435 réponses à ce sujet

[Comrade Wakizashi]

NeroonWilliams wrote...

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...


Even if that were true (but I don't count cut content as canon, because it's not in the canon game), would it be better than living as a human being, even with the risk of eventual annihilation by a synthetic?
Eternal life as an enslaved abomination (if we follow what you believe) or imminent death and harvesting of your genetic material is hardly a working alternative to continuing normal organic existance, even with the question of wether or not synthetics will eventually wipe us out remaining open.

(I don't count anything that isn't in the actual game as canon either)

You are failing to take into account that YOU as an individual don't matter in the slightest to the AI.  The only thing that matters to it is its core goal: to ensure that organic life continues to exist.  If you (as a member of a species capable of producing a singularity capable of wiping out all organic life) oppose it, then you need to be thwarted in your attempts to interfere with its mission.  If you are being harvested it is not for YOUR benefit.  It is for the benefit of the species who are NOT being harvested.

Only if you believe the Catalyst's claims. For which I see no reason of doing.

[CronoDragoon]

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...
In this case it is. If there are no synthetics with the power to wipe out organics, how would they go about wiping out organics? In other words: the "pattern" is not there in the current cycle. The Reapers are here simply because 50,000 years have passed and it's time for the next harvest.

But there are synthetics with the power to wipe out organics: the Reapers. You can't simply discount the Reapers because they don't fit your claim.

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...

Only if you believe the Catalyst's claims. For which I see no reason of doing.

Who is arguing the Catalyst's claim is true? I'm simply arguing against the reasons being given for it being false. If I believed the Catalyst, then I wouldn't pick Destroy, which I do.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 17 janvier 2014 - 04:20 .

[Ieldra]

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

jtav wrote...
Here's the problem: we're told the singularity is inevitable but what we're actually shown is that non-Reaper AIs are no more threatening than any other species. Rannoch can end with everybody happy; Tuchanka can't. EDI is a valued team member and her romance with Joker is fairly stable. If the Catalyst has a point, then we have to see it onscreen, not merely have it asserted after the fact. I choose Synthesis, but I think the singularity is rank nonsense.

I agree with this, but this is - as I said above - a problem of storytelling, not of logic. We needed to be shown and weren't, so we are justified in rejecting the claim. However, the Catalyst's logic is still internally consistent and can't be disproven by deduction.

I agree with that, in fact. I've never said the Catalyst's logic isn't consistent by itself. On the contrary, it is highly logical and rational in its own right. But consistency and truth are not the same thing. One can easily be consistent and rational while being completely wrong at the same time.

The other side of this is that the Catalyst is presented as this super-intelligent, almost omniscient being whose assertions we shouldn't just dismiss and who wouldn't be immune to having significant counter-evidence presented to him. That we can't bring up Rannoch is maddening. Its reaction would probably decide the matter for many: is this a "functionallý insane god" or do its assertions have merit in spite of one piece of counter-evidence? I think we were expected to take it seriously, because if we don't - if we can't trust it to be truthful - then we have no way to make an informed decision.

Ultimately, I think there is a problem with the writers' competence here. If you make a convoluted plot, it's your task to have it bombarded with critical questions until it either falls apart or the remaining unanswered questions can be counted irrelevant. ME3's writers lacked the ability to do that and decided to keep things on the level of mere assertions (what they called "high level"). This is very compatible with the rumor that ME3's ending was made in a closet by the two leads with no input from the team. We couldn't bring up Rannoch because the writers didn't have an answer to that question.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 janvier 2014 - 04:32 .

[Invisible Man]

this might be slightly off topic, but...
what would have happened if the catalyst sent the reapers to various civilizations as organic/synthetic conflicts began to rise, and tried to convince said civilizations that they were doomed, and offered a form of "salvation", well assuming the organics didn't simply try to gun them down at first sight? or assuming there weren't enough people willing to be reaperfied to build a new reaper, etc, etc, etc...

