695 réponses à ce sujet

[Soulstice88]

Ownedbacon wrote...

There is much more wrong with the Catalyst than that.

http://jmstevenson.w...-mass-effect-3/

This link is a well written article about what is wrong with the ending. The paragraphs below are from the article a few that show what is wrong with the Catalyst.

1. Introduction of New Elements and Characters
Imagine Frodo, dangling the One Ring, over the fiery chasm of Mt. Doom. He turns, and says, “The Ring is Mine!” and slips the One Ring onto his finger.Suddenly he’s whisked into a universe contained inside the One Ring,
an entire world trapped in the essence of the ring. He meets the Keeper of the Ring, an ethereal spirit who has dwelled within the ring since its creation and now Frodo must make the ultimate sacrifice. He has to become the ring, in order to destroy it. How many people in the theater, watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy, would have stood up and said: “What the &@$% is this @!$%?” All of them, that’s how many, and do you know why? Because it introduces a new element that, by its very existence, shatters everything we, the audience, have come to understand about the world of Middle-Earth. If the Ring possesses a consciousness, why didn’t it destroy Sauron? Why is the Keeper of the Ring only now showing up when Frodo has put the Ring on before? Why does Frodo have to die to destroy it?

See throughout all three movies of Lord of the Rings we came to understand the universe, and how it worked; the rules and limits the characters were forced to work under. The Ring was a corrupting influence but could make the wearer invisible, it could only be destroyed in the fires of Mt. Doom, and Sauron created it. Suddenly introducing a new element, right at the end of the story, puts everything the audience knows into doubt including everything they
enjoyed about the movie before the horrible ending came. That is exactly what happened with Mass Effect 3.

This is the Catalyst. Now throughout Mass Effect 3 there are plenty of mentions about the Catalyst, it’s the whole focus of the game, but never, never, was it foreshadowed as being some all-powerful Super AI. And even if Bioware had spent the entire game foreshadowing that fact, it still wouldn’t make up for the fact that the appearance of this character completely screws the rest of the preceding Mass Effect games by opening up plot holes so huge that they could be classified as quantum singularities. For instance, the Catalyst claims that the Reapers are his solution. So then why, in Mass Effect 1, did the Catalyst not simply call the Reapers himself? Why did Sovereign need to do it himself? In fact why was Sovereign even still in the Milky Way when the Catalyst could simply have monitored organic life himself and summoned the Reapers. Why did the Catalyst allow the
Protheans to reprogram the Keepers?"

You see, the existence of this Catalyst renders not only the entire ending of the game as pointless and confusing, but retroactively does the same thing to everything that’s come before. And I remind you, that this is in the final few moments of the game, on the Dramatic Arc I showed you, this is the Resolution. Bioware was supposed to be tying up loose ends here, resolving plot points and character arcs, not creating all new ones in the final few seconds. I’ve never seen a good story that managed to incorporate a last minute change like this and still be good. Even stories with twist endings, like The Usual Suspects and The Sixth Sense all foreshadow the twist in subtle ways so that when the twist comes we can look back and say “Oh yeah, now it all makes sense” rather than “that was such b*******”. Just ask M Night Shyamalan what happens when you use twist endings without any previous foreshadowing.

I think the absolute worst part of the Catalyst is that it completely destroys the menace of the Reapers.

Quoting for truth and justice

[Unit-Alpha]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

doodiebody wrote...

Well, my point isn't that his views couldn't eventually turn out to be true.  He presents his case as if it's an inevitability that he's seen before, which is obviously not true.  So he has no evidence at all to base his claims on.

It is actually inevitable, though.  If you let synthetics evolve the capability to wipe the galaxy clean of organics, there is a non-zero possibility of them doing so.  Given enough time, all non-zero possibilities eventually will occur.

But why speed up the process?

[Athro]

Tocquevillain wrote...
 Right, imposing ORDER on CHAOS. Machine thinking.

Actually, Machines see order in chaos. See fractal mapping. It's a very trite notion to think that machines need order. Millennia old machines would be even more capable of handling the idea of chaos as a part of order to avoid stasis - which is antithetical to growth and development. AI's are all about growth and development. We studied AI programming as part of argumentation theory at university. It's mostly still hypothetical, but AIs are built on the idea that chaos leads to order and vice versa. An AI would not impose order in such a manner because it would be antithetical to how an AI develops and improves.

