238 réponses à ce sujet

[InvincibleHero]

BleedingUranium wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...

Synthetics will never be a person they only simulate/emulate life.

Not this crap again. <_<

You take any standard defintion of any major dictionary and tell me how any of it applies to an existence such as geth if they truly existed. If people want to redefine the word to include other things than human beings fine, but that decision is not here and now or decided. The only smell is from the lack of facts and logic on your side of the equation.

Someone needs to replay ME2 and listen to the words of Legion more closely. He disproves your notion.

Modifié par InvincibleHero, 17 janvier 2013 - 09:05 .

[Meltemph]

Turning the reapers into slaves doesnlt feel like somehing they'd want.

Using tools born out of slavery and oppression, combined with the indoctrinated issue, and I honestly dont think it is justifiable using that technology(Reapers). You can make arguments for things like the reaper IFF, because it wasn't born out of subjugation, however, the construction of the reapers are based on the embodiment of the Leviathan(essentially the Illithid of Mass Effect).

Keeping around a synthetic construct with the construction of the beings purpose being one of slavery, to me, is using an excessive amount of hope and faith that everything will work out fine in the end, much more so then destroy.

[BleedingUranium]

InvincibleHero wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...

Synthetics will never be a person they only simulate/emulate life.

Not this crap again. <_<

You take any standard defintion of any major dictionary and tell me how any of it applies to an existence such as geth if they truly existed. If people want to redefine the word to include other things than human beings fine, but that decision is not here and now or decided. The only smell is from the lack of facts and logic on your side of the equation.

Someone needs to replay ME2 and listen to the words of Legion more closely. He disproves your notion.

We don't know if in real life AIs could be people, but even if they couldn't, they still would be in Mass Effect. What you're saying is that because magic doesn't exist in real life, then it can't exist in Lord Of The Rings.

Are Geth or EDI sapient? Let's check:

"Sapience is often defined as wisdom, or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment, a mental faculty which is a component of intelligence or alternatively may be considered an additional faculty, apart from intelligence, with its own properties."

Yes they are, that makes them people.

[Indy_S]

The act of perceiving the universe and interpreting it is enough to justify life in my book. That is philosophical thought not found in a major dictionary. I doubt a robot vacuum is capable of the interpreting part but the Geth clearly can. To me, they are alive and killing them is a painful experience.

However I still picked Destroy because I don't want their influence around in the future.

[KyreneZA]

Oh this one's easy: the Catalyst (a Reaper) is not to be trusted, therefore literal Destroy quite possibly only destroys Reapers. Little Starbrat only throws in the "all synthetics" line to poison the well.

[Applepie_Svk]

it´s not antisynthetic it´s anti-reaper... the synthetic life is only as a bargain chip which holds Catalyst for the victims in the final minutes as the way to ensure that Shepard will be more opened to synthesis or control.

Catalyst is either very dumb or just very big liar because he creates so flawed logic which he is using as absolute. His logic is by his own definition and definition of space infinite, how are you going to solve problem which is infinite ?

It´s only anti-synthetic if you are taking Catalyst´s mantra as a saint grail...and that´s the irony because actually the Catalyst is the one which creates this agenda and problem.

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 17 janvier 2013 - 11:16 .

[ZeCollectorDestroya]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Gallifreya wrote...

They can be rebuilt. What is your point again?

That's like we can just birth/hatch more organics.

Wrong, how can you get this wrong? It's completely different for a Synthetic. For a Geth, it would take 2 days to BUILD one and RESTORE it's memories. You can't do that with an Organic, it would take 25 years to CREATE an organic, and you can't give him memories that have passed.

[ZeCollectorDestroya]

InvincibleHero wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...

Synthetics will never be a person they only simulate/emulate life.

Not this crap again. <_<

You take any standard defintion of any major dictionary and tell me how any of it applies to an existence such as geth if they truly existed. If people want to redefine the word to include other things than human beings fine, but that decision is not here and now or decided. The only smell is from the lack of facts and logic on your side of the equation.

Someone needs to replay ME2 and listen to the words of Legion more closely. He disproves your notion.

Organics are like machines. They/we are just squishy and cannot do the things that a Synthetic can do and we have some things that a Synthetic can't do.

Compare yourself to a PC (Overall, not going into specific details.) They both have a centre (CPU-Brain) they both have something to perceive things (GPU-Eyes) they both have an outside (Case-Skin) they both have an inside (Motherboard-Central Internal Organs)

[BleedingUranium]

Yep, we're the same thing made of different stuff.

[BD Manchild]

Oh good Lord, this thread is a train-wreck. Hearing some people's justifications for why they pick the ending they pick is like... what's that analogy somebody used earlier... listening to a serial killer come up with increasingly insane justifications for why he does what he does.

[BleedingUranium]

In that case, maybe you should watch this video.

[BD Manchild]

BleedingUranium wrote...

In that case, maybe you should watch this video.

It took me a while to realise that this was basically a 50-minute Destroy-worshipping, Indoctrination Theory-justifying session. It certainly makes no effort to explain why the Catalyst even offers you the choice of destroying him and the Reapers, or why using the Reapers' own methods of destroying entire races, is a good thing (I noticed the video completely ignored Shepard's rejection of the "ruthless calculus of war" in the Paragon choice, which set off more than a few alarm bells about what's essentially a piece of propaganda). I am not convinced.

Modifié par BD Manchild, 17 janvier 2013 - 02:41 .

[BleedingUranium]

BD Manchild wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

In that case, maybe you should watch this video.

