232 réponses à ce sujet

[Myrmedus]

I cannot help but think most of these arguments -for- the logic is just people clutching at straws to try and make some sense of the ending because otherwise they'll feel devoid.

[likta_]

Really? Because a) they didn't use space magic, they used an energy weapon that specifically kills Reapers, and the organics (quarians in particular) took a lot of crap from the geth, and were basically flotsam.

The geth never rose up to destroy the quarians, they acted on self defense wich is stated clearly throughout ME2 & ME3. The quarians were never in the position to defend against the reapers.

Modifié par likta_, 19 mars 2012 - 12:11 .

[Tocquevillain]

Nekroso22 wrote...

The problem, OP, isn't that the stated purpose of the Reapers is silly. It isn't even the circular logic the Catalyst used to describe their existence (call it what you will, the "Yo dawg" picture sums up Catalyst's explanation nicely.)

The problem is that Catalyst's explanation rewrites the Reapers. It changes them from vast, unknowable machine intelligences to "we're-only-trying-to-help-you-just-don't-understand" cartoon villains. Some people have argued that they thought this explanation helped keep the Reapers' intentions vague, but I think it goes too far. It's a little late to rewrite the backstory for two other games.

That's not to say that the themes of ME3 couldn't be good in another setting, mind you. It's just that it lacks consistency with the established Mass Effect canon.

I think you have a point, but at the same time, I think your point relies on the fact that human beings don't face extinction from second to second. We most go through our lives aware that they will end naturally, not violently.

When a three million year old machine comes down from the sky and tells you you have to die so life can go on, yeah, it sounds ****ed up, but only because we all want to live. And the idea of me having to give up my life so slugs can grow free of the possibility of me developing a machine race that kills the slugs is not pleasant.

That's the whole "you just don't understand" part. It's just another way of saying organics love life too much to give it up, but the Reapers will make that utterly inhuman choice, and go about the business of reaping.

[Armass81]

Myrmedus wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

Joccaren wrote...

The problem is not with the whole 'Singularity' part of the ending, but with the method that is carried out.
A three year old child could come up with a better 'Solution' than the Catalyst: Wipe out all Synthetics when they rise up. Why wipe out Organics? They are the ones you are trying to protect. Wipe out the ones you are trying to protect them from.
By the Reaper's logic, we should go into places effected by the War on terrorism and kill every civilian over the age of 14, to stop them from being recruited and enslaved by terrorists. The far better method is to go in and try to stop the terrorists themselves, rather than those who will be effected by it.

I elaborated on this already, you cut the root of the cancer out, you dont just destroy the cancer when it appears. Catalyst AI thinks this is more efficient, and it is. It doesnt care what civilization is alive, tough it does "preserve" them through horrible means, its main purpose is to ensure there is continuation of life in the galaxy. If AI's ever grow powerful enough, nothing wouldnt be able to stop them, not even reapers. They would consume everything, all resources, all life would be destroyed.

The issue with this is I don't see how it can have a good deal of evidence to back up its assertions. This extinction could only have happened once or twice - anything more and I'm not really seeing how organic life lives today, and in the event it does that surely disproves its theory anyway?

The AI's creators tought this would be inevitable, maybe it is, maybe it isnt. It doesnt matter. They tought it would be so they programmed the catalyst to do this and nothing else.  And thus we have the reapers and the cycles.

[Militarized]

Myrmedus wrote...

Tocquevillain wrote...

Militarized wrote...

I feel like I've had to say this over and over and over...

Singularity "theory" or "philosophy", whichever you prefer, is cliche, mundane, asinine, ignorant, unimaginative, tasteless and all around just plain f#!$!ing stupid.

It is essentially "technophobia", stating progress is BAD and putting that progress into the form of an AI. We have no way of knowing how an AI would react to sentience... we don't have a proper perspective on this and it insults humanities progress towards a better tomorrow. Everytime we have a leap in technology we seem to drastically improve as a species. Violence is, statistically, on the decline and a large part of that is because of one of our new inventions... the internet. We are headed toward becoming a class 1 civilization, if we can refrain from the fear mongering that something like a Singularity theory proposes... we just have to keep our baser instincts like this fear mongering in check.

....what did I just read and what does it have to do with a video game=]

...

What it has to do with the video game is that this philosophy the Reapers have is the "Technology Singularity" <_<

Thank you.... lol 

[Elyiia]

Myrmedus wrote...

