9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

Does this mean Billy the Bear is equal to the geth now? What the hell does that even mean?

I wouldn't want to mess with that bear I saw yesterday.

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...

JShepppp wrote...
So basically are you saying that the hybrid form will be "sensitive" to both synthetics and organics and that this will stem future synthetic/organic conflict as well? Interesting.

It doesn't matter if the hybrids are "sensitive" (not exactly sure what you mean). They will be able to keep up with synthetics, which means that they and any future synthetics can communication on the same level. That means that there are two ways to deal with them: either destroy them when they reach singularity-capacity, or try to achieve coexistence, which possible since they now communicate as equals. As for pure organics, they won't matter one way or the other.

You mean that the parasitic nanites will force changes on the rest of the organism to keep up with synthetics.

And as for pure organics, since you're suggesting that hybrids will have to reach a singularity as well, then pure organics will suffer the same fate as they would have if there had been no synthesis. Only now you have 3 tiers instead of two.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Creid-X wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

But come on people. Look at what this thing has done for what? over a billion years? MURDERED trillions of intelligent and sentient beings, and destroyed the habitats of any wildlife that existed on those worlds in the process. It didn't just mess with advanced civilizations. It took wildlife and corrupted that too. That AI and the Reapers are abominations, and now the AI wants you to join with it? "Become one with synthetics (e.g. them)." And by doing so you impose this on every single living creature in the galaxy, and make this little AI and its minions happy.

Just say "No."

Your actions are changing the Galaxy forever, and you are going to just write a possible solution off because "the Reapers are evil?" you have to look past all that if you are to strive for the greater good, the Reapers serve a purpose which is protecting the very principle of life and intergalactic peace, their methods are horrendous but that doesn't invalidate the goal, which is in last instance the same one Shepard and everyone had been fighting for.

I would like to add that "The Reapers are evil" is a meaningless statement. What's "good" and "evil" is determined by biology and culture. The Reapers use different standards, nonhuman standards. To insist on a common standard for morality means claiming that human standards of morality are universal. But humans are not the centre of the universe. ME2 actuallly makes a statement that every moral decision should be judged in its own context (Legion about the Heretic decision).

Okay maybe murdered implies morality. The reapers are machines. They have no morality. They just simply slaughtered and destroyed, and what they didn't kill they turned into corrupted forms of the original organisms to use against the organics they were destroying. They are not part of the eco-system. They corrupt the eco-systems. They deny natural evolution. And you're putting words in my post. I never said humans are the center of the universe, did I? We have a Prothean on board, too, who saw his entire civilization destroyed. We saw the Asari, whose voices are those of reason and negotiation, destroyed by them, and for what? What did they ever do to them? Same with the Turians, Batarians, Krogan, Klixen (wildlife), Volus, Elcor. So why would one even think about becoming one with these things and the AI that runs them, and forcing this on every other living creature in the galaxy, just to avoid some hypothetical technological singularity?

It's not the same as the Heretic decision because Legion in the end leaves that judgement up to Shepard, a human, to make that decision because it cannot reach a consensus. So you can take the Drell viewpoint that rewriting them is no different than destroying them. You can take the human viewpoint from Miranda that "we might not get another chance like this to reduce the number." You can take the viewpoint that there is a non-zero probability that the rewrite won't work (Legion's own words), and are you willing to take that chance?

I think that galactic civilizations will probably run out of resources and collapse long before that hypothetical singularity happens. And with the possible wars between synthetics and organics? There's wars between organics and organics. What makes these any different? The Protheans turned the tide against the Zha'til but then the reapers invaded. The Quarians turned the tide against the Geth, then the reapers invaded. I'm sure this has happened many times before. You see the pattern?

The reapers need to disappear. Permanently.

[Kreid]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Okay maybe murdered implies morality. The reapers are machines. They have no morality. They just simply slaughtered and destroyed, and what they didn't kill they turned into corrupted forms of the original organisms to use against the organics they were destroying. They are not part of the eco-system. They corrupt the eco-systems. They deny natural evolution. And you're putting words in my post. I never said humans are the center of the universe, did I? We have a Prothean on board, too, who saw his entire civilization destroyed. We saw the Asari, whose voices are those of reason and negotiation, destroyed by them, and for what? What did they ever do to them? Same with the Turians, Batarians, Krogan, Klixen (wildlife), Volus, Elcor. So why would one even think about becoming one with these things and the AI that runs them, and forcing this on every other living creature in the galaxy, just to avoid some hypothetical technological singularity?

Synthesis is not becoming a Reaper, it has little to do with the Reaperization procces and you are neither assimilated or absorbed by them, so I don't really see the point of your argument, we only know synthesis eliminates the differences between organic, is that something the reapers strive for? It is, but you can see their method is very different to synthesis, as i said before it's about the methods not the goal, if you think tranhumanism is evil then a large of society's people must be evil too, synthesis is morally reprehensible for some reason but it's not become a Reaper/One with the Reapers.

I think that galactic civilizations will probably run out of resources and collapse long before that hypothetical singularity happens. And with the possible wars between synthetics and organics? There's wars between organics and organics. What makes these any different? The Protheans turned the tide against the Zha'til but then the reapers invaded. The Quarians turned the tide against the Geth, then the reapers invaded. I'm sure this has happened many times before. You see the pattern?

The reapers need to disappear. Permanently.

