374 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Sunnyhat1 wrote...

There is just one problem...

You are assuming that the starchild is correct in that organics will always create synthetics and destroy themselfs. But this circumstance wasn't part of the original story the ME1/2 writer came up with. The reapers where supposed to find a solution for the dark energy buildup.

The starchild logic is something they seemingly came up with (or decided to go with) late in development. Of course you can argue in its defense on the premise that the initial logic is correct. That doesn't change that it wasn't part of the universe to begin with..

It is slapped on and just feels out of place.

That doesn't really matter because what was in placed from ME1 ABOUT THE DARMATTER plot is not imbembed in the plot. What is stated in ME3 STILL CAN HAVE GROUND IN ALL 3 GAMES.

[AlexMBrennan]

on the basis we have given i can't feel myself trusting at all the the starchild

Well, of course we can't. The point is, guardian's explanation is a plausible explanation for the observed behaviour but it might just be reading Shepard's mind to create a narrative that will convince Shepard to not destroy them.

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 24 mars 2012 - 08:27 .

[dreman9999]

Icophesis wrote...

Except the machines we create have the potential to grow a conscience and not kill everything else in the galaxy, just look at the Geth. They keep to themselves and have only acted defensively.

The reapers don't want to kill everyone and it point is not that synthetic are all going to suddenly uprise and kill life. It's that events and actions will cause synthetics to uprise and kill life eventully. Meaning organics will force them to.

[Sunnyhat1]

dreman9999 wrote...

Sunnyhat1 wrote...

There is just one problem...

You are assuming that the starchild is correct in that organics will always create synthetics and destroy themselfs. But this circumstance wasn't part of the original story the ME1/2 writer came up with. The reapers where supposed to find a solution for the dark energy buildup.

The starchild logic is something they seemingly came up with (or decided to go with) late in development. Of course you can argue in its defense on the premise that the initial logic is correct. That doesn't change that it wasn't part of the universe to begin with..

It is slapped on and just feels out of place.

That doesn't really matter because what was in placed from ME1 ABOUT THE DARMATTER plot is not imbembed in the plot. What is stated in ME3 STILL CAN HAVE GROUND IN ALL 3 GAMES.

Yes, if it was done well.

Was it?

I'd say no.

[dreman9999]

Opsrbest wrote...

terdferguson123 wrote...

omntt wrote...

Op i'm sorry but i have to say that after 5 pages i still find the starchild to be either a liar or a retard...

It's an AI that had created a solution with no regard whatsoever to morals, it cannot be a "retard" (why use that word anyways, sais a lot about you, sorry to be judgemental but well there it is). I said it in the OP, you cannot expect to understand it's purpose when looking at it from a moral perspective.

It's not an AI though. An AI has the capacity to exceed itself beyond the original goal. The only way to expain the Catalyst to have existance without any form of AI adaptation to any of the information it would have had or plausible outcomes would be if it didn't exist at all until the Crusable. And when the Catalyst states "I control the Reapers" it says that isn't possible. A VI on the other hand would function in a similar manner as an AI but without the capacity for change. The possibilites it gives are too finite for an AI and it doesn't consider the fact that the Catalyst and it's Reapers have been influencing organic life X number of cycles.

It's premise and logic are wrong and an AI would adapt to that. The means of using synthetic life created by two cycles in order to defeat those cycles and using indoctrination to succeed the point of conflict add to that. It's not adaptive thinking. It's linear thinking.

That's not what AI are. AI are just artifical inteligence. They are just self aware machines. It does no tmean they have to over come their orginal perpuse.

[CGAVnerDune]

Sunnyhat1 wrote...

Instead Bioware threw all this overboard and gave us the "created always destroy creators, here comes the starchild" logic.

- It makes no sense.
- It makes the collectors, their motivation, actually the whole ME2, pointless..
- <insert your personal rant here>

You've made some very good points.  I think this last part was due to budget constrains/original ending leaked to the public. 

