37 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryuukishi]

Maybe they started out as dispassionate, but over thousands of cycles they became cruel and hateful.

I tend to think that the Catalyst has been dormant this entire time (otherwise ME1's last mission doesn't make too much sense). Maybe he would be surprised to learn that the Reapers have become sadistic, flamboyant trash-talkers rather than just getting their job done quickly and quietly.

[Ab_Normal]

Ariq wrote...

...snip...

And despite what some pop-culture says, logic and morality aren't antinomies, and aren't on some sort of opposing scale. Logic is a method, not a source of principles. 

I completely concur, and plus several zillion points for using "antimonies" in a forum post about a video game.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Ariq wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

They do this with no moral judgement because they're machines, and are just following their programming. Alive, dead organic units are meaningless to them. You are applying organic thinking, morals, ethics, to machines. It doesn't work that way. They use logic alone. The end is all that matters. Justification is irrelevant.

So much wrong with such a short paragraph. EDI and the Geth are also machines, but they both make choices based on ethical and moral considerations. Their whole story lines underscore the ethical and moral capacity of artifical intelligences. The Reapers are orders of magnitude ahead of the Geth, so it is unreasonable to think they aren't aware of morality or ethics. That doesn't mean their ethics or morality aren't incomprehensible to us, but it's wrong to dismiss them as "machines". The fact is, many of the pronouncements made by Sovereign and Harbinger are moral conclusions; they do offer justifications - just ones we dislike.

And despite what some pop-culture says, logic and morality aren't antinomies, and aren't on some sort of opposing scale. Logic is a method, not a source of principles. From the very first, logic requires postulates from first principles (be they by observation or from axiomatic conclusions of necessity). Subsequent logical choices are guided by error correction within the process of the method. We know that ethics and morality form part of the basis of logic for EDI and the Geth, the difference is one of the alien scale and transcendent nature of Reaper morality.

By analogy, it may seem immoral to the termite that we exterminate their nest, and they certainly wouldn't understand the reasons we choose to do so. Doesn't mean humans (even exterminators) aren't moral, ethical beings.

Except termites are not even close to being sapient and therefore incapable of making any sort of moral judgement.

I am thinking of the pre-reaper code Geth, not the fully AI Geth. The pre-reaper code Geth just do and act without moral judgement. They may occasionally ask the question of "why am I here?" but they make no distinction between child of their enemy and an adult trying to kill them. Both are the same. Logic. Child is of same species therefore the same. Simplistic thinking. Black or white. No gray. Same with EDI. EDI thinks black or white, either/or, and thus is asking Shepard for guidance. She starts asking about the gray areas that Joker brings up.

Early on she asks Shepard about questioning orders, and I have Shepard reply "I give an order I expect it to be carried out, and I'll take responsibility for the outcome. But about  making judgements about altering your programming 'don't kill humans, etc.' don't change a thing." or whatever that line is.

Regarding the Geth post AI, we don't know the long term issues they'll have with the Quarians. I don't think the peace will last. I think this is a temporary alliance for the duration of the war. Afterward all bets are off.

[Creston918]

The Reapers aren't evil; they're so overly powerful and utterly convinced that they are right, they've just become amoral. "We know what's best for everyone, and even if you think you know better, you're simply wrong. Now shut up and die."

It's kind of like Bioware's attitude in that respect.

Of course, it doesn't help that the Reapers' motivation was basically rewritten at the 11th hour, and thus no longer correlates to their entire attitude in the previous games, nor the (few) conversations you've had with them. <_<

[Ariq]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Except termites are not even close to being sapient and therefore incapable of making any sort of moral judgement.

 
And by Reaper standards, neither are we. The point isn't that termites have the capacity to form intelligent thought, it's that Reapers view our thought as insectile, at least that's what both Sovereign and Harbinger say.

I am thinking of the pre-reaper code Geth, not the fully AI Geth. The pre-reaper code Geth just do and act without moral judgement.

