257 réponses à ce sujet

[remydat]

StreetMagic wrote...

It only observed the problem in that cycle though. It seems to want to extrapolate that to everything else afterwards. They were pretty unique circumstances. Leviathan didn't want other species dying out because they were valuable slave races who paid "tribute". The whole motivation for even find a solution to the problem is suspect.

I wish I knew more about what was going on though.

Fair enough but keep in mind that cycle was probably not just 50k years.  I think it is likely (just my opinion) that the Leviathan age acutally lasted hundreds of thousands if not millions of years because Leviathan had to witness its thralls being killed sometime after 50k years.  Then it had to potentially see this cycle repeat again before finally deciding to create the Intelligence.   And then finally the Intelligence had to see it repeat some more before finally deciding the only solution was the harvest and then based on what Leviathan told it and what it observed it figured out that the harvest had to be every 50k years because Leviathan and it observed the synthetics strong enough to wipe out organics arising at some point after 50k years.  I presume it would have to be have to be say 10-20k years after to ensure they didn't come too late because of delays.

So for the purpose of discussing lets say the Super AI arises every 70k years.  If we say Leviathan saw this phenomena twice before creating the Intelligence and the Intelligence saying say 2 more times before concluding the harvest had to be implemented then that gives the Leviathan age lasting around 280k years.

Modifié par remydat, 02 juillet 2013 - 02:28 .

[Wolfva2]

StreetMagic wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

katamuro wrote...

Its not just a computer it is an adaptable AI, and to increase efficiency of the programmed task it would have gone to great lengths to try different things.

Anyway The catalyst and the reaper explanation in game is not consistent with themes and lore of the game hence it is rubbish and they should have tried harder or tried less to create something better. there is no "oh you nearly got it" prize and what Bioware and Casey Hudson gave us was not even close. And I do love the games I will never accept the reaper and catalyst explanations as logical and fitting to the ME universe. That is my bit on this issue and I am going to sleep now.

If this was a phylosophical treatise designed to make us think about the posibilities of Synthetic life, and how it could effect the galaxy, I'd agree with you that they should have tried harder to create something better.  But...it isn't.  It's JUST A FREAKING GAME.  They didn't design it to be accurate, they designed it to be FUN.  Granted, some people find accuracy fun.

They were trying to shoot for something intelligent though at the end. They intentionally avoided traditional gaming type of "fun" (for example, they didn't want any boss battle). Only problem is Mac Walters is better at characters and comic books. He isn't Drew. He doesn't even seem well read. All of his ideas in this seem ripped off more from movies rather than philosophy or good sci fi books.

The problem with the ending is they HAD an end.  The entire series we're tasked with destroying the Reapers.  In the 3rd game, we're told the Crucible is the key to destroying them.  We hook the Crucible up to the Citadel; we accomplish the mission.  THATS where the game should have ended.  But they tried to pull a Shyamalan on us, and tossed in a twist.  Sometimes that works.  This time it didn't, and they were probably fools for thinking it would.  Now, whether or not the entire problem is Walters I dunno.  I mean, I know you hate him.  But HE wasn't in charge.  Much like Straczinski didn't want to have Mephistopheles break up Spiderman and MJ's marriage but had to write it anyways, sometimes authors have to do what they were HIRED to do, and not what they want.  I get the feeling this was more a command from up on high then anything else.  But hey, I wasn't in the office when the decisions were made.  And if I were, I'm sure Security would have escorted me out since I'm not an employee and would have been trespassing.   Unless You were, neither of us really know what happened, and why.

[AlanC9]

Wolfva2 wrote...
The problem with the ending is they HAD an end.  The entire series we're tasked with destroying the Reapers.  In the 3rd game, we're told the Crucible is the key to destroying them.  We hook the Crucible up to the Citadel; we accomplish the mission.  THATS where the game should have ended.  

Don't forget that we were also told, repeatedly, that what the Crucible actually did was a mystery.

A twist? Yeah, but having the Crucible just destroy the Reapers would have been a twist too.

[Coyotebay]

remydat wrote...

The Fermi Paradox states that at any practical pace of interstellar travel, the galaxy can be completely colonized within tens of millions of years.  A synthetic race unlike an organic race can hypothetically survive for that tens of millions of years.

So given the Reapers have survived for much longer than that and if we change colonization into complete destruction, it is likely a synthetic race as advanced as the Reapers can destroy all organic life within tens of millions of years.  

Again, all they need to do is nuke or poison a planet to make it unsuitable for organic life.  In the MEU, there are only around 15 civilizations that appear to be advanced enough for space flight so once the Reapers destroy those 15 civilizations, every other civilization they encounter will have no ability to defeat a nuclear bombardment from space since none of them have attained space flight.  So the Entire Reaper fleet starts off by nuking the Batarian colonies and then systematically proceeds to the next civilization and nukes the the planet one by one.  There is no need for ground forces and the game makes it clear that the Reapers cannons can fire the equivalent of a nuclear weapon.

