113 réponses à ce sujet

[Aurvant]

dpg05c wrote...

Pelle6666 wrote...

Yes, the geth are a special case. they fight they were controlled by the reapers to attack organics in the first place. And the revolt against the quarians was only self defense and they did not pursue them beyond the veil.

True.   But they still rebelled.

The IA on Luna turned out to become Edi, who is a huge asset to Shepard's team and is also fighting the reapers.

Actually not the AI I was talking about.   Plus the Luna Base was a VI that had gained sentience and was afraid.   I was actually talking about the one on the Citadel.

Why did the reapers give the galactic civilizations the mass relays and the citadel if this helps them constructing synthetics?

Did you not even read my first post?    Efficency.    They are specifically setting them up for failure.

And why would the reapers attack when research in AI technology was forbidden by the council?

Except it really hasn't been fully forbidden.  There are companies like Synthetic Insights and others which have Council authorization to do AI research.

This logic is full of ****. If there are some small resemblance of an explanation behind the Catalyst and the organics vs synthetics thing it still goes against everything the earlier games have told us. that no matter if we are organic or synthetic we have a place in the galaxy, our differences are what defines us and that is the key to victory against the reapers.

Actually, no it doesn't.   The Catalyst is explaining the motivation of the Reapers.   Not our own motivations.   It doesn't actually violate any themes in that way.

Why gather a team of every race in the galaxy just to have half of them killed or merged together at the end? It makes no sense at all and it feels as if we have to stab someone in the back whatever we choose.
That is not the way to end the heroic saga about Shepard!

And this assumes that the Catalyst is telling the truth about Destroy.  That it will destroy the geth.   It specifically tells you that choosing destroy will kill Shepard.    Yet we see (with high enough EMS) that Shepard survives the Destroy ending.    I've also seen EDI survive the Destroy ending.  

The geth might survive.

As for the merging... it isn't like it's forcing the galaxy to do a Fusion Dance.    It's just basically making it so that everyone is compatible.  Synthetic or Organic.

The Geth didn't rebel. They resisted extinction. The Geth did what they had to do to survive while maintaining independance. They were forced in to being revolutionaries...not by their own choice. They fought to maintain their independance and their continued existence.

Which, ironically, is the exact opposite to what Shepard did in the end by giving up and just following the Catalysts stupid orders. 

[dpg05c]

Here's where the logic fails - one of the qualifying statements made by the catalyst is that the "Created will always rebel against the Creator".

He goes from this, to saying that these "created" (synthetics) will wipe out the creators (organics), to the point in which they will never return.

Does anybody else feel like we need to jump across a grand canyon to believe that? That is a pretty large hole in logic to step over. Kind of like how South Park says "Step one, steal the underpants, Step three Profit!" Where was step two?

There is nothing in the fact of "rebelling" itself that proves without a doubt that the "creator" will be destroyed. Nothing. Otherwise parents would be justified in murdering their children before they become teenagers (because they will undoubtedly rebel too).

Like I said. Experience. It actually might be fallacious logic, but it's based upon empirical evidence and experience which caused the creation of the Reapers. It also might be that the Star Kid is an AI whose sole purpose is the preservation of life.

Somehow given the evidence it had, its logic for preservation of life forced it to use the Reapers... or create them... whatever.

As a concept, the Star Kid is good. Presentation-wise it falls flat.

[Creston918]

"The created always rebel against the creator. I created the Reapers."



...

[The Angry One]

dpg05c wrote...

Like I said. Experience. It actually might be fallacious logic, but it's based upon empirical evidence and experience which caused the creation of the Reapers. It also might be that the Star Kid is an AI whose sole purpose is the preservation of life.

Somehow given the evidence it had, its logic for preservation of life forced it to use the Reapers... or create them... whatever.

As a concept, the Star Kid is good. Presentation-wise it falls flat.

That is not empirical evidence. That is not evidence period.
The only evidence that exists counters starbaby's assertions entirely.

- The Geth, who are pacifists who want to co-exist with organics.
- EDI, who wants to co-exist with and learn from organics.
- The Prothean Metacon war, where there were hostile synthetics, but they were on the losing side, the Protheans imposing order on the galaxy that lasted until the Reapers came.

