365 réponses à ce sujet

[Tigerman123]

Veneke wrote...

Tigerman123 wrote...

Not really sure what the point of this organics wipe each other out tangent is; the reapers will always come approximately every 50k years to wipe the slate clean, a single species can never become preponderant enough to stymie the development of life on all possible worlds

Well, I believe the idea is that if organics are unable to wipe each other out then only synthetics can do this then there's some basis for the Reapers logic. However, if it was the case that organics could wipe each other out with technology before they reached the stage when the technological singularity occurs then the Reapers' logic (at least the expected outcomes of the application of their logic) is flawed, which is immediately relevant to the OP.
 
The thing is, it doesn't need to be a single species to become completely preponderant. A scenario merely needs to occur where a threat reaches the same stage and thinking as the Reapers apparently expect of synthetic life. The Reapers are meant to turn up to prevent that stage being reached. Why they've chosen to ignore the possibility of organic life reaching that stage on a similar basis is unclear.


I've suspicions as to why this is the case but it's all speculative and I refuse to guess as to the intentions of the game designers.

Organics wiping each other out? You mean the citadel species? They are always wiped out by the reapers, that fate is ineluctable and certain, they are not important at all. They'll always be replaced (at least for a few billion more years)

Organics can never reach singularity levels of technology by definition, at least not without enhancing themselves cybernetically.

*This isnt to you btw*


I'm not really sure how others itt can criticise the concept of a technological singularity itself, particularly since their arguments are generally jejune. It's a staple of modern scifi, many futurists predict it for our own culture, in fact it will probably only be obviated if it's in contravention of the physical laws of the universe, which in mass effect, it isn't. It's pretty arrogant to dismiss it with a one liner

Modifié par Tigerman123, 12 mai 2012 - 06:38 .

[SalsaDMA]

Tigerman123 wrote...

 a one liner

That seems to be a theme in the game regarding such things. IE. Starbrats oneliner on the subject.

[iamthedave3]

And all of this boils down to something that should have been obvious in the first place: the reapers' motive never needed to be revealed and they were more effective villains when they were - in fact - unknowable and saw no need to explain themselves to we meaningless beings.

I preferred my own guess that in the end the reapers killed us because they found the cycle of organic life to be offensive to their incomprehensible sensibilities and they just so happened to have the power to do something about it.

And honestly I think most people preferred their own guesses to what we got as well. It robbed the reapers of all their majesty and made them... mundane.

Modifié par iamthedave3, 12 mai 2012 - 07:19 .

[daveyeisley]

iamthedave3 wrote...

And all of this boils down to something that should have been obvious in the first place: the reapers' motive never needed to be revealed and they were more effective villains when they were - in fact - unknowable and saw no need to explain themselves to we meaningless beings.

I preferred my own guess that in the end the reapers killed us because they found the cycle of organic life to be offensive to their incomprehensible sensibilities and they just so happened to have the power to do something about it.

And honestly I think most people preferred their own guesses to what we got as well. It robbed the reapers of all their majesty and made them... mundane.

I agee with this somewhat. I liken it to the Antarans from Master of Orion 2. Terrifying baddies from another dimension, ancient, unknowable, unstoppable (at least when first encountered).

The game doesnt explain why they raid and demolish planets in your galaxy periodically, and it doesnt need to. They are good villains nonetheless. You just assume they have a logical reason, are evil, and need to have a mudlhole stomped in their arse.

Still, if a detailed exposition of that logical reason and the source/motivation for the evil is done well, it enhances the experience. I will cite the example of Jon Irenicus here. Awesome, Awesome, Awesome villain. And we still find out what makes him tick by the end.... and it works, it fits, and it makes the story better.

The flip side is also true, if done poorly, it totally undermines the villain.

What we got at the end of ME3 undermined the villains, and the entire trilogy.

Modifié par daveyeisley, 12 mai 2012 - 10:20 .

[SalsaDMA]

daveyeisley wrote...

