196 réponses à ce sujet

[Hydralysk]

Blueprotoss wrote...
His Creators did become the 1st Reaper while we don't know if it was willingly or forcefully done.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure the Catalyst said something along the lines of "They in turn became the first Reaper, they did not approve but it needed to be done."

[Pitznik]

Hydralysk wrote...

It's also hard to believe that while it's so much smarter than us, it's unable to figure out a single way to present it's argument in a simplified manner that organics can understand. Even if that's the case, why would the catalyst bother explaining itself to Shepard if by it's own logic Shepard is categorically incapable of understanding what it's telling him?

Perhaps he tried to? After some failed experiments he stuck to the solution that worked best. Perhaps he tested the synthetic rise theory, and he multiple times seen synthetic eliminating organics from the galaxy at the point where it was inevitable to end with complete wipe of organic life if not for Reapers' intervention?

He told us pretty much nothing.

Modifié par Pitznik, 17 août 2012 - 06:46 .

[Hydralysk]

Pitznik wrote...

Hydralysk wrote...

It's also hard to believe that while it's so much smarter than us, it's unable to figure out a single way to present it's argument in a simplified manner that organics can understand. Even if that's the case, why would the catalyst bother explaining itself to Shepard if by it's own logic Shepard is categorically incapable of understanding what it's telling him?

Perhaps he tried to? After some failed experiments he stuck to the solution that worked best. Perhaps he tested the synthetic rise theory, and he multiple times seen synthetic eliminating organics from the galaxy at the point where it was inevitable to end with complete wipe of organic life if not for Reapers' intervention?

He told us pretty much nothing.

Which is why the way they wrote him failed, we have to make the assumption that he obtained proof for his argument without ever being shown it. It's quite possible that he did see this all happen, but based on what ME3 tells us it's just as likely he implemented his solution after seeing it happen once and extrapolating that it will always happen. 

You can't just tell us that a character has proof of his assertions, you actually need to show it or else that proof may as well not exist.

[Pitznik]

Hydralysk wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Hydralysk wrote...

It's also hard to believe that while it's so much smarter than us, it's unable to figure out a single way to present it's argument in a simplified manner that organics can understand. Even if that's the case, why would the catalyst bother explaining itself to Shepard if by it's own logic Shepard is categorically incapable of understanding what it's telling him?

Perhaps he tried to? After some failed experiments he stuck to the solution that worked best. Perhaps he tested the synthetic rise theory, and he multiple times seen synthetic eliminating organics from the galaxy at the point where it was inevitable to end with complete wipe of organic life if not for Reapers' intervention?

He told us pretty much nothing.

Which is why the way they wrote him failed, we have to make the assumption that he obtained proof for his argument without ever being shown it. It's quite possible that he did see this all happen, but based on what ME3 tells us it's just as likely he implemented his solution after seeing it happen once and extrapolating that it will always happen. 

You can't just tell us that a character has proof of his assertions, you actually need to show it or else that proof may as well not exist.

Maybe it was meant to be like that? Leap of faith?

[Blueprotoss]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

How is that when it sounds like yo haven't played the ending of the ME3 without the EC and only saying no isn't a counter.

I really couldn't give a crap whether you think I beat ME3 pre-EC.

Yet this shows us you don't know what you're talking about, which makes your points into personal gripes.

[Blueprotoss]

Hydralysk wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...
His Creators did become the 1st Reaper while we don't know if it was willingly or forcefully done.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure the Catalyst said something along the lines of "They in turn became the first Reaper, they did not approve but it needed to be done."

Yep thats one of the quotes I was thinking of.

[jumpingkaede]

All of Mass Effect was a poorly written computer program gone horribly wrong.

[Dharvy]

Hydralysk wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Hydralysk wrote...

It's also hard to believe that while it's so much smarter than us, it's unable to figure out a single way to present it's argument in a simplified manner that organics can understand. Even if that's the case, why would the catalyst bother explaining itself to Shepard if by it's own logic Shepard is categorically incapable of understanding what it's telling him?

Perhaps he tried to? After some failed experiments he stuck to the solution that worked best. Perhaps he tested the synthetic rise theory, and he multiple times seen synthetic eliminating organics from the galaxy at the point where it was inevitable to end with complete wipe of organic life if not for Reapers' intervention?

He told us pretty much nothing.

Which is why the way they wrote him failed, we have to make the assumption that he obtained proof for his argument without ever being shown it. It's quite possible that he did see this all happen, but based on what ME3 tells us it's just as likely he implemented his solution after seeing it happen once and extrapolating that it will always happen. 

You can't just tell us that a character has proof of his assertions, you actually need to show it or else that proof may as well not exist.