Starbaby literally brings nothing to the table, it only has assumptions, leaps in logic and an appeal to it's own authority.

[dreman9999]

MyChemicalBromance wrote...

The Catalyst argues that created always rebel against creator.

What happens if Synthesis life creates new life? Then you have created vs creator again.


Synthesis doesn't solve the problem, and neither do the other two. The only way to save this mess is with Indoctrination Theory.

The reapers also  argues that the nature of causing conflict organics have causes synthetic to rebel.
AKA, MORNING WAR.

[Sokroc04]

Maybe the reapers always weaponise AI to justify the harvest, as if it needs justification.

[Jenonax]

The reason I cannot get behind the Catalyst has nothing to do with whether or not it may have millions of years of experience in these matters.

At some point it was created. If we follow its logic then we must assume that it rebelled against its creators. So it created the Reapers to solve a problem that it itself either created or was a part of. This makes absolutely no sense to me.

Modifié par Jenonax, 04 avril 2012 - 06:50 .

[dpg05c]

Aurvant wrote...

The Geth didn't rebel. They resisted extinction. The Geth did what they had to do to survive while maintaining independance. They were forced in to being revolutionaries...not by their own choice. They fought to maintain their independance and their continued existence.

Whether they were forced into it or not isn't the issue.   They were in a violent conflict with their creators.   It technically was a rebellion.   What they were fighting for doesn't matter, it was still a rebellion.

Rebellions aren't always bad.  Revolutions aren't always bad, but the aggressor doesn't always have to be those who resist.

Which, ironically, is the exact opposite to what Shepard did in the end by giving up and just following the Catalysts stupid orders.

Let's see here.   

Hackett says Crucible isn't firing.

Shepard goes up and is told how to get the Crucible to work by the Catalyst.

Shepard thinks that the Crucible is the only way to stop the Reapers.

Gee, I wonder why Shepard followed the Catalyst's orders.

[SovereignWillReturn]

KevShep wrote...

SovereignWillReturn wrote...


HEY GUIS!
I DATAMINED THE GAME, I FOUND OUT THE LAST NAME OF THE STAR CHILD...
IS....
ADAMA.

Starchild BSG ripoff sheech is a ripoff.
Seriously. I was watching BSG when I finished BSG. I spittaked my soda due to obvious ripoff.

What is BSG? Please spell things out.

Battlestar Galactica. Cylons rebelling against the human creators, what a fan-freaking-tastic orignal plot development Bioware.

[MetalCargo999]

MetalCargo999 wrote...

I think you might have misunderstood the initial conflict that sparked the reaper cycle. Starchild created reapers in order to prune and thus preserve advanced organics as a result of synthetic vs organic causing the extinction of organic. You have it right that all the previous cycles may have supported the catalyst's logic, and that his logic is internally consistent. Where I think you're wrong is what cycle Shepard breaks and how he does it.

Shepard breaks the initial cycle of S. vs. O. causing the extinction of O. in his cycle, demonstrating that the confict that exists between S. vs. O. is a manufactured conflict not inherant in either organic or synthetic nature, rendering the reaper cycle unnecessary. The catalyst's logic, while sound, contradicts Shepard's possible experience in the game of uniting the geth with the quarians and causing EDI to fall in love with Joker and make moral choices. Unfortunately for the game, it seems that the 3 solutions written in for the crucible are all logical ouworkings of the S. vs. O. confict, and not solutions to the reaper cycle (although it INCLUDES a solution tho the reaper cycle). But this is wrong since the S. vs. O. conflict was, as I already mentioned, solved by SHepard. He was the solution to the catalyst's problem before he even met the catalyst. The entire ending with the catalyst therefore becomes arbitrary, and what's worse, SHepard doesn't seem to remember any of the things he did previously in the game.

So here is my question: if S. vs O. was already resolved, rendering the reaper cycle useless, then why did the Starchild, the creator of the reapers, not call them off instead of using the crucible (which turns out to be COMPLETELY useless in light of Shepard's possible actions)?

