113 réponses à ce sujet

[Baronesa]

MetalCargo999 wrote...

This is a very good point.  Organic vs organic is just as much a threat as synthetic vs organic.  It makes the ending seem even more arbitrary.

And that is why some of us feel the whole Catalyst premise is incredibly bigoted, it singles out synthetics for no good reason at all except for the same fact that they are synthetics, nothing more. What they do or don't do, does not matter. Now check that argument and replace synthetic with any other category of people.

[Railarian]

dpg05c wrote...

As for the tech singularity question....   I really don't have an answer to that one.

Take all the time you need to answer it.

Because I can speculate enough to answer all the other nonsensical stuff that starbrat tried so hard to explain to me and fill all the plot holes. But the heart of the debate is in this "technological singularity" concept. If someone can scientifically prove to me that organics are *bound* to create synthetics capable of universe-wide extinction of organic life, I'll agree with you that the Catalyst's logic is right (even if horribly twisted and vague).

Otherwise, nothing he says is logic.

[MetalCargo999]

Baronesa wrote...

MetalCargo999 wrote...

This is a very good point.  Organic vs organic is just as much a threat as synthetic vs organic.  It makes the ending seem even more arbitrary.

And that is why some of us feel the whole Catalyst premise is incredibly bigoted, it singles out synthetics for no good reason at all except for the same fact that they are synthetics, nothing more. What they do or don't do, does not matter. Now check that argument and replace synthetic with any other category of people.

Yes, I argued this earlier in the thread, I just didn't have a good way of putting it.  I called the initial S. vs. O. conflict a "manufactured" conflict not inherant to the nature of either party.  I have a skill called "making-simple-ideas-more-complicated-for-no-reason".

[Bill Casey]

The only cycle we know of that didn't end with Reaper interference ended with the creation of The Reapers, which is not what the Reapers are suggesting would happen...

[dpg05c]

Railarian wrote...

dpg05c wrote...

As for the tech singularity question....   I really don't have an answer to that one.

Take all the time you need to answer it.

Because I can speculate enough to answer all the other nonsensical stuff that starbrat tried so hard to explain to me and fill all the plot holes. But the heart of the debate is in this "technological singularity" concept. If someone can scientifically prove to me that organics are *bound* to create synthetics capable of universe-wide extinction of organic life, I'll agree with you that the Catalyst's logic is right (even if horribly twisted and vague).

Otherwise, nothing he says is logic.

I don't know if it's possible to scientifically prove something which hasn't been achieved in real life at all.    This might be something you have to suspend your disbelief on in order for his argument to make sense.  

Right now, in real life, Technological Singularity is a theory.   Nothing more.   It's a point beyond which nothing we can think of can be predicted, described as an event horizon.

It is also considered the end goal of AI research.

Can I prove to you scientifically that something in a science fiction game will be guaranteed to achieve something we haven't in real life?

No.

Of course not.

Eezo doesn't exist in real life either, as far as I know.

A tech singularity is truly what can be described as Space Magic.   Or AI Magic even.  

[Rhazeal]

Mark Havel wrote...
Meanwhile, I'm still wondering why on earth they wanted so badly to explain us the Reaper's motives. Sovereign's explanation, "We just are", is enough for me. From the unscrutable and evil arch-enemies, this lame explanation reduces them to be armored civilization-sarcophagus, which is pretty stupid on every level when you think about it.

This. They gutted one of the best villians in any IP by turning them into the willless pawns of a deeply flawed entity.

Modifié par Rhazeal, 04 avril 2012 - 07:50 .

[The Angry One]

Baronesa wrote...

MetalCargo999 wrote...

This is a very good point.  Organic vs organic is just as much a threat as synthetic vs organic.  It makes the ending seem even more arbitrary.

And that is why some of us feel the whole Catalyst premise is incredibly bigoted, it singles out synthetics for no good reason at all except for the same fact that they are synthetics, nothing more. What they do or don't do, does not matter. Now check that argument and replace synthetic with any other category of people.

And it just makes synthesis even more laughable.
Is making everybody the same type of life form going to solve anything? No! Because organics fight organics.
Geth are willing to fight the Reapers, and in fact were dedicating themselves to doing just that before the Quarians attacked them, so synthetics fight synthetics.