So once again, the only thing that gives organics a chance is that the repears use ground forces because they choose to harvest.  That and they choose to attack several different worlds at once because they want to wrap up the harvest in a few centuries.  If all they wanted to do is destroy then you attack a species one by one and with your whole fleet and just fire your nuclear weapon type cannons from space and not engage them on the ground.

And you again ignore that in those first tens of millions of years, there was plenty of time for other races to evolve in parts of the galaxy the Reapers hadn't been to yet.  You base your argument on the certainty that the Reapers are alone and in control of everything, when it is all just pure fantasy.  If the galaxy really is teaming with thousands upon thousands of worlds with intelligent life, the Reapers logistically couldn't have kept up and many of those would have evolved to equal or surpass the Reapers.  Your own argument on the vastness of the galaxy and the number of sapient worlds works against you, makes it totally improbable that the Reapers could manage such a feat.  Furthermore, it skips over the very probable idea that even among the worlds the Reapers purge, they could have missed something.  And all they have to do is miss just one thing, just one colony of sapients who could emerge after the purge with their technology and access to resources intact, and they would have 50,000 years of uninterrupted peace to build a crucible or whatever else.

So what logical reason is there to doubt the problem was real except
that you don't like how the game played out and you hate the idea of the
Catalyst so you just reject what it says?

And what reason is there to accept that what the Catalyst says is the truth?  Your whole argument is based on accepting this premise.  What "problem" exactly is being solved?  Explain how the galaxy benefits from this?  What do they care if advanced organic life is wiped out by other synthetics?  The Reapers have no empathy for organics, they have no use for the achievements of organic civilizations. The Reapers do nothing except go hybernate in dark space once their deed is done.  They provide ZERO value to the galaxy.    Let's see what happens without the Reapers, even if we accept starbrat's ridiculous insistence that annihiliation of organics is inevitable.  Instead of Reapers, we have some other ruling race or races of synthetics.  They splinter and evolve, forming new races with competing ideals and interests.  During this time, organic life continues to flourish in the galaxy.  Some of these synthetic races take an interest in this, and know the history of intelligent organic life.  They allow organic life to evolve again.  Maybe some of them yearn to be organic themselves, to experience life this way.  Gee now look, you have diversity again.  Evolution.  Not some mono "culture" based on extermination and hibernation.  Not a stunted, nihilistic universe where nothing is allowed to evolve past a certain point except the keepers themselves, who add nothing to the universe and go sit in the equivalent of their mother's basement most of the time after they have left beautiful evolving civilizations in ruins.  And that is the problem with your argument - the problem IS the Reapers, IS the Catalyst.  You have this flawed idea that dictatorial control is a solution for the "problem" of allowing evolution to take its natural course, even if that means synthetics replace organics as the highest form of life in the galaxy.

Modifié par Coyotebay, 02 juillet 2013 - 03:00 .

[remydat]

Coyotebay wrote...

And you again ignore that in those first tens of millions of years, there was plenty of time for other races to evolve in parts of the galaxy the Reapers hadn't been to yet.  You base your argument on the certainty that the Reapers are alone and in control of everything, when it is all just pure fantasy.  If the galaxy really is teaming with thousands upon thousands of worlds with intelligent life, the Reapers logistically couldn't have kept up and many of those would have evolved to equal or surpass the Reapers.  Your own argument on the vastness of the galaxy and the number of sapient worlds works against you, makes it totally improbable that the Reapers could manage such a feat.  Furthermore, it skips over the very probable idea that even among the worlds the Reapers purge, they could have missed something.  And all they have to do is miss just one thing, just one colony of sapients who could emerge after the purge with their technology and access to resources intact, and they would have 50,000 years of uninterrupted peace to build a crucible or whatever else.

And what reason is there to accept that what the Catalyst says is the truth?  Your whole argument is based on accepting this premise.  What "problem" exactly is being solved?  Explain how the galaxy benefits from this?  What do they care if advanced organic life is wiped out by other synthetics?  The Reapers have no empathy for organics, they have no use for the achievements of organic civilizations. The Reapers do nothing except go hybernate in dark space once their deed is done.  They provide ZERO value to the galaxy.    Let's see what happens without the Reapers, even if we accept starbrat's ridiculous insistence that annihiliation of organics is inevitable.  Instead of Reapers, we have some other ruling race or races of synthetics.  They splinter and evolve, forming new races with competing ideals and interests.  During this time, organic life continues to flourish in the galaxy.  Some of these synthetic races take an interest in this, and know the history of intelligent organic life.  They allow organic life to evolve again.  Maybe some of them yearn to be organic themselves, to experience life this way.  Gee now look, you have diversity again.  Evolution.  Not some mono "culture" based on extermination and hibernation.  Not a stunted, nihilistic universe where nothing is allowed to evolve past a certain point except the keepers themselves, who add nothing to the universe and go sit in the equivalent of their mother's basement most of the time after they have left beautiful evolving civilizations in ruins.  And that is the problem with your argument - the problem IS the Reapers, IS the Catalyst.  You have this flawed idea that dictatorial control is a solution for the "problem" of allowing evolution to take its natural course, even if that means synthetics replace organics as the highest form of life in the galaxy.

