639 réponses à ce sujet

[KingZayd]

Yate wrote...

dude

if catalyst is lying you're screwed no matter what you pick

you think the lying AI would say OH BY THE WAY HERE'S THE OPTION THAT KILLS ME AND I REALLY DON'T LIKE IT BUT YOU CAN PICK IT IF YOU WANT

haha no

pick destroy if you want, just don't act like it's the only valid option

you're doing exactly what you accuse BW of doing: railroading players into following a predetermined, linear path

There's no explanation for why a truthful Starchild would say  "OH BY THE WAY HERE'S THE OPTION THAT KILLS ME AND I REALLY DON'T LIKE IT BUT YOU CAN PICK IT IF YOU WANT" either.

[Yate]

KingZayd wrote...

Yate wrote...

dude

if catalyst is lying you're screwed no matter what you pick

you think the lying AI would say OH BY THE WAY HERE'S THE OPTION THAT KILLS ME AND I REALLY DON'T LIKE IT BUT YOU CAN PICK IT IF YOU WANT

haha no

pick destroy if you want, just don't act like it's the only valid option

you're doing exactly what you accuse BW of doing: railroading players into following a predetermined, linear path

There's no explanation for why a truthful Starchild would say  "OH BY THE WAY HERE'S THE OPTION THAT KILLS ME AND I REALLY DON'T LIKE IT BUT YOU CAN PICK IT IF YOU WANT" either.

because he has to solve the problem

even if it means his own death

it's what he was programmed to do

[KingZayd]

Yate wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Yate wrote...

dude

if catalyst is lying you're screwed no matter what you pick

you think the lying AI would say OH BY THE WAY HERE'S THE OPTION THAT KILLS ME AND I REALLY DON'T LIKE IT BUT YOU CAN PICK IT IF YOU WANT

haha no

pick destroy if you want, just don't act like it's the only valid option

you're doing exactly what you accuse BW of doing: railroading players into following a predetermined, linear path

There's no explanation for why a truthful Starchild would say  "OH BY THE WAY HERE'S THE OPTION THAT KILLS ME AND I REALLY DON'T LIKE IT BUT YOU CAN PICK IT IF YOU WANT" either.

because he has to solve the problem

even if it means his own death

it's what he was programmed to do

But according to him, it doesn't solve the problem.

Modifié par KingZayd, 08 novembre 2012 - 01:33 .

[Ieldra]

As for the Catalyst, I think it was intended to come across as some kind of god-like being you can trust implicitly because of its status as a god-like being. Needless to say, things didn't exactly work out that way.

[Nerevar-as]

Yate wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Yate wrote...

dude

if catalyst is lying you're screwed no matter what you pick

you think the lying AI would say OH BY THE WAY HERE'S THE OPTION THAT KILLS ME AND I REALLY DON'T LIKE IT BUT YOU CAN PICK IT IF YOU WANT

haha no

pick destroy if you want, just don't act like it's the only valid option

you're doing exactly what you accuse BW of doing: railroading players into following a predetermined, linear path

There's no explanation for why a truthful Starchild would say  "OH BY THE WAY HERE'S THE OPTION THAT KILLS ME AND I REALLY DON'T LIKE IT BUT YOU CAN PICK IT IF YOU WANT" either.

because he has to solve the problem

even if it means his own death

it's what he was programmed to do

Low EMS. Only possibility is Reapers Destroyed, galaxy razed, "solution" to the AI problem undone. And Starbrat still takes Shepard to its presence. Had it done nothing, cycle would have continued as usual. No Control or Synthesis available, only stopping its mission, no problem solved. So let´s stop pretending the writers had the slightest idea of what they were doing when writing any of the endings.

Maybe instead of the Leviathans it was programmed by the Engineers. It´d explain how stupid it is.

[Nerevar-as]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for the Catalyst, I think it was intended to come across as some kind of god-like being you can trust implicitly because of its status as a god-like being. Needless to say, things didn't exactly work out that way.

Considering Synthesis is something I´d only believe if GOD itself would do it, you may have a point there. How they could miss it was one of the worst monsters in fiction, and thus not something many of us would trust escapes me, even with my low opinion of the writing.

[KingZayd]

DirtyMouthSally wrote...

Yate wrote...

and BTW, it IS possible to destroy AIs without damaging ships or VIs or anything else

and the logic for it has been around since ME1

that's all I'm gonna say

Which doesn't mean much at all if you're not going to at least provide an example.  I'm curious.

