313 réponses à ce sujet

[shepskisaac]

javeart wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

javeart wrote...

But still reapers motives doesn't make sense.

Why?

killing advanced organics to prevent them from creating AIs that could eradicate all organic life in the galaxy, not just advanced, or in case AIs have alread been created, killing the AIs as well

Fixed that for you. This is a classic 'hurt you to save you from yourselves' logic for Asimov AIs, one of the stamples of Sci-Fi. AIs get creative with the interpretation of their directives because of lack of restraints (which is the fault of their designers) and act in ways the designers did not predict and and thus prevent

[geceka]

javeart wrote...

well, they could just kill engineers and scientist

They could do a lot of things alternatively, e.g. simply threaten people not build synthetics, even though this might not be just as "safe", etc...

On a more serious note, though, the catalyst's solution is not supposed to be morally acceptable, but it IS a solution to the problem it wants to address. To dismiss it with the "yo dawg" meme is just something that repeatedly happens on this forum, but personally, I think claiming the catalyst makes no sense is one of the weaker vectors of attack people use against the endings, because this is all very well explained in-game.

[shepskisaac]

geceka wrote...

javeart wrote...

well, they could just kill engineers and scientist

They could do a lot of things alternatively, e.g. simply threaten people not build synthetics, even though this might not be just as "safe", etc...

On a more serious note, though, the catalyst's solution is not supposed to be morally acceptable, but it IS a solution to the problem it wants to address. To dismiss it with the "yo dawg" meme is just something that repeatedly happens on this forum, but personally, I think claiming the catalyst makes no sense is one of the weaker vectors of attack people use against the endings, because this is all very well explained in-game.

It's explained well with EC (and firther with Leviathan) because it makes the Catalyst an AI ripped out straight from Asimov's novels. However, in the original ending, it really made little sense because we didn't even know if the Catalyst was an AI or an organic or an organic turned AI or something else.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 03 décembre 2012 - 03:50 .

[geceka]

IsaacShep wrote...

However, in the original ending, it really made little sense because we didn't even know if the Catalyst was an AI or an organic or an organic turned AI or something else.

Well, I wouldn't necessarily say that, at least for me, the whole point was that I understand why the catalyst is doing this, agree with it that it is not an ideal solution (morally), and thus finding a new solution is the logical consequence. Whether the catalyst is/was an organic itself or "just an AI" doesn't really matter that much to me. After EC, we only know it's the "collective consciousness of the Reapers", e.g. I don't think it's "just" what the Leviathans created anymore, but that's maybe something to be told in another (future) story :-)

I liked the philosophy of the endings even before the EC, but I welcome the latter because – as invested as I am in ME – I enjoy every bit of additional lore I can soak up.

[garf]

My nephew was okay with the endings and is contemptuous of 'fan rage and haters' that ballooned the issue 'all out of proportion'

but he has a bit of a hipster streak in him.

[shepskisaac]

geceka wrote...

Whether the catalyst is/was an organic itself or "just an AI" doesn't really matter that much to me. After EC, we only know it's the "collective consciousness of the Reapers", e.g. I don't think it's "just" what the Leviathans created anymore, but that's maybe something to be told in another (future) story :-)

But the solution it came up with happened when he was just an AI and the entire premise is, like I said, that of Asimov AIs. An AI gets a goal to achieve/problem to solve but because the creators did not put enough restraints on it, it achieves this goal/solves the problem in the way the creators did not forsee.

[geceka]

[quote]IsaacShep wrote...

Whether the catalyst is/was an organic itself or "just an AI" doesn't really matter that much to me. After EC, we only know it's the "collective consciousness of the Reapers", e.g. I don't think it's "just" what the Leviathans created anymore, but that's maybe something to be told in another (future) story :-)[/quote]But the solution it came up with happened when he was just an AI and the entire premise is, like I said, that of Asimov AIs. An AI gets a goal to achieve/problem to solve but because the creators did not put enough restraints on it, it achieves this goal/solves the problem in the way the creators did not forsee.
[/quote]

Absolutely, I wouldn't say that there's anything in the game that wouldn't allow for a reading of the story like this. And yes, Asimov's short-stories (especially the earlier ones) are certainly a huge inspiration for the ending.

