1057 réponses à ce sujet

[The Night Mammoth]

The Catalyst's basic reasoning is sound.

Eventually, organics will create synthetics. These synthetics will always rise up against their creators and destroy all organic life. Therefore, it is easier to destroy the advanced organics before the situation arises, saving the rest.

All of that is fine.

Apply it to the Mass Effect universe with all the things we've been shown, and use the Reapers and their methods as a solution, and use the Catalyst as the grand architect of this?

That's where things start to fall apart.

[Merchant2006]

Have fun with convincing yourself OP.

Lol.

[Mr_Blue]

This is the first time I have actually fully read a coherent post defending the Catalyst's logic.

Though, the logic behind the Reapers was never what was unsettling for me. It's just that the Catalyst was a new character in literally the last minute to tell us everything, no hints or leads or clues before this. It makes our choices seem pointless and fruitless. To top it off, the lack of epilogue to reflect our choices, and the endings are virtually the same.

But I certainly commend you on this. I always thought I was pretty objective insofar as why the Catalyst is one of the dumbest characters in any video game, but you really showed me the other side. I didn't magically become a "pro-ender" or anything, but the plot point doesn't seem as stupid to me as previously. But I still maintain that the Catalyst's old and new solutions are nonsensical.

[Cheopz]

@slimshedim

i think the logic of the catalyst and the reapers is based on a "mechanical pov"... so it could be that they don't see synthetics as a threat but more like a possible implication of the unpredictability of the organics... this leads to the "calculation" that organics are equal to chaos and for that reason they are considered the main threat...


@The Night Mammoth

the reapers do not simply "destroy advanced organics", they are "harvesting" them... so while the reapers "free the galaxy" from the threat of the organics they also collect thier genetic information to prevent it from disappearing forever... and because the foundation of the civilization is saved, this civilization is also saved...

the catalyst is imo nothing more than some kind of hub... originally created to coordinate the reapers based on the informations about the actual living organics stored on the citadel...

Modifié par Cheopz, 11 avril 2012 - 08:38 .

[DiegoProgMetal]

The fact that within a non-zero probability of something happening, given enough time it will eventually happen (singularity), means nothing by the fact that no matter what, the universe in it's entirety will eventually reach an ending too. And all life, organic or not, will cease to exist.

Ps.: Reading my statement imagining Stephen Hawking's "voice" made me feel a "nerd bada*s". Lol!

What I meant is, using the argument that singularity will happen as an excuse for mass murdering, is the same as saying one may kill anyone because everyone will ultimately die.

[78stonewobble]

JShepppp wrote...

The Catalyst clearly makes some leaps of logic in its assumptions, but that doesn't mean its reasoning is stupid. For a scifi universe, it is very valid. It may feel out of place in the ME universe and may feel very rushed altogether, but the idea itself, I feel, can be respected.

While you do a good job of explaining the Catalysts reasoning it's the basic assumptions I have a problem with.

They are entirely theoretical even in-universe and IMHO not even that logical.  

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 11 avril 2012 - 10:57 .

[daecath]

Nooooo! That actually makes sense, dang it!

I do have one flaw though. It appears that, at least in the last two cycles, the reapers did not attack until after synthetics had been created. If the goal is to harvest advanced organics, and they do nothing about the synthetics, then you are left with advanced synthetics and primitive organics. Same problem. If they destroy the synthetics, then why bother with harvesting in the first place? I know you already addressed that to a degree, but it seems to me that the simplest solution is an object lesson. "See, this is what happens when you build synthetics. Don't do that again." If you touch a hot stove and you get burned, you won't be doing that again any time soon. Whereas by wiping out the organics that could have learned from their mistakes, you doom the galaxy to the very problem you're trying to avoid.

And then there are all the problems with his logic itself, the main one being, as you said, the circular logic that presupposes that this problem actually exists.