Which is funny why some people defend the validity of the ending.  This wasn't supposed to be the original ending in the first place.  It got leaked at the worst possible time and they barely had enough time to come up with something in the time constraints the EA morons placed on the team.

@Terdferguson123 - its good that you have created this topic as it seems that this was the intent of Hudon's speculation from everyone (although so poorly done no one can see past the massive plotholes).  I was wondering whow you would justify the different endings?  Most see it as all of the outcomes are counter to everything you've learned and fought for in the entire series. 

Control removes the reapers from the situation temporarily but not indefinitely but also requires Shepard basically subjugate the reapers as a species.  Nor from Shepards point of view does it garuntee that the Reapers will never return to start up their repdoduction/galactic genocide cycle again. 

In destruction the reaper threat gets detroyed along with all synthetic life.  Why would the catalyst even allow this?  This all but garuntees (on his galactic timeframe) that the doomsday scenario its been committing galactic genocide to prevent will happen eventually.  Conversly why would Shepard go along with this as well?  It requires that he destroy an entire species who's sole crime is preventing their own self destruction after learning of their own self identity?  They even show that the geth only reacted defensivly and when given the option of commiting the genocide of the quarians they refused.  It even hints that they did this because even at their infancy as a sentitent species that the genocide of their creators, however they've been wronged, is not correct and that as long as they (the quarians) are alive there are other viable options to persue. 

Synthesis makes sense initially especially for the catalyst.  (as long as you forget the fact that synthetics, like EDI and the geth, don't have DNA to tweak in the first place)  To the Catalyst with all synthetics and organics fundamentally the same there will be no need for the cycle to continue because there will be no funamental diference to rebel against and ultimately destroy.  But this doesn't work for Shepard from a moral standpoint.  Its peace through the forced homoginization of all galactic species.  The destruction of cultural identity, the erasure of the unique biodiversity of all the species of the universe to ensure peace.  Doesn't that line of thinking sound familiar?  For the sake of not being cliche I'll avoid the big one but that still leaves many of examples from our own history to pull from.  Radical Religeous Purists, Genocidal dictators, and Violent Racial purists all use the same logic of 'destroy all that is different from us and we will have peace'.  Are we saying that at his core Shepard would accept their logic as being the only viable outcome to this situation?  Please let me know what you (or anyone for that matter) thinks about that.  It would be interesting to hear.

Also why give shepard the option in the first place?  He's one floor below laying in a growing pool of his own blood.  If he dies down there the catalyst doesn't have to give him options and can continue on with his harvesting.

[dreman9999]

Sunnyhat1 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Sunnyhat1 wrote...

There is just one problem...

You are assuming that the starchild is correct in that organics will always create synthetics and destroy themselfs. But this circumstance wasn't part of the original story the ME1/2 writer came up with. The reapers where supposed to find a solution for the dark energy buildup.

The starchild logic is something they seemingly came up with (or decided to go with) late in development. Of course you can argue in its defense on the premise that the initial logic is correct. That doesn't change that it wasn't part of the universe to begin with..

It is slapped on and just feels out of place.

That doesn't really matter because what was in placed from ME1 ABOUT THE DARMATTER plot is not imbembed in the plot. What is stated in ME3 STILL CAN HAVE GROUND IN ALL 3 GAMES.

Yes, if it was done well.

Was it?

I'd say no.

It was done well. You just have to look though out the 3 games to see it. TThe star child reason for doing this is the fact that organics are chaotic and self destrutive...tHE REAPERS HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS SINCE me1.

[Mighty_BOB_cnc]

dreman9999 wrote...

Opsrbest wrote...

terdferguson123 wrote...

omntt wrote...

Op i'm sorry but i have to say that after 5 pages i still find the starchild to be either a liar or a retard...

It's an AI that had created a solution with no regard whatsoever to morals, it cannot be a "retard" (why use that word anyways, sais a lot about you, sorry to be judgemental but well there it is). I said it in the OP, you cannot expect to understand it's purpose when looking at it from a moral perspective.

