2399 réponses à ce sujet

[Artona]

Honestly, argument "if you kill the Reapers, then your grandchildren will be wiped out by synthetics!" makes me roll my eyes. Wooho, those scary synthetics... like the Reapers? Those guys we won war against? You know, sentient machines so-smarter-than-thou and everybody else? With roughly three years of preparations (and in reality half a year or something)?
Yeah, our grandchildren will *totally* get their ass kicked.

[Natureguy85]

Tell that to Shepard and Anderson who happen to make it up the beam. I thought the squadmates retreated after hearing over the comms to fall back. When I did my low ems run before the extended cut, they were lying dead not far from where I got up.

 

 

If I destroy the reapers, and survive, and there is no machine vs organic war or whatever before I die,  the thing was wrong. If after there is conflict, I don't care. I'm not alive to see that happen. Let the galaxy solve that problem at that time instead of having the giant flying hands do it. I see more of an organic vs organic conflict than a machine vs organic conflict.

 

Shepard doesn't get up until after Harbinger leaves. Anderson gets there through the magic of video games. Coats says "They're all gone," and "Our entire force was decimated," which of course made me wonder who he was telling to fall back into the buildings. I guess it's everyone who wasn't running.

 

I thought I might have seen my dead squadmates but I don't remember that first playthrough well enough.

[ImaginaryMatter]

But it is a problem because the potential for growth with synthetics far out strips anything organics are capable of. I could become an expert on particle physics but it would take years for me to do that. It would take EDI how ever long it takes her to download all relevant information and then minutes maybe hours to fully comprehend everything.

 

The problem with this is that it mistakens how AI are depicted in the game with a concept of AI from elsewhere; this is understandable but very subjective. Imagine a person whose first experience with AI in any kind of fiction is Mass Effect, then imagine where they would get this idea of AI's hyper learning capabilities and ability to surpass organics? Take for example EDI, both ME2 and ME3 continually stress that EDI has limitations, that the organic members aboard the Normandy are capable of doing; and the Geth have 300 years to advance yet have similar levels of technology to the rest of the galaxy. By the time Shepard reaches the decision chamber the AI antagonists in the game are some combination of "fighting for [organic's] futures" or defeated by a group of three people on foot.

 

Now imagine this player reaching the final decision chamber. The Catalyst begins speaking of the inevitable threat of organic extinction at the hand of AIs. Naturally the player will reflect upon their experiences in the game, like: the resolution of the Geth/Quarian conflict (which could very well end very optimistically), the ever helpful EDI, the similarities between the Rannoch and Tuchunka arcs. The drama from having to deal with the Catalyst's decision just does not exist, because the vast majority of examples in ME3 undercut exactly what the Catalyst is saying. This doesn't make it's logic wrong or unsound but makes the choice making uninteresting to solve and as a conclusion to the entire series, extremely anti-climatic (the Catalyst might as well ask about what Shepard would do about a runaway trolleys). In addition to all of this the epilogue seems to forget about all of supposed conflict. Despite the Catalyst's claims of the return of "chaos", if Destroy is chosen the Stargazer scene, which is implied to take place significantly later, is identical to every other ending -- with no robo-pocolypse in sight.

[Elhanan]

EDI evolved; was also the rogue VI on the Lunar mission in ME1. As mentioned in the game, she was confused when she awoke.

[Monica21]

EDI evolved; was also the rogue VI on the Lunar mission in ME1. As mentioned in the game, she was confused when she awoke.

 

Yes, EDI does state that she was confused when she awoke, but there's also good reason to believe that the Alliance was meddling with an advanced VI and somehow created an AI. Everything else is the product of Reaper tech and Joker's help in unshackling her.

[Elhanan]

Honestly, argument "if you kill the Reapers, then your grandchildren will be wiped out by synthetics!" makes me roll my eyes. Wooho, those scary synthetics... like the Reapers? Those guys we won war against? You know, sentient machines so-smarter-than-thou and everybody else? With roughly three years of preparations (and in reality half a year or something)?
Yeah, our grandchildren will *totally* get their ass kicked.

No, I mean the Reapers; the ones that are seemingly so superior as an enemy that our only chance has come to making this choice.

But I do not make this argument first; it is simply another contention against the other choices besides Synthesis.

[gothpunkboy89]

That is not a problem presented in the narrative.