I know that AIs can be identified easily. Look at the first contact section.
http://masseffect.wi...i/Virtual_Alien

Modifié par KingZayd, 08 novembre 2012 - 01:45 .

[KingZayd]

DirtyMouthSally wrote...

KingZayd wrote...
I know that AIs can be identified easily. Look at the first contact section.
http://masseffect.wi...i/Virtual_Alien

Interesting.  Thanks for the link.

"It emitted strong AI heuristics".  So if the red wave was coded (actually it would use heuristics itself to pick up the heuristics, I think) to pick these up, then it would wipe everything out matching what the algorithm was programmed for.  Ok.  That also would imply that there would be collateral damage, since no algorithm is perfect, and there would probably be some false postitives, wouldn't you say?

,
I'm guessing if there was an attempt to code it to target only Reapers, then the Geth and EDI who have Reaper code would be potential casualties. The Virtual Aliens however, would not (and maybe not even the Starchild say if he exists in multiple locations, so that the destruction of the Citadel is fine... [i can't remember if the Citadel does explode in the EC endings])

If it was programmed to destroy anything emitting AI heuristics, then all AIs would be destroyed (including the Starchild)

After the EC though, the Starchild tells you that the Crucible is merely a power source, implying that the wave would be compeltely his creation. He tells you that it does not discriminate, suggesting it is the latter option.

[ElSuperGecko]

Yate wrote...
dude if catalyst is lying you're screwed no matter what you pick

you think the lying AI would say OH BY THE WAY HERE'S THE OPTION THAT KILLS ME AND I REALLY DON'T LIKE IT BUT YOU CAN PICK IT IF YOU WANT

The Catalyst does not have to be lying for us not to trust it or accept it's logic and suggestions.

The Catalyst could be being perfectly open, truthful and honest with us, and you'd still be a fool to trust it.

It's not, of course.  It's being evasive, it's being manipulative, and it is attempting to influence Shepard's decision, but that's entirely besides the point.

This is a billion-year-old AI, a being that is not and has never been organic, that is not and has never been alive.

It is a being that turned on it's own creators, wiped them from existence because it's logic led it to believe it was the right thing to do.

It is a being that created the cycle of extinction to prevent a threat that only exists within in it's own speculative calculations.

It is the being that is ultimately responsible for the horror that we have been trying to prevent throughout the Mass Effect series; a being that not only sanctioned the arbitary extermination of entire civilisations, but who put it into motion and shows no regret and no remorse for it's actions.  It CAN'T show regret or remorse for it's actions, because it sees nothing fundamentally wrong with it's solution (other than the fact that it failed).

That's why we can't trust it.  Not because it could be lying (it could be), not because it has it's own agenda and motives (it does), but because it put this entire nightmare into motion to begin with.

As far as I'm concerned, everything the Catalyst tells you is the God's honest truth, but I still won't pick Control because not five minutes earlier I was arguing with the Illusive Man that it was nothing more than a pipe dream that would leave us in the palm of the Reaper's hands, and I won't pick Synthesis because it's the Catalyst's new solution, and we've seen first hand how disgustingly horrific and brutal it's original solution was.  That's what comes from dealing with a being with no concept of emotion, no understanding of life.

[Yate]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Yate wrote...
dude if catalyst is lying you're screwed no matter what you pick

you think the lying AI would say OH BY THE WAY HERE'S THE OPTION THAT KILLS ME AND I REALLY DON'T LIKE IT BUT YOU CAN PICK IT IF YOU WANT

The Catalyst does not have to be lying for us not to trust it or accept it's logic and suggestions.

The Catalyst could be being perfectly open, truthful and honest with us, and you'd still be a fool to trust it.

It's not, of course.  It's being evasive, it's being manipulative, and it is attempting to influence Shepard's decision, but that's entirely besides the point.

This is a billion-year-old AI, a being that is not and has never been organic, that is not and has never been alive.

It is a being that turned on it's own creators, wiped them from existence because it's logic led it to believe it was the right thing to do.

It is a being that created the cycle of extinction to prevent a threat that only exists within in it's own speculative calculations.

It is the being that is ultimately responsible for the horror that we have been trying to prevent throughout the Mass Effect series; a being that not only sanctioned the arbitary extermination of entire civilisations, but who put it into motion and shows no regret and no remorse for it's actions.  It CAN'T show regret or remorse for it's actions, because it sees nothing fundamentally wrong with it's solution (other than the fact that it failed).

