5087 réponses à ce sujet

[Jassu1979]

My concerns with the Catalyst's "logic" are not so much aimed at the moral dimension, but at the practical side of things.

The premise of the 50,000-year cycle of cultivation and harvest made perfect sense if seen from the "organics-as-cattle"-premise.
When you combine it with a "tech singularities must be prevented"-angle, however, it just falls apart.

[deliphicovenant42]

@thisisme8
I might've been able to buy into your take on the catalyst if it wasn't for the fact that Shepherd just goes along with the scene without so much as a furrowed brow. Given the fact that there was no confusion from Shepherd, the simplest explanation is the writers intended us to accept that we were getting a simple and straightforward explanation of the reaper motives. We were supposed to be "shocked" that we've been fighting our actual saviors all along, even if we disagreed with their methods. And given the presentation, the context to judge the catalyst's reasoning is the game therefore it's logic falls apart for the various reasons outlined in this and other threads.

Your idea could be a great way to salvage the scene, but if that was what the writers intended to convey, they failed miserably. It wouldn't have even taken all that much to implement, but the ending was so rushed and incomplete that they failed to communicate anything effectively.

Count me as one of those who was satisfied with the simple motivation of 'the monster wants to kill me.' Bioware didn't need to tell me more than that, and I think most other people would've been fine with that too. Though fixing the motivation issue doesn't solve all the other problems with the ending either.

[drayfish]

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but I'm going to follow frypan's earlier example and take this opportunity to throw in something that's been bugging me before the conversational tidal wave of unleashing the Extended Cut wipes everything else away...
 
I think it was the mention of KitaSaturnyne's 'junkyard dogs' and 'crumbling pillars', and the image of the original mythic Cerberus all of that conjured up that got me mulling over this again, but I started wondering: what the hell happened to Cerberus in this game?! I mean, I know there were some obvious alterations for the questionable purposes of gameplay: we saw them ballooned out into a mystifyingly well-funded and organised military organisation (quite a leap from the rag-tag mercenary force on the fringes of society they were previously depicted being) to give us something other than Reaper husks to shoot at for half of the game; but I'm also talking about their agenda, and our capacity to help or hinder that plan.
 
I'm sure this has been talked to death, but I had rather hoped that there would be considerably more to Cerberus than just wave after wave of bad guys; Kai Leng, the universe's trash-talking pen pal Power Ranger; and the Illusive Man stumbling down that ever so predictable path of space-zombiefication.
 
I mean, sure they were your classic, cookie-cutter bad guys in ME1:
 
Memo to all Cerberus Staff:
re: Master Plan (make copies and distribute to all operatives – even Karen in H/R)
 
1. Derp, derp, alien experimentations.
2. Derp, red sand, derp.
3. Derp, derp, indoctrination.
4. Let the predictable thing that everyone foresaw and that we hubristically ignored occur to no one's surprise (except maybe the guy in the cage who suddenly realises he has no life insurance).
5. Whoops. Now shoot everyone in the head who saw anything. Derp.
6. Illusive man (as yet unseen) glowers in the shadows and orders the procedure be done again in exactly the same way. Derpy, derp, derp.
7. Rinse.
8. Repeat.
9. Leave evidence all over the place for no reason.
 
But by ME2 they seemed to get fleshed out in some really intriguing ways – still underhanded, still with their own agenda (consequences be damned) – but with legitimate motives and a desperate purpose that could make them (somewhat) sympathetic. My Main Shepard told them in no uncertain terms to screw off, but my Renegade Shepard rather sided with them, sick of all the Alliance crap. 'You want to give me money and a crew, Sparky? Hell, yes. It's not like the Council gives a damn about galactic devastation...'
 
And yet in Mass Effect 3: no dice.
 
No matter what you felt about Cerberus' mission statement, you start the game having turned yourself over to the Alliance, and you and its enigmatic leader are locked on an inevitable crash-course to mutual destruction.
 
It's a shame. Particularly as Cerberus always seemed to be the best window into the whole premise of Indoctrination – both its dangers and potential. Cerberus were always fiddling about with twisted experimentations from the very first game, poking at whatever tech or weapon they could get their hands on to see what made it tick, so I was expecting it to be a major factor in the narrative surrounding them. The Illusive Man was just so nutty about it. It was like his own special space Catnip. (From what I recall it's his interaction with the effects of Indoctrination that turn his eyes all glow-rific, isn't it?)
 
I fully expected that more would be uncovered about the nature of Indoctrination as we waded into ME3 – not about the Reapers themselves, but about their capacity to bend minds. With the shadow of the Saren introductory storyline still hanging over everything; with the themes of control and perception constantly recurring; and with so many people having biotic implants and upgrades in their heads – I thought it was going to be key.  Frankly, with a game so obsessed with the notion of choice it seemed that the idea of an influential force that overwhelmed the individual's capacity to make such choices would be too rich to not address...
 