Would it have made a difference? Say what Pitznik wrote actually happened. Say the catalyst witnessed the synthetics eliminating organics with a consensus and ability to inevitably extinct all organics. Would its logic all of a sudden make sense? Would it answer many questions? In our cycle the most advance race seems to be the Asari but the Krogans seems to be fully able to be one of the most advance races, especially with there reproductions capabilites if only they were farther along the evolutionary track at the start of our cycle. What if synthetics was farther along in previous cycles, then ours and the Catalyst threats were nearly realized, time and time again throughout the cycles.

Well my questions is, do you consider the logic flawed becuase or your lack of information or is it flawed even if it had information to back it up?

[jumpingkaede]

Would it have made a difference? Say what Pitznik wrote actually happened. Say the catalyst witnessed the synthetics eliminating organics with a consensus and ability to inevitably extinct all organics. Would its logic all of a sudden make sense? Would it answer many questions? In our cycle the most advance race seems to be the Asari but the Krogans seems to be fully able to be one of the most advance races, especially with there reproductions capabilites if only they were farther along the evolutionary track at the start of our cycle. What if synthetics was farther along in previous cycles, then ours and the Catalyst threats were nearly realized, time and time again throughout the cycles.

Well my questions is, do you consider the logic flawed becuase or your lack of information or is it flawed even if it had information to back it up?

It's like this:  

If I had a Ford, and it blew up on me, and I decided that all American cars were bad.  It would still be pretty poor reasoning based on a sample size of 1.  

But it would be better than if I never owned any cars and just decided that all American cars were bad.  Let's say, because I had a bad American calculator or something.  

[Blueprotoss]

jumpingkaede wrote...

Would it have made a difference? Say what Pitznik wrote actually happened. Say the catalyst witnessed the synthetics eliminating organics with a consensus and ability to inevitably extinct all organics. Would its logic all of a sudden make sense? Would it answer many questions? In our cycle the most advance race seems to be the Asari but the Krogans seems to be fully able to be one of the most advance races, especially with there reproductions capabilites if only they were farther along the evolutionary track at the start of our cycle. What if synthetics was farther along in previous cycles, then ours and the Catalyst threats were nearly realized, time and time again throughout the cycles.

Well my questions is, do you consider the logic flawed becuase or your lack of information or is it flawed even if it had information to back it up?

It's like this:  

If I had a Ford, and it blew up on me, and I decided that all American cars were bad.  It would still be pretty poor reasoning based on a sample size of 1.  

But it would be better than if I never owned any cars and just decided that all American cars were bad.  Let's say, because I had a bad American calculator or something.

Most American cars are currenty bad while thats  number is decreasing at a growing rate.  Thats a bad example in its self based on how we already destroy what we create whether its organic or synthetic.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Dharvy wrote...

Would it have made a difference? Say what Pitznik wrote actually happened. Say the catalyst witnessed the synthetics eliminating organics with a consensus and ability to inevitably extinct all organics. Would its logic all of a sudden make sense? Would it answer many questions? In our cycle the most advance race seems to be the Asari but the Krogans seems to be fully able to be one of the most advance races, especially with there reproductions capabilites if only they were farther along the evolutionary track at the start of our cycle. What if synthetics was farther along in previous cycles, then ours and the Catalyst threats were nearly realized, time and time again throughout the cycles.

Well my questions is, do you consider the logic flawed becuase or your lack of information or is it flawed even if it had information to back it up?

I'd say it makes a difference. Correlation is the first step in determining causation.

So if we always see synthetics reach the top of the food chain and try to obliterate us, there'd be a good basis to say they will do so again. Or at least better than what the catalyst tells us originally, where we have no idea if there was a pattern.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 17 août 2012 - 09:18 .

[Blueprotoss]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

I'd say it makes a difference. Correlation is the first step in determining causation.

If thats the case then we would know the ins and outs of the ME universe including the Reapers.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote... 

So if we always see synthetics reach the top of the food chain and try to obliterate us, there'd be a good basis to say they will do so again. Or at least better than what the catalyst tells us originally, where we have no idea if there was a pattern.

Most of the information is from the current cycle and some from the previous cycle while its safe to say that Synthetics are on top with the Reapers controlling the cycles for millions of years. 

[Dharvy]

jumpingkaede wrote...

Would it have made a difference? Say what Pitznik wrote actually happened. Say the catalyst witnessed the synthetics eliminating organics with a consensus and ability to inevitably extinct all organics. Would its logic all of a sudden make sense? Would it answer many questions? In our cycle the most advance race seems to be the Asari but the Krogans seems to be fully able to be one of the most advance races, especially with there reproductions capabilites if only they were farther along the evolutionary track at the start of our cycle. What if synthetics was farther along in previous cycles, then ours and the Catalyst threats were nearly realized, time and time again throughout the cycles.