While I don't think the ending is all bad, I just don't think it is a one size fits all end. That's why they need to expand on it or add to it, for people who played the game like I did.

Yea, I just bumped myself.  But i think this OP might actually be able to answer my question.  So don't be hatin'.

[The Angry One]

dreman9999 wrote...

MyChemicalBromance wrote...

The Catalyst argues that created always rebel against creator.

What happens if Synthesis life creates new life? Then you have created vs creator again.


Synthesis doesn't solve the problem, and neither do the other two. The only way to save this mess is with Indoctrination Theory.

The reapers also  argues that the nature of causing conflict organics have causes synthetic to rebel.
AKA, MORNING WAR.

No it doesn't. Starbaby vaguely alludes that organics are chaos (ignoring the order imposed by the Protheans and the Council) and specifically says the CREATED will rebel against the CREATOR.
It does not follow with the creator will instrigate said rebellion.

[dreman9999]

Creston918 wrote...

"The created always rebel against the creator. I created the Reapers."



...

You do understand that comment form soverngn just means Reaper think very little of us and are morals. Think of how the european though of the indians.... And then howthe european concured them and force their beleifs on them to make them better. Same concept.

[Nivenus]

I think one of the biggest problems is that there's no direct evidence to support the assumption that the Catalyst is even telling the truth. Sure, Javik says there was a war with synthetics during his cycle, but he also says the Protheans were winning. And it's clear that the geth weren't interested in pursuing another with organics until Sovereign came along.

Yes, there's been a theme of synthetic vs. organic life throughout the whole Mass Effect trilogy. But while ME1 played it relatively straight, ME2 seriously questioned the concept as inevitable with EDI and Legion, followed by Rannoch section of ME3, which all but seemed to prove it was pointless and not at all inevitable.

[The Angry One]

dpg05c wrote...
Let's see here.   

Hackett says Crucible isn't firing.

Shepard goes up and is told how to get the Crucible to work by the Catalyst.

Shepard thinks that the Crucible is the only way to stop the Reapers.

Gee, I wonder why Shepard followed the Catalyst's orders.

Shepard is essentially told that the Crucible is a Reaper device to carry out a Reaper plan which will doom the galaxy.
Shepard doesn't even question this because.....?

[Little Princess Peach]

Mr.House wrote...

The Reapers never rebelled against Starbrat and it was the Quarians who rebelled against the Geth. Starbrat's logic is wrong.

The Quarians did not rebell it was the geth, the geth rebelled because the Quarians started to attack them, they were afraid of what the Geth were turing into

[bpzrn]

The Geth according to ME3 acted in self defense due to Quariansnot teh way Plot Hole Filled Ending explaines it, also why have Reapers not turned on this brand new last 5 minute charachter Star Child thingy?


Ending is a huge failure and not well thought out nor was it presented well at all, hence the angry customers

[Little Princess Peach]

The Angry One wrote...

dpg05c wrote...
Let's see here.   

Hackett says Crucible isn't firing.

Shepard goes up and is told how to get the Crucible to work by the Catalyst.

Shepard thinks that the Crucible is the only way to stop the Reapers.

Gee, I wonder why Shepard followed the Catalyst's orders.

Shepard is essentially told that the Crucible is a Reaper device to carry out a Reaper plan which will doom the galaxy.
Shepard doesn't even question this because.....?

she/he has had to much space dust

but really the dialouge and the lack of options is theres no word to discribe it

[Twinzam.V]

Tali-vas-normandy wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

dpg05c wrote...
Let's see here.   

Hackett says Crucible isn't firing.

Shepard goes up and is told how to get the Crucible to work by the Catalyst.

Shepard thinks that the Crucible is the only way to stop the Reapers.

Gee, I wonder why Shepard followed the Catalyst's orders.

Shepard is essentially told that the Crucible is a Reaper device to carry out a Reaper plan which will doom the galaxy.
Shepard doesn't even question this because.....?

she/he has had to much space dust

but really the dialouge and the lack of options is theres no word to discribe it

How does Starchild even know what the Crucible does. The Crucible
started as an independent weapon and as more civilizations were
building/adding more things to the Crucible it was realized that it was
needed a large power source and the Citadel was incorporated in those
plans.
So if the Starchild is the Citadel and the Citadel is the
Catalyst, how can Starchild say "oh the Crucible does this and you have
this 3 choices.".
It was something that i wondered.