I think there is confusion.  That is what the Fermi Paradox states not me.  The Fermi Paradox states that if an alien race evolved on one of the older stars in the galaxy (since the Sun is a young star) then that alien race would have evolved first and in so doing colonize the galaxy in tens of millions of years before any other race can catch up to them.  If we are presuming a synthetic is that race then once they have killed their creators they will have a technological advantage and the ability to harness the resources of the galalxy that they will not relinquish because they have more processing power and are essentially immortal.

And what do you mean what do they care?  The Leviathan charged them with preserving life at all costs.  They are simply carrying out the programming they were designed to carry out.  They do not care one way or another.  It is just their job.  They are simply the result of sh*tty programming by their creators who unfortuntely can't modify said programming because they were killed and harvested.  You are trying to place organic concepts of emotion on a species whose only goal in life appears to be to carry out the goal it was given.

And I don't know why you keep acting like it is me that believes this stuff.  I am telling you the basis for the Catalyst's logic.  I don't actually agree with it.  How much times must it be said.  I can understand the logic behind something without actually agreeing with that logic.

[remydat]

StreetMagic wrote...

Seems like bad business for a higher up to intrude like this. Especially when they only have a couple things to fall back on with Bioware -- and Mass Effect is the most successful of the bunch. Must be some good coke they're snorting at EA.

I'm sticking with the Incompetence Theory. Followed by the Willful Sabotage Theory. Maybe he just wanted to move on. Too bad he decided to drag everything along with him, if that's the case. Why can't people just simply quit their jobs in a normal way?

Until the outcry about ME3 turns into less profits, there really is no evidence that Bioware was incompetent or engaged in willful sabotage.  They told the story they wanted to tell.  The game sold well.  It got great reviews across the board.  Some people were upset.  

That last point means jack sh*t until those people that were upset stop buying bioware games in larger numbers than any new fans bioware may have picked up. 

[Coyotebay]

remydat wrote...
I think there is confusion.  That is what the Fermi Paradox states not me.  The Fermi Paradox states that if an alien race evolved on one of the older stars in the galaxy (since the Sun is a young star) then that alien race would have evolved first and in so doing colonize the galaxy in tens of millions of years before any other race can catch up to them.  If we are presuming a synthetic is that race then once they have killed their creators they will have a technological advantage and the ability to harness the resources of the galalxy that they will not relinquish because they have more processing power and are essentially immortal.

And what do you mean what do they care?  The Leviathan charged them with preserving life at all costs.  They are simply carrying out the programming they were designed to carry out.  They do not care one way or another.  It is just their job.  They are simply the result of sh*tty programming by their creators who unfortuntely can't modify said programming because they were killed and harvested.  You are trying to place organic concepts of emotion on a species whose only goal in life appears to be to carry out the goal it was given.

And I don't know why you keep acting like it is me that believes this stuff.  I am telling you the basis for the Catalyst's logic.  I don't actually agree with it.  How much times must it be said.  I can understand the logic behind something without actually agreeing with that logic.

That's the thing, you say they are just carrying out their programming, when these Reaper characters were not written this way.  They were given individual personalities, and do not act with any kind of cold Spock-like logic,  but have behaved malovently and maliciously throughout the series, choosing to make the death of these civilizations as frightening, horrific, and painful as possible.  The writers made them sneeringly evil on purpose, which makes for a better villain, but you can't ignore that when describing them then.  And if they truly are just computer programs carrying out their code, that in itself makes them vulnerable, because computers can be hacked.  As for a race getting a head start, no, that does not guarantee immortality, not by a long shot.  There are far too many variables, and as we can see in our own world, we have not been colonized by some master alien race, which suggests that either there is none out there, or there is but the galaxy is just too vast and FTL travel just isn't achievable.  Any number of civilizations, millions of years apart, could have evolved on their own.  As for technological advancement, I think there is a cap somewhere on how much any civilization can learn, understand, and build.  A hundred million year old civilization isn't necessarily going to be more powerful than a five million year old civilization.  And more than likely, a hundred million year old civilization, whether it is organic or synthetic, will be evolved far beyond the faulty reasoning of starbrat and the Reapers.

Modifié par Coyotebay, 02 juillet 2013 - 04:47 .

[katamuro]

StreetMagic wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

katamuro wrote...

Its not just a computer it is an adaptable AI, and to increase efficiency of the programmed task it would have gone to great lengths to try different things.

