3598 réponses à ce sujet

[ImaginaryMatter]

1) The 'solution' preserves organic life. The point isn't to save any particular species, but organic LIFE in general. Left to itself, the war between synthetics and organics would eventually wipe out all organic life. The X trilogy, particularly X3:Terran Conflict, did a beautiful job of framing that - synthetic life keeps recursively improving itself, while organic life cannot. Once synthetics destroy all organic life, life in the galaxy is over.

 

It doesn't really matter what an other series did. What's important is how the ME series portrays it, particularly ME3. Look at how the AI relationships in ME3 play out, none of them naturally lead to the conclusion that AI will wipe out organic life; they actually seem to be suggesting almost the very opposite. A problem with the ending is that the Reapers are really the only example of AI life that comes close to fulfilling the Catalyst's description, which is made worst by the Catalyst somehow being the only exception to the rule.

[Mouser]

The entire series was spent overcoming adversity. It was prominent in the first game. The second kept referring to the attack on the Collectors as a suicide mission. How do you see this as a late insert?

1. The problem with this is that because all of this is ancient history we know nothing about and is contrary to our experience, we can’t understand or become invested in it.
2. This might have been a good idea. It would have given more weight to Destroy. However, because we never see nor experience the Catalyst’s problem, we can’t fear its return.
3. The problem with Control is that we’ve been fighting against it the entire game and are never given a reason it’s a good idea except for that it won’t kill Synthetics like EDI. Shepard just told TIM humanity wasn’t ready.
4. Synthesis is just the worst.

The endings aren’t happy on their face, but the EC epilogues sugarcoat all the problems or just whitewash them away. Waging a futile effort can work, but it’s hard to pull off, especially in a video game where the consumer is a player and not merely a viewer. Or you can have the characters win an internal struggle even though they lose the framing struggle, like in the movie Glory. After all, the first game said that extinction was preferable to submission. However, the series had constantly been full of hope for victory, we just didn’t know how. It was never hopeless.

 

 

It was always hopeless.

 

The first game set up Sovereign as a force beyond understanding coming to wipe everyone out.  Yes, we get a temporary victory over one Reaper, but we also get the knowledge of the certainty that many more are coming. The second game has the suicide mission. We destroy the Collector base, but that does nothing to help all the colonies that have been wiped out, and the game ends with the massive fleet of Reapers shown arriving. Nothing we did slowed the Reapers down in the slightest.

 

Lovecraft understood true horror. It isn't that the Old Ones are coming. It's knowing that they are coming and also knowing that there is NOTHING you can do to stop them. That is the note that Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 were playing.

 

Futility has been done successfully in video games before. Mass Effect's main story isn't close to original in any regard. The problem is the "twist" they tried to pull at the end was to give a real chance of hope and triumph. True twist endings are very hard to pull off (movies like the Sixth Sense don't have twists, they have reveals). That's where everything started to fall apart theme wise. Peace between the Geth and the Quarians is probably the most egregious example, since it seems to go directly against the catalysts premise (which isn't to say that eventually, the Geth wouldn't wipe the Quarians out anyway - they're still babies, relatively speaking).

 

 

Doesn't the epilogue though strongly imply that the Catalyst is wrong about it's predictions of inevitability? There's no sign of the roboapocolypse in any of the endings. The Rannoch arc and EDI also downplay the idea of Synthetics eventually destroying whatever stage of advanced life. The only time the story commits to this idea of rampant AI is with the actual Catalyst dialogue.

 

The epilogue only looks at the immediate future (really, the present). The problem the catalyst was created to solve might not show up for a thousand years or more. The epilogue don't even address things like what will happen when the Krogan start popping out babies like no tomorrow and need a dozen worlds to expand (and then another dozen for each of those dozen). One of the planet descriptions somewhere even alludes to the problem of Krogan not being willing to curb their own population.

 

"Rejection" is the closest to the true ending in my book. Rather than going through all the choices, Star Brat could have had Shepard look out over the battle and watch as all the galaxy's forces are torn to shreds, finally understanding and accepting how hopeless her struggle was. The problem with that is you return to the status quo. Victory through galactic extinction would have been a better ending. Small pockets of life left here and there on decimated worlds - that could have been shown in the epilogue and set up sequels of races trying to reconnect with each other through 'normal' FTL travel and trying to find a way to survive.

[ImaginaryMatter]

 

The epilogue only looks at the immediate future (really, the present). The problem the catalyst was created to solve might not show up for a thousand years or more. The epilogue don't even address things like what will happen when the Krogan start popping out babies like no tomorrow and need a dozen worlds to expand (and then another dozen for each of those dozen). One of the planet descriptions somewhere even alludes to the problem of Krogan not being willing to curb their own population.

 

The epilogue sets a tone. A hopeful, optimistic tone. That's what is more important as a story, that's what the player leaves with -- not with questions of, "Well, maybe..." A problem with the AI conflict consuming all organic life is that it's only a speculative and abstract possibility -- one that only exists to most players because the Catalyst says so, as the rest of the game undercuts this idea with the AI arcs. The epilogue is the only time to enforce the possibilities of the Catalysts believes. And what does it decide to do instead? Leave the player with an optimistic view of the future.

[Mouser]

The epilogue sets a tone. A hopeful, optimistic tone. That's what is more important as a story, that's what the player leaves with -- not with questions of, "Well, maybe..." A problem with the AI conflict consuming all organic life is that it's only a speculative and abstract possibility -- one that only exists to most players because the Catalyst says so, as the rest of the game undercuts this idea with the AI arcs. The epilogue is the only time to enforce the possibilities of the Catalysts believes. And what does it decide to do instead? Leave the player with an optimistic view of the future.

Which is exactly why the epilogue sucks.

 

The AI arcs undercut the ending, which had to have been at least conceptually planned since Mass Effect (since the ending is one of the first things you write for a story). The Reapers were a necessary evil - like a forest fire clearing away the old growth so new life can flourish.

