118 réponses à ce sujet

[Andromidius]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

The Catalyst's harvest cycle is essentially a force of nature.

No its not.  You want to know why?

Because its a machine.  By definition that's not natural.  Its forced extinction, on its terms.  Over and over and over and over again.

We owe nothing to the Reapers.

[paxxton]

Rifneno wrote...

Fire is not sentient. An intelligent being cannot compare its destruction to fire. If you can't grasp that distinction, there's really no hope for you.

Of course there's a distinction. But that comparison is a simplification because explaining the motives behind the cycle to a "selfish" creature is deemed to be an utter failure. Such creatures don't grasp abstract thinking which usually touches the subjects that are beyond their immediate interests (or matters they can turn to their advantage in some way). Still, destroying the Reapers and ending the cycle is a perfectly valid option based on the principle of constant power struggle in nature.

Modifié par paxxton, 28 décembre 2012 - 04:18 .

[Kel Riever]

I'm stepping on Starbrat's head right now.

Does that make you feel bad, OP?

Step, step, step, step, step...

[Kabooooom]

Fire is not sentient. An intelligent being cannot compare its destruction to fire. If you can't grasp that distinction, there's really no hope for you.

The Catalyst compares the harvest to a fire because, prior to this cycle, it was locked in its ways. It could do nothing else, except the harvest. Intelligent, or not - sentient, or not - it is irrelevant. Like a fire, it can only do what it exists to do. And, like a fire, it destroys old growth to make room for new. The harvest, like a fire, is a source of ecological destruction, but also a source of new life. The comparison is appropriate, although I agree that the line came off as absurd - especially because you can't make any retort whatsoever to it.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 28 décembre 2012 - 04:35 .

[AlanC9]

Kel Riever wrote...

I'm stepping on Starbrat's head right now.
.

Stepping on a hologram? Yeah, that'll work.

[Sibu]

AlanC9 wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

I'm stepping on Starbrat's head right now.
.

Stepping on a hologram? Yeah, that'll work.

He gets pissed when you shoot him >=D

[Someone With Mass]

MisterJB wrote...

This is true actually. Forget the Protheans, since the days the Leviathans ruled, how many millions of space-faring races could have simply colonized Earth, stopping humanity from developing at all?
This question is often asked in the real world but we can reach no answer. How is it possible we developed at all? Earth is a relatively young planet, the odds were so much against us.
In Mass Effect's universe, we know. Because of the Reapers.

Given how many Earth-like planets there are in this galaxy and how ridiculously big it is, I'd say that chance is rather slim.

I'll thank the Reapers for making us a target for those space-faring races by placing a mass relay at the outskirt of our solar system, though.

[Kabooooom]

Given how many Earth-like planets there are in this galaxy and how ridiculously big it is, I'd say that chance is rather slim.

Exactly. The relay network connects less than 0.1% of the entire galaxy. That is still a massive number of stars, but nothing considering the expanse of the galaxy. It is totally reasonable that humans, and Earth itself, would exist just find and not under the reign of any galactic alien empire.

[AlanC9]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Given how many Earth-like planets there are in this galaxy and how ridiculously big it is, I'd say that chance is rather slim.

I don't check your math there. Given the number of planets humans colonized in a few decades, how long would it take for an uninterrupted race to fill up,the galaxy?

[Kabooooom]

I don't check your math there. Given the number of planets humans colonized in a few decades, how long would it take for an uninterrupted race to fill up,the galaxy?

Using the mass relay network, not long at all. But, traveling FTL across the galaxy - a damn long time. With over 200 billion stars and 40 years of travel in a straight line across the galaxy at FTL speeds in the ME universe...it would be a colossal amount of time.

And there's so much space that most species could expand without even interacting with each other.

EDIT: Also, here's a thought I had. Earth-like worlds are rare in the relay network, comparatively. What if they are rare in the galaxy on the whole? What if the Reapers have the relay network connecting to the majority of Earth like worlds in the galaxy, such that any sapient species that evolves anywhere will find the network and use it? That is a reasonable assumption.

In that case, the lack of the relay network would effectively stop any civilization cold. Benning is about 40-50 light years from Earth. Terra Nova and Eden Prime are like 10,000. Good luck finding that needle in the haystack without the relay network.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 28 décembre 2012 - 04:56 .

[Reth Shepherd]

Should a child conceived because of a r*pe feel indebted to his/her mother's r*pist? How about a couple, one of whom was murdered, and the other remarried and had a child? Should that child be grateful to the murderer because s/he wouldn't have existed if not for that crime?

IMO we owe nothing to the Reapers, any more than the children born as a result of the above owe anything to the criminals who were the reason they were born.

[CosmicGnosis]

Reth Shepherd wrote...

Should a child conceived because of a r*pe feel indebted to his/her mother's r*pist? How about a couple, one of whom was murdered, and the other remarried and had a child? Should that child be grateful to the murderer because s/he wouldn't have existed if not for that crime?

IMO we owe nothing to the Reapers, any more than the children born as a result of the above owe anything to the criminals who were the reason they were born.

