418 réponses à ce sujet

[Ciiran]

Lugaidster wrote...

So your saying that we should judge people not by the content of their character but of their constituents? That's just racist to me. Anyone could rebel under those circumstances, you don't have to be a synthetic to do that. Following that logic, organic life is doomed by itself because it will always rebel against each other. We didn't need synthetics to do that...

I'm not sure I follow your argument correctly, english is not my first language.

I have not expressed any personal judgements except that I feel that the Geth and EDI were justified in rebellion.

And I agree, that according to the Catalysts logic, organics pose a threat to the galaxy as well.

[Dean_the_Young]

corporal doody wrote...

they didnt rebel....they defended themselves.

Rebellion usually is a defense act in some nature. People rarely aggressively rebel: they rebel because they feel threatened by the authority.

[Dean_the_Young]

Ciiran wrote...

And I agree, that according to the Catalysts logic, organics pose a threat to the galaxy as well.

Uh, no.

The Catalysts logic is that synthetics can out-develop organics in the singularity. The organics can't do that because, well, if the organics advance faster then the organics are still in place.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

They are not unequivocal proof. On this I agree.

It still violates the themes, and therefor is a narrative failure.

As a trilogy, Mass Effect had no consistent themes. Very few subplots were consistent throughout the series.

The Ending should be considered in terms of the game it was part of, just as the other game endings should be judged by their game.

Mass Effect 3 exemplifies the theme of love and unity between organics and machines far more than the previous games.

[Spectre Impersonator]

MJF JD wrote...

Geth didnt rebel.

[111987]

Beast919 wrote...

You troll yourself pretty damn well, in my opinion, so I don't even really need to try.

But on that line of thought, what is the point of this fear of AI - at its core.

The protheans dominated all life they ran across (unless it met their requirements).  There's no reason to view that as any worse than Synthetics dominating all life they ran across, unless you *specifically* do not like Synthetics.  And  that, to me, sounds a little racist against our robot buddies.  Even Tali thought Legion had a soul.  So what makes their souls inherantly less valueble than *any* organics soul? (since the Reapers are willing to sacrifice an infinite amount of organics to simply ensure *a* organic species survives)

Also has anyone even given thought to how incredibly unbelieveable this theory is?

The reapers wipe out entire species.....entire...species....for billions of years.

How many species can there possibly be?  I mean at any given time, how many species are at the 'development' stage while the rest of the 'advanced' ones are being wiped out?

Wouldn't there at some point be an "end date" at which no more new species existed that *weren't* advanced enough to be purged?  Is that the goal, eliminate all "intelligent" organic life?

Ignoring the insults...

Well we don't know how many planets can support life in the Milky Way. Our scientists estimate there are over 2 billion Earth-like planets, capable of supporting life.

And an AI will always pose a more serious threat than organics. A hostile AI with the sophistication of the Overlord hybrid, for example, would be a huge threat to organics, and an enduring one. If a hostile AI achieved technological singularity, it would constantly wipe out organic life, essentially forever.'

The Reaper's alternative allows for organics to at least live for several million years, and then preserve them in Reaper form.

[piemanz]

Ciiran wrote...

And I agree, that according to the Catalysts logic, organics pose a threat to the galaxy as well.

Which is exactly why the Reapers perform the equivelent of a galactic technological reset every 50k years. It's their way of keeping everything in balance.

Modifié par piemanz, 17 mars 2012 - 05:13 .

[corporal doody]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

corporal doody wrote...

they didnt rebel....they defended themselves.

Rebellion usually is a defense act in some nature. People rarely aggressively rebel: they rebel because they feel threatened by the authority.

well met!

than by that definitation they rebelled.  so maybe the reapers need to kill organics so they dont make synthetics who become self-aware and want to kill organics who want to kill synthetics who want to kill organics.

[Grayvern]

The problem is that the reapers were created from trillions of traweled organics, they either directly destroyed or came about from technology used to destroy whatever AI threat the catalyst faced therefore disproving the notion that synthetic singularity forms sythetics incapable of being resisted.

None of which anwers the question as to why the reapers don;t simply reamain and shape the universe rather than culling organics.

