467 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Also only targeted advanced life and were easily dealt with by organics.

lol

I love how people rail on the Catalyst for being illogical, only to counter with arguments that are even worse.

Like this. Organics (a group of three plot-armored ones, mark you) easily dealt with an AI, so the Catalyst is somehow proven wrong, as if the the ability for an AI to develop beyond organics' ability to stop it is rendered impossible by this isolated incident.

 

And the Heretics only separated themselves from the Geth when Sovereign came around.

What does that matter? If people have malicious intent, all they need to act on it is some incentive.

 

Objectively? Reality? Pfff, please, . Esoteric craziness more like.

 

It is objective, and I can prove it to you with your own argument...

According to what you said, the Reapers killing people is bad, and people surviving without Reapers is good. So if the Catalyst's warning comes true, an AI has developed that wiped out all people and makes sure none spring up. So, with the safe assumption that the population would grow after the Reapers, the ensuing conflict would lead to more people killed and much, much fewer people living after the fact (none).
 

You made the claim that the Reapers are worse than what they are trying to stop, and imply that what they are trying to stop is nothing. I would ask you to prove that, but it would be pointless, because you cannot. There is no proof in the MEU of anything that precludes the possibility of the Catalyst being right. If you need proof that an AI could develop the power to destroy all organics, I would simply point you to the Catalyst himself. 'Only reason he did not wipe out organic life completely and irrecoverably and was able to be stopped, ironically, because he was programmed not to.

[Vazgen]

About the geth hostility:

They never ventured outside the Perseus Veil, but no organic ship that entered their territory ever returned.

Codex entry on Geth: Culture

[Torgette]

Like this. Organics (a group of three plot-armored ones, mark you) easily dealt with an AI, so the Catalyst is somehow proven wrong, as if the the ability for an AI to develop beyond organics' ability to stop it is rendered impossible by this isolated incident.

 

I don't doubt it's a possibility much in the same vein that there's a 100% chance every civilization overpopulates and runs out of resources and dies off. There's also a 100% chance there will be more wars whether from within or an outside source regardless of what choice we make at the end. There's also a 100% chance stars will die, comets will hit planets, disease will ravage, etc. To me it's about existentialism as much as it is about probability, the Catalyst wants to bring order to the chaos of organic evolution - but that chaos is something you have to be willing to risk and accept. You can stop evolution in its tracks sure, go with ascension as that's the Catalyst's ideal solution for a billion years until you bring in synthesis and continue along the billion year old path, but it also raises a question about the Catalyst's existence. I mean to understand the Catalyst you have to question its origin - it is a tool afterall and nothing more. It was not created to understand the universe - it was created to squash conflicts and does so with ruthless efficiency. To me the Catalyst's existence is a mistake and ascension is a mistaken solution, it cannot solve the conflict it was created to end, and I don't believe continuing its path is the answer.

 

Beyond the themes themselves though, I also think it's an issue of storytelling. If you took the 100 hours that they needed to tell the Mass Effect trilogy and boiled it down to 2 hours, the geth conflict would be maybe 5 minutes - a passing mention. To be a major theme in a grand story you really need to connect it to everything even in subtle ways, and that's something they simply didn't do. Even when they do get around to the synthetic/organic conflict they beat you over the head with symbolism rather than letting the story speak for itself. It's not a coincidence that very few people immediately (or ever) understood what the Catalyst was talking about, that's just bad storytelling for the previous 99.9 hours.

[RatThing]

lol

I love how people rail on the Catalyst for being illogical, only to counter with arguments that are even worse.

Like this. Organics (a group of three plot-armored ones, mark you) easily dealt with an AI, so the Catalyst is somehow proven wrong, as if the the ability for an AI to develop beyond organics' ability to stop it is rendered impossible by this isolated incident.

 

What does that matter? If people have malicious intent, all they need to act on it is some incentive.

 

 

It is objective, and I can prove it to you with your own argument...

According to what you said, the Reapers killing people is bad, and people surviving without Reapers is good. So if the Catalyst's warning comes true, an AI has developed that wiped out all people and makes sure none spring up. So, with the safe assumption that the population would grow after the Reapers, the ensuing conflict would lead to more people killed and much, much fewer people living after the fact (none).
 

You made the claim that the Reapers are worse than what they are trying to stop, and imply that what they are trying to stop is nothing. I would ask you to prove that, but it would be pointless, because you cannot. There is no proof in the MEU of anything that precludes the possibility of the Catalyst being right. If you need proof that an AI could develop the power to destroy all organics, I would simply point you to the Catalyst himself. 'Only reason he did not wipe out organic life completely and irrecoverably and was able to be stopped, ironically, because he was programmed not to.

