1057 réponses à ce sujet

[ed87]

This is getting out of control. No ending should take this amount of reading and thinking to understand. The main ideas should be explored in the game with the audience, not outside the game on a forum.

This is bad speculation, not good speculation.

[lx_theo]

Lyrebon wrote...

tl;dr - seriously man, there's just too much there I'm not even going to consider reading; after looking at the comments it seems evident you're just trying to convince yourself that there isn't something abhorrently wrong about the ending.

No, the OP actually does a really good job at showing the logic behind the Catalyst, of which it does an excellten job (Great job, OP!)

Only that. It doesn't argue if that any of the other parts are bad or not.

[Orumon]

So, with regards to the catalysts assumptions: Where, precisely, did it get this information. Does it confirm that every single time it's assumptions will be correct.

[JShepppp]

lx_theo wrote...

Lyrebon wrote...

tl;dr - seriously man, there's just too much there I'm not even going to consider reading; after looking at the comments it seems evident you're just trying to convince yourself that there isn't something abhorrently wrong about the ending.

No, the OP actually does a really good job at showing the logic behind the Catalyst, of which it does an excellten job (Great job, OP!)

Only that. It doesn't argue if that any of the other parts are bad or not.

@Lyrebon: You only have to read the first part to get the crux of the arguments being made. Most of the thread's length is from Part III which is basically where I try to summarize what others in the thread are saying; the length of that part isn't my fault but is rather something that I see as a testament to the amazing ideas generated on BSN. The goal was to have it all be in one place because I personally don't like reading through page by page to try to find ideas admist a bunch of quotes and stuff so thought people would enjoy having it in one post. If you'd rather read through all the pages, then feel free to and ignore that part of the OP. The parts kind of break down as follows: 

Parts I: Main part that I think the thread brings that is "new" (read green)
Parts II-III: For those more interested; discusses points/counterpoints/observations in general (majority of input here is from other users)
Part IV: For those even MORE interested, these are other threads that you can do additional reading for that are related
Parts V-VI: Appendix of sorts

As for trying to convince myself that "there isn't something abhorrently wrong about the ending", I state several times - both OP and otherwise - that I thought the ending was sloppily done. I'm also not making black/white judgments as to whether or not the Catalyst is completely right. I've stated that I personally disagree with it and have freely pointed out its flaws as well. I'm not trying to sway people either way. That's not what I want to do, nor do I believe I have the right to do that. People should think what they want to think. Ignoring both sides of the equation/argument though is simply bad academics. The purpose of this thread was to try to show more of the Catalyst's side. I worry that posts like yours are indicative of the single-mindedness rather than open-mindedness that permeates these forums, but I admit I may be judging too quickly or harshly. As a side note, hating on the ending doesn't really accomplish anything, imho. 

Apologies if the above appears harsh, but I have to explain myself a lot and feel that I already have, and while I endeavor to be civil, sometimes I get irritated a little. But if any further clarification on my stance is needed, I am of course free to talk further about it. It may not be related to the thread but that's cool. 

@lx_theo: Thanks for the support dude. I mean it lol. Glad you enjoyed. 

[JShepppp]

ed87 wrote...

This is getting out of control. No ending should take this amount of reading and thinking to understand. The main ideas should be explored in the game with the audience, not outside the game on a forum.

This is bad speculation, not good speculation.

If you're talking about the ending being bad, then I agree.

If you're talking about this thread and the train of thought(s) that follow(s), then I disagree. I think it's healthy to have some discussion if it's about interesting topics (scifi) and can be enjoyable. But that's just my opinion. I'm not in any position to judge, so I will let this thread and BSN in general attest to whether or not engaging in discussion about scifi because we love scifi is good or bad. 

[JShepppp]

Orumon wrote...

So, with regards to the catalysts assumptions: Where, precisely, did it get this information. Does it confirm that every single time it's assumptions will be correct.

We've not been made aware of any times its assumptions have been correct. Also, by their theoretical and we're-doomed-if-they're-realized nature, it could be argued that it's impossible to find evidence. The assumptions by their nature can't really be disproven, and this is a logical fallacy. That isn't to say its assumptions are outright wrong. It's more like irregardless of evidence it is impossible to disprove its claims. This is related to its circular logic which is a fallacy of its reasoning as well. 

