597 réponses à ce sujet

[111987]

OtaconUCF wrote...

And who is to say they couldn't have written other viable options that'd work, under the assumption that conventional victory is impossible?

"The Citadel is part of me."
"Well, ok Reaper overlord, we'll just blow you to hell instead of submitting to your choices. Sounds like a damn better option than following down the foot steps of Saren or the Illusive Man, or dooming an entire friendly, sentient species(if they're still around)."

Still desperate, sure, but if the Citadel is really the heart of the Reapers, why couldn't this have been a viable option upon realizing that the Citadel was a trap in more ways than just being a mass relay to dark space? And hell, that's just off the top of my head sitting here, Bioware had years to come up with possible outcomes here. And all we get is the 'choice' of submitting to what the leader of the Reapers tells us are our only options.

Destroying the Citadel would ruin any chance of using the Crucible, which you are told has the power to defeat the Reapers, by the master of the Reapers. You have no idea what effect destroying the Citadel would have on the Reapers, if any.

[savionen]

111987 wrote...

Hiredguns23 wrote...

That is exactly perfect analogy because you don't know what that neighbor is going to do when they move in. Like each race that comes up does something different. You're making an assumption that each race will do the samething each and everytime when they reach certain point in tech. growth. Thing of that is each race has its own way of doing things. Like how the Protheans comunacated with beacons where as the current races uses combueys. All of this is based on one assumption. Each race will create a race of robots that will take over galaxy and kill organics. Seems like to me the Geth and Quarains are disproving this fact.

No, the analogy doesn't work. Let's stop using the analogy and actually discuss the real situation.

The Reapers have been around billions of years. In every cycle, for billions of years, synthetics have warred against organics. Lo and behold, in this cycle, synthetics have warred against organics. The fact that the Quarians and Geth have cooperated for a week, at best, does not disprove the fact that for billions of years, the only outcome of coexistence between organics and synthetics is conflict.

Krogan and Rachni were more of a threat in this cycle than synthetics. It's hard to assume that in the other cylces it was massively different, since we only have 2 cycles to go off of. Infact Protheans were a threat to every other race because they enslaved all of them.

Apparently though, it's fine to the Reapers for one organic race to destroy all the others.

There's no real logic to it, regardless, especially without any background information from Casper. If organics have been wiped out in the past, then how did they recover? If they recovered, why do they need the Reapers? If it's never gotten that bad, then it's just an assumption, too.

[111987]

savionen wrote...

The problem is that both of the encounters with Reapers it shows they're relatively easy to take out. Ontop of that, mass effect fields (the things that make them impossible to kill in space) don't work while on land.

Everything, in my game atleast, pointed to my massive army being able to take the Reapers. Even in Mass Effect 1 they show that with the right tactics a Reaper can be destroyed. The Collector Base even used Reaper technology, and after you get the Thanix cannons you just tear them up.

The Reaper army is supposedly infinite in numbers, but you never really see more than a dozen at once, and regardless of how big your fleet is, in the game, it shows this pitiful little alliance fleet.

Those Reapers were Destroyers, and aren't the real huge threat. It's the dreadnaughts that are the ones that are very, very difficult to destroy.

In ME1, Sovereign was taken down by the combined firepower of multiple fleets. No matter how big your fleets are, you aren't going to defeat hundreds of Reaper dreadnaughts. We know from the ending of ME2 that there are at least 300 Reaper dreadnaughts (someone actually counted all the Reapers in that ending scene...).

[Zofiya]

111987 wrote...
That goes against the entire point of the game; building the Crucible to defeat the Reapers because you can't defeat them any other way. If you don't use the Crucible, you don't beat the Reapers. Making the game entirely pointless, even more than in the real ending.

The Crucible is a classic case of putting all your eggs in one basket, and they do it because they're desperate. No one knows what it does, no one is even sure it's a weapon, but it's the best chance they have. Just because we spend the whole game building the Crucible doesn't mean it has to be the thing that ultimately wins the war.

