597 réponses à ce sujet

[AdeptusAstartes]

111987 wrote...

AdeptusAstartes wrote...


The Catalyst has every reason TO lie, it was mentioned previously that Reapers can be beaten, in fact every time they're engaged in battle in this particular installment (Or in ME1 and ME2, albeit the Reaper in 2 isn't completeted), they are defeated. Never through 'conventional' means as you mentioned before as being impossible to stop them with, but with clever thinking brought forth by Shepard and their crew. To be in the presence of Shepard and know that EVERY TIME Shepard has gone up against a Reaper they have found a way to win should put well earned fear into the mind of the Catalyst. That would even lend an explanation as to why the Reapers in general and Harbinger in particular have an interest in Shepard. They can be beaten, and have been beaten. It's in the Catalysts best interests to lie to Shepard so they will take one of the Catalysts three choices. Dissuading Shepard from the cherry ending is because it is the least desirable as not only will it destroy the Reapers and likely the Catalyst itself, but the entire relay network and any possibility of the Reapers fulfilling their goals.

What are you talking about? The Reapers are NOT being defeated. Just look at the galaxy map at the end of the game...the Reapers are EVERYWHERE. They've lost a few battles, sure, but it's obvious they are winning the war.

Must be playing a different game, because every time I went into a battle that featured a Reaper, it was defeated. Using tactics that can be repeated. I mean I guess since we're going with writer's fiat then the combined organic forces in the Galaxy stand no chance on their own without the mythical Crucible, who we're told will stop all this by the GUIDING INTELLIGENCE of the force hell bent on wiping out advanced organic life for the nominal purpose of preserving other lives. That's a logical fallacy of the highest order. Right down to the circular logic employed by the Catalyst, which has been pointed out time and time again in this thread of being WRONG.

"We don't know for how long though!"

"Well, better drink my own liquid waste excretion."

By accepting the Catalyst's premise that an ancient machine that has done nothing but try and exterminate you and everyone else like you knows whats best for you shows a complete lack of logic, reason, and possibly even higher brain functioning. 

[Zine2]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...


In conversations with Javik, ( should have been free DLC Bioware, might have
saved some face) he mentions on more than a few occasions that the Protheans
were engaged in a war with synthetics that sounded an aweful lot like the husks
we see in the game. He describes them as a  failed species who used
synthetics to improve their own intelligence; until the AI began rewriting
their genetic code and started spreading across the galaxy. The Protheans
fought this race of synthetics for what sounded like a long time, because the
Protheans saw that if they advanced any further they would have wiped out ALL
organic life and not just the advanced ones. At the apex of this war the
Reapers arrived, and that; as Javik stated; was when they realized that
synthetics had already evolved well beyond organics.

If you check the wiki, the synthetic race is called the Zha'Til. They were created by the Zha.

However, even this example proves that the Catalyst's contention is wrong. He specifically states that the problem isn't merely Synthetics vs Organics, but ALSO creator vs created.

The Prothean cycle actually shows that what the Catalyst asserts is not clear-cut. In this case, yes there is a war between Organics and Synthetics, but it's not between Creator vs Created.

If the previous cycle already showed deviations from the supposed "certainty" that justifies the cycle, then it only shows that the Catalyst wasn't looking hard enough for an alternative solution.

Moreover, the CENTRAL issue with the Catalyst's logic is that is it committing genocide in order to "save" races. This is not logically consistent at all. You do not "save" a people by killing them.

This seems to indicate one thing; Sovereign; being the Reaper Vanguard; hides
in the Veil during each cycle. It's mission doesn't activate until one or more
AI intelligences come to the ultimate conclusion that organics are unnecessary.
The first thing Soveriegn did was take control of the Geth heretics by
convincing them 'the old machines' were their deities. He then indoctrinated
Saren and began his mission to activate the Citadel.

Except that the Geth do not in fact come to the conclusion that organics are unnecessary. It's explicitly shown in the ME3 data server missions that the Geth saw it as a war of self-defense. When the organics left them alone, they also left them alone.

In conclusion what I've drawn from what I know about the events of both the
Prothean time period and the Shep time period is that the Reapers don't come to
'save' the galaxy until the threat is proven to be very real. Sovereign seems
to act as their first initiative; it waits in the Veil and when it determines
that organics have come to a point that the AI they are creating is a threat it
then calls it's buddies to reset everything.

Except of course that the Geth revolt happened many years before the Sovereign even began its machinations. And the Catalyst explicitly says that they ALWAYS come in to harvest all "advanced" civilizations - again based on the PRESUMPTION that there will be an Organic-Synthetic war.

In short, the Catalyst was playing God with a clearly flawed premise - that Organics and Synthetics, the Creator and Created, are destined to fight one another. It then violates all logic and common sense by systematically murdering the civilizations it is supposedly saving.

