309 réponses à ce sujet

[Heather Cline]

You know I never thought of that. Seriously I didn't. Thanks for pointing that out about how the AI contradicts itself even earlier than before.

[KingKhan03]

I find it hilarious that throughout the games Sovereign and Harbinger keep telling you its something you cant comprehend and then the starchild just tells you.

[OchreJelly]

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.

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 just... silly storytelling.

[CavScout]

KingKhan03 wrote...

I find it hilarious that throughout the games Sovereign and Harbinger keep telling you its something you cant comprehend and then the starchild just tells you.

Threads like this prove Sovereign and Harbinger right thou. People can't comprehend.

[Stygian1]

Great job destroying an already destroyed chain of logic

But, seriously you are totally right and its sad how easy we can poke holes in the ending.

[Sevorast]

Awesome post, didn't actually catch that myself. Probably because I was too busy screaming at the screen and ripping my hair out. F you starbrat, seriously F you.

[attack vector]

minormiracle wrote...
If the Starchild created a solution to a problem, and that solution was the Reapers, how come the Reapers haven't rebelled against the Starchild yet? They are without doubt the longest living civilization within the galaxy, yet they haven't turned against their creator.

THIS!

The fact that the fans have been so easily, and eloquently blowing star-ship sized holes in the end-game, makes me wonder if Bioware even bothers to focus test their scripts and narrative prior to finalizing it in-game.

What's more staggering is the massive disparity in quality, comprehension & execution between the general sub-plots, and encounters writing throughout the game and its wacko ending... It seriously feels like Bioware flew in some pill-popping hysterical B-team to draft up the ending to ME3.

Honestly, they should've just hired you instead.

[MaverickPerry]

 Forwarded this to BioWare.

https://twitter.com/...147697194471424 

[shep214]

we can conclude that starchild was the biggest fail character in gaming history.

[AkeasharK]

CavScout wrote...

KingKhan03 wrote...

I find it hilarious that throughout the games Sovereign and Harbinger keep telling you its something you cant comprehend and then the starchild just tells you.

Threads like this prove Sovereign and Harbinger right thou. People can't comprehend.

Bioware knew from the start that the fans wouldn't understand the ending! Now thats what I call forward planning :3

[minormiracle]

Ziggeh wrote...

minormiracle wrote...
If the Starchild created a solution to a problem, and that solution was the Reapers, how come the Reapers haven't rebelled against the Starchild yet? They are without doubt the longest living civilization within the galaxy, yet they haven't turned against their creator.

His statement is reductive. Taken literally it is demonstrably false, but I think we can take it that he's talking in more general terms: There will be rebellions. Which is demonstrably true. Or we could not and he's just wrong, but I'm not sure you can blame writing for what we decide he means.

Are the Reapers themselves the synthetic victors of an AI rebellion? If yes, then prior rebellions can prevent later ones and preserve organic life. Thus the Starchild's claim that Synthetics will destroy all organic life if left unchecked is false. If not, then the Reapers' self appointed task is not as necessary that they claim. Their own origin cycle lead to the development of Reaper synthesis and not the destruction of all organic life, so why is it impossible for a later cycle to achieve similar solutions on their own without Reaper meddling?

Ziggeh wrote...

minormiracle wrote...
If the Reapers can be used in any number of ways, then the Starchild has simply been misusing them this whole time by actively bringing about the termination of biological civilizations' development (the same end result as self induced synthetic rebellion) rather than intervening to preserve their potential for growth. We're still back to the yo dawg solution.

You're not accounting for the fact that he needs to keep techological progress from passing a certain level or he risks being left unable to enact any solution.

In which case it would be far more efficient and less risky to eliminate sentient life at the earliest stages of technological development, rather than wait for an arbitrary 50,000 years until organics are making starships of their own or giant ground based guns that can blow you out of the sky. Why didn't the Reapers wipe out any race as soon as they started making tools, or building cities, or discovering fission/fusion/dark energy manipulation, or achieving space flight, or breaking the lightspeed barrier, or building AIs? Why is the most advanced race in the galaxy not smart enough to achieve their goals without risking even the slightest chance of a butt kicking?

Ziggeh wrote...

minormiracle wrote...
If preserving organic life without terminating the potential for growth past a certain point is impossible regardless of what else the Reapers might have done, then the Starchild never found a solution to his problem. His earlier solution was never workable at any time in history.

He's clearly not all that concerned about a species right to develop. He is protecting organic life largely in abstract. It is kept persistant as a concept rather than in the specific. You're misrepresenting his goal somewhat there.

