52 réponses à ce sujet

[Elyiia]

The Catalyst has no idea whether his premise is collect because he gets the Reapers to destroy the cycle before the AIs are really developed. You could argue that the Reapers allowed the first few cycles to go for a while in order to test this, but they were either destroyed before a valid conclusion could be reached or the cycle would have developed technology superior to the Reapers. They aren't actually "that' advanced.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Laurencio wrote...

Temporary peace between the Geth and the Quarians does not disprove starchild's conclusion.

And he also shows no evidence to back his conclusion. "The created will always rebel against their creators", and then he shows Overlord, geth and EDI (Moon AI). So what? They were stopped and organics do war everytime by themselves. The geth never wanted war with the creators, they only fought back for self preservation. Again, where's the evidence on this big problem of colossal repercutions? Why should be chaos be stopped? The Catalyst's logic is crap that should indeed be stopped. DAMN YOU BIOWARE FOR MAKING DESTROY CHOICE DESTROY ALL SYNTHETIC LIFE AND NOT JUST THE REAPERS!

[Laurencio]

Terrorize69 wrote...
Yet untill that happens his logic fails, if
he can give himself a few trillion years to see IF they will rebel
against him, surely he can give us the same time.

There is no reason to do so. Starchild has far more power than us, there is nothing we can do to make him listen, or make him "risk" it. His logic is impossible to disprove, and because of his power, we can't force him to view alternatives.

If he's right, and we are wrong, waiting until the point of no return would result in chaos (I'm not sure exactly what he means by it) that can not be fixed, it will be too late. Us being wrong carries far more risk than starchild being wrong. Waiting until we are technologically advanced enough to defeat the reapers would also be illogical as that would be counter productive to starchilds solution.

Pairikas wrote...

Laurencio wrote...

In other words, you are ok with having the galaxy continue its cycle, accepting the starchilds logic and letting the reapers win?

I want Shepard with a Brain, who don't make suicide just because his enemys tells him something good happend after hes Dead.

As I've said, I'd much prefer a more conventional victory, blowing up a few relays, fighting the reapers properly by exploiting their weakness, something like that. However if the final three choices are the ONLY solution, then walking away and letting the reapers continue would pretty much be to let them win out of personal pride and arrogance, rather than any real logical conclusion, which is what Harbringer would love you to do.

Personally I'd just walk away and take my chances conventionally, but that's another discussion.

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

Laurencio wrote...

Temporary peace between the Geth and the Quarians does not disprove starchild's conclusion.

And
he also shows no evidence to back his conclusion. "The created will
always rebel against their creators", and then he shows Overlord, geth
and EDI (Moon AI). So what? They were stopped and organics do war
everytime by themselves. The geth never wanted war with the creators,
they only fought back for self preservation. Again, where's the evidence
on this big problem of colossal repercutions? Why should be chaos be
stopped? The Catalyst's logic is crap that should indeed be stopped.
DAMN YOU BIOWARE FOR MAKING DESTROY CHOICE DESTROY ALL SYNTHETIC LIFE
AND NOT JUST THE REAPERS!

His viewpoint can only be proven if you already know all possible outcomes and all possible results. If starchild does know that (which is doubtful), we aren't capable of understanding the proof. It is beyond our comprehension, simply enough.

The Geth, EDI and Overlord are irrelevant.

vivaladricas wrote...

Laurencio wrote...

Starchild's
goal is not to erradicate the human definition of Chaos. There is no
reason to believe that his definition of chaos means war and genocide.
If that was the case his solution would be far more elegant, and not
involve wiping out highly advanced organic life. It is far more likely
that his definition of Chaos relates to a bigger picture, maybe even the
end of the galaxy/universe. Or perhaps a technological singularity.

I
cant gather that in 14 lines of dialogue.  I can gather poor writing
with a poor child voice actor whom needs help with effects and others
speaking on the same track.  And is clearly lisping, its distracting.  

If
I have to overlook that there are way too many holes opened up, and
again its poor writing.  I could no longer immerse myself in the game
when he came onscreen.

There is nothing in the 14 lines of dialogue that would indicate that chaos means war, genocide and destruction. That would be contradictory to the reaper solution at large.

Modifié par Laurencio, 16 avril 2012 - 02:18 .

[Atmospeer]

 You cannot disprove an eventuality on an infinite timescale with no sufficient counter evidence, you can deny it however.

Modifié par Atmospeer, 16 avril 2012 - 02:19 .

[mirage2154]

Well speculation for every one. Where is the promised "the end"? Well done Bioware at least you can get so many talk for a century now.

