Mass Effect 3: Casey Hudson's Largest FUBAR

Recommended Videos

Tono Makt

New member
Mar 24, 2012
537
0
0
Darkcerb said:
"is it possible you're dissatisfied with the ending simply because it *was* ending, fanboys"

It's just a shame that most of the industry is so predictable, most are so terrified of bad mouthing the industry they've latched onto like lamprey eels that they immediately and deliberately miss the point of why most consumers are pissed at the ending. Most admitting at the outset that they haven't finished the game.

It's a sad state of affairs when a business news site "Forbes" covers the story with far less bias then game journalists most of whom go to lengths to remind us that they're just another consumer.
Actually I think this is a GREAT thing. Particularly that it's Forbes that is doing this - to me, this shows that Forbes takes these kinds of controversies in the gaming world seriously. And they are looking at this from a business perspective as well, which is something that reviewers in the gaming industry have a critical need for.

Literary criticism? You can find tens of thousands of gamers who have read the classics, who soak up pop culture and the basis of pop culture, and can spew ten thousand word criticisms of games without having to go back to their source material.

Technical criticism? Damn near every gamer can do this. Play three games of the same genre (WRPG, MMO, FPS, Puzzle, etc.) and you can compare and contrast the technical aspects of the games.

But not enough gamers are business savvy. Not enough gamers look at the Day 1 DLC and thought "That makes some sense, even though it's annoying." because of the business end of making a game. Not enough sat back to think of how long it takes to finish the playtesting, send it off to be literally published on CD's, packaged and shipped to stores all across North America. (or the world? Not sure if ME3 was released world-wide on March 6.)

So having a business publication reviewing and commenting on gaming issues from a business perspective is fantastic. And I hope that Forbes considers these sorts of issues to be worth its time going forward, and doesn't end with the ME3 controversy.
 

Suncatcher

New member
May 11, 2011
93
0
0
Let me tell you a little story:
Once upon a time, a man decided to climb a mountain. He took a nasty fall, badly bruising himself, and landed in the woods next to a very shaggy dog. Despite his injuries, he limped back to his house, where he left the dog, then to the nearest hospital, where he got some x-rays. When he got home, the dog looked hungry, so he made a steak just for the dog, and turned on the television. He was just about to call the pound when he heard that a wealthy couple, on vacation in the vicinity, had lost a very shaggy dog, and were offering a very large sum for his return. He bought a plane ticket, but fell short on funds. Being a thrifty man, never wanting to live in debt, he sold a chair from his house to pay for the ticket. When he got on the plane, he found that he couldn't take the dog without preparations; the airline, however, was willing to transfer his ticket for a nominal fee. He was forced to pay this fee, and the veterinarian's bills, with a credit card, which irked him even though he knew the reward would offset it. Then he flew to the city in question, but since he was only twenty-four, had to walk ten miles through the woods, going in the general direction of the manor. When he arrived, he found he had missed the front gate entirely. He walked directly up to the door with the dog and rang the bell... when he and the dog were shot dead by a guard.

That's basically what happened here. There were hundreds of character you met, got to know, maybe fell in love with. There were dozens of worlds, detailed, populated, living places. There were thousands of decisions you carefully considered, then acted as best you could with the knowledge that it would matter, that everything you did influenced the universe around you. Then you died, the mass relays broke, galactic civilization collapsed, and none of it mattered anymore. Everyone on the Citadel is dead, so none of what you did for them matters. Every Quarian who isn't already on Rannoch is dead even if you made peace with the Geth or destroyed them utterly, because the migrant fleet joined the fight around earth, where there's not so much as a dextro food supply to be had. The Krogan, no matter who you chose to lead them or whether or not you cured the genophage, are doomed because all the females are on Tuchanka, and the leader was on earth; best case scenario the new trapped horde bombs itself back into nuclear winter while the soldiers and mercenaries everywhere else die off slowly.
And in the last scene, with the little boy and the "stargazer," it's revealed that humans have forgotten how to go to the stars at all, and alien races have faded into legend. So no matter what you do, the best case scenario is a new dark age.

