232 réponses à ce sujet

[markusprime]

 The Reaper’s whole purpose is to save organics by killing them. So that organics won’t make synthetics who will then kill organics. Dumb as hell plot and who ever wrote this needs to be fired.

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

[Tocquevillain]

Myrmedus wrote...

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.

Right, the same way U.S. politics and policy is based on statistical arguments. Give me a break , the AI was programmed by someone and if that someone was in any way organic, one near-extinction event could have prompted the creation of the Reapers. Any subsequent attempt by machines to wipe out organics would just be a reinforcing example.

Modifié par Tocquevillain, 19 mars 2012 - 12:29 .

[Myrmedus]

Adanu wrote...

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?

Except it's not objective.

The Reaper's belief that they are preserving organic life is entirely subjective because there is no objective way to judge "life".

In addition, their arguments on organic-synthetic conflict always wiping out organic life appears to be largely subjective as it doesn't seem realistically feasible they would have the quota of evidence required to support those assertions.

So, I'm not seeing the objective viewpoint here. As far as I see it, the Reapers have seen it happen a few times and that's enough for them to make a far-reaching, grandiose judgment. That is subjective.

[Militarized]

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).

I already explained my opinion on why singularity is just plain dumb a couple posts up. 

Only 5% of the Geth chose to follow Sovereign, a miniscule amount and that simply goes back to the concept of sentience and free choice. That whole situation would have never come around if it had not been for the influence of Sovereign. The entire question while you're doing legions loyalty mission is "is this ethical? Aren't they sentient?". It's almost as if their potential to help the Reapers takes a back seat to whether it's moral or not. 

[Myrmedus]

Tocquevillain wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

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.

Right, the same way U.S. politics and policy is based on statistical arguments. Give me a break , the AI was programmed by someone and if that someone was in any way organic, one near-extinction event could have prompted the creation of the Reapers. Any subsequent attempt by machines to wipe out organics would just be a reinforcing example.

So you've basically gone from saying "The Reapers' purpose makes sense" to "The Reapers are only full of **** because they were programmed by someone."

Backstepping to the "they were created by an organic" or comparing them to an organic democracy is basically a re-worded version of saying they're fallible. If they're fallible then their logic is fallible. Your post is not an argument for the logic of their argument, it is simply an explanation of why they may do it.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 19 mars 2012 - 12:33 .

[Adanu]

Myrmedus wrote...

Adanu wrote...

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?

Except it's not objective.

The Reaper's belief that they are preserving organic life is entirely subjective because there is no objective way to judge "life".

In addition, their arguments on organic-synthetic conflict always wiping out organic life appears to be largely subjective as it doesn't seem realistically feasible they would have the quota of evidence required to support those assertions.

So, I'm not seeing the objective viewpoint here. As far as I see it, the Reapers have seen it happen a few times and that's enough for them to make a far-reaching, grandiose judgment. That is subjective.

YOu're totally misunderstanding, and with your logic I'm not going to bother debating because anything I say would be twisted around.

Good day.

[Myrmedus]

Modifié par Myrmedus, 19 mars 2012 - 12:32 .

[Tocquevillain]

Myrmedus wrote...

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.

...I'm not sure how to respond to your assertion. The galaxy has gone through hundreds if not thousands of cycles. To simply say " I don't believe" sounds a bit naive in the context of the games themes.

But I see your point in the third paragraph, I sympathize with peopel who were more attached to their Shepard than to the story, but I still think "well, the Reapers will just kill you all if you don't use the Catalyst, so what the hell are you going to do except just shut up and use the Catalyst, Shep"?

[MadRabbit999]

markusprime wrote...

 The Reaper’s whole purpose is to save organics by killing them. So that organics won’t make synthetics who will then kill organics. Dumb as hell plot and who ever wrote this needs to be fired.

First of all... ouch.. that really hurt to read... second..

