435 réponses à ce sujet

[ElSuperGecko]

Holy quote pyramids Batman.  some people need to learn how to edit their posts.

R4ZOR GHO5T wrote...
Did you really use the word "beautiful" in describing Mass Effect 3's ending?

It's not as uncommon an opinion as you might assume.

[R4ZOR GHO5T]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Holy quote pyramids Batman.  some people need to learn how to edit their posts.

R4ZOR GHO5T wrote...
Did you really use the word "beautiful" in describing Mass Effect 3's ending?

It's not as uncommon an opinion as you might assume.

Well, each to their own, I guess.

[Comrade Wakizashi]

I must admit I do indeed enjoy the ending of Mass Effect 3. I understand why some people don't, though. There are several things that are not well worked out in Mass Effect 3, but I don't consider the ending to be one of them. Matter of personal taste, I suppose.

[Mcfly616]

It's subjective...

[Finlandiaprkl]

Can't argue with their logic.

[ImaginaryMatter]

AlanC9 wrote...

R4ZOR GHO5T wrote...

Now I come to the Control solution; why can't the Catalyst just make the Reapers stop? If all Shepard does when he becomes the new Catalyst is make them stop, then why can't the current Catalyst do the same?

Why would he ever do that? He doesn't think just stopping solves anything. He doesn't have any better ideas besides Synthesis, and he can't do that himself.

The Catalyst also doesn't think Destroy solves anything either, but he still gives Shepard the option.

I mean the Catalyst does appear to be some what at peace with the Destroy option, even though it acknowledges that it won't stop the Chaos -- which the Catalyst's mission is to prevent. So, if the Catalyst is somewhat alright with a solution that doesn't solve the problem it was programmed to solve, how come this epiphany is solely restricted for use with the Crucible? Afterall it wasn't like Destroy's purpose couldn't be met through any other method besides the Crucible (something like ordering the Reaper self-destruct). I guess this applies to the Control option as well.

Did the writer's simply not think about this? Or were they implying that when the Crucible 'changed the variables' it meant some reprogramming of the Catalyst?

[ImaginaryMatter]

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...

Because the Catalyst is not a critically thinking or truly self-aware living being. He is an AI that it totally stuck in his own logic and algorithmic process and is unable of accepting any information proving him wrong. He wasn't created for critical thinking. He does what he was created for (in an excessive, extreme form), nothing else.

The problem I have with this is that it suggests the Catalyst is not a true AI in the sense that they can adapt and learn, which the game seems to claim otherwise; since, apparently the Catalyst tried several previous solutions before settling on the whole Reaper thing and the Catalyst claims that is something like a super AI. There is data from the story to support that it does indeed think critically and is able to come up with solutions independent of it's creators insight.

The Reapers don't have a will
of their own. I wouldn't even call them living or sapient beings. They
are tools of destruction. The reason why this contradicts earlier
assumptions about the Reapers is quite frankly because those assumptions
(made by species who had never witnessed the Reapers or thoroughly
examined them) were at least partially wrong.

So then what was Sovereign doing? Was his spiel just some pre-recorded program installed into the Reapers for them to start blowing smoke out of their space posteriors in the off chance a random Organic happened to talk to one?

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 13 janvier 2014 - 11:14 .

[Comrade Wakizashi]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

R4ZOR GHO5T wrote...

Now I come to the Control solution; why can't the Catalyst just make the Reapers stop? If all Shepard does when he becomes the new Catalyst is make them stop, then why can't the current Catalyst do the same?

Why would he ever do that? He doesn't think just stopping solves anything. He doesn't have any better ideas besides Synthesis, and he can't do that himself.

The Catalyst also doesn't think Destroy solves anything either, but he still gives Shepard the option.

I mean the Catalyst does appear to be some what at peace with the Destroy option, even though it acknowledges that it won't stop the Chaos -- which the Catalyst's mission is to prevent. So, if the Catalyst is somewhat alright with a solution that doesn't solve the problem it was programmed to solve, how come this epiphany is solely restricted for use with the Crucible? Afterall it wasn't like Destroy's purpose couldn't be met through any other method besides the Crucible (something like ordering the Reaper self-destruct). I guess this applies to the Control option as well.

Did the writer's simply not think about this? Or were they implying that when the Crucible 'changed the variables' it meant some reprogramming of the Catalyst?

