3523 réponses à ce sujet

[fraggle]

Imagine a player who's first experience with AI in fiction was ME. Where would they get this idea that AI will win?

 

My question is... what makes people say that AI CAN'T win? No one can prove what will happen in the future, but the reason for the Catalyst's axiom is in the game and perfectly clear. Exponential growth of AI, improving upon themselves to the point where they easily surpass any organic. If not the geth, then another form of AI in the future. The potential is there. Just look what the geth could do in their infancy.

[angol fear]

My question is... what makes people say that AI CAN'T win? No one can prove what will happen in the future, but the reason for the Catalyst's axiom is in the game and perfectly clear. Exponential growth of AI, improving upon themselves to the point where they easily surpass any organic. If not the geth, then another form of AI in the future. The potential is there. Just look what the geth could do in their infancy.

 

We can add that the reapers themselves are the representation of the potential of synthetics. They could have wiped out organic life.

[dorktainian]

My question is... what makes people say that AI CAN'T win? No one can prove what will happen in the future, but the reason for the Catalyst's axiom is in the game and perfectly clear. Exponential growth of AI, improving upon themselves to the point where they easily surpass any organic. If not the geth, then another form of AI in the future. The potential is there. Just look what the geth could do in their infancy.

 

just throwing this in here,  but surely employing asimovs laws of robotics would ensure we were safe maybe?

 

as far as AI are concerned, sure they could surpass us in time, something that notable people have indeed warned us about. When you think of about it, it really is quite scary.  As for synthesis... if you equate that with AI and organics 'getting along' then you havent been paying attention to the first 2 3/4 games.  The catalyst states there is no war because its just a lame way to excuse the obliteration of entire civillisations.  Nothing is saved.  Everything is destroyed.  The younger races survive so they can also be destroyed.

 

You like that logic because nothing star jar states makes any logical sense.  It deals in absolutes and behaves like a child when confronted with reality by shepard.  If your shepard is weak willed enough to choose synthesis then star jar...cough....harbinger has accomplished his mission.  Thereby removing any possible remnants of intelligence.

 

Some would argue, quite rightly imo, that the same can be said for destroy and control.  Maybe the game was more about organics being forced into conforming to what was in effect slavery to a cycle laid down by others (leviathan) If the ending created anything it created devision of the playerbase.  Maybe it was more about us 'breaking free' in which case all of the endings might well be valid..... (ignore the slide shows tho........urghhh)

 

" I fight for freedom. Mine, and everyone's. I fight for the right to choose our own fate. And if I die, I'll die knowing that I did everything I could to stop you. And I'll die free."

[gothpunkboy89]

just throwing this in here,  but surely employing asimovs laws of robotics would ensure we were safe maybe?

 

as far as AI are concerned, sure they could surpass us in time, something that notable people have indeed warned us about. When you think of about it, it really is quite scary.  As for synthesis... if you equate that with AI and organics 'getting along' then you havent been paying attention to the first 2 3/4 games.  The catalyst states there is no war because its just a lame way to excuse the obliteration of entire civillisations.  Nothing is saved.  Everything is destroyed.  The younger races survive so they can also be destroyed.

 

You like that logic because nothing star jar states makes any logical sense.  It deals in absolutes and behaves like a child when confronted with reality by shepard.  If your shepard is weak willed enough to choose synthesis then star jar...cough....harbinger has accomplished his mission.  Thereby removing any possible remnants of intelligence.

 

Some would argue, quite rightly imo, that the same can be said for destroy and control.  Maybe the game was more about organics being forced into conforming to what was in effect slavery to a cycle laid down by others (leviathan) If the ending created anything it created devision of the playerbase.  Maybe it was more about us 'breaking free' in which case all of the endings might well be valid..... (ignore the slide shows tho........urghhh)

 

" I fight for freedom. Mine, and everyone's. I fight for the right to choose our own fate. And if I die, I'll die knowing that I did everything I could to stop you. And I'll die free."

 The 3 laws are not perfect in any way shape or form. They are more closer to my terrible stick figure drawnings then say the animated by hand movie Beauty and the Beast. Their vagueness allows so many loop holes to form and was the basis of the summer ad movie IRobot.

 

Catalyst doesn't consider it war much in the same way various countries around the world meddling in the affairs of other countries in efforts to alter the political set up to be more favorable to them is called peace keeping.

 

Nothing is actually destroyed with each new generation developing after the last one is removed evolution comes into play and alters the game each time. There are similarities between each race and their culture but new ones as well. It is simply following a grander scale then the current cycle of evolution and death that happens on this planet for millions and billions of years.