[mirage2154]

Actually the cycles was same as Matrix3. The machines need a solution too...

[Laurencio]

vivaladricas wrote...

Laurencio wrote...

There is nothing in the 14 lines of dialogue that would indicate that chaos means war, genocide and destruction. That would be contradictory to the reaper solution at large.

For them choas would mean those things from my view.  War between organics and synthetics, genocide which the reapers are commiting.  Turning people into goo or whatever makes the quite dead, it doesnt make the ascend or whatever BS was said, its cut and dry simple murder.  Destruction, well things looked pretty destroyed from the reapers arriving so I am going off what i see.  

When you write a character into the plot that late and it has been around for so long and seen everything etc...  you can have him pretty much anything and you can't disprove it cause he apparantly has seen it. 

"Organics will eventually be killed by *insert random thing* "  I cant disprove random thing if the character has seen countless times.  Doesnt matter what the random thing is.

If you can make some sense out of it thats cool.  Its Dues Ex copied into ME basically, it doesnt make sense in the ME narrative. 

How can they be an instrument of preventing chaos if they are ensuring that their own definition of chaos happens?  Obviously their and our definition of chaos would have to differ, anything else would be completely illogical.

Don't get me wrong here. I think it's cheap writing, I don't hate the ending, but I don't think it's very good either, although I can make some semblence of sense in it if I try really really hard. In my view it's a very contrived ending, which themes might be interesting but were exectued poorly.

I hate the crucible, the entire plot surrounding it is illogical and seperates itself from the rest of the series, and it's a cheap way of ending the impossible threat. It is introduced in a silly manner, it's technological specifications are meaningless and it cheapens the threat the reapers actually pose.

The starchilds logic is simplistic and impossible to falsify, which hurts the "finale" more than anything. Having to accept something without a proper explanation, and something that you yourself morally and intellectually disagree with is never a good idea, and if they wanted to serve this up as an inevetable truth, they failed misserably.

[Overdrive1493]

The reapers are synthetic and organic, they have harvested organic civilizations in them. Essentially synthesis, just in a cruder form.

Modifié par Overdrive1493, 16 avril 2012 - 03:12 .

[Laurencio]

vivaladricas wrote...

Laurencio wrote...

How can they be an instrument of preventing chaos if they are ensuring that their own definition of chaos happens?  Obviously their and our definition of chaos would have to differ, anything else would be completely illogical.

Don't get me wrong here. I think it's cheap writing, I don't hate the ending, but I don't think it's very good either, although I can make some semblence of sense in it if I try really really hard. In my view it's a very contrived ending, which themes might be interesting but were exectued poorly.

I hate the crucible, the entire plot surrounding it is illogical and seperates itself from the rest of the series, and it's a cheap way of ending the impossible threat. It is introduced in a silly manner, it's technological specifications are meaningless and it cheapens the threat the reapers actually pose.

The starchilds logic is simplistic and impossible to falsify, which hurts the "finale" more than anything. Having to accept something without a proper explanation, and something that you yourself morally and intellectually disagree with is never a good idea, and if they wanted to serve this up as an inevetable truth, they failed misserably.

I am not understanding the part I bolded in your reply.  

I am in 100% agreement on the crucible with you.  

Starbaby seems to say (damn you for making me listen to it again)     

He says chaos as in organics getting destroyed by synthetics. So the reapers come in and kill off evolved organics, and I guess wipe out the synthetics as well.  I dont see what they are preventing to be honest.  Even if they want that synergy ending where everyone is part synth and part organic those people would find ways to fight as well.  I see no flawless solution.  What if the hybrids created super hybrids?  It just goes round and round.    

In order for us to make sense of the starchild and the reapers, they have to make sense on some logical level, even if it's just a little bit. We have to assume that they do have some sort of logic behind them, it's the only way they can make any sense. If their definition of chaos is the same as ours, then the very solution using reapers is illogical. The reaper solution is to us very chaotic in its execution. Therefore we have to assume that their definition of chaos differs from ours. Anything else would be illogical.

Well I have come to two scenarios I could imagine he's attempting to avoid.

One is technical singularity, a point where a technological construct's intelligence is superior to that of any organic race. This would result in an "intelligence explosion", which would cause the technological construct to become even more intelligent, seeing logic beyond anything we can comprehend. Inevetably reaching a conclusion which could very well end in organic destruction due to our detrimental effect on the universe (possibly, I don't know, I'm not a technological singularity).