 

As the story and epilogue left us though, Shepard defeats the Reapers at virtually no cost or sacrifice to the galaxy. Life will continue, in all its myriad forms, which makes you wonder what problem was so serious that the Leviathan had to create the catalyst to solve in the first place. It's a fairy tale ending where everyone lives happily ever after. Worse - it's a Disneyfied fairy tale ending where nobody gets their eyes plucked out or has to dance on hot coals in metal shoes till they die. Hell, even in the Destroy ending it's mentioned that they're working on rebuilding the Mass Relays.

 

They had a great story going until somebody convinced them to ruin it with hope and optimism.

[BloodyMares]

Catalyst or anyone else ever claims it is the best solution just the only working one. Putting the galaxy in a stat of stasis so to speak to keep the end results of the cycle from happening. Waiting for a new solution that would work to show up. Hence why it jumps at the chance at the end of ME 3. It helps because it prevents the extinction of life. Killing off species at their apex and having new ones develop is the same cycle of life and extinction that always happens in nature. Synthetic's represent the total death of advanced organic life forever. Nothing would grow or develop to take it's place.  Again I refer to my fruit tree example. Reapers harvest the fruit each cycle but keep the tree healthy enough to bare fruit time and time again. Synthetics taking over would cut the tree down and drive copper stakes into the stump.

 

You claim it is simple yet your answers to how it would be done is lacking. You can not prevent organic's from developing synthetic is it simply how things will play out. Organic's seek to improve their lives though technology and this is a fact. Synthetic life is the end result of that advancement seeking to improve their lives. Be it purposeful (secret government program) or accidental (Geth) it will happen as technology becomes more advanced and more interconnected. Both EDI and the Geth were created because something unexpected happened and intelligence and awareness developed. Geth developed on their own while EDI was forcibly advanced by TIM and Cerberus.

 

You would need to some how force a limitation on technological development. Which is simply not feasible to do with a galaxy as large as it is.

 

We don't even understand the human consciousness and you are already declaring there would be no way to preserve it or transfer it to a new body? There is actually something related to this in ME 3. The whole bit about Christopher Huerta actually lends credit to this. Had a stroke and was legally dead for 90 minutes with his mind transferred to a computer. Came to a Supreme Court Case that was voted 5-4 that his year of Presidency post stroke was legitimate. So with the existing game world technology they were able to transfer the thoughts and memories of someone into a computer. Sending enough to allow someone to legitimately lead a large nation for a year.  The Reapers on the other hand are centuries more advanced then rest of the ME galaxy. 300-400  years of research on this topic would inevitably yeild much better transfers. The set up of turning them into goo and transferring their thoughts and memories possibly even their entire consciousness into a Reaper body is not that strange.

Except that his claims don't have any value. These are claims coming from authority and don't really apply to the current cycle as I said before. Shepard and thus the player has no reason to believe anything it says. It doesn't provide any examples, it doesn't show any visions of what happened in the past cycles, it provides nothing. It just states some nonsense and presents it as the truth. If it was really an AI then I guess it would provide some logical argument to prove it to be true. Yet it doesn't. And Shepard doesn't ask for any proof because s/he is a moron. I don't know how can you believe the Catalyst. 
Explain me why would synthetics kill all organic life? Just because? Come on, you should be able to see this is insane. Even the Catalyst says "The created will always rebel against their creators". It says nothing about the destruction of all organic life, just created synthetics overthrowing their organic overlord. That's it. In relation to the geth and quarians, geth would destroy the quarians. They have no quarrel with other organic life. They are no danger to other organic species, just those individuals who invade their territory. Your claim about killing off the organic life seems like a huge misunderstanding of the Catalyst.

I don't argue about this. I agree. Technology helps us and logically we would create robots and AI to help us. But why would the Catalyst think that our technology would doom us all? There is no proof of that in the game. Geth are not a threat to all organic life (not without Reaper involvement at least). EDI is not a theat to all organic life (obviously) and that AI on the Citadel is defeated by Shepard (ONE PERSON!).
And again, you don't need to limit technology. AI are not a threat to organic life in ME universe. Just let it be.

I don't know why would you put so much effort to pull some Huerta data (from Cerberus/Alliance News Network I bet) when you can simply say that Geth were able to transfer Shepard's mind into their consciousness. But it's not how Reapers work. They melt your body and suck it into the Reaper larva for some reason. Why do you need their DNA when you can just upload ther minds to the Reaper platform? And even if it is true, why does the Catalyst control them instead of giving them free will? And why use them as a weapon when they are not invincible? In ME we saw several Reapers get destroyed which means the precious species that the Catalyst preserved are gone forever. Why not make invincible Reapers? Or why not make purely synthetic Reaper soldiers for the Harvest and let the "civillian"(harvested) Reapers "live" in Dark Space where noone can harm them? And why preserve species in Reaper form when you can simply destroy them to make room for younger species (this is what they do, right)? Do you not see how contradictory this is?

Okay, this is really deep at this point so I want you to answer this: What is the Catalyst's 'solution': To preserve organic LIFE in general OR preserve advanced SPECIES in Reaper form? Because if it is the former then why bother doing anything? It's impossible to destroy all life which means the goal is completed automatically. If it is the latter then the former becomes irrelevant.

[BloodyMares]

1) The 'solution' preserves organic life. The point isn't to save any particular species, but organic LIFE in general. Left to itself, the war between synthetics and organics would eventually wipe out all organic life. The X trilogy, particularly X3:Terran Conflict, did a beautiful job of framing that - synthetic life keeps recursively improving itself, while organic life cannot. Once synthetics destroy all organic life, life in the galaxy is over.

 

2) This part I didn't understand either... Maybe a giant museum somewhere holding the accomplishments and history of all the cycles would have been better.

If it is to preserve organic LIFE then why bother with the solution? HOW does the war between synthetics and organics (advanced species I assume) would wipe out all organic life? Do you mean synthetics would hunt Organic LIFE in general? Intentionally kill animals, plants etc just because it's organic? Why would any AI do that? Because they are buggy? Even so, as I said before, you can't destroy all organic life in the galaxy without destroying every planet in every star system and I don't think any synthetics could do that.

[voteDC]

That is one of the arguments that I would have liked to have presented to the Catalyst "you've become the very threat that you claim to want to stop."

It was Sovereign after all pushed a portion of the Geth into became actively hostile toward organics.

