5087 réponses à ce sujet

[generalleo03]

Prosarian wrote...

Since we haven't actually created a true AI yet, we don't know if an AI is capable of questioning its programming. It's more of a technical question and unless there's someone here who has some expertise in this, I'm happy to go along with the idea that it is unable to change it's core programming.

From the Catalyst's point of view;

Conflict between Synthetics and Organics is inevitable.
I was designed to find a permanent solution.

Considering that this is how it was programmed, it's not a surprise that it would choose death as a permanent solution, there is no other alternative. Everything else has a chance of leading to conflict. Also, yes it values organics as a whole. But individuals, not so much. As far as it is concerned, preserving a few organics is equivalent to preserving the whole, since it was never programmed to think of individuals.

Thats a non-arguement.  You're basically saying because we don't know in the real world, its okay?  Why?  Why should we assume AI is stupider than us?  I would think a necessary condition of intelligence is the ability to question and understand your precepts.  Otherwise you're a VI, which was my point.

I can see how this wouldn't exactly be everyone's cup of tea, considering how menacing and powerful Sovereign was. However it does fit in with the theme of cosmicism IMO.

The philosophy of cosmicism states that there is no recognizable divine presence, humans are a particularly insignificant in the larger scheme of intergalactic existence, and are just a small species susceptible to being wiped from existence any moment.  This also suggest that the majority of humanity are creatures with the same significance as insects in a much greater struggle between greater forces.

Here we have this extremely powerful being, the catalyst, who is perpetrating a cycle of genocide on an unfathomable scale simply because it was programmed wrongly from the start. Just spend some time thinking about how many people have died all over the galaxy during Shepard's cycle. Now multiply that by a billion years (at least).

To it, each of our individual lives is worth nothing more than an insect's, since it is only concerned with preserving the whole. With the catalyst, I really feel as though humanity and the other alien species are utterly insignificant. All our dreams, hopes and achievements are worthless in comparison with the catalyst's drive to bring us salvation through destruction. It is so futile and stupid yet we are unable to to defend ourselves and our people are being slaughtered by the millions.

I am aware that the Reapers, even without an explanation of their motivations, still fit this theme. A catalyst like being, just more powerful, is a nightmare of mine and I'm glad the EC went that route.

For the nth time i've had to quote this:

Let's start here, Mass Effect is NOT Comsic Horror. For the uninitiated, Cosmic Horror is a fantasy/fiction concept pioneered by H. P. Lovecraft, with his recognizable villain (if he can be called a villain) Cthuhlu. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmicism ) So let me admit up front, the Reapers are definately a shout out to Cthuhlu. They have a similar appearance (tentacles), names (Old One vs Old Machines), and until the last 10 minutes, a similar motive (or lack there of) to Cthuhlu. But contrary to your thoughts, they are not Giant Death Robot Space Cthuhlus. How do I know this? Because you killed Soverign in Mass Effect 1. This fact alone, that the insignificant specs of the Milky Way Galaxy killed an Old One, removes Mass Effect from the realms of real Cosmic Horror.
Alright, so Mass Effect isn't pure H. P. Lovecraftian Cosmic Horror. It could still be a lighter form of it right? No, it isn't. THE key theme of Cosmic Horror is nihilism. The insignificance of human toil. The vastness of the Universe makes everything and anything we do, could do, or ever will do completely pointless. This has to be present for Cosmic Horror. If it isn't present, it isn't Cosmic Horror. Mass Effect does not have this anywhere except the last 10 minutes. Your actions continually have an effect throughout the trilogy. You killed Sovereign in 1, stopped the collectors in 2, and provided victories against the Reapers in 3. Far from insignificant, your actions have discernable and real effects in the story. The only time your actions don't matter is the end. And that is one of the key reasons the ending is bad, genre switch. There is no reason at all to expect a Cosmic Horror ending to this trilogy. I am not saying Cosmic Horror is bad, far from it, I'm saying Mass Effect isn't Cosmic Horror, and that's whay a Cosmic Horror ending doesn't work.
All that being said, I generally don't have a problem with these people. Like I said before they are not stupid. They're mistaken. Mass Effect directly follows the Hero's Journey (for the uninitiatedhttp://en.wikipedia..../Hero's_journey ). It is a Hero's Journey set in space with an antagonist that draws from Cosmic Horror. My point here isn't to argue that it is a Hero's Journey, but merely to point out that it is NOT Cosmic Horror. So stop arguing that defeating the Reapers is impossible. In the words of Inigo Montoya "That word, I don't think that word means what he thinks it means".

Impossible has a definition:
1. not possible; unable to be, exist, happen

This doesn't mean unlikely. It means it can't happen. Humans defeating Old Ones in classical H. P. Lovecraftian sense is impossible. Defeating Reapers happens multiple times. Let me place once scenario for you, the Reapers come at us one at a time. Even the most ardent pro-reaper person must admit we have a very high chance of winning that one. In fact, it's what Shepard actually does. So quit arguing that it can't happen. Unlikely? Yes. Impossible? No. 

[MrFob]

RiouHotaru wrote...

While an interesting read, you once again make a few mistakes and ruin your entire argument:

- Turning Refusal into something it's not
The sole purpose of Refusal is to give the people of the fanbase the option to say no.  But, since people back in the day ACCEPTED the obvious consequence that saying 'No' entailed, that's exactly what you get.  Even assuming the Coalition fleet could defeat the Reapers over Earth, there's still the Reapers everywhere else in the galaxy.  Defeat is inevitable.  Trying to turn Refusal into the esoteric "conventional victory" ending everyone seems to think should exist would grossly undermine the theme of the Reapers, and completely negate the point of the entire plot.