[jtav]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

jtav wrote...
Here's the problem: we're told the singularity is inevitable but what we're actually shown is that non-Reaper AIs are no more threatening than any other species. Rannoch can end with everybody happy; Tuchanka can't. EDI is a valued team member and her romance with Joker is fairly stable. If the Catalyst has a point, then we have to see it onscreen, not merely have it asserted after the fact. I choose Synthesis, but I think the singularity is rank nonsense.

I agree with this, but this is - as I said above - a problem of storytelling, not of logic. We needed to be shown and weren't, so we are justified in rejecting the claim. However, the Catalyst's logic is still internally consistent and can't be disproven by deduction.

I agree with that, in fact. I've never said the Catalyst's logic isn't consistent by itself. On the contrary, it is highly logical and rational in its own right. But consistency and truth are not the same thing. One can easily be consistent and rational while being completely wrong at the same time.

The other side of this is that the Catalyst is presented as this super-intelligent, almost omniscient being whose assertions we shouldn't just dismiss and who wouldn't be immune to having significant counter-evidence presented to him. That we can't bring up Rannoch is maddening. Its reaction would probably decide the matter for many: is this a "functionallý insane god" or do its assertions have merit in spite of one piece of counter-evidence? I think we were expected to take it seriously, because if we don't - if we can't trust it to be truthful - then we have no way to make an informed decision.

Ultimately, I think there is a problem with the writers' competence here. If you make a convoluted plot, it's your task to have it bombarded with critical questions until it either falls apart or the remaining unanswered questions can be counted irrelevant. ME3's writers lacked the ability to do that and decided to keep things on the level of mere assertions (what they called "high level"). This is very compatible with the rumor that ME3's ending was made in a closet by the two leads with no input from the team. We couldn't bring up Rannoch because the writers didn't have an answer to that question.

And that makes the whole thing fall apart. And so I'm left to make the decision for other reasons. The Catalyst is lucky my interests coincide with his because I'd like to tturn him into scrap metal. Destroy becomes twisted because you can't assert his wrongness and irrelevance except by killing peaceful synthetics.

[NeroonWilliams]

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...

NeroonWilliams wrote...

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...


Even if that were true (but I don't count cut content as canon, because it's not in the canon game), would it be better than living as a human being, even with the risk of eventual annihilation by a synthetic?
Eternal life as an enslaved abomination (if we follow what you believe) or imminent death and harvesting of your genetic material is hardly a working alternative to continuing normal organic existance, even with the question of wether or not synthetics will eventually wipe us out remaining open.

(I don't count anything that isn't in the actual game as canon either)

You are failing to take into account that YOU as an individual don't matter in the slightest to the AI.  The only thing that matters to it is its core goal: to ensure that organic life continues to exist.  If you (as a member of a species capable of producing a singularity capable of wiping out all organic life) oppose it, then you need to be thwarted in your attempts to interfere with its mission.  If you are being harvested it is not for YOUR benefit.  It is for the benefit of the species who are NOT being harvested.

Only if you believe the Catalyst's claims. For which I see no reason of doing.

If you refuse to believe anything the AI says, you have no business continuing this discussion.

I will attempt one more analogy before throwing my arms up in disgust at your intransigence.

**Keep in mind that I know that this is NOT how electric lines actually work.  The effect is correct for this analogy NOT for real life.**

A tree is growing several branches that may soon come in contact with a high voltage power line or grow around it.  If one of those branches should actually come in contact with the power line, the whole tree will be incinerated.

Is it safer for the tree as a whole to be left alone and hope that those branches that are so close to the line never actually touch it, or would it be safer for a groundskeeper to prune the branches that are close, so that they don't pose a threat to the life of the tree?

Ahem.

Tree = Organic life
Power line = Singularity that will annihilate all Organic life
Branches that are close = the current spacefaring galactic civilizations
Groundskeeper with pruning shears = the AI

Is this bad for the branches in question?  YES.
Is this good for the tree in question?  YES.