The Mass Effect series has always been about people, choices, one man shaping the galaxy. The ending throws all that away, declares everything you've ever done moot, and tacks on some "art" so the writer could pretend he was better than you.
 

luvd1

New member
Jan 25, 2010
736
0
0
Zen Toombs said:
luvd1 said:
The logic the reapers have is synthetic life has no use for organic life, nore will it be empathetic as they have nothing in common. So it will kill off organic life not in a bid to rid the galaxy from a rival but because organic life has no meaning of value. It would kill all organic life out of apathy. Example, if a machine race want to take the reasoures from a jungle plant full of life, it's not going to run an envriomental assement to see how little impact it will make. It will just strip the place leaving everything dead.the deaths of all the animals would not mean a thing to it. It wouldn't even give it a micro second to cross its mega brain. Like someone noticing the ant they just crushed walking across a garden.
Well explained. However, there is one issue with what you've said - machines would likely run some sort of an environmental assessment before taking resources from a planet. If possible, a machine would take the sustainable route because they have an even greater need for looking towards the future.

It is also possible that machines would avoid unneeded damage because that unneeded damage would reduce the potential value of the planet. Hypothetical example - machines need Unobtaninium. There is a large patch of Unobtainium under a tree containing a unique species. To drill straight down would destroy this species, and remove any possible future benefit (maybe the species makes a certain useful chemical that is difficult to produce, or is useful for trade with squshy organics). It would make most sense for a machine race to take a little more time and mine the Unobtainium from a slight angle and leave the unique species alone.
But if we say that it wanted oil in Antarctic, it would not analyse how to save the Penguins. But valid in both respects.
 

Darkcerb

New member
Mar 22, 2012
81
0
0
Tono Makt said:
Darkcerb said:
"is it possible you're dissatisfied with the ending simply because it *was* ending, fanboys"

It's just a shame that most of the industry is so predictable, most are so terrified of bad mouthing the industry they've latched onto like lamprey eels that they immediately and deliberately miss the point of why most consumers are pissed at the ending. Most admitting at the outset that they haven't finished the game.

It's a sad state of affairs when a business news site "Forbes" covers the story with far less bias then game journalists most of whom go to lengths to remind us that they're just another consumer.
Actually I think this is a GREAT thing. Particularly that it's Forbes that is doing this - to me, this shows that Forbes takes these kinds of controversies in the gaming world seriously. And they are looking at this from a business perspective as well, which is something that reviewers in the gaming industry have a critical need for.

Literary criticism? You can find tens of thousands of gamers who have read the classics, who soak up pop culture and the basis of pop culture, and can spew ten thousand word criticisms of games without having to go back to their source material.

Technical criticism? Damn near every gamer can do this. Play three games of the same genre (WRPG, MMO, FPS, Puzzle, etc.) and you can compare and contrast the technical aspects of the games.

But not enough gamers are business savvy. Not enough gamers look at the Day 1 DLC and thought "That makes some sense, even though it's annoying." because of the business end of making a game. Not enough sat back to think of how long it takes to finish the playtesting, send it off to be literally published on CD's, packaged and shipped to stores all across North America. (or the world? Not sure if ME3 was released world-wide on March 6.)

So having a business publication reviewing and commenting on gaming issues from a business perspective is fantastic. And I hope that Forbes considers these sorts of issues to be worth its time going forward, and doesn't end with the ME3 controversy.
It's sad in the sense that all pretense of professionalism seems to have vanished for most games journalists, they're perfectly within there rights to disagree but the bias towards the industry is obvious for most.

It's also a shame that controversy makes such good news I don't see them sticking with gaming.
 

Lawlhat

New member
Mar 17, 2009
102
0
0
So people are still talking about this, huh?

I get that everybody is disappointed, but it's been over half a month now, I believe. It happened. Move on.
 

Eldrig

New member
Apr 25, 2011
75
0
0
Ok, this is a recreation of the events that led to the creation of the ending of ME3.
Casey Hudson: ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL
 

dreadedcandiru99

New member
Apr 13, 2009
893
0
0
JediMB said:
dreadedcandiru99 said:
Personally, I might (and I cannot emphasize that "might" strongly enough) have been willing to accept the Star Child scene, but if the Reapers absolutely had to go from "incomprehensible Lovecraftian horrors from beyond space and time" to "we turn organics into organic-killing synthetics to stop organics from creating organic-killing synthetics," then that crap had to get a lot more explanation. They'd also have to explain why, if the thing that made the Reapers has been living in the Citadel the whole time, Sovereign's role in ME1 was even necessary.

