428 réponses à ce sujet

[Phatose]

Eryri wrote...

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.

Of course it is. I am trying to understand why anyone in that position would not immediately laugh in the Catalyst's face after hearing such an absurd little speech. Why anyone with an ounce of common sense would not be at least slightly suspicious that all three options conveniently result in their deaths.

Godzilla Threshold.  At that point you're, there's really no way you can make the situation any worse.  If he's lying to you, then the war is lost, humanity is lost, and the entire cycle is lost.  If you don't take his word for it, well, you're doomed anyway. 

[KingZayd]

Phatose wrote...

And how exactly do they differ?

The same way a kid growing up differs from a theoertical "blank slate" human reading and remembering a perfect record of that kid's memories just after the kid has been vaporised.

Modifié par KingZayd, 21 mai 2013 - 06:11 .

[KingZayd]

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.

But you don't. That's just an assumption you made.

[Phatose]

KingZayd wrote...

Phatose wrote...

And how exactly do they differ?

The same way a kid growing up differs from a theoertical "blank slate" human reading and remembering a perfect record of that kid's memories just after the kid has been vaporised.

That isn't exactly what I'd call exact.  Just another metaphor. 

[KingZayd]

Phatose wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Phatose wrote...

And how exactly do they differ?

The same way a kid growing up differs from a theoertical "blank slate" human reading and remembering a perfect record of that kid's memories just after the kid has been vaporised.

That isn't exactly what I'd call exact.  Just another metaphor. 

But it is exact.
The computer is reading and remembering a perfect record of Shepard's memories just after he's been vaporised. Well, it might be while he's being vaporised. But that's it.

Modifié par KingZayd, 21 mai 2013 - 06:35 .

[Eryri]

And in response to your other points

AlanC9 wrote...

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

I don't think the fact that we are dealing with a space opera setting and outlandish enemies and technology, means that we have to accept psychological realism taking a back seat.

[PsyrenY]

Eryri wrote...

I don't think the fact that we are dealing with a space opera setting and outlandish enemies and technology, means that we have to accept psychological realism taking a back seat.

So, "the entire premise and nature of this war is different than any ever fought throughout human history, but all the principal players should react in ways that I expect them to?"

[Tron Mega]

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.

sure, im not the same guy i was 5 minutes ago. that hardly relates to the difference between shepard or reaper-shepard.

doesnt mean shepards going to come to the same conclusions as he would when he was a human compared to when hes reaper-god.

if you can show me how shepard is still the same, im all for it. i just dont see it that way, especially when the game tells me its not shepard anymore.

but by all means, please explain your opinion a bit further for me.

[Eryri]

Phatose wrote...

Godzilla Threshold.  At that point you're, there's really no way you can make the situation any worse.  If he's lying to you, then the war is lost, humanity is lost, and the entire cycle is lost.  If you don't take his word for it, well, you're doomed anyway.  

I'm not entirely sure that is true. As I've mentioned before, Shepard may come to the conclusion that the Catalyst is trying to distract him from a genuine means of activating the Crucible. This conclusion would be based on some assumptions:

- The Catalyst is apparently not in total control of the Citadel at the moment, possibly due to the Prothean sabotage while it was hibernating. This is evidenced by the fact that it was unable to activate the relay to Darkspace on its own, or to kill Shepard on his arrival in the Citadel (before the Crucible docked and changed it's priorities), or for that matter during any of his extended stays there during the war, or to prevent Shepard from opening the ward arms. 
- If the Catalyst truly has only limited control, then it may have to rely on other means to protect itself. Such as sequestering Shepard in a location where is less likely to be able to do harm to it. Or using misinformation to confuse and distract him until the Reapers can destroy the Crucible.

Personally, I would have liked to see Shepard at least voice these sorts of concerns. I find his meek acceptance of the information provided by an entity that he has literally just met, rather irritating and out of character. It's only sheer dumb luck that the Catalyst was actually telling the truth.

