450 réponses à ce sujet

[Seival]

[ElSuperGecko]

Amazing. All that text, all that effort and yet STILL missing the point.

[Applepie_Svk]

Catalyst logic is utter crap with impossibile goal...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 12 décembre 2012 - 11:10 .

[JasonShepard]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Amazing. All that text, all that effort and yet STILL missing the point.

And that point is, exactly?
JShepppp is not saying the Catalyst is right. He also is not saying that the endings were good. He's merely providing a viewpoint from which the Catalyst logic can be understood. Is there something wrong with that?

[ElSuperGecko]

JasonShepard wrote...
JShepppp is not saying the Catalyst is right. He also is not saying that the endings were good. He's merely providing a viewpoint from which the Catalyst logic can be understood. Is there something wrong with that?

Oh, there's nothing wrong with "providing a viewpoint from which the Catalyst's logic can be understood".

It's just a total and complete waste of effort, that's all.

[Mcfly616]

kal_reegar wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

kal_reegar wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

how does it work within the lore? It's been a part of the lore since day 1. Since Saren and ME1. People just never saw it coming as a possible conclusion to the entire trilogy.

Saren : Synthesis = firecracker : nuclear bomb

the first doesn't explain/justify the second, if not at a mere intuitive level...

never said it "justified" anything....huh?

I was simply stating Saren that alluded to it. Nothing more. It's been apart of the lore since the first game. I was stating a fact. Not explaining it in any scientific way. Its called science "fiction". Some things in it are not possible in our own world. Consequently, not all things involved will have in depth real world scientific explainations for what occurs in this theater of fiction. Some people call it "space magic". Call it whatever you want. It can be found in mostly any work of science fiction in any medium. I'm sure someone on this forum has some sort of "encyclopedia" or something on it.....sort of like this thread is with the Catalyst.

not the same thing.
if you introduce "space magic" (like biotic powers or relays or mass effect) in the beginning, I can accept almost everything. You say: my lore works this way and this way, these are the rules, these are the axioms (for example: space travel is possible and easy, but time travel is impossible). It's not "magic" anymore, in that lore's contest.

but if you introduce something like synthesis in the last 5 minutes, something that nobody ever mentioned as possible (because implantig reapers technology or building a huge machine with genetic material is very different than completely e definitively changing the DNA of every living creature in the galaxy, to change how evolution works)... well, that's space magic. Because you've broken the rules of your own lore. An allusion is not enough, IMO.

umm yes, Saren was speaking of the exact same thing. A union between us and the machines. He was speaking of Synthesis. So because he didnt say the word "synthesis" its not the same thing to you? Lol have fun with that. (Sarens Reaper augmentations were not Synthesis either. But, what he was 'talking about' was indeed Synthesis) I'm sorry you didn't get an in depth discussion on how it works 'scientifically'

[JasonShepard]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

JasonShepard wrote...
JShepppp is not saying the Catalyst is right. He also is not saying that the endings were good. He's merely providing a viewpoint from which the Catalyst logic can be understood. Is there something wrong with that?

Oh, there's nothing wrong with "providing a viewpoint from which the Catalyst's logic can be understood".

It's just a total and complete waste of effort, that's all.

Not from his perspective, else he wouldn't have done it. Not from my perspective either, since 'Misguided AI' makes for a much more fun and interesting game than 'AI that makes no ****ing sense AT ALL'. So if it improves mine and other people's game experiences then... no I really can't see it as a waste of effort.

[ElSuperGecko]

JasonShepard wrote...
Not from his perspective, else he wouldn't have done it. Not from my perspective either, since 'Misguided AI' makes for a much more fun and interesting game than 'AI that makes no ****ing sense AT ALL'. So if it improves mine and other people's game experiences then... no I really can't see it as a waste of effort.

Insane, misguided or completely honest and correct, the AI's motives and logic is completely and utterly irrelevant to Shepard and Shepard's decision.  It can be 100% correct or 100% wrong in it's calculations and assumptions and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to us.