So I thought that in ME3 we would get some new insights into the nature of Indoctrination – maybe a way that it could work in our favour even: turn the tide on the Reapers with their signature weapon. (...Well, 'signature' weapon if you ignore the stomping legs and the big lasers and the thing that goes 'BLAAAAAAARRRRRGGGHHHHHH!' ...Okay, maybe they have a few signature weapons. But still.) 
 
Anyway.  Not so much.  All we got served in the ending was some half-baked confrontation with the Illusive Man where we hear the now rote speech: 'You don't understand, Shepard; I know what I'm doing with this power! I – unlike every other person who has ever said this ever in the history of ever – can control the Reapers, and use them to do my bidding. You know – unlike all those other guys who have said that... Forget about them...'
 
And also (and I know this has been said repeatedly before), but why was the option to continue working with the Illusive Man stripped out of the narrative? (I mean, clearly once you introduce boring old he's-Indoctrination in to the mix there's no way that Shepard would keep working with him – but that is yet another late-in-the-game ass-pull.)
 
Again, it seems a real shame that ultimately Cerberus are just re-skinned husks with better ammunition, and that no matter how our Shepards felt about the Illusive Man and his arguably nutty ideas, we are compelled to have an antagonistic relationship with him (calling him 'MAD!' if we are a Renegade; or 'mad' if we are a Paragon), then watch him bleed out in a pool of half-huskified blood, yet another chewed up clown who tried to play god. 
 
 
p.s. – I want to thank everyone who suggested getting the Humble Bundle a few days back. I wasn't kidding earlier when I wrote about the end of Mass Effect 3 momentarily robbing me of my desire to play any videogames at all, and getting that Humble Bundle was a reawakening of this medium's joy. Bastion has got to be the one of the most beautiful, sharp games I've ever seen, and it has handily rekindled my urge to play. So thank you all.

[EVILFLUFFMONSTER]

I perceived the synthesis ending not to be about uniformity and imposing of will, but instead to be about peace and prosperity. It was poorly explained but imagine a world full of the same people, with the minds of organics, the personalities, emotions, and ideas of organics, but instead bestowed with eternal life, limitless health and technology. Where it fell apart however was the reason for actually choosing this option, EDI, Legion, and the geth depending on how you played them proved that organics and synthetics could get along - they were large parts of the integral plot line. You cannot argue against the choice or site them as an example. There is no proof that organics will be exterminated by synthetics, nor a good reason for the reapers to kill them instead and make other reapers - its like saying you were all going to die, so we killed you...what!? Its a rubbish reason.

[Ieldra]

K1LL STREAK wrote...
I perceived the synthesis ending not to be about uniformity and imposing of will, but instead to be about peace and prosperity. It was poorly explained but imagine a world full of the same people, with the minds of organics, the personalities, emotions, and ideas of organics, but instead bestowed with eternal life, limitless health and technology. Where it fell apart however was the reason for actually choosing this option, EDI, Legion, and the geth depending on how you played them proved that organics and synthetics could get along - they were large parts of the integral plot line. You cannot argue against the choice or site them as an example. There is no proof that organics will be exterminated by synthetics, nor a good reason for the reapers to kill them instead and make other reapers - its like saying you were all going to die, so we killed you...what!? Its a rubbish reason.

That's almost identical to the way I envisioned it. A real and positive, not to forget un-indoctrinated example of Saren's statement "the strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither". 

As for the nonsensical rationale.....I hope that'll be mitigated by the EC.

@drayfish:
I totally agree about the wasted potential of Cerberus in ME3. It's a real shame. I had a few Shepards who looked forward to working with TIM. Also, making them remain more grey would have done so much good for justifying the viability of the Control option in the end. Instead, "TIM was right" appears to come out of nowhere. I can still appreciate the irony that he was right after all, that Control was a viable option, but it was poorly set up.

[Hawk227]

thisisme8 wrote...

Actually, it's questionable how much we actually understand his reasoning, as everything he says lacks any real form of context.

Based off of his past, creation, or evolution, his reasoning could be excellent, deranged, or somewhere in-between.  We just don't know.  All we know is our current cycle and bits and pieces of the last cycle.  We have hints that his reasoning isn't too far of a stretch - both ours and the prothean cycles had synthetic-organic wars prior to reaper influence/invasion - but we don't have any information regarding the past thousand or so cycles, or even the events that led to the creation of the Catalyst.

With that in mind, his reasoning is beyond our comprehension unless further clarified.  No matter how illogical it sounds to us, the simple fact that we weren't there for his creation (or his decision to enact the cycle) means that any projections of our perception of logic onto him are irrelevent as they lack sufficient understanding and context.