Modifié par Grayvern, 17 mars 2012 - 05:14 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

They are not unequivocal proof. On this I agree.

It still violates the themes, and therefor is a narrative failure.

As a trilogy, Mass Effect had no consistent themes. Very few subplots were consistent throughout the series.

The Ending should be considered in terms of the game it was part of, just as the other game endings should be judged by their game.

Mass Effect 3 exemplifies the theme of love and unity between organics and machines far more than the previous games.

And also the threat and hostility between organics and machines.

[Dean_the_Young]

corporal doody wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

corporal doody wrote...

they didnt rebel....they defended themselves.

Rebellion usually is a defense act in some nature. People rarely aggressively rebel: they rebel because they feel threatened by the authority.

well met!

than by that definitation they rebelled.  so maybe the reapers need to kill organics so they dont make synthetics who become self-aware and want to kill organics who want to kill synthetics who want to kill organics.

The geth rebelled by the definition that they organized, resisted, and overthrew their governing authority, the Quarians.

The Reapers kill the advanced organics so that none of them will create a situation in which no organics will live.

[Dean_the_Young]

Grayvern wrote...

The problem is that the reapers were created from trillions of traweled organics, they either directly destroyed or came about from technology used to destroy whatever AI threat the catalyst faced therefore disproving the notion that synthetic singularity forms sythetics incapable of being resisted.

None of which anwers the question as to why the reapers don;t simply reamain and shape the universe rather than culling organics.

Because allowing the indefinite creation of creations would eventually surpass them.

[Beast919]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

They are not unequivocal proof. On this I agree.

It still violates the themes, and therefor is a narrative failure.

As a trilogy, Mass Effect had no consistent themes. Very few subplots were consistent throughout the series.

The Ending should be considered in terms of the game it was part of, just as the other game endings should be judged by their game.

I cannot agree with this whatsoever.

The Geth/Quarian subplot was explored throughout the *entire* trilogy.

The Krogan Genophage subplot was explored throughout the *entire* trilogy.

The Indoctrination/Control was present in all 3 games. 
-  In ME1, you dealt with Saren and the Thorian and established where Shepard stood on that ("I'd rather die fighting than be a slave.")
-  In ME2 you were given the question of whether or not it was ethical to re-write the Heretic Geth (Read: force them in to servitude)
- In ME2 you were introduced to TIM's plan to try and control the Reapers.
- In ME3 you expand on TIM's plan to control the Reapers.

Thats just to list a few.  But at the end? What options are you given?
1) Destroy *all* synthetics.  Essentially, commit genocide on the Geth, murder your companion, but hey, the Reapers are dead.
2) Control - Do precisely what you've been saying for 3 games is horrifying and corrupt, and in the specific case of the Reapers, impossible.
3) Synthesis - Dictate the evolution of all life in the Galaxy.  Completely counteracting the entire plot of the Geth (Legion's talks of why the Heretics chose their path, and why the rest did not), and do what the Reapers have been doing to those they conquered anyways.

No matter what you chose, you are either violating your principles (if you're Paragon Shep you've *always* been able to find "a better way" - which rules out the Genocide of the Geth), or breaking one of the central themes of the game.

Please do not tell me that ending does not violate the themes of ME.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

They are not unequivocal proof. On this I agree.

It still violates the themes, and therefor is a narrative failure.

As a trilogy, Mass Effect had no consistent themes. Very few subplots were consistent throughout the series.

The Ending should be considered in terms of the game it was part of, just as the other game endings should be judged by their game.

Mass Effect 3 exemplifies the theme of love and unity between organics and machines far more than the previous games.

And also the threat and hostility between organics and machines.

So you admit there is a clash of narrative themes?

[corporal doody]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

corporal doody wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

corporal doody wrote...

they didnt rebel....they defended themselves.

Rebellion usually is a defense act in some nature. People rarely aggressively rebel: they rebel because they feel threatened by the authority.

well met!

than by that definitation they rebelled.  so maybe the reapers need to kill organics so they dont make synthetics who become self-aware and want to kill organics who want to kill synthetics who want to kill organics.