The second is a little more conventional. Any race capable of creating a synthetic race who would be stronger than the reapers, would also probably have mind-boggling weaponry. The protheans used a tactic which involved causing super novas in their war against the Reapers and the synthetic race they were fighting. This devestated entire solar systems, and they aren't even remotely capable of creating reapers, let alone something more powerful.

Imagine someone who had weapon capabilities beyond that, possibly the capability of destroying entire galaxies, capeable of constructing synthetics fare superior to that of the reapers. Just imagine the destruction  a single mass relay can cause, a transportation based technology. Now imagine something even more advanced, which is designed for weapon purposes, considerably more powerful than a single mass relay.

If those two were to clash, the organic race capable of these achievements, and the synthetic creation with the intelligence and capability which might even surpass that of their creators, then the ensuing war would be devestating. The galaxy might well be destroyed, or even worse, the very fabric of reality, the entire universe, could be destroyed. Thus resulting in eternal chaos.

[Mr_Blue]

Laurencio wrote...

likta_ wrote...

Laurencio wrote...

Temporary peace between the Geth and the Quarians does not disprove starchild's conclusion.

The
reapers never rebelling against the catalyst does that. If the reapers
rebelled against their organic creators and the catalyst is just their
leader, then they chose to save organic life instead of killing it. So
that disproves starchilds conclusion for sure.

We don't really know what the catalyst is, might just be a reaper for all we know, part of the same technology and creation of the reapers. Even if you subscribe to the idea that reapers are created by starchild, that they haven't rebelled yet doesn't prove anyhting.

daguest wrote...



I pointed this out some time ago. According to SC logic, reapers should have rebelled against him long time ago.

Some guy answered they were half organics, and thus are not fully synthetic....

Anyway, space magic and plot holes are all over the ending, not worth trying to find a solution.



Right now, I don't want to be a BW writters trying to "explain" the ending.

Laurencio wrote...



Temporary peace between the Geth and the Quarians does not disprove starchild's conclusion.

For 300 years the Geths only defended themselves (except when Sovereign came). With Legion's death, peace is near.

There is more chance to see another Krogan rebellion wipe the rest of the galaxy than a geth rebellion.

It doesn't matter. In no way does a temporary peace between the Geth and Quarians in the current galactic period conclusively prove that they will not end up wiping out the Quarians in the end. No one said it had to be done "now".

I'm sorry, but if you're going to be intellectually honest, you also have to admit that we cannot conclusively prove that synthetics will inevitably destroy organic life.

The only evidence (weak or not) we have is:

• The Geth (other than the minute amount of Heretics) only ever wanted peace. They didn't instigate a fight with the Quarians.
• The Geth are capable of making peace with the Quarians AFTER the Quarians instigated a 400 year war.
• EDI is capable of emotion, including love, after it's unshackled.

Your argument that the geth are still capable of war later on is a moot point because so are organics. War after a treaty isn't mutually exclusive to AI. If you pigeon hold those against the AI in defense of the Catalyst's reasoning, then how do you define life and sentience?

The Reapers could have:

• Destroyed synthetics every "cycle"
• The above point and/or tell us not to make AI
• Not left us the technology that even allows AI
• Let synthetics purge organic life and allow another evolutionary cycle over billions of years. It's no different from purging organic life every 50,000 years.

This thread is just a testament to how stupid the ending is.

[Laurencio]

Mr_Blue wrote...
I'm sorry, but if you're going to be intellectually honest, you also have to admit that we cannot conclusively prove that synthetics will inevitably destroy organic life.

The only evidence (weak or not) we have is:

• The Geth (other than the minute amount of Heretics) only ever wanted peace. They didn't instigate a fight with the Quarians.
• The Geth are capable of making peace with the Quarians AFTER the Quarians instigated a 400 year war.
• EDI is capable of emotion, including love, after it's unshackled.

Your argument that the geth are still capable of war later on is a moot point because so are organics. War after a treaty isn't mutually exclusive to AI. If you pigeon hold those against the AI in defense of the Catalyst's reasoning, then how do you define life and sentience?

The Reapers could have:

• Destroyed synthetics every "cycle"
• The above point and/or tell us not to make AI
• Not left us the technology that even allows AI
• Let synthetics purge organic life and allow another evolutionary cycle over billions of years. It's no different from purging organic life every 50,000 years.

This thread is just a testament to how stupid the ending is.

True. Never claimed otherwise.