Still, while I wouldn't go so far as to say his logic is "Right", I will say that it is more understandable now. Just one more thing...

...why would a billion year old VI/AI look like a kid from your dreams? I dare anyone to find the logic in that.

[JShepppp]

Updated OP that also includes responses to some recent points made. Man, that took a lot of work...sorry if I can't respond to you guys directly because the thread exploded recently but hope you can check the OP again. I will update it as usual as the thread grows. The OP is getting pretty  massive. 

Modifié par JShepppp, 12 avril 2012 - 02:54 .

[Luzarius]

The egotistical civilizations will try to create life from scratch like a god and it will backfire.

The smart civs will keep it to the level of hybrids, organic & synthetic mix like Shep keeping the brain 100% organic and pure from AI abomination.

The ones who place their faith entirely in god will destroy all remnants of AI since it's blasphemous.

I played a pious Shep that led me to this understanding.

My next Shepard will most likely be based on the character of Samantha Carter from SG1 and I think I will reach a different conclusion that may match "Synthesis".  Basically I won't come to any type of religious or spiritual conclusion I predict.

And yes I enjoyed the OP posts, much appreciated! It confirmed that I'm not the only one. My faith has been restored in gamers since I read the OPs post.

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

[Cheopz]

just read the actual OP again and found something... the CP no. 19 and 22 could be merged because they already have the same headline... ^^

keep going...

[Dire Wombat]

*sigh*

This whole argument hinges on a flawed understanding of probability.

Shepard/the player has no evidence with which to assess the probability of the Catalyst's prediction being realized, and the Catalyst provides none. So accepting the Catalyst's argument that the synthetic/organic conflict is "inevitable" hinges on this idea that because Event A has a non-zero probability of occurring in any given time interval, then Event A will inevitably happen given infinite time (and will almost certainly happen given very long finite time).

This is not true: math does not work that way.

[JShepppp]

Cheopz wrote...

just read the actual OP again and found something... the CP no. 19 and 22 could be merged because they already have the same headline... ^^

keep going...

Ah dang getting sleepy...changed it (and added in a new point for 22). Thanks

[JShepppp]

Dire Wombat wrote...

*sigh*

This whole argument hinges on a flawed understanding of probability.

Shepard/the player has no evidence with which to assess the probability of the Catalyst's prediction being realized, and the Catalyst provides none. So accepting the Catalyst's argument that the synthetic/organic conflict is "inevitable" hinges on this idea that because Event A has a non-zero probability of occurring in any given time interval, then Event A will inevitably happen given infinite time (and will almost certainly happen given very long finite time).

This is not true: math does not work that way.

Noted. Theoretical and experimental probability are different. Good point. Maybe then it becomes a question of how theoretical versus practical you want to get. 

[Dire Wombat]

I do want to amend what I said to mention that I appreciate the amount of thought and effort you put into your post, OP. I suspect that you thought this through much more thoroughly than the writers did, given how they ended up presenting it. =P

---

My point is really that while the Catalyst COULD be right, the players and the character of Shepard are not given any good reason to believe that it IS right. It wouldn't be enough for the Catalyst to have asserted that "A technological singularity with negative consequences for organics could occur, and so given sufficient time it eventually will occur." The reason is that the probability of the Catalyst's prediction happening changes with time. There are events that could happen that would make a "bad singularity" less likely... extinctions, civilizational collapses, various possible "good singularities", etc.

The claim "X could happen, therefore given sufficient time X will happen" is only valid for infinite time (which, let's go ahead and assume for these purposes) AND for X with a probability that does not trend toward zero at long time (or does not trend toward zero "fast enough"). Does the probability of a "bad singularity" trend toward zero at long time? If it does, how fast? Either way, what probability do you get for it happening when you integrate over the expected habitable lifespan of the Milky Way galaxy? You can't answer those questions without having estimates not only for the probability of a bad singularity happening under various conditions, but also for the probabilities of life dying out some other way, or having a "good singularity" that makes the organic/synthetic distinction irrelevant, or whatever else. Without the Catalyst providing some evidence, there's no more rational basis for believing "The Catalyst is right, disaster is very likely" than there is for believing "The Catalyst is wrong, disaster is vanishingly unlikely."

