450 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

Mouton_Alpha wrote...
I agree, this is a problem of how the game presents most of the AI. Namely, it shows the Geth and EDI as much too friendly than they should have been. They are further humanized by how the look - Legion gets "brows" and EDI gets a girly body. This conscious attempt at make them more likeable clashes with the idea of technological singularity producing an AI who doesn't like us at all.

Still, I believe the technological singularity remains a threat, as reinforced by Leviathans. It's just that Bioware hurt this view in their quest for creating likable characters.

Yes, ME3 needed more examples of organics/synthetic relations not working out. Either that, or you introduce the Catalyst much earlier and give him time to show Shepard examples in past cycles of where synthetics were a legitimate threat to wipe out all evolved organic races. Perhaps even a few cycles where the Reapers stopped them and harvested species that otherwise would have been lost to time.

As a philosophical argument, what the Catalyst says makes a lot of sense. As an argument within a work of fiction it's problematic. If a professor assigned you a paper to support the Catalyst's arguments with in-game examples you'd get destroyed by someone writing a paper countering the Catalyst's arguments.

[Cobretti ftw]

Lol, the guy wrote a book defending the catalst stupid logic.. Wtf.. u guys have time to spare.

[Cobretti ftw]

Lol, the guy wrote a book defending the catalst stupid logic.. Wtf.. u guys have time to spare.

[Ieldra]

Cobretti ftw wrote...
Lol, the guy wrote a book defending the catalst stupid logic.. Wtf.. u guys have time to spare.

Asserting stupidity without dealing with the arguments make *you* look stupid. Just saying. The Catalyst does make sense, the problem is that the story that came before didn't lead up to it in a convincing way.

[ruggly]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Yes, ME3 needed more examples of organics/synthetic relations not working out. Either that, or you introduce the Catalyst much earlier and give him time to show Shepard examples in past cycles of where synthetics were a legitimate threat to wipe out all evolved organic races. Perhaps even a few cycles where the Reapers stopped them and harvested species that otherwise would have been lost to time.

I agree that this definitely hurt the game.  If this is the route they wanted to go with, either they should've explained this more in ME2, where you have Legion and EDI with you, and then have more synthetic enemies and not the collectors or something like that.  Or what CronoDragoon said.  Because to me, whatever synthetic problem this cycle may have had, it was solved on Rannoch. 

And it's a bit absurd that the only other information that you have on this synthetic organic conflict are in paid DLC (I'm looking at you Javik and Leviathan...)

[TurianRebel212]

Obviously not, cause you can make peace with the Geth and Quarian- the main conflict of Synthetic's and organic conflict and chaos in this cycle.

No the Catalyst is wrong. He wants to protect his little monsters.

"The Created will Always rise up against their Creators".

Really? That's why the Geth are here fighting for an Organic planet and peace. Yeah, for sure. Okay Mr. Reaper. Time to go bye bye. Destroy.

[kal_reegar]

the catalyst's observation field is a lot wider than ours. Immensly wider.

he reasons in term of millenia (maybe more) and domain (synthetics vs organics)
we are reasoning in term of months (quarian-geth truce? few months. Edi/Joker? Legion/Shep? a year maybe?) and species (geth vs human/quarian) or even individuals (Edi/Legion)

The exceptions we have witnessed aren't enough to falsify the catalyst, because in order to disprove the recurrence of the synthetics-organics chaos we should at least wait some decades and see how the situation evolves.

I personally think that he's wrong about the inevitability of singularity, but I can't say that singularity is an illogic assumption and/or that Edi/Legion/geth certainly disprove singularity.
It's a dialectic stalemate

[Armass81]

Geth quarian peace might be temporary, I dont get how doing it ends anything. Just because youve made peace doesnt mean it will last forever. History is full of examples.

Even the catalyst says it acted as a peacemaker first, but that inevitably conflict would rise again. And again.

What if you are wrong and in 400 years the geth, or some other new species of synthetics decide to change their view, and go to war again? Or some organics go and decide they are too dangerous and try to cull them out? And this time the synthetics win?

Then the catalyst would have been right, but its too late now, cause it isnt around to stop it. And the galaxy is taken over by machines and they extinguish the organics, forever.

Modifié par Armass81, 30 janvier 2013 - 11:37 .

[Mcfly616]

TurianRebel212 wrote...

Obviously not, cause you can make peace with the Geth and Quarian- the main conflict of Synthetic's and organic conflict and chaos in this cycle.

