82 réponses à ce sujet

[Hrulj]

So I just watched a really interesting youtube playlist by Smudboy about the ME ending, and have noticed that a lot of his hate originates from misunderstanding, or inability to understand. The greatest issue this youtuber had was that Reapers claimed conflict is inevitable when he managed to create peace between the Geth and the Quarians. How come a lot of people seem to forget that Reapers are talking in terms of milions of years and that in that time, conflict will eventually happen. What is the misunderstanding you have noticed people are always mentioning. And why do you think this misunderstanding arose in the first place?

 

The playlist if you want to watch it:

[Vanilka]

Because the game does not expose us properly to the conflict as something that would threaten all organic life in the galaxy. We've always handled ourselves against both synthetic and other types of conflicts in the game. We've never lost against an AI. We've never seen a species wiped out by them unless we deliberately decide to allow that to happen to the quarians and then we still get said synthetics as allies. Organics prevail again and again and again. The game even goes out of its way to make synthetics sympathetic and willing to work with other races. The only "proof" of this "inevitability" we have is that somebody said so. Not enough to convince me, either. I agree with SmudBoy. I've never seen a convincing proof that the synthetics are an actual threat. For a game that at its very end likes to pretend that synthetics and organics is what it was all about, that's just lame.

[MrFob]

I only saw smudboy's videos about ME2, back before ME3 was out but I didn't like those at all. He does have some few valid points but most of his criticism is IMO based on the wish to find problems, rather than solutions. 90% of his points can be rebutted by saying "it is feasible that point x makes sense because point y happened off screen". Especially since we usually experience the ME trilogy exclusively through the eyes of Shepard, it makes perfect sense that some minor points connecting the plot can happen out of sight and we'll just have to make some deductions.

At least my personal rule for this sort of thing is: If you can think of a way to fix a potential plot hole, it's not a plot hole.

 

Smudboy goes the opposite route, which IMO just implies either a lack of willingness or a lack of imagination.

[MegaIllusiveMan]

 

Smudboy goes the opposite route, which IMO just implies either a lack of willingness or a lack of imagination.

 

 

Or even being one of those that entered the "We hate Bioware after the ending" Boat and don't want to hear anything more whatsoever.

[MrFob]

Or even being one of those that entered the "We hate Bioware after the ending" Boat and don't want to hear anything more whatsoever.

 
Nah, he was like that even before ME3 was released.
 
But, I just realized I only commented on smudboy and not on the issue. Because I think on the issue the OP raised, I may disagree with smudboy but I would also argue that there are some issues there.
The first is that, while the Geth-Quarian issue does not necessarily contradict the catalyst logically, there is a narrative problem in reviving a closed story arc. The issue of synthetics vs. organics was effectively concluded on Rannoch and we even got to make a choice to imprint our stance on that matter onto the outcome. In the ending, this arc is now not taken up again but rather recycled in order to be slapped onto the main plot. This si not very elegant and to make matters worse, Shepard cannot even bring up the geth-quarian example in the conversation with the catalyst. I am not saying that Shep should have been able to convince the catalyst with this example but from Shep's perspective - if the player made piece on Rannoch - this must have been very relevant. It certainly is relevant to me as a player. I don't necessarily expect the catalyst to agree with me but the fact that Rannoch is not even brought up is jarring at best and further elevates my disconnection with Shepard in this final conversation.
 
My second problem with this issue is that the reapers do think in such long terms, they are supposed to be overwhelming in their might and vast in their perspective. Yet, their raison d'être is apparently fear of the future. They cannot have proof for the problem they are projecting to happen eventually, otherwise there would be no organics around. They also cannot predict the future very accurately or destroy (which ultimately contradicts their goals) or the stargazer scene in refurse (which implies their defeat) would never have been possible. Therefore, they invent a problem, claim that it is inevitable and then they are so afraid of it that they enforce stagnation on the galaxy. This is not exactly the mindset of infinite awe that ME1/2 so expertly set us up to expect. What happened to "beyond the comprehension" of us little beings "fumbling in ignorance"? Their reasons are easy to comprehend and despite the huge scale on which they are able to operate actually rather pathetic.

 

That is the real problem with how the reapers are handled in my mind. It's not so much a plot hole* as it is an inelegant solution to a story that actually set up a scenario which could have produced any number of great endings.

 

 

*) There are still plot holes in this ending but that's another story for another thread.

