530 réponses à ce sujet

[Obadiah]

Andres Hendrix wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

@Andres Hendrix
I'm attacking the argument that the writers accidentally created an ugly, racist, disgusting, vile, abhorrent ending that dear gods validates forced mutation, intolerance, dictatoriship, totalitarianism, mind-control, Eugenics, and genocide. I'm saying that repeating it is not useful.

This argument directly uses loaded words to summarize, confuse, and cloud any discussion of the ending that does not nod in agreement that "yes, these things are indeed bad." It is an attempt to shut down rather than engage in a discussion.

That is why any attempt to properly summarize it's conclusion (what my one paragraph did) ends up making the conclusion look like a troll post. It is still however a fair summary of the conclusion.

Granted, it is a fairly weak response since I don't directly defend it, but I think it is fairly self-evident justification for anyone following the thread.

@inko1nsiderate
Pretty much.

How about you try to actually defend your positions (you
admit that your response was weak, therefore it was unwarranted) and afterwards,
if you do, try to refrain from character attacks. Thanks.

The defense is obvious, and done in the manner I cared to. If you wish to dispute the summary or my characterization of the argument then feel free.

Maybe you ought to just take a look in the mirror before your bickering with me gets your thread locked for being off topic.

Or not.

Modifié par Obadiah, 02 novembre 2012 - 09:21 .

[Dr_Extrem]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...
1. Laws are laws.
2. Because that's most likely going to be the way he takes care of "problems" now.
3. Because it caused everyone involved a ton of problems and brought down space cthulu on top of everyone's head!

An actual argument for point 2 would be nice.

what is worse - killing or indoctrinating them (to be nice and peaceful). both options are available and both are a very inversive form of protecting the weak.

even the "peaceful" possibility is highly questionable. in addition, the essence is based on shepards thoughts .. and shepard would do anything to protect the weak - or obliterate the enemy. shepard got the job done - always.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 02 novembre 2012 - 09:15 .

[AlanC9]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

what is worse - killing or indoctrinating them (to be nice and peaceful). both options are available and both are a very inversive form of protecting the weak.

And there are also other options that are less destructive.

even the "peaceful" possibility is highly questionable. in addition, the essence is based on shepards thoughts .. and shepard would do anything to protect the weak - or obliterate the enemy. shepard got the job done - always.

Please don't make unwarranted assumptions about how my Shepard handled problems, or how a Sheplyst based on her would.

[Iakus]

Obadiah wrote...

@HYR 2.0
Javik's quote was: War is atrocity committed in the name of survival.... Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask their ghosts if honor matters.

Er, I might have gotten the order of those two quotes wrong.

Sounds like "The ends justify the means" to me.

Sorry, I play games to play the part of a hero, not a remorseless undead cyborg

[Iakus]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

You do know how maluble emotions are? We can cut emotions out of our selves and chemically induse other emotions.
An AI can develop it own emotions as seen with EDI. It's a cse of it working differently then organics, not a case Ai's don't have it at all.

And the Shepard ai that has a new concept of time will not go crazy with imotality. As Javik said.Machines see tiem as an illusion.

exactly .. but the ai does not have a brain where a biochemical reaction can occur. edi stated, that she says things like "i like it" (despite the fact that does not like it. it is only gives her positive feedback), to the crewmembers, to make them feel comfortable. edi simulates emotions, based on her core programming - which she can alter.

Thank you.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

emotions can not be programmed ... they are a reaction to memories and experiences.

That's blatantly false. There are people programming emotions into robots right now. Emotions are considerably easier than language recognition, never mind abstract conceptualization.

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Uhm, why would we make more AI's?
A. It's against the law.
B. In 2 out of 3 endings, the giant space squids would stamp that out.
C. Why would we want to?

A. The law is stupid. Hopefully it will be changed.
B. If by 'stamp that out' you mean 'support it in every way conceivable'.
C. To achieve Singularity. Shepard got his, but what about everyone else? Don't they deserve to be all-powerful and eternal too?

[Dr_Extrem]

AlanC9 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

what is worse - killing or indoctrinating them (to be nice and peaceful). both options are available and both are a very inversive form of protecting the weak.