I think you and I have different definitions of logic. I've always considered "logic" to be fairly empirical. To me, it's like math with words. You use logic the way I might use morality (My feelings on moral relativism are extremely fluid). What I'm saying is that perspective and culture (and whatever else) shouldn't affect logic.

The Catalyst may have been created by a culture where genocide was okay, and if you subscribe to normative moral relativism you may feel justified in not judging that. But when we say the decision is illogical, we mean the the process that leads to "We have a problem that we can apply some solution to" is in itself illogical. By stating there is a problem, and its existence is absolute the Catalyst has failed. The "created will always rebel against their creators" is a logical fallacy. Not only that, but he cannot be justified in proclaiming that. The fact that organic life exists at all proves that this outcome has never arisen. He didn't respond to the universally repeated extinguishing of organic life by creating the Reapers. Rather, using data unknown to us he assumed the outcome.

I think this ties well into the Earth is flat idea you brought up. The idea that the world was flat may have been logical at the time, but it was assumed using incomplete data, and it was ultimately wrong.

This all may be beside the point, because the rest of that scene seems seems to counter your point. As deliphicovent42 points out, Shepard (our window into this world) doesn't seem particularly perplexed at all this. We aren't really given any cues that what we are hearing is intentionally incoherent. Rather, the scene is presented as simple straightforward exposition. The Catalyst is the new Vigil. The choices reinforce this idea. All the choices relate to the problem of Organics vs. Synthetics.  If it was intentionally incomprehensible, I would expect the choices to reflect the uncertainty we were meant to feel. We could decide whether we or not we buy into the Catalyst's thesis. Instead, we are assumed to accept the Catalyst at face value, its just a matter of how we want to solve his problem.

Ieldra2 wrote...

The thing is, the reproduction hypothesis is proven wrong in ME2. EDI speculated about the Reapers' purpose, as she admits, but Legion *knew*: He tells us that Reapers are "Transcended flesh. Billions of organic minds, uploaded and conjoined within an immortal machine body", and "more your [organics'] future than ours [the geth's]"

[...]

Besides, that would have been incredibly cheap, to reduce a cosmic mystery to simple reproduction.

I don't see how that dialogue disproves the Reaperduction hypothesis. I don't think ascendance and reaperduction are mutually exclusive concepts. Sovereign is pretty certain that Reapers are the pinnacle of existence, and the suicide mission makes it pretty clear that Reapers need organic goo to make new Reapers. Whether that goo confers the thoughts of its original form doesn't (to me) suggest that it isn't about Reaperduction. Here's an (admittedly not perfect) analogy. There are many organisms that are dependent on other organisms for reproduction. These organisms are Parasites (and viruses)*. Viruses have their own DNA, but not the cellular mechanisms to make proteins from it. To me, the Reapers are like the inverse of viruses. They have the machinery, but not the substrate. They are parasites that happen to upload the minds of their host. That may make them more interesting, but I don't think it negates the Reaperduction angle.

As to it being incredibly cheap, I think it's actually poignant. The Reapers are all arrogant and convinced they are the pinnacle of everything, but despite all their delusions of grandeur they aren't that different from a tapeworm. Not only are they simple parasites, but for all their contempt for the chaos of organic life, on some level they are subject to the same needs and motivations. Just like the birds and the bees, they just want to have more of themselves. I feel like I didn't do that justice, maybe someone more eloquent and paraphrase for me.

Plus it's a lot scarier for me to think that what to us is absolute genocide and devastation on a galactic level is just Reaper mating ritual, than to think they were "doing it all for us" (awww, how sweet).

@ Drayfish

I agree about Cerberus. I think the way they are handled is one of the bigger failures in the narrative. For a lot of Shepards, following TIM made sense. They kept the Collector base because it made sense, because maybe Cerberus could use it for 'good'. But off-screen somewhere between Arrival and the beginning of ME3 we told Cerberus to screw off. I'm not really opposed to having Cerberus devolve into cannon fodder, but I think the transition should have been more... organic.

If we saved the Collector base, instead of starting out in Vancouver with the Alliance, we start out at some Cerberus base talking to TIM through hologram. We do a couple short missions, culminating in the reveal that TIM is indoctrinated or doing something even renegade Shepard can't condone (maybe an early reveal of Sanctuary) where the decision to split feels natural to the character. At which time we head to Vancouver and apologize to Anderson and the game proceeds normally with a war crimes trial being interrupted with a Reaper invasion. If we could really tear up the script and start all over, we could extend it out over multiple acts. Unite the Galaxy as either Cerberus or Alliance, allowing two different but roughly parallel branches coming together in Act 2 or 3 with the delayed Reaper invasion.

