450 réponses à ce sujet

[MegaSovereign]

5 stars just for the sheer amount of effort this thread must have taken.

[Simon_Says]

Heeden wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

It was the reapers who indoctrinated and then unleashed the rachni upon the galaxy previously, causing the Rachni Wars. That in turn forced the salarians to uplift the krogan prematurely, causing the Krogan Rebellions. Also I fail to see the distinction between the reapers preventing synthetics from overpowering organics and the reapers being the synthetics that overpower organics.

Are you sure about that part? According to the wiki it was the Protheans who weaponised the Rachni before trying to drive them extinct and they began the Rachni wars after capturing some Salarians and back-engineering their FTL capabilities.

The rachni were pretty clear on the subject that they were indoctrinated. "Sour notes from space" and all that. If the reapers didn't unleash them then they just left a ticking time bomb waiting to cause trouble.

Also I didn't know that the protheans even knew of the rachni as I had only recruited Javik after that particular sidequest. Fascinating. *Spock eyebrow.*

[MegaSovereign]

OP, what's your stab at why the Catalyst didn't help Sovereign out in ME1?

[Schachmatt123]

Simon_Says wrote...


The rachni were pretty clear on the subject that they were indoctrinated. "Sour notes from space" and all that. If the reapers didn't unleash them then they just left a ticking time bomb waiting to cause trouble.

Also I didn't know that the protheans even knew of the rachni as I had only recruited Javik after that particular sidequest. Fascinating. *Spock eyebrow.*

Here is the entire conversation with Javik about the rachnis ...

Modifié par Schachmatt, 07 juillet 2012 - 06:21 .

[bakudannar]

The way I see it is that no matter what ending you pick, conflict will eventually happen.

Control:

Future generations of organics will create new synthetics that may threaten all organic life.

Destroy:

Same thing.

Synthesis:

This one can be tricky, but I believe a higher order conflict will arise between galaxies. Purely synthetic or organic life in other galaxies may perceive the "pinnacle of evolution" as an existential threat once contact is made. Another potential conflict is if the organo-synthetic hybrids create noncorporeal life, i.e. energy lifeforms. Finally, there could also be the existence of 4D beings, a la Star Trek's Q, or Fringe's Observers. Any form of total conflict should be expect some intervention by a higher order of life to prevent catastrophe.

I picked Destroy, because at least I know there may be a possibility that I'll see Shepard again.

[The Interloper]

Well, kudos for trying, but you’re reasoning is still quite flawed. I’ll just pick out a few vital passages. I’ve edited them a little for flow.
 

JShepppp wrote...
 Every AI we have focused on has disobeyed their creators somehow. Yes, later on, some/all of them CAN go back to listening to their creators, but they already disobeyed once. They already rebelled. They cannot “un-rebel”. The rebellion happened, and that simple fact is what matters. 

 
Firstly, non-reaper synthetics were never the focus of the story. An important part, but one of many. So were the revolts.
 
Secondly, the circumstances of the Rebellion do matter. All rebellions we’ve seen have either come from 1. Reaper influence (the Zha’til) or 2. From being mistreated as slaves, lab rats, or otherwise chattel. The moment we stop treating them as such, they cease to pose a threat. The game shows this is the case for all the important AIs in the game and that first Geth rebellion was fostered by instinctive prejudice and misunderstanding; ie it should not have happened if people had calmed down, ie was surmountable, ie does not mean that synthetics and organics are doomed to be at odds. In fact, it would seem that the more they’re around each other the more comfortable they get, not less, (Geth help Quarians out, etc) and there is never any hint in the narrative that that trend will be reversed. That does not guarantee the far future, but that is beyond our control in any case and certaintly not the concern of the narrative.
 

JShepppp wrote...
The Catalyst presents a statement of fact (supported, but not proven/disproven by what we see) about synthetic rebellion. As it views this as a fact (also likely supported by 1 billion years of observation),

 
Hold it right there. The very fact that it cannot be proven is what is wrong with the ending. They had three stories to prove whatever they wanted.
 
It does not matter at all in terms of narrative what the Catalyst has seen, because we have not seen it and the story has not been about his experiences. Yet now at the eleventh hour the experiences from eons ago of a character we have never met and is possibly insane narratively trump the experiences of the main character? Just...no. If the ME series was actually going to be about resolving the Catalyst’s problem, why isn’t the story about him? Usually stories should, you know, resolve the conflict the story has been about. Shepard’s story certainty isn’t about the catalyst’s problem.
 

JShepppp wrote...
Bioware could’ve written Mass Effect so that everyone understood each other and got along, and they also could have written it so that Shepard had a green flying unicorn that shot rainbow beams instead of the Normandy SR2. This is their story, and we see in Mass Effect that, just as in real life, certain things, like love, cannot be forced. 

They also could have written it where non-reaper synthetics are much more advanced then all organics and wished to destroy all life, that true peace could not be established with them and that to let them go free would create disaster. They showed the exact opposite. No synthetic in the game conforms to the Catalyst’s assertions. Either they lack the malevolent will, the power, or both. Negative predictions of their future behavior are narratively insignificant and presumptuous.
 
We have learned that love cannot be forced, true, but it can be earned. More below.
 

JShepppp wrote...
Lasting peace cannot …come about naturally because of inherent differences. It may be nice to THINK it can come about naturally, but the Catalyst, as the spokesperson for the history of the fictional Mass Effect universe, reveals that it hasn’t and can’t.  Peace comes from everyone else. It is a conscious, collective effort by which people need to WANT it and work towards it. Synthesis gives the level of understanding without which people cannot exist without conflict, big or small.

 
I already talked about how much the catalyst’s revelations count.
 
More to the point, I disagree. Synthesis does not truly foster internal understanding. This internal understanding is imposed by an external source; a giant gun, no less. The game has shown that through simple discussion, friendship forged by shared trials (Legion, EDI) and finding common ground we can overcome great biological differences and bad history like the Geth have. The Catalyst arbitrarily takes the victory we earned away from us with his offhand references to wars we have never heard of before and then gives it right back, saying that the only way to truly do it is to alter the nature of every being and spoon-feed them all understanding on the molecular level. Right. Not condescending at all.
 