And there are also other options that are less destructive.

even the "peaceful" possibility is highly questionable. in addition, the essence is based on shepards thoughts .. and shepard would do anything to protect the weak - or obliterate the enemy. shepard got the job done - always.

Please don't make unwarranted assumptions about how my Shepard handled problems, or how a Sheplyst based on her would.

sure .. just play nice and tell them to f**k off. that would be the first step. if that does not work, show them, what the reaper fleet can do with an unpopulated moon. and if even that does not work, there are mot inversive actions possible.

but .. even by telling the conquerors nicely to go away, shepards disturbes the natural order and effectively patronises the protected society. what happens if the enemys to galactic order come from inside the society? 



you can tell alot about shepard .-.. from ultra paragon, to ultra renegade - every shepoard got things done. every shepard fought saren, the collectors and made it up the catalyst.

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

@HYR 2.0
Javik's quote was: War is atrocity committed in the name of survival.... Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask their ghosts if honor matters.

Er, I might have gotten the order of those two quotes wrong.

Sounds like "The ends justify the means" to me.

Sorry, I play games to play the part of a hero, not a remorseless undead cyborg

Sorry but that is the general nature of war. The problem here is that you think you a glorified hero that can't do no wrong. That does not exsist nor ME point.

[Ticonderoga117]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...
A. The law is stupid. Hopefully it will be changed.
B. If by 'stamp that out' you mean 'support it in every way conceivable'.
C. To achieve Singularity. Shepard got his, but what about everyone else? Don't they deserve to be all-powerful and eternal too?

How is the law stupid? There's a perfectly good reason for it, people f**k it up and either create homnicidal murder machines or try to kill off the nice ones and loose horribly.

Shep-AI wouldn't support new AI's. They are the new catalyst, and the Catalyst sees any AI's as dangerous because of his silly arguements.

But it's not him. Shepard died in agony after deciding that grabbing two arcing electrodes would be a "good" idea. It's a horrible idea.

[Iakus]

dreman9999 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

@HYR 2.0
Javik's quote was: War is atrocity committed in the name of survival.... Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask their ghosts if honor matters.

Er, I might have gotten the order of those two quotes wrong.

Sounds like "The ends justify the means" to me.

Sorry, I play games to play the part of a hero, not a remorseless undead cyborg

Sorry but that is the general nature of war. The problem here is that you think you a glorified hero that can't do no wrong. That does not exsist nor ME point.

Worked out okay in ME1 and ME2

[Dr_Extrem]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

emotions can not be programmed ... they are a reaction to memories and experiences.

That's blatantly false. There are people programming emotions into robots right now. Emotions are considerably easier than language recognition, never mind abstract conceptualization.

no .. reactions to observations can be programmed - thats all.

the program reads out the sensory data produced by a camara. you make an angry face, the camera sends the picture to the program, the program makes the assumption, that your face is angry, and reacts the way it is told. it is a simulated emotion - a simple response.

[Ticonderoga117]

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...
even the "peaceful" possibility is highly questionable. in addition, the essence is based on shepards thoughts .. and shepard would do anything to protect the weak - or obliterate the enemy. shepard got the job done - always.[/quote]

Please don't make unwarranted assumptions about how my Shepard handled problems, or how a Sheplyst based on her would.

[/quote]

But niether can you choose. If I ever choose control, I would shut down the Reapers. Does it happen? No. Instead, Shepard thinks that controling the giant space squids is a smart idea, even after every single time it has been proven to be a folly.

[Ticonderoga117]

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

@HYR 2.0
Javik's quote was: War is atrocity committed in the name of survival.... Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask their ghosts if honor matters.

Er, I might have gotten the order of those two quotes wrong.

Sounds like "The ends justify the means" to me.

Sorry, I play games to play the part of a hero, not a remorseless undead cyborg

Sorry but that is the general nature of war. The problem here is that you think you a glorified hero that can't do no wrong. That does not exsist nor ME point.

Worked out okay in ME1 and ME2

I agree. Maybe the odd hiccup in the general "can do no wrong" bit here and there (seriously, shooting that pipe with the krogan is too good to pass up), but it works and feels GOOD.

ME3 does not. See the problem?