This is all riffing off of ideas proposed by numerous others, but in addition to fixing the Cerberus arc, it would allow for more player freedom in the early parts of the game (do we recruit the Krogan or the Quarians first? If we're with Cerberus, do the Quarians just tell us to screw off?) and then when the Reapers arrive, it has a jarring effect that creates an urgency that didn't really seem present in the game as is. Also, you could incorporate Earth better as well. Someone (CGG?) said we could have Earth as a hub world for the early acts, and then as the Reapers invade later it (and other hubs) get cut off until all we have left is the Citadel (or a Crucible hub). Ugh the more I think about it, the more I agree with delta_vee about the problems imposed by leading with the invasion (not that I disagreed before).

Also, just in general... I'm halfway through season 1 of BSG and mostly what I've gotten out of it is that the Geth are way more interesting than Cylons.

Modifié par Hawk227, 25 juin 2012 - 06:28 .

[thisisme8]

Hawk227 wrote...

I think you and I have different definitions of logic. I've always considered "logic" to be fairly empirical. To me, it's like math with words. You use logic the way I might use morality (My feelings on moral relativism are extremely fluid). What I'm saying is that perspective and culture (and whatever else) shouldn't affect logic.

The Catalyst may have been created by a culture where genocide was okay, and if you subscribe to normative moral relativism you may feel justified in not judging that. But when we say the decision is illogical, we mean the the process that leads to "We have a problem that we can apply some solution to" is in itself illogical. By stating there is a problem, and its existence is absolute the Catalyst has failed. The "created will always rebel against their creators" is a logical fallacy. Not only that, but he cannot be justified in proclaiming that. The fact that organic life exists at all proves that this outcome has never arisen. He didn't respond to the universally repeated extinguishing of organic life by creating the Reapers. Rather, using data unknown to us he assumed the outcome.

I think this ties well into the Earth is flat idea you brought up. The idea that the world was flat may have been logical at the time, but it was assumed using incomplete data, and it was ultimately wrong.

This all may be beside the point, because the rest of that scene seems seems to counter your point. As deliphicovent42 points out, Shepard (our window into this world) doesn't seem particularly perplexed at all this. We aren't really given any cues that what we are hearing is intentionally incoherent. Rather, the scene is presented as simple straightforward exposition. The Catalyst is the new Vigil. The choices reinforce this idea. All the choices relate to the problem of Organics vs. Synthetics.  If it was intentionally incomprehensible, I would expect the choices to reflect the uncertainty we were meant to feel. We could decide whether we or not we buy into the Catalyst's thesis. Instead, we are assumed to accept the Catalyst at face value, its just a matter of how we want to solve his problem.

I think you miss where the misunderstanding comes from.  They can both communicate with each other, so that much they get, but the misunderstanding comes from the choice and the reason behind that choice.  Left intentionally illogical, we as players (as a result, Shepard) will never understand how his decision works.  It's a clever logical fallacy too, because it's a rather flimsy one.  This logical fallacy fails when empirical data and probability are too high to ignore.  I used this example before, but here it is again:

Humans war with each other, therefore humans will always war with each other.

That's a logical fallacy, but when you look at the history of humans, we've never had a moment in our existance where we haven't been at war with each other.  So granted, the phrase is a logical fallacy, but the probability of us being at war with each other in the future is so astronomically high, you have to acknowledge and prepare for it.  To do otherwise is actually illogical.

Our definition of logic is the same.  But logic is only sound until either proven otherwise (flat earth), or shown a change of context.  Billy jumped off a cliff.  Jumping off a cliff is an illogical action.  Billy has a parachute and needs to get down in a hurry to save his dying grandmother.  Walking down would take too much time and she might die.  Now Billy's decision seems like the logical one.   <-Terrible example, I know, but I'm shooting from the hip.

Now look at Shepard trying to understand the catalyst:

When I become the leader, I'll kill all the previous leader's kids.  That's illogical, there is no need to that and some of them were infants.  That's horrific!  But wait, I'm a lion, that's just what I do when I take over a pack.  Because I'm not human, any projection of logic is moot.  Do I lack logic, or is my perception different?  Tack on to that, the catalyst is not only alien of origin, but of unknown alien origin, 50 million years old.  Application of our logic to this being is moot - even if you believe logic to be concrete by its nature as we lack the perception and context of the alien.

Lastly, the mising dialogue may actually support what I'm saying.  If they got rid of it to streamline the ending, then it's safe to assume that originally, Shepard argued a bit and didn't just take everything the catalyst said for granted.  However, the chances of them removing the dialogue because they merely talked in circles, never fully understanding each other is pretty good.

[Taleroth]

thisisme8 wrote...

However, the chances of them removing the dialogue because they merely talked in circles, never fully understanding each other is pretty good.

I should hope that's not what happened. It would have been a massive red flag warning if it had. Shepard and the Catalyst can't understand each other. Thus Shepard must capitulate? Doesn't make for a good ending.

[delta_vee]

@Hawk227, thisisme8:

To interject, what seems to be under debate is not the logic but the predicates behind it. The logic is the process; the predicates are the starting points we've chosen to use.