I wash my hands of you who insist on argueing ethics with an entity (the AI) that doesn't recognize your ethics as necessary.

[AlanC9]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The other side of this is that the Catalyst is presented as this super-intelligent, almost omniscient being whose assertions we shouldn't just dismiss and who wouldn't be immune to having significant counter-evidence presented to him. That we can't bring up Rannoch is maddening. Its reaction would probably decide the matter for many: is this a "functionallý insane god" or do its assertions have merit in spite of one piece of counter-evidence? I think we were expected to take it seriously, because if we don't - if we can't trust it to be truthful - then we have no way to make an informed decision.

Note, however, that arguing with hostile AIs in ME generally isn't a productive activity; the sample size is very small, of course. I didn't miss the option to argue with the Catalyst my first time through, since I didn't have any faith in the approach working. Though I certainly did miss having the option available later, as a matter of RP.

[NeroonWilliams]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The other side of this is that the Catalyst is presented as this super-intelligent, almost omniscient being whose assertions we shouldn't just dismiss and who wouldn't be immune to having significant counter-evidence presented to him. That we can't bring up Rannoch is maddening. Its reaction would probably decide the matter for many: is this a "functionallý insane god" or do its assertions have merit in spite of one piece of counter-evidence? I think we were expected to take it seriously, because if we don't - if we can't trust it to be truthful - then we have no way to make an informed decision.

Ultimately, I think there is a problem with the writers' competence here. If you make a convoluted plot, it's your task to have it bombarded with critical questions until it either falls apart or the remaining unanswered questions can be counted irrelevant. ME3's writers lacked the ability to do that and decided to keep things on the level of mere assertions (what they called "high level"). This is very compatible with the rumor that ME3's ending was made in a closet by the two leads with no input from the team. We couldn't bring up Rannoch because the writers didn't have an answer to that question.

On the other hand, if the AI were to have responded to our bringing up the Rannoch peace as an objection with, "We have seen such "peace" before, and it will not last." (which is the logical answer to the objection), we as players would be just as infuriated as we are with not being able to object.  Actually, we'd probably be even more infuriated.

Modifié par NeroonWilliams, 17 janvier 2014 - 05:34 .

[Obadiah]

NeroonWilliams wrote...
...
On the other hand, if the AI were to have responded to our bringing up the Rannoch peace as an objection with, "We have seen such "peace" before, and it will not last." (which is the logical answer to the obection), we as players would be just as infuriated as we are with not being able to object.  Actually, we'd probably be even more infuriated.

That is my sense as well. Doesn't Rannoch end with no peace for most players though?

[CronoDragoon]

Objectively speaking, two weeks of peace after 400 years of hot and cold war isn't very impressive. Rannoch feels like a big deal to the player because of the character investment we have and the way it's been integrated as a huge plot in all 3 games, but from a millenial historical perspective I don't see how it will impress the Catalyst in the slightest.

@ Obadiah: only 1/3 of ME3 players get Peace. Not sure what the % is for players with imported saves though.

[NeroonWilliams]

Obadiah wrote...

NeroonWilliams wrote...
...
On the other hand, if the AI were to have responded to our bringing up the Rannoch peace as an objection with, "We have seen such "peace" before, and it will not last." (which is the logical answer to the objection), we as players would be just as infuriated as we are with not being able to object.  Actually, we'd probably be even more infuriated.

That is my sense as well. Doesn't Rannoch end with no peace for most players though?

Most players, yes, because it is impossible without an import (both Legion and an Admiral Tali must be present).

Most of us on the BSN?

Modifié par NeroonWilliams, 17 janvier 2014 - 05:34 .

[Ruadh]

Reapers are right? What the hell man?

I miss the days when the Reaper groupie, 'synthesis is the answer to everything' threads were restricted to notable crazies like Auld Wolf and Seival. Now they're everywhere. Everyone's losing their minds.

