1010 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

No matter what the catalyst or leviathan say, the threat of an AI uprising in the future is still a phantom one. There's so many variables that could change the outcome of such an occurrence, especially since the most threatening synthetics to exist for possibly millions of years are dead as door nails. It's just as possible that our galaxy collides with Andromeda before such a thing ever happens.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 22 octobre 2013 - 07:17 .

[eyezonlyii]

I think at this point though, the risk of creating a synthetic that can wipe out the galaxy is highly unlikely. I mean EVERY race just saw and fought off the pinnacle of synthetic life. Does anyone really think that any current council or embassy race is dying to make another one? With that in mind, my reason for choosing to destroy is now more so from the standpoint of "this is what I set out to do". Also, as has been said before, we are given no indication that either of the other two methods work by anyone who supported them a la TIM or Saren. Each said his method worked. Both died when it was proven their methods didn't. My Shepard has learned from their mistakes.

[Han Shot First]

KaiserShep wrote...

No matter what the catalyst or leviathan say, the threat of an AI uprising in the future is still a phantom one. There's so many variables that could change the outcome of such an occurrence, especially since the most threatening synthetics to exist for possibly millions of years are dead as door nails. It's just as possible that our galaxy collides with Andromeda before such a thing ever happens.

That is my biggest problem with the Catalyst. Its view that Synthetics will inevitably destroy Organics without some sort of special intervention, is just not really born out by the galaxy's history. There hasn't been anything to indicate that Synthetics are inherently more dangerous than any Organic faction. The Catalyst created a 'solution' to a problem that doesn't really exist.

I also think it is the result of the Catalyst's programming. The Leviathans did not want Synthetic rebellions devastating their subject races, because it either reduced or eliminated tribute. So the Catalyst is programmed to view all Synthetics other than itself as the greatest possible threat and one that must be strangled in the cradle.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 22 octobre 2013 - 07:34 .

[AlexMBrennan]

Its view that Synthetics will inevitably destroy Organics without some sort of special intervention, is just not really born out by the galaxy's history

Catalyst could quite possibly have observed this happening numerous times (each time intervening only at the last possible moment to avert the destruction of all life in the galaxy) so it is possible that the solution it developed is necessary... but I see no way for Shepard and the Catalyst to come to an agreement on this

[AlanC9]

Yeah, there's a bit of asymmetry there. Shepard has access to data about one cycle, but the Catalyst has information on, what, 20,000 cycles? And no way to share that information with Shepard in any fashion that Shepard could trust.

[wright1978]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Its view that Synthetics will inevitably destroy Organics without some sort of special intervention, is just not really born out by the galaxy's history

Catalyst could quite possibly have observed this happening numerous times (each time intervening only at the last possible moment to avert the destruction of all life in the galaxy) so it is possible that the solution it developed is necessary... but I see no way for Shepard and the Catalyst to come to an agreement on this

The catalyst's meddling to stir up problems between synthetics & organics makes me believe it more of a idealogical extremist, hellbent on proving its belief right rather than observing scientifically.

[FlyingSquirrel]

KwangtungTiger wrote...
And somehow Synthesis stops conflict? Just because their DNA is changed didn't mean that their personality or embodiment was.

Lets take the Krogan,

Blessed with their high birth rate and now eternal life, how long before they use up all the resources in their system and start to expand the colony. We already know what happened last time. Hell.......what about the now eternal life of all the other races? The fight for land and resources is worsened by it.

I don't think that the idea is that synthesis literally changes people's personalities, but rather that the increased mental capacity that comes with synthesis enables people to develop more tolerant and cooperative attitudes. The krogan might develop a better sense of empathy with other species that fear another rapid expansion, for example, and voluntarily choose not to go down that path again.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not 100% sold on Synthesis by any means - but I think it's possible to see how it might lead to a more peaceful galaxy without it being some sort of instantaneous mass brainwashing. Again, my own preferred interpretation is that Synthesis merely makes the upgrades *possible*, that each individual would have the choice to hit the on-switch or not, and that it won't reach the point of actually altering who we are, guaranteeing immortality, or otherwise twisting nature into something corrupt or immoral.

