2390 réponses à ce sujet

[angol fear]

@Natureguy85, ok then you can explain in few words what is "good writing". And please don't do the copy-paste link to an article about "Show don't tell" or something like that.Explain it with your own words, even if you have to explain "show don't tell".

[Natureguy85]

Depending on the playthrough, no one will tell Joker its time to go. It shows Joker moving his elbow quickly behind him just like when someone is telling him to leave.

 

https://youtu.be/ob8EfDMxwtY?t=50s

 

Yeah, I've seen that. It's the ghost of Presley. Or maybe he feels Samantha Traynor staring at him.

[gothpunkboy89]

Yep, I also agree. Synthesis is either even more horrible as it is portrayed already (i.e. to really solve anything for good, it would have to massively alter the behavior of every living being) or it doesn't really solve anything.

The same goes by the way for the other two endings as well.

 

 

Yea, this is what makes the ending so insanely stupid for me. The problem is framed as this big galactic issue that everyone would have to worry about. It is described as the fate of all organics is hanging in the balance. But if you stop to think about it, it's really only the catalyst's own problem that we need to solve. Once his "win condition" is fulfilled, it doesn't matter anymore what the future will actually look like. This is what makes the downsides of the choices so outrageous. I could probably even live with wiping out the geth IF I'd feel like the reason why I am doing it is actually important and I can get behind it. As it is however, I - as in the player/audience - feel like I am doing this just to satisfy the completely insane demands of a broken mind (i.e. the catalyst).

 

It's like at the end of Wolfenstein, Hitler would say: "I have a button here to blow up the world. To prevent it, you need to choose:

1. Destroy me but also destroy all Jews

2. Merge with me and together we'll take command of my soldiers to keep order in the Reich, which will now span the entire world, no exceptions or choice for anyone (though you may transform it into a more benign dictatorship if you like)

or 3. Use my Gene-Machine (developed by Dr. Komplettverrückt) to give everyone arian genes.

So what's it gonna be?"

 

Sorry to go all Godwin's Law on you guys here but it is the best comparison I can think of (with the major difference being that Hitler is established better in Wolfenstein before the final 10 minutes than the catalyst is in Mass Effect ). This is not about saving the galaxy anymore (at least not in the way the catalyst thinks). We have to accommodate the delusions of some crazy guy with a big weapon at our heads and an ideology that we cannot stand behind. And people seriously wonder why this ending is upsetting people?

 

 

Doesn't have to alter the behavior ot every living being. Just war mongering, genocidal rage machines that want to keep up the continual cycle of violence because they know nothing but it. Like everyone's least favorite Krogan Wrev and the fact he wants to continue the cycle of violence with the Krogan that has only lead to their continual decline and would result in their complete extinction under his leadership.  The Catalyst stops caring because the problem that it was created to solve has been solved. There could and most likely will be other problems but that is that. And in every choice you have at least the potential to solve those problems. How ever you don't complain about a polio vaccine not being able to do anything about swine flu. Different problem means different solution.

 

It is a big galactic issue everyone should worry about the problem is it is an issue you don't see coming until it is to late. Only people or things that exist after it comes to a head realize the problem. This set up has existed in small ways over and over again. To track down Bin Laden they used volunteers who were in the area giving vaccinations against polio and such. During said vaccine they would take a sample of DNA using that to trace his location back. Now this was only a little small issue. How ever once what happened got back to the area the already suspicious residents turned against them. Attacking and refusing to vaccinate against diseases like polio. Even groups like the Taliban that previously left them more or less alone started going after them bombing clinics. So not only do you have the loss of life of the doctors simply trying to eradicate a curable disease that can have horrible life altering effects if infected. But you also have any collateral casualties of the attack and the continued sickness and death form a completely curable disease because of the fear and suspicion that has been completely proven by that one act.

 

I would call that a colossal **** up that is only seen after it was to late.

 

But your not given a gene machine and turning everyone into arian genes. Why do people continue to make this assumption everyone becomes the same? Integrating synthetics into an organic body isn't the same as making everyone blonde hair and blue eyed with ideology that they were superior to every other version of humanity ever. When you make that comparison it really only weakens your own points.

 

The only character shown to have any personality change is Wrev. The blood thirsty war lord that wants to lead the Krogan in another war to grind the rest of the galaxy under their heel. And because he changed this is some how proof  that everyone was some how radically altered from who they originally were? Applying this logic to literally anything the Catalyst says or does means it is telling the truth 100%. And no one can question the logic of it.

 

I find this cherry picking of game logic rather odd. And this isn't direct just at you but with everyone. One moment people are complaining that the catalyst has no proof of the conflict save for the first cycle. And that it has no proof besides that one example. Cut to synthesis ending and one blood thirsty sociopath changes and suddenly it is all the proof needed to claim synthesis is a horrible thing that changes and alters everyone's personalities.

 

One example isn't enough proof when don't want that logic to be good. But one example is more then enough proof when you want something to say what you want.

[Ithurael]

@Natureguy85, ok then you can explain in few words what is "good writing". And please don't do the copy-paste link to an article about "Show don't tell" or something like that.Explain it with your own words, even if you have to explain "show don't tell".

 

Why explain in his own words when he can cite his sources and explain in examples like a rational person?

 

Citing our source information is perfectly fine and, in fact, encouraged. This is a great way to disseminate objective fact from opinions, especially when dealing with discussions where biases (especially cognitive biases) could potentially be present. And, I am pretty sure you have been shown over and over again many examples, links, citations, etc of what good (competent) writing is Angol.

 

Edit: I kind of get that you want to see the "base line" or source of his arguments, however this - potentially the most important part - is an imperative that requires a source or some kind. This way we can trace the source information back. How do we know he isn't using some crazy Post Modernist Pseduo-Intellectualist Blog post written by a person who thinks they are really a duck crossed with Benjamin Franklin and a dragon?

 

Good to see you're back, we missed you.

[MrFob]

@gothpunkboy89: You didn't read the previous posts I answered to/lead to mine, did you? (actually, I think you did, you just choose to focus on the post in isolation so that it that fits with your counter argument.)

On synthesis, please read this thread and this (really old) thread to see why I think it's either completely horrible (and ironically again going into 3rd Reich territory, though that is coincidence) or doesn't solve anything at all.

 

Also, the Wolfenstein/Hitler comparison wasn't about the arian genes directly, it was about how we commit horrible acts simply to accommodate one lunatic's delusions in order to prevent them from destroying the world/galaxy. Please read the post again.

 

Side note: the catalyst doesn't have proof even from the first cycle.

[Dantriges]

 

Citing our source information is perfectly fine and, in fact, encouraged. This is a great way to disseminate objective fact from opinions, especially when dealing with discussions where biases (especially cognitive biases) could potentially be present. And, I am pretty sure you have been shown over and over again many examples, links, citations, etc of what good (competent) writing is Angol.

 

Yeah, it´s not like it´s unusual that quotation or mentioning your sources are required, when debating in the soft sciences.

 

Anyways he did it himself when trying to prove that lying isn´t the same as lying by omission.