 

 

 

 

Sure, but that's just a Synthetic using Cyborgs to kill whatever pisses him off.

 

 

 

 

There's no indication that those restrictions are by choice. Why wouldn't it "be a very good job" if the Catalyst acted to keep the plan on course? Desperation is too strong a word but the Catalyst is adamant that things need to go the way it says they do.

 

Actually it is presented in the narrative they just don't really draw much attention to it. EDI does it several times across ME2 and 3. Traynor makes an off hand comment about downloading a new targeting system or something like that. EDI pops in near instantly later claiming it was downloaded and integrated into the Normandy.

 

When EDI took over EVE's body she had no knowledge about any of it. Yet in an afternoon she over powered another AI and mastered all the controls and functions of the body. Organic would day a day or two with a team to do that.

 

No control even renegade control Shepard is more then just killing what ever pisses him off. Though Renegade makes it fairly clear it won't be afraid to pull any punches.

 

Yes the Catalyst things that certain things should happen. Thus the entire reason the Reapers exist in the first place. The Reapers exist to keep the plan on it's path.

[themikefest]

Actually it is presented in the narrative they just don't really draw much attention to it. EDI does it several times across ME2 and 3. Traynor makes an off hand comment about downloading a new targeting system or something like that. EDI pops in near instantly later claiming it was downloaded and integrated into the Normandy.

Targeting system?

Here's what the exchange is between Samantha and edibot

Spoiler

 

When's the last time you played ME?
 

When EDI took over EVE's body she had no knowledge about any of it.

Eve? I'm sure she would  have something to say about that. Do you mean Eva Core's platform?

I'll ask again. When's the last time you played ME?

[Natureguy85]

Actually it is presented in the narrative they just don't really draw much attention to it. EDI does it several times across ME2 and 3. Traynor makes an off hand comment about downloading a new targeting system or something like that. EDI pops in near instantly later claiming it was downloaded and integrated into the Normandy.

 

When EDI took over EVE's body she had no knowledge about any of it. Yet in an afternoon she over powered another AI and mastered all the controls and functions of the body. Organic would day a day or two with a team to do that.

 

No control even renegade control Shepard is more then just killing what ever pisses him off. Though Renegade makes it fairly clear it won't be afraid to pull any punches.

 

Yes the Catalyst things that certain things should happen. Thus the entire reason the Reapers exist in the first place. The Reapers exist to keep the plan on it's path.

 

And neither of those examples are presented as problematic. They are good things your ally is doing to help you. I don't remember anyone being concerned about it. There was a bit of that with Miranda complaining about Joker unshackling an AI.

 

You're right; Control is not just force, it's controlling behavior with the threat of force.

 

No, the Reapers are the plan. They exist to kill things.

 

 

Eve? I'm sure she would  have something to say about that. Do you mean Eva Core's platform?

I'll ask again. When's the last time you played ME?

 

I'll cut him some slack on that one. It's like when people mix up Citadel, Catalyst, and Crucible. It's Bioware's fault for making them all so similar.

[gothpunkboy89]

Targeting system?

Here's what the exchange is between Samantha and edibot

Spoiler

 

When's the last time you played ME?
 

Eve? I'm sure she would  have something to say about that. Do you mean Eva Core's platform?

I'll ask again. When's the last time you played ME?

 

This actually made me laugh because it shows how little you actually have to argue against.  It has been about 3-4 months since last play though and I must say I seem to have retained the information rather well since all I did was mix up a targeting program with a long range sensor program. Which actually proves my point even further because that program would be much more complex then a targeting one.  And simply missed a vowel.

 

Thank you for pointing out my mistake and enforcing my point even further.

[themikefest]

This actually made me laugh because it shows how little you actually have to argue against.

All you're doing is laughing at yourself for making a mistake that was avoidable if you took the time to go on youtube to make sure what you were posting is correct. I wasn't arguing anything. I was only pointing out the mistake you made. Right?
 

It has been about 3-4 months since last play though and I must say I seem to have retained the information rather well since all I did was mix up a targeting program with a long range sensor program.

Really? Did your memory tell you to post this?
 

Depending on how they do it you don't realized you are indoctrinated because it doesn't show. That one Asari lady if you spare her on Virmire you meet her again in ME2. And it is only during ME3 she kills some people causing you to lose some galaxy ready points.

