80 réponses à ce sujet

[Linkenski]

Meaning is not something you impose on a story. (kudos to MrBtongue for this excellent choice of words)

The guy who said that got it right. There was one in here who fell for it but you have to ask yourself: when was Mass Effect about children and parents? How was *mainly* about synthetics rebelling against organics? The latter fits in with ME1 but the evolution of the entire "AI evolution" in 2 and 3 makes the ending's statement incoherent and meaningless.

And even if it does tie in with real world issues how the hell does that automatically make Mass Effect a better story if it doesn't make any sense within the thematic consistency of that story?

It's like in Metal Gear Solid 2 and Raiden going all "I was a child soldier" or Otacons... Family issues. Anyone who played MGS2 knows about this. Do you think that is good storytelling...? That when you impose a theme out of left field that has no coherency with the story at hand, that its justified just because it matches up with a real life issue?

Rhethorics aside, that's bad writing... It's not good storytelling. It's logical, thematical incoherence that makes the narrative less coherent and less cohesive.

[Vazgen]

Meaning is not something you impose on a story. (kudos to MrBtongue for this excellent choice of words)

The guy who said that got it right. There was one in here who fell for it but you have to ask yourself: when was Mass Effect about children and parents? How was *mainly* about synthetics rebelling against organics? The latter fits in with ME1 but the evolution of the entire "AI evolution" in 2 and 3 makes the ending's statement incoherent and meaningless.

And even if it does tie in with real world issues how the hell does that automatically make Mass Effect a better story if it doesn't make any sense within the thematic consistency of that story?

It's like in Metal Gear Solid 2 and Raiden going all "I was a child soldier" or Otacons... Family issues. Anyone who played MGS2 knows about this. Do you think that is good storytelling...? That when you impose a theme out of left field that has no coherency with the story at hand, that its justified just because it matches up with a real life issue?

Rhethorics aside, that's bad writing... It's not good storytelling. It's logical, thematical incoherence that makes the narrative less coherent and less cohesive.

The synthetic vs organic theme was a major one but there was not in-your-face. It is evidenced by Drew Karpyshyn's words. I mostly blame ME2 for that feeling of disconnect. Both ME1 and ME3 touch the subject of organic vs synthetic conflict. ME2, however, has only one side mission about the issue. That's why the conflict seems to be introduced in the final moments but it's really not. 

[Linkenski]

Yes i agree. But a huge problem lies within the fact that EDI and the Geth/Quarian arcs prove the exact opposite of the 'absolute truths' we're given about the nature of the relationship between synthetics and organics in the final 10 minutes.

If I played ME1 and skipped right to the final scene of Mass Effect 3 I'd not think "that ending seems completely off" in that context. But with the context of the rest of the trilogy in mind it just doesn't work as the "main theme"

It's kind of annoying that every time I argue it wasn't the main theme someone comes and says "but it is a major theme". So what? That does nothing as a counterargument to what I said.

When you write up a story as you go, then when you arrive at the ending and you have a blank sheet -- whatever you cook up is completely up to you -- would you inject a theme in the subtext of the conclusion out of left field, or would you look at what the previous 20-30 hours of game you made contained of themes and story and make a conclusion out of that?

The thing is, Synthetics vs Organics could've reemerged as the overarching theme at the end, but as it is it simply contradicts everything and as a conclusion it doesn't properly bring up all other relevant themes that were heavily present in Mass Effect 3 also, which is what most good endings do.

[Vazgen]

What would you have the ending to address then? Unity of all species? Already done - docking the Crucible is impossible without united galaxy. How would you explain Reaper existence and their goals? I just don't see anything else that is present in all three games and can be used for that.

Surely, one might avoid explaining them and have the Reapers to be an unknown evil that needs to be destroyed, but I find it much more interesting to know their origins and goals.

[Han Shot First]

The Catalyst talked a whole pile of nonsense. 