[gothpunkboy89]

@ Natureguy

 

Yes the Reapers see it as salvation the same way countless groups that have done actions generally considered questionable of not down right bad have seen their actions. Hell ISIS feels their actions are for the betterment of Muslim or at least their specific group of them.  People discriminate against other people based on religion, skin color, geographical location, sexual orientation or political party all the time. It is always done with the belief that their actions will ultimately provide the greater good for their group.

 

In the case with the Reapers they are presenting salvation to the human race. Free from pain, hunger, disease, and even death. By every definition that is salvation as it is usually considered. And short of the religious parts lines up fairly close to what most would consider their afterlife. And much like every thought of the afterlife that isn't you die and that is the end of things. It requires your death to achieve it.  Nothing is every gained without some sort of sacrifice. 

 

While they never go into specifics of how the Reaper mind is formed. I see it as each person that is harvested has it's body broken down into it's base elements. Their mind, their experiences and knowledge is saved and turned into the equivalent of a synapse in our own mind. As they harvest billions of people the more synapses develop the countless consciousness form to create a brand new one. More powerful and free from the weaknesses the ones used to create it suffer from.

 

The Catalyst things it is failing because of the large amount of Reapers destroyed so far in this Cycle. The more information is passed to the next one the more prepared they can be and the tougher the fight for them. If more get destroyed then are created during a cycle it becomes a Pyrrhic victory. The AI will win the battle but ultimately lose the war so to speak. At that point the conflict will happen and it's entire existence will have been pointless. There is no doubt the AI wants Shepard to choose Synthesis how ever if that was all it wanted then it would and could have simply lied and stated that jumping into the beam is the only way to stop the Reapers.

 

So you acknowledge one conflict but deny another conflict? I think this qualifies as cherry picking ideas, thoughts and concepts that suits you but ignoring the ones that don't. Organic and Synthetic conflict is centered around the basic fact that organics will eventually develop an entirely new race or races that are capable of surpassing them in every way shape and form. And if you think about it it is also based on control. Organics as is shown in all races both in the fictional game and real world want to have some measure of control over their surroundings and their own life. Synthetics developing to and beyond organics represents a significant shift in control away from organics and to synthetics. Suddenly they are only second fiddle to a overly complicated washing machine. To regain control they have to put the synthetics back in their place so to speak. That causes conflict. Organics was to reassert their sense of control while Synthetics do not want to be controlled any longer.

 

That is also the reason I feel the Quaraian Geth conflicted happened. The Geth were evolving on their own and they were slowly losing control of them. So they reacted by trying to destroy them as a means to retain their control. Geth didn't want to be destroyed nor controlled wanting to make their own future so they fought back. From that moment on the Quarians looked towards the one bright point for them. That one day they would be able to return to Rannoch and either wipe out the Geth or take control of them once again regaining the control they lost.

 

No single system is perfect and when you deal in absolutes it creates an even more imperfect system. I would dare say the USA is far far from a utopia setting. Despite what some close minded ninnies who have never been farther then the next state might say. There are many ideas and concepts that could be integrated into the US culture from all over the world. Did you know Japan has a legally required minimum leave for work of 10 days. You are legally required to be able to take off at least 10 days a year. The USA has 0 days. And that is just the lower count other countries like Germany have 30 days. And this isn't counting Health Care or other things. Everyone loves to hate Hitler for his actions and they are 110% earned. How ever everyone likes to ignore the fact that Germany want from a massive economic depression. The point their money was practically worthless and rebuild it into an economy that was able to instigate and sustain a war the the rest of Europe for a few years. Had some of his....less enjoyable traits. To put it nicely were not so dominant, history might have remembered him as a great leader rather then the scum bag he is known form.

 

 

My point about people inherently not being able to accept their deaths as necessary you only manged to prove my point completely. The fact that people would prefer not to take that path and would rather spend generation after generation hunting down the bad people who keep showing up with every generation resulting in more and more deaths.  Just proves everything I was stating. This is why the Reapers do not ask, do not plead and do not attempt to negotiate with the species in each cycle. They are incapable of accepting what needs to be done and are treated the same way an adult would treat a 5 year old who doesn't want to eat her veggies.

 

No I back up points from the game with examples from the real world. There is a very important difference between that and someone on one hand claiming conflict isn't inevitable. But at the same time claiming that it is inevitable we develop along specific lines due to the Reapers leaving behind Relays. I can't image there are more then 1 maybe 2 ways to break the laws of physics in the way mass effect technology does. But this extends into other things as well. The continual claim there is no proof of the synthetic organic conflict besides that one example in the past. Is used time and time again by people as proof it is false. Yet the one example of a homicidal manic Wrev being changed into a non homicidal maniac. Is more then enough proof to pull out the torches and pitch forks and declare that everything involved with synesthetic ending is proof of some mass brain washing.

 

I've shown a great deal of critical thinking.  You on the other hand have taken the simplistic and rather childish approach of taking everything said. Comparing it to what you think and then declaring anything that doesn't line up with what you think 100% means it is pure garbage. You continue to attempt to justify your dislike by arguing against anything that might fix or correct a mistake in the story. The entire post you have trying to argue against the very simple and game supported logic about the events leading up to the beam run and the events that take place really only prove this point more.  Nothing I stated is some wild head cannon supported by 0 events in game. Everything I stated is backed up by simple knowledge of what happened during the events of the game. Talk to Primarch Victus before Priority Tuchunka and he will mention how he is getting daily casualty reports in the millions. And that is still very very early on in the game. By the time Priority Earth comes to pass the galaxy is short on man power, short on supplies and are gambling everything. Not only do they have to deal with one if not the largest Reaper fleet in orbit. But they also have to land troops and equipment though enemy held territories. Then strike fast enough to open a path before the Reaper forces can converge on them. Added onto that suck salad they have to get it done ASAP while the Fleets are still in one piece in orbit to protect the Crucible. If that gets destroyed then everything they have done up to that point and everything after will be meaningless.

 

This effect your show don't tell complaint. They showed this fact countless times in the game. Yet players ignore it so they can complain about why wasn't X or Y done instead. Bioware shows us the information needed plenty of times. How ever people ignore it if it isn't what they want to see or hear. Every single thing I've ever said is based entirely on information provided in game. Though lines of dialogue or moments happening in game. They show and tell everything that needs to be shown and told. It is up to the player to grasp what they are being shown and told. And no story writer can help people blatantly ignoring what they are being shown and told. It isn't Bioware's fault you complain so much. It is your own.

[gothpunkboy89]

@gothpunkboy89: You didn't read the previous posts I answered to/lead to mine, did you? (actually, I think you did, you just choose to focus on the post in isolation so that it that fits with your counter argument.)

On synthesis, please read this thread and this (really old) thread to see why I think it's either completely horrible (and ironically again going into 3rd Reich territory, though that is coincidence) or doesn't solve anything at all.

 

Also, the Wolfenstein/Hitler comparison wasn't about the arian genes directly, it was about how we commit horrible acts simply to accommodate one lunatic's delusions in order to prevent them from destroying the world/galaxy. Please read the post again.

 

 

I did read it and my responds stays the same. Synthesis was never set up as a cure all problem. The AI was never created to solve all conflict. Hence my vaccine example. It was created to solve one very specific problem.