That is incorrect as I said in my reply
 

Wrong.
 
Rana Thanoptis actions in ME3 has no effect on war assets. You could've looked that up to find out it has no effect on assets before posting your comment.

Before I posted my reply, I knew what you posted was incorrect, but I still took a moment to double check that I was right.

 

Thank you for pointing out my mistake and enforcing my point even further.

Wasn't enforcing anything. If anything it just proves that you failed to take a moment to make sure what you posted is correct

[gothpunkboy89]

And neither of those examples are presented as problematic. They are good things your ally is doing to help you. I don't remember anyone being concerned about it. There was a bit of that with Miranda complaining about Joker unshackling an AI.

 

You're right; Control is not just force, it's controlling behavior with the threat of force.

 

No, the Reapers are the plan. They exist to kill things.

 

 

 

I'll cut him some slack on that one. It's like when people mix up Citadel, Catalyst, and Crucible. It's Bioware's fault for making them all so similar.

 

They are presented as problematic particularly in ME1 were the Geth are set up as the bogey man. Remember AI development is strictly outlawed even before the Quarian's created the Geth.

 

 

4:51

 

Geth acted more as a reason to crack down sharply and create more restrictions when dealing with any potential artificial intelligence.

 

Your complaints about Control ending is rather ironic and so simplistic I really feel like you are just messing with me when you state that. The entire foundation of human and even animal social structure is build on controlling behavior with threat of force. Laws function this very principle. You steal and get caught you are punished so behavior is controlled with threat of force. Even if you strip away laws and place us in a Mad Max styles set up with no laws or rules this same basic principle would exist.  People wouldn't try to kill you or take your things if and only if you show you are threatening enough to not be bothered.  With out that threat of force controlling other people's behavior you have a big target on your back.

 

This set up is even evidence in fish a group of male mollies will fight each other till one becomes the alpha fish. In a decent school of them the alpha will actually defend the weakest fish in the school from ones higher up. Done for the specific reason to maintain the alpha fish dominance basically saying that the only one allowed to bully anyone here is me. That controls the behavior of the other males in the school.

 

Now this might not be true on another planet but since I assume you are not an alien from another planet you exist under this very set up. And in game this very set up continues. The Specters which the player just happens to be. Is the very personification of behavior control though threat of force. Any time a group or individual goes beyond the bounds of the behaviors society says is allowed. They are dispatched to handle it any way they see fit. If a Specter shows up chances are someone will be killed to ensure the errant behavior is returned to the status quo.

 

Reapers are things created to ensure the harvest continues each cycle. Hence why they are capable of independent though, independent planning and coordinating with each other to ensure the harvest takes place no matter what surprises each cycle might attempt. 

[Natureguy85]

They are presented as problematic particularly in ME1 were the Geth are set up as the bogey man. Remember AI development is strictly outlawed even before the Quarian's created the Geth.

 

 

4:51

 

Geth acted more as a reason to crack down sharply and create more restrictions when dealing with any potential artificial intelligence.

 

This is intellectually dishonest, though I expect nothing else from you. We were talking about the two specific examples you gave, not AI rebellion in general.

 

 

 

Your complaints about Control ending is rather ironic and so simplistic

 

Tailored to the audience.

 

 

Your complaints about Control ending is rather ironic and so simplistic I really feel like you are just messing with me when you state that. The entire foundation of human and even animal social structure is build on controlling behavior with threat of force. Laws function this very principle. You steal and get caught you are punished so behavior is controlled with threat of force. Even if you strip away laws and place us in a Mad Max styles set up with no laws or rules this same basic principle would exist.  People wouldn't try to kill you or take your things if and only if you show you are threatening enough to not be bothered.  With out that threat of force controlling other people's behavior you have a big target on your back.

 

This set up is even evidence in fish a group of male mollies will fight each other till one becomes the alpha fish. In a decent school of them the alpha will actually defend the weakest fish in the school from ones higher up. Done for the specific reason to maintain the alpha fish dominance basically saying that the only one allowed to bully anyone here is me. That controls the behavior of the other males in the school.

 

Now this might not be true on another planet but since I assume you are not an alien from another planet you exist under this very set up. And in game this very set up continues. The Specters which the player just happens to be. Is the very personification of behavior control though threat of force. Any time a group or individual goes beyond the bounds of the behaviors society says is allowed. They are dispatched to handle it any way they see fit. If a Specter shows up chances are someone will be killed to ensure the errant behavior is returned to the status quo.