What the Crucible really did for the characters was provide a reason to bring them all together, something bigger than "we need a really big fleet". When Shepard goes to the Council, the Crucible is The Plan: "this is what we're doing, fight with us". The Crucible is what gives people hope that they can win the war, and it is repeatedly emphasized that uniting the galaxy is Shepard's greatest accomplishment. From a storytelling perspective, it doesn't matter if the Crucible doesn't work, because what it does do is gather the largest fleet in galactic history, all united for one, singular cause.

If Shepard then finds some other way to defeat the Reapers, the Crucible will still have served a purpose. Just not the one we expected it to.

111987 wrote...
So what if Shepard argues with the Catalyst? It's not like Shepard would be able to make the Catalyst give him more options. How do you know the Catalyst isn't bound by the Crucible to only have certain options available? The Crucible is shown to have three major effects, so we have to assume that's all it's capable of. Further argument and debate wouldn't suddenly unlock new features of the Crucible.

We don't have to assume that's all the Crucible can do; we only know that that's all that Star Child tells us it can do.

Star Child. The thing that came up with a solution to chaos. (Star Child's genocidal obsession with order is a glaring warning that it is insane.)

We don't know that Shepard can't convince Star Child, because Shepard never tries.

If Shepard tried, and failed, then Shepard would still have the option of destroying the thing controlling the Reapers, and maybe that would fail spectacularly because they would be free to kill everything forever, or maybe it would work, and without an organised leader they would be in disarray.

Either way, it's still better than blindly accepting Star Child's new "solutions".

[piemanz]

forgottenlord wrote...

Does the possibility of this happening justify the action.  Again, I ask about the person who you think is going to commit murder - at what point do you consider it ok to take a potential murder suspect into custody?  Is it when you've got a written confesssion?  Is it when you've got a clear set of information that clearly paint a motive and plan to commit murder but not constitute proof of intent?  What about a statistician that says "based upon the genetic patterns of this individual, this person has a 85% chance of committing murder"?  Let's expand this out to a more direct parallel - let's say a race shows up with their warships over Earth circa 1945 having just detected the EMP shockwave from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  And they say "you have developed the atomic bomb which means you will soon possess the means to destroy your world and nearly all life upon it hundreds of times over.  As such, to ensure you will not do so, we're going to destroy you so that future species can evolve in your place on this world."  Now tell me - how sold are you on the validity of that argument?  And considering how we're doing 65 years later, how comfortable are you with that logic?  Just because something can happen doesn't, on its own, justify such extreme measures.

The important thing to remeber is that whether they're right or wrong the Reapers undoubtably think they're right. If they were to do it another way they run the risk of letting either the organics or sythetic advance to a stage where they can't defeat them, thus rendering their 'solution' moot. It seems they settled on performing a 'galactic reset' of technological advancement every 50,000 years that allows them to keep everything in balance.

[OtaconUCF]

111987 wrote...

Hiredguns23 wrote...

That is exactly perfect analogy because you don't know what that neighbor is going to do when they move in. Like each race that comes up does something different. You're making an assumption that each race will do the samething each and everytime when they reach certain point in tech. growth. Thing of that is each race has its own way of doing things. Like how the Protheans comunacated with beacons where as the current races uses combueys. All of this is based on one assumption. Each race will create a race of robots that will take over galaxy and kill organics. Seems like to me the Geth and Quarains are disproving this fact.

No, the analogy doesn't work. Let's stop using the analogy and actually discuss the real situation.

The Reapers have been around billions of years. In every cycle, for billions of years, synthetics have warred against organics. Lo and behold, in this cycle, synthetics have warred against organics. The fact that the Quarians and Geth have cooperated for a week, at best, does not disprove the fact that for billions of years, the only outcome of coexistence between organics and synthetics is conflict.

Except that Catalyst says the created will rebel against and kill their creators. The Geth do no such thing and, aside from the faction directly manipulated by Sovereign in ME1 and their remenants in ME2, fight only in self defense from the Morning War to the Quarian attempt to retake their home planet. It doesn't even matter if the Quarian vs Geth scenario ends in peace. Those facts remain the case and the Geth are a clear contradiction of what Catalyst is telling you. 

[savionen]

That was also before they upgraded to Thanix cannons, which apparently tear through Reaper technology like butter, but in ME3 they don't again.