That's not the point, the Catalyst/Reapers operate in the span of millions of years, their objective is not stopping wars with synthetics like the geth but stop civilizations that would create a superintelligence that might overcome the reapers themselves and then destroy all life in the Galaxy, It is hypothetical but higly likely, you can see the Geth were already at a point in which the could potentially reach singularity, if they do it then all bets are off.

Modifié par Creid-X, 29 mai 2012 - 09:53 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Creid-X wrote...

That's not the point, the Catalyst/Reapers operate in the span of millions of years, their objective is not stopping wars with synthetics like the geth but stop civilizations that would create a superintelligence that might overcome the reapers themselves and then destroy all life in the Galaxy, It is hypothetical but higly likely,

Prove it. 

And don't use anything the Catalyst says. 

And don't use the real-life theory either. 

you can see the Geth were already at a point in which the could potentially reach singularity, if they do it then all bets are off.

I like the odds. 

[Kreid]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Prove it. 

And don't use anything the Catalyst says. 

And don't use the real-life theory either.

Prove it? It's only common sense, do you think something like the Geth can threaten all organic life? No. The Catalyst is trying to stop the emergence of sometghing much more dangerous than that.

Besides, you can see the Singularity mentioned by name in one of the early drafts of the ending script that is virtually the same we've got, it was aleggedly cut off because the general public isn't familiar with the term but it's undeniably the underlying idea. 

I like the odds. 

That's commendable but naive. Once the Geth and any other A.I. surpasses an event horizon in cognitive proccess and experiments an intelligence explosion it will be nothing like the Geth or EDI, it would literally be out of the realm of understanding for organics and early synthetics and that is definitely the path the Geth are walking, past this point it's behavior is unpredictable so the possibility of it assimilating7destroying everything else exists.

[PsyrenY]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The singularity won't happen for at least ten thousand years, as the Star Gazer scene suggests.

The Geth were literally on the cusp of achieving it, so can you explain this time-fra-

Taboo-XX wrote... 
The Geth are dead in my playthrough, I'm shooting the pipe.

Ah. Well, I hope you can see that the majority of Paragon Shepards out there saved the Geth, with some of these even doing so at the warmongering Quarians' expense. 

If you've nuked every synthetic in the Galaxy, including the Reapers, then yeah - I can see how Synthesis is much less necessary/desirable as an option. Of course, now you're faced with the daunting task of rebuilding without them, as well as the next synthetics to come along inevitably discovering that their predecessors were wiped out, and forming their own conclusions about organics based on this inescapable fact.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Creid-X wrote...

Synthesis is not becoming a Reaper, it has little to do with the Reaperization procces and you are neither assimilated or absorbed by them, so I don't really see the point of your argument, we only know synthesis eliminates the differences between organic, is that something the reapers strive for? It is, but you can see their method is very different to synthesis, as i said before it's about the methods not the goal, if you think tranhumanism is evil then a large of society's people must be evil too, synthesis is morally reprehensible for some reason but it's not become a Reaper/One with the Reapers.

I did not single out transhumanism. The Quarians already have a ton of cybernetic implants. Every biotic in the ME universe has cybernetic implants. Personally if a cybernetic technology were available that was high enough quality to give me back hearing in one ear to the point where it was indistinguishable from natural hearing and eliminate balance issues, I'd have one implanted myself, but it's not there yet.

What I have a problem with is imposing this synthesis on every single living creature without consent. It's an ethical issue for me. I also have an issue with the continued existence of the reapers and the broken AI, and that thing is broken.

The way I see this synthesis working is that everyone and everything will be able to network. So I guess we're being offered what the Geth were offered, a chance to achieve true unity, but on their terms, not our own. See the difference? It is why the Geth refused before interference from the reapers.

That's not the point, the Catalyst/Reapers operate in the span of millions of years, their objective is not stopping wars with synthetics like the geth but stop civilizations that would create a superintelligence that might overcome the reapers themselves and then destroy all life in the Galaxy, It is hypothetical but higly likely, you can see the Geth were already at a point in which the could potentially reach singularity, if they do it then all bets are off.

It's ignoring Chaos Theory. One cannot predict that far out. It is essentially ass pulling and justifying genocide with that. Any superintelligence as you describe is billions of years out.

[Kreid]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
What I have a problem with is imposing this synthesis on every single living creature without consent. It's an ethical issue for me. I also have an issue with the continued existence of the reapers and the broken AI, and that thing is broken.

It is ethically questionable, but you also have to consider that it is the only decision which (at face value) grants long term peace, now will you choose human ethics or strive for the greater good for everyone in the Galaxy?

The way I see this synthesis working is that everyone and everything will be able to network. So I guess we're being offered what the Geth were offered, a chance to achieve true unity, but on their terms, not our own. See the difference? It is why the Geth refused before interference from the reapers.

Whose terms? The Reapers didn't buld the Crucible, they don't control it, the Catalyst simply spreads the energy through the Mass Relays, getting networked in the Reapers' terms is becoming an actual Reaper through their own procreation progress, Synthesis is a possibility organic races created through many cycles by perfecting the Crucible.

It's ignoring Chaos Theory. One cannot predict that far out. It is essentially ass pulling and justifying genocide with that. Any superintelligence as you describe is billions of years out.

That organics tend to create A.I. is a fact, it's only a matter of time before an A.I. will eventually upgrade itself past  a certain event horizon and generate a Singularity, that's because synthetics evolve at high velocity, the Geth and EDI are proof of this, we can see examples during the course of the games (EDI upgrading her core programming in seconds, the Geth Dyson sphere).