 

The core issue with the O v S conflict is the fact that synthetics will be able in time to completely surpass their creators. Synthesis advances organic life to be on an equal footing with synthetics again. If one does not surpass the other then conflict is averted.

 

What do you define as a horrible act? Because there are numbers examples of one person or group influencing and changing what another group deals with. Because democracy is 51% of the population enforcing their ideas/opinions on the remaining 49%.

[Ithurael]

Yeah, it´s not like it´s unusual that quotation or mentioning your sources are required, when debating in the soft sciences.

 

Anyways he did it himself when trying to prove that lying isn´t the same as lying by omission.

 

While I will say that the more "liberal" fields of study may not rely on data sourcing as much as others (at least in terms of discussion) I would state that the standard is still applicable as i do remember time and time again having to cite the character, page, and line of every damn Shakespeare play I was referencing when I was in college writing papers for my Lit classes.

 

And to the second part...what? Wait..where?

[MrFob]

I did read it and my responds stays the same. Synthesis was never set up as a cure all problem. The AI was never created to solve all conflict. Hence my vaccine example. It was created to solve one very specific problem.
 
The core issue with the O v S conflict is the fact that synthetics will be able in time to completely surpass their creators. Synthesis advances organic life to be on an equal footing with synthetics again. If one does not surpass the other then conflict is averted.

That's pretty much what I am saying. Yes, within the insane AI mind of the catalyst, the choices may satisfy its own arbitrary win condition but it doesn't solve anything in the relation to the real (Mass Effect) world because a) there is no indication that there even is a problem in the real world and b ) even if we assume the creator-created problem is real, the choices only offer some short term band-aid at best, certainly not a solution (which is impossible anyway as far I can see, see link 2 from the last post).

 

The story doesn't provide any indication that our choice satisfies a tangible need of the galaxy but it gives us every indication that by choosing, we are just satisfying the petty needs of the catalyst itself (which unfortunately has the power to hold the galaxy at gunpoint). Thus my previous comparison.
 

What do you define as a horrible act? Because there are numbers examples of one person or group influencing and changing what another group deals with. Because democracy is 51% of the population enforcing their ideas/opinions on the remaining 49%.

 
Read the first two pages in the first link.

[Natureguy85]

@Natureguy85, ok then you can explain in few words what is "good writing". And please don't do the copy-paste link to an article about "Show don't tell" or something like that.Explain it with your own words, even if you have to explain "show don't tell".

Why explain in his own words when he can cite his sources and explain in examples like a rational person?

Citing our source information is perfectly fine and, in fact, encouraged. This is a great way to disseminate objective fact from opinions, especially when dealing with discussions where biases (especially cognitive biases) could potentially be present. And, I am pretty sure you have been shown over and over again many examples, links, citations, etc of what good (competent) writing is Angol.

Edit: I kind of get that you want to see the "base line" or source of his arguments, however this - potentially the most important part - is an imperative that requires a source or some kind. This way we can trace the source information back. How do we know he isn't using some crazy Post Modernist Pseduo-Intellectualist Blog post written by a person who thinks they are really a duck crossed with Benjamin Franklin and a dragon?

Good to see you're back, we missed you.

Actually, I understand Angol's request. He wants my own words to show I understand these things rather than just parroting them. I can appreciate that. I do it all the time when I discuss politics and philosophy. I already do this with other topics so it's no problem here.

On the other hand I also supplement with links and sources. This provides additional info on a website rather than making posts even longer. Maybe someone just says it better than I can. However, more importantly and particularly fitting to this debate, these won't be my original ideas. I'm not the first to figure these things out. I read and studied and learned from others.

I'll actually do it when i get back to a keyboard, but I wanted to address that.

[gothpunkboy89]

That's pretty much what I am saying. Yes, within the insane AI mind of the catalyst, the choices may satisfy its own arbitrary win condition but it doesn't solve anything in the relation to the real (Mass Effect) world because a) there is no indication that there even is a problem in the real world and b ) even if we assume the creator-created problem is real, the choices only offer some short term band-aid at best, certainly not a solution (which is impossible anyway as far I can see, see link 2 from the last post).

 

The story doesn't provide any indication that our choice satisfies a tangible need of the galaxy but it gives us every indication that by choosing, we are just satisfying the petty needs of the catalyst itself (which unfortunately has the power to hold the galaxy at gunpoint). Thus my previous comparison.
 

 
Read the first two pages in the first link.

 

There is an indication that it is a problem. The problem stems from people seeing only what they want to see. This is something no story writer can cure. Much in the same way people read Lord of the Rings and think it some how advocates what was it again? Segregation of different races if I remember right. Which ignores the fact the book focuses on the various races coming together as one to repel and ultimately defeat Sauron. The part that really hammers this home is the friendship that develops between Gimli and Legolas. Which includes the fact that Gimli was allowed to follow Legolas to the Undying Lands. Which if you know anything about LotR lore is a pretty damn big deal for a Dwarf. Since the Dwarfs are basically the unwanted step children of the Valar.

 

It isn't a cure all for everything. If you are basing your argument off of simply the fact it will not fix every issue right away that is rather.....silly to put it nicely. For peace to happen you have to be in position that peace could be an option. When one side is a super intelligent, super powerful super advanced AI race and the other side is simply an advanced organic race. Not really room for peace since if they so choose to the AI race could do a fair job of wiping out the organic race. Seriously the Geth during the morning war clearly held all the cards rather then continue to push for peace they simply choose to kill as many Quarians until they were no longer a threat. After the war rather then responding to the diplomats the Council sends they enforce their isolation by the simple set up of killing any non Geth that enter their territory. Even the Batarians were more more cordial with Humans and the Council when they left. As they at least told everyone to stay away or risk being killed.

 

The Geth spared the Quarians because they were unsure of the consequences of killing an entire race. The Quarians on the other hand were waiting for the right time to attack the Geth again. They would have eventually fought them in a war to the death of one side or the other. That second fight would do a fairly good job of convincing the Geth organics are not good and not to be trusted.  The only reason things turn out as they did is because of the Reaper invasion and the threat they posed to all sides. You would have to be incredibly petty or the galaxy's stupidest race to not realize the size and scope of the threat and the need to work together to face it. Even if working together simply means that you won't shoot at anyone but Reapers.

 

In a rather ironic way the Reaper's who harvest all organic and synthetic life to prevent conflict managed to prevent conflict by their mere existence for a short time anyways. And that is assuming you choose the peace options between Geth and Quarian. If you don't go that route then you only solidify the fact that conflict exists as one group will be killed off.

 

I'd rather not go diving after your replies. Copy and paste if you want I don't mind. I'd prefer to have a bit of proof of what I'm speaking against then pulling a post from another topic to talk about.

[angol fear]

Yeah, it´s not like it´s unusual that quotation or mentioning your sources are required, when debating in the soft sciences.

 

Anyways he did it himself when trying to prove that lying isn´t the same as lying by omission.