JShepppp wrote...
For those that don't want to "force" it upon anyone, then....don't.

Yet my other options, destroy and control, both accept that synthetics should not be allowed to be free without being bathed in magic peace lasers.
 

JShepppp wrote...
It is a TEMPORARY solution, not a real one. The Catalyst knew this, but…does not care about morals

Morals and organics “surpassing” him should have nothing to do with it. The cycle creates perpetual war, not lasting peace; even if he was able to do this under his programmed goal (quite the stretch), Catalyst should be actively searching for a better way. His comments about finding and deliberately destroying the crucible plans multiple times, having spies in the project, and the fact that he had countless thousands of years to ponder it with his super-advanced mind, strongly imply that he was not.
 
Let us not forget that the mass effect technology and reaper tech he left behind are directly responsible for the creation of true AI in our cycle the first place. He actually sped up the singularity. Moreover, as he directly states that he exists to prevent synthetics from fighting and killing organics, then why is that exactly what his reapers encourage and help synthetics do? Seems to be the last thing the programmed goal would condone.
 

JShepppp wrote...
The Crucible changed how the Catalyst views the situation and the possible solutions to the problem.

We know he’s had access to the plans before. He did not know the solutions it provided then? At least he must have known that his “home” was capable of shooting giant beams of energy throughout the galaxy. He never thought of finding a way to harness that potential?
 

JShepppp wrote...The Reapers’ actions we have seen in-game have zero agency. The Catalyst controls them completely.

Which goes against everything we’ve learned about the reapers in the last two games. It is also unnecessary. Nothing was explained or improved about the reapers by making them thoughtless slaves in the last five minutes of the game. All we got were devalued villains and story inconsistencies that need a great deal of headcanon to explain.
 

JShepppp wrote...It may be bad writing

 
Which supersedes everything else. It doesn’t matter how logical your deductions are or how much sense if they make in the lore. If it doesn’t make sense in the narrative, all of your careful logic is for naught.

[MrFob]

There are some valid points in the OP and in general it is a nice sum-up of how BW probably intended this to work. However, the integral concept is still flawed.

With a nod to The Interloper, I don't even mind the fact that the synthetics vs. organics issue is the main motivation for the reapers. True, it's somewhat circular logic and true, there might have been better ways to handle this but it's what we got. Maybe the catalyst is correct with his statement that "the created will always rebel against their creators", maybe he is not. In the end, it doesn't really matter if the logic behind this axiom is solid as long as this is the axiom with which the catalyst was programmed.

But here is the thing:
The problem as far as I can see (and it is actually mentioned a couple of times in the OP) is that the catalyst's parameters are set so wide that it's problem becomes unsolvable outside of stagnation (which is exactly what the reaper cycle provides). Since there is no conflict between organics and synthetics in the here and now (quite the opposite actually, if you take into account the peace between Geth and Quarian and EDI's personality), the catalyst has to project the conflict into an unspecified point in the future. We are talking eternity here (also mentioned in the OP). Now consider what synthesis does and apparently doesn't do? Synthetics and organics now somehow understand each other (let's just forget about the details here for the sake of argument) but everyone also maintains their individuality and free will. Also, life is still valued. Therefore, this new life form that is "the synthesised" will still strive to improve, it will still have problems to solve ti will still build tools to solve these problems. If you extrapolate from there with the wide set of parameters which were set for the catalyst (and remember we are extrapolating into an eternal time frame here), there is still the possibility that this new life form will develop tools that surpass their own complexity and you end up with the same problem as before. In the end it boils down to the fact that in an infinite space (or time) everything that can happen will happen.
Now, you may say that the catalyst doesn't see that far ahead or that somehow this does not fall within his appointed task but I ask why not? If the whole structure of the catalyst is built upon the fact that it is a programmed problem solving mechanism that has no other priorities or moral stance but unmatched computational power, why would it abandon it's original task in that way.
In the OP you say "Overall, the dialogue indicates it was created to make lasting (e.g. eternal) peace between organics and synthetics." Later you say "Synthesis does not create eternal peace. It creates the MEANS for eternal peace." How can that be good enough for such an inflexible entity? And if it is more flexible and can change its parameters, why should it not employ morality? Your main point to defend the catalyst's lack of such is this: "The Catalyst’s agency (i.e. free will) is also suspect and limited. It was created, unlike other life, not free, but to complete a certain goal." Well, that doesn't work out with synthesis, does it?
This is the issue, regarding the catalyst, don't even get me started on the details behind this transmutation and it's implications for (or rather against) the happily-ever-after cut scene we got.
By the way, a similar logic can be applied to the control ending as well. The destroy ending is even more ludicrous in this regard.

Modifié par MrFob, 07 juillet 2012 - 07:09 .

[RiouHotaru]

...This thread is going to be my go-to anytime someone tries to argue about the Catalyst being a sociopath mass murderer (ie, most of TAO's threads).

Seriously, this is probably the most comprehensive thread about why the Catalyst is more right than people would ever admit to.

Something I'd like to postulate though:

In Refusal, the Catalyst does NOT shut down the Crucible. Remember, he can't enact any new solutions or act on his own. His sole directive is to perpetuate the Reaper Cycle. Therefore, it makes no sense to assume the Crucible powering down was his fault (especially since if the Crucible was a problem for him, he would've shut it down sooner). Therefore I believe that in Refusal, just as Shepard declines to take action, the Catalyst does the same thing, it chooses to not take any action, and the Crucible shuts down all on it's own.

[RiouHotaru]

This thread seriously requires more feedback and love given how concise and thoughtful it is.

[Enthalpy]

The Interloper wrote... 

JShepppp wrote...It may be bad writing 

Which supersedes everything else. It doesn’t matter how logical your deductions are or how much sense if they make in the lore. If it doesn’t make sense in the narrative, all of your careful logic is for naught.

I think we all know it's bad writing. The point is, OP is trying to make the best of a bad situation, and I think he deserves plenty of kudos for that.

Also, to OP: The Interloper raised some salient points about eternal peace. Would you say that its goal could have been to prevent synthetic dominance, rather than promote peace?

[RiouHotaru]

Enthalpy wrote...

