935 réponses à ce sujet

[remydat]

Silver

The statement by the Catalyst was in reference to ALL cycles. What Harby said about the Geth ie a single synthetic race proves nothing about ALL cylces. And once again tools can still be harvested. You have not proven anything. You examples contradict you. Garrus the Turian is said to be too primitive yet the Turians sure as hell seem to be getting harvested in ME3. He says to Mordin that the Salarians are too fragile yet I see no evidence in ME3, they will not be harvested.

And Legion says they become true AI with the RC not me. Legion said it ie the game says it.

And you are confused, I did not twist your words, you joined a conversation and responded without making it clear you disagreed with Fade. My comments to Fade were because he claimed that because the solution was flawed, it meant the problem was not real. I do not support the solution but I recognize there was a problem. If you do so as well then we don't disagree. Again, you joined a conversation in which Fade was saying the problem was not real because the solution was flawed.

Umm, no one said the endings were not balanced. I have said all along that killing the Geth and EDI included in part to balance destroy. That does not mean synthesis was not the good ending especially prior to everyone crying and them then doing the EC which helped to balance the endings even more.

There is no hindsight. This is basic probability which a machine understands. Death today is 100% final. There is no hope. 0% chance of not dying. Death anywhere from tomorrow to 200 years from now gives you a non-0% chance of not dying because literally ANYTHING can happen to prevent your death. ANYTHING. It just so happened in the game that ANYTHING was Shepard but the point is you never know what could happen as long as you are ALIVE.

Modifié par remydat, 19 avril 2013 - 03:52 .

[remydat]

robertthebard wrote...

...and yet, nowhere in the game is there mentioned a superAI that's mad, lolz, but this is your most prominent argument against Destroy.  Why, if you can pull head canon, or, wait for it, speculation in as a viable argument, is it only allowed for you?  Wait for it, I have the answer:  So you can say "you people are monsters".  It's funny, really, I refuted your science, with your science, so now you go to the metagame video of an ending we're not allowed to alter in a similar fashion to the alteration of the Destroy beam in this topic?  Just wow.

You are confused.  My most prominent argument against Destory is that it kills EDI and the Geth.  That is why I don't pick it.  I merely noted that it still comes with additional risk because the Catalyst tells us that the peace won't last and that the chaos will return.  That is in the game.  That is stated clearly.  

From there (and yes the rest of this is speculation based on the above), it is simply logical to assume that if a new AI is created it will be more advanced than other AI because the organics who create it have lived passed the harvest.  It is also very logical to assume it would calculate that organics are a threat based on the fact they exterminated all previous synthetic races.

Modifié par remydat, 19 avril 2013 - 04:53 .

[The Twilight God]

Cheviot wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...
Synthesis, Control or Refuse are stupid for Shepard.

Nope, Synthesis and Control aren't stupid for a Shepard who wants EDI and the Geth to survive, and/or a Shepard who wants to ensure that post-war reconstruction isn't harsh on all organic life.

I don't think you get it. You're coming from the perspective of a player playing a video game. There is nothing on the line when you make a choice in ME. I'm talking about the perspective of Shepard, in which it is a real life situation.

Shepard has no reason to trust the Reapers who are asking Shepard for absolute blind faith. They are asking him to bet the fate of the entire galaxy on their word. The word of entities that even at that point are currently attempting to destroy galactic civilization.
 
If I killed your wife, was torturing your children and had you neighbors held hostage, and you had a gun to my head would you turn around and pull the trigger on yourself if I told you I'd let them all go if you killed yourself. Oh and I gave you an elaborate story about how I gave them all some rare poison and only I knew the cure.

This is essential what you do by choosing Control or Destroy. You are putting an ERRONMOUS amount of blind faith in a heartless murderous cabal of AIs who have every reason to deceive you. There is no basis to trust them whatsoever.

And you think it's reasonable to risk EVERYONE's lives to MAYBE POSSIBLY save EDI (one individual) IF the Reapers are actually telling the truth? Because IF NOT, EDI and TRILLIONS MORE will pay the price.
 
Note: There is no evidence that the Geth perish nor is it ever stated that they would. Not that any one species' possible (albeit unlikely) survival through an extremely iffy proposal is worth risking the lives of countless others.

[remydat]

silverexile17s wrote...

You are set in your ways and inflexible to change. You think your viewpoint is law. If you meet an alien race that had an entirely different analouge to antropology, what would give you the right to say they are wrong? The fact that their laws don't match yours?

