1057 réponses à ce sujet

[Sh0dan]

I guess the point is that the current ending(s) invalidates many of the choices and their consequences in the game.

Mass Effect has always pretended more the "illusion of choice" than offering actual choice. The game does so well commenting your decisions, but your choices have never changed the mainstory's narratives. Just imagine the nerdrage in case of getting an "unwanted and horrible" ending because of one small decision that you have made in ME1. Therefore bringing this final choice in the end isn't a bad solution. Nevertheless Bioware could have put more effort in the ending render sequence. Three colours and some slightly different scenes aren't enough.

All people that expected a massive impact of their choices fooled themselves.


Complaints about the introduction of the catalyst are a bit off as well. This child has been introduced in the first ten minutes of the game and kept being an element of Shepard's dreams through the entire game. Honestly, it doesn't matter who exactly the catalyst is. He's just there to speed up the story and fullfil Shepard's final choice.
His concept is similar to the Reapers. The less the player knows, the better.

Modifié par Sh0dan, 30 avril 2012 - 04:08 .

[incinerator950]

Sh0dan wrote...

I guess the point is that the current ending(s) invalidates many of the choices and their consequences in the game.

Mass Effect has always pretended more the "illusion of choice" than offering actual choice. The game does so well commenting your decisions, but your choices have never changed the mainstory's narratives. Just imagine the nerdrage in case of getting an "unwanted and horrible" ending because of one small decision that you have made in ME1. Therefore bringing this final choice in the end solution isn't bad. Nevertheless Bioware could have put more effort in the ending render sequence. Three colours and some slightly different scenes aren't enough.

All people that expected a massive impact of their choices fooled themselves.

I came in here thinking to say something similar, but you practically hit the nail on the head.

[Controller_B]

Sh0dan wrote...

Mass Effect has always pretended more the "illusion of choice" than offering actual choice. The game does so well commenting your decisions, but your choices have never changed the mainstory's narratives. Just imagine the nerdrage in case of getting an "unwanted and horrible" ending because of one small decision that you have made in ME1. Therefore bringing this final choice in the end solution isn't bad.

Insomuch as every gaming narrative has an illusion of choice, this is true, but the fact is, if you break that illusion then you screwed up as a writer.

A problem Mass Effect 3 faced is that it wanted to be able to sell to people that had never played the first two games. Which means the decisions in previous games necessarily had to be superficial. That's a conscious decision that Bioware made. If it annoyed people that played the early games, then that's Bioware's fault, as no one forced them to make that decision. It's not like it was impossible for them to make tons of endings, they just didn't do it. There's a difference between having a bad ending because your decision making process was wrong, and having a bad ending because you were forced into it. Both issues might cause nerdrage, but only one is going to ****** everyone off.

[LKx]

The catalist is the technological singularity! Nuke him!

[marky1607]

Hello fans!

My first post here. This subject looks to be the right one for the following observation. We're discussing Catalysts logic. We don't know very much who or what Catalyst is but I'm making my observation derived from fact that he is controlling the Reapers who are sentient machines (or to be more accurate organic/synthetic hybrids). We can conclude that Catalysts logic is embedded in Reapers and they do their thing every 50000 years because of the reasons we all are familiar with. But what kind of computer logic is this where you repeat a cycle and do every time the same thing without questioning conditions and variables. Without reassessing your environment and making sure that conditions necessary for decisions haven't changed. This logic is flaud. Somebody already wrote that circular logic is flaud logic and I totally agree with that observation. From software programming point of view (hence, mathematical logic). I mean, let's program a simple loop in any programming language. If you want to do something constructive with this loop, you need to reassess the conditions every time inside the loop (at the beginning, middle or the end). If not, you just looping endlessly, without any good result. This doesn't make any sense and it is pretty unbelievable that this kind of logic should be basis for somebody's long term solution to universe spanning conundrum. If Reaper creator (Catalyst) was first civilization to reach to problems with synthetics, this was the best solution they could come up?! For me, this is very unbelievable course of events.

Additionally, I agree with the rest of you that argue that this case cannot be reevaluated and changed if organics and synthetics find the way to coexist (like geth and quarians) - hence the circular logic from beginning of my post and computer behavior that doesn't reassess the conditions. And no, I don't see the Crucible as means that jumps in to alternate that "flaud" computer logic because the Reapers themselves should have full situational awareness programmed in them and they should react differently if certain conditions in galaxy are changed and there is no need to reap organic life to ultimately stop synthetic life.

Another subject I'd like to point out, but this is more philosophical. Sovereign and Harbinger multiple times point out that organic life is a coincidental, that it has no purpose in grand scheme of universe and that synthetics are pinnacle of evolution. But, without sentient, advanced and intelligent organic life, there would be no synthetic life. Advanced organic life is necessary so that synthetics can be created. If for no other reason, this is the purpose of organic life (to create synthetics) and any sentient machine would observe his creator in this way. Entirely new question is that would those sentient machines rebelled against their creators and why (there should always be a base for morality - Asimovs laws of robotics). My point on this subject is also that Reapers reasoning has somewhat poor basis in their perspective of organic life.