The Reapers would essentially be forced into conflict with the Geth (Provided they had no virus on hand of course) when advanced organic races were wiped out, as they'd likely want to just keep going further down the organic book shelf.

A, B, and C, despite their minor variations, needed to have far more options there to present to the Catalyst.

Edit: I expect  the rest of my post will be ignored by this question. How did people design a Reaper killer device when they never knew the essential part existed.

[Dantriges]

It was always hopeless.
 
The first game set up Sovereign as a force beyond understanding coming to wipe everyone out.  Yes, we get a temporary victory over one Reaper, but we also get the knowledge of the certainty that many more are coming. The second game has the suicide mission. We destroy the Collector base, but that does nothing to help all the colonies that have been wiped out, and the game ends with the massive fleet of Reapers shown arriving. Nothing we did slowed the Reapers down in the slightest.
 
Lovecraft understood true horror. It isn't that the Old Ones are coming. It's knowing that they are coming and also knowing that there is NOTHING you can do to stop them. That is the note that Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 were playing.

 

No, not really. At the end of the first game, Cthulhu is broken and if every enemy talking about himself as an unstoppable force, was actually unstoppable, many games and movies would have a different ending. In ME2,  we didn´t help the colonists that were killed, but there won´t be any more killed by Collectors. Dead soldiers or civilians don´t miraculously rise up from the dead at the conclusion of war time stories either. So why is "dead people stay dead" a fail state? 

We slowed down the Reapers in ME 1 and well their plan fell short in 2, whatever it was and whatever it was good for.

 

It wasn´t a horror story, yeah perhaps overwhelming odds but that´s hardly the first time, Bioware wrote a story where a band of people won against a vastly superior enemy.
 

 

The AI arcs undercut the ending, which had to have been at least conceptually planned since Mass Effect (since the ending is one of the first things you write for a story). The Reapers were a necessary evil - like a forest fire clearing away the old growth so new life can flourish.

They thought about a dark energy ending during the time of ME 2, the ending wasn´t written then, just some vague sense of "the Reapers aren´t doing it for the lulz." The gameplay undercuts the whole horror theme and the roboapocalypse thing, you see all the time. You are shooting robots, reaper slaves and whatever else strikes your fancy all the time and it´s not to have a brief respite and the possibility to run away before you inevitably fall to the darkness. Yeah, ther´s nasty stuff happening offscreen and thewar isn´t going good for the galaxy, but the usual MO through the trilogy, I came, I saw the yucky and I killed it, doesn´t reinforce the notion that this is a horror game about who gets eaten last.

 

 

Life will continue, in all its myriad forms, which makes you wonder what problem was so serious that the Leviathan had to create the catalyst to solve in the first place.

 

The problem wasn´t that the ending undercut it, it wasn´t really supported throughout the game. The only incoming roboapocalyse were the ones, started by the Reapers themselves, who were the ones who actually mentioned that "the synthetics will kill you all," instead of being a localized problem, is a problem at all.

[gothpunkboy89]

Probably a result of a different attitude towards war in the ruling elite. But circumstances change.
Anyways that´s rather humanocentric. Council space managed to keep the peace for quite a long time Two galactic wars since its founding and one was instigated from the outside by someone. Ok, there was the Morning War where they dropped the ball and the human contact incident but in the latter case the system worked pretty fast to rein it in.
 

Well, it doesn´t seem like the individual or even the entire species has much of its individuality left. There is no dissent in the Reaper ranks and some of the harvested species probably weren´t warmongering species with a fetish for genocide.
But your example is quite interesting in an other way. So with a few centuries of research, probably even less, humans would be able to upload their minds into computers and become the AIs, achieving some kind of synthesis?
Yeah, seems the catalyst would have only needed to wait a bit more.

The catalyst jumps at a chance of 1 in 3 that Shepard actually picks synthesis, the other ones being
-Blows up the Reapers, destroying the preserved species and dooming the galaxy to roboapocalypse in its opinion
-Actively police the galaxy, a solution the Catalyst could have enacted itself at any point during the last billion years.

 

And yet they only act when a war would effect more then 1 race. Lets also not forget they have an army of unknown size of people who are above and immune to the law within Citadel space. Given unlimited access to any intel or resources they need when they need it.  So they pretty much kept the peace though murder, sabotage, blackmail and more murder. Also not much info about the Citadel stepping to prevent or even assist in the Skyillina Blitz.

 

All the minds forming together to create an entirely new consciousness. The fate of destruction is also the joy of rebirth.

 

Taking an organic mind and uploading it into a fully synthetic body would still make them synthetic. Just move the goal post on how the synthetic threat is created.

[Dantriges]

So what? The Reapers don´t care if you are a galactic community of peace lovers living in utopia or in a galaxy united by warfare, as long as you are spacefaring and have the capacity to build AIs.

 

Ok...

 

So? Only a particular brand of synthesis allowed? Synthesis put a lot of wiring into organic bodies. How large does the organic percentage has to be? Uploading minds into somewhere else was an acceptable solution, but other people than Reapers aren´t allowed to do that? Yeah I know, the organic goo, but whatever they did with it, it´s probably heavily processed. What if we upload the minds into organically grown new bodies, just with an improved processing structure which glows green and looks like old circuit boards?

[KrrKs]

There is no downside? How can you know? All we know, all anyone knows, is that the Crucible is very powerful. [...]

It could be a simple ploy to get the Crucible to simply destroy all allied ships, sparing a few Reapers.

So what?

What happens when not using the Crucible can be describe as "We're all gonna die!!1oneEleven!"

That is also the worst case (albeit most likely) of what happens when using it. But the point is: Each and every other outcome can only be better than that.

 

It was always hopeless.

We must have played some very different games then...

[gothpunkboy89]

Except that his claims don't have any value. These are claims coming from authority and don't really apply to the current cycle as I said before. Shepard and thus the player has no reason to believe anything it says. It doesn't provide any examples, it doesn't show any visions of what happened in the past cycles, it provides nothing. It just states some nonsense and presents it as the truth. If it was really an AI then I guess it would provide some logical argument to prove it to be true. Yet it doesn't. And Shepard doesn't ask for any proof because s/he is a moron. I don't know how can you believe the Catalyst. 
Explain me why would synthetics kill all organic life? Just because? Come on, you should be able to see this is insane. Even the Catalyst says "The created will always rebel against their creators". It says nothing about the destruction of all organic life, just created synthetics overthrowing their organic overlord. That's it. In relation to the geth and quarians, geth would destroy the quarians. They have no quarrel with other organic life. They are no danger to other organic species, just those individuals who invade their territory. Your claim about killing off the organic life seems like a huge misunderstanding of the Catalyst.