I agee with this somewhat. I liken it to the Antarans from Master of Orion 2. Terrifying baddies from another dimension, ancient, unknowable, unstoppable (at least when first encountered).

The game doesnt explain why they raid and demolish planets in your galaxy periodically, and it doesnt need to. They are good villains nonetheless. You just assume they have a logical reason, are evil, and need to have a mudlhole stomped in their arse.

In Master of Orion 3 the Antarans were "explained", at least in the accompanying manual. I don't think MoO3 did anything wrong in how they explained them, and honestly felt that it kept the antarans somewhat as the 'evil alien race' while still giving you reasoning behind them.

That MoO3 itself had some annoying issues as far as gameplay goes was a bit saddening, though. That game could prob also have used more dev time before release :-/ A shame, cause I would have loved a MoO4.

[iamthedave3]

daveyeisley wrote...


Still, if a detailed exposition of that logical reason and the source/motivation for the evil is done well, it enhances the experience. I will cite the example of Jon Irenicus here. Awesome, Awesome, Awesome villain. And we still find out what makes him tick by the end.... and it works, it fits, and it makes the story better.

Yeah I agree, but the reapers as originally described were cthulhoid, and there are certain kinds of villain that should never be explained. Namely ones you specifically and repeatedly proclaim to be 'unknowable'.

It's all there in the word. Either they're unknowable or they aren't. You can't half way house it. 

Honestly, I really wish I could know why Bioware thought explaining the reapers was a good idea. I cannot believe that they were not inspired by Lovecraftian storytelling. So much about the reapers seems ripped straight out of the Mythos and given a sci-fi twang.

But yes, if done right it's a good thing. In my feelings, though, there's no way they could do this right with the way they built the reapers up. They were the sort of villain that can only be reduced by knowledge.

[Veneke]

Tigerman123 wrote...

Veneke wrote...

Tigerman123 wrote...

Not really sure what the point of this organics wipe each other out tangent is; the reapers will always come approximately every 50k years to wipe the slate clean, a single species can never become preponderant enough to stymie the development of life on all possible worlds

Well, I believe the idea is that if organics are unable to wipe each other out then only synthetics can do this then there's some basis for the Reapers logic. However, if it was the case that organics could wipe each other out with technology before they reached the stage when the technological singularity occurs then the Reapers' logic (at least the expected outcomes of the application of their logic) is flawed, which is immediately relevant to the OP.
 
The thing is, it doesn't need to be a single species to become completely preponderant. A scenario merely needs to occur where a threat reaches the same stage and thinking as the Reapers apparently expect of synthetic life. The Reapers are meant to turn up to prevent that stage being reached. Why they've chosen to ignore the possibility of organic life reaching that stage on a similar basis is unclear.


I've suspicions as to why this is the case but it's all speculative and I refuse to guess as to the intentions of the game designers.

Organics wiping each other out? You mean the citadel species? They are always wiped out by the reapers, that fate is ineluctable and certain, they are not important at all. They'll always be replaced (at least for a few billion more years)

Organics can never reach singularity levels of technology by definition, at least not without enhancing themselves cybernetically.

My post that you quoted was directed specifically at the folly of the Reapers logic rather than utilizing any example provided ingame. Someone in the thread expanded on the point to something like this:

If X causes Z and Y causes Z, why stop X and not Y?

X = Synthetic uprising.
Y = Any other of the numerous possibilities where organic life could kill all organic life.
Z = The destruction of all organic life.

This is especially poignant when you consider that stopping Y from happening will ensure that X can't happen and is, in fact, much easier to achieve than waiting until the possibility of X.

[FlashedMyDrive]

The starchild was an idiot. Why not use the reapers to destroy synthetics?
-Why not use the citadel's space magic to merge everything together in the very first cycle when it was first built?
-Why build the mass relays in the first place?
-Why defend organics at all? They are just going to kill themselves. Synthetics are clearly superior.

-Why assume that synthetics will always kill all organics? I'll argue that the ultimate inevitability is that organics will eventually become cybernetic. It is the natural evolutionary path of advanced civilizations.

