439 réponses à ce sujet

[deatharmonic]

Eterna5 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

The circumstances doesn't change the fact that they rebelled and almost drove an organic species to extinction.  If Shepard wasn;t there the Quarians would have went extinct. 

If the Reapers weren't there the Quarians could well have wiped out the Geth. 

But instead they chose to forcibly take control of them and use the Geth as weapons against the Quarians, comepelling them to wipe out a species of organics, an action which contradicts their purpose and objective in two ways.

In the morning war if the Geth hadn't shown mercy the Quarians would have been dead. Also, what the Geth did afterwards really doesn;t matter. The fact remains they rebelled, just as the Catalyst said. An AI like the Catalyst doesn't care about circumstance. 

The motives, reasons and outcome do not matter, they still rebelled. 

Ok, after having read enough of this from the first page, you seem to be selecting a bit of starkids argument and using that to support your own. You are missing out the other HUGE chunk of his logic. YES he does say synthetics will rebel but he also concludes that they will always wipe out organics! You can't just conveniently take the first part of that argument and ignore the second. So let us do this properly and look at the complete premise of his logic.

- Civilisations will eventually become so advanced, they will create synthetics which will inevitably rebel AND wipe out organic life -

Now, even the morning war example you gave shows that synthetics won't wipe out organic life (even though they had the chance) despite rebelling. So that doesn't really do anything to support startkids logic. To address the premise more precisely. I feel it's a fairly obvious assumption to make, saying a civilisation so advanced could create synthetics with the capability of rebelling, as can be observed by the creation of EDI. However, that alone didn't warrant the creation of the reapers, it's the assumption that said synthetic life would inevitably destroy organics which did. That's where starkids logic falls down because so far nothing indicates that synthetics will indeed wipe out organics. Going back to the morning war example, the geth had the chance to wipe out the quarians but they didn't. So yes they rebelled but showed no desire wipe them out. From that it can be understood that the geth have the capacity and even the willingness to live in peace, as opposed to wipe out organics. This is again reflected during the reaper war. Shep is instrumental in ending the geth/quarian conflict but his success hinges on the geth being receptive to a peaceful co-existence.

For the sake of argument, let's say the geths intentions to peacefully coexist doesn't matter and what starkid means by synthetics wiping out organics is, the extinction of organics would merely be incidental. In other words, the geth wipe out the quarians because of the quarians refusal to let them live peacefully. They're still incapable of wiping out all organic life.

Starkid got one thing right, and that is advanced synthetics will rebel but the claim they will wipe out organic life is unfounded.

Modifié par deatharmonic, 01 janvier 2013 - 06:00 .

[Mcfly616]

geceka wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...
Look, I myself find the repetition of the image endlessly moronic, but how is it an indication that the ending went "waaay over their heads"?

That picture embodies an explanation of the catalyst's reasoning that is simply not true – It's not a clever simplification of the dialogue, as it omits crucial information to the point where it entirely distorts what the game tells you.

A common way to check if someone actually understands what you're telling them is to have them repeat it in their own words. That meme picture is like an uncalled-for attempt to do so, and it's simply not a correct rendition of what has been presented.

Sure, people frequently post it just to troll, knowing it's not factually correct, but if someone posts it thinking it's a clever simplification of the plot to point out "circular reasoning", then yes, I'd also be inclined to deduce that the ending went over their head.

Simplifying something by preserving its meaning is a display of cleverness, simplifying something in a way that omits crucial traits is not.

pretty much: This


Well said...

[drinkurmilk]

dreamgazer wrote...

chrisutd wrote...

Reapers are not entirely synthetic. Branding them as "synthetics to kill organics" is reductive as it looks past the catalyst's true reasoning for their creation - organic preservation.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with being reductive when it digs to the heart of a matter, and it does. As hollow as the "Yo Dawg" version of the argument appears, there's merit behind finding that schema heavily problematic.

Except this meme crops up when people decide that the catalyst's reasoning is nonsensical, rather than flawed. 

Yet no one argues that the catalyst's methods are perfect.  Same goes for OP.