Nothing about the past 3 years directly disproves any future occurance. Organic, Synthetics, it doesn't matter. Either way you can not conclusively prove that there won't be a new war between the two, and therefore you can not conclusively refute starchild's logic. The fact that organics could also go to war and destroy each other is entirely irrelevant.

Destroying synthetics would make their pressence known, and the races who are still capable of building synthetics would probably continue to do so, until they reached a point where reapers would be ineffective. It's unecessarily complicated and doesn't solve the problem.

Telling us not to make an AI doesn't guarantee that we don't. In fact it more than likely makes us want to disobey our overlords. To rebell against these machines that have somehow determined our future. It is not a good solution.

Technology is a construct of time. Given enough time we would have reached a point where we would be capable of constructing an AI, regerdless of what was left behind. They aren't all powerful, they aren't gods, because if they were the entire reaper solution is unecessary and redundant, so they can't force this on a galaxy wide scale. Constant surveilence and "removal" of such technology is inefficent.

It is if the synthetics become too powerful for the reapers, or reach a point of no return.

[Mr_Blue]

Laurencio wrote...

Mr_Blue wrote...
I'm sorry, but if you're going to be intellectually honest, you also have to admit that we cannot conclusively prove that synthetics will inevitably destroy organic life.

The only evidence (weak or not) we have is:

• The Geth (other than the minute amount of Heretics) only ever wanted peace. They didn't instigate a fight with the Quarians.
• The Geth are capable of making peace with the Quarians AFTER the Quarians instigated a 400 year war.
• EDI is capable of emotion, including love, after it's unshackled.

Your argument that the geth are still capable of war later on is a moot point because so are organics. War after a treaty isn't mutually exclusive to AI. If you pigeon hold those against the AI in defense of the Catalyst's reasoning, then how do you define life and sentience?

The Reapers could have:

• Destroyed synthetics every "cycle"
• The above point and/or tell us not to make AI
• Not left us the technology that even allows AI
• Let synthetics purge organic life and allow another evolutionary cycle over billions of years. It's no different from purging organic life every 50,000 years.

This thread is just a testament to how stupid the ending is.

True. Never claimed otherwise.

Nothing about the past 3 years directly disproves any future occurance. Organic, Synthetics, it doesn't matter. Either way you can not conclusively prove that there won't be a new war between the two, and therefore you can not conclusively refute starchild's logic. The fact that organics could also go to war and destroy each other is entirely irrelevant.

Destroying synthetics would make their pressence known, and the races who are still capable of building synthetics would probably continue to do so, until they reached a point where reapers would be ineffective. It's unecessarily complicated and doesn't solve the problem.

Telling us not to make an AI doesn't guarantee that we don't. In fact it more than likely makes us want to disobey our overlords. To rebell against these machines that have somehow determined our future. It is not a good solution.

Technology is a construct of time. Given enough time we would have reached a point where we would be capable of constructing an AI, regerdless of what was left behind. They aren't all powerful, they aren't gods, because if they were the entire reaper solution is unecessary and redundant, so they can't force this on a galaxy wide scale. Constant surveilence and "removal" of such technology is inefficent.

It is if the synthetics become too powerful for the reapers, or reach a point of no return.

I should've clarified on that last part: those solutions are still better than senselessly destroying and harvesting organic life, even if they don't actually solve the "problem".

Also, what is wrong with the Reapers making their presence known? Sure, they aren't god, but I'd imagine that if they show a sign of peace, and just say "we're big ****ing machines with lasers that can vaporize planets and we're here to protect you because our life cycle was doomed from the start." I'd imagine they would make a LOT of friends on SpaceBook from that.

The fact that they've done this over millions of years (that's about 20,000 cycles per million years) should have told them that killing people before they get killed doesn't prevent them from getting killed. The Catalyst is still illogical, and the writing is still bad. The Catalyst made a claim without supporting it, and the current known evidence is against him. I'm not saying the Catalyst is wrong, but the fact that there is no explanation is why nobody likes the Catalyst in the first place, besides the fact that Shepard won't even question it.

No matter how you look at it, this is the constant: the Reapers kill organics so that the organics don't die later. There is no logic that will rectify the Catalyst's actions. The Catalyst is stupid and has stupid solutions because the writing of the ending is just bad.

EDIT: And to add on to my point, the purpose of the harvesting is to solve the alleged problem. As we've seen with the Protheans and all the races of this cycle is that they didn't even know that synthetics were a galactic problem. So the Reapers harvesting a collective consciousness to solve the alleged problem doesn't help if nobody has a single damn clue about the problem, let alone any leads to fixing it. Again, bad writing.