This is false. Did you do the Reaper server mission? In it we are clearly shown Geth making moral and ethical decisions. We see a Geth choose self-sacrifice to preserve a Quarian. Another Geth chooses violence to save *other* Geth. The Geth collective allows the Quarians to leave. Even later events reflect moral choice: the Heretic Geth chose to follow Sovereign. The non-Heretics chose to send Legion out to discover the truth, and he acted as an ambassador to Shepard. Remember the Consensus debate Legion describes with regard to rewriting or destroying the Heretics? Those are all moral questions.

Same with EDI. EDI thinks black or white, either/or, and thus is asking Shepard for guidance. She starts asking about the gray areas that Joker brings up.

Black and white are moral terms. Without moral or ethical thought, there is no such thing as black, white or grey. The very act of asking a question regarding ethics is itself an *ethical* question. She is asking about free will and self-determination, not ethics. Remember EDI saving Jeff during the Collector attack in ME2? Remember her responses to him then at the end? She made moral choices that far back.

Never does ME depict the insipid AI of pop-culture, nor do the writers of ME make the vapid confusion of logic as an antinomy of ethics. EDI, the Geth, the Reapers all act in ways that reflect self-awareness and the concept of ethics and morality. The conflict is with alien ethics and our own, not with ethics and the lack thereof. Everything points to the Reapers having a very solid understanding of what they believe is right and wrong. Their understanding which transcends ours (in their opinion).

[Reorte]

Ariq wrote...

And by Reaper standards, neither are we. The point isn't that termites have the capacity to form intelligent thought, it's that Reapers view our thought as insectile, at least that's what both Sovereign and Harbinger say.

Another example as to why they're full of nonsense. I can't talk to termites. The Reapers can talk to us. There's nothing to indicate any intellectual superiority with the Reapers.

[phagus]

Catalyst's solution is flawed on so many levels. For example to preserve organics from their own genocidal synthetics why don't the Reapers just destroy synthetics (an option already built into the Citadel??). Problem solved. If the Reapers need to harvest organics to be created in the first place, thus destroying what they're trying to preserve thats just stupid. Anyway harvesting can be done without all the sick abominations and husks and massive slaughter.. heres an idea use indoctrination with machines like object Rho to get the populations to destroy all trace of their civilisation and then walk happily into harvesting machines to be turned into Reapers. No massive battles with the Reapers, no ruins, scarred planets, no nearly dead Reapers for people to find IFF's, beacons, conduits etc. Since synthetics can be rewritten why are the Reapers needed at all. Catalyst just needs to introduce a virus every cycle that rewrites synthetics so they don't become genocidal to all organics. If organics are already at war with them help organics win. Why be an enemy of organics when your trying to prevent their extinction at the hands of synthetics? Another flaw. The technology of the citadel and relays is supposed to lead advanced organics down a particular path...which can lead to genocidal synthetics, as in Prothean times and to a lesser extent the Geth, WTF? It seems to me the only logical reason why the ending doesn't make sense is because it was rushed and badly written without much regard for the previous games plot.

[MakeMineMako]

In my opinion, the Star Brat is part delusional and part megalomaniac. It's also, in all likelyhood, a liar.

The whole tech singularity thing smacks of an excuse. An excuse to "harvest" developed organic civilization for their 'raw materials', and to simply exterminate those that don't measure up to cover up the cycle of exinction from future civilazations. Synthetics are only "dangerous" in Space Hitler's mind because they can possibly challenge the power of the Reapers, and help organic races in shutting down the Cycle.

As for the Reapers themselves, I believe they are fully sentient synthetics. But I also get the impression that they are nothing more than a machine race of brainwashed, controlled slaves. They only THINK they are in charge of their own destiny and actions, because it's part of the control mechanism used by an evil, genocidal AI (the Star Brat).

That's one of the key issues that kills the ending for me. The Reapers were an extremely powerful menace on their own. They were an ancient, unknowable force that was foreboding and had a powerful mystique about them. Even Harbinger, with those cheesey one-liners we love so much, still had that air of a serious threat about him.