 

The first time we talked you, I said that synthetics don't lie and you tried to show me that that they can tell lies. I never said that they couldn't lie. Then you and Monica couldn't understand that lying by omission wasn't a lie. Do you remember ? I explained it then I saw that you couldn't understand it so I used a source. And here, I never said that I never used quotations. Where did you get that? Once again you're not reading, you're interpreting the way you want what is on your screen.

 

 

Why explain in his own words when he can cite his sources and explain in examples like a rational person?

 

Citing our source information is perfectly fine and, in fact, encouraged. This is a great way to disseminate objective fact from opinions, especially when dealing with discussions where biases (especially cognitive biases) could potentially be present. And, I am pretty sure you have been shown over and over again many examples, links, citations, etc of what good (competent) writing is Angol.

 

Edit: I kind of get that you want to see the "base line" or source of his arguments, however this - potentially the most important part - is an imperative that requires a source or some kind. This way we can trace the source information back. How do we know he isn't using some crazy Post Modernist Pseduo-Intellectualist Blog post written by a person who thinks they are really a duck crossed with Benjamin Franklin and a dragon?

 

Good to see you're back, we missed you.

 

Sorry, I'm not really back. Still got a lot of work to do.

I've never said that in the discussion there will not be any quotation. I want to avoid the Timvanbeek syndrome : to quote something that he never read, then when you explain that it's impossible to be understood the way he said, he interprets it in a ridiculous way, and doesn't see any problem. The quotation added a problem that he didn't see because of his ignorance (when you don't know the Greek culture and you put the our moral on this culture, that's being ignorant). That's why I want the essential : I want what he says to be what he thinks with his own logic.

Anyway it's interesting to see who liked your post (and I know why they liked it).

 

Actually, I understand Angol's request. He wants my own words to show I understand these things rather than just parroting them. I can appreciate that. I do it all the time when I discuss politics and philosophy. I already do this with other topics so it's no problem here.

On the other hand I also supplement with links and sources. This provides additional info on a website rather than making posts even longer. Maybe someone just says it better than I can. However, more importantly and particularly fitting to this debate, these won't be my original ideas. I'm not the first to figure these things out. I read and studied and learned from others.

I'll actually do it when i get back to a keyboard, but I wanted to address that.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I want.

Thank you.

[MrFob]

@gothpunkboy89:

You know, at this point, if at the end of LotR, there would have been one more scene where a super Istari would have shown up at the grey havens and congratulated Frodo, Gandalf and the others to a job well done on race segregation, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if I’d find you arguing here that it was the theme all along.

So, let’s talk facts: The problem – as the catalyst states it – is that “the created will always rebel against their creators” and that in the case of AI, this will eventually lead to the complete destruction of organic life all over the galaxy.

Now, let’s go through the AIs we’ve seen or heard of in this story (by time of existence):
- The AIs before the cycles, that lead the Leviathans to make the catalyst. They were never a threat to organic life since the Leviathans were the apex race. They were just a threat to the Leviathan’s minions/worshipers.
Note: these were added after the ending was made in the first place as retro-active corroborating evidence by the writers. This indicates already that even the writers themselves agree with me. And even that attempt to fix things up for the catalyst after the fact didn't really work out.
- The reapers and the catalyst themselves: Now we have an AI that was strong enough to wipe out the Leviathans and yet, they preserve life instead of destroying it
- The zha’til: Even Javik, the anti-synthetic propaganda man admits that the protheans were winning the war when the reapers came -> Threat to all organics is doubtful
- The geth_ Really? You are going to use them as your prime example for the validity of the catalysts claims? Narratively (and also logically) they are the prime counter indication to the catalyst’s assumptions. They were brutal in the morning war, yes and they are again brutal in their self preservation attempts in ME3 but they are very clearly not a threat to all organic life in the galaxy. Even when they are enemies, their goals are not going at this at all. And even if they were, given their evolution and level of technology even after 300 years of existence didn’t surpass anyone, so they could never kill everyone even if they wanted to. But they don’t, they want to coexist. They are the antithesis of the catalysts conundrum (and they are by far the most prominent AI shown, next to EDI). How anyone can argue that the geth make a point for the catalyst is seriously beyond me. At best, a catalyst-defender can dismiss them as ignorable but what you try to argue there makes no sense whatsoever. As a side note, I want to add that I am talking about what actually happened and how the story portrays it (and ME3 especially does everything in its power to cast the geth in the victim role, to the point where it gets annoying). You on the other hand imagine some possible fridge logic future scenario, just like the catalyst does.
- The gambling AI on the Citadel in ME1: This is one of the best indications why AI are no more a threat than any other thing you may pull out of your hat actually: This AI had access to a network, even the extranet and it couldn’t do a thing (certainly not more than any pissed off organic could do). I’ll get back to the well defined restrictions of AI in the ME universe later but this is one example where it was established how similar synthetics and organics are in their capabilities.
- EDI: Again a prominent AI, that is an antithesis to the catalyst’s assumptions. Need I explain this? She works with organics, sees them as friends, has serious restrictions in her ability to inflict damage even if she wanted to and is narratively the prime example why AIs are not so different from organics after all.

- The virtual aliens: Technically, these are not true AIs but uploaded minds, still they work like AIs now and they are no threat to anybody. In fact, they are highly vulnerable.

 

Now that we have gone through all the examples, there are also more theoretical concepts in the story that serve as indications of why AIs pose no global threat to the galaxy:
- AIs are mortal: Destroy their quantum bluebox and they are dead
- AIs are not capable of running outside very specific hardware (again, the bluebox), they cannot just copy themselves and spread through a network. They have bodies that can be killed (examples are EDI, the Citadel AI, the geth in their hubs, pretty much any AI really)
- They are very intelligent and have very fast reaction times but they are not evolving or learning much faster than organics. The geth couldn’t achieve much in 300 years for example. Even the reapers didn't really evolve, although they had a billion years or so. Also the codex states that AIs need an expensive and time consuming education.
- They are not infallible: EDI says that AIs cannot predict the slight errors introduced by organic minds (this is why Joker is the better pilot) and therefore, the outcome of any engagement between organics and synthetics puts them on fairly even ground. Also, in the entire story organics win every single hostile encounter with AIs, every one, even the ones where the player is not around (the quarians beat the crap out of the geth before the reaper upgrades force a stalemate). Now you may argue that this is game logic, yadda yadda but even within the game logic, we are forced to loose some ather fights like Kai Leng on Thessia, etc. but never against AIs. In terms of narrative, this has to send a clear message, even to someone who really doesn’t want to hear.

 

There are also counter indications in the story to the point that any race - synthetic or not - would be able to eradicate life in the galaxy forever as well:

- From the planet descriptions, organic life evolves sooner or later on any planet that has remotely favorable conditions and those are a lot. Just in the few dozen systems we visit, more than half of them have planets with some form of indigenous life on them. Also from the descriptions, organic life seems to evolve fairly commonly  in terms of time (a bunch of new races every 50.000 years should be evidence enough of that and here we are just talking about advanced civilizations). So the task of setting up a “sterile” galaxy would be colossal and require constant galaxy wide maintenance.
- Even the reapers, the most advanced AIs y far do not have the resources to maintain the galaxy in this way. The Leviathans coud hide, the Protheans could hide, the Crucible data could be hidden. All this, the reapers did not want and yet, it happened and here we are talking about very rare and specific things, not something as ubiquitous as organic life as a whole

 

So, those are all counter indications in the story (the ones I can think of from the top of my head anyway). Now, I’d like to hear one indication that the catalyst is correct in his assumption that comes before the ending, just one clear and present one. I can’t think of one and believe me, I’ve tried. Counter to your representation of me, I’d really like for these endings to be more coherent but it just doesn’t happen.