So in short, no, we are not given proof. This is the primary reason we disagree with the Catalyst - it's pointless for it to be based on an argument that cannot be disproven. But also we disagree just with its methods too (i.e. if the problem is true, then its methods are bad). 

The purpose of this thread was to try to show a different perspective. In a way, it's kind of like playing devil's advocate on these forums lol. 

[sveners]

Great post OP! Though I'd have liked the addendum " according to itself" to the title ^^

I just don't understand. Why would a technological singularity be a bad thing? The whole point of the theory is that we have no, abosolutely no, knowledge of what the reality of such a thing entails. For all intents and purposes, such an eventuality would be "godlike". We would never have the capacity or possibility of understanding. Neither it's motives or purpose, or anything else.

Organic beings would be like ants. Why would you wage war on ants? Why would ants wage war on you? 
That's what bugs me about the theory of TS in this game. Why would an AI evolved to the point of TS assert dominance? That is what humans would do. Or any creature above on the food-chain. At the point of TS, there is literally nothing above. Nor will there ever be. 

[Dnayew]

Idk man.... There's something inherently queer about saying, "I wanted to stop synthetics from killing organics, so every 50,000 I send synthetics to kill organics."

Cool story spacekid!

[balance5050]

Logic is flawed: The Reapers have independent personalities, they have never rebelled against the starkid.

Just because the logic makes sense to the catalyst doesn't mean it should make sense to any intelligent being.

[JasonShepard]

Jumping back in here for a mo (although I *really* need to stop lurking on BSN with my finals on the horizon...)
@JShepppp (nice username btwB)), some ideas as to why the Catalyst seems to be willing to help Shepard even though it seemingly doesn't like what the Crucible can do. (By help, I'm referring to bringing him up the space-elevator, possibly waking him up and then explaining the different options to him.)
(Also, do we even know if it was the Catalyst that took Shepard up the elevator? There's the obvious question of "Who else could it be?", but on low EMS the Catalyst certainly seems a bit surprised to see Shep: "Why are you here?" Then again, that could just be it's way of gauging Shep's intentions...)


The Catalyst seems to take the perspective of "Anything that can happen will happen if given enough time." This is presumably why the Catalyst is trying to set up the galaxy so that it is impossible for the Singularity to occur - I would say that the Catalyst is 'afraid' of the Singularity. Anyway: Shepard just demonstrated that it was possible to:

A) Construct the Crucible.
Connect the Crucible to the Citadel.
C) (Almost) make his way to the Crucible control center (where we meet the Catalyst).

In short, Shepard just demonstrated that it is possible for organics to break free of the Catalyst's finely constructed cycle. True, Shepard would have failed without the Catalyst's help but - and here's the important part - the next person to come so far might not need the help.

From the Catalyst's perspective, this means that it needs a better solution. Next time, organics might come up with something different, another way that breaks the cycle without the Catalyst even having a say in the matter. So it analyses the Crucible (I'm of the belief that the Catalyst was unaware of the Crucible's existence until Shepard and co. deployed it) and chooses to advise Shepard, hoping to use him and the Crucible to construct a better solution - one that can't be broken quite so easily. It does say that it can't use the Crucible by itself.

This gives the possibility that the Catalyst modified *Destroy* so that it would target all synthetics, and not just the Reapers. Why? Because 'No synthetics in the galaxy and no cycle' is still a better solution than 'Synthetics in the galaxy, but no Reapers and no cycle to keep them in check'.

Control? Of the two basic options, this one would probably appeal more to the Catalyst: get Shep to find a new solution, and give him all your resources. Of course, this does assume that Shep will agree that a solution needs to be found... (but the Catalyst could well be so sure of it's own logic that it can't imagine someone disagreeing that there is even a problem...)

And Synthesis. Of the three choices, this is probably the Catalyst's favourite. I imagine that it wasn't even aware that this was possible until the Crucible was hooked up, otherwise it would have done it before. Furthermore, if we're going with the idea that the Catalyst can modify the Crucible (to a limited amount - see Destroy) it may have even made this solution itself with the new resources available to it.

Anyway, that's some thoughts that have slowly been turning over in my head since originally reading your thread. The main weakness that I can see here is that it doesn't quite fit with the endings where only Destroy is available - I can't see the Catalyst helping that to happen. Bad implementation, or maybe the Catalyst is looking at Destroy as a case of clearing the playing field, going back to square one and trying again...

