164 réponses à ce sujet

[Mazebook]

Galiredon wrote...

Thornne wrote...

IMO the EC Star Kid dialogue is a lot better. It went from a largely incomprehensible mess to a mostly comprehensible mess.

The biggest thing it does is clarify the argument about whether Star Kid is some omniscient being who's argument is 'right' just because he is making it. I think it is clear now that he is not, and it is not.

He was given a problem to solve and he has found a solution that has been working. Moral concerns not directly related the parameters of the task he was given are (apparently) irrelevant to him.

From the dialogue we can learn:

1) He is some sort of AI / synthetic construct.

2) He was created by organics.

3) His creators were apparently in (or at least very concerned about) violent conflict with synthetics.

4) He was given the task of finding some way for the two life forms to co-exist peacefully. This is the problem he is trying to solve.

5) He has tried at least two other solutions in the past (he uses the plural I believe -- I think this implies more than two, but this would be the minimum) but they didn't work.

6) So he came up with his current solution. Process both life forms (organic and synthetic) and combine them into a new life form -- a Reaper. By forcing them to become a single being he forces them to co-exist peacefully.

He does not care whether the original life forms want to be part of his solution or not. This is clearly irrelevant to him, as he says he reaperized he creators even though they didn't approve. Rightly or wrongly, he clearly believes that Reaperizing is preserving the original life forms, not destroying them.

As for the "Yo dawg" bit -- now with the EC I think this part is sort of tangential. It comes up when Shepard says "But we'd rather keep our own forms [and not be reaperized]." Star Kid says "You can't" because if he didn't save you via reaperization, you'd eventually create synthetics who would wipe you out. It's not that he cares (morally) about organic life, it is just that if all organic life were destroyed his task of creating peaceful co-existence would be impossible.  He refuses to risk a fail state for HIS task just to accomodate life forms who don't like his solution, basically.

As for the whole "let's introduce a new character and a whole new plot line at the climactic moment in the game and do a huge exposition dump" nature of the Star Kid ... yeah, not a shining moment for the series IMO. In fact my favorite endings are the fan cuts where it goes straight from Anderson's farewell to Destroy, and there is no Star Kid at all.

This is how I feel as well. Thank you for sharing.

That was well put...though i think the concept of the ending is almost brilliant...only the execusion was lacking in some cases and really lacking in other cases. 

[The Eruptionist]

Here's my current interpretation of the ending which I believe goes well with Thornne's proposal.

1. There existed a civilization that was being overrun by AI for an unexplained reason. 

2. This civilization decided to create an AI to solve their problem (using AI to stop a rogue AI seems strange but not too farfetched - fight fire with fire). 

3. This AI (the Catalyst) came up with the Reaper solution (perhaps after trying other options). Whatever happend, the Catalyst decided that it had to turn the original organic civilization into a Reaper in order to defeat the synthetics they were fighting. This was done against their will so we can assume that the Catalyst was broken according to the original intent of its creators.  The orginal synthetic threat was stopped and so the Catalyst continued its mission to protect organic life by ensuring synthetics were always kept in check.

4. Since all, or at least most civilizations, were harvested against their will it may be that the Reapers, as representations of their respective civilizations, are carrying out the Catalyst's wishes also against their will. 

5. This could perhaps explain why the Reapers claimed that Shepard “could not comprehend them” and that the cycle “must continue”. The Reapers are controlled by the broken AI but not because they chose to. Maybe they thought other organics would not understand why they must be harvested and that their ‘ascension’ is ‘inevitable’ because the Catalyst evidently cannot be stopped since it's been harvesting for millenia. Would you believe someone who is murdering your family that he is being controlled against his will? Probably not. No one would believe the Reapers even if they tried to convince someone (and maybe they did try at some point).

6. It protects organics by harvesting them in the most painful and violent way possible because it does not care about morals. Its goal is to preserve organic life (in the general sense) no matter what. Individuals don’t matter; only the protection of the wider concept of life. The Catalyst is pragmatic in the strictest sense.

7. The Catalyst clearly believes that synthetics will always kill organics. This isn't true but this is most likely a fault with its original programming along with the other flaws in its values e.g. that the ends justify the means. My speculation is that the original civilization was experimenting with AI; failed and tried to use another AI as a 'hail-Mary' to fix the problem but instead they created the malfunction Catalyst - simultaneosuly saving them and dooming them.

