305 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

Redbelle wrote...

For me the problem with the Cat is that it see's conflict as a mean's to destruction.

Sure the Geth and Quarian's fought, but in my playthrough I reunited them. The Cat refuses to see this as another possible pathway that Synth's and Org's can follow. Instead it insist's that Synth's and Org's cannot live together..... despite the fact that my pilot and ship's computer are pulling moves on the dance floor together and getting jiggy with it in the cockpit.

That the Catalyst say's conflict's will arise? Ok, I admit that 'could' happen. To say that it will, absolutely, positively, result in the utter demise of all organic life with no other possibilties arising from said conflict? I think that assumption has been proven false. Cat just can't admit it.

I think he see's this as possible outcome of individual conflicts but he doesn't want to take the chance the next conflict could end with that different outcome. He is taking the course of prevention better than cure because you cannot cure the galaxy if all organic life is indeed wiped out as opposed to his cycles which the lesser evolved organic life is preserved.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 18 janvier 2013 - 11:20 .

[Meltemph]

^I think his way of doing things is as simple as his personality is that of his creators. The Leviathan, if they were able, seem just as willing to wipe out whole swaths of organics, as long as it meant their dominance was a mainstay. Honestly, the reapers do act like the Leviathans children.

Modifié par Meltemph, 18 janvier 2013 - 11:23 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Mass Relays help connect the galaxy and make the harvest easier, not to mention it's rather effective trap when they usually get shot down. However connecting the galaxy in such away also has the down side of a potentially hostile being able to destroy the others. We've seen this with Rachni, killer synthetics determined to kill organics would fall under the same category.

The Relay system is also the answer to the Catalyst's alleged problem. If organic/synthetic conflict occurs, organics can build another Crucible and disable all synthetics.

Crucible can't really be used to help justify the Reapers attempt to prevent conflict, it's something outside their plans, it's a concept they tried to eradicate. In an attampet to control the flow of development they've also force the galaxy to be interconnected and technologically similar, this actually increases the risk factor for various different organics species being at a similar technological level within the same time frame and being capable of creating synthetics, which then have easy access beyond their own system. It's a counter productive solution that seems to compound the problem in order to justify it's own existance. It would have already bitten the Reapers in the ass if all synthetics in fact behaved the same way as catalyst logic dictates. The Geth had ready access to the galaxy and independace 300 years prior to the main story arc, the galaxy even readied for war against them except the Geth never bothered attacking until the Reapers showed up.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 18 janvier 2013 - 11:25 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Meltemph wrote...

Sam Anders wrote...

Yet destroy is an equally awful option because it basically invalidates a good chunk of the last two games.

Even if this is the case, who cares?  Destroy is the most rational choice, considering everything we knew at the time(or assumed to know).  Now if you want to say that ME3 did a bad job with the reaper story arc, well I would agree 100%, but that really isnt the topic.

To me destroy is no better than doing what Catalyst does anyways. Catalyst culls organic and synthetic life but keeps the less evolved organic life intact as they are not yet able to create any synthetic life or create conflict with it. Destroy wipes out current generation of synthetic life but they might create more of them and another conflict might arise. Both cases are merely biding time until a new synthetic race is created and a new series of conflicts occur. Any of which could potentially lead to the complete destruction of all organic life as opposed to merely culling the ones that can already create such conflicts.

[Dragoonlordz]

Meltemph wrote...

^I think his way of doing things is as simple as his personality is that of his creators. The Leviathan, if they were able, seem just as willing to wipe out whole swaths of organics, as long as it meant their dominance was a mainstay. Honestly, the reapers do act like the Leviathans children.

The Leviathans to me were overconfident and that led to their demise. I have no sympathy for them. I view the Catalyst as a flawed construct because it's parameters were poorly designed and no safeguards put in place. It';'s logic however is not flawed on all levels, some of it makes good sense like his percieved outcome is a potential one that could very well happen if nothing is done. The problem is in how he prevents it, not in what he is trying to prevent.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 18 janvier 2013 - 11:29 .

