353 réponses à ce sujet

[SwobyJ]

That doesn't really appear to be the case though at the end. The Catalyst explicitly acknowledges that Destroy (and by extension Control) are not actual solutions to the problem, yet it still offers them because of they're functions of the Crucible. Leviathan makes this problem worse by implying that the Catalyst has been seeking Synthesis all along. The Catalyst finally has the permanent solution in it's grasp and it defers the choice to Shepard.

 

Destroy is a solution.

 

In the shortest span of like.. years of decades or centuries maybe.

 

Destroy is a solution, but not one that the Catalyst would ever recommend. And the specific destruction of the Reapers is indeed a solution for the galaxy to address the chaos between organics and Reaper-synthetics. When Catalyst says 'we find a new solution', he does mean all three choices. Just, ugh, stay away from the red one (lol). And it isn't so positive about the blue one, but has more allowance for it (given that it is the most similar to how he himself ran things, it offers the most stable solution).

 

 

Catalyst was not 'seeking synthesis'. He was seeking a connection between organics and synthetics, which would bring peace between them, which would fulfill the programming to save organic life. Leviathans never added the bit where destroying (to them and most organics' views) isn't the same as saving, and even Synthesis arguably 'kills' the existence of 'organic' life and replaces it with another kind of life. But if there's no more organics left, and no more organics popping up that have to be zapped, that's peace, right?? GO SYNTHESIS

 

But to go back - Synthesis isn't what the Catalyst sought. It wasn't what he wanted until he saw it was possible. Instead, he was experimenting to see whether solutions that were similar to the capability of Synthesis were possible. Just wanted to be exact here, that the Catalyst was NOT looking to transform everything in the galaxy into a new techno-organic life, but was actually even thinking 'smaller'.

[TMA LIVE]

That may be, but what we did get was that AIs have free will, and are capable of fining their own purposes.  They are not inherently "evil" nor seek to harm organics any more than anyone else.  Less, even, as the geth mostly just want to be left alone.

 

Keep in mind, the Catalyst nor Leviathan claim the threat is against an AI. They just mean machines and synthetics. Machines and Synthetics can kill not just because an AI is controlling them, but because of some programming error, or virus, or VI being unstable, under the guidance of an Organic, etc. Eitherway, it's rebelling against it's creators for whatever the reason.

[KaiserShep]

That doesn't really appear to be the case though at the end. The Catalyst explicitly acknowledges that Destroy (and by extension Control) are not actual solutions to the problem, yet it still offers them because of they're functions of the Crucible. Leviathan makes this problem worse by implying that the Catalyst has been seeking Synthesis all along. The Catalyst finally has the permanent solution in it's grasp and it defers the choice to Shepard.

 

Regardless of what it says, it's not a soothsayer. Destroy is a viable solution in that the reapers are pretty much gone for good. Conceivably, the galaxy could progress in such a way that this problem doesn't exist like it used to. There's no real way to know, and for all anyone knows, the galaxy could simply succumb to heat death before it has a chance to happen, and that's if some faction of organics, like the rachni, krogan or whatever else is waiting beyond a dormant relay, doesn't toss feces into the cosmic fan before that.

[General TSAR]

Of course there's going to be conflict between toasters and actual living things, especially when it concerns dwindling resources.

[SwobyJ]

Leviathan was just taking all the fan feedback and making it into a fanservice explanation for the Catalyst. Had it not been for the hate we wouldn't have gotten a DLC that turns the original intent of the Catalyst guiding the player to the intended opimal choice (From the writer's perspective) into the Catalyst being manipulative and trying to make the player choose an option they think is wrong.

 

Clearly Bioware wanted synthesis to be the good option. The relationship between organics and machines in ME3 was never handled with any nuance. It was so stark and gullible that "synthetics are actually real people" like Chalkwas says on the normandy talking to Adams. People objected to Synthesis because it was unethical to some, impossible from a biological standpoint for some or because it had nothing to do with what other players wanted in the story. Because the majority (or what Bioware usually calls "the vocal minority", (nice shoving it under the rug for the unknowing public!)) disliked Synthesis in general and questioned that the Catalyst presented it as the best option Bioware decided "okay it's not actually the best option!" when they wrote Leviathan.

