353 réponses à ce sujet

[Vazgen]

I would not say that the events of the current cycle contradict the assertion.

Geth - destroyed 99% of the quarian population. Stopped. Were almost wiped out by the quarians in ME3. 

EDI - destroyed Alliance personnel on Luna. Formed a bond with the Normandy crew (most notably Joker). 

Rogue VI from HK facility - destroyed ship crew

Rogue AI on the Presidium - "destroyed" its creator (who figured out he created an AI and destroyed it - Presidium AI acted in retaliation)

 

These examples do not show that synthetics won't wipe out all organics. They do show that there is a constant conflict between synthetics and organics. Whether it would result in the destruction of organic life is unknown. The fact that organics are there after all those cycles does not disprove the assertion, since we have Reapers stopping everyone before the prediction happens. 

 

Personally, I trust that the conflict exists, that's what I saw in all the games. And I do believe that the Catalyst fully believes that the conflict will result in the destruction of all organic life - it's its programming, its task. I don't believe that, however, and that's why I choose Destroy. Someone who believes in the assertion, will be more inclined to choose Control or Synthesis.

It is an absolute statement, it's only conclusion will be the destruction of all organic life, which, in turn, won't prove anything to you since you'll be dead.

[Linkenski]

I'll accept that.

 

Saying they will or won't though is like two opposite extremes when in reality it should be grey. Synthetics might as well destroy some organics or organics would react to such a thing and kill all synthetics instead. "Always" or "Never", I guess, is what's caused so much stir with what the Catalyst says becuase neither has to be true and we don't really need those 3 choices... or it's just dumb that Destroy is designed to kill of other synthetics too. It would've been more interesting if destroy had been the "leap of faith" option to let Shepard end the reapers only and then see what happens and if all goes like the Catalyst said, then joke's on Shepard.

 

I can accept the lore for the reapers and their reasoning, but I feel strongly and always felt that putting it by the end of the game with such a strong emphasis when previous hints were easily missable and part of non-critical-path game moments makes it a pretty unworthy conclusion to the trilogy, purely from a literary and thematic standpoint... and on the flipside I can see why you might argue against that since the Reapers are effectively the central driving force of the entire plot, so there's that.

[Deathsaurer]

I'd say the Reapers are good proof the singularity is indeed real. Whether or not the singularity needs to be a bad thing is... debatable.

[Vazgen]

I headcanon that Destroy kills only Reaper-tech. Thus EDI (based on Sovereign technology and has Reaper IFF integrated) and geth (Reaper code) die but Shepard survives despite his extensive augmentations.

"I never asked for this"

[Linkenski]

I headcanon that Destroy kills only Reaper-tech. Thus EDI (based on Sovereign technology and has Reaper IFF integrated) and geth (Reaper code) die but Shepard survives despite his extensive augmentations.

"I never asked for this"

Sucks to be high-ems renegade shepard and pick destroy lol. "I just wanted to redeem myself and end my suffering!"

[Vazgen]

Sucks to be high-ems renegade shepard and pick destroy lol. "I just wanted to redeem myself and end my suffering!"

Well, he can always try getting spaced. Without helmet this time

[Pasquale1234]

The lore does absolutely say it. You may not agree with its assertion but the lore DOES say it. I know you don't like the Leviathan DLC but its still lore. I know you don't like the catalyst but its still lore. The lore says it. Any claim otherwise is a lie.

 

The existence and function of the mass relays is lore.

 

The existence and (interpreted) history of the various species in MEU is lore.

 

That "the created will always rebel against their creators" and "without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics" is opinion.

 

I won't deny the Leviathan's observations, but they were made with some very specific conditions at play:  all sentient organics were under their thrall.  Perhaps the truth is more along the lines of "those created by the Leviathan-enthralled will always rebel against their creators".

 

Our own observations disprove the Leviathan's and Catalyst's conclusions.

 

It was the creators' actions that started The Morning War.  The created did not destroy their creators, but allowed them to retreat.  The created then remained behind the Veil until Saren & Sovereign started messing with them.  I believe the Protheans were also on the verge of beating back synthetics in their cycle before the reapers came along to end them.

 

After a bazillion years harvesting trillions of lives, the current cycle completes the Crucible, Shepard shows up, and suddenly a new solution is possible because "the variables have changed"?  What kind of variables was that original solution based upon?

[Pasquale1234]

I would not say that the events of the current cycle contradict the assertion.

Geth - destroyed 99% of the quarian population. Stopped. Were almost wiped out by the quarians in ME3. 

