191 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

The Angry One wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...


The creators were always complete imbeciles.


I mean the fact that they created an AI to solve tech singularity is stupidity at its finest.

Well, they created an AI to make peace with AIs, not solve a singularity.
Which, granted, is idiotic in itself.

dreman9999 wrote...

The entire comment from the catalyst expline what he and the reapers are and the fact he ask you to pick a new salution.

Tells us what? You are not saying anything.

You don't want be to post links to his conversation explain this in detail again. It' clear when you listen to the star child this time around you heard what you wanted.

[The Angry One]

dreman9999 wrote...
You don't want be to post links to his conversation explain this in detail again. It' clear when you listen to the star child this time around you heard what you wanted.

www.youtube.com/watch

I heard exactly what was said.
This thread on the other hand is full of wishful thinking.

[LordRaptor]

The Angry One wrote...

JustinElenbaas wrote...

Catalyst:  I was first created to oversee the relations between Synthetic and Organic life, to establish a connection, but our efforts always ended in conflict, so a new solution was required.

The "our" the Catalyst is referring to is it's designers.  The Reapers do not exist at this point.  It is still acting within it's programming with the Reaper Solution.

Our efforts to make peace. Yes. That would obviously have been a joint effort.
It's new solution however was something it came up with itself, that it's creators did NOT want.

The solution still acts within the Catalyst's programming.  From the logical, rational, objective viewpoint of an AI devoid of emotion (at the time, before it became the combined consciousness of the Reapers and gained a conscience) the cycle is a valid solution and the "desires" of the designers is irrelevant.  Whether or not they wish to be made into the solution does not demean the solutions relevance to a completely logic based entity.

[LordRaptor]

The Angry One wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
You don't want be to post links to his conversation explain this in detail again. It' clear when you listen to the star child this time around you heard what you wanted.

www.youtube.com/watch

I heard exactly what was said.
This thread on the other hand is full of wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking?!  Have you seen any of my other threads or comments in the forums?  I think this is ridiculous, but it's the blatant truth, backed by evidence in game and in design.  I want the Reapers to be soulless, malevolent devil machines that can and should be stopped conventionally, but that's not Bioware's story.  THIS is.  This is NOT my wish.

[xsdob]

The Angry One wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Oh no, I ignored your head cannon about my choice being wrong so that you can keep feeling angry, how terrifyingly evil of me.

Most of your evidence comes off as head-cannon as well angry one, just you get much more hostile to those who challenge it with their own.

The Catalyst flat out says that, because it's efforts to make peace failed, a *new* solution was required.
That solution being the Reapers. It's creators became the FIRST Reaper AGAINST their will.

And you keep insisting that the Catalyst is following it's original directives?

Yes, peace at any cost. Mabye without anyone there to correct the programing the catalyst soon found itself stuck. This would explain a lot, the catalyst got stuck in a single solution because no one could have the catalyst reset to properly go over things and get a new set of options to choose from because it's creators no longer exsis to do it.

And shepard can do it because it's shepard, and shepard has always been borderline mary sueish.

[The Angry One]

Peace at any cost does not include a perpetual cycle of WAR.
And yes, it's war. No matter what the Catalyst claims, no logical being or programmed directive would accept galactic scale destruction as peace.

Not to mention all the conflicts that occur within those 50,000 years that the Catalyst does nothing to stop. Sorry, it just doesn't work. I realise you want to paint the Catalyst as a victim of it's own directives to make yourselves feel better about doing it's bidding, but it doesn't work, sorry.

[WarBaby2]

Yup, Herby does say "save us", and your "theory" is pretty much the intention BW had with this ending... even more indication for that is given with the control and synthesis endings, where it is stated that the combined knowledge of the reapers (species of old) in incredibly helpful and valuable to the galaxy.

Still, the story is not very original... technologic singularity has been done to death by numerous scifie movies/games/books already... and this one isn't even done very well.

Modifié par WarBaby2, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:46 .

[De1ta G]

Listened to Harbinger multiple times through studio headphones and it is impossible to tell exactly what it's saying. It definitely sounds like it begins with an 's' and ends with an 's', and the last word sounds extremely close to "us". The first word isn't as clear. Serve and save seem like the best possibilities, both making sense based on what you believe about the reapers. To me, it sounds closer to 'serve' than it does 'save'.

[LordRaptor]

The Angry One wrote...

Peace at any cost does not include a perpetual cycle of WAR.
And yes, it's war. No matter what the Catalyst claims, no logical being or programmed directive would accept galactic scale destruction as peace.

