463 réponses à ce sujet

[agu123]

When fire burns, is it at war? Is it in conflict? Or is it simply doing what it was created to do? We are no different. We harvest your bodies, your knowledge, your creations. We preserve it to be reborn in the form of a new Reaper. Like a cleansing fire, we restore balance.

I admit that exchange made me feel sorry for the Reapers, for the Catalyst's creators, and the Catalyst himself.

[Forbry]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Zardoc wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

I think what the Catalyst is saying here is that it is a computer program designed to do one thing: find the most efficient solution to preserving organic and synthetic life. Once it concludes what that solution is, it will do it, period, without any wavering or thoughts of moral consequences. It cannot think in the way that sentient beings think. Its own nature prevents it from choosing any solution but the most efficient one.

Now, if only someone had told him what "preserving life" actually means.

Yes, it seems his creators did a poor job establishing the defitions and limits of what they wanted. Consequently the Catalyst is not precluded from defining Reapers as a way to preserve organic and synthetic life. Basically, he went against the spirit of  his creators' intent in order to fulfill his purpose. 

 
Well, our language sucks.
Look at neighbour threads where they argue on what the heck "evil" and "alive" are.

I think people are getting way over their heads here (yeah, and the same goes for me as well;)).

[CronoDragoon]

The Angry One wrote...

Yeah. So?
Do you think I agree with Sovereign?
No. The difference between Sovereign and the Catalyst is Sovereign is credible whereas the Catalyst is a little brat who shifts responsibility for and lies about it's actions.

What makes Sovereign "credible"?

I don't see how the Catalyst lies or shifts responsibility. He doesn't even claim what he is doing is morally right.

You objected to the Catalyst's decision to pervert his original intent and make people into Reapers. I am pointing out that you are supposed to object to this; it's why he's a villain. In the original endings, the Catalyst seems like a mouthpiece for the writers. In the EC, it's made clear they want you to hate and disagree with him.

[Martin the Warrior]

Yeah, the Catalyst uses really backwards logic. But in a storytelling sense, all well-crafted villains use backwards logic. They need to in order to convince themselves they're doing the right thing. People can do some really evil stuff, but they don't see it as evil. The Reapers had to convince Saren that submission was preferable to extinction. They had to convince TIM that Cerberus' sick experiments would ultimately benefit humanity. The Catalyst had to convince itself that it was preserving life and that its actions didn't really cause conflict in order to self-justify the atrocities it committed against thousands of civilizations, including its own creators. That doesn't mean it makes sense to us - in fact, if our moral compasses are working properly, it shouldn't make sense to us.

[CronoDragoon]

Blacklash93 wrote...

Going from Sovereign's clear contempt for organic life and even other synthetics to the Reapers turning out to consider themselves incredibly considerate and altruisitic for life everywhere after all was the mistake. The Catalyst is just the face of this senseless and hopeless development.

While I don't for a minute believe that they had this ending in mind when they designed Sovereign, it is possible for him to hate organic life while still being controlled by the Catalyst to save it. Perhaps Sovereign was a synthetic race that was harvested? That would explain his hatred.

[The Angry One]

CronoDragoon wrote...

What makes Sovereign "credible"?

Sovereign's brutal honesty and obvious contempt made him a truly threatening villain.

I don't see how the Catalyst lies or shifts responsibility. He doesn't even claim what he is doing is morally right.

It claims it doesn't cause conflict. It does.
It claims it doesn't kill. It does.
It claims it's following the purpose it was created for. It isn't. AND IT SAID IT WASN'T NOT ONE MINUTE EARLIER.

You objected to the Catalyst's decision to pervert his original intent and make people into Reapers. I am pointing out that you are supposed to object to this; it's why he's a villain. In the original endings, the Catalyst seems like a mouthpiece for the writers. In the EC, it's made clear they want you to hate and disagree with him.

Because it lies about it. Because it misrepresents itself. Because everything it does is based on faulty logic.
The EC may be okay with us hating the little urchin, but we're still forced to cooperate with it.

[Forbry]

CronoDragoon wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Yeah. So?
Do you think I agree with Sovereign?
No. The difference between Sovereign and the Catalyst is Sovereign is credible whereas the Catalyst is a little brat who shifts responsibility for and lies about it's actions.

What makes Sovereign "credible"?

I don't see how the Catalyst lies or shifts responsibility. He doesn't even claim what he is doing is morally right.

You objected to the Catalyst's decision to pervert his original intent and make people into Reapers. I am pointing out that you are supposed to object to this; it's why he's a villain. In the original endings, the Catalyst seems like a mouthpiece for the writers. In the EC, it's made clear they want you to hate and disagree with him.

With that first (bold-ed) sentence I agree. With the second I don't. Then, it's still a mouthpiece for the writers (for the thesis the writers based the ME series on) and they just added "refuse"  to satisfy a lot of fans that didn't understand or didn't agree with their thesis.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Harby/Sovereign were respectable. I could respect an Elder God.