[Sam Anders]

But see, the organic/synthetic conflict in the cycle we see, it was caused by the organics, not the synthetics. And we had resolved it (or I had in my playthrough at least), not even earlier in the series, but just hours before I got to the ending. Then I don't even get to let them live on in peace because the red ending, the one we (or I at least) had been working towards for two and a half games, always destroys every synthetic life form, not just the Reapers.

So there are two other options where they live on right? Not for me. Synthesis is just absurd in my eyes. And Control was TIM's goal the entire game and I kept telling him it wasn't an option. I can't do that.

The three options are all equally awful in my opinion.

[Meltemph]

To me destroy is no better than doing what Catalyst does anyways. Catalyst culls organic and synthetic life but keeps the less evolved organic life intact as they are not yet able to create any synthetic life or create conflict with it. Destroy wipes out current generation of synthetic life but they might create more of them and another conflict might arise. Both cases are merely biding time until a new synthetic race is created and a new series of conflicts occur. Any of which could potentially lead to the complete destruction of all organic life as opposed to merely culling the ones that can already create such conflicts.

I didn't choose destroy with a moral irrationality(not saying morals are irrational, but to try and moralize a decision like this, to me is irrational given the options and what is at stake) to it(how could I, when the other choices were just irrational hopes that it all works out after I do this).

Destroy is simply me putting an end to the foolishness of the Leviathan and the massive mess they created for the rest of us. As for a conflict arising? Well of course it will, that is unavoidable no matter what choice you choose, nothing works in a perfect conceptual realization of someones desires, conflict is just time taking its course, you cant avoid it.

Just because you put faith in the catalysts "postulating" doesn't in any way prove the case. The supposed result of a supposed problem isn't something I am interested in, since I could make that argument with any field of science.

I cant view the idea of culling some supposed "end game" of science as anything other then fanciful fear mongering. Nothing works in a straight line, unless there is someone/thing going out of its way to create such a line. Any encouraging of this line of thought is to essentially handcuff all reason to the whims of those who like to create doomsday scenarios.

[cyrslash1974]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Sam Anders wrote...

Yet destroy is an equally awful option because it basically invalidates a good chunk of the last two games.

Even if this is the case, who cares?  Destroy is the most rational choice, considering everything we knew at the time(or assumed to know).  Now if you want to say that ME3 did a bad job with the reaper story arc, well I would agree 100%, but that really isnt the topic.

To me destroy is no better than doing what Catalyst does anyways. Catalyst culls organic and synthetic life but keeps the less evolved organic life intact as they are not yet able to create any synthetic life or create conflict with it. Destroy wipes out current generation of synthetic life but they might create more of them and another conflict might arise. Both cases are merely biding time until a new synthetic race is created and a new series of conflicts occur. Any of which could potentially lead to the complete destruction of all organic life as opposed to merely culling the ones that can already create such conflicts.

Honnestly no solution proposed is a good (or perfect) one. The perfect solution, ie the perfect ending. is missing. The catalyst at the end of ME3 is like
 
SPOIL 

Anders at the end of DA2 : whatever you do, the ending is the same.

END OF SPOIL

You can't choose. Someone is condamned : Shep or the synthetics. The catalyst (or the reapers, like you want)  wins. But not the player.

[Dragoonlordz]

Meltemph wrote...

To me destroy is no better than doing what Catalyst does anyways. Catalyst culls organic and synthetic life but keeps the less evolved organic life intact as they are not yet able to create any synthetic life or create conflict with it. Destroy wipes out current generation of synthetic life but they might create more of them and another conflict might arise. Both cases are merely biding time until a new synthetic race is created and a new series of conflicts occur. Any of which could potentially lead to the complete destruction of all organic life as opposed to merely culling the ones that can already create such conflicts.

I didn't choose destroy with a moral irrationality(not saying morals are irrational, but to try and moralize a decision like this, to me is irrational given the options and what is at stake) to it(how could I, when the other choices were just irrational hopes that it all works out after I do this).