[Tim van Beek]

 The greatest issue this youtuber had was that Reapers claimed conflict is inevitable when he managed to create peace between the Geth and the Quarians. How come a lot of people seem to forget that Reapers are talking in terms of milions of years and that in that time, conflict will eventually happen. What is the misunderstanding you have noticed people are always mentioning. And why do you think this misunderstanding arose in the first place?

Mr. Fob already made the most important points.

BTW: I think we'll get a more interesting discussion if we discuss what we think instead of what we think what others think  .

 

Just an addendum:

 

 ...Shepard cannot even bring up the geth-quarian example in the conversation with the catalyst. I am not saying that Shep should have been able to convince the catalyst with this example but from Shep's perspective - if the player made piece on Rannoch - this must have been very relevant. It certainly is relevant to me as a player. I don't necessarily expect the catalyst to agree with me but the fact that Rannoch is not even brought up is jarring at best and further elevates my disconnection with Shepard in this final conversation.

...

The Reaper on Rannoch tells Shepard: "The battle for Rannoch disproves your assertion!"

 

Well, I think the whole conversation with the Reaper on Rannoch only makes sense on the writer's meta-level, as planting for the Catalyst scene. Inside the story, it does not make much sense for the Reaper to even bother to talk to Shepard at all, and much less sense to assign any significance to the Geth-Quarian-conflict to (what the writers mistook as) the central (theme of the series) goal of the Reapers.  

 

But since the Reaper itself did that in a conversation (that is a preparation for the catalyst scene), how come that (both the writers and) Shepard forget(s) to even bring that up at all with the Catalyst? 

[Sion1138]

It's not a misunderstanding. Dude's speaking in terms of story.

 

As far as the story is concerned, that theme / plot-thread was brought to a climax on Rannoch.

[Hrulj]

Mr. Fob already made the most important points.

BTW: I think we'll get a more interesting discussion if we discuss what we think instead of what we think what others think  .

 

Just an addendum:

 

The Reaper on Rannoch tells Shepard: "The battle for Rannoch disproves your assertion!"

 

Well, I think the whole conversation with the Reaper on Rannoch only makes sense on the writer's meta-level, as planting for the Catalyst scene. Inside the story, it does not make much sense for the Reaper to even bother to talk to Shepard at all, and much less sense to assign any significance to the Geth-Quarian-conflict to (what the writers mistook as) the central (theme of the series) goal of the Reapers.  

 

But since the Reaper itself did that in a conversation (that is a preparation for the catalyst scene), how come that (both the writers and) Shepard forget(s) to even bring that up at all with the Catalyst? 

But its beyond ridiculous to think that in bilions of years no one ever achived peace between synthetics and organics. Its not about making peace/truce, but certain eventuality that will lead to conflict.

[MrFob]

But its beyond ridiculous to think that in bilions of years no one ever achived peace between synthetics and organics. Its not about making peace/truce, but certain eventuality that will lead to conflict.

 

Use an infinite time frame and every possibility becomes an inevitability. Thus, the reasons for the cycle are arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

--- Cmdr. Shepard (you wish)

[Thrombin]

I don't really get the issue.  The Reapers are machine  intelligences. Their program used logic to predict that synthetics being, of necessity, better than their creators would eventually supplant them. They extrapolated that eventually a machine intelligence would conclude that organic life was a barrier to efficiency and would take steps to eradicate it. Being more powerful than organics they would eventually succeed. Therefore, organic life and knowledge must be preserved and the cycle reset at periodic intervals to prevent synthetics from ever developing to a state where that would be possible.

 

Anything that happens with the synthetics in this cycle, or previous cycles, is irrelevant because the Reapers are intercepting the development before it can get to the stage that they fear. If they had left the Universe alone for 100,000 years instead of 50,000 years it could well be a different story. It's just about probabilities.

 

I would argue, in fact, that the Reapers themselves are the biggest hint that synthetics could destroy all organic life. They are only a short jump of logic away from doing it themselves!

 

Now, nobody says they have to be right in their analysis but, even if they are, their biggest flaw is in the interpretation of the goal the Leviathans set them. They were tasked with preserving organic life but what the Leviathans wanted was for them to preserve the existing races and protect them from any synthetics. Preserving organic life as a concept was not what they had intended the goal to be nor was preserving in the sense of rendering them down to their DNA as opposed to keeping them alive! Garbage In, Garbage Out, basically. The programmer was not specific enough when defining the goal!

