695 réponses à ce sujet

[CaptainZaysh]

ardias89 wrote...

Still don't think it makes sense...

Why's that?

[Lugaidster]

DanteImprimis wrote...

Reaper/Starchild logic at its finest.

OMG I can't stop laughing xD.

[AnttiV]

BlackMaster wrote...

-Q: Why the Reapers come back every 50.000 years? How can it be that it goes exactly 50,000 years before a civilization creates synthetics?
-A: The Reapers DON'T come back every 50.000 years exactly! It is a cycle. Some cycles may last 40.000 years and some cycles may last 60.000. That's the reason they left a vanguard behind. One Reapers stays and watch how evolution goes. In this cycle, the vanguard was the Sovereign. Vigil explains that on Ilos. When the vanguard think the moment has come, send a signal to the Keepers to activate the Citadel's Relay so all the other Reapers can come back. The Protheans deactivate that signal, so the Keepers doesn't responde.

 
Citation needed, as in REALLY. It has been told countless times that the cycle is 50,000 years. Not 40 or 60. Fifty thousand. Show me ONE place where the time is even remotely questioned. Also, if we take Catalyst as he presents himself, why are Sovereign/keepers/Saren needed at all? What does it matter that the protheans messed with the signal, The catalyst (as he says HE controls the Citadel) could just open the relay on a whim and be done with it. The first sighting of a synthetic or an AI on the citadel and BAM, instant reaper-soup. So WTF was Sovereign doing there? On vacation?

[CaptainZaysh]

One thing that I think would have really helped the game would have been a discussion of the dangers of the singularity. Not at the end, that'd kill the pace, but during the game Shep has the perfect reason to focus on it: EDI. Another character could argue about the long-term danger she presents, and the dialogue could inform the player as to the issues if necessary.

[AnttiV]

Lugaidster wrote...

DanteImprimis wrote...

Reaper/Starchild logic at its finest.

OMG I can't stop laughing xD.

Me neither. Oh goddess that was funny Thanks to whoever came up with that

'Noo Nooo Noooooo.. BUUZZZZZZZ!"

[glacier1701]

 Read the OP and still have a very hard time figuring out what it says. While I am sure that it can be argued then that the Catalyst is using logic to make a point it is based off a patently false statement:

 The created will always destroy the creators and then destroy all organic life!!


 Looking at that statement for it to be true then it must have happened in the past. If it happened then there would be NO ORGANIC LIFE and thus there would be nothing going on as the universe would be filled with synthetics and nothing else. Yet clearly we have organic life in great variety and at various stages of evolution and technology and have had that going on for millions of years at least. So clearly then no synthetic race has been created that destroyed its creators and then went on to destroy all organic life. Thus that statement made by the Catalyst is an outright lie as it has never happened. And at that point the ending of ME3 falls flat on its face as it proceeds to act as if the above statement is a disprovable truth and forces us into our choice of coloured endings.


Back to the OP - IF the developers thought along those lines then they were certainly not thinking of how their targetted audience would be able to follow the ending.

[CaptainZaysh]

AnttiV wrote...
 
Citation needed, as in REALLY. It has been told countless times that the cycle is 50,000 years. Not 40 or 60. Fifty thousand. Show me ONE place where the time is even remotely questioned.

The citation is the presence of the vanguard.  From the Wiki: "Sovereign has spent the last 50,000 years in a state of near-constant hibernation, waking periodically to assess the evolution of organic races."

Why assess their evolution if the invasion will occur to a set timing anyway?  I always saw 50k years as sort of a shorthand.

AnttiV wrote...
Also, if we take Catalyst as he presents himself, why are Sovereign/keepers/Saren needed at all? What does it matter that the protheans messed with the signal, The catalyst (as he says HE controls the Citadel) could just open the relay on a whim and be done with it. The first sighting of a synthetic or an AI on the citadel and BAM, instant reaper-soup. So WTF was Sovereign doing there? On vacation?

That one's easy: "because the Protheans sabotaged the Citadel".  It was true in 1, it's true in 3.  The keepers are obviously a necessary part of the start-up cycle.  We're left to speculate as to why, but it might be reasonable that the Catalyst remains idle to, I dunno, conserve power?  Avoid detection?

[Ashilana]

DanteImprimis wrote...

Reaper/Starchild logic at its finest.

