226 réponses à ce sujet

[elitehunter34]

Wayning_Star wrote...
simple, just turn the words around, makes "it" more understandable "in as much as you are an animal" anology. The catalyst is an intelligent artificial. Makes it more than just an 'artificial' intelligence. It has a corporal definition, a constructed artificial who happens to be intelligent out of necessity,considering it's work routines'n all. Doesn't alter the fact that it's merely a machine tho, it's not independent of programming, but then, it appears that some organics aren't either, but that's another story... it simply cannot 'change' it's mind. The thing that makes organics believe that synthesis is 'mind control' without actually being synthesised, they imagine, worry about that, maybe it's intuition?, who knows..but I don't think the synthesis would 'control' there would be no logical reason for it, it's not part of the original programming, also probably not possible, as organics apparently spontaniously evolve, so mind control wouldn't hold forever, organics would figure a way out of it.,so it's back to other contemplations.

You cannot state that it is not independent of it's programming.  It is established that AI's can alter their own programming.  The game went out of it's way to say that it is a more powerful AI.  You cannot say that he is bound to it's programming.  That is speculation.  I have evidence that it's an AI because the Catalyst basically said that it is more than an AI.  If anything it is even more powerful than a normal AI.  Stop trying to argue that AIs are bound to their programming.  That is not how AI's work in the Mass Effect universe, or really any definition of an AI.

[3DandBeyond]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Synthesis is inevitable, the Catalyst states this.

But his attempts at it have been unsuccessful, as the Cannibals for example, prove.

He believes he is correct because he was programmed that way.

You don't have to choose Synthesis. There are three other options.

Two of them solve the immediate threat.

You have no idea what any of the options do unless meta-gaming and they are all from the same poisonous tree, meant to do nothing but solve his problem. Please point me as to exactly where in 3 games, his goal was ever our main goal.

They are ridiculous on their face and not fun endings for video games.  And please don't start by telling me again that other stories end in such and such way.  That is not pertinent to ME games.  They have a certain milieu in which they should and must operate.  The writers on some ego binge abandoned all that and dropped into the fantasy realm and left us with pseudo-intellectual crap.:innocent:  Sacrifice for a reason, death for a purpose, life for an ending.  These things I can accept, but garbage is garbage and the true art of these games was abandoned just for ego gratification.

We got a crucible instead of a story and in the beginning it was complete magic.  Now it's a battery because people said it made no sense.  But since the writers knew what they meant all along (right) they needed magic to plug the battery into and thus the citadel already home to Mr. Smoke and Mirrors became the repository for all that magical space seed.

ME had a coherent story with a logical goal that was replaced at the end with Magical Clowns in Outer Space.  Make a choice and you authorize more magic be dispensed to the masses, no matter if they want it or not.  Bob the reaper is out there burping people goo while he trims the hedges at the home of the people he ate last Saturday for dinner.  Or, maybe EDI and Joker can now have a child with their transformed beings and since they have achieved perfection well EDI no longer has to work it for the crowd.  She just got started now it's time to stop.  Immortal?  Well, get used to Joker's jokes for eternity.  And remember he has no need to ever learn any more-he has them all in his head.  

Alright then, let's get rid of Bob the reaper and friends, well just what the heck does the kid mean will happen to Shepard?  Oh, I know because other stories end on a question mark it is only right that a game that never ended on one do so now.

And I don't willingly take a middle finger salute from anyone so no, refuse is a crap sandwich they can eat.

[Applepie_Svk]

Shadrach 88 wrote...


An utterly absurd ideology. By this logic all wars ever fought should have ended with the complete massacre of one of the antagonists, since surrender would not end in "victory". I assume the complete waste of lives is immaterial?

Most of the wars end that way, it´s one who win the day have a luxury of decision over life of enemy and not that which fall... Each war end in some kind of massacre ...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 19 juillet 2012 - 10:16 .

[DistantUtopia]

maaaze wrote...

Ex-Cerberus wrote...

 

The Angry One wrote...

Ex-Cerberus wrote...

Refusal is more of a stupid choice than anything else. You have the ability to end the war at that very moment, but your decision is... "nah". 

Honestly, I don't even resent the idea of the Reapers winning the war in the end, but not when it results from Shepard being a complete moron.

You have the opportunity to surrender. Surrendering will end a war, sure. But don't pretend you're winning it.