You are proving to be the dumb one with that statement for not understanding what the Catalyst explained, which he did in a very simple manner... indoctrinaction or not, that is not what he is telling Shepard.

Go on youtube, watch it, try to hear the words instead of some idiotic review joke who did not get it either... then come back and fel welcome to answer the thread in discussion.

[Genera1Nemesis]

Myrmedus wrote...

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?

This theme was prevalent throughout the series; Citadel space had laws against developing AI on any level; Cerberus was doing experiments in the field throughout; Gheth heretics chose to kill for advancement; etc.

That is not to say that there weren't other themes explored; but to outright dismiss this theme does a disservice to the entire narrative. Sure; self-sacrifice, friendship, comradery, tolerance and so on were all themes on display in the Mass Effect series. And certainly this singularity could occur in an advanced species...you know; kinda like the ones the Reapers were 'harvesting'.

This is about the motives, not the methods. I'm sure we can all agree that the Reapers methods were barbaric and horrible; from our point of view. However this does not mean their reasons were unjust; and it certainly didn't mean that it didn't fit the overall story either.

[WazTheMagnificent]

Here's another problem with the solution: Every time a reaper dies, the many organic minds who made it up are lost. Sending them into battle is an inefficient way of preserving the ascended organics. It would make more sense for the reaper's to be automated, and the ascended organics stored somewhere safe.

Even if only a a few reapers are killed each cycle, that could still add up to millions of organic minds lost.

[Tocquevillain]

Myrmedus wrote...

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.

You mean unless you want to destroy the solar systems containing Mass Effect relays. That's not the whole galaxy! 

[dointime85]

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.

Exactly. Plus, the point of the picture isn't to differentiate  between half-organic/half-non-organic-life and completely non-organic life but the fact that protecting organic life by wiping out advanced organic life seems kinda dumb.

[Myrmedus]

Tocquevillain wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

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.

...I'm not sure how to respond to your assertion. The galaxy has gone through hundreds if not thousands of cycles. To simply say " I don't believe" sounds a bit naive in the context of the games themes.

But I see your point in the third paragraph, I sympathize with peopel who were more attached to their Shepard than to the story, but I still think "well, the Reapers will just kill you all if you don't use the Catalyst, so what the hell are you going to do except just shut up and use the Catalyst, Shep"?

Did I just say "login" instead of "logic" in my post? ROFL.

Anyway, yes, the galaxy has gone through thousands of cycles, but my point wasn't that I simply don't believe, it's more that in none of those cycles would the Reapers have given life enough to time to actually see IF organics became at risk from synthetics. By this time, they'd already made their mind up, and the only evidence that can support the belief that synthetics are compelled to wipe our organics is if they've actually seen it: multiple times.

This is the part where "I don't believe" because it makes no sense.... The only way it could make sense is if they have traversed a multitude of galaxies, which is actually possible, but this is way too rhetorical for a quality storyline (in other words this should've been explained or at least hinted at in the story)

The reality is that while many people may think it's "cool" that we have to fill in the blanks of the story, I personally think that stories that do this well only leave one or two blanks, and usually at least leave hints if not thorough explanations. When a story has gigantic chasms in its plot or logic then that is just the proverbial "plot hole", I'm afraid.

[Gunslinger01101]

Ajensis wrote...

Let me start off by saying that I wasn't satisfied by the ending at all. There are plot holes and inconsistencies, yes. However, I think it's important we direct our attention to what didn't make sense, and the purpose of the Reapers isn't one of them. I'll try and keep it brief:

Scenario 1: "Order"

This is the state of the galaxy in the Mass Effect universe until the ending of the 3rd game, and how it's been for at least hundreds of thousands of years (and much more if we choose to believe the Catalyst).
In short, organic life evolves everywhere in the galaxy at different paces. When the Cycle has come to an end, the Reapers set out to perform their routinely task of wiping out all sentient life. They do this in order to preserve life - this is not a contradiction. Remember, they do not kill anything that's alive, only those who have attained too much wisdom and resourcefulness. Allow me to be the Devil's advocate for a second in hopes of elaborating my point:

