1042 réponses à ce sujet

[Laughing_Man]

So...whoever claimed that I can't believe whatever I want?  Look at the bolded text in your subsequent post... apparently, you did (or maybe if you want to split hairs, you're telling me that I can believe whatever I want, but I'm just "wrong" for believing it.)  BTW, I think it's you who owe me an apology.

 

I didn't ask for apology, and I don't see why I should give one, I merely claimed that your overall attitude seems to be less about pure analysis of the facts, and more about finding interpretations that support what is probably the author's intent, while ignoring the fact that the story itself has implications which are completely different.

 

Anyway, this was my original post that didn't force you to believe anything and merely pointed a flaw:

 

That is assuming that you can take the Catalyst words at face value, and that Shepard is not simply going to be some more data sprinkled atop the existing Catalyst because the Catalyst was somehow impressed by Shepard.

 

But even assuming you can believe it, 50,000 years for a digital personality is a long time. It is likely that at some point Shepard will resemble more the Catalyst with his thought processes than his original organic source.

 

And here you see fit to inform me that you can believe whatever you want, despite me never claiming otherwise.

You transformed an argument about the interpretation of a story, into a passionate rant about your "rights" and proceeded to white knight Bioware against all the meanies, while going into the entirely different topic of the continuation to ME:A.

 

... If I want to, I should be able to take what the Catalyst says at face value just as much as I might take any other line in the Trilogy at face value or not.  There is no singularly "correct" way to interpret any of ME3's endings.  BSN definitely has a strong bias though and rather forcefully tries to make everyone who comes here interpret the endings in the exact same way... and then they want to blame Bioware for not "canonizing" that "BSN approved" interpretation - most of which leads to "Destroy is the only option" rhetoric.

 

There is no reason why the endings and decisions made in the ME Trilogy should be carried over into ME:A.  The story of Shepard and the Reapers is done.  The ending to that book is old news - whichever one you favor.  We're opening an entirely new book in ME:A.  It doesn't have to even be remotely connected to the story told in the ME Trilogy.  What Bioware writes under the moniker of their own trademark (Mass Effect) is entirely up to them.

 

So, I have no idea what your point was. And since this is rather pointless, I'll just wish you good luck.

My interest was in discussing the Cayalyst and possible interpretations, not go into another endless fight about Bioware and the mean fans,

and who threw the first stone.

[UpUpAway95]

I don't think Refuse is nature taking it's course, because the Reapers and cycles are unnatural and orchestrating nature. All Destroy is to me is getting rid of this. Then nature takes it's course, for better or worse.

 

 

..Funnily, I'm watching a documentary on hurricanes atm.

 

... and certainly that's yet another way to interpret it.

 

Again... my point is that there is no singularly "correct" way to interpret any of the endings.  For every interpretation that leans one way, the opposing way is probably also equally interpretable.  So, in addition to the problems of carrying forward with 3 different overall world states resulting from the endings... they would have to incorporate enough vagueness to allow for a multitude of interpretations of those same endings.  The Trilogy was it's own story and it ended in a multitude of different ways... but it clearly ended.  The expectation that all those choices need to be carried forward into a completely new game (or Tirlogy or Series) is basically unreasonable. 

 

If an author writes a book, they don't necessarily have to make anything about that book carry over into a new book that they write years later... and people somehow manage to read and understand the new book without those connections.  To legitimately re-use the name "Mass Effect," all Bioware has to do is own the trademark (which they do).  Out of respect for what the original Trilogy stood for, they are making ME:A look and feel like a Mass Effecct game (that's clearly evident from the trailers).  They have said they will even given us some nods to the old Trilogy.  Beyond that, they are clearly telling us it's a new story... so  they are not trying to mislead us into thinking that it's going to be a continuation of the old one.

 

So, IMO,it's not BS... It's well within Bioware's rights to leave our old decisions out of ME:A entirely.

[straykat]

... and certainly that's yet another way to interpret it.