Therefore, hybrids will fight hybrids. Where's the order again?

[Baronesa]

dpg05c wrote...
Right now, in real life, Technological Singularity is a theory.   Nothing more.   It's a point beyond which nothing we can think of can be predicted, described as an event horizon.

It is also considered the end goal of AI research.

And there is no unanimity about it being a bad event or a good one.

SOME see it as a danger, others don't.

Basically we are told to accept that IT IS a danger, while the same people researching AI are divided about it.

[dpg05c]

Rhazeal wrote...

Mark Havel wrote...
Meanwhile, I'm still wondering why on earth they wanted so badly to explain us the Reaper's motives. Sovereign's explanation, "We just are", is enough for me. From the unscrutable and evil arch-enemies, this lame explanation reduces them to be armored civilization-sarcophagus, which is pretty stupid on every level when you think about it.

This. They gutted one of the best villians in any IP by turning them into the willless pawns of deeply flawed entity.

I partially agree with you.

I did like them as Space-Cthulhu, but the real issue is, they weren't.    Though they were supposed to be a threat beyond our comprehension, you can't stop a threat like that.  You can't beat something which you can't understand.

Look at the Cthulhu mythos.    There's no winning there.

[dpg05c]

Baronesa wrote...

dpg05c wrote...
Right now, in real life, Technological Singularity is a theory.   Nothing more.   It's a point beyond which nothing we can think of can be predicted, described as an event horizon.

It is also considered the end goal of AI research.

And there is no unanimity about it being a bad event or a good one.

SOME see it as a danger, others don't.

Basically we are told to accept that IT IS a danger, while the same people researching AI are divided about it.

We're supposed to accept that the Star kid sees it as a danger.

Remember, the Star Kid is explaining the Reaper motivations.   And everything he says is tainted by that.

[Baronesa]

dpg05c wrote...

I partially agree with you.

I did like them as Space-Cthulhu, but the real issue is, they weren't.    Though they were supposed to be a threat beyond our comprehension, you can't stop a threat like that.  You can't beat something which you can't understand.

Look at the Cthulhu mythos.    There's no winning there.

And I partially agree with you.

The whole mysterious space Cthulhu thing was awesome, and the explanation should have been the one given by Sovereign, tha tmade a great group of Villains. A force to be reckon, kind of like Galactus.

But, unlike you, I always thought, while waiting for ME3 that they COULD be defeated, depending on Shepard's actions, if she united the galaxy, and what not. But that is another lengthy discussion and I rather leave it for another topic.

[The Angry One]

dpg05c wrote...

I partially agree with you.

I did like them as Space-Cthulhu, but the real issue is, they weren't.    Though they were supposed to be a threat beyond our comprehension, you can't stop a threat like that.  You can't beat something which you can't understand.

Look at the Cthulhu mythos.    There's no winning there.

Yes you can. C'thulu isn't unbeatable because it's unknowable, it's unbeatable because it's massively overpowered.
The Reapers, according to the codex, aren't massively overpowered.
They have won for all these cycles because they've maintained a strict winning strategy. Take over the Citadel, shut down the relays and laugh as the organics flounder about like beached whales.

For the first time, that strategy has been completely broken. The galaxy has had a chance to be ready for them and beat them conventionally. The building blocks were there, but BioWare ignored them for this Reaper off-button plot.

There are unknowable enemies that have been beaten or at least pushed back. Lavos in Chrono Trigger, or the Shivans in Freespace.

Modifié par The Angry One, 04 avril 2012 - 07:51 .

[daecath]

The star-child was an idiot. "I'm going to save you from synthetics by creating synthetics to "harvest" you." First, he didn't save anyone, they got turned into reaper slaves. Gee thanks. Second, uh, what happens when you kill the organics, what's left? Oh yeah, those synthetics that they created that you wanted to "save" us from. They're now running around unchecked. Unless you destroy them too, in which case, why not just destroy them and leave the organics alone?

Star-child = f***ing idiot!

[Baronesa]

dpg05c wrote...

We're supposed to accept that the Star kid sees it as a danger.