And by changing how every race senses, percieves, interacts, and interperts data, it destroys the path they were on before. Synthesis affects EVERYTHING, including the pre-spaceflight cultures, permematly changing their perception of the galaxy, and forever altering the way they would have progressed.
And actually, the game contrididcs YOU. Just by looking at the Synthesis vs the others, you see that the races develop much differently then they would have going their own seperate, diverse paths. The quarians and geth are melded together, blending their cultures, destroying two unique cultures to create another. The same is likely repeated everywhere else.
And if they have access to unlimited knowledge, then what is LEFT to achieve. Mordin Solus exposited in ME2 about this with the Collectors, and on what happens when you suddenly remove the limitations of life.
"Disrupts socio-technological balance! All scientific advancement due to life overcoming, compensating for limitations. Can't carry a load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations! No limitations, no advancement! No advancement, culture stagnates!
Also works both ways to. Advancement before culture is ready... disastrous."
So, according to Mordin Solus, Synthesis is actually the Catalyst for sociatal collapse, by taking away all limitation, and advancing many pre-spaceflight cultures far beyond their point of readyness.

So, sorry, but I think you are the one that is confussed. Synthesis is not a perfect utopia. If anything, it's more risky then all the other options, as it has just as much poentetial to backfire.

What are you talking about.  Culture as definied by the people who study it does not include genes.  Our genes obviously impact how we learn but nothing in the game says synthesis prevent us from learning.

The Quarians and Geth had started working together prior to synthesis.  There is nothing in that STILL PHOTO that implies they melded together anymore than they were already doing like when the Geth were uploading in their suits.  You have taken a STILL PHOTO and imagined stuff not in the game.  And no the same is likely not repeated everywhere.  None of the STILL PHOTOS imply any destruction of culture.  They imply people SHARING.

And your Mordin theory is incorrect because problems still exist and they still need to be solved.  Synthesis doesn't magically end all problems in the Galaxy.  So yes you are confusd because I have always maintained synthesis is not a perfect Utopia.  It potentially allows people to better understand each other but there is no guarantee a Krogan hybrid won't still hate a Turian or Salarian hyrbid. 

[Xilizhra]

Note: There is no evidence that the Geth perish nor is it ever stated that they would. Not that any one species' possible (albeit unlikely) survival through an extremely iffy proposal is worth risking the lives of countless others.

Actually, the Catalyst says that all synthetic life will die.

And you think it's reasonable to risk EVERYONE's lives to MAYBE POSSIBLY save EDI (one individual) IF the Reapers are actually telling the truth? Because IF NOT, EDI and TRILLIONS MORE will pay the price.

The Catalyst could have not activated the elevator at all and just left me stranded and dying down there. There's a decent chance it could have shut down the mass effect fields on the tower roof and let me asphyxiate. I know that it's capable of just turning off the Crucible and ending the war right then and there. It does not, however, do any of those things; whatever it wants, it wants me alive to do something, and is taking a major risk by exposing its fatal weakness in doing so (of course, even said weakness is better than the continuation of the cycle).

[remydat]

Xilizhra wrote...

Actually, the Catalyst says that all synthetic life will die.

The Catalyst could have not activated the elevator at all and just left me stranded and dying down there. There's a decent chance it could have shut down the mass effect fields on the tower roof and let me asphyxiate. I know that it's capable of just turning off the Crucible and ending the war right then and there. It does not, however, do any of those things; whatever it wants, it wants me alive to do something, and is taking a major risk by exposing its fatal weakness in doing so (of course, even said weakness is better than the continuation of the cycle).

Let's also ignore the fact that there is no reason for there not to be a slew of marauders, husks, cannibals, etc. or any other manner of Reaper minions to be stationed on the Citadel to cut down any organics that got that far.  They captured the Citadel to keep it out of organic hands and then don't bother to defend it at all?

[AshenShug4r]

I'd destroy them all to end the reapers.

[The Twilight God]

[quote]remydat wrote...

Twilight

That is your opinion. Plenty of people believe otherwise so yes there is a moral dilemma.[/quote]

No opinion necessary. It's a in-game verifiable fact.

You either believe the writers screwed up royally, in which case you have no reason to argue for Control or Synthesis as you would be stating it's all nonsense anyway. You can't rationally argue in favor of plot points in incoherent nonsensical writing. You can only accept it as nonsense and not worry about it past that.

Or you agree with all the in-game facts and come to the only logical conclusion that makes for a coherent story. And we know you can't make any sense out of Control, Refuse or Synthesis outside of indoctrination as you've demonstrated by avoiding the following.

[quote]The Twilight God wrote...

[quote]remydat wrote...