I agree with this in principle but the refusal ending, while it might have worked in the original cut does no longer work in the EC because of the changes to the other options (see my post about this a few pages back for details).

Now to the point I actually want to respond to:

- Catalyst as antagonist
Why people insist in doing this will always baffle me.  He's not an antagonist, or even a villain.  Hell, if you want to put it in the broadest terms, ME3 never had a clear antagonist.  The Reapers?  Sure, but they're more like a force of nature than anything else.  We're told of their slow and gradual progress, and see it in the Galaxy Map, but only a handful of times are they ever directly confronted.

What about TIM?  He definitely makes for a much clearer antagonist, considering he was already vaguely antagonistic during ME2, and simply loses the grey-and-grey morality facade he tried to manipulate you with in ME2 and just does exactly what he does best.

TIM is definitely not the main antagonist of the ME trilogy. The reapers are. They have to be because they were set up as such from day 1. TIM is not even introduced until the second game and he is - as you say yourself - an interesting gray-ish figure for the most part. Yes, he looses this facade eventually but this transition already does not flow very well within the plot and even if it did, compared to the reapers, he is pretty small.
The reapers on the other hand are more than a force of nature. They are set up to have personalities (Sovereign, Harbinger, the reaper on Rannoch and the ones Grayson is in cintact with in Retribution). It is only during these last minutes that this image is somewhat blurred by the catalysts ramblings. And what do you mean, we do not confront them? What about the citadel in ME1, what about Harbingers taunts all throughout ME2, what about Arrival, what about Earth, Tuchanka and Rannoch?
I can see how you could somewhat separate the catalyst from the reapers but to say that the reapers are not antagonists after everything we have seen and done before does not compute for me. Yes, they are a diffuse antagonist but even if you take that into consideration, the catalyst very much seems like an attempt to give this diffuse antagonist one single personality, one voice that we can deal with (a bit like the borg queen in Star Trek).

But the Catalyst?  He's a plot device introduced a handful of minutes away from the endings simply to tell us what we can do.  Just like ME1 and 2, he's a character whose sole purpose is to give us the final options.  Joker did it in ME1, and TIM did it in ME2.  Following tradition, the Catalyst slips into the role once again.  That he's the (ironic!) catalyst behind the Reapers is inconsequential.  Largely, his origin-story infodump serves little purpose, and it's clear why the devs left it out originally.  Besides his explanation of exactly what each option entails, the rest of the conversation it utterly needless and time-consuming.

I can see where you are coming from with this but that doesn't excuse anything. It even makes things worse. And no, Joker and TIM were not just plot devices, they were established for the whole game before exposing us to the final choice and it made (more or less) sense for them to give it to us. There is no such cohesion in the end of ME3.
I do agree though that the additional exposition in the investigate options of the EC is pointless and doesn't add anything relevant to the situation.

Who cares where he came from, or who came up with the idea for the Crucible.  Are any of those facts relevant to the here and now of saving galactic civilization?

They are relevant because the catalyst is the presenter for the final option and the crucible is the executor of these options. Who presents the choice and why is very relevant to the choice itself. Suppose the ending choice of ME2 were given by Anderson instead of TIM. Suppose Anderson and Hacket contacted you and told you they finally believe you and they needed to study the collector base in order to find ways to defeat the reaper threat. Do you think a lot of people would have decided differently if that were the case? Now consider who presents the final choice here. A completely unknown character, the only thing we know of is that his agenda is at least congruent with the reapers.
Besides, the main problem of the choices still lies withing the choices themselves, not their presentation (although that is definitely part of it).

And it's been proven over and over that if the Catalyst truly desired to "defeat" Shepard, all he had to do was let Shepard bleed out.  Using the light elevator and presenting the three choices only hurts him if his goal is to perpeutate the cycle.  Giving Shepard the choice to rewrite, replace, or outright destroy him also does nothing to help his goal.  Unless you're willing to ignore the EC showing that the Catalyst was correct in describing each outcome, then it's clear that at no point is he making a willing effort to decieve you.  And to attribute malicious intent or thought to in inappropriately makes no sense, since as an AI, he's incapable of that.

This is the main inconsistency in the writing in my opinion. The actions of the catalyst and it's explanations for them don't fit together. They are paradoxical and this disconnectivity between the motive and action is never explained. So apart from the fact that the choices and their consequences itself don't make much sense, this even invalidates the situation that gets us to the choices in the first place and is one of the main reasons why I find it rather tedious to discuss the actual content of this badly written ending.

Modifié par MrFob, 05 juillet 2012 - 03:58 .

[N-Seven]

bc525 wrote...

@ RiouHotaru

I agree that the Catalyst AI might not see its actions as malicious or evil. Maybe its just futilely trying to execute its impossible objectives, and in that mode it disregards what I consider morality. I understand that distinction, but from Shepard's point of view there's no excusing the systematic annihilation of intelligent life.

Shepard clearly becomes the protagonist of the story and the opposing force becomes the antagonist. You're very right that Mass Effect varied who exactly the enemy was throughout the story. There were Mercs, Pirates, Cerberus, Geth, Collectors, Husks, and Reapers. And after the EC I don't consider the Catalyst to be benign or even neutral in that regard. To me it has become the ultimate antagonist, the ultimate bad guy. It started the cycle of destruction that our hero is trying to stop. It started the conflict that our main character must overcome.

The Catalyst operates outside of traditional morality.  The Catalyst doesn't value 'life', outside of the need to preserve minimum amount of samples of DNA, as per the requirements of it's solution to chaos.  It doesn't even value it's own existence, as it offers the destroy option.