My third observation is about Synthesis ending. I won't argue is it good or bad. In some cases it looks like a compromise in the situation as it is given in the game and it looks like the best option for everyone, but boy does it have issues. Not philosophical, but biological and technical. How could you, with any plausible explanation in our universe, with our physical set of rules, rewrite DNA code of whole life to include synthetic and biological elements. DNA is based on combination of amino acids creating proteins etc. and that is basis of what we know as life. Deep down, could we rewrite DNA to include synthetic, non-organic elements?! I thinks not, such biological structure is unstable and could not be possible. Yes, you can hook up hardware elements on living tissue or replace organic elements with synthetic to improve capabilities of organic being, but theory that combines the two in living, self sustaining organism is too far fetched for me. I see many parallels between Reapers and Borg from Star Trek but this is one that Borg haven't tried and their offspring was always grown from beginning as organic life and improved with implants later on in some early stages of infant body development. But it's very hard to imagine that life could be intertwined with synthetic elements on DNA level. Such idea has many issues on biological level that cannot be broken in our universe with given set of rules.

I think that first two reasons alone contradict Catalysts logic or at least make it not very logical. So, I find whole explanation that Bioware choose for the ending very poor and the hole they need to patch up is still pretty big. Still, the game rocks from beginning to the end. I don't see the ending all that bad with given choices but I still think that Shepard can have the fourth choice and that is to fight conventionally. That would be totally in sync with his character. And also, there are to many loose story tails. That will, hopefully, be remedied with DLC, and I'll hold my final judgement until I see the Extended Cut DLC.

[incinerator950]

Controller_B wrote...

Sh0dan wrote...

Mass Effect has always pretended more the "illusion of choice" than offering actual choice. The game does so well commenting your decisions, but your choices have never changed the mainstory's narratives. Just imagine the nerdrage in case of getting an "unwanted and horrible" ending because of one small decision that you have made in ME1. Therefore bringing this final choice in the end solution isn't bad.

Insomuch as every gaming narrative has an illusion of choice, this is true, but the fact is, if you break that illusion then you screwed up as a writer.

A problem Mass Effect 3 faced is that it wanted to be able to sell to people that had never played the first two games. Which means the decisions in previous games necessarily had to be superficial. That's a conscious decision that Bioware made. If it annoyed people that played the early games, then that's Bioware's fault, as no one forced them to make that decision. It's not like it was impossible for them to make tons of endings, they just didn't do it. There's a difference between having a bad ending because your decision making process was wrong, and having a bad ending because you were forced into it. Both issues might cause nerdrage, but only one is going to ****** everyone off.

I wouldn't go too far into that.  They didn't exactly cater to the new people over the old people either.  More then using that, they played too safely with the game.  Oh, also that deadline with EA forcing them to rush a lot of scenes and that last hour and a half of gameplay.  

[paralitos]

nice post OP just read it now a little late

[Subject M]

Sh0dan wrote...

I guess the point is that the current ending(s) invalidates many of the choices and their consequences in the game.

Mass Effect has always pretended more the "illusion of choice" than offering actual choice. The game does so well commenting your decisions, but your choices have never changed the mainstory's narratives. Just imagine the nerdrage in case of getting an "unwanted and horrible" ending because of one small decision that you have made in ME1. Therefore bringing this final choice in the end isn't a bad solution. Nevertheless Bioware could have put more effort in the ending render sequence. Three colours and some slightly different scenes aren't enough.

All people that expected a massive impact of their choices fooled themselves.


Complaints about the introduction of the catalyst are a bit off as well. This child has been introduced in the first ten minutes of the game and kept being an element of Shepard's dreams through the entire game. Honestly, it doesn't matter who exactly the catalyst is. He's just there to speed up the story and fullfil Shepard's final choice.
His concept is similar to the Reapers. The less the player knows, the better.

Getting an "unwanted and horrible" ending because of one small decision that you have made in ME1 is of course not something we want, but that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to a narrative that gives the player a sense of agency and being able to be part of a fictive community that makes a significant and satisfying difference in the outcome of that narrative.
Role-playing games rely on the notion that the player has some type of agency be it based on action or pre-determined choice. The point is that the gaming experience should reflect the choices and wishes of the player in a satisfying way by lining up the narrative points and choices in a way you as a player actively influence them to line up within the story. The catalyst and the ending does not line up well at all, and that is why people are upset and why it is bad from a narrative and rpg point of view.

Modifié par Subject M, 30 avril 2012 - 04:54 .

[Tritium315]

Everything has a non-zero possibility; it doesn't mean everything will happen.