 

Again... my point is that there is no singularly "correct" way to interpret any of the endings.  For every interpretation that leans one way, the opposing way is probably also equally interpretable.  So, in addition to the problems of carrying forward with 3 different overall world states resulting fromt he endings... they would have to incorporate enough vagueness to allow for a multitude of interpretations of those same endings.  The Trilogy was it's own story and it ended in a multitude of different ways... but it clearly ended.  The expectation that all those choices need to be carried forward into a completely new game (or Tirlogy or Series) is basically unreasonable. 

 

If an author writes a book, they don't necessarily have to make anything about that book carry over into a new book that they write years later... and people somehow manage to read and understand the new book without those connections.  To legitimately re-use the name "Mass Effect," all Bioware has to do is own the trademark (which they do).  Out of respect for what the original Trilogy stood for, they are making ME:A look and feel like a Mass Effecct game (that's clearly evident from the trailers).  They have said they will even given us some nods to the old Trilogy.  Beyond that, they are clearly telling us it's a new story... so  they are not trying to mislead us into thinking that it's going to be a continuation of the old one.

 

So, IMO,it's not BS... It's well within Bioware's rights to leave our old decisions out of ME:A entirely.

 

I have to disagree. There's nothing natural about them.

 

I generally like giving room for different views though. And wouldn't persuade someone much, if they're set on Refuse. But I think that's mostly a moral and principled choice. It has nothing to do with letting nature take it's course. They just don't want to play any of the Reaper's (or Bioware's) games at this point. I can understand that.

[AngryFrozenWater]

This is not an very sensible thing to believe.... unless the Catalyst really was right about everything all along, which I guess is possible even if nothing in the game supports it. If the cycles were a mistake, why would a new AI make the same mistake rather than a new mistake?

The problem with the Intelligence is that it knows for certain it is right. But it also knows that cyclical harvests are not the best solution. It was using the cycles as an on-going experiment to find a better solution. It believes that synthesis is that "ideal solution". Whether or not organics created it or whether or not the Intelligence had a hand in that is academic. Now that it found its "ideal solution" it simply presents Shepard with its finding. It appears to me that this is simple good ol' computer logic and the Intelligence acts like: Here it is. You can do whatever you want with it, destroy us, have control over my resources to find another solution, or invoke synthesis. The Intelligence does not care what option you select (other than recommending synthesis), because it has finished its task.

[AlanC9]

Hmm... so the mission is only to find the solution, rather than to see that a solution is implemented?

[AngryFrozenWater]

Hmm... so the mission is only to find the solution, rather than to see that a solution is implemented?

Yes. It appears that way. The leviathans wanted a solution, but didn't ask to implement it. The leviathans also tell Shepard that the cyclical harvests will continue until the Intelligence finds what it is looking for. In its way of thinking, it doesn't make sense to find a solution when there is no one left to accept it. The harvests were also a kind of duct tape until that "ideal solution" was found.

 

Note: I really don't like any of its solutions and shoot the tube.

[themikefest]

Yes. It appears that way. The leviathans wanted a solution, but didn't ask to implement it. The leviathans also tell Shepard that the cyclical harvests will continue until the Intelligence finds what it is looking for. In its way of thinking, it doesn't make sense to find a solution when there is no one left to accept it. The harvests were a kind of duct tape until that "ideal solution" was found.

 

Note: I really don't like any of its solutions and shoot the tube.

Leviathan suffered from politician syndrome. The big head. Believing everything they do and say is right no matter what. When they created the intelligence, it gave the thing the mandate to preserve life at any cost. It had free reign. No shackles. Once done, Leviathan went back to sitting on Miami Beach soaking up some rays with its thralls  fanning them thinking the intelligence will solve the problem. Little did they realize that mandate would nearly wipe them out.