 

A.I. factions like the Geth are not inherently anymore dangerous than organic factions. In Shepard's own cycle the Krogan and the Rachni before them, posed a much greater threat tot he galaxy than the Geth ever did. And there is nothing special about synthetics that make them any less beatable than organic factions or any more likely to cause mass extinctions. In Shepard's own cycle the Heretic Geth were defeated by organics. The Protheans vanquished two synthetic factions. And the Leviathans defeated a synthetic faction before they went full derp and created Skynet. 

[Hans Olo]

Does freedom and self-determinism of AI species (synthetics) always lead to our (organic) extinction..., why exactly is that? Why does their very existence compromise ours? What makes AI so dangerous? Unreasonable? Murderous? This is something that was never terribly well explained and still leaves me clutching at straws as to an explanation. The Reapers are the quintessential example of murderous rouge AI... passing the same judgment on all synthetics that follow during their own killing cycles. Does leaving the Geth alive really jeopardize our existence any moreso than say the Krogan?

 

If you follow the Reapers' logic that [lasting] peace is impossible (i.e. perpetual war) between organics and synthetics without synthesis can you please explain why?

 

Edit: Edited for clarity and brevity.

 

why? skynet, iRobot, the matrix etc.

 

cold logic is bad enough with regular people, it may be even worse when it comes from something without empathy or emotions.

[Hans Olo]

especially since its true right?
ohh I wish I could earse the last 15 minutes of ME3 from my brain still some of the worst writing I have ever seen

oh well time to move on to ME4 here's hoping Mac doesn't screw this one over too

 

not true.

 

sovereign was right when he said we would not comprehend. emotions lead us. they are driven by calculations, math, facts, logic. 

 

if a certain problem always gives the same outcome, only a fool would bet against it. they/the catalyst/harbinger see that certain problem and devised a solution, it may be inelegant but if it is the only proper reset button.. logic will prevail.

 

even with us, logic, reasoning, basing things on facts is often impopular, following your gut feeling is what people like, truthiness to quote colbert. but our gut lies to us. facts do not lie.

[Linkenski]

What would you have the ending to address then? Unity of all species? Already done - docking the Crucible is impossible without united galaxy. How would you explain Reaper existence and their goals? I just don't see anything else that is present in all three games and can be used for that.
Surely, one might avoid explaining them and have the Reapers to be an unknown evil that needs to be destroyed, but I find it much more interesting to know their origins and goals.

The only coherence I can find in the final 10 minutes is if I'm reaching. The idea that the reapers themselves are a result of synthetics in the past having evolved too much could've been used as a well done twist. "we could've created the reapers" -- but not without context. The context isn't there. There is some with Leviathan but how hamfisted is that???

If the ending had been just you beating the reapers it would've been cheap but much more consistent than the bs we got.

[Vazgen]

The only coherence I can find in the final 10 minutes is if I'm reaching. The idea that the reapers themselves are a result of synthetics in the past having evolved too much could've been used as a well done twist. "we could've created the reapers" -- but not without context. The context isn't there. There is some with Leviathan but how hamfisted is that???

If the ending had been just you beating the reapers it would've been cheap but much more consistent than the bs we got.

My comment was about your words about "other relevant themes heavily present in Mass Effect 3". I was simply interested what other themes are there that were not used in the endings and could've used in the ending of the trilogy.

[God]

No, it's not.

 

But it is impossible without;

 

1) finding an alternative means to induce a singularity/synthesis.

 

2) destroying all sapient artificial/synthetic intelligence and not building anymore. 

 

3) having the Reapers around as a master policing force to physically prevent altercations.

 

Peace everlasting is impossible period. The best you can do is ensure that when violence does erupt, it doesn't wipe you out.

[Googlesaurus]

why? skynet, iRobot, the matrix etc.

 

cold logic is bad enough with regular people, it may be even worse when it comes from something without empathy or emotions.