It's not an AI though. An AI has the capacity to exceed itself beyond the original goal. The only way to expain the Catalyst to have existance without any form of AI adaptation to any of the information it would have had or plausible outcomes would be if it didn't exist at all until the Crusable. And when the Catalyst states "I control the Reapers" it says that isn't possible. A VI on the other hand would function in a similar manner as an AI but without the capacity for change. The possibilites it gives are too finite for an AI and it doesn't consider the fact that the Catalyst and it's Reapers have been influencing organic life X number of cycles.

It's premise and logic are wrong and an AI would adapt to that. The means of using synthetic life created by two cycles in order to defeat those cycles and using indoctrination to succeed the point of conflict add to that. It's not adaptive thinking. It's linear thinking.

That's not what AI are. AI are just artifical inteligence. They are just self aware machines. It does no tmean they have to over come their orginal perpuse.

But then by definition isn't it NOT self-aware?  Hence the VI vs "true AI" comparison.

[SentinelBorg]

terdferguson123 wrote...

sadako wrote...

Question to the OP,
if all your arguments is true, then the catalyst should have been able to do something in ME1 when citadel was supposed to turn into a giant mass relay for the reapers to come through.

But wait, do you know why it didn't happen? because catalyst didn't exist in ME1 and ME2.

Or, because the 50,000 years were not up yet. It's a cycle, it just wasn't time yet.

I don't think that the cycle happens exactly every 50k years. Much more likely it happens when the Reaper that was left behind (Sovereign in our case) decides to start it. For example we know that before the Protheans there were the Inusannon and that those already waged intergalactic wars at least 126k years ago (debris over Eingana). I don't think that the Reapers left them evolving for another 25k years. More likely they harvested them around 120k years ago and then it took 70k years til the next cycle.

rma2110 wrote...

It just seems odd that the same story
allows us to make peace between the Quarians and the Geth; and tells us
that synthetics are bad, evil, and will destroy you. I fell like it's
messing with my head. Which is it? Plus, my favorite people are
synthetics. EDI and Legion ate some of the most human characters in Mass
Effect.

Most likely that part of the story was already done when they switched the reasoning for the Reapers from Dark Energy to Technological Singularity.

Modifié par SentinelBorg, 24 mars 2012 - 08:54 .

[terdferguson123]

Opsrbest wrote...

terdferguson123 wrote...

omntt wrote...

Op i'm sorry but i have to say that after 5 pages i still find the starchild to be either a liar or a retard...

It's an AI that had created a solution with no regard whatsoever to morals, it cannot be a "retard" (why use that word anyways, sais a lot about you, sorry to be judgemental but well there it is). I said it in the OP, you cannot expect to understand it's purpose when looking at it from a moral perspective.

It's not an AI though. An AI has the capacity to exceed itself beyond the original goal. The only way to expain the Catalyst to have existance without any form of AI adaptation to any of the information it would have had or plausible outcomes would be if it didn't exist at all until the Crusable. And when the Catalyst states "I control the Reapers" it says that isn't possible. A VI on the other hand would function in a similar manner as an AI but without the capacity for change. The possibilites it gives are too finite for an AI and it doesn't consider the fact that the Catalyst and it's Reapers have been influencing organic life X number of cycles.

It's premise and logic are wrong and an AI would adapt to that. The means of using synthetic life created by two cycles in order to defeat those cycles and using indoctrination to succeed the point of conflict add to that. It's not adaptive thinking. It's linear thinking.

Perhaps it had? It had no good reason to awake Shepard, it could have just let him bleed out, but it did wake him, and it did present him with options. Whether or not it was an AI or not, I think was one of the major points Bioware wanted us to speculate upon. I think it was, and heres why, it's original logic was to prevent advanced life from destroying all life through the means of technology. However, upon seeing Shepard, who united the galaxy (perhaps the first time? I believe Javik explains that the Protheans were unable to do the same, although don't quote me on this) it seems as though the Catalyst changes, or is reflecting upon it's original consensus. If it wasn't it never would have presented Shepard with the ability to destroy the Reapers. However, what is clear, is that the Crucible was a product of either the Catalyst or the Reapers, because each of its functions is still a means to prevent galactic advancement (mass relay destruction). It seems most logical, that it was a backup plan of the Catalyst's.