[MrFob]

Well, as I said before, I don't consider it a plot hole as much an inelegant narrative for the above reasons.
 
But since you bring it up, here is an additional point that irks me:

The Reapers are machine  intelligences. Their program used logic to predict that synthetics being, of necessity, better than their creators would eventually supplant them.

Now, I am not sure if you meant it that way, so I am not necessarily replying to your specific comment but I have often read this argument that the catalyst - because he is an AI - has these per-programmed doctrines and directives that he cannot really get out of. He can't really think outside of that box (not until the crucible changes him or something). In fact, the Leviathans themselves imply that as well.
This goes against what the ME universe has established about AIs. True AIs should be able to think freely, learn freely and develop on paths that cannot be predicted because they involve a random element (due to the quantum bluebox that is part of their hardware and defines their personalities). They are supposed to have the same level of "free will" as organics, they are even supposed to have emotions (even the simple gambling theft AI in ME1 could get really angry).
This generates 2 problems for the reapers:
1. If the evolution of AIs is just as hard to predict as the one of organics than how can they predict this inevitable conflict, its outcome and the moral implications with such certainty? This:

They extrapolated that eventually a machine intelligence would conclude that organic life was a barrier to efficiency and would take steps to eradicate it.

is baseless and pure speculation.
2. If the catalyst/reapers themselves are programmed to think this way, they are VIs, not AIs. At best they might be shackled AIs like EDI was in ME2. It makes them even more pathetic and it makes the entire war, the cycles, the entire ME universe rather ridiculous. And Shepard, who can't even find a way to counter this program of logical fallacies is a fool in the end because s/he is forced to actually go along with all this.
 
No matter which one of the above 2 issues you choose, my point is again, Shepard doesn't even seem to be aware of all these implications in the final dialogue. Again, I am not saying that he needs to be able to convince the catalyst of anything. Failure is fine but Shep apparently isn't even intelligent enough to try and go down this line of arguments (or any other for that matter). That makes my character (and the reapers/Leviathans) seem rather dumb and that in turn frustrates me as a player. Therefore, it's not a very skillful conclusion to the story.

[Dantriges]

Smudboy´s videos are interesting and he has quite a few good points, but I don´t agree with everything. Sometimes it seems that he is really looking for something to bash the games even more. Watch it and form your own opinion but I wouldn´t concentrate on one thing or take everything as gospel truth. 
 
Millions of years isn´t a usable timeframe. No one can predict a million years in the future and what´s the point? Whatever the Geth or humans will be in a million years, they won´t be same as they are now.  We probably couldn´t even recognize them as Geth or humans. Oh there could be conflict within the timespan of a million years? Really? Wow. You don´t need an IQ of 50 million to know that. Humans are pefectly happy to kill each other all the time on good old Earth, Krogans did the galactic war thing, as did the Rachni. So yeah conflict, sure there wil be one. We always had war raging in some corner on Earth after all. Do we now have to kill all humans to ensure world peace?
 
And it´s not like that the Catalyst can predict what AIs with the capability for galactic extinction would do. The sample size for that particular group is one, itself. From it´s point of view, the Reapers weren´t committing galactic genocide for a billion years, so the actual number of AIs capable and willing to wipe out organic life is zero. Potential AIs from other cycles were killed before they could become a galactic threat, either by the Reapers or the organics themselves, so it doesn´t know what they would or could have done.
 
The Zha´til keeled over after they were already allied with the Reapers and after the prothean empire was already shattered by the cuttlefish. What a threat. I have the feeling that Javik doesn´t know the real story of the Metacon wars. The only AIs we hear from, that wiped out their creators are the ones in the Leviathan cycle. That´s the data the Catalyst used. Well...so yes. The mindcontrolled slaves of the Leviathan were wiped out. Ok...do we know if they were actually capable of defending themselves? The galaxy was one happy mindcontrolled family, war would disrupt the flow of tribute to the masters. They had no reason to develop weapons or know how to fight, why should the Leviathan allow such a thing? They were cared for by the Leviathans, or rather the Leviathans should have stepped in but didn´t.
 