Nothing justifies genocide. All the Catalyst is really attempting to do is to come up with lame justifications of why it's such a monster - and frankly all it manages to come up with is racist nonesense (Organics vs Synthetics!), and euphemisms for genocide ("I am not killing you! I am ascending you!")

[111987]

[quote]Beast919 wrote...

The plan is so vague and random it is not ingenious.  He's essentially trying to do the entire purpose of the reapers with a single organic race, by himself.  And the fact that its "almost worked" makes the entire plot of the reapers even more absurd.  Why would he go from straight up ballsy "start an entire war with the Rachni" to a series of lightning-strike cowardly attacks with the Geth?  Why not repeat the strategy?  If anything, the Geth would have been *easier* to achieve a Galactic war due to their remarkable ability to replicate.[/quote]

It's vague because we don't know the details of the war cause it happened so long ago.

The Rachni situation showed Sovereign a different tactic might be better. Using the Geth, the Conduit, and Saren would have worked also if not for Shepard.


[quote]Beast919 wrote...

[/u]All he *needed* to do was get intel on the Keepers, figure out what code had been injected into them, and then modify it accordingly.  Even if he couldn't pull off the last step without personal interaction, I think within 1000 years he could have found someone to poke a Keeper with a stick and get some info.

Reread my argument. Indoctrinating an agent isn't that easy. Furthermore, Sovereign doesn't know the problem lies within the Keepers themselves. He physically needs to be there to address and correct the problem.

That's why indoctrinating the Rachni worked well; you only need to indoctrinate the queen to control everyone. As for the Geth, they were't having interactions with organics so Sovereign knew it could reveal itself to them without negative repurcussions.

[quote]Beast919 wrote...
[/u]I'm still not convinced the Rachni war makes any sense at all.  If they're so notable for how easily they reproduce, Sovereign simply had to protect *ONE* resource, the Queen, from total extinction, and yet he manages to get outplayed by organics *COMPLETELY*?!  Even if his war was a failure, losing an entire species is a collosal stroke of idiocy.
[/quote]

Why protect a single Rachni Queen? At that point you've lost the war, cause the Krogan have proven even at full strength the Rachni can't beat them.

[quote]Beast919 wrote...

Assuming Sov started the Rachni war as a lead-in to the Reaper invasion also assumes that he started the Reaper invasion on pure supposition - there was no evidence to support AI getting out of hand at that time, and wouldn't be for another 700+ years.  Therefore, he's initiating the genocide of galactic society on a guess.  Really beyond comprehension there Sov, sure is.

[/quote]

The Reapers don't wait for AI's to invade; they specfically invade every 50,000 years. It was just that cycle's time to go. Chorban proves the 50,000 year thing by studying the Keepers.

[KujiMuji]

I can understand that there is no proof that synthetic/organic relations will blossom and become happy joy joy everlastingly for the years to come, and hence the reason why Reapers come (in a logic I have yet to understand, but ok)...

...why can't we present the evidence of the geth-quarians as a possible "Hey, I am proving you wrong, look at them!" as a way to show that the god kid's logic COULD be wrong?

"Look at the geth-quarian, we managed to solve the issue peacefully, let's see what happens, shall we? Call your buddies off and we can evaluate the situation, instead of just Hulk-Smashing every civilization because you think there is no other solution".

Destroying synthetics after I just brokered peace between geth-quarian makes no sense (to me), especially after Legion's sacrifice.

[SolonTheWhite]

The child's logic was flawed. The Geth proved that they had no intentions of killing the Quarians. They never wanted a war and only ever acted in self defense. The mission when Shepard enters into the Geth consensus shows the Geth did not start the war. It was the Quarians that tried to eradicate the Geth when they realized the Geth were becoming full AI. It was only when the Reapers came and convinced the "heretics" to join them that the Geth left the isolation of the veil to fight.

[Duskfire]

111987 wrote...

Duskfire wrote...

I cant believe people are sticking up for the godchilds logic, which is ridiculous. Shepard not only proves it wrong by the Geth/Quarian relationship, he proves it wrong by being Shep there in the first place, which the godchild admits But instead of offering the simpliest alternative, which is: "Well, I'll send the Reapers off again and keep an eye to make sure synthetics dont spiral out of control in the future" he instead offers three outcomes, none of which actually solve a thing.

.Its not really great logic when it can be so easily disproven by events that are happening.

Geth/Quarian relationship proves nothing; cooperating for a week, when they had JUST been about to wipe each other out, isn't great support for your case.

How does Shepard reaching the Crucible prove that the Starchild's logic is flawed? As the starchild says, all it proves is that the current solution to the problem (which still exists) won't work anymore.

Yeah, the geth were about to wipe out the Quarian because they were defending themselves. Thats a massive different to annihilating every species in the galaxy and bringing out total synthetic control. Especially since until the Reapers took over the Geth, they were barely seen at all anywhere and considered to be almost a myth by alot of the galaxy. Total dominance there, well done Geth.