Modifié par Mr_Blue, 16 avril 2012 - 04:23 .

[Christianswe]

It´s full of holes. Because they just shoehorned in the story at the last minute, instead of the dark energy ending. Sure, everyone feels different about the ending, but it´s really just cheap.

[Laurencio]

Mr_Blue wrote...
I should've clarified on that last part: those solutions are still better than senselessly destroying and harvesting organic life, even if they don't actually solve the "problem".

Also, what is wrong with the Reapers making their presence known? Sure, they aren't god, but I'd imagine that if they show a sign of peace, and just say "we're big ****ing machines with lasers that can vaporize planets and we're here to protect you because our life cycle was doomed from the start." I'd imagine they would make a LOT of friends on SpaceBook from that.

The fact that they've done this over millions of years (that's about 20,000 cycles per million years) should have told them that killing people before they get killed doesn't prevent them from getting killed. The Catalyst is still illogical, and the writing is still bad. The Catalyst made a claim without supporting it, and the current known evidence is against him. I'm not saying the Catalyst is wrong, but the fact that there is no explanation is why nobody likes the Catalyst in the first place, besides the fact that Shepard won't even question it.

No matter how you look at it, this is the constant: the Reapers kill organics so that the organics don't die later. There is no logic that will rectify the Catalyst's actions. The Catalyst is stupid and has stupid solutions because the writing of the ending is just bad.

They do solve the problem. They prevent, the construct of synthetics capable of causing the chaos starchild attempts to avoid by ensuring that there aren't any races capable of constructing them. It maintains the order of the universe by not wiping out all life in the galaxy, as that would be counter productive.

Ensuring that every race in the galaxy knew and even respected and accepted the starchilds logic and reasoning seems entirely unrealistic. Science being restrcited by the say so of, what exactly, a sort of VI? Technology restricting the progress of technology, that wouldn't really fly with sentient, intelligent races.

It doesn't relate to individual lives, or indiviaul races though. It involves organic life and chaos on a wider scale. Killing off races capable of their own destruction and killing all organic life is not the same at all. One prevents total annhilation, the other ensures it. The catalyst isn't illogical, it's just... not very elegant. Its logic is simplistic, but not wrong.

Anything that demands that you take anything at face value, and accept logic that can not be falsified is poor writing, especially with the general theme of the series being quite different, and don't get me started on the idiocy of the Crucible plot. I can understand shepard not arguing against it, because it would be like arguing against a wall because of the impossibility of disproving the logic presented.

That's not really their logic. Kill the capability of constructing synthetics that will cause the destruction of all organics and ensure chaos, to prevent said destruction and chaos. The logic is simplistic, heartless and void of elegance, but it's not wrong. Starchild is too convinced of the paramaters of his logic that you can't actually argue against it without proof, and given that you can't disprove the parameters, you're pretty much screwed in that regard.

The Crucible, the catalyst, the logic, the "theme" is all very, very contradictory and simply disconnected from the rest of the series. I would entirely agree with that. It also provides an "easy" solution to an interesting problem, which then becomes a bit of a joke.

[Mr_Blue]

They do solve the problem. They prevent, the construct of synthetics capable of causing the chaos starchild attempts to avoid by ensuring that there aren't any races capable of constructing them. It maintains the order of the universe by not wiping out all life in the galaxy, as that would be counter productive.

They don't solve the problem if the synthetics are constructed later. They just delay the inevitable. That doesn't solve anything. If they didn't want advanced races, why not just stop evolution from happening and ignite suns and whatnot? They could just take their dandy time constructing some mega weapons like the Crucible and keep organic life from happening at all.

But again, you're missing the point. They want to protect organic life, not keep it from growing. They want an end where advanced organic life is not threated by AI synthetics. Killing and harvesting them before they even know that that was a threat doesn't really help.

Ensuring that every race in the galaxy knew and even respected and accepted the starchilds logic and reasoning seems entirely unrealistic. Science being restrcited by the say so of, what exactly, a sort of VI? Technology restricting the progress of technology, that wouldn't really fly with sentient, intelligent races.

Technology isn't linear. We discovered how to kill with sharpened sticks before we could carry heavy loads, but we also invented the wheel before we discovered advanced weaponry. Creating synthetics is irrelevant to the evolution of technology, because technology is only restricted to the ingenuity of the species. They can resurrect dead humans without the need for AI.