[Mcfly616]

Leviathan suffered from politician syndrome. The big head. Believing everything they do and say is right no matter what. When they created the intelligence, it gave the thing the mandate to preserve life at any cost. It had free reign. No shackles. Once done, Leviathan went back to sitting on Miami Beach soaking up some rays with its thralls  fanning them thinking the intelligence will solve the problem. Little did they realize that mandate would nearly wipe them out.

 That doesn't make it wrong though (right and/or wrong is entirely subjective here). As the intelligence says, the Leviathan failed to realize they were part of the problem. 

[themikefest]

 That doesn't make it wrong though (right and/or wrong is entirely subjective here). As the intelligence says, the Leviathan failed to realize they were part of the problem. 

The thing is an ai. Would an organic come up with the same solution?

[Mcfly616]

The thing is an ai. Would an organic come up with the same solution?

 An organic couldn't come up with a solution, hence the creation of the intelligence in the first place.

[themikefest]

 An organic couldn't come up with a solution, hence the creation of the intelligence in the first place.

 Leviathan? Ha. What effort did they make to come up with a solution before deciding on creating a thing to solve the problem?

[AngryFrozenWater]

What Leviathan? Ha. What effort did they make to come up with a solution before deciding on creating a thing to solve the problem?

There are no records of that. Besides, it doesn't really matter, does it? We were stuck with the Intelligence.

[Mcfly616]

What Leviathan? Ha. What effort did they make to come up with a solution before deciding on creating a thing to solve the problem?

 We'll never know what effort they made before creating the intelligence. But you're free to imagine whatever you like, cynical or otherwise. It's irrelevant either way. We only know that the subservient species were creating ai's of their own, and were consequently wiping themselves out. One civilization after another. The Leviathan created the intelligence to bridge the gap in organic/synthetic relations in order to find a solution. 

 

If it's in our nature to destroy ourselves/eachother....then we must change nature.

[KaiserShep]

 Leviathan? Ha. What effort did they make to come up with a solution before deciding on creating a thing to solve the problem?

 

Considering that the Leviathan are physically incapable of doing a lot of things for themselves that require doing just about anything that requires hands, it makes sense that they'd get whatever thralls they have left to assemble some sort of automated system to do the dirty work for them. 

[KaiserShep]

 If it's in our nature to destroy ourselves/eachother....then we must change nature.

 

I think this idea is why Synthesis is so ridiculously unsatisfying. It's basically magic run on pure cynicism. 

[Mcfly616]

I think this idea is why Synthesis is so ridiculously unsatisfying. It's basically magic run on pure cynicism. 

I'm not a synthesis "fan" (I don't hate it per se), but it's fairly obvious that it is (as intended by Bioware) the "solution" to the inevitable/eternal organic-synthetic conflict.

[AngryFrozenWater]

...

 

If it's in our nature to destroy ourselves/eachother....then we must change nature.

But destroying ourselves or each other is not the idea behind the crippled logic. The idea seems to be that there is a non-zero chance that organics will create synthetics, who in the end want to exterminate organics. For some reason it is inevitable. The bad part about that is that in two cycles that we know of, there was no evidence that pointed in this direction. The two suspect incidents (involving the geth and zha'til) turned out to be set up by the reapers.

[themikefest]

There are no records of that. Besides, it doesn't really matter, does it? We were stuck with the Intelligence.

In this cycle? No it doesn't matter. It only matters to stop the harvest. Worry about dealing with Leviathan after that's taken care of.
 

The Leviathan created the intelligence to bridge the gap in organic/synthetic relations in order to find a solution.

And failed to give it any restrictions on what it can do. Their failure to do that came back and bit them in the backside. That's why I say they suffer from politician syndrome. They don't give any thought to what the consequences might be to anything they do. They just want thralls to kiss their feet or tentacles or whatever.
 

If it's in our nature to destroy ourselves/eachother....then we must change nature.

Then Leviathan should release it hold of its thralls and let them solve their own problems
 

Considering that the Leviathan are physically incapable of doing a lot of things for themselves that require doing just about anything that requires hands, it makes sense that they'd get whatever thralls they have left to assemble some sort of automated system to do the dirty work for them.

