466 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I wonder if the Council will get rid of the AI ban in Control? After all, there's no more need to really worry about a robot uprising anymore when the very thing preventing that for millions of years is now on the Council's side...

. I can't think of anyone worse to get control of the Reapers.

Yes, but you're a Cerberus supporter; our views on how to manage the galaxy will inevitably clash. Though I'm surprised you apparently consider me worse than the original Catalyst.

. I don't recall saying worse.  Maybe as bad as the original Catalyst.

And how am I so terrifying?

. Collectors as police, thought control, you'd give the galaxy to the asari on a silver plate if they asked, your plans on how to deal with dissent....

Modifié par Steelcan, 16 mars 2013 - 09:57 .

[Xilizhra]

. Collectors as police, thought control, you'd give the galaxy to the asari on a silver plate if they asked, your plans on how to deal with dissent....

The first is only for those who ask. The second is a strictly emergency measure. The third is just silly, I'm not getting involved in the minutiae of galactic government. Dissent doesn't bother me unless it becomes violent.

[Barquiel]

ruggly wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

As much as I dislike the Geth, I agree that the Council's AI ban needs to be overturned. It's unjust.

But, then, the Council is known for doing dumb crap like that. Just look at the Genophage.

The ME3 Geth are a little iffy with me, but I absolutely agree with getting rid of the AI ban.  The so called "chaos" would be a lot less likely to happen, since it gives people a reason to treat the synthetics as equals.

I guess that depends on if the Reapers true purpose becomes public knowledge, or not. I am not sure what this has to do with the genophage though.

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

. Collectors as police, thought control, you'd give the galaxy to the asari on a silver plate if they asked, your plans on how to deal with dissent....

The first is only for those who ask. The second is a strictly emergency measure. The third is just silly, I'm not getting involved in the minutiae of galactic government. Dissent doesn't bother me unless it becomes violent.

. Have you ever seen Serenity?   You'd fit right in with the Alliance.

Modifié par Steelcan, 16 mars 2013 - 09:59 .

[Xilizhra]

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

. Collectors as police, thought control, you'd give the galaxy to the asari on a silver plate if they asked, your plans on how to deal with dissent....

The first is only for those who ask. The second is a strictly emergency measure. The third is just silly, I'm not getting involved in the minutiae of galactic government. Dissent doesn't bother me unless it becomes violent.

. Have you ever seen Serenity?   You'd fit right in with the Alliance.

I have not, no.

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

. Collectors as police, thought control, you'd give the galaxy to the asari on a silver plate if they asked, your plans on how to deal with dissent....

The first is only for those who ask. The second is a strictly emergency measure. The third is just silly, I'm not getting involved in the minutiae of galactic government. Dissent doesn't bother me unless it becomes violent.

. Have you ever seen Serenity?   You'd fit right in with the Alliance.

I have not, no.

. If you want look into it.  You'd be the Alliance's employee of the year.

[Steelcan]

Modifié par Steelcan, 16 mars 2013 - 10:15 .

[ruggly]

Barquiel wrote...

ruggly wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

As much as I dislike the Geth, I agree that the Council's AI ban needs to be overturned. It's unjust.

But, then, the Council is known for doing dumb crap like that. Just look at the Genophage.

The ME3 Geth are a little iffy with me, but I absolutely agree with getting rid of the AI ban.  The so called "chaos" would be a lot less likely to happen, since it gives people a reason to treat the synthetics as equals.

I guess that depends on if the Reapers true purpose becomes public knowledge, or not. I am not sure what this has to do with the genophage though.

Hm.  Good point.  Should Shepard die in the destroy endings for a player, most likely not.  That knowledge would have most likely died with Shepard.  If one of the squadmates remembers what the Rannoch reaper randomly blurted out...who knows.  Otherwise, I would assume it would.

Modifié par ruggly, 16 mars 2013 - 10:34 .

[Deathsaurer]

Uh Leviathan spilled the beans on their true purpose and that wasn't exactly kept secret.