Modifié par FlyingSquirrel, 22 octobre 2013 - 10:42 .

[FlyingSquirrel]

maaaad365 wrote...

Now ,seriously guys, do you actually trust the Reapers to tell the truth about the solution to the problem ?
Destroy is the only logical solution since the Reapers cannot be trusted, period. If I had to choose 1000 times between the 3 options I would go with the destroy every time.
But , since it is only a game , Synthesis is the best in my opinion. And they do become immortal , EDI says that in her final speech.

Some folks are probably tired of hearing this argument from me, but I've always thought that the Catalyst is a very bad liar if it is attempting to be deceptive. It could conceal or attempt to downplay the possibility of Destroy, it could make something up to address the main counterarguments against Control (AI-Shep could turn hostile, the Reapers could end up as slaves) or Synthesis (it doesn't give people a choice), but it does neither of those things. It also just generally comes off as pretty clueless in terms of understanding how others think. It has apparently accepted the Leviathans' flawed assumptions at face value, and it makes the incredibly tone-deaf statement about how Shepard and others have hope because they will be preserved in Reaper form. The impression I get is of an entity that exists on its own peculiar terms and is simply stating what it perceives to be the truth.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Han Shot First wrote...
That is my biggest problem with the Catalyst. Its view that Synthetics will inevitably destroy Organics without some sort of special intervention, is just not really born out by the galaxy's history. There hasn't been anything to indicate that Synthetics are inherently more dangerous than any Organic faction. The Catalyst created a 'solution' to a problem that doesn't really exist.

I also think it is the result of the Catalyst's programming. The Leviathans did not want Synthetic rebellions devastating their subject races, because it either reduced or eliminated tribute. So the Catalyst is programmed to view all Synthetics other than itself as the greatest possible threat and one that must be strangled in the cradle.

I don't think people who pick Control or Synthesis necessarily do so because they are convinced by the Catalyst's arguments. Personally, I think the Catalyst is full of crap, though I really place the blame on the Leviathans for ordering it to work from flawed assumptions. The Catalyst is just an end result of what happens when a bunch of self-serving and powerful egomaniacs start treating other intelligent beings as tools to be used for their own ends.

However, the situation being what it is, my Shepards are looking for some way to end this madness without sacrificing their own souls or the lives of millions of allies. I can do that, albeit with considerable headcanon assistance, with Control or Synthesis. I find it harder to do with Destroy, at least if I'm playing a Shepard whose ethics are reasonably close to my own.

I'll admit that I'm tempted by Refuse in a way, but I suppose I refuse to accept the implied logic of Refuse, i.e. that someone in Shepard's situation really would have no option but to throw his or her own principles out the window to save the galaxy, so instead I come up with my own friendlier interpretations of Control or Synthesis.

[essarr71]

AlanC9 wrote...

Yeah, there's a bit of asymmetry there. Shepard has access to data about one cycle, but the Catalyst has information on, what, 20,000 cycles? And no way to share that information with Shepard in any fashion that Shepard could trust.

Yeup.

How do you solve this issue?  Have the narrative line-up with the Reaper motivations.  Instead we get every major synthetic/organic war having Reaper influences in the aggression.  And no matter how varied the Geth-Quarian conflict can be resolved, the fact that peace can be achieved negates the point.  "The war for Rannoch proves this," it tells me, moments before Geth Tractor Unit #347-Z gets working on plowing the farm for their new friends.  It's horrible story-telling.

Shame.  ME1 did a fine job of establishing the conflict, but the theme has been betrayed it ever since we met Legion in ME2.  From that moment the scope zoomed out, the narrative tells me it's a lot more complicated.  Why they didn't try to foreshadow their case in 3 is a mystery to me.