And I think people understand this intuitively, without needing to think through the math. When a player goes "Huh? Synthetics killing organics is inevitable? I don't believe that for a minute," they're rejecting the Catalyst's claim to be able to predict the future and say with certainty that something will happen.

And their intuition is correct. Because the Catalyst provides no evidence, there's no argument that can support its certainty (since the "Everything that can happen will" argument is invalid), and this is something that people have a sense for even if they don't know anything about probability or calculus or sums of infinite series.

But I agree that the Catalyst's ideas could be correct (at least as you've interpreted them here, I can't say whether what the writers had in mind was logical or not). The problem with the ending is that we're told to accept that they're right, without a persuasive argument for them actually being written into the story. If BW had written a story where we/Shepard actually had a reason to believe the Catalyst and then had to make a meaningful choice about whether to accept it and how to respond, that could actually have been thought-provoking, if probably still controversial.

Modifié par Dire Wombat, 12 avril 2012 - 04:13 .

[GuardianAngel470]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

The Catalyst's basic reasoning is sound.

Eventually, organics will create synthetics. These synthetics will always rise up against their creators and destroy all organic life. Therefore, it is easier to destroy the advanced organics before the situation arises, saving the rest.

All of that is fine.

Apply it to the Mass Effect universe with all the things we've been shown, and use the Reapers and their methods as a solution, and use the Catalyst as the grand architect of this?

That's where things start to fall apart.

I'd like to mention that in life there is no "always". To declare that something will "always" happen is illogical in and of itself. The sun won't "always" rise, matter won't "always" exist as it does now, a program won't "always" return the same value. Inevitability is a flawed concept.

About the only things that can reasonably be considered constant is mathematics, and ONLY if it's proven to work in ALL cases possible.

EDIT: He he. I just read the post above mine. Way to go my friend, you called it!

Modifié par GuardianAngel470, 12 avril 2012 - 05:17 .

[Hawk227]

JSheppp,

I haven't seen much of a response to my post (page 18). My two biggest issues (one you sort of addressed in OP edit) are that a) You are assuming the catalyst is being truthful and that the reapers are pre-singularity.

I suppose for this intellectual exercise those are two assumptions you have to make, because either effectively nullifies the entire point. But then again, you've made a hypothesis of sorts and testing it in a way. Anyway...

You've given little reason for why the Reapers are pre-singularity. You say they haven't evolved and cite their physical appearance, but that seems like a superficial assessment. They're sentient organic/synthetic hybrids and the more practical way to evolve would be technology or just their code. At the point of singularity, huge jumps in technological advancement occur very quickly, but what after that? Is that advancement exponential until infinity or does it plateau at some point? Their technology is WAY beyond ours and the protheans'. They have mass relays, quantum shields, 2x faster FTL speeds, Cores that don't need to be dischared, indoctrination, etc etc. Is it not reasonable these jumps occured at the point of singularity and their evolution has stagnated?

As for trusting the Catalyst. You've conceded the point that he may be lying, but followed up with something to the effect of "why bother having him in the game then?". The point would be to steer us towards an outcome favorable to the (maybe post singularity) reapers. We know for sure that harvesting/ascendance of organic civilizations is required to make more reapers. What if that is pretty much the crux of the cycle. They're a post-singularity synthetic race that can't replicate without organics. So every 50k year "growing season" ends with a harvest. It would fit with Sovereigns disdain for organic life as a "genetic mutation", as well as what we learned in ME2.

For what its worth, I appreciate the thought you've put into this, and agree that within these assumptions that the Catalyst's logic works. I just take issue with those initial assumptions.