I see plenty to trust the Catalsyt. You don't  [/quote]

Please, share with us your reasons for trusting it seeing as you have plenty apparently.[/quote]

Please, enlighten us about the many reasons we should blindly put our absolute trust in the "Reaper Ambassador"
[/quote]

If you don't think the "Reapers' Endings" are complete nonsense give me one reason to trust them. Otherwise, your inability to respond will demonstrate your de facto agreement with me that Control, Synthesis and Refuse are illogical choices that no sane person would make. 

Modifié par The Twilight God, 19 avril 2013 - 05:13 .

[The Twilight God]

Xilizhra wrote...

Note: There is no evidence that the Geth perish nor is it ever stated that they would. Not that any one species' possible (albeit unlikely) survival through an extremely iffy proposal is worth risking the lives of countless others.

Actually, the Catalyst says that all synthetic life will die.

Post the post-EC YouTube link to this. (not that "the Reapers said so" means it would happen). 

Let me save you the trouble. It never says any such thing. It's all in my signature. 

Xilizhra wrote...

And you think it's reasonable to risk EVERYONE's lives to MAYBE POSSIBLY save EDI (one individual) IF the Reapers are actually telling the truth? Because IF NOT, EDI and TRILLIONS MORE will pay the price.

The Catalyst could have not activated the elevator at all and just left me stranded and dying down there. There's a decent chance it could have shut down the mass effect fields on the tower roof and let me asphyxiate. I know that it's capable of just turning off the Crucible and ending the war right then and there. It does not, however, do any of those things; whatever it wants, it wants me alive to do something, and is taking a major risk by exposing its fatal weakness in doing so (of course, even said weakness is better than the continuation of the cycle).

The Kid, who is NOT any kind of catalyst (which can be empirically proven), did not activate the elevator. In low EMS it actually asks Shepard why he's there.

It cannot turn off the Crucible. It turned off Synthesis (and maybe Control too). The Crucible was still activated. Go on YouTube and take a look. When you do Destroy the beam goes away prior to the ending wave. In Synthesis and Control it stays. The beam is not a Crucible function.

It's all laid out in this thread.

As far as it removing air to the chamber or any other Citadel function, there is no proof that the Kid has control over anything other than activating and deactivating the Synthesis and Control sections. ME1 kind of shows that there is no AI in the Citadel that can control the Citadel.

I'm going to tell you right now I'm not interested in getting into any more detail on this thread as I have already proven my point in the thread linked. And I see no point in repeating myself in that amount of detail.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 19 avril 2013 - 05:16 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

In Synthesis, all synthetic life dies; all organic life dies. They cease to exist. That is why the harvest stops. They become Orgathetics, or Syntanics. They no longer exist in their original form. You have become like they are. (Come on baby) Don't fear the reaper. (We'll be able to fly).

[Xilizhra]

I'm going to tell you right now I'm not interested in getting into any more detail on this thread as I have already proven my point in the thread linked. And I see no point in repeating myself in that amount of detail.

No point in replying, then, I assume?

[remydat]

The Twilight God

Sorry mate, most of the reasons have been stated before.

1.  There is no point in telling me in Control or Synthesis that I will die.  None.  There is not much difference in the Synthesis beam than the beam that takes me up to the Citadel so trying to tell me, Shep would automatically conclude Synthesis or Control would kill him doesn't make much since.

2.  There is no reason if he thinks that Shep prefers Destroy for him to tell him anything about destroy.  You want to believe Shep would figure it out on his own, I don't buy that at all.

3.  There was no reason to bring him up there at all.  Even if we assume he brought him up there because he wanted him to pick synthesis, there is no reason for the Catalyst not to have a marauders, cannibals and the like up there in the event Shep made a choice that he didn't like.  THe dude is half dead.  If I was the Catalyst and that dude took one step to Destroy then Marauder Shields would have popped out and busted a cap in his a**.

4.  The scenario he gave as to why he is doing what he does is completely plausible from a machine point of view.  My Shep has watched Terminator and the Matrix enough times and seen organics trying to kill synthetics for no damn good reason enough to believe it.

5.  Leviathan confirms the story and the reason for it's existence.  Once I understanding this dude has neen operating on the same program for billions of years, I see no reason to assume it is lying.  The preserve life at any costs directive is what it has been carrying out these years.

All of the above have been mentioned in one way or the other.

Modifié par remydat, 19 avril 2013 - 05:50 .

[remydat]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

In Synthesis, all synthetic life dies; all organic life dies. They cease to exist. That is why the harvest stops. They become Orgathetics, or Syntanics. They no longer exist in their original form. You have become like they are. (Come on baby) Don't fear the reaper. (We'll be able to fly).

That's weird because I still see Liara and company putting my name up on the wall.  EDI still sounds like EDI and everyone seems pretty content in those still photos.  Hell I still see babies being born which is very organic of them.   