And Shep reaching the crucible proves that the Godchild is wrong, and that this cycle is unique. But it isnt wrong about the synthetic/organic relationship? If it can be wrong about one thing why cant it be wrong about another?

You cant create logic on what ifs and maybes. There are so many variables around when it comes to life, especially one such as the current one where there isnt one all-dominating race. And especially in this cycle where so much of what has happened is actually the result of the Reapers influence in the first place, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy if I ever saw one.

In fact, logic suggests that there would be a cycle where organics and synthetics can co-exist, based purely on the laws of probability.

[111987]

AdeptusAstartes wrote...

Must be playing a different game, because every time I went into a battle that featured a Reaper, it was defeated. Using tactics that can be repeated. I mean I guess since we're going with writer's fiat then the combined organic forces in the Galaxy stand no chance on their own without the mythical Crucible, who we're told will stop all this by the GUIDING INTELLIGENCE of the force hell bent on wiping out advanced organic life for the nominal purpose of preserving other lives. That's a logical fallacy of the highest order. Right down to the circular logic employed by the Catalyst, which has been pointed out time and time again in this thread of being WRONG.

"We don't know for how long though!"

"Well, better drink my own liquid waste excretion."

By accepting the Catalyst's premise that an ancient machine that has done nothing but try and exterminate you and everyone else like you knows whats best for you shows a complete lack of logic, reason, and possibly even higher brain functioning. 

Come on. The Reapers were clearly winning the war. You have to know this.

I've seen no evidence that the Starchild's logic is wrong. Otherwise I wouldn't still be debating this. You haven't provided anything disproving Starchild's claims.

[Redstar6]

Shepard should not have to just agree with the child/citadel. After all he/she has been through it only makes since that Shepard would look for another way and not AGREE WITH THE LEADER OF THE REAPERS.

Their logic makes no since regardless of how you want to spin it. If you want to protect organics, don't kill organics so start the cycle over. I cannot believe the mighty reapers didn't think that maybe killing the hostile synthetics that want to kill all organics wouldn't be better than....killing all organics.

The three choices themselves are even dumb when you think about them enough. The first one to be one with the reapers is stupid because no one can control them. Why believe the people that are killing everyone right now to willingly kill yourself to control them. The second to kill all synthetic life is wrong because (well my play though) I solved the geth/quarian problem and even got Joker to date the ship. That makes me no better than the future synthetics that want to kill all organics off.

Finally joining the synthetics together sort of destroys the purpose of the story line. Javik said we can win because we are a bad of different races, joining them all together would make us like the protheans or rather the reapers.

But all the choices have one blaring problem. Blowing up the MASS RELAYS DESTROYS STAR SYSTEMS. Even the first part of the game you are in trial for blowing up a mass relay that destroyed an entire star system so why does blowing up every mass relay make sense at all. Even if by some miracle they don't kill off star systems anymore, you have completely cut off the galaxy from one another, leaving just about every influential person and a crazy amount of races to earth....in its present condition. Some races depend on the mass relays so all in all, the galaxy will still die.

Bioware didn't think this through.

[forgottenlord]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

forgottenlord wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

"Does the possibility of this happening justify the action. Again, I ask about the person who you think is going to commit murder - at what point do you consider it ok to take a potential murder suspect into custody? Is it when you've got a written confesssion? Is it when you've got a clear set of information that clearly paint a motive and plan to commit murder but not constitute proof of intent? What about a statistician that says "based upon the genetic patterns of this individual, this person has a 85% chance of committing murder"? Let's expand this out to a more direct parallel - let's say a race shows up with their warships over Earth circa 1945 having just detected the EMP shockwave from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And they say "you have developed the atomic bomb which means you will soon possess the means to destroy your world and nearly all life upon it hundreds of times over. As such, to ensure you will not do so, we're going to destroy you so that future species can evolve in your place on this world." Now tell me - how sold are you on the validity of that argument? And considering how we're doing 65 years later, how comfortable are you with that logic? Just because something can happen doesn't, on its own, justify such extreme measures."

Very solid argument, and one I do tend to agree to a point...it also reminds me of the argument brought up at the end of The Day the Earth Stood Still. I am just saying that within the confines of the narrative that we were given, the Reaper solution (while cold and lacking emotional connection) may have been the best solution up until that one organic proved it couldn't work anymore (Shep)

The Catalyst is a representative of something we aren't meant to agree with; being that we are organics who feel it is our right to exist despite the dangers we may or may not pose on ourselves or other forms of life. In this sense; and from the standpoint that writing an all-powerful being in terms that can be understood from the writer and the audiences perspective: it must be given to us in a fashion that is inherently wrong from our limited point of view.

Take Q in Star Trek as an example. In the first episode of TNG he put humanity on trial for crimes of our past and for crimes that we may not even commit in the future. Q had to be written in a way that we; as humans; inherently disagree with his logic. We have to disagree because our survival depends on it. Q was also something we were never meant to comprehend; much like the Reapers and the Catalyst itself.