[maaaad365]

You may be correct, but think about this : you fought the Reapers for 5 years , spent every resource you have in this conflict, every species in the galaxy is involved in destroying the Reapers, and you have a change of heart at the last minute and suddenly trust your arch enemies. It doesn't make any sense. It's like the Allies trusting Hitler in World War 2 just because he says he is a good guy. I just don't buy his story. But in the context of the game I knew he was not lying, which is weird because it made me realize that Bioware did a bad job with the script.
A massive ray gun coming from the Citadel and anihilating Harbringer would make a lot more sense than the child-like Reaper mouthpiece selling you snake oil . The Reapers are evil, they are not just machines, they are sentient and they knew they were comiting genocide for billions of years, they went way beyond their original programming that the Leviathan gave them., they are not innocent of their crimes.

Modifié par maaaad365, 22 octobre 2013 - 11:41 .

[Xilizhra]

How do you solve this issue? Have the narrative line-up with the Reaper motivations. Instead we get every major synthetic/organic war having Reaper influences in the aggression. And no matter how varied the Geth-Quarian conflict can be resolved, the fact that peace can be achieved negates the point. "The war for Rannoch proves this," it tells me, moments before Geth Tractor Unit #347-Z gets working on plowing the farm for their new friends. It's horrible story-telling.

Actually, the Reapers have never started an organic/synthetic war. They may reinforce the synthetic side as pawns after the war's already begun, but they do not begin said wars. I suspect that the Morning War, in fact, is what triggered this cycle to begin.

The Catalyst may or may not be right, it's impossible to tell. But what I do know is that there's a way to resolve this so that no one else has to die. And that, I will take, no matter what.

[Kataphrut94]

If you can't trust the Catalyst about Control or Synthesis, then why can you trust him about Destroy? All of those choices come from the same source, so I don't get how people can argue that the Catalyst would stab us in the back with two out of the three choices, but not the third choice, especially when it's the choice that the Catalyst himself appears to favour the least. I think you pretty much just have to go with him on this decision, and he has nothing to gain from lying to you; why would he bring you up to his chamber when he could have just let you die?

The complaint that Control Shepard could end up becoming like the Catalyst and restarting the cycle is one I've heard a dozen times before, and I've never seen any merit to it. My answer every time is that the AI is Shepard and Shepard would never restart the conflict that he spent so much time trying to end. Plus, a Shepard that didn't choose Destroy is more likely to think along the lines that synthetics and organics can coexist peacefully, and as such probably wouldn't buy into the Leviathans problem to begin with. Therefore, it makes no sense for an AI that's basing it's programming of Shepard's own views to do a backflip on those issues.

[eyezonlyii]

Xilizhra wrote...

How do you solve this issue? Have the narrative line-up with the Reaper motivations. Instead we get every major synthetic/organic war having Reaper influences in the aggression. And no matter how varied the Geth-Quarian conflict can be resolved, the fact that peace can be achieved negates the point. "The war for Rannoch proves this," it tells me, moments before Geth Tractor Unit #347-Z gets working on plowing the farm for their new friends. It's horrible story-telling.

Actually, the Reapers have never started an organic/synthetic war. They may reinforce the synthetic side as pawns after the war's already begun, but they do not begin said wars. I suspect that the Morning War, in fact, is what triggered this cycle to begin.

The Catalyst may or may not be right, it's impossible to tell. But what I do know is that there's a way to resolve this so that no one else has to die. And that, I will take, no matter what.

what way is that? 

[Xilizhra]

what way is that?

Control or Synthesis, though as of now, I'm leaning toward the latter.

[eyezonlyii]

Xilizhra wrote...

what way is that?

Control or Synthesis, though as of now, I'm leaning toward the latter.

Shepard dies in both of those. As paragon as he is, my Shepard is too selfish to have survived this entire fight, just to take his own life at the end for machines that can easily be rebuilt.

[Br3admax]

Xilizhra wrote...