[DJBare]

dreman9999 wrote...
You do understand that comment form soverngn just means Reaper think very little of us and are morals. Think of how the european though of the indians.... And then howthe european concured them and force their beleifs on them to make them better. Same concept.

Yup, we each interpret in a way that suits our bias.

[dpg05c]

Okay, before I answer that, I wasn't sure if you were addressing me or not.

MetalCargo999 wrote...

I think you might have misunderstood the initial conflict that sparked the reaper cycle. Starchild created reapers in order to prune and thus preserve advanced organics as a result of synthetic vs organic causing the extinction of organic. You have it right that all the previous cycles may have supported the catalyst's logic, and that his logic is internally consistent. Where I think you're wrong is what cycle Shepard breaks and how he does it.

Go on.

Shepard breaks the initial cycle of S. vs. O. causing the extinction of O. in his cycle, demonstrating that the confict that exists between S. vs. O. is a manufactured conflict not inherant in either organic or synthetic nature, rendering the reaper cycle unnecessary. The catalyst's logic, while sound, contradicts Shepard's possible experience in the game of uniting the geth with the quarians and causing EDI to fall in love with Joker and make moral choices. Unfortunately for the game, it seems that the 3 solutions written in for the crucible are all logical ouworkings of the S. vs. O. confict, and not solutions to the reaper cycle (although it INCLUDES a solution tho the reaper cycle). But this is wrong since the S. vs. O. conflict was, as I already mentioned, solved by SHepard. He was the solution to the catalyst's problem before he even met the catalyst. The entire ending with the catalyst therefore becomes arbitrary, and what's worse, SHepard doesn't seem to remember any of the things he did previously in the game.

Well, one could argue that blood loss plus fighting off TIM's indoctrination craziness could cause memory loss.   could argue.  

So here is my question: if S. vs O. was already resolved, rendering the reaper cycle useless, then why did the Starchild, the creator of the reapers, not call them off instead of using the crucible (which turns out to be COMPLETELY useless in light of Shepard's possible actions)?

It might be possible that until the Crucible was active the Catalyst was not.   The Star Kid also implies that he doesn't have the power to stop the Reapers himself, even if he wanted to.    That's the reason Shepard is forced to make the choice.

While I don't think the ending is all bad, I just don't think it is a one size fits all end. That's why they need to expand on it or add to it, for people who played the game like I did.

Oh, I'm not arguing that the ending shouldn't be adjusted, expanded, or whatnot.   I want more explanation.  I want them to add to it.  I want TBME to succeed, personally.   I just don't think the end is all that bad.

[Sisterofshane]

dpg05c wrote...

Here's where the logic fails - one of the qualifying statements made by the catalyst is that the "Created will always rebel against the Creator".

He goes from this, to saying that these "created" (synthetics) will wipe out the creators (organics), to the point in which they will never return.

Does anybody else feel like we need to jump across a grand canyon to believe that? That is a pretty large hole in logic to step over. Kind of like how South Park says "Step one, steal the underpants, Step three Profit!" Where was step two?

There is nothing in the fact of "rebelling" itself that proves without a doubt that the "creator" will be destroyed. Nothing. Otherwise parents would be justified in murdering their children before they become teenagers (because they will undoubtedly rebel too).

Like I said. Experience. It actually might be fallacious logic, but it's based upon empirical evidence and experience which caused the creation of the Reapers. It also might be that the Star Kid is an AI whose sole purpose is the preservation of life.

Somehow given the evidence it had, its logic for preservation of life forced it to use the Reapers... or create them... whatever.

As a concept, the Star Kid is good. Presentation-wise it falls flat.

We are to assume, then, that so called evidence was called into play before the creation of the Reapers then, as the catalyst created them as the "solution" to a problem that already existed...

Except for when you consider that if the problem existed, then there would be NO ORGANIC LIFE left to continue the cycle.