You can argue that it's not worthy to sacrifice so much to stop something that will happen far in the future in organic terms, but ignoring the possibility is downright irresponsible.

Modifié par Creid-X, 29 mai 2012 - 11:52 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

But is it for the greater good for everyone in the galaxy? What about free will? By imposing this one deprives others of freedom of choice. Yes, that is chaos, but that is also which drives evolution. Starkid says synthesis is the pinnacle of evolution, but it doesn't mean that it is. That is Starkid's opinion from its limited knowledge and its programming of making species smoothies all those years.

Starkid has always been in the Citadel. It's the AI, but you knew that. The Crucible allowed Starkid to interface with you and provided a hardware upgrade so it could come up with alternatives to its broken endless loop. One of them is Synthesis.

I'll choose human ethics. I don't see a guarantee of long term peace. The catalyst doesn't respond to the "Then there will be peace?" question. There will be peace between reaper and organics because neither will exist in their current form. Peace guaranteed? No. Still could be factions.

But organics need to also be responsible for their what they make, no?

You may not like it but the Quarians realized they'd made a mistake by making the Geth and were well on the way to correcting that mistake and taking back Rannoch before the reapers intervened. Without reaper intervention they would have just blown through. The Quarians destroyed the Geth Dyson Sphere.

EDI is another matter. Thank you Joker for unshackling the AI.

[Ieldra]

I'd like to crosspost some stuff CulturalGeekGirl has said about Synthesis in the thread "All Were Thematically Revolting". Note that I don't *necessarily* agree with the statement in the thread title.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Synthesis is, to me, literally the embodiment of the unknown. For me, the final decision was between a known evil, a suspect but imaginable possibility, and the complete unknown. As a student of chaos, I'd rather do something where the result is impossible to predict than do something I know to be evil. Better the deity of uncertain alignment than the devil you know, and all that.

If you phrase that final choices as "you can either murder and die, compromise and collaborate, or you can... change in some way that is fundamentally unknowable." then I pick change every single time.

But this perspective isn't available to most people, because it isn't the instinctual human feeling, and a reason to consider the choice valid must be searched for. To find it, you must try to find an angle of approach, and the only reason you would look for one is a genre-savvy knowledge that it must be there.

Orignally posted here.

I found this interesting to read because I share this perspective. There may be extrapolations we might make about what Synthesis actually does, but how it will change civilization long-term is a complete unknown, and that's a big part of what makes it attractive to me.

[Ieldra]

And one more about the ethics of the decision:

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
No matter what, Shepard is forcing a choice on the entire galaxy. One could say that if Shepard picks destroy, he's making an even more hideous and monstrous decision for the galaxy. He's saying "hey, I know you all are so hateful and afraid that you would rather I commit genocide on your behalf than accept any kind of change that comes from a source that is even slightly suspicious." I'd be much more angry if someone decided to commit genocide to save me than if I suddenly was a cyborg.

I'm not arguing that synthesis is better. I'm arguing that, unless you assume that the starkid was meant to color all choices he advocated as monstrous by association, then there's no reason to assume that synthesis is more monstrous than any of the other choices.

Originally posted here.

More below about the irrationality rejecting a choice just because it's presented by the Catalyst. This also touches the question "Who on your crew would argue for which decision". The absence of squadmates to express opinions on the matter creates the impression that Shepard makes the decision in a vacuum, unlike in ME1 and ME2, where there was always someone with an opinion about what should be done:

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
See, this assumes that everyone would associate green and blue with indoctrination, and also that everyone would let the starchild's existence taint two of the options. I think these are irrational assumptions from the point of view of the game. (I'm not saying they're irrational considering how the text was presented. But if we examine things looking for intent, I don't see these assumptions as proceeding naturally from the game's own internal logic.)

[...]

First, remove the starchild from consideration. Assume he has no control over the options provided (other than his fundamental unwillingness to just go away). This is what we were supposed to assume anyway: the options were not the Starchild's creation, they were the creation of civilizations past working on the Crucible.

I don't think the starkid's advocacy was supposed to be all that important. I think people are blowing it way out of proportion, to he point where it is frequently cited as the only factor upon which people are making their decision. This is what I call the "Charles Manson and Global Warming" problem. Recently, Charles Manson said "Hey, global warming is real, and we should do something about it." I am not making this up. People opposed to efforts to prevent climate change gobbled this up. "Ohoho. Reducing Carbon Emissions: an idea so crazy, Charles Manson is in favor of it!" Comedians riffed on it. "Now, whenever anyone says they want to save the earth you can say to them 'oh, so you're saying that you think Charles Manson has some good ideas?'"

The fact that a crazy monster happens to agree with a reasonable idea doesn't automatically render that idea unreasonable, is my point.

I can literally see anyone but Javik arguing for Synthesis, and anyone but EDI arguing for Destroy. Control, I have more trouble with, but that's just because nothing anywhere in the story remotely indicates that picking Control has any chance of working.

EDI is entirely synthetic and trying to become more like organics, so the idea of both gaining the ability to understand the other better is perfectly sensible for her to advocate. Garrus, like Shepard, is already partially synthetic himself... he has no reason to fear a little light transhumanism. Kasumi obviously believes that a person's digitized thoughts still represent a part of that person's real self, so she'd easily argue for Synthesis. I think, if Mordin and Legion were alive, they'd be interested in the possibility of new varieties of consciousness. As stated prior, Wrex and Grunt would be strongly in favor of blowing everything up, as would Ashley. Kaidan could go either way. Still, in the same way you can write plausible "let's keep the base" or "let's let the council die" arguments for pretty much every character, you could write plausible Synth/Destoroy arguments.