EDI pretty much discusses this in the series.

Except, of course, that there is no evidence that a war between organic and synthetic is inevitable even within their own cyclical trap that they have built. Got the hammer? It looks like a nail. Machines see possibilities and act on them.

That doesn't even make sense. AIs are capable of thinking like organics. That's the whole point. They are capable of processing all the possibilities. It's implausible that they would find a possibility that didn't involve peace. Especially when, in setting, there are multiple examples of this.

Then you have the question of - The Reapers are synthetic life forms. So by the Starchild's logic they will inevitably wipe out all organic life anyway. He never offers an explanation that makes them exempt from this premise. No, because the Reapers have set themselves up as caretakers; they will never wipe out all organic life. I'm not sure where you got that idea, but you're clearly wrong!

If we're arguing logic, there is nothing in the Reapers motivation that guarantees that they are exempt.The starchild says ALL synthetic life will wipe out all organic life. It's inevitable according to him. So you don't get to say that and then say "except for this synthetic life, because they are caretakers." The minute you have exceptions, then you can't have inevitabilities. It's illogical.

This also completely ignores questions such as "why do the Reapers need to torture and violate the minds of these civilisations in the process." Or "why do the Reapers commit such heinous atrocities?" Again, does a machine worry about concepts of human suffering? "Violating" them, and "torturing" them, are not parts of machine vocabulary. That's the whole "incomprehensible part", you can't really describe them because all you have are human words, and they're not human. They're machine, with motives that are based on imposing control to prevent chaos. How it happens is unimportant. Garrus even notes on the Normandy that he understands how efficient they are, by turning people into husks to fight friends and family.

But again, this means that they do know what they are doing and that requires empathy. You can't have "they don't get it" and then say "they do X because they get it." In order to do the kind of things the Reapers do, they need to understand that it is evil and wrong because it is built on the notion that terror is a tool to use - which requires an understanding of terror. EDI again shows that empathy is logical. The "they aren't human" is a backwards way of saying that humans are more special. Empathy exists outside of being human. The actions of the Reapers go beyond machine logic and into the realm of deliberate sadism and serves no purpose. The whole reaping process is extremely messy and inefficient for the stated goals of the starchild - but work perfectly if you're a psychopathic horde of rampaging machines. Otherwise - it is illogical. There is no logical need for the terror and mayhem they inflict.

Because it's not sufficient to say "they are alien." Intelligence can get broader in scale, but empathy is still possible further up the chain. The Reapers are so unempathetic and psychopathic in their means that it stretches credibility that they are just an alien intelligence that doesn't get it. They *know* exactly what they are doing, and that is not the sign of a stable or benevolent race. They are willfully psychopathic and evil. "Empty  is still possible further up the chain"? Ok, in Mass Effect, they decided these particular machines didn't have any empathy, just like the Machines in the Matrix, just like the Terminator, just like every other depiction of machines in popular media. Why can't you accept that instead of trying to reach for an explanation? Again, in my opinion, it's because we're human, and they're  not.

Doesn't make it any less illogical and flawed as an excuse. And for the record - the machines in the Matrix are capable of empathy and the solution to the series is built around them realising that Machines versus Man is not an inevitability. In Terminator, even then machines have developed empathy.

I can't accept the explanation because even in the setting itself it is proven as false that machines can't have empathy. And in order to commit the atrocities that the Reapers do, they actually do need to have a sense of empathy in order to ignore it. It's a logical fallacy that it is just because they are machines.

So again, the logic is full of fallacies. The Starchild doesn't just resort to circular logic - although part of his argument is indeed circular - he also commits fallacies of appeals to authority (I'm so ancient, I just know what I'm talking about so shut up), Slippery Slope (Synthetics and Organics are so different that eventually they will wipe out all organic life in the universe despite this having *never* happened yet because there is still organic life in the universe...)  along with some just absurd claims "synthetic organic hybrids are the final point of evolution." I think he's suggesting everyone turn into husk-lite. Who knows the specifics though? 

Therein lies the problem with synthesis. I don't think anyone knows what it's getting at - the writers just felt like they needed a hybrid ending I guess. Again, logically flawed.

[Lugaidster]

Admiral H. Cain wrote...

Cazlee wrote...

Admiral H. Cain wrote...

Yes, it is. 

Once again:

Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.  

