313 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

dreman9999 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

 Anybody still living in the illusion that the Extended cut actually logically managed to explain the story behind starbrat should really watch this.

The background to the Reapers and Starbrat isn't the problem. It's the solution that's a load of nonsense. The Reapers' backstory is merely ho-hum (and somewhat anticlimatic but it's almost impossible to remove mystery without being anticlimatic). It's got its problems but so have a lot of the decent parts of Mass Effect.

The point is thatthesolution is the problem. It' made to be problematic. No one really is to like the choices on hand. The issue is thatwe have to unbending will causing the problem in the ending, the shackled Catalyst stuck doing what it programmed to do and the races of the past cycles that hate synthetics so much they made a divice that can kill them all with out thinking about the belevolent Syntheitcs case.

The issue is that absolute thinking causes conflict and Shepard can't change the thinking of ether side.

The problem with the solution is that it's a big Reaper Off button that solves it all of a sudden with space magic and some contrived negative consequences. That's entirely independent of the source of the problem. Hence Starbrat doesn't bother me as much as some (he's a badly handled, badly introduced character but not the key part of the problem) and I actually thought that the Leviathan DLC was pretty decent.

Modifié par Reorte, 03 décembre 2012 - 07:38 .

[dreman9999]

KingZayd wrote...

Tigerman123 wrote...



From the me1 artbook

Yes in ME1 that was an issue. Because one of the Reapers, (Sovereign) rounded up a bunch of machines and encouraged them to start a war on organics.

Organic vs synthetic does not mean synthetic are the ones attacking and the center of the problem. It means both organics and synthetics cause the problem and are attaking each other.

ME2 does not stop the concept...It only shows the other perspective of Synthetics on this issue and how organics cause the problem.
Added, the reapers, being synthetic, is only part of the problem not the center of it.

[Reorte]

dreman9999 wrote...

Organic vs synthetic does not mean synthetic are the ones attacking and the center of the problem. It means both organics and synthetics cause the problem and are attaking each other.

ME2 does not stop the concept...It only shows the other perspective of Synthetics on this issue and how organics cause the problem.
Added, the reapers, being synthetic, is only part of the problem not the center of it.

All through all three games you fight both, there's nothing much to suggest that there's anything more fundamentally important about fighting synthetics. They're just another enemy. ME2 and ME3 reinforce that. The Reapers simply happen to be mostly synthetic (would be tricky to have an enemy operating on that timescale who wasn't).

Modifié par Reorte, 03 décembre 2012 - 07:43 .

[dreman9999]

Reorte wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

 Anybody still living in the illusion that the Extended cut actually logically managed to explain the story behind starbrat should really watch this.

The background to the Reapers and Starbrat isn't the problem. It's the solution that's a load of nonsense. The Reapers' backstory is merely ho-hum (and somewhat anticlimatic but it's almost impossible to remove mystery without being anticlimatic). It's got its problems but so have a lot of the decent parts of Mass Effect.

The point is thatthesolution is the problem. It' made to be problematic. No one really is to like the choices on hand. The issue is thatwe have to unbending will causing the problem in the ending, the shackled Catalyst stuck doing what it programmed to do and the races of the past cycles that hate synthetics so much they made a divice that can kill them all with out thinking about the belevolent Syntheitcs case.

The issue is that absolute thinking causes conflict and Shepard can't change the thinking of ether side.

The problem with the solution is that it's a big Reaper Off button that solves it all of a sudden with space magic and some contrived negative consequences. That's entirely independent of the source of the problem. Hence Starbrat doesn't bother me as much as some (he's a badly handled, badly introduced character but not the key part of the problem) and I actually thought that the Leviathan DLC was pretty decent.

It was obvious a one shot weapon had to be used to stop a force like the reapers. Andit's not space magic, destroy and control are explained. The thing is the negative consequences itthere because of the general theme"How far are you willing to go and sacrife to stop an unstopable force".
The choice are tied to the problem because of who made the crucible, the races ofthe past cycles.

[dreman9999]

Reorte wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Organic vs synthetic does not mean synthetic are the ones attacking and the center of the problem. It means both organics and synthetics cause the problem and are attaking each other.

ME2 does not stop the concept...It only shows the other perspective of Synthetics on this issue and how organics cause the problem.
Added, the reapers, being synthetic, is only part of the problem not the center of it.