 

Everything the Catalyst said makes logical sense. It acts like an adult confronted by a child. The Catalyst has been around for a couple million years and has millions of years of experience and information. Shepard is what 35-40 and is telling him that with his 40 years of experience it over rules that millions of year the Catalyst has. There are absolutes in the world and dealing with them doesn't make you wrong.
 

[Dantriges]

The Catalyst is just an old geezer waxing nostalgically about the old days when Leviathans ruled the stars and robots killed their masters, not realizing these days are over.

 

 

We can add that the reapers themselves are the representation of the potential of synthetics. They could have wiped out organic life.

 

They didn´t. Doesn´t work so well with this whole synthetics will wipe out organics dogma.

[MrFob]

My question is... what makes people say that AI CAN'T win? No one can prove what will happen in the future, but the reason for the Catalyst's axiom is in the game and perfectly clear. Exponential growth of AI, improving upon themselves to the point where they easily surpass any organic. If not the geth, then another form of AI in the future. The potential is there. Just look what the geth could do in their infancy.

 
The issue I have with this interpretation is that
a) it doesn't change the fact that it is inelegant writing to only show counter-examples to a purely philosophical problem within your story and
b ) it diminishes the reaper's previously set up awe inspiring vastness of perspective to them essentially being afraid of the future and
c) it ultimately renders the cycle meaningless as well
 
For further detailed discussion about these issues, this thread has an old discussion on them.

[oddball_bg]

My question is... what makes people say that AI CAN'T win? No one can prove what will happen in the future, but the reason for the Catalyst's axiom is in the game and perfectly clear. Exponential growth of AI, improving upon themselves to the point where they easily surpass any organic. If not the geth, then another form of AI in the future. The potential is there. Just look what the geth could do in their infancy.

Most people just want a happy ending where everyone survives and walk towards the sunset!And when they don't get that they find it inconsistent.

 

"The Reapers are bad and they have to be destroyed",that's it,and God forbid if they go with something more profound and actually thought provoking!That is mainstream media for you,walk a little bit off the beaten path and you will be turned to shreds...

[Natureguy85]

You are underestimating people's IQ(not blaming you for that,if I have to be perfectly honest,but still...)!

 

"Imagine a player who's first experience with AI in fiction was ME"

 

So what?Even if it's someone's first experience with AI in fiction,they can still make deductive opinions about the matter.

 

Exactly, and the evidence goes against the Catalyst. His point was that without the previous experience of deadly rogue AI in other media, you won't get that as the driving force of Mass Effect.

 

 

 

My question is... what makes people say that AI CAN'T win? No one can prove what will happen in the future, but the reason for the Catalyst's axiom is in the game and perfectly clear. Exponential growth of AI, improving upon themselves to the point where they easily surpass any organic. If not the geth, then another form of AI in the future. The potential is there. Just look what the geth could do in their infancy.

 

Nobody says AI can't win. However, they don't and the Catalyst is the one making the absolutist statement. He doesn't speak of potential, he speaks of certainty.

 

 

 

Most people just want a happy ending where everyone survives and walk towards the sunset!And when they don't get that they find it inconsistent.

 

"The Reapers are bad and they have to be destroyed",that's it,and God forbid if they go with something more profound and actually thought provoking!That is mainstream media for you,walk a little bit off the beaten path and you will be turned to shreds!

 

The words of someone who can't argue on substance. This argument might be more persuasive if the end of ME3 had actually been profound and thought provoking.

[oddball_bg]

"The words of someone who can't argue on substance. This argument might be more persuasive if the end of ME3 had actually been profound and thought provoking."

 

...by people like this!

[fraggle]

just throwing this in here,  but surely employing asimovs laws of robotics would ensure we were safe maybe?

 

as far as AI are concerned, sure they could surpass us in time, something that notable people have indeed warned us about. When you think of about it, it really is quite scary.  As for synthesis... if you equate that with AI and organics 'getting along' then you havent been paying attention to the first 2 3/4 games.  The catalyst states there is no war because its just a lame way to excuse the obliteration of entire civillisations.  Nothing is saved.  Everything is destroyed.  The younger races survive so they can also be destroyed.

 

You like that logic because nothing star jar states makes any logical sense.  It deals in absolutes and behaves like a child when confronted with reality by shepard.  If your shepard is weak willed enough to choose synthesis then star jar...cough....harbinger has accomplished his mission.  Thereby removing any possible remnants of intelligence.

