112 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

A good one would be the arrival of the naval officer at the end of Lord of the Flies. While a cruiser showing up at the island someday isn't all that unlikely, showing up at the exact moment to save Ralph's life is an incredible coincidence. A pretty bad one would be Spock's blindness getting better in the ST: TOS episode Operation: Annihilate. When it came up for novelization this one embarrassed James Blish so much that he rewrote almost the whole episode.

[CynicalShep]

Haven't read the book. Didn't they set the forest on fire? That would make for a pretty big smoke alarm, one that has a better chance of being seen. A small campfire is unlikely to be seen by passing vessels, unless they get really close. A burning forest is a whole different thing.

[cyrslash1974]

AlanC9 wrote...

cyrslash1974 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Because he can't engage in a futile argument, you mean?

I think peace Quarian - Geth or the fact that the Synthetics are fighting the reapers with organics is not a futile argument for me.

In fact, this peace is only for war assets, but should have more impact during the discussion between the catalyst and Shepard.

Maybe the catalyst was right in the past, but now this logic is false : he could be challenged.

Sure. But Shepard being able to make an argument and the Catalyst accepting that argument are not the same thing.

Let's say Bio decided to put the challenge in but the Catalyst still doesn't listen. Does that make the ending better, or worse? Like I said upthread, this is the Refuse argument all over again.

Other examples :

- when the Catalyst explained that "he wants to
preserve organic life", Shepard could tell him that preserving DNA and
preserving life is not the same thing (using example of how the human
reaper has been built)

- or based on the discussion with
Sovereign, Shep could explain that the mass relays, built by reapers,
help organic life to develop their knowledge, their technology and the
consequence is the creation of synthetics. So if there is a war between
synthetics and organics, this is mainly because of reapers technology
(remember discussion with Sovereign in ME1).

Using reject is an action, not a constructive dialog based on the experience of Shepard (ie the player)  through 3 games.

However I thing that is not the good thread to discuss that.

[Chashan]

CynicalShep wrote...

Haven't read the book. Didn't they set the forest on fire? That would make for a pretty big smoke alarm, one that has a better chance of being seen. A small campfire is unlikely to be seen by passing vessels, unless they get really close. A burning forest is a whole different thing.

Been a while since I read it, but yes, the kiddos did light up a good chunk of the island at some point, then seen by the vessel.

As for the thread's initial suggestion: yes, a possible path of that like would have been...goofy, true, but satisfying as well. Just as it was in FO3, and certainly a deal more preferable to what it ended up being.
Of course, as already put forward, simplest solution is to simply leave the entire decision-chamber with creature and all somewhere on the cutting room floor, to be conveniently forgotten...

[Dean_the_Young]

cyrslash1974 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

cyrslash1974 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Because he can't engage in a futile argument, you mean?

I think peace Quarian - Geth or the fact that the Synthetics are fighting the reapers with organics is not a futile argument for me.

In fact, this peace is only for war assets, but should have more impact during the discussion between the catalyst and Shepard.

Maybe the catalyst was right in the past, but now this logic is false : he could be challenged.

Sure. But Shepard being able to make an argument and the Catalyst accepting that argument are not the same thing.

Let's say Bio decided to put the challenge in but the Catalyst still doesn't listen. Does that make the ending better, or worse? Like I said upthread, this is the Refuse argument all over again.

Other examples :

- when the Catalyst explained that "he wants to
preserve organic life", Shepard could tell him that preserving DNA and
preserving life is not the same thing (using example of how the human
reaper has been built)

That's the same issue as before. More to the point, it's a disputation of definition that no one is obliged to accept: the Reapers's combination of genetic and mental preservation (in the minds within the gestalt) can be considered life so long as it fits the concept of life that the Catalyst is programmed to understand.

At that point, you're argument dissolves into an exchange of 'is not!' and 'is too!'

- or based on the discussion with
Sovereign, Shep could explain that the mass relays, built by reapers,
help organic life to develop their knowledge, their technology and the
consequence is the creation of synthetics. So if there is a war between
synthetics and organics, this is mainly because of reapers technology
(remember discussion with Sovereign in ME1).

This argument is factually wrong, since wars between organics and synthetics far predate the relays. The Catalyst already has the superior counter-argument: it was around to study pre-relay conflicts between organics and synthetics.

[Fixers0]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's the same issue as before. More to the point, it's a disputation of definition that no one is obliged to accept: the Reapers's combination of genetic and mental preservation (in the minds within the gestalt) can be considered life so long as it fits the concept of life that the Catalyst is programmed to understand.