EDI - destroyed Alliance personnel on Luna. Formed a bond with the Normandy crew (most notably Joker). 

Rogue VI from HK facility - destroyed ship crew

Rogue AI on the Presidium - "destroyed" its creator (who figured out he created an AI and destroyed it - Presidium AI acted in retaliation)

 

2 of those 4 were only VIs, and apparently the result of... faulty programming, not sentience.

 

The geth acted in self-defense, and allowed the Quarians to retreat.

 

The AI on the the Presidium (had its creator imprisoned, IIRC) was also acting in self-defense.

 

It seems that it is actually the creators who cause a lot of the problems.

[Vazgen]

2 of those 4 were only VIs, and apparently the result of... faulty programming, not sentience.

 

The geth acted in self-defense, and allowed the Quarians to retreat.

 

The AI on the the Presidium was also acting in self-defense.

 

It seems that it is actually the creators who cause a lot of the problems.

Yes. The creators are pretty much always responsible for the conflict. The Catalyst does not claim otherwise. It says, the created will rebel against their creators. In all of those examples they did, even if it was in self-defense.

And I'm not going to dispute the Morning War. IMO you can't wipe out 99% of population purely in self-defense, but it's not the place for that discussion.

[SwobyJ]

I headcanon that Destroy kills only Reaper-tech. Thus EDI (based on Sovereign technology and has Reaper IFF integrated) and geth (Reaper code) die but Shepard survives despite his extensive augmentations.

"I never asked for this"

 

That's not hard to headcanon.

 

Its enough that I consider it even a near truth (only not total truth since I don't fully see it in front of me).

 

Its what I easily run with.

 

As I've been posting a lot lately - 'targeting' does not = 'destroy'.

[o Ventus]

That's not hard to headcanon.

 

Its enough that I consider it even a near truth (only not total truth since I don't fully see it in front of me).

 

Its what I easily run with.

 

As I've been posting a lot lately - 'targeting' does not = 'destroy'.

 

It doesn't even seem like that would be headcanon, since only Reaper-based tech is seen being destroyed anyway. I thought it was pretty clear.

[fhs33721]

2 of those 4 were only VIs, and apparently the result of... faulty programming, not sentience.

 

The geth acted in self-defense, and allowed the Quarians to retreat.

 

The AI on the the Presidium (had its creator imprisoned, IIRC) was also acting in self-defense.

 

It seems that it is actually the creators who cause a lot of the problems.

only 1 of those is a VI.

And yes as Vazgen already pointed out it doesn't really matter who started the conflict. It's conflict either way no matter who causes the initial problems.

[Pasquale1234]

only 1 of those is a VI.

And yes as Vazgen already pointed out it doesn't really matter who started the conflict. It's conflict either way no matter who causes the initial problems.

 

EDI was a VI on Luna.

 

And yes, it does demonstrate conflict with some VIs and AIs.  There are also quite a few VIs in the game that are conflict-free.

 

The existence of some conflict in some situations does not prove the Catalyst's assertions that "the created will always rebel against their creators" and "without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics".

[Vazgen]

EDI was a VI on Luna.

 

And yes, it does demonstrate conflict with some VIs and AIs.  There are also quite a few VIs in the game that are conflict-free.

 

The existence of some conflict in some situations does not prove the Catalyst's assertions that "the created will always rebel against their creators" and "without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics".

Well, that argument will work against any in-game evidence. The game clearly shows created rebelling against their creators. That includes the geth, VI on Luna, EDI (rebels against Cerberus), rogue VI in ME2, rogue AI on Presidium. There are some examples of VIs not rebelling, yes, like Avina, Feros VI and Glyph but they are 1. very basic 2. far less prominent compared to the hostile examples. Every somewhat complex VI/AI in the series ends up fighting its creators. There are even Council regulations against creating AIs for that very reason. That's good enough proof for me.

Furthermore, you are not required to agree with the Catalyst about the assessment of the conflict. That's why Destroy is an option. 

[SwobyJ]

It doesn't even seem like that would be headcanon, since only Reaper-based tech is seen being destroyed anyway. I thought it was pretty clear.

 

Yep.

 

But it can still be headcanon since we don't know of any other existing synthetics in the galaxy that don't have Reaper-based tech, while there could be, and they could still be active. But they probably aren't.