Personally, I tend to view the catalyst more as a true, self-conscious, non-shackled AI who actually truly "betrayed" the Leviathans, knowing very well that reaper-izing them is not what they wanted, maybe in delusions of grandeur, like an ally suddenly backstabbing you, rather than an AI coming to unforeseen conclusions. It's just a subtle thing, but personally, I prefer to read it that way.

[MassEffect762]

My opinion.

ME1= a game adults could like/love

ME2= a game only youths(25 and under) would like/love

ME3= nobody really cares at this point let's play for the end game, and the ending is FUUUU!
(unless you're a simpletun or dying  to pop in another game to increase your gamer score)

[javeart]

geceka wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

However, in the original ending, it really made little sense because we didn't even know if the Catalyst was an AI or an organic or an organic turned AI or something else.

Well, I wouldn't necessarily say that, at least for me, the whole point was that I understand why the catalyst is doing this, agree with it that it is not an ideal solution (morally), and thus finding a new solution is the logical consequence. Whether the catalyst is/was an organic itself or "just an AI" doesn't really matter that much to me. After EC, we only know it's the "collective consciousness of the Reapers", e.g. I don't think it's "just" what the Leviathans created anymore, but that's maybe something to be told in another (future) story :-)

I liked the philosophy of the endings even before the EC, but I welcome the latter because – as invested as I am in ME – I enjoy every bit of additional lore I can soak up.

ok, I have to concede that it's a logical solution, if a logic solutions means strictly that it serves to achieve a goal. But the fact that there are a lot of alternatives that seem to be so much coherent with the goal of preserving organic life, is what makes it nonsensical to me.

Modifié par javeart, 03 décembre 2012 - 04:58 .

[Sable Rhapsody]

IsaacShep wrote...
]It's explained well with EC (and firther with Leviathan) because it makes the Catalyst an AI ripped out straight from Asimov's novels. However, in the original ending, it really made little sense because we didn't even know if the Catalyst was an AI or an organic or an organic turned AI or something else.

This.  If I'd played ME3 as the OP's brother did (EC and Leviathan and possibly Javik too) installed, I probably would've liked the original endings just fine.  I hated the endings back in March because somehow things like the origins and motivations of the bad guys, closure for the end of a 100+ hour journey with Shep, and decent foreshadowing of the ending were not in the game.

You know, minor details <_<

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 03 décembre 2012 - 04:38 .

[javeart]

IsaacShep wrote...

javeart wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

javeart wrote...

But still reapers motives doesn't make sense.

Why?

killing advanced organics to prevent them from creating AIs that could eradicate all organic life in the galaxy, not just advanced, or in case AIs have alread been created, killing the AIs as well

Fixed that for you. This is a classic 'hurt you to save you from yourselves' logic for Asimov AIs, one of the stamples of Sci-Fi. AIs get creative with the interpretation of their directives because of lack of restraints (which is the fault of their designers) and act in ways the designers did not predict and and thus prevent

My point is still the same, what makes logical to wipe out entire civilizations instead of attacking the specific individuals or synthetics or whatever that is causing the problem?

[Fixers0]

 Anybody still living in the illusion that the Extended cut actually logically managed to explain the story behind starbrat should really watch this.

[FOX216BC]

Pantanplan wrote...

How old is your brother? I think older people would react more positively to the ending than younger people would.

Define older people.
I'm a 29 year old husband and father and i still think that ending was pure bs.

[geceka]

javeart wrote...

My point is still the same, what makes logical to wipe out entire civilizations instead of attacking the specific individuals or synthetics or whatever that is causing the problem?

