582 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Bill Casey wrote...

Where is it shown the catalyst is shackled?

It says it itself and it's creators say it. EC AND LEVIATHEN DLC.

[Dr_Extrem]

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

and the protheans found evidence of the cycle, that came before them. they found the crucible plans as well. were the protheans lucky as well? .. and the cycle before them?

1. They found it too late to be of use...Like the last cycle and the last cycle before that and so one.

bad timing - thats all.

Every cycle.....Not  one cycle before ours was ever susseful. Not one.

well .. bad timing and bad writing .. it would not make sense if a cycle before us would have been successfull.

[dreman9999]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

I must reiterated that if the catalyst is shackled, it makes the control ending hilarious...

shepai: sorry liara .. i cant let you do that
liara: but you once loved me.
shepai: *liquifies liara and starts a new cycle*


muahaha

And where is it shown the shepard ai is force to do that?

because it would "never let harm come to those who knew the person i once was" .... blablabla of the epilogue?

but it would do, if the core programming (preserve life), wich is still in action, would force the shep-ai to start an new cycle.

Sorry nothing show that. try again.

[Dr_Extrem]

dreman9999 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Where is it shown the catalyst is shackled?

It says it itself and it's creators say it. EC AND LEVIATHEN DLC.

nope ... you stiull could not provide one solid evidence to prove your assumption. only more assumptions.

[Dr_Extrem]

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

I must reiterated that if the catalyst is shackled, it makes the control ending hilarious...

shepai: sorry liara .. i cant let you do that
liara: but you once loved me.
shepai: *liquifies liara and starts a new cycle*


muahaha

And where is it shown the shepard ai is force to do that?

because it would "never let harm come to those who knew the person i once was" .... blablabla of the epilogue?

but it would do, if the core programming (preserve life), wich is still in action, would force the shep-ai to start an new cycle.

Sorry nothing show that. try again.

because the ai is not shackled and therefore the shep-ai is not shackled as well.

[Iakus]

dreman9999 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Where is it shown the catalyst is shackled?

It says it itself and it's creators say it. EC AND LEVIATHEN DLC.

No, in both cases.  They only say it was given a task.  Not that it was shackled.

[steinvegard]

LinksOcarina wrote...

steinvegard wrote...

mackan__s wrote...

So you dont like that they show us the real world..?

No, as a historian, I have to say that Biowares paranoia about differencens in thinking leading to unavoidable(It can, but usually doesn`t) conflict have no empircal evidence backing it in the real world. That is just cynisim.The lazy persons philosophy.

Also a historian here, but considering that differences often become a catayst to conflict is commonplace, doesn't that follow the cyclical logic that some historians postulated over the centuries.

Take Arnold Toynbee for example, his entire meta-history is about how certain paradigms are completey unaviodable because it is a cyclical nature. Others such as Oswald Spengler have proposed such theories to vary degrees of certainty, and most historians today deal with a more contextual approach through numerous fields to uncover theories now. We see this in Mass Effect 3 in a literal sense until the paradigm is broken, and Shepard using a more unconventional approach in attempting to unite the races for a common cause. 

We also see the exact opposite of this, as you say, usually not leading to this conclusion. In-game as well, the fact that you can unite the races in a large-scale conflict against a singular threat is somewhat against this theory; the Geth/Quarian arc is exemplory of this to a large degree. If you unite the two together this goes against the entire anti-diversity message. 

As for the reapers, well the question then is are they alive, or a function? The catalyst sees them as a function, we may see them as alive, so it may depend on the personal philosophy of the player moreso than the choices given, which in turn is a whole other philosophical conundrum. But the issue really lies in not with the finality of the situation, but changing the fate of the situation, which is what the ending actually promotes. You break the cycle one way, or another. The question then becomes do you break it for all time, or do you break it on the short term, depending on how you read into things. 

I think differences are more often perceived as the catalysts than they actually are. Usually you can find some specific material cause for conflicts. But when the conflict is already going, the differences comes so much to the forefront, that they often start to seem like the original reason

I tend to actively try to avoid seeing historical events in a cyclical context(Or as part of any larger pattern at all really, Though it is often very tempting because it looks so elegant on paper when you can connect events a,b,c d etc...). There is certainly a proud tradition for doing so and the historians responsible have contributed a lot of value to the field. But ultimately I think we loose proper understanding of specific times and events if we treat them as part of cycles instead of studying them on their own terms. The pattern we think we are seeing to easily becomes the explanation of the events.

Spengler, in my view, treated history almost like a force of nature, with laws that could not be violated in the same way that gravity can not be violated, whitch is to close to mysticism for my taste. His original support for the ****-party(Even though he withdrew it later) shows to me the dangers of trying to view culture and history in that way. It is a way of thinking that helps ideologues, who want to disguise their ideas as unavoidable facts of nature, get credibility.  

[Nykara]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

the mandate was not a mistake. thats all. the ai was given a job and free reign in its execution. the ai ended up killing its creators, because it saw them as a part of the problem.

just because it follows its mandate, it is not necessarily shackled. its an ai that acts without pity or remorse, because those concepts were not implemented on its creation. it has no moral stance - only a mandate and free reign to execute it. morals or said concepts would interfere with its mandate and it has no reason to learn those concepts.

this has nothing to do with shackles. there is no solid proof in the game, that the ai is shackled.

