148 réponses à ce sujet

[Vazgen]

You mentioned wiping out a form of life. Building synthetics and having babies ensures that the corresponding form of life is not wiped out.

Thus, synthetics are not wiped out. Catalyst even states it, "organics will always create synthetics"

It's a video game, so yes, you can't get Shepard to do everything you think he/she can.

I don't think there are that many Reaper ships. I haven't seen any reference for their numbers. In the end cutscene there are not thousands of Reapers on the screen and it's in a place where they've consolidated their power. Also, "the game should've ended as soon as they hit Earth" is pretty much the theme of the game. Your only hope is the Crucible, and that's why it is possible to coordinate a joint attack of all galactic forces. Without the Crucible, every race would've fought to death on their homeworlds and the the harvest would've succeeded. The problem lies in the Reapers themselves. They are written in such a way that only a plot device like the Crucible can be of help and it was apparent from ME1. Reapers simply did not have a weak spot, they were perfect, efficient and ruthless, something you'd expect from an AI. The whole notion of "these bonds that tie us" will not help in a fight against the machines. See Terminator movies, for example. Machines always win, you have to resort to some weird plot twist to at least give organics a chance. 

[Lennard Testarossa]

I believe we can all agree that the real problem was letting the reapers reach the galaxy in the first place. With the way the reapers were set up, the only things that could follow were gigantic space magic ass pull or inevitable destruction. Hell, even the minor successes against the reapers during ME 3 felt more than a bit forced and contrived.

 

They basically sacrificed the plot so you could fight the reapers directly and 'save the galaxy'.

[Vazgen]

I believe we can all agree that the real problem was letting the reapers reach the galaxy in the first place. With the way the reapers were set up, the only things that could follow were gigantic space magic ass pull or inevitable destruction. Hell, even the minor successes against the reapers during ME 3 felt more than a bit forced and contrived.

 

They basically sacrificed the plot so you could fight the reapers directly and 'save the galaxy'.

Well, they did built two games on the premise of "Reapers are coming". They were bound to arrive eventually

[Lennard Testarossa]

Well, they did built two games on the premise of "Reapers are coming". They were bound to arrive eventually

 

No. No, they really weren't.

 

In fact, none of what happened in the first two games even made any sense if the Reapers can simply fly to the galaxy using their conventional drives.

[Farangbaa]

Ah yes, Reapers.

[Vazgen]

 

No. No, they really weren't.

 

In fact, none of what happened in the first two games even made any sense if the Reapers can simply fly to the galaxy using their conventional drives.

Remember the endings of ME1 and ME2? Both end with "the Reapers are coming" message. 

[Lennard Testarossa]

Remember the endings of ME1 and ME2? Both end with "the Reapers are coming" message. 

 

Well, marketing-wise they certainly set it up so you would expect fighting the Reapers directly in the last game.

 

Lore-wise, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. There is no reasonable explanation of why Sovereign would risk attacking the Citadel like he did in the first game if instead he could simply wait four to five years for the rest of the Reapers.

[Vazgen]

Traveling through the dark space expends resources. It is better to go through a shortcut Same reason for Alpha Relay

[Coyotebay]

See Terminator movies, for example. Machines always win, you have to resort to some weird plot twist to at least give organics a chance. 

 

That's because writers of these stories decide that machines always win.  You can easily write a story where the organics win.  It's a fallacy that machines have no weaknesses, need no resources, and are uber-powerful compared to organics.  Terminator iself is built on the ridiculous notion that machines suddenly all come to life, organize, and wipe out human civilization in a single strike (and in 1997 no less *grumbles*).  Just for synthetics to get into a position where they could challenge organics for supremacy would depend on a number of factors.  A big one is the fact that machines can't reproduce, so in order to grow their numbers they literally would have to seize control of a means of production.  You also have to factor in that synthetic AIs will likely have independent thinking as opposed to the hive mind that keeps things nice and simple for these space operas, and you can count on synthetics siding with organics or fighting among each other.  Any scenario would be very dynamic and it's overly simplistic to think that machines = win.