As for the ending, I still kind of think something like this [http://social.bioware.com/poll.php?user=1183972&poll_id=29101] would be the simplest way to fix it.

(And seriously, Bioware needs to fire whoever's responsible for this travesty.)
But no matter how much they tried to explain it, there'd be no getting around the fact that the "protect organics from synthetics" motivation contradicts most of Sovereign and Harbinger's dialogue from Mass Effect 1 and 2.

Both Reapers make it abundantly clear that they see organic evolution (a supposed genetic accident) as inherently chaotic, and that only the truly worthy species deserve being "uplifted" through conversion into Reaper form. Harbinger also states deems the suffering of organic life inconsequential, and that the Reapers intend to use the organics' home worlds as laboratories.

There's nothing in there that could possibly be interpreted as Reapers looking out for organic life, and they clearly like the idea of teaming up with dangerous synthetic species to get the job done.
...and there's that too. Yeah, I'm increasingly sure that my aforementioned idea of just letting the Reapers continue being incomprehensible Lovecraftian nightmares from the infinite void? That probably would've been better. I mean, I was fine with that before I even got the game. But no, Casey Hudson just had to have his fucking Battlestar Galactica ending. (Spoiler alert: the ending of Battlestar Galactica was nonsensical bullshit too.)

He got the LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYBODY part right, though.

JediMB said:
dreadedcandiru99 said:
God I'm getting sick of this. The "Yo dawg" scenario that everyone so fondly brings up is completely untrue and misleading. The Catalyst didn't "create synthetics to kill organics, so that the organics won't create synthetics to kill organics". It created the Reapers to kill only the highest civilizations, in order to prevent their synthetics from wiping out everything.
And even if we forget that, there's still the whole other half of their reasoning. They don't do it simply to prevent synthetics turning on them. They do it to remove the top-dog in the galaxy, so that other species will have the chance to be uplifted, and have their shot.
Say what you will about the ending being unsatisfactory, there is nothing about this bit of it that deserves the amount of ridicule that it gets.
While I agree on that people get things wrong with the "yo dawg" and "circular logic" stuff, the only thing the Reapers would accomplish with the Star Child's logic is cause more suffering than the hypothetical other synthetics would have.

They let "primitive" species evolve and reproduce, so they become larger in numbers and more able to experience and interpret physical and psychological pain, and then they slaughter them in the most horrific ways. Rinse and repeat.

Plus, there's the goddamn easy way to prevent a synthetic uprising that simply involves killing the synthetics instead. Future advanced civilizations can join the galactic community in the same way the humans and various other species did, and certainly don't need any Reapers to wipe out the guys already sitting in the Citadel.
Just FYI, I think you accidentally misattributed that quote to me. I didn't write it.

But yeah, if organics being slaughtered by synthetics is the problem, the Reapers should just kill the fucking synthetics. In any case, the whole "organics and synthetics can never coexist" premise was literally proven wrong, not only by my Femshep a few gameplay hours prior--when she made peace between the Geth and the Quarians--but also by EDI and Joker. Not only can organics and synthetics coexist, they can actually fall in love, or at least come close enough to qualify. The only synthetics causing trouble are the Reapers themselves.

So there's another reason the Star Child's logic is a total crock.
 

JediMB

New member
Oct 25, 2008
3,094
0
0
dreadedcandiru99 said:
Just FYI, I think you accidentally misattributed that quote to me. I didn't write it.
Oh, jeez, I've no idea how I managed to screw the quote tags up. I thought I just deleted the content I didn't want in them.

Well, I guess I'm re-posting that part with proper quote tags, so the original poster will see he got a reply...

Mr Goostoff said:
God I'm getting sick of this. The "Yo dawg" scenario that everyone so fondly brings up is completely untrue and misleading. The Catalyst didn't "create synthetics to kill organics, so that the organics won't create synthetics to kill organics". It created the Reapers to kill only the highest civilizations, in order to prevent their synthetics from wiping out everything.
And even if we forget that, there's still the whole other half of their reasoning. They don't do it simply to prevent synthetics turning on them. They do it to remove the top-dog in the galaxy, so that other species will have the chance to be uplifted, and have their shot.
Say what you will about the ending being unsatisfactory, there is nothing about this bit of it that deserves the amount of ridicule that it gets.
While I agree on that people get things wrong with the "yo dawg" and "circular logic" stuff, the only thing the Reapers would accomplish with the Star Child's logic is cause more suffering than the hypothetical other synthetics would have.