[slimshedim]

Cheopz wrote...


the reapers do not simply "destroy advanced organics", they are "harvesting" them... so while the reapers "free the galaxy" from the threat of the organics they also collect thier genetic information to prevent it from disappearing forever... and because the foundation of the civilization is saved, this civilization is also saved...

the catalyst is imo nothing more than some kind of hub... originally created to coordinate the reapers based on the informations about the actual living organics stored on the citadel...

The POV shouldn't matter. When synthetic life develops to be independent from their creators (like the Geth), they pose the same threat as organic civilizations. As long as synthetics are controlled by something/someone, they can be considered "order". As soon as they are independent, they can be considered chaos since they become unpredictable and will find ways to enhance themselves, to evolve and could achieve singularity on their own some day.

The "organics are chaos" argument is only sound, when they are about to create artificial life. As soon as synthetic life shows up, synthetics pose the same threat to balance as organics do.




Also what is the point of "preserving" DNA in Reaper form? The civilizations/races are extinct and will never have any impact on the following cycles except commiting mass genocide as Reapers in the following cycles. The Reapers process them, alter them, maybe damage or alter the DNA, too. Why do they bother to "save" them since the races lose everything that makes them and their only legacy are ruins and their DNA in Reaper form. Save them for what? Do the Reapers plan to bring them back some day? If not, what's the point of storing their DNA? Do the Reapers try to ease their bad conscience or what? "No, I didn't wipe them out, their DNA is still stored. I'm not a monster, you know?"

How do Reapers nourish the organic tissue inside them to prevent it from dieing/decaying? The races hardly have any impact on the galaxy after they're processed and sustaining their tissue literally eats up a crazy amount of ressources. Do the Reapers really need organic components, or wouldn't it make more sense to be completely synthetic, since they're merely the Catalyst's tools, anyway? I sure would  prefer a regular knife to a knife, that needs to eat every day.

If the Catalyst is a hub inside the Citadel, he must never have been activated before, since no civilization finished the Crucible. If the Catalyst exsisted before the Crucible, the whole ME1 plot goes south, because he could have easily opened the Citadel for Sovereign. If he couldn't open it, why do you assume he could have sent the Reapers the data they needed? OFC you could argue that that's why Sovereign needed to enter the Citadel, but what's the point of creating a thing that controls the Reapers, when it is impotent to even control it's "body": The Citadel? Why did it need a Reaper accessing the hub? Sovereign clearly wanted to open the Citadel to let the Reapers pour in from dark space. Why is there a need for the Catalyst, if it can't accomplish such an easy task on its own? How can you control the Reapers from the Citadel, if you need a Reaper to control the Citadel?

This doesn't make any sense to me.

Modifié par slimshedim, 12 avril 2012 - 09:43 .

[Dominator24]

Dire Wombat wrote...

I do want to amend what I said to mention that I appreciate the amount of thought and effort you put into your post, OP. I suspect that you thought this through much more thoroughly than the writers did, given how they ended up presenting it. =P

---

My point is really that while the Catalyst COULD be right, the players and the character of Shepard are not given any good reason to believe that it IS right. It wouldn't be enough for the Catalyst to have asserted that "A technological singularity with negative consequences for organics could occur, and so given sufficient time it eventually will occur." The reason is that the probability of the Catalyst's prediction happening changes with time. There are events that could happen that would make a "bad singularity" less likely... extinctions, civilizational collapses, various possible "good singularities", etc.

The claim "X could happen, therefore given sufficient time X will happen" is only valid for infinite time (which, let's go ahead and assume for these purposes) AND for X with a probability that does not trend toward zero at long time (or does not trend toward zero "fast enough"). Does the probability of a "bad singularity" trend toward zero at long time? If it does, how fast? Either way, what probability do you get for it happening when you integrate over the expected habitable lifespan of the Milky Way galaxy? You can't answer those questions without having estimates not only for the probability of a bad singularity happening under various conditions, but also for the probabilities of life dying out some other way, or having a "good singularity" that makes the organic/synthetic distinction irrelevant, or whatever else. Without the Catalyst providing some evidence, there's no more rational basis for believing "The Catalyst is right, disaster is very likely" than there is for believing "The Catalyst is wrong, disaster is vanishingly unlikely."