They never went into any detail about why the Catalyst had come to it's conclusion of inevitability; and that is open for debate I suppose. What I do understand is that Catalyst is at least 150 000 years old, probably much older than that. It; like Q: is supposed to be something we cannot comprehend. Perhaps the Reapers don't jsut do this in our galaxy but in many. Maybe many galaxies have fallen to a synthetic lifeform (maybe even the Reapers themselves are representatives of this lifeform) It's about fate vs. free-will; Catalyst deals in absolutes (fate) while Shep represents free-will and the ability to choose. Neither logic is right or wrong until the actions or inactions of individuals proves otherwise.

Wasn't the entire point of this thread to justify the Catalyst's position?  Now you step back from that position and then handwave "he is unknowable".  (BTW: we've got him as at least 37 million years)

I'm not saying the Catalyst doesn't have what it perceives to be justification, but I refuse to accept its justification on merely the grounds given.  As said on my post on the first page, my biggest beef with him is that we're given no ability to dispute it nor are any counter arguments given.

Not to mention, by making his motivations so low level and limited, I find it incredibly hard to justify treating him as a superior being.  Indeed, the logical flaws in his arguments - even in some of the basic arguments that are presented and easy to interpret at a lower level - make it very difficult to put him on the pillar to be respected simply because it is.  The indifference Q provides plus the fact that he's actually showing some level of trying to challenge Picard (amongst others) both directly (making him justify humanity's right to exist) and indirectly (providing difficult puzzles to solve that require an evolution in thinking) makes it easier to accept him as the unknowable.  If this were the dark matter argument where it feels like I'm on the cusp of understanding but there's information that seems just outside my reach, then that might be a sellable argument.  However, as presented, it's not.

In Universe, he can believe whatever he wants so long as my Shepard with her own motivations and beliefs as brought about by me can believe what she wants.  What she wants to believe is that this is a false slippery slope argument.  What she gets to believe is this is some being that speaks truth no matter what and she can't do a thing about it.  Therefore, from a meta-gaming perspective, the Catalyst is not justified.  If this were a TV series or an Eastern RPG where player personality is dictated, perhaps this would be more swallowable.  However, Mass Effect is player-centric, not character-centric.

There is a difference between seeing the objective sides of both arguments and 'hand-waving" as you put it. All I'm saying that to call the logic completely silly and false doesn't really do justice to the story we were given. It would also mean that any other sci-fi story that deals with this absolute (Terminator, the Matrix) are just silly,and they are not.

The Crucible is that puzzle that you refer to in the dialogue. It seems (as I interpret it) that Catalyst required the Crucible because organics had passed the test and the reapers could possibly lose. The solution wasn't going to work anymore because Shep completed the puzzle; and a new solution was needed that Catalyst could not determine as it represented fate vs. Shep representing free-will. In the end it was a metaphor of the right to exist; and neither logic proved false because determinism became the sole factor that set the course towards a different outcome then the one Catalyst deemed necessary.

The problem is there's many different levels we could look at this from.  If we're going to say that the Catalyst thinks it's justified, I concede the argument before we even start.  If we're talking about if the Catalyst is justified, we go to my long philosophical rambling using information and evidence provided.  By that very nature, claims of saying his knowledge is beyond knowable are incredibly weak "handwaving" arguments - you're saying you're right because it could be greater therefore it could be right.  It's inherently circular logic and, worse, unbeatable because they were declared as such at a meta level.  However, they are reasonable to use at the next level - is the story teller justified in treating it as an absolute truth.  If the story teller says that this is fact, then it is reasonable to have the handwave justify the action at the next level - though it can still be weak if it isn't supported by the other elements the story teller establishes.

Therefore, I complained about a handwave because I originally thought we were arguing from the perspective of "is the Catalyst justified".  The tone of your original post was in trying to justify the Catalyst's position without using the arguments that require meta-logic or word-of-God based arguments (nothing in the game validates your position).  My subsequent notes are about why I feel that the logic is weak from a story-telling perspective - it's a player-centric rather than a character centric game and thus claiming one philosophical certitude is problematic; the individual in question's provided founding arguments are easy to invalidate from a philosophical standpoint so why would I take seriously the argument he's a higher being and capable of higher thought?

Then you go on and start talking about possible themes that could be referred to - but these cause even greater problems from a story-telling perspective for they bring, in the final 5 minutes in the game, a theme into play that hasn't been in play until then.  The synthetic vs organic argument has been there - though it's always felt like it was behind the scenes.  Even an argument that there's a higher purpose to the Reapers has been in play but the way it is presented is completely undermined by the treatment it receives in this game.  And you're justifying it by creating arguments from beyond the story and in possibility.  If you're right, it's still bad story telling as it's founded on a need to bring in ideas beyond what the story provides - no different than the problem with the indoctrination theory.