NOOOOO!

rofl  

[macrocarl]

From what I took away from the chat with the Reaper Kid is that they reap all advanced species and keep their DNA in the lobster space ships to prevent chaos. 'Chaos' I guess meaning 'the total inevitable destruction of ALL organics by sythetics.' At one point in ME3 someone mentions that the Reapers are leaving the Yahg homeworld alone. I believed that the Reapers want the Yahg to progress as the next sentient species to reap the next cycle. WHICH IS MESSED UP!
So I can infer that they've seen some crazy almost-extinction-stuff happen way way back a  bunch of cycles and the Reapers are there to ensure organics continuity through all cycles at any cost. They want to protect it in a totally weird alien no-love/ no choice way that is absolutely crazy.
Reaper Kid says that Shep is the 1st organic to make it into the completed Crucible which is the 1st time the Reapers have seen that happen in *any* cycle. So since Shep's actually suprised them with newness, he's granted a choice of how to proceed. 
The logic isn't cyclular per se, it runs on the premise of cycles. Which Shep breaks.

[Lugaidster]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

One thing that I think would have really helped the game would have been a discussion of the dangers of the singularity. Not at the end, that'd kill the pace, but during the game Shep has the perfect reason to focus on it: EDI. Another character could argue about the long-term danger she presents, and the dialogue could inform the player as to the issues if necessary.

I'm going to agree on that, but I believe the game failed even more spectacularly by not providing the posibility to disagree with the catalyst. His logic is valid, but not sound. Why should Shepard take his word for granted and chose one of the new solutions is beyond me. The destroy ending is not really disagreeing, as killing the reapers accepts the premise in contention in the first place by destroying the geth. 

Very small changes here and there could've made it much more acceptable (completely disregarding the epilogue).

[Gyspy Jive]

 They should have kept the Dark Energy plot line. 

It's a pretty heavy concept in that context. Each one of the Reapers, being an entire "nation", an entire civilization of individuals that acts as one entity. Then combined, trying to stop something that is even more atrocious than what the y seem to be doing at first glance (killing organics every 50,000 years so that synthetics don't kill organics loool) If they had stuck with this, and pulled it of story-wise --- it would have culminated into a great end to the trilogy, or perhaps a jumping off point to the next game. The idea that the Reapers, while menacing and seemingly wholly evil, are actually architects of a much more benevolent cause. 

That would have been sooooo heavy. BioWare, why did you neglect this plot line????

Modifié par Gyspy Jive, 26 mars 2012 - 02:53 .

[CaptainZaysh]

Lugaidster wrote...

I'm going to agree on that, but I believe the game failed even more spectacularly by not providing the posibility to disagree with the catalyst. His logic is valid, but not sound. Why should Shepard take his word for granted and chose one of the new solutions is beyond me. The destroy ending is not really disagreeing, as killing the reapers accepts the premise in contention in the first place by destroying the geth. 

Very small changes here and there could've made it much more acceptable (completely disregarding the epilogue).

That's interesting, because I took the destroy option to be a rejection of the Catalyst.  (I'd already taken out the geth at that point, so I didn't get that bit of dialogue.)

[BlackMaster]

Draconis6666 wrote...


The problem is while this is true of the Reapers it is not true of the Catalyst, the Catalyst is fully synthetic from all evidence that we have of it. What the reapers want in this case is academic because the Reapers are not in control, the Catalyst is. So even if Reapers are Hybrids it does not change the fact that the logic that all synthetics will one day destroy organics means the catalyst would do that, and saying that the created will always rise up against the creator also ensures that the reapers will one day rise against the catalyst.

As to the last point why the Reapers want to preserve life is again academic, they do what they do because the Catalyst tells them to, the only motivations that matter are the Catalyst's

Yes, but there is one problem... no one knows what the catalyst is.
The catalyst says that the Reapers are "his" solution to chaos. He says that "he" control them. But what exactly is he? How could we know it is not only a beacon? What if "he" is only some kind of data center? There is no information about other cycles. Even what Jarvik says is incomplete, because when he was born, the Citadel was already taken by the Reapers. The  Catalyst even says that Shepard is the first organic in that place where the he was, so maybe the Catalyst was never awake during all the other cycles. Maybe is only a clock!

I think the catalyst maybe a beacon or a data base. As far as we know, the hole Citadel may be a Reaper. He only wakes up when the Crucible makes contact with the Citadel, and that's why he says that it has open new posibilities.

For example. On ME2, EDI says that "she" has some restrictions. Those restrictions are to control her, but doesn't have control OVER her. No one said that the Starchild is the Master of the Reapers. He only says he control them, not that he have control OVER them. Maybe he only is a security block. If he were in control OVER the Reapers, then Shepard could have ask the starchild to stop the Reapers instead of die to control them himself.