Anyway The catalyst and the reaper explanation in game is not consistent with themes and lore of the game hence it is rubbish and they should have tried harder or tried less to create something better. there is no "oh you nearly got it" prize and what Bioware and Casey Hudson gave us was not even close. And I do love the games I will never accept the reaper and catalyst explanations as logical and fitting to the ME universe. That is my bit on this issue and I am going to sleep now.

If this was a phylosophical treatise designed to make us think about the posibilities of Synthetic life, and how it could effect the galaxy, I'd agree with you that they should have tried harder to create something better.  But...it isn't.  It's JUST A FREAKING GAME.  They didn't design it to be accurate, they designed it to be FUN.  Granted, some people find accuracy fun.

They were trying to shoot for something intelligent though at the end. They intentionally avoided traditional gaming type of "fun" (for example, they didn't want any boss battle). Only problem is Mac Walters is better at characters and comic books. He isn't Drew. He doesn't even seem well read. All of his ideas in this seem ripped off more from movies rather than philosophy or good sci fi books.

Exactly, That is what is wrong with it, they tried to make a clever twist with the ending but it came out totally wrong and just does not fit in the theme along the games. As i said the Reapers could have a simpler goal, or something totally revolting and evil, but instead we get "we are just trying to save all of you and the future". flipping the monsters of more than 100 hours of gameplay into poor controlled creatures trying to make the best in the last 5 is not good writing or good gameplay design. And boss battles were in both ME1 and ME2 so their excuse that it was not in ME dna to have a boss battle is wrong. And if any of you dont know yet go watch Deus Ex:Human Revolution endings and tell me where the team got the idea for ME3.

[DirtySHISN0]

AlanC9 wrote...
That's why such scenes can be problems; they give me information that make my first playthrough harder to roleplay since I know stuff my character doesn't. Though ME1 isn't as bad an offender as some of Bio's other games. (BG2, for instance)

In any event, scenes from outside the PC's POV are true, yep. That's my point.

Thats fair enough. 

[hpjay]

remydat wrote...

hpjay wrote...

While claiming logic and math are on your side you demonstated no logical arguement nor probability calculation to show that the scenario the Catalyst envisions is likely to happen.  As mr Spock would say "highly illogical".

13.4 billion years seems like a long time.  But its only 4.5 e+17 (thats 4.5 times 10 to the 17th power) seconds.   Not even enough time to get two indentical snowflakes in all the universe.  

http://activemind.co...e_equation.html

So let's take the Drake Equation and play with it.  Let's say there 400 billion stars in the galaxy.  Let's say that 50% of them have planetary systems, let's say 1 planet in each system can sustain life and that life actually evolves on this planets 50% of the time.  And then let's say Intelligent Life evolves 50% of the time on planets that have life.  Now let's change the variable of how many of those planets communicate to how many of those planets the intelligent life eventually becomes capable of creating synthetic life.  Let's put that at 50%.  Finally let's say that this intelligent life capable of creating synthetic life survives for 10,000 years while they have the ability to create synthetic life.

Plug in the numbers and that results in 25,000 civilizations with the ability to create synthetic life in our Milky Way Galaxy.  Now obviously there is no way to truly validate these numbers but the point is to just illustrate that there is a lot of potential there for a civilization to create synthetic life.  So you are counting on those 25,000 civlizations with say billiosn of people each to never have a single person within those civilizations who desires to create synthetic life because they covet money, power, or control.  Further, you then counting on any synthetic life created to never decided that organics are a threat to it.

At the end of the day only the Catalyst and Leviathan observed what happened during the Leviathan age and both the Catalyst and Leviathan agree a problem existed.  Leviathan despite being subject to the first harvest states that there was no mistake and that the Catalyst served its purpose.  So what logical reason is there to doubt the problem was real except that you don't like how the game played out and you hate the idea of the Catalyst so you just reject what it says?

 

The Drake eq is neat, but it doesn't prove anything.  If we simply add another condition we can drastically change the outcome.  For instance, what if a unique planet/moon (or bianary planet) system like the Earth/Moon system is required to produce the environment necessary to create intelligent life.  And say that only occurs for every 1 out of 10,000 planets in a habitable zone.  Well, your 25,000 civilizations just shrank to 2.5.  

But thats besides the point.  

1st.  Your arguement is circular.  You assume what you try to prove.  Namely that synthetics will try to exterminate organics.

2cd.  Your arguement is practically impossible to falsify.   Even if we could find an advanced civilization that didn't have the robot apocolypse, you could simply say, "wait, its probably the next one".  You require opponents to, what is often mis-identified as, provie a negative.  (There's actually no problem with proving a negative, its really just the problem of induction)... that is requiring an exhaustive search of the universe to find the counter example.  (its like the big foot people saying that big foot is still hiding out there, we just haven't looked far enough.)

3rd.  Your mixing real world and story.  The authors can make anything they want to thappen, happen.  But that doesn't make it either logical nor likely.  

I personally find no reason why an intelligent, sapient race would want to destroy another, simply because one is based on carbon and the other on silicon.   