Modifié par Eryri, 21 mai 2013 - 07:08 .

[KingZayd]

Eryri wrote...

Phatose wrote...

Godzilla Threshold.  At that point you're, there's really no way you can make the situation any worse.  If he's lying to you, then the war is lost, humanity is lost, and the entire cycle is lost.  If you don't take his word for it, well, you're doomed anyway.  

I'm not entirely sure that is true. As I've mentioned before, Shepard may come to the conclusion that the Catalyst is trying to distract him from a genuine means of activating the Crucible. This conclusion would be based on some assumptions:

- The Catalyst is apparently not in total control of the Citadel at the moment, possibly due to the Prothean sabotage while it was hibernating. This is evidenced by the fact that it was unable to activate the relay to Darkspace on its own, or to kill Shepard on his arrival in the Citadel, before the Crucible docked and changed it's priorities, or for that matter during any of his extended stays there during the war. Or to prevent Shepard from opening the ward arms. 
- If the Catalyst truly has only limited control, then it may have to rely on other means to protect itself. Such as sequestering Shepard in a location where is less likely to be able to do harm to it. Or using misinformation to confuse and distract him until the Reapers can destroy the Crucible.

Personally, I would have liked to see Shepard at least voice these sorts of concerns. I find his meek acceptance of the information provided by an entity that he has literally just met, rather irritating and out of character. It's only sheer dumb luck that the Catalyst was actually telling the truth.

Or the Crucible was already processing, and this is a trick just to sabotage it before it fires, and kill Shepard as a bonus.

[CronoDragoon]

Eryri wrote...

Personally, I would have liked to see Shepard at least voice these sorts of concerns. I find his meek acceptance of the information provided by an entity that he has literally just met, rather irritating and out of character. It's only sheer dumb luck that the Catalyst was actually telling the truth.

Luck is not the word for it, I think.

[Eryri]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Eryri wrote...

I don't think the fact that we are dealing with a space opera setting and outlandish enemies and technology, means that we have to accept psychological realism taking a back seat.

So, "the entire premise and nature of this war is different than any ever fought throughout human history, but all the principal players should react in ways that I expect them to?"

Well, they're not terribly relatable if they don't. Are you saying that you wouldn't mind characters behaving in completely unrealistic and bizarre ways so long as the setting was sufficiently weird? 

[Phatose]

Tron Mega wrote...
sure, im not the same guy i was 5 minutes ago. that hardly relates to the difference between shepard or reaper-shepard.

doesnt mean shepards going to come to the same conclusions as he would when he was a human compared to when hes reaper-god.

if you can show me how shepard is still the same, im all for it. i just dont see it that way, especially when the game tells me its not shepard anymore.

but by all means, please explain your opinion a bit further for me.

It heavily relates to the difference between the two.  That's the thing.

We don't have undeniable evidence that he'll come to the same conclusion after his ascension as before.  But we don't even have undeniable evidence he'll come to the same conclusion 5 minutes from now if he doesn't become Reaper-shep.  I'm not going to apply a requirement of certainty to an Ascended Shepard when I can't get that certainty from anyone.

Anyway, The central problem is that the actual assertion is that somehow, Shepards ascenion will change him into a malevolent overlord.  I don't buy the "No personality, memories only thing" at all - it's applying limitations of familiar tech to unfamiliar tech, and while possible, it's far from certain.

But that's not really the issue.  Even if it's only his memories and nothing else, there's an implication that giving him more mental capacity and a vastly large viewpoint would drastically change his priorities and morals.  But if enlarging our viewpoint to that scale means our morals break down and don't work, doesn't that tell you that our morals were flawed to begin with?  If right and wrong don't function once you get to a large scale, then why in the world and we calling them right and wrong to begin with?

[Redbelle]

Eryri wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

Eryri wrote...

I don't think the fact that we are dealing with a space opera setting and outlandish enemies and technology, means that we have to accept psychological realism taking a back seat.