So I guess my question is: what is your argument?  That the Catalyst is justified?  That the Catalyst thinks it's justified?  Or that BioWare really meant something else which justifies the Catalyst's actions?

[OtaconUCF]

Meltemph wrote...

OtaconUCF wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

You're misinterperting what they're saying. They're saying the Reapers clearly believe their logic is sound. Whether we/Shepard should agree with it based on our own experience is another matter entirely.

But we have NO reason to believe they believe it, other then they are old. There is so much we dont know about them that it is impossible to think the only things they could be is A or B.

Neither of us is saying we have any reason to believe it, just that the Reapers clearly seem to. I'm in agreement that Shepard shouldn't just accept what the boss of the things trying to kill everyone says.

I dont think you understand what I am saying.  Take Shep's choices out of this for a sec.  The Reapers are telling an organism that the reason they syphon all advanced life is to preserve the galaxy from AI's/Synthetics from taking over, these being that are billions of years old that obviously had a creator, and you are saying there is CLEAR that the Reapers are being honest about this?  Based on what?  They could litterally from an ancient evil race trying to play god in this galaxy and the best response is... "Well, they seem genuine".  Really?  It is that simple to you?

Whether the Reapers do or don't believe in their stated goal is irrelevant if Shepard doesn't buy it. I personally think they do but it's just flawed. It's always a possibility that what they say could happen. But a possibility doesn't justify their solution, which is just pure madness. Give life the chance for true free will without a gun to it's head and let what happens happen. You're totally correct in that being old doesn't give them the right to decide their way is the right way till the end of time.

[111987]

Meltemph wrote...


That is my point as to why we have no reason of accepting what they are saying at face value.

So you're just going to ignore the evidence right in front of you?

Meltemph wrote...
WAT?  The very small sample size we have is ENOUGH to you, to rationalize that exterminating every advanced civilization in the galaxy every 50k years is the RIGHT thing to do? Really?

It's not a small sample size. It's a sample size of billions of years and thousand of cycles. We have knowledge of two cycles, and in both cycles the Reapers assertion has held true.

Meltemph wrote...
According to the things wiping them all out...

Because they've seen it happen over and over again for billions of years...

[Beast919]

111987 wrote...

It's vague because we don't know the details of the war cause it happened so long ago.

We know the Citadel was not taken.  We know it wasn't even defended in a close battle.  Soveriegn never approached his true objective.

The Rachni situation showed Sovereign a different tactic might be better. Using the Geth, the Conduit, and Saren would have worked also if not for Shepard.

True that it would have worked, in theory, but I struggle with the notion that he knew what the Conduit was (and still wanting to find it) without knowing its purpose, and knowing its purpose, he would have known what happened to the Keepers, and knowing what happened to the Keepers, he would have used his tamed Spectre to simply take some freaking readings.

Reread my argument. Indoctrinating an agent isn't that easy. Furthermore, Sovereign doesn't know the problem lies within the Keepers themselves. He physically needs to be there to address and correct the problem.

Read above.  Secondly, indoctrinating is actually quite easy.  No one knows a goddamned thing about the Reapers, even if his agent started talking out his ass about machine overlords, the worst case is he'd be dismissed from his position and sent to the looney bin.  Even after screaming at the top of his lungs that the Reapers exist, people don't believe Saren.

That's why indoctrinating the Rachni worked well; you only need to indoctrinate the queen to control everyone. As for the Geth, they were't having interactions with organics so Sovereign knew it could reveal itself to them without negative repurcussions.

I agree that the Rachni made a good army which is why....

Why protect a single Rachni Queen? At that point you've lost the war, cause the Krogan have proven even at full strength the Rachni can't beat them.

Even if you've lost the war the Rachni are obviously a solid investment, one you wouldn't simply throw away from the hell of it.  Sovereign is willing to wait 1000 years to make his next move.  Imagine the Rachni army he would have had by then.  Just imagine.  Also, the Rachni weren't at "full" strength, as I rememeber it, the Rachni war was started because galatic civilization *stumbled into them*, and the Rachni began terrorizing everyone.  Therefore, it was not a planned invasion, it was chance.

The Reapers don't wait for AI's to invade; they specfically invade every 50,000 years. It was just that cycle's time to go. Chorban proves the 50,000 year thing by studying the Keepers.

If thats the case why didn't Chorban go "well thats odd, this one says Fifty-ONE thousand years!"  Under your premise Soveriegn attempted to start the invasion  on-time over 1000 years ago.  Therefore, he's missed his date.  Chorban doesn't *prove* anything at all.

[Duskfire]

I just want to know; what does this godhcild have against synthetics anyway? If they completely domininate the galaxy, so? The Geth act with more honor and loyalty then almost any other race, and if they truly got a soul and their own free will, how are they any different to any other species? Organics also create wars, kill people over nothing, destroy entire races in genocides, etc etc. If anything, it would create a new cycle as eventually synthetics would create organic life, which would rise up, etc etc.