In story...  if the authors wanted us to beleive in the robot apocolypse, they should not have let us make freinds with them in ME2 and ME3.

[KaiserShep]

hpjay wrote...
In story...  if the authors wanted us to beleive in the robot apocolypse, they should not have let us make freinds with them in ME2 and ME3.

This. We're shown something to convince us that synthetics and organics can get along, but we're merely told that we can't. No matter what you do, showing will always supercede telling.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 02 juillet 2013 - 10:38 .

[katamuro]

Exactly hpjay. The start, the middle and the end of the story do not go together. And by the way i put in numbers into the drake equation and it came out as no intelligent life within 130k lightyears. So not in our galaxy. The drake equation while nice to play around is just that, assumptions upon assumptions with variables that are impossible to verify.

[Enhanced]

KaiserShep wrote...

hpjay wrote...
In story...  if the authors wanted us to beleive in the robot apocolypse, they should not have let us make freinds with them in ME2 and ME3.

This. We're shown something to convince us that synthetics and organics can get along, but we're merely told that we can't. No matter what you do, showing will always supercede telling.

They let Shepard and a few of his crew make friends with them. Most organics in galaxy don't feel the same way, even after making peace on Rannoch. That peace only happens because Shepard instilled fear into Quarians to get them to stand down. The Quarians didn't suddenly accept them as equals.

hpjay wrote...
I personally find no reason why an intelligent, sapient race would want to destroy another, simply because one is based on carbon and the other on silicon.

Conflicts arise because organics see synthetics as tools or attempt to keep them from evolving/advancing. The Geth war started because of the Quarians. They tried to deactivate and destroy the Geth, and they were forced to defend themselves. Then, the Geth nearly wiped out the Quarians before deciding that it was not a good idea.

The Leviathans' and Cataylst's theory is that synthetic races will always wipe out their creator races. 
I know The Geth War doesn't exactly prove their point, but every time synthetic/organic wars do happen, should we count the synthetics stopping just before they completely eliminate their creators? I don't think so.

Modifié par Enhanced, 02 juillet 2013 - 03:56 .

[remydat]

Coyotebay wrote...

That's the thing, you say they are just carrying out their programming, when these Reaper characters were not written this way.  They were given individual personalities, and do not act with any kind of cold Spock-like logic,  but have behaved malovently and maliciously throughout the series, choosing to make the death of these civilizations as frightening, horrific, and painful as possible.  The writers made them sneeringly evil on purpose, which makes for a better villain, but you can't ignore that when describing them then.  And if they truly are just computer programs carrying out their code, that in itself makes them vulnerable, because computers can be hacked.  As for a race getting a head start, no, that does not guarantee immortality, not by a long shot.  There are far too many variables, and as we can see in our own world, we have not been colonized by some master alien race, which suggests that either there is none out there, or there is but the galaxy is just too vast and FTL travel just isn't achievable.  Any number of civilizations, millions of years apart, could have evolved on their own.  As for technological advancement, I think there is a cap somewhere on how much any civilization can learn, understand, and build.  A hundred million year old civilization isn't necessarily going to be more powerful than a five million year old civilization.  And more than likely, a hundred million year old civilization, whether it is organic or synthetic, will be evolved far beyond the faulty reasoning of starbrat and the Reapers.

And?  The fact they are carrying out the task assigned to them does not preclude them from having a personality as well.  Maybe some Reapers like the task they are performing and maybe some of them don't.  And maybe others simply don't care one way or the other.

And no one said getting a head start makes them immortal.  The fact they are synthetic is what potentially makes them immortal.  They are not subject to aging and death like an organic.

And considering we have never witnessed a synthetic race, you have no evidence to suggest there is a cap on how much they can learn.  An organic mind can only ever hold so much information.  And our memories and ability to recall that information is perfect.  A synthetic mind is only limited by how much data storage capability they have and they have the ability to actually increase their data storage capability by simply building more internal or external memory hardware.

And sure maybe a hundred year old civilization doesn't share the faulty reasoning of Star Brat and the Reapers.  Or maybe they are so far advanced that they consider us inferior in the same way we consider an ant inferior to us.  I don't really care one way or another whether I step on an ant?  Do you?  If all the ants around the world start trying to develop technology, do you just let them or do you crush them before they can?

[remydat]

hpjay wrote...

The Drake eq is neat, but it doesn't prove anything.  If we simply add another condition we can drastically change the outcome.  For instance, what if a unique planet/moon (or bianary planet) system like the Earth/Moon system is required to produce the environment necessary to create intelligent life.  And say that only occurs for every 1 out of 10,000 planets in a habitable zone.  Well, your 25,000 civilizations just shrank to 2.5.  

But thats besides the point.  

1st.  Your arguement is circular.  You assume what you try to prove.  Namely that synthetics will try to exterminate organics.