Modifié par FlashedMyDrive, 13 mai 2012 - 03:14 .

[harrier25699]

The Razman wrote...
The Starchild's logic is not cyclical, illlogical, flawed or fallacious in any way.

Apart from the fact it comes from the mind of a synthetic life form, one that knows no emotion or pain, or death or starvation, nor love or affection, etc.   It's the logic of a calculator.  1+1 = 2.  Yet after centuries of fighting Shephard stopped the synthetic geth and organic quarians from annihilating each other, against all odds, expectations and predictions.  1+1 = 3?  The SC cannot predict what it does not understand and it cannot fully understand organic life just as we cannot fully understand synthetics (Shephards voyage into the geth collective for e.g.) It takes no account of mutation.  For countless years it has intervened based on it's own experience and assumptions about the future.  It is deeply flawed.

[TK EL_]

Razman, I'm curious, how many threads do you have open? And all of your threads are never about how you personally like something, but about how everyone else doesn't understand that particular thing. You are a bigger Bioware apologist that even the employees themselves. Its funny to see you defend things that the creators themselves have all but fully admitted was rushed, partially completed, and half a***d

[daveyeisley]

iamthedave3 wrote...

daveyeisley wrote...


Still, if a detailed exposition of that logical reason and the source/motivation for the evil is done well, it enhances the experience. I will cite the example of Jon Irenicus here. Awesome, Awesome, Awesome villain. And we still find out what makes him tick by the end.... and it works, it fits, and it makes the story better.

Yeah I agree, but the reapers as originally described were cthulhoid, and there are certain kinds of villain that should never be explained. Namely ones you specifically and repeatedly proclaim to be 'unknowable'.

It's all there in the word. Either they're unknowable or they aren't. You can't half way house it. 

Honestly, I really wish I could know why Bioware thought explaining the reapers was a good idea. I cannot believe that they were not inspired by Lovecraftian storytelling. So much about the reapers seems ripped straight out of the Mythos and given a sci-fi twang.

But yes, if done right it's a good thing. In my feelings, though, there's no way they could do this right with the way they built the reapers up. They were the sort of villain that can only be reduced by knowledge.

I think it could have been accomplished. Heck, if the reapers had some motivation other than trying to 'preserve organic life', making it seem like they thought they were doing organics a favor, the logic behind the cycle might have worked.

If it had just been a case of a mad race of formerly organic murder machines who hate organics, but derive some truly revolting benefit from processing civilizations (EDI mentioned reaper reproduction in ME2, so that could have been part of it), and want to maintain a stranglehold on their 'type 2 civilization' dominance in the galaxy, I would have swallowed it. Woulda been cool.

Yes, I know, it falls short of being 'unknowable', but that's easily hand waved as being exaggeration for dramatic purposes.

Modifié par daveyeisley, 13 mai 2012 - 05:17 .

[Izhalezan]

What proof does he offer?
Why not educate organics about the matter so as to avoid it?
Is Mass Effect technology alone the path to Synthetics eventual launch of Killalllife.exe?
If so, then why do they string us all along this path and then kill us for being on it, why can another way not be looked for?

[Sal86]

Wow, this thread has grown. The flowchart I posted before is buried way up thread so I'll move on.

How about we strip it back to the very beginning. Let's look at the catalyst before the first cycle began. We don't know where it came from or why but if we assume that it is an AI or VI we have the following options:

1. An organic race created the catalyst with no intention of starting the cycle but it came to the conlusion that they were going to create synthetics that would destroy them and promply harvested them, setting the cycle in motion.

2. An organic race was getting it's ass handed to it by some synthetics they created and they created the catalyst to solve this problem. (Whether they intended the cycles to be the solution or not doesn't matter).

3. An organic race created the catalyst with the express intent of beginning the cycles.

4. A synthetic race created the catalyst.

5. The catalyst popped into being somehow.

Those are all the options I can think of. Each of them presents a problem for the catalyst's logic.