[111987]

savionen wrote...

111987 wrote...

Hiredguns23 wrote...

That is exactly perfect analogy because you don't know what that neighbor is going to do when they move in. Like each race that comes up does something different. You're making an assumption that each race will do the samething each and everytime when they reach certain point in tech. growth. Thing of that is each race has its own way of doing things. Like how the Protheans comunacated with beacons where as the current races uses combueys. All of this is based on one assumption. Each race will create a race of robots that will take over galaxy and kill organics. Seems like to me the Geth and Quarains are disproving this fact.

No, the analogy doesn't work. Let's stop using the analogy and actually discuss the real situation.

The Reapers have been around billions of years. In every cycle, for billions of years, synthetics have warred against organics. Lo and behold, in this cycle, synthetics have warred against organics. The fact that the Quarians and Geth have cooperated for a week, at best, does not disprove the fact that for billions of years, the only outcome of coexistence between organics and synthetics is conflict.

Krogan and Rachni were more of a threat in this cycle than synthetics. It's hard to assume that in the other cylces it was massively different, since we only have 2 cycles to go off of. Infact Protheans were a threat to every other race because they enslaved all of them.

Apparently though, it's fine to the Reapers for one organic race to destroy all the others.

There's no real logic to it, regardless, especially without any background information from Casper. If organics have been wiped out in the past, then how did they recover? If they recovered, why do they need the Reapers? If it's never gotten that bad, then it's just an assumption, too.

Think about Overlord. What would have happened if the AI had gotten off planet? Technological apacolypse. It would have been far, far worse than anything organics could do.

[forgottenlord]

piemanz wrote...

forgottenlord wrote...

Does the possibility of this happening justify the action.  Again, I ask about the person who you think is going to commit murder - at what point do you consider it ok to take a potential murder suspect into custody?  Is it when you've got a written confesssion?  Is it when you've got a clear set of information that clearly paint a motive and plan to commit murder but not constitute proof of intent?  What about a statistician that says "based upon the genetic patterns of this individual, this person has a 85% chance of committing murder"?  Let's expand this out to a more direct parallel - let's say a race shows up with their warships over Earth circa 1945 having just detected the EMP shockwave from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  And they say "you have developed the atomic bomb which means you will soon possess the means to destroy your world and nearly all life upon it hundreds of times over.  As such, to ensure you will not do so, we're going to destroy you so that future species can evolve in your place on this world."  Now tell me - how sold are you on the validity of that argument?  And considering how we're doing 65 years later, how comfortable are you with that logic?  Just because something can happen doesn't, on its own, justify such extreme measures.

The important thing to remeber is that whether they're right or wrong the Reapers undoubtably think they're right. If they were to do it another way they run the risk of letting either the organics or sythetic advance to a stage where they can't defeat them, thus rendering their 'solution' moot. It seems they settled on performing a 'galactic reset' of technological advancement every 50,000 years that allows them to keep everything in balance.

I've said more than a few times that I have little issue with the Catalyst holding the position it does.  I just don't agree with him.  The OP was trying to explicitly justify the Catalyst's position not from the perspective of the Catalyst but rather because the OP thinks the Catalyst is right.  I'm saying that the Catalyst is wrong and not justifed in its actions.

[111987]

OtaconUCF wrote...

111987 wrote...

Hiredguns23 wrote...

That is exactly perfect analogy because you don't know what that neighbor is going to do when they move in. Like each race that comes up does something different. You're making an assumption that each race will do the samething each and everytime when they reach certain point in tech. growth. Thing of that is each race has its own way of doing things. Like how the Protheans comunacated with beacons where as the current races uses combueys. All of this is based on one assumption. Each race will create a race of robots that will take over galaxy and kill organics. Seems like to me the Geth and Quarains are disproving this fact.

No, the analogy doesn't work. Let's stop using the analogy and actually discuss the real situation.

The Reapers have been around billions of years. In every cycle, for billions of years, synthetics have warred against organics. Lo and behold, in this cycle, synthetics have warred against organics. The fact that the Quarians and Geth have cooperated for a week, at best, does not disprove the fact that for billions of years, the only outcome of coexistence between organics and synthetics is conflict.