 

Some would argue, quite rightly imo, that the same can be said for destroy and control.  Maybe the game was more about organics being forced into conforming to what was in effect slavery to a cycle laid down by others (leviathan) If the ending created anything it created devision of the playerbase.  Maybe it was more about us 'breaking free' in which case all of the endings might well be valid..... (ignore the slide shows tho........urghhh)

 

" I fight for freedom. Mine, and everyone's. I fight for the right to choose our own fate. And if I die, I'll die knowing that I did everything I could to stop you. And I'll die free."

 

Yeah, but there are loopholes for these laws as well, no?

 

If something is destroyed entirely depends on the different viewpoints. I've said this before, but for us, yes, Reapers destroy organic life. For the Reapers, they store knowledge and preserve. It's simply differences in our understanding.

 

The logic makes sense, you just have to be willing to set aside your hatred for the Catalyst

And for the record, just because I say the logic is sound it doesn't mean I agree with it or that I like what the Catalyst is doing. Destroy is actually my favourite ending and I picked it 3 1/2 times out of 4 (I tried Synthesis first, but immediately afterwards tried Destroy, wich I liked much more), but I'm heavily RPing when playing my Shepards, so yeah, some of my Shep's will pick Synthesis (my current one for example), some will pick Control, some Refuse, depending on their beliefs and morals.

 

You say that the endings might well be all valid. Yep, I agree on that. Each of us has sooo many different opinions, even if we agree in some parts, we disagree in others. I've seen people arguing for Control, against Control, for and against Destroy and Synthesis, and with that I just wanna say that everything at the end boils down to your own personal beliefs. Many people might not agree with you, others might, but still, you pick your favourite ending according to your very own beliefs and morals, so to me, there is no right or wrong. Only your 'personal right'. Everything is valid, not only your beliefs, but those of others as well.
To each their own is probably appropriate here.

 

 
The issue I have with this interpretation is that
a) it doesn't change the fact that it is inelegant writing to only show counter-examples to a purely philosophical problem within your story and
b ) it diminishes the reaper's previously set up awe inspiring vastness of perspective to them essentially being afraid of the future and
c) it ultimately renders the cycle meaningless as well
 
For further detailed discussion about these issues, this thread has an old discussion on them.

 

I absolutely understand your view points and why you feel that way, but honestly, this is only your opinion, as much as it is only my opinion that the Reapers were not reduced to 'just afraid of the future'. I didn't see it that way at all. For me it simply boils down to the Catalyst's axiom.

"Organics create synthetics to improve their own existence, but those improvements have limits. To exceed those limits, synthetics must be allowed to evolve. They must by definition surpass their creators."

It is reasonable to think that, in my opinion. They improve on themselves to surpass limits organics have, and with this alone, they already are superior to organics. And while the Catalyst is following its definition, there is no doubt that this will happen in its mind, while we think... yeah, it could happen, but it could go the other way as well.

For me the Reapers just follow this programming, not because they are afraid, but because that's what they do since a long long time, that's what their task was, they act according to that definition. I'm not even sure I'd say Leviathans were afraid of synthetics rising, but rather that they hated they lost their precious thralls and looked for a way to keep them while also successfully taming synthetics (ugh, I hate Leviathans ).

 

We each have our own opinion on how to see things, which is why discussions like these always go on in circles I'm happy to accept others' view points, but so far none convinced me to hate the ending. Or the Catalyst and its logic.

 

Most people just want a happy ending where everyone survives and walk towards the sunset!And when they don't get that they find it inconsistent.

 

I know that this was an issue for some people, but not all Actually with some in here you can have good discussions and I learned a lot in regards to why they hate the ending. I just see it differently

 

Nobody says AI can't win. However, they don't and the Catalyst is the one making the absolutist statement. He doesn't speak of potential, he speaks of certainty.

 

I'm rather saying potential from our perspective. Yes, the Catalyst speaks of certainty, which is completely fine because of its axiom.

I'm all for Destroy as I'd rather have organics and synthetics develop on their own, conflicts or no, we don't know. We don't need an entity deciding things for us. But seeing it that way does not mean I think the Catalyst is necessarily wrong with its axiom. It's still a machine thinking like a machine.

[dorktainian]

 The 3 laws are not perfect in any way shape or form. They are more closer to my terrible stick figure drawnings then say the animated by hand movie Beauty and the Beast. Their vagueness allows so many loop holes to form and was the basis of the summer ad movie IRobot.