The key is seeing Synthesis as not offered by the starkid, but as an emergent property of the work of past civilizations on the crucible. That way you don't get caught in the "Charles Manson and Global Warming" trap. If you see Synthesis as "nobody has to die and we all become 1% robot or 1% organic," there's pretty much nobody in your crew other than the "hates synthetics" or "I'm a Krogan and the best solution is always kill it" people who would have a strong reason to advocate against synthesis.

Originally posted here. Important lines bolded.

Mordin's take on the Collectors has also been brought up as an argument against integrating organics and synthetics. I tried to make the point repeatedly that it isn't the same but again CGG says it better than I:

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...I really think people are reading way, way too much into the "replaced with tech"  speech in ME2. That speech was supposed to be about the unsalvagability of the Collectors... about the fact that we couldn't save them, that the Reapers had destroyed everything they were. If you assume that Synthesis is a Reaper idea, then this kind of paranoia makessense, but without that assumption, there is no logical connection between the two ideas. If you're a codex-kiddy, you learn in ME2 that indoctrination ruins the higher reasoning and creative thinking parts of the brain, so they must be replaced with synthetics. The idea isn't that replacing something with tech kills the soul, the idea is that, after indoctrination has killed the soul, the only way to keep the body moving is tech.

It's like blaming someone's prosthetic leg for their phantom limb pains. They'd have the pains whether or not they got a prosthetic, the prosthetic doesn't cause the pain.

Orignally posted here.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 mai 2012 - 08:39 .

[Ieldra]

And here's an interesting take on the Synthesis option, taking the the origin of the Crucible as told in the game int consideration. The Crucible has been built by a number of advanced species, with each adding its own elements to it. It isn't "the Reapers' solution".

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
But Synthesis isn't offered unless you did well in gathering allies and building the Crucible. If it were the Reapers' ideal solution, why wouldn't they offer it every single time? (This is also the most nonsensical part of indoctrination theory for me, personally: if you suck, the Reapers give you a get-out-of-jail-free card and don't give you any choice but to break indoctrination. They bother to put you all the way into the trance, but then don't even try? Pfftpshwhaaaaaaat?)

Synthesis makes total sense as a tactic from a past civilization. It has been implied that the Geth can't be indoctrinated unless they at least willingly accept some kind of a gift from the Reapers. What if a previous cycle had a civilization like the Geth and the Quarians would have been if the Morning War had never happened? Or if the Pro-Geth Quarians had won? This is something that doesn't get brought up enough: the Geth Consensus mission doesn't just show that the Geth were blameless in the Morning war, it also shows that numerous Quarians sided with them and were brutally murdered for doing so. It wasn't just a synthetics vs. organics war, it was a civil war among the Quarians.

Anyway, imagine a collaborative society of sentient machines and organics. Imagine if they learned that machines were resistant to indoctrination, and that making yourself part synthetic conferred that resistance onto organics. Without indoctrination, it seems pretty plausible that a fairly advanced civilization could beat the Reapers, either by hiding out during an entire cycle or through conventional warfare.

Also, being part synthetic makes you harder to kill, stronger, faster-thinking, it confers almost limited military advantages and almost no military disadvantages, assuming that becoming partially synthetic does not completely overwrite your organic consciousness.

A civilization that was already on the cusp of collaborative transhumanism developing this as a tactic makes perfect sense. I could go on for pages about the theoretical tactics that could be employed by a hybrid race or by a transhumanist collaboration between all races in the galaxy.

Originally posted here. From the leaked script I gather that Synthesis was meant to be interpreted as a transhumanist scenario. They just obfuscated it in the published version for whatever strange reason and replaced it with nonsense. I think it's completely justified to pick up on that theme, which has been present by implication ever since Shepard was brought back from the dead. Some more details:

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
For Synthesis to solve anything you just have to believe that making us all more collaborative and increasing understanding across the diverse races of the galaxy by easing communication will help us.

Maybe add in a little indoctrination resistance, and some nigh-immortality for spice.

Then you can choose from a buffet of possible add-ons: maybe with better synthetic-to-organic communications, it will be possible to reach with the once-living "souls" trapped within the Reapers.  Maybe by evening the playing field for everyone, one race completely dominating the galaxy becomes completely unfeasible.  Maybe this will free the Reapers from the Control the catalyst has been exerting over them for all these millenia.

Originally posted here.

End of crosspost section. Credit for all the quoted stuff in the last three posts goes to CulturalGeekGirl, who said a few things better than I ever could.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 mai 2012 - 08:58 .

[PsyrenY]

Excellent quotes. Kudos to CGG (and to you for compiling them.)

EDIT: Blah, typo, it's late.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 30 mai 2012 - 08:55 .

[Ieldra]

Updated the OP. Included a section about the origins of the three options for the final choice.

@all:
If anyone finds interesting posts and topics about Synthesis, feel free to bring them to my attention.

[The Night Mammoth]

Creid-X wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Prove it. 

And don't use anything the Catalyst says. 

And don't use the real-life theory either.

Prove it? It's only common sense, do you think something like the Geth can threaten all organic life? No. The Catalyst is trying to stop the emergence of sometghing much more dangerous than that.

Commone sense?