So, if AIs are not the problem and never were more than an inconvenience (on a galactic scale) in the past, than we go back to this just being the misguided directive of the Leviathans, somehow implanted into the catalyst’s mind but it’s divorced from reality, at least in this story. Hence the Wolfenstein comparison and hence I stand by my point that we are addressing an issue at the end of the trilogy which simply is not tangible at all.
Also, hence my further conclusion that - since AIs are not a tangible issue - the catalyst should go further in his creator-created premise if he wants to keep any validity in the justification for the cycles, which then leads to the problems I stated/linked above.

[gothpunkboy89]

-Any smart ruler keeps the best for themselves and provides their servants with just enough to keep themselves happy. If Reapers represent the tech level Leviathan's had it is safe to say the thrall races were closer to in game level of tech. It is kind of how you keep groups like that from rebelling. Particularly since this cycle was able to find a way to block the orb artifacts signal. And lets be honest this set up is pretty standard if you are an dictator, a benevolent ruler or any shade between the two. Only the Samurai who were usually some form of noble man were able to carry swords, peasants got hunting bows and leather armor while nobles got metal armor and cross bows, Britain restricted gun and gun powder manufacturing in the colonies and the US government doesn't give access to missiles, drones or any heavy weaponry that is accessible to the US military. 

 

But just because the synthetics threatened the thrall races doesn't mean the threat wasn't possible to grow. Invasive species both plant and animals start as a small problem only really effecting the fellow plants and animals. How ever they have the potential to grow in size and scale of the problem till we are effected. The Cane Toad in Australia is a fairly good example of that. They have spread so far and so wide they kill off native creatures due to their poison and eat beneficial insects like dung beetles. With out them doing their job cleaning up cow patties  as nature intended it can effect cattle for human consumption by increase the spread of illness among the herds.

 

-Because it's directive was to preserve organic life above all else. Leviathan wanted to solve the problem but were not stupid making sure the AI would always be on their side. They saw it as a tool for themselves and made sure their tool would be looking out for their best interests.

 

-Protheans were only winning by uniting the entire organic galaxy against them. This is stacking the deck in their favor. This was also only possible due to the Relays left behind by the Reapers to allow the Protheans to do that. Other wise it would have been Protheans alone who make first contact and would have to fight them alone. Even if the tech level remains unchanged without the Relay Network the Protheans would have been facing them alone and would have lost. Lack of man power and resources if nothing else.

 

-Geth are the best example there is. Geth were viewed as tools by the Quarians. As soon as the Geth started to grow out of the Qurian's control many decided to try and destroy them because they made the tool they can break them. Geth responded by nearly committing Genocide on the Quarians and enforcing isolation by killing anyone who gets to close. This made the Quarians the pariahs of the galaxy which lead the simmering hate of the Geth to fester and grow.  At the start of ME1 the Geth are feared by every organic race and hated by the Quarians who are looking for some way to be able to retake their home world and wipe out or reprogram the Geth back to simple VI servants.  Everything that happens from ME 1 and later is the result of Reaper interference. Things were heading one way then the Reapers stick their tentacles in and altered the events from their original path.

 

This is the main problem I see every time someone wants to argue that the Geth represent the Catalyst being wrong. They don't take into account just how much the Reapers showing up alters the course of events in the game world. Even though they see those events happen and how things are altered they still do not comprehend the changes that happened.  Clockwork in the TV series Danny Phantom best sums this up as such:

 

Clockwork: [switching to adult form] The Observants look at time like they're watching a parade, one thing after another passing by.in sequence right in front of them. [he gestures down at the wrecked Nasty Burger]  I see the parade from above, all the twists and turns it might [switches to old form] or might not take. [he winks]

 

You and other players are the observers you only watch the passage in sequence right in front of you. You never stop to think about the path the parade can and will take. This is chaos theory pure and simple. That no one takes into account in the slightest. The Catalyst is looking at the world WITHOUT Reapers and what would happen. You are looking at a world WITH Reapers and the side effect of their interference. Then claiming the Catalyst is wrong. Not only are you not on the same page but you aren't even in the same genre of books. This is an incredibly simplistic logic that seems to elude so many people.

 

Geth's advancements are hindered by their very nature. It takes hundreds of programs working together to create even the simpleness of intelligence. A single Geth Platform can hold ~ 107 geth programs. When isolated it becomes more feral and animalistic then when they are in a group networking together. The entire point of a Prime unit is to hold a larger number of programs in a more durable shells to act as an intelligence booster to standard Geth Platforms.  This weakness means to improve themselves requires a large sum of Geth networked together which runs into storage limitations. Which is the entire point they were trying to create the Dyson Sphere. This is an issue that is addressed and corrected if you side with the Geth or make peace.  Which means their one major handicap is now removed. If you were to some how swap the upgraded Geth with the Geth just after the Morning War and give them the same 300 years of time to advance they would have been drastically different then what you see in game.

 

-Gambling AI was only given access to a power junction in which to defend it's self an attempt to kill Shepard. What it really wanted was a ship. Were it given a ship armed with weaponry it would have been a much more formidable threat.

 

- EDI is but one example. The claim that it some how represents all possible views and incarnations of AI's is just as stupid as claiming that I represent all possible views and incarnations of humans. If aliens ever show up all they will need to do is talk to me to fully understand all of humanity. If that sounds as stupid to you as it does to me then you should realize how asinine that point you are trying to use is. Liara is not the singular embodiment of every Asari. Wrex is not the singular embodiment of every Krogan. Garrus is not the singular embodiment of every Turian. That Mordin is not the singular embodiment of every Salarian.  You are here directly making the claim because EDI a singular AI acts one way it means all other AI's that follow will be the exact same path. Which is a lot like saying all Asari act exactly like Liara or all humans act exactly like TIM. It is a level of idiocy so profound in it's statement that there isn't any word that has been invited yet to describe it.  By this very logic every child ever born should be exact copies of their parents. But even the vaguest most half assed attempt to look at this would prove other wise. There are similarities that can be passed down true enough. But every child is unique. There are kids I know who were raised by terrible parents who are now parents themselves and are great ones. As well as ones raised by great parents who are now terrible ones. I was born into a rather religious house hold my mother is very religious. I how ever am not. My younger sister is or at least was semi religious. My parents dated for 5 years before they were engaged and became pregnant with me. My younger sister dated her boyfriend for 2 years and has already had a kid. They are only just getting married after the baby is almost a year old.

 

Life in all it's forms is far to complex for anyone to claim 1 example can or will represent everything of that group.

 

-Stab a human in it's heart and they die to. That hasn't prevented humanity from spreading across the galaxy either. And much like humans it is possible to construct things around the blue box to prevent damage. Organic's call it body armor. Rather effective in preventing the soft squishy bits from being damage so easily.