If we asume that the Catalyst create the Reapers, or he has control over them, then we can asume that someone else created the Catalyst, and that someone could control the Catalyst so he could said the Reapers to back-off. If we go backwards through that line, we would find some organic who find out that the best way to preserve life was to eliminate the advanced races. If not, then I doubt that the Catalyst would live in a place so easy to destroy or control.

Oh, and remember that the Catalyst was not always necesary. No one knows when it was added to the Crucible.

[dfstone]

The reapers aren't totally synthetic. They are part organic. The Geth, EDI are purely synthetic.

[Ainyan42]

I'm not sure if this has already been noted, but does anyone remember when Sovereign said this:

"Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays. Our technology. By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we desire. We impose order on the chaos of organic life. You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it."

Yeah. So in other words, it's inevitable that organic life will create synthetic life - and it can be assumed that it is inevitable that organic life will create HOSTILE synthetic life - simply because the Reapers are determining how we develop, technology-wise. So technically, the StarChild argument is an attempt to explain away willful genocide every 50,000 years.

After all, if the Reapers didn't want advanced organics to discover how to make AIs and eventually go to war with said AIs because said AIs develop in such a manner that they will inevitably rebel, don't you think they'd stop shunting technology down that path? They just like a pretty, bow-tied excuse to go all postal on organics, and have managed to convince the AI legacy of their master-race to go along with them, since apparently he holds their leashes. I mean, it's not hard to confuse an AI. Just tell it "This statement is a lie". >.>;

[CaptainZaysh]

Ainyan42 wrote...

Yeah. So in other words, it's inevitable that organic life will create synthetic life - and it can be assumed that it is inevitable that organic life will create HOSTILE synthetic life - simply because the Reapers are determining how we develop, technology-wise. So technically, the StarChild argument is an attempt to explain away willful genocide every 50,000 years.

No...the Reapers just influence us via the relays and the Citadel, we'd still build robots without them.

[Lugaidster]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

I'm going to agree on that, but I believe the game failed even more spectacularly by not providing the posibility to disagree with the catalyst. His logic is valid, but not sound. Why should Shepard take his word for granted and chose one of the new solutions is beyond me. The destroy ending is not really disagreeing, as killing the reapers accepts the premise in contention in the first place by destroying the geth. 

Very small changes here and there could've made it much more acceptable (completely disregarding the epilogue).

That's interesting, because I took the destroy option to be a rejection of the Catalyst.  (I'd already taken out the geth at that point, so I didn't get that bit of dialogue.)

As I see it, I went there to finish the reaper cycle, but in order to do so, I must comply with a solution the Catalyst proposes. By chosing whatever option he gives, he's actually making me agree with his premise, because I have no way of backing out. The destroy option kills synthetics and a lot of the technology we use, so the galactic state is reset, just not the organics. If he choses the control option, he agrees that the new solution is for you to call the shots, he passes the responsibility of galactic stability to you. By chosing the synthesis option you wholeheartedly agree with his premise by accepting the ascention of organic life into a hybrid making you both a creator and created.

Whatever the choices, he wins even if he loses, because the premise is accepted by Shepard, which is what everyone believes to be wrong. I don't accept the premise, I can understand that he does, thus why he acts like he does, but I don't accept it, and the game made me accept it. I still chose destroy, but I lost EDI and the Geth, which is an acceptable (to my eyes) but very sad and shameful sacrifice. 

[AnttiV]

CaptainZaysh wrote...
That one's easy: "because the Protheans sabotaged the Citadel".  It was true in 1, it's true in 3.  The keepers are obviously a necessary part of the start-up cycle.  We're left to speculate as to why, but it might be reasonable that the Catalyst remains idle to, I dunno, conserve power?  Avoid detection?

"How did the Protheans "sabotage the Citadel", or are you implying that "disrupting the signal" encompasses general level sabotage also? Also, even if it were so, why the elaborate scheme with Saren to get to Ilos and then to Conduit? Saren was a (highly-valued) Council spectre. He could have just walked there without any Ilos-trips in the first place. Why didn't Sovereign just give him a root password or something. Making Saren open the Citadel relay is unnecessarily complicated, he could've easily just gotten a "reaper code" (similar to what Shep got from Vigil) to activate Catalyst. No need for manual opening of anything. 