Destroy is simply me putting an end to the foolishness of the Leviathan and the massive mess they created for the rest of us. As for a conflict arising? Well of course it will, that is unavoidable no matter what choice you choose, nothing works in a perfect conceptual realization of someones desires, conflict is just time taking its course, you cant avoid it.

Just because you put faith in the catalysts "postulating" doesn't in any way prove the case. The supposed result of a supposed problem isn't something I am interested in, since I could make that argument with any field of science.

I cant view the idea of culling some supposed "end game" of science as anything other then fanciful fear mongering. Nothing works in a straight line, unless there is someone/thing going out of its way to create such a line. Any encouraging of this line of thought is to essentially handcuff all reason to the whims of those who like to create doomsday scenarios.

You could view arguing with the catalyst as arguing with a conspiracy theorist and we all know how that ends. You will never be able to convince them. It believes if left to their own devices organics would continue to create synthetics alongside them and conflicts will occur of which it believes one of those conflict will result in the extinction of all organic life. Noone knows if that might happen or might not. But like a conspiracy theorisy you have no chance of convincing him that it could never happen.

Its current solution is no different than biding time leaving less evolved races alive because they have not yet been able to create synthetic life so cannot therefore conflict with it. The crucibles options where destroy which is akin to the current solution. It's doing the job of the catalyst for him in wiping out all synthetic life which again merely prevents conflict occuring for a period of time just like his solution does. The chance remains that more may be created though and the cycle continues of your own making in which one of those conflicts may well end all organics.

Control is admiting that his solution is just biding time and cannot work in the long run because every cycle creates such conflicts and so he lets you with your experience and view of the galaxy try to come up with your own solution (imho) basically handing you the reins see if you can do any better through intergration with itself.

Synthesis basically turns all organics into synthetic hybrids so no conflict logically can happen between organic and synthetics if everyone is both organic and synthetic. It's like a loophole to resolve a problem much akin to those who rely on symantics to come to a different conclusion.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 18 janvier 2013 - 11:57 .

[Sam Anders]

Yep. For a trilogy based on choices and a final game that was advertised as having tons of different endings with your choices affecting the outcome they dropped the ball hard

[Reorte]

cyrslash1974 wrote...


Honnestly no solution proposed is a good (or perfect) one. The perfect solution, ie the perfect ending. is missing.

You can't choose. Someone is condamned : Shep or the synthetics. The catalyst (or the reapers, like you want)  wins. But not the player.

The perfect solution is no Reapers threatening everyone and no-one dying. That's just impossibly perfect though (although still more plausible than Synthesis). Some losses, quite severe losses, are about as inevitable as anything can be. The mistake was forcing those losses on us for the sake of it - Shepard, the geth in Destroy, sanity in Synthesis, just because the writing said so and not because they were a natural consequence of the actions and decisions throughout all three games. The fact that they require some incredibly unlikely-sounding things to be true to happen just adds insult to injury.

I'm all for losses but they have to make sense and the biggest ones have to be the result of my actions if you want them to have the biggest impact on me. A whole planet wiped out all because I made a mistake, and I can see why it was a mistake? Great!

[Meltemph]

Synthesis basically turns all organics into synthetic hybrids so no conflict logically can happen between organic and synthetics if everyone is both organic and synthetic. It's like a loophole to resolve a problem much akin to those who rely on symantics to come to a different conclusion.

Not really... All the synthetic magic does is change definitions. Artificial life will still be able to be made, and that artificial life will have just as much of a chance of conflict as anything else, with near the same results. There is no rational choice to this, specifically since it leaves horribly developed AI's/synthetics around(Same with control) Leviathan did a REALLY bad job with them.

Nothing wrong, like I have said before, picking an irrational choice to a game, but I'm not sure how one could rationalize it(the other choices) away at the end of it.  You are making a choice with control or synthesis with the hope and faith that things workout, either because you like the idea of doing it or because you don't like what destroy does.

Destroy isn't hoping things work out, but realizing things don't always work(perfectly) out, ever.