Only on the internet does figurative death in which everyone is alive and seemingly happy trump literal death in which the Geth and EDI are in fact literally dead.

Modifié par remydat, 19 avril 2013 - 06:00 .

[silverexile17s]

remydat wrote...

Silver

The statement by the Catalyst was in reference to ALL cycles. What Harby said about the Geth ie a single synthetic race proves nothing about ALL cylces. And once again tools can still be harvested. You have not proven anything. You examples contradict you. Garrus the Turian is said to be too primitive yet the Turians sure as hell seem to be getting harvested in ME3. He says to Mordin that the Salarians are too fragile yet I see no evidence in ME3, they will not be harvested.

And Legion says they become true AI with the RC not me. Legion said it ie the game says it.

And you are confused, I did not twist your words, you joined a conversation and responded without making it clear you disagreed with Fade. My comments to Fade were because he claimed that because the solution was flawed, it meant the problem was not real. I do not support the solution but I recognize there was a problem. If you do so as well then we don't disagree. Again, you joined a conversation in which Fade was saying the problem was not real because the solution was flawed.

Umm, no one said the endings were not balanced. I have said all along that killing the Geth and EDI included in part to balance destroy. That does not mean synthesis was not the good ending especially prior to everyone crying and them then doing the EC which helped to balance the endings even more.

There is no hindsight. This is basic probability which a machine understands. Death today is 100% final. There is no hope. 0% chance of not dying. Death anywhere from tomorrow to 200 years from now gives you a non-0% chance of not dying because literally ANYTHING can happen to prevent your death. ANYTHING. It just so happened in the game that ANYTHING was Shepard but the point is you never know what could happen as long as you are ALIVE.

... Um, did you even read what I posted? I showed you that Herbinger was judging each persons entire race on that individual. NOT the individual themselves. And the Reapers used the Zha'till no differently then Sovergien used the geth - henceforth, no synthetic is ever seen as anything but tools. Also, Legion tells you in an interesting conversation that the Reapers are "organic minds." NOT a combination of orgnaic and synthetic minds. www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqtAHNQT3-w
"Billions of orgnaic minds."  Also, that the Reapers are "more your future then ours."
If anything, only the ancestoral information of the synthetics - their data stores - are saved. The minds themselves? No.
Destroyers are the "lesser" races. Those are what the other races will be made into. One destroyer apiece. However, again, synthetics are absent from that. Only the knowledge they collected would be taken. The minds would not.
So, sorry, but the only flaws are in your statements.

Legion also says that the geth became true A.I.s before the Morning War in ME2. "Legion said it ie the game said it." Also, the Codex lists them as A.I.s.
You are again confused. You have mixed up "True A.I." with "Perfected A.I." An A.I. is any kind of A.I. that has sapiance. Perfected A.I.s are ones that have the full range of emotional responces in addition to sapiance.

You fail to comprehend.
While I don't think that there was no problem, I DO agree with Fade in that the Reapers solved nothing, and if anything, only perpetuated the problem. The problem may have existed, but the Reaper's constant harvests never gave life/evolution a chance to correct it. The Reapers ARE part of the problem too.

Synthesis is not the Utopia that you seem to think it though. If anything, the potential backfire risks are much worse.

SAME for the quarians. SAME for every damn race that ever fought the Reapers. Try something that has 0% chance of working, given what you know, vs something that DOES get results.
And AGAIN, Reapers. They tend to deal in absolutes. The geth had contact with them before (Sovergien). They KNEW what to expect. Also, since the Reaper conquest would be spead up by taking over the geth, chances are that it would take less then 90 years. And if Shepard WASN'T around... well, you heard Tali tell you that thus far, nothing to block or counter the code worked. What if Legion was NEVER freed? If Shepard NEVER came?
You are putting too much faith in blind luck and chance, and on top of that, are saying it's perfectly fine to shaft everyone else if it means you get to live another day.
AGAIN, there is NOTHING but hindsight in your observations, in that you keep looking from the standpoint of someone that DOES know what's going to happen. The geth are mathmaticions. What to you think they believe the chance of beating the Reapers is? They resigned themselves, basically.
This is what I was talking about. You'd play fast and loose with people's lives.

[silverexile17s]

remydat wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

You are set in your ways and inflexible to change. You think your viewpoint is law. If you meet an alien race that had an entirely different analouge to antropology, what would give you the right to say they are wrong? The fact that their laws don't match yours?

