113 réponses à ce sujet

[Baronesa]

dpg05c wrote...
And it is a hypothetical extrapolation, thus a theory.   But that's a semantics argument.   

Pet Peeve of mine...

Theory does not mean the same in a scientific context that in the general use of the word.

What we normally call a theory, is in fact an hypothesis.

In science Theory is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements
about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of
classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains.

[Sisterofshane]

dpg05c wrote...

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.

You can most certainly use it for fanfic!  We're all here on the BSN to share what we love and think!

And I have to agree with you on this point, that without an explanation, it turns the catalyst from a sympathetic villain to a condescending deus ex machina.  It really is too bad that they cut out the conversation with the catalyst - I think a little back and forth would have done the ending more justice.  It didn't need to be anything specific (like they were saying with "how long have you been oing this" - that's all useless fluff as far as I'm concerned), followed with a better justification for why Shepard had to be the one to pick ( I remember in the leaked script the Catalyst says something along the lines that the crucible had changed him, and that he could no longer control the Reapers, so the only way to stop them was for Shep to make a choice, or the cycle would continue as it was).

[dpg05c]

Baronesa wrote...

dpg05c wrote...
And it is a hypothetical extrapolation, thus a theory.   But that's a semantics argument.   

Pet Peeve of mine...

Theory does not mean the same in a scientific context that in the general use of the word.

What we normally call a theory, is in fact an hypothesis.

In science Theory is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements
about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of
classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains.

Gah, sorry.  You meant Scientific Theory when you said it that way.   Oh yeah, then you're absolutely right.

Sorry, working on my thesis and doing this at the same time.

[Maimh]

In regards to the technological singularity that the Reapers is supposed to protect us from.
There is a quote I like:

"The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else." (Eliezer Yudkowsky)

Try to use the word DNA instead of atoms - and then tell me who that reminds you of.

[JShepppp]

Not very many people understand the Catalyst. Its argument is based entirely on the TECHNOLOGICAL SINGULARITY. Synthetics by themselves are not the problem; the singularity is. It is trying to solve the problem by "saving/harvesting" races before they reach the singularity.

[ltkos]

 
You cannot rebel against something that does not control you. As the star kid states the reapers are under his control. This therefore would open the possibility for the reapers to rebel against him. And if synthetics are destined to rebel against those that control/create them then why have the reapers not done so?

[EmEr77]

This will be a little lengthy. You have been warned.


You never actually addressed the "logic" of the Star Child. You addressed what he was speaking about, but from a logical standpoint, it's incredibly flawed. Something tells me though you may know a thing or two about literary theory, perhaps, or at least speech writing, so here goes.

The very method the Star Child utilizes to explain why it has done what it's done, is called the "sweeping generalisation" fallacy. For those who don't know what it means, it is essentially the speaker making a blanketed statement drawn from conclusions about a specific case. In this instance, it is the Star Child making an observation about all organic life, like so:

A) Organics will always create synthetics.
Synthetics will always rise up to destroy organics.
C) Therefore, organics must be destroyed.


That's really simplified. In this case, the blanketed statement is actually geared towards synthetics. Interestingly, the cycle was not broken as you said, with Shepard entering the Citadel, but the cycle was actually broken sometime earlier in the game when you bring peace to the Quarians and the Geth (if you chose to do so). 

If you did not choose to save the Geth, and unite the two, then there is still a logical issue with the Star Child's reasoning, a little more specific than the previous statement: 

- Organics will always create synthetics, which will always rebel against organics.
- Organics became synthetics to stop the synthetics from killing all organics.
- Therefore, it is necessary to harvest (kill) organics into synthetics, to stop them from creating synthetics to kill organics.

The reasoning is very circular. The outcome of the argument relies heavily on the premise "Organics will always create synthetics, which will always rebel against organics." Even if you did not patch things up between the Geth and the Quarians, the choice is always THERE, and it is always known that the Geth do not want to outright kill the Quarians, they just want to defend themselves when necessary. Just like any other sentient species. The Star Child's reasoning negates any other possible option, when there actually is another possible option, therefore, making his reasoning false. What you are actually talking about in your post relies heavily on speculation, and cannot be solidly concluded from the skeletal amount of evidence presented to us by the Star Child. 


You could even go as far as to say that the Star Child commits the "subjectivist fallacy," by rejecting the premise that the Geth and the Quarians patched their issues up, therefore, not all synthetics will rebel against their organic creators, and destroy life. The Star Child instead looks at the conclusion that not all synthetics will rebel, and makes a subjective claim that it's untrue, based on their individual experience (also sweeping generalisation). This leads us to the decisions. Neither decision is breaking the cycle--potentially.