[Eterna]

Abraham_uk wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

 Yep. Tonight on of my girlfriends came over and I convinced her to play the end of ME3.

You mean friends that happen to be female?

Or are you suggesting that you're an adulterer?

I've been over this.It's the first one. 

[Steelcan]

Eterna5 wrote...

 Yep. Tonight on of my girlfriends came over and I convinced her to play the end of ME3. When the Starkid appeared she said the typical "wut"

 I was sure she would end up being confused by what she said, but I couldn't believe the words that came out of her mouth. She said, and I quote: "Oh I get it, so the Reapers are like fire. They burn away the bigger trees so the smaller trees have a chance to grow".

 I literally laughed out loud and so did she when the Catalyst said his cleansing fire line. She ended up picking synthesis. She said the ending was pretty good, but depressing. 

 So my question is, why cant you guys comprehend the Catalysts logic when a complete newbie to the series can? 

Fire doesn't have free will.  Fire isn't "preserving" life, it is destroying it but also letting in new life.

I understand him perfectly, he's just delusional

[Taboo]

Steelcan wrote...

Fire doesn't have free will.  Fire isn't "preserving" life, it is destroying it but also letting in new life.

I understand him perfectly, he's just delusional

Five points to anyone who can tell me what happens to fire when it runs out of things to use for fuel!

What an utterly pathetic statement the Catalyst makes.

[MegaSovereign]

I understood the premise but I did not believe the galaxy needed a genetic rewrite to solve something that can be avoided through level-headed diplomacy as demonstrated by Shepard.

With EDI and the Geth I believe my Shepard was already making great progress. The only ending that fully preserves Shepard's efforts is the Control ending and not everyone agrees with that option. Hence the backlash.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 01 janvier 2013 - 07:32 .

[The Spamming Troll]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Fire doesn't have free will.  Fire isn't "preserving" life, it is destroying it but also letting in new life.

I understand him perfectly, he's just delusional

Five points to anyone who can tell me what happens to fire when it runs out of things to use for fuel!

What an utterly pathetic statement the Catalyst makes.

hey!

ive missed you.

[ld1449]

I can understand his logic. I just find it retarded

Just because I can understand the "Logic" behind an Ork's sense of "tactics" in the 40k universe doesn't make said tactics any less stupid.

Its the same thing here.

He contradicts himself constantly, he has no evidence to support his claim, his methodology is asinine and the outcomes he OFFERS you are little more than Mass Genocide Mass Slavery and Mass Rape.

[Mcfly616]

MegaSovereign wrote...


With EDI and the Geth I believe my Shepard was already making great progress. The only ending that fully preserves Shepard's efforts is the Control ending and not everyone agrees with that option. Hence the backlash.

and this is why I find the endings so beautiful. There's no easy way out.

[Mcfly616]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Fire doesn't have free will.  Fire isn't "preserving" life, it is destroying it but also letting in new life.

I understand him perfectly, he's just delusional

Five points to anyone who can tell me what happens to fire when it runs out of things to use for fuel!

What an utterly pathetic statement the Catalyst makes.

hey!

ive missed you.

me too actually....was just wondering about you a few days ago


Miranda still sucks though lol


I kid, I kid....

[Wayning_Star]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Fire doesn't have free will.  Fire isn't "preserving" life, it is destroying it but also letting in new life.

I understand him perfectly, he's just delusional

Five points to anyone who can tell me what happens to fire when it runs out of things to use for fuel!

What an utterly pathetic statement the Catalyst makes.

Not from a billions years old being with energies not understandable via provided information. Besides, such a descriptor is merely representive, not canon.

fire is a natural occurance and is probably considered the first thing that humans retain as 'technological'.

[3DandBeyond]

Eterna5 wrote...

 Yep. Tonight on of my girlfriends came over and I convinced her to play the end of ME3. When the Starkid appeared she said the typical "wut"

 I was sure she would end up being confused by what she said, but I couldn't believe the words that came out of her mouth. She said, and I quote: "Oh I get it, so the Reapers are like fire. They burn away the bigger trees so the smaller trees have a chance to grow".