 

Yeah, and I love people who behave like religous fanatics when it comes to defending some crazy esoteric nonsence from a sci fi story. Sorry, I don't bow down to your synthetic god of destruction. Here are some objective facts. Fact 1, no synthetic "race" ever targeted all biological life, only civilized races and I don't see one good reason why they would want to. The catalyst does what it officially tries to prevent, destroying races that are threatened by AI. Fact 2, the Catalyst wanted to exterminate its creators, the Leviathans, but couldn't. Seems it isn't really that capable in destroying all organic life like you claimed. Organics are not defenseless, that has been proven many times.

And now some logic from the real world, since this is supposed to be a Sci Fi story and not Fantasy. The Galaxy is enormous, absolutely huge. And if the garden worlds are as common as in the MEU then life lies in every corner of it. There will never ever be a "being" or a "race", synthetic or organic, that will be able to reach every part of the galaxy and there will never be an entity which is affecting or threatening all life in it. Goodness, people act as if those things are divine creatures, they are limited by our own limits to create. So believe what you want to believe. I'm still shooting the tube and I'm feeling damn good about it.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Yeah, and I love people who behave like religous fanatics when it comes to defending some crazy esoteric nonsence from a sci fi story.

A logic fanatic, more like. It was you who engaged me anyway.

It is not nonsense, either. I can make sense of it, quite easily. You just do not get it whereas I do. That is okay. Lots of people are not on my level.
 

Sorry, I don't bow down to your synthetic god of destruction.

Wait, who is being the "religious fanatic" here?

This is not about bowing down to anything. It is about sense/rationality versus emotionally-charged insinuations.

 

Here are some objective facts. Fact 1, no synthetic "race" ever targeted all biological life, only civilized races and I don't see one good reason why they would want to. The catalyst does what it officially tries to prevent, destroying races that are threatened by AI.

Pretty much just semantics/technicalities here. They "only" target civilized races? Well that still makes it a relevant problem to us. What do we care what they do with the rest of the galaxy when we are all dead?
 

Fact 2, the Catalyst wanted to exterminate its creators, the Leviathans, but couldn't. Seems it isn't really that capable in destroying all organic life like you claimed.

Outlier. Countless other species were eradicated for good to get hung up on one that didn't.

A score of 974562864-1 does not really indicate incompetence.
 

Organics are not defenseless, that has been proven many times.

Countless cycles that fell victim to the cycle do not agree with you.

 

Hell, even Shepard's cycle hangs by a thread at the end of the game.

 

And, let's be honest, most of the time we get away with things we should not because plot-armor.
 

And now some logic from the real world, since this is supposed to be a Sci Fi story and not Fantasy.

Does logic from the real world support mass-effect fields?

[RatThing]

A logic fanatic, more like. It was you who engaged me anyway.

It is not nonsense, either. I can make sense of it, quite easily. You just do not get it whereas I do. That is okay. Lots of people are not on my level.
 

Wait, who is being the "religious fanatic" here?

This is not about bowing down to anything. It is about sense/rationality versus emotionally-charged insinuations.

 

Pretty much just semantics/technicalities here. They "only" target civilized races? Well that still makes it a relevant problem to us. What do we care what they do with the rest of the galaxy when we are all dead?
 

Outlier. Countless other species were eradicated for good to get hung up on one that didn't.

A score of 974562864-1 does not really indicate incompetence.
 

Countless cycles that fell victim to the cycle do not agree with you.

 

Hell, even Shepard's cycle hangs by a thread at the end of the game.

 

And, let's be honest, most of the time we get away with things we should not because plot-armor.
 

Does logic from the real world support mass-effect fields?

 

1) The normal synthetics targeted only civilized races, the Reapers did it too. The Reapers also destroyed every race that has never been threatened by other synthetics. How exactly is the cure not worse than the disease?

 

2) The Reapers are the product of the apex race, more capable than any other race. The creation of the apex race could not exterminate the apex race itself and this is proof that it could not exterminate all organic life even if it wanted to.

 

And I can not simply switch off real life logic in a Sci Fi story. Some things I can swallow if they have a purpose. Like FTL flight, without it we wouldn't have the setting. But when the purpose of the craziness is the craziness itself I am refuting it. Otherwise it would mean that this is in fact a fantasy setting, completely separated from reality.

 

 

A logic fanatic, more like. It was you who engaged me anyway.

It is not nonsense, either. I can make sense of it, quite easily. You just do not get it whereas I do. That is okay. Lots of people are not on my level.

 

Oh my god, this actually made me laugh. . Yeah, you're probably right with that level thing, most people don't stoop so low with this amount of self-adulation.

[angol fear]

Oh my god, this actually made me laugh. . Yeah, you're probably right with that level thing, most people don't stoop so low with this amount of self-adulation.

 

You really want to be taken seriously with that :" etc... "?

