428 réponses à ce sujet

[masster blaster]

Harbinger is evil no matter what. Hello it's a Leviathan. Before you say Leviathans are good guys, well look at what they say at the end of the dlc Leviathan. Not the friendly guys that you can trust. This is also a problem that is not presented in synthesis, and as well as the other endings, except Refuse.

Some people say you handed the galaxy over to the Leviathans in Destroy, some say that you had over the organics in Control to the Leviathans. But in synthesis the Leviathans get both organics, and synthetics. Not to mention Harbinger is now 10x powerful than it was before. Now free it's race can take over the Reapers, the organics, and synthetics. Ya not very nice if you ask me.

Moreover again the organics are victums, but not the Reaper it'self. A new life was formed by the combined minds of all the organics inside the Reaper. Thus when they joined as one a new mind was created, and thus we get the Reaper's we get to meet.

And yes they were. They could have fought, but didn't. We see through out the storys people fighting Indoctrination and win. Most of them end up killing themselfs, but yet they can break free long enough to make the ultimate sacrifice. Just one Reaper is made up of millions of minds, now mutiply that but 10,000 Reapers. Ya the catalyst can basically control that many minds. Wrong. If that was they case the catalyst could indoctrinate the whole galaxy with easy. Also may I remind you Harbinger created this new form of Indoctrination. The catalyst would have to take control over millions of Leviathans inside one Reaper, which I don't see happening. Only way it could take control of Harbinger is join as one with Harbinger.

Further more the Reapers are monsters. There is no reason to think they are not. Created by a logic that does not have any weight the Reapers are abominations that need to be put down. Whether they are guilty or not they need to die. No organic life should live like that forever. Inside a monster that killed billions, and harvested trillions......with no way out......do they deserve that fate? No. They don't. Which is why kiling them is the best option. For one their times has long been passed. I am sure they want to join with their loved ones they lost, and most likely want peace. There are many ways to find peace in life, and one of those is death. They die free. No longer bound to the monster, forced to fight if they did, and can just be at peace. Y es i know the price was high, and a little retarted, but I see it as a lesson.

Wars never have a happy go luck ending. Some sacrifixes are made, and they seem horrible, yet it does happen. The Geth and EDI died not for nothing. They died for freedom, ending the cycle, and showing the galaxy that this war between synthetics and organics is over. The organics know how it all started now, and now they have a chance to correct that mistake. Sure the peace won't last, but that's up to the next generation of organics, and synthetics to do other wise. And yes again I know it's not right, iakus but this is war.

One more thing. A Reason why I strongly disagree with synthesis, and that of control is because the galaxy is forced to obey. In Control Shepard is declaring Marshall law basically on the whole galaxy. Anyone that threatness the galaxy would be killed, or maybe indoctrinated to be retaught. In synthesis everyone is equal, yet everything is to perfect. All personalitys of each character is gone. Javik's hate for the Reapers...gone. The Leviathans thirst for conquest gone...The galaxy fighting the Reapers is gone. Don't say ya they just came to realize that the Reapers were just controlled crap because we all know if somebody was being controled and killed the one you loved and all that you hold dear to. You would not feel any aggresion towards them? I would.

[masster blaster]

Yes I know in Destroy you force it on the whole galaxy, yet every person is still the same. All are diviers which is right imo. The galaxy can rebuild, and learn from their mistakes. Not to mention it's the organixs that build their own future, and not being forced to do so. In synthesis, and control the whole galaxy is being forced to work together. Yes Synthesis too because. By weriting the galaxy's DNA you changed everything they once were, and created a new personality in their orignal bodys. If you don't believe me go back and listen to everyone saying " They want the Reapers dead,", or better yet listen to your squad mates.

Moreover in Destroy for once the galaxy is free. With the death of the Reapers, the end to the intellegence, and all the husk troops, and cerberus there is a balance. When the catalyst started it's logic mission it caused the galaxy to become unbalanced. It played god, and tried to make the galaxy do by it's own accorued. The Reapers are just that error that has to be corrected. I believe the whole point was not trying to slove a problem, but bring balance to the galaxy.Simple and put really.

Modifié par masster blaster, 21 mai 2013 - 05:30 .

[Eryri]

AlanC9 wrote...

Speculating about a "kill Reapers" button that doesn't exist and lies that the Catalyst didn't tell?

Neither of which Shepard would be sure of at the time he makes the decision.

Are you maybe talking about some hypothetical alternative version of ME3?

And yes, I saw your sig. Are you actually one of the die-hards?