Not to mention all the conflicts that occur within those 50,000 years that the Catalyst does nothing to stop. Sorry, it just doesn't work. I realise you want to paint the Catalyst as a victim of it's own directives to make yourselves feel better about doing it's bidding, but it doesn't work, sorry.

Actually you're speaking subjectively and the Catalyst is speaking objectively.  The analogy of a wildfire clearing the overgrow and decay of a forest is very fitting.  The Catalyst is basically saying we are acting as a force of nature, the natural reaction to the gradual decay of society.  Where a fire clears away all the dead and overgrown flora that would inevitably strip an environment of the resource of water to survive (thus the abundance of dead brush that can easily catch fire, a natural cycle).  That is a very objective viewpoint that a construct would initially take.  A construct similar to the AI EDI once was on the moon.  

[LordRaptor]

WarBaby2 wrote...

Yup, Herby does say "save us", and your "theory" is pretty much the intention BW had with this ending... even more indication for that is given with the control and synthesis endings, where it is stated that the combined knowledge of the reapers (species of old) in incredibly helpful and valuable to the galaxy.

Still, the story is not very original... technologic singularity has been done to death by numerous scifie movies/games/books already... and this one isn't even done very well.

Oh I agree.  Make no mistake, just because I propose this does not mean I like it or believe it was well implemented.

[The Angry One]

JustinElenbaas wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Peace at any cost does not include a perpetual cycle of WAR.
And yes, it's war. No matter what the Catalyst claims, no logical being or programmed directive would accept galactic scale destruction as peace.

Not to mention all the conflicts that occur within those 50,000 years that the Catalyst does nothing to stop. Sorry, it just doesn't work. I realise you want to paint the Catalyst as a victim of it's own directives to make yourselves feel better about doing it's bidding, but it doesn't work, sorry.

Actually you're speaking subjectively and the Catalyst is speaking objectively.  The analogy of a wildfire clearing the overgrow and decay of a forest is very fitting.  The Catalyst is basically saying we are acting as a force of nature, the natural reaction to the gradual decay of society.  Where a fire clears away all the dead and overgrown flora that would inevitably strip an environment of the resource of water to survive (thus the abundance of dead brush that can easily catch fire, a natural cycle).  That is a very objective viewpoint that a construct would initially take.  A construct similar to the AI EDI once was on the moon.  

Fire does not purposefully seek to kill anyone. If you evade a fire, it does not FOLLOW you intentionally.
The Catalyst instigates conflict. It had the Geth fight the Quarians, it had the Zha'til fight the Protheans, it indoctrinates agents and husks to fight it's battles. It destroys cities and shoots down civilians. It engages in space battles.

It BREEDS conflict. It maintains a cycle of destruction. It is objectively wrong, and countering it's original directives.

JustinElenbaas wrote...

Oh I agree.  Make no mistake, just because I propose this does not mean I like it or believe it was well implemented.

To be honest what you're doing is no different than Indoctrination Theory, cherry-picking minor details in order to prop up a specific belief that it's likely BioWare weren't even thinking of.

Modifié par The Angry One, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:52 .

[WarBaby2]

JustinElenbaas wrote...

Oh I agree.  Make no mistake, just because I propose this does not mean I like it or believe it was well implemented.

In the end, it is pretty clearly stated that the reapers/caltalyst are not able to deviate from their programming/purpous. I don't think they really "want" it to end on concious level though... I especially don't think the catalyst (as a pure, synthetic beein) isn't capable of deviance, or any kind of emotion really. The reapers on the other hand... still, all personal contact we (the players) had with them, they gave the impression of merciless, superior killing machines... a force of nature with a vengance, basically.^^

I dunno about it... it just isn't explained enough... and it never will be. This kind of story has to be done properly (meaning, transperantly) or it just feels hollow...

If BW HAD to go and give the reapers a motive, it should have been an obvious one.

Modifié par WarBaby2, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:58 .

[LordRaptor]

The Angry One wrote...

JustinElenbaas wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Peace at any cost does not include a perpetual cycle of WAR.
And yes, it's war. No matter what the Catalyst claims, no logical being or programmed directive would accept galactic scale destruction as peace.

Not to mention all the conflicts that occur within those 50,000 years that the Catalyst does nothing to stop. Sorry, it just doesn't work. I realise you want to paint the Catalyst as a victim of it's own directives to make yourselves feel better about doing it's bidding, but it doesn't work, sorry.