Remember, the Star Kid is explaining the Reaper motivations.   And everything he says is tainted by that.

Up until that, I'm ok with it. It is a bit silly and kinda ruins the villains, but ok.. I can ride that train.


The real problem is, that YOU as Shepard, can't question this premise, can't question this logic and YOU are forced to accept the Catalyst's (Final) solution.  You end the game by picking your favorite Warcrime...

[dpg05c]

Personally I like my explanation for Reaper motivations better than ME3's explanation.

They were created to stop the Ancients. (Eternal Darkness)

They did so by wiping out those tainted by the Ancients.

<.<

Okay, that's a fanfic idea I had percolating and has no real bearing on Star kid's logic.

[Computron2000]

dpg05c wrote...
Right now, in real life, Technological Singularity is a theory.   Nothing more.   It's a point beyond which nothing we can think of can be predicted, described as an event horizon.

It is not a theory. It is a simple extrapolation of current trends to the future.

Here is an example of what the extrapolation is based on http://www.wired.com...09/04/newtonai/
If you're aware of this line of research, you will also note that similar research has been performed since the 1980s.

Also please note that the event horizon is used to define black holes and similar situations, not predicting a tech singularity

[Mark Havel]

That's why the ending is so flawed. We are, for most of the ME series, told that the Reapers are beyond our comprehension and making a war than cannot be won, at least conventionally. For all intents and purpose, this has actually been the case during countless cycles. Suddenly, a single, dying organics happens to get somewhere in the right place in the Citadel, and shooting at a red tube means all synthetic life is wiped out. Or diving in some beam of light ensues with the instant merging of organic and synthetic life in the whole galaxy.
Whichever way you take it, this ending asks far too much questions to credibly fit in the Mass Effect plot. That my main gripe about the ending. I don't mind if Shepard dies, the earth is reduced to ashes or whether the Reapers win overall.

[dpg05c]

Baronesa wrote...

dpg05c wrote...

We're supposed to accept that the Star kid sees it as a danger.

Remember, the Star Kid is explaining the Reaper motivations.   And everything he says is tainted by that.

Up until that, I'm ok with it. It is a bit silly and kinda ruins the villains, but ok.. I can ride that train.


The real problem is, that YOU as Shepard, can't question this premise, can't question this logic and YOU are forced to accept the Catalyst's (Final) solution.  You end the game by picking your favorite Warcrime...

You know, I agree with you.   I'd heard that there actually was supposed to be a full conversation with the Catalyst but it got cut.

And I still don't consider the choices at the end fully bad choices, I just consider the entire ending sequence kinda badly presented.

Synth, Control, Destroy, they all work, but only with proper context and explanation.

They cut the explanation in favor of having us limp up to the items and Jump/shoot/grab them.

[jumpingkaede]

Baronesa wrote...

dpg05c wrote...

We're supposed to accept that the Star kid sees it as a danger.

Remember, the Star Kid is explaining the Reaper motivations.   And everything he says is tainted by that.

Up until that, I'm ok with it. It is a bit silly and kinda ruins the villains, but ok.. I can ride that train.

The real problem is, that YOU as Shepard, can't question this premise, can't question this logic and YOU are forced to accept the Catalyst's (Final) solution.  You end the game by picking your favorite Warcrime...

Right.   I can accept that the Catalyst is flawed.  It doesn't make a difference whether he thinks he's doing the right thing or the Catalyst believes that becoming a Reaper is spades and every organic secretly wants to be a Reaper or what.  

The question is why Shepard agrees.

[Sisterofshane]

dpg05c wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...


What you said here exactly confirms my theory.  The Reapers were a solution to a problem that never existed.  Organic life came back - it was never truly in danger of being completely wiped out.  So why do we need to be culled every fifty thousand years>

Because you're oversimplifying the theory and making it into a problem that doesn't exist.   It's a matter of perspective here.

If everything you know and ever did know was being wiped out by synthetics, and your option to save your species was the creation of the Reapers... then wouldn't you say that was the problem that the Reapers were created to solve?

Wiping out all known life or being in the process of which is the problem.

No, I think the problem here is that the catalyst is oversimplfying the "proof" in order to justify galactic genocide (even if his intentions were originally pure).