Of which hypothetical version do you speak Alan? One that might embarrass the game's creators by actually making the tiniest bit of sense? Edit: scratch that, actually quite a bit more sense. If IT truly is a "fan-made theory" then those fans should feel proud for creating something far more coherent and imaginative than a team of supposedly professional writers. It seems you can make a silk purse out of sow's ear after all!

But anyway, in this instance I am not refering to that. 

As I stated in my earlier post, in deference to Bioware's wishes I am interpreting the game entirely literally when I discuss it on the BSN. It's hardly my fault if I naturally perceive it to be a nonsensical pile of tripe that requires Shepard (and pretty much everyone else in the game for that matter) to behave like a credulous idiot.

I cannot imagine any version of Shepard passive and trusting enough to follow the Catalyst's advice to murder himself under any circumstances. Even ones as dire as these. Particularly since the only reason time is such a factor is because the Catalyst is unwilling or unable to tell his Reapers to back off, and allow Shepard to choose a better solution than the one that he himself admits is no longer viable. Shepard is just ridiculously lucky this time that the Catalyst happens to be telling the truth, and his gullibility is rewarded with the nearest that Mass Effect 3 gets to victory. He succeeds, when anyone with an ounce of reasonable skepticism would have doomed the galaxy. Doe-eyed credulity is apparently a virtue in Mass Effect, if not exactly a survival trait.

I'm not a student of military history, but I can't imagine many wars were won by committing suicide at the behest of an enemy general.

Modifié par Eryri, 21 mai 2013 - 03:24 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Eryri wrote...
More desperate than accepting the Catalyst's asinine suggestions on the basis that we're probably going to die anyway?

The difference is that we really are going to die anyway if the Crucible doesn't work, but nothing's forcing you to make up nonsense.

How do you know the Crucible doesn't work.

You don't even know what it'se is supposed to do.

For all you know, the Catalyst is simply trying to sabotage the Crucible before it can finish doing...whatever.

"Sure.  Shooting that pipe will totally wipe us all out.  Trust me on that."

"Go ahead, grab those wires.  Nothing will short out.  You;'ll have total control over us.

"Jump in the beam.  All the cool kids are doing it.  It totally won't introduce foreign contaminants to a precision device."

And therein lies the fundamental flaw of the narrative. I have no qualms with a writer attempting to spin the antagonist in a philosophical manner, provided they are able to sell me their philosophy. After near a hundred hours of opposition, we are expected to accept the arguments of our enemy wholesale for no reason beyond "because he says so." The narrative does a remarkably poor job convincing us anything the Catalyst says or does is to our own benefit and the innumerable contradicts certainly do not help.

Of course, the Crucible being a Deus ex Machina makes the plot problematic from the onset. We are still busy attempting to buy how this device even works, how it can possibly fit into the Citadel and god knows what else.

[KingZayd]

AlanC9 wrote...

Eryri wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
The difference is that we really are going to die anyway if the Crucible doesn't work, but nothing's forcing you to make up nonsense.

You may call it that Alan. I call it speculating.

Speculating about a "kill Reapers" button that doesn't exist and lies that the Catalyst didn't tell? Are you maybe talking about some hypothetical alternative version of ME3?

And yes, I saw your sig. Are you actually one of the die-hards?

Pretty big assumption. And I'm pretty sure they must have pressed the button on the Crucible. Why would someone construct such a device and attempt to use it  while having no idea how to even turn it on?

Modifié par KingZayd, 21 mai 2013 - 01:12 .

[masster blaster]

KingZayd wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Eryri wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
The difference is that we really are going to die anyway if the Crucible doesn't work, but nothing's forcing you to make up nonsense.

You may call it that Alan. I call it speculating.

Speculating about a "kill Reapers" button that doesn't exist and lies that the Catalyst didn't tell? Are you maybe talking about some hypothetical alternative version of ME3?

And yes, I saw your sig. Are you actually one of the die-hards?

Pretty big assumption. And I'm pretty sure they must have pressed the button on the Crucible. Why would someone construct such a device and attempt to use it  while having no idea how to even turn it on?

Ya that makes no sense at all. The Leviathan's have not a clue what the crucible does, even though they have watch the crucible be constructed, not to mention who built the tube, and the control rods? No way a cycle could have knonw about the Citadel being a trap, and have enough man power to break through the citadel blockade of Reapers, and have the time to build those devices. Not to mention the data on the crucible should have contained the information that the citadel was a trap.