[111987]

Duskfire wrote...

111987 wrote...

Duskfire wrote...

I cant believe people are sticking up for the godchilds logic, which is ridiculous. Shepard not only proves it wrong by the Geth/Quarian relationship, he proves it wrong by being Shep there in the first place, which the godchild admits But instead of offering the simpliest alternative, which is: "Well, I'll send the Reapers off again and keep an eye to make sure synthetics dont spiral out of control in the future" he instead offers three outcomes, none of which actually solve a thing.

.Its not really great logic when it can be so easily disproven by events that are happening.

Geth/Quarian relationship proves nothing; cooperating for a week, when they had JUST been about to wipe each other out, isn't great support for your case.

How does Shepard reaching the Crucible prove that the Starchild's logic is flawed? As the starchild says, all it proves is that the current solution to the problem (which still exists) won't work anymore.

Yeah, the geth were about to wipe out the Quarian because they were defending themselves. Thats a massive different to annihilating every species in the galaxy and bringing out total synthetic control. Especially since until the Reapers took over the Geth, they were barely seen at all anywhere and considered to be almost a myth by alot of the galaxy. Total dominance there, well done Geth.

And Shep reaching the crucible proves that the Godchild is wrong, and that this cycle is unique. But it isnt wrong about the synthetic/organic relationship? If it can be wrong about one thing why cant it be wrong about another?

You cant create logic on what ifs and maybes. There are so many variables around when it comes to life, especially one such as the current one where there isnt one all-dominating race. And especially in this cycle where so much of what has happened is actually the result of the Reapers influence in the first place, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy if I ever saw one.

In fact, logic suggests that there would be a cycle where organics and synthetics can co-exist, based purely on the laws of probability.

The Geth weren't true AI until about a week before the battle for Earth. We have no idea if the peace would last. The Reapers have seen things like this happen time and time again. After billions of years, they probably have a better understanding of what's going on then we do.

The fact that the starchild was wrong about one thing in no way relates to the starchild being wrong about a completely unrelated thing. Reaching the Catalyst doesn't solve the problem; it just provides us different solutions to deal with the problem. Solutions that in most cases are detrimental to the Reapers.

Logic would suggest that, but evidence disproves that. The Reapers have seen the same thing happen thousands of times.

[forgottenlord]

Hudathan wrote...

forgottenlord wrote...

I'll read and respond at length when I get home, but I want to underline one major problem: I don't really care whether the Catalyst is right or wrong - the problem is that we're forced to accept him as right without any ability to bring our own thought process into it. The fact that it is treated as an absolute truth, unquestionable and unchallengeable (and never challenged in the game) is what makes the ending hard to take. I'd love to have that concept be the Catalyst's (actually, I'd prefer it to be Harbinger's instead) and Javik's so long as there is a counterpoint with the option to side with either opinion and then you and I and hundreds of other fans, instead of talking about how atrocious the endings are, could be debating whether they're right or not.

Taking the destroy option, despite the immediate consequences it holds, is Shepard's way of disagreeing with the Catalyst and simply ending the cycle. It's also not a coincidence that it's the 'default' ending you can get regardless of how you played the game, it's an option open to all players.

That is one way to interpret it, but it feels weak.  It could just as easily be interpreted a million other ways (Shepard just wants to kill the reapers....Shepard just wants humans to get to live and doesn't care about a problem for her children's, children's, children's, children....Shepard's Amish...).  The arguments are never challenged, only the outcome and the space flea out of nowhere ends up being treated as the unquestioned all knowing individual.  It's really hard to stomache.

[Beast919]

111987 wrote...
The Geth weren't true AI until about a week before the battle for Earth. We have no idea if the peace would last. The Reapers have seen things like this happen time and time again. After billions of years, they probably have a better understanding of what's going on then we do.

The fact that the starchild was wrong about one thing in no way relates to the starchild being wrong about a completely unrelated thing. Reaching the Catalyst doesn't solve the problem; it just provides us different solutions to deal with the problem. Solutions that in most cases are detrimental to the Reapers.

Logic would suggest that, but evidence disproves that. The Reapers have seen the same thing happen thousands of times.

Just stop the argument for one second.

Reread the bolded line.

How do you know this?

Because a phantom god-child told you so.

That is what your entire argument is based on.

[Zine2]

I've seen no evidence that the Starchild's logic is wrong. Otherwise I wouldn't still be debating this. You haven't provided anything disproving Starchild's claims.

We have no evidence that supports that the Star Child was correct either. Again, its premise is that there will always be a Synthetic vs Organic War. Creator vs Created.

And yet it could not even cite a single example of this happening exactly the way it describes it. The Protheans fought a Synthetic race, but it wasn't one of its own creation. Depending on the ME3 choices, the Quarians and Geth could totally end up living peacefully.