It's a strange kind of 'common sense' you'd need to have in order to accept the baseless word of the serpent despite all the events that trend to the exact opposite conclusion, when it provides not a shred of proof, in the last five minutes of the story. Maybe you'd need quite a high level of gulliblity. 

Besides, you can see the Singularity mentioned by name in one of the early drafts of the ending script that is virtually the same we've got, it was aleggedly cut off because the general public isn't familiar with the term but it's undeniably the underlying idea.

Mentioned in an old, leaked script you say? 

Excuse me whilst I laugh a little. I've read it, unfortuneately. That's no proof. That makes everything worse because it shows BioWare were trying to stuff in their own version in the last five minutes, their own twisted, abstract, yet moronically simple at the same time, take on the concept. And failed. 

That's commendable but naive. Once the Geth and any other A.I. surpasses an event horizon in cognitive proccess and experiments an intelligence explosion it will be nothing like the Geth or EDI, it would literally be out of the realm of understanding for organics and early synthetics and that is definitely the path the Geth are walking, past this point it's behavior is unpredictable so the possibility of it assimilating7destroying everything else exists.

The possibility does, although I question even that. 

The serpent does not propose a possibility. It proposes a certainty. 

It literally can't be certain if indeed a singularity is what it talks about. 

Even so, if it's only a possibility then I like those odds. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 30 mai 2012 - 10:18 .

[PsyrenY]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

But is it for the greater good for everyone in the galaxy? What about free will? By imposing this one deprives others of freedom of choice. Yes, that is chaos, but that is also which drives evolution. Starkid says synthesis is the pinnacle of evolution, but it doesn't mean that it is. That is Starkid's opinion from its limited knowledge and its programming of making species smoothies all those years.

Again, this depends on how you define evolution. If you define all change as "evolution" then yes, Starkid's claim is nonsensical. But if you define evolution more narrowly, in the way Darwin did - as "gradual and automatic responses to continued stimuli over a long period of time" there is plenty of room in that definition for synthesis to step in. For instance, "very-fast-evolution" often goes by a different name - mutation.

Free will is certainly a prickly issue. Would I rather poll the galaxy before unleashing Green, or even unleash it partially and hope that a smaller group of Synthesized beings is enough to avert doom? Certainly, but given the time pressures of the situation - much like the time pressures in Arrival - I am willing to set ethical considerations aside to ensure that the nightmare ends. I do not fault Shepards that are unwilling to do so; I'm merely speaking for mine.

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote... 
Starkid has always been in the Citadel. It's the AI, but you knew that. The Crucible allowed Starkid to interface with you and provided a hardware upgrade so it could come up with alternatives to its broken endless loop. One of them is Synthesis.

Actually, it provided those alternatives to the Catalyst - he did not come up with them himself. The most he does is present them to Shepard, and insert little valuations of each (his opinion.) But, he notably does not prevent you from choosing any of them, no matter how little he thinks of them. He even assists you by raising the bridges that lead away from his preferred solution.

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote... 
I'll choose human ethics. I don't see a guarantee of long term peace. The catalyst doesn't respond to the "Then there will be peace?" question. There will be peace between reaper and organics because neither will exist in their current form. Peace guaranteed? No. Still could be factions.

I don't think Miss-America style world peace galactic peace was ever what the Catalyst was striving for. His goal was to give organic life as a whole a fighting chance. His methods were barbaric ("prune them before they can wipe themselves out") but for whatever reason, Synthesis was not an available option to him before either.

And I welcome the existence of factions. A static universe devoid of conflict would be deathly dull, to the point where we might as well have been annihilated. One where we still have differences of opinion (even violent ones, on occasion) leads to innovation and growth. But what many people fail to realize is that synthetics wiping out organics is a much surer path to that static universe.

You could even have factions among the Reapers themselves. Harbinger for instance, could still believe that organics are incapable of understanding the true danger, and that wiping them out once they advance far enough is the only option. He and whatever Reapers follow his vision would reject the Crucible's changes and regroup to try and finish their original mission later. And then you'd have another Reaper - let's call him Prospect - who does see this solution as acceptable and is willing to defend the new galaxy until it realizes its potential. With Reapers fighting Reapers, suddenly the war would be much less hopeless from a conventional standpoint.

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote... 
You may not like it but the Quarians realized they'd made a mistake by making the Geth and were well on the way to correcting that mistake and taking back Rannoch before the reapers intervened. Without reaper intervention they would have just blown through. The Quarians destroyed the Geth Dyson Sphere.

But if you're going to take the analysis that far you may as well take it further. Without the Reapers, Shepard would never have gone to the Migrant Fleet and they would have blown up the Alarei themselves. And had they done that, Xen wouldn't have had access to Rael's research to fabricate her Geth countermeasure from. And that would have made the Quarian's attack doomed, because as we clearly see in ME3, without that countermeasure the Quarians were vastly outgunned.

There are a lot of variables leading up to the final battle in their war - we can't merely examine one in isolation.

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote... 
EDI is another matter. Thank you Joker for unshackling the AI.

Let's not get started on how royally screwed the galaxy would have been had he not done that.

TL;DR: Lots of speculations (from everyone), but I see so many cool possibilities from this that it's hard for me to just curl up into a ball and accentuate the negatives.

[Kreid]

Congrats to CGG, those are some very well made arguments, some of them which I've been trying to get across in a much less stellar fashion, things like the the Catalyst controlling the outcome of the Crucible choice seriously need to go if we want to have a real conversation about the endings.

[Kreid]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Commone sense?