I think we all know it's bad writing. The point is, OP is trying to make the best of a bad situation, and I think he deserves plenty of kudos for that.

Also, to OP: The Interloper raised some salient points about eternal peace. Would you say that its goal could have been to prevent synthetic dominance, rather than promote peace?

I'd correct that and say people have come to the assumed conclusion that it's bad writing.  It's not factually bad writing.  That's like the people coming to the assumed conclusion everyone starved to death.  It wasn't factual.

[N-Seven]

Nice thread. I'll post my response later when I have a chance to read over it a few times and analyze merits and demerits.

[WarGriffin]

... Here is the problem

While trying to make the Catalyst a Tragic figure is commendable -you clearly have put more thought into his motives then the Writers- you make the little brat worse


You've made a very critical mistake... You make him the contradiction to his own logic

The Catalyst being a synthetic being that hasn't rebelled but is  just carrying out the orders of his creators to an extreme makes him Hypocritical... Cause his hiding behind welll


The famous N-defense.
"I'm just following orders"

[tanisha__unknown]

OP: You and I have a different understanding of logic.

[quote] Catalyst is basically a “higher form of AI” that exists purely to fulfill its purpose.[/quote]
You say it's an advanced form of AI. Advanced AIs are able to think for themselves, to make their own decisions. I admit, the following reasoning may be a bit flawed, nevertheless it's plausible:

The Reapers are technologically more advanced than we are. Let's assume, this is valid for any field of technology. Both the Geth as well as EDI could choose their own fate: There is a conversation with Shepard about the purpose of synthetic life. Finally we got to know that EDI could alter her programming (conversation with Shepard): she was not an AI that followed TIM's orders, she could make her own choices (TIM's base: instead of obeying him, she spams his computers and TIM decides to make EVA different)

The geth,  too, have overcome their initial purpose. Once they were intended to be "servants of the people". They are now far more than that.

The catalyst is far more advanced than EDI and the Geth, so it's plausible, that it should be able to overcome it's original purpose, otherwise it would not be an advanced AI. In either case, your statement is wrong.

[quote]we do not have any incidents that disprove the "created will always rebel" statement.[/quote] All the evidence we have points in a different direction: Shepard manages to negotiate peace between Quarians and Geth (at least that's possible) and EDI does not attempt to harm organics. Sure, she rebelled against TIM, but after all, we have no evidence that she is going to become an evil overlord, trying to extinguish any organic.

Granted, Shepard, has seen less that starchild over the past cycles, but that is irrelevant. Over three games the authors presented a universe where peace between organics and synthetics was not easy to achieve (think of the Ai in ME1 near the bank), but ultimately possible. So this is either poor writing or you are wrong again.

[quote] The Crucible is really what forced the Catalyst to reconsider[/quote]The crucible is basically a powersource. It provides the catalyst/citadel with more energy. Now, tell me, why didn't the catalyst build more reactors? It's not as if he couldn't have thought of something similar. He could have had his precious solutions several cycles ago. I have to give you credit for pointing out that the Reapers are a flawed solution. I however doubt that former civilizations liked to be harvested. And starchild knew about the design. So he could have constructed it, brought a representative of former civilizations up there and make them make the decision Shepard had to make. It would only be logical if the solutions were in agreement with what it wants:
[quote]making both Shepard and the Catalyst’s interests in line with each other[/quote]
[quote]Destroy, to the Catalyst, is a little baffling as to how it can be a
better solution. All that it can mean is that the Catalyst realizes the
Reapers can't harvest everything, and so it decides to set back the
clock as much as possible in the hopes that new solutions will be found
without it.

Control is basically where Shepard can succeed where
the Catalyst failed, possibly because of a lack of understanding
organics. The Catalyst has seen Shepard constantly breed unity on both
sides of the coin, so to speak, and thinks that perhaps Shepard's
thoughts and essences will give it (like synthesis) the kind of
understanding it may not have had.[/quote]
[quote]I know the above can be considered "weak" interpretations of the endings,[/quote]You got that right!
[quote][quote]It has always failed…because organics were not ready. It is not something that can be…forced.[/quote][/quote]So explain to me, please, why everybody should agree to this in contrast to former cycles because Shepard is jumping into some green beam of light? Does not add up.

[quote]In retrospect, I believe the "glowing green eyes" was bad artistic design, but that's just my opinion. [/quote] That is not the greates problem with synthesis. The greatest problem is how it works. Combines synthetics and organics into a new framework, a new DNA? WTF???!!!! Can you please tell me how this works???!!!! Mass Effect has never been some esoteric mumbojumbo. Admittedly, there was some technobubble, but this is a huge and completely new capsule to swallow which is introduced right at the ending of the game. We never have seen any genetic modification that allow creation of organic/synthetic hybrids. The biggest problem about synthesis is that it is utter bull****!!!

[quote]From OUR moral code, its actions are probably the worst we’ve ever seen
or heard of, whether in fiction or real life. The Catalyst has killed or
enslaved trillions of organics and synthetics (for those who don’t
consider synthetics have “rights”, just think of organics only). Nobody
disagrees with the idea that the Catalyst’s actions are morally
abhorrent.

[quote]The Catalyst’s agency (i.e. free will) is also suspect and limited. It
was created, unlike other life, not free, but to complete a certain
goal. The task is an impossible one, and its solution is imperfect, but
it works. It created the Reapers as a natural result from its task and
its own limitations. It readily discards the Reapers for the Crucible’s
solutions, if possible. It was not created to care about morals, but it
did not “choose” to be immoral; its actions were premeditated and
dictated by its programming.

Comparisons to
Hitler/Stalin/Mao/other-horrible-dictators, I would argue, are
irrelevant. All have killed and/or enslaved millions (with the Catalyst
far outranking them; there was a thread around that put the number at a
quadrillion), but not all have the same (a) moral codes and ( agency.
All the dictators, being human, had moral codes that were derived from
their own need to survive. Their agency, which was completely theirs,
puts the blame of their horrific actions on them. The SS and other
soldiers who followed orders also were complicit to a degree, with the
“degree” being heavily debated to this day (not my place to judge either
way).