 I literally laughed out loud and so did she when the Catalyst said his cleansing fire line. She ended up picking synthesis. She said the ending was pretty good, but depressing. 

 So my question is, why cant you guys comprehend the Catalysts logic when a complete newbie to the series can? 

Really, so this is what it all boils down to for you?  And this is why Shepard must help the catalyst so that he can burn away the detritus that is all advanced organic life in the galaxy?  You honestly think we didn't understand the whole "fire burns" thingie?  And that completely goes along with his purpose of finding balance, peace, and a connection between synthetics and organics?  Please, you aren't even trying anymore.

I can see where the ending would make some sense to someone who never played the games before, hence the problem.  The endings make little sense to anyone who actually did play the games before since they disregard major thoughts the main character might have formulated in confronting problems, as well as they ignore choices made previously. 

So, it's wonderful for you that someone with no concern or knowledge of the game can agree with you-it's totally irrelevant to the "discussion" that has taken place since March.  Well, it is relevant, because your friend is exactly the person that BW was trying to appeal to and your one person evidence (wow, now that's a majority) suggests it worked.

That is such a minor part of what is going on in the ending as to make me wonder if this OP is serious.  We fully understand that the kid is cultivating the "crops" that are ripe for the picking, but that is not even his purpose-it's merely his explanation as to how he goes about fulfilling his purpose.  It does nothing to make his logic any better at all since he's still destroying organics in order to save organics-personally I don't care to die in order that one day a fly might evolve and be advanced enough for the reapers to come and harvest.  This thread can be summed up with one word---DUH!

[3DandBeyond]

MegaSovereign wrote...

I understood the premise but I did not believe the galaxy needed a genetic rewrite to solve something that can be avoided through level-headed diplomacy as demonstrated by Shepard.

With EDI and the Geth I believe my Shepard was already making great progress. The only ending that fully preserves Shepard's efforts is the Control ending and not everyone agrees with that option. Hence the backlash.

This.

[xxskyshadowxx]

Eterna5 wrote...

 Yep. Tonight on of my girlfriends came over and I convinced her to play the end of ME3. When the Starkid appeared she said the typical "wut"

 I was sure she would end up being confused by what she said, but I couldn't believe the words that came out of her mouth. She said, and I quote: "Oh I get it, so the Reapers are like fire. They burn away the bigger trees so the smaller trees have a chance to grow".

 I literally laughed out loud and so did she when the Catalyst said his cleansing fire line. She ended up picking synthesis. She said the ending was pretty good, but depressing. 

 So my question is, why cant you guys comprehend the Catalysts logic when a complete newbie to the series can? 

Had the game storyline been this way from ME1, others wouldn't have been confused at all. The overlying plot has always been Synthetics versus Organics, but it has been told inconsistently since the first game's release.

ME1: Synthetics (Reapers) versus Organics (basically everyone else) because Organics are chaotic and Reapers hate chaos. Sovereign calls them an accident and explains that the Reapers bring about order to the chaos of organic evolution. When asked who created it, it responds "We have no beginning and we have no end." No mention of Organics versus Synthetics bringing about chaos is mentioned, in fact the Reapers actively encourage an "Organics versus Synthetics" scenario because Organics themselves are chaotic. They use the Geth to help with this.

ME2: This is basically a filler game that introductes a lot of characters with great character development. The Synthetics versus Organics thing is still prevalent but it focuses more on the Geth...well kinda. The Reapers are still there...it seems the writers weren't quite sure what to do with them. I'm still a bit confused by the giant Human Reaper Terminator thing...meh whatever. Shepard killed it.