 

Yes, and the problem is all that power centralized in one imperfect being. By what knowledge or wisdom is Shepard qualified to so rule? Control is tyranny and I reject it. I might not have a problem with it if Shepard was more of an observer, remaining distant unless there was some big problem, but that's not how Control is presented.

 

 

Reapers are things created to ensure the harvest continues each cycle. Hence why they are capable of independent though, independent planning and coordinating with each other to ensure the harvest takes place no matter what surprises each cycle might attempt.

 

No, Reapers are the things created to do the killing. They are the solution. The Catalyst says it in plain English.

[Artona]

There is other problem I have with Control and Synthesis endings - and it's stricly ethical one. If you listen to the Catalyst, it clearly states, that Reapers and harvests have purpose, and they are done for greater good. However, perfected solution has appeared and therefore they are not needed; but still, at the time, they we're optimial choice of actions. 
Control is basically decision to continue Intelligence politics via different method; Synthesis is fullfiling it's purpose. And Destroy? For me, it's refusal to accept it's explanation. If you believe Catalyst, there is no reason to destroy Reapers. However, there is moral side of that choice - choosing non-Destruction is also act of consent to Catalyst actions. If you choose to control Reapers or to merge synthetics and organics you basically admit - yeah, what Intelligence did was just. All that slaughter was necessary for this moment to come. 
You can compare to situation, when someone is holding a gun pointed at you and you kill that person; if observer agreed that it was optimal mean to just end (saving your life), then he logically needs to accept that your action was just - and that killing the man was acceptable under circumstances. 
Can you agree that indoctrination, husks and Collectors were just?

[Natureguy85]

I recently was introduced to "The Trolley Problem" which is an ethical question. Is it ok to sacrifice a small number to save a greater number? That's how Destroy could be viewed.

[dorktainian]

the biggest trick the reapers pulled on the players who didn't choose destroy was to convince them that this wasn't a war.  Yeah.  Accept the reapers killing is a good idea because... Synthesis or control are your friends.

 

We're being wiped out be vastly superior killing machines and we should just accept that because....green or blue?

 

Seriously?

[ImaginaryMatter]

the biggest trick the reapers pulled on the players who didn't choose destroy was to convince them that this wasn't a war.  Yeah.  Accept the reapers killing is a good idea because... Synthesis or control are your friends.

 

We're being wiped out be vastly superior killing machines and we should just accept that because....green or blue?

 

Seriously?

 

What if you picked Control with the intention of ordering the Reapers to self destruct immediately afterwards?

[dorktainian]

What if you picked Control with the intention of ordering the Reapers to self destruct immediately afterwards?

 

oh dear.

 

watch the problem of choice on youtube.

[Elhanan]

the biggest trick the reapers pulled on the players who didn't choose destroy was to convince them that this wasn't a war.  Yeah.  Accept the reapers killing is a good idea because... Synthesis or control are your friends.
 
We're being wiped out be vastly superior killing machines and we should just accept that because....green or blue?
 
Seriously?

Yes; the Catalyst saves Shepard to make a choice that will doom humanity anyway. See redundant.

[dorktainian]

Yes; the Catalyst saves Shepard to make a choice that will doom humanity anyway. See redundant.

there is an argument all three choices ultimately doom humanity, and that the choice is literally a no-win situation.

[gothpunkboy89]

This is intellectually dishonest, though I expect nothing else from you. We were talking about the two specific examples you gave, not AI rebellion in general.

 

 

 

 

Tailored to the audience.

 

 

 

Yes, and the problem is all that power centralized in one imperfect being. By what knowledge or wisdom is Shepard qualified to so rule? Control is tyranny and I reject it. I might not have a problem with it if Shepard was more of an observer, remaining distant unless there was some big problem, but that's not how Control is presented.

 

 

 

No, Reapers are the things created to do the killing. They are the solution. The Catalyst says it in plain English.

 

 

There is no intellectual dishonesty here. The Geth were created to be simple VI servants with the Quarians constantly making little upgrades. Never breaking the law by pushing them into full AI territory. The Geth all on their own made the jump from VI to AI status and started to evolve on their own. Their evolution moved at a pace that the Quarians didn't expect causing them to panic. That panic caused the Quarians to instigate a war with the Geth that nearly lead to the genocide of their species.