Well my questions is, do you consider the logic flawed becuase or your lack of information or is it flawed even if it had information to back it up?

It's like this:  

If I had a Ford, and it blew up on me, and I decided that all American cars were bad.  It would still be pretty poor reasoning based on a sample size of 1.  

But it would be better than if I never owned any cars and just decided that all American cars were bad.  Let's say, because I had a bad American calculator or something.  

But do we know with absolute fact that the Catalyst only have a sample size of 1? Do we know how many solutions failed before the Reaping solution was implemented? Do we know after the first Reaping solution was implemented that every cycle followed suit without trying yet even more solutions that end up failing?

What I'm saying is, in regards to the story, can we claim flawed logic because of our lack of information or specific details? For example do the logic behind a gun's mechanism become flawed just because someone never seen or heard of a gun and don't know how it can possibly work?

[Pitznik]

Dharvy wrote...


But do we know with absolute fact that the Catalyst only have a sample size of 1? Do we know how many solutions failed before the Reaping solution was implemented? Do we know after the first Reaping solution was implemented that every cycle followed suit without trying yet even more solutions that end up failing?

What I'm saying is, in regards to the story, can we claim flawed logic because of our lack of information or specific details? For example do the logic behind a gun's mechanism become flawed just because someone never seen or heard of a gun and don't know how it can possibly work?

My thoughts exactly. He had PLENTY of time for experiments. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. We don't know.

Modifié par Pitznik, 17 août 2012 - 11:12 .

[Blueprotoss]

Pitznik wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

But do we know with absolute fact that the Catalyst only have a sample size of 1? Do we know how many solutions failed before the Reaping solution was implemented? Do we know after the first Reaping solution was implemented that every cycle followed suit without trying yet even more solutions that end up failing?

What I'm saying is, in regards to the story, can we claim flawed logic because of our lack of information or specific details? For example do the logic behind a gun's mechanism become flawed just because someone never seen or heard of a gun and don't know how it can possibly work?

My thoughts exactly. He had PLENTY of time for experiments. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. We don't know.

I second that and the Reapers have been around for billions of years while that could be a blink of an eye in reality.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Dharvy wrote...

But do we know with absolute fact that the Catalyst only have a sample size of 1? Do we know how many solutions failed before the Reaping solution was implemented? Do we know after the first Reaping solution was implemented that every cycle followed suit without trying yet even more solutions that end up failing?

What I'm saying is, in regards to the story, can we claim flawed logic because of our lack of information or specific details? For example do the logic behind a gun's mechanism become flawed just because someone never seen or heard of a gun and don't know how it can possibly work?

Exactly the problem. We don't know. Keep in mind, this isn't simply a problem that we can side-line. You're not the Catalyst, you're Commander Shepard whose main enemy just appeared out of thin air to present you with an insanely controversial claim, which chances are, you're not going to buy. You're not going to just lie down and take his claims when he's not even going to provide a premise for why they might be true. You're going to want evidence, an argument, something to go on. Not just "Hey dude, synthetics are gonna kill you, press a button".  Hell, even when dealing with Vigil, an ally, we spent far longer discussing the Prothean extinction than we did about the main villain's plans.

It's not a question of having absolute facts, it's the issue, as you put it, that we can't know what the Catalyst relied on. It could be extremely logical, or it could be stupid as hell. And given the controversial nature of the claim and the individual it's coming from, this isn't really the time for guess-work from the main villain.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 18 août 2012 - 03:18 .

[fr33stylez]

Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but if the Catalyst turned its creators into the first Reaper, doesn't this mean it employed its solution based on a sample size of 1? What other cycles of alleged organic-synthetic conflict could the Catalyst have seen if the original creators were still around at the time of its solution?

[m2iCodeJockey]

SentinelShepParagon wrote...
...It is horribly flawed, but not for the reason that most people think....
...creates synthetics to kill organics (and synthetics) in order to stop synthetics from killing organics...
...Catalyst flat out says that he is not "wiping out organic life" (as Shepard accuses him of doing), but rather "preserving them in Reaper form..."
...They are simply in a different state of being... Therefore, that is not a logical flaw. It makes sense...

You have literally been indoctrinated.

Don't just take what that thing says as truth.
Test what the thing says against events, not dialog.

It says: "...Without us, synthetics would destroy all organic life..."
Every instance of fighting synthetics since 2183 has been caused by synthetics' contact with Reapers. The synthetics stayed to themselves unless attacked.
Without them, there would have been no Battle of the Citadel.

They have never attacked Geth that did not attack them first. If synthetics are such a big problem then, one should attack the synthetics first then, "preserve" their creators before they produce more, right?
The sum of Reaper action had nothing to do with preserving anything.

They were making new synthetics and uplifting the ones they came across.