ME3: Remember the themes from ME1? The writers didn't. Maybe they should have played it again before making ME3. The characters they spent all of ME2 developing are largely abandoned, relegating ME2 as mostly a waste of time/money. Synthetics versus Organics comes back as a theme again...but wait, it causes chaos now? And that's bad....for some reason. The Reapers are no longer structuring and bringing order to Organic evolution anymore, they are simply Synthetics killing off (sorry...ascending) organics because synthetics will eventually fight organics and  that causes terrible bad chaos stuff. They no longer are without a beginning or end...they have a very specific beginning and reason for existing. Things professed as "Bad" in the previous games are the only solution choices in this game. The fact that Reapers are Synthetic as well..and are fighting Organics and therefore must also be causing the nasty bad chaos thing is not touched upon at all. The fact that previous conflict with Synthetics (Reapers excluded) may have been resolved, depending on player choice (remember player choice? Wish the devs did) is also not touched upon. The Space Kid's logic is not something that is difficult to understand...this theme and how it was presented has been done numerous times before in books, movies, television and games...what makes people sit back with a "WTF?!" look on their face is the fact that the writers couldn't maintain continuity within their own mythos.

Modifié par xxskyshadowxx, 01 janvier 2013 - 08:00 .

[Wayning_Star]

3DandBeyond wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

I understood the premise but I did not believe the galaxy needed a genetic rewrite to solve something that can be avoided through level-headed diplomacy as demonstrated by Shepard.

With EDI and the Geth I believe my Shepard was already making great progress. The only ending that fully preserves Shepard's efforts is the Control ending and not everyone agrees with that option. Hence the backlash.

This.

diplomacy with mother nature? good luck with that..lol

[3DandBeyond]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Fire doesn't have free will.  Fire isn't "preserving" life, it is destroying it but also letting in new life.

I understand him perfectly, he's just delusional

Five points to anyone who can tell me what happens to fire when it runs out of things to use for fuel!

What an utterly pathetic statement the Catalyst makes.

Yes, fire does burn to make way for new life, but along the way it destroys so much.  The line is stupid-fire has no intelligence, but some guy using a blowtorch to light it certainly does have some mental process at work (I can't call it intelligence necessarily).

The catalyst doesn't care about new life or any life-he "cares" about his purpose.  He knows he's destroying things (says so about Leviathan).  Fire has no such knowledge. 

And your point is that once fire can find nothing to keep it going, it stops.  The conflict the kid was created to solve no longer exists but he still loves his blowtorch.

[Taboo]

Wayning_Star wrote...
Not from a billions years old being with energies not understandable via provided information. Besides, such a descriptor is merely representive, not canon.

fire is a natural occurance and is probably considered the first thing that humans retain as 'technological'.

Science is not unethical. MAN however is. Consistently throughout Western media you see "science gone wrong" all the time. I myself bought the Anthology Edition of Resident Evil and have been playing through all those games for the first time.

If there's one thing I've noticed it's that there are good intentions at some level but it ALWAYS comes back to bite us in the ass.

The Star Child prevents a hypothetical problem.

Just as putting out a campfire can prevent a hypothetical forest fire.

[Wayning_Star]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

 Yep. Tonight on of my girlfriends came over and I convinced her to play the end of ME3. When the Starkid appeared she said the typical "wut"

 I was sure she would end up being confused by what she said, but I couldn't believe the words that came out of her mouth. She said, and I quote: "Oh I get it, so the Reapers are like fire. They burn away the bigger trees so the smaller trees have a chance to grow".

 I literally laughed out loud and so did she when the Catalyst said his cleansing fire line. She ended up picking synthesis. She said the ending was pretty good, but depressing. 

 So my question is, why cant you guys comprehend the Catalysts logic when a complete newbie to the series can? 

Really, so this is what it all boils down to for you?  And this is why Shepard must help the catalyst so that he can burn away the detritus that is all advanced organic life in the galaxy?  You honestly think we didn't understand the whole "fire burns" thingie?  And that completely goes along with his purpose of finding balance, peace, and a connection between synthetics and organics?  Please, you aren't even trying anymore.

I can see where the ending would make some sense to someone who never played the games before, hence the problem.  The endings make little sense to anyone who actually did play the games before since they disregard major thoughts the main character might have formulated in confronting problems, as well as they ignore choices made previously. 

So, it's wonderful for you that someone with no concern or knowledge of the game can agree with you-it's totally irrelevant to the "discussion" that has taken place since March.  Well, it is relevant, because your friend is exactly the person that BW was trying to appeal to and your one person evidence (wow, now that's a majority) suggests it worked.