Starkid is just a slimeball who managed to put a gun to your friend's head.

[garrusfan1]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Harby/Sovereign were respectable. I could respect an Elder God.

Starkid is just a slimeball who managed to put a gun to your friend's head.

Hahahahah

[davidshooter]

Sovereign was great and revealed all we needed. The series didn't need this nonsense ending at all.

Reapers reap
Reapers are a threat to all life eventually - as it evolves.
The tech they leave behind facilitates easy harvesting and maximum gain from harvested organics.
We are unsure of their origins - some have come to believe they are gods.
Why they harvest is currently unknown - we have theories, that's all.
All attempts at reasoning with them are ignored - they seldom even bother to communicate with us at all.
We need to stop them - somehow.

This was all the game needed.

Modifié par davidshooter, 02 juillet 2012 - 04:27 .

[CronoDragoon]

The Angry One wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

What makes Sovereign "credible"?

Sovereign's brutal honesty and obvious contempt made him a truly threatening villain.

Okay.

I don't see how the Catalyst lies or shifts responsibility. He doesn't even claim what he is doing is morally right.

It claims it doesn't cause conflict. It does.
It claims it doesn't kill. It does.
It claims it's following the purpose it was created for. It isn't. AND IT SAID IT WASN'T NOT ONE MINUTE EARLIER.

If it claims that it doesn't cause conflict, then I concede that it is being way too metaphorical in its "fire" analogy, even semantic.

It claims that it doesn't kill because it sees Reapers as being alive. That we see the distinction shows that we have morals; it does not, so it does not distinguish.

It said that it changed its method of fulfilling its purpose. It never goes against its purpose technically, and "technically" is the only thing it understands. If the creators were to say, "Oh come on, you know what we meant!" it would answer that without the proper programming, no it would not.

Because it lies about it. Because it misrepresents itself. Because everything it does is based on faulty logic.
The EC may be okay with us hating the little urchin, but we're still forced to cooperate with it.

I don't disagree with you here, because I think it comes back to being forced to kill EDI and the geth. If we weren't forced to do that, there is no way we could interpet Destroy as cooperating with it.

[d-boy15]

Catalyst should meet this guy, he could teach that kid something about fire.

[Xellith]

When a fire burns - is it at war?

It is if it intentionally CHOOSES to cause conflict.

Fire doesnt choose - the reapers apparantly did. Therefore its war. Therefore the catalyst is a lying ******.

[Martin the Warrior]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

Going from Sovereign's clear contempt for organic life and even other synthetics to the Reapers turning out to consider themselves incredibly considerate and altruisitic for life everywhere after all was the mistake. The Catalyst is just the face of this senseless and hopeless development.

While I don't for a minute believe that they had this ending in mind when they designed Sovereign, it is possible for him to hate organic life while still being controlled by the Catalyst to save it. Perhaps Sovereign was a synthetic race that was harvested? That would explain his hatred.

That makes sense. In ME1, Saren still held onto his contempt for humans even though he was indoctrinated.
Also, check out the video from the OP and skip to 4:40.  The line "in as much as you are just an animal" sounds like contempt for organics to me.

[ashwind]

Me shooting at the Reapers and blowing them up is not war or conflict as well... its simply a massacre.

They decide to fight back and started the "war".

[Forbry]

CronoDragoon wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

What makes Sovereign "credible"?

Sovereign's brutal honesty and obvious contempt made him a truly threatening villain.

Okay.

I don't see how the Catalyst lies or shifts responsibility. He doesn't even claim what he is doing is morally right.

It claims it doesn't cause conflict. It does.
It claims it doesn't kill. It does.
It claims it's following the purpose it was created for. It isn't. AND IT SAID IT WASN'T NOT ONE MINUTE EARLIER.

If it claims that it doesn't cause conflict, then I concede that it is being way too metaphorical in its "fire" analogy, even semantic.

It claims that it doesn't kill because it sees Reapers as being alive. That we see the distinction shows that we have morals; it does not, so it does not distinguish.

It said that it changed its method of fulfilling its purpose. It never goes against its purpose technically, and "technically" is the only thing it understands. If the creators were to say, "Oh come on, you know what we meant!" it would answer that without the proper programming, no it would not.

Because it lies about it. Because it misrepresents itself. Because everything it does is based on faulty logic.
The EC may be okay with us hating the little urchin, but we're still forced to cooperate with it.

I don't disagree with you here, because I think it comes back to being forced to kill EDI and the geth. If we weren't forced to do that, there is no way we could interpet Destroy as cooperating with it.

Destroy is not only wrong because of EDI and the Geth. It is also wrong because it doesn't end the cycle (which means everything that had happened will happen again in some way or the other if you choose to destroy) and it is also wrong because you destroy all knowledge/ancient civilizations captured in the reapers.

[The Angry One]

CronoDragoon wrote...