And I think people understand this intuitively, without needing to think through the math. When a player goes "Huh? Synthetics killing organics is inevitable? I don't believe that for a minute," they're rejecting the Catalyst's claim to be able to predict the future and say with certainty that something will happen.

And their intuition is correct. Because the Catalyst provides no evidence, there's no argument that can support its certainty (since the "Everything that can happen will" argument is invalid), and this is something that people have a sense for even if they don't know anything about probability or calculus or sums of infinite series.

But I agree that the Catalyst's ideas could be correct (at least as you've interpreted them here, I can't say whether what the writers had in mind was logical or not). The problem with the ending is that we're told to accept that they're right, without a persuasive argument for them actually being written into the story. If BW had written a story where we/Shepard actually had a reason to believe the Catalyst and then had to make a meaningful choice about whether to accept it and how to respond, that could actually have been thought-provoking, if probably still controversial.

1+
You have put it in word better then I would have.

And to the OP Your post was very interesting and entertaining( if it wasn't I would not read that wall of text lol).

In my opinion they should have put the technological singularity as it was and change the start child to a star VI(orb) or something. Still that would not made the ending "good" imo, but at least it would be better then what we got.

[Cobra's_back]

I like your post. What I'm hearing is that you can't trust everything the Star Child states.


From your statement : "12. The "red" ending destroys "all synthetic life" killing the Reapers - thus the Reapers are completely synthetic. "Remember that Shepard is supposed to die too because he is "partly synthetic". This implies that all partly synthetic life forms will be killed - ironically the Quarians, people with biotic implants, and Shepard seem to be on the list as well, implicitly, according to the Catalyst's logic. Thus it really is killing anything that is at least partly synthetic, indicating the Reapers must be at least partly synthetic but not necessarily wholly synthetic. EDI's statement at the end of ME2 about Reapers being organic/sentient hybrids, I believe, is canon. Yet the N7 ending throws all of this into question, so I don't have an answer for this at all. A valid plot hole to point out."


The writer didn't state the Star child was completely factual. What is known: “The Catalyst is an ancient and powerful entity of unknown origin that resides within the Citadel. Its nature is unclear, there being no reference to it being organic, synthetic, or any other alternative. The Catalyst serves as the architect and overseer of the Reapers and their cycle of destruction. “


It is a matter of belief and hope. Shepard makes a statement of hope to the Catalyst. Personally, I don’t dislike the story anymore. There are three choices that are tailored to your beliefs. Those that have strong hope, those that believe destruction is inevitable, and those that believe mankind can do better than nature. Nature is flawed. All elements seemed to be portrayed in the story.

[JasonShepard]

That's an awesome OP. I'd worked some of it out on my own, but you have a heck of a lot more groundwork and have clearly put more work into it than I ever would have. Thanks for that.

And, um, I don't really have much else to add. Except that, in my case, Control was just a way for Shepard to remove the Reaper threat with less collateral: Repair Mass Relays, return to Dark Space, dismantle Reaper Fleet.

[JShepppp]

 @Mr_Blue: Glad to hear. I never expected people to become pro-enders just by this or for them to agree with the Catalyst (I personally don't). I just wanted to get some more respect and understanding. I'm very happy that this thread helped somewhat and of course respect that you still are not fond of the Catalyst lol. I do agree that there was a distinct lack of choice kind of feeling. 

@DiegoProgMetal: Of course. Feel free to disagree and maybe pick Destroy. 