[Vazgen]

That's because writers of these stories decide that machines always win.  You can easily write a story where the organics win.  It's a fallacy that machines have no weaknesses, need no resources, and are uber-powerful compared to organics.  Terminator iself is built on the ridiculous notion that machines suddenly all come to life, organize, and wipe out human civilization in a single strike (and in 1997 no less *grumbles*).  Just for synthetics to get into a position where they could challenge organics for supremacy would depend on a number of factors.  A big one is the fact that machines can't reproduce, so in order to grow their numbers they literally would have to seize control of a means of production.  You also have to factor in that synthetic AIs will likely have independent thinking as opposed to the hive mind that keeps things nice and simple for these space operas, and you can count on synthetics siding with organics or fighting among each other.  Any scenario would be very dynamic and it's overly simplistic to think that machines = win.

Machines have a head start already, imagine an AI developed that can take control of automated systems in military, medicine etc. We already are too dependent on the technology and if it's taken away from us, there is not much we can do. Resources? Automated systems. Means of production? Automated systems. They have access to enough data and technology to great a very large handicap. 

Surely, automatic win is not really a given thing, everything can happen. But if they can take control of our technology (which ME AIs can) we will end up in a very dire state.

Story-wise it's this fallacy that makes us view these machines as, well, machines. If we have synthetics fighting each other, needing resources, be individual - they will become a rehashed version of humans. If you can bring an example of a book or movie where synthetics have weaknesses and do not appear humanized, I'll gladly read/watch it. I just haven't seen such an example, and in my limited tries at writing encountered the same problem.

[Coyotebay]

Humans would have to allow an independently-thinking AI to take control of automated systems with no controls over it.  It's simplistic to think that could lead to a rogue AI taking total control for its own agenda.  After all, humans have control over automated systems in military, medicine, etc.  How easy would it be for a rogue human to assume total control?  Not very.  An AI would face similar issues.  Control over resources, how do automated systems achieve that?  How do they get the raw materials out of the ground without people?  They don't.  Sure, they could use a workforce of robots, but would these robots be sapient or just drones that mine, etc.?  And of course if humans initially start building robot workforces, you will start hearing a lot of protests from the unions, etc.  Even automation itself has met with resistance in the past, but now we're talking about eliminating blue collar workers entirely.  And of course robot workforces would be severely vulnerable to sabotage, not to mention the factories that build them.  And production facilities will need raw materials, and so will be dependent on distribution networks, which can be shut down.  And if these rogue AIs wanted to force the issue, they would need a mech army, but they would have to build the mech army in the first place.  A coordinated takeover by synthetics would just be riddled with problems and extremely difficult (probably unlikely) to pull off.

 

You also pointed out machines not being humanized.  That's a good point, because an AI is not going to have human wants and needs.  They won't eat, breathe, or reproduce.  Materical concerns would be irrelevant to them.  Human emotions would be alien to them.  They wouldn't have a survival instinct because they don't even know what it means to be alive.  So the question is, what would their motivation be even for trying to conquer the world, enslave humanity, or whatever?

[Vazgen]

Humans would have to allow an independently-thinking AI to take control of automated systems with no controls over it.  It's simplistic to think that could lead to a rogue AI taking total control for its own agenda.  After all, humans have control over automated systems in military, medicine, etc.  How easy would it be for a rogue human to assume total control?  Not very.  An AI would face similar issues.  Control over resources, how do automated systems achieve that?  How do they get the raw materials out of the ground without people?  They don't.  Sure, they could use a workforce of robots, but would these robots be sapient or just drones that mine, etc.?  And of course if humans initially start building robot workforces, you will start hearing a lot of protests from the unions, etc.  Even automation itself has met with resistance in the past, but now we're talking about eliminating blue collar workers entirely.  And of course robot workforces would be severely vulnerable to sabotage, not to mention the factories that build them.  And production facilities will need raw materials, and so will be dependent on distribution networks, which can be shut down.  And if these rogue AIs wanted to force the issue, they would need a mech army, but they would have to build the mech army in the first place.  A coordinated takeover by synthetics would just be riddled with problems and extremely difficult (probably unlikely) to pull off.