1. If an organic race created the catalyst then organics were obviously around. In this scenario, synthetics have not wiped out all organic life. If the catalyst then bore witness to all organic life being wiped out then A. There are no organics left to save anyway. or B. Organic life can evolve again, in which case the cycles are not necessary anyway.

2. A synthetic rebellion occurred but did not result in all organic life being wiped out. If all organic life was wiped out in this rebellion, see A and B in part 1.

3. This would be a total dick move on the part of this organic race but I digress. The reasoning behind this decision is unknowable. It is not necessarily the same as the catalyst's own logic. In any case, this is another scenario where organic life is still around and if it gets killed by synthetics then see A and B again.

4. There's no logical way for this to be the case. If the synthetic race created the catalyst because it has seen the extinction of all organic life then....yeah, see A and B again. If the synetic race creates the catalyst while organics are still around (no idea why they would want to preserve organic life in the first place but I suppose it doesn't matter for the purposes of this argument.) then they must have been created by the organics. In which case the synthetics have decided that they want to preserve organic life (their creators), far from wiping it out.

5. If that is taken to be the case then..... meh.


It is not possible for there to be empirical evidence that synthetics wipe out all organic life or that the reaper solution is necessary. In some of the scenraios, there is evidence that organics and synthetics can exist at the same time, even that organics can create synthetics but nothing more. All you are left with is the idea that the catalyst has formed a hypothesis. It can only calculate probability based on transform equations that are implied by the empirical evidence available and that is insufficient.

If you want to take a more philosophical approach, the burden of proof is on the catalyst since he is the one making the assertion. Reflecting the burden of proof back onto us is a logical fallacy (appeal to ignorance).

[Elk Cloner]

The Razman wrote...
The Reapers don't kill all life. The synthetics they're preventing from being developed would. Which is worse?

Actually, Reapers don't kill organics from whom they don't have benefits (resources and genetical material). They leave organics that can rise up (like yahg) so they could harvest them too. Sovereign explained that in ME.

Synthetics , on the other hand, are not a real threat. On Geth example, they are no more interested in organics than merely self-preservation. Even "Heretics" attacked organics beacause Reaper used their missjudgement that "Old Machines" are Gods.

[Amioran]

Grimwick wrote...
Straw man - the cycle of Reaper extermination =/= the cycle of the creation of synthetics will always lead to genocidal war..
I believe you are arguing against the wrong thing here.

No, it is you that don't understand that all you say it's completely irrelevant.

Grimwick wrote...
The overall problem is with the solution of the SC. We have to make assumptions here that the SC even has any evidence at all. We also have to assume that the evidence is valid/consistent and is of any actual value. These assumptions are implied, but that is a problem in itself: that it needs to be implied in the first place.

And why? Implying a thing is perfectly plausibile.

Again, you are climbing mirrors to try to prove a point that's not there. You don't need to specify everything in a narrarive, especially if the explanations are perfectly implied within the narrative itself.

You get to see the problem firsthand, you know it happend in the previous cycle, so it is obvious that there's a pattern. Add to this the fact that the Catalyst tells you directly, what more do you want?

Grimwick wrote...
Making decisions on these assumptions is illogical from the start. If we have to assume anything as ridiculous as "the SC has evidence that conflict between synthetics and organics, that will exterminate all organic life in the galaxy, is 100% inevitable"  then we have broken logic on our hands.

It's not "broken logic" it is the point of view of the Catalyst. Since from many many cycles he has seen the thing happen he has assumed the point of view of the inevitability of this happening, so he has developed a solution to the problem.

Grimwick wrote...
Side note here, but if it has happened before then how did the reapers come into being?

It is completely irrelevant how the Reapers did come into being.

Grimwick wrote...
Having evidence that A led to B doesn't mean we have evidence that A must also therefore lead to C.

It doesn't matter. You don't have to agree with the point of view of the Catalyst. It is just a point of view on the matter. Another thing is saying that he has no logic on what he does.