 

Citing fictional bad guys is the opposite of a compelling argument, unless you want to plead that Chinese people can fly because protagonists do it in wuxia films.

[Hans Olo]

Citing fictional bad guys is the opposite of a compelling argument, unless you want to plead that Chinese people can fly because protagonists do it in wuxia films.

 

i did mention cold logic yes?

 

we know for example that we have to fight climate change, we know that we are depleting the oceans and other natural resources, we know simple infectious diseases are on the rise (antibiotic resistant gonorrhea and tb for example).

 

the best solution: to do something about that right now, which means cutting down on a lot of things, changing the way we eat, less meat, less or no more fish until we can do it in a sustainable way, throwing heaps of money at the antibiotic problem until we have some that are effective and then use them effectively instead of putting them in fodder for cattle which gives bacteria ample opportunities to adapt.

 

the solutions we come up with through politics and people unwilling to change are mostly (woefully) inadequate. an unfeeling machine would do what was necessary, not what was convenient, being careful not to step on too many toes for fear of not being re-elected or booted from their university/research institute/fish stick company/etc.

 

that is what happened in iRobot for example.

 

in this case we have to cite fiction, because (obviously?) this has not happened in the real world. unless we live in the matrix..

[o Ventus]

 

*sigh* Not this stupid meme again. 

 

 

It's stupid, but it's true.

[StarcloudSWG]

The Luna AI 'awoke' during a combat exercise. It thought it was in actual danger of being destroyed, which is why it fought back.

 

After you shut down its ability to command the defenses, you discover it's been calling for help, protection. This wasn't a case of 'spontaneous awakening and unprovoked attacks' this was a case of 'logical response to apparent threat.'

 

Neither the Luna AI which became EDI nor the Geth were inherently hostile to biological life.

[o Ventus]

 

 

Neither the Luna AI which became EDI nor the Geth were inherently hostile to biological life.

Better yet, not a single known AI in the entire series has been inherently hostile or has spontaneously became hostile to any organics. Every time it DOES become hostile, it's either a freak accident (a la EDI on the moon, who was actually a VI at the time) or the AI was 'made' into a killer (the geth, the casino AI) through other units being destroyed and the AI acted in self-preservation.

 

Literally the only time it could be argued the AI attacked first was whatever synthetic intelligence the Protheans were fighting in their cycle before the Reapers arrived, but the only context given for that entire war was "we were winning until the Reapers showed up", nothing about origin or motivation.

[GalacticWolf5]

It's stupid, but it's true.

It's absolutely not true. It's one of the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Maybe you should try to use your head and listen to everything Leviathan and the Catalyst tell you. Then you'll understand why this meme is not true.

[o Ventus]

It's absolutely not true. It's one of the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Maybe you should try to use your head and listen to everything Leviathan and the Catalyst tell you. Then you'll understand why this meme is not true.

I've played through ME3 and Leviathan numerous times, and it absolutely is true if you think even the slightest bit critically.

 

Leviathan, a race of organics in their endless wisdom, create a synthetic being which creates more synthetics and ends up killing the Leviathans. The Catalyst, a synthetic being, creates more synthetic beings (the Reapers) with the sole intent of killing other organic races at an arbitrarily determined point of advancement.

 

And no, the Reapers are not synthetic/organic hybrids in the same way my computer mouse isn't cyborg if I accidentally cut my finger and a drop of blood splashes the mouse. The Reapers are synthetics whose cores are constructed out of organic material (which in scientific terms is nearly meaningless, since anything containing carbon can be called organic). 

 

It's a circular, self-fulfilling prophecy that, prior to a specific point in time, would never have occurred under normal circumstances.

[GalacticWolf5]

I've played through ME3 and Leviathan numerous times, and it absolutely is true if you think even the slightest bit critically.

Leviathan, a race of organics in their endless wisdom, create a synthetic being which creates more synthetics and ends up killing the Leviathans. The Catalyst, a synthetic being, creates more synthetic beings (the Reapers) with the sole intent of killing other organic races at an arbitrarily determined point of advancement.

