309 réponses à ce sujet

[MaverickPerry]

More proof that there is no "master plan" by the BioWare writers. Outside of retconning this kid, it's impossible to save the ending.

[minormiracle]

Ziggeh wrote...

minormiracle wrote...
Any flawed logic can be argued as potentially logical with additional context.

That's a bit like saying algebra is nonsense because you don't know the value if n.

Even if n itself requires fuller explanation from the story perspective, that doesn't render the equation that contains it invalid.

No, it's like saying 1+1=3 makes sense because in certain contexts 1+1 does equal 3.

[minormiracle]

Ziggeh wrote...

minormiracle wrote...
Regardless of what they say, the Starchild and Reapers must act in absolute terms considering their timescales of operation. If the mere possibility of AI irrevocably destroying all organic life justifies their actions, then the mere possibility that access to Reaper tech will initiate/accelerate the apocalyptic birth of such an AI justifies their inaction.

 
But doesn't negate it. Again, depends on their core assumption.

How does certainty not negate?

Ziggeh wrote...

minormiracle wrote...  
If the Starchild is not speaking in literal terms then there's no reason for Shepard to react as if they were literal statements, but Shepard does. 

 
In what way does he confirm the assertion that all AIs will attempt to destroy all life? That would be the key element you're questioning no?

"The created will always rebel against their creators"
"Without us to stop it, synthetics will destroy all organics."
"The paths are open, but you have to choose."

And then Shepard does as he says.

[Ziggeh]

minormiracle wrote...
No, it's like saying 1+1=3 makes sense because in certain contexts 1+1 does equal 3.

Except rather than being composed known integers we don't know the value, so that's not a sound analogy.

[Ziggeh]

minormiracle wrote...
How does certainty not negate?

It would negate their actions if we ignored the fact that they entirely nullify the effect of the advancement by killing everyone who uses it.

Ziggeh wrote...
"The created will always rebel against their creators"
"Without us to stop it, synthetics will destroy all organics."
"The paths are open, but you have to choose."

And then Shepard does as he says.

Those are independent statements. They do not suggest all synthetics will always destroy life.

And I'm not seeing how Shepard actions would lead us to believe otherwise.

[Versidious]

SmokePants wrote...

Banelash wrote...

So if starbrat reaper was created by some organic, and the reapers killed those organics, and if going by starbrat reaper logic, the reapers would have killed ALL organics, not just the creator, as that is what they want to prevent. But they didn't kill all organic, and instead only harvest the advanced organic. Which means their own existence as reapers contradicted their theory that all synthetic will kill all organics!

It's not a theory, it's a pattern. The evidence is empirical. Like I said, a lot of you seem to have missed the part where you're in the war room and you're told that past cycles paralleled each other to a degree that was beyond coincidence. And if you listen to Javik and Garrus talk to each other in the lounge, it's clear that each conflict had an analog in his cycle.

The catalyst and the reapers exist outside the pattern, which means that anything they say about the created and the creators does not apply to them.

Empyrical evidence? In a work of fiction? Really, you can't talk about empyrical evidence, as ALL of it is contrived by the writers. You can only discuss whether things are consistent. And they are not. The Reapers are not 'outside of the pattern'. They are servants of it., a vital part of the pattern.

Even if the Reapers were special synthetics, that wouldn't rebel, and were outside the pattern, it only demonstrates that synthetic rebellion *isn't* an inevitable pattern after all. Remember that the pattern is because the Reapers create specific conditions to affect organic development. They, in a very real sense, deliberately ensure history repeats itself. So, if they are 'outside the pattern', but do not rebel, why ensure that the pattern is followed, when synthetics that do not rebel can be created?

If Reapers do not rebel because they embody organics, why not just tell organics how to do this? Why murder trillions every 50,000 years, whilst endangering these synthetic archives in violent conflict? Why are they so deliberately cruel, sadistic, and arrogant? It's all highly ridiculous.