Grimwick wrote...
Having evidence that a synthetic/organic conflict occured  =/= evidence that a synthetic/organic conflict will 100% lead to the extinction of all organic life.

Again, it is completely irrelevant if it will always happen or not. Even in the same solution developed by the Catalyst there's ineherent hope of the thing not presenting itself (elsewhere there would be no need to come in cycles to see what happens next).

The point of view of the Catalyst/Reapers it is that this thing is inevitable, but that's just a point of view in the matter, the one of order. It is not said that it will necessarily happen, but this doesn't change the logic behind the act.

Grimwick wrote...
Also nothing to do with Chaos vs Order - (aside from them both being foundless gibberish) nothing like that needs to be explained here, simply the logic of the arguments of the SC. Chaos vs Order doesn't strengthen the logic in any way.

Listen, could you please stop pretending to be an expert on a thing you don't know? Chaos vs. Order talks specifically about this. I understand that you know nothing about the theme but you insisting it's "gibbersih" when you don't either know of what the theme talks about it's a bit presumptuos, don't you think?

If you really did understand at last minimally something about the theme you would know how wrong you are. An example: the bible; Jehovah and the struggle between him and man has the same circumstance happen.

[SalsaDMA]

Did you just pull religion into the debate, Amo?

*sigh*

[Amioran]

Il Divo wrote...
Because they're the ones struggling to wipe out all life in the galaxy? You chose to buy into their claim.

I didn't "buy" anything. I just understand their point of view. I don't agree with it myself, but I understand it. A thing you obviously cannot since you don't include the full picture but only what you like to consider.

You try to tie logic behaviour with a thing being right or wrong, as in "it cannot be logical if it's not right", but this is not the way logic works. You can have a logic behind a thing that's wrong in one or multiple aspects, as the moral one for example. Serial killers, for example, many times act with perfect logic also if morally they are almost always wrong.

Il Divo wrote...
The Reapers just ass-pulled some huge one-liner about the inevitability of organics fighting being destroyed by synthetics.

 
That's HIS point of view. He believes in the inevitability of it to happen.

But, also if it is HIS point of view, at the same time the way he behaves ineherently admit possibility for the thing to change, or he would just whipe all the organics, without coming in cycles.

So, either he himself admit that it is just a point of view, and that the thing CAN change depending on the situation.

Il Divo wrote...
And guess what? You just spent three games learning how EDI is more human than we realized and that the Geth weren't these evil murdering psycopaths. Now's the time to lay all your cards on the table, not jerk us around with implications. Vigil did just that in ME1 and he was on our side. The Catalyst, the BBEG, the one who just pulled some crap claim about synthetics being our destruction? Yeah, now is not the time for fanfiction.

This is all totally irrelevant, do you understand this?

The fact that the Catalyst can be proven wrong it doesn't contradicts his logic at all. He just has a point of view in the matter and he behaves accordingly to it. Certainly he can be proven wrong, as every point of view can, in part or in full, but this doesn't change that he has a logic behind and he developed a solution based on that logic that's perfectly fine.

And actually, the fact that you have to struggle all the time to recover problems with synthetics vs. organics proves that what the Catalyst says, empirically it is perfectly plausible, i.e. it can and it WILL happen if something is not done about it. The way you approach the problem variates depending on the point of view.

If your point of view is more "maybe it can be overcome" then you try to act conformly. The point of view of the Catalyst is, instead, "there's nothing to be done about it", and in the same way he acts accordingly. There's nothing ILLOGICAL about this, and this thread is NOT about if the Catalyst is right or wrong, but if he acts logically, a thing he does.

Modifié par Amioran, 13 mai 2012 - 09:55 .

[Amioran]

jreezy wrote...

Amioran wrote...

Grimwick wrote...
Side note here, but if it has happened before then how did the reapers come into being?

It is completely irrelevant how the Reapers did come into being.

Lol. I would stop discussing this topic after something like that because you obviously haven't paid attention to the narrative.

It is irrelevant for what we are talking about here.