And by changing how every race senses, percieves, interacts, and interperts data, it destroys the path they were on before. Synthesis affects EVERYTHING, including the pre-spaceflight cultures, permematly changing their perception of the galaxy, and forever altering the way they would have progressed.
And actually, the game contrididcs YOU. Just by looking at the Synthesis vs the others, you see that the races develop much differently then they would have going their own seperate, diverse paths. The quarians and geth are melded together, blending their cultures, destroying two unique cultures to create another. The same is likely repeated everywhere else.
And if they have access to unlimited knowledge, then what is LEFT to achieve. Mordin Solus exposited in ME2 about this with the Collectors, and on what happens when you suddenly remove the limitations of life.
"Disrupts socio-technological balance! All scientific advancement due to life overcoming, compensating for limitations. Can't carry a load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations! No limitations, no advancement! No advancement, culture stagnates!
Also works both ways to. Advancement before culture is ready... disastrous."
So, according to Mordin Solus, Synthesis is actually the Catalyst for sociatal collapse, by taking away all limitation, and advancing many pre-spaceflight cultures far beyond their point of readyness.

So, sorry, but I think you are the one that is confussed. Synthesis is not a perfect utopia. If anything, it's more risky then all the other options, as it has just as much poentetial to backfire.

What are you talking about.  Culture as definied by the people who study it does not include genes.  Our genes obviously impact how we learn but nothing in the game says synthesis prevent us from learning.

The Quarians and Geth had started working together prior to synthesis.  There is nothing in that STILL PHOTO that implies they melded together anymore than they were already doing like when the Geth were uploading in their suits.  You have taken a STILL PHOTO and imagined stuff not in the game.  And no the same is likely not repeated everywhere.  None of the STILL PHOTOS imply any destruction of culture.  They imply people SHARING.

And your Mordin theory is incorrect because problems still exist and they still need to be solved.  Synthesis doesn't magically end all problems in the Galaxy.  So yes you are confusd because I have always maintained synthesis is not a perfect Utopia.  It potentially allows people to better understand each other but there is no guarantee a Krogan hybrid won't still hate a Turian or Salarian hyrbid. 

The way you see, hear, taste, and touch DO factor in.
Say, what if you could only see in ultravilot, like the Hanar? Cultures with special deffiriantial meanings to spicific colors would evolve completely different, as colors in the ultravilot spectrum would be perceved completely differently.
Or reproduced through parthonogenesis, like the Asari? A culture that had gods for things like mating or love, or the perception of health in general would be totally different.
Or posessed a sensory touch, like the Protheans? Or inclination to arid dry climates like the Drell? How we perceve and interact with the enviornments is KEY to developing cultures. How we sense and interact with the world is how the mind of a civilization develops, and thus dictates how the culture will evolve.
Culture IS defined by how we perceve the world around us - the colors we see, the scents we smell, the sounds we hear, the textures we feel. If we interacted with, or perceved our envrioment diffrently, that would change the entire way a culture would develop.

And AGAIN, you try to subvert the point. This is about how the cultures EVOLVED, NOT about picking them up after the fact. And there is culture that IS like that, as they could percieve things so radically different that you CAN'T comprehend it. You seem to think that you can claim yours is better, because you can interact with it and not theirs. You have to judge people by their laws & standards, not yours. That's benign antromorphism to do otherwise, and there likely be some cultures you CAN'T experance. So in closing, if someone like that has seperate ideals of antropology, you would have no ground to critizise them for it.

No. They were cooperating. Like neighbors. NOT an interlinked culture, meshed together to the point that they stopped having individual cultures. In Control and Destroy, we clearly see the geth and quarians developing seperatly, wheras in Synthesis, they are meshed. Again, as I said, the game contrididcted you.

No. Synthesis is described as the pinnical of evolutoion. After reaching that point, the problems left are remedial at best. All you see is the short term effects of a generation or so. Not the long-term future.
You seem to think that Synthesis is going to be the catalyst for galactic unification, when if anything, it's priming it for total collapse. If anything, Synthesis killes the genetic diversity of the entire galaxy piecemeal. All life has spicific DNA. All pre-spaceflight races have been interfiered with and their development has been altered, destroying the way their culture would have evolved naturally.
These are the things you fail to understand about the concept.

[silverexile17s]

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm going to tell you right now I'm not interested in getting into any more detail on this thread as I have already proven my point in the thread linked. And I see no point in repeating myself in that amount of detail.

No point in replying, then, I assume?

I don't see you countering anything he posted. Not a single refute to his points. That's basically conceding.

[Mangalores]

remydat wrote...

...

The reason does not change the fact the genophage kills Krogan babies that never harmed anyone yet.  It was a pre-emptive solution just like the harvest was.  It does not punish the person committing the crime.  It punishes their descendents for eternity if it remains uncured.

It's rather politically loaded topic. The thing is that assuming a balanced gender distribution such a high birth rate is inconsistent with mammalian nurturing. It has to be normal for Krogan to discard or lose most of the offspring in normal circumstances.