[emperoralku]

Versidious wrote...

Empyrical evidence? In a work of fiction? Really, you can't talk about empyrical evidence, as ALL of it is contrived by the writers. You can only discuss whether things are consistent. And they are not. The Reapers are not 'outside of the pattern'. They are servants of it., a vital part of the pattern.

Even if the Reapers were special synthetics, that wouldn't rebel, and were outside the pattern, it only demonstrates that synthetic rebellion *isn't* an inevitable pattern after all. Remember that the pattern is because the Reapers create specific conditions to affect organic development. They, in a very real sense, deliberately ensure history repeats itself. So, if they are 'outside the pattern', but do not rebel, why ensure that the pattern is followed, when synthetics that do not rebel can be created?

If Reapers do not rebel because they embody organics, why not just tell organics how to do this? Why murder trillions every 50,000 years, whilst endangering these synthetic archives in violent conflict? Why are they so deliberately cruel, sadistic, and arrogant? It's all highly ridiculous.

Well said. It undermines it's own arguments all the time. I guess some people just like to be contrary in defending it.

[Ziggeh]

Versidious wrote...

If Reapers do not rebel because they embody organics, why not just tell organics how to do this? Why murder trillions every 50,000 years, whilst endangering these synthetic archives in violent conflict? Why are they so deliberately cruel, sadistic, and arrogant? It's all highly ridiculous.

Them being arrogant would actually answer all of that.

[IGSR]

OchreJelly wrote...

IGSR wrote...

The fear is that unchecked synthetic rebellion will not just stop at the advanced civs, and not just terminate organics' development, but organics period.

But yet it's totally willing to change his convictions that the Reapers are the only solutions to that problem, because Shep shows up with some (not all) of the galaxy's forces and the Crucible, for whatever reason. Plus in all three of the options it offers suddenly, the 'synthetics killing all life' possibility is still there.

Well, it seems that he's willing to the extent that he recognizes his solution is untenable now that the Crucible has docked with the Citadel.  Perhaps he's always seen the failure of his solution as inevitable.  Or perhaps he just knows when the jig is up.  Don't discount the persuasive strength behind what Shepard has done. 

The possibility for synthetic-organic conflict over the long term is there, yes, but it's clear that the Catalyst favors synthesis and it's easy to see why.  Of the three, it's the only one that comes close to being a new solution or alternative to the Reaper cycle.  Prohibition of AI doesn't work because you have rogue entities doing it anyway (or Murphy just gives it to you like he did the Quarian).  (Ab)use of AI obviously doesn't work because organics often (usually? always?) give AI every reason to rebel against them.  What synthesis accomplishes (for the problem of chaos as defined by the Catalyst) is akin to how inter-racial breeding is both cause and effect of greater racial harmony.  So, say this new blend of organic and synthetic 'DNA'  (Joker & EDI's kids?) end up creating 'synthetics'...are they more or less likely to abuse and exploit AI than Shepard's generation was?

IGSR wrote...

Gotta snip back the old growth every once and a while to make way for new growth.  If growth is never checked, life will eventually choke itself to death.

I'd have less of a major issue with this reasoning if it didn't massively contradict ME1's conversation with Sovereign in which he claims that they have unfathomable logic and that organics eventually develop along the paths the Reapers want, providing the means and method to assure advanced synthetics will destroy all life if it got to that point.

I can't state this example enough: It's like providing SuperTreeGrow formula (i.e. Reaper tech, mass relays, etc.) to a tree once it gets old enough then chopping it down because it dares to grow a lot. If they didn't want this to happen then why even build the relays as Sovereign states?

It's about imposing order and trying to control all the variables as much as possible.  To the Catalyst, adding SuperTreeGrow allows the tree to grow predictably until it needs to be pruned, instead of chaotically and out of control.  I see it more as bonsai training than fertilization, though.

Modifié par IGSR, 29 mars 2012 - 10:51 .