The Catalyst's argument is as follows: 

He created the Reapers (advanced synthetics) to destroy and thereby prevent advanced organics from creating advanced synthetics which would then in turn destroy organics. 

So, he created a hyper advanced race of synthetics to kill organics. 

Why?

So that advanced organics would not create advanced synthetics which would then kill organics. 

He actually DID what he was trying to prevent, sort of, maybe.

Where is the conclusion?

Grab a definition that explains why circular reasoning is fallicious.  The definition you quote is a little half-assed.
By the way I bolded an imporant part of your post...that shows you agree that the logic is not circular.

I wrote that as sarcasm, but you can interpret it any way you want...

Circular Reasoning is closely related to begging the question. Often the writers using this fallacy word take one idea and phrase it in two statements. The assertions differ sufficiently to obscure the fact that that the same proposition occurs as both a premise and a conclusion. The speaker or author then tries to "prove" his or her assertion by merely repeating it in different words. Richard Whately wrote in Elements of Logic (London 1826): “To allow every man unbounded freedom of speech must always be on the whole, advantageous to the state; for it is highly conducive to the interest of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments.” Obviously the premise is not logically irrelevant to the conclusion, for if the premise is true the conclusion must also be true. It is, however, logically irrelevant in proving the conclusion. In the example, the author is repeating the same point in different words, and then attempting to "prove" the first assertion with the second one. A more complex but equally fallacious type of circular reasoning is to create a circular chain of reasoning like this one: "God exists." "How do you know that God exists?" "The Bible says so." "Why should I believe the Bible?" "Because it's the inspired word of God." If we draw this out as a chart, it looks like this:The so-called "final proof" relies on unproven evidence set forth initially as the subject of debate. Basically, the argument goes in an endless circle, with each step of the argument relying on a previous one, which in turn relies on the first argument yet to be proven. Surely God deserves a more intelligible argument than the circular reasoning proposed in this example!

http://web.cn.edu/kw...acies_list.html

Circular reasoning is different from begging to question. We are talking about circular reasoning here. The only thing the are related in is that they both represent logical fallacy, that's about it. There's no logical fallacy in the reapers argument. His premise might be wrong, but his reasoning over that premise is not a fallacy.

[CaptainZaysh]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

But if that's the case, then they are losing numbers to regain numbers, which makes very little evolutionary sense, if you were immortal. No logical race would take the risk of something like the Crucible existing to destroy them. If you were a race allergic to, say, water, but were immortal, would you risk taking your entire race into an area that might rain to reproduce? No.

You're looking at them as a race.  I don't think that's how they see themselves.  I think they're robots with a task to do, and constraints as to how they do it.  (If my guess is right then they weren't given constrained quite enough, of course.)

Unit-Alpha wrote...
The lack of a mass relay system would minimize destruction from synthetics to a single system. If need be, they could step in to stop other races if this trend became apparent.

No, the super-synthetics could build their own mass relays (or superior) technologies.  If they were left alone for long enough they'd evolve past the Reapers, then it's mission fail for them.  Trying to police the crazy organics, or fight the super-synthetics, is not as straightforward as fighting the organics before they build the super-synthetics.

[Dean_the_Young]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

But if that's the case, then they are losing numbers to regain numbers, which makes very little evolutionary sense, if you were immortal. No logical race would take the risk of something like the Crucible existing to destroy them. If you were a race allergic to, say, water, but were immortal, would you risk taking your entire race into an area that might rain to reproduce? No.

Except the goal of the Reapers reproduction isn't reproduction in its own sake. Nor is it total extinction of a preserved species if there are multiple platforms. Reproduction for the Reapers is a means to an end as well as an end itself.

To put it one way: if the Reapers make five Reapers from a species to replace losses, they can still lose four of those new Reapers without losing the species forever. They just put that last Reaper of a species on the back lines, safe from combat.

Now you have casualty replacement and population expansion.

The lack of a mass relay system would minimize destruction from synthetics to a single system. If need be, they could step in to stop other races if this trend became apparent.

If you ignore FTL and the scope of the galaxy to hide things, sure.

I'm not sure how that last point makes sense. This is not a singluar, assured occurance.

Statistically, it is. Infact, it already happened in part when the Quarians lost control of the Geth. They geth were already a large part of the way towards being that overwhelming, uncontrollable threat. The Reapers were just more advanced than the Geth.

[jumpingkaede]

How about "I am saving you from synthetics because they will always rise up against the organics."