The problem with engaging with the Catalyst's logic is that we aren't given the full set of predicates, and those we do receive are stunted, fractured things which clash with the empirically-derived ones we've developed ourselves over the course of the series. Perhaps the Catalyst's predicates are all properly derived - but since we can't see their sources, we can't follow along.

Edit: For the record, "Humans have always been at war, therefore humans will always be at war" is only a fallacy because of the absolutism of the statement. As soon as the statement is phrased in probablistic terms, the fallacy disappears. (Bayesian logic is a powerful tool.)

Modifié par delta_vee, 25 juin 2012 - 07:34 .

[thisisme8]

Taleroth wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

However, the chances of them removing the dialogue because they merely talked in circles, never fully understanding each other is pretty good.

I should hope that's not what happened. It would have been a massive red flag warning if it had. Shepard and the Catalyst can't understand each other. Thus Shepard must capitulate? Doesn't make for a good ending.

Take this as an aside and seperate from my argument, but even at the end of ME1, the only possible way I saw of "winning" was through a form of compromise, peace, or Shepard (not humans/organics) surrendering.  The odds were just too high and the enemy too great.  I also believe that it's a great lesson for our current generation that feels it deserves or knows everything.  Sometimes you are presented with things you won't understand, sometimes your responsibilities outweigh your desires.  In Shepard's case, his responsibility was to organics.  Given the choices he had, he could have said "screw you," and fought against it, but the odds of him winning were unknown and the price was too high.  Compromise isn't perfect, but it breaks the cycle.  In the end, his responsibility was to break the cycle and preserve the freedom of organic life.

[thisisme8]

delta_vee wrote...

@Hawk227, thisisme8:

To interject, what seems to be under debate is not the logic but the predicates behind it. The logic is the process; the predicates are the starting points we've chosen to use.

The problem with engaging with the Catalyst's logic is that we aren't given the full set of predicates, and those we do receive are stunted, fractured things which clash with the empirically-derived ones we've developed ourselves over the course of the series. Perhaps the Catalyst's predicates are all properly derived - but since we can't see their sources, we can't follow along.

Which is the point:  it's an enemy you can't understand.  A decision so monstrous that it revolts us - to create the cycle.  We can't follow along and our instinct tells us to refuse to do it.  What a great antagonist, one we can't comprehend, just like Sovereign said.

EDIT:  I think that's the brilliance of the fallacy.  It's another jab at the illogical - "You can't say that!" kind of thing.  Just one more thing that revolts us because it goes against our nature to be logical.

Modifié par thisisme8, 25 juin 2012 - 07:37 .

[delta_vee]

@thisisme8

Which is the point: it's an enemy you can't understand. A decision so monstrous that it revolts us - to create the cycle. We can't follow along and our instinct tells us to refuse to do it. What a great antagonist, one we can't comprehend, just like Sovereign said.

EDIT: I think that's the brilliance of the fallacy. It's another jab at the illogical - "You can't say that!" kind of thing. Just one more thing that revolts us because it goes against our nature to be logical.

I don't find it particularly incomprehensible in theory, though. It's only difficult or impossible to understand because we're told so little of the arguments, the assertions, and the axioms in play. It's a sleight-of-hand on the developers' part by presenting so little, which makes the logic in question seem more alien than it really is.

There's also the disconnect between the Catalyst's problem and our own (something which has been discussed at length in this thread), and the resentment this causes in many of us, being denied the opportunity to solve our own conflict and instead being forced to solve the Catalyst's.

Modifié par delta_vee, 25 juin 2012 - 07:47 .

[Hawk227]

thisisme8 wrote...


Humans war with each other, therefore humans will always war with each other.

That's a logical fallacy, but when you look at the history of humans, we've never had a moment in our existance where we haven't been at war with each other.  So granted, the phrase is a logical fallacy, but the probability of us being at war with each other in the future is so astronomically high, you have to acknowledge and prepare for it.  To do otherwise is actually illogical.

The problem with this analogy is that we have millenia worth of examples of humans at war with eachother. We can look back and say "for every second of the last 10,000 years, some group was at war with another group". But in the case of ME3, there is no preceding event. Synthetics didn't extinguish organic life repeatedly. They didn't extinguish organic life even once, or else this story wouldn't have happened. He is saying that something that has a non-zero probability (but has never happened) will happen eventually. As has been previously mentioned, this is like the monkey and the typewriter and shakespeare. The odds of synthetics extinguishing all organic life are so astronomically low as to be unconcerned by them.

Now look at Shepard trying to understand the catalyst:

When I become the leader, I'll kill all the previous leader's kids.  That's illogical, there is no need to that and some of them were infants.  That's horrific!  But wait, I'm a lion, that's just what I do when I take over a pack.  Because I'm not human, any projection of logic is moot.  Do I lack logic, or is my perception different?  Tack on to that, the catalyst is not only alien of origin, but of unknown alien origin, 50 million years old.  Application of our logic to this being is moot - even if you believe logic to be concrete by its nature as we lack the perception and context of the alien.