So, "the entire premise and nature of this war is different than any ever fought throughout human history, but all the principal players should react in ways that I expect them to?"

Well, they're not terribly relatable if they don't. Are you saying that you wouldn't mind characters behaving in completely unrealistic and bizarre ways so long as the setting was sufficiently weird? 

It'll be fine. Just have everyone act like Peter Seller's in the Pink Panther movie's and move the setting from space opera to space comedy. (From the makers of the original Casino Royale)........ which had a better ending. :innocent:

Ultimately, how do you expect them to behave? These people act in the capacity of their status. Soldier's grab gun's, follow the order's of their superior's...... and provided the order's are not grossly suicidal, in that charging the main gun of a Reaper to distract it, will result in something that still ultimately bring's them victory. Given that the alternative is to be gooed in a tank and syringed into a Reaper shell.

And let's not forget. These people fighting the Reapers are Hollywood, romanticised soldiers. They are portreyed as the line holding back the storm. I wouldn't worry to much about how they behave, except that they are vehicle's moving through a story who must ultimately act a certain way to acheive the desired resolution.

I don't think anyone who play's ME will mistake it's artistic direction as being similar to Black Hawk down. Or The Hurt Locker.

[KingZayd]

Phatose wrote...

Tron Mega wrote...
sure, im not the same guy i was 5 minutes ago. that hardly relates to the difference between shepard or reaper-shepard.

doesnt mean shepards going to come to the same conclusions as he would when he was a human compared to when hes reaper-god.

if you can show me how shepard is still the same, im all for it. i just dont see it that way, especially when the game tells me its not shepard anymore.

but by all means, please explain your opinion a bit further for me.

It heavily relates to the difference between the two.  That's the thing.

We don't have undeniable evidence that he'll come to the same conclusion after his ascension as before.  But we don't even have undeniable evidence he'll come to the same conclusion 5 minutes from now if he doesn't become Reaper-shep.  I'm not going to apply a requirement of certainty to an Ascended Shepard when I can't get that certainty from anyone.

Anyway, The central problem is that the actual assertion is that somehow, Shepards ascenion will change him into a malevolent overlord.  I don't buy the "No personality, memories only thing" at all - it's applying limitations of familiar tech to unfamiliar tech, and while possible, it's far from certain.

But that's not really the issue.  Even if it's only his memories and nothing else, there's an implication that giving him more mental capacity and a vastly large viewpoint would drastically change his priorities and morals.  But if enlarging our viewpoint to that scale means our morals break down and don't work, doesn't that tell you that our morals were flawed to begin with?  If right and wrong don't function once you get to a large scale, then why in the world and we calling them right and wrong to begin with?

It's not just enlargening the viewpoint, it's also a different viewpoint. Different hardware, different thought processes. And problem isn't with a malevolent overlord or calling it's views right or wrong (subjective anyway), it's giving the this one entity all the power so it can enforce it's moral opinions as law.

[PsyrenY]

Eryri wrote...

Well, they're not terribly relatable if they don't. Are you saying that you wouldn't mind characters behaving in completely unrealistic and bizarre ways so long as the setting was sufficiently weird? 

What's "unrealistic and bizarre" about willing to sacrifice oneself to save another species and end a war at the same time? Seems pretty consistent with Paragon Shepard to me.

[Phatose]

All viewpoints are different, like I said before. Don't have to change hardware to change viewpoints. That's gonna happen constantly no matter what.

Beyond that, what would you prefer? The power always has to reside somewhere. Is having a group of 12 overlords better than 1? Is 100 better then 12? A million better then a hundred?

[KingZayd]

Phatose wrote...

All viewpoints are different, like I said before. Don't have to change hardware to change viewpoints. That's gonna happen constantly no matter what.

Beyond that, what would you prefer? The power always has to reside somewhere. Is having a group of 12 overlords better than 1? Is 100 better then 12? A million better then a hundred?

Yes.

[Redbelle]

KingZayd wrote...

Phatose wrote...