[ghost9191]

each mass effect game has shepard making choices that are the ends justify the means. that is what javik meant. war is atrocity . you can do what needs to be done. regretting it , with remorse or you can sit there and let it happen . which is refuse

it is not right . war is never right . even paragon shepard had to commit atrocities through out 3 games to save the galaxy

[Dr_Extrem]

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

@HYR 2.0
Javik's quote was: War is atrocity committed in the name of survival.... Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask their ghosts if honor matters.

Er, I might have gotten the order of those two quotes wrong.

Sounds like "The ends justify the means" to me.

Sorry, I play games to play the part of a hero, not a remorseless undead cyborg

Sorry but that is the general nature of war. The problem here is that you think you a glorified hero that can't do no wrong. That does not exsist nor ME point.

Worked out okay in ME1 and ME2

well i am playing video games and i read fiction. the cold reality awaits me in the real world. i dont need more reality dorung my time off.

why do we like fiction and geros?. because throu them, we can can experience the impossible and flee the bleak reality, where we have to work, pay bills and feel pain.

mass effect 3 stirred up emotions, that belong to the real world. mass effect 1 and 2 did just fine.

the fact alone that we have a 14 pages long discussion running about the ethical dubiousness of a video game ending, shows that something in this game went wrong.

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

@HYR 2.0
Javik's quote was: War is atrocity committed in the name of survival.... Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask their ghosts if honor matters.

Er, I might have gotten the order of those two quotes wrong.

Sounds like "The ends justify the means" to me.

Sorry, I play games to play the part of a hero, not a remorseless undead cyborg

Sorry but that is the general nature of war. The problem here is that you think you a glorified hero that can't do no wrong. That does not exsist nor ME point.

Worked out okay in ME1 and ME2

In ME1 you had te choice of letting the council die or letting ships of alliance fleets get killed off.

In ME2, you had to make orders where the wrong one gets people killed, make sure moral is up and your ship is developed enough. And then you had to make a choice to keep a weapon that can help you or destroy it.

As  hero, innocent people still died as your actions.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

no .. reactions to observations can be programmed - thats all.

Reactions to memories can be programmed too.

Dr_Extrem wrote...

the program reads out the sensory data produced by a camara. you make an angry face, the camera sends the picture to the program, the program makes the assumption, that your face is angry, and reacts the way it is told. it is a simulated emotion - a simple response.

Initially, yes. It can be made as complex as you want it to be. And since it changes in reaction to its own feedback, the difference between 'simulated' and 'real' emotion is going to fade pretty soon.

[dreman9999]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

@HYR 2.0
Javik's quote was: War is atrocity committed in the name of survival.... Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask their ghosts if honor matters.

Er, I might have gotten the order of those two quotes wrong.

Sounds like "The ends justify the means" to me.

Sorry, I play games to play the part of a hero, not a remorseless undead cyborg

Sorry but that is the general nature of war. The problem here is that you think you a glorified hero that can't do no wrong. That does not exsist nor ME point.

Worked out okay in ME1 and ME2

well i am playing video games and i read fiction. the cold reality awaits me in the real world. i dont need more reality dorung my time off.

why do we like fiction and geros?. because throu them, we can can experience the impossible and flee the bleak reality, where we have to work, pay bills and feel pain.

mass effect 3 stirred up emotions, that belong to the real world. mass effect 1 and 2 did just fine.

the fact alone that we have a 14 pages long discussion running about the ethical dubiousness of a video game ending, shows that something in this game went wrong.

You saying it wrong for a game to bring the issues of reality into it. It not like ME1 and 2 did not have morally conflicting questions. It just the question in ME3 is very extreme.

[Dr_Extrem]

ghost9191 wrote...

each mass effect game has shepard making choices that are the ends justify the means. that is what javik meant. war is atrocity . you can do what needs to be done. regretting it , with remorse or you can sit there and let it happen . which is refuse

it is not right . war is never right . even paragon shepard had to commit atrocities through out 3 games to save the galaxy

sure - shepard hoped that his/her honor would be unscratched. but shepard was willing to confess and live with the judgement.