2cd.  Your arguement is practically impossible to falsify.   Even if we could find an advanced civilization that didn't have the robot apocolypse, you could simply say, "wait, its probably the next one".  You require opponents to, what is often mis-identified as, provie a negative.  (There's actually no problem with proving a negative, its really just the problem of induction)... that is requiring an exhaustive search of the universe to find the counter example.  (its like the big foot people saying that big foot is still hiding out there, we just haven't looked far enough.)

3rd.  Your mixing real world and story.  The authors can make anything they want to thappen, happen.  But that doesn't make it either logical nor likely.  

I personally find no reason why an intelligent, sapient race would want to destroy another, simply because one is based on carbon and the other on silicon.   

In story...  if the authors wanted us to beleive in the robot apocolypse, they should not have let us make freinds with them in ME2 and ME3.

1st - I assume nothing.  I am not suggesting synthetics will try to exterminate organics.  I am saying it is possible that is all.  You are trying to pretend it is impossible when you have no way to prove it is.

2nd - I have no argument.  I am telling you the Catalyst's argument.  Leviathan and Catalyst both claim they observed a problem.  They are currently the only entities in the game that have any knowledge of what happens when an advanced space faring species survives past 50k years and creates a synthetic race.  So until we see a cycle surive past 50k years, you are in no position to claim the Catalyst is wrong.   It is not my fault the game does not provide you with evidence for your claim. 

3rd - No you guys are claiming a story is illogical when the only two species in the story that have survived past 50k years have told you there was a problem.  Then you are telling me the story is illogical when it is obviously a derivative of a real world thought experiment (ie idea from the Fermi Paradox that an alien nation should have colonized the galaxy by now).  The game resolves this real world paradox by introducing a species (the Reapers) that basically prevents any species (organic or synthetic) from achieving what the Fermi Paradox says they should have by exterminating advanced organic and synthetic life every 50k years before they can take over the galaxy.. 

So whether you find a reason or not is irrelevant.  The question is whether it is possible.  Even if we ignore the synthetic question the answer to that question is yes.  Without the Reapers for example, even if there were no synthetics, the Protheans would have essentially colonized the rest of the galaxy as they had already subjugated everyone else and were tinkering with the young species in our cycle.  Are you going to tell me that humans back when they were still drawing paintings on caves were in a position to defeat the Protheans?  Javik made it clear, you join the empire or you die.  Hell what did the Leviathan do if not enslave their thralls so that they could serve them?  That is two organic species and left unchecked their ultimate desires was to control the lesser species that they considered inferior to them.  

The only difference between the Protheans/Leviathan and a synthetic race is the Protheans/Leviathan likely had a use for other species as slaves and their thralls.  Why should they toil when they can get their slaves to do it for them.  Synthetics as Javik notes have no need for organics.  They don't tire from work or presumably get bored so there is no need for them to enslave or tolerate our existence.  Maybe they will be kind and tolerate us or maybe they decide that there is no reason for them to share the resources of the galaxy with a species that offers them nothing in return?

Modifié par remydat, 02 juillet 2013 - 04:14 .

[Coyotebay]

Remydat, like Rpjay said, your whole argument starts from a conclusion, so it is not logical it is subjective.  Synthetics will become more superior than organics, synthetics will become immortal or near-immortal, and it is logical for synthetics to want to destroy the inferior organics.  You have no facts to support the first two, and on your last point you apply the same human motivations that you accuse me and others of using.  Wars and conflicts always come down to a fight over land and resources.  In a galaxy with a near-infinite amount of planets and resources, that is a non-issue.  Even with FTL and a million civilizations, it is a non-issue.  Everything with you boils down to power and conquest.  Comparing a millions-year-old civilizations crushing us just because they can in the same way we step on an ant is ludicrous.  How do you know synthetics will become superior?  You don't, you just assume they will.  Even our young civilization has mapped the human genome, and cloning organs is in the near future.  In the next few hundred years we could see genetically engineered bodies that resist disease, suffer reduced wear-and tear, heal at astonishing rates.  Mental capacity could be increased, it may be possible to one day create organic computers.  Your whole argument is that only machines made from metal and plastic can evolve beyond a certain point, and that is false.  Machines have their own limitations, some that are unique to them and not organics. 

All the Fermi paradox does is ask the question, since the numbers suggest there should be all these advanced civilizations out there, how come we haven't seen one?  It doesn't address the logic behind a single alien race trying to conquer the galaxy.  And even if such an event took place, it could never last.  Like I said before, our own history shows us again and again that you can conquer, but you can only hold onto it for so long.  And that's just on one world.  In a galaxy wtith civilizations flung out all over the place, you would never have a single central power being able to control all of that, no matter how great it is or how many Death Stars it has.  Simple rules of chaos say otherwise.  The universe will always be unpredictable and always move in the direction of diversity.

[KaiserShep]

Enhanced wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

hpjay wrote...
In story...  if the authors wanted us to beleive in the robot apocolypse, they should not have let us make freinds with them in ME2 and ME3.