Modifié par JasonShepard, 25 avril 2012 - 08:13 .

[JamieCOTC]

In the war between chaos and order, chaos always wins. The catalyst and Reapers were doomed from the start. In a very real sense they created Shepard and the means to their own destruction. If the catalyst is omnipotent enough to know that the singularity is inevitable, then he should also know that his failure is also inevitable.

In the game itself, the catalyst admits that his solution is no longer viable because Shepard has found him. Whether or not he could just kill Shepard at this point is unknown, but it doesn't matter. The solution is no longer viable because if one organic can get to him, then it could happen again. The catalyst should have foreseen this event as it is the nature of the oppressed to rebel against their oppressors. His only logical recourse is to let the singularity occur.

[JShepppp]

sveners wrote...

Great post OP! Though I'd have liked the addendum " according to itself" to the title ^^

I just don't understand. Why would a technological singularity be a bad thing? The whole point of the theory is that we have no, abosolutely no, knowledge of what the reality of such a thing entails. For all intents and purposes, such an eventuality would be "godlike". We would never have the capacity or possibility of understanding. Neither it's motives or purpose, or anything else.

Organic beings would be like ants. Why would you wage war on ants? Why would ants wage war on you? 
That's what bugs me about the theory of TS in this game. Why would an AI evolved to the point of TS assert dominance? That is what humans would do. Or any creature above on the food-chain. At the point of TS, there is literally nothing above. Nor will there ever be. 

Yeah, we don't know for sure that it'll be bad, but it's possible that it'll be bad and the Catalyst seems unwilling to take that chance. We stomp on ants and don't care about it; no need to think post-singularity-synthetics will care either. 

That's another interesting point though, that existence is kind of a power struggle and this drives the need to evolve. If you are at the apex, you may not evolve further. This is kind of supported by the Reapers; maybe they haven't evolved because there hasn't been a threat to make them evolve. Perhaps a post-singularity AI will be the same way and won't necessarily evolve ad infinitum. But then again, if organics get close to it, it would reassert its dominance by wiping them out (eliminating the thread), evolving again, or perhaps both. Who knows lol. 

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding and you're saying that there'd be no NEED to assert its dominance, which is a different but viable idea. I don't know what to say to that at the moment so may have to get back to you on that. Won't there always be conflict though unless there is a unanimous victor of "evolution", and even then, so long as another species still exists, evolutionary conflict will occur? Just some thoughts, but I'm not sure. Pure speculation, of course. 

[sp0ck 06]

Does anyone else find it funny the thread was "Updated 4/20"?

[JShepppp]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Does anyone else find it funny the thread was "Updated 4/20"?

If the implication is that I was high...well...

[JShepppp]

balance5050 wrote...

Logic is flawed: The Reapers have independent personalities, they have never rebelled against the starkid.

Just because the logic makes sense to the catalyst doesn't mean it should make sense to any intelligent being.

Casper just controls them; he never said he created them.

I don't think we're given any information to determine if the Reapers' subjugation to the Catalyst and/or the absence of the Catalyst/Reapers' creators are contradictions or evidence for its logic. 

[Cadence of the Planes]

ed87 wrote...

This is getting out of control. No ending should take this amount of reading and thinking to understand. The main ideas should be explored in the game with the audience, not outside the game on a forum.

This is bad speculation, not good speculation.

I like the ending without the lengthy explanation.  My explanation involves one word: Indoctrination

[JShepppp]

JamieCOTC wrote...

In the war between chaos and order, chaos always wins. The catalyst and Reapers were doomed from the start. In a very real sense they created Shepard and the means to their own destruction. If the catalyst is omnipotent enough to know that the singularity is inevitable, then he should also know that his failure is also inevitable.

In the game itself, the catalyst admits that his solution is no longer viable because Shepard has found him. Whether or not he could just kill Shepard at this point is unknown, but it doesn't matter. The solution is no longer viable because if one organic can get to him, then it could happen again. The catalyst should have foreseen this event as it is the nature of the oppressed to rebel against their oppressors. His only logical recourse is to let the singularity occur.

