418 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Ultra Prism wrote...

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

Galactic genocide, from time to time, but domination? Never.

Besides the parts they consider theirs. Or necessary for their safety.

[Tony208]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Tony208 wrote...

We're trying to apply a theory based on the confines of our world to the world of mass effect and it just doesn't translate very well.

It translates very well.

"Eventually, something will be able to advance in capability so fast that it can't be stopped."

Why will a singularity result in synthetics wiping out all organics? For resources? The Geth seemed to be doing just fine with whatever they have in the Perseus Veil.

The Geth have also changed opinion and tried to kill all organics on two different occassions.

So, 'any reason will do.'

Unless we know the exact history of the galaxy, we have to take whatever that godamn stupid god child says at face value and I just hate that Shepard is doing that.

Shepard never has to agree that the Catalyst is correct.

And damn that "lots of speculation from everyone" bs. That is not how you end an epic trilogy. I would much rather be on my 6th or whatever playthrough.

So go play.

Why would it need to be stopped in the first place? Why are we so sure that just because they're advanced, they'll decide to wipe out organics all of a sudden? That could definitely happen if it was limited to Earth where resources are scarce. The galaxy is a large place, they could go to other galaxies if they were that advanced.

The Geth have tried to kill all organics? WHAT? They defended themselves against the Quarians and let them live. They only showed up recently because of Soverign.

The thing is the Reapers have been killed trillions over millions of years over that small possibility. If they're trying to prevent something that they say is bound to happen, that's the thing, it's bound to happen. So they're just delaying the inevitable.

What they should really be doing is giving organics the chance to evolve so singularity is delayed. Like others said, keep wiping out synthetics so it never comes to that.

Modifié par Tony208, 17 mars 2012 - 05:23 .

[Grayvern]

If you assert indefinate creation of creation means synthetics surpass organics then logically you also attest that from another galaxy there will inevitably be another synthetic threat which could easily annihilate the reapers meaning that all they do is pointless.

Which rather disproves the assertion that star child command is acting in a sane manner.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Der Estr Bune wrote...

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.

Themes are kind of the core to any narrative, so i don't know why you think they are seperate issues. 

And this thread is not one concerning the narrative, it is one concerning out of universe logic. It is the wrong place to talk about narrative themes, but not because of why you think so.

[Giantdeathrobot]

This is circular, short-sighted logic. If one race of synthetics make war with organics, his argument is won? How so? Why is the organics vs synthetics argument singled out, anyhow? Shepard's cycle has no less than two organic races (Krogans and the indoctrinated rachni, you know, for extra hypocrisy) attempt galactic conques. Should we then make the blanket statement that organics are... destined to kill other organics and so... must be killed every 50k years so that they stop killing organics... Sorry can't keep a straight face here. It's just a so retarded argument.

Not only that, but all series long we are shown AI constructs living in peace with organics of their own volition. EDI is an excellent proof. The Geth didn't rebel, they acted purely in self-defense and then wanted to be left alone. Yet the star-child tells us it was all a lie, that AIs will invariably try to exterminate organics, and that you should just accpet a declaration that contradict at least two game's worth of build-up.

Even if the Catalyst's conclusion was justified, it remains ridiculously bad writing.

[Meltemph]

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!".

Think about that. They(Creator race) obviously over came these supposed AI's that made them want to create reapers to destroy the advanced civs every 50k years, which means that they have literally prevented any proof of concept. They took their own personal experiences and applied it to millons of years saying it must happen, because it happened to us(even assuming they are being honest about it). You argue that they know it to be so, because they have seen it for millions of years, but how do they see it if they wipe the galaxy out every 50k years to prevent the suppsoed issues from happening? 

It is the very definition of circular logic.  


IF they did what they said they did, they have no proof of concept, other then when the reapers were 1st built(assuming you trust them) otherwise they wouldnt be alive to build the reapers in the 1st place.  So you either beleive there was a cycle(or something much worse) before them and they stopped it by making the reapers. They decided to make sure it never happened again by wiping anything out that has a chance of doing it(self preservation) or they are lying and infact they are the self fulfilling prophecy, they are infact the cycle, they are the ones that "always kills the organics".  I dont see any other conclusion available.