[Khevan77]

I've never looked at the Destroy ending as strictly genocide for the Geth. It's more akin to casualties of war, in my view. Tragic, horrible, and if there were another way, I'd do what I could to save the geth and EDI. Control is too much of a an ideal for stateism (not sure if that's a real label for a philosophy, but I use it to mean that the state is more important than the individual) where Shepard!Catalyst has the means by which to control the galaxy by force if necessary, and Synthesis has too much in the way of right of choice violations for me to feel even close to comfortable with it.

The geth and EDI both expressed their willingness to fight (and die if necessary) to destroy the Reapers, and while I wholeheartedly dislike the necessity, I'd choose Destroy if it killed off, say the asari, or the quarians or the entire fleet surrounding the Citadel if it meant that the Reapers were destroyed.

Destroy gives the best chance for the galaxy to self-determinate, to choose a different path in the future. Control and Synthesis, while keeping the Geth and EDI alive, remove choices from individuals, and I can't be a party to that.

None of this is an indictment against any who choose Control or Synthesis, it's only my views on the subject.

[Xilizhra]

Destroy gives the best chance for the galaxy to self-determinate, to choose a different path in the future. Control and Synthesis, while keeping the Geth and EDI alive, remove choices from individuals, and I can't be a party to that.

So choice is more important than life?

[Bill Casey]

Xilizhra wrote...

Destroy gives the best chance for the galaxy to self-determinate, to choose a different path in the future. Control and Synthesis, while keeping the Geth and EDI alive, remove choices from individuals, and I can't be a party to that.

So choice is more important than life?

You're just now figuring this out?

[Khevan77]

Xilizhra wrote...

Destroy gives the best chance for the galaxy to self-determinate, to choose a different path in the future. Control and Synthesis, while keeping the Geth and EDI alive, remove choices from individuals, and I can't be a party to that.

So choice is more important than life?

To quote Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

Choice is more important than life.  The Geth and EDI both chose to fight and die if necessary.  No one chose synthesis, no one chose to have the Reapers be a hammer held over them if they did something Shepard!Catalyst didn't like.  I choose freedom to choose over a life of (potential) servitude, and certainly over the violation of choice that is Synthesis.

[Bill Casey]

Oh ****...
The ending is pro choice vs. pro life...
This angry debate will never end ever...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 16 mars 2013 - 11:13 .

[Xilizhra]

You're just now figuring this out?

If an individual would prefer to die than be deprived of choice, they may do so, but I won't choose death for them if I can avoid it.

To quote Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

Ironic, coming from the slavemaster.

Choice is more important than life. The Geth and EDI both chose to fight and die if necessary. No one chose synthesis, no one chose to have the Reapers be a hammer held over them if they did something Shepard!Catalyst didn't like. I choose freedom to choose over a life of (potential) servitude, and certainly over the violation of choice that is Synthesis.

Those synthetics we refer to (and there are surely others in the galaxy who die who didn't join the fight) chose to risk their lives, not all be arbitrarily wiped out when there was a viable alternative. If they all choose to die to destroy the Reapers, that's one thing, but as it stands, I won't kill them no matter what.

[Khevan77]

Bill Casey wrote...

Oh ****...
The ending is pro choice vs. pro life...

LOL!

Let's not open up that can of worms, but well played sir, well played indeed.

[Eterna]

Xilizhra wrote...

Destroy gives the best chance for the galaxy to self-determinate, to choose a different path in the future. Control and Synthesis, while keeping the Geth and EDI alive, remove choices from individuals, and I can't be a party to that.

So choice is more important than life?

It is extremely ironic since by choosing Destroy you remove choice from the Geth and EDI.

I don't really see how Control removes choice either, you can do whatever you want, but start a war, expect reprecusions.

I mean, are we upset because we are unable to murder someone without punishment? Do we feel less free because of this? Why then would we feel less free if we are unable to commit war crimes? Why would anyone want us to have this choice?

If Control removes choice, then it removes choice that we are better off not having. 

[Khevan77]

Xilizhra wrote...

To quote Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

Ironic, coming from the slavemaster.

Strawman.  Yes, he was a slave owner, and that is a horrible indictment of his character.  It is, however, irrelevant to this discussion since the quote is what's pertinent, and it's a sentiment that I happen to agree with.

Xilizhra wrote...