Actually you're speaking subjectively and the Catalyst is speaking objectively.  The analogy of a wildfire clearing the overgrow and decay of a forest is very fitting.  The Catalyst is basically saying we are acting as a force of nature, the natural reaction to the gradual decay of society.  Where a fire clears away all the dead and overgrown flora that would inevitably strip an environment of the resource of water to survive (thus the abundance of dead brush that can easily catch fire, a natural cycle).  That is a very objective viewpoint that a construct would initially take.  A construct similar to the AI EDI once was on the moon.  

Fire does not purposefully seek to kill anyone. If you evade a fire, it does not FOLLOW you intentionally.
The Catalyst instigates conflict. It had the Geth fight the Quarians, it had the Zha'til fight the Protheans, it indoctrinates agents and husks to fight it's battles. It destroys cities and shoots down civilians. It engages in space battles.

It BREEDS conflict. It maintains a cycle of destruction. It is objectively wrong, and countering it's original directives.

JustinElenbaas wrote...

Oh I agree.  Make no mistake, just because I propose this does not mean I like it or believe it was well implemented.

To be honest what you're doing is no different than Indoctrination Theory, cherry-picking minor details in order to prop up a specific belief that it's likely BioWare weren't even thinking of.

That is why you cannot understand the Catalyst.  The Catalyst is saying the forest that needs burned is advanced civilization.  It's akin also to the fall of Roman and other societies at the apex of their glory, as that glory begins to diminish, or in ME's case, be threatened by evolving, advanced Synthetic life, the slate must be wiped clean.  Subjectivity does not factor into it.  It is a completely objective cleansing.  Putting a wounded animal out of it's misery.  Yet by it's action of harvesting sentient life the Catalyst has inadvertantly created a conscience for itself, the combined minds of all the Reapers, "who are each a nation unto themselves". 

To be honest what you're doing is ignoring obvious facts in game just because you want to hate the endings and believe they are objectively bad.  I agree with you.  I hate them.  I think they suck, still, EC and everything, but I have analyzed them and the truth is the Reapers want Shepard to end the cycle.  This is no dream like indoctrination, this is the truth.

[LordRaptor]

WarBaby2 wrote...

JustinElenbaas wrote...

Oh I agree.  Make no mistake, just because I propose this does not mean I like it or believe it was well implemented.

In the end, it is pretty clearly stated that the reapers/caltalyst are not able to deviate from their programming/purpous. I don't think they really "want" it to end on concious level though... I especially don't think the catalyst (as a pure, synthetic beein) isn't capable of deviance, or any kind of emotion really. The reapers on the other hand... still, all personal contact we (the players) had with them, they gave the impression of merciless, superior killing machines... a force of nature with a vengance, basically.^^

I dunno about it... it just isn't explained enough... and it never will be. This kind of story has to be done properly (meaning, transperantly) or it just feels hollow...

If BW HAD to go and give the reapers a motive, it should have been an obvious one.

As an affect of being the combined hive mind of every Reaper (who are each a nation unto themselves) the Catalyst has gained individual sentience and therefore is now capable of deviance and emotion, where at first it was just a blank construct, similar to how EDI started.

I mention that in my OP...I hate that Bioware did this to the Reapers.  I loved them as a willfully evil race of sentient warships that chooses to impose their order on lesser beings as they see fit, for they view themselves as the pinnacle of evolution.  Theses are the Reapers of ME1 and ME2, what I have presented in this thread is the truth about what Bioware...and likely Mac Walters...did to the Reapers is attempt to make them a sympathetic villain...and I believe Bioware failed miserably, but that does not change the fact it was their intention.

[Hudathan]

The Angry One wrote...

The Catalyst changed it's directives once.
Why can't it do it again?

/thread

No it didn't. In fact, it's strict adherence to its programming caused it to destroy its own creators. If anything, that exposition reinforces the Catalyst's identity as a powerful but limited AI.

Modifié par Hudathan, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:05 .

[dreman9999]

The Angry One wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Oh no, I ignored your head cannon about my choice being wrong so that you can keep feeling angry, how terrifyingly evil of me.

Most of your evidence comes off as head-cannon as well angry one, just you get much more hostile to those who challenge it with their own.

The Catalyst flat out says that, because it's efforts to make peace failed, a *new* solution was required.
That solution being the Reapers. It's creators became the FIRST Reaper AGAINST their will.

And you keep insisting that the Catalyst is following it's original directives?

That it. I'm linking


"They (creators) became the first truereapers. They did not approve but it was the only salution."