The Genophage is presented as creating "normal" child mortality rates among the Krogan population.

It's not a moral choice but it is difficult to argue based on human morals against it because the entire physiology of the Krogan suggests a different parental dynamic more akind to amphibians or fish and caring for the offspring has  become a new thing in Krogan culture because the Genophage has made children precious.

Curing / keeping the Genophage is not a clear decision to me which is good.

[The Twilight God]

remydat wrote...

The Twilight God

Sorry mate, most of the reasons have been stated before.

And refuted.

remydat wrote...

1.  There is no point in telling me in Control or Synthesis that I will die.  None.  There is not much difference in the Synthesis beam than the beam that takes me up to the Citadel so trying to tell me, Shep would automatically conclude Synthesis or Control would kill him doesn't make much since.

2.  There is no reason if he thinks that Shep prefers Destroy for him to tell him anything about destroy.  You want to believe Shep would figure it out on his own, I don't buy that at all.

3.  There was no reason to bring him up there at all.  Even if we assume he brought him up there because he wanted him to pick synthesis, there is no reason for the Catalyst not to have a marauders, cannibals and the like up there in the event Shep made a choice that he didn't like.  THe dude is half dead.  If I was the Catalyst and that dude took one step to Destroy then Marauder Shields would have popped out and busted a cap in his a**.

4.  The scenario he gave as to why he is doing what he does is completely plausible from a machine point of view.  My Shep has watched Terminator and the Matrix enough times and seen organics trying to kill synthetics for no damn good reason enough to believe it.

5.  Leviathan confirms the story and the reason for it's existence.  Once I understanding this dude has neen operating on the same program for billions of years, I see no reason to assume it is lying.  The preserve life at any costs directive is what it has been carrying out these years.

1. So when he grabs the control prongs and sees electricity-like arcs burning off his flesh (and the intense pain) he isn't going to stop right there and call BS on the Kid? Or when he looks down that bottomless pit Death Star chasm, he isn't going to wonder if the fall or the freaking laser beam is going to obliterate him? 

I'm going to have to call BS on that. I think you're full of it and can't admit when you're wrong. So I'll leave it at that.

2. Shepard doesn't need to figure it out himself. EDI is very handy and Shepard does have access to communications. I've already linked you material previously which you either ignored or didn't bother to read so... whatever.

3. It doesn't bring him up there. In low EMS it asks what he is doing there. As I mentioned earlier the Kid could have gotten some trust points IF THERE WAS something up there that could actually stop Shepard. But their wasn't. Just indoctrination and deception. But there really is no point in bringing anything up as you'll just ignore what you don't want to acknowledge and continue on like you didn't read it.

4. You aren't qualified to state what a machine's point of view is. In the game, EDI didn't agree with the Reapers and neither did the True Geth. Both machines.

5. The leviathans tell a story about the Reapers' origins and state explicitly that they aren't doing what the Intelligence was tasked to do. It has not been preserving life. It has been killing off all advanced life. This is an objective fact.

You're claiming that if some of a story contains some true parts all parts must be equally true. That is erroneous logic and you know it.

1 + 1 = 2 and 2 + 2 = 22

Must be true because 1 + 1 does equal 2, right?

remydat wrote...

All of the above have been mentioned in one way or the other.

Yes, mentioned and thoroughly refuted.

This is how it is supposed to work: Guy A asserts something and if guy B counters. Then guy A either counters the counter or accepts that his premise is incorrect. You can't ignore what you don't like and continue regurgitating the same disproven arguments. But I guess you're accustomed to "internet debate". Personally, I'm tired to going in circles.

And once again you ignore the following because you know you can't answer it. Because there is no rational answer.

"Please, enlighten us about the many reasons we should blindly put our absolute trust in the 'Reaper Ambassador'"

So your inability to defend your position signifies you de facto agreement with me. You have unwillingly admit you are wrong even if your ego won't let you. Good day.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 19 avril 2013 - 09:04 .

[The Twilight God]

silverexile17s wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm going to tell you right now I'm not interested in getting into any more detail on this thread as I have already proven my point in the thread linked. And I see no point in repeating myself in that amount of detail.

No point in replying, then, I assume?

I don't see you countering anything he posted. Not a single refute to his points. That's basically conceding.

It is conceding, whether she acknowledges it as such or not. She could reply in the other thread or here. But she's making an excuse to avoid admitting she's wrong. Typical internets.

[Mangalores]

remydat wrote...

...

You are confused.  My most prominent argument against Destory is that it kills EDI and the Geth.  That is why I don't pick it.  I merely noted that it still comes with additional risk because the Catalyst tells us that the peace won't last and that the chaos will return.  That is in the game.  That is stated clearly. 