Whatever the synthetic master race is could accidentally create a virus that wipes them all out, and since by your logic anything that can happen will happen then this will eventually occur and wipe out all synthetics. This will in turn allow for organics to evolve from nothing once again (or however the first organics came to be), and rule the galaxy.

So there you go, on a long enough timeline the galaxy will experience periods of synthetic and organic rule, if war is inevitable.

[Psychlonus]

Sh0dan wrote...

I guess the point is that the current ending(s) invalidates many of the choices and their consequences in the game.

Mass Effect has always pretended more the "illusion of choice" than offering actual choice. The game does so well commenting your decisions, but your choices have never changed the mainstory's narratives. Just imagine the nerdrage in case of getting an "unwanted and horrible" ending because of one small decision that you have made in ME1. Therefore bringing this final choice in the end isn't a bad solution. Nevertheless Bioware could have put more effort in the ending render sequence. Three colours and some slightly different scenes aren't enough.

All people that expected a massive impact of their choices fooled themselves.


Complaints about the introduction of the catalyst are a bit off as well. This child has been introduced in the first ten minutes of the game and kept being an element of Shepard's dreams through the entire game. Honestly, it doesn't matter who exactly the catalyst is. He's just there to speed up the story and fullfil Shepard's final choice.
His concept is similar to the Reapers. The less the player knows, the better.

This isn't the case with Bioware's Knights Of The Old Republic or other jedi games. You get vastly different endings.

[Sh0dan]

Getting an "unwanted and horrible" ending because of one small decision that you have made in ME1 is of course not something we want, but that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to a narrative that gives the player a sense of agency and being able to be part of a fictive community that makes a significant and satisfying difference in the outcome of that narrative.
Role-playing games rely on the notion that the player has some type of agency be it based on action or pre-determined choice. The point is that the gaming experience should reflect the choices and wishes of the player in a satisfying way by lining up the narrative points and choices in a way you as a player actively influence them to line up within the story. The catalyst and the ending does not line up well at all, and that is why people are upset and why it is bad from a narrative and rpg point of view.

The final choice of Mass Effect 3 is on a completely new level compared to all your other choices. Letting some scientist live his negligible life shouldn't have an impact on defeating the Reapers. Let's face it: even the Genophage and Quarian conflict are minor issues compared to the Reaper threat.
Legion and Tali are best friends now. Does it matter? The Reapers cannot be beaten conventionally, therefore the additional military support isn't a big deal.
The triviality of all these decisions is actually pretty consistent with the concept of the Reapers. The destruction of all advanced races is inevitable, the cycle cannot be broken and there's no way to beat the reapers in a classical war. Only a Deus Ex Machina - the Catalyst -  can speed up and end the story without breaking all lore rules set up by ME 1&2.

All this hate on the "space brat",  "space child" and all his other nicknames is the result of having to crush the player's expectations in the end. A few players even demand fighting and beating the Reapers conventionally. It's obvious here, that Bioware overwhelmed (intellectually) a part of its fanbase.
The public drama and typical internet herd behaviour did the rest.

Modifié par Sh0dan, 30 avril 2012 - 07:15 .

[Controller_B]

Sh0dan wrote...

The final choice of Mass Effect 3 is on a completely new level compared to all your other choices. Letting some scientist live his negligible life shouldn't have an impact on defeating the Reapers. Let's face it: even the Genophage and Quarian conflict are minor issues compared to the Reaper threat.
Legion and Tali are best friends now. Does it matter? The Reapers cannot be beaten conventionally, therefore the additional military support isn't a big deal.
The triviality of all these decisions is actually pretty consistent with the concept of the Reapers. The destruction of all advanced races is inevitable, the cycle cannot be broken and there's no way to beat the reapers in a classical war. Only a Deus Ex Machina - the Catalyst -  can speed up and end the story without breaking all lore rules set up by ME 1&2.

All this hate on the "space brat",  "space child" and all his other nicknames is the result of having to crush the player's expectations in the end. A few players even demand fighting and beating the Reapers conventionally. It's obvious here, that Bioware overwhelmed (intellectually) a part of its fanbase.
The public drama and typical internet herd behaviour did the rest.

Deus Ex Machina exists when a writer isn't smart enough to overcome his own plot buildup. There's nothing intellectual or inevitable about it. The natural arc of the story is that the Reapers win. Using an all powerful being to subvert that arc is lazy.

[xconceptualx]

Sh0dan wrote...

Getting an "unwanted and horrible" ending because of one small decision that you have made in ME1 is of course not something we want, but that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to a narrative that gives the player a sense of agency and being able to be part of a fictive community that makes a significant and satisfying difference in the outcome of that narrative.
Role-playing games rely on the notion that the player has some type of agency be it based on action or pre-determined choice. The point is that the gaming experience should reflect the choices and wishes of the player in a satisfying way by lining up the narrative points and choices in a way you as a player actively influence them to line up within the story. The catalyst and the ending does not line up well at all, and that is why people are upset and why it is bad from a narrative and rpg point of view.