 

Catalyst doesn't consider it war much in the same way various countries around the world meddling in the affairs of other countries in efforts to alter the political set up to be more favorable to them is called peace keeping.

 

Nothing is actually destroyed with each new generation developing after the last one is removed evolution comes into play and alters the game each time. There are similarities between each race and their culture but new ones as well. It is simply following a grander scale then the current cycle of evolution and death that happens on this planet for millions and billions of years.

 

Everything the Catalyst said makes logical sense. It acts like an adult confronted by a child. The Catalyst has been around for a couple million years and has millions of years of experience and information. Shepard is what 35-40 and is telling him that with his 40 years of experience it over rules that millions of year the Catalyst has. There are absolutes in the world and dealing with them doesn't make you wrong.
 

NO.. because the catalyst is lying.  He is lying right from the get-go.  THere is no truth in what it says because your experiences with commander shepard render his assumptions to be incorrect - and thats putting it politely.

 

If you assume the catalyst is telling the truth, then you are committing the most serious underestimation of what it really is.... a reaper.  Nothing it says can be taken as truth.  Synthesis is the best solution?  for who?  Certainly not for organics who have no say in the matter whatsoever.  Control?  who does that suit?  You know who it suits.  Destroy doesn't suit the reapers.  The reapers would like you to choose an end where they exist.  Is it because you dont want to wipe out the geth?  There are always casualties in war, or havent you been paying attention to the narrative?

 

Life is chaos.  Life would not exist without it.  You can try to being order to it, but at the end of the day if you choose synthesis then life will die.  The final evolution of life according to the reapers is..... the reapers.  I would much rather blow them to kingdom come, and I fail to see why anyone would embrace them with open arms after the galactic wide genocide they have been dealing out.  It's like making nice with an axe murderer just because he says his axe is blunt and he's really just misunderstood.

[rossler]

The ending was profound and thought provoking.

 

People are still talking about it after all this time. If it wasn't thought provoking, no one would be talking about it. 

 

It also had a profound impact on people, because they are still feeling the impact that the ending had on them, good or bad. 

 

That's Mass Effect for you. 

[gothpunkboy89]

NO.. because the catalyst is lying.  He is lying right from the get-go.  THere is no truth in what it says because your experiences with commander shepard render his assumptions to be incorrect - and thats putting it politely.

 

If you assume the catalyst is telling the truth, then you are committing the most serious underestimation of what it really is.... a reaper.  Nothing it says can be taken as truth.  Synthesis is the best solution?  for who?  Certainly not for organics who have no say in the matter whatsoever.  Control?  who does that suit?  You know who it suits.  Destroy doesn't suit the reapers.  The reapers would like you to choose an end where they exist.  Is it because you dont want to wipe out the geth?  There are always casualties in war, or havent you been paying attention to the narrative?

 

Life is chaos.  Life would not exist without it.  You can try to being order to it, but at the end of the day if you choose synthesis then life will die.  The final evolution of life according to the reapers is..... the reapers.  I would much rather blow them to kingdom come, and I fail to see why anyone would embrace them with open arms after the galactic wide genocide they have been dealing out.  It's like making nice with an axe murderer just because he says his axe is blunt and he's really just misunderstood.

 

Your going to have to show your math on that one. Because 6 years of time passing in the trilogy vs couple hundred years studying the problem initially finding common patterns in the development of society and repeated attempts to prevent those patterns from falling into a self destruction path. Before finally going with the Reaper solution then a few million years of watching as society after society develops and follows the same path towards eventual self destruction. Not really a valid comparison. It is like a 6 year old telling their grandparents all they need to do create world peace is everyone just get along. Which is an extremely simplified set up that ignores all factors that exist like social and economic standing, local or national history and all those nasty inconvenient variables that exist in the real world and fail to show up in the fantasy world of children who can not comprehend how complex the world actually is yet.

 

A Reaper is a synthetic/organic hybrid created when the minds of individuals are uploaded into a physical media storage while their bodies are rendered down to their base elements and reconfigured at the atomic level. Their atoms are then rearranged to form the elements required to form the Reaper body. The the minds coalesce to form a new intelligence better then the individuals that were used to form it.

 

Synthesis benefits everyone. Overcoming organic limitations with technology is the very basis of humanity and all other races in the galaxy entire point of technological development. This is the end of that path and the beginning of a new one. You are basing if it is good or not on consent which is a child's argument. A child complaints that veggies are not good because they don't want to eat them. Even though they are good for them even if they taste terrible. The very nature of being under or a part of any governmental body in any form by it's very nature strips you of personal choice and forces you to follow what ever they decide is law and good for you.