It took me a while to realise that this was basically a 50-minute Destroy-worshipping, Indoctrination Theory-justifying session. It certainly makes no effort to explain why the Catalyst even offers you the choice of destroying him and the Reapers, or why using the Reapers' own methods of destroying entire races, still embracing at least one of the Catalyst's nut-bag visions of the universe and essentially becoming a bully, is a good thing. I am not convinced.

That's actually not true in the slightest. Why he offers you the choice to destroy them isn't the point, and it's not an IT video. You enter the room, and the leader of the Reapers says you can either destroy them, control them, which is really a trap, or "merge with them" which is also, unsurprisingly, a trap.

[BD Manchild]

BleedingUranium wrote...


That's actually not true in the slightest. Why he offers you the choice to destroy them isn't the point, and it's not an IT video. You enter the room, and the leader of the Reapers says you can either destroy them, control them, which is really a trap, or "merge with them" which is also, unsurprisingly, a trap.

****ing hell, listen to yourself. You're taking what's basically a theory (perhaps not IT, but it's damn-near close enough) and acting like it's cold hard fact.

Modifié par BD Manchild, 17 janvier 2013 - 02:46 .

[BleedingUranium]

BD Manchild wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...


That's actually not true in the slightest. Why he offers you the choice to destroy them isn't the point, and it's not an IT video. You enter the room, and the leader of the Reapers says you can either destroy them, control them, which is really a trap, or "merge with them" which is also, unsurprisingly, a trap.

****ing hell, listen to yourself. You're taking what's basically a theory (perhaps not IT, but it's damn-near close enough) and acting like it's cold hard fact.

Let's break it down, since you refuse to watch the video.

The kid is the leader of the Reapers. True.

Control and Synthesis are the two solutions and tactics the Reapers have always used. True.

He wants you to pick them. True.

You're doing what the Reaper leader wants you to do, and I'm crazy for calling it indoctrination? Accepting the Reapers' goals and logic is exactly what indoctrination is, therefore, by picking Control or Synthesis, you have become indoctrinated by the Reapers in real life.

The best part is, that's true whether Bioware intended it or not and whether IT is ME3 or not.

[BD Manchild]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Let's break it down, since you refuse to watch the video.

I'm gonna stop you right there. I did watch the video, and while a lot of thought's been put into it, it's still one person's thought process for why they picked a particular ending, just like the countless other ways people attempt to justify why one ending's better than the other. I could go on all day about my thought processes when choosing Refuse as my preferred ending, and it'd be the same as that video, except I wouldn't even try to pretend that my choice was the "right" one like this video and just about everybody on this forum does. All such a thing does is preach to the choir. Thought processes, no matter how reasonable or well thought-out they may be, don't make any of the endings the "correct" one.

Modifié par BD Manchild, 17 janvier 2013 - 03:04 .

[BleedingUranium]

I'm not sure you know how to use the word "theory", but at any rate, can you prove any of it wrong?

[BD Manchild]

BleedingUranium wrote...

I'm not sure you know how to use the word "theory", but at any rate, can you prove any of it wrong?

No, but that doesn't automatically make it the only "right" way to interpret things. Not everybody plays this game the same way; not everybody has the exact same Shepard running around.

[BleedingUranium]

BD Manchild wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

I'm not sure you know how to use the word "theory", but at any rate, can you prove any of it wrong?

No, but that doesn't automatically make it the only "right" way to interpret things. Not everybody plays this game the same way; not everybody has the exact same Shepard running around.

Well, you haven't been able to counter it so far. It's not like what I'm saying is really out there or anything. I'm saying the leader of the Reapers is trying to manipulate you, and you find that hard to believe.

[BD Manchild]

BleedingUranium wrote...

BD Manchild wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

I'm not sure you know how to use the word "theory", but at any rate, can you prove any of it wrong?

No, but that doesn't automatically make it the only "right" way to interpret things. Not everybody plays this game the same way; not everybody has the exact same Shepard running around.

Well, you haven't been able to counter it so far. It's not like what I'm saying is really out there or anything. I'm saying the leader of the Reapers is trying to manipulate you, and you find that hard to believe.

I'm not saying I find it hard to believe, as I know full well what the Reapers do. That's not what I'm saying at all. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I'm just saying, for the millionth time, that the video only shows someone's thought processes in choosing their ending (and frankly, when it comes to the Destroy choice, I couldn't help but feel it played like a propaganda piece).

Modifié par BD Manchild, 17 janvier 2013 - 03:20 .

[BleedingUranium]

And I'm asking you where that thought process is flawed.

[BD Manchild]

BleedingUranium wrote...

And I'm asking you where that thought process is flawed.

Well, I can tell you one part where it's significantly flawed, if we were to treat it as an attempt to show Destroy as the only "correct" way (which, going by the way the video is presented and the way people blather on about it, it's keen to do); it doesn't even attempt to address the notion that some people may find the prospect of killing off EDI and the Geth repulsive, nor does it attempt to reconcile Destroy with those whose Shepards told Garrus that they rejected the "ruthless calculus of war", that reducing the war to math would make them no better than the Reapers. In fact, when it comes to looking at the Destroy option, I honestly felt it played like a propaganda piece; it doesn't explore both sides of the argument and form a conclusion based on that and is highly selective in the clips it shows. That's why I don't buy into it so wholeheartedly; I can see where he's coming from, but his argument falls apart at the last hurdle. It's nothing but his personal thought process in choosing the ending; it's correct as far as he's concerned, but it's not the universal truth.

Modifié par BD Manchild, 17 janvier 2013 - 03:44 .