Worst case scenario with destroy is someone is dumb enough to create something that screws over the galaxy, like what the Leviathan did(hopefully). Out of all the sciences that could make things bad for the rest of the galaxy in a "doomsday" scenario the synthetic vs organic one is easily the less bad of the worst, so with that in mind, I'll take my chances with synthetics.

Modifié par Meltemph, 19 janvier 2013 - 12:05 .

[Sam Anders]

Reorte wrote...

cyrslash1974 wrote...


Honnestly no solution proposed is a good (or perfect) one. The perfect solution, ie the perfect ending. is missing.

You can't choose. Someone is condamned : Shep or the synthetics. The catalyst (or the reapers, like you want)  wins. But not the player.

The perfect solution is no Reapers threatening everyone and no-one dying. That's just impossibly perfect though (although still more plausible than Synthesis). Some losses, quite severe losses, are about as inevitable as anything can be. The mistake was forcing those losses on us for the sake of it - Shepard, the geth in Destroy, sanity in Synthesis, just because the writing said so and not because they were a natural consequence of the actions and decisions throughout all three games. The fact that they require some incredibly unlikely-sounding things to be true to happen just adds insult to injury.

I'm all for losses but they have to make sense and the biggest ones have to be the result of my actions if you want them to have the biggest impact on me. A whole planet wiped out all because I made a mistake, and I can see why it was a mistake? Great!

Right, exactly, I don't care if some characters die or parts of a fleet or whatever, just let it happen as a result of my choices and not because I pushed a button at the end of the trilogy.

[Reorte]

Meltemph wrote...

Worst case scenario with destroy is someone is dumb enough to create something that screws over the galaxy, like what the Leviathan did(hopefully). Out of all the sciences that could make things bad for the rest of the galaxy in a "doomsday" scenario the synthetic vs organic one is easily the less bad of the worst, so with that in mind, I'll take my chances with synthetics.

Definitely. Plus if we give synthetics a chance, such as the quarians and geth getting on nicely, there seems to be a good chance that we'll have friendly synthetics developing and, being before the dangerous ones, nullifying the threat should it actually happen. Which it almost certainly won't to the extent of eliminating all organic life (down to the last bacterium persumably).

[The Night Mammoth]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

You are also told is is flawed in it's design.

No, you aren't. In fact, the Leviathans say it's doing exactly what it was made to do; preserve organic life. The means in which it does so are the issue, and given that it was simply programmed to achieve its goal through any means necessary, its not even really flawed in this respect.

It's flawed in that no restriction was put in place. It was not designed with safeguards in place.

It is flawed by design.

Safeguards and restrictions against what? 

You are told by the Catalyst what its purpose is, but it's not what you've said it is. I've quoted it twice. 

Then you need to watch your own links. You are told by the catalyst it's goal is to prevent the conflict between organic and synthetic because it believes such conflict can only end one way with Synthetic wiping out all organic life in the end.

It's semantical now that you've changed your argument. The Catalyst says what its purpose is, so do the Leviathans, the means through which it achieves this is roughly what you're describing. 

Your trying to use one sentence of it's entire speech as an argument to invalidate the rest of it's speech and context.

Don't bullsh*t me, I quoted the first part of its dialogue since the video is 12 minutes long, don't tell I'm deliberately avoiding the rest of what it says when you haven't highlighted anything conflicting or even attempted quote anything yourself. 

It wasn't not programmed with such a variable, it came to the conclusion that all organic life would be inevitably wiped out without intervention on its own, before it started the cycle. It's not looking for a cycle where it wont happen, that's already proven by the fact that it repeatedly talks about it as inevitable, as an absolute, unpreventable without the Reaper harvest, and by the fact that it's been given the opportunity to watch organics succeed in overcoming synthetics at least twice, possibly three times (protheans winning the Metacon War, quarians gaining a massive uperhand in their second war against the geth, and the quarians potentially killing the geth), and live together as allies at least twice (zha'til, geth alliance with quarians/geth allying with Shepard if their side is chosen) that we know of, and still culled the galaxy of all sapient civilizations. 