 

Control again benefits everyone though not in a direct way like synthesis. When Shepard becomes the new guiding intelligence behind the Reapers it alters everything. You can not work under the assumption they will think the exact same way as before or really be anything like they were before at least in terms of harvest and what not. Despite what ever democratic BS the various races of the galaxy profess to having the real power of any individual race was held in the hands of a minority of people. And on the galactic scale that power was held in the hands of a minority of races. Besides the obvious fact it could act as a deterring and mediator to war and conflict saving thousands if not millions of lives.  Issues like say how terribly the Quarians were treated post Morning War or lest say that time the council rounded up and executed peaceful AI's.

 

Destroy benefits organics short term. It provides the most satisfaction because yay the evil Reapers are gone but doesn't address the long term issues of organics and synthetics. Any ground gained while dealing with the Geth is effectively erased with their death. Meaning the next synthetic life that develops is now an unknown factor.  It could end up peaceful or it could end up murderous. Depending on how far into the future it is when it develops it could be even more advanced then the Geth were at the end of the game. Destroy is a lot like punching your boss in the face when you quit your job. Very satisfying at the time because you get to see the pompous jack ass knocked on his ass. As well as you don't have to work at the job you hate any more. How ever your future is now full of questions. How long will it be till you are arrested? Will they press charges? Will you see jail time? Will you be able to work again when they find out your criminal background has you punching your last manager? There is a chance nothing will happen and everything will be fine. But there is also the distinct possibility the best job you will be able to get from now on is asking if they want fries with that.

 

Genocide of a complete race is not casualties of war. It is genocide.

 

But our life isn't chaos. Evolution is the very nature of bringing order to chaos. We have even outside of the game have long ago advanced well beyond evolution's capability to bring order to chaos.  We literally alter the environment to suit our needs rather then us being altered to suit the environment. In game this set up is multiplied a thousand fold thanks to the advances in technology. People are capable of literally living on a planet with gravity four times their native well above their own thanks to mass effect fields. Synthetic life surpassing organic life is simply the next step in the chain and blowing up the Reapers while satisfying short term doesn't address the long term issue.

[Iakus]

The ending was profound and thought provoking.

 

People are still talking about it after all this time. If it wasn't thought provoking, no one would be talking about it. 

 

It also had a profound impact on people, because they are still feeling the impact that the ending had on them, good or bad. 

 

That's Mass Effect for you. 

Just goes to show that "profound" and "thought provoking" are not necessarily desirable.

[Dantriges]

Your going to have to show your math on that one. Because 6 years of time passing in the trilogy vs couple hundred years studying the problem initially finding common patterns in the development of society and repeated attempts to prevent those patterns from falling into a self destruction path. Before finally going with the Reaper solution then a few million years of watching as society after society develops and follows the same path towards eventual self destruction. Not really a valid comparison. It is like a 6 year old telling their grandparents all they need to do create world peace is everyone just get along. Which is an extremely simplified set up that ignores all factors that exist like social and economic standing, local or national history and all those nasty inconvenient variables that exist in the real world and fail to show up in the fantasy world of children who can not comprehend how complex the world actually is yet.

 

The Catalyst hasn´t shown us anything, instead he made some wild claims and estimated guesses, based on some calculations we haven´t seen the math of and conclusions based on its programming, which could be rather limited or buggy. For all we know he´s in some kind of circular if...then... loop.

 

In short you are the six year old buying into grandpa´s story because he´s older than you and it somehow fits into your current experiences. We haven´t seen the previous civilisations, their mindset and history. We don´t even know much about the current galactic species. It´s an extrapolation based on purely human history and popular science summaries of current developments and predictions and/or speculations in AI research.

[KrrKs]

"Organics create synthetics to improve their own existence, but those improvements have limits. To exceed those limits, synthetics must be allowed to evolve. They must by definition surpass their creators."

[...]

>>Nobody says AI can't win. However, they don't and the Catalyst is the one making the absolutist statement. He doesn't speak of potential, he speaks of certainty.<<

I'm rather saying potential from our perspective. Yes, the Catalyst speaks of certainty, which is completely fine because of its axiom.