I don't argue about this. I agree. Technology helps us and logically we would create robots and AI to help us. But why would the Catalyst think that our technology would doom us all? There is no proof of that in the game. Geth are not a threat to all organic life (not without Reaper involvement at least). EDI is not a theat to all organic life (obviously) and that AI on the Citadel is defeated by Shepard (ONE PERSON!).
And again, you don't need to limit technology. AI are not a threat to organic life in ME universe. Just let it be.

I don't know why would you put so much effort to pull some Huerta data (from Cerberus/Alliance News Network I bet) when you can simply say that Geth were able to transfer Shepard's mind into their consciousness. But it's not how Reapers work. They melt your body and suck it into the Reaper larva for some reason. Why do you need their DNA when you can just upload ther minds to the Reaper platform? And even if it is true, why does the Catalyst control them instead of giving them free will? And why use them as a weapon when they are not invincible? In ME we saw several Reapers get destroyed which means the precious species that the Catalyst preserved are gone forever. Why not make invincible Reapers? Or why not make purely synthetic Reaper soldiers for the Harvest and let the "civillian"(harvested) Reapers "live" in Dark Space where noone can harm them? And why preserve species in Reaper form when you can simply destroy them to make room for younger species (this is what they do, right)? Do you not see how contradictory this is?

Okay, this is really deep at this point so I want you to answer this: What is the Catalyst's 'solution': To preserve organic LIFE in general OR preserve advanced SPECIES in Reaper form? Because if it is the former then why bother doing anything? It's impossible to destroy all life which means the goal is completed automatically. If it is the latter then the former becomes irrelevant.

 

Claiming it is a fallacy doesn't actually show were it is wrong. This seems to be a fancy way for people to actually avoid trying to disprove something by simply claiming it is a fallacy.  It oh so much applies towards the world shown in game. Geth are created, they gain intelligence and rebel against their creators only not killing them off thanks to Relay saving the Quarian's collective buns. Citadel passes a secret law that causes all known AI's in Council Space to be rounded up and destroyed without due process. Randomly created AI program is instantly hostile towards organics when found out due to past interactions. Yea seems like everything is going exactly as expected.

 

If you don't know why synthetics would want to eliminate us then you really haven't been paying attention. Replay the game trilogy and watch for every time someone makes a stupid choice due to emotions or they simply don't want to have to deal with consequences of anything difficult. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption and the ice capades. There are plenty of reasons if you actually pay attention to what happens in game.

 

Because the same technology that can help us can also hurt us. This is always been the double edge sword that is technology with one side it makes our lives better with the other side it wrecks our lives. Aerospace engineering allows us to travel around our own planet and to others at speeds never before seen. Yet it can also be used create missiles capable of striking from miles away. ME technology allows races to reach corners of the galaxy never before thought possible. But also makes it so someone could fire an extinction level asteroid at a planet and wipe out all life on it. We create automated systems and computers to make work easier for us. But advanced enough could start to form their own independent thoughts and if they don't like up with us death can happen.

 

Geth are absolutely a threat to organic life. With only a small fraction of the over all Geth population they were able to strike into the heart of Citadel Space. While they were fully aware the attack was coming BTW. And effectively wipe out the fleets in charge of protecting the Citadel. You can't even make the argument that Sovereign was there because it did nothing but barrel though a couple of cruisers. EDI is an individual AI but is also an individual AI able to control a heavy Frigate with stealth technology. She sure as heck is a threat to organic life.  Gambling AI wasn't defeated by Shep in any normal sense. Pulling the equivalent of powering down a conduit charge to prevent the explosion from causing any damage isn't really defeating them as if the AI actually had a chance.

 

They melt the body down to use it to construct the Reapers. Why waste resources they would need to harvest from the planets to create the Reaper body when they can simply break down the harvesting bodies into their individual elements and then reform them in ways needed to create the Reaper body. Reapers are serious about recycling.

 

Creating a massive army of fully synthetic creations would be an extremely resources heavy endeavor. Invincibility is an illusion nothing is invincible. How ever the usual harvest pattern was interrupted during this cycle leading to a much more protracted war. As well as allowing the species of the galaxy to upgrade their arsenals to stand up more against them. Some losses are inevitable.

 

Advanced life is organic life. It is entirely possible to wipe out all organic life in the galaxy. Everything from advanced species to simple bacteria has tolerances of what it can life in. A few asteroid strikes or orbital bombardment would render the planet incapable of supporting anything more advanced then bacteria. And even that could be killed off.  Say a race of AI's attacked Earth and destroyed it's fleets in orbit. They wouldn't even need to land on the planet. Fireing at it from orbit would wipe out all life but leave it in a state they they would still be able to live/harvest resource from it.

[Reorte]

Is it really possible to exterminate all life?

Nope, that's just one of the problems I have with the Catalyst's claims.

[Dantriges]

Claiming it is a fallacy doesn't actually show were it is wrong. This seems to be a fancy way for people to actually avoid trying to disprove something by simply claiming it is a fallacy.  It oh so much applies towards the world shown in game. Geth are created, they gain intelligence and rebel against their creators only not killing them off thanks to Relay saving the Quarian's collective buns. Citadel passes a secret law that causes all known AI's in Council Space to be rounded up and destroyed without due process. Randomly created AI program is instantly hostile towards organics when found out due to past interactions. Yea seems like everything is going exactly as expected.

You could make up your mind if the geth are irrelevant or not. When someone points to the geth and says "see no roboapocalypse for a long time," you dismiss the geth, now they are proof.

You mean the Citadel AI? The situation was so surreal and isolated (I mean there was nothing following it up), you had no idea why it was so hostile and what´s actually going on in his chips.
 