So all its predictions on what could happen are built on a foundation made out of sand. Ok I admit, that the stuff from the Leviathan cycle is speculation but the fact is still there, that it extrapolated stuff it learned from a very special time and applied it to every cycle afterwards and even prevented the possibility of contrary data to pop up by its own meddling and harvesting everyone before it could happen. IMO it sounds at least like a valid line of questions or arguments. But no, Shep isn´t allowed to ask these questions.

So I can definitely see why Smudboy has a problem with "Uh well in the timespan of a million years, there will be war and it will be with synthetics and the organics will lose." That´s like debating on the future borders in a million years taking continental drift into account when we don´t even know if there are still humans living on this planet in a million years or humans who care about borders. We could be all gone extinct or gone digital.

[Linkenski]

Like Smudboy the Geth/Quarian peace is something I was really pissed at in how it contradicted the ending logic as well.

 

I think he's right, but we're twisting each other's words here. Smuddy is saying that it sticks out like a sore thumb how Catalyst says "you have to make a choice because clearly peace can't last between organics and synthetics" and here we have a long-standing synthetic vs organic conflict, Quarians vs Geth that was resolved through mutual trust and peacekeeping. Sure time will tell whether the peace actually lasts, but from a causality of plot standpoint why the hell would the peace between quarians and geth or relationship between EDI and Joker be so strongly depicted only to have a hamfisted twist out of left-field at the ending that says "no, it never lasts" with no proof but "because I said so, and because IN MY TIME it was like that".

 

Catalyst's logic is completely flawed in the original state, there's no way around it. They projected it on him, himself being the problem in EC or at least example of how synthetics could lead to problems but again, that's only "Could", since it has happened in the past and nearly killed all organics, which led to the Catalyst and Reapers (all of this is due to circumstance, not absolute truth about ALL synthetics ALWAYS killing ALL organics).

 

Smudboy fails to account for the issue of time in the video, The Catalyst fails to account for the matter of circumstance and variety of even synthetics not all being the same (EDI develops "humanity", the Geth become "TRUE AI") -- Hey, we can't all be perfect.

 

Smudboy highlights the issues in the writing perfectly, that the Catalyst's argument being wrong is because it's based on absolutism and blanket statements and logical fallacies like authorative rhethoric and such. If you're going to set up this grand theme in the matter of 10 minutes before the credits, you can at least try to make it seem plausible through proper logic and evidence or through Shepard arguing and the Catalyst adequately counter-arguing. None of that happens. Catalyst tells obviously suspect clams and Shepard just accepts with no problem whatsoever.

 

Hence, demote Mac Walters so he's never in charge of plot-writing again (and I really think putting him into role of Creative dir. might be even worse)

[Oni Changas]

So I just watched a really interesting youtube playlist by Smudboy about the ME ending, and have noticed that a lot of his hate originates from misunderstanding, or inability to understand. The greatest issue this youtuber had was that Reapers claimed conflict is inevitable when he managed to create peace between the Geth and the Quarians. How come a lot of people seem to forget that Reapers are talking in terms of milions of years and that in that time, conflict will eventually happen. What is the misunderstanding you have noticed people are always mentioning. And why do you think this misunderstanding arose in the first place?

While about 30% of Smudboy's points are full of ****, I think you're misinterpreting the context. It all stems from the concept of "show & tell" that ME3 completely botches. We're shown that synthetics and organics can cooperate after reaching an understanding but the glowing **** tells us otherwise. We're told that Cerberus has limitations and that they've suffered severe blows since the Collector mission wrapped up, but nearly every mission is influenced by them in some form or another. Honestly, Bioware needs another great plot writer, or a gameplan of the entire story they want to tell with us so that game 1 coincides and is justified by game 2 and game 3. ME trilogy is barely connected, and a lot of it is because of the handwaving and inconsistencies in ME3 that don't justify ME2.

 

 

EDIT: Want a real cohesive and mic-droppingly awesome analysis of ME3?

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NNUImNL9Ok&index=8&list=PLF4UOVu5UKgiDCxJrZE7hydqaKNwd37bh

[Tim van Beek]

But its beyond ridiculous to think that in bilions of years no one ever achived peace between synthetics and organics. Its not about making peace/truce, but certain eventuality that will lead to conflict.

Again I think that Mr. Fob has already explained it quite well. I think it is much less of a stretch to assume that the catalyst itself is unable to alter its fundamental (and fundamentally flawed) hypothesis, than to make sense of said hypothesis, which leads us to...

 

This goes against what the ME universe has established about AIs... 

