331 réponses à ce sujet

[jojon2se]

JakeMacDon wrote...
Interesting.  However, the Catalyst promises Shepard nothing.  It simply states the options.  It has no reason to lie, because of one simple fact:

It's already winning.  And its winning by a huge frellin' margin.  It gains nothing by offering him the choices - yet it does.

The question that needs to be asked is WHY does the Catalyst offer Shepard anything?  It can just as easily tell him some nonsense about how the Crucible is a lie and doesn't work and never has.  

But it doesn't.  Whether we know it in the moment or not it is actually telling him the truth and it doesn't have to - so why doesn't it lie from the very beginning?  It doiesn't lie because it can't because it's a goddamn machine.

People need to remember this:  at no point do the Reapers lie.  They don't.  They don't have to.  They are doing everything they told you they would: assimilation through destruction.  Boom. That's it.  The truth. 

You make a good argument, save for the line about the supposed inherent inability of any AI to lie.
Indeed; Why not just leave Shepard to bleed out, down with Anderson? That eager to retire the cycles in favour of trying to sell Shepard on synthesis?

This is the point where you become even more dimissive; the point where I present the "indoctrination theory" as my chosen headcanon, simply positing that they want Shepard's mind and they want it "freely" predisposed to certain ways of thinking.

It looks a lot like the writers have intentionally tried to make it so that people can (with optional interpretive elaboration) shape an ending that feels good-ish to them, personally, almost regardless of their personal philosophies (E.g: Believe in the concept of the benevolent dictator? -Control is for you)
I guess I fall into the suspicious: "There is no such thing as a free lunch" category.

[ahleung]

JakeMacDon wrote...

jojon2se wrote...

How about this:

You have no water.
Suddenly a guy drives up with a petrol truck, introduces himself as the arsonist who set the fires in the first place and offers to spray every building, promising that the tank is actually full of water - all you need to do is shoot yourself and off he goes.

 

Interesting.  However, the Catalyst promises Shepard nothing.  It simply states the options.  It has no reason to lie, because of one simple fact:

It's already winning.  And its winning by a huge frellin' margin.  It gains nothing by offering him the choices - yet it does.

The question that needs to be asked is WHY does the Catalyst offer Shepard anything?  It can just as easily tell him some nonsense about how the Crucible is a lie and doesn't work and never has.  

But it doesn't.  Whether we know it in the moment or not it is actually telling him the truth and it doesn't have to - so why doesn't it lie from the very beginning?  It doesn't lie because it can't,  because it's a goddamn machine.

People need to remember this:  at no point do the Reapers lie.  They don't.  They don't have to.  They are doing everything they told you they would: assimilation through destruction.  Boom. That's it.  The truth. 

 
Actually, you made me think of the "Meet the Pyro" video, now.

Uh, you're ...welcome?

I don't know if it's called "lying" by definition.

But Reapers do decieve people, by Indoctrination.
They make you hear voices that don't really exist.
They make you see ghostly appearances.
They make you believe into something you shouldn't.

And by indoctrinating important people (like Saren, TIM), they misleads the society to go to the wrong direction.

When you hear anything a Reaper say, how do you know it's not one of those "voices" that you shouldn't listen to?



And about the reason to lie.

Why did they indoctrinated TIM? They will win the war anyway.
(If you say it is to prevent the completion of Crucible, then does it mean Crucible being used = Reaper lost?)
Answer: every help is appreciated.
If I remember correctly, they need centuries to complete the galactic genocide everytime. Every help that can speed up the process would be great.
Indoctrincate TIM to go against Crucible, create internal conflict among Organics, waste your resources, Reapers wins faster and easier.

Modifié par ahleung, 01 juillet 2012 - 10:34 .

[Errationatus]

jojon2se wrote...

You make a good argument, save for the line about the supposed inherent inability of any AI to lie.

 

Outside of science fiction, there is no evidence for a high-functioning AI that can lie. As of yet, to my knowledge, such a device doesn't exist.  There are no real-world analogues, so there is yet no standard, and no way to definitively say they can or cannot.  Unless specifically programmed to lie (and there is no evidence that this is true in the Catalyst's case), the Catalyst simply wouldn't.  It would not possess the capability.  A sophisticated adaptive software may allow it to develop the ability, but unless it has a logical reason to do so, why would it?  Especially when its winning?

 
Indeed; Why not just leave Shepard to bleed out, down with Anderson? That eager to retire the cycles in favour of trying to sell Shepard on synthesis?

 

The Catalyst tells you why it didn't leave you to die:  it needs a new solution.  You're the last one in the vicinity that lives.  It knows of you because of your past actions.  Why not seek information outside itself?  Why not a perspective it lacks?  Again, it loses nothing by assessing your reactions to its explanations and possible choices.  Shooting it the moment you see it or rejecting it even after it explains everything leaves it no choice.  It can only implement the solution it understands.  The fact that it offers you the choices at all points to the idea that it is constrained by its programming. It simply seeks new input.  You'll notice it shows no fear of being destroyed or blended or replaced - why would it?  A machine executes its programming.  It doesn't "care" because its incapable of it.  Again, if it has adaptive software, it has no reason to offer you anything.  Also, it may explain why Harbinger didn't fire on the Normandy.  It needs a Shepard that may be inclined to listen, not one enraged further by the deaths of his nearest and dearest.

 
This is the point where you become even more dimissive; the point where I present the "indoctrination theory" as my chosen headcanon, simply positing that they want Shepard's mind and they want it "freely" predisposed to certain ways of thinking.

 

My apologies. I had no intention of being dismissive.  I was unaware you were doing that. I simply took the post at face value.  You may, of course, interpret the endings any way you wish.  As I have said before all of this is merely my own opinion.