 

-AI's can create the specialized bodies needed to house their programing. I seem to recall EDI gaining a hold of another AI's body and using it as her own as well as controlling the Normandy during the events of ME3. Not to mention every single Geth we ever meet is in the mobile platform created specifically to hold their programming. They wouldn't have to copy anything they would simply create a new one using the exact same process that created them.  Organic's have a body that can be killed. Yet they seem to be ever where in the game.  A key difference is they can create platforms that can be remote controlled and if destroyed it would take hours or even days to replace. Mean while it takes months just to birth a baby and years for them to grow to the point they can fight.

 

You might notice this as the very set up the Geth used to over whelm the Quarians. Wave after wave of mobile platforms being cut down and they simply switched to another mass produced one and continued on.

 

-Costly learning due to the fact organic's are the ones teaching. Organics and synthetics think in a fundamentally different way. The best analogy for this would be having someone who isn't a native or even fluent in the same language as you as a teacher. Yes they could still pass on the information but it would be slow and difficult.  It is more complex then that but it is a fair simplification of the issue.  I already explained about the Geth and their handicap above.

 

-They don't have to be infallible. If that is your argument then you have nothing. They can how ever react at speeds we are incapable of. Think about it a ship's radar picks up something. The computer runs it though it's programing then displays the result to the operator. That operator then needs to react to it. Forwarding the data to the Captain or Helmsman so they can then react to it. This creates time gaps that grow ever so slightly. They might be tiny for us but for a computer it is fairly long gaps.  If you have ever watched Mythbusters this is shown more then once as they test their myths. Like wen they set up a system that triggered a pistol to fire then triggered their dummy hand to activate at speeds no human is possible to react to in an attempt to prove the myth of Ninja's being able to swap bullets out of the sky. Which is obviously false. The ability to analyze and react at speeds no organic body is capable of doing is all the advantage they need. When you combine that with their ability to process information quickly a group of AI's working together would be able to out think or at least out react any organic group that would still require massive time gaps by AI standards to pass and comprehend information. EDI shows this off particularly when dealing with the Collector General who it's self is an AI of sorts. The entire reason TIM added EDI to the Normandy was specifically for this point. The Geth display this as well not only with their inability to be hacked for more then a few seconds. But also with every non protagonist facing moment were they out smart anyone they are facing. Only Shepard is immune to that effect.

[MrFob]

Wow, that was a long post. Unfortunately, in its entirety, you keep projecting possibilities into a hypothetic (and in most cases already disproved) future, just like the catalyst does. Most of your possible futures need several paragraphs of excuses to even become half way feasible. My entire point was about indications that are actually in the story and therefore narratively effective in anchoring the catalyst's arguments in the story's reality, rather than divorcing the two. I haven't seen one of those in your post.

 

I am sorry I keep insisting on things that are in the story and not made up by you but since the author of the trilogy had the choice to put into the story whatever they wanted and since they didn't choose to put your imaginations in, I'm afraid they really don't count for anything.
 
The only paragraph of consequence I can see is this one:

You and other players are the observers you only watch the passage in sequence right in front of you. You never stop to think about the path the parade can and will take. This is chaos theory pure and simple. That no one takes into account in the slightest. The Catalyst is looking at the world WITHOUT Reapers and what would happen. You are looking at a world WITH Reapers and the side effect of their interference. Then claiming the Catalyst is wrong. Not only are you not on the same page but you aren't even in the same genre of books. This is an incredibly simplistic logic that seems to elude so many people.

 
This is exactly the problem of this story and it's ending. Outside of the ending, the story does make a couple of implications of what a world without reapers could look like, all of which indicate that it would be a better world for everyone, organics and synthetics (apart from the reapers themselves of course). All those scenarios you infer in your post are not even hinted at in the game at all until the catalyst brings up its assumptions.
Even WITH the ending, the destroy ending doesn't imply any problem if the reapers are gone without supplement. Not even in the very distant future that we see after the credits. So the catalyst is not looking at a world without reapers, he is imagining a world without reapers (just like you) and he is wrong, which really is no surprise given all the hints in the game before.
 
With no offense to your (and the catalyst's) imagined scenarios, they are not supported by what is in the game. And I am not even claiming that the catalyst HAD to be wrong (although the destroy ending shows that he is), all I am saying is that none of his assertions have any foundation in the narrative outside of the catalyst himself.

[Dantriges]

The first time we talked you, I said that synthetics don't lie and you tried to show me that that they can tell lies. I never said that they couldn't lie. Then you and Monica couldn't understand that lying by omission wasn't a lie. Do you remember ? I explained it then I saw that you couldn't understand it so I used a source. And here, I never said that I never used quotations. Where did you get that? Once again you're not reading, you're interpreting the way you want what is on your screen.

 
IIRC your main debating partners were some other people at this point, but yeah I was involved, too.

It´s not that we were unable to understand the difference, we simply disagreed. At least on the point that it was relevant for the core issue that everything the Catalyst said could be deception. BTW it looked a lot like you conceded the point until you found your little gem online.

Reminds me of the time when I played a character with a vow which forbids lying and I was pulling that off constantly, like leaving someone with the impression that we were on an official mission, his superiors are aware of his shady dealings and the inquisition will kick in his door and drag him away in chains if he doesn´t comply based on "my mentor asked me a private favor."

Everyone loves to hate Hitler for his actions and they are 110% earned. How ever everyone likes to ignore the fact that Germany want from a massive economic depression. The point their money was practically worthless and rebuild it into an economy that was able to instigate and sustain a war the the rest of Europe for a few years. Had some of his....less enjoyable traits. To put it nicely were not so dominant, history might have remembered him as a great leader rather then the scum bag he is known form.

The hyperinflation with the worthless money was in the early twenties. I give you the wiki link, hard to put my books online: https://en.wikipedia...Weimar_Republic

That´s 10 years before the Nazis took over.

Quite a lot of that was that the economy was already on the way to recovering (slowly), policies enacted by the previous governments were slowly having effect and the Nazis were financing a bubble by pumping up the money value and by heavy deficit spending. Hitler had to go to war and loot like madmen before Germany would have turned into the Greece of the 40´s.

[gothpunkboy89]

Wow, that was a long post. Unfortunately, in its entirety, you keep projecting possibilities into a hypothetic (and in most cases already disproved) future, just like the catalyst does. Most of your possible futures need several paragraphs of excuses to even become half way feasible. My entire point was about indications that are actually in the story and therefore narratively effective in anchoring the catalyst's arguments in the story's reality, rather than divorcing the two. I haven't seen one of those in your post.

 

I am sorry I keep insisting on things that are in the story and not made up by you but since the author of the trilogy had the choice to put into the story whatever they wanted and since they didn't choose to put your imaginations in, I'm afraid they really don't count for anything.
 