8. The three choices that the Catalyst presents at the end, I think, are fail safes built into it that can allow whoever manages to survive the cycles long enough to stop the broken, rogue AI. These solutions required an external energy source powerful enough to activate and overcome the AI and thus we have the Crucible. Maybe these options were built into it at the last minute of the original civilzation's existence but the ability to activate the choices was absent (the Crucible was needed). 


Admittidely, this doesn't excuse the poor execution of the ending (especially the original ending) but I feel that it makes sense.

What do you guys think of this interpretation? Am I missing anything or everything?

Modifié par The Eruptionist, 29 juin 2012 - 08:28 .

[Applepie_Svk]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Insane AI is insane.

http://social.biowar.../index/12841374  check it out 

[Greed1914]

Sadly, by sticking to artistic integrity, we're still saddled with flawed logic. Granted, we did get further explanation, but the Catalyst basically just goes into what had happened before, rather than proving itself. Also, I couldn't help but notice that the Catalyst admitted that the Reaper "solution" only came about because it failed at its original purpose of reconciling synthetics and organics. That's right, we're paying the price because it couldn't do its job.

[Hudathan]

He is an AI, he was designed to address the synthetic vs organic issue, he came up with a solution that's horrifying to us organics and that's why we fight to stop his cycle. What's the problem.

[insomniak9]

The problem is that the issue he was created to solve, is:

Synthetics will always be in conflict with Organics.

He creates Synthetics, who do a certain thing on a regular basis that will almost certainly guarantee conflict with Organics (i.e threaten their very existence - the whole point of any Organic, whether it be sentient or not, is self-preservation)

It's too much of a stretch for the AI not to understand how Organics will react to being goo-ified for their own good by evil space monsters.

[Mazebook]

The Eruptionist wrote...

Here's my current interpretation of the ending which I believe goes well with Thornne's proposal.

1. There existed a civilization that was being overrun by AI for an unexplained reason. 

2. This civilization decided to create an AI to solve their problem (using AI to stop a rogue AI seems strange but not too farfetched - fight fire with fire). 

3. This AI (the Catalyst) came up with the Reaper solution (perhaps after trying other options). Whatever happend, the Catalyst decided that it had to turn the original organic civilization into a Reaper in order to defeat the synthetics they were fighting. This was done against their will so we can assume that the Catalyst was broken according to the original intent of its creators.  The orginal synthetic threat was stopped and so the Catalyst continued its mission to protect organic life by ensuring synthetics were always kept in check.

4. Since all, or at least most civilizations, were harvested against their will it may be that the Reapers, as representations of their respective civilizations, are carrying out the Catalyst's wishes also against their will. 

5. This could perhaps explain why the Reapers claimed that Shepard “could not comprehend them” and that the cycle “must continue”. The Reapers are controlled by the broken AI but not because they chose to. Maybe they thought other organics would not understand why they must be harvested and that their ‘ascension’ is ‘inevitable’ because the Catalyst evidently cannot be stopped since it's been harvesting for millenia. Would you believe someone who is murdering your family that he is being controlled against his will? Probably not. No one would believe the Reapers even if they tried to convince someone (and maybe they did try at some point).

6. It protects organics by harvesting them in the most painful and violent way possible because it does not care about morals. Its goal is to preserve organic life (in the general sense) no matter what. Individuals don’t matter; only the protection of the wider concept of life. The Catalyst is pragmatic in the strictest sense.

7. The Catalyst clearly believes that synthetics will always kill organics. This isn't true but this is most likely a fault with its original programming along with the other flaws in its values e.g. that the ends justify the means. My speculation is that the original civilization was experimenting with AI; failed and tried to use another AI as a 'hail-Mary' to fix the problem but instead they created the malfunction Catalyst - simultaneosuly saving them and dooming them.

8. The three choices that the Catalyst presents at the end, I think, are fail safes built into it that can allow whoever manages to survive the cycles long enough to stop the broken, rogue AI. These solutions required an external energy source powerful enough to activate and overcome the AI and thus we have the Crucible. Maybe these options were built into it at the last minute of the original civilzation's existence but the ability to activate the choices was absent (the Crucible was needed). 


Admittidely, this doesn't excuse the poor execution of the ending (especially the original ending) but I feel that it makes sense.

What do you guys think of this interpretation? Am I missing anything or everything?

Looks good, just one more point


to 5. most likely no active control ;
         more likely indoctrination as in control through reprogramming/accapting the reasoning of catalysts task.

would love to write more...but i have to go to sleep now...
good night everybody...

[keeveek2]

You don't get the Catalyst's logic. He is destined to preserve organic life, not ALL organic life. From his point of view, his goal is met.