1) The catalyst does not perceive its actions as "wiping out entire civilisations". It rather sees it as harvesting them, storing them in Reaper form to make room for new life. That's even a much more holistic perspective than just the organic/synthetic conflict. The catalyst is well aware of the consequences its actions have on the galaxy (e.g. think of this: Could the Protheans have developed the way they did if the Innusanon were still alive? Could we have developed the way we did if Earth was a Prothean colony?). It just doesn't even think of weighing two genocides against each other. The harvest is not a genocide in its perspective (and only in the "Control" or "Synthesis" ending could we ever find out if there's anything to it. Maybe being a Reaper actually *is* a higher form of existence. The game doesn't provide clues in either direction, so this is all pure speculation).

2) The Reapers "impose order upon chaos". Sovereign said it, and even the catalyst answers "chaos" initially, before it goes into detail and mentions the organic/synthetic thing. The Reapers engineer the entire development of new species to go along the "paths they desire", isolating them from the influence of those that came before and seeding Mass Effect technology (and the relays) to control the technological state everyone is at when the Reapers arrive again. According to the Vendetta VI, it's working well, with each cycle being extremely similar to the other, down to the nature of the individual species in it. Coming back and forth to destroy a lab or an institution whenever someone starts working on AI tech is inviting said chaos. Do you think people would be unprepared the second, third, fourth, fifth, etc.., time the Reapers target a (part of a) civilisation? Do you think said civilization wouldn't prepare in between such attacks, probably coming up with technology the Reapers have not anticipated, technology that can harm them or even the galaxy at large (think gigantic bombs), e.g. introducing exactly that chaos into the equation that the Reapers are working hard to prevent? Do you not think it is smarter to attack an enemy at the one time you KNOW exactly you can wipe them out entirely with minimal effect on the rest of the galaxy, rather than repeatedly taking your chances and letting them advance in between, especially if you are thinking of the whole process as picking ripe fruit, rather than committing genocide?

3) Again, the point is not to perceive the catalyst's solution as the perfect one, but to understand its validity – If it was perfect, there would not be a need to pick a new solution at the end of the game. The whole fact that you made it to the catalyst is proof of the solution not being absolutely fool-proof, as the catalyst did not anticipate the chain of events that brought you, Shepard, into its chambers. There was chaos it could not control.

See, if your main gripe about the ending is that, while you understand the Reapers' solution and agree on their core tenet, but disagree about their methods, there is – just as if someone at Bioware might have anticipated this situation – the perfect ending for you: Control. Cease or continue the cycle as you see fit.

Modifié par geceka, 03 décembre 2012 - 06:02 .

[F4H bandicoot]

MassEffect762 wrote...

My opinion.

ME1= a game adults could like/love

ME2= a game only youths(25 and under) would like/love

ME3= nobody really cares at this point let's play for the end game, and the ending is FUUUU!
(unless you're a simpletun or dying  to pop in another game to increase your gamer score)

I think you might be very wrong

[javeart]

geceka wrote...

javeart wrote...

My point is still the same, what makes logical to wipe out entire civilizations instead of attacking the specific individuals or synthetics or whatever that is causing the problem?

1) The catalyst does not perceive its actions as "wiping out entire civilisations". It rather sees it as harvesting them, storing them in Reaper form to make room for new life. That's even a much more holistic perspective than just the organic/synthetic conflict. The catalyst is well aware of the consequences its actions have on the galaxy (e.g. think of this: Could the Protheans have developed the way they did if the Innusanon were still alive? Could we have developed the way we did if Earth was a Prothean colony?). It just doesn't even think of weighing two genocides against each other. The harvest is not a genocide in its perspective (and only in the "Control" or "Synthesis" ending could we ever find out if there's anything to it. Maybe being a Reaper actually *is* a higher form of existence. The game doesn't provide clues in either direction, so this is all pure speculation).