Scenario 2: "Chaos"

The Catalyst explains that they believe that at a certain point, organics will have the skills and knowledge to create something too dangerous. It doesn't matter what you believe and that you proved the Catalyst wrong in a case or two - they're not human, so we can't necessarily apply our logic. The argument still stands: without the Reapers, organics may gain too much knowledge and create something they cannot control. Imagine the Geth conflict prior to its resolution, except galaxywide. Probable? I don't personally think so. But possible? Yes, anything is possible. It is this possibility that the Reapers guard us against.
What the Catalyst is protecting us against (however horrible the method) is the possibility that a synthetic race will overcome the ones that created them. If that happens on a larger scale, what are the odds that they'll allow new life to rise up and evolve without interference? Again, this is way out in the vague world of hypothetics, but we're not dealing with a human race - the mere 0,1 % chance of this scenario could mean a world of difference to a different race than humans (and possibly even to some humans). So what the Reapers are meant to prevent is having a synthetic race dominate the known galaxy by ensuring that organic life could never rebel against them.

The difference is that the Reapers allow organic life to exist, whereas our future creations might not. Life gets to evolve for 50.000 years, to live and love and experience and create and ponder. An ancient civilization merely thought it necessary to 'reset' life at specific intervals to make sure life wouldn't endanger itself. This is what we're fighting against. If we get a different ending without the Mass Relays blowing up, destroying the Reapers is basically throwing our future into a great Unknown where anything can happen. But, being human, I would of course never adhere to the logic of the Catalyst but now I'm digressing, sorry.


The popular Xzibit picture with "Yo dawg, I heard you don't wanna be
killed by synthetics, etc." does not point out a plothole. We've got
other things that we're better off addressing.

Keep up the civil behaviour and thoughtful criticism!

PS: feel free to let me know if someone made a thread about this as well. I searched through a dozen pages, but there's just so many threads in this forum (and not all of them descriptive in their titles ).

You took something the writers INTENDED to sound haind waivy...because it's a dream meant to convince shepard to give up on destroying the reapers....and forced it into making sense. *resentful golf clap*

[Silhouett3]

Myrmedus wrote...
 if you did advocate peace all the way that CHOICE should factor in to the ending and therefore the discussion with the Catalyst.

You mean Shepard-Commander advocating peace with Geth during Collector attacks, or EDI or maybe that quesar-playing AI stuck on Presidium in ME1. However "loyal" you were to Geth in ME2, they still turned to Reapers' proctection against Migrant Fleet and not to peacemaking skills of  Shepard-Commander. 
Reaper is talking about billion year old patterns and there's enough evidence to back up. But I agree that even they can not be all-knowing, which I mentioned in my link.

Modifié par Silhouett3, 19 mars 2012 - 12:40 .

[Tocquevillain]

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...

Sentients fight over resources. If the Geth are sentient, as we see in ME 3 (with the Reaper code), some like all organics will decide that the ends justify the means. The Geth lost their sense of innocence that you saw in the server level, and now they're just as potentially violent as anyone else. And people can't claim the developers didn't show us this...go play through any segment with Legion in ME 2 or 3. All the renegade options regard the geth with distrust and fear, and that's BEFORE they got the Reaper signal. So there is always this theme of being afraid of machines attacking organics vis a vis the Geth.

Modifié par Tocquevillain, 19 mars 2012 - 12:40 .

[xxskyshadowxx]

The purpose of the Reapers was to end the franchise in a manner that would keep folks talking. The goal was accomplished.

[Militarized]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

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?

This theme was prevalent throughout the series; Citadel space had laws against developing AI on any level; Cerberus was doing experiments in the field throughout; Gheth heretics chose to kill for advancement; etc.