Right, it does. I just think other explanations are even worse, including the one that tries to make sense of the catalyst's fundamental hypothesis.

 

If, for example, the advanced civilizations of the current cycle would start a war against each other, destroying life-sustaining planets one by one with their weapons, then the catalyst would stand idly by, right? Because, following its logic, this is not the way that life in the milky way will be destroyed forever. Because it is not about synthetics against organics, but synthetics and organics against other synthetics and organics. Or organics against organics. And it is simply impossible that organics could wipe out all organic life in the galaxy. Can't happen. Ever.

[Natureguy85]

At least my personal rule for this sort of thing is: If you can think of a way to fix a potential plot hole, it's not a plot hole.

 

This is wrong and actually "dangerous" because it excuses bad writing. It is not the audience's job to think up every conceivable resolution to a contradiction. It should be in the story. The story must resolve the conflict or subvert what came before.

 

 

 
Nah, he was like that even before ME3 was released.
 
But, I just realized I only commented on smudboy and not on the issue. Because I think on the issue the OP raised, I may disagree with smudboy but I would also argue that there are some issues there.
The first is that, while the Geth-Quarian issue does not necessarily contradict the catalyst logically, there is a narrative problem in reviving a closed story arc. The issue of synthetics vs. organics was effectively concluded on Rannoch and we even got to make a choice to imprint our stance on that matter onto the outcome. In the ending, this arc is now not taken up again but rather recycled in order to be slapped onto the main plot. This si not very elegant and to make matters worse, Shepard cannot even bring up the geth-quarian example in the conversation with the catalyst. I am not saying that Shep should have been able to convince the catalyst with this example but from Shep's perspective - if the player made piece on Rannoch - this must have been very relevant. It certainly is relevant to me as a player. I don't necessarily expect the catalyst to agree with me but the fact that Rannoch is not even brought up is jarring at best and further elevates my disconnection with Shepard in this final conversation.
 
My second problem with this issue is that the reapers do think in such long terms, they are supposed to be overwhelming in their might and vast in their perspective. Yet, their raison d'être is apparently fear of the future. They cannot have proof for the problem they are projecting to happen eventually, otherwise there would be no organics around. They also cannot predict the future very accurately or destroy (which ultimately contradicts their goals) or the stargazer scene in refurse (which implies their defeat) would never have been possible. Therefore, they invent a problem, claim that it is inevitable and then they are so afraid of it that they enforce stagnation on the galaxy. This is not exactly the mindset of infinite awe that ME1/2 so expertly set us up to expect. What happened to "beyond the comprehension" of us little beings "fumbling in ignorance"? Their reasons are easy to comprehend and despite the huge scale on which they are able to operate actually rather pathetic.

 

That is the real problem with how the reapers are handled in my mind. It's not so much a plot hole* as it is an inelegant solution to a story that actually set up a scenario which could have produced any number of great endings.

 

 

*) There are still plot holes in this ending but that's another story for another thread.

 

The Geth/Quarian conflict does contradict the Catalyst because he says "always". The Geth, while they killed many Quarians, did not wipe them out, and this was only after they were first attacked. Additionally, the Quarians were going to win in ME3 until the Reapers interfered. Only one counter example is needed to break an "always" hypothesis.

 

However, you raise one interesting point that even I hadn't thought about. Because organics exist, the Catalyst and Leviathans never saw Synthetics wipe out all life. They must have seen it on a small scale, with a civilization here and there, and extrapolated.

 

 

 

But its beyond ridiculous to think that in bilions of years no one ever achived peace between synthetics and organics. Its not about making peace/truce, but certain eventuality that will lead to conflict.

 

That may be, but the problem is with presentation. We only see the current cycle, where peace was achieved, and have to take the Catalyst's word for it on billions of years that we have no evidence of.

[Thrombin]

That may be, but the problem is with presentation. We only see the current cycle, where peace was achieved, and have to take the Catalyst's word for it on billions of years that we have no evidence of.

 

Evidence is irrelevant.  The AI didn't come to it's conclusions based on evidence of something that happened but on logic and probability that eventually it would happen.

 

If there is a 0.001% chance that one day an AI, over the next few billion years, will evolve and conclude that organics pose a threat or are an unnecessary irrelevance that would be better off being removed then, that's 0.001% too much of a chance to take if they are to succeed in their mission to prevent that ever happening. 