 

Leviathan DLC was just a case of saying what you want the other one to hear.

 

By intent synthesis IS the best option and Destroy was portrayed as renegade (therefore it's red) and the Catalyst very strongly implies that it doesn't desire Destroy. It's like "You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want" highlighting the most negative feature of it.

 

I saw it rather differently.

 

I think the base story of Mass Effect is one that is more utterly against something like Synthesis. And even at least skeptical against Control.

 

But if you do every bit of content and read everything, more ideas may pop up in your head about things.

 

Destroy - Right

Control - Correct

Synthesis - Best

 

And you're perfectly free to disagree with any of these descriptors, given that they're nearly synonyms in so many contexts anyway.

 

Synthesis may be the 'best' ending, but from my point of view and how I personally understand things, it is neither the most correct action to take, and really, 'it just ain't right!'.

 

Choosing a peaceful ending for the Reapers may have been a too drastic change of narrative tone than Bioware should have done, but I can see what seems to be the overall plan:

 

Genophage - Oh, tons of players are at least somewhat sympathetic towards the Krogan! Its probably gonna happen, giving so many players their 'feels' regardless of what else they do.

Rannoch - Well, that's more half-half, so it is more of a test to see if Peace or Geth may be chosen.

Reapers - Alright, the best test of the game, and even trilogy. How far will you go.. to win? To save everyone? To make the galaxy better?

 

Personally, while aspects of Synthesis delight and fascinate me, both the original and extended versions of it are not what I want to see in my Mass Effect galaxy, and I do in fact feel a sense of retribution (but not revenge... I'm rather Paragon) against the Reapers and I do think and feel that Destroy is what needs to happen to them, at least in my story.

 

Synthesis in that case can be whatever the hell it wants to be. I'm not choosing it. I've hit my cap to empathy and understanding. I don't want that world.

[SwobyJ]

It still could be a solution. I mean, the Destroy ending proves if synthetics tried to rebel, we could one shot them dead. It just doesn't create peace between us. And doesn't solve chaos. It's only allowing us the option, because it's A solution, though not one it likes.

 

Indeed. Destroy itself is proof of, at the very very least, organic resistance and its capacity to succeed against organics, without compromise of existing as organics.

 

May organics fail a lot in these conflicts? Yep. But it can also succeed, clearing the board for years (perhaps even centuries or millennia) to come. And in that period, there is no or little problem to deal with. AI will appear again, and we'll just hate it enough to stomp it down again. No matter what projections and logic the Reapers employ.

 

Though this statement is less about 'humans' or 'this cycle's species', but more 'organics' overall, perhaps on the universal level. Synthetics may indeed still arrive to kill everyone you know and love. We know this, because it happens. To the galactic scale.

[KaiserShep]

Of course there's going to be conflict between toasters and actual living things, especially when it concerns dwindling resources.

 

In that case, the distinction between synthetics and organics is meaningless, since organics can potentially wipe out another just to colonize a planet, or over a fuel source. Then there's organics that will use other organics as their instruments of war, like the protheans did with the rachni, and the salarians did with the krogan.

[TMA LIVE]

I saw it rather differently.

 

I think the base story of Mass Effect is one that is more utterly against something like Synthesis. And even at least skeptical against Control.

 

But if you do every bit of content and read everything, more ideas may pop up in your head about things.

 

Destroy - Right

Control - Correct

Synthesis - Best

 

And you're perfectly free to disagree with any of these descriptors, given that they're nearly synonyms in so many contexts anyway.

 

Synthesis may be the 'best' ending, but from my point of view and how I personally understand things, it is neither the most correct action to take, and really, 'it just ain't right!'.