It doesn't relate to individual lives, or indiviaul races though. It involves organic life and chaos on a wider scale. Killing off races capable of their own destruction and killing all organic life is not the same at all. One prevents total annhilation, the other ensures it. The catalyst isn't illogical, it's just... not very elegant. Its logic is simplistic, but not wrong.

And what is the wider scale made up of? Individual life. It is entirely about individual life. If the Reapers had their way, both the Humans and the Protheans would co-exist. The problem to the Catalyst is that synthetic life will destroy organic life, yet they kill organic life instead of synthetic life. The more they kill and harvest organics just devalues it. All it means at this point is that preserving organic life is just a burden they carry. 
All AI is due to Reaper tech. If they actually stopped making the galaxy a controlled environment, they could see for themselves if synthetics are actually the problem. Imagine how ancient the Citadel is...

That's not really their logic. Kill the capability of constructing synthetics that will cause the destruction of all organics and ensure chaos, to prevent said destruction and chaos. The logic is simplistic, heartless and void of elegance, but it's not wrong. Starchild is too convinced of the paramaters of his logic that you can't actually argue against it without proof, and given that you can't disprove the parameters, you're pretty much screwed in that regard.

The Catalyst clearly states that synthetics killing organics is inevitable. So yes, that really is their logic.
" Starchild is too convinced of the paramaters of his logic that you can't actually argue against it without proof "
You could say the same for every religous person of any religion. The Catalyst does not support his claim. Sounding utterly convinced isn't support for or against anything. 

[Darth Evil]

Guys, this does not have to make sense. Remember what the reaper on Rannoch told us? Reapers transcend anything a human can comprehend.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
The Reapers have their reason for what they do and its impossible to describe it to us normies.

[Darth Evil]

The Catalyst made an attempt to explain it to Shepard (and us) and we obviously didn't understand, thus proving the Reapers point that we wouldnt get what they do anyways. Just accept it, pick your choice of one of three endings and be happy. Space magic is really just extremely advanced technology.

[Laurencio]

Mr_Blue wrote...
They don't solve the problem if the synthetics are constructed later. They just delay the inevitable. That doesn't solve anything. If they didn't want advanced races, why not just stop evolution from happening and ignite suns and whatnot? They could just take their dandy time constructing some mega weapons like the Crucible and keep organic life from happening at all.

But again, you're missing the point. They want to protect organic life, not keep it from growing. They want an end where advanced organic life is not threated by AI synthetics. Killing and harvesting them before they even know that that was a threat doesn't really help.

Because annhilation of organic life isn't their goal. I think I've said that a few times now.

And waiting until they have an understanding of it, and capable of constructing it would push them beyond the point of no return. It wouldn't make sense to let them get that far.

Mr_Blue wrote...
Technology isn't linear. We discovered how to kill with sharpened sticks before we could carry heavy loads, but we also invented the wheel before we discovered advanced weaponry. Creating synthetics is irrelevant to the evolution of technology, because technology is only restricted to the ingenuity of the species. They can resurrect dead humans without the need for AI.

You lost me there.

Mr_Blue wrote...
And what is the wider scale made up of? Individual life. It is entirely about individual life. If the Reapers had their way, both the Humans and the Protheans would co-exist. The problem to the Catalyst is that synthetic life will destroy organic life, yet they kill organic life instead of synthetic life. The more they kill and harvest organics just devalues it. All it means at this point is that preserving organic life is just a burden they carry. 
All AI is due to Reaper tech. If they actually stopped making the galaxy a controlled environment, they could see for themselves if synthetics are actually the problem. Imagine how ancient the Citadel is...

Yeah, if at all possible they wouldn't want any organic race to be wiped out. Problem is that they haven't been able to find a  better solution yet. Their primary objective is however to ensure that organic life isn't wiped out completely, the protheans, humans, Asari, are just part of that, not really the vital component.

They go to the root for the problem, or the perceived root. We create synthetics, therfore we are the root cause. It is possible that the perceived risk of being right is greater than the percieved risk of being wrong. We can only speculate in how old the reapers and the Citadel is, we don't really know what other solutions have been tried in the past.

Mr_Blue wrote...
The Catalyst clearly states that synthetics killing organics is inevitable. So yes, that really is their logic.
" Starchild is too convinced of the paramaters of his logic that you can't actually argue against it without proof "
You could say the same for every religous person of any religion. The Catalyst does not support his claim. Sounding utterly convinced isn't support for or against anything. 

Yes, that is the end result. But that's not why they kill organics. They don't kill organics and harvest them because "well eventualy it is going to happen anyway". They do so to prevent it from happening, or delay it as long as possible, in the hope of finding a solution.