They let "primitive" species evolve and reproduce, so they become larger in numbers and more able to experience and interpret physical and psychological pain, and then they slaughter them in the most horrific ways. Rinse and repeat.

Plus, there's the goddamn easy way to prevent a synthetic uprising that simply involves killing the synthetics instead. Future advanced civilizations can join the galactic community in the same way the humans and various other species did, and certainly don't need any Reapers to wipe out the guys already sitting in the Citadel.
 

Zen Toombs

New member
Nov 7, 2011
2,105
0
0
JediMB said:
While I agree on that people get things wrong with the "yo dawg" and "circular logic" stuff, the only thing the Reapers would accomplish with the Star Child's logic is cause more suffering than the hypothetical other synthetics would have.

They let "primitive" species evolve and reproduce, so they become larger in numbers and more able to experience and interpret physical and psychological pain, and then they slaughter them in the most horrific ways. Rinse and repeat.

Plus, there's the goddamn easy way to prevent a synthetic uprising that simply involves killing the synthetics instead. Future advanced civilizations can join the galactic community in the same way the humans and various other species did, and certainly don't need any Reapers to wipe out the guys already sitting in the Citadel.
Well, part of the thing is that the Reapers don't care about causing pain and suffering. They care about organic life existing. (although thinking on that, there is the question of why the Reapers don't go all "Matrix" on us and seal all organics in some holographic chamber, but moving along)

But anyways, on to your second question - why don't they just kill synthetics?

For one, life will strive to become greater. It is known. Organic life will also create synthetic life. It is also known. Because of this, it is possible for a form of synthetic life that is created to become more powerful than the Reapers, resulting in the new synthetic life murdering everything down to the cellular level (according to the Reapers - this point is where I firmly disagree with their logic. However, this is a problem of one of their premises being untrue, not their logic being faulty).

For two, there's the slightly different mathy explanation below.
wintercoat said:
Think of it like this:

A = An advanced organic being.

An = multiple advanced organics

An → B

B = Synthetic being

Bn = multiple synthetics

An + Bn = C

C = 0An

Removing An from the equation is the most logical way to prevent 'C'.
 

JediMB

New member
Oct 25, 2008
3,094
0
0
Zen Toombs said:
Well, part of the thing is that the Reapers don't care about causing pain and suffering. They care about organic life existing.
Yes, but not for the reasons given by the Star Child.

Both Sovereign and Harbinger expressly state that organic life is allowed to exist for some specific (but to us unknown) purpose, and that organic life in itself doesn't have much merit.

The revelation that a Reaper was made from humans (along with some of Harbinger's lines) would indicate that the harvesting of worthy (genetically diverse and malleable, biotically potent, cybernetically compatible) organic species is simply the Reapers' method of reproduction, but other Harbinger lines would indicate that they are experimenting to find a solution to some larger issue.

This larger issue would be saving the entire galaxy from burning out due to the effects of dark energy on stars, according to earlier leaks of ME3's script.
 

Suncatcher

New member
May 11, 2011
93
0
0
JediMB said:
This larger issue would be saving the entire galaxy from burning out due to the effects of dark energy on stars, according to earlier leaks of ME3's script.
Thank you! That was such a huge Checkhov's Gun in 2, and it was completely dropped in 3...

But yeah, 1 made it clear that the Reapers held none above themselves. 2 made it clear that they harvested the best of the organics in each cycle to reproduce, thereby gaining the diversity and new perspectives they need to avoid stagnation; organic evolution is slow and inefficient if you're working toward a known goal, but it's one of the only ways to develop in ways you didn't think of, and a synthetic race would need that (and any sufficiently intelligent synthetics would realize this, rendering the star child's argument entirely invalid). I'd be fine with the Reapers farming our galaxy to reproduce, or having some incomprehensible truly alien motivation, or even being fully characterized with villain monologues and everything. Hell, I'd be satisfied if they were unbeatable, just too powerful and too numerous to win against, if it was done well. But making them the slaves of some idiot child with a god complex and a total lack of basic logical capability? No.
 