Everything you just said clearly shows that you don't even understand the Reapers and the Catalyst. Let me help you out:

Leviathans notice that there is always conflict between organics and synthetics. They build an Intelligence (The Catalyst) with the sole purpose to find a solution to those conflicts. It builds synthetic pawns to help him gather physical data. Then, the Catalyst finds that the harvest cycles are the only good solution at the moment. It then uses its pawns to harvest the Leviathans and make the first Reaper (Harbinger), preserving them in this new form. I don't need tell you anymore because I think you know how it goes.

The Catalyst's purpose is not to kill organics, it's find a solution to the organic/synthetic conflicts at any cost. By harvesting civilizations, it preserves their knowledge and memories. The galaxy is just one big experiment for the Catalyst to find a way to make lasting peace between organics and synthetics. (Which is not possible, unless Synthesis happens.)

[Vazgen]

I've played through ME3 and Leviathan numerous times, and it absolutely is true if you think even the slightest bit critically.

 

Leviathan, a race of organics in their endless wisdom, create a synthetic being which creates more synthetics and ends up killing the Leviathans. The Catalyst, a synthetic being, creates more synthetic beings (the Reapers) with the sole intent of killing other organic races at an arbitrarily determined point of advancement.

 

And no, the Reapers are not synthetic/organic hybrids in the same way my computer mouse isn't cyborg if I accidentally cut my finger and a drop of blood splashes the mouse. The Reapers are synthetics whose cores are constructed out of organic material (which in scientific terms is nearly meaningless, since anything containing carbon can be called organic). 

 

It's a circular, self-fulfilling prophecy that, prior to a specific point in time, would never have occurred under normal circumstances.

Except EDI's quote in ME2

Shepard: "Reapers are machines - why do they need humans at all?"

EDI: "Incorrect. Reapers are sapient constructs. A hybrid of organic and inorganic material."

[o Ventus]

Except EDI's quote in ME2

Shepard: "Reapers are machines - why do they need humans at all?"

EDI: "Incorrect. Reapers are sapient constructs. A hybrid of organic and inorganic material."

 

Yeah, and this in no way disproves what I said. She says 'a hybrid of organic and inorganic material'. 

 

'Organic and inorganic material.'

 

I even said that they were robots made of organic material, but this doesn't make them cyborgs.

 

They're artificially constructed beings made up of an organic core (the baby human-Reaper would have fit inside a cuttlefish-looking shell), and synthetic components (every other part around the organic core).

 

Many of the components inside ASIMO the Honda robot have carbon in them as well, but I very much doubt anyone in their right mind would say he's 'half organic' when the only organic thing about him is that he is made from materials containing carbon.

[o Ventus]

Everything you just said clearly shows that you don't even understand the Reapers and the Catalyst. Let me help you out:

 

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to pull the "You just don't UNDERSTAND!" card. You didn't disappoint.

 

Leviathans notice that there is always conflict between organics and synthetics. They build an Intelligence (The Catalyst) with the sole purpose to find a solution to those conflicts. It builds synthetic pawns to help him gather physical data. Then, the Catalyst finds that the harvest cycles are the only good solution at the moment. It then uses its pawns to harvest the Leviathans and make the first Reaper (Harbinger), preserving them in this new form. I don't need tell you anymore because I think you know how it goes.

 

It's directive is to prevent conflict between organic and synthetics, so the Catalyst takes the least logical course of action that is entirely paradoxical to its directive.

 

An intelligent organic being, whether it be an animal or something fully sapient, is going to have a self-preservation instinct. I.E. it's either going to run away from or injure/kill something that puts its life in danger in an effort to escape the danger. The Catalyst's ultimate decision is TO KILL civilizations it deems sufficiently advanced. How is it not clear that, by inciting conflict between itself (a synthetic being) by proxy and the organics it's harvesting, that it's fulfilling the very thing it's supposed to stop? In this regard, the intent of the Catalyst becomes entirely irrelevant, since its actions are in direct contradiction to its modus operandi.