Also, when the Reaper invasion in ME3 began, why in the whole wide world did the reapers invade EARTH of all places? Why didn't they beeline to Citadel and cut off the relay network like the did EVERY OTHER TIME (as said in-game by Vigl and Javik, if I remember correctly?) The whole reaper invasion style is kind of silly in the light of ME1/ME2 and what we now know about the Catalyst. If the Catalyst/Reapers built the citadel, they must've had the technology to "reboot" the station (other wise.. what the hell?) and they DID have the technology to disable the whole relay network from the citadel. So why didn't they?

It all boils down to one simple fact: the Space Kid (aka. Catalyst) is one particularly stupid entity.

[Lugaidster]

AnttiV wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...
That one's easy: "because the Protheans sabotaged the Citadel".  It was true in 1, it's true in 3.  The keepers are obviously a necessary part of the start-up cycle.  We're left to speculate as to why, but it might be reasonable that the Catalyst remains idle to, I dunno, conserve power?  Avoid detection?

"How did the Protheans "sabotage the Citadel", or are you implying that "disrupting the signal" encompasses general level sabotage also? Also, even if it were so, why the elaborate scheme with Saren to get to Ilos and then to Conduit? Saren was a (highly-valued) Council spectre. He could have just walked there without any Ilos-trips in the first place. Why didn't Sovereign just give him a root password or something. Making Saren open the Citadel relay is unnecessarily complicated, he could've easily just gotten a "reaper code" (similar to what Shep got from Vigil) to activate Catalyst. No need for manual opening of anything. 

Also, when the Reaper invasion in ME3 began, why in the whole wide world did the reapers invade EARTH of all places? Why didn't they beeline to Citadel and cut off the relay network like the did EVERY OTHER TIME (as said in-game by Vigl and Javik, if I remember correctly?) The whole reaper invasion style is kind of silly in the light of ME1/ME2 and what we now know about the Catalyst. If the Catalyst/Reapers built the citadel, they must've had the technology to "reboot" the station (other wise.. what the hell?) and they DID have the technology to disable the whole relay network from the citadel. So why didn't they?

It all boils down to one simple fact: the Space Kid (aka. Catalyst) is one particularly stupid entity.

I always had the impression that it was sovereign who had to do the manual override, which is why he enters the Citadel in the first place, otherwise Saren would've been enough all along (and it wasn't).

[Ainyan42]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Ainyan42 wrote...

Yeah. So in other words, it's inevitable that organic life will create synthetic life - and it can be assumed that it is inevitable that organic life will create HOSTILE synthetic life - simply because the Reapers are determining how we develop, technology-wise. So technically, the StarChild argument is an attempt to explain away willful genocide every 50,000 years.

No...the Reapers just influence us via the relays and the Citadel, we'd still build robots without them.

Sadly, sarcasm doesn't come across text as well, and I forgot the /sarcasm tags. Yes, we'd still build robots. My point is the Reapers have already stated that our technology is based entirely off of theirs and that they control how we develop, technologically. So any attempt to justify their Reaping on our 'inevitable technological evolution' - whether it's creating a race of killer synthetics or building a massive, galaxy-killing bomb - is, in essence, a form of sophistry. After all, they themselves state that without them, we wouldn't have reached that technological plateau (which is probably true, given how much the mass relays and other technology remenants must have sped up the technological evolution of every race since the Reapers' master-race) and might very well have not developed along the lines where we were afraid of our own creations.

It's all circular logic and smoke and mirrors to justify the fact that the Reapers just like to kill and commit genocide, and they're using the organic races of the Milky Way in the exact same way that the Predators use the Aliens: they breed us, uplift us, then shoot us down every 50k years /for sport/.

[BlackMaster]

AnttiV wrote...

Citation needed, as in REALLY. It has been told countless times that the cycle is 50,000 years. Not 40 or 60. Fifty thousand. Show me ONE place where the time is even remotely questioned. Also, if we take Catalyst as he presents himself, why are Sovereign/keepers/Saren needed at all? What does it matter that the protheans messed with the signal, The catalyst (as he says HE controls the Citadel) could just open the relay on a whim and be done with it. The first sighting of a synthetic or an AI on the citadel and BAM, instant reaper-soup. So WTF was Sovereign doing there? On vacation?

The History itself. A cycle of long periods never is perfectly accurate. If something happens repetedly for a long, long time, then you just average it. As you said, it has been told countless times that the cycle is 50.000 years. If the last cycle have been ended 50.112 years, 3 months and 12 days ago, how much annoying could have been if that number comes out a hundred times during the game?