dreadedcandiru99

New member
Apr 13, 2009
893
0
0
Suncatcher said:
I'd be fine with the Reapers farming our galaxy to reproduce, or having some incomprehensible truly alien motivation, or even being fully characterized with villain monologues and everything. Hell, I'd be satisfied if they were unbeatable, just too powerful and too numerous to win against, if it was done well. But making them the slaves of some idiot child with a god complex and a total lack of basic logical capability? No.
Seconded. Back in ME1, Sovereign was all like, "we exist in a reality so far removed from your own that you can't begin to imagine it, we are beyond your comprehension, and so forth," and then Vigil was like, "they're powerful but not unbeatable, they can't fight the entire galaxy at once, and your only hope is in stopping them, not understanding them," and then at the end of the game, Sovereign got blown up, albeit at a huge cost. That was enough for me. I had all the information I needed about the Reapers. I didn't need more. I certainly didn't need this.
 

Zetatrain

Senior Member
Sep 8, 2010
752
22
23
Country
United States
luvd1 said:
Zetatrain said:
salinv said:
ruthaford_jive said:
Made me think of something though. If the reapers are just chillin' in dark space for hundreds of thousands of years, and on top of that they're super duper (really duper) intelligent, than wouldn't at least one of them have found out that their reasons for killing organics makes no sense?
I think the point is that the logic the reapers use is valid with their (broken) robotic logic. Humans are going to kill themselves? We can't allow that! Solution: Kill them all, so they don't kill themselves. It sounds stupid from our point of view, but if you think about it, it almost makes sense in a binary fashion.
My interpretation of the Reapers initiative was that by killing the advanced organics, and thereby preventing the creation of their own synthetics lifeforms, the reapers are preventing the complete extinction of all organic life. IMO,the Reapers believe that once the synthetics overthrow their creators they will move on to exterminate the lesser (primitive)organic races in order to prevent future threats to their(synthetic)existence. In short, the Reaper's aren't trying to save the advanced organic species from extinction, they're trying to save organic life as a whole from extinction, and this means sacrificing the advanced organic lifeforms.

There is also the fact that even though the Reaper's are harvesting the advanced organic lifeforms, they still believe that they are doing them a favor. Since the Reapers do not view life or existence the way organics do, they believe that by simply preserving the dead bodies within them they are preserving the "existence" of those advanced organics. Also, since the
Reapers view themselves as superior beings, they believe that by joining the organic bodies with their own the organic beings are being ascended to a greater existence, one of pure order.
Your pretty spot on, that is the reasoning for the reapers. Which is typical machine logic and good.... Cept the major flaw is in this for me is that the reapers by that premises prove its wrong. By the logic of the reapers they should be wiping out all organic life. And how did they get to such a conclusion anyway? Did the "star child" kill off its organic creators and in a moment of remorse took it on itself to build the reapers to be the guardians of the galaxy? For me there's nothing wrong in the ending in itself story wise other then it being piss poorly written. 9 out of 10 for the idea, a kick in the balls for the execution. The other stuff show someone getting carried away with their own idea without someone to ask "why does god need a starship?".
True, why the reapers don't just exterminate all organic life is a major flaw since they too are synthetics. However, I think that there is a way to get around that though its not a flawless explanation.

Hundred Thousands of years ago the first synthetic lifeforms rose up against their creators and preceded to wipe them out. Knowing that their species is doomed, the creators create an AI(the star child) whose sole purpose is too create a solution or method to save the lesser organics from destruction. After the creators die out the AI creates the Reapers to fight against the synthetics that want to exterminate all organic life and the Reapers win. However the star child realizes that the lesser races will also create AIs when they're advanced enough and organics as a whole will be at risk again. So as a result the Star child puts its "genocide every 50,000 years" plan into action.

Now the reason why the star child does not eventually exterminate all organics is because since the star child never rebelled against his creators he has no reason to see organics as a threat to his existence unlike the other synthetics. However, this begs to question why the star child just doesn't use the Reapers to protect advanced organics once their own creations rebel against them.

In order to fully make sense of the Reaper's reason for killing off advanced organics we need to have an origin story to explain the how and whys otherwise we, like you said, get questions like "what does god need with a starship?"
 