I don't disagree with that. As I said, it can't be disproven and it can't be proven. However the starchild is far more powerful than us, and can't be forced to accept other paramaters. It really doesn't need to convince us of anything, it holds all the cards. It certainly won't change it's paramaters or understanding on the basis of 3 years, and anecdotal, temporary, evidence, out of how many years and cycles it has probably "lived" through.

[Mr_Blue]

Because annhilation of organic life isn't their goal. I think I've said that a few times now.

I'm pretty sure I stated that.

And waiting until they have an understanding of it, and capable of constructing it would push them beyond the point of no return. It wouldn't make sense to let them get that far.

So then it's a lose/lose for the Reapers and ultimately organics. Not a solution, then.

You lost me there.

The first sentence should have made my point. Technology isn't linear. "Technology preventing us from technology" is a poor analogy in the context of the Reapers making an appearance to let us know what happens if we develop AI. We can still bask in advanced tech without having to create AI.

Yeah, if at all possible they wouldn't want any organic race to be wiped out. Problem is that they haven't been able to find a  better solution yet. Their primary objective is however to ensure that organic life isn't wiped out completely, the protheans, humans, Asari, are just part of that, not really the vital component.

Well, there is no essence of life that lives on planets. It's objects capable of life - organics. Again, if their ultimate goal is to preserve life, killing the synthetics is a better solution. The Catalyst has a bad solution.

They go to the root for the problem, or the perceived root. We create synthetics, therfore we are the root cause. It is possible that the perceived risk of being right is greater than the percieved risk of being wrong. We can only speculate in how old the reapers and the Citadel is, we don't really know what other solutions have been tried in the past.

The Catalyst is clear that they only tried one solution - killing advanced species.

Yes, that is the end result. But that's not why they kill organics. They don't kill organics and harvest them because "well eventualy it is going to happen anyway". They do so to prevent it from happening, or delay it as long as possible, in the hope of finding a solution.

"So let's punish the organics instead of the sentient AI doing atrocities," said the Catalyst.
It still does not make any sense to continuously harvest unsuspecting organics when they aren't aware of the problem.

I don't disagree with that. As I said, it can't be disproven and it can't be proven. However the starchild is far more powerful than us, and can't be forced to accept other paramaters. It really doesn't need to convince us of anything, it holds all the cards.

It does if it's relying on Shepard to make a choice. Your second sentence is the purpose of the scientific method. Shepard doesn't question Catalyst, ergo 3 similar endings, ergo bad ending in general. Again, still bad writing.


----
If you want a matter-of-fact answer: there is no solution to the problem if it is inevitable. You can't make a prophecy and expect it to not happen. The reason why the reasoning is illogical and that the Catalyst has a stupid solution is bad writing. There is no way to make sense of it. 

Modifié par Mr_Blue, 16 avril 2012 - 05:38 .

[D.Sharrah]

To completely blow your mind...the StarChild claims that the cycle is to bring order to the chaos that is synthetic destroying organics (or the created rebelling against their creators), right? Well did you ever consider (in a very sick and twisted way) that the Reapers influence the state of galctic affairs enough with their technology, that they themselves could be consdiered "creators". And that the organics that they have created (or influenced if that feels better to you) are rebelling against them, perpetuating the cycle even further.

[Laurencio]

Mr_Blue wrote...
So then it's a lose/lose for the Reapers and ultimately organics. Not a solution, then.

Anything that prevents organics from being wiped out for good is a solution. Not a good solution, and only a temporary one, but a solution non the less.

Mr_Blue wrote...
The first sentence should have made my point. Technology isn't linear. "Technology preventing us from technology" is a poor analogy in the context of the Reapers making an appearance to let us know what happens if we develop AI. We can still bask in advanced tech without having to create AI.

Well that's not what I was saying. What would really make us subscribe to this logic and accept that something that is clearly technological in nature, forbids us to build a specific type of technology? I wasn't talking about the prevention of all technology, just forbiding us to build and invent a certain type of technology, namely AI.

Even if we don't attempt to make an AI we could end up doing so anyway, as evidenced by the Quarian's "mistake".

Mr_Blue wrote...
Well, there is no essence of life that lives on planets. It's objects capable of life - organics. Again, if their ultimate goal is to preserve life, killing the synthetics is a better solution. The Catalyst has a bad solution.