[Stealthy Cake]

All i can say is...

''Yo dawg, i heard............''

[Evil Minion]

Sunnyhat1 wrote...

terdferguson123 wrote...

omntt wrote...

Op i'm sorry but i have to say that after 5 pages i still find the starchild to be either a liar or a retard...

It's an AI that had created a solution with no regard whatsoever to morals, it cannot be a "retard" (why use that word anyways, sais a lot about you, sorry to be judgemental but well there it is). I said it in the OP, you cannot expect to understand it's purpose when looking at it from a moral perspective.

See and that's where you are wrong.

The game tells us that reapers are alive, intelligent, free willed. But the only way to justify the end is (as you did) by assuming they're "stupid" AI's again....

Not "stupid," just "flawed."

[terdferguson123]

SentinelBorg wrote...

terdferguson123 wrote...

sadako wrote...

Question to the OP,
if all your arguments is true, then the catalyst should have been able to do something in ME1 when citadel was supposed to turn into a giant mass relay for the reapers to come through.

But wait, do you know why it didn't happen? because catalyst didn't exist in ME1 and ME2.

Or, because the 50,000 years were not up yet. It's a cycle, it just wasn't time yet.

I don't think that the cycle happens exactly every 50k years. Much more likely it happens when the Reaper that was left behind (Sovereign in our case) decides to start it. For example we know that before the Protheans there were the Inusannon and that those already waged intergalactic wars at least 126k years ago (debris over Eingana). I don't think that the Reapers left them evolving for another 25k years. More likely they harvested them around 120k years ago and then it took 70k years til the next cycle.

You are probobly right, it's most likely the Reaper left behind decides when it is time, (Soveriegn upon witnessing the Geth's attempts to destroy their creators?)

[jerms510]

The "dark energy" ending would've been even more terrible, imo. doesn't make any sense, was only mentioned briefly in ME2 on Haestrom. I don't know why so many people seem to have such a stark erection for it.

[BlackAlpha]

PopDisaster wrote...

The "star child" also says that the created will always rebel against its creators. (Not the exact line, but you know what I'm talking about.) IF this is true, then this means the Reapers will eventually turn on their "creator," which is whatever this "star child" is. What is his solution to this? It's never addressed. We can't argue this point with him. It creates an inconsistency in his logic.

Then again, at the end of the game, Star Child is about to lose control of the Reapers and he decides that he must change his plans. Sure, that's not exactly the same as getting directly killed by the Reapers, but maybe Star Child sensed that each cycle, the organics came closer and closer to defeating the Reapers. Maybe Star Child sensed he was slowly losing more and more control each cycle. If Shepard had failed, then maybe during the next cycle, the organics would've went even further and maybe taken control of the Reapers, without giving Star Child the chance to steer life into the direction he desires. So instead of risking losing complete control, Star Child changes his plans while he still has influence, and he pushes life into a new direction, hoping that by doing so he secures life from the mindless synthetic killing machines.

And in the current cycle, Shepard can take control of the Reapers. The act of losing control means the Reapers have turned against their creator.

What I can't understand is why Star Child gives you the option to destroy all synthetics (red option) while there's a chance (according to himself) that the synthetics still may return later to wipe out all organic life. Why does he risk the destruction of all organic life with no safeties in place? Is he really that reckless?

[Meltemph]

terdferguson123 wrote...

omntt wrote...

Op i'm sorry but i have to say that after 5 pages i still find the starchild to be either a liar or a retard...

It's an AI that had created a solution with no regard whatsoever to morals, it cannot be a "retard" (why use that word anyways, sais a lot about you, sorry to be judgemental but well there it is). I said it in the OP, you cannot expect to understand it's purpose when looking at it from a moral perspective.