The final choice of Mass Effect 3 is on a completely new level compared to all your other choices. Letting some scientist live his negligible life shouldn't have an impact on defeating the Reapers. Let's face it: even the Genophage and Quarian conflict are minor issues compared to the Reaper threat.
Legion and Tali are best friends now. Does it matter? The Reapers cannot be beaten conventionally, therefore the additional military support isn't a big deal.
The triviality of all these decisions is actually pretty consistent with the concept of the Reapers. The destruction of all advanced races is inevitable, the cycle cannot be broken and there's no way to beat the reapers in a classical war. Only a Deus Ex Machina - the Catalyst -  can speed up and end the story without breaking all lore rules set up by ME 1&2.

All this hate on the "space brat",  "space child" and all his other nicknames is the result of having to crush the player's expectations in the end. A few players even demand fighting and beating the Reapers conventionally. It's obvious here, that Bioware overwhelmed (intellectually) a part of its fanbase.
The public drama and typical internet herd behaviour did the rest.

Well said.

[Subject M]

Sh0dan wrote...

Getting an "unwanted and horrible" ending because of one small decision that you have made in ME1 is of course not something we want, but that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to a narrative that gives the player a sense of agency and being able to be part of a fictive community that makes a significant and satisfying difference in the outcome of that narrative.
Role-playing games rely on the notion that the player has some type of agency be it based on action or pre-determined choice. The point is that the gaming experience should reflect the choices and wishes of the player in a satisfying way by lining up the narrative points and choices in a way you as a player actively influence them to line up within the story. The catalyst and the ending does not line up well at all, and that is why people are upset and why it is bad from a narrative and rpg point of view.

The final choice of Mass Effect 3 is on a completely new level compared to all your other choices. Letting some scientist live his negligible life shouldn't have an impact on defeating the Reapers. Let's face it: even the Genophage and Quarian conflict are minor issues compared to the Reaper threat.
Legion and Tali are best friends now. Does it matter? The Reapers cannot be beaten conventionally, therefore the additional military support isn't a big deal.
The triviality of all these decisions is actually pretty consistent with the concept of the Reapers. The destruction of all advanced races is inevitable, the cycle cannot be broken and there's no way to beat the reapers in a classical war. Only a Deus Ex Machina - the Catalyst -  can speed up and end the story without breaking all lore rules set up by ME 1&2.

All this hate on the "space brat",  "space child" and all his other nicknames is the result of having to crush the player's expectations in the end. A few players even demand fighting and beating the Reapers conventionally. It's obvious here, that Bioware overwhelmed (intellectually) a part of its fanbase.
The public drama and typical internet herd behaviour did the rest.

Yes, its on another level. But it is still totally out of the left field and nothing of what you have achieved matters to the outcome.

The Quarian and Geth situation means two major things: 1. Sword can buy Shepard more time if the force is stronger, which can prove invaluable in being able to neutralize the reaper threat through other means then convectional ones. 2. If the quarians and Geth make peace, it invalidates the ”proof” the reaper on Rannoch is rambling about and casts doubt  on the catalyst logic.

They could easily have had the catalyst stating that the cycle is broken given what had been achieved at in the game, that the universe had ”evolved” step by step, due to the struggle of life under the harsh guardianship of the Reapers.
For what constitutes a satisfying ending in this context is one that reflects the agency of the main character and the events within the story itself. And an ending that almost solely relies on, and refers to ”untouchable” information that is largely ”outside” of the narrative results in what most people would see as a poor ending.

I made a thread where I touch on some of these issues here social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/9961224/1

Modifié par Subject M, 30 avril 2012 - 09:26 .

[Tritium315]

Sh0dan wrote...

Getting an "unwanted and horrible" ending because of one small decision that you have made in ME1 is of course not something we want, but that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to a narrative that gives the player a sense of agency and being able to be part of a fictive community that makes a significant and satisfying difference in the outcome of that narrative.
Role-playing games rely on the notion that the player has some type of agency be it based on action or pre-determined choice. The point is that the gaming experience should reflect the choices and wishes of the player in a satisfying way by lining up the narrative points and choices in a way you as a player actively influence them to line up within the story. The catalyst and the ending does not line up well at all, and that is why people are upset and why it is bad from a narrative and rpg point of view.

The final choice of Mass Effect 3 is on a completely new level compared to all your other choices. Letting some scientist live his negligible life shouldn't have an impact on defeating the Reapers. Let's face it: even the Genophage and Quarian conflict are minor issues compared to the Reaper threat.
Legion and Tali are best friends now. Does it matter? The Reapers cannot be beaten conventionally, therefore the additional military support isn't a big deal.
The triviality of all these decisions is actually pretty consistent with the concept of the Reapers. The destruction of all advanced races is inevitable, the cycle cannot be broken and there's no way to beat the reapers in a classical war. Only a Deus Ex Machina - the Catalyst -  can speed up and end the story without breaking all lore rules set up by ME 1&2.