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 mars 2012 - 05:29 .

[Swagga like Bane]

111987 wrote...

Sam Anders wrote...

They showed you in ME3 that the Quarians struck first, and the Geth just attempted to get the Quarians to leave them alone while doing as little damage as possible.

The Geth were hostile in the trilogy because they were being controlled by the Reapers.

Not true. In both cases, the Geth willingly allied with the Reapers.

Yah because the Geth worshipped the 'old machines'... and that's probably because they were in some way indoctrinated by the reapers. The heretics

[Ciiran]

Erield wrote...

Ciiran wrote...

Beast919 wrote...

Ciiran wrote...

This does, however, NOT disprove the Catalysts argument. It is not disprovable by design.

50 000 years seem way arbitrary btw. More than enough time for synthetics to be developed and destroy all organics imo.

You're correct - there is no way to disprove that eventually an AI *might* be created that will destroy all life.
There is however, a way to prove it hasn't happened.  Organic life still exists.
Therefore, the "solution" was created before there was a "problem." 
That is why his argument is absurd.

And as for the 50,000 years, don't forget, Sovereign misses his date with the 50,000 year cycle by over a 1000 years (assuming the Rachni truly were reaper controlled and the war had a meaning, other than ****s & giggles).  So thats a 1000 "bonus" years in the "danger zone" in which all organic life as we know it may have ceased to exist.  Efficient.

His argument is absurd, but not because organic life has not been destroyed before.

Are you, and others, seriously arguing that creating solutions for problems before they become actual problems is absurd? So trying to prevent a nuclear WW3 was an absurd thing since it hadn't happened before? Just a couple of bombs dropped on a couple of cities. Nothing to worry about, the world was not destroyed by it and there are nations now with nuclear capabilities that does not use it. Ergo nuclear war is not something ot worry about and it would be absurd to try to prevent the eventuality?

That the Catalysts solution to the above example would be to destroy any nation above amish level of technology is a bit drastic, I think we could all agree on. But that's not the topic of the thread.

Trying to prevent something that is catastrophic in nature that you can see coming is not a bad thing.  Preventing said catastrophe but implementing nothing short of whole-sale slaughter, genocide, and galaxy-wide destruction is something entirely different.

It would be rather like saying, "OMG! Iran has nukes! USA, quick, to the moon-base.  We will live there, after we have fired all of our nukes on the rest of the world, preventing anyone but us from having nukes!"

Yes, that was what I said in my last paragraph...

The point of the thread was not to defend the Reapers solution though. It was to show in what way his argument is actually false and why the geth/edi does not disprove him.

It is possible to say someone is wrong while showing how some arguments against that someone are also wrong.

[Der Estr Bune]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Themes are kind of the core to any narrative, so i don't know why you think they are seperate issues. 

And this thread is not one concerning the narrative, it is one concerning out of universe logic. It is the wrong place to talk about narrative themes, but not because of why you think so.

Fair enough. Let's try it this way: How does the fact that the game is thematically shaky help to prove/disprove the given arguments?

[VoraciousBeaver]

Der Estr Bune wrote...

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?

Just that those are variables which have not yet been presented to the Catalyst in all of its years, as far as we know. Though I do understand that even though that may be, the Catalyst probably wouldn't change its views because of one cycle. So I guess I'm not really making a point. =P

[111987]

Beast919 wrote...


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.

What exactly is your evidence that all organic life will be wiped out eventually?

We don't know how many planets can support life, Our current estimates say there are several billion. Even if there are only several million planets capable of supporting life, those planets will eventually allow for advanced life to rise again.

There are less than a dozen advanced species in this current cycle. A dozen out of potentially millions of species.

The Reapers harvest technology and resources, but it doesn't say exactly what this means. It defintely does not mean that they are rendering those worlds unihabitable.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.'

Working with that analogy, the ending implies that all human are villains, despite what has been shown throughout the story; effectively creating a clash of themes.

[Swagga like Bane]

111987 wrote...

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!".

This. This is why I don't believe the Starchild's logic is faulty.