 
Hahaha, yeah pretty much exactly. You get to fullfill Shepard's secret evil desire to shoot a young child in the face, so that can be a win if you want it to be... 

Bill Casey wrote...

Brilliant. 

funny thing that you find the comic brilliant while it contradicts the statement you made before.

or how is destroying the reapers is somehow surrendering?
or how is controlling the reapers somehow surrendering?

does not compute.

Brilliant as in, brilliant joke?  Taboo likened the Catalyst to the WinME paperclip.

Destroying the reapers and controlling the reapers as surrendering?  Isn't the whole debate that you are "surrendering" to the Catalysts Ideology?

Destroy - Yes, Catalyst, I agree. Synthetics will wipe out organics so I'll get rid of all synthetics now
Control - Yes, Catalyst, I agree. Synthetics will wipe out organics so I'll take over your job to make sure that doesn't happen.
Synthesis - Yes, Catalyst, I agree. Synthetics will wipe out organics so let's remove that difference so Synthetics won't have a reason to wipe out organics.

[Cheviot]

3DandBeyond wrote...
You have no idea what any of the options do unless meta-gaming and they are all from the same poisonous tree, meant to do nothing but solve his problem. Please point me as to exactly where in 3 games, his goal was ever our main goal.

It isn't the only choice in the Mass Effect series that Shepard goes into blind; for example, his choice whether or not to free the Rachni Queen, or whether or not to switch on Legion or whether or not to sabotage the Genophange cure or whether or not to let Legion upload the Reaper code to the Conscensus. 

[The Angry One]

maaaze wrote...

funny thing that you find the comic brilliant while it contradicts the statement you agreed before.

or how is destroying the reapers is somehow surrendering?
or how is controlling the reapers somehow surrendering?

does not compute.

They are surrender to Reaper philosophy. and the Catalyst's agenda.

[Cheviot]

The Angry One wrote...

maaaze wrote...

funny thing that you find the comic brilliant while it contradicts the statement you agreed before.

or how is destroying the reapers is somehow surrendering?
or how is controlling the reapers somehow surrendering?

does not compute.

They are surrender to Reaper philosophy. and the Catalyst's agenda.

But they also defeat the Reapers, which is Shepard's agenda.

[Village_Idiot]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Shadrach 88 wrote...


An utterly absurd ideology. By this logic all wars ever fought should have ended with the complete massacre of one of the antagonists, since surrender would not end in "victory". I assume the complete waste of lives is immaterial?

Most of the wars end that way, it´s one who win the day have a luxury of decision over lifes of enemy and not that which fall... Each war end in some kind of massacre ...

...but very rarely the complete annihilation of a protagonist, to the very last man woman and child. The ending of ME3 could be seen as a surrender, but as I've previously stated the alternative is extermination. The petty notion of honour and dignity is immaterial compared to the lives of others.

[Mazebook]

The Angry One wrote...

maaaze wrote...

funny thing that you find the comic brilliant while it contradicts the statement you agreed before.

or how is destroying the reapers is somehow surrendering?
or how is controlling the reapers somehow surrendering?

does not compute.

They are surrender to Reaper philosophy. and the Catalyst's agenda.

So by destroying the reapers you fullfill the Catalyst need to be destroyed?

????

By replacing the Catalyst in the control ending you somehow adapt the reapers philosophy?

sorry but that makes absolutely no sense at all.

[Applepie_Svk]

Cheviot wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

maaaze wrote...

funny thing that you find the comic brilliant while it contradicts the statement you agreed before.

or how is destroying the reapers is somehow surrendering?
or how is controlling the reapers somehow surrendering?

does not compute.

They are surrender to Reaper philosophy. and the Catalyst's agenda.

But they also defeat the Reapers, which is Shepard's agenda.

But for what cost? If Shepard managed to broke peace betwen Geths and Quarians, if in the future will someone create AI than this AI will judge organics upon these events - that Organics would do anything for survival and synthetics are not an equal for them.
And here we go again, Created will be always rebelled agaisnt their creators.... The only one which create conflict is Catalyst with his circular logic of husk...

[Bill Casey]

DistantUtopia wrote...

Destroy - Yes, Catalyst, I agree. Synthetics will wipe out organics so I'll get rid of all synthetics now

Except for the part where I don't agree with that, and it doesn't solve his "problem" at all...
I'm just here to kill the Reapers. I don't care what he wants...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 19 juillet 2012 - 10:23 .