This isn't about feeling indebted to the Catalyst. It's simply an acknowledgement that humans exist because of the Catalyst's horrific methods. Without the deaths of innumerable species, humanity wouldn't exist.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 28 décembre 2012 - 05:46 .

[Reth Shepherd]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Reth Shepherd wrote...

Should a child conceived because of a r*pe feel indebted to his/her mother's r*pist? How about a couple, one of whom was murdered, and the other remarried and had a child? Should that child be grateful to the murderer because s/he wouldn't have existed if not for that crime?

IMO we owe nothing to the Reapers, any more than the children born as a result of the above owe anything to the criminals who were the reason they were born.

This isn't about feeling indebted to the Catalyst. It's simply an acknowledgement that humans exist because of the Catalyst's horrific methods. Without the deaths of innumerable species, humanity wouldn't exist.

...and? There's a lot of things in the universe that we exist because of. Murders, atrocities, genocides; humanity's history is dripping with blood. So now we're adding another atrocity or two to that list? So what? It doesn't make them any less crimes, and it doesn't excuse the criminals in any way.

[someguy1231]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Reth Shepherd wrote...

Should a child conceived because of a r*pe feel indebted to his/her mother's r*pist? How about a couple, one of whom was murdered, and the other remarried and had a child? Should that child be grateful to the murderer because s/he wouldn't have existed if not for that crime?

IMO we owe nothing to the Reapers, any more than the children born as a result of the above owe anything to the criminals who were the reason they were born.

This isn't about feeling indebted to the Catalyst. It's simply an acknowledgement that humans exist because of the Catalyst's horrific methods. Without the deaths of innumerable species, humanity wouldn't exist.

*facepalm*

HOW. IS. THAT. RELEVANT? Seriously, what point are you trying to make? Even if it's true, how does that mean we should perceive the Catalyst as anything but a genocidal, lunatic AI? You're just tugging at player's heartstrings, trying to make them see the "softer side" of an irredeemable, unfeeling aberration by claiming that we somehow "owe" him something.

Oh, and describing the Catalyst's genocide as a "force of nature" is beyond absurd.

First, the Catalyst is an artificial construct, the opposite of "nature". It decided, for whatever faulty reasons, to exterminate all advanced galactic civilizations every 50,000 years. There is no "nature" here. Not at all. The entire reason for the existence of the cycles is due to the folly of sentient, sapient lifeforms.

Second, even if it were a "force of nature", so what? Here in the real world, humans manipulate nature to their benefit all the time. We don't just sit back and say "Oh well, it's nature, nothing I can do about it.". We divert rivers to irrigate crops. We build dams and canals to manipulate rivers to our liking. We seed clouds to make it rain. If a bunch of giant machines intent on exterminating us appeared and claimed they were a "force of nature", do you think that would make an iota of difference in how we'd react to them?

Modifié par someguy1231, 28 décembre 2012 - 05:59 .

[Kabooooom]

m*

HOW. IS. THAT. RELEVANT? Seriously, what point are you trying to make? Even if it's true, how does that mean we should perceive the Catalyst as anything but a genocidal, lunatic AI? You're just tugging at player's heartstrings, trying to make them see the "softer side" of an irredeemable, unfeeling aberration by claiming that we somehow "owe" him something.

I don't think that was his point/purpose at all. I think he was merely stating a fact, with no deeper meaning to it than that.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 28 décembre 2012 - 05:55 .

[CosmicGnosis]

My point is that we live in a vast, uncaring universe. We are subject to forces and potentially beings that shape our lives in ways that are difficult to comprehend. The universe will not bend to our wishes easily.

That is what you face in ME3's ending. You confront a being that doesn't care about you, and is not obligated to bow to your wishes; it's not subject to human morality. That's one of the reasons why the ending is so frustrating.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 28 décembre 2012 - 06:02 .

[Chashan]

The Catalyst's harvest cycle is essentially a force of nature.
Basically, it's an artificial extinction cycle that prevents organic
life from destroying itself. The cycle prevents things like
technological singularities, but it also prevents something else that
people often fail to consider: cultural subjugation.

[...]

"Like a cleansing fire, we restore balance. New life, both organic and synthetic, can once again flourish."

I can turn this right around:

As for the first, it is pretty clear that the creature was not imposed of any type of natural order, divine entity or anything of the sort. Indeed, it was a grand mistake, as admitted by its own creators.

As for the latter...I am certain it was brought up before, but the thing saying that makes it rather sound like an arsonist white-washing their own definite guilt. And the thing does not get away with doing that, simply put.


Had BW so wished, they could have imposed the impression of the thing being near-enough divine, an embodiment of inevitable cosmic fate. The way it is presented, however, it is anything but. Which may be on purpose to be, hopefully, expanded upon later on. Or else just one huge, non-sequitur blunder.
Assigning it such undeserved qualities as is just seems an exercise in futility to me. Not to mention that humanity and the other races of the most recent cycle do not have much to thank the creature for, really: had it not been for the Protheans' sabotage of the Keepers, the Reap-hurrs would have been unleashed on the galaxy around the beginning of our current era.
And, as evidenced in the game, the Reap-hurrs might just have decided that the cultures of antiquity could prove too great a threat to leave alone; I cannot recall the one planet's exact name, but it is mentioned somewhere that a bronze age-type civilisation got bombarded in Reaper-fashion. Despite those being nowhere near capable of launching into space, even.