Tron Mega wrote...
sure, im not the same guy i was 5 minutes ago. that hardly relates to the difference between shepard or reaper-shepard.

doesnt mean shepards going to come to the same conclusions as he would when he was a human compared to when hes reaper-god.

if you can show me how shepard is still the same, im all for it. i just dont see it that way, especially when the game tells me its not shepard anymore.

but by all means, please explain your opinion a bit further for me.

It heavily relates to the difference between the two.  That's the thing.

We don't have undeniable evidence that he'll come to the same conclusion after his ascension as before.  But we don't even have undeniable evidence he'll come to the same conclusion 5 minutes from now if he doesn't become Reaper-shep.  I'm not going to apply a requirement of certainty to an Ascended Shepard when I can't get that certainty from anyone.

Anyway, The central problem is that the actual assertion is that somehow, Shepards ascenion will change him into a malevolent overlord.  I don't buy the "No personality, memories only thing" at all - it's applying limitations of familiar tech to unfamiliar tech, and while possible, it's far from certain.

But that's not really the issue.  Even if it's only his memories and nothing else, there's an implication that giving him more mental capacity and a vastly large viewpoint would drastically change his priorities and morals.  But if enlarging our viewpoint to that scale means our morals break down and don't work, doesn't that tell you that our morals were flawed to begin with?  If right and wrong don't function once you get to a large scale, then why in the world and we calling them right and wrong to begin with?

It's not just enlargening the viewpoint, it's also a different viewpoint. Different hardware, different thought processes. And problem isn't with a malevolent overlord or calling it's views right or wrong (subjective anyway), it's giving the this one entity all the power so it can enforce it's moral opinions as law.

One thing about the Reapers...... they are old. They look far into the future beyond what most would consider a mortal lifespan. And key to their animosity for organic life!!! They don't get us. They do not share our perspective on life. Poor blighter's.

Shepard's control meant more to the Reaper's than you know. The Reapers are suddenly in the position of being destroyed because they can no longer rely on secreacy and surprise while keeping young races dependent on a transport infrastructure under Reaper control.

The galaxy is, quite plainy, more than prepared to tear them a new one in up coming cycles. And they can't stop it.

Unless they change so that they can understand the mortal perspective.

Consider this. The Reaper's were conceived and birthed by an ammoral AI stuck in a logic loop where control of extinction event's took place by intervening before a natural event could threaten all life in the galaxy. (Cough, Geth/Quarian, cough, peace and co-existance, cough, cough).

Now consider waht would happen if Shepard took over as the controlling force. Not strictly speaking sure if that happened, but initial action's taken by the Shreaper seem promising. Suddenly, the Reaper perspective shift's from. "We can do what we want",

to,

"we'd better stop and make friend's and show we can be a positive influence........ while policing these bipedal meatbag's to make sure they toe the line to destroying themselves.......and we don't have to kill them all or goo anyone to do it?!?! Well I'll be.......never would have thought of that before the Shepard."

Modifié par Redbelle, 21 mai 2013 - 07:48 .

[KingZayd]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Eryri wrote...

Well, they're not terribly relatable if they don't. Are you saying that you wouldn't mind characters behaving in completely unrealistic and bizarre ways so long as the setting was sufficiently weird? 

What's "unrealistic and bizarre" about willing to sacrifice oneself to save another species and end a war at the same time? Seems pretty consistent with Paragon Shepard to me.

It's the "unrealistic and bizzare" behaviour of his enemies that leads up to it.

[Phatose]

KingZayd wrote...

Phatose wrote...

All viewpoints are different, like I said before. Don't have to change hardware to change viewpoints. That's gonna happen constantly no matter what.

Beyond that, what would you prefer? The power always has to reside somewhere. Is having a group of 12 overlords better than 1? Is 100 better then 12? A million better then a hundred?

Yes.

That leads directly to every man for himself.  Chaos.

[PsyrenY]

KingZayd wrote...

It's the "unrealistic and bizzare" behaviour of his enemies that leads up to it.