[DistantUtopia]

maaaze wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

maaaze wrote...

funny thing that you find the comic brilliant while it contradicts the statement you agreed before.

or how is destroying the reapers is somehow surrendering?
or how is controlling the reapers somehow surrendering?

does not compute.

They are surrender to Reaper philosophy. and the Catalyst's agenda.

So by destroying the reapers you fullfill the Catalyst need to be destroyed?

????

By replacing the Catalyst in the control ending you somehow adapt the reapers philosophy?

sorry but that makes absolutely no sense at all.

Something like this:
Destroy - Yes, Catalyst, I agree. Synthetics will wipe out organics so I'll get rid of all synthetics now
Control - Yes, Catalyst, I agree. Synthetics will wipe out organics so I'll take over your job to make sure that doesn't happen.

[Bill Casey]

Except synthetics won't wipe out all organics...
And I'm killing the Reapers anyway at cost...

And if I survive, I'm starting the "Rebuild the Geth Foundation"...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 19 juillet 2012 - 10:27 .

[Cheviot]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

But they also defeat the Reapers, which is Shepard's agenda.

But for what cost? If Shepard managed to broke peace betwen Geths and Quarians, if in the future will someone create AI than this AI will judge organics upon these events - that Organics would do anything for survival and synthetics are not an equal for them.

Don't see how this AI you just made up would think this, considering that a) the Catalyst offered the options and if Shepard brokered the peace, then that shows that Synthetic and Organic can settle their differences without annihilation.

[Village_Idiot]

The Angry One wrote...

Shadrach 88 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

You have the opportunity to surrender. Surrendering will end a war, sure. But don't pretend you're winning it.

An utterly absurd ideology. By this logic all wars ever fought should have ended with the complete massacre of one of the antagonists, since surrender would not end in "victory". I assume the complete waste of lives is immaterial?

Are you suggesting that regimes dedicated to conquest and genocide haven't been toppled and their leaders executed before?

Terminology fail, apologies. Meant to say protagonist. My point is that in a conflict between two parties, it's rare that one is completely annihilated, even when deluded leaders on the losing side have attempted to ensure this happens. A peace agreement or ceasefire will usually take place long before such a thing occurs.

In the case of ME3, the galaxy is losing. There is a chance, though a risky one, that the killing can stop- call this a surrender, ceasefire, whatever. The difference is that under normal circumstances, there is no room for negotiation with the Reapers, but the opportunity is now on the table, take it or leave it. The alternative is complete extermination.

I'd choose to try to save lives. It may well be a huge risk, but when it's inevitable death versus possible inevitable death, I'll take the latter.

[Bill Casey]

If Destroy wiped out ten races, all organic, including humans, I would still pick it...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 19 juillet 2012 - 10:28 .

[DistantUtopia]

Bill Casey wrote...

Except synthetics won't wipe out all organics...
And I'm killing the Reapers anyway at cost...

And if I survive, I'm starting the "Rebuild the Geth Foundation"...

No arguments there.  That's the (flawed) logic of the Catalyst.  All this is saying is that the way the narrative is currently written, it suggests all choices are agreeing with the Catalyst's reasoning, flawed or not.

[Mazebook]

DistantUtopia wrote...

Brilliant as in, brilliant joke?  Taboo likened the Catalyst to the WinME paperclip.

Destroying the reapers and controlling the reapers as surrendering?  Isn't the whole debate that you are "surrendering" to the Catalysts Ideology?

Destroy - Yes, Catalyst, I agree. Synthetics will wipe out organics so I'll get rid of all synthetics now
Control - Yes, Catalyst, I agree. Synthetics will wipe out organics so I'll take over your job to make sure that doesn't happen.
Synthesis - Yes, Catalyst, I agree. Synthetics will wipe out organics so let's remove that difference so Synthetics won't have a reason to wipe out organics.

No you don´t surrender anything.

Destroy - No, Catalyst I do not agree...I have hope that conflicts will end peacefully...I will end the reaper thread ones and for all...even when i have to sacrafice Synthetics...we will find a better way to prevent conflict.

Control - No , Catalyst...there are other ways to prevent conflict...I will end your tyranny and take care of all sentient beings.

Synthesis - Yes I agree. Synthetics and Organics will always be in conflict. so lets remove the differences and let us all have a better understanding of each other...and remove the reaper thread by giving them free will...

Modifié par maaaze, 19 juillet 2012 - 10:32 .