The only thing it's looking for, is a superior solution.  I figure, in a goofy way, that the Catalyst's cyclic slow-extermination mode, is a sort of 'power saving mode'.    Once you connect the Crucible as it's super-battery, it reanalyzes the situation and gains a 'performance mode' and discovers that with the added power, potentially superior solutions can be executed..   Yeah, it's a big warped laptop.

Modifié par N-Seven, 05 juillet 2012 - 03:56 .

[bc525]

@ CINCTuchanka

Having free will doesn't really mean the ability to dominate everything around you.

I agree with the concept that the Crucible fundamentally affected the Catalyst. In fact, that's a great point and something that I completely agree with. But based on my EC experience I'm having serious trouble making the leap to where the Catalyst is somehow controlled or even incapacitated by the Crucible docking.

If the Catalyst had the ability to dominate the galaxy then maybe it would force Synthesis upon everyone and everything. It can't dominate everything, but that doesn't automatically mean it doesn't wish it could. Because the Catalyst needs Shepard's DNA to execute Synthesis doesn't mean it's being controlled. It's been compromised, not controlled.

Where do you get the information that the Reapers are independent of the Catalyst? You stated that the Reapers would continue with the cycle unless otherwise notified directly by the Catalyst, where did you get that info? I'm very interested to know the source of that because that's very crucial to my opinion of the relationship between the Reapers and the Catalyst.

[bc525]

N-Seven wrote...

The Catalyst operates outside of traditional morality.  The Catalyst doesn't value 'life', outside of the need to preserve minimum amount of samples of DNA, as per the requirements of it's solution to chaos.  It doesn't even value it's own existence, as it offers the destroy option.

That's exactly the point I'm grappling with now.  Why does the Catalyst offer the Destroy option?  I really like your explanation that the Catalyst doesn't respect life, even its own.  It has given itself completely to its task.

Other discussions have offered that the Catalyst is forced by the Crucible to offer Destroy whether it likes it or not.  I can see the logic to that, but as a fan I don't necessarily agree with that logic.  I prefer the scenario where the Catalyst is so bizarre that it's doing things that just don't really make sense.  It becomes an unpredictable wildcard in that scenario, and that seems like more fun to me.

[CINCTuchanka]

bc525 wrote...

@ CINCTuchanka

Having free will doesn't really mean the ability to dominate everything around you.

I agree with the concept that the Crucible fundamentally affected the Catalyst. In fact, that's a great point and something that I completely agree with. But based on my EC experience I'm having serious trouble making the leap to where the Catalyst is somehow controlled or even incapacitated by the Crucible docking.

If the Catalyst had the ability to dominate the galaxy then maybe it would force Synthesis upon everyone and everything. It can't dominate everything, but that doesn't automatically mean it doesn't wish it could. Because the Catalyst needs Shepard's DNA to execute Synthesis doesn't mean it's being controlled. It's been compromised, not controlled.

Where do you get the information that the Reapers are independent of the Catalyst? You stated that the Reapers would continue with the cycle unless otherwise notified directly by the Catalyst, where did you get that info? I'm very interested to know the source of that because that's very crucial to my opinion of the relationship between the Reapers and the Catalyst.

I largely base it off our first introduction the Reapers: Sovereign.

First, there is the name, "Sovereign," which implies just that: sovereignty.  

Second, I believe that Sovereign says something to the effect of each Reaper being a nation into and of itself. 

Thirdly, in the original cut at least if you waited too long the Reapers would destroy the Crucible.  This implies to me at least that the Reapers are independent of the Catalyst and able to function without the Catalysts direction.  If the Crucible nullifies the Catalysts control of the Reapers then they revert to doing what they do best: blowing up the Crucible and continuing the Cycle.  

Further, the Reapers are consistently referred to as sentient warships and they all appear to have personalities.  They are, in some sense, indoctrinated.  They appear to believe completely in the Catalysts vision.   The rumored Leviathan DLC could shed some light on the Reapers origins, but I am refraining from reading the leaked files to avoid spoilers. Perhaps when/if it is released I will have more to back up my interpretation of the connection between the Catalyst and the Reapers.  

I admit my interpretation is largely inference.  One could also believe that the Reapers are controlled directly and immediately by the Catalyst.  However, again, this runs counter to the independence and sentience that the Reapers have been described as possessing.  Their independence is constrained by their "indoctrination" into believing that Reaping is the only solution. 

[generalleo03]

bc525 wrote...

N-Seven wrote...

The Catalyst operates outside of traditional morality.  The Catalyst doesn't value 'life', outside of the need to preserve minimum amount of samples of DNA, as per the requirements of it's solution to chaos.  It doesn't even value it's own existence, as it offers the destroy option.

That's exactly the point I'm grappling with now.  Why does the Catalyst offer the Destroy option?  I really like your explanation that the Catalyst doesn't respect life, even its own.  It has given itself completely to its task.

Other discussions have offered that the Catalyst is forced by the Crucible to offer Destroy whether it likes it or not.  I can see the logic to that, but as a fan I don't necessarily agree with that logic.  I prefer the scenario where the Catalyst is so bizarre that it's doing things that just don't really make sense.  It becomes an unpredictable wildcard in that scenario, and that seems like more fun to me.

I like this discussion to be quite honest.  But it seems more likely that its just bad writing than some sort of complicated philosophical concept that was barely explored at all.  You guys, and myself, are trying to find logic in something that's simply a plot hole. Maybe it's best to just call a spade a spade and move on.

[TrevorHill]

You know, if you think about it, the ending can be seen as an allegory of the relationship between Bioware and EA. The Reapers (EA) are completely devouring the galaxy (the gaming industry) and when they arrive to reap earth, Commander Shepard (Bioware) has three options.
Destroy: Tell EA to go f**k the themselves when they attempt to buy you out, but at the same time sustaining heavy financial losses (destruction of the Geth).
Synthesis: Allow EA to buy you out and then you adopt their lame-ass business practices, at the same time sacrificing your identity as a developer.
Control: Allow yourself to become part of EA, but still try to "retain your ideals and morals". However, you again sacrifice your identity as a developer.
But no matter what, EA can't be defeated conventionally. Tough choice. Maybe they're saying something there, eh?