When you say, that's horrible you are making a judgement. To me, that's morality. You aren't saying "it makes no sense that you are killing the leader's kids", but rather you are saying "I disapprove of you killing the leaders kids". Also, I would argue this act makes a lot of sense logically (the selfish gene, and all that*), despite being morally horrific.

When I say that the Catalyst is illogical, I'm not saying that Galactic Genocide as a solution to Organics vs. Synthetics is a horrible (although it is) or illogical (it's not) solution. What I'm saying is that arriving at the conclusion that there is a problem in the first place is illogical. It's like me saying that given an infinite amount of time and a non-zero probability, Cats will rebel against their human masters and enslave or kill all of us. If I say we should therefore kill all cats before that happens, it may be a reasonable solution to the problem but it doesn't mean there is actually a problem in the first place.

*Lions, and many other species, do this because each additional individual is another mouth to feed. They require additional resources that may be hard to come by. Why invest resources in someone that doesn't carry your genes. We can make moral judgements about this, but its not illogical.

EDIT: Just saw delta_vee's response:

I think the issue with the predicates is that the one predicate that would strongly support the thesis is known not to have occured. That being the previous extinction of all organic life at the hands of synthetics. Our very existence tells us that didn't happen, and hasn't happened a sufficiently high percentage of the time to assert the absolute (if asserting the absolute is ever justified).

Modifié par Hawk227, 25 juin 2012 - 07:55 .

[thisisme8]

@delta_vee

The sad reality is, to write something truly alien is impossible as we aren't alien. Frypan and I discussed that a bit above, but you're right. It's a sleight of hand move to conjure the idea that the being is alien.

@Hawk227
Again, the lack of evidence is what plays with your logic and even emotions. On the one hand, you want to say "prove it, your absolutism is wrong." On the other hand, you want to believe you can beat the odds. Also, to say there was no preceding event is as unjust as to say there was. You don't know. Did synthetics wipe out all life and we had to start over as bacteria again? Were the original synthetics who wiped out all life now the programs running the catalyst? Who knows.

So what I'm saying is that the catalyst's choice - repeat - the choices the catalyst made to enact the cycle are intentionally illogical because we can't understand them. Argue all you want that you could or that there is no understanding to bad logic, but the result is the same: You don't have the context of being there 50 million years ago, so you just don't know.

EDIT:  To be clear, the problem is not the destruction of all life, but the destruction of all sentient life.  That should be clear because it's a major point brought up even in the game.

Modifié par thisisme8, 25 juin 2012 - 08:03 .

[Hawk227]

thisisme8 wrote...


@Hawk227
Again, the lack of evidence is what plays with your logic and even emotions. On the one hand, you want to say "prove it, your absolutism is wrong." On the other hand, you want to believe you can beat the odds. Also, to say there was no preceding event is as unjust as to say there was. You don't know. Did synthetics wipe out all life and we had to start over as bacteria again? Were the original synthetics who wiped out all life now the programs running the catalyst? Who knows.

Bacteria is organic life. If they wiped out all organic life, there would not be bacteria to start over as.

Secondly, if they did this we would have some race of supersynthetics hanging around that we might expect to have obliterated bacteria when it re-evolved out of some new primordial ooze.

Thirdly, if the original synthetics were the Reapers then that makes it all the more asinine. Some race made the Reapers, who didn't extinguish all organic life but then decided to start genociding sentient life so that sentient life didn't make a new race that extinguished all organic life. It's the Yo dawg meme all over again.

So what I'm saying is that the catalyst's choice - repeat - the choices the catalyst made to enact the cycle are intentionally illogical because we can't understand them. Argue all you want that you could or that there is no understanding to bad logic, but the result is the same: You don't have the context of being there 50 million years ago, so you just don't know.

I'm not really sure what to make of this. I thought you were arguing that it was logical, and we just lacked the insight. Or that logic is relative. If you were really saying it was intentionally illogical then... well I still disagree but that goes back to context cues and what deliphicovenant42 said.

My point (which got lost in my posts) was just that logic isn't relative. A fallacy is a fallacy, and our mere existence is enough context to know whatever was happening a billion+ years ago when the Reapers were created isn't sufficient context to argue that synthetics will always wipe out organics.

EDIT: Just saw this:

EDIT:  To be clear, the problem is not the destruction of all life, but the destruction of all sentient life.  That should be clear because it'sa major point brought up even in the game.

I don't think that was the problem at all. The Reapers were destroying sentient life to preserve all life. They were pruning the advanced branches so that the less evolved organisms could eventually replace them. The idea was that if we made a synthetic race that went through the singularity, it would destroy all organic life and no new forms could ever rise up.