 

If that AI we encounter on the Citadel in ME1 was in charge of the Geth it would have killed every Quarian without hesitation. It was also created by complete accident and didn't hesitate to kill itself and Shep and team when confronted. It's entire out look and a willingness to kill comes about from the way AI's are treated in Council Space. Citadel DLC has a lovely moment of a video recording showing Council Troops rounding up and gunning down a group of AI's who are not resisting.

 

AI rebellion in general is the point the Catalyst makes about the Organic vs Synthetic issue it was created to fix. AI by their very nature is capable of processing information at speeds organic minds would struggle with. As technology evolved so would the AI's abilities and limits would expand even farther. You need only look at the last 20 years of our own tech advancement to see this set up in action. In my life time we have gone from bulky black and white 8 bit Gameboy to a small fit in your hand colored high definition (for a hand held) that is capable of creating a 3d image on games and communicating with other 3DS across the globe with the internet. Who's game cartridges went from the side of your palm holding kb's of data to the size of your thumb holding gbs of data. 

 

What knowledge or wisdom does anyone in a position of power qualify them to rule so?  3 idiots sharing power will do the same if not more damage then 1 idiot in power. There are a couple of things that does qualify Shep AI to have that power. First and foremost it has access to all the histories of every race that has existed up to that point. This means it can actually learn from history rather then ignoring it and repeating the same **** up over and over again like humans seem to. Second it seems fairly free of emotions. By which I mean unlike organic beings it will not allow it self to be dominated by emotions. Which is something organics seem to be more often then not.  Third Shep AI is in a position that can not be bribed or blackmailed into helping or ignoring specific groups.

 

 

You didn't pay attention to the Catalyst did you. The Reapers were created to create and maintain the cycle. Thus they have the ability to adapt to changes and alterations in the cycle when they show up. Thus the entire reason ME1 even exists is because the Protheans altered the signal preventing Citadel from activating. Unless they were capable of independent thought and action Sovereign would have just sat in space doing nothing because the slight change happened thus changing everything. But rather then float there like a slack jawed idiot it gathered intelligence from the shadows to figure out what happened. Created a plan spanning years and nearly succeeded if not for the fact it was the antagonist in a video game and reality warping effects of that means it failed.

[Elhanan]

there is an argument all three choices ultimately doom humanity, and that the choice is literally a no-win situation.

Destroy causes technological regression and genocide, and causes history to eventually repeat, but doom is a stretch. Control places humanity in the care of a non-perfect demi-god, but again; no doom. And Synthesis brings peace and prosperity sans doom.

But I agree that all three also have penalties, so choosing these is also involved. Personally am willing to use self-sacrifice for Synthesis in my games, as I see the bonuses for humanity outweigh the cost.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 No, no. Not Synthesis. Not Destroy. Control. Control-Control-Control.

 

 

Control the Reapers and make the Milky Way Galaxy Great Again.

[Iakus]

Destroy causes technological regression 

Not really, given most of the technology that fries isn't understood by the current cycle anyway.  If anything it will encourage people to innovate.

 

 

 

and genocide,

Agreed, which is why Destroy is a no-go for me

 

 

 

and causes history to eventually repeat, but doom is a stretch. 

"history to repeat" is an assertion made by a broken AI with no data to back it up.  I can say 'it will rain, eventually" and be just as accurate.

 

 

 

Control places humanity in the care of a non-perfect demi-god, but again; no doom. 

A gilded cage.  A galactic nanny-state.  The peace of a well-run prison.

 

 

 

And Synthesis brings peace and prosperity sans doom.
 

At the expense of free will and individuality.

 

Getting Smilies Painted on Your Soul

 

 

But I agree that all three also have penalties, so choosing these is also involved. Personally am willing to use self-sacrifice for Synthesis in my games, as I see the bonuses for humanity outweigh the cost.

Frankly I'd rather eat a bullet than make this choice.  But if all life in the galaxy did depend on me making a choice, I'd go Destroy and hope the blast kills me, because I doubt I could live with myself afterwards.

 

Kinda sucks that that would be the "best" outcome 

[themikefest]

there is no genocide when destroy is chosen especially if the quarians are chosen over the geth