• The Control Option: It is perpetuating the same folly committed by organics, especially the Quarians, believing they could control sentient synthetic beings, which, as in the case of the Quarians and the first organic races (those of the Star Child) they couldn't. If the Crucible was created by the original organic races, before they became Reapers, and the Star Child was the creator of the Reapers (so perhaps a culmination of the minds of all of its organic race) are we to assume therefore, that Shepard choosing the control option would give Shepard MORE power than the Star Child itself? The orchestrator of this entire event? It is assumed so--but is there REALLY solid enough proof to prove it? There isn't. And if that is the case, does it make sense? Not in my opinion.
• The Destroy Option: Is it truly breaking the cycle if all sentient synthetic life is destroyed? What's to stop organics from creating sentient life again?      
• The Synthesis Option (Space Magic): This I perhaps have the largest issue with of all. Not only is the synthesis option a glorified way of the Reapers actually winning (organics and synthetics merging) but it promotes homogeneity among the galaxy, that the only way for everyone to get along is if they are a magical amalgamation of blood and machine. What? Not to mention, how is it that some sort of burst of energy can actually rearrange the entire genetic structure of a being? The Star Child obviously has no direct hand in any sort of organic creation, seeing as how he existed from an organic race. Other than biotics, something as far-fetched and "magical" has never been seen on such a grand scale as this throughout any of the games. Is it a massive, catastrohpic burst of eezo, that somehow destroys all the mass relays, and rearranges all the genetic material of both organics, AND machines? Again, it's all speculation. Massive speculation, without any sort of support.  

Then no matter what decision you make, burst of energy goes out, mass relays blow up (yet don't seem to destroy any of the star systems whatsoever) and then the Normandy maroons on some distant planet that just so happens to be able to perfectly support organic life. Then your crew steps out of the ship (after crash landing mind you, the first one out is the dude with Vrolic Syndrome, keep that in your brain pan for a while) and they're all smiles and wonderment. No one's wondering what just happened, where they are, or whether or not Shepard's DEAD. Never mind that your scattered crew managed to somehow miraculously appear on the ship, and Joker is running from the fight--before the final decision was made, because he had to hit a mass relay before they were blown up. 


So there you have it. The logic of the Star Child is not sound. The Star Child makes up a pretty poor excuse for doing what it's doing. I get that BioWare maybe wanted to create a villian that's not really a villian, but has more dimensionality and isn't really evil per se, even though it does "evil" things. That's fine--but it was just poorly done. 

Modifié par EmEr77, 04 avril 2012 - 09:31 .

[Mark Havel]

I also don't like the whole flawed logic of the starchild itself. It just appears out of thin air and suddenly uses divine interventions to magically and instantly solve the Reaper problem. I have a big problem with realistically putting that in the Mass Effect universe as even the Reapers are supposed to take ages to harvest vanquished organic species. Yet, somehow, the Starchild is able to instantly wipe out all organics, make Shepard some sort of a Reaper or fuse all synthetic and organic life. Then, why didn't it chose such a better and quicker option from the very beginning? Why would there be any need to go through all those extinction cycles? That's still leading me to the point I can't see how to make that fit within in the ME universe. That doesn't make sense and Mass Effect was never about silly low-level metaphysic mumbo-jumbo.

Modifié par Mark Havel, 04 avril 2012 - 09:41 .

[Captain Arty]

dpg05c wrote...

For a very limited definition of right.   Given the empirical evidence of thousands of cycles beforehand, synthetics have rebelled against their creators.   Repeatedly.    It happened to the protheans in the previous cycle, Javik confirms this.    It came very close to happening with the geth.

(Though the geth are a bit of a special case.)

It also happened a bit with that one AI in the first game who wanted to join the geth.

The point of the Reapers was to preserve life.   (According to Star-kid)   They would wipe out any sufficiently advanced species so that the next might flourish, and they would harvest the DNA of the advanced species, causing that species to live on as a Reaper.

But wait a minute, what about what Sovereign said in ME1?   What about people using Reaper tech like the relays and developing along paths that the Reapers themselves set down?

Oh.   That's simple, really.    In the end, the Reapers themselves are synthetics, and they prefer order.   Their base programming is to harvest advanced species every 50k years or so.   I'm sure after the first few cycles, they wanted to make things as efficient as possible.    So people are set up for failure.   To be harvested.    And the Reapers grow.

However, Shepard, by simply existing, by managing to pull off the ballsiest move in history, proves the Star-kid wrong.   Shepard by existing invalidates thousands of years of evidence.   Shepard breaks the cycle.  One way or the other.   Coming into the Catalyst chamber alone causes Shepard to break the cycle.

The original plans for the Crucible were probably planted there to be found by the race that created the Reapers.   As a fail-safe.   If the Reapers themselves went rogue, the Crucible would be there to stop them, but only useable by a cycle that could successfully pull it off.