Except that Catalyst says the created will rebel against and kill their creators. The Geth do no such thing and, aside from the faction directly manipulated by Sovereign in ME1 and their remenants in ME2, fight only in self defense from the Morning War to the Quarian attempt to retake their home planet. It doesn't even matter if the Quarian vs Geth scenario ends in peace. Those facts remain the case and the Geth are a clear contradiction of what Catalyst is telling you. 

Once again...the Geth and organics have cooperated for about a week. There are no long term guarantees. The Reapers have been around billions of years, and in all likelihood have seen very similar situations. One week of cooperation between organics and synthetics doesn't disprove the fact that in every other cycle, organics and synthetics have warred against each other.

[Genera1Nemesis]

"Does the possibility of this happening justify the action. Again, I ask about the person who you think is going to commit murder - at what point do you consider it ok to take a potential murder suspect into custody? Is it when you've got a written confesssion? Is it when you've got a clear set of information that clearly paint a motive and plan to commit murder but not constitute proof of intent? What about a statistician that says "based upon the genetic patterns of this individual, this person has a 85% chance of committing murder"? Let's expand this out to a more direct parallel - let's say a race shows up with their warships over Earth circa 1945 having just detected the EMP shockwave from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And they say "you have developed the atomic bomb which means you will soon possess the means to destroy your world and nearly all life upon it hundreds of times over. As such, to ensure you will not do so, we're going to destroy you so that future species can evolve in your place on this world." Now tell me - how sold are you on the validity of that argument? And considering how we're doing 65 years later, how comfortable are you with that logic? Just because something can happen doesn't, on its own, justify such extreme measures."

Very solid argument, and one I do tend to agree to a point...it also reminds me of the argument brought up at the end of The Day the Earth Stood Still. I am just saying that within the confines of the narrative that we were given, the Reaper solution (while cold and lacking emotional connection) may have been the best solution up until that one organic proved it couldn't work anymore (Shep)

The Catalyst is a representative of something we aren't meant to agree with; being that we are organics who feel it is our right to exist despite the dangers we may or may not pose on ourselves or other forms of life. In this sense; and from the standpoint that writing an all-powerful being in terms that can be understood from the writer and the audiences perspective: it must be given to us in a fashion that is inherently wrong from our limited point of view.

Take Q in Star Trek as an example. In the first episode of TNG he put humanity on trial for crimes of our past and for crimes that we may not even commit in the future. Q had to be written in a way that we; as humans; inherently disagree with his logic. We have to disagree because our survival depends on it. Q was also something we were never meant to comprehend; much like the Reapers and the Catalyst itself.

They never went into any detail about why the Catalyst had come to it's conclusion of inevitability; and that is open for debate I suppose. What I do understand is that Catalyst is at least 150 000 years old, probably much older than that. It; like Q: is supposed to be something we cannot comprehend. Perhaps the Reapers don't jsut do this in our galaxy but in many. Maybe many galaxies have fallen to a synthetic lifeform (maybe even the Reapers themselves are representatives of this lifeform) It's about fate vs. free-will; Catalyst deals in absolutes (fate) while Shep represents free-will and the ability to choose. Neither logic is right or wrong until the actions or inactions of individuals proves otherwise.

[piemanz]

OtaconUCF wrote...

111987 wrote...

Hiredguns23 wrote...

That is exactly perfect analogy because you don't know what that neighbor is going to do when they move in. Like each race that comes up does something different. You're making an assumption that each race will do the samething each and everytime when they reach certain point in tech. growth. Thing of that is each race has its own way of doing things. Like how the Protheans comunacated with beacons where as the current races uses combueys. All of this is based on one assumption. Each race will create a race of robots that will take over galaxy and kill organics. Seems like to me the Geth and Quarains are disproving this fact.

No, the analogy doesn't work. Let's stop using the analogy and actually discuss the real situation.

The Reapers have been around billions of years. In every cycle, for billions of years, synthetics have warred against organics. Lo and behold, in this cycle, synthetics have warred against organics. The fact that the Quarians and Geth have cooperated for a week, at best, does not disprove the fact that for billions of years, the only outcome of coexistence between organics and synthetics is conflict.