No the Catalyst is wrong. He wants to protect his little monsters.

"The Created will Always rise up against their Creators".

Really? That's why the Geth are here fighting for an Organic planet and peace. Yeah, for sure. Okay Mr. Reaper. Time to go bye bye. Destroy.

wrong. The peace won't last.


Clearly, you didn't read the OP

[Faust1979]

That's an amazing article! this should be pinned

[TurianRebel212]

Mcfly616 wrote...

TurianRebel212 wrote...

Obviously not, cause you can make peace with the Geth and Quarian- the main conflict of Synthetic's and organic conflict and chaos in this cycle.

No the Catalyst is wrong. He wants to protect his little monsters.

"The Created will Always rise up against their Creators".

Really? That's why the Geth are here fighting for an Organic planet and peace. Yeah, for sure. Okay Mr. Reaper. Time to go bye bye. Destroy.

wrong. The peace won't last.


Clearly, you didn't read the OP

What evidence do you have that the peace won't last. My evidence is from in-game during the Rannoch mission. The Geth conflict is resolved. The synthetic vs. organic conflict of sheps cycle is resolved. The logic of the Reapers and Catalyst is flawed. Their only function now is, like EDI says in a conversation, self preservation. Like the EC say's you can rebuild all that you have lost including the Geth, EDI the citadel and so on and so on. 

Modifié par TurianRebel212, 30 janvier 2013 - 11:58 .

[clennon8]

All peace is "temporary." Let's turn everyone into milkshakes just make sure nobody hurts themselves.

Modifié par clennon8, 31 janvier 2013 - 12:02 .

[KevShep]

The catalyst is just plain wrong and stupid...

He says that synthesis is the final stage of evolution but he is trying to stop us(and other cycles) from useing synthesis(crucible) as well as letting us evolve on our own(or at least trying to HELP us do it).

[clennon8]

Personally, I don't dispute the fact that the Reapers have some sort of twisted logic for doing what they do. That much was always obvious. Nobody decides to repeatedly do a specific thing to at specific intervals of time without some sort of reason.

The question is what does it matter? How does knowing that the Reapers have what they consider to be a good reason for committing galacticide every 50k years help us? How does it change what Shepard has to do?

Modifié par clennon8, 31 janvier 2013 - 12:25 .

[Cobretti ftw]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Cobretti ftw wrote...
Lol, the guy wrote a book defending the catalst stupid logic.. Wtf.. u guys have time to spare.

Asserting stupidity without dealing with the arguments make *you* look stupid. Just saying. The Catalyst does make sense, the problem is that the story that came before didn't lead up to it in a convincing way.

Kid.. I met people that dont believe that the world is a sphere like planet... Its ridiculous. U can think im stupid because i dont want to argue and explain why earth isnt a square.. Lmao.. people want to FORCE u to fight their crazy ideas.. wth lol

U guys have too much time to spare.. wtf

[TheGinosaji]

kal_reegar wrote...

the catalyst's observation field is a lot wider than ours. Immensly wider.

he reasons in term of millenia (maybe more) and domain (synthetics vs organics)
we are reasoning in term of months (quarian-geth truce? few months. Edi/Joker? Legion/Shep? a year maybe?) and species (geth vs human/quarian) or even individuals (Edi/Legion)

The exceptions we have witnessed aren't enough to falsify the catalyst, because in order to disprove the recurrence of the synthetics-organics chaos we should at least wait some decades and see how the situation evolves.

I personally think that he's wrong about the inevitability of singularity, but I can't say that singularity is an illogic assumption and/or that Edi/Legion/geth certainly disprove singularity.
It's a dialectic stalemate

The Catalyst assumes the problem exists simply because it's a core assumption in its programming, it's entire purpose being to solve said problem. It has nothing to do with it having an "immensly wider observation field".

The original problem was identified by the Leviathan. They would have only observed this a handful of times at best before seeking a solution. So far as we know, no synthetic race has made any attempt to wipe out organic life since the Catalyst implemented its Reaper "solution". It's a false premise.

Also, let's not forget that those first handful of times were by thrall species. Any potential instance after the Reapers would have been a direct result of the Reapers indoctrination or them guiding evolution down that path to continue their experiments. It became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Modifié par TheGinosaji, 31 janvier 2013 - 01:20 .

[CronoDragoon]

TheGinosaji wrote...