All through all three games you fight both, there's nothing much to suggest that there's anything more fundamentally important about fighting synthetics. They're just another enemy. ME2 and ME3 reinforce that.

I'm going t say this agein...
Organic vs synthetic does not mean synthetic are the ones attacking and the center of the problem. It means both organics and synthetics cause the problem and are attaking each other.

That does not mean the issue is fighting synthetics. I'm saying you looking at the issue too one sided. Organics are part of the issue.

[dreman9999]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

the problem with the catalysts logic is, that it is based on absolute assumptions: 

point 1 - organics will always create synthetics
point 2 - synthetics will always rebell against its creators
point 3 - the rebellion will always end with the extinction of the creators

in addition:

point 4 - if synthetics and organics live in peacefull coexistance, it is just a matter of time, untill point 2 happens.
point 5 - reapers are necessarry to preserve organic life in a form, where it is save to synthetics.

that should summerise the foudation of the catalysts logic.


the catalyst states, that its solution to the problem is not working anymore, because the parameters have changed.

my question: "wich one of the parameters changed?" ...

- are organics still able to create synthetics? yes - we have not changed and therefore point 1 is still active.
- can organics be sure, that synthetics cant rebell? irrelevant - point 2
- are organics better at war than synthetics? at this point - yes. but the next generation of synthetics might be. point 3
- have the synthetics changed? yes - the synthetics now live in coexistance but that is irrelatvant because of point 4.
- are the new solutions better than the old ones? ... lets see.


control:
the new ai will be based on shepard and the corresponding morals, thoughts and memories. the catalyst can estimate, that the new ai will not start a new cycle, because shepard was driven by the will to stop it. 
the problem is, that organics still can create synthetics (point 1) - even if the new shepard ai interferes, at some point, the synthetics are too strong, even for the reapers and a new cycle is inevitable to preserve galactic society (point 4+5).

conclusion - this solution is only delaying the next cycle and is therefore, not better than the current solution. the problem will even get worse.


destroy:
all synthetics and the reapers are destroyed, the aftermath of the reaper war will have the need for cheap and effective labour. synthetics can work under extreme conditions, like the vacuum of space (relays have to be rebuild), are disposable and therefore prefered labour.
these new synthetics pose a threat.. the organics are still able to create new synthetics (point 1) and the catalyst is sure (absolutes), that the newly created synthetics will rebell and kill its creators (points 2+3). this time, the absense of the reapers will result in the extinction and non-preservation of life.

conclusion - the absense of the reapers will result in the extinction of life, wich has to be impeded, by harvesting them (point 5). this solution is worse, because life can not be preserved anymore.


synthesis: 
synthetics and organics live in peacefull coexistance (violates point 4), because synthetics can understand organics. understanding someone else, has never stopped anyone, from doing harm to them. the synthetics were still created by the organics and therefore, they will rebell at some point (point 2). if the reapers are granted free will, they might not be able to fullfill their purpose (point 5).

conclusion - this solution is not as bad as the other ones, but the synthetics of this cycle are still there - even if no new synthetics are created, the created will rebell (point 2). the outcome might be in favour of the hybrids, but damage will be done. this is an experiment wich can go well - but there is no garantee. still, the reapers are there, to preserve the hybrids, in case the synthetics win.


the provided solutions are not better than the current one:

one is risking a worse scenario, because it will not preserve organics before it is too late. the second will leavee the organics to die. the last one is a gamble an experiment - if it fails, rinse and repeat.


why does the catalyst offer new solutions, if they violate the basic rules? did it alter its programming? if it can, why do the reapers nor simply go away? or return if we have build new synthetics or they are rebelling?
the presented solutions are not "a save bet" anymore, because the variables have changed in favour for "synthetics will kill organics".


just some thoughts

You do understand it's pointless to argue this because the catalyst is a shackled AI forced to do this.

[Reorte]

dreman9999 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

The problem with the solution is that it's a big Reaper Off button that solves it all of a sudden with space magic and some contrived negative consequences. That's entirely independent of the source of the problem. Hence Starbrat doesn't bother me as much as some (he's a badly handled, badly introduced character but not the key part of the problem) and I actually thought that the Leviathan DLC was pretty decent.