Except that Catalyst says the created will rebel against and kill their creators. The Geth do no such thing and, aside from the faction directly manipulated by Sovereign in ME1 and their remenants in ME2, fight only in self defense from the Morning War to the Quarian attempt to retake their home planet. It doesn't even matter if the Quarian vs Geth scenario ends in peace. Those facts remain the case and the Geth are a clear contradiction of what Catalyst is telling you. 

It only proves that they're peaceful at this particular period of time, it doesn't prove that they won't at some point advance and destroy all organics. We don't know for sure that they will either but the fact they're peaceful now proves nothing.

Modifié par piemanz, 16 mars 2012 - 01:28 .

[TJX2045]

I respect your opinion as far as the synthetics rebelling against the organics go.

However, I personally feel that this would not happen unless some really screwed up villain got his hands on some synthetic creations. As far as the Geth and the Quarians go, the game explains that the Quarians are to blame for the war when you play on Rannoch in the server.

Like Legion said, "Does this unit have a soul?"

Legion feels remorse. After he sacrifices himself for all Geth to have free will, the only reason afterwards that they rebel against organics is their own free will and a majority if not all of them did not from what is known.

Sure, they can rebel anytime if they become too advanced.  But what is stopping the reapers from stopping the advanced synthetics and not just advanced organics?  And also, organics could rebel against them, or against each other, and even the geth have rebeled against each other (codex explaining the geth weaponry)

I personally think that if the Reapers were so concerned about synthetic life wiping out organics, they should have killed the advanced synthetics. If it's a logical conclusion they are going for, that would make sense. And so far I have not seen anyone more advanced than the Illusive man who is trying to control the Reapers directly himself. If so, how did he manage to get onto the Citadel without being attacked by Reapers?

We save organics by killing them while the Synthetics continue to rebel against the other organics...?

Modifié par TJX2045, 16 mars 2012 - 01:31 .

[Zofiya]

111987 wrote...
Destroying the Citadel would ruin any chance of using the Crucible, which you are told has the power to defeat the Reapers, by the master of the Reapers. You have no idea what effect destroying the Citadel would have on the Reapers, if any.

You have no idea what effect using the Crucible will have on the Reapers, because all you have to go on is what Star Child is telling you, and there is no compelling reason to trust the thing controlling the Reapers.

If it were Harbinger instead of Star Child telling you to use the Crucible, would you believe him?

Since Star Child is functionally equivalent to Harbinger (because Star Child controls Harbinger), why do you believe him?

[111987]

aristaea wrote...

111987 wrote...
That goes against the entire point of the game; building the Crucible to defeat the Reapers because you can't defeat them any other way. If you don't use the Crucible, you don't beat the Reapers. Making the game entirely pointless, even more than in the real ending.

The Crucible is a classic case of putting all your eggs in one basket, and they do it because they're desperate. No one knows what it does, no one is even sure it's a weapon, but it's the best chance they have. Just because we spend the whole game building the Crucible doesn't mean it has to be the thing that ultimately wins the war.

What the Crucible really did for the characters was provide a reason to bring them all together, something bigger than "we need a really big fleet". When Shepard goes to the Council, the Crucible is The Plan: "this is what we're doing, fight with us". The Crucible is what gives people hope that they can win the war, and it is repeatedly emphasized that uniting the galaxy is Shepard's greatest accomplishment. From a storytelling perspective, it doesn't matter if the Crucible doesn't work, because what it does do is gather the largest fleet in galactic history, all united for one, singular cause.

If Shepard then finds some other way to defeat the Reapers, the Crucible will still have served a purpose. Just not the one we expected it to.

Yet by the end of the game, no other way of defeating them has arisen. The fleet is already at Earth; it's do or die at this point. Not seeing the situation through would be the same was wasting everything they've worked so hard to accomplish.

aristaea wrote...

We don't have to assume that's all the Crucible can do; we only know that that's all that Star Child tells us it can do.

Star Child. The thing that came up with a solution to chaos. (Star Child's genocidal obsession with order is a glaring warning that it is insane.)