All this hate on the "space brat",  "space child" and all his other nicknames is the result of having to crush the player's expectations in the end. A few players even demand fighting and beating the Reapers conventionally. It's obvious here, that Bioware overwhelmed (intellectually) a part of its fanbase.
The public drama and typical internet herd behaviour did the rest.

Why can't the Reapers be beat conventionally?

Simply saying they can't doesn't make it so. This is a fictional story and anything, within reason, is possible, and if a Diablos Ex Machina in the 11th hour is within reason then so should beating the Reapers conventionally. To say the current ending is the only way they can tie up the trilogy without "breaking the lore" is assinine as the current ending manages to break not only the lore but the plot, all sense of immersion, and basic concepts of science (a new DNA, really?). The ending is nothing more than bad writing, period.

[Subject M]

Tritium315 wrote...

Sh0dan wrote...

Getting an "unwanted and horrible" ending because of one small decision that you have made in ME1 is of course not something we want, but that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to a narrative that gives the player a sense of agency and being able to be part of a fictive community that makes a significant and satisfying difference in the outcome of that narrative.
Role-playing games rely on the notion that the player has some type of agency be it based on action or pre-determined choice. The point is that the gaming experience should reflect the choices and wishes of the player in a satisfying way by lining up the narrative points and choices in a way you as a player actively influence them to line up within the story. The catalyst and the ending does not line up well at all, and that is why people are upset and why it is bad from a narrative and rpg point of view.

The final choice of Mass Effect 3 is on a completely new level compared to all your other choices. Letting some scientist live his negligible life shouldn't have an impact on defeating the Reapers. Let's face it: even the Genophage and Quarian conflict are minor issues compared to the Reaper threat.
Legion and Tali are best friends now. Does it matter? The Reapers cannot be beaten conventionally, therefore the additional military support isn't a big deal.
The triviality of all these decisions is actually pretty consistent with the concept of the Reapers. The destruction of all advanced races is inevitable, the cycle cannot be broken and there's no way to beat the reapers in a classical war. Only a Deus Ex Machina - the Catalyst -  can speed up and end the story without breaking all lore rules set up by ME 1&2.

All this hate on the "space brat",  "space child" and all his other nicknames is the result of having to crush the player's expectations in the end. A few players even demand fighting and beating the Reapers conventionally. It's obvious here, that Bioware overwhelmed (intellectually) a part of its fanbase.
The public drama and typical internet herd behaviour did the rest.

Why can't the Reapers be beat conventionally?

Simply saying they can't doesn't make it so. This is a fictional story and anything, within reason, is possible, and if a Diablos Ex Machina in the 11th hour is within reason then so should beating the Reapers conventionally. To say the current ending is the only way they can tie up the trilogy without "breaking the lore" is assinine as the current ending manages to break not only the lore but the plot, all sense of immersion, and basic concepts of science (a new DNA, really?). The ending is nothing more than bad writing, period.

I think its quite clear that the reapers can not be beaten conventionally. Its sated many times in the game and its not their narrative function.

[Tritium315]

Subject M wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

Sh0dan wrote...

Getting an "unwanted and horrible" ending because of one small decision that you have made in ME1 is of course not something we want, but that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to a narrative that gives the player a sense of agency and being able to be part of a fictive community that makes a significant and satisfying difference in the outcome of that narrative.
Role-playing games rely on the notion that the player has some type of agency be it based on action or pre-determined choice. The point is that the gaming experience should reflect the choices and wishes of the player in a satisfying way by lining up the narrative points and choices in a way you as a player actively influence them to line up within the story. The catalyst and the ending does not line up well at all, and that is why people are upset and why it is bad from a narrative and rpg point of view.

The final choice of Mass Effect 3 is on a completely new level compared to all your other choices. Letting some scientist live his negligible life shouldn't have an impact on defeating the Reapers. Let's face it: even the Genophage and Quarian conflict are minor issues compared to the Reaper threat.
Legion and Tali are best friends now. Does it matter? The Reapers cannot be beaten conventionally, therefore the additional military support isn't a big deal.
The triviality of all these decisions is actually pretty consistent with the concept of the Reapers. The destruction of all advanced races is inevitable, the cycle cannot be broken and there's no way to beat the reapers in a classical war. Only a Deus Ex Machina - the Catalyst -  can speed up and end the story without breaking all lore rules set up by ME 1&2.

All this hate on the "space brat",  "space child" and all his other nicknames is the result of having to crush the player's expectations in the end. A few players even demand fighting and beating the Reapers conventionally. It's obvious here, that Bioware overwhelmed (intellectually) a part of its fanbase.
The public drama and typical internet herd behaviour did the rest.

Why can't the Reapers be beat conventionally?