Why was the catalyst in a form of a boy that only Shepard has scene, a boy who hadn't been in existence in the beginning of that millenia?

[111987]

Swagga like Bane wrote...

111987 wrote...

Sam Anders wrote...

They showed you in ME3 that the Quarians struck first, and the Geth just attempted to get the Quarians to leave them alone while doing as little damage as possible.

The Geth were hostile in the trilogy because they were being controlled by the Reapers.

Not true. In both cases, the Geth willingly allied with the Reapers.

Yah because the Geth worshipped the 'old machines'... and that's probably because they were in some way indoctrinated by the reapers. The heretics

NOOOO

The Reapers never indoctrinated the Geth! The Heretics willingly chose to serve the Reapers, and in ME3, the Geth once again allowed themselves to be controlled by the Reapers to defend against the Quarian attack.

[Der Estr Bune]

Meltemph wrote...

Think about that. They(Creator race) obviously over came these supposed AI's that made them want to create reapers to destroy the advanced civs every 50k years, which means that they have literally prevented any proof of concept. They took their own personal experiences and applied it to millons of years saying it must happen, because it happened to us(even assuming they are being honest about it). You argue that they know it to be so, because they have seen it for millions of years, but how do they see it if they wipe the galaxy out every 50k years to prevent the suppsoed issues from happening? 

It is the very definition of circular logic. 

They see it because after having seen it any given number of times, they came to be able to recognize potential signs/warning signs, and after so long of having those validated, they came to just assume it was ultimately correct.

IF they did what they said they did, they have no proof of concept, other then when the reapers were 1st built(assuming you trust them) otherwise they wouldnt be alive to build the reapers in the 1st place. So you either beleive there was a cycle(or something much worse) before them and they stopped it by making the reapers and they decided to make sure it never happened again by wiping anything out that has a chance of doing it(self preservation) or they are lying and infact they are the self fulfilling prophecy, they are infact the cycle, they are the ones that "always kills the organics".  I dont see any other conclusion available. 

I've got to be honest, I don't quite know what you're saying here. I'm arguing the the God-Child exists wholly outside of organic life/the Galaxy somehow, and had several instances of direct intervention to save organics before he decided to create the Reapers and put the Cycle into motion.

[Dean_the_Young]

Beast919 wrote...

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

The Geth-Quarian subplot also changed throughout the entire trilogy. In the first game, the Geth were entirely unsympathetic. In the second, the 'True' Geth were virtually without blame, while the Quarians were in dispute. In the third, the Geth are still handled as virtually blameless (despite serious flaws), and the Quarians are further twisted to service the plot-required conflict regardless.

The Geth-Quarian plot existed, but it was not consistent. The best example is the ever-changing stance of Tali.

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

In the first game, the genophage is driving the Krogan to extinction. In the second, we're told it's not. Wrex starts as someone who sees Krogan reform as nature, but in the end is hanging onto the genophage which would undermine his reforms.

Just what the Genophage is doing changes by the game, as is other people's relation to it.

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 ME3 you expand on TIM's plan to control the Reapers.

Did you ever notice that quite often not only were both options were available, but that the treatment and favoribility of controlling others bounced between alignments?

From controlling Zaeed to resolving Tali/Legion's loyalty to Overlord to the Heretic Virus, 'control' was present but bounced all around the place.

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.

This is a fair choice. Not necessarily pleasant, but it is fair to be given. Freedom of choice comes at a cost.

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.

Besides that the last three games DIDN'T say that... and directly denies that it is impossible.

(Proof being all the cases where it, you know, works. EDI, the Cerberus troopers, even the Catalyst and the ending.)

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, you are not mass-murdering billions in the Synthesis ending. And Legion's already a hypocrite on a number of occassions.

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.

Paragon Shepard brainwashed the Heretics, and has committed genocide in the past. Let's not forget past flaws here.

[Dean_the_Young]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.'

Working with that analogy, the ending implies that all human are villains, despite what has been shown throughout the story; effectively creating a clash of themes.

Except it does not imply that all humans are villains.