That is such a minor part of what is going on in the ending as to make me wonder if this OP is serious.  We fully understand that the kid is cultivating the "crops" that are ripe for the picking, but that is not even his purpose-it's merely his explanation as to how he goes about fulfilling his purpose.  It does nothing to make his logic any better at all since he's still destroying organics in order to save organics-personally I don't care to die in order that one day a fly might evolve and be advanced enough for the reapers to come and harvest.  This thread can be summed up with one word---DUH!

no, it's 'harvesting' organics to preserve them, just like we do fruits'n veggies. It's an ugly world, but some thing has just got to save it.

Everyone 'relies' on the word 'killed' or other buzz words to describe harvest, but NONE can/will explain the necessity for the saveing of such 'stuff'. Like it's just a by product and has no purpose.

[Kabraxal]

Wayning_Star wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

I understood the premise but I did not believe the galaxy needed a genetic rewrite to solve something that can be avoided through level-headed diplomacy as demonstrated by Shepard.

With EDI and the Geth I believe my Shepard was already making great progress. The only ending that fully preserves Shepard's efforts is the Control ending and not everyone agrees with that option. Hence the backlash.

This.

diplomacy with mother nature? good luck with that..lol

Except the peace with geth and acceptance and love of EDI quite clearly shows coexistence is possible.  Oops.  Mother nature was clearly unreasonable there 

[Wayning_Star]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...
Not from a billions years old being with energies not understandable via provided information. Besides, such a descriptor is merely representive, not canon.

fire is a natural occurance and is probably considered the first thing that humans retain as 'technological'.

Science is not unethical. MAN however is. Consistently throughout Western media you see "science gone wrong" all the time. I myself bought the Anthology Edition of Resident Evil and have been playing through all those games for the first time.

If there's one thing I've noticed it's that there are good intentions at some level but it ALWAYS comes back to bite us in the ass.

The Star Child prevents a hypothetical problem.

Just as putting out a campfire can prevent a hypothetical forest fire.

technology is fire and it will burn you if it becomes you. simple really.

(like a spider on a hot stove, as it were..

[Kabraxal]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...
Not from a billions years old being with energies not understandable via provided information. Besides, such a descriptor is merely representive, not canon.

fire is a natural occurance and is probably considered the first thing that humans retain as 'technological'.

Science is not unethical. MAN however is. Consistently throughout Western media you see "science gone wrong" all the time. I myself bought the Anthology Edition of Resident Evil and have been playing through all those games for the first time.

If there's one thing I've noticed it's that there are good intentions at some level but it ALWAYS comes back to bite us in the ass.

The Star Child prevents a hypothetical problem.

Just as putting out a campfire can prevent a hypothetical forest fire.

By that logic it's okay to go around shooting random people... you know, if they live they just might crash into a bus full of kids or something.  You know, while we're preventing... why not just nuke all life, organic and synthetic, out of existence!  All our problems are solved! 

[ElementL09]

Catalyst Logic: "I'll fight FIRE with a BIGGER FIRE"

Thats all you need to understand about the Catalyst logic becuase thats all there is to it.

[3DandBeyond]

Wayning_Star wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

I understood the premise but I did not believe the galaxy needed a genetic rewrite to solve something that can be avoided through level-headed diplomacy as demonstrated by Shepard.

With EDI and the Geth I believe my Shepard was already making great progress. The only ending that fully preserves Shepard's efforts is the Control ending and not everyone agrees with that option. Hence the backlash.

This.

diplomacy with mother nature? good luck with that..lol

Ha ha ha!  He's talking about diplomacy to solve conflicts between people.  The conflict at hand (reapers and all organic life) has nothing to do with mother nature.  And I said it-all organic life.  The kid targets advanced organic life and leaves lesser organic life-but in 50k years that organic life will be the target.  It seems he won't be sated until organic life stops advancing (evolving).  Preferably all life would remain non-sentient or would no longer exist in the category "organic".  Once it becomes a hybrid it is no longer organic and so the equation of synthetics vs organics = conflict would no longer exist.