But the funny things is the intellegence knows more about the crucible than it let's on. It explains the out comes if you do this and that, and it explains the crucible's purpose, despite being clueless on it's function. Also why doesn't it tell us who created it? If we can talk about it's logic, about the Reapers, and talk about four endings, then ya there is plenty of time for it to tell us who created it.

Which gives my a bad feeling that the crucible is of Reaper origion, but that's highly unlikely if you think about it, but in a way that's how I feel. Yes i know why build a destroy tube that can kill all of them. Don't know, but the Reapers seem arregent, and their leader is an idiot. Maybe it was to make the person feel like they can't kill the ones they love, and that's why the catalyst offers Control, and synthesis. Don't know, but hey " lot's of speculation for everyone."

[KingZayd]

masster blaster wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Eryri wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
The difference is that we really are going to die anyway if the Crucible doesn't work, but nothing's forcing you to make up nonsense.

You may call it that Alan. I call it speculating.

Speculating about a "kill Reapers" button that doesn't exist and lies that the Catalyst didn't tell? Are you maybe talking about some hypothetical alternative version of ME3?

And yes, I saw your sig. Are you actually one of the die-hards?

Pretty big assumption. And I'm pretty sure they must have pressed the button on the Crucible. Why would someone construct such a device and attempt to use it  while having no idea how to even turn it on?

Ya that makes no sense at all. The Leviathan's have not a clue what the crucible does, even though they have watch the crucible be constructed, not to mention who built the tube, and the control rods? No way a cycle could have knonw about the Citadel being a trap, and have enough man power to break through the citadel blockade of Reapers, and have the time to build those devices. Not to mention the data on the crucible should have contained the information that the citadel was a trap.

But the funny things is the intellegence knows more about the crucible than it let's on. It explains the out comes if you do this and that, and it explains the crucible's purpose, despite being clueless on it's function. Also why doesn't it tell us who created it? If we can talk about it's logic, about the Reapers, and talk about four endings, then ya there is plenty of time for it to tell us who created it.

Which gives my a bad feeling that the crucible is of Reaper origion, but that's highly unlikely if you think about it, but in a way that's how I feel. Yes i know why build a destroy tube that can kill all of them. Don't know, but the Reapers seem arregent, and their leader is an idiot. Maybe it was to make the person feel like they can't kill the ones they love, and that's why the catalyst offers Control, and synthesis. Don't know, but hey " lot's of speculation for everyone."

Or maybe it's of Leviathan origin. Their way of safely patching the bits they don't like about the Starchild, without putting themselves in danger.

They just need to make the plans available every cycle, and wait until one succeeds.

[Phatose]

Tron Mega wrote...

the moment shepard becomes sheaprd-reaper-god, who can definitively say sheaprd mind is still the same? its impossible to know unless it gets written that way and someone at bioware spells it out fir us.

in all actuality sheaprd-reaper is NOT the same. he refers to himself in past tense doesnt he? how do we know his mind is still the same? you cant tell me becoming a reaper-god wont/wouldnt/couldnt change perspective(especially when theres no attachment to the former self).

i cant imagine(no one can) becoming a reaper-god. how am i supposed to be like "nah, shepards still a bro at heart" when its not (my) shepard?

No, his mind is not the same.  But that doesn't actually make it not Shepard anymore. 

People change perspectives all the time.  People change all the time.  Shepard at the end of the series is not the same as Shepard at the beginning of the series.  Does this mean that ME3 Shepard isn't Shepard anymore?

Yes, he refers to himself in past tense.   I have done so too.  I'm willing to bet you've referred to yourself in the past tense many, many times during your life.  This is not evidence you've been replaced.

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

No it is not. And we will not know
that a machine can have anything other than simulated emotions until one
actually does. Until that time everything is head canon. You are
arguing a fictional projection. You are stating the brain is a meat
computer. The brain is the center of our awareness, of our creativity.
To this day no machine, no computer has the same ability. A machine can
simulate creating music, but cannot actually create music. It is still
done off a program, not off a machine's self-awareness.

Stop arguing head-canon and come back to reality.

I'm actually already in reality.  Head-canon is about a game.  I'm talking about philosophy of mind - our reality.   Descartes.  Leibnez.  Hofstader, Dennet.

Oh, and lol @ simulated emotions again.  Do tell me, what exactly is the difference between a simulated emotion and a real one?   How do we know ours aren't all simulated emotions? 