 
It looks a lot like the writers have intentionally tried to make it so that people can (with optional interpretive elaboration) shape an ending that feels good-ish to them, personally, almost regardless of their personal philosophies (E.g: Believe in the concept of the benevolent dictator? -Control is for you)
I guess I fall into the suspicious: "There is no such thing as a free lunch" category.

There's nothing wrong with that.  I'm not defending the endings.  I have no particular preference, actually.  My Shepards were specifically created to pick each.  I get the maximum entertainment from the game that way. 

I think that many of those who chose Refusal are seemingly doing it - covertly - as some lame way of swiping at the endings they refuse to countenance because they're still ticked they didn't get the sappily stupidly nauseating Tali-Wedding-On-The-Beach ending they wanted.  Because overtly the justifications - IMO -  for Refusal many put forth across BSN are just idiotically ignorant.  

Passing the buck and allowing multiple mass genocides has nothing of "principles" about it, and it may just be I personally cannot fathom how anyone with a functioning cerebellum would pick it as the "best" choice over the other three. Truthfully, I couldn't give less of a damn about what people pick if I was given a hundred bucks an hour to not care.  I find the arguments stimulating.

That being said, I don't really know how to make my stance any more clear.

[F00lishG]

 

en2ym3 wrote...

 Because the endings make no sense, the "solution" makes no sense, the reasoning behind making the choices (or the neccessity to make these choices) makes no sense, and it's forced in every way to make it "meaningful" when it is arguably one of the most meaningless and shallow moments in the series (if not the most).  Where there aren't logical fallacies or ethically questionable actions presented as acceptable or good, it is ignoring, rejecting, or ****ting on the rest of the series in some other fashion (e.g. themes).

The endings are Anti-Mass-Effect.  It is a fan fiction ending, a song fic made by a troll joking around to get amusement and rage out of fans.




The Reject ending may result in the cycle losing, with only the next one winning, but it felt like the most true, believable, and fitting in comparison to the mind**** that is the writers' failure to properly conclude their own series.  And at least this time I can laugh at the troll's work instead of searching desperately for brain bleach to wipe my memory of it. 


To be honest, however, my real choice is "none."  Reject's just the second option to that.

Well, I knew a cynic would come by eventually, but I figured far earlier in the discussion.

Apocaleepse360 wrote...

Haha, I knew it wouldn't be long before the Reject haters started flowing in.

 

rofl where were you 12 pages ago?

Sniktchtherat wrote...

*facepalm*

You missed the point.

Destroy INVALIDATES ITS ENTIRE EXISTENCE. it is telling you "Go ahead and kill me. Synthetics will rise again and you'll get killed by them, but go ahead and kill me."

WHY IS IT OFFERING YOU THAT OPTION? That defies any and all logic, any and all sense, any and all rationality. NOTHING sacrifices itself on a whim unless it has a mental malfunction. Even modern suicides tend to be either statements of principle (self-immolation in Tunisia, the Greek and Italian "white widow" epidemic, etc.) or a despair that is pretty close to if not actually definable as mental illness.

Also, using facts not in evidence = failure; you're pulling the "takes the long view" idea out of metaknowledge, not knowledge Shep has in evidence at that point - the only one telling him that is CaseMaclyst. Who's been trying to kill him and everyone he knows for 3ish years. WHY BELIEVE HIM? Why simply decide that the facts in evidence - the simplest one being that every single Reaper "gift" has had a fishhook inside it - no longer matter and the kid's trustable?

All your responses rely on you already trusting the kid's honesty. All your responses are to "what do I do if I already trust him". Not "Why do I trust him to be telling the truth this time when he's always lied before".  Deciding that doing what the Reapers want can't make things worse has always made things worse.  What makes you discard that and trust the kid, aside already trusting the kid?

 

Why believe him? Why don't you believe him? I can see your POV and all, but Why chance extermination? Okay, maybe you did everything right. Played MP to get the max EMS points did all the side missions, got 100% in all three games and people only died when there was no choice ie Legion uploading the code. I am sure that if I, Shepard, did everything and the Starchild told me the three options, yeah I would probably say "No. We will win." Because I trust that I did everything right and that the united fleet will kill 700+ Reapers. cough.

But I'm not that kind of Videogame player, let alone Shepard. EMS 2350. I'm a Realist on my best day. 
 I can see trillions and trillions times 100 of lives that are about to be extinguished, and I have a choice to end it all. What is there to lose? If the Boss AI is lying, Everyone is screwed. If the Boss AI is telling the truth and I tell him to shove it, Everyone is screwed. There is no way to win. In the end, Trust has nothing to do with it. 

wantedman dan wrote...

F00lishG wrote...

I genuinely want to know. Because I cannot see preferring genocide and ascension to destroying the enemy that you sworn to do since ME1.

Because I will not choose to commit the very atrocities which I have vowed to destroy since ME1.

 

Is Destroying the Reapers one of the atrocities? Because once again, there is the Red Option. Right there.

Oldbones2 wrote...

F00lishG wrote...

Why is it so hard to see that the you basically won when you meet the Catalyst? He will stand and do nothing and you can destroy all the Reapers. There. War over. No one else needs to die.

Is it because he told you the choice existed, thus taking away the power of something you were going to do anyways? Is that it?

Is it because the idea of a Giant supeweapon merging with the Reaper Boss A.I. too much for you to handle? Is that it?

Or are you all just so cynical that you see yourself  rejecting Bioware itself because you cannot accept what was handed to you?

I genuinely want to know. Because I cannot see preferring genocide and ascension to destroying the enemy that you sworn to do since ME1.

The choices it offers, all follow its logic.

By choosing any of the endings (other than refuse of course) you accept its logic as true.  