[Pantegana]

Galiredon wrote...

...I heard you don't wanna be killed by synthetics. So I made some synthetics to kill you every 50k years so you won't be killed by synthetics.

This was one of the biggest problems I had with the endings and although I thought the Extended Cut were an improvement they didn't address this core issue for me.

To the people who like the new endings, what do you think about this issue before/after the Extended Cut?

Yo dude, I agree U_U
They've just added a little more:wizard: and unicorns.

[insomniak9]

keeveek2 wrote...

You don't get the Catalyst's logic. He is destined to preserve organic life, not ALL organic life. From his point of view, his goal is met.

His goal is to prevent conflict between Synths and Orgs.

He fails miserably be creating scary Synths.

[GabrielK]

Honestly, I think discussion about the Starchild's logic and soundness of such is kind at the point where it's beyond any real meaningful discussion. Some people are fine with it, some of us still have problems with it. Neither side is really going to convince the other. But whether you find yourself on the "like" or "dislike" side, it seems that we've reached the end. We got what we got and I don't think we're going to get anymore, at least in terms of end content.

[Mazebook]

insomniak9 wrote...

The problem is that the issue he was created to solve, is:

Synthetics will always be in conflict with Organics.

He creates Synthetics, who do a certain thing on a regular basis that will almost certainly guarantee conflict with Organics (i.e threaten their very existence - the whole point of any Organic, whether it be sentient or not, is self-preservation)

It's too much of a stretch for the AI not to understand how Organics will react to being goo-ified for their own good by evil space monsters.

No, his task was to prevent Synthetics terminating all organics = no more organics ever again. But organics will always create synthetics.

His solution :
rest the galaxy every 50 000

As long as there are young Organics...nothing is lost.

[MadRabbit999]

Why do people assume that just because it is a super ancient and evolved AI, it cannot make error judgment when it thinks?

AI= Artificial Intelligence, meaning an intelligence to be simulated as realistically as possible as any other organics, it has to make error in judgment, otherwise it would be a PI or something (Perfect Intelligence)

AI is just the same as any other organics when it comes to intelligence, difference being that they can probably think faster, but it doesn't mean their logic is not flawed.

Also Shepard is on the verge of dying, someone in that state of mind, cannot be possibly thinking of all the questions that would poke the Catalyst logic.

Modifié par MadRabbit999, 29 juin 2012 - 08:52 .

[Shepard Wins]

Nah, I've used the new options while talking to it and this whole yo dawg thing is mostly adressed (well, it's still there, but the AI is insane and, like it has been stated before in this thread, has developed a "peace through death" logic). When it said "I was created for a single purpose" it reminded me of G0-T0 from KotOR2.

However, it makes absolutely no sense that it allows you to pick the Destroy option. It fully goes like "yeah, my purpose is to stop the conflict, if you choose destroy the conflict is going to erupt again in the future, but the hell with it, Imma gon let you do it all right". I guess even a crapshoot AI was beyond caring at that point.

EDIT: Oh, and importantly, the issue that actually does remain still is that the entire "inevitable conflict between organics and synthetics" thing is forced on us the very last minute and we can't call the AI on it's BS there (no option to tell him about peace between Geth and Quarians, or EDI's relationship with Joker). The "Do androids dream of electric sheep" theme is present throughout the entire trilogy; the inevitable conflict thing - is not.

Modifié par Shepard Wins, 29 juin 2012 - 08:56 .

[The Eruptionist]

maaaze wrote...



Looks good, just one more point


to 5. most likely no active control ;
         more likely indoctrination as in control through reprogramming/accapting the reasoning of catalysts task.

would love to write more...but i have to go to sleep now...
good night everybody...

Oh thanks. Yea that's probably a better idea to explain the Catalyst's control of the Reapers

[Mazebook]

GabrielK wrote...

Honestly, I think discussion about the Starchild's logic and soundness of such is kind at the point where it's beyond any real meaningful discussion. Some people are fine with it, some of us still have problems with it. Neither side is really going to convince the other. But whether you find yourself on the "like" or "dislike" side, it seems that we've reached the end. We got what we got and I don't think we're going to get anymore, at least in terms of end content.

It has nothing to do with being fine with something. Some people just ignore whats in the game or are more intrested in theire own narrative which doesn´t make sense and then complain about plotholes they themself created.

Modifié par maaaze, 29 juin 2012 - 08:57 .

[GabrielK]

Shepard Wins wrote...

I guess even a crapshoot AI was beyond caring at that point.