And what if Javik was right? About everthing?

[Farangbaa]

NeroonWilliams wrote...
If you refuse to believe anything the AI says, you have no business continuing this discussion.

I will attempt one more analogy before throwing my arms up in disgust at your intransigence.

**Keep in mind that I know that this is NOT how electric lines actually work.  The effect is correct for this analogy NOT for real life.**

A tree is growing several branches that may soon come in contact with a high voltage power line or grow around it.  If one of those branches should actually come in contact with the power line, the whole tree will be incinerated.

Is it safer for the tree as a whole to be left alone and hope that those branches that are so close to the line never actually touch it, or would it be safer for a groundskeeper to prune the branches that are close, so that they don't pose a threat to the life of the tree?

Ahem.

Tree = Organic life
Power line = Singularity that will annihilate all Organic life
Branches that are close = the current spacefaring galactic civilizations
Groundskeeper with pruning shears = the AI

Is this bad for the branches in question?  YES.
Is this good for the tree in question?  YES.

I wash my hands of you who insist on argueing ethics with an entity (the AI) that doesn't recognize your ethics as necessary.

This is beautiful analogy.

And the bolded is what annoys the hell out of me in discussions like this. The Catalyst has only one goal, and only that. Ethics are completely irrelevant for that goal.

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...

@ Obadiah: only 1/3 of ME3 players get Peace. Not sure what the % is for players with imported saves though.

Well, 39.6% of players got a Long Service Medal achievement. That's a cap on the number of players who imported and completed.

Oddly, 36% of players made peace at Rannoch and 36% got to meet Wrex in ME3. Presumably that's not the exact same 36%.

[Farangbaa]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Objectively speaking, two weeks of peace after 400 years of hot and cold war isn't very impressive. Rannoch feels like a big deal to the player because of the character investment we have and the way it's been integrated as a huge plot in all 3 games, but from a millenial historical perspective I don't see how it will impress the Catalyst in the slightest.

@ Obadiah: only 1/3 of ME3 players get Peace. Not sure what the % is for players with imported saves though.

Also this. 2 weeks of peace is completely irrelevant to the Catalyst, which has existed for millions of years. MILLIONS.

Let me calculate that for some of you:

2 weeks = 14 days.
1 million years = 365,25* 1.000.000 =3.622.500.000 days

14/3.622.500.000=0,000000039.

And the Catalyst exists for millions of years, not 1 million years, so the fraction is even less

(there is probably a flaw here in using earth years and days... but yeah)

Modifié par Psychevore, 17 janvier 2014 - 05:54 .

[AlanC9]

ginner dave wrote...

And what if Javik was right? About everthing?

What if he was? Most BSNers agree with him, don't they? I wouldn't know myself since I didn't buy that DLC.

[Farangbaa]

AlanC9 wrote...

ginner dave wrote...

And what if Javik was right? About everthing?

What if he was? Most BSNers agree with him, don't they? I wouldn't know myself since I didn't buy that DLC.

Javik = "kill all synthetics".

Which is why Javik would end up refusing in the decision chamber, not destroying

[Obadiah]

Psychevore wrote...

NeroonWilliams wrote...
If you refuse to believe anything the AI says, you have no business continuing this discussion.

I will attempt one more analogy before throwing my arms up in disgust at your intransigence.

**Keep in mind that I know that this is NOT how electric lines actually work.  The effect is correct for this analogy NOT for real life.**

A tree is growing several branches that may soon come in contact with a high voltage power line or grow around it.  If one of those branches should actually come in contact with the power line, the whole tree will be incinerated.

Is it safer for the tree as a whole to be left alone and hope that those branches that are so close to the line never actually touch it, or would it be safer for a groundskeeper to prune the branches that are close, so that they don't pose a threat to the life of the tree?

Ahem.

Tree = Organic life
Power line = Singularity that will annihilate all Organic life
Branches that are close = the current spacefaring galactic civilizations
Groundskeeper with pruning shears = the AI

Is this bad for the branches in question?  YES.
Is this good for the tree in question?  YES.