[N-Seven]

generalleo03 wrote...

bc525 wrote...

N-Seven wrote...

The Catalyst operates outside of traditional morality.  The Catalyst doesn't value 'life', outside of the need to preserve minimum amount of samples of DNA, as per the requirements of it's solution to chaos.  It doesn't even value it's own existence, as it offers the destroy option.

That's exactly the point I'm grappling with now.  Why does the Catalyst offer the Destroy option?  I really like your explanation that the Catalyst doesn't respect life, even its own.  It has given itself completely to its task.

Other discussions have offered that the Catalyst is forced by the Crucible to offer Destroy whether it likes it or not.  I can see the logic to that, but as a fan I don't necessarily agree with that logic.  I prefer the scenario where the Catalyst is so bizarre that it's doing things that just don't really make sense.  It becomes an unpredictable wildcard in that scenario, and that seems like more fun to me.

I like this discussion to be quite honest.  But it seems more likely that its just bad writing than some sort of complicated philosophical concept that was barely explored at all.  You guys, and myself, are trying to find logic in something that's simply a plot hole. Maybe it's best to just call a spade a spade and move on.

Well, yeah.  The Crucible gives the Catalyst an enormous boost of energy, and new ways to project and manipulate that energy.   Upon reanalysis, options that were unavailable before, due to power limitations, are now available.   The harvesting solution now seems obsolete/inefficient/ inferior to the new options.  The Catalyst doesn't like or hate the idea of being destroyed.  It's just part of one of these new solutions.   As long as it's purpose (as mediator of conflict) is fulfilled, it is satisified.  

As far as bad writing....yeah it's not great.  I just kind of think of it as the writer's having written themselves into a corner, which happens a lot in shows and books.  They're fallible, and given time restraints (and not having the microscopic vision that rabid fans can have) really this was the best they could do to get out of this big, grand, galactic story arch.  The little personal stories were great though, and that's what is usually why people fall in love with franchises...not the 'big story'.

[generalleo03]

N-Seven wrote...

generalleo03 wrote...

bc525 wrote...

N-Seven wrote...

The Catalyst operates outside of traditional morality.  The Catalyst doesn't value 'life', outside of the need to preserve minimum amount of samples of DNA, as per the requirements of it's solution to chaos.  It doesn't even value it's own existence, as it offers the destroy option.

That's exactly the point I'm grappling with now.  Why does the Catalyst offer the Destroy option?  I really like your explanation that the Catalyst doesn't respect life, even its own.  It has given itself completely to its task.

Other discussions have offered that the Catalyst is forced by the Crucible to offer Destroy whether it likes it or not.  I can see the logic to that, but as a fan I don't necessarily agree with that logic.  I prefer the scenario where the Catalyst is so bizarre that it's doing things that just don't really make sense.  It becomes an unpredictable wildcard in that scenario, and that seems like more fun to me.

I like this discussion to be quite honest.  But it seems more likely that its just bad writing than some sort of complicated philosophical concept that was barely explored at all.  You guys, and myself, are trying to find logic in something that's simply a plot hole. Maybe it's best to just call a spade a spade and move on.

Well, yeah.  The Crucible gives the Catalyst an enormous boost of energy, and new ways to project and manipulate that energy.   Upon reanalysis, options that were unavailable before, due to power limitations, are now available.   The harvesting solution now seems obsolete/inefficient/ inferior to the new options.  The Catalyst doesn't like or hate the idea of being destroyed.  It's just part of one of these new solutions.   As long as it's purpose (as mediator of conflict) is fulfilled, it is satisified.  

As far as bad writing....yeah it's not great.  I just kind of think of it as the writer's having written themselves into a corner, which happens a lot in shows and books.  They're fallible, and given time restraints (and not having the microscopic vision that rabid fans can have) really this was the best they could do to get out of this big, grand, galactic story arch.  The little personal stories were great though, and that's what is usually why people fall in love with franchises...not the 'big story'.

Heh, that's pretty much the obvious thing they're going for  I agree with you for the most part.  I think their biggest problem is they gave in to the idea that the reapers needed a motive at all.  Take away the organics vs synthetics and the catalyst, make the crucible a mcguffin superweapon that just fires and the ending plot suddenly doesn't bother me as much. 

[MrFob]

N-Seven wrote...

Well, yeah.  The Crucible gives the Catalyst an enormous boost of energy, and new ways to project and manipulate that energy.   Upon reanalysis, options that were unavailable before, due to power limitations, are now available.   The harvesting solution now seems obsolete/inefficient/ inferior to the new options.  The Catalyst doesn't like or hate the idea of being destroyed.  It's just part of one of these new solutions.   As long as it's purpose (as mediator of conflict) is fulfilled, it is satisified.  

So, how exactly does it's destruction (in the destroy ending) resolve anything? I still haven't figured that out.

As far as bad writing....yeah it's not great.  I just kind of think of it as the writer's having written themselves into a corner, which happens a lot in shows and books.  They're fallible, and given time restraints (and not having the microscopic vision that rabid fans can have) really this was the best they could do to get out of this big, grand, galactic story arch. 

I think they just wrote themselves into that corner in the last 10 minutes. There was plenty of opportunity to resolve this story in a satisfying and sensible way before the beam. Maybe not entirely without plot holes but certainly with more elegance than we got now.

The little personal stories were great though, and that's what is usually why people fall in love with franchises...not the 'big story'.

