161 réponses à ce sujet

[ImaginaryMatter]

I guess I, as the player, trust the Catalyst because the writers want me to trust the Catalyst. Shepard on the other hand doesn't really have a reason.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Obadiah wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

I wouldn't say that it's nonsense that it may be wrong about certain things, especially when it comes to matters of predicting the future. It's no less susceptible to fallibility.

It's surprised that you even made the Crucible. So yeah, it's not omniscient or infallible. I'm not sure if it's really supposed to be a god character. It's also wrong (apparently) about Destroy's effects (high EMS at least..).

You don't discount the knowledge of a 37 million year old enemy just because its about to be defeated. Pretenting that we know more than it because it is fallible is ridiculous.

So is skewing the oppositions argument like you just did. 

I for one thing it's a matter of limited perspective brought from a logic bomb stipulated by its creators, trying to solve a problem that should never have been as large a problem as it made to begin with. 

Also, it changes how it defines 'synthetic'. It's not keeping its explanations clear. It's not providing a formula for how it reached its conclusion. It's saying things that don't make scientific, biological, or logical sense. Its opinion is irrelevant. 

Age does not equal wisdom.

[dreamgazer]

It's not the first time Shepard's trusted a foreign AI with jarring exposition and instructions on how a device works.

[Argentoid]

Short answer: I do trust him, but I don't agree with him. He has logic that is only understandable by synthetics.



Kinda offtopic though and completely out of context, but I've never seen one single user in the BSN forums using the Catalyst as their avatar (who would?), don't know why it came up to my mind. I know Kai Leng was and is still used by Tully Auckland's account though.

Modifié par Argentoid, 07 décembre 2013 - 05:07 .

[dreamgazer]

StreetMagic wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Now I don't remember enough of the context to wonder if you're on to something. I do remember that they were preparing for the whole encounter long beforehand though. And Kirk is a space cowboy who questions things. That already makes it better.

Kirk's defiance is an amusing addition to the ludicrousness of what's going on involving the Enterprise and the being's motives and powers, and even less gets explained there than in ME3's vanilla ending because mystery and God commentary.  "What does God need with a starship?" was Kirk's first question that gets met with a lightning bolt to the chest; Shepard's allowed more curiosity that gets reciprocated, but less reservation (and even that's buffed in the EC). 

Kirk's question is awesome. Not even Spock asks it. And it is rule of cool, correct. It's about Kirk having that extra "spark", because he's an awesome human. America F*ck Yeah! Way to make it sound boring with your geeky analysis.

Can't help it: that entire scenario is even more nonsensical than ME3's ending, and the rest of the movie coming before it doesn't do any favors, either. 

[CronoDragoon]

dreamgazer wrote...

It's not the first time Shepard's trusted a foreign AI with jarring exposition and instructions on how a device works.

I see what you did there.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Argentoid wrote...

Short answer: I do trust him, but I don't agree with him. He has logic that is only understandable by synthetics.

That seems kinda hand wavy.

[Obadiah]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

I wouldn't say that it's nonsense that it may be wrong about certain things, especially when it comes to matters of predicting the future. It's no less susceptible to fallibility.

It's surprised that you even made the Crucible. So yeah, it's not omniscient or infallible. I'm not sure if it's really supposed to be a god character. It's also wrong (apparently) about Destroy's effects (high EMS at least..).

You don't discount the knowledge of a 37 million year old enemy just because its about to be defeated. Pretenting that we know more than it because it is fallible is ridiculous.

So is skewing the oppositions argument like you just did. 

I for one thing it's a matter of limited perspective brought from a logic bomb stipulated by its creators, trying to solve a problem that should never have been as large a problem as it made to begin with. 

Also, it changes how it defines 'synthetic'. It's not keeping its explanations clear. It's not providing a formula for how it reached its conclusion. It's saying things that don't make scientific, biological, or logical sense. Its opinion is irrelevant. 

Age does not equal wisdom.

It's astonishing to me that players think that the Catalyst would not have taken any counter-argument that they could propose into its determination already. It has been observing Organics for millenia upon millenia, but is suffering from "limited perspective"? Ridiculous.

[dreamgazer]

CronoDragoon wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

It's not the first time Shepard's trusted a foreign AI with jarring exposition and instructions on how a device works.

I see what you did there.

But seriously, nobody says you have to trust it.

You do have to work with what you've got in that moment, though.

[Argentoid]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Argentoid wrote...