 

You also pointed out machines not being humanized.  That's a good point, because an AI is not going to have human wants and needs.  They won't eat, breathe, or reproduce.  Materical concerns would be irrelevant to them.  Human emotions would be alien to them.  They wouldn't have a survival instinct because they don't even know what it means to be alive.  So the question is, what would their motivation be even for trying to conquer the world, enslave humanity, or whatever?

Most likely not or, if so, not for the reasons we will think of first. That's why many sci-fi authors use initial programming as a reason, like when AI alters or misinterprets the initial command when it reaches a conflicting situation. Asimov's three laws are a good example and he has stories when certain situations made robots to adjust those laws accordingly. If written realistically machines are, well, boring and it's another problem when writing about machine-organic relationship. 

I think Mass Effect does a good job in that regard with synthetics like geth who fight in self-defense. The Reapers for me are a classic example of misinterpretation of initial task. "Kill to save" has become somewhat a cliché in science fiction.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

 

No.  Control is a negotiated surrender to the Reapers.  It's what the geth did.  "Submission is preferable to extinction".  I fight for self determination.

 

Shepard to Sovereign: "You're not even alive. Not really. You're just a machine, and machines can be broken."

 

Shepard in paragon comment about the reaper on Rannoch: "Whatever was in that thing died long ago."

 

So I don't really get how they are going to "feel" any kind of punishment (to the OP).

 

Nor do I see how Control is a negotiated surrender. In Control, the Catalyst (aka Starbrat) ceases to exist because you erase his data file and replace it with yours. From the standpoint of a synthetic, you killed it. You can now rebuild the mass relays and clean up the mess he made.

 

I guess it's a matter of this: Do you consider the reapers to be alive? Shepard doesn't, and I know with certainty that the Crucible will allow me to control the reapers.

[Iakus]

 

 

Nor do I see how Control is a negotiated surrender. In Control, the Catalyst (aka Starbrat) ceases to exist because you erase his data file and replace it with yours. From the standpoint of a synthetic, you killed it. You can now rebuild the mass relays and clean up the mess he made.

 

I guess it's a matter of this: Do you consider the reapers to be alive? Shepard doesn't, and I know with certainty that the Crucible will allow me to control the reapers.

As pointed out before, it's still the Reapers, just under new management.  Though no, the Crucible won't allow you to control the Reapers.  It will turn Shepard into a charcoal briquette.  It will upload your memories into a new Catalyst.  So yay, for that, I guess. You get the whole Citadel as your Tom Riddle diary, or something.

 

The creatures used to build the Reapers are certainly dead.    The Reapers themselves are arguably alive (though the existence of the Catalyst places serious doubt as to their level of sapience)

[von uber]

Traveling through the dark space expends resources. It is better to go through a shortcut Same reason for Alpha Relay

But we know in me3 it made no difference. The reapers win anyway, coming by the citadel relay or by ftl.
Me3 rendered the plot of me1 pointless, me2's plot had no impact on the trilogies main plot.
So basically you can easily start at me3 and have no need to play the other two because it works as a standalone game and has no real plot tie in with the other games (barring characters, who all have replacements).
It would be like reading the return of the King and not needing the fellowship of the ring nor the two towers for it to make sense.

The best place to start indeed.

[AlanC9]

But we know in me3 it made no difference. The reapers win anyway, coming by the citadel relay or by ftl.
Me3 rendered the plot of me1 pointless,.