 

Choosing a peaceful ending for the Reapers may have been a too drastic change of narrative tone than Bioware should have done, but I can see what seems to be the overall plan:

 

Genophage - Oh, tons of players are at least somewhat sympathetic towards the Krogan! Its probably gonna happen, giving so many players their 'feels' regardless of what else they do.

Rannoch - Well, that's more half-half, so it is more of a test to see if Peace or Geth may be chosen.

Reapers - Alright, the best test of the game, and even trilogy. How far will you go.. to win? To save everyone? To make the galaxy better?

 

Personally, while aspects of Synthesis delight and fascinate me, both the original and extended versions of it are not what I want to see in my Mass Effect galaxy, and I do in fact feel a sense of retribution (but not revenge... I'm rather Paragon) against the Reapers and I do think and feel that Destroy is what needs to happen to them, at least in my story.

 

Synthesis in that case can be whatever the hell it wants to be. I'm not choosing it. I've hit my cap to empathy and understanding. I don't want that world.

 

I kind of feel the same way. It's different per Shepard. For one Shepard, it's the ends justifies the means, and picks destroy out of duty. It's what majority of everyone has died for. For some, the sacrifice is too great, or they agree with the Catalyst, and are willing to compromise in hope of making a better future (Synthesis). While some just want a solution to stop or control all this chaos that keeps happening, beyond synthetics and organics (like what happened with the Rachni and the Krogan. This Shepard picks Control, and becomes the ultimate Spectre). And then there's the no compromise Shepard that refuses, and loses everything.

[SwobyJ]

You're still incorrect of what you posted about Leviathan programming the intelligence to preserve life and peace at any cost. It only programmed it to preserve life at any cost and not peace.

 

Only if you believe that the Catalyst is lying and/or embellishing on its programming.

 

Which it could be.

 

We don't know.

 

But you could be right.

 

They give plenty of reasons to pick Destroy that you can hang onto. This is just one of the many. Why reward something you think to be a liar (*cough cough Legion*) with your trust? Why care about its opinion on anything? Even with the great Extended Cut Control/Synth outcomes, both come with greater uncertainty that things will be predictable and that problems can be resolved by organics (and in fact with Synthesis, you may view that organics no longer exist; aka an existential threat).

[SwobyJ]

It doesn't seem realistic to just convince the Catalyst that it's wrong. This thing's been going about its business for eons, so it stands to reason that no one could really just say something that'll make it throw its holographic hands up and say "I give up!" It would be nice to have Shepard not say silly things like "there must be another way" or some such nonsense without my say so.

 

While I agree, it still might have been the better conclusion to Shepard's gameplay+story path. Shepard has talked down (through charm or intimidation) so many foes. It was core to ME1's encounters, and was spread out throughout ME2. ME3, he can optionally talk down an alien fleet.

 

Again, I agree, but I think Shepard NOT being able to to this to the Reaper God was part of the problem of players feeling like things were out of their hands. Personally, I think this was by intention and perhaps even part of a larger plan (maybe, kinda, I dunno), but it still had its result of a dissatisfied playerbase.

[SwobyJ]

Right, so the question becomes:  knowing that the cycles won't work anymore, why does it continue that task, both as it's explaining the new "solutions" and after, including if Shepard rejects its new "solutions"  Why does it not try to gather new information?  If Shepard won't play ball, why not parlay with Hackett, or Victus, or another admiral?  SHouldn't "at all costs" involve exploring all options?

 

Here's a possibility - "Won't work anymore" could mean "It'll work for this cycle, but now I know that eventually it won't apply and change will occur whether I like it or not. Thus, it doesn't work for me."

 

I think it doesn't parlay because doing that doesn't logically show to him to actually A-->B lead to its solution. Everything we see of the Reapers screams 'fasttracked easy way to things'. And we can see it only even speaks to Shepard because of some mix of:

1)It is forced to

2)It sees new possibilities with Shepard specifically, at that moment

3)It sees a new and immediately better solution with Synthesis

 

In short, the Catalyst still lacks any of what we may call 'humanity', and really is unwilling to do anything that may meander around its programmed goals. At times, it is forced to. But again, it is forced to. Even with finding peace between organics and synthetics, it endeavors to do it in the quickest and most logically efficient way possible, that leaves as little room for 'error'. Yet it was 'errors' that makes up what writers often consider 'humanity' (or in this case 'organic life'), and it is exactly what the Catalyst was missing all along.