This cycle is that cycle.    Regardless of your choices, regardless of whether you choose Destroy, Control, or Space magic Synthesis (Which personally is my favorite ending), Shepard breaks the cycle.


Now if they had only better shown that kind of thing in the game, the ending would be far better.  

That, and we need a proper denouement.   Not "Shepard is now Legend" bull.

I disagree, but I thank you for your thoughful argument.

For the sake of simplicity, consider the paragon Sheperd. Sheperd has united the geth and the quarians, and has romantically united a frail human with a true AI. On both societal and personal scales, Sheperd has proven the catalysts assertions wrong. Maybe the catalyst was right until that point, but not anymore. As ar as a game and story goes, a peaceful solution is already demonstrated 2/3 of the way through the game.

But at the very end, we find Sheperd being told the opposite and being given no option to disagree with the catalyst. That's why the ending fails. Maybe the catalyst WAS right, but Sheperd has proved the catalyst IS NOT right, and yet the player has to sit there and choose a crummy, narrow-minded solution to an issue they've already solved.

The relays were certainly for efficency, granted. But here we find another unrelated bit of nonsense. You can detroy the Reapers and presumably Reaper-tech, with the narrow chance of survival. Okay, I'll go with that, and understand by that argument that the realys are toast too.

But in the other two options, the destruction of the relays makes no sense at all. in control, you're effectively protecting Reapers and Reaper tech, and postpoing war. In synthesis, the cycle is broken. The Reapers are preserved, organic life is preserve, synthetics are preserved. There is total peace, no more war, but... what, the relays have to be destroyed??

Why can't the catalyst just wave off the Reapers? He admits his solution will no longer work? He is a higher intelligence that claims to be beyond human comprehesion...yet, here he is, proven wrong by Sheperds actions... Did the catalyst just not comprehend what Sheperd was trying to do? Does the catalyst not appreciate the value of diverse life? Is he just plain evil? Or just plain stupid?

We can think of other options, and questions, but it boils down to this. The writing was sloppy, and not thought out well. The catalyst, regarless of his persepective, is demonstrably fallible, yet the options treat him as infallible. I think that's why we're upset.

That and the fact that nothing we did throughout three games changes the options at the end.

[EmEr77]

Mark Havel wrote...

I also don't like the whole flawed logic of the starchild itself. It just appears out of thin air and suddenly uses divine interventions to magically and instantly solve the Reaper problem. I have a big problem with realistically putting that in the Mass Effect universe as even the Reapers are supposed to take ages to harvest vanquished organic species. Yet, somehow, the Starchild is able to instantly wipe out all organics, make Shepard some sort of a Reaper or fuse all synthetic and organic life. Then, why didn't it chose such a better and quicker option from the very beginning? Why would there be any need to go through all those extinction cycles? That's still leading me to the point I can't see how to make that fit within in the ME universe. That doesn't make sense and Mass Effect was never about silly low-level metaphysic mumbo-jumbo.

I speculate (putting an emphasis on speculate, because that's all we CAN do at this juncture) that the reason it's a slow harvesting process may have to do with the initial synthetic-organic merge performed by the Star Child's race. Perhaps it's necessary because that's the only way to do so, or perhaps there's some sort of significance in continuing the cycle in the same manner each and every time.

I dunno, it's guesswork, because that's all we can do right now. There's hardly enough of anything for a solid answer. This might have been BioWare's intention all along to get people talking about the ending, thinking about it, picking it apart, but the bottom line is, as with interpreting any piece of literature or writing, there should always be evidence within the text itself to point to a solid answer, or multiple solid answers. Banking on the fact that it's all just, "relative" or "subjective" is a cheap way of covering up a mistake. 

Modifié par EmEr77, 04 avril 2012 - 09:59 .

[dpg05c]

EmEr77 wrote...

This will be a little lengthy. You have been warned.


You never actually addressed the "logic" of the Star Child. You addressed what he was speaking about, but from a logical standpoint, it's incredibly flawed. Something tells me though you may know a thing or two about literary theory, perhaps, or at least speech writing, so here goes.

The very method the Star Child utilizes to explain why it has done what it's done, is called the "sweeping generalisation" fallacy. For those who don't know what it means, it is essentially the speaker making a blanketed statement drawn from conclusions about a specific case. In this instance, it is the Star Child making an observation about all organic life, like so:

A) Organics will always create synthetics.
Synthetics will always rise up to destroy organics.
C) Therefore, organics must be destroyed.


That's really simplified. In this case, the blanketed statement is actually geared towards synthetics. Interestingly, the cycle was not broken as you said, with Shepard entering the Citadel, but the cycle was actually broken sometime earlier in the game when you bring peace to the Quarians and the Geth (if you chose to do so). 