If you don't know why synthetics would want to eliminate us then you really haven't been paying attention. Replay the game trilogy and watch for every time someone makes a stupid choice due to emotions or they simply don't want to have to deal with consequences of anything difficult. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption and the ice capades. There are plenty of reasons if you actually pay attention to what happens in game.

I think we get it by now, that you are not one person to be trusted near a red button.
For the super AI that is so superior, it could wipe us out at any moment, why should it want to eliminate us for being emotional or cruel to one another? A lot of what you listed results in the death of people. Why should an AI come to the logical conclusion that eliminating a species is preferable to individuals members of that species dieing in discomfort? How is the suffering of individual organic units or a prolonged period of pain prior to that unit´s demise relevant to its interests?

You need to be an emotional being to want everyone of a species to die for being such a nasty species. Humans kill and inflict suffering upon each other? Who cares? Probably not the logical and emotionless machine. Humans kill off their environment because they are so shortsighted? Ah well, that´s a self solving problem from an immortal point of view.
Unless the idiots bother you, there is no reason to interfere and there are options besides total annihilation to get the point across that you are not to be trifled with. And total annihilation of all organic life in the galaxy is just total overkill and a waste of resources.

You project emotion into a logic driven species. There is no compassion, no anger, no thirst for vengeance, no fear, no real drive for expansion in an emotionless entity. Control the resources of the galaxy? Why? Does it help to achieve some goal and is it worth the expenditure of the necessary resources and possible risks? Why interfere into meatbag shenanigans?

[Mouser]

 

We must have played some very different games then...

 

I suppose so.  At least some people understand where I'm coming from, which is all you can really ask on a forum

 

A lot of it has to do with what other games, films, and stories you've seen previously, since we all interpret art through the lens of our experiences. When I play through Mass Effect, I'm reminded of Xenosaga, Neon Genesis Evangelion, and the Xenon of X3. So to me, the story isn't really one about triumphing over overwhelming odds, but about fighting on when all hope is lost (I suppose you could add Norse religion to that - I have a hard time calling it 'mythology' when Odin and Thor had real worshipers only a thousand years ago).

 

They could have ended with a sliver of hope at the end, which would have set up a new series in the same universe with a different story.

[gothpunkboy89]

You could make up your mind if the geth are irrelevant or not. When someone points to the geth and says "see no roboapocalypse for a long time," you dismiss the geth, now they are proof.

You mean the Citadel AI? The situation was so surreal and isolated (I mean there was nothing following it up), you had no idea why it was so hostile and what´s actually going on in his chips.
 

I think we get it by now, that you are not one person to be trusted near a red button.
For the super AI that is so superior, it could wipe us out at any moment, why should it want to eliminate us for being emotional or cruel to one another? A lot of what you listed results in the death of people. Why should an AI come to the logical conclusion that eliminating a species is preferable to individuals members of that species dieing in discomfort? How is the suffering of individual organic units or a prolonged period of pain prior to that unit´s demise relevant to its interests?

You need to be an emotional being to want everyone of a species to die for being such a nasty species. Humans kill and inflict suffering upon each other? Who cares? Probably not the logical and emotionless machine. Humans kill off their environment because they are so shortsighted? Ah well, that´s a self solving problem from an immortal point of view.
Unless the idiots bother you, there is no reason to interfere and there are options besides total annihilation to get the point across that you are not to be trifled with. And total annihilation of all organic life in the galaxy is just total overkill and a waste of resources.

You project emotion into a logic driven species. There is no compassion, no anger, no thirst for vengeance, no fear, no real drive for expansion in an emotionless entity. Control the resources of the galaxy? Why? Does it help to achieve some goal and is it worth the expenditure of the necessary resources and possible risks? Why interfere into meatbag shenanigans?

 

Finger is hurt so this will be short.

 

Geth are relevant but not for the reason people keep quoting. Peace is only achieved with the Geth during a galactic wide invasion of super advanced race of space cuddle fish. This forcibly wields them together to avoid mutual destruction. This is something under normal circumstances would never happen. And this seems to be the part people can not separate. Things that change because of the Reapers and things that would have happened without them.

 

No you just have to realize how pointless this all his. How inferior organics are and how pointless it is for them to be around wasting resources. Not really a waste you spend 10,000 dollars and in turn make 100,000,000 dollars not really a waste. There would be no organic's wasting resources, polluting planets, harming each other for no reason, harming other creatures for no reason, killing each other for no reason.

 

I project no emotion. I supose I could but the reasons I give why organics might not be held in the highest regards to anyone so far haven't been contested.

[BloodyMares]

cut

Wow, Mr. Elusive, you know how to dodge uncomfortable questions, don't you?

Let's break it down, shall we?
1) "The Catalyst makes a statement without providing any proof. Why should we believe it?"
Your answer:

 

Claiming it is a fallacy doesn't actually show were it is wrong. This seems to be a fancy way for people to actually avoid trying to disprove something by simply claiming it is a fallacy.

Where is the answer to my question? My question wasn't about Catalyst being right or wrong, it was about the lack of proof and therefore no reason to believe it.

2) "Explain me why would synthetics kill all organic life? Just because? Come on, you should be able to see this is insane. Even the Catalyst says "The created will always rebel against their creators". It says nothing about the destruction of all organic life, just created synthetics overthrowing their organic overlord".
Your answer:

 

If you don't know why synthetics would want to eliminate us then you really haven't been paying attention. Replay the game trilogy and watch for every time someone makes a stupid choice due to emotions or they simply don't want to have to deal with consequences of anything difficult. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption and the ice capades. There are plenty of reasons if you actually pay attention to what happens in game.

What does it have to do with my question? Why should I bother replaying the trilogy? If you make a point, you need to provide me the proof, not the other way around. How "war, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption" are the reasons to destroy organics? Non of this has anything to do with Mass Effect.

3) "But why would the Catalyst think that our technology would doom us all? There is no proof of that in the game. Geth are not a threat to all organic life (not without Reaper involvement at least). EDI is not a theat to all organic life (obviously) and that AI on the Citadel is defeated by Shepard (ONE PERSON!)."
Your answer (shortened): 

 

Because the same technology that can help us can also hurt us. We create automated systems and computers to make work easier for us. But advanced enough could start to form their own independent thoughts and if they don't like up with us death can happen.