And what if that "life" gets destroyed by the warships of organic Races?

Modifié par Fixers0, 17 février 2013 - 01:30 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Fixers0 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's the same issue as before. More to the point, it's a disputation of definition that no one is obliged to accept: the Reapers's combination of genetic and mental preservation (in the minds within the gestalt) can be considered life so long as it fits the concept of life that the Catalyst is programmed to understand.

And what if that "life" gets destroyed by the warships of organic Races?

What about it? It's a cost that is endured in the pursuit of the objective as the Reapers attempt to re-assert the Cycle. It's not something they embrace, but it's not a logical error/fatal logic crash to not be perfect and it's certainly a risk they're willing to take to keep the Cycle... lest, you know, that bigger presumed threat arise if they don't.

It still doesn't change the definition in question: that the Catalyst believes Reaperhood is a valid form of preserving the life of a species. What happens after that doesn't challenge the definition.

[Fixers0]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
What about it? It's a cost that is endured in the pursuit of the objective as the Reapers attempt to re-assert the Cycle. It's not something they embrace,but it's not a logical error/fatal logic crash to not be perfect
and it's certainly a risk they're willing to take to keep the Cycle

I'd really like to know where you've got that information, other then your headcannon.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
It still doesn't change the definition in question: that the Catalyst believes Reaperhood is a valid form of preserving the life of a species. What happens after that doesn't challenge the definition.

It does, actually as Reaperhood brings the almost certain risk of getting destroyed one way or the other, especially when there are better solutions.

Modifié par Fixers0, 17 février 2013 - 02:03 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Fixers0 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
What about it? It's a cost that is endured in the pursuit of the objective as the Reapers attempt to re-assert the Cycle. It's not something they embrace,but it's not a logical error/fatal logic crash to not be perfect
and it's certainly a risk they're willing to take to keep the Cycle

I'd really like to know where you've got that information, other then your headcannon.

That they're willing to take risks?

Uh, the fact that they send Reapers into battles in which they can be destroyed. In a war in which, if they win, they can re-assert the cycle as they intend.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
It still doesn't change the definition in question: that the Catalyst believes Reaperhood is a valid form of preserving the life of a species. What happens after that doesn't challenge the definition.

It does, actually as Reaperhood brings the almost certain risk of getting destroyed one way or the other, especially when there are better solutions.

A Reaper being destroyed doesn't challenge whether a Reaper is a form of preservation. You're confusing a definition (in this case, what is considered life) with a counter to a separate objective (the Catalyst wants to preserve life).

What you're probably intending to argue against, however, has its own explanation: the Catalyst values life in general, but preserving every individual life (or every species) from extinction is not it's absolute priority. We know the first because, hey, cycle and preserving species as Reapers and killing off the rest. We know the second because the Reapers are willing to risk their bodies in the pursuit of the Cycle.

If you want to get super-technical, to more machine-logic, preserving life is also a separate thing from keeping life preserved. As far as logical conditionals go, if the Catalyst's programmed preservationist objectives are satisfied once the species are put into Reaper form, then what happens after that is irrelevant. It would be the logical analog of, say, a gasolite pump filling up your car's gas tank, but not keeping it filled after you drive away: it's purpose (filling your tank) isn't the same as keeping the end-state achieved.

[Fixers0]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
A Reaper being destroyed doesn't challenge whether a Reaper is a form of preservation. You're confusing a definition (in this case, what is considered life) with a counter to a separate objective (the Catalyst wants to preserve life).

A Reaper being destroyed means the loss of the very life the Catalyst is trying to prevere, if we even can go as far as accepting it's logic, which is highly questionable.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
What you're probably intending to argue against, however, has its own explanation: the Catalyst values life in general, but preserving every individual life (or every species) from extinction is not it's absolute priority. We know the first because, hey, cycle and preserving species as Reapers and killing off the rest. We know the second because the Reapers are willing to risk their bodies in the pursuit of the Cycle.

A baselesss deduction, you shouldn't invent things which aren't there.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
If you want to get super-technical, to more machine-logic, preserving life is also a separate thing from keeping life preserved. As far as logical conditionals go, if the Catalyst's programmed preservationist objectives are satisfied once the species are put into Reaper form,then what happens after that is irrelevant.

Hence it's entire logic is absolute garbage.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
It would be the logical analog of, say, a gasolite pump filling up your car's gas tank, but not keeping it filled after you drive away: it's purpose (filling your tank) isn't the same as keeping the end-state achieved.