2) The Reapers "impose order upon chaos". Sovereign said it, and even the catalyst answers "chaos" initially, before it goes into detail and mentions the organic/synthetic thing. The Reapers engineer the entire development of new species to go along the "paths they desire", isolating them from the influence of those that came before and seeding Mass Effect technology (and the relays) to control the technological state everyone is at when the Reapers arrive again. According to the Vendetta VI, it's working well, with each cycle being extremely similar to the other, down to the nature of the individual species in it. Coming back and forth to destroy a lab or an institution whenever someone starts working on AI tech is inviting said chaos. Do you think people would be unprepared the second, third, fourth, fifth, etc.., time the Reapers target a (part of a) civilisation? Do you think said civilization wouldn't prepare in between such attacks, probably coming up with technology the Reapers have not anticipated, technology that can harm them or even the galaxy at large (think gigantic bombs), e.g. introducing exactly that chaos into the equation that the Reapers are working hard to prevent? Do you not think it is smarter to attack an enemy at the one time you KNOW exactly you can wipe them out entirely with minimal effect on the rest of the galaxy, rather than repeatedly taking your chances and letting them advance in between, especially if you are thinking of the whole process as picking ripe fruit, rather than committing genocide?

3) Again, the point is not to perceive the catalyst's solution as the perfect one, but to understand its validity – If it was perfect, there would not be a need to pick a new solution at the end of the game. The whole fact that you made it to the catalyst is proof of the solution not being absolutely fool-proof, as the catalyst did not anticipate the chain of events that brought you, Shepard, into its chambers. There was chaos it could not control.

See, if your main gripe about the ending is that, while you understand the Reapers' solution and agree on their core tenet, but disagree about their methods, there is – just as if someone at Bioware might have anticipated this situation – the perfect ending for you: Control. Cease or continue the cycle as you see fit.

But if, as you say in 2), reapers can control organic civilisations with such precision, what does they have to fear from them? in fact, they could keep every civilisation in stone age (or almost) for ever.

besides, that argument makes order the primary goal, and that's quite problematic (what order?) and has nothing to do per se  with any organics/synthetics confrontation. (organics manage just fine witout any help from synthetics to create chaos)

and it's not about if I see it like a genocide while for them is just harvesting, the thing is, that if they want to preserve organic life, if that is their primary goal, they reasonable thing would be trying to keep alive as many organics as possible. Otherwise (if quantity doesn't matter at all), they could just dedicate themselves to control a little town and kill everything else

Modifié par javeart, 03 décembre 2012 - 06:43 .

[geceka]

javeart wrote...

But if, as you say in 2), reapers can control organic civilisations with such precision, what does they have to fear from them? in fact, they could keep every civilisation in stone age (or almost) for ever.

Uhm, are you serious? You are taking my argument basically verbatim and spin it as a counter-argument? I said they do not need to fear organic civilizations because they exert such control over their development. Hence, if they give up that control and let them develop beyond what they can control, they would have something to fear (e.g. losing their extinction cycle or having an AI developed right under them, which can surpass them).

They do exterminate them when they reach a certain level, only that it's not Stone Age, but "Mass Effect" age (which, of course, might look like "Stone Age" for someone as advanced as the Reapers).

javeart wrote...

besides, that argument makes order the primary goal, and that's quite problematic (what order?) and has nothing to do per se  with any organics/synthetics confrontation. (organics manage just fine witout any help from synthetics to create chaos)

No, no chaos if you control their development. Sovereign had this awesome speech, you know, where he says how organics develop along the paths they desire, how they introduce order to the chaos of organic development, and how an organic species can only exist if the Reapers allow it, and they will end when they demand it.

The goal of the Reapers is to ensure that no technological singularity capable of wiping out all organic life can occur. The means they choose to ensure this goal is tight control over the development of organics and harvesting them precisely at the technological level where they begin to become capable of creating said singularity. It is all interwoven, but "goals" does not equal "means".