It was obvious a one shot weapon had to be used to stop a force like the reapers. Andit's not space magic, destroy and control are explained. The thing is the negative consequences itthere because of the general theme"How far are you willing to go and sacrife to stop an unstopable force".
The choice are tied to the problem because of who made the crucible, the races ofthe past cycles.

And a one shot weapon is always a weak cop-out that comes across as very, very unconvincing and implausible, the more so the greater the scale of the problem. Note that that's not the same as managing to make a big weapon that the enemy knows will eventually spell their doom so that they surrender now instead.

Control and Destroy aren't adequately explained, not by a long stretch. It stretches suspension of disbelief too far that something could conveniently affect all Reapers everywhere. That's a bigger issue with Destroy than Control although Control has its issues too (the Reapers have never appeared to be acting like remote controlled drones and frying Shepard to scan him is just silly).

Yes, that's why the negative consequences were thrown in. They were still contrived though. A device capable of something as ludicrous as Synthesis could achieve both Destroy and Control with no downsides whatsoever.

[Dr_Extrem]

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

the problem with the catalysts logic is, that it is based on absolute assumptions: 

point 1 - organics will always create synthetics
point 2 - synthetics will always rebell against its creators
point 3 - the rebellion will always end with the extinction of the creators

in addition:

point 4 - if synthetics and organics live in peacefull coexistance, it is just a matter of time, untill point 2 happens.
point 5 - reapers are necessarry to preserve organic life in a form, where it is save to synthetics.

that should summerise the foudation of the catalysts logic.


the catalyst states, that its solution to the problem is not working anymore, because the parameters have changed.

my question: "wich one of the parameters changed?" ...

- are organics still able to create synthetics? yes - we have not changed and therefore point 1 is still active.
- can organics be sure, that synthetics cant rebell? irrelevant - point 2
- are organics better at war than synthetics? at this point - yes. but the next generation of synthetics might be. point 3
- have the synthetics changed? yes - the synthetics now live in coexistance but that is irrelatvant because of point 4.
- are the new solutions better than the old ones? ... lets see.


control:
the new ai will be based on shepard and the corresponding morals, thoughts and memories. the catalyst can estimate, that the new ai will not start a new cycle, because shepard was driven by the will to stop it. 
the problem is, that organics still can create synthetics (point 1) - even if the new shepard ai interferes, at some point, the synthetics are too strong, even for the reapers and a new cycle is inevitable to preserve galactic society (point 4+5).

conclusion - this solution is only delaying the next cycle and is therefore, not better than the current solution. the problem will even get worse.


destroy:
all synthetics and the reapers are destroyed, the aftermath of the reaper war will have the need for cheap and effective labour. synthetics can work under extreme conditions, like the vacuum of space (relays have to be rebuild), are disposable and therefore prefered labour.
these new synthetics pose a threat.. the organics are still able to create new synthetics (point 1) and the catalyst is sure (absolutes), that the newly created synthetics will rebell and kill its creators (points 2+3). this time, the absense of the reapers will result in the extinction and non-preservation of life.

conclusion - the absense of the reapers will result in the extinction of life, wich has to be impeded, by harvesting them (point 5). this solution is worse, because life can not be preserved anymore.


synthesis: 
synthetics and organics live in peacefull coexistance (violates point 4), because synthetics can understand organics. understanding someone else, has never stopped anyone, from doing harm to them. the synthetics were still created by the organics and therefore, they will rebell at some point (point 2). if the reapers are granted free will, they might not be able to fullfill their purpose (point 5).

conclusion - this solution is not as bad as the other ones, but the synthetics of this cycle are still there - even if no new synthetics are created, the created will rebell (point 2). the outcome might be in favour of the hybrids, but damage will be done. this is an experiment wich can go well - but there is no garantee. still, the reapers are there, to preserve the hybrids, in case the synthetics win.


the provided solutions are not better than the current one:

one is risking a worse scenario, because it will not preserve organics before it is too late. the second will leavee the organics to die. the last one is a gamble an experiment - if it fails, rinse and repeat.


why does the catalyst offer new solutions, if they violate the basic rules? did it alter its programming? if it can, why do the reapers nor simply go away? or return if we have build new synthetics or they are rebelling?
the presented solutions are not "a save bet" anymore, because the variables have changed in favour for "synthetics will kill organics".


just some thoughts

You do understand it's pointless to argue this because the catalyst is a shackled AI forced to do this.

did you understand my intention? ... i am not arguing .. i am showing why the new solutions might not work and why it would be better, to stick to the old one in the first place.

the shackled part is your headcanon ... there is no proof to solidify your claim.