Which only goes up if Starbrat is comparable to a gasolite pump, which t isn't.

[Fixers0]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
A Reaper being destroyed doesn't challenge whether a Reaper is a form of preservation. You're confusing a definition (in this case, what is considered life) with a counter to a separate objective (the Catalyst wants to preserve life).

A Reaper being destroyed means the loss of the very life the Catalyst is trying to prevere, if we even can go as far as accepting it's logic, which is highly questionable.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
What you're probably intending to argue against, however, has its own explanation: the Catalyst values life in general, but preserving every individual life (or every species) from extinction is not it's absolute priority. We know the first because, hey, cycle and preserving species as Reapers and killing off the rest. We know the second because the Reapers are willing to risk their bodies in the pursuit of the Cycle.

A baselesss deduction, you shouldn't invent things which aren't there.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
If you want to get super-technical, to more machine-logic, preserving life is also a separate thing from keeping life preserved. As far as logical conditionals go, if the Catalyst's programmed preservationist objectives are satisfied once the species are put into Reaper form,then what happens after that is irrelevant.

Hence it's entire logic is absolute garbage.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
It would be the logical analog of, say, a gasolite pump filling up your car's gas tank, but not keeping it filled after you drive away: it's purpose (filling your tank) isn't the same as keeping the end-state achieved.

Which only goes up if Starbrat is comparable to a gasolite pump, which t isn't.


For More Info please read This

[AlanC9]

CynicalShep wrote...

Haven't read the book. Didn't they set the forest on fire? That would make for a pretty big smoke alarm, one that has a better chance of being seen. A small campfire is unlikely to be seen by passing vessels, unless they get really close. A burning forest is a whole different thing.

That would still require the cruiser to be right on top of the island to get there in time, if the sequence is as I remember it.

Note that most DEMs in the modern age have some in-universe rationale. Spock got better because of a quirk of Vulcan physiology, not because of outright magic. The ones that don't are typically in as parodies.

I don't see why this matters anyway. Proving the ending is a DEM wouldn't prove it bad, and proving the ending isn't a DEM wouldn't make it good.

Modifié par AlanC9, 17 février 2013 - 04:57 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Fixers0 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
A Reaper being destroyed doesn't challenge whether a Reaper is a form of preservation. You're confusing a definition (in this case, what is considered life) with a counter to a separate objective (the Catalyst wants to preserve life).

A Reaper being destroyed means the loss of the very life the Catalyst is trying to prevere,

Uh, yeah, I just said that in what you quoted.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
What you're probably intending to argue against, however, has its own explanation: the Catalyst values life in general, but preserving every individual life (or every species) from extinction is not it's absolute priority. We know the first because, hey, cycle and preserving species as Reapers and killing off the rest. We know the second because the Reapers are willing to risk their bodies in the pursuit of the Cycle.

A baselesss deduction, you shouldn't invent things which aren't there.

What isn't there? The Catalyst doesn't preserve every life, and the Catalyst doesn't prioritize saving every Reaper above all else. If it did, it wouldn't do what it does.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
If you want to get super-technical, to more machine-logic, preserving life is also a separate thing from keeping life preserved. As far as logical conditionals go, if the Catalyst's programmed preservationist objectives are satisfied once the species are put into Reaper form,then what happens after that is irrelevant.

Hence it's entire logic is absolute garbage.

For computer logic, it's actually correct. If your goal is to go from A to B, but not to stay at B, then going from A to B completes your objective regardless of whether you end up falling off a cliff to C immediately afterwards.

This is the nature of conditional logic.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
It would be the logical analog of, say, a gasolite pump filling up your car's gas tank, but not keeping it filled after you drive away: it's purpose (filling your tank) isn't the same as keeping the end-state achieved.

Which only goes up if Starbrat is comparable to a gasolite pump, which t isn't.

Sure it is: it's a device with an intended function. It's better to treat the Catalyst as a machine than to anthromorphize it, because at the end of the day synthetics will still be dictated by the restraints of their programming. Anthromorphizing a machine gives it implicit expectations of intuitive logic, but that's an unwarranted assumption.

Edit: As for your link in your double post, it begins with hyperbole and picks it's first argument in demanding why NPC's aren't playing the role of omniscient narrators who have the player's perspective, and then hits a tiny error in not understanding the nature of sequential order.

When someone hits three logical strikes by the end of their first point, color me unimpressed. Perhaps you should attempt to make your own point, rather than rely on someone else's poorly constructed opinions.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 17 février 2013 - 10:29 .