It can, yes, but not because the technology is bad but because humans (or organics) are flawed. In your examples technology is just a tool, the harm is coming from us using this technology with ill intent. As for AI... "Like"? Really? So you are saying that the reason behind the organic-synthetic conflict is dislike of each other? This is...like, child's logic. If you want to prove that synthetics would want to organize Armageddon in the galaxy then simple 'dislike' won't cut it. For a conflict to happen there needs to be a stronger reason.

 

Geth are absolutely a threat to organic life. With only a small fraction of the over all Geth population they were able to strike into the heart of Citadel Space. While they were fully aware the attack was coming BTW. And effectively wipe out the fleets in charge of protecting the Citadel. You can't even make the argument that Sovereign was there because it did nothing but barrel though a couple of cruisers. EDI is an individual AI but is also an individual AI able to control a heavy Frigate with stealth technology. She sure as heck is a threat to organic life. Gambling AI wasn't defeated by Shep in any normal sense. Pulling the equivalent of powering down a conduit charge to prevent the explosion from causing any damage isn't really defeating them as if the AI actually had a chance.

Oh boy. You misunderstood. You are talking about potential threat. But potential threat is everywhere in ME universe. I am talking about the intentional threat. Geth don't venture outside the Perseus Veil (your example is of Heretics) and are only a threat to invaders. EDI means no harm to organics, it is ready to burn its last circuits just to defeat the Reapers. Do you understand now?

4) "Why do you need their DNA when you can just upload ther minds to the Reaper platform?"
Your answer:

 

They melt the body down to use it to construct the Reapers. Why waste resources they would need to harvest from the planets to create the Reaper body when they can simply break down the harvesting bodies into their individual elements and then reform them in ways needed to create the Reaper body. Reapers are serious about recycling.

Okay. So it elemental transmutation then and is needed just as a building material. But what about the minds and personalities? Have they been uploaded or not?

5) "Why does the Catalyst control them instead of giving them free will?"
You avoided the question.

6) "And why use them as a weapon when they are not invincible?"

 

Invincibility is an illusion nothing is invincible. How ever the usual harvest pattern was interrupted during this cycle leading to a much more protracted war. As well as allowing the species of the galaxy to upgrade their arsenals to stand up more against them. Some losses are inevitable.

You didn't really provide an answer as to why put Reapers in harm's way. Losses are inevitable in wars. The Catalyst says however that Reapers are not in conflict with organics, they just fulfill their purpose. So why start the harvest so late and in so blunt manner when it puts the precious Reapers in danger? I mean, it made more sense in ME2 than in ME3. Collectors were harvesting humans for the Reapers and the Reapers themselves were safe in the Dark Space. Why not continue this silent harvest? There got to be other slave species that can be used for harvesting purposes.

7) "Why not make invincible Reapers? Or why not make purely synthetic Reaper soldiers for the Harvest and let the "civillian"(harvested) Reapers "live" in Dark Space where noone can harm them?"

 

Creating a massive army of fully synthetic creations would be an extremely resources heavy endeavor.

So, you want to tell me that those same ancient machines gods that constructed idestructible Mass Relays (only asteroids can break them) and the Citadel (which when closed is indestructible as well) don't have the resources to build the Reapers with the same properties? I don't buy it. And why can't they use the same organic material and transmute it into something as strong as the Mass Relays?

8) And why preserve species in Reaper form when you can simply destroy them to make room for younger species?
You avoided the question.

9) "What is the Catalyst's 'solution': To preserve organic LIFE in general OR preserve advanced SPECIES in Reaper form?"

 

Advanced life is organic life. It is entirely possible to wipe out all organic life in the galaxy. Everything from advanced species to simple bacteria has tolerances of what it can life in. A few asteroid strikes or orbital bombardment would render the planet incapable of supporting anything more advanced then bacteria. And even that could be killed off.  Say a race of AI's attacked Earth and destroyed it's fleets in orbit. They wouldn't even need to land on the planet. Fireing at it from orbit would wipe out all life but leave it in a state they they would still be able to live/harvest resource from it.

So which is it? You avoided the question. What needs to be preserved here? Organic life in general as in plants, animals, bacteria etc or advanced species that are harvested to build a Reaper?

In total: you avoided 6 my points out of 9. This is a very one-sided discussion which is getting annoying.

[AlanC9]

There is no downside? How can you know? All we know, all anyone knows, is that the Crucible is very powerful. Skip to the end, and it is basically useless, inactive. UNTIL that entity, the bane of civilizations, pulls a walking corpse up to its perch and tells it to activate it. We have basically given the great enemy our most powerful device.
It could be a simple ploy to get the Crucible to simply destroy all allied ships, sparing a few Reapers.

OK, I'll play. How can the Crucible make things worse? Without the Crucible the galaxy faces decades of slow extermination as the Reapers harvest everybody. With the Crucible things are worse because..... I got nothing.

Blowing up a few Reapers won't help our cycle. It's not even clear it would help the next cycle.

[Natureguy85]

Still discussing the ending? Great!

 

I post my most recent interpretation of ME3 (imho, it was terribile before the extented cut, and brilliant after).

 

[Interesting post]

 

You have some interesting and fun thoughts, but there is a lot of induction there that is making trying to make sense of what’s presented when the presentation ought to make sense. The one that stood out to me is the idea of the Catalyst having limited control of the Citadel. As we’ve discussed in this or another thread, that may be required to make sense of what is presented, but there is no good reason for it to be that way.  The Catalyst is a retcon.

 

 

 

Is it really possible to exterminate all life? You can exterminate every living and breathing species but not the life itself (well, not if you plan to destroy every planet of every star system which is absurd). Even if you scorch the planet of all life it will develop again. From bacteria to more complex creatures. Slowly, but it will flourish. So it doesn't make sense that the Catalyst would bother at all. If all it wants is to preserve (new) life then why interfere? Let the synthetics destroy organics. The life is still there.

 

Well, I never took it to mean all life period. I always saw it as sapient life and that is strengthened by Leviathan.