But considering the Intelligence acts at all times the exact same as a shackled AI would - such as following its directive at ALL costs - then the onus is on you to provide evidence of behavior that would indicate it is unshackled.

It killed its creators...

It reperpoused it's creators and let some live.

it was sloppy .. it still is. *cough* crucible plans *cough*

it just did not find every leviathan out there thats all.

How many of the races of the last cycles do you see around?

it missed the crucible plans, the mars archives, ilos, javic, the beacons ...

I've actually been wondering about all of this myself for a while now.
The Reapers and Reaper tech seem to be *every* where you go, how could they miss such key things, unless they intended to?

We only *think* that they have told the truth so far as to what their grand plan is, what if all of this hasn't been part of that plan all along? They draw out the strongest of each species ( we only saw the human one, Shepard ). Intergrate them in some way ( Shepard stepping in to the coloured beam things ) so that they have preserved the 'best' of that species. Then sit back and wait for the inevitable war between synthetics and organics. Let them all destroy each other. They come in and do the clean up, leaving behind only what they choose then go back and wait for the next cycle.

Everyone seems to assume those ships flying around are the Reapers? The Reapers in my opinion are whats on those ships.  I don't see a vast difference in each actual Reaper ship not like the human Reaper that was being created that Shepard destroyed. The ships themselves can't really be the actual reapers even if they are part organic. So the actual ships got stopped dead in their tracks, destroyed or whatever when Shepard stepped in to the beam, Who says there was even a single Reaper on those ships at all and not just the ground force puppets used by the Reapers in combat?

Just a thought.

[Dr_Extrem]

this exchange was amusing ..

@ dreman .. if you find a solid evidence that proves your assumption, send me a pm.

good night.

[dreman9999]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Where is it shown the catalyst is shackled?

It says it itself and it's creators say it. EC AND LEVIATHEN DLC.

nope ... you stiull could not provide one solid evidence to prove your assumption. only more assumptions.

How is this....


Leviathan: The intelligence was envisioned as another tool
Shepard:And now we all pay the price of you mistake
Leviathan: There was no mistake. It still serves it's perpose

And on it's programing aka perpose...



Leviathan:  To counter this problem we creater an intelligence with the mandate to perserve life at any cost.

Not solid proof?
Explain.

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Where is it shown the catalyst is shackled?

It says it itself and it's creators say it. EC AND LEVIATHEN DLC.

No, in both cases.  They only say it was given a task.  Not that it was shackled.

It said they gave it a mandate and the it has not stoped doing it at all. Added it have not done anything else outside of that mandate.

Thecatalyst itself even said it doing what it is programed to do.
http://www.youtube.c...XhzlsYv0#t=226s

Modifié par dreman9999, 22 février 2013 - 12:08 .

[Pantegana]

steinvegard wrote...

mackan__s wrote...

So you dont like that they show us the real world..?

No, as a historian, I have to say that Biowares paranoia about differencens in thinking leading to unavoidable(It can, but usually doesn`t) conflict have no empircal evidence backing it in the real world. That is just cynisim.The lazy persons philosophy.

You, sir, are my new philosophical hero

[dreman9999]

x

Modifié par dreman9999, 22 février 2013 - 12:16 .

[dreman9999]

steinvegard wrote...

mackan__s wrote...

So you dont like that they show us the real world..?

No, as a historian, I have to say that Biowares paranoia about differencens in thinking leading to unavoidable(It can, but usually doesn`t) conflict have no empircal evidence backing it in the real world. That is just cynisim.The lazy persons philosophy.

Wait, are you saying that conflict does not constaly happen?

[steinvegard]

dreman9999 wrote...

steinvegard wrote...

mackan__s wrote...

So you dont like that they show us the real world..?

No, as a historian, I have to say that Biowares paranoia about differencens in thinking leading to unavoidable(It can, but usually doesn`t) conflict have no empircal evidence backing it in the real world. That is just cynisim.The lazy persons philosophy.

Wait, are you saying that conflict does not constaly happen?

No, but they are occuring with a lot less frequency than they used to in large parts of the world. Statistically speaking, conflicts in general are probably bound to happen at times. But I dont think any conflict, when seen individually, is absolutly unavoidable. When they happen it is because something(s) specific has gone terribly wrong. Not because they had to happen.

Modifié par steinvegard, 22 février 2013 - 12:29 .

[dreman9999]

steinvegard wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

steinvegard wrote...

mackan__s wrote...

So you dont like that they show us the real world..?

No, as a historian, I have to say that Biowares paranoia about differencens in thinking leading to unavoidable(It can, but usually doesn`t) conflict have no empircal evidence backing it in the real world. That is just cynisim.The lazy persons philosophy.

Wait, are you saying that conflict does not constaly happen?