If he is looking at it from a mathamatical perspective, I find it hard to beleive it would come to the conclusion that all life in the galaxy had a stronger chance of getting killed by a singularity.  It is/was a singularity(what it is) that apparently created a different singularity(reapers) to make sure no other singularity destroyed all life.  It's existence is in fact counter to its "math", and this is also ignoring the fact that if he is truly doing probability, that there are about a billion different things that could happen.

The catalyst/reapers exists, which means whoever created them is proof the galaxy can reach this point, which means the potential for creating a different or better solution is "probable" if not more so then his way of doing it.  I'm sorry but I cant see a writer puting this kind of plot point at the end of the game and have it be the ending without answering ANY questions with that plot point, unless they actually tried to insinuate that the child is everything it claims and that it is correct.  

You dont bring into discussion the kind of things you are talking about and call it an ending.   And even assuming what you jsut said is the writers intention, that would make it even worse, since they introduced something that technically "could" be conisdered deep, if expounded upon, but left by itself is incredibly shallow.  People are literally creating intent in their own heads to try and cope with the complete lack of anything of substance to put the ending into perspective.

People are comparing the ending to religion, magic, philopsephy they have read from other books, and just about anything else you can think of to excuse away the bad writing.

[Nejeli]

terdferguson123 wrote...

4.) Why does the Catalyst destroy the Mass Relays no matter what I choose?

     - Think of it this way: The Crucible is a backup plan in case the Reaper solution ever needs to be stopped. However, the Catalyst still must meet it's obligation to stop advanced organics from destroying all galactic life. The best way it can see to do this without the Reapers is to cut off all galactic ties via the destruction of the Mass Relays.

I haven't read the thread yet so maybe this was brought up already, but if there are civilizations that are advanced enough to create the Crucible (it was so advanced it took cycles to finish) doesn't it stand to reason that they're advanced enough to have already created that very threat the Reapers are meant to stop? Why would the Catalyst create a back-up plan with an unknown variable like that?

Wasn't it implied, if not outright stated, that the Reapers left the technology and such to guide civilizations to this point? If their whole purpose is to avoid organics creating synthetics that will wipe out every organic, and the assumption is that this will always happen, why give them the tools and floor-plans to lead them to it?

And why jump right to destroying the Mass Relays instead of just cutting down the cycle time? Why not have a shorter cycle time in the first place? Why let organics evolve to the point they could make synthetics if the assumption is that synthetics will always try to destroy all organic life?

Maybe to the Catalyst its logic infalible, but to an organic or advanced AI? Yet Shepard isn't once even given the option to point out how faulty its logic is. It doesn't matter if the Catalyst would have listened or not. The option should have been there.

[PsydonZero]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Since you're so mathematically
gifted, you should have realised that that's utter nonsense. To prove
godchild wrong, you need to demonstrate that every last synthetic
organics could possibly create will be friendly (i.e. not wipe out all
organic life).

Quite the opposite. All I have to do is ask The Catalyst how it knows that "The created will always rebel against the creators." It wouldn't be able to give an answer.

I
seriously don't have the faintest idea what you're trying to say here -
maybe that Visual Basic is a really bad programming language?

See above. The
Catalyst has no way of proving that the fundamental concept behind the
cycle of destruction (Premise A) is actually true. No one, synthetic or
organic, could prove that: it is utterly unverifiable. A purely logical
mind would discard such reasoning and turn to alternate solutions--such
as having the Reapers be eternal guardians who destroy any synthetics that pose a threat to the organic life of the galaxy.

terdferguson123 wrote...

Why isn't it logic? It's an AI that wanted to stop galactic extinction via organic technology by destroying said advanced organics. Really, I am not at all understanding why this is so complicated to understand. It's logic, it makes as much logic as 2+2 = 4, Advanced Civs will never create advanced synthetics if they can never become advanced.