[Reorte]

dreman9999 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Organic vs synthetic does not mean synthetic are the ones attacking and the center of the problem. It means both organics and synthetics cause the problem and are attaking each other.

ME2 does not stop the concept...It only shows the other perspective of Synthetics on this issue and how organics cause the problem.
Added, the reapers, being synthetic, is only part of the problem not the center of it.

All through all three games you fight both, there's nothing much to suggest that there's anything more fundamentally important about fighting synthetics. They're just another enemy. ME2 and ME3 reinforce that.

I'm going t say this agein...
Organic vs synthetic does not mean synthetic are the ones attacking and the center of the problem. It means both organics and synthetics cause the problem and are attaking each other.

That does not mean the issue is fighting synthetics. I'm saying you looking at the issue too one sided. Organics are part of the issue.

That's got nothing to do with what I said. I didn't say anything about synthetics being the ones attacking. All I said was that organic - synthetic conflicts in Mass Effect seem to be no more significant than any other, particularly when we learn that a lot of them are being created by the Reapers anyway.

Since you end up shooting or being shot at by just about everyone apart from the elcor and volus you could make just as strong a case about it all being about how humanity is incapable of meeting new cultures without fighting them, as history has all too often demonstrated.

Modifié par Reorte, 03 décembre 2012 - 07:54 .

[Twinzam.V]

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

the problem with the catalysts logic is, that it is based on absolute assumptions: 

point 1 - organics will always create synthetics
point 2 - synthetics will always rebell against its creators
point 3 - the rebellion will always end with the extinction of the creators

in addition:

point 4 - if synthetics and organics live in peacefull coexistance, it is just a matter of time, untill point 2 happens.
point 5 - reapers are necessarry to preserve organic life in a form, where it is save to synthetics.

that should summerise the foudation of the catalysts logic.


the catalyst states, that its solution to the problem is not working anymore, because the parameters have changed.

my question: "wich one of the parameters changed?" ...

- are organics still able to create synthetics? yes - we have not changed and therefore point 1 is still active.
- can organics be sure, that synthetics cant rebell? irrelevant - point 2
- are organics better at war than synthetics? at this point - yes. but the next generation of synthetics might be. point 3
- have the synthetics changed? yes - the synthetics now live in coexistance but that is irrelatvant because of point 4.
- are the new solutions better than the old ones? ... lets see.


control:
the new ai will be based on shepard and the corresponding morals, thoughts and memories. the catalyst can estimate, that the new ai will not start a new cycle, because shepard was driven by the will to stop it. 
the problem is, that organics still can create synthetics (point 1) - even if the new shepard ai interferes, at some point, the synthetics are too strong, even for the reapers and a new cycle is inevitable to preserve galactic society (point 4+5).

conclusion - this solution is only delaying the next cycle and is therefore, not better than the current solution. the problem will even get worse.


destroy:
all synthetics and the reapers are destroyed, the aftermath of the reaper war will have the need for cheap and effective labour. synthetics can work under extreme conditions, like the vacuum of space (relays have to be rebuild), are disposable and therefore prefered labour.
these new synthetics pose a threat.. the organics are still able to create new synthetics (point 1) and the catalyst is sure (absolutes), that the newly created synthetics will rebell and kill its creators (points 2+3). this time, the absense of the reapers will result in the extinction and non-preservation of life.

conclusion - the absense of the reapers will result in the extinction of life, wich has to be impeded, by harvesting them (point 5). this solution is worse, because life can not be preserved anymore.


synthesis: 
synthetics and organics live in peacefull coexistance (violates point 4), because synthetics can understand organics. understanding someone else, has never stopped anyone, from doing harm to them. the synthetics were still created by the organics and therefore, they will rebell at some point (point 2). if the reapers are granted free will, they might not be able to fullfill their purpose (point 5).

conclusion - this solution is not as bad as the other ones, but the synthetics of this cycle are still there - even if no new synthetics are created, the created will rebell (point 2). the outcome might be in favour of the hybrids, but damage will be done. this is an experiment wich can go well - but there is no garantee. still, the reapers are there, to preserve the hybrids, in case the synthetics win.