Modifié par Chashan, 28 décembre 2012 - 06:05 .

[Sovereign330]

Convincing anti-enders to be pro-ender is like convincing people to change their religious, moral, or political stances.A complete waste of everyone's time.

[Kabooooom]

If a bunch of giant machines intent on exterminating us appeared and claimed they were a "force of nature", do you think that would make an iota of difference in how we'd react to them?

What is interesting about this is that of course the answer is a resounding "no", and that is the perspective of players for 99.9% of the Mass Effect trilogy. And yet, in the last ten minutes, the entity behind your mortal enemy, the veritable Wizard of Reaper Oz actually convinces a large number of players to choose to save the Reapers by choosing anything but to destroy them.

Totally hilarious to me.

[CosmicGnosis]

someguy1231 wrote...

*facepalm*

HOW. IS. THAT. RELEVANT? Seriously, what point are you trying to make? Even if it's true, how does that mean we should perceive the Catalyst as anything but a genocidal, lunatic AI? You're just tugging at player's heartstrings, trying to make them see the "softer side" of an irredeemable, unfeeling aberration by claiming that we somehow "owe" him something.

Oh, and describing the Catalyst's genocide as a "force of nature" is beyond absurd.

First, the Catalyst is an artificial construct, the opposite of "nature". It decided, for whatever faulty reasons, to exterminate all advanced galactic civilizations every 50,000 years. There is no "nature" here. Not at all. The entire reason for the existence of the cycles is due to the folly of sentient, sapient lifeforms.

Second, even if it were a "force of nature", so what? Here in the real world, humans manipulate nature to their benefit all the time. We don't just sit back and say "Oh well, it's nature, nothing I can do about it.". We divert rivers to irrigate crops. We build dams and canals to manipulate rivers to our liking. We seed clouds to make it rain. If a bunch of giant machines intent on exterminating us appeared and claimed they were a "force of nature", do you think that would make an iota of difference in how we'd react to them?

Science allows us to vanquish the impossible. I'm all for using science and technology to manipulate nature.

Also, I meant that the Catalyst has implemented something that is like a force of nature. Extinction events do happen. The cycle is simply an artificial extinction event.

I'm not saying that the Catalyst should be praised, worshiped, etc. I'm just saying that there is some merit in the goals of the cycle. The methods are very unpleasant, and I don't like them, either.

[CosmicGnosis]

Everyone, again, I'm not saying that the Catalyst deserves our unending praise. If an evil god created us for the sole purpose of toying with us, I would want that god destroyed as well. But that wouldn't change the fact that we exist because of that god.

[Sovereign330]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

*facepalm*

HOW. IS. THAT. RELEVANT? Seriously, what point are you trying to make? Even if it's true, how does that mean we should perceive the Catalyst as anything but a genocidal, lunatic AI? You're just tugging at player's heartstrings, trying to make them see the "softer side" of an irredeemable, unfeeling aberration by claiming that we somehow "owe" him something.

Oh, and describing the Catalyst's genocide as a "force of nature" is beyond absurd.

First, the Catalyst is an artificial construct, the opposite of "nature". It decided, for whatever faulty reasons, to exterminate all advanced galactic civilizations every 50,000 years. There is no "nature" here. Not at all. The entire reason for the existence of the cycles is due to the folly of sentient, sapient lifeforms.

Second, even if it were a "force of nature", so what? Here in the real world, humans manipulate nature to their benefit all the time. We don't just sit back and say "Oh well, it's nature, nothing I can do about it.". We divert rivers to irrigate crops. We build dams and canals to manipulate rivers to our liking. We seed clouds to make it rain. If a bunch of giant machines intent on exterminating us appeared and claimed they were a "force of nature", do you think that would make an iota of difference in how we'd react to them?

Science allows us to vanquish the impossible. I'm all for using science and technology to manipulate nature.

Also, I meant that the Catalyst has implemented something that is like a force of nature. Extinction events do happen. The cycle is simply an artificial extinction event.

I'm not saying that the Catalyst should be praised, worshiped, etc. I'm just saying that there is some merit in the goals of the cycle. The methods are very unpleasant, and I don't like them, either.

true. which is why you choose how you wanna stop it. control them and do it your way..make peace and end it once and for all..or destroy them all outright and move on.

[Eterna]

Rifneno wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Fire is not sentient. An intelligent being cannot compare its destruction to fire. If you can't grasp that distinction, there's really no hope for you.

Why are there people here that always enjoy implying that I'm stupid?

The statement is intended to convey the purpose of the cycle. It ensures that new life develops and has a chance at existence.

When you say things like "you owe your existence to the omnicidal rogue AI", you should probably expect people to imply there's some sort of mental defect at play.  Personally, I just think you're trolling.

Why is he wrong? Aside from you being butthurt about it I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why his statement is utrue. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 28 décembre 2012 - 06:20 .

[AresKeith]

Rifneno wrote...

[ChristianHarper]

wha?!