Hell maybe even the Starchild is tired of ME, and just wants to go back home and do other stuff with his life!

[GabrielK]

maaaze wrote...

It has nothing to do with being fine with something. Some people just ignore whats in the game or are more intrested in theire own narrative with doesn´t make sense and then complain about plotholes they themself created.

Well I respect your right to have your opinions.

[The Eruptionist]

Shepard Wins wrote...

Nah, I've used the new options while talking to it and this whole yo dawg thing is mostly adressed (well, it's still there, but the AI is insane and, like it has been stated before in this thread, has developed a "peace through death" logic). When it said "I was created for a single purpose" it reminded me of G0-T0 from KotOR2.

However, it makes absolutely no sense that it allows you to pick the Destroy option. It fully goes like "yeah, my purpose is to stop the conflict, if you choose destroy the conflict is going to erupt again in the future, but the hell with it, Imma gon let you do it all right". I guess even a crapshoot AI was beyond caring at that point.

See point 8 in my interpretation above. It may explain your question.

[insomniak9]

He clearly says he was created...

"to prevent conflict."

Do some people play this game without eyes or ears? O.o

[GabrielK]

insomniak9 wrote...

Do some people play this game without eyes or ears? O.o

Well....some people do seem to think that anybody who disagrees with their interpretation are ignoring things in the game.

[Shepard Wins]

The Eruptionist wrote...

Shepard Wins wrote...

Nah, I've used the new options while talking to it and this whole yo dawg thing is mostly adressed (well, it's still there, but the AI is insane and, like it has been stated before in this thread, has developed a "peace through death" logic). When it said "I was created for a single purpose" it reminded me of G0-T0 from KotOR2.

However, it makes absolutely no sense that it allows you to pick the Destroy option. It fully goes like "yeah, my purpose is to stop the conflict, if you choose destroy the conflict is going to erupt again in the future, but the hell with it, Imma gon let you do it all right". I guess even a crapshoot AI was beyond caring at that point.

See point 8 in my interpretation above. It may explain your question.

*reads it* I guess all we can do is... speculate  .

[Mazebook]

GabrielK wrote...

maaaze wrote...

It has nothing to do with being fine with something. Some people just ignore whats in the game or are more intrested in theire own narrative with doesn´t make sense and then complain about plotholes they themself created.

Well I respect your right to have your opinions.

As do I...I respect everybodys right to have an opinion...but If you want me to respect your opinion than you have to back them up with what is presented. The Yo Dawg argument is simply false because it is not reflecting what is in the game. 

[Adanu]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Galiredon wrote...

...I heard you don't wanna be killed by synthetics. So I made some synthetics to kill you every 50k years so you won't be killed by synthetics.

The problem is that this wasn't the Catalyst's logic, even before the EC.  The Reapers are techno-organic hybrids, and they essentially harvest advanced civilizations before they have the chance to create tech too powerful for them to control, not only wiping themselves out but also causing collateral damage to more primitive races.  The Catalyst's belief that this is a genuine problem is based on observing the same conflict happening repeatedly over countless cycles.  Furthermore, while individual beings are killed by the Reapers, the actual species, their memories, knowlege, and according to Legion, even their individual minds, are preserved in Reaper form, meaning that unlike death at the hands of synthetics, something does survive, which in the Catalyst's eyes makes it preferable to doing nothing.
In short, the Catalyst's logic isn't faulty, it's just cold, immoral, and barbaric, placing emphasis on the whole of a species while ignoring the value and worth of each individual person, and caring nothing for the mental and physical anguish that occurs during each extinction cycle.  It's wrong because it's evil, not because it's stupid.

This.

[The Eruptionist]

GabrielK wrote...

Honestly, I think discussion about the Starchild's logic and soundness of such is kind at the point where it's beyond any real meaningful discussion. Some people are fine with it, some of us still have problems with it. Neither side is really going to convince the other. But whether you find yourself on the "like" or "dislike" side, it seems that we've reached the end. We got what we got and I don't think we're going to get anymore, at least in terms of end content.

Well, I think the discussion regarding the Catalyst's logic is going to continue for a while to be honest simply because it's the finale of the trilogy. There are certain elements of the ending that exist which result in variability in interpretation but that doesn't mean that there isn't a correct way to interpret the facts of the ending conversation. You could read through my theory near the top of the page if you wish because I think I'm on to something with it. 

But you may be sick of all the discussions on the endings which a lot of people probably are.

Modifié par The Eruptionist, 29 juin 2012 - 09:08 .