We don't know that Shepard can't convince Star Child, because Shepard never tries.

If Shepard tried, and failed, then Shepard would still have the option of destroying the thing controlling the Reapers, and maybe that would fail spectacularly because they would be free to kill everything forever, or maybe it would work, and without an organised leader they would be in disarray.

Either way, it's still better than blindly accepting Star Child's new "solutions".

What you're basically asking for is the illusion of choice. Destroying the Catalyst wouldn't stop the Reapers because they are "each a nation, independent, free of all weakness."

There's simply no way Shepard could convince a billion year old superintelligence that its wrong. That would be an even worse ending than the one we got.

[piemanz]

aristaea wrote...

111987 wrote...
Destroying the Citadel would ruin any chance of using the Crucible, which you are told has the power to defeat the Reapers, by the master of the Reapers. You have no idea what effect destroying the Citadel would have on the Reapers, if any.

You have no idea what effect using the Crucible will have on the Reapers, because all you have to go on is what Star Child is telling you, and there is no compelling reason to trust the thing controlling the Reapers.

If it were Harbinger instead of Star Child telling you to use the Crucible, would you believe him?

Since Star Child is functionally equivalent to Harbinger (because Star Child controls Harbinger), why do you believe him?

Because it's better than the alternative, where everyone dies and the Reapers just carry on Reaping

[Genera1Nemesis]

TJX2045 wrote...

I respect your opinion as far as the synthetics rebelling against the organics go.

However, I personally feel that this would not happen unless some really screwed up villain got his hands on some synthetic creations. As far as the Geth and the Quarians go, the game explains that the Quarians are to blame for the war when you play on Rannoch in the server.

Like Legion said, "Does this unit have a soul?"

Legion feels remorse. After he sacrifices himself for all Geth to have free will, the only reason afterwards that they rebel against organics is their own free will and a majority if not all of them did not from what is known.

I personally think that if the Reapers were so concerned about synthetic life wiping out organics, they should have killed the advanced synthetics. If it's a logical conclusion they are going for, that would make sense. And so far I have not seen anyone more advanced than the Illusive man who is trying to control the Reapers directly himself. If so, how did he manage to get onto the Citadel without being attacked by Reapers?

The Illusive Man was the perfect representative of this logical certainty. Even knowing what he knew; even if he had been told not too because of the dangers inherent in it; he would have pushed whatever boundaries he could to get what he wanted, or to achieve some goal. TIM represents the chaos of organics and why if given a loaded gun, someone is going to use despite the warnings against doing so.

[OtaconUCF]

111987 wrote...

OtaconUCF wrote...

And who is to say they couldn't have written other viable options that'd work, under the assumption that conventional victory is impossible?

"The Citadel is part of me."
"Well, ok Reaper overlord, we'll just blow you to hell instead of submitting to your choices. Sounds like a damn better option than following down the foot steps of Saren or the Illusive Man, or dooming an entire friendly, sentient species(if they're still around)."

Still desperate, sure, but if the Citadel is really the heart of the Reapers, why couldn't this have been a viable option upon realizing that the Citadel was a trap in more ways than just being a mass relay to dark space? And hell, that's just off the top of my head sitting here, Bioware had years to come up with possible outcomes here. And all we get is the 'choice' of submitting to what the leader of the Reapers tells us are our only options.

Destroying the Citadel would ruin any chance of using the Crucible, which you are told has the power to defeat the Reapers, by the master of the Reapers. You have no idea what effect destroying the Citadel would have on the Reapers, if any.

As Aristaea put it, 

We don't have to assume that's all the Crucible can do; we only know that that's all that Star Child tells us it can do.
Star Child. The thing that came up with a solution to chaos. (Star Child's genocidal obsession with order is a glaring warning that it is insane.)

It all comes back to whether you consider the leader of the Reaper trustworthy, which I most certainly do not.

[111987]

aristaea wrote...

111987 wrote...
Destroying the Citadel would ruin any chance of using the Crucible, which you are told has the power to defeat the Reapers, by the master of the Reapers. You have no idea what effect destroying the Citadel would have on the Reapers, if any.