Absolutely agree! When (if) I replay the trilogy, I will do it for the individual moments and I'll have to try and block out the big issues (I think ME2 will work best for this).

Modifié par MrFob, 05 juillet 2012 - 04:28 .

[bc525]

@ CINCTuchanka

As a player I truly want the Reapers to be independent of the Catalyst. That was my original view of the series and the ME3 ending, and I loved that. I was comfortable with that. But the EC expands the conversation with Shepard and the Catalyst and it really makes it clear to me that, no, the Reapers aren't in control. They're the creations and implements of the Catalyst. It started this atrocity because it felt this was the solution to the organics vs synthetics dilemma.

It has always wanted Synthesis, but no organic has exhibited the readiness for its vision of Synthesis ... at least until Shepard shows up. Clapping eyes on Shepard, the Catalyst now sees the opportunity to execute its "ideal" solution.

Modifié par bc525, 05 juillet 2012 - 04:36 .

[generalleo03]

MrFob wrote...

N-Seven wrote...

Well, yeah.  The Crucible gives the Catalyst an enormous boost of energy, and new ways to project and manipulate that energy.   Upon reanalysis, options that were unavailable before, due to power limitations, are now available.   The harvesting solution now seems obsolete/inefficient/ inferior to the new options.  The Catalyst doesn't like or hate the idea of being destroyed.  It's just part of one of these new solutions.   As long as it's purpose (as mediator of conflict) is fulfilled, it is satisified.  

So, how exactly does it's destruction (in the destroy ending) resolve anything? I still haven't figured that out.

As far as bad writing....yeah it's not great.  I just kind of think of it as the writer's having written themselves into a corner, which happens a lot in shows and books.  They're fallible, and given time restraints (and not having the microscopic vision that rabid fans can have) really this was the best they could do to get out of this big, grand, galactic story arch. 

I think they just wrote themselves into that corner in the last 10 minutes. There was plenty of opportunity to resolve this story in a satisfying and sensible way before the beam. Maybe not entirely without plot holes but certainly with more elegance than we got now.

The little personal stories were great though, and that's what is usually why people fall in love with franchises...not the 'big story'.

Absolutely agree! When (if) I replay the trilogy, I will do it for the individual moments and I'll have to try and block out the big issues (I think ME2 will work best for this).

Yeah I know what you mean about the last 10 minutes.  The reality is, it's difficult to come up with a logical reason to kill all advanced life every 50,000 years.  I mean, just try!  I can't really come up with a good one.  I can only complain with all the problems with the one presented.  Best to just avoid it alltogether.

[Prosarian]

generalleo03 wrote...


Thats a non-arguement.  You're basically saying because we don't know in the real world, its okay?  Why?  Why should we assume AI is stupider than us?  I would think a necessary condition of intelligence is the ability to question and understand your precepts.  Otherwise you're a VI, which was my point.

I'm saying that we don't know how an AI would work. Perhaps it can question it's precepts, but it cannot change it's programming, which is my point. Unless you can actually substantiate the idea that an AI is capable of changing it's precepts, then anything you say about it is just an assumption.

For the nth time i've had to quote this:

Let's start here, Mass Effect is NOT Comsic Horror. For the uninitiated, Cosmic Horror is a fantasy/fiction concept pioneered by H. P. Lovecraft, with his recognizable villain (if he can be called a villain) Cthuhlu. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmicism ) So let me admit up front, the Reapers are definately a shout out to Cthuhlu. They have a similar appearance (tentacles), names (Old One vs Old Machines), and until the last 10 minutes, a similar motive (or lack there of) to Cthuhlu. But contrary to your thoughts, they are not Giant Death Robot Space Cthuhlus. How do I know this? Because you killed Soverign in Mass Effect 1. This fact alone, that the insignificant specs of the Milky Way Galaxy killed an Old One, removes Mass Effect from the realms of real Cosmic Horror.
Alright, so Mass Effect isn't pure H. P. Lovecraftian Cosmic Horror. It could still be a lighter form of it right? No, it isn't. THE key theme of Cosmic Horror is nihilism. The insignificance of human toil. The vastness of the Universe makes everything and anything we do, could do, or ever will do completely pointless. This has to be present for Cosmic Horror. If it isn't present, it isn't Cosmic Horror. Mass Effect does not have this anywhere except the last 10 minutes. Your actions continually have an effect throughout the trilogy. You killed Sovereign in 1, stopped the collectors in 2, and provided victories against the Reapers in 3. Far from insignificant, your actions have discernable and real effects in the story. The only time your actions don't matter is the end. And that is one of the key reasons the ending is bad, genre switch. There is no reason at all to expect a Cosmic Horror ending to this trilogy. I am not saying Cosmic Horror is bad, far from it, I'm saying Mass Effect isn't Cosmic Horror, and that's whay a Cosmic Horror ending doesn't work.
All that being said, I generally don't have a problem with these people. Like I said before they are not stupid. They're mistaken. Mass Effect directly follows the Hero's Journey (for the uninitiatedhttp://en.wikipedia..../Hero's_journey ). It is a Hero's Journey set in space with an antagonist that draws from Cosmic Horror. My point here isn't to argue that it is a Hero's Journey, but merely to point out that it is NOT Cosmic Horror. So stop arguing that defeating the Reapers is impossible. In the words of Inigo Montoya "That word, I don't think that word means what he thinks it means".

Impossible has a definition:
1. not possible; unable to be, exist, happen

This doesn't mean unlikely. It means it can't happen. Humans defeating Old Ones in classical H. P. Lovecraftian sense is impossible. Defeating Reapers happens multiple times. Let me place once scenario for you, the Reapers come at us one at a time. Even the most ardent pro-reaper person must admit we have a very high chance of winning that one. In fact, it's what Shepard actually does. So quit arguing that it can't happen. Unlikely? Yes. Impossible? No.