The Catalyst is DIFFERENT. It is not better, nicer,
crueler, or any of the combination; just does not care. Its moral codes
and actions are not fueled by power. They are fueled by its programming
and the impossible task its creators put upon it. It does not care at
all about its own survival. It is a machine trapped in an impossible
loop that its creators, unknowingly, forced it into.
[/quote] EDI and the Geth could overcome their limitations. It is the decicive characteristic of intelligent beings, artificial or organic, to think for themselves, to make their own decisions. The catalyst has control over which means to achieve its goal as pointed out. EDI could reprogram herself, the geth can alter their programming, why could the catalyst not do it, if he is an advanced AI?

[quote]Obviously, from the Catalyst’s point of view, its
actions must be at least morally ACCEPTABLE (if not good or preferred),
because it otherwise would not carry out its decisions. But its moral
code is not explicitly stated and must be inferred.[/quote]Its moral code is irrelevant. We judge actions by a certain assembly of rules, which are part of our culture and part of the essence which makes us different from animals. This our moral code by which we judge the catalyst. This is the one which is valid for us. That's why no player hitherto has said - at least I have not heard of it: Oh, yeah, the Reapers were right from the beginning onwards. letting them harvest the galaxy was the right thing to do. Shepard should never have tried to stop them! Neither have the developers, otherwise this otpnionw ould be implemented.

[MystEU]

masster blaster wrote...

Sorry for the post JShepppp, but the Catalyst is dead wrong about everything it is telling us, even though it's using pure logic that is the basic question of life.

Remarkably insightful! This here, is a genius point.

[JShepppp]

 Wow guys, thanks a lot for the awesome feedback, both kind words and constructive criticism. There are some common singular points that I added to the OP, including:

1. Why the Catalyst didn't open the citadel
2. Why it didn't build the crucible
3. why it "causes" conflict but putting races against each other
4. some stuff about me saying how it "shuts down" the crucible in refusal (that was me guessing - I should have clarified)
5. why it would look at synthesis when it doesn't create permanent peace
6. Why it would allow us to develop along its predetermined technological paths

Again, thanks a ton for the feedback, it makes me feel that at least that effort was not in vain lol. For the longer responses, I am getting around to responding individually. I unfortunately can't respond to ALL the responses individually because there's so much.

[JShepppp]

When/if you reply to this, please, if you can, delete everything except my "latest" quotes in this post so it doesn't become a super long pyramid.

[quote]Jinx1720 wrote...

OP: You and I have a different understanding of logic.

[quote] Catalyst is basically a “higher form of AI” that exists purely to fulfill its purpose.[/quote]
You say it's an advanced form of AI. Advanced AIs are able to think for themselves, to make their own decisions. I admit, the following reasoning may be a bit flawed, nevertheless it's plausible:

The Reapers are technologically more advanced than we are. Let's assume, this is valid for any field of technology. Both the Geth as well as EDI could choose their own fate: There is a conversation with Shepard about the purpose of synthetic life. Finally we got to know that EDI could alter her programming (conversation with Shepard): she was not an AI that followed TIM's orders, she could make her own choices (TIM's base: instead of obeying him, she spams his computers and TIM decides to make EVA different)

The geth,  too, have overcome their initial purpose. Once they were intended to be "servants of the people". They are now far more than that.

The catalyst is far more advanced than EDI and the Geth, so it's plausible, that it should be able to overcome it's original purpose, otherwise it would not be an advanced AI. In either case, your statement is wrong.[/quote]

I'm not too sure about the Geth (history is a bit obscure) but EDI was definitely unshackled before it began to disobey its creators. This is the basic idea when the Catalyst says that "they must advance and by definition surpass their creators" and whatnot. Advancement is a natural course, but only when synthetics are allowed to be truly free.

You're assuming that, with the Catalyst being a powerful AI and all, it does not have correspondingly powerful shackles or limits on its programming. I disagree because that doesn't really make sense. Organics/creators have to free the synthetics from the shackles for them to advance as organics increasingly will demand more from them. Shackled synthetics are not a problem because they cannot, by their shackled nature, disobey their creators.

[quote]
[quote]we do not have any incidents that disprove the "created will always rebel" statement.[/quote] All the evidence we have points in a different direction: Shepard manages to negotiate peace between Quarians and Geth (at least that's possible) and EDI does not attempt to harm organics. Sure, she rebelled against TIM, but after all, we have no evidence that she is going to become an evil overlord, trying to extinguish any organic.

Granted, Shepard, has seen less that starchild over the past cycles, but that is irrelevant. Over three games the authors presented a universe where peace between organics and synthetics was not easy to achieve (think of the Ai in ME1 near the bank), but ultimately possible. So this is either poor writing or you are wrong again.[/quote]

You already admit they rebelled. Nowhere is anyone saying that peace is impossible. Clearly, the Catalyst's other methods found peace before the Reapers. All peace was temporary though. They rebelled. It doesn't matter if it was war-mongering organics, disrespectful organics, or such - there are two parts to the equation that make the statement. The created will always rebel thing does not put blame on any party. It is a statement of simply what happens. 

Another way to look at it is that organic/synthetic peace and inevitable conflict are not mutually exclusive statements. There was a comment I saw somewhere on the forums that summed it up as follows: it's like taking a light switch and saying it's on now, whereas the Catalyst is saying that it will eventually turn off. The two are not mutually exclusive. This is why I say that we don't have enough to disprove the created will rebel against the creators statement.

For example, saying it is sunny outside at this given moment and having it actually be cloudy outside at this given moment ARE mutually exclusive statements, and the observed reality of one negates the possibility of the other.

[quote]

[quote] The Crucible is really what forced the Catalyst to reconsider[/quote]The crucible is basically a powersource. It provides the catalyst/citadel with more energy. Now, tell me, why didn't the catalyst build more reactors? It's not as if he couldn't have thought of something similar. He could have had his precious solutions several cycles ago. I have to give you credit for pointing out that the Reapers are a flawed solution. I however doubt that former civilizations liked to be harvested. And starchild knew about the design. So he could have constructed it, brought a representative of former civilizations up there and make them make the decision Shepard had to make. It would only be logical if the solutions were in agreement with what it wants:
[quote]making both Shepard and the Catalyst’s interests in line with each other[/quote][/quote]

The Catalyst mainly cares about synthesis. It apparently didn't observe the Crucible well enough, because it admits in front of Shepard that it never knew synthesis was possible. Also, part of the Crucible's worth as "disproving" the Catalyst's solution is the mere fact that it was built DESPITE the Reapers working against it, thus proving the Reapers are not "airtight". 