Well we never heard the Catalyst say his solution was the only one or that it was the best one, though we can imply the latter. The Catalyst seems a possible solution in the Crucible; Synthesis is obviously it's next best bet and it tries to push this. It doesn't give up on stopping the singularity, so to speak, but it has ceded control over to Shepard. 

Irregardless of whether or not it thought that the invalidity of its solution was inevitable (we may be able to assume that it realized that, given its kind of reasoning), it continued with its solution probably because it thought it was still the best option. Then it's just going to take the next best option, and the next best, and so forth...why it cedes control to Shepard is something that still baffles me to some degree, but I can accept it. I would argue it's even more unlikely for another cycle to get this far because now that the probability of full resistence (Crucible) has been realized, the Catalyst will crack down on things a lot more. They were incredibly sloppy by not controlling the Citadel + relays from the beginning anyways lol. 

[JShepppp]

Cadence of the Planes wrote...

ed87 wrote...

This is getting out of control. No ending should take this amount of reading and thinking to understand. The main ideas should be explored in the game with the audience, not outside the game on a forum.

This is bad speculation, not good speculation.

I like the ending without the lengthy explanation.  My explanation involves one word: Indoctrination

Sorry bro and correct me if I am wrong but I thought Bioware closed that particular door. 

[JShepppp]

JasonShepard wrote...

Jumping back in here for a mo (although I *really* need to stop lurking on BSN with my finals on the horizon...)
@JShepppp (nice username btwB)), some ideas as to why the Catalyst seems to be willing to help Shepard even though it seemingly doesn't like what the Crucible can do. (By help, I'm referring to bringing him up the space-elevator, possibly waking him up and then explaining the different options to him.)
(Also, do we even know if it was the Catalyst that took Shepard up the elevator? There's the obvious question of "Who else could it be?", but on low EMS the Catalyst certainly seems a bit surprised to see Shep: "Why are you here?" Then again, that could just be it's way of gauging Shep's intentions...)


The Catalyst seems to take the perspective of "Anything that can happen will happen if given enough time." This is presumably why the Catalyst is trying to set up the galaxy so that it is impossible for the Singularity to occur - I would say that the Catalyst is 'afraid' of the Singularity. Anyway: Shepard just demonstrated that it was possible to:

A) Construct the Crucible.
Connect the Crucible to the Citadel.
C) (Almost) make his way to the Crucible control center (where we meet the Catalyst).

In short, Shepard just demonstrated that it is possible for organics to break free of the Catalyst's finely constructed cycle. True, Shepard would have failed without the Catalyst's help but - and here's the important part - the next person to come so far might not need the help.

From the Catalyst's perspective, this means that it needs a better solution. Next time, organics might come up with something different, another way that breaks the cycle without the Catalyst even having a say in the matter. So it analyses the Crucible (I'm of the belief that the Catalyst was unaware of the Crucible's existence until Shepard and co. deployed it) and chooses to advise Shepard, hoping to use him and the Crucible to construct a better solution - one that can't be broken quite so easily. It does say that it can't use the Crucible by itself.

This gives the possibility that the Catalyst modified *Destroy* so that it would target all synthetics, and not just the Reapers. Why? Because 'No synthetics in the galaxy and no cycle' is still a better solution than 'Synthetics in the galaxy, but no Reapers and no cycle to keep them in check'.

Control? Of the two basic options, this one would probably appeal more to the Catalyst: get Shep to find a new solution, and give him all your resources. Of course, this does assume that Shep will agree that a solution needs to be found... (but the Catalyst could well be so sure of it's own logic that it can't imagine someone disagreeing that there is even a problem...)

And Synthesis. Of the three choices, this is probably the Catalyst's favourite. I imagine that it wasn't even aware that this was possible until the Crucible was hooked up, otherwise it would have done it before. Furthermore, if we're going with the idea that the Catalyst can modify the Crucible (to a limited amount - see Destroy) it may have even made this solution itself with the new resources available to it.

Anyway, that's some thoughts that have slowly been turning over in my head since originally reading your thread. The main weakness that I can see here is that it doesn't quite fit with the endings where only Destroy is available - I can't see the Catalyst helping that to happen. Bad implementation, or maybe the Catalyst is looking at Destroy as a case of clearing the playing field, going back to square one and trying again...

Lol JasonShepard, cool name to you too bro. 