the provided solutions are not better than the current one:

one is risking a worse scenario, because it will not preserve organics before it is too late. the second will leavee the organics to die. the last one is a gamble an experiment - if it fails, rinse and repeat.


why does the catalyst offer new solutions, if they violate the basic rules? did it alter its programming? if it can, why do the reapers nor simply go away? or return if we have build new synthetics or they are rebelling?
the presented solutions are not "a save bet" anymore, because the variables have changed in favour for "synthetics will kill organics".


just some thoughts

You do understand it's pointless to argue this because the catalyst is a shackled AI forced to do this.

Even "if" he's shackeld and forced to do it, he could be able to see that the programing is wrong.
You can be forced to do things and say "ok ill do it but this **it is ****ed up" which he does not so unless hes broken in his little transistors or more likely lying he pretty much works like a VI since he tells nothing of this to Shepard.

Modifié par Twinzam.V, 03 décembre 2012 - 07:55 .

[dreman9999]

Reorte wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

The problem with the solution is that it's a big Reaper Off button that solves it all of a sudden with space magic and some contrived negative consequences. That's entirely independent of the source of the problem. Hence Starbrat doesn't bother me as much as some (he's a badly handled, badly introduced character but not the key part of the problem) and I actually thought that the Leviathan DLC was pretty decent.

It was obvious a one shot weapon had to be used to stop a force like the reapers. Andit's not space magic, destroy and control are explained. The thing is the negative consequences itthere because of the general theme"How far are you willing to go and sacrife to stop an unstopable force".
The choice are tied to the problem because of who made the crucible, the races ofthe past cycles.

And a one shot weapon is always a weak cop-out that comes across as very, very unconvincing and implausible, the more so the greater the scale of the problem. Note that that's not the same as managing to make a big weapon that the enemy knows will eventually spell their doom so that they surrender now instead.

Control and Destroy aren't adequately explained, not by a long stretch. It stretches suspension of disbelief too far that something could conveniently affect all Reapers everywhere. That's a bigger issue with Destroy than Control although Control has its issues too (the Reapers have never appeared to be acting like remote controlled drones and frying Shepard to scan him is just silly).

Yes, that's why the negative consequences were thrown in. They were still contrived though. A device capable of something as ludicrous as Synthesis could achieve both Destroy and Control with no downsides whatsoever.

Implausiblity in a scif strory withfaster then light travel and people lifting things up with there minds because of rocks? Parish the thought...

Also,Control and Destroy where clearlyexplained, it up to you to liten and heed it.

Also, the reaper are not remote control droid, the catalyst just issue them their programing that they fallow. Ifyou take over the catalyst role, it's obvious you can do the same thing.

[Dr_Extrem]

Twinzam.V wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

...snip

You do understand it's pointless to argue this because the catalyst is a shackled AI forced to do this.

Even "if" he's shackeld and forced to do it, he could be able to see that the programing is wrong.
You can be forced to do things and say "ok ill do it but this **** is ****ed up" which he does not so unless hes broken in his little transistors he pretty much works like a VI.

a vi or shackeld ai would not be able to alter its programming - new solutions would not be possible and the exchange with shepard would have never happened in the first place. it would just stick to its programming.

[dreman9999]

Twinzam.V wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

the problem with the catalysts logic is, that it is based on absolute assumptions: 

point 1 - organics will always create synthetics
point 2 - synthetics will always rebell against its creators
point 3 - the rebellion will always end with the extinction of the creators

in addition:

point 4 - if synthetics and organics live in peacefull coexistance, it is just a matter of time, untill point 2 happens.
point 5 - reapers are necessarry to preserve organic life in a form, where it is save to synthetics.

that should summerise the foudation of the catalysts logic.


the catalyst states, that its solution to the problem is not working anymore, because the parameters have changed.

my question: "wich one of the parameters changed?" ...