You accept that we MUST compromise with evil, instead of fighting it even if it means defeat.  You accept that fate is written and that nothing we can do can ever change that.  You accept that its better to win a partial victory that is in some way reprehensible, instead of trying for a triumph that is everthing we ever hoped for.


Choosing anything but destroy isn't Shepard winning.  It's just another Catalyst solution.

The only choice that Shepard comes up with, the only choice that truly represents what the galaxy has been fighting for is refuse.


It's all arbitrary though, I chose control.

 

lol. I'm a Control Shepard myself. and yeah I compromise with evil. And I learned it from Mass Effect since the beginning.

Modifié par F00lishG, 01 juillet 2012 - 11:09 .

[gmboy902]

Reject is actually quite a selfish choice (that isn't to say that it's a bad choice for everyone, since some Sheps could be selfish).

It has the worst consequences of all three. The Geth and EDI will still die out. You will force death upon the galaxy instead of synthesis. And the Catalyst remains in control of the Reapers.

The idea is that Shepard cares more about the principle than the galaxy itself, and more about showing the Catalyst that he's wrong by helping the next cycle (he does know about Liara's plan) defeat them withou the Crucible (which can neither be confirmed nor denied). He doesn't want to ackowledge the Catalyst's logic, partially because the Catalyst is an AI who rebelled against his creators himself.

Reject isn't really rejecting the ending. For players, it may be rejecting BioWare. From a roleplaying perspective, it would be rejecting the flawed logic that the Catalyst presents, and preferring to die free than bow down to that logic. 

[Brovikk Rasputin]

LieutenantSarcasm wrote...

Because his logic is a load of lies, and he is explicitly the reapers combined AI. It's simply bowing to the reapers. To quote shepard: "I wont let fear compromise who I am."

Too bad that way of thinking gets everyone you know killed.

[Errationatus]

ahleung wrote...

I don't know if it's called "lying" by definition.

But Reapers do decieve people, by Indoctrination.

 

No, they don't.  Indoctrination is altering your mind so that you do not resist.  Mind control is not lying, it's mind control.

 
They make you hear voices that don't really exist.
They make you see ghostly appearances.
They make you believe into something you shouldn't.

 

None of that is lying.  That's manipulation.  You can do that by telling the absolute truth.  It's simply in how it's presented.

 
And by indoctrinating important people (like Saren, TIM), they misleads the society to go to the wrong direction.

 

Yes.  Precisely.  As Sovereign stated quite plainly.  He told you the truth.  "You develop along the paths we desire."

 
When you hear anything a Reaper say, how do you know it's not one of those "voices" that you shouldn't listen to?

 

It quite blatantly isn't.  That would preclude that everyone else in the room is as well.  If indoctrination is so easy, then the Reapers don't need all the elaborate nonsense.  You and everyone around you will simply walk up and surrender to them anyway, no?

 
And about the reason to lie.
Why did they indoctrinated TIM? They will win the war anyway.

 

The destruction of Sovereign and the alteration of the Keepers forced a change in the routine.  However, TIM, technically, indoctrinated himself.  He was trying to find out how to control them.  We are told over and over that any prolonged exposure to Reaper tech will indoctrinate those in its immediate proximity - over time.  It is not remotely immediate.

 
(If you say it is to prevent the completion of Crucible, then does it mean Crucible being used = Reaper lost?)
Answer: every help is appreciated.
If I remember correctly, they need centuries to complete the galactic genocide everytime. Every help that can speed up the process would be great.

 

Certainly.  But if Indoctrination is as effective as you intimate, then why would they bother with invasion at all?
 

 
Indoctrincate TIM to go against Crucible, create internal conflict among Organics, waste your resources, Reapers wins faster and easier.

The Reapers don't actually want a fight, believe it or not.  As the Catalyst said, the Reapers aren't at war, they are simply fulfilling a function.  Indoctrination gives them an edge to avoid the fight.  If you can "convince" your enemy of your absolute superiority and the hopelessness of resistance of any kind, you've pretty much already won.

Unfortunately for the Reapers, it doesn't work as well as they and others seem to think.

Also, Reapers don't actually need Indoctrination.  They are patient in the way only a machine can be.  They have no need to rush.  They've been at this for millions of years and until now, they have never been defeated.  Until Shepard becomes an unknown variable, they had every right to calculate that they couldn't be defeated.  They'd been right every other time.

[Volc19]

With the Leviathin DLC, I will probably pick Refuse as my constant ending. Control becomes unreliable, Synthesis is silly and makes us into Antispirals, and Destroy is a bit too genocidal for me.

The next cycle is given the chance to defeat the Reapers thanks to Liara. The galaxy gets to go on as it was, without the Galaxy becoming fundementally changed. Also, I refuse to believe that the next cycle used the Crucible. Not only did Liara tell them that it didn't work, but the idea that they used it makes the entire ending, and Shepard's sacrifice, pointless.

[Kick In The Door]

Funkdrspot wrote...

chuckles471 wrote...

Principle.

I won't let a bully dictate the fate of the galaxy. We lose, so be it.

thats just illogical. 1, he already dictates the fate of the galaxy and has for +1 billion years, you have the chance to end that. 2, Youre self-righteous and selfish if you make the decision for +9 races, +100 BILLION lives to die out due to your crappy morals. Simply put, what morality places your conscience over the lives of 100 BILLIONpeople!?! Youre Shepard-Hitler

I never really thought of it that way, thanks for bringing that point to light. 

I agree with you.

Just because Shepard spearheaded the fight against the reapers does not automatically give him/her full leeway over the fate of billions. It's like Michael Jordan suddenly changing the rules of Basketball at the great expense of others simply because he didn't like the original rules so much. 

[F00lishG]

Volc19 wrote...