[dreman9999]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...
A. The law is stupid. Hopefully it will be changed.
B. If by 'stamp that out' you mean 'support it in every way conceivable'.
C. To achieve Singularity. Shepard got his, but what about everyone else? Don't they deserve to be all-powerful and eternal too?

How is the law stupid? There's a perfectly good reason for it, people f**k it up and either create homnicidal murder machines or try to kill off the nice ones and loose horribly.

Shep-AI wouldn't support new AI's. They are the new catalyst, and the Catalyst sees any AI's as dangerous because of his silly arguements.

But it's not him. Shepard died in agony after deciding that grabbing two arcing electrodes would be a "good" idea. It's a horrible idea.

1. Takethe time to understand why that happen and you'll see how dumb that law is.

2. What? NO. 

3. Agein. No. the shepard AI is shepard uploaded and turn to an aI. It's not a completly new being.

[Dr_Extrem]

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

@HYR 2.0
Javik's quote was: War is atrocity committed in the name of survival.... Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask their ghosts if honor matters.

Er, I might have gotten the order of those two quotes wrong.

Sounds like "The ends justify the means" to me.

Sorry, I play games to play the part of a hero, not a remorseless undead cyborg

Sorry but that is the general nature of war. The problem here is that you think you a glorified hero that can't do no wrong. That does not exsist nor ME point.

Worked out okay in ME1 and ME2

well i am playing video games and i read fiction. the cold reality awaits me in the real world. i dont need more reality dorung my time off.

why do we like fiction and geros?. because throu them, we can can experience the impossible and flee the bleak reality, where we have to work, pay bills and feel pain.

mass effect 3 stirred up emotions, that belong to the real world. mass effect 1 and 2 did just fine.

the fact alone that we have a 14 pages long discussion running about the ethical dubiousness of a video game ending, shows that something in this game went wrong.

You saying it wrong for a game to bring the issues of reality into it. It not like ME1 and 2 did not have morally conflicting questions. It just the question in ME3 is very extreme.

no .. but the dose makes the poison.

[dreman9999]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

each mass effect game has shepard making choices that are the ends justify the means. that is what javik meant. war is atrocity . you can do what needs to be done. regretting it , with remorse or you can sit there and let it happen . which is refuse

it is not right . war is never right . even paragon shepard had to commit atrocities through out 3 games to save the galaxy

sure - shepard hoped that his/her honor would be unscratched. but shepard was willing to confess and live with the judgement.

If Shepard could live with the judgement ,Why they an issue with the end being just that..shepard having to have his/her honor  be scratched?

[SeptimusMagistos]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

How is the law stupid? There's a perfectly good reason for it, people f**k it up and either create homnicidal murder machines or try to kill off the nice ones and loose horribly.

So make laws against trying to kill the nice ones off instead.

Ticonderoga117 wrote...
Shep-AI wouldn't support new AI's. They are the new catalyst, and the Catalyst sees any AI's as dangerous because of his silly arguements.

Haha, no. The whole point of Shepard replacing the Catalyst was so that he could deal with the 'problem' however he pleased. My Shepard's dealing with it by programming AIs to program AIs.

Ticonderoga117 wrote...
But it's not him. Shepard died in agony after deciding that grabbing two arcing electrodes would be a "good" idea. It's a horrible idea.

It has his memories and his mind. Ergo, it's him. Just because one of two Shepards died doesn't stop the other from being Shepard.

[Dr_Extrem]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...


It has his memories and his mind. Ergo, it's him. Just because one of two Shepards died doesn't stop the other from being Shepard.

are we more than our thoughts?

[ghost9191]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

each mass effect game has shepard making choices that are the ends justify the means. that is what javik meant. war is atrocity . you can do what needs to be done. regretting it , with remorse or you can sit there and let it happen . which is refuse

it is not right . war is never right . even paragon shepard had to commit atrocities through out 3 games to save the galaxy

sure - shepard hoped that his/her honor would be unscratched. but shepard was willing to confess and live with the judgement.

which is what i am saying,

my shep doesn't regret the decision, but the sacrifice. but it had to be done to save the many . same as he said in ME2 ., "will gladly stand trial once my mission is done". or something like that.control and synthesis is easy, shep dies though lol