[RatThing]

You really want to be taken seriously with that :" etc... "?

 

I don't care whether braggarts take me seriously or not. This dude's self-adulation is just comical, so I responded in an appropriate manner.

[God]

I don't care whether braggarts take me seriously or not. This dude's self-adulation is just comical, so I responded in an appropriate manner.

 

This guy isn't really isn't practicing self-adulation.

 

He's being rational. He's being logical. He's using critical thinking.

 

He's not dismissing the ending because it isn't a feel-good happy ending. 

 

He's absolutely right when he says that people who don't like the ending aren't trying to find a way to like it or rationalize it. 

 

Despite what much fiction says, rationalizing actions is not a bad thing. All it means is that you're making sense of an action and logically justifying it. Too many people get emotional and morally indignant when an emotionally and morally repulsive concept or idea (conventionally speaking) is presented as logically sensible.

 

My advice on that aspect to those people is to be less human, and be more machine. There is nothing intrinsically better about being 'human' or 'natural'.

 

It's like times when I duel iakus on the meaning of survival. He seemed to not understand what surviving actually meant. He wanted some unknowable and unnamed moral superiority that he couldn't or wouldn't quantify (out of irrationality and fear of rightful critique and deconstruction on my part). It's fear. Plain and simple.

 

You have it too. I suggest you lose some of your fear for knowledge and and understanding. You're rejecting that here.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

1) The normal synthetics targeted only civilized races, the Reapers did it too. The Reapers also destroyed every race that has never been threatened by other synthetics.

 

Okay, let's say that all hostile AI "only" target sapient species....
 

2) The Reapers are the product of the apex race, more capable than any other race. The creation of the apex race could not exterminate the apex race itself and this is proof that it could not exterminate all organic life even if it wanted to.

... but then we do know that the Reapers are reliably capable of eradicating ("only") sapient organic species. And one statistical-outlier does not disprove that.

So when you ask...
 

How exactly is the cure not worse than the disease?

 

... it is because an AI worse than the Reapers can develop. That would be an AI that at least eradicates all ("only") sapient organic species, and never leave the galaxy for dark-space, and kill off any organics that may develop sapience so that no such species ever exist again. That is objectively worse, if we value our lives, because fewer lives exist in that system (none). If the mere possibility of it exists, which it does, then it can be stated for certain that the Reapers are preventing that. Whether or not they should or should not and the likelihood of it happening is another debate entirely that gets confused into this very discussion, but to say the cure is worse than the disease remains false, from a logical standpoint.

 

And I can not simply switch off real life logic in a Sci Fi story. Some things I can swallow if they have a purpose.

So you actually can switch it off, then. Good.
 

Oh my god, this actually made me laugh. . Yeah, you're probably right with that level thing, most people don't stoop so low with this amount of self-adulation.

But most people would be lying if they did.

Is it self-adulation to state truth??

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Oh wow. It seems like ending-defenders "argumetation" will never change. "All ppl who do not like endings are stupid faggots who cant understand it and want stupid happy-end." Everything else - just shell for it. 

 

That slur is offensive. I am bisexual.

 

It is not wrong to call out people who rail on the ending if they demonstrate poor understanding of the concept behind it.

 

If you do not like the ending, fine, that is one thing. However, if you are going to make claims that are false, then be prepared for others to dispute your claims. If you do not like it, leave. It is a public forum. Just as you are free to express your opinion, I am free counter other folks' nonsense.

[Sheridan31]

If the catalyst was a dream and shepard wakes up in london, then there was no ending.

 

There was indoctrination at least to the point where the illusive men showed up.

 

I guess Bioware considers it a real ending therefore (most likely), the 3-4 choices of the catalyst where for real.

 

he (harbinger) wanted you to choose controle or synthesis, because of his logic, (thinking), that synthetics always fight organics and vice versa. therefore he considers controle/synthesis to be better and destroy would be disagreen with his judgement. And believing it works out fine with new synthetics, the krogon etc. 

[RatThing]

 

... it is because an AI worse than the Reapers can develop. That would be an AI that at least eradicates all ("only") sapient organic species, and never leave the galaxy for dark-space, and kill off any organics that may develop sapience so that no such species ever exist again. That is objectively worse, if we value our lives, because fewer lives exist in that system (none). If the mere possibility of it exists, which it does, then it can be stated for certain that the Reapers are preventing that. Whether or not they should or should not and the likelihood of it happening is another debate entirely that gets confused into this very discussion, but to say the cure is worse than the disease remains false, from a logical standpoint.

 

 

So countless cycles eradicated only because of an assumption for which there is absolutely no evidence available is supposed to be better? What are you smoking dude to call that logic? The disease doesn`t even exist, the possibility for an AI to destroy all life is zero (after hypothesis testing of course).