With the Leviathin DLC, I will probably pick Refuse as my constant ending.....Destroy is a bit too genocidal for me.

The Irony makes me go wut.

[ahleung]

JakeMacDon wrote...

No, they don't.  Indoctrination is altering your mind so that you do not resist.  Mind control is not lying, it's mind control.

None of that is lying.  That's manipulation.  You can do that by telling the absolute truth.  It's simply in how it's presented.

 
This is just arguing the definition of "lying", but didn't change the fact that Reaper do decieve people.

Yes.  Precisely.  As Sovereign stated quite plainly.  He told you the truth.  "You develop along the paths we desire."

This is one example that they told the truth.
That doesn't mean they always tell the truth.

How about this example?
They make TIM believe that he could control Reapers, that he was not controlled by Reapers.
That's definitely deceiving TIM.

 
It quite blatantly isn't.  That would preclude that everyone else in the room is as well.  If indoctrination is so easy, then the Reapers don't need all the elaborate nonsense.  You and everyone around you will simply walk up and surrender to them anyway, no?

As IT said, the Indoctrination Process might  have begun a long time ago, back to ME2 DLC Arrival.
Shepard could have been under Reaper's slow influence for long time.

And who knows how Indoctrination Process really work?
Did any indoctrinated person regained self-control and tell the details of how he/she was indoctrinated?

 
The destruction of Sovereign and the alteration of the Keepers forced a change in the routine.  However, TIM, technically, indoctrinated himself.  He was trying to find out how to control them.  We are told over and over that any prolonged exposure to Reaper tech will indoctrinate those in its immediate proximity - over time.  It is not remotely immediate.

Every indoctrinated person do different things that help Reapers. Therefore it can't be a completely automatic process. Reaper still need to "tell" each of them what to do, what to believe.
Therefore, Reapers do actively "decieve" people.

 
Certainly.  But if Indoctrination is as effective as you intimate, then why would they bother with invasion at all?

Because directly killing is the fastest and easiest way.
And deceiving people help make it even faster and easier.

The Reapers don't actually want a fight, believe it or not.  As the Catalyst said, the Reapers aren't at war, they are simply fulfilling a function.  Indoctrination gives them an edge to avoid the fight.  If you can "convince" your enemy of your absolute superiority and the hopelessness of resistance of any kind, you've pretty much already won.

Unfortunately for the Reapers, it doesn't work as well as they and others seem to think.

Also, Reapers don't actually need Indoctrination.  They are patient in the way only a machine can be.  They have no need to rush.  They've been at this for millions of years and until now, they have never been defeated.  Until Shepard becomes an unknown variable, they had every right to calculate that they couldn't be defeated.  They'd been right every other time.

Assuming you are right, so they,
indoctrincate TIM to go against Crucible, create internal conflict among Organics, waste your resources, Reapers don't need to fight that much.

What's the difference?

The fact is, they like using Indoctrination.
They like deceiving people.
They might not NEED it, but they do use it.

Modifié par ahleung, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:14 .

[Cant Planet]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

LieutenantSarcasm wrote...

Because his logic is a load of lies, and he is explicitly the reapers combined AI. It's simply bowing to the reapers. To quote shepard: "I wont let fear compromise who I am."

Too bad that way of thinking gets everyone you know killed.

Plus everyone you don't know.

[ahleung]

ahleung wrote...

JakeMacDon wrote...

No, they don't.  Indoctrination is altering your mind so that you do not resist.  Mind control is not lying, it's mind control.

None of that is lying.  That's manipulation.  You can do that by telling the absolute truth.  It's simply in how it's presented.

 
This is just arguing the definition of "lying", but didn't change the fact that Reaper do decieve people.

Yes.  Precisely.  As Sovereign stated quite plainly.  He told you the truth.  "You develop along the paths we desire."

This is one example that they told the truth.
That doesn't mean they always tell the truth.

How about this example?
They make TIM believe that he could control Reapers, that he was not controlled by Reapers.
That's definitely deceiving TIM.

 
It
quite blatantly isn't.  That would preclude that everyone else in the
room is as well.  If indoctrination is so easy, then the Reapers don't
need all the elaborate nonsense.  You and everyone around you will
simply walk up and surrender to them anyway, no?

As IT said, the Indoctrination Process might  have begun a long time ago, back to ME2 DLC Arrival.
Shepard could have been under Reaper's slow influence for long time.

And who knows how Indoctrination Process really work?
Did any indoctrinated person regained self-control and tell the details of how he/she was indoctrinated?

 
The
destruction of Sovereign and the alteration of the Keepers forced a
change in the routine.  However, TIM, technically, indoctrinated
himself.  He was trying to find out how to control them.  We are told
over and over that any prolonged exposure to Reaper tech will
indoctrinate those in its immediate proximity - over time.  It is not
remotely immediate.

Every indoctrinated person do
different things that help Reapers. Therefore it can't be a completely
automatic process. Reaper still need to "tell" each of them what to do,
what to believe.
Therefore, Reapers do actively "decieve" people.

 
Certainly.  But if Indoctrination is as effective as you intimate, then why would they bother with invasion at all?

Because directly killing is the fastest and easiest way.
And deceiving people help make it even faster and easier.

The Reapers don't actually want a
fight, believe it or not.  As the Catalyst said, the Reapers aren't at
war, they are simply fulfilling a function.  Indoctrination gives them
an edge to avoid the fight.  If you can "convince" your enemy of
your absolute superiority and the hopelessness of resistance of any
kind, you've pretty much already won.

Unfortunately for the Reapers, it doesn't work as well as they and others seem to think.

Also, Reapers don't actually need
Indoctrination.  They are patient in the way only a machine can be.
 They have no need to rush.  They've been at this for millions of years
and until now, they have never been defeated.  Until Shepard becomes an
unknown variable, they had every right to calculate that they couldn't be defeated.  They'd been right every other time.