That does not means the catalyst made his own salution out of his programing limits. That means following his programing lead to a horrible salution that his creator did not agree with.



Here he is  telling his programing.

"A construct(refering to himself).An inteligents created to solve a problem eons ago. I was created to bring balance. To be a catalyst to bring peace between organics and synthetics

This his salution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmcIJjPJyB8&feature=player_detailpage#t=108s
Note that he says what his salution is Forcing organic and synthetics to reapers. A form of peace for both organics and synthetics.

Now this is who programed his this way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmcIJjPJyB8&feature=player_detailpage#t=168s
"By ones who reconized that conflict will all way arise between synthetic and organics."
He has a point with this being that in the series we have yet to see any first contact with self aware synthetics and organics without conflict with one another.
EDI and Jeff are main examples.

And it is where it state why thing went wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmcIJjPJyB8&feature=player_detailpage#t=164s
I was first created to oversee the relation  of synthetic and organic life. To astablish a connnection. But our efforst always ended in conflict. So a new salution was created.

If you going to say he went ageint his programing you have to point out how he went aginet his programing. 
Note he says he oversees the relations of synthetics and organics. Oversee means to  direct. That means he had power to change how he did his programing.
He found the old salution did not work so he changes his salution, but that is not ageints his program being he is allowed to do that.
The salution he choosed his creaters did not like but was enforce on them anyways because the catalyst had the power to do so, which is still in his programing.
 No matter how you cut , he never goes ageint his programing...Why are you keep saying it?

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:18 .

[DocGriffin]

Hmm...well as far as interpretations and theories go, this one takes the cake. It's not bad. The only problem I see is Synthesis doesn't 'break them free of their programming,' the catalyst says it gives each side what it lacks: organics are fully integrated with technology, and synthetics in turn gain understanding of organics. That line to me is the most important, as when he says they gain full understanding of organics, the implication is that they do not currently. This leads me to believe that the Reapers act in cooperation with the organics because they now understand them, not because they chose to do so beforehand, but were unable.

Other than that, I really like the theory. Nice job.

[Kendar Fleetfoot]

Can someone create an AI to resolve the conflict on this thread??? 

[DocGriffin]

dreman9999 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Oh no, I ignored your head cannon about my choice being wrong so that you can keep feeling angry, how terrifyingly evil of me.

Most of your evidence comes off as head-cannon as well angry one, just you get much more hostile to those who challenge it with their own.

The Catalyst flat out says that, because it's efforts to make peace failed, a *new* solution was required.
That solution being the Reapers. It's creators became the FIRST Reaper AGAINST their will.

And you keep insisting that the Catalyst is following it's original directives?

That it. I'm linking


"They (creators) became the first truereapers. They did not approve but it was the only salution."

That does not means the catalyst made his own salution out of his programing limits. That means following his programing lead to a horrible salution that his creator did not agree with.



Here he is  telling his programing.

"A construct(refering to himself).An inteligent createdto solve a problem eons ago. I was createdto bring balance. To be a catalyst to bring peace between organics and synthetics

This his salution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmcIJjPJyB8&feature=player_detailpage#t=108s
Note that he says what his salution is Forcing organic and synthetics to reapers. A form of peace for both organics and synthetics.

Now this is who programed his this way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmcIJjPJyB8&feature=player_detailpage#t=168s
"By ones who reconized that conflict will all way arise between synthetic and organics."
He has a point with this being that in the series we have yet to see any first contact with self aware synthetic without conflict with one another.
EDI and Jeff are main examples.

And it is where it state why thing went wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmcIJjPJyB8&feature=player_detailpage#t=164s
I was first created to oversee the relation  of synthetic and organic life. To astablish a connnection.But our effort always ended in conflict. So a new salution was created.

If you going to say he went ageint his programing you have to point out how he went aginet his programing. 
Note he says he oversees the relations of synthetics and organics. Oversee means to  direct. That means he had power to change how he did his programing.
He found the old salution did not work so he changes his salution, but that is not ageints his program being he is allowed to do that.
The salution he choosed his creaters did not like but was enforce on them any way becaus e the catalyst had the power to do so, which is still in his programing.
 No matter how you cut , he never goes ageint his programing...Why are you keep saying it.

Despite the horrendous spelling he's right. The catalyst followed his programming, and created a solution that would, in his eyes, end conflict between synthetics and organics. This led to a grim and unwanted end for his creators, but there was peace until the next cycle.

[LordRaptor]

DocGriffin wrote...