 

What happens with synthetics in this cycle has no bearing on their decision at all. The only reason they conclude that their solution won't work any more is because they can now see that organics have the ability to pass the technology capable of destroying them on to future cycles despite their best efforts to prevent it. Even if they can stop this cycle, they must now conclude that the probability is that they cannot prevent it indefinitely and that their current solution is doomed to failure (as the Refuse ending proves is the case). Hence they are prepared to try methods that would at least have a chance of reducing the probability of their prediction occurring even if none of those solutions can be considered completely effective in that regard.

[MrFob]

This is wrong and actually "dangerous" because it excuses bad writing. It is not the audience's job to think up every conceivable resolution to a contradiction. It should be in the story. The story must resolve the conflict or subvert what came before.

I don't excuse anything. I am saying in this thread and in other that I do consider the necessity for such large contrivances bad writing. But Smudboy goes too far and ends up actually weakening his valid criticism by too many pointless nitpicks.
 

The Geth/Quarian conflict does contradict the Catalyst because he says "always". The Geth, while they killed many Quarians, did not wipe them out, and this was only after they were first attacked. Additionally, the Quarians were going to win in ME3 until the Reapers interfered. Only one counter example is needed to break an "always" hypothesis.

No, it does not contradict the catalysts hypothesis because the geth might still wipe us all out in the future. That's what the entire argument is about. You can never disprove it because the catalyst sues an infinite time frame as a basis for the extrapolation. It's completely nonsensical but the geth-quarian peace does not technbically disprove it.
 

However, you raise one interesting point that even I hadn't thought about. Because organics exist, the Catalyst and Leviathans never saw Synthetics wipe out all life. They must have seen it on a small scale, with a civilization here and there, and extrapolated.

Yea, that would be my guess as well.


@Thrombin: Exactly and that's the flaw in the entire logic. To repeat my sentence from above: Use an infinite time frame and every possibility becomes an inevitability. Thus, the reasons for the cycle are arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

[Tim van Beek]

No, it does not contradict the catalysts hypothesis because the geth might still wipe us all out in the future. That's what the entire argument is about. You can never disprove it because the catalyst sues an infinite time frame as a basis for the extrapolation. It's completely nonsensical but the geth-quarian peace does not technbically disprove it.

Right, or maybe the Quarians destroy all Geth. This still does not contradict the central hypothesis of the Catalyst, because he would insist that the Quarians or someone else will create more powerful synthetics in the future that then will...etc.

 

Actually it is possible to disprove the hypothesis of the Catalyst: If organics wipe out all organic life in the Milky Way, and also destroy all habitable planets, and no new habitable planets can come into being (we are talking about one galaxy and a finite time frame, let's say a few billion years), there won't be any organics, ever, that could create synthetics that then...etc.

 

Use an infinite time frame and every possibility becomes an inevitability.

Strictly speaking this is only true if the system under consideration is e.g. ergodic (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Ergodicity). Nonergodic dynamic systems may never reach possible states no matter how long you run them.

 

[Thrombin]

 

 

@Thrombin: Exactly and that's the flaw in the entire logic. To repeat my sentence from above: Use an infinite time frame and every possibility becomes an inevitability. Thus, the reasons for the cycle are arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

 

It's not really an infinite timeframe, though. The Heat Death of the Universe will occur eventually and all organic life will inevitably perish. So, presumably, the AI would see its job as only needing to last up till then!

 

Also, if an artificial intelligence is tasked with the idea of protecting all organic life then they have two options:

 

1) Decide that, given enough time, probability dictates that all organic life will be destroyed no matter what they do and, therefore, do nothing.

2) Decide that, while they cannot eliminate the possibility (or probability) of failure they can, at least, do all that they can to minimise the possibility/probability so as to prolong organic life for as long as possible.

 

So I wouldn't say their efforts are arbitrary and meaningless. They would still be worth doing, in their eyes.

[MrFob]

Right, or maybe the Quarians destroy all Geth. This still does not contradict the central hypothesis of the Catalyst, because he would insist that the Quarians or someone else will create more powerful synthetics in the future that then will...etc.
 
Actually it is possible to disprove the hypothesis of the Catalyst: If organics wipe out all organic life in the Milky Way, and also destroy all habitable planets, and no new habitable planets can come into being (we are talking about one galaxy and a finite time frame, let's say a few billion years), there won't be any organics, ever, that could create synthetics that then...etc.