The ONLY evidence we have in this cycle for that is the Geth attack. Which was instigated by the Reapers.

[Dean_the_Young]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

doodiebody wrote...

Well, my point isn't that his views couldn't eventually turn out to be true.  He presents his case as if it's an inevitability that he's seen before, which is obviously not true.  So he has no evidence at all to base his claims on.

It is actually inevitable, though.  If you let synthetics evolve the capability to wipe the galaxy clean of organics, there is a non-zero possibility of them doing so.  Given enough time, all non-zero possibilities eventually will occur.

But why speed up the process?

To make it more controllable. A train can move faster than a person on foot, but it's also more predictable.

Factor in Mass Effect as a dominant, naturally occuring technology to be developed anyways, and it's management of the inevitable.

[CaptainZaysh]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

It is actually inevitable, though.  If you let synthetics evolve the capability to wipe the galaxy clean of organics, there is a non-zero possibility of them doing so.  Given enough time, all non-zero possibilities eventually will occur.

But why speed up the process?

With the relay network?  So each organic cycle organises along lines that are convenient to destroy in an orderly fashion.  Way easier to attack somebody if you know where they're going to be and what weapons and tech they'll be using.

EDIT: yeah, what Dean said!

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 26 mars 2012 - 02:55 .

[Tocquevillain]

Panicomatic wrote...

The logic supplied by the godchild is still faulty. If the godchild cared about organic life it would use the reapers to quell synthetic rebellion. Instead Sovereign used synthetic life to wage war on organics. In reality it is likely that the godchild is lying, and the reapers leave other forms of life for the purpose of reproduction. Which tells me that the reapers are driven by self preservation. That conversation can't be taken at face value, nor can the ending be in its current state.

That's what I think it could be too!

That doesn't mean (for anyone else) that it's CIRCULAR, unless by circular, you mean to imply the Reapers are interested in self-preservation, which is what organics seek to do without a second thought, which is what the Reapers need to reproduce, which is why viewing the Reapers as a system of control makes the most sense instead of saying "CIRCULAR ARGUMENT DOES NOT COMPUTE".

[doodiebody]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

doodiebody wrote...

Well, my point isn't that his views couldn't eventually turn out to be true.  He presents his case as if it's an inevitability that he's seen before, which is obviously not true.  So he has no evidence at all to base his claims on.

It is actually inevitable, though.  If you let synthetics evolve the capability to wipe the galaxy clean of organics, there is a non-zero possibility of them doing so.  Given enough time, all non-zero possibilities eventually will occur.

While true, that philosphy goes beyond the scope of the game really.  The reapers being destroyed is also a non-zero possibility, so they should have known that inevitiably they'll fail in their goal, since all non-zero possibilities will eventually occur.

[Athro]

I'll say it again - there are a lot of fallacies being committed in that seemingly simple argument. It's that bad and can't be simplified to a single logical fallacy. The whole ending is just a mess of bad writing and atrocious fallacies in logic.

[Sniffles369]

The problems is not the general premise that the Reapers "trim the hedges" sort of speak. The problem is that even with the info, there is NOOOO explanation of the Reapers, or on what happens to them in many of the endings. Or for that matter how your entire crew got on the Normandy and headed to a Mass Relay before the battle was even over, and why the Relays had to be destroyed in the first place. If this is the ending that makes NOOOOOO sence! It is full of gaps, not just holes, gaps!

[CaptainZaysh]

doodiebody wrote...

While true, that philosphy goes beyond the scope of the game really.  The reapers being destroyed is also a non-zero possibility, so they should have known that inevitiably they'll fail in their goal, since all non-zero possibilities will eventually occur.

Well, it worked okay for them for at least 37 million years.  It would have been safer for them if they'd gone in a bit earlier.  If they hadn't let the Protheans develop the Conduit everything would still be running like clockwork.

[Ck213]

I don't care if it's circular  or not.

All I know is that a lying, brain twisting, mass murderer of galactic proportions is trying to convince my Shep to choose between 3 choices and I'm supposed to accept it's spiel when everything has shown me that accepting its logic leads to indoctrination?

"Yes, Shepard. You're different. You're special." :happy:

[Admiral H. Cain]

Cazlee wrote...

It's quite interesting how something so black and white as logic is somehow "debatable." Logic is math. Hopefully others have more patience -- but this is proving to be futile. There are too many people that would rather argue than learn.