Sorry If this already got covered;

Besides that 'surpassing' is not necessarily going along with 'conflict', I still don't see how:

"Inevitable there will be conflict between synthetics and organics" and "(Eventually some) Synthetics will win (one/several/most of) these conflicts"

does lead to:

"(Some / all) Synthetics will (probably / always) destroy all organics"

 

Bracketed parts are omitted by the catalyst, while the bold is specifically mentioned. This means that it is absolutely sure of that, but does not present the slightest bit of information leading to the conclusion that all organics would be eradicated.

 

Edit: Missed possible inferred statements and words, also missed a definitive catalyst statement..

Modifié par KrrKs, 14 juillet 2016 - 06:27 .

[gothpunkboy89]

The Catalyst hasn´t shown us anything, instead he made some wild claims and estimated guesses, based on some calculations we haven´t seen the math of and conclusions based on its programming, which could be rather limited or buggy. For all we know he´s in some kind of circular if...then... loop.

 

In short you are the six year old buying into grandpa´s story because he´s older than you and it somehow fits into your current experiences. We haven´t seen the previous civilisations, their mindset and history. We don´t even know much about the current galactic species. It´s an extrapolation based on purely human history and popular science summaries of current developments and predictions and/or speculations in AI research.

 

 

And you haven't shown how conflict will not happen either. Just some wild claims and estimated guesses.

 

So why is one person make a random guess wrong but another person making a random guess correct? Oh that is right personal bias steps in were you agree with one over the other because that is what you want to be true.

[Iakus]

And you haven't shown how conflict will not happen either. Just some wild claims and estimated guesses.

 

So why is one person make a random guess wrong but another person making a random guess correct? Oh that is right personal bias steps in were you agree with one over the other because that is what you want to be true.

Geez this is like Batman VS Superman nonsense

 

"if we believe there's even a one percent chance that he is our enemy we have to take it as an absolute certainty"

[Dantriges]

Do I have to? I don´t buy into the chain of absolute declarations the Catalyst made, that conflict is inevitable and will turn out in a specific way. I didn´t say that there WILL be no conflict and synthetics and organics WILL get along.

 

Maybe I am personally biased, quite likely, at least I stil recognize the possibility instead of selling my personal framework of assumptions as irrefutable fact.

[gothpunkboy89]

Geez this is like Batman VS Superman nonsense

 

"if we believe there's even a one percent chance that he is our enemy we have to take it as an absolute certainty"

 

But this isn't 1% chance. This is much much higher then this.

 

The fact the total destruction of the Geth have been passed off as simply causalities of war shows there is a deep problem.

[gothpunkboy89]

Do I have to? I don´t buy into the chain of absolute declarations the Catalyst made, that conflict is inevitable and will turn out in a specific way. I didn´t say that there WILL be no conflict and synthetics and organics WILL get along.

 

Maybe I am personally biased, quite likely, at least I stil recognize the possibility instead of selling my personal framework of assumptions as irrefutable fact.

 

 

Catalyst has thousands of years of evidence to back up it's statements. You at your best have maybe 100 if you live long enough. Or for a more specific in game example Shepard has maybe 40 years experience vs the 20 million the Catalyst has. We only see about 6 years and we see an extremely narrow view centered entirely around Shepard.

 

For all intents and purposes your statement is a like like  someone claiming that racism doesn't exist in the world in any form simply because they haven't see it. Which ignores just how narrow a view they actually have of the world due to the limitations of seeing it only though their eyes.

[themikefest]

 If no conflict happens before Shepard dies, after surviving destroy, the catalyst is wrong. If conflict happens after Shepard's death, so what? She/he not around to know it was right. And even if conflict were to happen, let the galaxyy deal with it instead of having the reapers around

[BloodyMares]

Geez this is like Batman VS Superman nonsense

 

"if we believe there's even a one percent chance that he is our enemy we have to take it as an absolute certainty"

That's exactly what was on my mind.

[gothpunkboy89]

 If no conflict happens before Shepard dies, after surviving destroy, the catalyst is wrong. If conflict happens after Shepard's death, so what? She/he not around to know it was right. And even if conflict were to happen, let the galaxyy deal with it instead of having the reapers around

 

It isn't about who is right and wrong it is about preventing millions of deaths.

 

You pretty much sum up all that is wrong with everyone now a days. More interested in being right then doing what needs to be done to prevent future problems.

[themikefest]

It isn't about who is right and wrong it is about preventing millions of deaths.

 

You pretty much sum up all that is wrong with everyone now a days. More interested in being right then doing what needs to be done to prevent future problems.

Whatever. I still pick destroy regardless of what might happen in the future.