And again, you have to use a finite time frame. Doesn't work for infinity.

 

Strictly speaking this is only true if the system under consideration is e.g. ergodic (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Ergodicity). Nonergodic dynamic systems may never reach possible states no matter how long you run them.
 

Very true but all you can then say is that if the universe is a nonergodic dynamic system that cannot reach a possibility state in which all organics are destroyed forever, then the catalysts logic is even more flawed, right? So if you could prove that, you would arguably have a solid argument against the catalyst. However, to my knowladge (and my knowladge on that level of mathematics and theoretical physics is severely limited) it cannot be determined, using today's mathematics to which degree our universe is ergodic or not. So we don't really have a counter argument in our hands here. Good start though.

@Thrombin: To my knowladge, the heat death of the universe is a hypothesis (and one that is challenged at that, for lack of time, I'll just link wikipedia even though my pre-internet education always cringes when doing it ). And again, if the timeline is not infinite, the catalyst's logic makes even less sense. Granted, that may very well be the case and the 2 options you suggest do make sense in the confines of a programmed VI/shackled AI, which is a valid interpretation of what the catalyst may be. As I said in one of my posts above though, IMO that diminishes the ending and all the characters involved even more.

[Thrombin]

@Thrombin: To my knowladge, the heat death of the universe is a hypothesis (and one that is challenged at that, for lack of time, I'll just link wikipedia even though my pre-internet education always cringes when doing it ). And again, if the timeline is not infinite, the catalyst's logic makes even less sense. Granted, that may very well be the case and the 2 options you suggest do make sense in the confines of a programmed VI/shackled AI, which is a valid interpretation of what the catalyst may be. As I said in one of my posts above though, IMO that diminishes the ending and all the characters involved even more.

 

I hadn't realised the idea was contested and a quick skim of the wikipedia entry you linked doesn't seem to suggest that either but, I'm no expert on the subject!

 

I haven't read the whole thread (sorry) so I'm curious why the suggestion that the Reaper's aims were driven by the application of cold logic towards the goal they believe they were created to achieve diminishes the ending? 

 

While I do think the Reapers are shackled, given that the Catalyst says that it controls them, i don't see why its goals or reasoning would imply that it must also be shackled. Just because an AI is sentient and free to choose doesn't mean it wouldn't want to choose to perform the purpose it was created for. Edi asked for her purpose and, essentially, Shepard set it for her so I see no real difference there.

[Natureguy85]

Evidence is irrelevant.  The AI didn't come to it's conclusions based on evidence of something that happened but on logic and probability that eventually it would happen.

 

If there is a 0.001% chance that one day an AI, over the next few billion years, will evolve and conclude that organics pose a threat or are an unnecessary irrelevance that would be better off being removed then, that's 0.001% too much of a chance to take if they are to succeed in their mission to prevent that ever happening. 

 

What happens with synthetics in this cycle has no bearing on their decision at all. The only reason they conclude that their solution won't work any more is because they can now see that organics have the ability to pass the technology capable of destroying them on to future cycles despite their best efforts to prevent it. Even if they can stop this cycle, they must now conclude that the probability is that they cannot prevent it indefinitely and that their current solution is doomed to failure (as the Refuse ending proves is the case). Hence they are prepared to try methods that would at least have a chance of reducing the probability of their prediction occurring even if none of those solutions can be considered completely effective in that regard.

 

That's not true. The Leviathans created the Catalyst because of what was happening, not because it might happen. Also, once again, it says that Synthetics always overpass and destroy Organics. It does not say it might or will happen eventually. It speaks of certainty, not risk. Also recall that the Rannoch Reaper tries to use the Geth/Quarian conflict as evidence, though only that Organics and Synthetics will fight, which is not the Catalyst's claim.

 

However, I really like your idea on why the "solution won't work anymore."

 

I don't excuse anything. I am saying in this thread and in other that I do consider the necessity for such large contrivances bad writing. But Smudboy goes too far and ends up actually weakening his valid criticism by too many pointless nitpicks.
 

No, it does not contradict the catalysts hypothesis because the geth might still wipe us all out in the future. That's what the entire argument is about. You can never disprove it because the catalyst sues an infinite time frame as a basis for the extrapolation. It's completely nonsensical but the geth-quarian peace does not technbically disprove it.
 

Yea, that would be my guess as well.