I've always personally thought that future cycles' successes if this one failed would be much more difficult versus easier because of the "once bitten, twice shy" kind of mentality for the Reapers. They were sloppy this cycle and it shows (i.e. not getting control of the Citadel and relays from the beginning; like even after Batarians/Arcturus/Earth/Palaven/etc.). But you are right to note that since the probability that the Catalyst's solution has failed has kind of been realized, the Catalyst probably cedes over and just admits its solution has failed now.

There also is an argument floating around on the forums that the Crucible forces the Catalyst to send Shepard up, or that the Reapers originally built the Crucible as a way for organics to prove themselves worthy of being free of the cycle and that Synthesis was the ultimate planned function, in which case the Catalyst would naturally help ascend Shepard. And all the options are available because if organics make it that far, they deserve to have complete control over the Reapers' fate - destroy, control, or end the cycles and do synthesis. All from the point of view of the Catalyst/Reapers and/or its/their creators. 

If we just assume that SOMEHOW the Catalyst decides to cede to Shepard (forced to, reasons that it's for the best, etc.), then you're right to suggest that the Destroy option is a weird thing for it to offer. I have no idea of how that fits in other than from a gameplay/plot perspective. 

Your point that it probably modified Destroy to make it a less appealing one is an interesting one. But then again, as you note, it's weird to do that because the easiest thing to do would be to not tell Shepard about it. Or, if it's so worried that Shepard might, being a machine and all, it should probably just let Shepard die instead. Confusing, confusing. 

Modifié par JShepppp, 25 avril 2012 - 11:20 .

[Cadence of the Planes]

JShepppp wrote...

Cadence of the Planes wrote...

ed87 wrote...

This is getting out of control. No ending should take this amount of reading and thinking to understand. The main ideas should be explored in the game with the audience, not outside the game on a forum.

This is bad speculation, not good speculation.

I like the ending without the lengthy explanation.  My explanation involves one word: Indoctrination

Sorry bro and correct me if I am wrong but I thought Bioware closed that particular door. 

Hi bro.

Not sure if they did - it's been brought up, but no one ever links the announcement. Rumor? 

Bioware has largely avoided talking about specifics both pertaining to the ending as well as the DLC, so it wouldn't make much sense for them to already negate speculation.

[JShepppp]

Cadence of the Planes wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

Cadence of the Planes wrote...

ed87 wrote...

This is getting out of control. No ending should take this amount of reading and thinking to understand. The main ideas should be explored in the game with the audience, not outside the game on a forum.

This is bad speculation, not good speculation.

I like the ending without the lengthy explanation.  My explanation involves one word: Indoctrination

Sorry bro and correct me if I am wrong but I thought Bioware closed that particular door. 

Hi bro.

Not sure if they did - it's been brought up, but no one ever links the announcement. Rumor? 

Bioware has largely avoided talking about specifics both pertaining to the ending as well as the DLC, so it wouldn't make much sense for them to already negate speculation.

I think there was some twitter quote or something (pic is floating around buried somewhere in the forums) where basically they "clarify" a bit that the Extended Cut DLC will show how the galaxy is after each option. The implication there was that Destroy can have shepard live but like Control or something might be better for the entirer galaxy in general (rebuild relays) and stuff. So I guess it was more of a strong implication that the endings were to be taken at face value and they'll expand upon them after, rather than Destroy being the only real ending. 

So you're right in a technical sense definitely, they did not come outright and say it's false. But I'm GUESSING that they were saying the endings should be taken at face value. 

I tried looking but can't find the thread(s) where that twitter screenshot is. If anyone else could clarify this more (link, just simply talk more about it), that'd be appreciated. 

[Zolt51]

ed87 wrote...

This is getting out of control. No ending should take this amount of reading and thinking to understand. The main ideas should be explored in the game with the audience, not outside the game on a forum.

This is bad speculation, not good speculation.

I think you're overstating the importance of the "Catalyst's logic" on the ending. It's only really important in Synthesis ending, and even there, you can just choose this ending because, hey, man machine singularity is cool. Just like you can dismiss it because you think it's abhorrent.