[Grayvern]

Also their is the issue of power ceiling, this is semi hard sci fi but their are always limits. These limits are maximum destructive force for weaponry maximum ftl speed, and most importantly reaction times.

If the reapers are close to the maximum potential of possible technology, which the catalyst clearly believes they are since they are not scared of extra galactic synthetics wiping them out then they also invalidate their reason to try and cull life to stop synthetics being produced.

In all honesty the better analysis is that a writer(s) was/ were hired and asked to write the main plot arc of ME3 and the convoluted mess of reasoning is the result of them trying to extrapolated series themes into a story rather than what fealt right for the character of the universe.

[Der Estr Bune]

VoraciousBeaver wrote...

Just that those are variables which have not yet been presented to the Catalyst in all of its years, as far as we know. Though I do understand that even though that may be, the Catalyst probably wouldn't change its views because of one cycle. So I guess I'm not really making a point. =P

I mean, I think you're onto something. You're right that he's never seen Shepard (or anyone similar) before, and that's important, because the lack of organic arrival means that the Cycle is still working as intended.

[corporal doody]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

now you are being silly

[Gibb_Shepard]

Der Estr Bune wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Themes are kind of the core to any narrative, so i don't know why you think they are seperate issues. 

And this thread is not one concerning the narrative, it is one concerning out of universe logic. It is the wrong place to talk about narrative themes, but not because of why you think so.

Fair enough. Let's try it this way: How does the fact that the game is thematically shaky help to prove/disprove the given arguments?

It doesn't, because out of universe logic can make ANYTHING seem plausible. People start to use real life conflicts to prove their point, and then go into deep philosophical ramblings.

The fact is, this is a story driven narrative that should follow protocols of consistency. it doesn't. But like i said, this thread is not about narrative consistency, so my arguments are in the wrong topic. I was merely replying to those who started arguing from an in-universe perspective.

[TeffexPope]

Beast919 wrote...



If there was ever a "organic-hunting galaxy-eating all-knowing AI threat" in the past, it obviously failed.  If it failed, there's no need to wipe out organic society.

If there wasn't one, WTF.  Did godkid suddenly wake up and be like "alright, I'm a bit worried this might happen one day, lets start killing people.

The argument is nonsense.  Absolute nonsense.

And even if there was, he goes and makes an AI race that does exactly that. Horrible, horrible ending.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.'

Working with that analogy, the ending implies that all human are villains, despite what has been shown throughout the story; effectively creating a clash of themes.

Except it does not imply that all humans are villains.

The only thing i can say here is "yes it does", since i haven't been given much to work with.

[SaltyWaffles-PD]

Even if the OP was correct, the Catalyst's argument is STILL logically fallacious. It's full of false assumptions, circular logic, false dichotomies, and Morton's Forks (two paths essentially lead to the same result--organic life is routinely wiped out to extinction by synthetics).

Modifié par SaltyWaffles-PD, 17 mars 2012 - 05:36 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Tony208 wrote...

Why would it need to be stopped in the first place?

Because the Reapers view the primacy of organic life in general as better than an eternally superior synthetic existence.

Why are we so sure that just because they're advanced, they'll decide to wipe out organics all of a sudden? That could definitely happen if it was limited to Earth where resources are scarce. The galaxy is a large place, they could go to other galaxies if they were that advanced.

Why would they step kindly around bugs like you?

The Geth have tried to kill all organics? WHAT? They defended themselves against the Quarians and let them live. They only showed up recently because of Soverign.

Which is, you know, when a good number of them attempted omnicide. And then the rest joined in later three years later when they thought they were at threat.

So, yes. They have tried.

The thing is the Reapers have been killed trillions over millions of years over that small possibility. If they're trying to prevent something that they say is bound to happen, that's the thing, it's bound to happen. So they're just delaying the inevitable.

But if they can delay the inevitable indefinitely, it doesn't need to come soon.

You're going to die, but you still take care of your body, do you not? Same principal. The inevitable doesn't need to be embraced.

What they should really be doing is giving organics the chance to evolve so singularity is delayed. Like others said, keep wiping out synthetics so it never comes to that.

Evolution wouldn't delay singularity.