Choice is more important than life. The Geth and EDI both chose to fight and die if necessary. No one chose synthesis, no one chose to have the Reapers be a hammer held over them if they did something Shepard!Catalyst didn't like. I choose freedom to choose over a life of (potential) servitude, and certainly over the violation of choice that is Synthesis.

Those synthetics we refer to (and there are surely others in the galaxy who die who didn't join the fight) chose to risk their lives, not all be arbitrarily wiped out when there was a viable alternative. If they all choose to die to destroy the Reapers, that's one thing, but as it stands, I won't kill them no matter what.

 

The important part of your statement is "viable alternative."  I don't see Control or Synthesis as viable alternatives.  You do.  There's where our difference in opinion stems from. 

Modifié par Khevan77, 16 mars 2013 - 11:18 .

[Xilizhra]

The important part of your statement is "viable alternative." I don't see Control or Synthesis as viable alternatives. You do. There's where our difference in opinion stems from.

By "viable," I mean that they end the cycle.

[Khevan77]

Xilizhra wrote...

The important part of your statement is "viable alternative." I don't see Control or Synthesis as viable alternatives. You do. There's where our difference in opinion stems from.

By "viable," I mean that they end the cycle.

And by viable, I mean that the negatives to Destroy, while terrible, are less terrible than the negatives to Control and Synthesis.  So, a choice between evils, I go with what I view as the lesser of the three.  I won't convince you that my viewpoint is "right," and you won't convince me that yours is either.  And neither one of us is "right."  We choose what is right for us, and that's all we can do.

[Ykulnu]

For me, Destroy is the only viable ending because I. Don't. Trust. Reapers. The Catalyst can go to hell with his "choices". The Reapers have done far too much to far too many people; even if I DID believe an iota of what Starbrat says, I'm not choosing those options. The Reapers are a complete and total menace to the galaxy at large. They do not get to revel in the peace we've worked so hard to achieve.

I refuse to consider the Refuse ending and willingly doom all life as we know it to cease.

Considering how the Geth and EDI's demise is a contrived, illogical attempt at a conflicted decision, Destroy rid's us of the Reapers and the Reapers only in my headcanon.

Modifié par Ykulnu, 17 mars 2013 - 12:02 .

[Asebstos]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
Without the reaper signal they became as dumb as varren. In a group they were able to perform complex tasks, but they were not intelligent. 

You're arguing that Legion wasn't intelligent?

Whether they are intelligent as individual programs (post Reaper code) or as a colonial organism (pre-Reaper code) is irrelevant. Even in the video you keep linking, Legion refers to the Geth as a species, a very odd way to refer to non-life. He clearly isn't saying that the Geth aren't alive or intelligent, and its ludicrous to draw that conclusion.

[Khelish]

CronoDragoon wrote...

The events of ME2 and ME3 demonstrate the danger inherent in a hive mind. You can increase intelligence by networking more VI programs, but on the other hand the less VI programs the less intelligent the race. War can lead to extremely stupid decisions as more and more VI programs are lost; stupid decisions such as siding with the Reapers.

In the end, the existence of an alternate form of life is not an argument for stagnant development. Legion clearly changed his mind by the time Rannoch rolls around about the value of the hive-mind, and thought that the Reaper code represented a clear positive evolution for his species. Denying that point of view, as you want to, is analogous to denying the galaxy the right to rebuild the relays because "it wouldn't be true freedom." In actual fact such a claim is a blockade to true autonomy, because you are telling the geth that they can only develop along the lines that YOU think are right.

If you want the geth to be autonomous beings, then you have to deal with the possibility of them making decisions that evolve away from the hive mind.

You missed my point completely.

The Geth could have gained independence without the Reaper code. Legion's sudden change of view is what worries me.

No one has told me yet; how the hell are we supposed to trust that Reaper code? (Without, metagaming...)

We should be able to tell both the Quarians and the Geth to stand down. ME3 made this conflict so one sided, it's almost funny...

[draken-heart]

The end of this arguing is that you cannot have destroy without Genocide. You either commit it before the end, or at the end.

[CaIIisto]

draken-heart wrote...

The end of this arguing is that you cannot have destroy without Genocide. You either commit it before the end, or at the end.

If Casper's telling the truth.....