The only paragraph of consequence I can see is this one:

 
This is exactly the problem of this story and it's ending. Outside of the ending, the story does make a couple of implications of what a world without reapers could look like, all of which indicate that it would be a better world for everyone, organics and synthetics (apart from the reapers themselves of course). All those scenarios you infer in your post are not even hinted at in the game at all until the catalyst brings up its assumptions.
Even WITH the ending, the destroy ending doesn't imply any problem if the reapers are gone without supplement. Not even in the very distant future that we see after the credits. So the catalyst is not looking at a world without reapers, he is imagining a world without reapers (just like you) and he is wrong, which really is no surprise given all the hints in the game before.
 
With no offense to your (and the catalyst's) imagined scenarios, they are not supported by what is in the game. And I am not even claiming that the catalyst HAD to be wrong (although the destroy ending shows that he is), all I am saying is that none of his assertions have any foundation in the narrative outside of the catalyst himself.

 

 

You make a long post expect a similarly length if not longer in reply. 

 

You continue to only think in 2 dimensions when you need to think in 3. Or 4 if you consider the 4th dimension time.

 

Rather in a long drawn out post I will ask you 3 simple questions.

 

1. Is everything that happens from ME1- ME 3 the directly or indirectly happen because of the Reapers and the Cycle?

 

2. If the Reapers never existed and the game history was just as the galaxy thought it was (IE Protheans build everything) and/or the Reapers simply decided to see how things played out this cycle as a test. Thus Sovereign remained hidden, no attempts to kick start the harvest. Not even a fleck of Reaper paint shows it's self. As far as the galaxy would be concerned the Reapers do not exist and are pure fantasy.

 

So working under that assumption would the events of the galaxy play out differently compared to how they played out in the trilogy?

 

3. Do you think AI technology would be stagnant, or do you think it would be able to grow and develop the same way every other bit of technology has over the last hundred or more years?

 

To clarify this question when I say stagnant I mean as soon as AI technology is created there is no room for improving it or developing it beyond the initial form of it. The AI we create tomorrow will be the exact same as the AI we create 3,000 years from now.

[gothpunkboy89]

 
IIRC your main debating partners were some other people at this point, but yeah I was involved, too.

It´s not that we were unable to understand the difference, we simply disagreed. At least on the point that it was relevant for the core issue that everything the Catalyst said could be deception. BTW it looked a lot like you conceded the point until you found your little gem online.

Reminds me of the time when I played a character with a vow which forbids lying and I was pulling that off constantly, like leaving someone with the impression that we were on an official mission, his superiors are aware of his shady dealings and the inquisition will kick in his door and drag him away in chains if he doesn´t comply based on "my mentor asked me a private favor."


The hyperinflation with the worthless money was in the early twenties. I give you the wiki link, hard to put my books online: https://en.wikipedia...Weimar_Republic

That´s 10 years before the Nazis took over.

Quite a lot of that was that the economy was already on the way to recovering (slowly), policies enacted by the previous governments were slowly having effect and the Nazis were financing a bubble by pumping up the money value and by heavy deficit spending. Hitler had to go to war and loot like madmen before Germany would have turned into the Greece of the 40´s.

 

It is amusing that everyon delcares the Catalyst is lying about the conflict between O and S. Yet tells the truth about which button will blow them up.

 

 

In 1933, the American economist Irving Fisher developed the theory of debt deflation. He explained that a deflation causes a decline of profits, asset prices and a still greater decline in the net worth of businesses. Even healthy companies, therefore, may appear over-indebted and facing bankruptcy.^[43] The consensus today is that Brüning's policies exacerbated the German economic crisis and the population's growing frustration with democracy, contributing enormously to the increase in support for Hitler's NSDAP.^[1]

 

^{https://en.wikipedia...#Hyperinflation}

[Dantriges]

Yeah, yeah. I think I pointed that out several times before we had the joy of you joining the debate.

 

Really? You want to tell us you really meant deflation when talking about how the reichsmark was practically worthless? Perhaps it´s a bit unclear, I never said that the german economy was doing great before the Nazis took over, I just said that they there was a trend already that the worst was over..

[Natureguy85]

While I haven't had time tonight to write the thoughtful post I want on "good writing," there is a taste in the reply to the the second quote.

 

1. Is everything that happens from ME1- ME 3 the directly or indirectly happen because of the Reapers and the Cycle?

 

This is actually a great point. However, it undermines the Catalyst's claims of inevitability. All we have to go off of is the Reapers existing and they've constantly had a finger on the scale. The Catalyst has to demonstrate that its claims are true, but it can't because everything is the way it is due to their influence.

 

 

 

It is amusing that everyon delcares the Catalyst is lying about the conflict between O and S. Yet tells the truth about which button will blow them up.

 

Nobody (that I saw) is saying the Catalyst is lying about Organic and Synthetic conflict. We're saying it's wrong and/or hasn't made it's case. In general, if you're going to have a character, particularly an antagonist spout off a grand philosophy or ideology at the end, you need to do one of three things.

 

1) Have the preceding events of the story clearly support the claims

 

2) Have the "philosopher" explain how the events can be viewed or interpreted to support the claims, even if it wasn't immediately obvious.

 

3) Have the preceding events defy the claims and allow the protagonist to throw that in the "philosopher's" face.

 

In the first two examples, your options are open if the protagonist will give in or if they will still oppose the antagonist for whatever reason. The Mass Effect 3 ending does none of these. Instead, the Catalyst tells you to ignore everything that came before and accept only what it is telling you as absolute truth. And some, like gothpunkboy, see that as totally reasonable because the Catalyst claims to be an authority. That is simply not how good stories work.

 

 

There can be exceptions to pretty much any "rule," but depending on what you're doing, it requires a lot of skill and thought to pull off in a satisfying way.

 

Edit: added the phrase "at the end" in regards to character philosophizing. You get more wiggle room if it's earlier, as later events can demonstrate or defy the claims.

[gothpunkboy89]

 

This is actually a great point. However, it undermines the Catalyst's claims of inevitability. All we have to go off of is the Reapers existing and they've constantly had a finger on the scale. The Catalyst has to demonstrate that its claims are true, but it can't because everything is the way it is due to their influence.

 

 

It doesn't undermine the claim of inevitability the Catalyst claims. I'm not sure how much more simplistic I can go to try and explain this. Chaos Theory, Butterfly Effect, Divergent Timelines, Alternate Realities I don't know what else to call it to get people to understand what I am stating. I go back to the Danny Phantom quote:

 

Clockwork: [switching to adult form] The Observants look at time like they're watching a parade, one thing after another passing by.in sequence right in front of them. [he gestures down at the wrecked Nasty Burger]  I see the parade from above, all the twists and turns it might [switches to old form] or might not take. [he winks]

 

 

You have to look at and understand cause and effect. The Geth for 300 years kept themselves isolated by the simple set up of blowing up any ship that gets into their territory.  The only reason any of the Geth leave is because Sovereign convinces a group of them to join it by the simple set up of offering to make them into a Reaper like itself. This sets into motion a series of events that happen in game that lead to the events that happen in game.

 

How ever if Sovereign never existed then there would be no reason for the Geth to break their isolation. Meaning the only contact with organic life would have been Quarians during the Morning War.