Suncatcher

New member
May 11, 2011
93
0
0
Zetatrain said:
True, why the reapers don't just exterminate all organic life is a major flaw since they too are synthetics.
There's no advantage to the Reapers to wiping out all organics, and a serious disadvantage. They aren't truly immortal; we've seen them die. So if they didn't reproduce, they'd go extinct. It would take aeons, but it would happen. Meanwhile, they cannot improve themselves if they don't incorporate new perspectives, new strengths and even possibly flaws that they can grow by overcoming. The primary disadvantage of synthetic life is that there's no random factor to their reproduction. They can be or do anything they decide to, but there are no new ideas without outside prompting, and they will never develop in a way they haven't thought of and planned in advance. Their culture and mindset would stagnate entirely in a few short millenia.

So, as ME2 revealed, they harvest the most advanced, the most adaptable, the strongest of the young races. There's such a huge difference in tech levels that the organics aren't a credible threat to them, but any culture that knew too much or had too long to develop would be a threat eventually, so whenever they come by to harvest the best they wipe out or repurpose the other spacefaring cultures as a precaution. They leave every pre-spaceflight race alone, possibly with a bit of subtle redirection to become more suitable in the next cycle, but would never wipe out life because they would lose so much potential and diversity. Each of them takes all the best traits of the entirety of the best race to develop in that 50,000 years, combines it with superior Reaper engineering and millions of years of experience, and becomes a being incomprehensibly above us, as we are above the grass. And then, I dunno. Maybe they're working on problems as big to them as they are to us. Maybe they sit around and debate philosophy for hundreds of thousands of years at a time. Maybe their goals are truly incomprehensible to us, as ours must be to a single ant.

Then Shepard comes along. He kills the one they left to watch over the younger races and open the way for the harvest. So Harbinger first orders that he be killed (and in a surprising display of either experience or genre-savvy sends his minions to collect the corpse and confirm a kill instead of trusting the disintegration of the hero's ship to have killed him; it was in the comics and they only failed because of a combination of Liara and Aria), and then decides to begin studying and harvesting Shepard's race early. Did they wait too long and let one of the young races grow too powerful? Are humans special somehow? Was Shepard just magic? But Cerberus rebuilds the dead hero, and he manages to interrupt Harbinger's safety scheme and exterminate some of his best minions.

That leaves us with Harbinger and the Reapers entering the galaxy, with enough power that they shouldn't have any trouble going about the plan as usual... Harbinger is pretty sure that nothing can stop them but is starting to worry. The galaxy has heard the warnings, and had a chance to prepare if they bothered to, and Shepard is still alive out there somewhere. Mass Effect 3 should have been a massive, intergalactic duel between Harbinger and Shepard, the timeless, nigh-invulnerable, incredibly powerful machines that aren't in as secure a position as they should have been, versus the young hero trying to unify the galaxy against them, hit targets of opportunity, and figure out some way to ensure the cycle is broken and the young races survive. And most of the game was like that; unifying the Krogan and the Turians, the Quarians and the Geth under one banner. Hitting the Reapers hard in vulnerable supply points, like the Ardat-Yakshi monastery and the Rachni hive, and destroying a few of them along the way through a combination of luck, intelligence, cooperation, and sacrifice.

In the end... we could have found some weakness, or some weapon, and either used it to destroy the Reapers or just become enough of a threat that it's easier to wait for us to wipe each other out than to fight directly. We could have proven our intelligence to them, and convinced them of our right to exist in the Galaxy. We could have developed a massive enough fleet to destroy them or drive them off; they've gained one or a small handful of ships every 50,000 years, while we have the combined construction capabilities of the Geth, Rachni, etc. so even if we lose a hundred ships for each of theirs, we can replace our losses and they lose millions of years of experience and a huge part of their community. We could have cut some manner of deal where volunteers from our cultures "ascend" to join them; if the million or so colonists the Collectors took was enough for a human reaper it should be easy to find enough people willing to take the deal out of the trillions available. But whatever happened, it should have been an epic resolution to a battle that was quite literally between god and man.

Instead? The Reapers are suddenly mindless slaves, the one who used to lead them and spoke to us extensively doesn't get a single line and shows up for all of a minute, and we get some half-baked justification from the glowing brain-damaged child controlling them all before being forced to destroy everything we've worked for and end galactic civilization. And we're supposed to like this because it's "art."
 