Whether it makes sense or not, whever we believe it or not, whether we trust it or not, is all completely beside the point.  The Catalyst's motives are not our motives.  The Catalyst's logic is not our logic.  The Catalyst's goals are not our goals.  And the Catalyst's "solutions" are certainly not our solutions.  They never have been, and never will be.  Anyone who thinks otherwise has completely lost sight of what Shepard - the entire galaxy, in fact - have been fighting for all along.

[JasonShepard]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Insane, misguided or completely honest and correct, the AI's motives and logic is completely and utterly irrelevant to Shepard and Shepard's decision.  It can be 100% correct or 100% wrong in it's calculations and assumptions and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to us.

Whether it makes sense or not, whever we believe it or not, whether we trust it or not, is all completely beside the point.  The Catalyst's motives are not our motives.  The Catalyst's logic is not our logic.  The Catalyst's goals are not our goals.  And the Catalyst's "solutions" are certainly not our solutions.  They never have been, and never will be.  Anyone who thinks otherwise has completely lost sight of what Shepard - the entire galaxy, in fact - have been fighting for all along.

That's a slightly different point, but okay. And I do see your point, though, that the Catalyst's logic is irrelevant (provided that you disagree with it).
However, in my opinion (arguably supported by this) the ending options come from the Crucible, not the Catalyst. So those solutions are the solutions provided by the civilisations that helped design the thing. Either way though, you play the hand that is dealt to you. These are the options Shepard has. Who provides them is also irrelevant, since doing nothing means that everyone dies.

[kal_reegar]

Mcfly616 wrote...

kal_reegar wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

kal_reegar wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

how does it work within the lore? It's been a part of the lore since day 1. Since Saren and ME1. People just never saw it coming as a possible conclusion to the entire trilogy.

Saren : Synthesis = firecracker : nuclear bomb

the first doesn't explain/justify the second, if not at a mere intuitive level...

never said it "justified" anything....huh?

I was simply stating Saren that alluded to it. Nothing more. It's been apart of the lore since the first game. I was stating a fact. Not explaining it in any scientific way. Its called science "fiction". Some things in it are not possible in our own world. Consequently, not all things involved will have in depth real world scientific explainations for what occurs in this theater of fiction. Some people call it "space magic". Call it whatever you want. It can be found in mostly any work of science fiction in any medium. I'm sure someone on this forum has some sort of "encyclopedia" or something on it.....sort of like this thread is with the Catalyst.

not the same thing.
if you introduce "space magic" (like biotic powers or relays or mass effect) in the beginning, I can accept almost everything. You say: my lore works this way and this way, these are the rules, these are the axioms (for example: space travel is possible and easy, but time travel is impossible). It's not "magic" anymore, in that lore's contest.

but if you introduce something like synthesis in the last 5 minutes, something that nobody ever mentioned as possible (because implantig reapers technology or building a huge machine with genetic material is very different than completely e definitively changing the DNA of every living creature in the galaxy, to change how evolution works)... well, that's space magic. Because you've broken the rules of your own lore. An allusion is not enough, IMO.

umm yes, Saren was speaking of the exact same thing. A union between us and the machines. He was speaking of Synthesis. So because he didnt say the word "synthesis" its not the same thing to you? Lol have fun with that. (Sarens Reaper augmentations were not Synthesis either. But, what he was 'talking about' was indeed Synthesis) I'm sorry you didn't get an in depth discussion on how it works 'scientifically'

again, "union of flesh and steel" (very advanced surgery) : synthesis (change evolution - I don't know if you realize how immense is that) = firecracker : nuclear bomb.

yeah, they both explode. Amazing exaplanation. I accept that. Thery are pretty much the same thing.

come on...

[FREEGUNNER]

Mcfly616 wrote...

FREEGUNNER wrote...

Great read. I think at the end of the day the leviathans are to blame because they irresponsibly implemented a powerful yet poorly programmed AI to solve such a complex problem without thinking about the possible ramifications. The catalyst can be compared to VIKI from iRobot. Say what you will about the movie but the AI in iRobot was very similar in that it was given certain conditions and then an unprecedented amount of computational power to expand it's knowledge and understanding in a procedural manner.