I wash my hands of you who insist on argueing ethics with an entity (the AI) that doesn't recognize your ethics as necessary.

This is beautiful analogy.

And the bolded is what annoys the hell out of me in discussions like this. The Catalyst has only one goal, and only that. Ethics are completely irrelevant for that goal.

I don't see what's so difficult about arguing ethically with the Cataylst. Even with its directive it's clearly making a "greater good" argument. Are we not equipped to deal with this? Seems to me people are more afraid of the implications with respect to the definitions of right, wrong, good, and evil than the ethics involved.

[AlanC9]

Obadiah wrote...

Psychevore wrote...
And the bolded is what annoys the hell out of me in discussions like this. The Catalyst has only one goal, and only that. Ethics are completely irrelevant for that goal.

I don't see what's so difficult about arguing ethically with the Cataylst. Even with its directive it's clearly making a "greater good" argument. Are we not equipped to deal with this? Seems to me people are more afraid of the implications with respect to the definitions of right, wrong, good, and evil than the ethics involved.

Is the Catalyst's conception of "good" compatable enough with yours to make such argument worthwhile? 

[ruggly]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Objectively speaking, two weeks of peace after 400 years of hot and cold war isn't very impressive. Rannoch feels like a big deal to the player because of the character investment we have and the way it's been integrated as a huge plot in all 3 games, but from a millenial historical perspective I don't see how it will impress the Catalyst in the slightest.

Then they probably would have been better off not making peace possible at all. 

[CronoDragoon]

ruggly wrote...
Then they probably would have been better off not making peace possible at all. 

Given the endings, I'd agree. But I'd rather keep Rannoch and get rid of the endings, all else being equal.

[NeonFlux117]

If you're indoctrinated then yes.... The Reapers are right in what they're doing.

As evident, but not exclusive too:

Saren.
Geth Heretics.
Collectors.
Cerberus.
Benezia
TIM
Kai Leng

And many, many husks, marauders, brutes, banshee's and all sorts of un-pleasant entities.

[Obadiah]

AlanC9 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Psychevore wrote...
And the bolded is what annoys the hell out of me in discussions like this. The Catalyst has only one goal, and only that. Ethics are completely irrelevant for that goal.

I don't see what's so difficult about arguing ethically with the Cataylst. Even with its directive it's clearly making a "greater good" argument. Are we not equipped to deal with this? Seems to me people are more afraid of the implications with respect to the definitions of right, wrong, good, and evil than the ethics involved.

Is the Catalyst's conception of "good" compatable enough with yours to make such argument worthwhile? 

I think so. The Catalyst seems to recognize death and suffering (genocide) as "bad" enough to defend/explain its actions. It tries to convince us of "good" of not wiping out all organic life, and of preserving some semblance of lost civilizations in Reaper form (killed people but record of culture and civilization still intact), and proportional collateral damage. I find it difficult to quantitatively weigh these against each other, but does that mean it is impossible or not useful?

Look, if others see more to this argument I'm interested.

Modifié par Obadiah, 17 janvier 2014 - 06:32 .

[ruggly]

CronoDragoon wrote...

ruggly wrote...
Then they probably would have been better off not making peace possible at all. 

Given the endings, I'd agree. But I'd rather keep Rannoch and get rid of the endings, all else being equal.

Agreed.  Also, they should have done more with the Virtual Aliens instead of leaving them as a codex entry.

[CronoDragoon]

Obadiah wrote...
but does that mean it is impossible or not useful?

Look, if others see more to this argument I'm interested.

It might be possible, but by the time the ME3 endings roll around the argument also seems obsolete. Whatever the Catalyst's reasons for the cycle, he himself deems them no longer sufficient. You'd be arguing the validity of an action that the entity has already recognized as futile.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 17 janvier 2014 - 06:31 .