[KaiserShep]

masster blaster wrote...
But the funny things is the intellegence knows more about the crucible than it let's on. It explains the out comes if you do this and that, and it explains the crucible's purpose, despite being clueless on it's function. Also why doesn't it tell us who created it? If we can talk about it's logic, about the Reapers, and talk about four endings, then ya there is plenty of time for it to tell us who created it.

It's a safe bet that the catalyst has no idea who started its construction. After all, why would the catalyst seed plans for a device that is meant to re-purpose its own network against the reapers? It's more than likely that the catalyst knew nothing about its existence or function until it was docked into the crucible, and only then it was able to determine what it did. The catalyst makes it perfectly clear that its solution no longer works, because despite its best efforts, knowledge of the reaper trap finally caught up with it. 

Which gives my a bad feeling that the crucible is of Reaper origion, but that's highly unlikely if you think about it, but in a way that's how I feel. Yes i know why build a destroy tube that can kill all of them. Don't know, but the Reapers seem arregent, and their leader is an idiot. Maybe it was to make the person feel like they can't kill the ones they love, and that's why the catalyst offers Control, and synthesis. Don't know, but hey " lot's of speculation for everyone."

As I said previously, it doesn't seem likely, or sensible, that the catalyst itself would create this thing. As for the tube, keep in mind that the controls and the power conduit tube are not part of the crucible. They are clearly parts of the Citadel itself. If you shoot the power conduit, you are shooting the Citadel's component, not the weapon you just had all your forces construct. The only things connecting the Crucible to the Citadel are its docking arms, and that big beam at its center. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 21 mai 2013 - 02:39 .

[KingZayd]

Phatose wrote...

Tron Mega wrote...

the moment shepard becomes sheaprd-reaper-god, who can definitively say sheaprd mind is still the same? its impossible to know unless it gets written that way and someone at bioware spells it out fir us.

in all actuality sheaprd-reaper is NOT the same. he refers to himself in past tense doesnt he? how do we know his mind is still the same? you cant tell me becoming a reaper-god wont/wouldnt/couldnt change perspective(especially when theres no attachment to the former self).

i cant imagine(no one can) becoming a reaper-god. how am i supposed to be like "nah, shepards still a bro at heart" when its not (my) shepard?

No, his mind is not the same.  But that doesn't actually make it not Shepard anymore. 

People change perspectives all the time.  People change all the time.  Shepard at the end of the series is not the same as Shepard at the beginning of the series.  Does this mean that ME3 Shepard isn't Shepard anymore?

Yes, he refers to himself in past tense.   I have done so too.  I'm willing to bet you've referred to yourself in the past tense many, many times during your life.  This is not evidence you've been replaced.

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

No it is not. And we will not know
that a machine can have anything other than simulated emotions until one
actually does. Until that time everything is head canon. You are
arguing a fictional projection. You are stating the brain is a meat
computer. The brain is the center of our awareness, of our creativity.
To this day no machine, no computer has the same ability. A machine can
simulate creating music, but cannot actually create music. It is still
done off a program, not off a machine's self-awareness.

Stop arguing head-canon and come back to reality.

I'm actually already in reality.  Head-canon is about a game.  I'm talking about philosophy of mind - our reality.   Descartes.  Leibnez.  Hofstader, Dennet.

Oh, and lol @ simulated emotions again.  Do tell me, what exactly is the difference between a simulated emotion and a real one?   How do we know ours aren't all simulated emotions? 

It refers to Shepard EXCLUSIVELY in the third person and the "person I was". Seems pretty clear its a separate entity that it remembers being (due to the memories being copied over).

[Phatose]

And if I say "The child I was", does that mean that child and me are different entitites? More to the point, you're questioning whether or not it's the same entity when it's outright telling you they are the same thing "person I was", ergo, that person was me.

Modifié par Phatose, 21 mai 2013 - 02:53 .

[KaiserShep]

The transition from child to adolescent to adult is not the same as having your body completely destroyed and transferring your consciousness, or at least some modicum of consciousness, from one medium to another. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 21 mai 2013 - 03:00 .

[KingZayd]

Phatose wrote...

And if I say "The child I was", does that mean that child and me are different entitites? More to the point, you're questioning whether or not it's the same entity when it's outright telling you they are the same thing "person I was", ergo, that person was me.

If you only refer to yourself as "The child I was", then you're being a little odd.

"person I was" merely means it has memories of being that person.

[Phatose]

There is no definition of "was" that means having the memories of someone.

KaiserShep wrote...

The transition from child to
adolescent to adult is not the same as having your body completely
destroyed and transferring your consciousness, or at least some modicum
of consciousness, from one medium to another. 