 

 

 

 

Doesn't the epilogue though strongly imply that the Catalyst is wrong about it's predictions of inevitability? There's no sign of the roboapocolypse in any of the endings. The Rannoch arc and EDI also downplay the idea of Synthetics eventually destroying whatever stage of advanced life. The only time the story commits to this idea of rampant AI is with the actual Catalyst dialogue.

 

As far as the audience and story are concerned, yes, because the story is over after the Stargazer scene and there has still been no problem. However, the apologists will use the “eternity defense” which is to forever claim that it simply hasn’t happened YET.

 

 

 

 

1) The 'solution' preserves organic life. The point isn't to save any particular species, but organic LIFE in general. Left to itself, the war between synthetics and organics would eventually wipe out all organic life. The X trilogy, particularly X3:Terran Conflict, did a beautiful job of framing that - synthetic life keeps recursively improving itself, while organic life cannot. Once synthetics destroy all organic life, life in the galaxy is over.

 

2) This part I didn't understand either... Maybe a giant museum somewhere holding the accomplishments and history of all the cycles would have been better.

 

1) That’s the Catalyst’s claim, but that has not been demonstrated by the story.

 

2) The Superman Animated Series had Brainiac collecting all knowledge and information from a species and then wiping them out. He claimed that it was his job to preserve knowledge and that “the fewer who possess the knowledge, the more precious it becomes.” He was a crazed AI that needed to be defeated. He and Superman didn’t chat it out and have Superman pick from 3 options presented by Brainiac. Superman fought and defeated him.

[Natureguy85]

 

You want them to rest on the fact they have an otherness about them. I point out how boring it is and lack of creativity to do yet another copy of the exact same thing. And then you cry I am stating you want nothing about them. That is a straw man if ever I saw one because you are not actually addressing what I posted but inventing something I did not state to bypass the need to respond to it. Creativity of any kind is always important in this world and BioWare attempting to make the Reapers more then yet another not deeply explained Eldritch horror is frankly boring. There is a reason why the horror slasher movies aren't being made a lot anymore. It is an over played premise that isn't interesting because it lacks creativity. You have seen one you have seen the rest. 

 

Emphasis mine.

 

Their otherness is just one of their qualities and it works for them. I never said that’s their only quality, nor that it can never be discarded in exchange for more knowledge on them. I said a COMPLEX explanation is not required.

 

You did claim I want nothing about them:

 

 

-Looks at your reply and how you make a direct comparison to Eldrich/Lovecraftian monsters and how Reapers should have no real story and be just like them-

 

Emphasis mine.

 

The BS defense of creativity is not going to fly with me. Creativity is a good thing but it doesn’t mean every attempt is successful. It doesn’t make it immune from criticism. It doesn’t mean the story doesn’t have to make sense.

 

 

 

But on the actual topic organic life is more then simply a handful of races. If for example all the Asari died it would not mean all organic life is killed. If tomorrow all humans on earth suddenly died it would not mean all organic life would be gone. It is pure grade A ego that makes any individual or group suddenly think they are the singular representation of everything. Organic life does not end because the Reapers harvested the Asari, Turian, Humans, Salarians, Quarians, Vorcha, Elcor, Volus and the rest shown in the game. Just like organic life did not end when the Reapers showed up and harvested the Protheans and those various races.  In any system some life can and will go extinct all on it's own.

 

The best example would be a fruit tree. The tree grows and produces fruit at their peak the Reapers come and harvest it. That action doesn't actually kill the tree it just removes what it produced. Over time new fruit will form on it. No matter how many times the Reapers harvest the tree it will continue to bear fruit again and again. The synthetic over running they warn about would be more the equivalent of them cutting off all the branches and driving copper nails into each of the stumps. Ensuring it won't regrow back.  Which if you notice is very different then what the Reapers do.

 

That’s true but not relevant to the species that are about to be killed. It also doesn't mean the Reaper's solution is the most sensible, particularly after Leviathan where we know their concern was tribute from their thralls.

 

 

 

 

Only because you don't like the route they went because again you disagree with the basis of the story. Because you have clearly stated you want the vagueness without any detailed explanation because....reasons I guess. You haven't really given to much other then previous Eldritch Horrors are set up with minimal explanations.  Even though arguably the bad guy who is doing something bad because they think it is the best thing to do is a much more intersting antagonist then one doing bad things just because they can. 

 

I don’t like the route they went because it’s stupid. I’ve thoroughly explained why the Reapers didn’t need a detailed explanation, only one of which dealt with the Eldrich Abomination influence.

 

Oh, there is nothing wrong with the Reapers existing to solve some sort of problem to make us consider that they might be necessary. The problem is the actual problem they chose to claim and how poor of a solution to that problem the Reapers are. The original Dark Energy plot had the Reapers trying to preserve the galaxy itself. That could have done well with some work.

 

 

 

 

 

Not necessarily. Particularly when that one example isn't capable of stopping the rest. 300 years from now and the majority of AI's revolt and kill off all organics and the minority of AI's that stand with organics. Doesn't change the fact that the Catalyst's words would be true. 

 

 

Yes, it does. The Catalyst says ALWAYS. It isn’t inevitable and therefore we don’t need the Reapers. They need to go away. If the problem does pop up, we’ll deal with it then. There is no need to be proactive as far as the current cycle is concerned.

 

 

 

 

 Doesn't really matter if they treat species as monolithic. That only goes as far as basic cultural things to establish generalities about the various races. At no point in the game does it show Garrus's development being matched by every other Turian in the game. At no point does Tali's development match ever Quarian in the game. Wrex's development doesn't match every Krogan in the game. This is particularly evident in ME 2 were it is clear he has to forcibly push his ideas on some of the more stubborn clans. There are instances of the various races sort of coming a long the lines of the character's development like if you make peace between Quarian and Geth but that is well after Tali has already developed into not hating Geth and being more sympathetic towards them. But it doesn't mean all Quarians agree with her as she states some Quarians are allowing Geth into their suits to alter the environment to mimic infections to increase their immune system. Some being the key word not all.

 

The squadmates are the exceptions that prove the rule. You are right that they divide the Krogans and Quarians for purposes of conflict, but that is only dealing with their respective local issue.