 

I really have no problem with viewing the Catalyst as just the most advanced VI in the galaxy, to the point that it is nearly indistinguishable to a full AI, while still being, ultimately, a VI.

[SwobyJ]

Affirmation: Of course!
Rethoric question: What else should they want?

Spoiler

 

 

I know that's an awesome joke ( HK), but I do think that pretty much any AI, when given the ability to 'want' things as a closed system not in consensus with others/other programs, may 'want' to kill things. Not that they will.

 

So I do love, in a way, how ME3 increasingly has EDI take a sort of 'pleasure' in battle (in her own way) and Citadel DLC has Glyph having synthetic dreams (of a sort) of getting combat capability.

 

It may not be an actual truth when AI does come along IRL, but it is fun to think about

[SwobyJ]

That may be, but what we did get was that AIs have free will, and are capable of fining their own purposes.  They are not inherently "evil" nor seek to harm organics any more than anyone else.  Less, even, as the geth mostly just want to be left alone.

 

I should clarify then.

 

The catastrophe would come from the Alliance's actions ultimately. Not the AI's existence or any choices it was able to make.

 

My point, which you seem to have missed, was that I just wanted players to feel something closer to themselves. You can pontificate about peace between the alien Quarians and the Geth, and you can be all hopeful and optimistic about Synthesis with the Reapers, but we're not allowed to see what players would do if the dilemma was down to Humanity's own actions and desires.

 

There's a few counter points:

1)Well, we already see tons of stories like that, so why Mass Effect? I still think it should be done, since it can be more easily compared and contrasted to how players treat aliens and how aliens should morally act (even if they're often of the humanish Star Trek variety).

2)Well, didn't we kinda get this with Cerberus? Sort of. From a POV the writers present us with, Cerberus 'is' humanity (or at least a ton of it), but we don't get to see what happens when the Humanity that WE more likely align with and prefer goes wrong. We get a bit of it in ME1, and we get maybe annoyed with them in ME2, but then ME3 just comes back to affirm with us that the Alliance Is Perfectly Fine. I'd have not wanted that so clear, and instead shown that the Alliance themselves may have been working on their own AI, pressed by the war against the Reapers*, and done so in an even stupider manner than Cerberus ever could. I feel it was one of those missing pieces that could have made ME3's story more enjoyable to me. I didn't necessarily need Cerberus to be 'successful', but I also would have liked Cerberus to make more and more valid points that are demonstrable as ME3 went on, instead of being toned as Ultimately They're Bad Guys So Don't Listen To Them.

 

 

 

*EDIT: This is the important part. History has shown that when at war, we push for tech fast (even if we've been previously even Luddites about it), but we aim for it being a weapon, and the Alliance pushing for weapons to easily use + AI, could have = a cool story about the validity of the Alliance's/Hackett's standpoint about technology overall, which you can still agree or disagree, but at least not so much auto-dialogue-agree with him as Shepard did in the ME3 we got.

EDIT: To be clear again, lol - Alliance would NOT be pursuing 'Reaper Tech' itself, though they may have tried to more rapidly and clumsily replicate an EDI type of thing, without using safeguards. I think that would have been cool, as an interesting secondary mission.

[Laughing_Man]

To be clear, Project Overlord was a disaster stemming from integrating a highly autistic and scared human/organic mind with the Geth in an experimental way.

 

Sure, it is AI, but I'd call it something close to SI as well (Simulated Intelligence, born and continued from the joining to the mind of David Archer, an organic).

 

Actual 'AI' as the story seems to go, may have some origins from organics and their societies and cultures, but ultimately are NOT connected to organics. The more artificial you wanna go with this concept, the more separation from organics the intelligence will have.