The geth rebelled by the definition that they organized, resisted, and overthrew their governing authority, the Quarians.

The Reapers kill the advanced organics so that none of them will create a situation in which no organics will live.

see...now i think i smell rhetoric....

[Ciiran]

Zine2 wrote...

The OP makes a critical error in failing to realize that Geth / EDI are the only arguments that demonstrate the Catalyst was completely wrong. It is simply the most obvious argument.

The galaxy is full of conflict. Krogans fight Turians. Turians fight Humans. Humans fight Humans. Plenty of conflicts happen in the galaxy even without the Synthetic vs Organic angle.

Therefore, the assertion that Organics and Synthetics are hard-wired to kill one another is false. Instead, the truth of the galaxy is that people will kill one another regardless of their race or component parts. There is nothing special about the Organic vs Synthetic conflict, any more than a Human vs Human conflict.

By arbitrarily classifying everyone under an "Organic" or "Synthetic" camp, the Catalyst is therefore engaging in nothing more than the ideology of hatred. It presumes that the root of the problem is your component parts, rather than the strength of your character. It completely fails to consider that conflict is instead a natural part of all sentient life; and attempting to divide them under arbitrary camps only fosters more hatred than unity and cooperation.

In short, the Catalyst was a complete and utter moron who judged people along "racial" lines. You're an Organic, so you are destined to create evil Synthetics who will genocide you. There is no room for debate. As far as it's concerned, the mere fact that you're a dirty organic dooms you down this path. Its premise was driven by ideological hatred and prejudice: No more, no less.

I think you misread me, or I explained myself badly.

The geth and EDI are bad examples because they do not disprove the Catalyst.

Organic vs organic conflict does not disprove the Catalyst either. If anything, it shows that his focus is too narrow. But he did not say anything about that topic.

Organic and synthetic are arbitrary definitons? How so? They way I interpret that divide is that synthetics are potentially waaaay more powerful than organics. Obvious reasons. They could actually win without destroying themselves in the process or retarding their advancement. Especially given a little time.

Doesn't matter though. That was not the topic of this thread. My point was that the Catalysts argument is open ended, a continous claim. THe geth and EDI are singular examples, discrete values. THey have no value as counter examples agianst the Catalysts claim. And I did not say that the Catalyst is right, although he might be.
 

[Grayvern]

Yes but assuming the reapers view ignores the fact it is just the milky way, what about you know the rest of the universe.

Modifié par Grayvern, 17 mars 2012 - 05:21 .

[VoraciousBeaver]

Der Estr Bune wrote...

I agree that the Geth/EDI are not valid examples of why it's wrong, but I don't agree that it only has to happen once. If anything, I think the whole thing is probably proof that it has happened multiple times in the past. The God-Child has such a massive sample size, it's sort of naive to say, "This 300-year span invalidates the millenia of data he has!".

It should also be noted that this is the first cycle(that we know about) where someone like Shepard exists. And, of course, the first cycle(that we know about) where synthetics have had a genuine mindset like Legion/EDI.

I've only played the games and I rarely read the codex, so apologies if I am misinformed here.

[Der Estr Bune]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

So you admit there is a clash of narrative themes?

I'm not him, and I'm not trying to dodge the question, but this is a thread about a strictly narrative issue, not a thematic one. I don't know why this whole discussion is relevant here.

[Der Estr Bune]

VoraciousBeaver wrote...

It should also be noted that this is the first cycle(that we know about) where someone like Shepard exists. And, of course, the first cycle(that we know about) where synthetics have had a genuine mindset like Legion/EDI.

I've only played the games and I rarely read the codex, so apologies if I am misinformed here.

I think you're right, but to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what point you're making with it. Maybe draw it out for me, please?

[Ultra Prism]

Geth just wanted to live in peace ... they were not interested total universe domination lol

[Dean_the_Young]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

They are not unequivocal proof. On this I agree.

It still violates the themes, and therefor is a narrative failure.

As a trilogy, Mass Effect had no consistent themes. Very few subplots were consistent throughout the series.