I'm sure if the thralls had freewill, they would tell Leviathan to take a hike

[KaiserShep]

I'm not a synthesis "fan" (I don't hate it per se), but it's fairly obvious that it is (as intended by Bioware) the "solution" to the inevitable/eternal organic-synthetic conflict.

 

 

I get that, but I don't think a lot of thought was put into how well the narrative really gels with its premise. The fact that we had synthetic allies that were so easily accepted among our central cast made it even worse. 

[KaiserShep]

I'm sure if the thralls had freewill, they would tell Leviathan to take a hike

 

I imagine if the people in the Leviathan's time had free will, they'd probably wipe them out. 

[Mcfly616]

But destroying ourselves or each other is not the idea behind the crippled logic. The idea seems to be that there is a non-zero chance that organics will create synthetics, who in the end want to exterminate organics. For some reason it is inevitable. The bad bad part about that is that in two cycles that we know of, there was no evidence that pointed in this direction. The two suspect incidents (involving the geth and zha'til) turned out to be set up by the reapers.

 Yes, the entire basis for the problem is that all advanced organic civs will end up creating ai's in order to advance even further, these ai's will inevitably rebel and the two will destroy each other. Basically, Leviathan saw this inevitability (after so many occurences it became a foregone conclusion) and chose to safeguard the galaxy for future life at all costs....meaning preventing the two sides from rendering the entire Milky Way uninhabitable.

 

Neither of them were set up by the Reapers. The were created and used and rebelled. Only to become tools of the Reapers later on in their respective cycles.

[AngryFrozenWater]

In this cycle? No it doesn't matter. It only matters to stop the harvest. Worry about dealing with Leviathan after that's taken care of.

They're "useful" as a war asset. Too bad the game doesn't tell us much about what happens to them later.

[Iakus]

 We'll never know what effort they made before creating the intelligence. But you're free to imagine whatever you like, cynical or otherwise. It's irrelevant either way. We only know that the subservient species were creating ai's of their own, and were consequently wiping themselves out. One civilization after another. The Leviathan created the intelligence to bridge the gap in organic/synthetic relations in order to find a solution. 

 

If it's in our nature to destroy ourselves/eachother....then we must change nature.

We don't even know that.  It's second hand information a billion years removed.

[AngryFrozenWater]

 Yes, the entire basis for the problem is that all advanced organic civs will end up creating ai's in order to advance even further, these ai's will inevitably rebel and the two will destroy each other. Basically, Leviathan saw this inevitability (after so many occurences it became a foregone conclusion) and chose to safeguard the galaxy for future life at all costs....meaning preventing the two sides from rendering the entire Milky Way uninhabitable.

 

Neither of them were set up by the Reapers. The were created and used and rebelled. Only to become tools of the Reapers later on in their respective cycles.

Haha. I knew it. You were one of these people in the synthesis threads, back in the day right? Almost forgot.

 

For the umpteenth time, I'll present to you the heretics which were geth infected by a reaper virus. And the zha'til were corrupted by the reapers before they turned against their creators (after living with them in symbiosis).

[Mcfly616]

And failed to give it any restrictions on what it can do. Their failure to do that came back and bit them in the backside. That's why I say they suffer from politician syndrome. They don't give any thought to what the consequences might be to anything they do. They just want thralls to kiss their feet or tentacles or whatever.
 

 Regardless, they acknowledge the Intelligence is only doing its job. 

 

 

Then Leviathan should release it hold of its thralls and let them solve their own problems

 The thrall civilizations had enough freewill to create their own intelligences and destroy themselves over and over again. Seems they weren't solving their own problems too well. When you're at the top of the food chain, you take a certain custodianship of your environment. The Leviathan took a pragmatic approach and saw fit that this habit of destroying eachother/ourselves didn't ruin it for future life to inhabit the galaxy.