How do you solve this issue? Have the narrative line-up with the Reaper motivations. Instead we get every major synthetic/organic war having Reaper influences in the aggression. And no matter how varied the Geth-Quarian conflict can be resolved, the fact that peace can be achieved negates the point. "The war for Rannoch proves this," it tells me, moments before Geth Tractor Unit #347-Z gets working on plowing the farm for their new friends. It's horrible story-telling.

Actually, the Reapers have never started an organic/synthetic war. They may reinforce the synthetic side as pawns after the war's already begun, but they do not begin said wars. I suspect that the Morning War, in fact, is what triggered this cycle to begin.

The Catalyst may or may not be right, it's impossible to tell. But what I do know is that there's a way to resolve this so that no one else has to die. And that, I will take, no matter what.

You think the Morning War from centuries ago "started" this cycle? No. This "cycle" started because development got to a certain point, it has nothing to do with any conflicts between anyone. Once Citadel Space becomes large enough, the Reapers swoop in. It's that simple. 

[Xilizhra]

Shepard dies in both of those. As paragon as he is, my Shepard is too selfish to have survived this entire fight, just to take his own life at the end for machines that can easily be rebuilt.

Well, okay.

You think the Morning War from centuries ago "started" this cycle? No. This "cycle" started because development got to a certain point, it has nothing to do with any conflicts between anyone. Once Citadel Space becomes large enough, the Reapers swoop in. It's that simple.

Yes, development getting to the point of building rebellious AIs, i.e. the point of the Reapers.

[essarr71]

Xilizhra wrote...

How do you solve this issue? Have the narrative line-up with the Reaper motivations. Instead we get every major synthetic/organic war having Reaper influences in the aggression. And no matter how varied the Geth-Quarian conflict can be resolved, the fact that peace can be achieved negates the point. "The war for Rannoch proves this," it tells me, moments before Geth Tractor Unit #347-Z gets working on plowing the farm for their new friends. It's horrible story-telling.

Actually, the Reapers have never started an organic/synthetic war. They may reinforce the synthetic side as pawns after the war's already begun, but they do not begin said wars. I suspect that the Morning War, in fact, is what triggered this cycle to begin.

The Catalyst may or may not be right, it's impossible to tell. But what I do know is that there's a way to resolve this so that no one else has to die. And that, I will take, no matter what.

What we know is those conflicts did not end with organics losing.  Quarians were bloodied, but can win.  The Zha'til were being pushed back.  If, say, Javik lamented how one synthetic race was winning and then the Reapers showed up it would paint a different picture.  Instead we have the horrible Geth, who then say "we're doing our thing, we don't really have an opinion on organics".  It doesn't fit.

And since you insist on putting an ending opinion, I'll retort:  Since it's impossible to tell if the Catalyst is right, I'm going to go with Shep's own experiences and first-hand knowledge and say the problem isn't synthetics.. just one type of synthetic. 

[SwobyJ]

eyezonlyii wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

what way is that?

Control or Synthesis, though as of now, I'm leaning toward the latter.

Shepard dies in both of those. As paragon as he is, my Shepard is too selfish to have survived this entire fight, just to take his own life at the end for machines that can easily be rebuilt.

Yep.

My Shepard has talked to EDI and she has made it clear she would sacrifice herself to not just 'stop', but END the Reapers.
The Geth in my game state there will be 'no more compromise with the Old Machines'.

So there we go. I pick Destroy, the Quarians can (and will) rebuild the Geth with a better understanding of how to treat them (maybe make them more as individuals, like EDI seemed to suggest to me?), and the Alliance will put their resources towards making EDI again, if at all possible. Dunno about the Virtual Aliens or any other secret AI.

HOWEVER, if:
-one hasn't discussed it sufficiently enough with EDI (what her intentions are)
-the Geth saying 'no more compromise' isn't enough for you, or you never heard it

Then sure, I'll accept your choice to try another way.