It's a strange kind of 'common sense' you'd need to have in order to accept the baseless word of the serpent despite all the events that trend to the exact opposite conclusion, when it provides not a shred of proof, in the last five minutes of the story. Maybe you'd need quite a high level of gulliblity.

All events trend to the opposite conclussion? Are you kidding me? Just because the Quarian-Geth conflict is a major point in the story that can be solved peacefully shouldn't overshadow all the instances in which conflict between organics and synthetics had been inevitabe. The rogue A.I. which nearly blowed up the Presidium, The Hannibal A.I. in Luna, the infected V.I. that killed the crew of a whole starship and the mech factory, project Overlord which was at the brink of causing a full fledged technological Apocalypse, the Geth Heretics that were helping the Reapers willingly and waged intergallactic war until destroyed/brainwashed. No, sir, you are simply being selective here in terms of which story elements you deem important. Besides, you can argue all you want but the Geth Dyson sphere, as explained by Legion is a very clear first step into a super intelligence, if you decide to ignore it because you don't like the Catalyst is ok, but don't pretend it's all a lie because it doesn't suit you.

Mentioned in an old, leaked script you say? 

Excuse me whilst I laugh a little. I've read it, unfortuneately. That's no proof. That makes everything worse because it shows BioWare were trying to stuff in their own version in the last five minutes, their own twisted, abstract, yet moronically simple at the same time, take on the concept. And failed.

It's not an "old script" it's a November 2011 script, which is basically word for word what we've got without dumbing it down for the most general public. It's ok if you don't want to consider it valid, but it's obvious the ending is never going to make sense to you if you don't take those concepts into considration.

The possibility does, although I question even that. 

The serpent does not propose a possibility. It proposes a certainty. 

It literally can't be certain if indeed a singularity is what it talks about. 

Even so, if it's only a possibility then I like those odds. 

Yeah, when an super intelligence uses Mass Relays to spread itself all over the Galaxy faster than light or decides to bomb the massive black hole in the middle of the Galaxy with stars to proppel a gamma radiation shockwave that decimates all life in the Galaxy forever, I'm sure you won't like those odds very much.

A.I. tends to the point of technologycal singularity, that's a fact, and when a superintelligence emerges it will shift the power balance of the Galaxy on it's favour irremediably, compared to us slowly evolving organics. When you have an invincible, incomprehensible and immortal being around your Galaxy things are not going to look good for organic life, it might be tomorrow, or it might be in ten thousand years, or it might never happen but the possibility of it destroying everything is enough to warrant caution. 

Modifié par Creid-X, 30 mai 2012 - 11:10 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Creid-X wrote...

All events trend to the opposite conclussion? Are you kidding me? Just because the Quarian-Geth conflict is a major point in the story that can be solved peacefully shouldn't overshadow all the instances in which conflict between organics and synthetics had been inevitabe. The rogue A.I. which nearly blowed up the Presidium, The Hannibal A.I. in Luna, the infected V.I. that killed the crew of a whole starship and the mech factory, project Overlord which was at the brink of causing a full fledged technological Apocalypse, the Geth Heretics that were helping the Reapers willingly and waged intergallactic war until destroyed/brainwashed. No, sir, you are simply being selective here in terms of which story elements you deem important. Besides, you can argue all you want but the Geth Dyson sphere, as explained by Legion is a very clear first step into a super intelligence, if you decide to ignore it because you don't like the Catalyst is ok, but don't pretend it's all a lie because it doesn't suit you.

I'm not disputing that a singularity might come to pass in the near future. 

I'm disputing the half-assed attempt to wedge in a completely new focus for the narrative. I'm disputing that synthetic life will end up being the harbingers of organic eradication.

In three lines of ambiguous and poorly explained dialogue from an unreliable source in the last five minutes, BioWare expected me to drop whatever my intentions have been for the last ninety hours of game-play and come to a new conclusion that runs opposite to pretty much everything Ilearn about synthetic life, and choose based on it. 

No thanks. I'd rather just ignore the whole idea and move on. 

All those examples you provide? Do any of them point to these synthetics wanting to wipe out all organic life? 

Do any of them try it, come close to succeeding, or even propose that motivation? As a side note, half of them aren't AI's. 

The answer is no, not of their own accord. The Heretic Geth became hostile because of Nazara. Yes that's right, the Reapers who apparently want to safeguard organic life from potentially hostile and genocidal AI's actually seek out AI's to use as foot-soldiers, and upgrade them to be better at the task. Three times they've done that, three times they've committed acts that go against their apparent purpose. Did BioWare forget all that when they wrote the serpent's words? Most likely, you'd have to be an idiot to think all these things tie together to make a cohesive story. 

What's the only way I'm going to accept this as a possibility, genocidal AI's, that is? 

With proof. Without it you can waffle on endlessly about anything you want, but it won't be true or fact until you prove it. I propose that pigs will rise up against us one day. Proof? I don't need that, you should just accept my premise straight off the bat, right?

WE HAVE NO PROOF. Your reasoning can be as theoretically sound as you want it to be, but you're just guessing, speculating, fabricating an explanation so it all makes sense. Without proof, the serpent is guessing too. Why should I put stock into the words of something that has killed trillions based on a guess? Why should I accept it as the story's overriding conflict? Because some fans have written a 10,000 word essay on the matter, mostly filling in the holes with real-life theories that aren't even supported by the story, the rest of it being speculation? 

Again, no thanks. I played BioWare games for some sort of consistency, and then went firmly out the window with ME3, and kicked into Saturn's orbit with this travesty of an ending. 