The Catalyst assumes the problem exists simply because it's a core assumption in its programming, it's entire purpose being to solve said problem. It has nothing to do with it having an "immensly wider observation field".

That is true. Post-Leviathan you can't argue that the Catalyst came to this conclusion based on empirical evidence. The conclusion was already programmed into him.

As for examples after the Reaper cycles started, he can claim they were events waiting to happen while we can claim it was confirmation bias.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 31 janvier 2013 - 01:20 .

[Dalako]

I still find the logic behind the Catalyst flawed; but the character or themes it represents may have worked in another type of fiction. 

Many attribute this to a lack of narrative cohesion. 

I mean, the game plays with the ''AI rebels'' trope. We finally find out that the Geth rebelled not because they were simply going to after gaining sentience, but because the Quarians thought they were going to rebel (presumably having seen too many Quarian-equivalents of The Terminator), eventually making it a self-fullfilling prophecy. The Geth and Quarians are able to make peace. Will the peace last? Who knows? Maybe it doesn't. It doesn't matter at that point in the game, because you've already reached the end of that subplot, the end of an emotional journey. To twist that satisfaction around by going ''lolnope, they're going to rebel anyway'' kills any meaning that subplot had. 

[CronoDragoon]

Dalako wrote...
To twist that satisfaction around by going ''lolnope, they're going to rebel anyway'' kills any meaning that subplot had. 

This is really only a problem in Destroy, which is supposed to represent the ultimate refutation of the Catalyst's arguments by affirming the value of galactic freedom. I believe that the decision to include the geth/EDI sacrifice was a separate decision on how to balance the endings; in other words, I don't believe it was MEANT to align with the Catalyst's argument. But that's nevertheless the feeling that you get after Destroy, because your own symbol of why the Catalyst is not needed has been destroyed.

In summary, I feel that two separate design choices mixed like water and oil, producing a mess of a message in Destroy. Had some other consequence been chosen for Destroy, I think it would have been clearer that Destroy is 100% anti-Catalyst.

[TurianRebel212]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Dalako wrote...
To twist that satisfaction around by going ''lolnope, they're going to rebel anyway'' kills any meaning that subplot had. 

This is really only a problem in Destroy, which is supposed to represent the ultimate refutation of the Catalyst's arguments by affirming the value of galactic freedom. I believe that the decision to include the geth/EDI sacrifice was a separate decision on how to balance the endings; in other words, I don't believe it was MEANT to align with the Catalyst's argument. But that's nevertheless the feeling that you get after Destroy, because your own symbol of why the Catalyst is not needed has been destroyed.

In summary, I feel that two separate design choices mixed like water and oil, producing a mess of a message in Destroy. Had some other consequence been chosen for Destroy, I think it would have been clearer that Destroy is 100% anti-Catalyst.

 destroy-You can rebuild the Geth and EDI. Shep lives. Reapers die. 

Conrol- reapers fly away with shep now the king reaper

synthesis- reaper code imprinted into everything in the galaxy. Drastically altering DNA. Reaper code exist's and is prevelant and 'evolves' living things..... Kinda sounds like harvesting. But meh.... probably okay.

refuse: Don't use the crucible and get merked in the process. BioWare's way of trolling it's fanbase- You don't like our endings, to bad. Hahahaha. 

[Nimpe]

Cobretti ftw wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Cobretti ftw wrote...
Lol, the guy wrote a book defending the catalst stupid logic.. Wtf.. u guys have time to spare.

Asserting stupidity without dealing with the arguments make *you* look stupid. Just saying. The Catalyst does make sense, the problem is that the story that came before didn't lead up to it in a convincing way.

Kid.. I met people that dont believe that the world is a sphere like planet... Its ridiculous. U can think im stupid because i dont want to argue and explain why earth isnt a square.. Lmao.. people want to FORCE u to fight their crazy ideas.. wth lol

U guys have too much time to spare.. wtf

Well, if the person gives valid evidence pointing towards why he thinks the world is square, and if the world being round wasn't a scientifically known fact then yeah, it would be expected that you'd explain your counter argument. Your analogy doesn't work.

[Mcfly616]

Cobretti ftw wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Cobretti ftw wrote...
Lol, the guy wrote a book defending the catalst stupid logic.. Wtf.. u guys have time to spare.

Asserting stupidity without dealing with the arguments make *you* look stupid. Just saying. The Catalyst does make sense, the problem is that the story that came before didn't lead up to it in a convincing way.