Also, Reapers only care about galactic scales, they do not care about if organic destroy their own planets, wage puny wars against each other, etc... This is not chaos to them, because they extinguish these civilizations before they are advanced enough to affect the galaxy as a whole with whatever they do! Is it chaos to you when some ants are waging war in your garden? But you will kill them before they advance to a level where they can actually affect the garden, e.g. when they multiply in numbers out of control or whatever and run a risk of destroying the garden. That's the situation how the Reapers perceive it.

javeart wrote...

and it's not about if I see it like a genocide while for them is just harvesting, the thing is, that if they want to preserve organic life, if that is their primary goal, they reasonable thing would be trying to keep alive as many organics as possible. Otherwise (if quantity doesn't matter at all), they could just dedicate themselves to control a little town and kill everything else

They are not interested in quantity. They are interested in "preserving a species in Reaper form". We do not know what exactly this entails, and it does not matter for the overarching theme. For them, the difference between a galaxy-spanning organic empire and said empire preserved in Reaper form is non-existant, and that is all we need to know (again, you don't need to agree, that's all the Reapers' perspective.

Modifié par geceka, 03 décembre 2012 - 06:58 .

[nos_astra]

IsaacShep wrote...

javeart wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

javeart wrote...

But still reapers motives doesn't make sense.

Why?

killing advanced organics to prevent them from creating AIs that could eradicate all organic life in the galaxy, not just advanced, or in case AIs have alread been created, killing the AIs as well

Fixed that for you. This is a classic 'hurt you to save you from yourselves' logic for Asimov AIs, one of the stamples of Sci-Fi. AIs get creative with the interpretation of their directives because of lack of restraints (which is the fault of their designers) and act in ways the designers did not predict and and thus prevent

Hurt you to save you from yourselves after I tampered with your development by leaving very advanced tech for you to use and study so this process is at the very least sped up, also streamlined and therefore maybe more predictable. On the other hand there are so many variables that determine the devlopment of a civilization...

Modifié par klarabella, 03 décembre 2012 - 07:24 .

[Reorte]

Fixers0 wrote...

 Anybody still living in the illusion that the Extended cut actually logically managed to explain the story behind starbrat should really watch this.

The background to the Reapers and Starbrat isn't the problem. It's the solution that's a load of nonsense. The Reapers' backstory is merely ho-hum (and somewhat anticlimatic but it's almost impossible to remove mystery without being anticlimatic). It's got its problems but so have a lot of the decent parts of Mass Effect.

Modifié par Reorte, 03 décembre 2012 - 07:23 .

[Reorte]

klarabella wrote...

Hurt you to save you from yourselves after I tampered with your development by leaving very advanced tech for you to use and study so this process is at the very least sped up.

Because it makes the Reapers' job easier, as long as they turn up before everyone has reverse engineered it and used it to massively turn against the Reapers. I think it's said that the cycles are based on observing how far galactic civilisation has got, rather than running to a timetable, it just happens to average at 50000 years.

[dreman9999]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Tigerman123 wrote...



From the me1 artbook

Owned. 

And then in ME2, Legion happened.

Legion did not counter the issue. Hejust show that there are 2 sides of the issue. That both sides have positive and negative effects on the issue.

Legion just shows that both organics and synthetics cause the problem.

[Reorte]

dreman9999 wrote...

Legion did not counter the issue. Hejust show that there are 2 sides of the issue. That both sides have positive and negative effects on the issue.

Legion just shows that both organics and synthetics cause the problem.

Legion shows that the differences aren't really massively fundamental and at the end of the day they all behave in pretty similar ways.

[dreman9999]

Reorte wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

 Anybody still living in the illusion that the Extended cut actually logically managed to explain the story behind starbrat should really watch this.

The background to the Reapers and Starbrat isn't the problem. It's the solution that's a load of nonsense. The Reapers' backstory is merely ho-hum (and somewhat anticlimatic but it's almost impossible to remove mystery without being anticlimatic). It's got its problems but so have a lot of the decent parts of Mass Effect.