It's not an "old script" it's a November 2011 script, which is basically word for word what we've got without dumbing it down for the most general public.

It's an old script, as in, one that was on the table, but then replaced with something else. 

It's ok if you don't want to consider it valid, but it's obvious the ending is never going to make sense to you if you don't take those concepts into considration.

It doesn't make sense even if you do. 

Yeah, when an super intelligence uses Mass Relays to spread itself all over the Galaxy faster than light or decides to bomb the massive black hole in the middle of the Galaxy with stars to proppel a gamma radiation shockwave that decimates all life in the Galaxy forever, I'm sure you won't like those odds very much.

The word 'when' should be replaced with 'if'.

Hence, I like the odds. 

A.I. tends to the point of technologycal singularity, that's a fact, and when a superintelligence emerges it will shift the power balance of the Galaxy on it's favour irremediably, compared to us slowly evolving organics. When you have an invincible, incomprehensible and immortal being around your Galaxy things are not going to look good for organic life, it might be tomorrow, or it might be in ten thousand years, or it might never happen but the possibility of it destroying everything is enough to warrant caution. 

Caution based on far-flung possibility is slightly different than repeatedly wiping out all sapient life periodically based on a guess. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 30 mai 2012 - 11:45 .

[PsyrenY]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

The answer is no, not of their own accord. The Heretic Geth became hostile because of Nazara. Yes that's right, the Reapers who apparently want to safeguard organic life from potentially hostile and genocidal AI's actually seek out AI's to use as foot-soldiers, and upgrade them to be better at the task. Three times they've done that, three times they've committed acts that go against their apparent purpose. Did BioWare forget all that when they wrote the serpent's words? Most likely, you'd have to be an idiot to think all these things tie together to make a cohesive story.

What stood out to me from that, was how little convincing it took for Sovereign to convince the Heretics to enlist, do rather barbaric things to organic life, and tarnish the true Geth's reputation across the galaxy. The other thing that stood out was how little the true Geth were willing to do to stop them.

Nazara was a catalyst, yes. The question is, was he the only possible one? And if the Geth were that laissez-faire then, what will they do post-singularity?

I'd rather give organics a fighting chance before finding out.

The Night Mammoth wrote... 
WE HAVE NO PROOF. Your reasoning can be as theoretically sound as you want it to be, but you're just guessing, speculating, fabricating an explanation so it all makes sense. Without proof, the serpent is guessing too. Why should I put stock into the words of something that has killed trillions based on a guess? Why should I accept it as the story's overriding conflict?

Because it's the only one that remotely makes sense. What other outcome could the Catalyst be trying to prevent? It could slaughter all the organics quite easily once the advanced ones are gone, and even hang around to ensure no more achieve spaceflight (if they can survive hibernating in dark space, hibernating with all these energizing stars around would be even easier.) And gaining the allegiance of any synthetics we happen to create ensures that they can control those too, either by forcing us to destroy them ourselves (and waste precious time/resources doing so) or assimilate/annihilate them later.

[Kreid]

[quote]The Night Mammoth wrote...

I'm not disputing that a singularity might come to pass in the near future. 

I'm disputing the half-assed attempt to wedge in a completely new focus for the narrative. I'm disputing that synthetic life will end up being the harbingers of organic eradication.

In three lines of ambiguous and poorly explained dialogue from an unreliable source in the last five minutes, BioWare expected me to drop whatever my intentions have been for the last ninety hours of game-play and come to a new conclusion that runs opposite to pretty much everything Ilearn about synthetic life, and choose based on it. 

No thanks. I'd rather just ignore the whole idea and move on. 

All those examples you provide? Do any of them point to these synthetics wanting to wipe out all organic life? 

Do any of them try it, come close to succeeding, or even propose that motivation? As a side note, half of them aren't AI's. 

The answer is no, not of their own accord. The Heretic Geth became hostile because of Nazara. Yes that's right, the Reapers who apparently want to safeguard organic life from potentially hostile and genocidal AI's actually seek out AI's to use as foot-soldiers, and upgrade them to be better at the task. Three times they've done that, three times they've committed acts that go against their apparent purpose. Did BioWare forget all that when they wrote the serpent's words? Most likely, you'd have to be an idiot to think all these things tie together to make a cohesive story. 

What's the only way I'm going to accept this as a possibility, genocidal AI's, that is? 

With proof. Without it you can waffle on endlessly about anything you want, but it won't be true or fact until you prove it. I propose that pigs will rise up against us one day. Proof? I don't need that, you should just accept my premise straight off the bat, right?

WE HAVE NO PROOF. Your reasoning can be as theoretically sound as you want it to be, but you're just guessing, speculating, fabricating an explanation so it all makes sense. Without proof, the serpent is guessing too. Why should I put stock into the words of something that has killed trillions based on a guess? Why should I accept it as the story's overriding conflict? Because some fans have written a 10,000 word essay on the matter, mostly filling in the holes with real-life theories that aren't even supported by the story, the rest of it being speculation? 