Moreover, you are applying completely wrong standards of evidence. You are asking us to believe that the Star Child's genocidal plans are correct without evidence. That's the equivalent of saying "I'm pretty sure HItler had very good reasons for killing the Jews. You don't have any evidence to prove that he was wrong!"

The reality is instead exceedingly simple. Genocide is NEVER justifiable. You do not kill a people to save them. The systematic annihilation of an entire species and culture is the worst crime imaginable even in the present day. No justification will EVER suffice.

If the Bioware writers think you can hand-wave genocide just because the Brat AI says so, then it speaks very poorly of them. If you think that genocide can be hand-waved because the Brat AI says so, then it speaks very poorly of you.

Modifié par Zine2, 16 mars 2012 - 02:57 .

[AdeptusAstartes]

111987 wrote...

AdeptusAstartes wrote...

Must be playing a different game, because every time I went into a battle that featured a Reaper, it was defeated. Using tactics that can be repeated. I mean I guess since we're going with writer's fiat then the combined organic forces in the Galaxy stand no chance on their own without the mythical Crucible, who we're told will stop all this by the GUIDING INTELLIGENCE of the force hell bent on wiping out advanced organic life for the nominal purpose of preserving other lives. That's a logical fallacy of the highest order. Right down to the circular logic employed by the Catalyst, which has been pointed out time and time again in this thread of being WRONG.

"We don't know for how long though!"

"Well, better drink my own liquid waste excretion."

By accepting the Catalyst's premise that an ancient machine that has done nothing but try and exterminate you and everyone else like you knows whats best for you shows a complete lack of logic, reason, and possibly even higher brain functioning. 

Come on. The Reapers were clearly winning the war. You have to know this.

I've seen no evidence that the Starchild's logic is wrong. Otherwise I wouldn't still be debating this. You haven't provided anything disproving Starchild's claims.

I have, on several occasions. I assume you've played the games so you'll remember the times when you've fought Reapers. How did those battles turn out?

You've been shown repeatedly by multiple people, myself included of direct contradictions to the Catalyst's 'logic'. If you fail to see, grasp or acknowledge it, that's your failing. Not mine.

I do find it incredibly interesting that two people can see the same thing, but come to completely different conclusions. I suppose it comes down to outlook on life in general.

[adam_nox]

I support the OP for these reasons.

1. intelligent organics are irrational and emotionally motivated.   In other words, bad.

2. intelligent synthetics don't have these drawbacks and come to the logical conclusion that the universe would be better without organics that are intelligent enough to ever pose any sort of widescale threat. 

3.  You can't just kill the synthetics, because they can be recreated by dumb organic scientists over and over again until they are impossible to kill off and the galaxy dies.

4.  Try to keep in mind, everyone dies anyways.  At least with this system, organics can still come to be, live out a fruitful existance, and then die off, just like everyone does on a singular level.  It's really not THAT bad.

The problem with the series is that we wanted to know why the reapers did what they did, and there's no answer that would ever both satisfy us and make sense.  Only a simple answer makes sense, but it's not satisfactory, and as we see, trying to give them a motivation that isn't absolute malevolence doesn't play well with ME's audience either.

The devs decided not to tell us lots of details, but the one detail they really should have left out is this idea of a coherent motivation of wiping out advanced civilizations.  Obviously that wasn't their only mistake... god at this point I can't even keep track, I mean really, you are the catalyst, the reapers are your solution?  what?

Still leaves the question of who the catalyst is, and why does he care if organics get wiped out?  That itself becomes self-contradictory to his entire thesis of synths wiping out organics inevitably.

Anyways, carry on.

[OtaconUCF]

111987 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...


That is my point as to why we have no reason of accepting what they are saying at face value.

So you're just going to ignore the evidence right in front of you?

Meltemph wrote...
WAT?  The very small sample size we have is ENOUGH to you, to rationalize that exterminating every advanced civilization in the galaxy every 50k years is the RIGHT thing to do? Really?

It's not a small sample size. It's a sample size of billions of years and thousand of cycles. We have knowledge of two cycles, and in both cycles the Reapers assertion has held true.

Meltemph wrote...
According to the things wiping them all out...

Because they've seen it happen over and over again for billions of years...

Where in the current cycle did the Reaper's assertion hold true? The Geth never acted as an aggressor in interactions with other sentient species without the direction of the Reapers causing them to first.

Individual Geth programs weren't true AI, no, but the consensus was intelligent. At the point where the first Geth platform was able to ask if it had a soul the Geth as a collective were self aware and therefore truely intelligent. And the Consensus never decided aggressive war against organics was something they wanted to pursue. It actively pursued isolation and peace, again until the Reapers, champions of making sure Synthetics are never in a position to rise up and wipe out organic life, turn up and bribe a faction into it. Legion, the first Geth to self actualize and identify itself as I rather than We, and the one that gave true intelligence to every individual Geth program outside the will of the whole, was a friend and ally of organics. Just because they haven't yet doesn't mean the Catalyst is right and it's inevitable that they'll attempt to destroy anyone. Their entire history argues otherwise.