"X X X X = designation: four of X" is impossible to dispute. There are enough of X to match the parameters of the designation known as "four", therefore there are "four of X". You could call the designation "five", or "twentysix", or "hotdogs" and it wouldn't matter. The parameters would remain the same and would continue to be met by X, thus X is the designation in question. Add/remove any amount of X and X would no longer be the designation in question.

Now let's look at the Catalyst's "logic":

Solution: Cycle of Destruction

Reason: Advanced organics will eventually create advanced synthetics. It is bad if advanced organics create advanced synthetics.

Justification: Advanced synthetics will always kill organics, which is bad.

Analysis: Why will advanced synthetics always kill organics?  There is no reason for this to occur regardless of the context of the situation and the synthetics' motivations, nor is there any way to determine that this will happen every single time advanced synthetics are created.

If it turned out that one day an organic race created synthetic life that did not wish to kill them, Cycle of Destruction would be a complete waste of time, resources and organic lives.

Application: If advanced synthetics will not always kill organics it is is not bad if advanced organics create advanced synthetics. Advanced synthetics will not always kill organics--therefore it is not bad if advanced organics create advanced synthetics.

Conclusion: Cycle of Destruction is untenable. Reason for solution cannot be verified and is therefore unsound. Find new solution.

[bronzerevolution]

The issue is, the mathematical aim to prevent life's destruction makes no sense. Surely the Reapers have destroyed much more life than if AIs rebelled against organics. So, does the Catalyst truly aim to protect life from destruction, or does it stand to gain from the reaping?

[commandergodchild]

Indeed organics can build something incredibly destructive to the galaxy, its called the catalyst. And the right thing to do is shoot it in the face, not play by its arbitrary rules that doom the galaxy to a dark age.

[dointime85]

BlackAlpha wrote...

PopDisaster wrote...

The "star child" also says that the created will always rebel against its creators. (Not the exact line, but you know what I'm talking about.) IF this is true, then this means the Reapers will eventually turn on their "creator," which is whatever this "star child" is. What is his solution to this? It's never addressed. We can't argue this point with him. It creates an inconsistency in his logic.

Then again, at the end of the game, Star Child is about to lose control of the Reapers and he decides that he must change his plans. Sure, that's not exactly the same as getting directly killed by the Reapers, but maybe Star Child sensed that each cycle, the organics came closer and closer to defeating the Reapers. Maybe Star Child sensed he was slowly losing more and more control each cycle. If Shepard had failed, then maybe during the next cycle, the organics would've went even further and maybe taken control of the Reapers, without giving Star Child the chance to steer life into the direction he desires. So instead of risking losing complete control, Star Child changes his plans while he still has influence, and he pushes life into a new direction, hoping that by doing so he secures life from the mindless synthetic killing machines.

And in the current cycle, Shepard can take control of the Reapers. The act of losing control means the Reapers have turned against their creator.

What I can't understand is why Star Child gives you the option to destroy all synthetics (red option) while there's a chance (according to himself) that the synthetics still may return later to wipe out all organic life. Why does he risk the destruction of all organic life with no safeties in place? Is he really that reckless?

I believe he doesn't give us any options at all. The options are the result of the addition of the Crucible. More war assets => more scientists => more functions for crucible.

[Yusta1]

cavs25 wrote...

Okay so why havent the Reapers rebelled agaisn't god kid? ("The created will always rebel agaisnt their creator")
yea... good try to make sense of logic that doesnt make sense.

Wth mate, your word make sense!

Now pls stop

[bo_7md]

commandergodchild wrote...

Indeed organics can build something incredibly destructive to the galaxy, its called the catalyst. And the right thing to do is shoot it in the face, not play by its arbitrary rules that doom the galaxy to a dark age.

When the choice is Dark Age or no Age at all ill go with the Child on this one!

[Mallissin]

The logic is a lie. The Protheans fought a synthetic war and won, then proactively stopped other races from making synthetics. So, the Protheans were in a sense policing their own cycle. Why would the Reapers wipe them out, then?

The child is not the catalyst and the logic is suppose to be circular, because it's meant to be irrational.