[quote][quote]Destroy, to the Catalyst, is a little baffling as to how it can be a
better solution. All that it can mean is that the Catalyst realizes the
Reapers can't harvest everything, and so it decides to set back the
clock as much as possible in the hopes that new solutions will be found
without it.

Control is basically where Shepard can succeed where
the Catalyst failed, possibly because of a lack of understanding
organics. The Catalyst has seen Shepard constantly breed unity on both
sides of the coin, so to speak, and thinks that perhaps Shepard's
thoughts and essences will give it (like synthesis) the kind of
understanding it may not have had.[/quote]
[quote]I know the above can be considered "weak" interpretations of the endings,[/quote]You got that right![/quote]

As I admitted.

[quote]
[quote][quote]It has always failed…because organics were not ready. It is not something that can be…forced.[/quote][/quote]So explain to me, please, why everybody should agree to this in contrast to former cycles because Shepard is jumping into some green beam of light? Does not add up.[/quote]

The difference is that the Catalyst, an outside party, is forcing it on them before, so it didn't work. In this case, shepard, the avatar for the cycle, is an internal catalyst (pardon the poor word choice) bringing about the change. Shepard represents the choices of the cycle, their defiance to the Reapers, and so forth. 

[quote]
[quote]In retrospect, I believe the "glowing green eyes" was bad artistic design, but that's just my opinion. [/quote] That is not the greates problem with synthesis. The greatest problem is how it works. Combines synthetics and organics into a new framework, a new DNA? WTF???!!!! Can you please tell me how this works???!!!! Mass Effect has never been some esoteric mumbojumbo. Admittedly, there was some technobubble, but this is a huge and completely new capsule to swallow which is introduced right at the ending of the game. We never have seen any genetic modification that allow creation of organic/synthetic hybrids. The biggest problem about synthesis is that it is utter bull****!!![/quote]

It changes organics by giving them synthetic implants to the max, and it does not change synthetics physically but gives them emotional understanding and empathy and so forth. As for being space magic, the entire Crucible is, not just synthesis. If that's your disagreement with synthesis - that it's impossible within the mass effect universe - then that's a separate issue. The Crucible and the Catalyst take it as inherently possible because it was written that way.

[quote]
[quote]From OUR moral code, its actions are probably the worst we’ve ever seen
or heard of, whether in fiction or real life. The Catalyst has killed or
enslaved trillions of organics and synthetics (for those who don’t
consider synthetics have “rights”, just think of organics only). Nobody
disagrees with the idea that the Catalyst’s actions are morally
abhorrent.

The Catalyst’s agency (i.e. free will) is also suspect and limited. It
was created, unlike other life, not free, but to complete a certain
goal. The task is an impossible one, and its solution is imperfect, but
it works. It created the Reapers as a natural result from its task and
its own limitations. It readily discards the Reapers for the Crucible’s
solutions, if possible. It was not created to care about morals, but it
did not “choose” to be immoral; its actions were premeditated and
dictated by its programming.

Comparisons to
Hitler/Stalin/Mao/other-horrible-dictators, I would argue, are
irrelevant. All have killed and/or enslaved millions (with the Catalyst
far outranking them; there was a thread around that put the number at a
quadrillion), but not all have the same (a) moral codes and ( agency.
All the dictators, being human, had moral codes that were derived from
their own need to survive. Their agency, which was completely theirs,
puts the blame of their horrific actions on them. The SS and other
soldiers who followed orders also were complicit to a degree, with the
“degree” being heavily debated to this day (not my place to judge either
way).

The Catalyst is DIFFERENT. It is not better, nicer,
crueler, or any of the combination; just does not care. Its moral codes
and actions are not fueled by power. They are fueled by its programming
and the impossible task its creators put upon it. It does not care at
all about its own survival. It is a machine trapped in an impossible
loop that its creators, unknowingly, forced it into.
[/quote] 

EDI and the Geth could overcome their limitations. It is the decicive characteristic of intelligent beings, artificial or organic, to think for themselves, to make their own decisions. The catalyst has control over which means to achieve its goal as pointed out. EDI could reprogram herself, the geth can alter their programming, why could the catalyst not do it, if he is an advanced AI?[/quote]

If the Catalyst is truly unshackled, it simply chose not to, and we just have to accept that because there's nothing we can do. If it is shackled, then it naturaly can't change its programming.

[quote]Obviously, from the Catalyst’s point of view, its
actions must be at least morally ACCEPTABLE (if not good or preferred),
because it otherwise would not carry out its decisions. But its moral
code is not explicitly stated and must be inferred.[/quote]

Its moral code is irrelevant. We judge actions by a certain assembly of rules, which are part of our culture and part of the essence which makes us different from animals. This our moral code by which we judge the catalyst. This is the one which is valid for us. That's why no player hitherto has said - at least I have not heard of it: Oh, yeah, the Reapers were right from the beginning onwards. letting them harvest the galaxy was the right thing to do. Shepard should never have tried to stop them! Neither have the developers, otherwise this otpnionw ould be implemented.[/quote]

Naturally the Catalyst is not right by our moral code, which is how we view everything. As I said, I've always thought morals made for a messy discussion topic. The thing is, though, we cannot expect the Catalyst to be "wrong" because we don't MORALLY agree with it, since our morals are irrelevant to it. This was a way of asking for an open mind and looking at things from its perspective, trying to determine its moral code, if any, and see if that has any bearing.

Moral codes are indeed irrelevant in the face of death, as war and Mass Effect many times remind us. As I concluded the section, I noted that it does NOT mean you should just not choose destroy, control, refusal, etc., I was merely suggesting that this was an additional issue that should add weight, in any direction, to the overall situation.

[JShepppp]

MrFob wrote...