Simply saying they can't doesn't make it so. This is a fictional story and anything, within reason, is possible, and if a Diablos Ex Machina in the 11th hour is within reason then so should beating the Reapers conventionally. To say the current ending is the only way they can tie up the trilogy without "breaking the lore" is assinine as the current ending manages to break not only the lore but the plot, all sense of immersion, and basic concepts of science (a new DNA, really?). The ending is nothing more than bad writing, period.

I think its quite clear that the reapers can not be beaten conventionally. Its sated many times in the game and its not their narrative function.

Because the ending of a game can't invalidate previously stated information right? Like how the entire first game was about Sovereign not being able to activate the citadel when, oh wait, the citadel was the king of the reapers, so why did he even need to hang around and activate it. Something like that would never happen.

Or how about how the original rachni wars (1000+ years ago) was Sovereign's first attempt at getting at the citadel, and when that failed he schemed for god knows how long, until mass effect 1. And when that plan failed the reapers tried using the collectors, and when THAT plan failed they just rolled in conventionally over the course of what, a few months? No, a game would never go against what has been previously stated, that'd be unheard of.

You can't defend the ending by saying other endings would go against one aspect of the lore/narrative when the ending you're defending butchers several others. Fact of the matter is conventionally beating the Reapers makes a hell of a lot more sense than what we got, especially since the entire third game has everyone (in particular Javik) saying how this cycle is special and how we are more prepared than ever for the Reaper invasion and how we might actually stand a chance.

As for narrative function, that's the same cop out as "artistic integrity." The Reaper's original "narrative function" was to be unknown massacre machines that killed simply because; no explanation required. They were space Cthulhu's; robotic eldritch abominations that simply existed to end lives, and it was our mission to find some way to defeat them. Bioware butchered that "narrative function" by giving them a purpose, and a ****ty one that's out of left field at that. If Sovereign, in your very first conversation way back in ME1, had stated things like "you don't understand Shepard, we are here to preserve you, protect you from your own demise." then you'd have a point. Unfortunately for your argument, what Sovereign actually said was "We are eternal. The pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything." and "Your words are as empty as your future. I am the Vanguard of your destruction." Yea, that really sounds like someone trying to save us from ourselves.

Modifié par Tritium315, 30 avril 2012 - 09:56 .

[jotun04]

The catalyst says that Shepard making it so far proves that his solution won't work anymore..

Why?

It just means they need to clean up a little better so that the next cycle doesn't have the crucible plans.

[Tritium315]

jotun04 wrote...

The catalyst says that Shepard making it so far proves that his solution won't work anymore..

Why?

It just means they need to clean up a little better so that the next cycle doesn't have the crucible plans.

Harbinger and Marauder Shields' ****ty aim proves the Catalyst's solution will no longer work; makes sense right?

[JShepppp]

marky1607 wrote...

Hello fans!

My first post here. This subject looks to be the right one for the following observation. We're discussing Catalysts logic. We don't know very much who or what Catalyst is but I'm making my observation derived from fact that he is controlling the Reapers who are sentient machines (or to be more accurate organic/synthetic hybrids). We can conclude that Catalysts logic is embedded in Reapers and they do their thing every 50000 years because of the reasons we all are familiar with. But what kind of computer logic is this where you repeat a cycle and do every time the same thing without questioning conditions and variables. Without reassessing your environment and making sure that conditions necessary for decisions haven't changed. This logic is flaud. Somebody already wrote that circular logic is flaud logic and I totally agree with that observation. From software programming point of view (hence, mathematical logic). I mean, let's program a simple loop in any programming language. If you want to do something constructive with this loop, you need to reassess the conditions every time inside the loop (at the beginning, middle or the end). If not, you just looping endlessly, without any good result. This doesn't make any sense and it is pretty unbelievable that this kind of logic should be basis for somebody's long term solution to universe spanning conundrum. If Reaper creator (Catalyst) was first civilization to reach to problems with synthetics, this was the best solution they could come up?! For me, this is very unbelievable course of events.

Welcome to BSN dude, glad to have you here. As for how the Catalyst/Reapers were created, I have no idea at all. As for looping, the idea is to stop it from continuing and reaching a certain point. The loop itself doesn't seem to be a problem to them for some reason, though you're right - the stagnation that it invites is weird for machines to accept. 

Additionally, I agree with the rest of you that argue that this case cannot be reevaluated and changed if organics and synthetics find the way to coexist (like geth and quarians) - hence the circular logic from beginning of my post and computer behavior that doesn't reassess the conditions. And no, I don't see the Crucible as means that jumps in to alternate that "flaud" computer logic because the Reapers themselves should have full situational awareness programmed in them and they should react differently if certain conditions in galaxy are changed and there is no need to reap organic life to ultimately stop synthetic life.

I'm sorry if I don't understand here, but it sounds like you're saying the geth/quarians are irrelevant (Catalyst's opinion) but that it should still reassess its solution. That sounds contradictory so I think I'm misunderstanding something. 