The point is thatthesolution is the problem. It' made to be problematic. No one really is to like the choices on hand. The issue is thatwe have to unbending will causing the problem in the ending, the shackled Catalyst stuck doing what it programmed to do and the races of the past cycles that hate synthetics so much they made a divice that can kill them all with out thinking about the belevolent Syntheitcs case.

The issue is that absolute thinking causes conflict and Shepard can't change the thinking of ether side.

[Dr_Extrem]

the problem with the catalysts logic is, that it is based on absolute assumptions: 

point 1 - organics will always create synthetics
point 2 - synthetics will always rebell against its creators
point 3 - the rebellion will always end with the extinction of the creators

in addition:

point 4 - if synthetics and organics live in peacefull coexistance, it is just a matter of time, untill point 2 happens.
point 5 - reapers are necessarry to preserve organic life in a form, where it is save to synthetics.

that should summerise the foudation of the catalysts logic.


the catalyst states, that its solution to the problem is not working anymore, because the parameters have changed.

my question: "wich one of the parameters changed?" ...

- are organics still able to create synthetics? yes - we have not changed and therefore point 1 is still active.
- can organics be sure, that synthetics cant rebell? irrelevant - point 2
- are organics better at war than synthetics? at this point - yes. but the next generation of synthetics might be. point 3
- have the synthetics changed? yes - the synthetics now live in coexistance but that is irrelatvant because of point 4.
- are the new solutions better than the old ones? ... lets see.


control:
the new ai will be based on shepard and the corresponding morals, thoughts and memories. the catalyst can estimate, that the new ai will not start a new cycle, because shepard was driven by the will to stop it. 
the problem is, that organics still can create synthetics (point 1) - even if the new shepard ai interferes, at some point, the synthetics are too strong, even for the reapers and a new cycle is inevitable to preserve galactic society (point 4+5).

conclusion - this solution is only delaying the next cycle and is therefore, not better than the current solution. the problem will even get worse.


destroy:
all synthetics and the reapers are destroyed, the aftermath of the reaper war will have the need for cheap and effective labour. synthetics can work under extreme conditions, like the vacuum of space (relays have to be rebuild), are disposable and therefore prefered labour.
these new synthetics pose a threat.. the organics are still able to create new synthetics (point 1) and the catalyst is sure (absolutes), that the newly created synthetics will rebell and kill its creators (points 2+3). this time, the absense of the reapers will result in the extinction and non-preservation of life.

conclusion - the absense of the reapers will result in the extinction of life, wich has to be impeded, by harvesting them (point 5). this solution is worse, because life can not be preserved anymore.


synthesis: 
synthetics and organics live in peacefull coexistance (violates point 4), because synthetics can understand organics. understanding someone else, has never stopped anyone, from doing harm to them. the synthetics were still created by the organics and therefore, they will rebell at some point (point 2). if the reapers are granted free will, they might not be able to fullfill their purpose (point 5).

conclusion - this solution is not as bad as the other ones, but the synthetics of this cycle are still there - even if no new synthetics are created, the created will rebell (point 2). the outcome might be in favour of the hybrids, but damage will be done. this is an experiment wich can go well - but there is no garantee. still, the reapers are there, to preserve the hybrids, in case the synthetics win.


the provided solutions are not better than the current one:

one is risking a worse scenario, because it will not preserve organics before it is too late. the second will leavee the organics to die. the last one is a gamble an experiment - if it fails, rinse and repeat.


why does the catalyst offer new solutions, if they violate the basic rules? did it alter its programming? if it can, why do the reapers nor simply go away? or return if we have build new synthetics or they are rebelling?
the presented solutions are not "a save bet" anymore, because the variables have changed in favour for "synthetics will kill organics".


just some thoughts

[KingZayd]

Tigerman123 wrote...



From the me1 artbook

Yes in ME1 that was an issue. Because one of the Reapers, (Sovereign) rounded up a bunch of machines and encouraged them to start a war on organics.