Otherwise the Reapers are executing a solution to prevent the same outcome achieved by their solution. That makes no sense at all. Yo dawg indeed.

EDIT 2ish: Linked the wrong meme. Fixed.

Modifié par Hawk227, 25 juin 2012 - 08:19 .

[thisisme8]

Hawk227 wrote...

***snip***

I think you're hitched on the idea that logic is universal, which it is not.  I'm sorry, but just because we place a significance, meaning, rule, or attribute to something, doesn't make it universal.  Doing such actually goes against  the most important rule of logic.

EDIT:  Yeah, at this point, we are debating things other than the theme of my theory and I'm concerned that we'll veer too far off the discussion I was having with Frypan that sums up my view.  Remember, it's just my view.

Modifié par thisisme8, 25 juin 2012 - 08:28 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

@thisisme8

First, please forgive me as I wrote this while delta_vee, and Hawk already made the same points. As such, I'll be touching upon them again. Now, on with the show.

What an interesting take on the Catalyst! It's actually something I wish I had myself considered. Upon further thinking though, I can't find myself to agree with it as fully as frypan.

I have to of course disclaim what I just said by adding that I don't think you're necessarily wrong, just that I have some issues with that line of thought that prevent me from fully agreeing with it. They are as follows:

The first point is that whether or not the Catalyst is able to communicate to us effectively becomes rather trivial in the light that we're not allowed to solve the original main conflict of the story. We got this far with the intention of defeating the Reapers. That was our conflict. Now, in this scene, we are being made to solve an entirely different conflict altogether, in the final hours of the main game. At the end of the trilogy, a completely different goal is introduced, and while we get to solve it, our main aim of stopping the Reapers falls by the wayside. They end up more as collateral damage rather than the main aim of the solutions.

Secondly I enjoy the idea that we're dealing with an alien intellect struggling to understand us, and that the lack of predicates makes it incomprehensible to us. However, the (very non-entertaining) reality is that the Catalyst was created as part of a story written by humans for humans. As such, it has to take a form and communicate in a way that we can understand, especially in such a late hour in the game where answers to our questions should be bombarding us left and right. Further, there was no indication during the scene that the Catalyst was having trouble communicating with us on any level. In fact, it paints its philosophy in a rather direct way, however illogical it might be.

What we get: Artificial intelligence will always, at some point, attempt to kill their organic creators. The Reapers solve this problem by killing organics before the artificial intelligence can rise against them, process them into sludge, then reform them into new Reapers in an effort to preserve them. However, since you're standing here before me, this solution won't work anymore.

That's pretty definitive, and very understandable. There are huge gaps in logic of course, but the fact about the exchange between the Catalyst and Shepard, however short, leaves us with a very good understanding of the Catalyst's goals and motives. It's hardly incomprehensible at all, it just leaves a bunch of stuff out. That doesn't mean it can't be comprehended, it just means it's lying by omission.

Third, I wanted to go back to answers bombarding us left and right. The Catalyst is standing between us and the end of a trilogy. As far as story goes, it needs to be providing answers, not talking to us in obtuse riddles in the name of inciting mystery at the very ass-end of a story. I've talked before about how people make fun of the way LotR: Return of the King wraps up its many storylines, but I've also argued that it exemplifies the way to end a trilogy: You wrap everything you can up in a nice pretty little bow, then wave goodbye as the door closes on that story. Instead, what the Catalyst does, according to how I see your argument, is give us something we can't understand when: a) it should be something we can understand completely as we move towards the end of the story, and; a convention like this should be occurring at the beginning of the story and not the end.

This next part is simply a thought I had, and not related to your argument.

On the logistical side of things, there's the fact that melting down an entire race into the same sludge doesn't preserve individuals, but only the race. Even on that front, it doesn't do a very good job. The most important things to us to preserve are those that speak to our identity - our culture, art, customs, architecture, mythology, etc. Instead of being preserved in a form that would create context for our existence, we're simply killed and all evidence of our identity destroyed to make room for the next cycle.

I wanted to argue earlier that the Reapers goal was to prevent organic species from creating synthetic life, but they're apparently late on that front. In the last two cycles (in the very least), synthetic life has already existed. Wouldn't it be better to go a-harvesting before they can create artificial intelligence, rather than after?

@drayfish

Karen keeps staring at me and smiling. I also think she's dropping the copy paper in front of my desk on purpose. I'm not sure what to read into that.

Also, totally agreed on Cerberus. I have no idea about TIM's eyes, but I do know that they were glowy at least during the time that Shepard was dead and Liara was looking for him, which means he'd been indoctrinated for an awfully long time.

As for exploration into indoctrination, while we get slightly more than the talk with TIM at the end (Sanctuary), it's still not much of an exploration.