That is not to say that there weren't other themes explored; but to outright dismiss this theme does a disservice to the entire narrative. Sure; self-sacrifice, friendship, comradery, tolerance and so on were all themes on display in the Mass Effect series. And certainly this singularity could occur in an advanced species...you know; kinda like the ones the Reapers were 'harvesting'.

This is about the motives, not the methods. I'm sure we can all agree that the Reapers methods were barbaric and horrible; from our point of view. However this does not mean their reasons were unjust; and it certainly didn't mean that it didn't fit the overall story either.

None of that has anything to do with a singularity, in my honest opinion. The citadel space had laws against developing AI, simply as a knee jerk reaction to the Quarian war with the Geth. We immediatly discover in Mass Effect 1 that the ENTIRE war that displaced the Quarians started with a question, a catalyst if you'll pardon my humor. "Creator - does this unit have a soul?". That question sparked the war, the entire thing is wrapped around what it means to be sentient and if we have a right to judge what is or isn't a sentient/living creature. 

The ONLY instance in the entire game where I could see the vague idea of a singularity coming into play is Overlord... but that also doesn't fit because that was more about transhumanism, melding organic with synthetic(which btw had obvious disasterous results). 

So I stand by my argument, it does not fit thematically. 

*edit* made a mistake I think, they may have had AI laws before and the Quarians broke the law? Either way you're presented the concept of the entire conflict in this thematic light so I feel my point is still valid. 

Modifié par Militarized, 19 mars 2012 - 12:42 .

[Tregon]

Ajensis wrote...

Tregon wrote...
Except that disregards possibility of organic life becoming so powerful synthetics, like Reapers, have no hope.
Transcending their consciousness into some for of godhood or whatever. Reapers are not saying that synthetics might become too powerful, but that they WILL become too powerful. But it is never proven.

Unproven claim cannot be taken as truth.

Extinction based on flimsy "it MIGHT happen" denies all the sapient species chance to try to test their true potential. Their evolution is stopped at aribtrary moment without ability to work it forward.

Obviously the 50.000 years were agreed upon because it was deemed impossible for any race, organic or synthetic, to supercede the Reapers. At least that's what I think.

And yes, what they're doing isn't in the interest of testing our "true potential", but the Catalyst seems to prioritise the continued existence of life higher than its evolutionary potential. Which is a shame, of course, but that's just the way things are

Except Reapers do not possess technology to prevent heat death of universe, and by denying organics ability to develop to point where they come up with way to prevent or reboot universe after this just means that all organics are "preserved" until everything ends.

[TeamR]

Genera1Nemesis 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.

I'm pretty sure the Reapers were described numerous times as synthetics. 

How do you create a race of immortal organics? 

Also, one of the choices at the end of ME3 was to destroy the Reapers in a process that would destroy the Citadel, the geth, and all other synthetics

Without grasping at straws and going by the information given to us, I think it's pretty clear that the Reapers are more sythetic than anything else

Modifié par TeamR, 19 mars 2012 - 12:42 .

[Myrmedus]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

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?

This theme was prevalent throughout the series; Citadel space had laws against developing AI on any level; Cerberus was doing experiments in the field throughout; Gheth heretics chose to kill for advancement; etc.

That is not to say that there weren't other themes explored; but to outright dismiss this theme does a disservice to the entire narrative. Sure; self-sacrifice, friendship, comradery, tolerance and so on were all themes on display in the Mass Effect series. And certainly this singularity could occur in an advanced species...you know; kinda like the ones the Reapers were 'harvesting'.

This is about the motives, not the methods. I'm sure we can all agree that the Reapers methods were barbaric and horrible; from our point of view. However this does not mean their reasons were unjust; and it certainly didn't mean that it didn't fit the overall story either.

No, the theme was present in ME1. It began to evaporate slightly in ME2 and by ME3 it was potentially completely wiped out (Peace resolution).