[Meltemph]

It's not a small sample size. It's a sample size of billions of years and thousand of cycles. We have knowledge of two cycles, and in both cycles the Reapers assertion has held true.

Huh? Of the 2 sample sizes, the we have no inclination that the geth or the ones in Javiks cycle had a CHANCE of wiping us out. It is all supposition, presented in a light(By the reapers) to try and get you to agree. But your "proof" is incredibly flmisy and requires you to play fortune teller.

[Tony208]

So if one cycle never develops synthetics, they get wiped out anyway. How is that fair at all?

The whole thing makes no sense, stop trying to defend it.

Modifié par Tony208, 16 mars 2012 - 02:58 .

[111987]

Beast919 wrote...

We know the Citadel was not taken.  We know it wasn't even defended in a close battle.  Soveriegn never approached his true objective.

And your point is? Sovereign was trying to weaken the forces of the galaxy to the point where it could reach the Citadel unimpeded. If not for the Krogan, it eventually would have succeeded. Sovereign was just being patient.

The Rachni situation showed Sovereign a different tactic might be better. Using the Geth, the Conduit, and Saren would have worked also if not for Shepard.

Beast919 wrote...
Read above.  Secondly, indoctrinating is actually quite easy.  No one knows a goddamned thing about the Reapers, even if his agent started talking out his ass about machine overlords, the worst case is he'd be dismissed from his position and sent to the looney bin.  Even after screaming at the top of his lungs that the Reapers exist, people don't believe Saren.

Missing the point. If discovered, the person/s could report it to the Citadel before the indoctrination took hold. That's the danger.

Beast919 wrote...
Even if you've lost the war the Rachni are obviously a solid investment, one you wouldn't simply throw away from the hell of it.  Sovereign is willing to wait 1000 years to make his next move.  Imagine the Rachni army he would have had by then.  Just imagine.  Also, the Rachni weren't at "full" strength, as I rememeber it, the Rachni war was started because galatic civilization *stumbled into them*, and the Rachni began terrorizing everyone.  Therefore, it was not a planned invasion, it was chance.

The Rachni had shown that they couldn't fulfill Sovereign's purpose. Therefore, it's time to move on. Yes it wasn't a planned invasion; Sovereign was likely just building up its forces. But the fact that they lost would convicne Sovereign that they weren't suitable, and look elsewhere. Adapt to the situation.

Beast919 wrote...

[i]If thats the case why didn't Chorban go "well thats odd, this one says Fifty-ONE thousand years!"  Under your premise Soveriegn attempted to start the invasion  on-time over 1000 years ago.  Therefore, he's missed his date.  Chorban doesn't *prove* anything at all.

Chorban's email: "And what's more, based on my genetic readings, they're supposed to react
to...something, some signal or something...[b]about every 50 thousand
years."

It's an approximation. What's 1000 years to the Reapers?

[Beast919]

adam_nox wrote...

The problem with the series is that we wanted to know why the reapers did what they did, and there's no answer that would ever both satisfy us and make sense.  Only a simple answer makes sense, but it's not satisfactory, and as we see, trying to give them a motivation that isn't absolute malevolence doesn't play well with ME's audience either.

The devs decided not to tell us lots of details, but the one detail they really should have left out is this idea of a coherent motivation of wiping out advanced civilizations.  Obviously that wasn't their only mistake... god at this point I can't even keep track, I mean really, you are the catalyst, the reapers are your solution?  what?

Still leaves the question of who the catalyst is, and why does he care if organics get wiped out?  That itself becomes self-contradictory to his entire thesis of synths wiping out organics inevitably.

Anyways, carry on.

There is some truth to this - the Reapers were presented as *so* beyond our comprehension, how, exactly, can they be explained?

But it doesn't justify what we were given.  Even some half-assed "we eat organics cause it makes us strong" argument would have been more reasonable than this.  Even something more magical, like, "we consume your dna in the hopes of achieving pure genetic evolution to the max!" and humans had the correct "genetic variance" to finally solve the puzzle!  Even something that far into left field would have made more sense than this.  This....this is nonsense.  Pure nonsense.

[111987]

Meltemph wrote...

It's not a small sample size. It's a sample size of billions of years and thousand of cycles. We have knowledge of two cycles, and in both cycles the Reapers assertion has held true.

Huh? Of the 2 sample sizes, the we have no inclination that the geth or the ones in Javiks cycle had a CHANCE of wiping us out. It is all supposition, presented in a light(By the reapers) to try and get you to agree. But your "proof" is incredibly flmisy and requires you to play fortune teller.

The Reaper's proof is their experience...

In the two sample sizes, the AI created weren't yet advanced enough to wipe out organics. But what if in those cycles organics continued to advance? More advanced AI's would have followed, which could have led to the extermination of organics.