What do the Reapers mean when they say they want to preserve organic life? Is it life in general? Then as above, why wait for races to develop into space faring societies before wiping them out? Is it higher reasoning to a point and no further? Then why cycles of 50,000 years? This is extra dumb considering races develop technology at different rates, and many like the Asari and the Humans also got jump started by a previous cycle in diverse ways. Why not intervene as soon as AI creation is underway, or an AI rebellion is underway, or wait it out and see if organics can solve the problem on their own like the proto-reaper organics did in the first cycle, or go full hands on squid-gods-from-the-sky in ruling over primitive organics so that they never even have the chance to develop AI? Wouldn't all of those options make more sense than sitting out in dark space for an arbitrary self imposed timeout while all kinds of organic based "chaos" is happening if your goal is to prevent AI ourbreaks from destroying all organic life?

[SnakeStrike8]

minormiracle wrote...
*Snip*

You make the mistake of assuming that the Starchild wishes to engage Shepard on any level of discussion. What we have here is a scared AI that is facing its destruction and wants out any way it can. So it lies to Shepard and makes scheisse up as it goes along. With no physical ability to stop Shepard from making his 'choice', the Starchild instead does its best to convince Shepard not to take the 'destroy' option (by mentioning that he is partly synthetic, for example) because that one represents the death of the little bugger's Reapers. None of the other 'choice' involve destroying the Reapers, so the Starchild tries to force Shepard into choosing the control or synthesis option. And since the Starchild still needs to have its fill of galactic genocide, since what we have here is essentially a space super Hitler, who kills trillions of people not on account of what they did, but on account of who they are, it also destroys the Mass Relays to starve the races of the galaxy into death. A finla act of murder, if you will, before Shepard silences it forever.

[minormiracle]

SnakeStrike8 wrote...

minormiracle wrote...
*Snip*

*Snip*

Assuming the indoctrination theory is right, or that the Starchild is lying, then this whole argument is moot. All I'm trying to show is that the Starchild's logic is impossible to defend and therefore the people who thought the ending made any kind of hard SF sense needs to rethink their reasoning.

Modifié par minormiracle, 29 mars 2012 - 03:14 .

[AIR MOORE]

I have been thinking about this ever since I finished the ending a few days ago as well (I had a writeup on this coming)... rather a scattered list on small (and larger) anomalies within the ending, and this was my main one... I should have posted this all ages ago due to these being yet "unsaid" endings, alas... college has stopped this from happening... but the following is a short outline:

The only way I see Bioware getting out of this one is...
Technically he says he "controls" the reapers, not that we creates them, but that is really stretching it. So Bioware could try to pull the old "only created rebel against creators" not controllers.

I have this down as my main point of contention though, and I don't think they meant to use control specifically for that reason... rather pure luck. So I guess I am saying I had the same sentiments about this... and EVEN IF they use the "control" word... to say he didn't "create" them... whoever DID create them... why didn't they rebel against them etc? (Aka leaves more left unexplained).

[minormiracle]

IsaacShep wrote...

TheMerchantMan wrote...

Further:

The Catalyst, a synthetic is protecting organics from synthetics by killing them. Because synthetics will always rebel against organics. Yet he himself, again a synthetic is ostensibly trying to protect organics, something he says synthetics are inevitably incapable of doing.

He is a walking contradiction. Or using insane troll logic.There's no way someone could have wrote this and thought it wasn't crap.

He is not trying to protect organics from synthetics. He's trying to protect organics from AIs. Shep and biotic people are also synthetics to a degree. Reapers are synthetic, but they all have organic minds. These organics minds are bounded by organic limitations. AIs are not. The problem of ME3 is that it doesn't articulate it clear enough that this is about AI, not "all synthetic life".

If Reapers are synthetics but not AI, then whoever built the Reapers already solved the AI problem independently in their own origin cycle. The fact that the first cycle started without Reapers and ended in Synthesis and not the destruction of all organics at the hands of AI invalidates the Starchild's own "genocidal AI rebellion is inevitable" hypothesis.

[shepskisaac]

SnakeStrike8 wrote...

You make the mistake of assuming that the Starchild wishes to engage Shepard on any level of discussion. What we have here is a scared AI that is facing its destruction and wants out any way it can.

Again, where it is said StarChild is an AI? People are very likely making the same mistake here they're doing with the Reapers, thinking Reapers are AIs.

[SC0TTYD00]

Good point OP. the plot (if IDT isnt correct) has more holes than a homeless guys shoe.

[SnakeStrike8]

minormiracle wrote...

SnakeStrike8 wrote...

minormiracle wrote...
*Snip*

*Snip*

*Snip... for the sake of snipping!*.