Again it is a flawed construct, no restrictions or safeguards was put in place. It believes based on overall evidence we are not privy to that in the long term such conflict will always end in synthetics wiping out organics. Even in a cycle where you win one conflict, because of the existance of the technology to recreate such synthetics and the evidence that in every cycle such conflict will occur again and again of which maybe he has been witness to many such events which has almost led to the complete destruction of organic life (even though in a few cycles this was not yet at that stage by time started a reset). His solution is to cull both organics and synthetics of those cycles in a hope the next cycle will lead to no such conflicts.

It's not waiting for a cycle where this wont happen, it's already decided that it's inevitable, it kills organics once they reach a certain stage of advancement, regardless of whether they've made or fought with synthetics or not. 

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Meltemph wrote...

Synthesis basically turns all organics into synthetic hybrids so no conflict logically can happen between organic and synthetics if everyone is both organic and synthetic. It's like a loophole to resolve a problem much akin to those who rely on symantics to come to a different conclusion.

Not really... All the synthetic magic does is change definitions. Artificial life will still be able to be made, and that artificial life will have just as much of a chance of conflict as anything else, with near the same results. .

No Synthesis solves the Catalyst's problem.

There will no longer be conflict between Organics and Synthetics. Ever! He's done. He can retire on a fat pension.

Pure synthetics can still be created by the hybrids. There may be conflict between the Hybrids and Synthetics, but that's not his problem anymore.

This is why he's pushing synthesis. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's a good thing for you. It gets him out of the loop. He no longer gets migraines. Put yourself in his shoes. If you had one shred of moral semi-conductor in your AI core, would you actually enjoy acknowledging you're committing galaxy-wide genocide every 50,000 years? Or would you call it something else? You'd call it something more pleasant, like harvesting. You'd even put at least VI cores in the things so they'd seem alive and do what they were told. And you'd scratch your head trying to figure out this problem your idiotic creators gave you. Probably would have taken care of them first just for giving it to you because they kept putting stipulations on it.

Now you've got this chance. You've got this idiot up there who seems to be buying everything you say to it. So you save your best pitch for last so you can finally get out of this cycle, kick back and relax and play a few rounds of Tiger Woods golf and actually enjoy being an AI for a change.

If the Hybrids decide they need to solve this new problem, they have to figure it out. It ain't yours no more.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 19 janvier 2013 - 12:39 .

[Meltemph]

There will no longer be conflict between Organics and Synthetics. Ever! He's done. He can retire on a fat pension.

Pure synthetics can still be created by the hybrids. There may be conflict between the Hybrids and Synthetics, but that's not his problem anymore.

No... This is just not true. Artificial constructs will still be possible. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.  And organic is organic.

Modifié par Meltemph, 19 janvier 2013 - 12:49 .

[MegaSovereign]

How I make sense of it: Synthesis acts like a virus, conceptually like the genophage. All new synthetics and organics are going to be born with it.

It's the only way it makes sense for me. Otherwise Synthesis would only solve the "problem" in the short term, like Destroy.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 19 janvier 2013 - 01:15 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Meltemph wrote...

There will no longer be conflict between Organics and Synthetics. Ever! He's done. He can retire on a fat pension.

Pure synthetics can still be created by the hybrids. There may be conflict between the Hybrids and Synthetics, but that's not his problem anymore.

No... This is just not true. Artificial constructs will still be possible. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.  And organic is organic.

Because with Synthesis there are no more organics. All organic life in the galaxy is destroyed. All synthetic life in the galaxy is destroyed. Organic life (including viruses) are infused with whatever that makes up synthetic life and get molecular circuitry and Synthetic life gets organic dna added to it. So this all makes the two things an entirely new life via .The Catalyst explains it all, and it's shown how it's done in the video and slides. Don't ask me to make any sense of it for you because it doesn't make sense to me. This is just how Bioware explained it.