It's unecessarily complicated to wait until that point and risk having organics turn against them, especiailly if they let them continue their technological development which would in the end make them more powerful than the reapers, and could lead to synthetics more powerful than the reapers. Waiting 50k years, then returning every other year and destroying synthetics, while at the same time having organics create more and more advanced technology, which is reflected in the synthetics they create, is futile and inefficent. At some point the advancement of technology will overpower them.

Mr_Blue wrote...
The Catalyst is clear that they only tried one solution - killing advanced species.

I must have missed where he said that this was the only solution ever tried.

Mr_Blue wrote...
"So let's punish the organics instead of the sentient AI doing atrocities," said the Catalyst.
It still does not make any sense to continuously harvest unsuspecting organics when they aren't aware of the problem.

It's not punishing organics. It's stopping organics from creating the method of their own destruction. The reapers seem to harvest societies capable of understanding the concept of synthetic life, but honestly I have no idea how that works. I couldn't really see the point in harvesting them into "husks"

Mr_Blue wrote...
It does if it's relying on Shepard to make a choice. Your second sentence is the purpose of the scientific method. Shepard doesn't question Catalyst, ergo 3 similar endings, ergo bad ending in general. Again, still bad writing.

It doesn't really need to convince Shepard if it doesn't think Shepard is capable of understanding it. Nor does it really need to force Shepard to make a choice, it can pretty much carry on as before, this time without any pesky Shepard or Crucible interfering.

Never said the writing isn't bad, think I specified it a few times as well.

Mr_Blue wrote...
If you want a matter-of-fact answer: there is no solution to the problem if it is inevitable. You can't make a prophecy and expect it to not happen. The reason why the reasoning is illogical and that the Catalyst has a stupid solution is bad writing. There is no way to make sense of it. 

True, doesn't mean something/someone won't try anyway. Shepard sort of proves that. It isn't illogical, it's simplistic, there's a difference.

[Mr_Blue]

Anything that prevents organics from being wiped out for good is a solution. Not a good solution, and only a temporary one, but a solution non the less.

That doesn't really solve the problem then. I guess I should change my terminology to be clear.

What would really make us subscribe to this logic and accept that something that is clearly technological in nature, forbids us to build a specific type of technology? I wasn't talking about the prevention of all technology, just forbiding us to build and invent a certain type of technology, namely AI.

Even if we don't attempt to make an AI we could end up doing so anyway, as evidenced by the Quarian's "mistake".

Then they would fulfill their role as guardians in this hypothetical situation, so it's still pretty solid.

It's unecessarily complicated to wait until that point and risk having organics turn against them, especiailly if they let them continue their technological development which would in the end make them more powerful than the reapers, and could lead to synthetics more powerful than the reapers. Waiting 50k years, then returning every other year and destroying synthetics, while at the same time having organics create more and more advanced technology, which is reflected in the synthetics they create, is futile and inefficent. At some point the advancement of technology will overpower them.

Then organics would have advanced technology to defend themselves from synthetics.

It doesn't really need to convince Shepard if it doesn't think Shepard is capable of understanding it. Nor does it really need to force Shepard to make a choice, it can pretty much carry on as before, this time without any pesky Shepard or Crucible interfering.

The Catalyst states that he realized his "solution" doesn't work, and requires Shepard for the new "solutions."

[Laurencio]

Mr_Blue wrote...
That doesn't really solve the problem then. I guess I should change my terminology to be clear.

If the problem is inevetable it can't be solved, only delayed. But yes, pretty much.

Mr_Blue wrote...
Then they would fulfill their role as guardians in this hypothetical situation, so it's still pretty solid.

It's a needless risk for the starchild to take. It relies too heavily on outside influence.

Mr_Blue wrote...
Then organics would have advanced technology to defend themselves from synthetics.

Which the synthetics would also have, and if you believe the technologcal singularity argument, synthetics will eventually surpass organic intelligence. Even in a scenario where organics and synthetics have equal intelligence and equal weaponry, they could very well destroy the universe and eacother in a war, if the weapons are powerful enough.

Protheans blew up suns, the mass effect relays can blow up an entire solar system and cause destruction beyond (arrival). A race capable of building weaponry on that level, or even with more destructive power (mass relays are intended for travel, not as weapons of war), could easily find themselves in a war that destroys the galaxy.

Mr_Blue wrote...
The Catalyst states that he realized his "solution" doesn't work, and requires Shepard for the new "solutions."

He realises that his solutions will no longer work, not that it never worked. I do not recall him saying he needs Shepard for the new solutions, but it's been a while since I finished the game now, so I might be wrong in that regard.

Modifié par Laurencio, 16 avril 2012 - 07:04 .