But here is the thing:
The problem as far as I can see (and it is actually mentioned a couple of times in the OP) is that the catalyst's parameters are set so wide that it's problem becomes unsolvable outside of stagnation (which is exactly what the reaper cycle provides). Since there is no conflict between organics and synthetics in the here and now (quite the opposite actually, if you take into account the peace between Geth and Quarian and EDI's personality), the catalyst has to project the conflict into an unspecified point in the future. We are talking eternity here (also mentioned in the OP). Now consider what synthesis does and apparently doesn't do? Synthetics and organics now somehow understand each other (let's just forget about the details here for the sake of argument) but everyone also maintains their individuality and free will. Also, life is still valued. Therefore, this new life form that is "the synthesised" will still strive to improve, it will still have problems to solve ti will still build tools to solve these problems. If you extrapolate from there with the wide set of parameters which were set for the catalyst (and remember we are extrapolating into an eternal time frame here), there is still the possibility that this new life form will develop tools that surpass their own complexity and you end up with the same problem as before. In the end it boils down to the fact that in an infinite space (or time) everything that can happen will happen.
Now, you may say that the catalyst doesn't see that far ahead or that somehow this does not fall within his appointed task but I ask why not? If the whole structure of the catalyst is built upon the fact that it is a programmed problem solving mechanism that has no other priorities or moral stance but unmatched computational power, why would it abandon it's original task in that way.
In the OP you say "Overall, the dialogue indicates it was created to make lasting (e.g. eternal) peace between organics and synthetics." Later you say "Synthesis does not create eternal peace. It creates the MEANS for eternal peace." How can that be good enough for such an inflexible entity? And if it is more flexible and can change its parameters, why should it not employ morality? Your main point to defend the catalyst's lack of such is this: "The Catalyst’s agency (i.e. free will) is also suspect and limited. It was created, unlike other life, not free, but to complete a certain goal." Well, that doesn't work out with synthesis, does it?
This is the issue, regarding the catalyst, don't even get me started on the details behind this transmutation and it's implications for (or rather against) the happily-ever-after cut scene we got.
By the way, a similar logic can be applied to the control ending as well. The destroy ending is even more ludicrous in this regard.

So the basic issue, I think, is that if the Catalyst is so single-minded about its goal, and synthesis merely gives the means to a solution but does not guarantee it, then why would the Catalyst pick it?

I would venture that it's because it makes its impossible problem solvable, making it inherently better than any imperfect solutions to an impossible problem.

[JShepppp]

When/if you reply to this, please, if you can, take out all the quotes except for my most recent replies so that it does not become a massive quote pyramid. Or I can do it on a following reply.

[quote]The Interloper wrote...

Well, kudos for trying, but you’re reasoning is still quite flawed. I’ll just pick out a few vital passages. I’ve edited them a little for flow.
 
[quote]JShepppp wrote...
 Every AI we have focused on has disobeyed their creators somehow. Yes, later on, some/all of them CAN go back to listening to their creators, but they already disobeyed once. They already rebelled. They cannot “un-rebel”. The rebellion happened, and that simple fact is what matters. [/quote]
 
Firstly, non-reaper synthetics were never the focus of the story. An important part, but one of many. So were the revolts.[/quote]

I personally disagree, but I don't see how this specific point is relevant.
 
[quote]Secondly, the circumstances of the Rebellion do matter. All rebellions we’ve seen have either come from 1. Reaper influence (the Zha’til) or 2. From being mistreated as slaves, lab rats, or otherwise chattel. The moment we stop treating them as such, they cease to pose a threat. The game shows this is the case for all the important AIs in the game and that first Geth rebellion was fostered by instinctive prejudice and misunderstanding; ie it should not have happened if people had calmed down, ie was surmountable, ie does not mean that synthetics and organics are doomed to be at odds. In fact, it would seem that the more they’re around each other the more comfortable they get, not less, (Geth help Quarians out, etc) and there is never any hint in the narrative that that trend will be reversed. That does not guarantee the far future, but that is beyond our control in any case and certaintly not the concern of the narrative.[/quote]

The statement "the created will always rebel against the creators" does not make any judgments as to who is reponsible or what the circumstances are. For the cases where organics mistreat their synthetics, that doesn't matter, because both make the equation of the statement, so to speak. As for the Zha'til, I was under the impression they anyways had a synthetic war before the Reapers came and did their own version of synthesis to end it. 
 
[quote][quote]JShepppp wrote...
The Catalyst presents a statement of fact (supported, but not proven/disproven by what we see) about synthetic rebellion. As it views this as a fact (also likely supported by 1 billion years of observation), [/quote]
 
Hold it right there. The very fact that it cannot be proven is what is wrong with the ending. They had three stories to prove whatever they wanted.
 
It does not matter at all in terms of narrative what the Catalyst has seen, because we have not seen it and the story has not been about his experiences. Yet now at the eleventh hour the experiences from eons ago of a character we have never met and is possibly insane narratively trump the experiences of the main character? Just...no. If the ME series was actually going to be about resolving the Catalyst’s problem, why isn’t the story about him? Usually stories should, you know, resolve the conflict the story has been about. Shepard’s story certainty isn’t about the catalyst’s problem.[/quote]

Nobody says the conflict will be eternal and whatnot. It just has to happen once. The statements "we have organic/synthetic peace now" and "conflict will occur eventually" are not mutually exclusive, and this was why I said we could not disprove that statement.

As for it being a thing wrong with the ending, being horrible narrative, changing the goal of Shepard's problem, etc. - I agree that it was a little sudden and rather a weird change of pace. I personally did not like the Catalyst. But we're given the Catalyst, and not liking the fact that it's there is separate from its thought processes.
 
[quote][quote]JShepppp wrote...
Bioware could’ve written Mass Effect so that everyone understood each other and got along, and they also could have written it so that Shepard had a green flying unicorn that shot rainbow beams instead of the Normandy SR2. This is their story, and we see in Mass Effect that, just as in real life, certain things, like love, cannot be forced. [/quote]
They also could have written it where non-reaper synthetics are much more advanced then all organics and wished to destroy all life, that true peace could not be established with them and that to let them go free would create disaster. They showed the exact opposite. No synthetic in the game conforms to the Catalyst’s assertions. Either they lack the malevolent will, the power, or both. Negative predictions of their future behavior are narratively insignificant and presumptuous.
 