Well, except that the Reapers would have won outright if they'd succeeded in ME1. I'd say that's moderately significant ---- unless your Shepard is going to Refuse anyway

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

That's not the point Alan. The point is that Game 3. The reapers invade. You try to stop them from winning. Nothing you did before even matters. ME3 was in some ways the best place to start. It saved you from wondering how the hell Cerberus got so powerful. You could simply do the job needed to be done without any kind of emotional attachment to the characters. You would know nothing about the Quarians so you'd think the Geth were the good guys and that the Quarians were a bunch of crazy people. You'd know nothing about the Krogan rebellions so you'd cure the genophage with Wreav in charge. War assets!

[themikefest]

Also the player starting ME3 without playing the first 2 never knew that Anderson was the human councilor at one time if selected.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Shepard to Sovereign: "You're not even alive. Not really. You're just a machine, and machines can be broken."

 

Shepard in paragon comment about the reaper on Rannoch: "Whatever was in that thing died long ago."

 

So I don't really get how they are going to "feel" any kind of punishment (to the OP).

 

Nor do I see how Control is a negotiated surrender. In Control, the Catalyst (aka Starbrat) ceases to exist because you erase his data file and replace it with yours. From the standpoint of a synthetic, you killed it. You can now rebuild the mass relays and clean up the mess he made.

 

I guess it's a matter of this: Do you consider the reapers to be alive? Shepard doesn't, and I know with certainty that the Crucible will allow me to control the reapers.

 

I did not take the paragon dialogue on Rannoch. I am okay with my Shepard having that opinion in ME1 (though opinions should really not be forced onto the player character to begin with), but not as the story goes on and the nature of synthetic life is made more complex. If the geth are thought to have souls (lol), why would not the Reapers be forms of life in their own right, because people do not want to humanize their enemies?

 

Personally, I don't think the question should have been asked whether or not AI are people/life or not. They very clearly are people, given their sentience and sapience and everything. Only question should have been how do we treat these non-organic peoples and what rights do they have.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I consider EDI to satisfy the requirements of being sentient and sapient. Therefore the Normandy is alive. She is the Normandy. She is one of my favorite characters from ME2 onward.

 

As I stated earlier, science fiction writers toss around sentience and sapience interchangeably when they are not. I don't think the Geth satisfy both. Sentience yes, but sapience? And the Reapers? The existence of the Catalyst calls in to question their sapience.

[von uber]

Well, except that the Reapers would have won outright if they'd succeeded in ME1. I'd say that's moderately significant ---- unless your Shepard is going to Refuse anyway

Doesn't affect me3 in any way though, as no-one is prepared or has done anything whatsoever to acknowledge the reaper threat:
"What do we do? "
'The only thing we can do: realise the other two games were pointless. "

[Farangbaa]

[AlanC9]

Doesn't affect me3 in any way though, as no-one is prepared or has done anything whatsoever to acknowledge the reaper threat:
"What do we do? "
'The only thing we can do: realise the other two games were pointless. "

Again, this doesn't make any sense for ME1, since if the galaxy wasn't saved then that would have been the end. Unless you're saying that if ME1 had never happened at all -- Sovereign never even tried to attack -- then ME3 would have been the same? That's still wrong, since the Crucible plans would never get off Mars.

Or is this one of those bits where it "feels" like nothing changed even though we know better?

[SporkFu]

And we would have lost the Citadel right away. 

 

EDIT: Although, you know, that might have been kinda cool. We could have used Omega for a base instead. 

[von uber]

The fact that the reapers can easily travel to the galaxy by ftl renders the citadel trap moot as they can just arrive anyway.
The only reason the reapers dont take the citadel in me3 and shut down the relay system is the fact it would be a very short game.
Obviously if you fail in me1 then it is game over, my point is that the entire plot and plan are pointless because they can just rock up anyway.
The fight against sovereign loses its impact when you know they are metaphorically a short walk away.