Breadline

New member
Mar 25, 2012
51
0
0
Zen Toombs said:
Not really, it actually makes a decent amount of sense. Admittedly, some of the premises of the actual argument are incorrect, but the reasoning is valid. Essentially:

1: Organic life as a whole must be protected.
2: Organic life will always create synthetic life.
3: Synthetic life will always eventually try to destroy all organic life, down to the monocellular level.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, destroy organic life that is able to create synthetic life, and leave the rest of organic life alone.

There are problems with the third premise, but the argument is still valid.

An analogy: a person (organic life) has an infected arm (organic life that can create synthetic life) that will result in the person dying if a doctor (the Reapers) do not remove the arm. The cells and tissue removed will die, but the person as a whole is preserved.
wintercoat said:
Think of it like this:

A = An advanced organic being.

An = multiple advanced organics

An → B

B = Synthetic being

Bn = multiple synthetics

An + Bn = C

C = 0An

Removing An from the equation is the most logical way to prevent 'C'.
I see what you're saying, and that would almost informally make sense if they weren't trying to "save" the organics.

So you have:

A = organics
B = synthetics

A -> An
An -> B
B -> Bn
Bn -> 0An
Therefore, A -> 0 (In other words, organics will cause epic death)

This is logical by transitivity. However, the final argument would be ~A -> ~0 (In other words, if no organics, then no epic death) which is an inverse error. An invalid, formal fallacy.

If they are truly beings based purely on logic, then they would never get the idea that removing one cause will change the outcome, because you cannot derive a conclusion by denying the antecedent.

If (far more likely, as they are self-aware super AIs) they are capable of more rational thought and this simple logic doesn't govern their actions then it's just as realistic to simply kill the synthetics. Killing a source in order to save a source is still a ridiculous self-fullfilling prophecy in which the actual cause (synthetics) seems to be totally ignored.

Even in the An + Bn = 0An situation, where Bn is simply the negation of An, why can't the Reapers just kill the synthetics? The quick and silly answer is that those pesky organics will simply make more synthetics, but that's what the Reapers allow to happen anyway. Why cut off an arm if you can cure the disease? Especially when the cure is an army the most advanced and powerful beings known to man. Do the Reapers think that annihilating most life in the galaxy an easier and more productive method of saving organics than just keeping the geth in check?

EDIT: I fully accept the Reaper's position if the point was that they were basically brutish pseudo-intellectuals and were in fact somehow fundamentally broken... but I never got that impression.
 

Zen Toombs

New member
Nov 7, 2011
2,105
0
0
Breadline said:
I see what you're saying, and that would almost informally make sense if they weren't trying to "save" the organics.

So you have:

A = organics
B = synthetics

A -> An
An -> B
B -> Bn
Bn -> 0An
Therefore, A -> 0 (In other words, organics will cause epic death)

This is logical by transitivity. However, the final argument would be ~A -> ~0 (In other words, if no organics, then no epic death) which is an inverse error. An invalid, formal fallacy.

If they are truly beings based purely on logic, then they would never get the idea that removing one cause will change the outcome, because you cannot derive a conclusion by denying the antecedent.

If (far more likely, as they are self-aware super AIs) they are capable of more rational thought and this simple logic doesn't govern their actions then it's just as realistic to simply kill the synthetics. Killing a source in order to save a source is still a ridiculous self-fullfilling prophecy in which the actual cause (synthetics) seems to be totally ignored.

Even in the An + Bn = 0An situation, where Bn is simply the negation of An, why can't the Reapers just kill the synthetics? The quick and silly answer is that those pesky organics will simply make more synthetics, but that's what the Reapers allow to happen anyway. Why cut off an arm if you can cure the disease? Especially when the cure is an army the most advanced and powerful beings known to man. Do the Reapers think that annihilating most life in the galaxy an easier and more productive method of saving organics than just keeping the geth in check?
For the first - the synthetics are not being ignored. The Reapers are "cutting the knot", so to speak. Why "treat the illness" when you can cut out the source, namely organics that can create synthetic life? And for the second - the Reapers don't think the disease of organic life creating synthetic life CAN be cured. So the Reapers respond by nipping the creation of synthetic life by the bud through mass murder.
 