It is obvious that's not irrelevant for the full narrative.

Oh well, do I really have to explain everytime what I mean in full?

Modifié par Amioran, 13 mai 2012 - 09:42 .

[Amioran]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Did you just pull religion into the debate, Amo?

*sigh*

The story of Jehovah is tied to the same theme. You can find a lot of parallelisms just for this.

[Amioran]

jreezy wrote...
This topic is about the Catalyst so no, it isn't irrelevant.

No. This topic is about if the behaviour of the Catalyst is logical or not.

So, how the Reapers did come to being matter something concerning this? I guess not, isn't it? (or at last certainly not directly).

Modifié par Amioran, 13 mai 2012 - 09:57 .

[Sal86]

Amioran wrote...

jreezy wrote...
This topic is about the Catalyst so no, it isn't irrelevant.

No. This topic is about if the behaviour of the Catalyst is logical or not.

So, how the Reapers did come to being matter something concerning this? I guess not, isn't it? (or at last certainly not directly).

The premise of the Catalyst's argument is that synthetics will inevitably wipe out organic life. If how the catalyst (not the reapers, they are the solution to the Catalyst's logic, not part of it) came to be invalidates this premise, how is it not relevant?

[Grimwick]

Amioran wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Amioran wrote...

Grimwick wrote...
Side note here, but if it has happened before then how did the reapers come into being?

It is completely irrelevant how the Reapers did come into being.

Lol. I would stop discussing this topic after something like that because you obviously haven't paid attention to the narrative.

It is irrelevant for what we are talking about here.

It is obvious that's not irrelevant for the full narrative.

Oh well, do I really have to explain everytime what I mean in full?

It's not irrelevant. At all.

You claim the SC has sufficient evidence to back up his claims?
Well the only sufficient evidence he would have is that synthetic life completely eradicated all organic life sometime in the past - but if that was the case how were the reapers built or designed?

You should honestly read the posts and think a bit before you post.

[iamthedave3]

Grimwick wrote...

Amioran wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Amioran wrote...

Grimwick wrote...
Side note here, but if it has happened before then how did the reapers come into being?

It is completely irrelevant how the Reapers did come into being.

Lol. I would stop discussing this topic after something like that because you obviously haven't paid attention to the narrative.

It is irrelevant for what we are talking about here.

It is obvious that's not irrelevant for the full narrative.

Oh well, do I really have to explain everytime what I mean in full?

It's not irrelevant. At all.

You claim the SC has sufficient evidence to back up his claims?
Well the only sufficient evidence he would have is that synthetic life completely eradicated all organic life sometime in the past - but if that was the case how were the reapers built or designed?

You should honestly read the posts and think a bit before you post.

His is a level of brilliance that does not require thought.

Seriously though, what you said there isn't quite true. All that would be required is for a near-miss to occur. Something like Shodan out of System Shock 2 where she comes close to being able to rewrite the fabric of the entire universe. I think that's what happens. Been a long time. It was bad juju, I remember that much.

So the event would not need to have happened in order for their to be justification to take steps to prevent it, it would just need to come very close to happening. Perhaps the Reapers of today fought off the reapers of their own cycle, or the metaphorical equivalent.

In a way its immaterial because the SC doesn't explain himself at all, but just wanted to say that.

For example, it's established that AI research is illegal, and those laws are passed and enforced on comparitively - given the scale of the Reaper cycle I mean - minor evidence.

Imagine if the Reaper version of a rogue AI was eradicating entire planets and reducing them to atoms. One would probably be alarmed and wish to prevent this happening again. Did that happen? Maybe? But it wouldn't need the AI to win for the survivors to decide 'right then. That wasn't fun. Let's make sure we don't do this dance again, eh?'.

Not that in any way justifies or explains the actual solution they went for, of course. I'm pretty sure multiple people on the BSN have already pointed out holes in the 'kill them all before they make AIs' plan.

Modifié par iamthedave3, 13 mai 2012 - 11:12 .