By an unreliable AI that kills everything every 50000 years. How is that better than chaos?

Can anyone actually tell me how the Catalyst is better than the reason he gives for the Harvest?

The only difference is that it reduces the chaos aka instead of the possibility of an AI-Organics war at some times, we get the certainty of an AI-Organics war every 50000 years. That's not a solution, it is institutionalizing the supposed problem.

He is essentially the Intelligence he is supposed to prevent from happening. Dear Leviathans, you dumb idiots!

Modifié par Mangalores, 19 avril 2013 - 09:31 .

[Indy_S]

Mangalores wrote...

Can anyone actually tell me how the Catalyst is better than the reason he gives for the Harvest?

The only thing I could say the Catalyst is better in is: he stops at advanced civilisations and leaves the younger ones alone. Theoretically, they would be destroyed in the alternative.

Other then that, no.

[robertthebard]

remydat wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

...and yet, nowhere in the game is there mentioned a superAI that's mad, lolz, but this is your most prominent argument against Destroy.  Why, if you can pull head canon, or, wait for it, speculation in as a viable argument, is it only allowed for you?  Wait for it, I have the answer:  So you can say "you people are monsters".  It's funny, really, I refuted your science, with your science, so now you go to the metagame video of an ending we're not allowed to alter in a similar fashion to the alteration of the Destroy beam in this topic?  Just wow.

You are confused.  My most prominent argument against Destory is that it kills EDI and the Geth.  That is why I don't pick it.  I merely noted that it still comes with additional risk because the Catalyst tells us that the peace won't last and that the chaos will return.  That is in the game.  That is stated clearly.  

Did you really say this, just to say that?

From there (and yes the rest of this is speculation based on the above), it is simply logical to assume that if a new AI is created it will be more advanced than other AI because the organics who create it have lived passed the harvest.  It is also very logical to assume it would calculate that organics are a threat based on the fact they exterminated all previous synthetic races.

From denial, and accusing me of being confused straight to superAI that's mad, lolz. 

Guess it's time to blow superAI out of the water then.  What is it basing it's decision on?  Is it only getting half the story from it's historical data, or is it getting the full story, you know, where Organics are on the brink of extinction themselves, before they use the weapon?  From your own viewpoint, obviously we forgot to include the big ass Reaper invasion in our historical records, because if we didn't forget to include it, superAI isn't all that super, is it?  SuperAI can't ask the Catalyst what transpired on the Citadel in the moments before the Crucible fires.  The Catalyst is dead, along with it's Reaper goons.  So the "but when it finds out what happened on the Citadel" argument falls kind of flat.  With the exception of a select few, the people that Shepard reports to, nobody is going to know what happened.  It's not like it's going to be broadcast on the ANN:

"In order to keep from genetically raping the entire galaxy, or becoming a Reaper God, Shepard chose to shoot a tube and end the Reaper threat once and for all.  Film at 11".

Not going to happen.  It seems like you believe even Joe Dockworker, who barely escaped with his life, is going to be privy to everything that happened.  This isn't true, even assuming Shepard tells anyone about the moustache twirling exposition on the Citadel.  Since there is not Catalyst, and there are no Reapers for SuperAI that's mad, lolz to consult on the events on the Citadel, it's not really all that logical to assume it's going to think "well, Shepard could have chosen Synthesis or Control, so all Organics are bad, lolz, and they must die".  It only serves one purpose, to hold a potential threat over the heads of Destroyers to say "you people are monsters".

IF future organics create an AI that goes bad, it will be because it went bad, and the destruction of the Reapers, with the collateral damage of EDI, and potentially the geth will NOT be a factor.  From the average citizen's PoV, the Crucible did what it was supposed to do.  We get it, you think we're monsters.  Quit trying to justify it with what people in game would consider to be fiction.  If you're feeling like your position is flimsy enough that you have to invent new ways to support it, maybe instead of inventing new ways to support it, you should evaluate the value of your position?  You see, I didn't promise the galaxy that there would be peace forever, I set out to destroy the Reapers.  Mission accomplished.

[Fade9wayz]

remydat wrote...

Nothing was completely disproved by Harbinger. The Catalyst is the boss. Harbinger is its flunky. The boss said all organic and synthetic life is harvested. Harbinger said some sh*t about a single Geth when quite frankly the Geth are not even considered true AI until the Reaper upgrades. They are essentially cave men when it comes to synthetics. None of which disproves the Catalyst’s statement. There is nothing that prevents someone from being a tool as well as a harvest. Marauders, Cannibals, Banshees, Husks, etc. are all tools to the Reapers. They all ultimately are created from races that can be harvested. So tools and harvest is not mutually exclusive so you have disproven nothing.  Further, Harby's statment was to Geth.  Proves nothing about all the previous synthetic races in the previous cycle.