I think the Catalyst sort of answers that concern (at least partially) when he says that you changed the variables by "coming further than any organic has done before". That means that he either needed an organic to "earn the right" to change the course of its work, or, again in the words of the Catalyst, that "the solution doesn't work anymore".
This means that the Catalyst somehow acknowledges that there is a flaw in its system. But because the Catalyst cannot think "outside the box" to find another solution of its own, instead it relinquishes the ultimate decision power over the fate of the galaxy to whoever overrides it system, so to speak. The only one to have ever done that is Shepard.
Just my two cents.

[Comrade Wakizashi]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...

Because the Catalyst is not a critically thinking or truly self-aware living being. He is an AI that it totally stuck in his own logic and algorithmic process and is unable of accepting any information proving him wrong. He wasn't created for critical thinking. He does what he was created for (in an excessive, extreme form), nothing else.

The problem I have with this is that it suggests the Catalyst is not a true AI in the sense that they can adapt and learn, which the game seems to claim otherwise; since, apparently the Catalyst tried several previous solutions before settling on the whole Reaper thing and the Catalyst claims that is something like a super AI. There is data from the story to support that it does indeed think critically and is able to come up with solutions independent of it's creators insight.

Since the Catalyst sort of started the Reaper thing from the moment he started massacring the Leviathans, I believe these "other options" were mostly tried during Leviathan rule, to keep the peace in a non-genocidal manner. Since this failed, at least in the Catalyst's opinion, its algorithms produced the Reaper "solution" as a new manner in which to try to settle things. And, from the view of the Catalyst, the Reaper solution has been working for millions of years, giving it no reason to reconsider its ways up until Shepard shows up.

[ToJKa1]

R4ZOR GHO5T wrote...

Well, each to their own, I guess.

I liked it before the extended cut, now it's all flying unicrons farting rainbows. Well, atleast Shepard still doesn't survive, then it would be singing flying unicorns farting rainbows and candy

[ImaginaryMatter]

But how does the Crucible or the presence of Shepard mean anything, or is it both? Did the Crucible contain coding that rewrote the Catalyst, forcing it to accept solutions that it most likely already rejected? How does Shepard's presence change anything? The difference in this cycle wasn't a result of the Organic and Synthetic relationship changing, it was a result of several dumb moves on the part of the Reapers.

[BronzTrooper]

congokong wrote...
The catalyst realized that
Leviathan creating it proved that Leviathan was making the same errors
the lesser species were. Therefore the reapers were made to destroy
Leviathan and any advanced organics/synthetics before synthetics could
dominate all life in the galaxy.

Circular logic.  By turning on Leviathan, the Catalyst became part of the problem rather than the solution.  The fact that it didn't realize this only provides more ammunition against it.
Now, in a twisted way, the Reapers harvesting life every 50,000 years is actually for the better.  Not by preventing synthetics from attacking organics (the Protheans and all the races that rallied under their banner were turning the tide against the Zha'til befoe the Reapers attacked), but by preventing organics from enslaving each other.  Think about how many races the Protheans wiped out simply because they wanted to be free.  The differences in culture and technology between races would cause tensions between them and eventually lead to all-out war (similar to how the turians attacked the human exploration fleet that was trying to activate the charon relay.  The human explorers didn't know about the laws against activating dormant relays before their pairs were found and the turians were so focused on keeping order that they accidently caused The First Contact War).  Could you imagine if the Protheans were still around when the asari and salarians showed up?  What about the krogan?  Or the turians?  Or us?  Huge wars would break out and large portions of the galaxy would be virtually uninhabitable due to the ravages of war.  Not to mention that there would be even less resources in the galaxy without the havests.
Not exactly a promising situation, don't you think? 

[Comrade Wakizashi]

ToJKa1 wrote...

R4ZOR GHO5T wrote...

Well, each to their own, I guess.

I liked it before the extended cut, now it's all flying unicrons farting rainbows. Well, atleast Shepard still doesn't survive, then it would be singing flying unicorns farting rainbows and candy

In the high EMS Destroy ending, Shepard actually does survive.

[TopTrog]

I actually liked the explanation the story gave for the purpose of the reapers quite a bit, as it both illustrates some interesting philosophical dilemmas and provides an example of the consequences of thinking in absolutes.

The reapers can be thought of as symbolizing an extreme form of scientific reductionism and rationality. One very plausible consequence of evolutionary theory is the conclusion that life as we know it formed and evolved based entirely on (stating it very crudely) the tendency/goal/purpose of preserving certain genetic sequences (termed "replicators"). It is a very beautiful theory, consistent with and able to convincingly explain just about everything we observe about the behaviour of living beings (see f.ex. Dawkins´ "The Selfish Gene" for a good summary).