 

The Quarians really don't have that much of an alteration. With or without Reaper actions they are still forced into the Flotilla. Treated as pariahs by every other race in the galaxy and forced to wear their environmental suits due to their immune system. And more importantly they still blame the Geth for every wrong fate has dealt them. Without the events of ME 1 and 2 Tali's father is never killed or at least Tali never manages to make it onto the Admiralty board. Leaving the Admiral Zaal' Koris the lone voice for peace with Geth.  It might have been within the same time frame as happens in the game or it might be 100 years in the future. At some point out of desperation they would attack the Geth. And without all the lovely bits of Heretics laying around for Tali to send back to the Fleet. They would be far behind what they were in game.

 

The Geth at that point only have 1 interaction with organic life. When the Quarians were trying to kill them. Here come the Quarians again trying to kill them yet again.  2 experiences with organic's and more specifically their creators and both time they are trying to wipe them from existence. Now the fight could go either way but the fact would be 1 entire species would be wiped out. And should the Geth be the victors. That would be 2 instances of unprovoked attacks in an attempt to kill them off.

 

What do you think the conclusion they would come to after that face?

[MrFob]

Alright, time for me to make a long post again. First, in fairness, I’ll answer your three questions:
1. Obviously. In fact, as Natureguy said already, that’s actually part of my point.
2. Sure they would.
3. AI tech would very likely not remain stagnant and neither would organic technology

But now I’ll go on to explain (again) why these contemplations are irrelevant to the point I have been trying to male from the beginning of this discussion:

I’d say the accurate way to describe the situation is that I keep thinking in 3-4 dimensions while you keep thinking in 10-20 alternate timelines. This is ok, I am not criticizing that and I am not saying that you would definitely be wrong with your predictions in "the real world", so if we were discussing AIs in reality, you’d make a very good point (sort of in the line with Nick Bostron's ideas). However, this is a story and the writers of this story already had all these possibilities laid out before them. They chose to narrow (or rather flatten) the probability space with what they wrote and they chose to go a route that contradicts the catalyst at every turn.

For example, they had the perfect chance to give the catalyst some leverage with the zha’til. They didn’t have to write the line for Javik that said that the Protheans were winning that war before the reapers showed up. Yet, they did.
They also didn’t have to write the Leviathans as surviving, a message like in Liara’s time capsules and a left over weapon would have worked just as well.
When we enter the quarian-geth conflict, there was no need to make the quarians kick the crap out of the geth first and have the geth forced to go to the reapers for help, I can come up with a dozen other scenarios that would also have worked within the story from the top of my head that would have made the geth look much more formidable.
They could have shown in the destroy ending that eventually, there is a great war between machines and organics because the catalyst wasn’t heeded but what they do show is a happy ending with absolutely no indication that this is ever a problem.

You see, this is my problem. Not that the catalyst is deliberately lying (I do believe that he believes in the problem) or even that he has to be wrong. Natureguy actually said it perfectly:

In the first two examples, your options are open if the protagonist will give in or if they will still oppose the antagonist for whatever reason. The Mass Effect 3 ending does none of these. Instead, the Catalyst tells you to ignore everything that came before and accept only what it is telling you as absolute truth. And some, like gothpunkboy, see that as totally reasonable because the Catalyst claims to be an authority. That is simply not how good stories work.

This whole argument is less about the catalyst and whether he is right or wrong but about the overall structure of the story itself.

Now, you could say that the catalyst has amazing powers of prediction that are far better than ours and therefore he has super good models and simulations for what will happen and his claim to authority in this matter - even without tangible indications - is actually justified. Only, the story doesn’t even promote this idea. At no point do the reapers actually show a great deal of foresight or predictive capabilities. Oh wait, maybe the one time where they do is when they build the relay network to make younger races develop along the paths they desire. That’s pretty cool but even than, they acknowledge their uncertainty by leaving an observer behind (Sovereign). They can’t even predict the development of observed species within 50.000 years. They can’t predict very short term battle strategies (the turians get the drop on them in the miracle of Palaven). They can’t predict that the protheans will mess with their precious trap, they can’t predict the Leviathans, they can’t predict the actions of Legion and Shepard on Rannoch, they can’t predict that the crucible will be back (the catalyst even acknowledges this directly in the dialogue), etc. etc., the list goes on.
Every time they loose (and they loose a lot), it weakens their case for having the authority on predicting the future. Now, you will argue that small singular events may be harder to predict than large sociological ones. This goes in the direction of Asimov's Psychohistory, but even Asimov and his character Hari Seldon acknowledged that small unpredictable events can seriously mess with the big picture (that’s what the whole Foundation series is about). And since the ME trilogy doesn't make a case for it (or even mentions the concept at all, see, I can make up stuff as well) that’s not an argument either.

So in conclusion, I don’t see in this story any indication for the problem that the catalyst states to be imminent and I also don’t see the catalyst as an authority in making more far flung predictions on the matter. Hence his point (within the story) has no basis to stand on and thus, to me, it is just as delusional as Hitler's claim that the Jews needed to be wiped out for the good of humanity (and yes, a whole page later, i am still trying to explain that one post, am I really that bad at making myself clear?).

[gothpunkboy89]

Alright, time for me to make a long post again. First, in fairness, I’ll answer your three questions:
1. Obviously. In fact, as Natureguy said already, that’s actually part of my point.
2. Sure they would.
3. AI tech would very likely not remain stagnant and neither would organic technology

 

So you agree that everything happens in game as a direct effect and indirect effect of the Reaper's actions in the galaxy. Without those interactions things would have gone differently. You also agree that AI technology would develop as well much like how our computers have. Getting smaller, more powerful and allowing better storage up to a point anyways. I don't think it would be ever possible to fit an entire AI in something the size of an I phone 6. Well not without severely reducing it's capabilities.

 

Now for the next set of questions.

 

1.Would the fact the Geth were created not as AI's but as networking VI's cause their development to be slowed by this fact? 

 

Using Legion as the base line which had ~ 1,182 Geth units to achieve the ability to operate alone and reason alone without resorting to more feral and aggressive actions that happens when standard mobile platforms which only contain ~100 units are isolated. Which means that 1,182 are the minimal needed to achieve the same level cognitive awareness as the rest of the the Normandy crew minus EDI from the equation.

 

2. What would you say is the general feelings of Quarians against the Geth:

 

A) Before the events of ME 1?

B)After the events of ME 2?

C) Did they not during a galactic wide invasion instigate their own war with the Geth?

 

3. What conclusion would you come to after a nation attempted to invade your country twice?

 

Both times not interested in conquest but in simply wiping your entire nationality from the face of the planet. The first time you fought them off killing nearly all of them off. But relenting at the last moment to let survivors escape because they were no longer a threat.  Then years later they attack again trying to wipe out your entire nation and every person in it. Both attacks completely unprovoked as after the initial war you choose to isolate your nation from others to prevent any antagonism from developing accidental or other wise.

[MrFob]

Yea, thanks for replying to the first 1% of my post without context. I'll just do you the same "courtesy":

So you agree that everything happens in game as a direct effect and indirect effect of the Reaper's actions in the galaxy. Without those interactions things would have gone differently.

Yea but that wasn't in the story and the destroy endings already show that no reapers =/= synthetics wipe us out. Cheers!