[Obadiah]

The Catalyst or the Reapers see themselves as above life forms that evolve in each cycle. They speak of "realms of existence beyond your comprehension." Thus they do not consider themselves as part of the "Synthetic" part of the problem when stopping the chaos of Synthetics destroying all Organics.

The Catalyst also does not value the lives of individuals in civilization as it evolves during each cycle, but rather it values the existence of organic life itself. Thus it has not problem extinguishing the lives that make up civilization (and storing their information in some form - the Reapers), if it preserves the existence of other organic life which can evolve during the next cycle.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

fr33stylez wrote...

Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but if the Catalyst turned its creators into the first Reaper, doesn't this mean it employed its solution based on a sample size of 1? What other cycles of alleged organic-synthetic conflict could the Catalyst have seen if the original creators were still around at the time of its solution?

It's kind of sketchy on that topic, but the Catalyst does mention its efforts to find solutions to the problem, all ending in failure. Whether this was just conflict between the original creators and synthetics on multiple occasions, or different races of organics, I have no idea. But we do know that the Catalyst's sample size, at least in determining a solution, had to have been greater than one. He mentions "all solutions" ending in failure.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 18 août 2012 - 03:23 .

[m2iCodeJockey]

Obadiah wrote...
...Thus they do not consider themselves as part of the "Synthetic" part of the problem when stopping the chaos of Synthetics destroying all Organics....

Hello again.
I disagree:
FemShep: "So, you're just an AI."
Ghostie: "In as much as you are just an animal."

No matter what the Reapers themselves have said, Ghostie still sees itself as an evolved synthetic life form.

Modifié par m2iCodeJockey, 18 août 2012 - 04:56 .

[Kamuchi]

Using control, Shepard is dead, as his "ghost" explains that he is a reflection of his memories

So you don`t even control the reapers but are just dead...

[Blueprotoss]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

But do we know with absolute fact that the Catalyst only have a sample size of 1? Do we know how many solutions failed before the Reaping solution was implemented? Do we know after the first Reaping solution was implemented that every cycle followed suit without trying yet even more solutions that end up failing?

What I'm saying is, in regards to the story, can we claim flawed logic because of our lack of information or specific details? For example do the logic behind a gun's mechanism become flawed just because someone never seen or heard of a gun and don't know how it can possibly work?

Exactly the problem. We don't know. Keep in mind, this isn't simply a problem that we can side-line. You're not the Catalyst, you're Commander Shepard whose main enemy just appeared out of thin air to present you with an insanely controversial claim, which chances are, you're not going to buy. You're not going to just lie down and take his claims when he's not even going to provide a premise for why they might be true. You're going to want evidence, an argument, something to go on. Not just "Hey dude, synthetics are gonna kill you, press a button".  Hell, even when dealing with Vigil, an ally, we spent far longer discussing the Prothean extinction than we did about the main villain's plans.

It's not a question of having absolute facts, it's the issue, as you put it, that we can't know what the Catalyst relied on. It could be extremely logical, or it could be stupid as hell. And given the controversial nature of the claim and the individual it's coming from, this isn't really the time for guess-work from the main villain.

It seems like you're contradicting yourself since humanity hasn't been around anything close to 50,000 years in reality or ME while the Reapers in ME have been around for billions of years and this is just based on the Milky Way.  Sadly we know more about the Protheans then the Reapers and the history before the Protheans are unknown even with the Reapers.

If it was about absolutes and logic then you clearly aren't focusing on them based on the large amount of the unknown.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 18 août 2012 - 05:08 .

[Obadiah]

m2iCodeJockey wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
...Thus they do not consider themselves as part of the "Synthetic" part of the problem when stopping the chaos of Synthetics destroying all Organics....

Hello again.
I disagree:
FemShep: "So, you're just an AI."
Ghostie: "In as much as you are just an animal."

No matter what the Reapers themselves have said, Ghostie still see itself as an evolved synthetic life form.

The Catalyst does not say it has evolved - it says it is not "just an AI."

By its statement the Catalyst sees itself as an advanced AI. Whether it was so on creation or whether it has modified itself in such a manner over the millenia (evolved) is as yet unknown.

The Catalyst does not see itself as an actor within the Organic/Syntheitc conflict, it sees itself as an actor (or judge) apart from it.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

m2iCodeJockey wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
...Thus they do not consider themselves as part of the "Synthetic" part of the problem when stopping the chaos of Synthetics destroying all Organics....

Hello again.
I disagree:
FemShep: "So, you're just an AI."
Ghostie: "In as much as you are just an animal."

No matter what the Reapers themselves have said, Ghostie still sees itself as an evolved synthetic life form.

Wait, wasn't the point of that statement supposed to be that the Catalyst rejects such a restrictive classification?