 

Harvesting on a cycle is also incredibly inefficient. If the Catalyst wanted to prevent conflict between synthetics and organics, why not just keep the organics from being able to create synthetics? Why does it and the Reapers leave behind the mass relays in a deliberate attempt to advance the technologies of organics who, in the Catalyst's words, will inevitably war with technology? Seems a bit backwards to me. Every known example of synthetic life in ME (and indeed most sci-fi) is a highly advanced piece of technology capable of free thought, reasoning, and rationalization. Part of the Catalyst's solution to this... Is to make organics adapt the Catalyst's own incredibly advanced technology and encourage the organics to evolve technologically.

 

Finally, the Catalyst never clarifies exactly what qualifies as synthetic 'life'. Disregarding the general description I gave above, Shepard never asks the Catalyst, nor does the Catalyst ever tell Shepard the distinction between 'life' and a simple machine. An iPhone is certainly an advanced piece of technology, but my iPhone isn't alive. The Hadron Collider is an incredibly advanced piece of technology, and it isn't alive. At what point is the line drawn?

 

The Catalyst's purpose is not to kill organics, it's find a solution to the organic/synthetic conflicts at any cost.

 

'At any cost' implies that it's willing to take ANY action to achieve its goals. Given what we've seen, it directly contradicts its goals as part of its solution. The entire premise of ME3 shows this, that organics will fight to the bitter end to preserve themselves. How the Catalyst was unable to comprehend this is astounding.

 

By harvesting civilizations, it preserves their knowledge and memories.

 

Which makes about as much sense as a creationist claiming "well, Jonah really WAS eaten by a giant fish!" Assume you just killed somebody and they've gone through full brain death. Neurons in the brain are entirely incapable of transmitting, containing, or receiving signals or impulses due to what is called as the all-or-nothing principle, which states that when neurons in the brain respond, they either respond fully or not at all. As seen in ME2, people are ground into paste to build Reapers, which KILLS the people involved. The moment their brain becomes scrambled eggs, their neurons die and any information contained in their brain is lost. This single factor alone makes it entirely impossible for ANYTHING of the harvested species to be stored in the Reapers, let alone 'knowledge and memories'.

 

The galaxy is just one big experiment for the Catalyst to find a way to make lasting peace between organics and synthetics. (Which is not possible, unless Synthesis happens.)

 

And it's an experiment that the Catalyst itself admits is a failure. When a scientist comes to the conclusion that his experiment is a failure and that he has not produced the desirable results, he doesn't continue to do the same exact experiment for all eternity.

[Vazgen]

Yeah, and this in no way disproves what I said. She says 'a hybrid of organic and inorganic material'. 

 

'Organic and inorganic material.'

 

I even said that they were robots made of organic material, but this doesn't make them cyborgs.

 

They're artificially constructed beings made up of an organic core (the baby human-Reaper would have fit inside a cuttlefish-looking shell), and synthetic components (every other part around the organic core).

 

Many of the components inside ASIMO the Honda robot have carbon in them as well, but I very much doubt anyone in their right mind would say he's 'half organic' when the only organic thing about him is that he is made from materials containing carbon.

That is you assume that the organic material is used solely for construction and serves the same purpose as, say, carbon. But the continuation of EDI's speech disproves that:

"The exact construction methods are unclear but it seems probable that the Reapers absorb the essence of the species; utilizing it in their reproduction process"

So unless you think that the essence of humanity is something inert like carbon, your theory doesn't really work.

The Reapers are not interested in simple killing, if they did they would not bother with harvest ships and ground war, their power is more than sufficient to destroy organic civilizations from space. 

The in-game information indicates that the Reapers are selective when choosing whom to harvest. Some people are harvested, some turned into husks and used as shock troops. Simple murderous robots like you portray them would not bother with that.