- are organics still able to create synthetics? yes - we have not changed and therefore point 1 is still active.
- can organics be sure, that synthetics cant rebell? irrelevant - point 2
- are organics better at war than synthetics? at this point - yes. but the next generation of synthetics might be. point 3
- have the synthetics changed? yes - the synthetics now live in coexistance but that is irrelatvant because of point 4.
- are the new solutions better than the old ones? ... lets see.


control:
the new ai will be based on shepard and the corresponding morals, thoughts and memories. the catalyst can estimate, that the new ai will not start a new cycle, because shepard was driven by the will to stop it. 
the problem is, that organics still can create synthetics (point 1) - even if the new shepard ai interferes, at some point, the synthetics are too strong, even for the reapers and a new cycle is inevitable to preserve galactic society (point 4+5).

conclusion - this solution is only delaying the next cycle and is therefore, not better than the current solution. the problem will even get worse.


destroy:
all synthetics and the reapers are destroyed, the aftermath of the reaper war will have the need for cheap and effective labour. synthetics can work under extreme conditions, like the vacuum of space (relays have to be rebuild), are disposable and therefore prefered labour.
these new synthetics pose a threat.. the organics are still able to create new synthetics (point 1) and the catalyst is sure (absolutes), that the newly created synthetics will rebell and kill its creators (points 2+3). this time, the absense of the reapers will result in the extinction and non-preservation of life.

conclusion - the absense of the reapers will result in the extinction of life, wich has to be impeded, by harvesting them (point 5). this solution is worse, because life can not be preserved anymore.


synthesis: 
synthetics and organics live in peacefull coexistance (violates point 4), because synthetics can understand organics. understanding someone else, has never stopped anyone, from doing harm to them. the synthetics were still created by the organics and therefore, they will rebell at some point (point 2). if the reapers are granted free will, they might not be able to fullfill their purpose (point 5).

conclusion - this solution is not as bad as the other ones, but the synthetics of this cycle are still there - even if no new synthetics are created, the created will rebell (point 2). the outcome might be in favour of the hybrids, but damage will be done. this is an experiment wich can go well - but there is no garantee. still, the reapers are there, to preserve the hybrids, in case the synthetics win.


the provided solutions are not better than the current one:

one is risking a worse scenario, because it will not preserve organics before it is too late. the second will leavee the organics to die. the last one is a gamble an experiment - if it fails, rinse and repeat.


why does the catalyst offer new solutions, if they violate the basic rules? did it alter its programming? if it can, why do the reapers nor simply go away? or return if we have build new synthetics or they are rebelling?
the presented solutions are not "a save bet" anymore, because the variables have changed in favour for "synthetics will kill organics".


just some thoughts

You do understand it's pointless to argue this because the catalyst is a shackled AI forced to do this.

Even "if" he's shackeld and forced to do it, he could be able to see that the programing is wrong.
You can be forced to do things and say "ok ill do it but this **** is ****ed up" which he does not so unless hes broken in his little transistors he pretty much works like a VI.

That not how machines and synthetics work. Your missing the fact here that it has no morals. It has no grounds to say what it doing is evil or wrongbecauseit has no morals.

[dreman9999]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Twinzam.V wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

...snip

You do understand it's pointless to argue this because the catalyst is a shackled AI forced to do this.

Even "if" he's shackeld and forced to do it, he could be able to see that the programing is wrong.
You can be forced to do things and say "ok ill do it but this **** is ****ed up" which he does not so unless hes broken in his little transistors he pretty much works like a VI.

a vi or shackeld ai would not be able to alter its programming - new solutions would not be possible and the exchange with shepard would have never happened in the first place. it would just stick to its programming.

The catalyst new solution was just another means to do it's programing. The reaper solution wasjust one means toit's goal to do it's program. If a better means to doing it's programing pops up, it would do that.

[Reorte]

dreman9999 wrote...
Implausiblity in a scif strory withfaster then light travel and people lifting things up with there minds because of rocks? Parish the thought...

You're resorting to the "It's sci-fi, some implausibility means anything goes" argument? Oh dear.

Also,Control and Destroy where clearlyexplained, it up to you to liten and heed it.

Nonsense.

Also, the reaper are not remote control droid, the catalyst just issue them their programing that they fallow. Ifyou take over the catalyst role, it's obvious you can do the same thing.

No it isn't. We are told absolutely nothing about the degree of interaction and methods of control that the Catalyst has over the Reapers.

[Twinzam.V]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Twinzam.V wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

...snip

You do understand it's pointless to argue this because the catalyst is a shackled AI forced to do this.