The Ending should be considered in terms of the game it was part of, just as the other game endings should be judged by their game.

Mass Effect 3 exemplifies the theme of love and unity between organics and machines far more than the previous games.

And also the threat and hostility between organics and machines.

So you admit there is a clash of narrative themes?

A clash implies things are mutually exclusive. The themes that 'there is organic-synthetic strife' AND 'organics and synthetics can get along' are not mutually exclusive. They can both exist in the same universe, just like 'there are Human villains' and 'there are Human heroes.'

[Zen_Mojo]

Actually, the Geth and EDI are proof of the OPPOSITE. EDI's story's a lot more complicated than seen at first (you have to play ME1 and then pore over some Cerberus data to get to the TRUTH of EDI's backstory). Needless to say, EDI is proof that AI trends toward redemption and understanding with time.

You don't even need to dig into the ME3 sidequests to know the truth of the quarian/geth conflict, you learn it if you just keep asking Tali questions in ME1 and you have an opportunity to scold the quarians for trying to slaughter an entire race.

And the Geth never rebelled. They stayed beyond the veil for almost 300 years after the quarians murdered them. They didn't even chase after the quarians when they ran them off of Rannoch. The first time, they worshipped the Reapers. The second time, they sided with the Reapers because the Quarians tried to commit genocide against them.

Modifié par Zen_Mojo, 17 mars 2012 - 05:22 .

[Dean_the_Young]

corporal doody wrote...

see...now i think i smell rhetoric....

If by 'rhetoric' you mean 'what actually happens', sure.

The Reapers never destroy all organic life. Qualifiers are needed.

[Beast919]

111987 wrote...

Beast919 wrote...

You troll yourself pretty damn well, in my opinion, so I don't even really need to try.

But on that line of thought, what is the point of this fear of AI - at its core.

The protheans dominated all life they ran across (unless it met their requirements).  There's no reason to view that as any worse than Synthetics dominating all life they ran across, unless you *specifically* do not like Synthetics.  And  that, to me, sounds a little racist against our robot buddies.  Even Tali thought Legion had a soul.  So what makes their souls inherantly less valueble than *any* organics soul? (since the Reapers are willing to sacrifice an infinite amount of organics to simply ensure *a* organic species survives)

Also has anyone even given thought to how incredibly unbelieveable this theory is?

The reapers wipe out entire species.....entire...species....for billions of years.

How many species can there possibly be?  I mean at any given time, how many species are at the 'development' stage while the rest of the 'advanced' ones are being wiped out?

Wouldn't there at some point be an "end date" at which no more new species existed that *weren't* advanced enough to be purged?  Is that the goal, eliminate all "intelligent" organic life?

Ignoring the insults...

Well we don't know how many planets can support life in the Milky Way. Our scientists estimate there are over 2 billion Earth-like planets, capable of supporting life.

And an AI will always pose a more serious threat than organics. A hostile AI with the sophistication of the Overlord hybrid, for example, would be a huge threat to organics, and an enduring one. If a hostile AI achieved technological singularity, it would constantly wipe out organic life, essentially forever.'

The Reaper's alternative allows for organics to at least live for several million years, and then preserve them in Reaper form.

Your acceptance of the inevitability of organic extinction only goes to prove this plan is nonsense.  By this, I mean your statement of "at least live for several million years".

They're attempting to stop what they VIEW as an inevitability by putting into motion a plan that will INEVITABLY END ALL ORGANIC LIFE.

Its nonsense.

No matter how many planets *can* sustain organic life, the odds of a sentient species evolving go down nearly every single time a sentient species is introduced into the mix (look at what we have done to our environment, and we haven't even triggered something as horrible as nuclear war on a grand scale).

To me, that means that there is an inevitable point at which species cease to appear.  Eventually, they will run out.  If you keep purging the good ones every 50,000 years.  Don't forget that its also mentioned that the reapers harvest the resources found on the planets they are harvesting for bodies.  This means any other potential species (i.e. monkeys that could evolve on Earth) are now screwed, thus eliminating even *more* potential sentient species.

Modifié par Beast919, 17 mars 2012 - 05:22 .