Assuming you are right, so they,
indoctrincate
TIM to go against Crucible, create internal conflict among Organics,
waste your resources, Reapers don't need to fight that much.

What's the difference?

The fact is, they like using Indoctrination.
They like deceiving people.
They might not NEED it, but they do use it.

The reason why I brought up Indoctrination is,

for Reaper to mind-control you to believe in something not true,
they need to at least inject/insert that untrue thought into you.

That means they are capable of outputing an untrue message.

Then I don't see why they can't just "speak" it.

That means they CAN LIE.




The Shepard-Catalyst conversation scene wasn't necessarily Indoctrination. Catalyst could just be lying.

And Reapers are habbitual deceivers.

Even if it was an Indoctrination scene, it's not that impossible,
1) Shepard could have been under Reaper's slow influence for long time
2) Shepard was alone in that scene (excluding Catalyst)

Modifié par ahleung, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:15 .

[Mavqt]

Volc19 wrote...

With the Leviathin DLC, I will probably pick Refuse as my constant ending. Control becomes unreliable, Synthesis is silly and makes us into Antispirals, and Destroy is a bit too genocidal for me.

And how is Refusal not?
You choose to damn one race(Well two if you include The Reapers) or you choose to damn them all.

[TheScott1987]

What you're arguing is that by choosing reject you're committing genocide - which would be correct if you're going from the player's perspective. But in this argument, I as a player know that this is not really genocide because these are all characters on a video game, so it's nothing all that appalling.

From the Shepard mindset, reject makes the most sense. When the one who admits he is leading your enemies offers you choices that will lead to your death you tend to disbelieve him. Sure, it could be said that you're taking the chance that he's not vaporizing you and then laughing at how stupid you are because you have no other way to defeat them. But really, the crucible could have just as likely have been a Reaper plant (like the citadel), and when you factor in the fact that starting it up brings up the admitted controller of the Reapers . . .

Reject makes sense.

[Mavqt]

From my prespective, Shepard is in no shape to fight, the crucible does not auto fire, how am I going to get off the citedel? Let alone out of this "room". I will not stand by a watch while my allies fight while i sit and chillax
For me that removed "refuse" from my choices.
I'm not going to pick synthesis. One of the many reason, I don't believe evolution should be forced.
Control - not going to risk it. Since the catalyst was design to do what it thinks I can do if I join it.
And since its logic turned into the Reapers. Whats to say It's not going to end up like that again.

Which leaves me with Destroy. Better to do something the nothing. And this was what my mindset was after hearing Starbrat in the EC.

[jojon2se]

JakeMacDon wrote...
Outside of science fiction, there is no evidence for a high-functioning AI that can lie. As of yet, to my knowledge, such a device doesn't exist.  There are no real-world analogues, so there is yet no standard, and no way to definitively say they can or cannot.  Unless specifically programmed to lie (and there is no evidence that this is true in the Catalyst's case), the Catalyst simply wouldn't.  It would not possess the capability.  A sophisticated adaptive software may allow it to develop the ability, but unless it has a logical reason to do so, why would it?  Especially when its winning?

 

Well, we are discussing a science fiction setting, obviously.
As for the real world: Any processing function that operates on one hardware platform (...or "wetware", if you prefer), should be perfectly replicable on another that can contain it, as far as I am concerned.
That we have as of yet not managed to do such a thing doesn't matter - the principle is sound.
You could of course argue the difference between analysing (and perhaps simulating) an existing evolved system, for reference, and designing one blind, from scratch; but I feel that's beside the point.

I presume you found the debates on the topic, between NPCs within the game, interesting; and that you may (out-of-game) possibly have sided with dr.Chakwas, where I leaned towards engineer Adams' point of view...

As for the capabilites and constraints of the catalyst; Only the writers truly know, but your conclusions, based on its behaviour, are very compelling, no doubt. They are still speculation, though, just as much as any others.
I will always carefully weigh the words of somebody who is the sole provider of reference on himself, especially an antagonist suddenly offering a serving of cake.

The Catalyst tells you why it didn't leave you to die:  it needs a new solution.  You're the last one in the vicinity that lives.  It knows of you because of your past actions.  Why not seek information outside itself?  Why not a perspective it lacks?  Again, it loses nothing by assessing your reactions to its explanations and possible choices.  Shooting it the moment you see it or rejecting it even after it explains everything leaves it no choice.  It can only implement the solution it understands.  The fact that it offers you the choices at all points to the idea that it is constrained by its programming. It simply seeks new input.  You'll notice it shows no fear of being destroyed or blended or replaced - why would it?  A machine executes its programming.  It doesn't "care" because its incapable of it.  Again, if it has adaptive software, it has no reason to offer you anything.  Also, it may explain why Harbinger didn't fire on the Normandy.  It needs a Shepard that may be inclined to listen, not one enraged further by the deaths of his nearest and dearest.

All good points, although I have yet to figure out which sort of directives makes it reason that your making it that far invalidates its old solution, leaving it in need of a new one.
Simply "If B>A then A=B"? That doesn't cut it, since that would be weighing of defences, rather than the merits of different solutions...

If it wants to evaluate the new possibilites offered by the Crucible, as well as hear Shep's thoughts on the matter and consider his/her suitability as successor or template, that's fine, but, given its cold detemination, why will it accept a return to the pre-cycles state, that it has already marked as unsustainable?

It does (or so it says) point out the means to terminate its task and does nothing to prevent you from doing so.
Fear-, or careless, or no; If its compulsion to keep its purpose fulfilled is no stronger than that; How did it manage to harvest its creators, to begin with? Subsequent species had no knowing contact with it, so that makes sense, but the first ones? One massive surprise manouvre?