About Reapers being fully aware and autonomous, the Catalyst has control over them, though we don't know if it's their thoughts, actions, or both. 

Another subject I'd like to point out, but this is more philosophical. Sovereign and Harbinger multiple times point out that organic life is a coincidental, that it has no purpose in grand scheme of universe and that synthetics are pinnacle of evolution. But, without sentient, advanced and intelligent organic life, there would be no synthetic life. Advanced organic life is necessary so that synthetics can be created. If for no other reason, this is the purpose of organic life (to create synthetics) and any sentient machine would observe his creator in this way. Entirely new question is that would those sentient machines rebelled against their creators and why (there should always be a base for morality - Asimovs laws of robotics). My point on this subject is also that Reapers reasoning has somewhat poor basis in their perspective of organic life.

True. But it could also be the same way we view bacteria or normal animals that we eat/herd. They are lower evolutions that eventually somehow must've lead to our evolution but we don't necessarily have to thank them or respect them for it. As for synthetic morality, the Reapers' morality is dominated by the Catalyst and its views while morality beyond the singularity is completely unknown. The Catalyst seems to be unwilling to take that chance of the unknown.

My third observation is about Synthesis ending. I won't argue is it good or bad. In some cases it looks like a compromise in the situation as it is given in the game and it looks like the best option for everyone, but boy does it have issues. Not philosophical, but biological and technical. How could you, with any plausible explanation in our universe, with our physical set of rules, rewrite DNA code of whole life to include synthetic and biological elements. DNA is based on combination of amino acids creating proteins etc. and that is basis of what we know as life. Deep down, could we rewrite DNA to include synthetic, non-organic elements?! I thinks not, such biological structure is unstable and could not be possible. Yes, you can hook up hardware elements on living tissue or replace organic elements with synthetic to improve capabilities of organic being, but theory that combines the two in living, self sustaining organism is too far fetched for me. I see many parallels between Reapers and Borg from Star Trek but this is one that Borg haven't tried and their offspring was always grown from beginning as organic life and improved with implants later on in some early stages of infant body development. But it's very hard to imagine that life could be intertwined with synthetic elements on DNA level. Such idea has many issues on biological level that cannot be broken in our universe with given set of rules.

No idea how Synthesis works lol. Completely different realm of speculation that could be (and actually has in several cases) its own thread. The Catalyst believes it will eliminate the singularity, though, and that's all that matters from its logic. But you're right. Nothing so far in ME has had that kind of capability.

I think that first two reasons alone contradict Catalysts logic or at least make it not very logical. So, I find whole explanation that Bioware choose for the ending very poor and the hole they need to patch up is still pretty big. Still, the game rocks from beginning to the end. I don't see the ending all that bad with given choices but I still think that Shepard can have the fourth choice and that is to fight conventionally. That would be totally in sync with his character. And also, there are to many loose story tails. That will, hopefully, be remedied with DLC, and I'll hold my final judgement until I see the Extended Cut DLC.

I agree. The game itself was good and the ending could use some work. I'm hopeful for the DLC. And if it doesn't work - well, life moves on lol. 

Again, welcome to BSN. I hope you enjoy some good discussions here and that it is worth your while

[JShepppp]

Tritium315 wrote...

Everything has a non-zero possibility; it doesn't mean everything will happen.

Whatever the synthetic master race is could accidentally create a virus that wipes them all out, and since by your logic anything that can happen will happen then this will eventually occur and wipe out all synthetics. This will in turn allow for organics to evolve from nothing once again (or however the first organics came to be), and rule the galaxy.

So there you go, on a long enough timeline the galaxy will experience periods of synthetic and organic rule, if war is inevitable.

I think the Catalyst is just worried about the possibility of the "cycle" that you mention occurring once by organics being wiped out first. And it's just trying to stop that. Sure, other things may happen after the singularity, but the nature of the singularity means we can't know, and the Catalyst is only worried about organic survival. 

[JShepppp]

paralitos wrote...

nice post OP just read it now a little late

Thanks for the kind words dude. 

[JShepppp]

jotun04 wrote...

The catalyst says that Shepard making it so far proves that his solution won't work anymore..

Why?

It just means they need to clean up a little better so that the next cycle doesn't have the crucible plans.

No idea. I am in complete agreement with you on this one. 

[JShepppp]

gatsu zacku wrote...

Hi,

This is a very nice post, thanks for sharing it with us. However, I find anyway that there are tons of questions that are still remaining (due to the fact that all this mess has been introduced in the last 10 minutes of the game) even if they were able to explain the catalyst's logic in their "extended cut" DLC.

Glad you enjoyed. I'm going to try to address some of your qeustions. 

Here are few of them that came to my mind (sorry if they have already been adressed):

- how does the catalyst know there is a technological singularity? Has it already happened?

No idea. The nature of the problem implies that it couldn't have already happened and that the Catalyst is using purely theoretical reasoning and viewing experimental probability relative to a huge amount of time. 