[Ziggeh]

IGSR wrote...

I'd have less of a major issue with this reasoning if it didn't massively contradict ME1's conversation with Sovereign in which he claims that they have unfathomable logic and that organics eventually develop along the paths the Reapers want, providing the means and method to assure advanced synthetics will destroy all life if it got to that point.

I can't state this example enough: It's like providing SuperTreeGrow formula (i.e. Reaper tech, mass relays, etc.) to a tree once it gets old enough then chopping it down because it dares to grow a lot. If they didn't want this to happen then why even build the relays as Sovereign states?

Depends how much you wanted the wood.

Maybe they've reduced the creation of AI as much as if feasible within their overall plan, They don't have that fine a control. Plus it's research was banned in the cycle and clearly frowned on in the previous, so it was limited somewhat.

And I think you have to consider the fact that synthetic rebellion doesn't present the same problem within the cycle as it potentially might outside of it. Which is to say, they're going to kill whatever's there, so they aren't being given the opportunity to eradicate all life.

[minormiracle]

Ziggeh wrote...

minormiracle wrote...
No, it's like saying 1+1=3 makes sense because in certain contexts 1+1 does equal 3.

Except rather than being composed known integers we don't know the value, so that's not a sound analogy.

Creator, created, synthetics, organics. The Reapers and Shepard are acting according to known values in this cycle.

Ziggeh wrote...

minormiracle wrote...
How does certainty not negate?

It would negate their actions if we ignored the fact that they entirely nullify the effect of the advancement by killing everyone who uses it.

Except we know that on multiple occasions the Reapers allowed AI research to progress to the point of organized open rebellion. If they stepped in as soon as someone started tinkering with AI, or even as soon as an AI war broke out, then maybe you'd have a point, but they didn't 50,000 years ago, and they didn't this time around either. The Reapers may be thorough, but they're damn tardy about doing their jobs.

Ziggeh wrote...

minormiracle wrote...
"The created will always rebel against their creators"
"Without us to stop it, synthetics will destroy all organics."
"The paths are open, but you have to choose."

And then Shepard does as he says.

Those are independent statements. They do not suggest all synthetics will always destroy life.

And I'm not seeing how Shepard actions would lead us to believe otherwise.

The reasoning is still flawed. Since the Reapers do not predate their own creation, whoever created them succeeded on their own in halting the possibility of an AI rebellion that destroys all organic life in their cycle. Yet the Reapers act as if no other race can repeat their feat, and speak in absolutes to justify their actions. Shepard never questions this, but merely goes along with the ABC cricible ending as if such blanket justifications were demonstratably true.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Mass Effect 3 ending: it gets worse over time.

[Ziggeh]

minormiracle wrote...
Creator, created, synthetics, organics. The Reapers and Shepard are acting according to known values in this cycle.

I admit this was a while and several bad analogies ago, but we were talking about the value they place upon organic life. We don't know what that is.

minormiracle wrote...
Except we know that on multiple occasions the Reapers allowed AI research to progress to the point of organized open rebellion. If they stepped in as soon as someone started tinkering with AI, or even as soon as an AI war broke out, then maybe you'd have a point, but they didn't 50,000 years ago, and they didn't this time around either. The Reapers may be thorough, but they're damn tardy about doing their jobs.

Their "job" being to prevent galactic sterilisation. AI rebellions within the cycle don't present that problem because they're going to be murdered before they get the chance. Unless we're back to the literal "we found a way to stop every instance of AI from rebelling" part of things?

minormiracle wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...
Those are independent statements. They do not suggest all synthetics will always destroy life..

The reasoning is still flawed. Since the Reapers do not predate their own creation, whoever created them succeeded on their own in halting the possibility of an AI rebellion that destroys all organic life in their cycle.

That's literally what I just said it didn't suggest.

[MaverickPerry]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

Mass Effect 3 ending: it gets worse over time.