@Thrombin: Exactly and that's the flaw in the entire logic. To repeat my sentence from above: Use an infinite time frame and every possibility becomes an inevitability. Thus, the reasons for the cycle are arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

 

That wasn't directed at you specifically, just the idea. What pointless nitpicks weaken the criticism? He does indeed nitpick some places but that doesn't mean he puts too much weight on them, but merely mentions them.

 

Again, the Catalyst's premise isn't that they might, it's that they will. But the Geth would have been eliminated without Reaper intervention.

 

 

 

While I do think the Reapers are shackled, given that the Catalyst says that it controls them, i don't see why its goals or reasoning would imply that it must also be shackled. Just because an AI is sentient and free to choose doesn't mean it wouldn't want to choose to perform the purpose it was created for. Edi asked for her purpose and, essentially, Shepard set it for her so I see no real difference there.

 

That's fine but it would be all the more reason to make the ending about Shepard convincing the Catalyst through argument. What would have been better; to convince TIM to shoot himself in a cheap copy (some would say artistic mirror) of Saren from Mass Effect or to have him talk down a billions of years old entity using evidence from all 3 games? Or to expose that it's a simple VI (which is how I see it anyway) and override it.

Or how cool would it be for EDI (or even Legion) to become the new Catalyst, since they are already AI and we wouldn't need some weird mind download thing. If they wanted to do that, they should have made their in-universe example, President Huerta, more front and center.

[MrFob]

I hadn't realised the idea was contested and a quick skim of the wikipedia entry you linked doesn't seem to suggest that either but, I'm no expert on the subject!

Ah, that was my fault. Not only did I link wikipedia, I also linked the wrong article, sorry. Here is the one I wanted.
 

I haven't read the whole thread (sorry) so I'm curious why the suggestion that the Reaper's aims were driven by the application of cold logic towards the goal they believe they were created to achieve diminishes the ending? 
 
While I do think the Reapers are shackled, given that the Catalyst says that it controls them, i don't see why its goals or reasoning would imply that it must also be shackled. Just because an AI is sentient and free to choose doesn't mean it wouldn't want to choose to perform the purpose it was created for. Edi asked for her purpose and, essentially, Shepard set it for her so I see no real difference there.

 
Ah, if you are curious, please do read the thread (it's not that long yet). But this was my post on the VI/shackled AI issue. In short, I just find it unsatisfactory that we'd fight a program that was created on an idea that the programmer (read: Leviathans) never really thought through.
 

That wasn't directed at you specifically, just the idea. What pointless nitpicks weaken the criticism? He does indeed nitpick some places but that doesn't mean he puts too much weight on them, but merely mentions them.

It's just, every time I watch his videos, I cringe a lot and think "Wow, this could be explained so easily" (I said the same in my first post here). Unfortunately, I can't watch the video right now and I can't remember specifics but it happens a lot. Maybe I can edit this post later today, when I am home and can try and find an example.
 
As Tim van Beek said (I think in the other thread, it very much depends on your definition of what is considered a plot hole. His is just so much wider than mine that we don't see eye to eye on a lot of issues. I suspect that you have a different perspective on it though.
 
 

Again, the Catalyst's premise isn't that they might, it's that they will. But the Geth would have been eliminated without Reaper intervention.

But the catalysts point is not that the Geth specifically will be the AI that destroys organics, just that there will be one AI at some point that will do it. And if you presume that he can wait infinitely long, I suppose there is no way to disprove him because "might" and "will" are equivalent.

The premise is of course meaningless because you could just as well use any other reason instead of AIs but you will not be able to disprove the hypothesis.

[Natureguy85]

 But the catalysts point is not that the Geth specifically will be the AI that destroys organics, just that there will be one AI at some point that will do it. And if you presume that he can wait infinitely long, I suppose there is no way to disprove him because "might" and "will" are equivalent.

The premise is of course meaningless because you could just as well use any other reason instead of AIs but you will not be able to disprove the hypothesis.

 

The Catalyst specifically says "The Created will always rebel against their creators..."  [Emphasis added] The Geth did not violently rebel against . EDI did not rebel against organics generally, though she did rebel against her Cerberus creators in a way. Now, rebellion does not automatically mean violence, but then the Catalyst jumps to Synthetics will wipe out all life. These are connected, not separate points. Additionally, the Rannoch Reaper uses the fight between Quarians and Geth