That might be an interesting story, actually, should Bioware choose to tell it.

My apologies. I had no intention of being dismissive.  I was unaware you were doing that. I simply took the post at face value.  You may, of course, interpret the endings any way you wish.  As I have said before all of this is merely my own opinion.

Well, I apologise. My "dismissive", did not refer to your response to my entry, but to the one that triggered my entering the discussion. That one came across rather rude and condscending, on top of collectively pidgeonholing people, using a completely irrelevant scenario.
I'll admit I had not read any of your previous posts, which left me somewhat lacking context.

I think that many of those who chose Refusal are seemingly doing it - covertly - as some lame way of swiping at the endings they refuse to countenance because they're still ticked they didn't get the sappily stupidly nauseating Tali-Wedding-On-The-Beach ending they wanted.  Because overtly the justifications - IMO -  for Refusal many put forth across BSN are just idiotically ignorant.  

Passing the buck and allowing multiple mass genocides has nothing of "principles" about it, and it may just be I personally cannot fathom how anyone with a functioning cerebellum would pick it as the "best" choice over the other three. Truthfully, I couldn't give less of a damn about what people pick if I was given a hundred bucks an hour to not care.  I find the arguments stimulating.

That being said, I don't really know how to make my stance any more clear.

I have to beg you to restrain the urge to generalise.
There are numerous reasons why people like or dislike the endings, or parts of them, just as there are numerous reasons why they may favour any one in particular.

If the extended cut added anything, beyond filling continuity gaps with putty, I'd say it WAS a sticky layer of sap, for those who wanted just that.

[Sniktchtherat]

The kid permits you to destroy him. He says that doing so will not prevent what he was created to prevent.

WHY does he do this? What possible reason can he have to turn his back on his programming so thoroughly, so arbitrarily, just because someone plugged a widget into a canoodle and got close to his house before falling over nearly dead? What possible justification can the KID have for picking Refuse, if he cannot be an ethical coward since he can't even have the emotions Legion displayed regularly, by your reasoning?

WHY does he do this? THAT'S the part that makes me suspicious. Legion sacrificed himself for his people. Not "just because". Victus sacrificed himself for his mission and the Krogan. Mordin sacrificed himself for the Krogan...and to fix his mistake. The kid admits no mistake. He has no one to sacrifice himself for. Sacrificng himself FAILS his mission. He has NO REASON TO OFFER THAT SOLUTION. But he does.

And why lie? Because there is no greater weapon than an enemy turned to your side. Shepard has proven to be annoying. Kill her, and the enemy loses a symbol - but gains a martyr. Co-opt her...and you crush the spirit.

And note, I do not argue that Refuse is per se the "correct" ending. I argue there IS no "good" ending. All are a loss - either you bow to the Reaper's will, follow their guidance, and thus let them send you to the destination THEY choose...or you die. Live a monster, die a man. Either way, you're screwed, and so is everyone you care about. Because we're all already on the path the Reapers desired...the only choice is do we dive off the catwalk, flipping them the bird as we splatter on the floor, or do we walk all the way to the blender at the end and hop right on in?

Either one is defeat.

Modifié par Sniktchtherat, 02 juillet 2012 - 01:28 .

[Darkfoxz87]

chuckles471 wrote...

Principle.

I won't let a bully dictate the fate of the galaxy. We lose, so be it.

I agree with this, to an extent. If something just happens to me and no one else gets hurt, then I would take that option. But when more than myself is on the line, I can put Principles aside.  

If I could stop the Reapers, end the War, stop the destruction, then I will play the Reapers game. This isn't something that can be based off of Principle, if I dont play the Reapers game then, everyone I know and Care about dies, muliplte Species are wiped out, and the Reapers win and come back in 50,000 years. And to top it off everyone that Died. Died in Vain. Ashley, Legion, Mordin, and Thane died for nothing. I can put Principles aside for Trillions of lives, and to honnor those that fell to help stop the Reapers. 

Call me a Coward or say that Fear Compromised me, but I'd rather Play the Reapers Game and Win The War, than to Lose it and stick to my Principles.

[MattFini]

Had the ending been written so that the Catalyst did not want you to fire the Crucible, it would've almost made all the difference.

That he LETS YOU WIN is a bs cop-out from a storytelling standpoint. Shepard stops being a hero in the most pivotal moment in the trilogy. Instead he shrugs his shoulders and makes one of the choices that reaper king allows him to make.

It's just not an exciting finale like this.  

Had it been re-written so that Shepard makes one of those choices AGAINST his wishes, the game would've been 100x more climactic.

Modifié par MattFini, 02 juillet 2012 - 12:33 .

[Errationatus]

ahleung wrote...

SNIP

 

I'm not quite sure how to explain it again.  The Reapers are not lying.  They have no need to, and Indoctrination is not lying either.

Indoctrination - as I see it in the game - simply breaks down your will over the long run.  It simply changes your mind.  It is subliminal persuasion, not deception.

The Reapers use indoctrinated as sleeper agents, disruptive influences in populations and leaderships, for one rather hard to believe reason, and I've said it before:  they are not looking for a fight, have no desire to wage war. Indoctrination is simply a tool they use to avoid that, if possible.  Before the Protheans, it probably worked like a charm, but the Protheans screwed them over, and this cycle delayed the main assault.

Look at the example of the batarians:  entire leadership and scientific community Indoctrinated - and the Reapers encountered almost no resistance.  

It's not remotely about "lying".  Subversion, yes, subterfuge, certainly. As I said, I can do that with the complete truth, and the end result can be the same.

Lying?  Unnecessary.  Once Indoctrinated, you believe absolutely in the Reapers' truth.  They have no need to lie.