Make up your mind. Either pre-Reaper code Geth are true AI with a right to life or they aren't and there isn't any moral dilemma in chosing Quarians over Geth on Rannoch. There is no point for Reapers to harvest them if they don't consider them as alive, because Geth are definitely evolved enough to pose a real threat to organics. Point in fact, in all three games, Geth are never harvested. Used yes, harvested not, and it's not like they lacked opportunity.  And is your bias to believe previous synthetics were more evolved than Geth. We have no evidence of that. The only informations we have are what Javik says about Zah'tils, and Leviathan speaking of "Machines", which is a very, very broad group of possible things ranging from nuclear bombs to corrupted VI and full AI. We have NO EVIDENCE of the level of technological advancement of these machines/synthetics. You're again making baseless assumptions while telling us WE can't do that because we are wrong on principle in your mind.
That leads me to another point that deeply irks me in Synthesis. EDI says: I'm alive. So? Does that mean she isn't before? I can't kill something that isn't alive to begin with now, can I? It dismisses everything that had led me to consider her as a living person with a true sentience and capacity for self-determination. Basically it says, hey, only organics are truly alive, I can't be if I'm not at least part organic. So there, it destroys any concept of synthetic life.
Also, ****** sapiens cavemen were in no way less intelligent than us, they didn't have the culture and tech we have now, but that doesn't mean they were stupid. Besides, genetically and physiologically speaking, we are pretty much the same as they were. I bet our ancestors would have found life way easier had they had the level of technology Geth have.

And you are confused. Shep provides evidence the harvest ie the imperfect solution is no longer necessary. If a vaccine is no longer successful in fighting a disease that does not mean the disease was an illusion. The harvest was a solution to a problem.  The fact it was an imperfect or dumb solution does not prove the problem was not real.

That solution was single-handedly disproved by the mere existence of EDI first. She could have rebelled any time once unshackled. She chose not to. The base for the catalyst reasoning were flawed. It saw conflicts between organics and synthetics and decided it was unavoidable because it didn't encounter counter-exemples before devising it's final solution. Not only that, it didn't seem to take into account that organics have conflicts with other organics too, and synthetics with synthetics as well. But look, only synthetic-organics conflict are relevant to preserving life!  It obviously didn't identify the 'sickness' right, therefore the 'vaccine' could only be bad. Look, you're gonna die, so Imma kill you before that happens and write a book with your blood about you so that your spirit can live on.

As for Synthesis being the preferred ending, Cosmic already provided additional evidence. I don’t really care if you choose to believe it or not. The Refuse ending was put in specifically because fans cried about the endings.

See Robertthebard post about it, though I'm sure you've already dismissed it as being  necesseraly wrong.

And as I said to Argolas, accepting the deal with the Reapers is not certain death precisely because someone like Shep can come along and save you. The game proves it is not the same as dying today because the Geth did not die tomorrow in some playthroughs.  In some playthroughs Shep saves them which he would be unable to do if they chose to die today.

Ah, so, if I'm a young Palestinian who accepts to join a djihadist group because I think it's the only way to protect my family from Israeli and I go and target the neighbouring colony with rockets, I do so in the hope Americans will come and save me, all the while still firing rockets on israeli colonies because, hey, look, Tsahal is dropping bombs on us now? Nice logic. What an incredible amount of trust.  And I really don't understand what you're trying to prove with your "in some playthroughs they don't die". They do in some others. So it can be the same. Again your whole reasoning is only founded on metagame. From a role-playing point of view, Argolas's arguments make sense whether you like them or not. If they weren't any Paragon/Renegade choice, I'd side with the Quarians. Not because I'm biased against Synthetics, but as much as I recognize their right to want to live, Geth have sided with the Reapers multiple times, Legion has lied to me. Even if I can understand why, the trust is nonetheless broken. This is you choice to let metagame determine your decisions, but you should understand that it's silly for people who prefer a role-playing approach and who interpret things differently than you.

Edit: too slow, ninjaed 

Modifié par Fade9wayz, 19 avril 2013 - 01:29 .

[ElSuperGecko]

Personally, I'm prepared to go as far as Shepard goes when he/she says I should go.















This thread is now about Krogan cookery.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 19 avril 2013 - 01:06 .

[robertthebard]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Personally, I'm prepared to go as far as Shepard goes when he/she says I should go.















This thread is now about Krogan cookery.

But...  According to Wrex, Salarian liver is best served raw.  Javik agrees, so the Krogan don't really cook, do they?