I take Destroy as both the most 'default' (subjectively speaking with how the series works), and the most 'heightened' choices (Shepard getting out of rubble is pretty much his thing in ME1 and ME2), but Synthesis is the most idealistic and Control is the most compromising.
Since Shepard also builds a victorious reputation should being idealistic and compromising based on pivitol choices, I understand many players wanting to attempt being so, even with the Reapers of all things.

On their face, they are the most 'I Win' options. Why? Because we even BEAT OUR ENEMIES and seemingly proved that TIM and Saren were only too weak (mentally? morally?) to do what they wanted to do. I'm not sure how much I believe that as true, but in my RL conversations with people who picked things like Control, they really liked sticking it to TIM's face that the Reapers can be controlled, but TIM sacrificed too much of himself along the way in order to do it 'properly'. So there you go.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 23 octobre 2013 - 01:11 .

[Xilizhra]

essarr71 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

How do you solve this issue? Have the narrative line-up with the Reaper motivations. Instead we get every major synthetic/organic war having Reaper influences in the aggression. And no matter how varied the Geth-Quarian conflict can be resolved, the fact that peace can be achieved negates the point. "The war for Rannoch proves this," it tells me, moments before Geth Tractor Unit #347-Z gets working on plowing the farm for their new friends. It's horrible story-telling.

Actually, the Reapers have never started an organic/synthetic war. They may reinforce the synthetic side as pawns after the war's already begun, but they do not begin said wars. I suspect that the Morning War, in fact, is what triggered this cycle to begin.

The Catalyst may or may not be right, it's impossible to tell. But what I do know is that there's a way to resolve this so that no one else has to die. And that, I will take, no matter what.

What we know is those conflicts did not end with organics losing.  Quarians were bloodied, but can win.  The Zha'til were being pushed back.  If, say, Javik lamented how one synthetic race was winning and then the Reapers showed up it would paint a different picture.  Instead we have the horrible Geth, who then say "we're doing our thing, we don't really have an opinion on organics".  It doesn't fit.

And since you insist on putting an ending opinion, I'll retort:  Since it's impossible to tell if the Catalyst is right, I'm going to go with Shep's own experiences and first-hand knowledge and say the problem isn't synthetics.. just one type of synthetic. 

The Catalyst never said that the organics would lose at once.

And whether or not it's accurate doesn't matter as much to me as the chance to stop more deaths.

[KaiserShep]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

If you can't trust the Catalyst about Control or Synthesis, then why can you trust him about Destroy? All of those choices come from the same source, so I don't get how people can argue that the Catalyst would stab us in the back with two out of the three choices, but not the third choice, especially when it's the choice that the Catalyst himself appears to favour the least. I think you pretty much just have to go with him on this decision, and he has nothing to gain from lying to you; why would he bring you up to his chamber when he could have just let you die?

I pretty much have to take the Catalyst's word for it regarding the options themselves, since I'm not exactly neck deep in options. It's the long term effects of A, B and C that I have to weigh against each other. Trusting that the three options' most immediate effects will actually pull through uses up the last ounces of faith I have left, so it's really just a matter of which result I think will work best for the galaxy: a world without reapers, or one in which they're still alive. I guess I just find a particular distaste to the galactic guardian gods concept. I'd rather stuff the tyrant (the catalyst) in the guillotine and let society sort itself out. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 I think a few very simple explanations would have given the Catalyst more credibility...


re: lack of severe organic-synthetic conflict; the Catalyst could have responded by saying that the Reapers harvest before the problem becomes acute, and after civilization has become satisfactorily advanced. He could also have claimed to figure that galactic civilization reaches this point approximately 50,000 years after the end of every cycle, so they return.

re: peace on Rannoch; that's an easy one. Javik's opinion on the organic-synthetic thing didn't change when it happened, he merely believed it won't last. It would be the same for the Catalyst. The Catalyst could also go on to say that periods of peace time are not necessarily impossible, just that under his observation, war always broke out later, with synthetics eventually coming out on top. If you're measuing things over eons, just about every imaginagble outcome becomes probable.

re: Reapers' involvement in organic-synthetic wars, assisting synthetics; this is simply brutal pragmatism, and the Catalyst could have said as much. The Catalyst gave up on solving the organic-synthetic problem short of his solution (the Reapers) long ago, and so their involvement in these conflicts was simply a means to help facilitate that solution.