@78stonewobble: Very valid point, and I do agree it was out of place and felt a little rushed and/or forced. Which is unfortunate, because I feel that just a little more effort (dialogue, cutscenes, etc. even just during ME3 before Earth) would have helped a ton more. At least questioning the Catalyst and forcing it to explain more, reveal if it has data, or even just to show it blindly will be dismissive of your assertions and thus has its own flaws, would have been good. 

@daecath: Lol yeah sorry about it sounding somewhat logical. Yeah, I disagree with the Catalyst personally for the reasons you stated and many others have - it makes rather unfounded assumptions. If we were given more evidence, that'd be nice. 

@Luzarius: Glad your faith is restored dude. 

@Dire Wombat: I updated the OP talking about this. I've only taken introductory probability courses before (don't have much need for it with my current college major) so I wasn't too sure how to interpret it. I do understand basic stuff like integration and the cdf/pdf functions so tried to make sense of what you were saying in that context, but I may have screwed things up. If I did, feel free to send a msg or post on the forums; I ended up basically trying to summarize your point into the OP (as you did take into account both views, which I like to have in the OP). As a side note, your name is one of the most hilarious things I've read - awesome lol. 

@GuardianAngel470: Yup, same thing as Dire Wombat above. 

@slimshedim: Very valid questions. Don't have any answers to any of those, but did do some speculation in the OP. Good point with synthetics being just as chaotic as organics if they are as "free-willed" so to speak. As for the Sovvy plot hole, no idea. Maybe you should read my other thread (in my sig) lol, you might enjoy that more. 

@Dominator24: Thanks. And yeah I agree there were several ways it could have been better, the least of which is to have more explanation. 

@ghostbusters101: Right. Also, it could just be because at that moment Shep has nothing to lose. If he does nothing, he dies and galactic civilization is harvested/destroyed by the Reapers. If he does do something, the worst case scenario is where the Catalyst is lying, in which case the outcome is the same, OR it could be something else. From a bottom-line perspective, taking one of the Crucible's options is just kind of the best thing Shep could've done. Forcing Shep into such a situation is something to do with storywriting and stuff, but still. 

@JasonShepard: My first time, I actually chose control for the same reasons lol. Glad that you enjoyed. 

@Hawk227: Just updated it some more. You were right; I didn't address all of your points and stuff, sorry that I misunderstood. 

Modifié par JShepppp, 13 avril 2012 - 04:23 .

[JShepppp]

Bump: OP has been updated and organized in what I hope is a more streamlined manner. The amount of ideas generated in the thread is amazing. Hopefully we can keep this going guys, or at least bump if there's nothing to add at the moment!

Again, thanks for the all the input. It's invigorating to have this much intellectual discussion in one place.

[Ieldra]

OP, I finally found the time to go through your OP.

Very, very, VERY good work. If the Catalyst used a tenth of that exposition to explain itself in the game, I would not have a problem accepting its rationale for the cycle as internally consistent and its solution as one possible option.

The problem is, it doesn't explain itself. And in the face of the fact that all hostile synthetics we've ever met in all three games acted out of self-defense or were controlled by the Reapers, this needs further exposition to appear valid to Shepard. Accepting a simple "Without us to prevent it, synthetics will destroy all organics" without further exposition makes Shepard look like an idiot.

Going back to the explanation of the leaked script in the Extended Cut would be helpful.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 avril 2012 - 05:42 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

They wipe out civilization right when they are about to wipe out/make peace with synthetics, Javik says they were about to kill the Metacon when the reapers attacked, Shepard makes peace with/wipe out the Geth, lazy last minute logic is lazy

[MisterJB]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

They wipe out civilization right when they are about to wipe out/make peace with synthetics, Javik says they were about to kill the Metacon when the reapers attacked, Shepard makes peace with/wipe out the Geth,

These points are adressed in the OP.
Winning one battle does not equal winning the war. More synthetics will, inevitably, be created and organics might lose the war next time.
Or the geth migth simply rebel again.