If it were exactly 50.000 years, then why the Reapers doesn't install a clock on the Citadel? And why Sovereign stays behind and wakes up to se how the galaxy is going?

Is like if I ask you why the War of One Hundred Years it's called like that.

If in the last 37.000.000 years you see that something happened 740 times, you average that it happens every 50.000.

[sydranark]

Lugaidster wrote...

sydranark wrote...

I wasn't arguing that. All I was saying was that there is evidence against "all synthetics kill all lifeforms," making that premise false, and therefore making the whole argument unsound. 

Your whole post fell flat on it's face right there as an unsound argument is not a stupid argument. Furthermore, I implied in the OP that the premise of the Catalyst isn't sound because the premises can't be proven to be true, but you don't require true premises to have a logically valid argument. A logically valid argument = logically correct = correct usage of logic = not stupid.

I already said before unsound = stupid, dumb, etc. Furthermore, I disagree that logically valid = not stupid. A logically valid argument only has to follow a certan pattern while making a conclusion. I also said this in the other post: if it follows a formula X=Y, Y=Z, X=Z, then it is technically "valid." But saying dog = fish, fish = monkey, dog = monkey, regardless of what formula you use, is simply incorrect. To actually believe this argument and take action based on this argument would make you stupid. 

If you were asked to neuter all dogs, and instead neutered all dogs and monkeys, regardless of the "valid argument" you present, you were incorrect in your actions. 

So, I'm saying that validity only requires a proper forumla, but soundness requires truth. Soundness is the correct way to determine if an argument is a load of crap. 

Stupid = given to unintelligent decisions or acts: acting in an unintelligent or careless manner.  
Dumb = lacking intelligence

All validity does it makes sure an argument is spoken in a certain way. However, even if you speak it correctly, if you are saying a bunch of false, unintelligent stuff, then you are unintelligent. Stupid = acting in an unintelligent manner. So, the reapers are acting based on an unintelligent argument. They are stupid. Their argument is dumb, and so are they. 

Modifié par sydranark, 26 mars 2012 - 03:13 .

[Kyrick]

It is absolutely faulty logic. The Catalyst starts out with a false belief. While your logical processes may be followed, beginning with an illogical starting point (aka, organics always create synthetics and therefore must be harvested) invalidates the entire process. When you use induction rather than deduction, you are highly at risk to suffer this particular issue. The reason why is because you are beginning with an already decided upon conclusion and simply tailor the reasoning and evidence you gather to fit that already decided upon conclusion. This is precisely what the Catalyst does.

It has decided that organics always create synthetics. Always. That synthetics always seek to destroy organics. Always. It presents no evidence of this. Indeed, the story itself demonstrates two specific examples of organics actually cooperating with synthetics. Shepard himself is the organic catalyst of these events, so to speak. For him to simply accept the starchild's faulty reasoning without protest is beyond absurd. This however is a bit beyond the initial point of the response here.

I agree that the reasoning of the starchild is sound, but only if you negate the fact that the initial presupposition that begins the reasoning is innately flawed (thus introducing error into the rest of the logical reasoning). The reasoning of the Catalyst is flawed because the starting point was.

[Artoz96]

Lugaidster wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

One thing that I think would have really helped the game would have been a discussion of the dangers of the singularity. Not at the end, that'd kill the pace, but during the game Shep has the perfect reason to focus on it: EDI. Another character could argue about the long-term danger she presents, and the dialogue could inform the player as to the issues if necessary.

I'm going to agree on that, but I believe the game failed even more spectacularly by not providing the posibility to disagree with the catalyst. His logic is valid, but not sound. Why should Shepard take his word for granted and chose one of the new solutions is beyond me. The destroy ending is not really disagreeing, as killing the reapers accepts the premise in contention in the first place by destroying the geth. 

Very small changes here and there could've made it much more acceptable (completely disregarding the epilogue).

Sry for me being sarcastic but... maybe because Shepard is dying and all what he hoped  Crucible to be failed. And, by the way, he argues with Catalyst he says that "we would prefer our own form" and that Catalyst takes hope from us. What else do you want? Hey, Catalyst lets talk about premises of your logic,  we have 20 minutes before I dye

Someone mentioned that ending is like life we have. You can do everything you can but sometimes it doesn't matter at all. No one is going to tell you why smth happens or what consequences your actions will have. To be honest, humans nothing more than a dust for someone who control the Galaxy.  If tommorow asteroid will estinguish all life on Earth for Galaxy it doesn't matter at all.

**** I hate this language