You've gone off on a tangent and have completely misrepresented what i'm trying to say. I'm not arguing that  defeating a single reaper is impossible, I'm not arguing that they're omnipotent. However, every one of our victories simply delays the inevitable, like ramming a boat into Cthulhu's head. No matter how many we've managed to kill, the Reapers keep coming and our best isn't enough to stop them. As a whole force, they are unstoppable.

What I am saying, is that in comparison to their power, we are insignificant. From the point of view of the Catalyst and it's reapers, we are insignificant. Your idea that we are able to somehow stop the Reapers or even 'defeat them multiple times' is utterly absurd. The idea that we've managed to change anything significant is an example of us projecting our own mental idolatires onto the cosmos. The game makes this clear, no matter how many times Shepard 'wins' , you're still losing. And in the the end, you need their creator to help you defeat them anyway.

[N-Seven]

generalleo03 wrote...

Heh, that's pretty much the obvious thing they're going for  I agree with you for the most part.  I think their biggest problem is they gave in to the idea that the reapers needed a motive at all.  Take away the organics vs synthetics and the catalyst, make the crucible a mcguffin superweapon that just fires and the ending plot suddenly doesn't bother me as much. 

I think they kind of fell into a trap of each game needing to have an 'evil mastermind' behind the events.  An entity to give the impressive soliloquy and lecture the good guy on why 'evil is great, and good is stupid'.   So they did it for two games.  When it came to the third game, they ended up sort of retconning the idea that the Reapers appeared to be independent individuals.  I mean it's not discounted 100%, but really now they seem much more like drones.  I'm not sure why they did this.  Maybe they just didn't want to do the same thing for three games in a row.   Maybe it's the same reason they didn't want to do the 'big boss battle at the end' (they thought it would be too cliche).  

So they went in a different direction.  The 'flawed programming' route instead of 'just evil because they're evil' route.  The thing they didn't quite expect though, is that a lot of people liked, and were expecting the old direction. 

It's fun to kill bad guys, just because they are well...bad.  It's extremely satisfying sometimes just to get an old-fashioned action hero send-off, and we didn't really get that.   And they probably also didn't expect fans (like I said, we are rabid) to actively and relentless poke holes in everything they could find.   They were trying to be a little cute, and yes...creative, but what the fans really wanted I think, is just for them to be consistent.

Now I'm not going to slam them too much, because really they still made a fantastic series.  I do think they dropped the ball though in gauging what the fans wanted.   I honestly think the EC makes the best of their new direction, but like I said, the new direction isn't what a lot of people wanted at all.

Modifié par N-Seven, 05 juillet 2012 - 04:52 .

[generalleo03]

Prosarian wrote...

I'm saying that we don't know how an AI would work. Perhaps it can question it's precepts, but it cannot change it's programming, which is my point. Unless you can actually substantiate the idea that an AI is capable of changing it's precepts, then anything you say about it is just an assumption.

And your statement is not subject to this same problem because?  I'm merely stating that intelligence requires understanding your own motives.  If you don't you're not intelligent that's it.  It has nothing to do with artificial or not.

You've gone off on a tangent and have completely misrepresented what i'm trying to say. I'm not arguing that  defeating a single reaper is impossible, I'm not arguing that they're omnipotent. However, every one of our victories simply delays the inevitable, like ramming a boat into Cthulhu's head. No matter how many we've managed to kill, the Reapers keep coming and our best isn't enough to stop them. As a whole force, they are unstoppable.

What I am saying, is that in comparison to their power, we are insignificant. From the point of view of the Catalyst and it's reapers, we are insignificant. Your idea that we are able to somehow stop the Reapers or even 'defeat them multiple times' is utterly absurd. The idea that we've managed to change anything significant is an example of us projecting our own mental idolatires onto the cosmos. The game makes this clear, no matter how many times Shepard 'wins' , you're still losing. And in the the end, you need their creator to help you defeat them anyway.

Sovereign wasn't a part of Cthulhu, he was an old one himself.  There are multiple old one's.  Killing any of them is impossible.

Where is any nihilism in the actual themes or plot?  How can you say we suvived the suicide mission stopped the collectors, and stopped the human-reaper and that is nihilistic?  Really?  I'm not arguing about whether we defeated the reapers before ME3, i'm talking about what is actually in the game in front of us.  There is not a hint of nihilism anywhere before the end of ME3.  We succeed at every goal we set out to do, how is that nihilistic? Because we haven't beaten the reapers yet? what?

You seem to be saying that unless we defeat them all at once it doesn't count, that's absurd.  

Edit: I do want to say, I will think about your boat analogy more.  I like it at least a little bit.  I'm pretty sure I don't agree, but I felt I should give you props for a good analogy.

Edit 2: I've thought about it some more.  I agree that there is definately an undertone of losing throughout ME3.  But not ME2 or ME1.  However, this doesn't mean ME3 is cosmic horror.  There is no nihilism except at the end.  Being in a dark war story does not make it cosmic horror.  

I think the thing that got me a bit too irked was you said "its not everyone cup of tea" implying I don't like it because I either misinterpreted ME3 or don't like cosmic horror.  That's why I replied like I did.  Mass Effect is not cosmic horror.  It's antogonists are a fine line around cosmic horror, but the story being told is not a cosmic horror one.  There are plenty of victories, even if they don't defeat all reapers doesn't make them not victories.  There are never victories in Lovecraft.  Its not like we bumped into Cthuhlu's head as you put it, its more like cutting off a hand.  Sovereign is dead, he's not coming back.  Its not just bumping him, its killing a small part of it.  Lovecraft wouldn't allow that. I don't like cosmicism in my hero's journey.  Just like I wouldn't like ending one of my Cthuhlu pen and paper rpgs with us killing Cthuhlu.