- Why is there a need to preserve organics? Who decided that?

Probably the Catalyst's creators. We are not given a reason why. All we know though is that the Catalyst follows the mandate.

- A related question is then who created the catalyst and came up with this "solution"?

No idea. We're not given enough information about this to even speculate lol. 

- To end the cycle, reapers kill only organic species that are too advanced in order to prevent them from reaching the technological singularity but let the rest alive including synthetics...I think. Why don't the remaining synthetics do not just kill the remaining super weak organics (the gap should be at least as big as after reaching the technological singularity)?

We don't see the Zha'til (Prothean synthetics) around and I doubt the Reapers would've kept the Geth around either. I think they retain control over all "lesser" synthetics and then destroy them when it's over. 

- What is the point of preservation through eradication? Or rather, how is eradication by synthetics so different from being eradicated by the reapers that are anyway overwhelmly more powerful than the organics they kill?

The Reapers believe they're preserving them by preserving species' minds. Legion tells us in ME2 that a Reaper identity is formed by absorbing a billion organic minds. Basically, they preserve the minds but get rid of the bodies. We don't know how fun of an existence that is, but yeah. They don't think they're killing. They think they're preserving (with a side effect of killing).

The only advantage I see in this "solution" is that reapers can evolve to their next stage and get more and more powerful at each cycle (one could also ask, what it is the reason for becoming more powerful if in principle they arrive before organics can fight efficiently against them?). The cayalyst could then have been some kind of  "reaper's consensus" or something like that. The way it talks is quite similar to Legion's way of speaking...even though I don't get at all this "organics preservation" thing in the end.

The only problem is that we see the Reapers are technologically stagnant. The only reason for them doing what they do is the Catalyst's control, which is influenced by the Catalyst's programming and mandate, which we can only guess as to why it was given by the Catalyst's creators. 

They do what they do because of the Catalyst's programming, I think.

[JShepppp]

Kalas82 wrote...

and the 10000 attemp to prove the story-writers point by imagination, lots of speculation and tons of text.

The answer is the same as it was from the get go:

Nope.

The catalysts logic doesn`t get better just cause you throw tons of text out in his favour, his motives don`t get less insane just cause you ignore logic/facts we actualy got.

Synthetics haven`t killed all organic live in the ME-universe, so proof shows his theory beeing wrong, even if assuming he is just plain stupid or crazy (might actualy be a valid option) his plan is perhaps the most unpractical thing one can imagine and would be more fitting if he was a cheesy, exentric Bond-villian.
The only force actualy beeing capable to kill of all organic life (and willing to do so) is Space-God himself and his bio-borg-synthetic reapers.

The Reapers are technologically stagnant. Synthetics can be created who can self-evolve and become more powerful than the Reapers. Just saying, there's potential for other bad guys out there. 

The whole premise of the cycle-theory "synthetic life will someday kill of all organic life" is just wrong, cannot be backed up by any facts or logic (not in our reality and certainly not in the ME-Universe) and needs actualy god-like future-telling powers (or a magic crystal ball) to work.
Even the Terminator-franchise knows how cheesy this kinda setting is and the scale there is miles smaler.

The technological singularity is a science fiction idea. We see HINTS of it in ME (synthetics better than organics; Geth more efficient, EDI being smart, etc.) but it is not very implicitly and obviously never explicitly stated. 

The point is synthetics can be created who would have the power to do that, and organics would forever be at their mercy. The Catalyst doesn't want that situation to happen. 

And i do know that we got enough stupid people in reality who think pre-emptive strikes are the way to go, but not even those people would commit genocide just like this. People who actualy did those things (or still do) are treated like monstern by "normal" society.
Hitlers motives for exmaple were pretty similiar -> fear of the might a certain race had in his mind, but the only way he could actualy wage all that war and genocide was people with lust for money and power backing him up. Now which reaper owned a weapons-corporation again? Which reaper was unemployed and pretty unhappy about his life again? Etc.
Course that´s oversimplified but you get the point i guess.

Hitler knew he was committing genocide and killing people. The Catalyst believes it is saving people. Legion and EDI tell us that organic minds are saved but the DNA/biological parts are separated.

There are just 3 ways the cycle-theory can be working:

a) ****ty writing
Space-God is a con and tricked Shep
c) Indoc-Theory -> everything we learned was just a bad dream

(a) is a valid option,

( throws into account a lot of random factors. If the Catalyst is a con, then maybe none of the options fire the Crucible and they're all just sadistic pleasures to the Catalyst to watch Shepard believe he/she has a heroic death. The galaxy could be screwed anyways then and nothing matters. Distrusting the Catalyst is fine but the nature of everything means that we don't know where to begin trusting/distrusting it and thus everything is fair game and this can undermine everything completely,

© then it needs to be made clear where exactly indoctrination occurred, and this has so many open interpretations that it may not be the best paradigm.