That's why we can't trust it.  Not because it could be lying (it could be), not because it has it's own agenda and motives (it does), but because it put this entire nightmare into motion to begin with.

As far as I'm concerned, everything the Catalyst tells you is the God's honest truth, but I still won't pick Control because not five minutes earlier I was arguing with the Illusive Man that it was nothing more than a pipe dream that would leave us in the palm of the Reaper's hands, and I won't pick Synthesis because it's the Catalyst's new solution, and we've seen first hand how disgustingly horrific and brutal it's original solution was.  That's what comes from dealing with a being with no concept of emotion, no understanding of life.

I trust it BECAUSE it's being evasive and manipulative.

The best it can do is say 'NO' to valid logic and try and make synthesis sound really good.

It's attempts to sway you are laughably obvious, and that's the best it can do.

It simply doesn't know enough about organics to effectively decieve them.

[Nerevar-as]

Yate wrote...

I trust it BECAUSE it's being evasive and manipulative.

The best it can do is say 'NO' to valid logic and try and make synthesis sound really good.

It's attempts to sway you are laughably obvious, and that's the best it can do.

It simply doesn't know enough about organics to effectively decieve them.

Let´s assume the SB writing was made to make sense.

Its method worked fine enough with you, didn´t it? After all you have just completely understimated a being tens of millions of years old and dismissed it as a sackled AI incapable of cheating organics.

It´s been genociding thousands of different races and cultures. Give its intelligence some credit. He created the Reapers under the noses of its creator, so that´s one he deceived easily enough. You only get to its presence because it wished you too (writing makes no sense, but it´s what it is).

[KingZayd]

Yate wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Yate wrote...
dude if catalyst is lying you're screwed no matter what you pick

you think the lying AI would say OH BY THE WAY HERE'S THE OPTION THAT KILLS ME AND I REALLY DON'T LIKE IT BUT YOU CAN PICK IT IF YOU WANT

The Catalyst does not have to be lying for us not to trust it or accept it's logic and suggestions.

The Catalyst could be being perfectly open, truthful and honest with us, and you'd still be a fool to trust it.

It's not, of course.  It's being evasive, it's being manipulative, and it is attempting to influence Shepard's decision, but that's entirely besides the point.

This is a billion-year-old AI, a being that is not and has never been organic, that is not and has never been alive.

It is a being that turned on it's own creators, wiped them from existence because it's logic led it to believe it was the right thing to do.

It is a being that created the cycle of extinction to prevent a threat that only exists within in it's own speculative calculations.

It is the being that is ultimately responsible for the horror that we have been trying to prevent throughout the Mass Effect series; a being that not only sanctioned the arbitary extermination of entire civilisations, but who put it into motion and shows no regret and no remorse for it's actions.  It CAN'T show regret or remorse for it's actions, because it sees nothing fundamentally wrong with it's solution (other than the fact that it failed).

That's why we can't trust it.  Not because it could be lying (it could be), not because it has it's own agenda and motives (it does), but because it put this entire nightmare into motion to begin with.

As far as I'm concerned, everything the Catalyst tells you is the God's honest truth, but I still won't pick Control because not five minutes earlier I was arguing with the Illusive Man that it was nothing more than a pipe dream that would leave us in the palm of the Reaper's hands, and I won't pick Synthesis because it's the Catalyst's new solution, and we've seen first hand how disgustingly horrific and brutal it's original solution was.  That's what comes from dealing with a being with no concept of emotion, no understanding of life.

I trust it BECAUSE it's being evasive and manipulative.

The best it can do is say 'NO' to valid logic and try and make synthesis sound really good.

It's attempts to sway you are laughably obvious, and that's the best it can do.

It simply doesn't know enough about organics to effectively decieve them.

The Reapers it controls seem to be able to deceive organics without issue.

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for the Catalyst, I think it was intended to come across as some kind of god-like being you can trust implicitly because of its status as a god-like being. Needless to say, things didn't exactly work out that way.

. I'm not even big on IT and I think he's full of sh*t.

[garrusfan1]

Well you can head cannon anything to be good. For example if the zombie apacolypse happens I get to kill a lot of zombies. See it can work with anything doesn't mean it is realistic though since synthesis is bulls*** and control is what we have been telling TIM he is wrong about through all of ME3

[clennon8]

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for the Catalyst, I think it was intended to come across as some kind of god-like being you can trust implicitly because of its status as a god-like being. Needless to say, things didn't exactly work out that way.