But at their very core they lacked moral values so they failed to understand the need for conflict and that people don't want to survive, they want to live.

iRobot is inspired by a short story by Asimov. The ending of Mass Effect is inspired by one of Asimovs book series.

The similarities are there. However, the Catalyst wasn't poorly programmed. If anything it followed its programming perfectly. Though, the mistake of giving it an "at all costs" mandate, was surely a poor decision on the Leviathans part.

Not on a technical level but from a design stand point it was poorly programmed. The leviathans forgot to factor in time probably because they are the 'apex' race and apparently live for so damn long. As a result the catalyst is testing the cycles as a solution simply because it can, not so much because it should. The leviathans even said that the cycles will continue until the catalyst finds what its looking for which is empirical data from all of the cycles that supports the claim that the cycles are the best solution.

I mean it's quite evident when we meet the catalyst that it was ready to ride the cycle solution until the end of time cause it seemed to be working when in reality it was simply sidestepping the problem like the OP said. Since it has no conception of time it had no incentive to change the course. The catalyst eventually says "this proves my solution won't work anymore" and "we must find a new solution" so its not like it was proactively looking for another solution during the cycles either....it was just sittin on *ss for the past 8 billion years or whatever.

[Krunjar]

You know what I actually think bio ware came up with one hell of an ending. I mean they essentially gave us a moral choice that shows just how much peoples values can differ. I used to be tired with the wingefest on the forums but honestly pretty much everyone has valid points. To the extend that they are diametrically opposed. I for example never saw synthesis as a kind of violation when I first heard of the concept. The thought never crossed my mind. No recoiling going that's sick! Nothing, And for me the thought of genocide of the synthetics immidiately invalidated destroy for me. And taking their freedom with control amounts to almost the same thing. To me refusal is an idiots choice. Sometimes the universe doesn't go the way you want it to and u just gotta make a choice in life. That was Shepard choice. Stamping your feet like a child because you shouldn't be allowed to make it and letting everyone get killed seemed to me to be naive idealistic and infantile.

But this is MY interpretation. And that's the beauty of the ending. There's one for every Shepard. And wether any particular ending fits in with your Shepard depends entirely on your perceptions of them. And that's what the ending asks the player. Is your shepard a Warrior? A Dreamer? A Tyrant? A Father? Does he believe in change for a greater good? Or does he believe in freedom at all costs? Does he impose his will? Does he Guide? Those four endings ask Shepard alot of questions. And the players morality too. Couldn't be cooler imho.

Modifié par Krunjar, 13 décembre 2012 - 08:33 .

[Mcfly616]

Krunjar wrote...
Sometimes the universe doesn't go the way you want it to and u just gotta make a choice in life.

So true....


Precisely why I think the endings are great. Can't remember the last time I played a game with such a weighted decision to make. Such a dilemma.

[Ticonderoga117]

The lack of a "Go away Reapers" option is annoying. You want me to choose a solution? I choose that we deal with it.

Wait, what do you mean I can't pick that? I thought the whole point was for the Catalyst to get a new solution to his problem from Shepard since he made it to point B. Granted, he did cheat since the Catalyst had to help him get to point B, but who cares about that eh?

[SpamBot2000]

You see humans being harvested and processed to become fuel for the way Reapers reproduce. This is their reproductive cycle and we're just a part of it. We're nothing to them.

[JShepppp]

Wow, I have been away for a week or two with exams, but it is great to see the level of discussion this has now spawned. Thank you everyone for your kind words.

Also, while I am a "pro-ender" post-EC, this post was not meant to be pro-ending but was more an effort to try to look at where the Catalyst was coming from. Yes, it may be too much text - it can be summed up in just a few sentences, as shown in my TL;DR and a lot of responses - but the point of the ton of text was to try to be thorough and look at all avenues that explain it, even if it was redundantly so.