Modifié par generalleo03, 05 juillet 2012 - 05:12 .

[MrFob]

@generalleo03: Yes, that's what I was getting at. Leave it alone if there is no really good reason (although, I have seen a couple of at least decent possible reasons mentioned over the last couple of months).

@N-Seven: I think you are right concerning the writers intentions and how it failed. However, at least as far as I am concerned, the problem is not so much that it was not what I was expecting or what I wanted. The problem is that they made a trilogy and changed their stance on the underlying theme and the main villains too much to stay coherent within the trilogy. That is what produces the conflict. They did this on a couple of issues. The endings are just the most visible and the most drastic case but there are others. TIM and the role of Cerberus are one example. the collector plot is another. The shift in themes is a problem that strings itself through the trilogy and culminates in the endings.

[N-Seven]

MrFob wrote...

N-Seven wrote...

Well, yeah.  The Crucible gives the Catalyst an enormous boost of energy, and new ways to project and manipulate that energy.   Upon reanalysis, options that were unavailable before, due to power limitations, are now available.   The harvesting solution now seems obsolete/inefficient/ inferior to the new options.  The Catalyst doesn't like or hate the idea of being destroyed.  It's just part of one of these new solutions.   As long as it's purpose (as mediator of conflict) is fulfilled, it is satisified.  

So, how exactly does it's destruction (in the destroy ending) resolve anything? I still haven't figured that out.

Well, if the primary conflict in the galaxy is synthetics vs. organics, then the reasoning behind 'destroy' is that removing one of the sides completely from the galaxy, would end conflict and result in order.   The Crucible is capable of sending out this synthetic-destroying energy pulse.  Since it's a synthetic life form itself, it must be included. 

Actually, you could almost argue that it is because the Catalyst will be included in the destruction, is the reason why it is now seen as a viable option.  i.e. if the destruction was selective, it no longer a solution.  It has to include every synthetic, including itself, to qualify.

Just theorizing.

[MrFob]

N-Seven wrote...

MrFob wrote...
So, how exactly does it's destruction (in the destroy ending) resolve anything? I still haven't figured that out.

Well, if the primary conflict in the galaxy is synthetics vs. organics, then the reasoning behind 'destroy' is that removing one of the sides completely from the galaxy, would end conflict and result in order.   The Crucible is capable of sending out this synthetic-destroying energy pulse.  Since it's a synthetic life form itself, it must be included. 

Actually, you could almost argue that it is because the Catalyst will be included in the destruction, is the reason why it is now seen as a viable option.  i.e. if the destruction was selective, it no longer a solution.  It has to include every synthetic, including itself, to qualify.

Just theorizing.

Sorry but I can't accept that due to the fact that there is no indication of synthetics threatening organics in the here and now (rather the opposite actually) so the Catalyst's reasoning must project into the far future. As far as that is concerned, the catalyst itself says that the peace will not last since the next generation (or anyone after that) will build new synthetics. In fact, it can be argued that none of the "new solutions" really solves the catalyst's problem because if you just project into the future, one of your variable becomes a lim -> infinity and you end up with an unsolvable problem.
Maybe this is the wrong place to discuss this particular issue here though. I propose we either relocate or recess the discussion.

[N-Seven]

MrFob wrote...

N-Seven wrote...

MrFob wrote...
So, how exactly does it's destruction (in the destroy ending) resolve anything? I still haven't figured that out.

Well, if the primary conflict in the galaxy is synthetics vs. organics, then the reasoning behind 'destroy' is that removing one of the sides completely from the galaxy, would end conflict and result in order.   The Crucible is capable of sending out this synthetic-destroying energy pulse.  Since it's a synthetic life form itself, it must be included. 

Actually, you could almost argue that it is because the Catalyst will be included in the destruction, is the reason why it is now seen as a viable option.  i.e. if the destruction was selective, it no longer a solution.  It has to include every synthetic, including itself, to qualify.

Just theorizing.

Sorry but I can't accept that due to the fact that there is no indication of synthetics threatening organics in the here and now (rather the opposite actually) so the Catalyst's reasoning must project into the far future. As far as that is concerned, the catalyst itself says that the peace will not last since the next generation (or anyone after that) will build new synthetics. In fact, it can be argued that none of the "new solutions" really solves the catalyst's problem because if you just project into the future, one of your variable becomes a lim -> infinity and you end up with an unsolvable problem.
Maybe this is the wrong place to discuss this particular issue here though. I propose we either relocate or recess the discussion.

Well as intelligent as the Catalyst is, and as weird as it sounds...maybe it's sort of half gambling and half giving up. I know it doensn't really make sense for an AI to do either, but perhaps by some stretch it's thinking, 'Ok, the current solution doesn't work anymore.  Let's just send out this enormous power pulse and try removing one side and maybe that will work.  I sort of give up, I'll let this Shepard guy make the call on what he thinks will work, either that or some future generation will find a solution'.  

But yeah, it would have made a bit more sense (but not much) if when Shepard asked, 'Will the peace last?', and it instead answered, 'Unknown.  A chance exists that it will.  Thus it is superior to the current solution.' or something.

[SkaldFish]

generalleo03 wrote...

Pinax wrote...

@generalleo03

This is generally related to the question: how can top scientists of the galaxy can build an omni-weapon that literally no ones knows how to use?