This. We're shown something to convince us that synthetics and organics can get along, but we're merely told that we can't. No matter what you do, showing will always supercede telling.

They let Shepard and a few of his crew make friends with them. Most organics in galaxy don't feel the same way, even after making peace on Rannoch. That peace only happens because Shepard instilled fear into Quarians to get them to stand down. The Quarians didn't suddenly accept them as equals.

You're blatantly ignoring the narrative to support your assumption. How a lot of the galaxy still feels about the geth is irrelevant. Peace between the Quarians and geth is not invalidated just because the rest of the galaxy lacks the clairvoyance to know everything that happens from far away and instantly have a change of heart. It's disingenuous to say that Shepard simply instilled fear into the Quarians. The Quarians were reckless. You needed to have certain individuals present that did not support this war in order to end it. Remember, Koris is one of the most influential characters of the lot, and has been advocating peace between them since ME2. He cannot be discounted. Was the geth unit that walks up to Shepard, Tali and the Admiral just talking out of its rear end? 

The point is that the players themselves are being shown a peaceful side of synthetics. We are shown that a resolution that involves peace is possible. What you suspect regarding the rest of the galaxy's perception of them does not preclude the possibilities suggested here in the slightest.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 02 juillet 2013 - 05:06 .

[remydat]

Coyotebay wrote...

Remydat, like Rpjay said, your whole argument starts from a conclusion, so it is not logical it is subjective.  Synthetics will become more superior than organics, synthetics will become immortal or near-immortal, and it is logical for synthetics to want to destroy the inferior organics.  You have no facts to support the first two, and on your last point you apply the same human motivations that you accuse me and others of using.  Wars and conflicts always come down to a fight over land and resources.  In a galaxy with a near-infinite amount of planets and resources, that is a non-issue.  Even with FTL and a million civilizations, it is a non-issue.  Everything with you boils down to power and conquest.  Comparing a millions-year-old civilizations crushing us just because they can in the same way we step on an ant is ludicrous.  How do you know synthetics will become superior?  You don't, you just assume they will.  Even our young civilization has mapped the human genome, and cloning organs is in the near future.  In the next few hundred years we could see genetically engineered bodies that resist disease, suffer reduced wear-and tear, heal at astonishing rates.  Mental capacity could be increased, it may be possible to one day create organic computers.  Your whole argument is that only machines made from metal and plastic can evolve beyond a certain point, and that is false.  Machines have their own limitations, some that are unique to them and not organics. 

All the Fermi paradox does is ask the question, since the numbers suggest there should be all these advanced civilizations out there, how come we haven't seen one?  It doesn't address the logic behind a single alien race trying to conquer the galaxy.  And even if such an event took place, it could never last.  Like I said before, our own history shows us again and again that you can conquer, but you can only hold onto it for so long.  And that's just on one world.  In a galaxy wtith civilizations flung out all over the place, you would never have a single central power being able to control all of that, no matter how great it is or how many Death Stars it has.  Simple rules of chaos say otherwise.  The universe will always be unpredictable and always move in the direction of diversity.

No you are confusing the Drake Equation which is concerned with why an alien civilization has not communicated with us with the Fermi Paradox which goes further.  One of the arguments in the Fermi paradox is as follows.

At any practical pace of interstellar travel, the galaxy can be completely colonized in a few tens of millions of years.  According to this line of thinking, the Earth should have already been colonized, or at least visited

http://en.wikipedia....i/Fermi_paradox 

You do understand what colonized means right?  The Fermi Paradox suggests an alien race that developed on one of the planets around one of the older stars in the galaxy should have already colonized the galaxy.  The paradox is that not only have they not colonized us, there is no evidence they have even visited.

So within the context of ME3, the Drake Equation has been resolved because we are communicating with alien civilizations.  However the Fermi Paradox still exists because there is still the question of why the galaxy has not been colonized completely.  The Asari, Turians, and Salarians via the Council in many ways have begun that process by trying to bring all organic species under their control but the reason they or anyone else has never completely colonized the galaxy (remember on 1% of the galaxy is known) is because they don't get to live for the tens of millions of years required for such colonization.  The main reason they do not is because the Reapers harvest every 50k years long before such colonization of the entire galaxy can take place.

You keep making accussations about what I believe when this has nothing to do with me.  I am explaining the context in which the Catalyst's logic is derived.  So to avoid this non-sense that I have started with a conclusion, let's start from the begining.

Again, let's ignore the entire issue of synthetics for right now.  Within the context of the MEU, do the more powerful organic races seek to control the other races in line with what the Fermi Paradox says ie that an advanced civilization will spread out throught the galaxy.  We have 3 examples in the MEU.  The Leviathna, The Protheans, and the Council Races.  Each race has sought to control the others in one form or fashion.  Yes or no?