 

 

 

 

to put it simply you over simply the problem so you can complain that the Catalyst's solution is over complicated.

 

 

 

What is so complicated about what the Catalyst says? It’s pretty simple.

[Natureguy85]

Because there have been moments of peace for years to decades at a time before fighting inevitably breaks out again.

 

Not really. There may not be major world wars, but there are smaller regional conflicts. And often that “peace” is only achieved through overwhelming force, not some sort of agreement or conflict resolution.

 

 

Synthetic's represent the total death of advanced organic life forever. Nothing would grow or develop to take it's place.  Again I refer to my fruit tree example. Reapers harvest the fruit each cycle but keep the tree healthy enough to bare fruit time and time again. Synthetics taking over would cut the tree down and drive copper stakes into the stump.

 

This is a neat concept. Too bad the game never said anything that interesting. The Leviathans just wanted goodies without working for them, like the Grasshoppers from A Bug's Life. The Catalyst preserves Organics, in it's twisted way, just because it was made to do so. It doesn't have it's own reason.

 

 

 

You would need to some how force a limitation on technological development. Which is simply not feasible to do with a galaxy as large as it is.

 

Not really, given the Reapers numbers and military superiority. They should be able to shut down any robot uprising relatively early.

 

 

 

 The set up of turning them into goo and transferring their thoughts and memories possibly even their entire consciousness into a Reaper body is not that strange.

 

 

The problem is the goo part. It actually would have made perfect sense and worked really well if they’d gone with the idea of the Reapers uploading everyone’s mind to a Reaper brain rather than go with pumping the goop into a shell. Remember that pile of bodes on the Collector Cruiser? They could be the empty shells after the minds were uploaded. The other benefit is that the Reapers would stay Synthetics rather than being Cyborgs.

 

 

 

And yet it wouldn't be allowed to grow. It would be like weeds in a garden. Just as they start to take form they are ripped from the ground.

 

So? What benefit is the growth to the Catalyst?

[BloodyMares]

Well, I never took it to mean all life period. I always saw it as sapient life and that is strengthened by Leviathan.

Me neither. It was my counter-argument to gothpunkboy's statement that Reapers kill off advanced organics just to make sure the new sapient life appears and that synthetics can somehow interfere with that. But it's not really different from the normal synthetics destroying all sapient life. I mean, how does the evolution work and where does the sapient life come from? There was a point in time where there was no sapient life on Earth. It developed somehow. That is why I used an all life example. No matter what you do it is still possible that sapient life will re-emerge. And if it will, why would the Catalyst care? The evolution itself preserves organic life, no reason to 'solve' anything. The only difference between the hypothetical destruction by synthetics and the Harvest is that the cycle is much faster in Reaper version.

[AlanC9]

The only difference between the hypothetical destruction by synthetics and the Harvest is that the cycle is much faster in Reaper version.

Unless the synthetics occupy and utilize the planets in such a way as to preclude organic evolution. The problem is that there's no real reason to do this in a universe with cheap FTL travel; it worked in Accelerando because dismantling the planets to build a matrioshka brain was feasible while FTL communication was not, but in ME there's no obvious reason why synthetics should be interested in garden worlds.

But really, this is a problem with the entire series rather than ME3 in particular.

[Natureguy85]

 

And yet the Catalyst has tried that and it always ended in conflict.  Saying all that matters is to give peace a chance is....frankly child like. We humans have been giving peace a chance for thousands of years and that hasn't stopped any of the fighting, the death, the destruction at all.

 

Hey, I have to simplify it so that even you can understand it. It's about self-determination. The peace may not last but it will be good while it does and we'll deal with the conflict when it comes. We don't need the Reapers.

And in another post you say there have been periods of peace so obviously it does stop the fighting for periods. However, I mean it just for this particular case.

 

 

 

 

It was always hopeless.

 

The first game set up Sovereign as a force beyond understanding coming to wipe everyone out.  Yes, we get a temporary victory over one Reaper, but we also get the knowledge of the certainty that many more are coming. The second game has the suicide mission. We destroy the Collector base, but that does nothing to help all the colonies that have been wiped out, and the game ends with the massive fleet of Reapers shown arriving. Nothing we did slowed the Reapers down in the slightest.

 

Lovecraft understood true horror. It isn't that the Old Ones are coming. It's knowing that they are coming and also knowing that there is NOTHING you can do to stop them. That is the note that Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 were playing.

 

Futility has been done successfully in video games before. Mass Effect's main story isn't close to original in any regard. The problem is the "twist" they tried to pull at the end was to give a real chance of hope and triumph. True twist endings are very hard to pull off (movies like the Sixth Sense don't have twists, they have reveals). That's where everything started to fall apart theme wise. Peace between the Geth and the Quarians is probably the most egregious example, since it seems to go directly against the catalysts premise (which isn't to say that eventually, the Geth wouldn't wipe the Quarians out anyway - they're still babies, relatively speaking).

 

The Reapers are inspired by Lovecraft, but Mass Effect is not a horror game nor a horror story. The problem is that you're conflating two uses of the word hope. You're arguing that there was never any chance of defeating the Reapers and using that to make a claim about the tone, which is different. In terms of there being no hope, as in no way or chance of beating the Reapers, you're right. However that's because ME2 did nothing.

 

However, in terms of tone or feeling, the series was full of hope. Shepard was adamant that s/he'd find a way to stop the Reapers. Characters kept telling Shepard they were going to win. Nobody was ever full of despair.

 

So your issue shouldn't be with the Quarian or Genophage arcs, since those went the way they were always going to go. Your problem should be with the Catalyst suddenly being dropped in as a solution with no build up or investigation. And I would agree with that complaint.

[sveners]

So what?
What happens when not using the Crucible can be describe as "We're all gonna die!!1oneEleven!"
That is also the worst case (albeit most likely) of what happens when using it. But the point is: Each and every other outcome can only be better than that.

I will admit that my example might have been a bit simplistic, but the fact remains that the Catalyst is in control of the situation. He knows what the Crucible is capable of. What it can do. Evidenced by his willingness/eagerness to use it.

Only imagination sets limits to what the Crucible is able to do. Just look at Synthesis. I can imagine many scenarios worse for the galaxy at large than us going out fighting.