Even "if" he's shackeld and forced to do it, he could be able to see that the programing is wrong.
You can be forced to do things and say "ok ill do it but this **** is ****ed up" which he does not so unless hes broken in his little transistors he pretty much works like a VI.

a vi or shackeld ai would not be able to alter its programming - new solutions would not be possible and the exchange with shepard would have never happened in the first place. it would just stick to its programming.

dreman9999 wrote...
That not how machines and synthetics work. Your missing the fact here that it has no morals. It has no grounds to say what it doing is evil or wrongbecauseit has no morals.

But he's able to argue with Shepard that the Crucible changed him and he gives new alternatives hence he can determine that are other views to the problem.
If he just obeyed his programing, he wouldnt even consider those alternatives.
Unless the aliens species that designed the Crucible new the programing code of the "Catalyst" 

[AlanC9]

geceka wrote...
Uhm, are you serious? You are taking my argument basically verbatim and spin it as a counter-argument? I said they do not need to fear organic civilizations because they exert such control over their development. Hence, if they give up that control and let them develop beyond what they can control, they would have something to fear (e.g. losing their extinction cycle or having an AI developed right under them, which can surpass them).

They do exterminate them when they reach a certain level, only that it's not Stone Age, but "Mass Effect" age (which, of course, might look like "Stone Age" for someone as advanced as the Reapers).

Well, there still is a problem there, since letting civilizations get technological is inherently risky -- we know it's risky because they eventually rolled snake eyes, either in Shepard's cycle or the next one.

Though considering how many cycles they got away with --- 20,000? -- it looks like the probability of failure was relatively low. Forever is a long long time.

[Dr_Extrem]

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Twinzam.V wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

...snip

You do understand it's pointless to argue this because the catalyst is a shackled AI forced to do this.

Even "if" he's shackeld and forced to do it, he could be able to see that the programing is wrong.
You can be forced to do things and say "ok ill do it but this **** is ****ed up" which he does not so unless hes broken in his little transistors he pretty much works like a VI.

a vi or shackeld ai would not be able to alter its programming - new solutions would not be possible and the exchange with shepard would have never happened in the first place. it would just stick to its programming.

The catalyst new solution was just another means to do it's programing. The reaper solution wasjust one means toit's goal to do it's program. If a better means to doing it's programing pops up, it would do that.

that is not how shackles work. shackles prevent an ai from going rogue, change their programming and accept alternatives - otherwise, they could not do their job - they would malfunction.

the catalyst can alter its programming . therefore, it is not shackled.

[dreman9999]

Reorte wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Organic vs synthetic does not mean synthetic are the ones attacking and the center of the problem. It means both organics and synthetics cause the problem and are attaking each other.

ME2 does not stop the concept...It only shows the other perspective of Synthetics on this issue and how organics cause the problem.
Added, the reapers, being synthetic, is only part of the problem not the center of it.

All through all three games you fight both, there's nothing much to suggest that there's anything more fundamentally important about fighting synthetics. They're just another enemy. ME2 and ME3 reinforce that.

I'm going t say this agein...
Organic vs synthetic does not mean synthetic are the ones attacking and the center of the problem. It means both organics and synthetics cause the problem and are attaking each other.

That does not mean the issue is fighting synthetics. I'm saying you looking at the issue too one sided. Organics are part of the issue.

That's got nothing to do with what I said. I didn't say anything about synthetics being the ones attacking. All I said was that organic - synthetic conflicts in Mass Effect seem to be no more significant than any other, particularly when we learn that a lot of them are being created by the Reapers anyway.

Since you end up shooting or being shot at by just about everyone apart from the elcor and volus you could make just as strong a case about it all being about how humanity is incapable of meeting new cultures without fighting them, as history has all too often demonstrated.

1. Your missing the fact here the reaper that cause this conflict is doing this because of the programing that was placed by the leviathens into the catalyst. That means they are part of the organic /synthetic conflict.

2.We had 2 case of synthics up rising with out the direct involvement of reapers.

3.You example is a bad case. That's a point that conflict is nature. Organics seek it.Synthetics only have conflict if they are forced to.

[EnvyTB075]

Its Dreman, stop expecting intelligent discussion.

[dreman9999]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Twinzam.V wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

...snip

You do understand it's pointless to argue this because the catalyst is a shackled AI forced to do this.