. I'm not even big on IT and I think he's full of sh*t.

Hallelujah.

Whether you think IT is a crock or not, you pretty much have to be a straight-up nincompoop to trust the Catalyst.  Sorry if that statement is a little too unadulterated for some of you.

[BatmanTurian]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

If you can headcanon good things about Destroy, then I can headcanon good things about Control and Synthesis. Especially Synthesis because its short-term and long-term consequences are the most ambiguous.

Poke holes in this argument. <_<

Great. Do it. But for the love of god shut up about it. You make a thread every damn day about the same damn thing.

[Deathsaurer]

Bill Casey wrote...

What's so wrong and offensive about organics and synthetics?

I've been considering making a thread on this. I don't think it was kidding when it said "you bring it on yourselves" in low EMS. The way I see it the Catalyst is at war with nature itself. We can look to past cycles and see one dominant race poisoning the cultures of others and looking down on synthetic life. It's easy to see how synthetics would take offence to this and rebel resulting in mass deaths and if one should ever take over a cycle I shudder to think what they'd do to fledgling organic races. Turnabout is fair play or so they say. So the solution it came up with is to make sure everyone is equal so no one can think they're better it just hasn't worked out all the kinks in implementation yet. This cylce has clearly been going down a different course at the end but it was so late in the game it didn't have time to play out. Prior to Shepard it was repeating all the same mistakes though.

I thought synthesis was inevitable, so why don't they just stop?

It says it can't alter course. Blame this one on the Leviathans programming skills or lack thereof.

[DasGota]

People will defend Destroy because it is the only ending that has Shepard living. Not everyone of course, but a pretty good majority. If people honestly didn't care whether Shepard lived or died at the end, we wouldn't have had things like the Indoctrination Theory, which was entirely based around the idea of Shepard being alive.

The "Happy Ending Mod," the calls for "Closure DLC," the demand for "Reunion DLC," all of this points to the fact that people want Shepard to live. There is nothing wrong with this, but the issue with Destroy is that it kills off all synthetics. That makes some feel uncomfortable.

It was a crappy way for Bioware to make Destroy have higher stakes to make the choice more difficult, otherwise people would have picked it almost unanimously. Instead they go out of their way to make Synthesis and Control more appealing options, and players (including myself) resent that. The same way I resent how they have Starchild calling Sythesis the "ideal choice". 

So we have headcannon. We demonize the other two endings to justify wiping out Synthetics. If the other two endings (the less selfish endings, by Bioware's terribly written standards) are seen in a better light, it makes Destroy look ugly.

If Synthesis or Control had Shepard living, they'd be a lot more popular.

Modifié par DasGota, 08 novembre 2012 - 07:20 .

[CDR David Shepard]

Why does it take other people being able to headcanon good things about Destroy for you to be able to headcanon good things about Control and Synthesis?

[KingZayd]

DasGota wrote...

People will defend Destroy because it is the only ending that has Shepard living. Not everyone of course, but a pretty good majority. If people honestly didn't care whether Shepard lived or died at the end, we wouldn't have had things like the Indoctrination Theory, which was entirely based around the idea of Shepard being alive.

The "Happy Ending Mod," the calls for "Closure DLC," the demand for "Reunion DLC," all of this points to the fact that people want Shepard to live. There is nothing wrong with this, but the issue with Destroy is that it kills off all synthetics. That makes some feel uncomfortable.

It was a crappy way for Bioware to make Destroy have higher stakes to make the choice more difficult, otherwise people would have picked it almost unanimously. Instead they go out of their way to make Synthesis and Control more appealing options, and players (including myself) resent that. The same way I resent how they have Starchild calling Sythesis the "ideal choice". 

So we have headcannon. We demonize the other two endings to justify wiping out Synthetics. If the other two endings (the less selfish endings, by Bioware's terribly written standards) are seen in a better light, it makes Destroy look ugly.

If Synthesis or Control had Shepard living, they'd be a lot more popular.

Indoctrination theory was based on the fact that Shepard appeared to be alive in a place that looked like Earth. The motivation was not to have Shepard alive (as the breath alreadys suggested that), but rather to void the Starchild as an actual entity, and therefore eliminate a lot of the nonsense from the ending.

People will defend the Destroy ending because it's the only one where the Reapers die. Many picked destroy, believing that Shepard would die whatever choice they made.

Modifié par KingZayd, 08 novembre 2012 - 07:28 .