[kal_reegar]

 my interpretation of the catalyst's scene

PREMISES
1. The catalyst is not lying.
N.B. I'm not saying his assumptions about inevitable caos, inevitable synthesis etc are an "unquestionable truth", because we can't  prove nor refute them, but simply that he has his own logic and beliefs, and he is not lying to Shepard.


2. The catalyst controls the reapers. Completely or very tightly. Why I say that? Because:

• a) control ending proves that the reapers can be controlled
• the catalyst himself says that "I control the reapers. They are my solution

3. The crucible will explode, and there is nothing the catalyst/reapers can do to avoid the explosion whether:
- Shepard is letf to die (elevator not activated)
- Shepard decides to do nothing or chooses refusal ending

Why I say that? Because:

• a) The catalyst, when you ask him "who designed the crucible", he answers "you wouldn't know them and there is not enogh time to explain"
• The catalyst controls the reapers (see point 2) and if shepard waits around ten minutes doing nothing (not choosing any ending), the consequence is a game over scene in which  "the crucible has been destroyed"
• c) The catalyst says "My solution (reapers) won't work anymore" and "the variables have been changed". What's the meaning of these phrases? Refusal ending provides the answer: next cycle will win, no matter what. The female stargazer claims that the reapers are no longer are threat, so we can assume they have defeated the reapers, somehow.

Put together these three informations and the scenario in which reapers can blast the crucible makes little sense:
- if the catalyst controls the reapers and if the crucible wouldn't explode by itself, he should have enough time for an answer.- if shepard can be left to die + if the catalyst controls the reapers + if the crucible can be destroy without any relevant negative consequence for the reapers -> the variables aren't changed. Not yet. The presence of Shepard in front of the catalyst proves something only if point 3) is correct.


4. "Synthesis is not something that can be forced". This sentence shall be referred only to the one who will have to jump into the beam of light, and not to the synthesized (thinks about that: 99,999% of organic life - plants, bacteria,animals etc - are in any case unable to express consent). The catalyst need the "choosen one", someone unique like shepard, to make it possible and that's why it never worked.


I think that with these four  -opinable - premises, we can understand the catalyst's actions and motivations and fix the major so called "plot holes".The catalyst/reapers always wanted to stop Shepard. They don't want the crucible to be connected to the citadel. Harvesting is the better solution. So they try to stop Shepard until the very end... with Harbringer first, and later with Tim.
But once the crucible is activated, the reapers are doomed (see point 3): if the catalyst lets shepard die (not activating the elevator), the result will be the same as refusal ending -> the crucible will explode (possibly destroyng the citadel and so the catalyst), and the next cycle will win. Harvesting remains (abstactly) the better solution, but it is no longer praticable in the long term (the variables have been changed)

So the catalyst must choose: let shepard die and continue the harvest until the inevitable defeat, or try something new? Luckily for the catalyst the crucible has created "new possibilities" (this simply means that through a huge release of energy, pre-existing possibilities have become doable).

Obviously the catalyst's favourite is Synthesis. He now has the last ingredient, Shepard the choosen one, so if Shepard express consent, the galaxy can be "synthesized" (see point 4). Hurrah.

Destroy and control are less desiderable than both synthesis and harvesting, but the first one requires shepard consents, and the second one is no longer succesfully practicable (see refusal ending).

Destroy: from the catalyst's perspective, is a better option to let THIS cycle win (instead of being defeated by the next one) and let this exceptional cycle try to find a new solution
 Control: very similar to destroy, with the difference that is not this cycle which will have to find the new solution, but "Shepard the special one". Again, for the catalyst is a better option to trust the choosen one than the next, victorius cycle.

[Andromidius]

kal_reegar wrote...

PREMISES
1. The catalyst is not lying.

That's about as far as I can get.  Sorry, but if we have to assume someone isn't lying to then accept their ridiculous circular logic and leaps of faith claims, then I'd rather not assume they are telling the truth.

Infact, its been proven many times that the Catalyst does lie.  For example, leaving 'lesser species alone'.  They Reaperise Harvesters, and likely Yagh as well (since Brutes share NOTHING in common with Krogan, and have exactly the same body structure as Yahg).  Both are pre-spaceflight 'lesser species'.

