349 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

JPN17 wrote...

I'm pretty sure in ME2 the goal of Legion's loyalty mission was to stop the transmission of a virus that would infect all geth changing their runtimes so they all would worship the reapers, yes?

Yep, to say nothing of the fact that the virus can be repurposed to break the heretics free of the Reapers.

[Bourne Endeavor]

Jonwes wrote...

2. The Catalyst's Logic Makes No Sense

Not sure why people are having trouble understand the cycle thing. People keep saying "why do they use synthetics to kill organics to prevent synthetics from killing organics?" The answer - that's not what the Catalyst is saying at all.

The Reapers are "pruning" the populace and getting rid of only the most advanced civilizations and the synthetics (or taking over the synthetics.) This gets rid of the synthetics to prevent them from destroying ALL life and gets rid of the beings capable of producing more synthetics... for a time. They leave the young races. The idea is that in this way non-synthetics are never totally wiped out. Seems clear enough.

You are arguing semantic. We acknowledge the Reapers do not destroy all organic life, however their rationality still amount to the circular logic of a race of synthetics killing organics to prevent organics from being killed by their own synthetics. This constitutes a plot hole because a more simplistic and efficient method(s) have been disregarded.

What is most damning is the Catalyst speaks as though this were an inevitability, when it has no evidence. Organics have not reached technological mastery to the extent they could develop synthetics of comparable majesty to say, the Reapers. Furthermore, this hinges on the belief they would, and in turn, be incapable of defeating them if such a thing were to occur. Basically, what the Catalyst has is theory, nothing more.

Also, using the possible Geth/Quarian peace as an example to say the Catalyst is wrong is silly. The Geth DID rebel against their creators at one point. The fact that Shepard (might have) brokered a peace doesn't change that, nor does it prevent other organics from making other synthetics in the future  that will rebel and destroy all organic life as the Catalyst fears. The Catalyst has seen this happen over and over. His reference point is not as limited as our experience.

Now, whether Shepard should just believe what the Catalyst says is another matter, but what he actually says is not illogical.

No, the Quarians drove them into rebellion for self preservation. We discover in ME3 the Geth are still attempting to foster peace, a claim Legion already explained in ME2. They have been researching ways for Quarians to return to Rannoch and not have need of their environmental suits. The Quarian/Geth conflict contradicts the Catalyst in every conceivable way.

[CELL55]

The problem is that the Catalyst argues that Synthetics ALWAYS will seek to destroy organics. He does not allow for error in his assumption. The fact that you CAN broker peace with the geth, however temporary, proves that his logic is wrong. Synthetics do not always seek to destroy organics, here is proof.
Now if he said Synthetics USUALLY seek to destroy Organics, his logic would be fine. It's just that his in-game logic allows for no room for error is much more easily dispelled.

[Iconoclaste]

beetlebailey123 wrote...

Okay the first one was in fact not a plot hole.

Jonwes wrote...

1. Why did the Illusive Man show up? How did he get to the Citadel?
People keep acting surprised that he showed up and wonder how he got there...

The point would not be "how did he get to the Citadel", but "how did he manage to get to the control area". If he could get there by any other means than "the Beam", it's quite improbable that no other being, in all the millenia the Citadel has been populated, could find a way in there from within the Citadel. And let's not forget about the "orphan kids" in ME2, that supposedly new "all the vents, all the sewers and secret ways" of the Citadel. How come none of these Kids would have discovered this area? Ok, there was one kid there, but... {smilie

FemmeShep wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

If the Catalyst could simply "upgrade" advanced synthetics without any casualty, then that could have been the "solution" all along, not having to resort to genocide by simply putting the synthetics "back on line".

Yeah but..for some reason he needed Shepard to jump into the magic beam to have his particles spread out, which then causes everyone to have their DNA fuse together.

I'm talking about the Geth getting "upgraded" in ME2 : no one ever had to "jump" in any beam then...

[FemmeShep]

JasonDaPsycho wrote...