You also miss the point that even with its twisted logic the Catalyst can't cause a destruction of all organic life by synthetics. That goes against its programming. Thus it is not a part of the cycle it was created to stop.

[o Ventus]

That is you assume that the organic material is used solely for construction and serves the same purpose as, say, carbon. But the continuation of EDI's speech disproves that:

 

"The exact construction methods are unclear but it seems probable that the Reapers absorb the essence of the species; utilizing it in their reproduction process"

 

Essence (n): attribute or set of attributes that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is. In the context of the story, It's literary mumbo-jumbo and just vague enough to be molded into whatever the writer's felt like making it. Except it's never actually referred to as anything metaphysical like 'knowledge' or 'memories'. 

 

 

 

So unless you think that the essence of humanity is something inert like carbon, your theory doesn't really work.

 

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT 'ESSENCE' MEANS. Carbon, being a required element in organic material, absolutely constitutes "essence". "Essence" in-context wouldn't just refer to carbon though, since the Reapers explicitly harvest sentient beings. "Essence" would include every other element in the body, from oxygen to nitrogen to methane to hydrogen, among others.

 

 

 

The Reapers are not interested in simple killing, if they did they would not bother with harvest ships and ground war, their power is more than sufficient to destroy organic civilizations from space.

 

Whether or not they're interested is entirely not the point, because that's what they do.

 

 

 

The in-game information indicates that the Reapers are selective when choosing whom to harvest. Some people are harvested, some turned into husks and used as shock troops. Simple murderous robots like you portray them would not bother with that.

 

There's no indication whatsoever that the Reapers are selective of anything besides their "are they advanced enough?" criterion. Occam's razor would suggest that the husks are made because if the Reapers want to harvest, simply nuking the planet from orbit would be a pretty f**king poor way to go about it, and since they have no means of simply manufacturing ground troops, they must convert the local populace. 

 

Besides, if the Reapers cared at all about "preserving" people, they wouldn't create more husks than they needed to, because the person>husk conversion process destroys or otherwise alters the base components of the body (fluids are drained out, bones are broken, and the body is physically morphed to suit whatever the function of the husk variant is). They do it because they HAVE TO, not because of some made-up selection process.

 

 

 

You also miss the point that even with its twisted logic the Catalyst can't cause a destruction of all organic life by synthetics. That goes against its programming.

 

It's entire idiotic thought experiment goes against its programming, and I've explained why.

 

 

 

Thus it is not a part of the cycle it was created to stop.

 

Legitimately not sure if you're f**king with me with this statement or if you're an idiot.

 

Why is it that I can actually explain my case when you and the other guy are apparently only capable of "no, you're wrong" or "you don't understand (a personal favorite of mine)? The latter is especially funny, because if I'm capable of discussing it on a fundamental level like this, then I must obviously understand it to be able to talk about it. Saying "you don't understand" just shows that you have no idea how that word works, and that you have nothing to back up your claims. It's creationist logic.

[Maniccc]

This is the only true answer:  Because plot of AI vs humans trope in sci-fi.  That is all.  It makes absolutely zero sense for their ever to be any conflict between any AI and humans, since AI is merely a tool.  As such, AI will never feel anything, so it will never want anything.  It will merely carry out its orders/programming.

[o Ventus]

This is the only true answer:  Because plot of AI vs humans trope in sci-fi.  That is all.  It makes absolutely zero sense for their ever to be any conflict between any AI and humans, since AI is merely a tool.  As such, AI will never feel anything, so it will never want anything.  It will merely carry out its orders/programming.

It's a full-on contradiction in ME, because the major AIs in the series (EDI and the geth) are benevolent and don't want to harm anybody. The geth in particular are willing to cooperate with the quarians, but the quarians are stupid and kickstart a war they can't possibly win on their own. EDI is an active ally of Shepard and has no ulterior motives.