No, but they are occuring with a lot less frequency than they used to in large parts of the world. Statistically speaking, conflicts in general are probably bound to happen at times, But I dont think any conflict, when seen individually, is absolutly unavoidable. When they happen it is because somehting has gone terribly wrong. Not because they had to happen.

What?

1. Conflict does not mean violent comflict only.
2. We haveas much large scale and small scale  violent conflict as we had many years ago. It many not be as sensless asit used to be in the past. But it still very much there.

Sorry but one thing history and event , small and large, show is that  conflict is nature.

[daaaav]

Agree with the OP and the dozens of previous threads (theangryone, drayfish, strangeaeons, culturalgeekgirl etc etc etc) that tried to discuss this issue.Absent a dialogue with the developers, we can only speculate on what the developers intended.

So... speculate...

Modifié par daaaav, 22 février 2013 - 12:35 .

[steinvegard]

dreman9999 wrote...

steinvegard wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

steinvegard wrote...

mackan__s wrote...

So you dont like that they show us the real world..?

No, as a historian, I have to say that Biowares paranoia about differencens in thinking leading to unavoidable(It can, but usually doesn`t) conflict have no empircal evidence backing it in the real world. That is just cynisim.The lazy persons philosophy.

Wait, are you saying that conflict does not constaly happen?

No, but they are occuring with a lot less frequency than they used to in large parts of the world. Statistically speaking, conflicts in general are probably bound to happen at times, But I dont think any conflict, when seen individually, is absolutly unavoidable. When they happen it is because somehting has gone terribly wrong. Not because they had to happen.

What?

1. Conflict does not mean violent comflict only.
2. We haveas much large scale and small scale  violent conflict as we had many years ago. It many not be as sensless asit used to be in the past. But it still very much there.

Sorry but one thing history and event , small and large, show is that  conflict is nature.

If we are not talking only about violent conflict then you are going to have to specify what kind of conflicts we are talking about. There are so many categories and so many levels of them that I dont think I can have a meaningful discussion about it without anything more specific to go on.

This article: http://www.scientifi...ine-of-violence gives some of the numbers that show the steep decline of violence in western culture as history has progressed. I do however think, that the violence that is commited today is as senseless as it ever was.

[TheRealJayDee]

daaaav wrote...

Agree with the OP and the dozens of previous threads (theangryone, drayfish, strangeaeons, culturalgeekgirl etc etc etc) that tried to discuss this issue.Absent a dialogue with the developers, we can only speculate on what the developers intended.

So... speculate...

[Rip504]

Conflict exist within all three endings. Conflict is a natural state. Conflict can also exist within the same unified group.

[dreman9999]

steinvegard wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

steinvegard wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

steinvegard wrote...

mackan__s wrote...

So you dont like that they show us the real world..?

No, as a historian, I have to say that Biowares paranoia about differencens in thinking leading to unavoidable(It can, but usually doesn`t) conflict have no empircal evidence backing it in the real world. That is just cynisim.The lazy persons philosophy.

Wait, are you saying that conflict does not constaly happen?

No, but they are occuring with a lot less frequency than they used to in large parts of the world. Statistically speaking, conflicts in general are probably bound to happen at times, But I dont think any conflict, when seen individually, is absolutly unavoidable. When they happen it is because somehting has gone terribly wrong. Not because they had to happen.

What?

1. Conflict does not mean violent comflict only.
2. We haveas much large scale and small scale  violent conflict as we had many years ago. It many not be as sensless asit used to be in the past. But it still very much there.

Sorry but one thing history and event , small and large, show is that  conflict is nature.

If we are not talking only about violent conflict then you are going to have to specify what kind of conflicts we are talking about. There are so many categories and so many levels of them that I dont think I can have a meaningful discussion about it without anything more specific to go on.

This article: http://www.scientifi...ine-of-violence gives some of the numbers that show the steep decline of violence in western culture as history has progressed. I do however think, that the violence that is commited today is as senseless as it ever was.

That does not mean conflict is not inevitable. It just means it's less likely to happen compeared to how it used to be...Which is not much.That still means it's going to happen.
Remeber, even playing a game is a form of conflict.

Modifié par dreman9999, 22 février 2013 - 01:01 .

[iOnlySignIn]

Nope. Diversity works just fine in my Control Ending, thank you very much.

[dreman9999]

Rip504 wrote...

Conflict exist within all three endings. Conflict is a natural state. Conflict can also exist within the same unified group.

Conflict can be in peace and play.

[Mercedes-Benz]

Robots and A.I.'s aren't races, and the game (the ending(s) included) isn't anti-diversity, since you have to work with the Asari, Salarians, Turians and the Krogan in order to win, there is no option in-game for Humanity to go it alone (or even for you to pick an Human-only crew!). Not to mention BioWare put two homosexuals into Mass Effect 3 just for the sake of putting homosexuals into the game, and turned an character that was Heterosexual in Mass Effect into an bisexual in Mass Effect 3 (Kaidan Alenko). Suggesting that Mass Effect 3 (and/or any/both of the previous two games) is anti-diversity is beyond ridiculous, since the game actually forces diversity upon you !

Modifié par Mercedes-Benz, 22 février 2013 - 01:11 .