Again, no thanks. I played BioWare games for some sort of consistency, and then went firmly out the window with ME3, and kicked into Saturn's orbit with this travesty of an ending. [/quote]
This is rapidly turning into a diatribe about why you don't like the ending from a narrative perspective, sorry but I'm not interested in discussing that. It's speculation, of course, since we don't have the answers, we must seek logic to fill the gaps. My arguments are backed by logic, and while I have no definitive proof, i have a) elements of the game that validate my point (the Geth stepping undoubtly into the point of singularity) and Proof that the concept of tech singularity was considered by the developers in an script that is pretty much word for word what we got, all I can see in your post, however, is an association fallacy (the "serpent" is evil, so it's goal must be evil too, ergo dismiss automatically the Catalyst or be 100% assured it lies) and a confirmation bias (thinking that organic and syntyhetic life can get along in long term just because the Geth situation when it might well be the exception that cofirms the rule)

I agree that BioWare did a bad job trying to convey such complicated ideas at the end but that's what we've got, if you are just interested in showing you discomfort with the direction of the endings, it's ok, just know that it isn't IMO what we are discussing in this topic.

[quote]

It's an old script, as in, one that was on the table, but then replaced with something else.[/Quote]
Something that was pretty much the same sans the midly complicated scientific terms, yup, clearly different and dissociated "something else". 

[quote]It doesn't make sense even if you do.[/quote]
Sure makes much more sense than "synthetics will eventually rebel and kill all organics".[/quote] 

[quote]
Caution based on far-flung possibility is slightly different than repeatedly wiping out all sapient life periodically based on a guess.[/quote]
I agree, I don't like the Catalyst's methods, but I can see why it makes sense from his point of view, since we are holding the very existence of organic life in the Galaxy on the line.

Modifié par Creid-X, 30 mai 2012 - 12:12 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Optimystic_X wrote...

What stood out to me from that, was how little convincing it took for Sovereign to convince the Heretics to enlist, do rather barbaric things to organic life, and tarnish the true Geth's reputation across the galaxy. The other thing that stood out was how little the true Geth were willing to do to stop them.

Nazara was a catalyst, yes. The question is, was he the only possible one? And if the Geth were that laissez-faire then, what will they do post-singularity?

I'd rather give organics a fighting chance before finding out.

Fair enough, but I'd rather stick with what I know about the Geth in general, and synthetic life in general, rather than decide upon a far-flung possibility. 

Because it's the only one that remotely makes sense. What other outcome could the Catalyst be trying to prevent? It could slaughter all the organics quite easily once the advanced ones are gone, and even hang around to ensure no more achieve spaceflight (if they can survive hibernating in dark space, hibernating with all these energizing stars around would be even easier.) And gaining the allegiance of any synthetics we happen to create ensures that they can control those too, either by forcing us to destroy them ourselves (and waste precious time/resources doing so) or assimilate/annihilate them later.

I'm not saying the explanation doesn't neccessarilymake sense, it just relies on a lot of speculation and application of real world theories on a work of fiction that doesn't support it. 

That still doesn't stop it being a hastily added, poorly executed and unsupported shift in narrative focus that never should have existed. 

[The Night Mammoth]

Creid-X wrote...

This is rapidly turning into a diatribe about why you don't like the ending from a narrative perspective, sorry but I'm not interested in discussing that. It's speculation, of course, since we don't have the answers, we must seek logic to fill the gaps.
My arguments are backed by logic, and while I have no definitive proof, i have a) elements of the game that validate my point (the Geth stepping undoubtly into the point of singularity) and Proof that the concept of tech singularity was considered by the developers in an script that is pretty much word for word what we got,

Not disputing that. 

all I can see in your post, however, is an association fallacy (the "serpent" is evil, so it's goal must be evil too, ergo dismiss automatically the Catalyst or be 100% assured it lies)

Wrong. 

I don't think it's evil. 

I don't think its goal if true is neccessarily evil.

I dismiss its problem on account of being baseless nonsense with no proof that runs counter to the obvious intentions of everything about synthetic life up until that point. I reject your reality bladdy bla. 

and a confirmation bias (thinking that organic and syntyhetic life can get along in long term just because the Geth situation when it might well be the exception that cofirms the rule)

Wrong again, I don't actually talk about the Geth as a specifc example. 

You'll notice that I never once said the serpent was flat-out incorrect. 

I agree that BioWare did a bad job trying to convey such complicated ideas at the end but that's what we've got, if you are just interested in showing you discomfort with the direction of the endings, it's ok, just know that it isn't IMO what we are discussing in this topic.

Complicated? 

That's hilarious. Nothing the serpent says is complicated, it just doesn't make sense. 

It's an old script, as in, one that was on the table, but then replaced with something else.

Somwthing that was pretty much the same sans teh complicated scientific terms, yup, clearly different and dissociated "something else".

I'd accuse you of grasping as straws to try and valid a conlusion, but I wont.  

It doesn't make sense even if you do.

Sure makes much more sense than "synthetics will eventually rebel and kill all organics".

 

Except that's what the serpent talks about. 

Is your conclusion then a complete fabrication? Are you changing the actual premise to suit your theory?

Caution based on far-flung possibility is slightly different than repeatedly wiping out all sapient life periodically based on a guess.

I agree, I don't like the Catalyst's methods, but I can see why it makes sense from his point of view, since we are holding the very existence of organic life in the Galaxy on the line.

I'm not holding it on the line. You might, but not me. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 30 mai 2012 - 12:25 .

[Ieldra]

@Night Mammoth:
The version in the leaked script was a little more complicated than what we've got. That's what Creid-X meant. Bioware dumbed it down for the masses. Which is why the published version is simplistic to the point that it doesn't make sense any more. That doesn't mean the underlying concept using the singularity isn't implicitly present any more, especially since using it creates the only scenario so far where the Catalyst's reasoning makes any sense at all.

You're free to come up with a different one.