/she is 'trolling'? It's not my fault you're defending Refusal ending which kills everyone in the cycle

Modifié par IsaacShep, 24 août 2012 - 08:24 .

[AresKeith]

IsaacShep wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

Synthesis is his favorite. Control bugs him. Destruction is definitely the worst one in his opinion, not as effective as synthesis. But those are the new solutions the crucible made available nonetheless. "My solution won't work anymore. We find a new solution", and then he presents the three colors. Doesn't make sense for him to say "we find a new solution" and then start talking about something that isn't a solution.

But Destroy isn't a solution. He says it H-I-M-S-E-L-F - soon your children will create new synthetics blah blah. And Control is only a solution if Shep does exactly what the Catalyst's been doing  - the cycles - which he doesn't. So no, there are not any solutions. Only Synthesis in his eyes is a new solution.

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Stop trolling, you're pissing me off.

So now when you don't like someone's argument you're gonna say he/she is 'trolling'? It's not my fault you're defending Refusal ending which kills everyone in the cycle

none of his new solutions are permanent, Destroy and Control are only termperary solutions to him, and Synthesis is his perfect final Solution

[CitizenThom]

Destroy presents the opportunity to try again, and hopefully better next time around. Yes synthetics will return, but they won't be allowed to become husk making, people acid bathing, otherwise monstrous synthetics again.

p.s. Even with synthesis, pure organics will reappear as well. So there will still be synthetics and organics in the long run. Diversity is inevitable. If organics came into the universe once, they'll do so all over again, even if all current organics (and their offspring) are synthesized.

Modifié par CitizenThom, 24 août 2012 - 08:32 .

[devSin]

The arbitrary nature is what infuriates me.

There's no real justification for it just killing off EDI and the geth, and there's little to suggest that it would even be possible.

It's space magic, sure as synthesis. The magic beam that kills Reapers, inspects and analyzes quantum hardware (without irreversibly changing it) to target only possible AI, and scans every device in the galaxy, online or offline, powered or unpowered, for the presence of software that may in concert form some sort of sentience.

[Jadebaby]

IsaacShep wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

Synthesis is his favorite. Control bugs him. Destruction is definitely the worst one in his opinion, not as effective as synthesis. But those are the new solutions the crucible made available nonetheless. "My solution won't work anymore. We find a new solution", and then he presents the three colors. Doesn't make sense for him to say "we find a new solution" and then start talking about something that isn't a solution.

But Destroy isn't a solution. He says it H-I-M-S-E-L-F - soon your children will create new synthetics blah blah. And Control is only a solution if Shep does exactly what the Catalyst's been doing  - the cycles - which he doesn't. So no, there are not any solutions. Only Synthesis in his eyes is a new solution.

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Stop trolling, you're pissing me off.

So now when you don't like someone's argument you're gonna say he/she is 'trolling'? It's not my fault you're defending Refusal ending which kills everyone in the cycle

I'm glad you asked that question, now we can get to the bottom of this utter foolishness...

You said

IsaacShep wrote...

If you say Destroy, Control and Synthesis are ALL agreement on a solution, then you're saying that any possible action Shep can take is somehow playing along with teh Catalyst. This is nonsense. If Shepard farts is he also playing along?

Now, ignoring your distasteful sense of humour, yet again.

Yes, if you choose any of the C,S,D options, you are playing along with the Catalyst. This is why I said refuse, because you are NOT..playing..along..with..the..Catalyst.

I was NEVER, IN ANY WAY, supporting the end result of this choice. Just stating the choice for what it is.

Refusing the "play along" with the Catalyst.

Do you understand now?

[shepskisaac]

Nyoka wrote...

Any reason in particular you didn't quote the part where I pointed out under this logic the Reapers wouldn't be a solution either? "Soon new civilizations will arise blah blah".

Destruction is, in his opinion, an imperfect solution, just like the Reapers were. And the Reapers have been "his solution" for millions of years.

But the Reapers were a constant solution. The cycle kept repeating so the solution kept going. When Shep destroys him and Reapers, there's no solution left. Sorry but no, you're trying to equate everything as Catalyst's grand masterplan. It's not. And under your interpretation, Shep can't do anything but let Reapers kill everyone. Destroy - Catalyst's imperfect solution. This also includes conventional victory as well. Doesn't matter how the Reapers are Destroyed, in your logic it's still a solution for the Catalyst. Control - Shep is somehow doing what the Catalyst wants, even though Catalyst doesn't exist anymore and has no idea what Shep will do and how. Synthesis is obvious.

So great, you've equated every one of Crucible choices AND conventional victory (same as Destroy in regards to solution issue) as playing along with Catalyst's wishes. So what exactly do you propose? You kinda have like no options left. Refuse? Nope! killing trillions of lives + the next races use the Crucible and pick of 3 choices.

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Do you understand now?

yeah, and you don't play along wth withing in Destroy or Control. Shep does whatever he wants, Catalyst doesn't exist anymore and has no idea what will happen next and whether the problem he thought existed got solved or not.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 24 août 2012 - 08:56 .

[Eterna]

Just because Shepard was able to make peace doesn't prove the Catalyst wrong. Organics will just make more synthetics that will accomplish what the Geth did not, that's why he says "The chaos will return"mbecause it will.

[Jadebaby]

IsaacShep wrote...

yeah, and you don't play along wth withing in Destroy or Control. Shep does whatever he wants, Catalyst doesn't exist anymore and has no idea what will happen next and whether the problem he thought existed got solved or not.

No, you are,

Destroy because the problem will occur again. Not because it is inevitable, but because of your action in choosing destroy.

Control because this new Catalyst isn't Shepard. Therefore you have no real control of what IT does or doesn't do. Thus this new catalyst falling back into a logically-flawed loop could happen again.

Basically, if the Catalyst's logic is flawed, you cannot pick either 3 of these options as they will be equally flawed as a result.

Modifié par Jade8aby88, 24 août 2012 - 09:03 .