[MaverickPerry]

emperoralku wrote...

Versidious wrote...

Empyrical evidence? In a work of fiction? Really, you can't talk about empyrical evidence, as ALL of it is contrived by the writers. You can only discuss whether things are consistent. And they are not. The Reapers are not 'outside of the pattern'. They are servants of it., a vital part of the pattern.

Even if the Reapers were special synthetics, that wouldn't rebel, and were outside the pattern, it only demonstrates that synthetic rebellion *isn't* an inevitable pattern after all. Remember that the pattern is because the Reapers create specific conditions to affect organic development. They, in a very real sense, deliberately ensure history repeats itself. So, if they are 'outside the pattern', but do not rebel, why ensure that the pattern is followed, when synthetics that do not rebel can be created?

If Reapers do not rebel because they embody organics, why not just tell organics how to do this? Why murder trillions every 50,000 years, whilst endangering these synthetic archives in violent conflict? Why are they so deliberately cruel, sadistic, and arrogant? It's all highly ridiculous.

Well said. It undermines it's own arguments all the time. I guess some people just like to be contrary in defending it.

Bingo.

[Archon-god]

Well, technically, since the reapers are created from molding organic material, then in a sense, they themselves ARE the created and the creators, all at once,and "one does not simply rebel against one's self" (sorry , had to do it ).

[Joush]

Yeah, pretty much anyone that speaks in absolutes, no matter how strong and authoritative they make you sound, should be very careful what they say. One counterexample and you are totally wrong.

[DarklightZERO]

You know, instead of letting civilisations form an entire galactic socially why didn't they just decide to harvest a civilisation as soon as its achieved space flight?

Species XXX has launched its first spaceship.
In order to do that they need to use synthetic intelligence.
These synthetic intelligences will end up rebelling against their creators.

Solution:
Begin harvest.

[Luzarius]

The origin of the reapers and certain facts about them remain a mystery.  I like that.  Shepard was bleeding out, so there wasn't much time for a philosophical discussion.

Instead of being a negative nancy, I hope people try to understand Bioware may have something planned for us in the future regarding the reapers in the form of DLC or ME4.

Look at it in a positive light that there may be more exciting content in store for us.  I personally never want the Mass Effect series to ever end.

Luzarius
www.twitch.tv/luzarius
"no death ruleset"

[Warden130]

"My kind transcends your very understanding"

Yup, it seems that Sovereign was right.

[MrPuschel]

You are wrong.

Because Starchild is Space God.

Space God can do as he pleases.

Also my hair is a bird.

Your arguments are invalid.

[Xarathox]

DarklightZERO wrote...

You know, instead of letting civilisations form an entire galactic socially why didn't they just decide to harvest a civilisation as soon as its achieved space flight?

Species XXX has launched its first spaceship.
In order to do that they need to use synthetic intelligence.
These synthetic intelligences will end up rebelling against their creators.

Solution:
Begin harvest.

We had synthetic intelligence in 1969 when we went to the moon? huh...was pretty sure we had electronic switchboards and several truckloads of RP-1 rocket fuel.

[DiegoProgMetal]

 There is another thing. Sovereign says in ME1: "We are each a nation. Independent, free of all weakness. You cannot even grasp the nature of our existence". Now I'm confused. Are the reapers independent or controlled??? 

...


...


Speculation...??? 

[ardias89]

dotcommissar wrote...

They could've explained how starchild's control of the reapers is somehow different, but they probably ran out of time after perfectly balancing the marauder shields boss battle.

You sir saved my day

Nice work OP i didnt realize that, good catch!

[ardias89]

DiegoProgMetal wrote...

 There is another thing. Sovereign says in ME1: "We are each a nation. Independent, free of all weakness. You cannot even grasp the nature of our existence". Now I'm confused. Are the reapers independent or controlled??? 

...


...


Speculation...??? 

Another reason the ending doesn't make sense...