If the reapers´ main purpose is indeed to preserve the "genetic heritage" of sentient organic beings, it can be thought of as basically fulfilling the original purpose for the existence of complex organic life, without having to go through all the trouble of actually having living organic beings around.

Sticking to such an absolute point of view is certainly entirely missing the point about life as we view it as human beings - personal evolution, experience and growth is probably a key part of what makes life worth living.

I think that makes it a good choice in such a story for what an imaginary "sentient machine" representing extreme scientific reductionism might conclude. So from that point of view, the reapers were certainly "right".

My interpretation of all this (of course very subjectively based on my own world view) is that the fatal flaw in the reapers way of thinking is the inherent assumption that there is such a thing as an objective truth on this matter which they are able to understand fully. So this is why it can be thought of illustrating the dangers of thinking entirely in absolutes.

It also resonates quite well with the topics of tolerance and understanding of different points of view that are present in all three games. Numerous important decisions you get to make over and over again in all three games are based on this.

Interestingly, the machine/catalyst at the end itself comes to the conclusion that its perfectly rational/reductionist system does not solve the problem it was designed to solve. The in-game description of this unfortunately does not make it convincingly clear ("Your presence here shows that my solution no longer works"), but I guess it is not easy to deal with such questions and still keep the pacing of the story entertaining enough.

tl;dr: The reapers were right from their absolute point of view, but as thinking is absolutes is inherently flawed, they were missing the point.

[ToJKa1]

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...
In the high EMS Destroy ending, Shepard actually does survive.

Yes, i've seen that scene. But given how badly injured s/he was at the Crucible, and then lying in a pile of rubble his/her survival chances are pretty low. Not to mention the memorial scene that assumably happens quite a while after the fight, word would have reached them if s/he still was alive.

So i consider Shepard dead regardless of that

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

StreetMagic wrote...

ToJKa1 wrote...

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...
In the high EMS Destroy ending, Shepard actually does survive.

Yes, i've seen that scene. But given how badly injured s/he was at the Crucible, and then lying in a pile of rubble his/her survival chances are pretty low. Not to mention the memorial scene that assumably happens quite a while after the fight, word would have reached them if s/he still was alive.

So i consider Shepard dead regardless of that

They don't pay people to do those scenes just to say Shepard is dead, like any other EMS Destroy ending. What's the point of even making it? Just to be dicks? I'll give them more credit than that.

It would even take John McClane a while to get up after that explosion.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 14 janvier 2014 - 01:31 .

[DeinonSlayer]

@Streetmagic
I concur. That's where headcanon comes into play. Lots of speculation, and all that jazz. Others have said other things. I say Bailey and his people tried to get to the Council chambers to open the arms from the inside, but lacked the data file Shepard used to do that in ME1; they then heard Shepard's broadcast to Hackett after boarding, and worked their way down to the bottom of the tower to find him where it meets the Crucible.

It makes complete sense! 

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 14 janvier 2014 - 01:46 .

[AlanC9]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Did the writer's simply not think about this? Or were they implying that when the Crucible 'changed the variables' it meant some reprogramming of the Catalyst?

I always figured it was the latter. This gets around some problems with the Catalyst's behavior.

[jamesp81]

No the Reapers aren't right. You can tell what kind of a person someone is by what they do.

Look at what Harbinger has done. That should tell you all you need to know. So no, the Reapers aren't right.

They're dead in my playthrough, as it should be.

[Iakus]

If the Reapers are right, I don't want to visit the Mass Effect universe anymore.

[Obadiah]

StreetMagic wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

No the Reapers aren't right. You can tell what kind of a person someone is by what they do.

Look at what Harbinger has done. That should tell you all you need to know. So no, the Reapers aren't right.

They're dead in my playthrough, as it should be.

I think many people who defend the Reapers must be INFPs.

http://www.typelogic.com/infp.html
INFPs have the ability to see good in almost anyone or anything. Even for the most unlovable the INFP is wont to have pity.

Rest you, my enemy,

Slain without fault,

Life smacks but tastelessly

Lacking your salt!

Stuck in a bog whence naught

May catapult me,

Come from the grave, long-sought,


Come and insult me!

--(Steven Vincent Benet, Elegy for an Enemy)

The Reapers being good and correct are two mutually exclusive ideas.