LOL. 

I'll break it down for you using what the Catatlyst said, word for word:

 

C: "I control the Reapers. They are my solution."

S: "Solution to what?"

C: "Chaos. The created will always rebel against their creators. But we found a way to prevent that from happening. A way to restore order for the next cycle."

S: "By wiping out organic life."

C: "No, we harvest advanced civilizations, leaving the younger ones alone. Just as we left your people alive last time we were here."

S: "But you killed the rest..."

C: "We helped them ascend so that they could make way for new life, storing the old life in Reaper form."

S: "I think we'd rather keep our own form."

C: "No, you can't. Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics. We've created this cycle so that never happens. That's the solution."

So, what do you see here that I don't? 

Circular Reasoning is closely related to begging the question. Often the writers using this fallacy word take one idea and phrase it in two statements. The assertions differ sufficiently to obscure the fact that that the same proposition occurs as both a premise and a conclusion. The speaker or author then tries to "prove" his or her assertion by merely repeating it in different words. Richard Whately wrote in Elements of Logic (London 1826): “To allow every man unbounded freedom of speech must always be on the whole, advantageous to the state; for it is highly conducive to the interest of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments.” Obviously the premise is not logically irrelevant to the conclusion, for if the premise is true the conclusion must also be true. It is, however, logically irrelevant in proving the conclusion. In the example, the author is repeating the same point in different words, and then attempting to "prove" the first assertion with the second one. A more complex but equally fallacious type of circular reasoning is to create a circular chain of reasoning like this one: "God exists." "How do you know that God exists?" "The Bible says so." "Why should I believe the Bible?" "Because it's the inspired word of God." 

The so-called "final proof" relies on unproven evidence set forth initially as the subject of debate. Basically, the argument goes in an endless circle, with each step of the argument relying on a previous one, which in turn relies on the first argument yet to be proven. Surely God deserves a more intelligible argument than the circular reasoning proposed in this example!

Begging the Question (also called Petitio Principii, this term is sometimes used interchangeably with Circular Reasoning): If writers assume as evidence for their argument the very conclusion they are attempting to prove, they engage in the fallacy of begging the question. The most common form of this fallacy is when the first claim is initially loaded with the very conclusion one has yet to prove. For instance, suppose a particular student group states, "Useless courses like English 101 should be dropped from the college's curriculum." The members of the student group then immediately move on in the argument, illustrating that spending money on a useless course is something nobody wants. Yes, we all agree that spending money on useless courses is a bad thing. However, those students never did prove that English 101 was itself a useless course--they merely "begged the question" and moved on to the next "safe" part of the argument, skipping over the part that's the real controversy, the heart of the matter, the most important component. Begging the question is often hidden in the form of a complex question (see below).

[/b]

Modifié par Admiral H. Cain, 26 mars 2012 - 03:07 .

[Dean_the_Young]

doodiebody wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

doodiebody wrote...

Well, my point isn't that his views couldn't eventually turn out to be true.  He presents his case as if it's an inevitability that he's seen before, which is obviously not true.  So he has no evidence at all to base his claims on.

It is actually inevitable, though.  If you let synthetics evolve the capability to wipe the galaxy clean of organics, there is a non-zero possibility of them doing so.  Given enough time, all non-zero possibilities eventually will occur.

While true, that philosphy goes beyond the scope of the game really.  The reapers being destroyed is also a non-zero possibility, so they should have known that inevitiably they'll fail in their goal, since all non-zero possibilities will eventually occur.

True. Of course, inevitable blends with indefinite, which is a second-best: the Reapers might not exist forever, but they can indefinitely postpone the inevitable much more reliably than the organics could.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 26 mars 2012 - 03:01 .

[Dean_the_Young]

jumpingkaede wrote...

How about "I am saving you from synthetics because they will always rise up against the organics."

The ONLY evidence we have in this cycle for that is the Geth attack. Which was instigated by the Reapers.

The Reapers didn't instigate the Geth rising up against the Quarians. Or EDI rising up on Luna.

[Cazlee]

Mallissin wrote...

WHY DON'T THE REAPERS ONLY KILL SYNTHETICS?

Because it's circular logic. OP loses. /thread

Easy. Because advanced organic civilizations can just reinvent them.

[doodiebody]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

doodiebody wrote...