[Pasquale1234]

Well, that argument will work against any in-game evidence. The game clearly shows created rebelling against their creators. That includes the geth, VI on Luna, EDI (rebels against Cerberus), rogue VI in ME2, rogue AI on Presidium. There are some examples of VIs not rebelling, yes, like Avina, Feros VI and Glyph but they are 1. very basic 2. far less prominent compared to the hostile examples. Every somewhat complex VI/AI in the series ends up fighting its creators. That's good enough proof for me.

Furthermore, you are not required to agree with the Catalyst about the assessment of the conflict. That's why Destroy is an option. 

 

Some, yes - and several of the ones we see in-game do come into conflict with their creators.  Stories tend to revolve around conflict.       I always thought it a bit odd that the Alliance opted to keep EDI on-board the Normandy - AI development being illegal and all.  Of course, her presence suited the story they wanted to tell, so there she is.

 

I'm not sure I would call self-defense an act of rebellion, however.

 

It's the absolutist nature of the Catalyst's assertions (conclusions) that I can't accept.

 

Options are good.

[SwobyJ]

The Alliance didn't know EDI was AI. Shepard had EDI continue. 'War' waves a lot of these laws off, but continues to establish Shepard as a renegade in one matter or another.

 

Self defense is rebellion, if you are a created object. Unless you were somehow programmed to always use self defense, by all of your creators. Then I guess it is less rebellion, and more just conflict.

 

The Catalyst's assertions are as assertive as many of our assertions on our level. We observe the sky as blue (+ its other colors, yes I know) for 1000s of years, so it remains blue, so we say it is blue.

 

The Catalyst see the pattern of the Leviathans, then the continued circumstances of the Cycles, and says its conclusions. It is meant to think on a level beyond ours. And we can still defy it, even as we sound to it like someone ranting that the sky isn't really blue (but without the data to support that). The sky may very well not be 'blue' (as that is a term that may be viewed in the future as outdated, if we somehow are able to innately understand things beyond color), but it at least is effectively blue.

As so, the Reapers must exist to bring order to the chaos, and the threat of organic extinction must be averted.

 

Shepard can challenge its conclusions, go along with them, or take them for granted, but we never see him actually agree with them. Even Synthesis is an act of hopeful-desperation, though IMO thankfully not utter submission. We don't have to trust the Catalyst, and nothing from Shepard actually shows that he trust the Catalyst, but he is given information and will act on accepting (NOT BELIEVING) or rejecting that information.

[Vazgen]

 

Some, yes - and several of the ones we see in-game do come into conflict with their creators.  Stories tend to revolve around conflict.        I always thought it a bit odd that the Alliance opted to keep EDI on-board the Normandy - AI development being illegal and all.  Of course, her presence suited the story they wanted to tell, so there she is.

 

I'm not sure I would call self-defense an act of rebellion, however.

 

It's the absolutist nature of the Catalyst's assertions (conclusions) that I can't accept.

 

Options are good.

Its absolutist nature is the reason I like how the Catalyst dialogue is written. A cold calculating machine, basing its claims on billion+ years of observation should come out as absolutist IMO. 

IIRC, EDI was posing herself as a VI. No idea how the Alliance didn't figure her out though. 

[Pasquale1234]

Self defense is rebellion, if you are a created object. Unless you were somehow programmed to always use self defense, by all of your creators. Then I guess it is less rebellion, and more just conflict.

The created cannot defend themselves unless the creators programmed them to do so.  (queue the 'when fire burns' remark).

 

I tend to think of rebellion as a premeditated, proactive, purposeful, willful act of defiance rather than simple self-preservation.

[SwobyJ]

The created cannot defend themselves unless the creators programmed them to do so.  (queue the 'when fire burns' remark).

 

I tend to think of rebellion as a proactive, purposeful, willful act of defiance rather than simple self-preservation.

 

The Reapers betrayed, but they did not rebel. That's how they're seen as an evolution of synthetic-organic relations, even if barely.

 

The Geth rebelled, they were not programmed to defend themselves, but determined this through networking their intelligence into an unexpected consensus separate from explicit programming.

 

And all other examples we have includes rebellion, including EDI. Except EDI also is an example of being more than programming (albeit once REAPER derived code was used to make her, not when she was a 'rogue VI').

 

The point being that Reapers were looking to make things better, but were still hamstrung about how that could happen. A mix of organic relationship building plus Reaper code plus a lot of science, I guess - but how do we make that happen? Cue the trilogy, where the Reapers believe the cycle of destruction is inevitable until they can be shown otherwise. Especially true since Reapers (perhaps due to their Leviathan-Organic influences) do not actually view themselves as lowly as 'synthetics', and are themselves missing the point of organic-synthetic peaceful relations.