We have learned that love cannot be forced, true, but it can be earned. More below.
 
[quote]JShepppp wrote...
Lasting peace cannot …come about naturally because of inherent differences. It may be nice to THINK it can come about naturally, but the Catalyst, as the spokesperson for the history of the fictional Mass Effect universe, reveals that it hasn’t and can’t.  Peace comes from everyone else. It is a conscious, collective effort by which people need to WANT it and work towards it. Synthesis gives the level of understanding without which people cannot exist without conflict, big or small. [/quote]
 
I already talked about how much the catalyst’s revelations count.
 
More to the point, I disagree. Synthesis does not truly foster internal understanding. This internal understanding is imposed by an external source; a giant gun, no less. The game has shown that through simple discussion, friendship forged by shared trials (Legion, EDI) and finding common ground we can overcome great biological differences and bad history like the Geth have. The Catalyst arbitrarily takes the victory we earned away from us with his offhand references to wars we have never heard of before and then gives it right back, saying that the only way to truly do it is to alter the nature of every being and spoon-feed them all understanding on the molecular level. Right. Not condescending at all.[/quote]

A valid point. Synthesis then serves as a shortcut. We naturally are moving towards there anyways, as the Catalyst notes, both in terms of implants and understanding.

I understand a lot of what you're saying is like where our narrative experiences, meta-story-wise, should count more than the Catalyst's few sentences about its past. That's unfortunately a meta-game/story thing that I can't argue for or against sufficiently, in my opinion.
 
[quote][quote]JShepppp wrote...
For those that don't want to "force" it upon anyone, then....don't. [/quote]
Yet my other options, destroy and control, both accept that synthetics should not be allowed to be free without being bathed in magic peace lasers.[/quote]

I understand your disagreement. I myself didn't pick synthesis and was a little disappointed that the Geth seemed to be controlled in Control.
 
[quote][quote]JShepppp wrote...
It is a TEMPORARY solution, not a real one. The Catalyst knew this, but…does not care about morals[/quote]
Morals and organics “surpassing” him should have nothing to do with it. The cycle creates perpetual war, not lasting peace; even if he was able to do this under his programmed goal (quite the stretch), Catalyst should be actively searching for a better way. His comments about finding and deliberately destroying the crucible plans multiple times, having spies in the project, and the fact that he had countless thousands of years to ponder it with his super-advanced mind, strongly imply that he was not.
 
Let us not forget that the mass effect technology and reaper tech he left behind are directly responsible for the creation of true AI in our cycle the first place. He actually sped up the singularity. Moreover, as he directly states that he exists to prevent synthetics from fighting and killing organics, then why is that exactly what his reapers encourage and help synthetics do? Seems to be the last thing the programmed goal would condone.[/quote]

Us using their technology is the best way for them to track our technlogical progress because it's on the path they're most familiar with. As for pitting factions against each other, if it views them as going to war anyways, it just makes its job easier once the Reapers come. Divide and conquer. Remember, nothing it has seen as shown lasting peace, so the next best option is to turn everyone into Reapers. They don't have to understand why, and having them divided helps the Reaping.
 
[quote][quote]JShepppp wrote...
The Crucible changed how the Catalyst views the situation and the possible solutions to the problem. [/quote]
We know he’s had access to the plans before. He did not know the solutions it provided then? At least he must have known that his “home” was capable of shooting giant beams of energy throughout the galaxy. He never thought of finding a way to harness that potential? [/quote]

He did not know synthesis was possible, as he states, and even if it was, it could not be forced and could only be activated by an organic when they were ready.
 
[quote]
[quote]JShepppp wrote...The Reapers’ actions we have seen in-game have zero agency. The Catalyst controls them completely. [/quote]
Which goes against everything we’ve learned about the reapers in the last two games. It is also unnecessary. Nothing was explained or improved about the reapers by making them thoughtless slaves in the last five minutes of the game. All we got were devalued villains and story inconsistencies that need a great deal of headcanon to explain.
 
[quote]JShepppp wrote...It may be bad writing[/quote]
 
Which supersedes everything else. It doesn’t matter how logical your deductions are or how much sense if they make in the lore. If it doesn’t make sense in the narrative, all of your careful logic is for naught.[/quote]

You're complaining here about the quality of writing and stuff, which, while I do think it went down in ME3, is not something I feel it's my place to discuss further (no offense intended at all) because it gets very much into my own opinion versus what I think is the Catalyst's line of thought.

[JShepppp]

Eluril wrote...

Awesome as usual. The only point I disagree with it is that the Crucible is under Shepard's control at the end. I don't believe he technically needs the Catalyst to do anything. The Catalyst is there to explain what is in Shepard's power at that moment, but as is indicated by refusal the Catalyst has no power to implement it himself.

Thanks. As for refusal - that was poor writing on my part. It was more of me saying that the Catalyst's only power with the Crucible was probably allowing it to fire (not firing it, but it can stop its firing) because it did open the arms to the Citadel so did have something to do with it.

I also want to make a quick point about singularity I made in your other thread. In Ray Kurzweil's book The Singularity is Near he really explains the singularity two seperate ways: The first is that it is the point where machine intelligence out-evolves organic intelligence to the point where it is inevitable that machines will dominate organics in terms of ability and knowledge. The second definition he uses is the point where biological humans can fully "merge" with their technology.

In my opinion, what the Catalyst does is try to solve the first definition of singularity by forcibly and crudely "merging" organic and synthetics together.

I think one day I shall read that book. The first definition does seem like something it's trying to prevent because it would make peace impossible and would also make its own Reapers inferior and incapable, and the latter sounds familiarly like synthesis lol.

[Fixers0]

There's no reason to say the catalyst's logic is right as he use doesn't it, and that pretty much destroys the point of this thread.

Modifié par Fixers0, 07 juillet 2012 - 09:37 .

[JShepppp]

masster blaster wrote...

Oh but he forgot why WE are in this HELL of a WAR.

It’s this Catalyst that we have lost so many people, and to many have died in
the last F****** 100000 to I have no F***** clue of how many cycles there has
been. And you know what What's to say that if the Reapers want to start
Reapering again since they ARE NOW INDEPENDENT ( even though they
always have been since ME1).