[elitehunter34]

The Angry One wrote...

maaaze wrote...

funny thing that you find the comic brilliant while it contradicts the statement you agreed before.

or how is destroying the reapers is somehow surrendering?
or how is controlling the reapers somehow surrendering?

does not compute.

They are surrender to Reaper philosophy. and the Catalyst's agenda.

I really don't get how either surrender to the Reaper philosopy and the Catalyst's agenda.  The Reaper philosophy is wipe out advanced organics to prevent synthetics from being created.  Destroy is against its agenda because it allows new synthetics to be created.  Control is against its agenda because Shepard could let advanced synthetics be created.  It makes no sense why the Catalyst even presents these options to you.  He even says he doesn't want them. He only wants synthesis.  Man I hate the endings so much...

Modifié par elitehunter34, 19 juillet 2012 - 10:34 .

[Mazebook]

elitehunter34 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

maaaze wrote...

funny thing that you find the comic brilliant while it contradicts the statement you agreed before.

or how is destroying the reapers is somehow surrendering?
or how is controlling the reapers somehow surrendering?

does not compute.

They are surrender to Reaper philosophy. and the Catalyst's agenda.

I really don't get how either surrender to the Reaper philosopy and the Catalyst's agenda.  The Reaper philosophy is wipe out advanced organics to prevent synthetics from being created.  Destroy is against its agenda because it allows new synthetics to be created.  Control is against its agenda because Shepard could let advanced synthetics be created.  It makes no sense why the Catalyst even prevents these options to you.  He even says he doesn't want them. He only wants synthesis.  Man I hate the endings so much...

He does not give them to you...he just explains what the crucible does...thats all...

He gives Shaperd context about what he is about to do.

[DistantUtopia]

maaaze wrote...

DistantUtopia wrote...

Brilliant as in, brilliant joke?  Taboo likened the Catalyst to the WinME paperclip.

Destroying the reapers and controlling the reapers as surrendering?  Isn't the whole debate that you are "surrendering" to the Catalysts Ideology?

Destroy - Yes, Catalyst, I agree. Synthetics will wipe out organics so I'll get rid of all synthetics now
Control - Yes, Catalyst, I agree. Synthetics will wipe out organics so I'll take over your job to make sure that doesn't happen.
Synthesis - Yes, Catalyst, I agree. Synthetics will wipe out organics so let's remove that difference so Synthetics won't have a reason to wipe out organics.

No you don´t surrender anything.

Destroy - No, Catalyst I do not agree...I have hope that conflicts will end peacefully...I will end the reaper thread ones and for all...even when i have to sacrafice Synthetics...we will find a better way to prevent conflict.

Control - No , Catalyst...there are other ways to prevent conflict...I will end your tyranny and take care of all sentient beings.

Synthesis - Yes I agree. Synthetics and Organics will always be in conflict. so lets remove the differences and let us all have a better understanding of each other...and remove the reaper thread by giving them free will...

And unfortunately,one could view each choice either way.  To me, the way the dialog and narrative is currently structured heavily implies the first interpretation.

Not to say the 2nd isn't true. It just doesn't seem to fit in unless you insert your own "Shepard" in.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Wayning_Star wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

first: it's not a brat second: it's not an AI, but an IA, big difference three: It's dealing with us/MEU, not the other way around. Fourth: It doesn't have 'victims', merely parts of it's programs. Fifth: It doesn't 'dream', the original creators do that 'for' it. Sixth: The "proof" is in the pudding, as it's been at the cycle for millions, maybe billions of years. That kinda leave organics/the entire MEU out of the loop of what to do about anything regarding the motivations of the catalyst and who actually programmed the thing. The crucible is more than just a power supply, but the catalyst doesn't even know that cause it's no longer within it's programming priorities. Who's programming priorites is a mystery. The objection to the synthesis is more proof of that. We/MEU beings couldn't even imagine such choices. Because.....???

1) It's a brat because it is interfering with things that are none of its business and because it tried to be naughty by disguising itself as a child while committing an incredible number of atrocities. 2) It has identified itself as an extremely smart artificial intelligence, so it can reason and thus it can be held accountable for its actions. 3) It is obvious that it tries to deal with the "us" in the MEU, and, considering the body count, that is the main problem. 4) Given its solutions which violate the right of self-determination in any horrific way imaginable the term "victims" seems to be appropriate. 5) The brat is an AI, and thus it can reason. It should be good at it, because it claims to be very smart. 6) If you love to eat that pudding then go ahead, but I don't see any proof in it. The motivations of the brat are totally irrelevant, because, as naughty as it is, the brat sticks its nose in things that are none of its business.