I'm not one who despises the Singuarity concept, I actually thought way back in ME1 this would be the Reapers' motive although I thought it would be an organic intelligence explosion (think Deus Ex series) not organic vs synthetics etc.

However, my issue with it is that if you look at the way this theme - synthetics and organics - evolves as the series goes on, it is making a clear movement from them being compelled to attack each other (Luna AI, AI on Presidium etc.) from them being able to cooperate (Legion), to full out peace (Quarian-Geth conflict). Then, at the very end, it simply resets to 0.

It's not a good way of presenting it, know what I mean?

Modifié par Myrmedus, 19 mars 2012 - 12:45 .

[EmperorZorn]

Ajensis wrote...
What the Catalyst is protecting us against (however horrible the method) is the possibility that a synthetic race will overcome the ones that created them.

Then why did the reapers ally themselves with the Geth ?
And aren't the reapers themself a synthetic race which has overcome all other races and is annihilating sentient beings ?

..it makes no sense at all.

[Giantdeathrobot]

1) It's circular logic and determinism at its worst. ''The creators will always rebel against the created''... Except we have two solid proofs that this didn't happen. Hell, the only case it happenned in universe is arguably the Krogan Rebellions, which, you know, didn't involve synthetics at all. The thing is, even IF the god-child is right here, the assertion comes completely out of left field and firmly contradicts the serie's message.

2)Order vs chaos is not in any way more original than good vs evil.

3) why the fixation on organics vs synthetics, anyhow? How are aynthetics more ''determined'' to wipe out all organic life? Again, in Shepard's cycle there are two examples of galaxy-conquering organic races (pre-Genophage Krogans and the indoctriated Rachni, you know, for extra hypocrisy points) and 0 examples of galaxy-conquering synthetic races, unless you count the Heretic Geth which, you gueeed it, worked with the Reapers.

4) It comes off as completely arbitrary. Every 40k years, I'll send synthetics to kill organics so that synthetics won't kill organics in the long run. Uh, yeah, but as far as we know both ours and the Prothean's cycle dealt with the AI problem (In Shepard's case there wasn't even an AI problem, despite the Reaping being delayed for more than a millenia) just fine on their own. Yet the Reapers still gonna reap because it's ''inevitable''.

5) It comes off as bad writing at best, and pissing all over established canon at worst. Completely changing an enemy's purpose over the last 10 minutes, by introducing a Deus Ex Machina-like character to boot, is NOT the way to end a 100+ hour trilogy. I'm sorry, I care not how much ''sense''' it makes or how ''neccessary'' it is in the long run. It's pure, distilled bad writing.

[Myrmedus]

Silhouett3 wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...
 if you did advocate peace all the way that CHOICE should factor in to the ending and therefore the discussion with the Catalyst.

You mean Shepard-Commander advocating peace with Geth during Collector attacks, or EDI or maybe that quesar-playing AI stuck on Presidium in ME1. However "loyal" you were to Geth in ME2, they still turned to Reapers' proctection against Migrant Fleet and not to peacemaking skills of  Shepard-Commander. 
Reaper is talking about billion year old patterns and there's enough evidence to back up. But I agree that even they can not be all-knowing, which I mentioned in my link.

There's not enough evidence to back it up though. I understand what you're saying, I do, but the age of the Reapers is not an indicator of their experience in this matter and that's the point of my arguments:

They're billion year old but the vast majority of that time they've been imposing this cycle. The cycle gives no chance for them to collect evidence to back up their assertions since they "cut off" galactic development before being able to see if it happens (synthetics wiping out organics). Therefore, for them to have evidence of their beliefs, they would've had to see organic life completely obliterated multiple times.

How?

If organic life had been totally wiped out multiple times, how on Earth does it still exist today?

And I'm not even saying that's an impossibility! But it's way, waaaaaay too large a hole to be compelling storytelling. It's ok to create discussion but keep it small rather than requiring fans to completely patchwerk the plot.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 19 mars 2012 - 12:46 .