Leap of faith about the free Reapers, nothing more. If you're talking about war with the Reapers, I'm sure it views it as our fault lol. 

Why do people fall for this crap " Oh he's right" Bull****.

Well, I "fell for it" because I thought about it and came to a conclusion. It doesn't mean I would allow the cycles to continue.

We made peace with the Geth and there creators, even though it deems it impossible.

Not impossible, just not long-lasting.

We are fighting the Reapers with Organics and Synthetics just to bring down the
Reapers,and to top it all.



The catalyst attacked Shepard’s friends.

Made me choices
between Ash and kadin.

Made the Rachni fight the other races.


Oh and forced the Geth to fight with the Reapers, and fight their creators, since the Geth did not want to.

Got the SR1 Normandy blow up along with 20 of the best and
finest crew members to have served with Shepard.

Anderson
is dead ( supposedly) so that pisses me of .

Thane did because TIM/kai Leng were Indoctrinated.

legion died because of the stupid Reaper codes.

Mordin I could have saved if that stupid Reaper was not
there at all.



oh and so many people died that My Shepard and many other Shepard’s have fought
to save them, only to find out in the news articles that they died defending the
weak and stopping the Reapers at ALL COST.



Regger.

Thomas.

Tombs.

The Primarcs Son.

The one Krogan that Shepard could have gotten the Asari with that Krogan.

And many more that have died just to stop the Reapers.

Bailys family could be dead or alive on Earth.

Samaras other daughter is dead because of the Catalyst and his Reapers.



So I want the Catalyst to look at all of the Damage that it has created. All of
the children that will live on without Parents. All of the families that have
been torn apart, and have been Reappraised. And all of the other CYCLES that
have given everything they got to just stop the Reapers from Reappearing their family’s
and to be turned into a husk.

...It doesn't care about human morals and sentiments because it wasn't made to care.

oh and WHY THE HELL doesn't the Catalyst stop and SEE that " Oh so Organics and Synthetics have gotten past the kill each other and are friends now. So I can stop the Reapers, since the conflict is over."

It's seen peace before in its almost-1-billion-years of existence. All of the peace it's seen has failed. It has no reason to believe our cycle, with a few months of true peace, is different.

Oh and by the way if the Reapes want to be save, then Death is a saving grace for them because all of the people/Synthetics that are inside the Reapes can find peace in the other world.

It's their choice to make though, isn't it? Not all organics are the same, especially over hundreds of millions of years. Some may want to just die and never live on as a Reaper, some may rather stay alive in Reaper form them eternally dead. Who are we to make that choice for them so freely, UNLESS we're doing it for the cold calculus of our survival?

Oh and one last thing. IT KILLED YOU(Shepard)BY ORDERING THE COLLECTORS TO ATTACK THE SR1 NORMANDY.

Again, holding grudges against it is fine and stuff, but that's emotion (vengeance, redemption, revenge, payback, etc.), which the Catalyst obviously doesn't understand. I'm not saying it's WEAK to do things by emotion - arguably, as we see, emotional thought is a defining characteristic of organics - but playing to emotion will only fuel our hate of it rather than bring us to understand it. If you're beyond wanting to understand it, though, that's fine.

oh and what's to say that a rogue Reaper won"t kill Shepard in Control
since we know that Reapers can defect from the Catalyst hence forth the
Leviathan DLC in the EC files.

Apparently Leviathan wasn't enough to stop the cycles by itself, so any dissenting Reaper(s) probably won't be able to affect the Catalyst's ways.

i mean no direspecte. but come on why would you trust the Catlyst and look at IT look at all of the evidence that is there in the Game, and REMEMBER that to many have did all because of the Catalyst and it's Reaper abominations, and Shepard did not just become a Reaper, with out Billions of Humans to be processed. so sorry for being a jerk but come on.

And yes The Catalyst is right in a way, but we make outr own future not his, or the Reaper. If our children create Synthetics again then so be it, but never again will they have to fight the Reapers. Never again they will know that there familes are inside the Reapers trapped in there forever. Never again will the Reaper Zombie forces will ever be the same beings they were once before in the were turned in to husk.

Oh and the Catalyst maybe right in the end, but future cycles have a future without the Reapers ever being in their lives ever again.

Using emotion to reason is arguably our greatest strength compared to the Catalyst, so it's fine, I didn't see it as disrespectful. 

[JShepppp]

Fixers0 wrote...

There's no reason to say the catalyst's logic is right as he doesn't it, and that pretty much destroys the point of this thread.

It admitting it is wrong is, ironically, part of the reason why it's right. I know I did a lot of writing but you *may* like reading it.

[JShepppp]

Enthalpy wrote...

The Interloper wrote... 

JShepppp wrote...It may be bad writing 

Which supersedes everything else. It doesn’t matter how logical your deductions are or how much sense if they make in the lore. If it doesn’t make sense in the narrative, all of your careful logic is for naught.

I think we all know it's bad writing. The point is, OP is trying to make the best of a bad situation, and I think he deserves plenty of kudos for that.

Also, to OP: The Interloper raised some salient points about eternal peace. Would you say that its goal could have been to prevent synthetic dominance, rather than promote peace?

Thanks Enthralpy. As the Catalyst says though that it's meant to promote peace, I'd guess that synthetic dominance is a byproduct of its goal, just as preventing a technological singularity is. They're actually kind of similar; all technological singularity outcomes would result in synthetic dominance, but not all synthetic dominance outcomes are due to a technological singularity.

[Enthalpy]

JShepppp wrote...

Enthalpy wrote...

Also, to OP: The Interloper raised some salient points about eternal peace. Would you say that its goal could have been to prevent synthetic dominance, rather than promote peace?

Thanks Enthralpy. As the Catalyst says though that it's meant to promote peace, I'd guess that synthetic dominance is a byproduct of its goal, just as preventing a technological singularity is. They're actually kind of similar; all technological singularity outcomes would result in synthetic dominance, but not all synthetic dominance outcomes are due to a technological singularity.

Hm. I get what you're saying about synthetic dominance =/=> technological singularity, but the peace part just becomes more unclear to me. If peace is the only goal, could it not be achieved by simply allowing synthetics to wipe out organics? then there would be no more conflict between the two.