You may think the Crucible is more than just a power supply, but the brat disagrees. The Crucible itself doesn't do much. It requires the Citadel and the mass relays to become effective.

Child: The device you refer to as the Crucible is little more than a power source. However, in combination with the Citadel and the relays, it is capable of releasing tremendous amounts of energy throughout the galaxy. It is crude but effective and adaptive in its design.

And now we are back on topic.

brat cause we're mad at it? It looks like a child cause it's communing with possible choice makers the way it's programmed? It has an identity crises, or do we have that? It doen's care about self determination, other than it's own programming, isn't even part of the equation, but is later introduce to us by it as a choice or choices. It can only reason within the perimiters of its core programming, but untill the crucible introduction, that didn't cover our 'feelings'. Apparently,being in existence even Before the MEU came into existence and beyond, it has every right given it by it sheer ability to do so, just like any other race, we just feel bad cause we couldn't do a damn thing about it, so..we call it names and make petty excuses why we don't/cannot understand it. Jarvik would probably be upset with that scenerio. Form of false pride, exihibited by false/ineffectual bravado.  The catalyst only assumes it to be 'just a power source', it doesn't have the proper program to explain it, not a coincendence, considering what it means for the catalyst. It still decides to utilize an unknown as programming, hows that done, it's infected with a virus, overrunning it's core programming and self defense protocalls.Only ONE race capable of that trick...it aint us. Some organics are plainly sneaking up on it. Shep wants the cycle to stop, the reapers to go the way of all things and MEU to see peace.

Mission critical. but by who's actual mission? The pudding..

I was very clear in my response. It is fine that you do not agree, but continuing only distracts from the topic. And please, stop confusing VIs with AIs.

Back on topic: To me, given the OP and my post below that, it appears that the brat designed and created the three platforms and dropped the plans of the Crucible, just like it dropped other knowledge and technology for the civilizations to find and develop along the paths it desires. The only, more or less, non-destructive option of the 3 seems to be synthesis. And that's intriguing. It also sells that option well. According to the brat it is "ideal" and even "inevitable". It is as if the brat wants Shepard to select it. Which of course my Shepard feels is not in the Council's interest, but that's another problem.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 19 juillet 2012 - 10:39 .

[Bill Casey]

It's really not...
With EC, the ending suggests Shepard doesn't want the collateral damage that comes with killing the Reapers...

"There has to be another way"
"Let's get this over with"

Modifié par Bill Casey, 19 juillet 2012 - 10:37 .

[DistantUtopia]

maaaze wrote...

elitehunter34 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

maaaze wrote...

funny thing that you find the comic brilliant while it contradicts the statement you agreed before.

or how is destroying the reapers is somehow surrendering?
or how is controlling the reapers somehow surrendering?

does not compute.

They are surrender to Reaper philosophy. and the Catalyst's agenda.

I really don't get how either surrender to the Reaper philosopy and the Catalyst's agenda.  The Reaper philosophy is wipe out advanced organics to prevent synthetics from being created.  Destroy is against its agenda because it allows new synthetics to be created.  Control is against its agenda because Shepard could let advanced synthetics be created.  It makes no sense why the Catalyst even prevents these options to you.  He even says he doesn't want them. He only wants synthesis.  Man I hate the endings so much...

He does not give them to you...he just explains what the crucible does...thats all...

He gives Shaperd context about what he is about to do.

Ok, we seem to be divering a bit again to the endings.

I thought the debate was that the options provided at the end are ALREADY in the Citadel; all the Crucible does is unlock it?  Therefore, Synthesis was already something the Citadel COULD do but is only fully realized (i.e. AA Batteries) when the Crucible docks?

[elitehunter34]

maaaze wrote...
He does not give them to you...he just explains what the crucible does...thats all...

He gives Shaperd context about what he is about to do.

I didn't say he did.  Present means the same thing as showing you, which is what he did.  Shepard had no knowledge of the Crucible's functions.  For some reason the Catalyst told Shepard about them despite both of those options being the antithesis of what the Catalyst wants.  Don't say that the Crucible forced him to.  You are not going to convince me that a sentient AI was forced by a machine that is only a power source to present those 2 options.  It's simply bad writing.