Hmm...well as far as interpretations and theories go, this one takes the cake. It's not bad. The only problem I see is Synthesis doesn't 'break them free of their programming,' the catalyst says it gives each side what it lacks: organics are fully integrated with technology, and synthetics in turn gain understanding of organics. That line to me is the most important, as when he says they gain full understanding of organics, the implication is that they do not currently. This leads me to believe that the Reapers act in cooperation with the organics because they now understand them, not because they chose to do so beforehand, but were unable.

Other than that, I really like the theory. Nice job.

First off...I abhor Synthesis, regardless of what Bioware wants I will always choose Destroy or Reject.  Now on to my response.

By "takes the cake" I assume you mean that negatively?  When I worded it "breaks them free of their programming" I am referring to "unshackling" them or in other words, making their programming obsolete.  With unity between Synthetics and Organics there is no need for their relations to be overseen.  The Reapers gain understanding and therefore are saved/freed in Synthesis.  In Control they are still shackled, but the Catalyst is reprogrammed with a new personality matrix (Shepard's).

Modifié par JustinElenbaas, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:12 .

[dreman9999]

DocGriffin wrote...

Hmm...well as far as interpretations and theories go, this one takes the cake. It's not bad. The only problem I see is Synthesis doesn't 'break them free of their programming,' the catalyst says it gives each side what it lacks: organics are fully integrated with technology, and synthetics in turn gain understanding of organics. That line to me is the most important, as when he says they gain full understanding of organics, the implication is that they do not currently. This leads me to believe that the Reapers act in cooperation with the organics because they now understand them, not because they chose to do so beforehand, but were unable.

Other than that, I really like the theory. Nice job.

Sythesis allws them to do what they orignally wanted to do. The point is they want to stop reaping. If a machine is told to do something,it continues try to do it till it's stopped, told to do something else or does want it's  told to do. That basicly is  destroy, control , and synthesis.

[dreman9999]

Kendar Fleetfoot wrote...

Can someone create an AI to resolve the conflict on this thread??? 

Any AI  made to give Angry one some understand other then what she  wants to believe is fated to blow up into firy bites out of pure fustration.

[Scalabrine]

On the final beam run Harbinger never fires at Shepard until the final
AOE shot that incapacitates Shepard.  Let's be clear here.  Harbinger
DOES NOT MISS.  Stand back and watch the soldiers all making the charge
to the beam run.  Harbinger is a crack shot.  Yet the extend cut defines
it even more clearly by showing how blatantly bad Harbinger misses
Shepard.  Secondly I have railed against Harbinger not firing on the
Normandy, but others have made what I thought was assanign points that
"Harbinger is only concerned with those rushing the beam".  Truthfully,
they're right!  Harbinger acs EVERYONE that draws even remotely close to
the beam because Harbinger has selected Shepard to reach the beam, and
Shepard alone.  Yet Harbinger can only achieve this while still
fulfilling it's programming (defend the beam).  So Harbinger must stop
hammer squad and incapacitate Shepard long enough to satisfy Harbinger's
programming so it can fly away, leaving the beam open to Shepard.


Lol then explain to me why Anderson makes it out as well...

You're logic is as flawed as the end writing. Reapers didn't want him to succeed it was just bad writing...

"You have altered the variables" lol **** gtfo, Doesn't matter how much they sugar coat the ending with the EC, it still doesn't make sense. Bioware gave a snake bite victim ice cream instead of the antidote...

[LordRaptor]

dreman9999 wrote...

Kendar Fleetfoot wrote...

Can someone create an AI to resolve the conflict on this thread??? 

Any AI  made to give Angry one some understand other then what she  wants to believe is fated to blow up into firy bites out of pure fustration.

In all truth I believe I understand where she is coming from, though I could be wrong.  She is right that this had to pieced together because of how poorly Bioware portrayed it.  The many vagueries of the endings still haunt many people and shadow all theories in doubt.  And in truth she could refute me by simply saying "it's one interpretation of this crap Bioware created." and due to Bioware's unwillingness to take a firm stance on what their endings mean, or what they were going for, and not trying to "prescribe" anything...gag...she would in theory...be right.

[Kendar Fleetfoot]

dreman9999 wrote...

Kendar Fleetfoot wrote...

Can someone create an AI to resolve the conflict on this thread??? 

Any AI  made to give Angry one some understand other then what she  wants to believe is fated to blow up into firy bites out of pure fustration.

well lets not do that then,  there is enough firy explosions already