If it claims that it doesn't cause conflict, then I concede that it is being way too metaphorical in its "fire" analogy, even semantic.

It claims that it doesn't kill because it sees Reapers as being alive. That we see the distinction shows that we have morals; it does not, so it does not distinguish.

Therein lies the problem. Even if we accept that people are "ascended" rather than melted in agony and their goo makes up a gestalt entity for each Reaper, there's still the billions upon billions that the Catalyst outright murders or huskifies.

It said that it changed its method of fulfilling its purpose. It never goes against its purpose technically, and "technically" is the only thing it understands. If the creators were to say, "Oh come on, you know what we meant!" it would answer that without the proper programming, no it would not.

I don't accept that. There is no definition of "make peace" that includes "annihilate civilisations and preserve them as giant cuttlefish".

Remember, the Catalyst first says "without us, synthetics will destroy all organic life".
That makes it's directive survival, when it's original directive would've been diplomacy.

I don't disagree with you here, because I think it comes back to being forced to kill EDI and the geth. If we weren't forced to do that, there is no way we could interpet Destroy as cooperating with it.

But we are forced, so it is. We destroy all synthetic life, thus continuing it's agenda albeit in the crudest manner possible.

[flanny]

lets face it the catalyst fail in every aspect, it is just a lazy plot device

[CronoDragoon]

Forbry wrote...

Destroy is not only wrong because of EDI and the Geth. It is also wrong because it doesn't end the cycle (which means everything that had happened will happen again in some way or the other if you choose to destroy) and it is also wrong because you destroy all knowledge/ancient civilizations captured in the reapers.

Okay, but these are not complaints related to "cooperating with it." Destroy is meant to suggest that you do not believe the synthetic/organic cycle is inevitable. You are thus rejecting the Catalyst's programming. The EDI/geth thing therefore seems like an extremely strange and contradictory consequence to the spirit of Destroy.

If it is wrong for your second reason, then it was always wrong since ME1 and has nothing to do with the Catalyst.

[cavs25]

Can fire think, talk and use war strategies? nope
Reapers can

[The Angry One]

Forbry wrote...

Destroy is not only wrong because of EDI and the Geth. It is also wrong because it doesn't end the cycle (which means everything that had happened will happen again in some way or the other if you choose to destroy) and it is also wrong because you destroy all knowledge/ancient civilizations captured in the reapers.

The cycle is entirely in the Catalyst's head. Organic life was never in danger until the Catalyst put it in danger itself.
It is the problem, and it's death is the solution.

The civilisations in the Reapers? They're already dead. Let them rest in peace.
Their lost knowledge is regrettable, but it's like keeping a zombie alive because it once had the mind of a genius. You are simply prolonging the existence of a creature that should be laid to rest.

[Blacklash93]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

Going from Sovereign's clear contempt for organic life and even other synthetics to the Reapers turning out to consider themselves incredibly considerate and altruisitic for life everywhere after all was the mistake. The Catalyst is just the face of this senseless and hopeless development.

While I don't for a minute believe that they had this ending in mind when they designed Sovereign, it is possible for him to hate organic life while still being controlled by the Catalyst to save it. Perhaps Sovereign was a synthetic race that was harvested? That would explain his hatred.

Sovereign is from organics, though. Legion confirmed that Sovy's minds were from organics. Why would you be contemptful of what you're made from and what gives you purpose?

[d-boy15]

1.How destroy doesn't end the cycle? the reaper create the cycle, destroy them is one of three
way to end it.

2.Knowledge? where is it? throughout trilogy the only thing the metal seafood bring is destruction.

[o Ventus]

Forbry wrote...

Destroy is not only wrong because of EDI and the Geth. It is also wrong because it doesn't end the cycle (which means everything that had happened will happen again in some way or the other if you choose to destroy)

Give me proof of this. No, the Catalyst does not count as proof. Logic dictates he was created pre-singularity, not during or after one. Also prove to me how a singularity is an inherently bad thing and must be prevented.

and it is also wrong because you destroy all knowledge/ancient civilizations captured in the reapers.

I'm sure the Reapers did that themselves when they melted the organics down into paste.

[Mcfly616]

Xellith wrote...

When a fire burns - is it at war?

It is if it intentionally CHOOSES to cause conflict.

Fire doesnt choose - the reapers apparantly did. Therefore its war. Therefore the catalyst is a lying ******.

His logic is intentionally made faulty by the writers.....second off, the "fire" analogy is literally that: an analogy. Fires purpose is to burn.....he's simply stating that the Reapers are simply fulfilling theory purpose.....and no....the Reapers didn't "choose" anything.....the Catalyst did...


He's not a god....he's a rogue AI that rebelled against its creators and has been pulling the strings behind galactic events for a milennia.....his logic is faulty and has corrupted his purpose.....he has become what he was created to stop.....

This is what the EC explains so well....this is what it makes sense of....

Modifié par Mcfly616, 02 juillet 2012 - 04:38 .