I cannot help but think most of these arguments -for- the logic is just people clutching at straws to try and make some sense of the ending because otherwise they'll feel devoid.

Emergency induction ports*

[WazTheMagnificent]

OP, you are right in that, the starchild's solution is one way to deal with the problem. It's just not a particularly good one, and the reaper's often act in ways that contradict it.

For instance, if what the starchild says is true, then the reaper's should be wiping out the geth with equal vigor. After all, there is a danger of them persisting into the next cycle, perhaps preventing the evolution of advanced organics at all. Hell, they might even surpass the reapers! So what do they reaper's do to solve this problem? They UPGRADE the geth. See the problem here? It' stupid, no matter how you look at it.

[Myrmedus]

Silhouett3 wrote...

Synthetic-organic conflict is actually backed-up throughout the whole series.Synthetic do not have any use for organics, they isolate themselves from them. On the other side, why did Quarians made war upon Geth? Completely out of fear, fear of possibility that Geth may turn on them at some point. Self-preservation instinct. However we all know their judgement was baseless, illogical. That's why geth turned to Reapers both in ME1 and ME3. That's why they were testing organic reactions by putting false stories on extranet. If it wasn't the hyper-advanced AI code Legion "assumed control", there wouldn't be any alliance with organic society.

You have to view things on a thematical level though. The theme of organics and synthetics shifts as the series goes on, if you choose it to, between organics and synthetics being at war to organics and synthetics making peace. This starts long before ME3: it starts the second you choose to keep Legion as a party member.

I'm fine with the Catalyst's logic IF, in your playthrough, you did things like spacing Legion/destroying him, not brokering a peace between the Geth and the Quarians etc. then I'm fine with it. However, if you did advocate peace all the way that CHOICE should factor in to the ending and therefore the discussion with the Catalyst.

And this is the entire point of the argument by fans about how your choices during the series are no factored in to the ending whatsoever. You are TOLD the "what is", even if during your time playing the game you have proven it to be false, and are given no opportunity to dispute it.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 19 mars 2012 - 12:15 .

[Tocquevillain]

Myrmedus wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

Joccaren wrote...

The problem is not with the whole 'Singularity' part of the ending, but with the method that is carried out.
A three year old child could come up with a better 'Solution' than the Catalyst: Wipe out all Synthetics when they rise up. Why wipe out Organics? They are the ones you are trying to protect. Wipe out the ones you are trying to protect them from.
By the Reaper's logic, we should go into places effected by the War on terrorism and kill every civilian over the age of 14, to stop them from being recruited and enslaved by terrorists. The far better method is to go in and try to stop the terrorists themselves, rather than those who will be effected by it.

I elaborated on this already, you cut the root of the cancer out, you dont just destroy the cancer when it appears. Catalyst AI thinks this is more efficient, and it is. It doesnt care what civilization is alive, tough it does "preserve" them through horrible means, its main purpose is to ensure there is continuation of life in the galaxy. If AI's ever grow powerful enough, nothing wouldnt be able to stop them, not even reapers. They would consume everything, all resources, all life would be destroyed.

The issue with this is I don't see how it can have a good deal of evidence to back up its assertions. This extinction could only have happened once or twice - anything more and I'm not really seeing how organic life lives today, and in the event it does that surely disproves its theory anyway?

How do you know a machine race wasn't spawned that started a galaxy wide conflict, and the reapers rescued the galaxy?

[Myrmedus]

Tocquevillain wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

Joccaren wrote...

The problem is not with the whole 'Singularity' part of the ending, but with the method that is carried out.
A three year old child could come up with a better 'Solution' than the Catalyst: Wipe out all Synthetics when they rise up. Why wipe out Organics? They are the ones you are trying to protect. Wipe out the ones you are trying to protect them from.
By the Reaper's logic, we should go into places effected by the War on terrorism and kill every civilian over the age of 14, to stop them from being recruited and enslaved by terrorists. The far better method is to go in and try to stop the terrorists themselves, rather than those who will be effected by it.

I elaborated on this already, you cut the root of the cancer out, you dont just destroy the cancer when it appears. Catalyst AI thinks this is more efficient, and it is. It doesnt care what civilization is alive, tough it does "preserve" them through horrible means, its main purpose is to ensure there is continuation of life in the galaxy. If AI's ever grow powerful enough, nothing wouldnt be able to stop them, not even reapers. They would consume everything, all resources, all life would be destroyed.