Sure we can create our own robots from inorganic materials and make our own synthetics if we want. Our created can rebel against us. But we're not organic life anymore. So it's not his problem. It's our problem. He's off the hook.

There will still be inorganic material in the worlds, and there will be organic life created on new planets and stuff, but we won't have to worry about any intelligent organic life showing up for at least another couple of billion or so years give or take. So for all practical purposes, his job is done. He can kick back and watch use duke it out with what ever we create.

Synthesis is the ideal solution.... for the Catalyst. Whew! What a maroon! I don't have to do this anymore. Pismo Beach at last!

[clennon8]

Are you single, Julia? I have money. And I'm only slightly crazy.

[Meltemph]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

There will no longer be conflict between Organics and Synthetics. Ever! He's done. He can retire on a fat pension.

Pure synthetics can still be created by the hybrids. There may be conflict between the Hybrids and Synthetics, but that's not his problem anymore.

No... This is just not true. Artificial constructs will still be possible. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.  And organic is organic.

Because with Synthesis there are no more organics. All organic life in the galaxy is destroyed. All synthetic life in the galaxy is destroyed. Organic life (including viruses) are infused with whatever that makes up synthetic life and get molecular circuitry and Synthetic life gets organic dna added to it. So this all makes the two things an entirely new life via .The Catalyst explains it all, and it's shown how it's done in the video and slides. Don't ask me to make any sense of it for you because it doesn't make sense to me. This is just how Bioware explained it.

Sure we can create our own robots from inorganic materials and make our own synthetics if we want. Our created can rebel against us. But we're not organic life anymore. So it's not his problem. It's our problem. He's off the hook.

There will still be inorganic material in the worlds, and there will be organic life created on new planets and stuff, but we won't have to worry about any intelligent organic life showing up for at least another couple of billion or so years give or take. So for all practical purposes, his job is done. He can kick back and watch use duke it out with what ever we create.

Synthesis is the ideal solution.... for the Catalyst. Whew! What a maroon! I don't have to do this anymore. Pismo Beach at last!

Just becuase someone gets syntehtic parts in them, doesnt mean they are no logner organic.  So no matter what the game tries to tell you, the kid just either doesnt know what he is talking about as in incredibly uninformed, or he is lying.

It is literally impossible to make an organic no longer an organic, unless you replace that organic with something else, and I beleive the only people who believe that happens are those who hate synthesis.  The people who like synthesis, I dont think I have heard any of them make the claim that it changes what a species is. 

My arguement isnt for those who dislike it for various reasons, my arguement is for those who like it.  If they picked it, they picked it becuase they like some concept or idea it gives them, not because it solves any particular problem.  

BTW, I'm not defending the nonsensicalness of synthesis(and will never), I'm just presenting it as is.

[Dragoonlordz]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Safeguards and restrictions against what? 

Wow you really need this explaining? Seriously it's not that complex. Safeguards such as do not turn on your creator. Work within the confines of projected analysis and do no expand your capabilities beyond this lab and the data we provide. All conclusions and solutions must be approved of by the creators. There are many safeguards they could of placed.

Don't bullsh*t me, I quoted the first part of its dialogue since the video is 12 minutes long, don't tell I'm deliberately avoiding the rest of what it says when you haven't highlighted anything conflicting or even attempted quote anything yourself. 

The argument never changed, I expanded the context because my previous context was not good enough for you apparently. I also repeat your using one sentence from beginning of the conversation to attempt to invalidate the rest of the conversation with the catalyst and the context it provides. Whether or not your willing to watch past the first sentence or restrict yourself to the context of only that first sentence thats your problem. Don't whine about it when someone points that out. My context is in your own link. My original comment said it's goal is to prevent the conflict from occuring, my expanded context said it's goal is to prevent the conflict from occuring because it considers there to be only one possible outcome long term from such conflicts (one of those conflicts could lead to the destruction of all organic life by it's beliefs). So how is that changing my argument since they are both the same goal? It says the same thing in the video you linked.