Kid.. I met people that dont believe that the world is a sphere like planet... Its ridiculous. U can think im stupid because i dont want to argue and explain why earth isnt a square.. Lmao.. people want to FORCE u to fight their crazy ideas.. wth lol

U guys have too much time to spare.. wtf

lol you sound like an idiot.

[fatbastad]

Thank you for the very good read. I understood and enjoyed the concept of the ending in the game. If this had been a Sci-Fi book or movie I would have very much enjoyed the story. I DID enjoy the story. I selfishly enjoyed these games and was hopeful for more in the future. I wanted to eventually be playing Mass Effect 15 with my grandkids. The end was a good sci-fi book in quality. But, they could have accomplished this same philosophical sci-fi end and still retained enough core personnel and resources to set up entire line of future games and movies. Mainly, the relays should have been retained. Unless they fix the end, these games will be like a stand alone Sci-fi novel.

[fr33stylez]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Dalako wrote...
To twist that satisfaction around by going ''lolnope, they're going to rebel anyway'' kills any meaning that subplot had. 

This is really only a problem in Destroy, which is supposed to represent the ultimate refutation of the Catalyst's arguments by affirming the value of galactic freedom. I believe that the decision to include the geth/EDI sacrifice was a separate decision on how to balance the endings; in other words, I don't believe it was MEANT to align with the Catalyst's argument. But that's nevertheless the feeling that you get after Destroy, because your own symbol of why the Catalyst is not needed has been destroyed.

In summary, I feel that two separate design choices mixed like water and oil, producing a mess of a message in Destroy. Had some other consequence been chosen for Destroy, I think it would have been clearer that Destroy is 100% anti-Catalyst.

While I'm sure the destruction of the Geth/EDI was partly an arbitrary penalty enforced to dissuade 99% of players from choosing Destroy, the original script from what I've seen made Destroy more explicitly the option that aligned with the Catalyst's thinking.

"It's energy can be released as a destructive force. Organics will prevail at our expense. All synthetic life will succumb... But the probability of singularity occurring again in the future is certain."


This makes the problem with their ending two-fold.

[Dalako]

fr33stylez wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Dalako wrote...
To twist that satisfaction around by going ''lolnope, they're going to rebel anyway'' kills any meaning that subplot had. 

This is really only a problem in Destroy, which is supposed to represent the ultimate refutation of the Catalyst's arguments by affirming the value of galactic freedom. I believe that the decision to include the geth/EDI sacrifice was a separate decision on how to balance the endings; in other words, I don't believe it was MEANT to align with the Catalyst's argument. But that's nevertheless the feeling that you get after Destroy, because your own symbol of why the Catalyst is not needed has been destroyed.

In summary, I feel that two separate design choices mixed like water and oil, producing a mess of a message in Destroy. Had some other consequence been chosen for Destroy, I think it would have been clearer that Destroy is 100% anti-Catalyst.

While I'm sure the destruction of the Geth/EDI was partly an arbitrary penalty enforced to dissuade 99% of players from choosing Destroy, the original script from what I've seen made Destroy more explicitly the option that aligned with the Catalyst's thinking.

"It's energy can be released as a destructive force. Organics will prevail at our expense. All synthetic life will succumb... But the probability of singularity occurring again in the future is certain."


This makes the problem with their ending two-fold.

What I find so wrong about the entire ''singularity'' assumption is that the Geth believe in self-determination and are not out for blood, only self-preservation. There is nothing to suggest an inevitable genocide before the Catalyst brings it up. So this either means that the Geth are destined to genocide anyway, or that another AI will take that role. Well, really? Where is the AI with genocidal tendencies? Any evidence from other cycles? Well, there's the Reapers. Oh wait, we're ending up in a logical loop now. 

Imagine if in your average romance flick, after the two lovers finally get together and kiss, some guy comes in and says all love is doomed to fail. It is a massive tonal shift and messes with the message. I don't think eventual destruction of organic life by synthetics is a bad theme to explore, but dumping that into a game all about overcoming diversity and cooperation feels very, very wrong. 

It would've been nice if Destroy didn't mean the destruction of synthetics, but the way it is presented now, one way or another it aligns with the Catalyst's thinking. No matter what you do, the guy is right. That's absurd.

Modifié par Dalako, 31 janvier 2013 - 06:32 .