You have no idea what effect using the Crucible will have on the Reapers, because all you have to go on is what Star Child is telling you, and there is no compelling reason to trust the thing controlling the Reapers.

If it were Harbinger instead of Star Child telling you to use the Crucible, would you believe him?

Since Star Child is functionally equivalent to Harbinger (because Star Child controls Harbinger), why do you believe him?

The Catalyst isn't telling you to use the Crucible though. He's telling you what the Crucible does. Shepard has no reason not to use the Crucible. If the starchild wasn't in that control room, Shepard still would have activated the Crucible. He just wouldn't have known what effect it would have...which was kind of the plan all along.

[TJX2045]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

The Illusive Man was the perfect representative of this logical certainty. Even knowing what he knew; even if he had been told not too because of the dangers inherent in it; he would have pushed whatever boundaries he could to get what he wanted, or to achieve some goal. TIM represents the chaos of organics and why if given a loaded gun, someone is going to use despite the warnings against doing so.

I agree.  This would mean logically the Reapers would destroy him with the others, which they do not.  There is no way that TIM could get through a bunch of Reapers and land on the Citadel if they wanted him dead.

Modifié par TJX2045, 16 mars 2012 - 01:35 .

[Kandon Arc]

Let's seriously consider what wiping out ALL organic life entails. This means a synthetic race would scour the entire galaxy, hunting down every animal, from elephant to rat; every plant, from tree down to blade of grass; every fungus; every virus; every bacterium; every speck of primordial ooze. What logical reason could a synthetic race have for doing this? Surely it would just do what the reapers do and wipe out any organics that threaten them?

[UKJackMan]

desert116 wrote...

Here's a question; why don't the Reapers just destroy the offending synthetics if they want to protect organic life, instead of, you know, destroying organic life.

It would be an eternal struggle for the Reapers to  continuously take away organics toys.Plus organic life would continue to evolve and over populate the universe possibly even one species becoming dominant just like the Protheans.

Modifié par UKJackMan, 16 mars 2012 - 01:39 .

[Beast919]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...
This seems to indicate one thing; Sovereign; being the Reaper Vanguard; hides
in the Veil during each cycle. It's mission doesn't activate until one or more
AI intelligences come to the ultimate conclusion that organics are unnecessary.
The first thing Soveriegn did was take control of the Geth heretics by
convincing them 'the old machines' were their deities. He then indoctrinated
Saren and began his mission to activate the Citadel.

So yeah, Sovereign instantly nullifies the threat to organic life, without a fight, and then proceeds to wipe out organic life anyway.  Real strong logic.  The reapers are unstoppable - they can kill WHATEVER THEY WANT - why would they choose to kill organic life instead of synthetic to "protect" organic life from synthetic.  It inherantly does not make sense.  And remember, Soveriegn single handedly dominated the majority of the Geth collective.  Imagine would a full Reaper fleet could have done if they had focused on simply synthetics instead of the very people they were trying to "protect."

[111987]

Kandon Arc wrote...

Let's seriously consider what wiping out ALL organic life entails. This means a synthetic race would scour the entire galaxy, hunting down every animal, from elephant to rat; every plant, from tree down to blade of grass; every fungus; every virus; every bacterium; every speck of primordial ooze. What logical reason could a synthetic race have for doing this? Surely it would just do what the reapers do and wipe out any organics that threaten them?

We don't know how a synthetic's mind would work, so it's impossible to speculate. They might simply decide it's better to destroy all organic life so there's no chance of them ever threatening the synthetics.

[piemanz]

TJX2045 wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

The Illusive Man was the perfect representative of this logical certainty. Even knowing what he knew; even if he had been told not too because of the dangers inherent in it; he would have pushed whatever boundaries he could to get what he wanted, or to achieve some goal. TIM represents the chaos of organics and why if given a loaded gun, someone is going to use despite the warnings against doing so.

I agree.  This would mean logically the Reapers would destroy him with the others, which they do not.  There is no way that TIM could get through a bunch of Reapers and land on the Citadel if they wanted him dead.

Even we are a good example of it really, when the first nuke was made the science community was split, many thought it would ignite the earths atmosphere and yet we set it off anyway.