Forget defend, the Starchild's logic is impossible to follow. This is expressed most effectively (and crudely) in the 'yo dawg' line, but it's just a single bone that needs picking. SF sense got slotted as soon as the Starchild oepened its mouth on the synthesis option. What does that mean? Are organics suddenly growing to sprout bionic limbs? Are our DNA molecules suddenly going to turn into control boards? Nerves replaced with copper wires? And what does this mean for existing synthetics? Are they suddenly going to grow cells within themselves? With nuclei that have DNA in them? And mitochondria? Are they going to produce haploid gametes and need to bang each other to produce viable offspring? Will need to be weaned? Are geth going to grow breasts with mammary glands? Will they suddenly start producing hormones?
There really is no way to look at this other than as a crass and very silly use of space magic to justify an idiotic third 'neutral' option. In that I totally agree with you, but until we get solid evidence about the indoctrination theory, I'm inclined to believe that the Starchild is a lying tosser acting desperately to defend itself from the human who has come to threaten it.

[SnakeStrike8]

IsaacShep wrote...

SnakeStrike8 wrote...

You make the mistake of assuming that the Starchild wishes to engage Shepard on any level of discussion. What we have here is a scared AI that is facing its destruction and wants out any way it can.

Again, where it is said StarChild is an AI? People are very likely making the same mistake here they're doing with the Reapers, thinking Reapers are AIs.

So what do you think it is? A person? A computer? Many computers? A hallucination?
The Starchild is either a person (very, very unlikely) or a computer capable of thinking for itself and modifying its own code, as was evidenced by the manner in which it 'gave Shepard options'. That fits the Mass Effect definition of an AI perfectly.

[minormiracle]

SnakeStrike8 wrote...

minormiracle wrote...

SnakeStrike8 wrote...

minormiracle wrote...
*Snip*

*Snip*

*Snip... for the sake of snipping!*.

*Snip*

*Snip*

Okay that didn't work.

Yeah I agree. There's no way the Starchild can be telling you the truth because there's no way it can be the truth. We can only respond to the how's and why's of the lies with lots of speculation from everyone, but the fact that he isn't telling the truth is I think undeniable.

[shepskisaac]

minormiracle wrote...

If Reapers are synthetics but not AI, then whoever built the Reapers already solved the AI problem independently in their own origin cycle. The fact that the first cycle started without Reapers and ended in Synthesis and not the destruction of all organics at the hands of AI invalidates the Starchild's own "genocidal AI rebellion is inevitable" hypothesis.

But Reapers are not the kind of synthetic beings that get created if Shep takes Synthesis ending. Reapers' minds are organic, based on organic DNA, just wrapped in machine bodies. That's not much different than what Shep is after Lazarus Project. It's not the "new organic/AI mixture DNA" thingy that is suppoused to be created in Synthesis ending. It's of course all super space magic (lol new DNA framework) but within the realm of this space magic, it is clear that Reapers are not the kind of synthesis that can solve the problem. After all, reapers get changed too in the green ending no? If they were the same kind of synthesis, there would be no change in them.

[shepskisaac]

SnakeStrike8 wrote...

So what do you think it is? A person? A computer? Many computers? A hallucination?
The Starchild is either a person (very, very unlikely) or a computer capable of thinking for itself and modifying its own code, as was evidenced by the manner in which it 'gave Shepard options'. That fits the Mass Effect definition of an AI perfectly.

I think it's like the Reapers - a collective organic mind. He does refer to himself and Reapers as 'we' several times after all. Or he could be a VI of the original creator, like Vigil. In both cases, he wouldn't be an AI.

And he didn't change himself to give Shep options. The Crucible changed him. He says it himself.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 29 mars 2012 - 03:45 .

[SnakeStrike8]

minormiracle wrote...
*Snip*

Okay that didn't work.

Yeah I agree. There's no way the Starchild can be telling you the truth because there's no way it can be the truth. We can only respond to the how's and why's of the lies with lots of speculation from everyone, but the fact that he isn't telling the truth is I think undeniable.

But this does raise new problems, in that Bioware has forced players to follow the directives of a liar. If players are smart enough to figure out that a character is lying, then it's poor form to force their character to think otherwise, especially if you've made a point of allowing players to control what said character does until that point.
In the end, I feel as if the ending situation has largely become unsalvageable, aside from the indoctrination theory, and even that is tenuous at best.
Dangerous ground, Bioware. Dangerous, dangerous ground...

[2484Stryker]

I wonder how many people who enjoyed the ending are also avid watchers of Fox News.

[InfiniteDemise]

CavScout wrote...

KingKhan03 wrote...

I find it hilarious that throughout the games Sovereign and Harbinger keep telling you its something you cant comprehend and then the starchild just tells you.

Threads like this prove Sovereign and Harbinger right thou. People can't comprehend.

People can't comprehend anything you say, as nothing you say has substance or meaning. You're nothing more than a biological random word generator set on "irritate".