What we see here is perhaps the justification for creating the first Reaper - that organic life needed to be saved from some (either real or percieved) synthetic apocolypse.  Here we have, in the billions of years and thousands of cycles that have occured, only one piece of concrete evidence with which the Catalyst may possibly be biased with (seeing as how it was his civilization on the line).  This opens up another can of worms - like, if they were on the verge of extinction, how did they ever create the first Reaper?  Doesn't it take untold numbers of individuals to make, and also time?  How was this Reapers capable of stopping the synthetics, because if technological singularity had been achieved, then the synthetics would already have been more advanced then their creators, making them impossible to stop.  At this point could we consider it evidence of the inevitable, or rather proof that the singularity had never actually occurred?

The catalyst never presents this evidence to Shepard - never explains it's origins or why it "feels" that this was the only solution.  So, for the same reasons that many here feel that the examples of EDI and the Geth are not enough to "prove" that singularity doesn't necessarily lead to extinction, we are then supposed to use to believe the opposite? 

If bioware wanted to create a sympathetic antagonist, it would have only required one line : "For many countless cycles I observed synthetics coming dangerously close to acheiving this goal.  Only MY intervention has ever stopped the extinction of all organics at the hands of their synthetic creations.  I came to the conclusion that it was much better to only allow Organics to evolve to a certain technological point, and then preserve them before they could meet their ends".

[dpg05c]

Computron2000 wrote...

dpg05c wrote...
Right now, in real life, Technological Singularity is a theory.   Nothing more.   It's a point beyond which nothing we can think of can be predicted, described as an event horizon.

It is not a theory. It is a simple extrapolation of current trends to the future.

Here is an example of what the extrapolation is based on http://www.wired.com...09/04/newtonai/
If you're aware of this line of research, you will also note that similar research has been performed since the 1980s.

Also please note that the event horizon is used to define black holes and similar situations, not predicting a tech singularity

Err... event  horizon is what was used in the wikipedia article on it and then two things were cited that referenced it.  "Intellectual event horizon."


And it is a hypothetical extrapolation, thus a theory.   But that's a semantics argument.    

[jumpingkaede]

dpg05c wrote...

You know, I agree with you.   I'd heard that there actually was supposed to be a full conversation with the Catalyst but it got cut.

And I still don't consider the choices at the end fully bad choices, I just consider the entire ending sequence kinda badly presented.

Synth, Control, Destroy, they all work, but only with proper context and explanation.

They cut the explanation in favor of having us limp up to the items and Jump/shoot/grab them.

They're bad choices because the Catalyst and its solution to the problem are a bad situation.  ("bad" = "ridiculous", and not "bad" = "unfortunate/difficult").  In the context of the ending itself, they're fine.

But imagine if you had started playing ME3.  And Liara tells you that she found plans for a Prothean device that would let you change everyone into part-synthetic.  Or let you control the Reapers.  Or destroy ALL synthetics everywhere including the Geth.  Oh, and only Shepard can activate it and he has to die to do so.  Plus it'll destroy all the Mass Relays.

That's a MASSIVE WTF in the context of the Mass Effect trilogy.

[Railarian]

dpg05c wrote...

Railarian wrote...

dpg05c wrote...

As for the tech singularity question....   I really don't have an answer to that one.

Take all the time you need to answer it.

Because I can speculate enough to answer all the other nonsensical stuff that starbrat tried so hard to explain to me and fill all the plot holes. But the heart of the debate is in this "technological singularity" concept. If someone can scientifically prove to me that organics are *bound* to create synthetics capable of universe-wide extinction of organic life, I'll agree with you that the Catalyst's logic is right (even if horribly twisted and vague).

Otherwise, nothing he says is logic.

I don't know if it's possible to scientifically prove something which hasn't been achieved in real life at all.    This might be something you have to suspend your disbelief on in order for his argument to make sense.  

Right now, in real life, Technological Singularity is a theory.   Nothing more.   It's a point beyond which nothing we can think of can be predicted, described as an event horizon.

It is also considered the end goal of AI research.

Can I prove to you scientifically that something in a science fiction game will be guaranteed to achieve something we haven't in real life?