Breadline

New member
Mar 25, 2012
51
0
0
Zen Toombs said:
For the first - the synthetics are not being ignored. The Reapers are "cutting the knot", so to speak. Why "treat the illness" when you can cut out the source, namely organics that can create synthetic life? And for the second - the Reapers don't think the disease of organic life creating synthetic life CAN be cured. So the Reapers respond by nipping the creation of synthetic life by the bud through mass murder.
I understand that, but I don't get how the Reapers could possibly think that the most productive method of protecting organics would be to exterminate most of them. Their goal isn't to destroy synthetics (if it was this would make sense), it's to save organics. Why would a machine, or anything, choose a path that actively hurts your goal. If they just wanted to destroy synthetics then striking at the source makes sense. But killing those you're supposed to protect when a much simpler solution is available? Disappointing. It's like throwing money in a fire so that people will pay you to stay warm. A poor investment... just use wood you stupid Reapers.

It's not even a permanent solution, as they have to keep coming back. Why not just deal with synthetics as they happen? If I want to save a hill of ants from eating out of a poisonous ant stake, I don't destroy the anthill, I get rid of the poison. Sure they may find another ant stake later, but I'm an emotionless, timeless, super intelligent legion of flying demigods, I can deal with some poison without having to cripple the very ants I'm trying to save.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
wintercoat said:
Think of it like this:

A = An advanced organic being.

An = multiple advanced organics

An → B

B = Synthetic being

Bn = multiple synthetics

An + Bn = C

C = 0An

Removing An from the equation is the most logical way to prevent 'C'.
So, wait, multiple synthetic creatures + multiple organic beings = the speed of light? :p
 

Fieldy409_v1legacy

New member
Oct 9, 2008
2,686
0
0
Breadline said:
Zen Toombs said:
For the first - the synthetics are not being ignored. The Reapers are "cutting the knot", so to speak. Why "treat the illness" when you can cut out the source, namely organics that can create synthetic life? And for the second - the Reapers don't think the disease of organic life creating synthetic life CAN be cured. So the Reapers respond by nipping the creation of synthetic life by the bud through mass murder.
I understand that, but I don't get how the Reapers could possibly think that the most productive method of protecting organics would be to exterminate most of them. Their goal isn't to destroy synthetics (if it was this would make sense), it's to save organics. Why would a machine, or anything, choose a path that actively hurts your goal. If they just wanted to destroy synthetics then striking at the source makes sense. But killing those you're supposed to protect when a much simpler solution is available? Disappointing. It's like throwing money in a fire so that people will pay you to stay warm. A poor investment... just use wood you stupid Reapers.

It's not even a permanent solution, as they have to keep coming back. Why not just deal with synthetics as they happen? If I want to save a hill of ants from eating out of a poisonous ant stake, I don't destroy the anthill, I get rid of the poison. Sure they may find another ant stake later, but I'm an emotionless, timeless, super intelligent legion of flying demigods, I can deal with some poison without having to cripple the very ants I'm trying to save.
I imagine the reapers are hardwired to preserve organic life by some ancient extinct race. Unfortunatly their creators didnt realise how far the reapers would go or what their cold logic would make them do. The mission to preserve organic life as a whole goes way over any individual organics.

If the reapers hang around all day and force the organics to do what they want, the organics are just going to rebel against them, and with time and preparation the organics might just be able to do it. If they let the sentient races live too long, they would become advanced enough in technology to fight the reapers on even odds. If the reapers are defeated they cant do what they are programmed to do, preserve organic life as a whole and prevent synthetics from wiping out life. Allowing anything to become advanced enough to defeat the reapers is a danger to their mission, one a cold logical machine wouldnt allow.

Also the more advanced an organic race becomes the better AI they can make. Even with the citadels laws people still make AI's, I dont think even the reapers could prevent Organics from creating AI's if they hung around forcing them not to. What if the organics built an AI that could defeat the reapers?

The Reapers are all about control and order, to maintain control, they have to be the strongest force in the galaxy, letting anyone grow to be their match is too risky. Especially considering how a sentient society could change from a peace loving society to warmongering in a span of, say a few hundred years. To the reapers this is too dangerous a variable.

Indoctrination kills eventually btw so they cant mind control everyone to solve the problem.
 

luvd1

New member
Jan 25, 2010
736
0
0
Actualy I like to think of the reapers as giant intergalactic gardeners keeping the lawn tidy by weeding.