Then comes that little Deus Ex Machina (and number one asspull in ME fiction), the hated Star Child. In the space of five to ten minutes, this new character out of nowhere not only kills the theme and narrative cohesion of Mass Effect 3 (and Mass Effect in general), it completely kills the mystique and ominous feel of the Reapers. It trivializes everything about the Reapers.

So, yes, the Reapers are supposed to be a great evil in the galaxy to struggle, and triump, against in a total war of survival. As Shepard would say, "We fight or we die!"  Instead, at the end, we get the Star Child and the nonsense pulled out of Hudson and Walter's asses on how the Reapers are actually on a benigh mission to save us from big bad robots that will overtake us and kill us all.

Sorry, not buying it.

It's easier (but not by much) to stomach the Star Child's bullsh*t by simply going by what I pointed out earlier. To sum it up, the Star Child is the enemy. Shepard is a threat. So, the Star Brat practices the time honored art of lying and misdirection. Why? To either get rid of Shepard, or to salvage a moral victory out of the whole mess. Which, of course, Space Hitler gets with the RGB endings. This is how I make some sense out of the contradictions that spring up with the appearence of this alien, pint-sized Pol Pot in SPAAAAAAACE!

Just my two cents worth. Others will differ.

Modifié par MakeMineMako, 21 avril 2012 - 02:43 .

[Naugi]

Why does the Catalyst even want to help you destroy his solution? Why doesnt he spend his whole time saying 'Whaaaa ... how the f*** did you get up here, how the f*** did you get past Harbinger, wait, why the f*** are there all these options for you to destroy my solution ...."

[Cheesesack]

Naugi wrote...

Why does the Catalyst even want to help you destroy his solution? Why doesnt he spend his whole time saying 'Whaaaa ... how the f*** did you get up here, how the f*** did you get past Harbinger, wait, why the f*** are there all these options for you to destroy my solution ...."

And yet he then effectively helps you. The walkways to the 'options' only extend after the conversation with him. This can also be seen from the fact that players with a lower EMS don't have some of the walkways. So why didn't he just no extend the walkways. Or not tell Shepard in detail about all the different emchanisms. Or just not show up at all and have the Reapers blast Shepard's ass.

[Jassu1979]

Laurencio wrote...

a) They ensure that the races stay close to their technology though. It's basically like herding. You put some fences up and the cattle doesn't tend to leave.

This works well with the original insinuations - which was quite literally treating sentient beings like cattle, and "harvesting" them at regular intervals.
With the retconned premise of the Catalyst, though? Not so much.

Since when did soldiers ever know what Generals were planning? They are tools, they exist for one purpose and one purpose only. The reason why is irrelvant for them.

Throughout the series (including the third installment, prior to the ending), a Reaper's consciousness is described as almost godlike, each a nation unto itself.
The retcon indeed turns them into "tools", brainless VIs following a pre-programmed course of action - and this pretty much clashes with everything else we know about them. KNOW, not suspect, mind you.

c) Do elaborate.

If the Reapers' job is to prevent AIs from wiping out all organic life, and do so by "assimilating" technologically advanced species before they can commit the mistake of creating such a genocidal articifial being, then it makes little sense for them to antagonize those species, resulting in a drawn-out war under the best of circumstances. A far more efficient approach would be to establish themselves as a largely benevolent, technologically superior species who offer assimilation as a reward rather than a gruesome punishment.

That said, the whole premise of the "solution" does not make any sense. It's the equivalent of saying:
"Statistically speaking, driving a car will always result in a deadly accident, given enough time. And my answer to that problem is to regularly kill people who are savvy enough to build cars."

[A Comedian]

Ariq wrote...

So much wrong with such a short paragraph. EDI and the Geth are also machines, but they both make choices based on ethical and moral considerations. Their whole story lines underscore the ethical and moral capacity of artifical intelligences.

Yeaaaaaah I'ma have to stop you right there.

Mass Effect 3, like most stories with A.I., romanticizes artificial sentience.  It gives them programmed emotions mimicking our chemical emotions and has them make moral decisions based on those emotions, designed to have the A.I. make character development toward an anthropocentric view of higher morality.

In reality, a true artificial intelligence would, at best, be a high-functioning sociopath.