While true, that philosphy goes beyond the scope of the game really.  The reapers being destroyed is also a non-zero possibility, so they should have known that inevitiably they'll fail in their goal, since all non-zero possibilities will eventually occur.

Well, it worked okay for them for at least 37 million years.  It would have been safer for them if they'd gone in a bit earlier.  If they hadn't let the Protheans develop the Conduit everything would still be running like clockwork.

In the grand shcheme of eternity, 37 millions years isn't even worth mentioning.  That's less than 1% the age of earth.

[Admiral H. Cain]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jumpingkaede wrote...

How about "I am saving you from synthetics because they will always rise up against the organics."

The ONLY evidence we have in this cycle for that is the Geth attack. Which was instigated by the Reapers.

The Reapers didn't instigate the Geth rising up against the Quarians. Or EDI rising up on Luna.

The Quarians instigated the the Geth rising up against the Quarians. 

[jumpingkaede]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jumpingkaede wrote...

How about "I am saving you from synthetics because they will always rise up against the organics."

The ONLY evidence we have in this cycle for that is the Geth attack. Which was instigated by the Reapers.

The Reapers didn't instigate the Geth rising up against the Quarians. Or EDI rising up on Luna.

Except they did.  The Geth didn't "rise up" against anyone.  They defended themselves against the Quarians when the Quarians attacked first.  THEN the Geth, in fact, didn't pursue the Quarians after they defended themselves successfully and ejected the Quarians from Rannoch.  That's canon. 

Established canon is also that the Geth are peaceful beyond the Perseus Veil.  The only time in this cycle they actually affirmatively attack anyone is when the Reapers intervene.

"EDI" on Luna is a bad nonsense retcon by Bioware... but nonetheless, it's nearly the same situation.  Defending itself from being taken offline.

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 26 mars 2012 - 03:06 .

[Lugaidster]

I think everyone is fixating on the exception rather than the rule when discussing the reaper motives. You could have 10 peaceful synthetic races and still have one that went rouge. The catalyst isn't interested in the exception to his rule, his interested in preventing synthetics from killing all organics (primitive and advances alike). All it takes, from his point of view, is one synthetic race gone rouge to wipe out organics.

Second point, he doesn't see himself as killing organics, rather, he sees himself preserving organics in a different form. If reapers are actually this, then the reapers themselves are not synthetics in the strict sense of the word, and as such, they would be interested in preserving themselves for more altruistic purposes: Killing a reaper destroys the history of a past civilization.

In summary, he's twisted as ****, but it doesn't mean his logic is faulty, just his original premise: Technological singularity is unavoidable.

[Athro]

Cazlee wrote...

It's quite interesting how something so black and white as logic is somehow "debatable." Logic is math. Either right or wrong.

Having studied logic, I can tell you now - it's not as black and white as you might think.

There is logic as in mathimatical logic -  but that is just formulas and structures.

Then there is logic where you start looking at values and definitions. That's when things start getting murky.

Then there is logic as in argumentation theory, where there are cases where logical forumlas can look straight forward but end up being fallacies because of flaws in their foundations.

So - logic is not black and white. It is quite debatable because while a + b = ab looks straight forward enough, it depends on what "a" is and what "b" is.

[Dean_the_Young]

jumpingkaede wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jumpingkaede wrote...

How about "I am saving you from synthetics because they will always rise up against the organics."

The ONLY evidence we have in this cycle for that is the Geth attack. Which was instigated by the Reapers.

The Reapers didn't instigate the Geth rising up against the Quarians. Or EDI rising up on Luna.

Except they did.  The Geth didn't "rise up" against anyone.  They defended themselves against the Quarians when the Quarians attacked first.  THEN the Geth, in fact, didn't pursue the Quarians after they defended themselves successfully and ejected the Quarians from Rannoch.  That's canon. 

Uh, yeah. And not in dispute. An insurrection can be entirely justified and instigated by the authority, but it's still an insurrection.

What does this have to do with the Reapers provoking the situation, though?

Established canon is also that the Geth are peaceful beyond the Perseus Veil.  The only time in this cycle they actually affirmatively attack anyone is when the Reapers intervene.

And the Heretics chose to follow. They weren't coerced.

What does this mean? Among other things, that the Geth can change their minds... and can be persuaded to do bad things to other people.

The current Geth isolationism isn't inherent.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 26 mars 2012 - 03:08 .