Would you imagine ANY project of this type without a clear goal and a functionality to achieve? They are not studying a ruin of an big, unknown, ancient something, they are building the Crucible from a scratch - and all these top minds (and the players, of course) need a deus ex machina (Star Child - Catalyst) to explain it's functionality 

Well, this doesn't bother me as much as it does others.  Yes, it is a plot hole the size of a crater, but compared to the whole catalyst crap, it is just really small.  Black box development is done all the time.  Its fine to build the crucible and not know exactly what it does in the greater scheme.  But the Catalyst says it is little more than a power source, which begs the question.  If he's had literally millions of years of time, and all it takes to change the variables is a bigger power source, what has he been doing?  Was that really that hard to come up with?  "Well, if I had a bigger power source I could do synthesis, guess I better wait until someone else figures it out..."  Its silly really.  They should have known that the crucible was a power source.  To be honest, in the greater scheme of the ending, that little thing is a small plot hole (relative the to the whole organics vs synthetics coming from nowhere).

Couple of comments:

I think it's pretty obvious in the cutscene where the outer shell falls off the Crucible that it's actually a gigantic karaoke microphone. Clearly the intent is for a lounge lizard to step up to the central platform of the Citadel and sing the Reapers away. "Thank you vury muuuch. I'm here all week -- try the Turian medallions, they're great tonight."

...but seriously, folks...

It would be impossible to construct any complex piece of technology without understanding its purpose and theory of operation, as well as the theoretical bases for the technology and purpose of each of its components (and their components). Given detailed plans for a stealth bomber and for every component used in its construction, then told "this will enable you to win any war," could the finest minds of, let's say, 1875, build and fly one? Less than 150 years of accumulated knowledge separate those human beings from us. Yet here we are expected to believe that, with 50,000 year old engineering specs from an extinct species and a vague "this appears to be designed to stop the Reapers," the Crucible is successfully completed in a matter of weeks or months without the slightest notion of how it works, what it actually does, or how to make it do whatever that might be. The absurdity is breathtaking.

[generalleo03]

SkaldFish wrote...

Couple of comments:

I think it's pretty obvious in the cutscene where the outer shell falls off the Crucible that it's actually a gigantic karaoke microphone. Clearly the intent is for a lounge lizard to step up to the central platform of the Citadel and sing the Reapers away. "Thank you vury muuuch. I'm here all week -- try the Turian medallions, they're great tonight."

...but seriously, folks...

It would be impossible to construct any complex piece of technology without understanding its purpose and theory of operation, as well as the theoretical bases for the technology and purpose of each of its components (and their components). Given detailed plans for a stealth bomber and for every component used in its construction, then told "this will enable you to win any war," could the finest minds of, let's say, 1875, build and fly one? Less than 150 years of accumulated knowledge separate those human beings from us. Yet here we are expected to believe that, with 50,000 year old engineering specs from an extinct species and a vague "this appears to be designed to stop the Reapers," the Crucible is successfully completed in a matter of weeks or months without the slightest notion of how it works, what it actually does, or how to make it do whatever that might be. The absurdity is breathtaking.

Hey, hey, don't you dare bring LOGIC to the ending, it'll just hurt your head.

[SkaldFish]

generalleo03 wrote...

SkaldFish wrote...

Couple of comments:

I think it's pretty obvious in the cutscene where the outer shell falls off the Crucible that it's actually a gigantic karaoke microphone. Clearly the intent is for a lounge lizard to step up to the central platform of the Citadel and sing the Reapers away. "Thank you vury muuuch. I'm here all week -- try the Turian medallions, they're great tonight."

...but seriously, folks...

It would be impossible to construct any complex piece of technology without understanding its purpose and theory of operation, as well as the theoretical bases for the technology and purpose of each of its components (and their components). Given detailed plans for a stealth bomber and for every component used in its construction, then told "this will enable you to win any war," could the finest minds of, let's say, 1875, build and fly one? Less than 150 years of accumulated knowledge separate those human beings from us. Yet here we are expected to believe that, with 50,000 year old engineering specs from an extinct species and a vague "this appears to be designed to stop the Reapers," the Crucible is successfully completed in a matter of weeks or months without the slightest notion of how it works, what it actually does, or how to make it do whatever that might be. The absurdity is breathtaking.

Hey, hey, don't you dare bring LOGIC to the ending, it'll just hurt your head.

Guess I need to buy some disbelief suspenders with stronger elastic!

[SpamBot2000]

This has been a fascinating discussion of the themes and topics of the fiction established in the Mass Effect series. However, there are other, perhaps more fruitful ways to look at this work. What if the true genre of Mass Effect is not fiction at all, but gestural art? This would work by duping players into an emotional involvement with the plot, only to literally slap them awake at the end scene with something so crazy it would necessarily break any suspension of disbelief. It reminds me of the old Zen tradition of the Master unexpectedly hitting the Disciple with his staff, thus provoking a satori experience.

Sure, a legal case could be made that the funding raised by the producers under the pretense that Mass Effect was an entertainment product was somehow unethical, but I think artists brave enough to risk the wrath of millions in this way would hardly be phased by any seizure of assets or brief incarceration.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 05 juillet 2012 - 08:15 .

[Winterfly]

Frypan wrote : If I had to go down against the Reapers, I wanted it to be screaming "Death" at the top of my lungs with a thousand berzerk Krogan, Asari and Turians at my side. As I died, I want to see the ships of the fleet ramming Reapers, willingly throwing their lives away just to say "we will not submit".


This, i rather have Shepard go down dying like "one of us" then being above and better then everyoen else. We all know he is better! But it would been more epic had s/he died in a charge, gloriously like in the Trailer we got where Shepard storms the enemy lines with his soldiers and ****ing Dreadnaughts fly above bombing the **** out of them. This od not happen.

Sacrifice where there is but misery, throw your lifes at them to not become their filthy servants.