 

IMO we have not seen an absolutely (or at least near absolutely) 'artificial' intelligence in Mass Effect, and perhaps we never will, or perhaps it will be more on the universal scale and we'll learn of it bit by bit. But we still have plenty that fit most qualifications, like the Geth Consensus, the Flux Hacker, EDI, and the Catalyst (though there may be debate on each whether the are more on the VI or AI end).

 

To clarify, I was not talking specifically about A.I. in the ME universe, but rather in general about an hypothetical A.I. that might someday appear in real life.

 

In game examples and distinctions between "types" of A.I. are more or less meaningless, because they are not supported by real science or logical reasons. (the distinctions between an A.I. like the Geth, EDI, or the rather pathetic AI that hacked flux.)

 

At the end of the day, what matters most is the potential of the AI. Is it limited by hardware, or can it simply copy itself and take over everything?

How fast can it learn and adapt? Does it have constraints like Asimov's three laws?

 

These are questions that matter more than artificial in-game distinctions.

[SwobyJ]

To clarify, I was not talking specifically about A.I. in the ME universe, but rather in general about an hypothetical A.I. that might someday appear in real life.

 

In game examples and distinctions between "types" of A.I. are more or less meaningless, because they are not supported by real science or logical reasons. (the distinctions between an A.I. like the Geth, EDI, or the rather pathetic AI that hacked flux.)

 

At the end of the day, what matters most is the potential of the AI. Is it limited by hardware, or can it simply copy itself and take over everything?

How fast can it learn and adapt? Does it have constraints like Asimov's three laws?

 

These are questions that matter more than artificial in-game distinctions.

 

All good points.

 

In our real lives, the furthest we've come is: computation, rudimentary virtual intelligences ('bots')

 

Anything regarding AI is just theory. We've gone past the point of it being total fantasy, but it is still not a proven thing whether it will ever actually exist, let alone how it will work.

 

And then anything regarding things 'past' AI, or integration with AI, that is all still in the realm of fantasy. A science or space or futurist fantasy, sure, but still fantasy.

 

Bioware does seem to have distinctions between these things though. Whether it'll be true IRL, we dunno, but in the Mass Effect universe, there seems to be different rules for how these things are shown and explained. An artificial intelligence that is separate from organic intelligence seems to work differently than an artificial intelligence that is integrated with organic intelligence.

 

Distinctions IRL between VI and AI and 'SI' may all be moot at some point, but they still describe different things, and I just think that this is what Bioware more artistically depicts.

 

You can have the 'questions that matter' - I'm only saying that Bioware may not agree with that, or at least not want to tell a story that only focuses on that. So we have Overlord where the emphasis is on how the technology was grotesquely placed on and into David's already struggling mind, and the emphasis is not as much on Geth research or technology being good or bad in itself (unlike what will usually happen in ME1-ME2). There is another level that Bioware seems to be going with in Overlord, beyond just 'making AI'.

[WizzyWarlock]

Well, Stephen Hawking says it could happen, so I'm going to side with him on this one.

[GalacticWolf5]

You're still incorrect of what you posted about Leviathan programming the intelligence to preserve life and peace at any cost. It only programmed it to preserve life at any cost and not peace.

 

Am I?

 

The Leviathans programed it to preserve all life, Synthetic and Organic, at any cost.

 

It's been proven that Synthetics and Organics always end up in conflict. This conflict is what the Catalyst refers to when it speaks of chaos. When it speaks of order, it means peace. Peace is the only way both Synthetics and Organics can live together. Therefore, the Catalyst has to find peace.

 

Let's put some quotes if you don't believe me.

 

''I was created to bring balance, to be the catalyst for peace between Organics and Synthetics.''

 

''I was first created to oversee the relations between synthetic and organic life... to establish a connection.''

 

''When they asked that I solve the problem of conflict, they failed to understand they were part of the problem themselves.''