And how, exactly, do they differ?  The atoms in my body when I was a child sure as hell aren't the atoms in my body as an adult.  The cells in my brain today are made up of different matter then they were yesterday, and it will change again tomorrow.

Modifié par Phatose, 21 mai 2013 - 03:09 .

[KingZayd]

Phatose wrote...

There is no definition of "was" that means having the memories of someone.

It's entirely dependent on what "I" means.
Memories are part of you.

[Phatose]

And are there definitions of I out there which include only memories?

[KingZayd]

Phatose wrote...

And are there definitions of I out there which include only memories?

Apparently. StarShepard's using it

[KaiserShep]

Phatose wrote...

There is no definition of "was" that means having the memories of someone.

KaiserShep wrote...

The transition from child to
adolescent to adult is not the same as having your body completely
destroyed and transferring your consciousness, or at least some modicum
of consciousness, from one medium to another. 

And how, exactly, do they differ?  The atoms in my body when I was a child sure as hell aren't the atoms in my body as an adult.  The cells in my brain today are made up of different matter then they were yesterday, and it will change again tomorrow.

Seriously? No, this statement is ridiculously incorrect. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 21 mai 2013 - 03:34 .

[tanisha__unknown]

daaaav wrote...

A self indulgent thought experiment did not belong at the end of this story.

Shepards actions themselves should have defined how the tale ended and the scope should have been narrower.

+1

[Phatose]

KaiserShep wrote...

Phatose wrote...

There is no definition of "was" that means having the memories of someone.

KaiserShep wrote...

The transition from child to
adolescent to adult is not the same as having your body completely
destroyed and transferring your consciousness, or at least some modicum
of consciousness, from one medium to another. 

And how, exactly, do they differ?  The atoms in my body when I was a child sure as hell aren't the atoms in my body as an adult.  The cells in my brain today are made up of different matter then they were yesterday, and it will change again tomorrow.

Seriously? No, this statement is ridiculously incorrect.

It's absolutely true.  Simple chemistry of respiration ensures that.  Oxygen from the environment comes in, oxygen gets bonded to carbon and exhaled, different oxygen replaces it.

[AlanC9]

Eryri wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Speculating about a "kill Reapers" button that doesn't exist and lies that the Catalyst didn't tell?

Neither of which Shepard would be sure of at the time he makes the decision.

It isn't "speculation" if you know they don't exist. Unless we're only speculating about why some Sheps might pick Refuse and doom the galaxy. But I guess that's the case here.

If IT truly is a "fan-made theory" then those fans should feel proud for creating something far more coherent and imaginative than a team of supposedly professional writers. It seems you can make a silk purse out of sow's ear after all!

If?

I'm not a student of military history, but I can't imagine many wars were won by committing suicide at the behest of an enemy general.

 
I actually am such a student:; not many wars were fought against irrationally-programmed robots either

[AlanC9]

Or won with a mysterious alien superweapon..

[KaiserShep]

Phatose wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

Phatose wrote...

There is no definition of "was" that means having the memories of someone.

KaiserShep wrote...

The transition from child to
adolescent to adult is not the same as having your body completely
destroyed and transferring your consciousness, or at least some modicum
of consciousness, from one medium to another. 

And how, exactly, do they differ?  The atoms in my body when I was a child sure as hell aren't the atoms in my body as an adult.  The cells in my brain today are made up of different matter then they were yesterday, and it will change again tomorrow.

Seriously? No, this statement is ridiculously incorrect.

It's absolutely true.  Simple chemistry of respiration ensures that.  Oxygen from the environment comes in, oxygen gets bonded to carbon and exhaled, different oxygen replaces it.

The issue is the implication that destroying your body to transfer your mind to an immortal machine is the same as maturing/aging. 

[Eryri]

AlanC9 wrote...

Eryri wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Speculating about a "kill Reapers" button that doesn't exist and lies that the Catalyst didn't tell?

Neither of which Shepard would be sure of at the time he makes the decision.

It isn't "speculation" if you know they don't exist. Unless we're only speculating about why some Sheps might pick Refuse and doom the galaxy. But I guess that's the case here.

Correct. I am trying to understand why anyone in that position would not immediately find those impractical methods of activating the Crucible completely absurd.. Why anyone with an reasonable degree of common sense would not be at least slightly suspicious that all three options conveniently result in their death.

Edited for tone.

Modifié par Eryri, 21 mai 2013 - 07:23 .

[Phatose]

And how exactly do they differ?