So they don't.  The Indoctrinated will certainly lie to you, however.

Modifié par JakeMacDon, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:06 .

[Errationatus]

jojon2se wrote...

Well, we are discussing a science fiction setting, obviously.
As for the real world: Any processing function that operates on one hardware platform (...or "wetware", if you prefer), should be perfectly replicable on another that can contain it, as far as I am concerned.
That we have as of yet not managed to do such a thing doesn't matter - the principle is sound.
You could of course argue the difference between analysing (and perhaps simulating) an existing evolved system, for reference, and designing one blind, from scratch; but I feel that's beside the point.

I presume you found the debates on the topic, between NPCs within the game, interesting; and that you may (out-of-game) possibly have sided with dr.Chakwas, where I leaned towards engineer Adams' point of view...

 

I do side with Chakwas, actually.  Emulation is not being.  

 
As for the capabilites and constraints of the catalyst; Only the writers truly know, but your conclusions, based on its behaviour, are very compelling, no doubt. They are still speculation, though, just as much as any others.

 

Of course.  I had taken that as read.  I should probably add a disclaimer here and there, but it can become rather tiresome. 

 
I will always carefully weigh the words of somebody who is the sole provider of reference on himself, especially an antagonist suddenly offering a serving of cake.

 

As well any thinking person should.  However, a machine is a machine is a machine, and the Catalyst identified itself as such.  It answered Shepard's questions straightforwardly, as a machine would. It didn't lie at any point, as the evidence bears out.  It never occured to me as I played that it would lie, possibly since I don't tend to anthropomorphize gadgets any more than I do animals, and if looked at without that silly sci-fi staple in mind ("machines can love, too!"), it becomes rather clear.  

The Catalyst is sophisticated as hell, yes, but a smart machine is just that:  smart.  Not alive.  Not ever.  No "soul", no "evil intent", not fecking Terminators understanding why you cry, no stupid Matrix.  I stand by my statement; no matter how smart they get, they will never be alive.  It is only that hardwired part of our brain that allows us to hear gods in thunder and see ghosts in every shadow that permits us to give objects the illusion of life. It's a kind of "over-empathization" people seem to possess. (It's curious we can do it to pets and gadgets and not each other, huh?) That includes geth, ship-born sexbots and Reapers.  This, IMO, is also why people continue to paint it with suspicion.  They refuse to see it as anything other than what it actually is - an immensely old and possibly glitchy machine.  

Hell, call the Catalyst "Landru" and I bet people would understand it better.

 
All good points, although I have yet to figure out which sort of directives makes it reason that your making it that far invalidates its old solution, leaving it in need of a new one.
Simply "If B>A then A=B"? That doesn't cut it, since that would be weighing of defences, rather than the merits of different solutions...

 

Well, the Catalyst did say it tried different things in the past - none of them worked.  Shepard is a variable it likely didn't anticipate - and don't forget, it was designed to serve its makers - it just interpreted its programming a bit more broadly than they had anticipated.  It could be a failsafe.  "Fall back to an organic opinion".  Shepard was the first organic since its activation to get there.  If it reaches the limits of its preprogrammed instructions, a machine defaults to its orginal commands, no?  Just an idea.

 
If it wants to evaluate the new possibilites offered by the Crucible, as well as hear Shep's thoughts on the matter and consider his/her suitability as successor or template, that's fine, but, given its cold detemination, why will it accept a return to the pre-cycles state, that it has already marked as unsustainable?

 

Going with my original assumption, as a machine, it would have no choice.  A flexible software would allow it to consider new solutions, not necessarily be the prime mover in their implementation.  If the Crucible also contains new instructions - say to build the actual Control, Destroy, etc, stations, (it makes no sense to have them in the Citadel all along, especially since the Reapers built the Citadel) it would make better sense that the Catalyst is being more reasonable.  It's implied this cycle is the first to actually dock the thing - remember, this cycle is also the first to deny the Reapers the use of the Citadel as their chief information retrieval and staging area.  The technology could be sufficiently advanced that hardware and software are essentially the same thing.  It could happen.

One point:  we don't know who originally designed the plans for the Crucible. Succeeding cycles only added to it, if you recall.  It only takes one of the original creators of the Reapers to survive long enough to figure how to kill it - if it hadn't while designing the original in the first place.  If you build it, you'd be the best one to know how to shut it off, wouldn't you? If the creators of the Reapers built the Citadel and the Mass Relays and the Reapers simply appropriated them, having the interfaces for C, D, S would make sense as that "killswitch" I mentioned earlier.  Since the Crucible has never docked before, the Catalyst may have simply ignored them, or not been recognized until the Crucible docked.

 
It does (or so it says) point out the means to terminate its task and does nothing to prevent you from doing so.
Fear-, or careless, or no; If its compulsion to keep its purpose fulfilled is no stronger than that; How did it manage to harvest its creators, to begin with? Subsequent species had no knowing contact with it, so that makes sense, but the first ones? One massive surprise manouvre?
That might be an interesting story, actually, should Bioware choose to tell it.

 

Indeed.  "V'ger"-reasoning, anyone?

Well, I apologise. My "dismissive", did not refer to your response to my entry, but to the one that triggered my entering the discussion. That one came across rather rude and condscending, on top of collectively pidgeonholing people, using a completely irrelevant scenario.
I'll admit I had not read any of your previous posts, which left me somewhat lacking context.

Ah, I see.  No apologies required.  I very likely simply need to read more carefully.

 
I have to beg you to restrain the urge to generalise.
There are numerous reasons why people like or dislike the endings, or parts of them, just as there are numerous reasons why they may favour any one in particular.