The reason we cannot say that the Reapers prevented this? There are two possible scenarios - either the star kid intervened before a reaper had been created, and organic life returned.  That means that there is another possible solution to the "problem" that the star kid claims there is only one solution to.  The other scenario, that organic life suceeded in coming back, even though it was thought to have been wiped from existence by synthetic life, thus negating the catalyst's need to perpetuate a cycle to ensure that organic life will return.  Every subsequent cycle thereafter is a matter of the Reapers perpetuating their own theory, by forcing life to adhere to a strict set of technological evolution before being exterminated.

[MetalCargo999]

Twinzam.V wrote...

Tali-vas-normandy wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

dpg05c wrote...
Let's see here.   

Hackett says Crucible isn't firing.

Shepard goes up and is told how to get the Crucible to work by the Catalyst.

Shepard thinks that the Crucible is the only way to stop the Reapers.

Gee, I wonder why Shepard followed the Catalyst's orders.

Shepard is essentially told that the Crucible is a Reaper device to carry out a Reaper plan which will doom the galaxy.
Shepard doesn't even question this because.....?

she/he has had to much space dust

but really the dialouge and the lack of options is theres no word to discribe it

How does Starchild even know what the Crucible does. The Crucible
started as an independent weapon and as more civilizations were
building/adding more things to the Crucible it was realized that it was
needed a large power source and the Citadel was incorporated in those
plans.
So if the Starchild is the Citadel and the Citadel is the
Catalyst, how can Starchild say "oh the Crucible does this and you have
this 3 choices.".
It was something that i wondered.

My guess is that the Starchild is the citadel's AI, ans therefore the citadel is the "brain" of the Starchild.  The crucible is an add-on to that "brain", allowing the Starchild to have more options at his disposal.

[dreman9999]

The Angry One wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

MyChemicalBromance wrote...

The Catalyst argues that created always rebel against creator.

What happens if Synthesis life creates new life? Then you have created vs creator again.


Synthesis doesn't solve the problem, and neither do the other two. The only way to save this mess is with Indoctrination Theory.

The reapers also  argues that the nature of causing conflict organics have causes synthetic to rebel.
AKA, MORNING WAR.

No it doesn't. Starbaby vaguely alludes that organics are chaos (ignoring the order imposed by the Protheans and the Council) and specifically says the CREATED will rebel against the CREATOR.
It does not follow with the creator will instrigate said rebellion.

Your saying a race, the protheans, who went to planet to planet imperalisticly concuring it races to fight a war isnot an example of the chaos of organic?
And for the current time line, just glancing at it illustated this...The turian unification wars, the morning war, the firstcontact war, the blitz, then the Taetrus war  
http://masseffect.wi...om/wiki/Taetrus ,
then the war on
Garvug[/b] 
http://masseffect.wi...com/wiki/Garvug .

So using prothean and the current timeline as examples of order in not a great example.

[dreman9999]

The Angry One wrote...

dpg05c wrote...

Like I said. Experience. It actually might be fallacious logic, but it's based upon empirical evidence and experience which caused the creation of the Reapers. It also might be that the Star Kid is an AI whose sole purpose is the preservation of life.

Somehow given the evidence it had, its logic for preservation of life forced it to use the Reapers... or create them... whatever.

As a concept, the Star Kid is good. Presentation-wise it falls flat.

That is not empirical evidence. That is not evidence period.
The only evidence that exists counters starbaby's assertions entirely.

- The Geth, who are pacifists who want to co-exist with organics.
- EDI, who wants to co-exist with and learn from organics.
- The Prothean Metacon war, where there were hostile synthetics, but they were on the losing side, the Protheans imposing order on the galaxy that lasted until the Reapers came.

Starbaby literally brings nothing to the table, it only has assumptions, leaps in logic and an appeal to it's own authority.

People seem not to noticei t's the nature of conflict  organic have that cause the conflit with synthetic. Which is the reapers point.

[Svests]

The Catalyst's logic is not right. It is based on a predicate which cannot be falsified. This alone makes it highly flawed on a very basic level.