[KaiserShep]

The whole idea of synthetics inevitably warring with organics as a result of their evolution never made much sense. This is something the Catalyst never adequately explained. How do the synthetics evolve? Why does it cause conflict with organics? In what way did the synthetics determine that they should wipe out organics completely? The reapers obviously didn't conclude that all organics should simply be wiped out, and they've been waging war with each cycle for millions of years.

The irony about the Prothean and council races' dominion in the galaxy is that this is only possible with the mass relays. Had the reapers not built them, the Protheans would never have taken control, because FTL would be too limited, and other species would have evolved beyond their capacity to influence by the time they ever reached them. 

This is all crap. The writers clearly did not have paradoxes and equations in mind when they constructed this premise, and certainly not for the Catalyst's explanation. This all comes down to poor planning, and insisting that we take what it says at face value without question. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 02 juillet 2013 - 05:31 .

[David7204]

We're back at this very uncomfortable place of simultaneously demanding that the Catalyst be right and demanding that he be wrong.

I have a simple question to ask. Do you want the Reapers to be right, or do you want them to be wrong?

Modifié par David7204, 02 juillet 2013 - 05:49 .

[Enhanced]

KaiserShep wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

hpjay wrote...
In story...  if the authors wanted us to beleive in the robot apocolypse, they should not have let us make freinds with them in ME2 and ME3.

This. We're shown something to convince us that synthetics and organics can get along, but we're merely told that we can't. No matter what you do, showing will always supercede telling.

They let Shepard and a few of his crew make friends with them. Most organics in galaxy don't feel the same way, even after making peace on Rannoch. That peace only happens because Shepard instilled fear into Quarians to get them to stand down. The Quarians didn't suddenly accept them as equals.

You're blatantly ignoring the narrative to support your assumption. How a lot of the galaxy still feels about the geth is irrelevant. Peace between the Quarians and geth is not invalidated just because the rest of the galaxy lacks the clairvoyance to know everything that happens from far away and instantly have a change of heart. It's disingenuous to say that Shepard simply instilled fear into the Quarians. The Quarians were reckless. You needed to have certain individuals present that did not support this war in order to end it. Remember, Koris is one of the most influential characters of the lot, and has been advocating peace between them since ME2. He cannot be discounted. Was the geth unit that walks up to Shepard, Tali and the Admiral just talking out of its rear end? 

The point is that the players themselves are being shown a peaceful side of synthetics. We are shown that a resolution that involves peace is possible. What you suspect regarding the rest of the galaxy's perception of them does not preclude the possibilities suggested here in the slightest.

I think you misunderstand. The Catalyst never said or implied that peace isn't possibe. He says "The peace won't last".  Can you provide of enough evidence to disprove that theory? If not, you are just "telling" me that it will last.

The fact that peace only happens through fear, makes doubt that it would last. Basically, it's fear that started the Geth War.

Modifié par Enhanced, 02 juillet 2013 - 06:09 .

[remydat]

KaiserShep wrote...

The whole idea of synthetics inevitably warring with organics as a result of their evolution never made much sense. This is something the Catalyst never adequately explained. How do the synthetics evolve? Why does it cause conflict with organics? In what way did the synthetics determine that they should wipe out organics completely? The reapers obviously didn't conclude that all organics should simply be wiped out, and they've been waging war with each cycle for millions of years.

The irony about the Prothean and council races' dominion in the galaxy is that this is only possible with the mass relays. Had the reapers not built them, the Protheans would never have taken control, because FTL would be too limited, and other species would have evolved beyond their capacity to influence by the time they ever reached them. 

This is all crap. The writers clearly did not have paradoxes and equations in mind when they constructed this premise, and certainly not for the Catalyst's explanation. This all comes down to poor planning, and insisting that we take what it says at face value without question. 

This is simply incorrect.  The Fermi Paradox states that based on our understanding of space travel and how it will likely evolve (ie not including FTL or Mass Relays), an alien race should be capable of colonizing the galaxy in tens of millions of years.  So it simply would have taken the Protheans longer to colonize but as long as they did not kill themselves off they clearly were the dominant species of that cycle.  

Furthermore, the Leviathan did not have Mass Relays and they essentially had dominion over the other organic species of their cycle.

In the game, when a species achieves dominance, they seek to control others.  This has been true of every dominant organic species we have seen in the game.  The only thing that makes synthetics different is their potential to advance tech faster and the potential for them to be immortal.  

The main reason organic empires appear to rise and fall is because Alexander the Great can give birth to an idiot for a son.  And that idiot for a son can't hold the empire together in the same manner Alexander the Great can.  However, if Alexander the Great never died and simply acquired more and more knowledge and did not get bored of acquiring knowledge and did not get distracted by screwing women, he would have a much greater chance of maintaining his Greek dominance.

Organic civlizations rise and fall because the people that run them change over time and some of them are less capable than others.  A synthetic race has no such limitations.  So when you combine that fact with the fact that every dominant species appears exert its dominance over others, it is legitimate for the Catalyst to perceive a threat.