The issue with this is I don't see how it can have a good deal of evidence to back up its assertions. This extinction could only have happened once or twice - anything more and I'm not really seeing how organic life lives today, and in the event it does that surely disproves its theory anyway?

How do you know a machine race wasn't spawned that started a galaxy wide conflict, and the reapers rescued the galaxy?

You miss my point. For them to have a reasonable data sample this would've had to happen many, MANY times, not just once or twice.

It's like trying to build a statistical argument on a survey where you only questioned 3 people.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 19 mars 2012 - 12:16 .

[Tocquevillain]

Myrmedus wrote...

Tocquevillain wrote...

likta_ wrote...

Tocquevillain wrote...

Vergil_dgk wrote...

...or the reapers could just wait until such a creation actually arose, then zoom in and destroy it with their god-like powers, then tell sentients to stop creating that kind of stuff or be wiped out - and then zoom out again.

I've seen this idea a few times, and it sounds totally wrong to me every time I read it.

How do you think advanced species would react? They rely on synethetics and technology. If the Reapers came in like mommy and said NO, the advanced species would try to destroy the Reapers, and if they actually succeeded, then the galaxy would truly tilt towards chaos for all time, because the guiding hand would be gone. Easier to kill all the advanced species, and let the "minnows" grow up and only come in every 50 000 years instead of every year when another species creates more secret synthetics.

Of course, that is basically the ending of ME3, which is why the ending is so exciting, a shift towards chaos and unlimited possibility.

No, just no. If the species is advanced enough to kill the reapers without space magic, they sure as hell don't take any crap from their own creations.

Really? Because a) they didn't use space magic, they used an energy weapon that specifically kills Reapers, and the organics (quarians in particular) took a lot of crap from the geth, and were basically flotsam.

The Quarians weren't strong enough to kill the Reapers...so I'm not really sure what you're getting at there.

I was referring generally to organics, not just the Quarians.

[Armass81]

WazTheMagnificent wrote...

OP, you are right in that, the starchild's solution is one way to deal with the problem. It's just not a particularly good one, and the reaper's often act in ways that contradict it.

For instance, if what the starchild says is true, then the reaper's should be wiping out the geth with equal vigor. After all, there is a danger of them persisting into the next cycle, perhaps preventing the evolution of advanced organics at all. Hell, they might even surpass the reapers! So what do they reaper's do to solve this problem? They UPGRADE the geth. See the problem here? It' stupid, no matter how you look at it.

The geth are still not powerful enough to destroy the reapers on their own. They were tools, a means to the end, just like husks, collectors and indoctrinated people. Only the end matters to the reapers and to the Catalyst, not the means. After current cycles advanced organic civilizations would have been harvested they would have destroyed the geth no doubt.

[Myrmedus]

Tocquevillain wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

Tocquevillain wrote...

likta_ wrote...

Tocquevillain wrote...

Vergil_dgk wrote...

...or the reapers could just wait until such a creation actually arose, then zoom in and destroy it with their god-like powers, then tell sentients to stop creating that kind of stuff or be wiped out - and then zoom out again.

I've seen this idea a few times, and it sounds totally wrong to me every time I read it.

How do you think advanced species would react? They rely on synethetics and technology. If the Reapers came in like mommy and said NO, the advanced species would try to destroy the Reapers, and if they actually succeeded, then the galaxy would truly tilt towards chaos for all time, because the guiding hand would be gone. Easier to kill all the advanced species, and let the "minnows" grow up and only come in every 50 000 years instead of every year when another species creates more secret synthetics.

Of course, that is basically the ending of ME3, which is why the ending is so exciting, a shift towards chaos and unlimited possibility.

No, just no. If the species is advanced enough to kill the reapers without space magic, they sure as hell don't take any crap from their own creations.

Really? Because a) they didn't use space magic, they used an energy weapon that specifically kills Reapers, and the organics (quarians in particular) took a lot of crap from the geth, and were basically flotsam.

The Quarians weren't strong enough to kill the Reapers...so I'm not really sure what you're getting at there.

I was referring generally to organics, not just the Quarians.

Except the Quarians are the only ones actually warring with a synthetic life-form. If the organic fleets acted against the Geth they would be ****ed.