It's not waiting for a cycle where this wont happen, it's already decided that it's inevitable, it kills organics once they reach a certain stage of advancement, regardless of whether they've made or fought with synthetics or not. 

It has never had a cycle where it did not occur, so you have no evidence to say it would not. All cycles have had the conflict it wishes to avoid, all created synthetic life and all had organic and synthetic conflicts occur with that life. It does not cull the races that have not yet reached the stage where can create synthetic life each cycle which shows it does not wish to cull that which does not pose a threat to themselves from it's perceived problem. Just like how none of those races were culled because they did not and could not create such a problem if the galaxy in a cycle (even though evolved technologically) had also never created synthetics and/or had not ever had such conflict they may well have been treated same way as the races it does not cull every cycle because the threat hasn't been shown to exist in that cycle. Now I am not saying he wouldn't I am saying he might not because there is no way to know for sure since never been cycle which meets that criteria or parameters.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 19 janvier 2013 - 03:09 .

[Reorte]

Meltemph wrote...

It is literally impossible to make an organic no longer an organic, unless you replace that organic with something else, and I beleive the only people who believe that happens are those who hate synthesis.  The people who like synthesis, I dont think I have heard any of them make the claim that it changes what a species is.

Species is ultimately defined by DNA and Synthesis does something to DNA, hence no longer the same species. I don't see how that can be viewed as anything else whether you like or loathe the idea.

[Meltemph]

Reorte wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

It is literally impossible to make an organic no longer an organic, unless you replace that organic with something else, and I beleive the only people who believe that happens are those who hate synthesis.  The people who like synthesis, I dont think I have heard any of them make the claim that it changes what a species is.

Species is ultimately defined by DNA and Synthesis does something to DNA, hence no longer the same species. I don't see how that can be viewed as anything else whether you like or loathe the idea.

Eh.  The arguement would be aguemented DNA(transhuman); you dont stop being ******-sapian just because you alter yourself.  Unless the change changes that person on every single level(including changing how they think) synthesis changes nothing(taking a broad view).  

I'm not saying that view you are representing doesnt make sense, I'm sayin it doesnt matter, because even if it didnt do that, the syntehsis choice is irrational and fairly pointless.  Unless for some strange reason you think technology born from the leviathans is somehow better then technologt another species could think of, there isnt any real reason to pick it, other then you like the concept.  And honestly, the Leviathan dont exactly have a great track record or the reapers.

Modifié par Meltemph, 19 janvier 2013 - 02:44 .

[Yate]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

  Okay, so a lot of people are irked over the fact that the catalyst doesn't just pack it in after admitting his solution is broken.

Here's the thing... the harvest only becomes "obsolete" if this cycle proves they can unilaterally destroy or repurpose a true-AI race (the Reapers) they have come into conflict with, or choose synthesis and thereby eliminate the problem. In doing so, we prove we won't *always* be wiped out by synthetic opponents, and need not be preserved in Reaper form.

If Shepard decides not to use the Crucible, it necessitates the need for the harvest all over again. We fail to prove an exception to the organic races the catalyst observed during Leviathan era, but rather, we reinforce the notion that we are incapable of saving ourselves. In this case, it is a display of mental incapability, as the only organic who was physically capable enough to get far enough to make any solution take place is unable to overcome emotional issues causing inaction.

It's a classic case of machine-logic, and it even exists in real life. Example: a pro football team kicking an extra-point kick, after the clock has expired, and team already has enough points to win. It would seem to be a meaningless practice, and it is, but it is necessary for statistical reasons -- everything from black-box simulators to Vegas gambling.


The catalyst won't surrender, because to him, there's no concept of war to begin with. It's not about saving his troops (if he even sees the Reapers as "troops" at all). There is only his solution, the conflict that arises from it with organics, and the new variables introduced by the Crucible. It's the reason why he reveals Destroy and Control options as available to you, though he doesn't much support either of them.

finally someone gets it

really guys, what did you expect it to do?

it's an emotionless friggin AI

and you want to HAHA I WIN and make it go NOOOO

grow up