In the Control and Destruction ending, the whole cycle thing, Synthetic vs organic conflict and stuff has no relevance. None at all. You have considered the question and dismissed it as unimportant. You only concern is to stop the reapers and you're looking for the best way to do that. You can skip the whole catalyst scene in fact, and these 2 endings make just as much sense (or not, depending on your P.O.V)

Modifié par Zolt51, 27 avril 2012 - 02:19 .

[JShepppp]

Zolt51 wrote...

ed87 wrote...

This is getting out of control. No ending should take this amount of reading and thinking to understand. The main ideas should be explored in the game with the audience, not outside the game on a forum.

This is bad speculation, not good speculation.

I think you're overstating the importance of the "Catalyst's logic" on the ending. It's only really important in Synthesis ending, and even there, you can just choose this ending because, hey, man machine singularity is cool. Just like you can dismiss it because you think it's abhorrent.

In the Control and Destruction ending, the whole cycle thing, Synthetic vs organic conflict and stuff has no relevance. None at all. You have considered the question and dismissed it as unimportant. You only concern is to stop the reapers and you're looking for the best way to do that. You can skip the whole catalyst scene in fact, and these 2 endings make just as much sense (or not, depending on your P.O.V)

True that. Very possible to ignore it. I've always thought it's truthfulness and logic, while an interestic point academically (in my opinion), is actually irrelevant in practicality for firing the Crucible because (a) Shepard has all the power and ( the galaxy is screwed otherwise. I started a thread about it in my sig. 

The ending is completely open to interpretation and you can do whatever you want with the Crucible no matter what the Catalyst tells you. We have to take Shepard's apparent plot immunity as granted for this, but I suppose we can make concessions for stories lol. 

[Dragoni89]

5. But...the Catalyst is justifying genocide!

It doesn't view it as genocide. It believes it's preserving them before they reach inevitable destruction and it also believes it's making way for new life. Of course, it is genocide to us. A side note: Javik reveals the Prothean empire would have either enslaved or eradicated humanity, indicating that it was, ironically and cruelly, the Reapers that saved us from being subjugated to their empire.

^ This is completely wrong. If we go back to the speeches with Javik. He says his people learned about the machines very early in their cycle. Their policies were adopted in order to combat the reapers. Reapers actually influenced how the Porthens viewed machines and how they should govern their empire. The probelm again is the REAPERS and the Catalyst. They negatively affecting society. Why would the prothens be kind to AI when they know about the reapers ( this is stated in the game when he says the prothens learned about the reapers from the inusuna what ever can't spell it). This would contribute to major factor why the prothens gone to war with the machines.

Shepard agrees with catalyst is just stupid. Suddenly you agree with the reapers.
You can't justify killing people when the percentage you are saving is far less than the amount you killed.

Technology has never reached a stage where an AI has destroyed organics besides the reapers. Humans slowly began merge with technology, so I don't see how the machines would be more powerful, when humans start upgrading themselves. Enhanced strength, super speed, anything is possible. Who is know the direction technology would take us. But AI over power humans obviously no. The reapers are only winning because humanity does possess the same technology that created the reapers. If we had reaper classed guns ships, this war would have ended ages ago.

Modifié par Dragoni89, 27 avril 2012 - 02:40 .

[Iluvantir]

And this argument is based on a theory that we will tend to a technological singularity; that our creations will then overtake us. In other shows or games, OTHER "theories" are used, where the organic evolves beyond anything that a synthetic can get to - think the Vorlons and Shadows from Babylon 5.

What they are doing here is picking a theory that can ONLY support AI supremacy and disregard organic ascendancy. In almost all other sci-fi shows that somehow deal with this (Doctor Who, Star Trek, Star Wars (in part, you have to look for it), Babylon 5) then the ascendancy of life is not based on "just" being anything. Data or Picard could ascend. Sheridan or the living computor on the world B5 orbits could... etc.

The fault is not so much in the Star-brat's logic as 1) the explaination and 2) the deliberate ignoring of 'evolutionary possibility. Who is to say if the Reapers had been stopping all AIs instead that the organics of the time wouldn't have transended to a purely energy based form and left the galaxy for the next generation? Who's to say that AI's wouldn't do so either at this "technological singularity"? Both are theories on the possible future and the latter has never happened to validate what the Star-Brat is doing! He's acting on a theory, not a fact. Fear not fact!

Shepard wouldn't buy into this. That is one of my biggest beefs with this end