I know a lot of (particularly jaded) people here think and say that the writers never thought of the answers to these questions when they wrote the ending. I don't believe it, though. I think there was rationale behind it, but these explanations either (1) got cut, in the interest of (a) time, ( resources; and/or (2) were withheld, in the interest of the having the players wonder and reach those conclusions themselves (hence, "speculations"). The ending's poor reception obviously indicates a miscalculation. Then again, lack of sense hasn't stopped this fanbase from enjoying other things, so I think this strategy is not what failed them. What did, however, was the lack of satisfaction the ending brought, period.

[Astartes Marine]

I think it might be that Control and Synthesis offer more headcanon room.  Like for me Control allowed me to think just what could I do with that much power and influence, I could reshape the galaxy...I could fix the problems that have long existed, right the many wrongs, forge a new empire for others to look upon with pride and awe, and build a better future.

Xilizhra wrote...
Actually, the Reapers have never started an organic/synthetic war.

The Zha'til AIs and their creators the Zha lived in a mutually beneficial and peaceful coexistence to survive their nearly inhospitable homeworld and both sides were quite content...

Then the Reapers subjugated them and we heard Javik talk about the war with the Zha'til.  Ended when the Protheans blew up their solar system by turning the star into a supernova.  There was no conflict until the Reapers interfered and forced that conflict to occur.

Same with the Geth.  Admittedly yes the Morning War was the Quarians' fault but the Geth went into a self imposed exile and were not interested in further aggression until Sovereign came along and we all know how that turned out.  Would there have been war later?  Probably but probably a hell of a lot further in the future without the Reapers forcing the issue.


It just sounds like the Reapers came along when it seemed like there wasn't going to be organic/synthetic conflict, and they put things in motion to make sure there will be organic/synthetic conflict so they can show up and preach about how they are our salvation through destruction and how it is inevitable.  A pathetic attempt to justify their own existence.

Modifié par Astartes Marine, 23 octobre 2013 - 02:37 .

[Xilizhra]

The Zha'til AIs and their creators the Zha lived in a mutually beneficial and peaceful coexistence to survive their nearly inhospitable homeworld and both sides were quite content...

Then the Reapers subjugated them and we heard Javik talk about the war with the Zha'til. Ended when the Protheans blew up their solar system by turning the star into a supernova. There was no conflict until the Reapers interfered and forced that conflict to occur.

No, the war started of its own accord; the Metacon War. The Reapers reinforced the Zha'til, but did not, to my knowledge, start the war.

Same with the Geth. Admittedly yes the Morning War was the Quarians' fault but the Geth went into a self imposed exile and were not interested in further aggression until Sovereign came along and we all know how that turned out. Would there have been war later? Probably but probably a hell of a lot further in the future without the Reapers forcing the issue.

The Morning War itself was the issue.

It just sounds like the Reapers came along when it seemed like there wasn't going to be organic/synthetic conflict, and they put things in motion to make sure there will be organic/synthetic conflict so they can show up and preach about how they are our salvation through destruction and how it is inevitable. A pathetic attempt to justify their own existence.

The Catalyst doesn't possess nearly enough ego for that to be deliberate. It's so focused on its goal that it's perfectly willing to end the cycle and just die if that seems like a better solution.

I think it might be that Control
and Synthesis offer more headcanon room.  Like for me Control allowed
me to think just what could I do with that much power and influence, I
could reshape the galaxy...I could fix the problems that have long
existed, right the many wrongs, forge a new empire for others to look
upon with pride and awe, and build a better future.

Would it be presumptuous of me to hope that you're not doing so based on the horrific dystopia mentioned in your name/avatar/signature?

Modifié par Xilizhra, 23 octobre 2013 - 02:48 .