A program following its programming is unrealistic? 

[KingZayd]

Redbelle wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Phatose wrote...

Tron Mega wrote...
sure, im not the same guy i was 5 minutes ago. that hardly relates to the difference between shepard or reaper-shepard.

doesnt mean shepards going to come to the same conclusions as he would when he was a human compared to when hes reaper-god.

if you can show me how shepard is still the same, im all for it. i just dont see it that way, especially when the game tells me its not shepard anymore.

but by all means, please explain your opinion a bit further for me.

It heavily relates to the difference between the two.  That's the thing.

We don't have undeniable evidence that he'll come to the same conclusion after his ascension as before.  But we don't even have undeniable evidence he'll come to the same conclusion 5 minutes from now if he doesn't become Reaper-shep.  I'm not going to apply a requirement of certainty to an Ascended Shepard when I can't get that certainty from anyone.

Anyway, The central problem is that the actual assertion is that somehow, Shepards ascenion will change him into a malevolent overlord.  I don't buy the "No personality, memories only thing" at all - it's applying limitations of familiar tech to unfamiliar tech, and while possible, it's far from certain.

But that's not really the issue.  Even if it's only his memories and nothing else, there's an implication that giving him more mental capacity and a vastly large viewpoint would drastically change his priorities and morals.  But if enlarging our viewpoint to that scale means our morals break down and don't work, doesn't that tell you that our morals were flawed to begin with?  If right and wrong don't function once you get to a large scale, then why in the world and we calling them right and wrong to begin with?

It's not just enlargening the viewpoint, it's also a different viewpoint. Different hardware, different thought processes. And problem isn't with a malevolent overlord or calling it's views right or wrong (subjective anyway), it's giving the this one entity all the power so it can enforce it's moral opinions as law.

One thing about the Reapers...... they are old. They look far into the future beyond what most would consider a mortal lifespan. And key to their animosity for organic life!!! They don't get us. They do not share our perspective on life. Poor blighter's.

Shepard's control meant more to the Reaper's than you know. The Reapers are suddenly in the position of being destroyed because they can no longer rely on secreacy and surprise while keeping young races dependent on a transport infrastructure under Reaper control.

The galaxy is, quite plainy, more than prepared to tear them a new one in up coming cycles. And they can't stop it.

Unless they change so that they can understand the mortal perspective.

Consider this. The Reaper's were conceived and birthed by an ammoral AI stuck in a logic loop where control of extinction event's took place by intervening before a natural event could threaten all life in the galaxy. (Cough, Geth/Quarian, cough, peace and co-existance, cough, cough).

Now consider waht would happen if Shepard took over as the controlling force. Not strictly speaking sure if that happened, but initial action's taken by the Shreaper seem promising. Suddenly, the Reaper perspective shift's from. "We can do what we want", to, "we'd better stop and make friend's and show we can be a positive influence........ while policing these bipedal meatbag's to make sure they toe the line to destroying themselves.......and we don't have to kill them all or goo anyone to do it?!?! Well I'll be......."

I don't see how the galaxy is prepared to "tear them a new one" in later cycles. They were able to stop it this time, and since they know about the Crucible, and how it connects etc. they can make some small changes to the Citadel to prevent this from happening.

Actually the Reaper goes from "obey AI A" to "obey AI B". 

[KaiserShep]

Phatose wrote...

That leads directly to every man for himself.  Chaos.

I prefer to think of it as going Dutch on a cosmic level. 

[KingZayd]

Phatose wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Phatose wrote...

All viewpoints are different, like I said before. Don't have to change hardware to change viewpoints. That's gonna happen constantly no matter what.

Beyond that, what would you prefer? The power always has to reside somewhere. Is having a group of 12 overlords better than 1? Is 100 better then 12? A million better then a hundred?

Yes.

That leads directly to every man for himself.  Chaos.

Freedom. Until someone decides to form a gang and then become a relative "overlord". As long as people don't have more power over you than you have over them, you're free.