If you did not choose to save the Geth, and unite the two, then there is still a logical issue with the Star Child's reasoning, a little more specific than the previous statement: 

- Organics will always create synthetics, which will always rebel against organics.
- Organics became synthetics to stop the synthetics from killing all organics.
- Therefore, it is necessary to harvest (kill) organics into synthetics, to stop them from creating synthetics to kill organics.

The reasoning is very circular. The outcome of the argument relies heavily on the premise "Organics will always create synthetics, which will always rebel against organics." Even if you did not patch things up between the Geth and the Quarians, the choice is always THERE, and it is always known that the Geth do not want to outright kill the Quarians, they just want to defend themselves when necessary. Just like any other sentient species. The Star Child's reasoning negates any other possible option, when there actually is another possible option, therefore, making his reasoning false. What you are actually talking about in your post relies heavily on speculation, and cannot be solidly concluded from the skeletal amount of evidence presented to us by the Star Child. 


You could even go as far as to say that the Star Child commits the "subjectivist fallacy," by rejecting the premise that the Geth and the Quarians patched their issues up, therefore, not all synthetics will rebel against their organic creators, and destroy life. The Star Child instead looks at the conclusion that not all synthetics will rebel, and makes a subjective claim that it's untrue, based on their individual experience (also sweeping generalisation). This leads us to the decisions. Neither decision is breaking the cycle--potentially.

• The Control Option: It is perpetuating the same folly committed by organics, especially the Quarians, believing they could control sentient synthetic beings, which, as in the case of the Quarians and the first organic races (those of the Star Child) they couldn't. If the Crucible was created by the original organic races, before they became Reapers, and the Star Child was the creator of the Reapers (so perhaps a culmination of the minds of all of its organic race) are we to assume therefore, that Shepard choosing the control option would give Shepard MORE power than the Star Child itself? The orchestrator of this entire event? It is assumed so--but is there REALLY solid enough proof to prove it? There isn't. And if that is the case, does it make sense? Not in my opinion.
• The Destroy Option: Is it truly breaking the cycle if all sentient synthetic life is destroyed? What's to stop organics from creating sentient life again?      
• The Synthesis Option (Space Magic): This I perhaps have the largest issue with of all. Not only is the synthesis option a glorified way of the Reapers actually winning (organics and synthetics merging) but it promotes homogeneity among the galaxy, that the only way for everyone to get along is if they are a magical amalgamation of blood and machine. What? Not to mention, how is it that some sort of burst of energy can actually rearrange the entire genetic structure of a being? The Star Child obviously has no direct hand in any sort of organic creation, seeing as how he existed from an organic race. Other than biotics, something as far-fetched and "magical" has never been seen on such a grand scale as this throughout any of the games. Is it a massive, catastrohpic burst of eezo, that somehow destroys all the mass relays, and rearranges all the genetic material of both organics, AND machines? Again, it's all speculation. Massive speculation, without any sort of support.  

Then no matter what decision you make, burst of energy goes out, mass relays blow up (yet don't seem to destroy any of the star systems whatsoever) and then the Normandy maroons on some distant planet that just so happens to be able to perfectly support organic life. Then your crew steps out of the ship (after crash landing mind you, the first one out is the dude with Vrolic Syndrome, keep that in your brain pan for a while) and they're all smiles and wonderment. No one's wondering what just happened, where they are, or whether or not Shepard's DEAD. Never mind that your scattered crew managed to somehow miraculously appear on the ship, and Joker is running from the fight--before the final decision was made, because he had to hit a mass relay before they were blown up. 


So there you have it. The logic of the Star Child is not sound. The Star Child makes up a pretty poor excuse for doing what it's doing. I get that BioWare maybe wanted to create a villian that's not really a villian, but has more dimensionality and isn't really evil per se, even though it does "evil" things. That's fine--but it was just poorly done. 

Well said, and well presented.    I'll concede the point that his actual logic is fallacious.  His reasons are understandable if you look at it from his perspective, but the logic remains fallacious.

Hopefully the DLC will address that.

[EmEr77]

Absolutely. I'm hoping for the DLC as well, and I'm also hoping it's free, but that may be a long-shot. Yeah from the Star Child's standpoint he gets caught up in his own reasoning, which lends to the idea that the Reapers may have synthetic forms, but are based off of organic consciousness, which can be flawed, so I actually understand where your argument is coming from too.

[dpg05c]

EmEr77 wrote...

Absolutely. I'm hoping for the DLC as well, and I'm also hoping it's free, but that may be a long-shot. Yeah from the Star Child's standpoint he gets caught up in his own reasoning, which lends to the idea that the Reapers may have synthetic forms, but are based off of organic consciousness, which can be flawed, so I actually understand where your argument is coming from too.

Oh, I'd love for it to be free.   But if it's paid DLC, it better be something substantial otherwise I'll have to catch it on youtube.

[GLR-0053]

So much speculation... Oh well all will be answered via twitter where the actual plots take place.