I understand what you are trying to say with your arguments but the problem is that Catalyst's assertions are so grandiose in nature that for there to be any merit in its argument it would need ALOT of proof: countless galactic cycles where synthetics were on the cusp of wiping out organics, and I don't believe this to be the case.

And even if it is the case, its solution is only one of many (hence the shoddy endings) and where there is doubt, there should be the opportunity to protest and argue. Most people find it more abhorrent that our character is pigeonholed into nodding his head more than the Catalyst's login in of itself.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 19 mars 2012 - 12:19 .

[MadRabbit999]

I tried explaining this myself before and got called a "Hitler" I am glad people here are trying to discuss it instead.

The OP also should have mentioned that by the reaper's point of view, they are not "killing" sentient, but "storing" them into forms of reapers... which means that by their standards, they still live.

[Myrmedus]

MadRabbit999 wrote...

I tried explaining this myself before and got called a "Hitler" I am glad people here are trying to discuss it instead.

The OP also should have mentioned that by the reaper's point of view, they are not "killing" sentient, but "storing" them into forms of reapers... which means that by their standards, they still live.

Of course, but the problem is that they're imposing their subjective view on the whole galaxy.

In addition, once again, we should have the opportunity to dispute their logic. Perhaps we want to take the risk that comes with living freely without Reaper oversight? No such choice is given. Not unless we want to basically destroy the whole galaxy, rofl.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 19 mars 2012 - 12:21 .

[Militarized]

The whole point of having the Geth and EDI in the game in the first place was to explore what sentience is, it never had anything to do with singularity or them attacking organics and taking over until the very last 5 minutes of the game.

The ENTIRE GAME you spend talking to EDI you are developing her "humanity" and her self awareness.. you are not asking whether she is going to attack you. It's the same for the Geth mostly, it's absolutely ridiculous...

[Genera1Nemesis]

shurryy wrote...

 

Stupidest thing ever considering Reapers were organic hiveminds in synthetic outer shells (they were spaceships in a nutshell) but they were not AI.

This is the biggest fail so far in the whole argument against the ending, because it means people weren't paying attention.

[Myrmedus]

Militarized wrote...

The whole point of having the Geth and EDI in the game in the first place was to explore what sentience is, it never had anything to do with singularity or them attacking organics and taking over until the very last 5 minutes of the game.

The ENTIRE GAME you spend talking to EDI you are developing her "humanity" and her self awareness.. you are not asking whether she is going to attack you. It's the same for the Geth mostly, it's absolutely ridiculous...

Exactly, this is what I meant by looking at things thematically.

The themes of the story by ME2 onwards are completely counter-intuitive to the final moments. Logically, the events of the series may not completely contradict the Catalyst's assertions, but the narrative themes certainly do and that is as important in story-telling (possibly more important) than pure logic.

It is akin to a story which starts off with conflict but then both sides start to work towards peace and then finally peace is made, only to have a character pop in at that last minute and say "No, that's all bull****, choose a colour."

It makes no sense from a story-telling perspective, either in terms of plot structure or continuity.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 19 mars 2012 - 12:25 .

[Militarized]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

shurryy wrote...

 

Stupidest thing ever considering Reapers were organic hiveminds in synthetic outer shells (they were spaceships in a nutshell) but they were not AI.

This is the biggest fail so far in the whole argument against the ending, because it means people weren't paying attention.

Which goes back to them winning with the synthesis ending... right? 

[AxeloftheKey]

I agree that it makes sense, and that it's not circular logic. Some civilization created the Reapers and the Catalyst AI because they believed advanced societies creating synthetics would eventually result in those synthetics destroying everything. The Reapers are different, in that they leave non-advanced civilizations alive. They ensure that civilizations that could create advanced technology won't result in the destruction of everything. While their belief isn't necessarily correct, it is an opinion that doesn't rely on circular logic. I don't understand why people believe that.

Tl;dr: The reapers kill civilizations that have technology to make it so younger civilizations can live, and maybe have a chance of not destroying themselves.

[WazTheMagnificent]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

shurryy wrote...

 

Stupidest thing ever considering Reapers were organic hiveminds in synthetic outer shells (they were spaceships in a nutshell) but they were not AI.

This is the biggest fail so far in the whole argument against the ending, because it means people weren't paying attention.

That image is an over-simplification no doubt, but the reapers are synthetics in every sense of the word.