 

 

 

But most people would be lying if they did.

Is it self-adulation to state truth??

 

Trolling. I should have known.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Hey I've got an idea. Some people are experimenting with biological warfare. Maybe we should create a machine that would "preserve" all humans right now just in case someone actually would create something like the zombie apocalypse sometime in the far future. It would preserve our essence and be better than the alternative, right?

[ImaginaryMatter]

I'd compare it to Darth Vader revealing Luke that he's his father You are correct in that the conflict doesn't get enough screen time and that character interactions do not reflect it (except, probably, Javik). That is probably the reason for the conflict not to feel central to the trilogy and I'm not arguing against it. After all, feelings are completely subjective. I'm arguing against the notion that the conflict doesn't exist at all. 

As for Reaper influence, mass relay technology does not have anything to do with interspecies cooperation. Batarians and Rachni prove that there are still conflicts, even with mass relay technology. I was talking about direct implementation of Reaper technology (coming from the Reapers themselves) - hardware and code. These only became possible after the Reapers revealed themselves. The cycle had already failed

 

I wonder, if someone was to play through the trilogy as a completionist with all the DLCs and books/comics, would he notice more examples of the conflict, now when he knows its importance? Planet descriptions, codex entries, different dialogue lines... I'll be doing my final trilogy playthrough close to ME:Next release and will keep an eye out for more information.

 

I'm not trying to deny that there isn't any conflict, just that the underlying causes as shown by things like the Rannoch arc are different than the way the ending is presenting them. The underlying tension later in the series always seems to stem more from prejudice on the side of the organics, so thematically, the conflict doesn't seem so much an Organic vs Synthetic one but a scifi version of tensions we see today because they are robots. It's a problem and it does lead to conflict, but it's hardly one that needs Synthesis to be solved. I think it's telling that peace on Rannoch is accomplished through telling the Quarians to not repeat the mistakes of the past and stand down; even choosing the Geth doesn't seem like picking Synthetics over organics but more like a condemning the Quarians for not being inclusive enough (considering the comments from Chris L'etoile and Patrick Weekes, this does seem like what they were going for).

 

The conflict though in the ending seems to be one that stems from organics and synthetics being fundamentally different beings. Same conflicts in the most literal sense, but other wise different in almost every way. And I think because of that the ending feels so jarring despite it talking about robots fighting people in a series where robots fight people, because all that subtext is very, very different. I talk about feelings because a lot of this stems more from interpreting themes and less about discerning the certainty of organic distinction at the hands of synthetics based off in game lore.

 

(P.S. I know a lot of this is repeating, but the conversation above is old hat and isn't going to lead any where productive. This I find much more interesting to talk about).

[SwobyJ]

I'll just say as someone who likes to think that there is a possible layer of utter unreality happening, Extended Cut is actually great, and we did get an ending. Especially for Shepard.

[SwobyJ]

I don't understand why some believe the game was shipped sans-ending.

 

Well for me, I obsess over not getting a Rio level.

 

The dawn.

 

Rio. 

 

Jesus statue.

 

MP level.

 

Fleets heading there for some sekret victory thing.

 

Come on Bioware.

 

Come on...

 

 

 

....Rio 2016 baby!     

[Iakus]

I don't understand why some believe the game was shipped sans-ending.

Probably because it beats knowing that Bioware really did think these endings were a good idea

[wright1978]

Probably because it beats knowing that Bioware really did think these endings were a good idea

 

Beats knowing that Bioware thought 'Speculations from everyone' was the way to end a trilogy.

[dorktainian]

Beats knowing that Bioware thought 'Speculations from everyone' was the way to end a trilogy.

they got exactly what they wanted.

[God]

Hey I've got an idea. Some people are experimenting with biological warfare. Maybe we should create a machine that would "preserve" all humans right now just in case someone actually would create something like the zombie apocalypse sometime in the far future. It would preserve our essence and be better than the alternative, right?

 

No, but that's certainly not what the Reapers are doing. This is a false comparison. It's also a non-sequiter.

[God]

Beats knowing that Bioware thought 'Speculations from everyone' was the way to end a trilogy.

 

Which in itself beats a boring conventional ending built to appease a difficult to please fanbase that discouraged the developers from making the ending they wanted to make

[God]

Probably because it beats knowing that Bioware really did think these endings were a good idea

 

Maybe BW thought it better that people step back and look at the games rationally and think critically about the ending in its concept and philosophy. Seems like most people don't actually want to do that. 

 

The ending has a lot of flaws, but it is conceptually sound and based on a valid premises within the game.

 

The single greatest issue I see with people is that they are utterly refusing to believe that the Reapers might have some kind of rational goal in mind. They utterly refuse to accept the notion that the Reapers are anything more than irrationally evil monsters.