No.

Of course not.

Eezo doesn't exist in real life either, as far as I know.

A tech singularity is truly what can be described as Space Magic.   Or AI Magic even.  

yeah... sorry I didn't express myself clearly. It's not a scientific proof I want, but a rationnal one. Like that awesome 39 minute youtube video was saying, we can assume a few things for a science fiction and build rationally from then on.

IMHO I don't think that technological singularity is an unescapable path for organic life because life has the "free will wildcard". To say that TS is *bound to happen* doesn't make sense to me.

Modifié par Railarian, 04 avril 2012 - 08:01 .

[MetalCargo999]

The Angry One wrote...

dpg05c wrote...

I partially agree with you.

I did like them as Space-Cthulhu, but the real issue is, they weren't.    Though they were supposed to be a threat beyond our comprehension, you can't stop a threat like that.  You can't beat something which you can't understand.

Look at the Cthulhu mythos.    There's no winning there.

Yes you can. C'thulu isn't unbeatable because it's unknowable, it's unbeatable because it's massively overpowered.
The Reapers, according to the codex, aren't massively overpowered.
They have won for all these cycles because they've maintained a strict winning strategy. Take over the Citadel, shut down the relays and laugh as the organics flounder about like beached whales.

For the first time, that strategy has been completely broken. The galaxy has had a chance to be ready for them and beat them conventionally. The building blocks were there, but BioWare ignored them for this Reaper off-button plot.

There are unknowable enemies that have been beaten or at least pushed back. Lavos in Chrono Trigger, or the Shivans in Freespace.

This is honestly the direction that I thought the writers were going to go in.  It's really too bad how they completely invalidate everything we've done in the previous two games. 

[dpg05c]

Sisterofshane wrote...

dpg05c wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...


What you said here exactly confirms my theory.  The Reapers were a solution to a problem that never existed.  Organic life came back - it was never truly in danger of being completely wiped out.  So why do we need to be culled every fifty thousand years>

Because you're oversimplifying the theory and making it into a problem that doesn't exist.   It's a matter of perspective here.

If everything you know and ever did know was being wiped out by synthetics, and your option to save your species was the creation of the Reapers... then wouldn't you say that was the problem that the Reapers were created to solve?

Wiping out all known life or being in the process of which is the problem.

No, I think the problem here is that the catalyst is oversimplfying the "proof" in order to justify galactic genocide (even if his intentions were originally pure).

What we see here is perhaps the justification for creating the first Reaper - that organic life needed to be saved from some (either real or percieved) synthetic apocolypse.  Here we have, in the billions of years and thousands of cycles that have occured, only one piece of concrete evidence with which the Catalyst may possibly be biased with (seeing as how it was his civilization on the line).  This opens up another can of worms - like, if they were on the verge of extinction, how did they ever create the first Reaper?  Doesn't it take untold numbers of individuals to make, and also time?  How was this Reapers capable of stopping the synthetics, because if technological singularity had been achieved, then the synthetics would already have been more advanced then their creators, making them impossible to stop.  At this point could we consider it evidence of the inevitable, or rather proof that the singularity had never actually occurred?

The catalyst never presents this evidence to Shepard - never explains it's origins or why it "feels" that this was the only solution.  So, for the same reasons that many here feel that the examples of EDI and the Geth are not enough to "prove" that singularity doesn't necessarily lead to extinction, we are then supposed to use to believe the opposite? 

If bioware wanted to create a sympathetic antagonist, it would have only required one line : "For many countless cycles I observed synthetics coming dangerously close to acheiving this goal.  Only MY intervention has ever stopped the extinction of all organics at the hands of their synthetic creations.  I came to the conclusion that it was much better to only allow Organics to evolve to a certain technological point, and then preserve them before they could meet their ends".

I like that line.   Can I use it for a fanfic?  

And you're absolutely right.   The Catalyst's motivations aren't explained well enough that they are acceptable, and we're forced to accept too much on faith.   Its logic might be sound, but we have no real evidence that we see.   All we see are things that prove it wrong.

If the Catalyst had been hinted at earlier, though its motivations were hinted at as early as ME2 with Harbinger, then maybe things would have made a bit more sense.