[Tocquevillain]

WazTheMagnificent wrote...

OP, you are right in that, the starchild's solution is one way to deal with the problem. It's just not a particularly good one, and the reaper's often act in ways that contradict it.

For instance, if what the starchild says is true, then the reaper's should be wiping out the geth with equal vigor. After all, there is a danger of them persisting into the next cycle, perhaps preventing the evolution of advanced organics at all. Hell, they might even surpass the reapers! So what do they reaper's do to solve this problem? They UPGRADE the geth. See the problem here? It' stupid, no matter how you look at it.

It's fairly obvious that given the Reapers' proclivity for turning organics against each other to make their victory easier (indoctrination/double agents), they would find it beneficial to strike a temporary bargain with the Geth to make their own job of eliminating 17 million quarian easier. Then once you're done, remove the Reaper signal from Rannoch and then send your own forces to kill the geth. There's never been any indication the Reapers let advanced machines live at the end of  each cycle either.

[Genera1Nemesis]

Militarized wrote...

The whole point of having the Geth and EDI in the game in the first place was to explore what sentience is, it never had anything to do with singularity or them attacking organics and taking over until the very last 5 minutes of the game.

The ENTIRE GAME you spend talking to EDI you are developing her "humanity" and her self awareness.. you are not asking whether she is going to attack you. It's the same for the Geth mostly, it's absolutely ridiculous...

http://en.wikipedia....cal_singularity


The Geth heretics CHOSE to kill organics for their own technological gain so using Geth as example is kinda against the idea of tolerance (since you either just outright destroy them or re-write them)

This excerpt from the article above explains the dangerous path EDI walks down throughout;

In 1965, I. J. Good
first wrote of an "intelligence explosion", suggesting that if machines
could even slightly surpass human intellect, they could improve their
own designs in ways unforeseen by their designers, and thus recursively
augment themselves into far greater intelligences. The first such
improvements might be small, but as the machine became more intelligent
it would become better at becoming more intelligent, which could lead to
a cascade of self-improvements and a sudden surge to superintelligence (or a singularity).

[Adanu]

Myrmedus wrote...

I cannot help but think most of these arguments -for- the logic is just people clutching at straws to try and make some sense of the ending because otherwise they'll feel devoid.

It makes total sense when you look at it objectively.

Most humans are not objective.

As it is, I can't help but feel you are just clutching at straws for ways to pick apart the endings logic with these posts with strawman distractions.

See what I did there?

WazTheMagnificent wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

shurryy wrote...

 

Stupidest
thing ever considering Reapers were organic hiveminds in synthetic
outer shells (they were spaceships in a nutshell) but they were not AI.

This is the biggest fail so far in the whole argument against the ending, because it means people weren't paying attention.

That image is an over-simplification no doubt, but the reapers are synthetics in every sense of the word.

It's not an oversimplication, it's a blatant lie.

Modifié par Adanu, 19 mars 2012 - 12:28 .

[Myrmedus]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Militarized wrote...

The whole point of having the Geth and EDI in the game in the first place was to explore what sentience is, it never had anything to do with singularity or them attacking organics and taking over until the very last 5 minutes of the game.

The ENTIRE GAME you spend talking to EDI you are developing her "humanity" and her self awareness.. you are not asking whether she is going to attack you. It's the same for the Geth mostly, it's absolutely ridiculous...

http://en.wikipedia....cal_singularity


The Geth heretics CHOSE to kill organics for their own technological gain so using Geth as example is kinda against the idea of tolerance (since you either just outright destroy them or re-write them)

This excerpt from the article above explains the dangerous path EDI walks down throughout;

In 1965, I. J. Good
first wrote of an "intelligence explosion", suggesting that if machines
could even slightly surpass human intellect, they could improve their
own designs in ways unforeseen by their designers, and thus recursively
augment themselves into far greater intelligences. The first such
improvements might be small, but as the machine became more intelligent
it would become better at becoming more intelligent, which could lead to
a cascade of self-improvements and a sudden surge to superintelligence (or a singularity).

You're not getting his point. He is talking from a narrative perspective in terms of the themes established as the series goes on...which is more impotant in story-telling than rhetoric or debatable logic.

This is not a UN summit, it is a story.

And in response to the "Technological Singularity" you quoted: there is no reason this couldn't occur in humans via implants. Who is to say Synthesis won't occur before a potential conflict?