Short answer: I do trust him, but I don't agree with him. He has logic that is only understandable by synthetics.

That seems kinda hand wavy.

That's why I said "short answer".

[SwobyJ]

Can I just be skeptical about half-truths?

[Obadiah]

StreetMagic wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

It's astonishing to me that players think that the Catalyst would not have taken any counter-argument that they could propose into its determination already. It has been observing Organics for millenia upon millenia, but is suffering from "limited perspective"? Ridiculous.

Read my post above. It is a limited perspective - it was created for one specific purpose. It only cares about resolving one thing. All of it's exploration and research (whatever that may be) is filtered through that.

He's not a general AI musing on the mysteries of life. He's doing the Leviathan's bidding, even to this day. Nothing more.

I'd say from ypur post that the Catalyst has a limited mandate. It's perspective is much much wider than that.

[Obadiah]

StreetMagic wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

It's astonishing to me that players think that the Catalyst would not have taken any counter-argument that they could propose into its determination already. It has been observing Organics for millenia upon millenia, but is suffering from "limited perspective"? Ridiculous.

Read my post above. It is a limited perspective - it was created for one specific purpose. It only cares about resolving one thing. All of it's exploration and research (whatever that may be) is filtered through that.

He's not a general AI musing on the mysteries of life. He's doing the Leviathan's bidding, even to this day. Nothing more.

I'd say from ypur post that the Catalyst has a limited mandate. It's perspective is much much wider than that.

If it was, it would have deviated from it's path. It's singleminded.

So singleminded and devoted I almost think it deserves a cookie. Too bad it's a robot and doesn't like cookies.

It did deviate from the path. The Reapers are its last solution that no longer works. Now its looking for another solution.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Why do you believe it? He's really not being very straight with how he defines the term 'synthetic'. I mean, he does change it's meaning around from destroy to synthesis.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean - ?

If you're referring to him calling Shepard "partially synthetic," well, he's right. And it appears Destroy does affect Shepard, too, since he either dies (Low/Mid EMS) or loses his limbs (High). It can't be the exploding tank since that's scrippted anyway.

[Deathsaurer]

Obadiah wrote...

It did deviate from the path. The Reapers are its last solution that no longer works. Now its looking for another solution.

That's not deviating from the path, that's looking for a more effective way down the path. We already know it's a sucker for efficiency

[KaiserShep]

Obadiah wrote...
You don't discount the knowledge of a 37 million year old enemy just because its about to be defeated. Pretenting that we know more than it because it is fallible is ridiculous.

Sure I can.

Look at it this way. 37 million years of data amounts to pretty much bupkis from our perspective. We can assume that the data gathered over this span of time is perfectly valid, but this assumption is based solely on the sheer number of years, not on its merit. Obviously, there's no way for us to know how much of this data may be skewed, so all we have is its word that there's a pattern it's observed, and that it's operating on this pattern, based on the logic of a problem given to it by an organic species that wanted to ensure the survival of its slaves. Any pattern, even a 37 million year long one, can be subject to drastic changes it cannot anticipate, and that's pretty much what happened here.

In the end, nothing guarantees any events of the future, not even a 37 million year old cyclic catalogue.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 07 décembre 2013 - 05:29 .

[CronoDragoon]

Obadiah wrote...
It did deviate from the path. The Reapers are its last solution that no longer works. Now its looking for another solution.

It didn't deviate from its mandate. It's hard to see how its perspective can be greater than its programming when the former is always interpreted through the prism of the latter.

[Deathsaurer]

KaiserShep wrote...

so all we have is its word that there's a pattern it's observed

*cough* Vendetta

[KaiserShep]

Deathsaurer wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

so all we have is its word that there's a pattern it's observed

*cough* Vendetta

Sure, but it focuses on the reaper pattern, which, as far as I can tell, is the only real consistency we can account for, and even that gets disrupted.

[ImaginaryMatter]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Why do you believe it? He's really not being very straight with how he defines the term 'synthetic'. I mean, he does change it's meaning around from destroy to synthesis.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean - ?

If you're referring to him calling Shepard "partially synthetic," well, he's right. And it appears Destroy does affect Shepard, too, since he either dies (Low/Mid EMS) or loses his limbs (High). It can't be the exploding tank since that's scrippted anyway.

When the Catalyst first refers to 'synthetics' he seems to be talking about AI. When he refers to Shepard he just seems to be talking about technology in general.