Also by definition of the 'Catalyst' can be changed by the Crucible, then its not a catalyst.  Catalysts are things that cause other things to change without themselves changing.

The 'Catalyst' is a liar and a fraud.  End of discussion.

[Xilizhra]

Infact, its been proven many times that the Catalyst does lie. For example, leaving 'lesser species alone'. They Reaperise Harvesters, and likely Yagh as well (since Brutes share NOTHING in common with Krogan, and have exactly the same body structure as Yahg). Both are pre-spaceflight 'lesser species'.

Harvesters seem to be like Praetorians; made from multiple smaller species. And brute body structures are indeed greatly screwed up, but there's no hint whatsoever that they have yahg parts; it's just some recycled animation.

Also by definition of the 'Catalyst' can be changed by the Crucible, then its not a catalyst. Catalysts are things that cause other things to change without themselves changing.

The Catalyst was given the name before the Crucible was built.

[Falaxe]

Sorry, too long, didnt read all of it. I dont need a wall of text to understand catalyst motives, as they are ridiculously plain and simple.

[Ieldra]

@kal_reegar:
I don't agree with everything you said, but it's really nice to see someone trying to create a scenario that makes sense instead of incessantly complaining that it doesn't.

@all:
As for the Catalyst's logic explained in the OP: the point is not that it's necessarily true. The main premise of the Catalyst is this:

"Post-singularity synthetics will always out-evolve organics and they will be not necessarily friendly, which will eventually result in the extinction of organics" Note that "organics" refers to intelligent organics. No conclusion about things like bacteria is implied.

The important thing is this: we cannot prove or disprove the Catalyst's claim, but can we suspend our disbelief for it? As a rule I'd say we can. The problem is that we have too many friendly synthetics in the story, and to make it worse they're narratively significant. While that doesn't exactly disprove the Catalyst's claims, it does make it more difficult to believe - unless the Catalyst explains what why that doesn't count. I find it rather odd that the EC didn't add anything about the quarian/geth conflict.

[kal_reegar]

Andromidius wrote...

kal_reegar wrote...

PREMISES
1. The catalyst is not lying.

That's about as far as I can get.  Sorry, but if we have to assume someone isn't lying to then accept their ridiculous circular logic and leaps of faith claims, then I'd rather not assume they are telling the truth.

I'm not saying he's telling you the truth, all the truth, nothig but the truth. A lot of things he says/believes may be wrong or irrational.
but imho he's not trying to decive you. Not intentionally. That's all.

Infact, its been proven many times that the Catalyst does lie.  For example, leaving 'lesser species alone'.  They Reaperise Harvesters, and likely Yagh as well (since Brutes share NOTHING in common with Krogan, and have exactly the same body structure as Yahg).  Both are pre-spaceflight 'lesser species'.

I don't remeber the catalyst speaking about the yahg, but in any case that's not a lie. Yahg are like XIX century humans. Was your granfather a "lesser species?"

For the catalyst "lesser species" probably means pyjak, varren and dolphins..

Again, maybe he's wrong, maybe his concept of "lesser and advanced species" is questionable, but he's not necessarly lying to you.

Also by definition of the 'Catalyst' can be changed by the Crucible, then its not a catalyst.  Catalysts are things that cause other things to change without themselves changing

I don't think that the crucible has changed him they way you assume, like if he was "hacked" by the crucible. It's a question of changing prospective and variables, nothing more.
read point 3 of my first post

[rymajn3]

Haha. You know your ending is bad and not presented well when it takes a million words to explain.

[kal_reegar]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@kal_reegar:
I don't agree with everything you said, but it's really nice to see someone trying to create a scenario that makes sense instead of incessantly complaining that it doesn't.

I have to try, I love ME too much!

btw, is there something specific you don't agree? I know there are other possible scenarios that make sense, but if you have noticed something inconsistent please tell me, I truly believe that we can get better only through discussion and confrontation