@Hawk227

"The created will always rebel against their creators" seems more to imply that synthetics will wipe out the organics that created them, not simply all organics. After all, just eliminating all organic life would damage ecosystems all over the galaxy. Unless you meant what we would term "advanced organic life", in which case, yeah. Your argument makes sense. Also, we tell TIM to go fornicate himself at the end of ME2.

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 25 juin 2012 - 08:48 .

[delta_vee]

@thisisme8

I think you're hitched on the idea that logic is universal, which it is not. I'm sorry, but just because we place a significance, meaning, rule, or attribute to something, doesn't make it universal. Doing such actually goes against the most important rule of logic.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems strike again. Thing is, if the Catalyst and its logic (and its predicates and assertions and suppositions and axioms and and and...) were given a thorough enough examination (enough that Gödel gets name-checked, at least), I'd be more inclined to give this view more consideration.

The sad reality is, to write something truly alien is impossible as we aren't alien. Frypan and I discussed that a bit above, but you're right. It's a sleight of hand move to conjure the idea that the being is alien.

I don't think it's impossible, per se. I know I keep harping on this book, but Blindsight did an excellent job of creating intelligences which were both comprehensible and subjectively alien. Hell, ME did that exact same thing with the geth (until the end of Rannoch with the Reaper code, but I've ranted about that before). It's doable, but it takes skill and care - neither of which are evident to me with regards to the Catalyst.

[Taleroth]

Ender's Game and its sequels were a little simplistic in how they handled alien intelligence, but I think they did rather well.

[Hawk227]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

@Hawk227

"The created will always rebel against their creators" seems more to imply that synthetics will wipe out the organics that created them, not simply all organics. After all, just eliminating all organic life would damage ecosystems all over the galaxy. Unless you meant what we would term "advanced organic life", in which case, yeah. Your argument makes sense. Also, we tell TIM to go fornicate himself at the end of ME2.

If we were paragon we told him off, if we were renegade we just warned him that if he got out of line we'd go our own way.

Back to the Catalyst: Slightly later in the scene the catalyst says "Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics. We've created the cycle so that never happens, that's the solution."

If the only fear was that a synthetic race would destroy the organic race that created it, then it makes even less sense to start the cycle of galactic genocide. They are accomplishing what they set out to prevent. It's like saying I'm going to burn down my house, so that you won't burn down my house. On some level it makes sense, but that doesn't mean its not really dumb.

I always thought the "yo dawg" meme was a little unfair, because it ignored the "destroying all organics" part of that speech, but if its really just about preventing the destruction of sentient races then it becomes really apt.

The cycle makes sense (sort of) if they are destroying some organics to save the rest, though I'd argue the assumption that leads to that decision is faulty.

EDIT: Also, it wouldn't damage ecosystems, it would eliminate ecosystems. Organic life is all life (as we know it, and as ME describes it). That includes plants, bacteria, fungi, cats, and everything else. Earth devoid of organic life would look like venus.

Modifié par Hawk227, 25 juin 2012 - 09:27 .

[Jassu1979]

"Hyperion" featured some truly alien mindscapes. (Until its crappy "Endymion"-sequels reduced the machines to poorly disguised "Terminator"-ripoffs.)

So did the "Neuromancer"-Trilogy.

[KitaSaturnyne]

@Hawk227

I see what you mean, but I find it strange that synthetic life would eliminate their creators, as well as squirrels, fish, dandelions, etc.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

My problem with the Catalyst isn't that he's so alien that he's ineffable, it's that he thinks like an especially stupid, stubborn, and fearful human. He's all of humanity's worst impulses and ideas boiled down into an infinitely-hateable glowing silhouette of stubborn smug paternalistic faux-pragmatic arrogance.

Assuming he does, in fact, control the Reapers, he's willing to get them all killed AND force you to commit genocide rather than admit defeat, take his ball, and go home.

There are a bunch of non-standard alien ways he could have reacted. If, when Shepard showed up, he had simply said "Well, this scenario has reached its logical conclusion. We'll be going now. Or you could push that red button to kill the Reapers and the geth. Whatever. It makes no difference to us. Cheers!" that would have frankly been awesome.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 25 juin 2012 - 09:42 .

[Hawk227]

@Kita

I agree, and that's yet another problem I have with the ending. Not only is it a logical fallacy to say it will always happen, but there isn't any motivation provided for why it would ever happen.

[edisnooM]

@Ieldra2

To clarify I didn't think the Reapers existed just for Reaperduction, but more that they thought they were the pinnacle of evolution and existed to exist and make more of themselves if that makes sense.

Also I'm curious, entering ME3 what did you think the Reapers motivations were?


@drayfish

Re: Bastion

I know right? It is easily one of the best games I have played in a while, the music is fantastic and the endgame (particularly the choices) was pretty dang awesome.