[themikefest]

Am I?

yes
 

The Leviathans programed it to preserve all life, Synthetic and Organic, at any cost.

yep
 

When it speaks of order, it means peace.

 

Only the Catalyst mentions peace not Leviathan

[GalacticWolf5]

yes

 

yep

 

Only the Catalyst mentions peace not Leviathan

 

Did you at least try to understand?

[themikefest]

Did you at least try to understand?

What's there to understand? You posted that the Leviathan created the intelligence to have peace at any costhe cost when they never said that. They only said to preserve life at any cost

[Linkenski]

Well, Stephen Hawking says it could happen, so I'm going to side with him on this one.

But like The Catalyst, it's an appeal to authority thing. It's just "out there" and not right here where we can see it. All we can do is take their word for it but we haven't actually seen anything major ourselves. In a story, that's just not a well-formed narrative to make the entire plot ride on something we can't really say for sure that we believe in the ending.

[GalacticWolf5]

What's there to understand? You posted that the Leviathan created the intelligence to have peace at any costhe cost when they never said that. They only said to preserve life at any cost

 

You fail to understand the point.

 

First of all, the Leviathan we encounter in ME3 did not programme the Catalyst. He clearly states that he is the progeny of those who hid when the Catalyst started harvesting.

 

Secondly, to have both Organics and Synthetics live together there must be peace. What's so difficult to understand in this? For Organics and Synthetics to be preserved, the Catalyst has to find a solution for peace.

 

Lastly, did you ignore the quotes from the Catalyst? You know, the ones that specifically states the Leviathan created it to establish peace to preserve all life.

[themikefest]

You fail to understand the point.

 

You fail to accept that you posted saying Leviathan wanted peace at any cost when it never said that. It only said to preserve life at any cost. You keep bringing up the catalyst when it has nothing to do with what Leviathan said

[GalacticWolf5]

You fail to accept that you posted saying Leviathan wanted peace at any cost when it never said that. It only said to preserve life at any cost. You keep bringing up the catalyst when it has nothing to do with what Leviathan said

I never said that the Leviathan we encountered directly said that. Actually, I didn't even talk about this Leviathan. I was talking about the Leviathans who actually made it. Here's what I said: ''I'm telling you the Leviathans programed it with the mandate to perserve life and make peace at any cost''. I should have said ''preserve life, therefore making peace, at any cost'' but the intention was the same. You need to understand that for the Catalyst to preserve all life, peace is needed.

I'm bringing up the Catalyst because it talks about why it was created. It tells us it's purpose, it's programming. It clearly says that it was created to preserve all life and find peace, thus the Leviathans programmed it to do so.

Seriously, at this point, either you can't understand very simple logic, or maybe you don't even want to understand or you don't want to admit you're wrong. I'd say one of the latters is the case.

[themikefest]

I never said that the Leviathan we encountered directly said that. Actually, I didn't even talk about this Leviathan. I was talking about the Leviathans who actually made it. Here's what I said: ''I'm telling you the Leviathans programed it with the mandate to perserve life and make peace at any cost''. I should have said ''preserve life, therefore making peace, at any cost'' but the intention was the same.

So you're assuming that Leviathan, the dead one, programmed it to make peace at any cost, but it never did according to the alive Leviathan

 

You need to understand that for the Catalyst to preserve all life, peace is needed.

You need to understand must be you favorite words or something. It seems like you assume everyone don't understand anything except yourself
 

I'm bringing up the Catalyst because it talks about why it was created. It tells us it's purpose, it's programming. It clearly says that it was created to preserve all life and find peace, thus the Leviathans programmed it to do so.

The catalyst has nothing to do with what Leviathan said. As mentioned from alive Leviathan, that dead Leviathan created the intelligence to preserve life at any cost. No peace is mentioned at all. Why wouldn't alive Leviathan mention that?
 

Seriously, at this point, either you can't understand very simple logic, or maybe you don't even want to understand or you don't want to admit you're wrong. I'd say one of the latters is the case.

So if someone doesn't agree with you that means they don't understand and that they're wrong?