 

You'll forgive me if I fail to understand the attitude that is evoked by Refusal as it stands.  It strikes me as nothing more than childish pique, since IMO, no reasonable adult that wasn't psychopathically and ignorantly egotistic would simply turn their backs on an entire galaxy full of people for no reason other than some abstract personal principle.  As Shepard we're a cipher for all those depending on us to save them if we can, not decide this cycle doesn't deserve it because we personally won't "compromise".  "You're either with us or against us" is stupid no matter who says it.

 
If the extended cut added anything, beyond filling continuity gaps with putty, I'd say it WAS a sticky layer of sap, for those who wanted just that.

True, but for many, it still wasn't enough. It wasn't sappy enough and there was no immediate gratification with the high fives and Independance Day-style stupidity with Jeff and Will patting each other's behinds because Apple saved the day and Ewoks danced around bonfires with robots and dead Jedi, and all the aliens caught colds and croaked.  

A sappy happy ending - in my opinion - is unnecessary.

Modifié par JakeMacDon, 02 juillet 2012 - 10:26 .

[Pelle6666]

The reason I will choose reject in one of my playthroughs is that destroy is the only ending I felt like choosing in the first place but I still don't want to kill the geth and Edi. If the "master of puppets" tells me to choose between three options that all in one way or another makes me commit a genocide (morally or physically) then I find it much more appealing to end this brilliant story with a tragic but open ending where we don't know how any of the main characters met there fates. All we know is that they all fought and died for what was right and that they left the galaxy more prepared to face the reapers in the next cycle.

[ahleung]

JakeMacDon wrote...

ahleung wrote...

SNIP

 

I'm not quite sure how to explain it again.  The Reapers are not lying.  They have no need to, and Indoctrination is not lying either.

Indoctrination - as I see it in the game - simply breaks down your will over the long run.  It simply changes your mind.  It is subliminal persuasion, not deception.

The Reapers use indoctrinated as sleeper agents, disruptive influences in populations and leaderships, for one rather hard to believe reason, and I've said it before:  they are not looking for a fight, have no desire to wage war. Indoctrination is simply a tool they use to avoid that, if possible.  Before the Protheans, it probably worked like a charm, but the Protheans screwed them over, and this cycle delayed the main assault.

Look at the example of the batarians:  entire leadership and scientific community Indoctrinated - and the Reapers encountered almost no resistance.  

It's not remotely about "lying".  Subversion, yes, subterfuge, certainly. As I said, I can do that with the complete truth, and the end result can be the same.

Lying?  Unnecessary.  Once Indoctrinated, you believe absolutely in the Reapers' truth.  They have no need to lie.

So they don't.  The Indoctrinated will certainly lie to you, however.

1. Indoctrination isn't just a way to make you surrender. It makes you into believing something not true.
That's why I mentioned TIM as an example.
After being Indoctrinated, TIM didn't surrender to Reaper, he was just misled into believing he wasn't controlled by Reaper. But he was in fact unknowningly doing what Reaper wants him to do.

2. Reaper can indoctrinate. Of course they can lie.
I already wrote the logical deduction above. Not repeating here.

3. Reaper likes to indoctrinate. Of course they likes to lie.
They are just different ways to do the same purpose: alter your decision.
The difference is, Indoctrination is an even more dirtier way to do it. Because you can't reject.
So why not lie?

4. Reaper has reasons to Indoctrinate. Of course they have reasons to lie.
Whatever you think their reason is (advoid fighting? win easier and faster?), it can also be the reason to lie.
>>"Lying?  Unnecessary.  Once Indoctrinated, you believe absolutely in the Reapers' truth.  They have no need to lie."
Didn't
you said Indoctrination isn't an easy and quick process, can't just use
on anyone? So when Indoctrination isn't applicable, lying is a
necessary alternative.


I really can't understand why you think Reaper can / like-to / has-reason-to / do use Indoctrination,
but can't / dislike-to / has-no-reason-to / don't lie.

Modifié par ahleung, 03 juillet 2012 - 03:51 .

[ahleung]

JakeMacDon wrote...
As well any thinking person should.  However, a machine is a machine is a machine, and the Catalyst identified itself as such.  It answered Shepard's questions straightforwardly, as a machine would. It didn't lie at any point, as the evidence bears out.  It never occured to me as I played that it would lie, possibly since I don't tend to anthropomorphize gadgets any more than I do animals, and if looked at without that silly sci-fi staple in mind ("machines can love, too!"), it becomes rather clear.  

The Catalyst is sophisticated as hell, yes, but a smart machine is just that:  smart.  Not alive.  Not ever.  No "soul", no "evil intent", not fecking Terminators understanding why you cry, no stupid Matrix.  I stand by my statement; no matter how smart they get, they will never be alive.  It is only that hardwired part of our brain that allows us to hear gods in thunder and see ghosts in every shadow that permits us to give objects the illusion of life. It's a kind of "over-empathization" people seem to possess. (It's curious we can do it to pets and gadgets and not each other, huh?) That includes geth, ship-born sexbots and Reapers.  This, IMO, is also why people continue to paint it with suspicion.  They refuse to see it as anything other than what it actually is - an immensely old and possibly glitchy machine.  

Hell, call the Catalyst "Landru" and I bet people would understand it better.

1. In fact a machine in ME did lied. That's EDI.
Some of her jokes involve lying. For example, ( I can't remember clearly) she said something about exhausting the oxygen of Normandy, Shepard felt scared, then EDI said it was a joke.
It was short, but she lied for a few seconds.

2. It's established in game that Reaper is much more advanced than any current species, including synthetics like Geth and EDI.
They are old, hence they have more time to advance their technology, including AI of course.

3. If you made correct choices in ME3, Shepard already agreed that even Synthetics has soul. They are no different than organics. And Shepard said that after Geth was enhanced by Reaper's code.

Modifié par ahleung, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:12 .