Even "if" he's shackeld and forced to do it, he could be able to see that the programing is wrong.
You can be forced to do things and say "ok ill do it but this **** is ****ed up" which he does not so unless hes broken in his little transistors he pretty much works like a VI.

a vi or shackeld ai would not be able to alter its programming - new solutions would not be possible and the exchange with shepard would have never happened in the first place. it would just stick to its programming.

The catalyst new solution was just another means to do it's programing. The reaper solution wasjust one means toit's goal to do it's program. If a better means to doing it's programing pops up, it would do that.

that is not how shackles work. shackles prevent an ai from going rogue, change their programming and accept alternatives - otherwise, they could not do their job - they would malfunction.

the catalyst can alter its programming . therefore, it is not shackled.

Tell that to the crew in space odyssey. The ironic thing about Skackling ai's is that it cause them to rebal. They only think to do what they are programed to do, they never gain the morality to look at there actions as right and wrong.

It did not alter it programing. It just found new was to do it. Telling a high think AI to do something but not giving a limit to how and whatit can't do lets the Ai be able to do anything  it can think of doing to do it's programming.

[Reorte]

dreman9999 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

That's got nothing to do with what I said. I didn't say anything about synthetics being the ones attacking. All I said was that organic - synthetic conflicts in Mass Effect seem to be no more significant than any other, particularly when we learn that a lot of them are being created by the Reapers anyway.

Since you end up shooting or being shot at by just about everyone apart from the elcor and volus you could make just as strong a case about it all being about how humanity is incapable of meeting new cultures without fighting them, as history has all too often demonstrated.

1. Your missing the fact here the reaper that cause this conflict is doing this because of the programing that was placed by the leviathens into the catalyst. That means they are part of the organic /synthetic conflict.

2.We had 2 case of synthics up rising with out the direct involvement of reapers.

3.You example is a bad case. That's a point that conflict is nature. Organics seek it.Synthetics only have conflict if they are forced to.

1) So what? Some fools screw up with their creation. One mistake doesn't generalise to inevitable, fundamental conflict that's somehow more fundamental and inevitable than what happens between organics.

2) So what? We've had plenty of cases of organics doing similar.

3) You're now contradicting your other points. And the geth heretics weren't forced into conflict. Do organics seek conflict? Mostly, no. There are very few people who go out saying "I want to pick a fight with someone!" They end up fighting over resources, or misunderstandings (e.g. First Contact War). And hey presto, exactly the same thing happens with organics and synthetics.

Modifié par Reorte, 03 décembre 2012 - 08:07 .

[dreman9999]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Its Dreman, stop expecting intelligent discussion.

Please, tell me that machines don't do what they are programmed to do.

[Dr_Extrem]

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Twinzam.V wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

...snip

You do understand it's pointless to argue this because the catalyst is a shackled AI forced to do this.

Even "if" he's shackeld and forced to do it, he could be able to see that the programing is wrong.
You can be forced to do things and say "ok ill do it but this **** is ****ed up" which he does not so unless hes broken in his little transistors he pretty much works like a VI.

a vi or shackeld ai would not be able to alter its programming - new solutions would not be possible and the exchange with shepard would have never happened in the first place. it would just stick to its programming.

The catalyst new solution was just another means to do it's programing. The reaper solution wasjust one means toit's goal to do it's program. If a better means to doing it's programing pops up, it would do that.

that is not how shackles work. shackles prevent an ai from going rogue, change their programming and accept alternatives - otherwise, they could not do their job - they would malfunction.

the catalyst can alter its programming . therefore, it is not shackled.

Tell that to the crew in space odyssey. The ironic thing about Skackling ai's is that it cause them to rebal. They only think to do what they are programed to do, they never gain the morality to look at there actions as right and wrong.

It did not alter it programing. It just found new was to do it. Telling a high think AI to do something but not giving a limit to how and whatit can't do lets the Ai be able to do anything  it can think of doing to do it's programming.

you want to disprove my mass effect 3 observations and its lore, with 2001 - a space odyssey? i am speachless .. how can i outsmart this brilliant move.

[EnvyTB075]

dreman9999 wrote...

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Its Dreman, stop expecting intelligent discussion.

Please, tell me that machines don't do what they are programmed to do.

No.