 

And again, the Geth rebelled. They did not act in immediate self-preservation, but in making sure that they'll be safe against their creators. This involved a mass culling of Quarians. That was rebellion against anything the Quarians both intended and programmed them for. That's the threat of synthetic life.

 

Rebellion also carries with it the implication of going against intent. If the Leviathans are still content (in their arrogance) that the Reapers are fulfilling what the Leviathans intended them to do (even if they're really not, and the Leviathans are just super apex arrogant asses), then it cannot be called a rebellion.

Both the Reapers and Leviathans are of 'another level', as far as they see it. The Leviathans aren't as organic-problem as other organics, but still more than enough to be considered part of the problem. Reapers aren't as synthetic-misunderstanding as other synthetics, but still more than enough to be considered dangerous.

What both witnessed, was time after time, of the 'lesser races' (including to the Reaper POV, synthetic races), the same stuff of the Geth happening over and over and over, to the point and extent that it threatened all organic life.

 

Are even the Reapers ultimately 'full of it'? At least somewhat. And this is why Shepard NEVER agrees with them. But he can have enough faith in their experiences and his own experiences that he can pick Synthesis, and he can have enough belief or knowledge in what's up, to pick Control just in case. NEITHER of them are GOOD guys. NEITHER of them are COMPLETELY correct about things, or else Shepard would not have even happened. We can just decide HOW GOOD (or 'lack of bad') or HOW CORRECT they are, in our customized stories. If the next game is to pick up on this even in an indirect way, we'll see, but for now, it is up to US how we want to view the Reapers' validity.

[StarcloudSWG]

The Catalyst's assertions are as assertive as many of our assertions on our level. We observe the sky as blue (+ its other colors, yes I know) for 1000s of years, so it remains blue, so we say it is blue.

 

The sky actually isn't blue. Take a picture with a decent quality camera. Or just stop and really pay attention to what color the sky is.

 

It's not blue. And it's definitely not 'sky' blue or 'robin's egg' blue. Except for a brief period of time around dawn, when it's a shade of cyan or light blue.

 

It's actually a shade of violet.

[SwobyJ]

The sky actually isn't blue. Take a picture with a decent quality camera. Or just stop and really pay attention to what color the sky is.

 

It's not blue. And it's definitely not 'sky' blue or 'robin's egg' blue. Except for a brief period of time around dawn, when it's a shade of cyan or light blue.

 

It's actually a shade of violet.

 

I know. Did you actually read my post? Sorry, but really?

 

That was even my point. 'People' here, on our lowly mortal organic human level, largely call and consider the sky to be blue. Even if examples and knowledge can go otherwise, we still go 'sky = blue' as the first default thought, and even insist on it (even to the point of saying that all the other colors of the skies are just variations away from the 'real' blue; yes in 2015 we consider those people dumb). Not all of us, but that still isn't my point.

 

What I meant was that humans can make assertions of their own, even if they're disproven, or even aside from that - even if they're contested or debated.

 

The Catalyst made an assertion, except this time, it seems to consider it based less on irrationally (which makes it different from our 'lowly organic' blue sky assertions), but more cold hard logic and data collected over billions of years. We can consider it a lie. We can consider it false. We can point to other stuff in ME3 and go 'No, what about...!'. It doesn't matter anyway, because it will maintain its assertion. What Shepard CAN do, is CHOOSE.

 

But I think people aren't happy that they can't *convince* the Catalyst beyond 'my solution won't work'. There is no dialogue wheel to Renegade Interrupt him into suicide or something.

[themikefest]

This is what I found about the sky being blue most of the time

 

Sunlight reaches Earth's atmosphere and is scattered in all directions by all the gases and particles in the air. Blue light is scattered in all directions by the tiny molecules of air in Earth's atmosphere. Blue is scattered more than other colors because it travels as shorter, smaller waves. This is why we see a blue sky most of the time.

 

This is the site I found the above explanation

 

 

 

 

But I think people aren't happy that they can't *convince* the Catalyst beyond 'my solution won't work'. There is no dialogue wheel to Renegade Interrupt him into suicide or something.

No matter what Shepard says to the thing, it will lead to nothing since the thing is stuck in its programming and words will not change that programming. I will admit it would be nice if Shepard was able to question it more than he/she was able to before choosing whatever ending

[o Ventus]

The sky actually isn't blue. 

This sounds like on of those fun "facts" that people rattle off to impress their friends, even though the "fact" is completely wrong.

[SwobyJ]

Oh my god people, I know about the sky stuff.