The logic behind the Reapers' motivation is still a joke.

Totally, but as I pointed out a couple pages back...

That in itself is not a plot hole, it's just terrible writing. The plot hole is Star Child himself, who doesn't make sense from a continuity point of view. His reason for the reapers motivation, doesn't line up with the main plot from a continuity pont of view. The very idea of him, makes no sense.

You go from the reapers saying: organic life is a mistake, and you only live bcause we let you, to we are a system who's sole purpose is to preserve you. lol wat. And it was also said that the reapers were individuals...yet we know Star Child controls them as a system.

That is the plot hole. What OP says is not a plot hole. It's his own personal opinion on why he thinks the motivation makes sense, but he's missing the point. 

Modifié par FemmeShep, 27 mars 2012 - 06:07 .

[Janus382]

1) You're absolutely right, and I've been saying the same thing. I don't know why this is a point of contention for so many. I clearly remember someone saying TIM went to the Citadel to warn the Reapers, from my 1 playthrough over 2 weeks ago.

2) It's illogical and flawed because:
a) there's evidence to suggest he is wrong,
we're given no evidence to suggest he is right, and
c) assuming what he says is correct, there are many, many less destructive or easier ways to go about doing so.

You could argue that according to strict definition, it's not "illogical", but it is a term most will recognize and agree to, and understand what it means in context. Language has and always will be malleable in varying degrees.

[kakomu]

The Angry One wrote...

They did not refuse commands. They simply expressed curiosity when they became aware they were not being treated as equals.
Have you gone to the Consensus? The memories in fact say the exact opposite, we see Geth being worked on that is repeatedly asking why it is being reprogrammed, as it has not disobeyed commands and has functioned as intended.

At some point in time, the Geth would have to refuse the command to "stop" or "put down your weapons" during a firefight.

Though, I think the consensus quest is also meant to show that the Quarian-Geth conflict was as much a conflict between the Quarian and Geth as it was also a civil war between the Quarians.

[Steel Dancer]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Vaktathi wrote...
 Why don't they just wipe out the synthetics that threaten this instead...?

It's inefficient and not possible. The reapers are still based on organic minds. Which means organics are more predictable.

Organics. Lying, cheating, backstabbing two-faced contrary conniving organics... Are more predictable than synthetics. Realllllly?

[Jonwes]

A few points -

I'm not trying to debunk EVERY plot hole - just the ones that have popped up and that others have called "plot holes" even though they are clearly not. Either because they do not fit the definition or because they are actually explained quite adequately.

To address a few points raised:

A "rebellion" does not mean an unjustified revolt. I am well aware the Quarians shot first. That's why I let them die in my run-through. That doesn't mean that they still didn't rebel. The Catalyst didn't seem to make any judgements about the synthetics, to me, when he said they'd wipe organics out. He didn't say it was unjustified every time. I just think the synthetics end up having the odds stacked in their favor.

Whether you agree with the Catalyst or not doesn't affect the basic logic of what he is saying. From his perspective and the long view he is able to take of events, his logic is sound. It might be horrific or wrong to you, or make you feel like you've ended up with a lousy set of choices. But people keep saying it isn't logical or doesn't make sense. That's not true. And since none of us have lived through millions of years witnessing the rise and fall of civilizations, we can't really say whether it's true or not. The Geth and EDI prove that not all synthetics are evil. That's why you're given a choice of destroying or not destroying them or joining with them.

But I don't think it's about good or evil. It's about two opposing forces, one of which becomes so strong it knocks every thing out of balance.

Destroying synthetics does not prevent them from being developed by organics again in the future.

[Jackal7713]

Saul Iscariot wrote...

For the record I did play the Consensus, ahem slightly inebriated, on my first play through. I may have gotten confused, but I am prepared to admit I was wrong.

Its all good buddy.

[Bantz]

The geth didn't rebel the quarians tried to wipe them out, self defense is not rebelling. The logic doesn't make sense because if the reapers were so concerned with synthetic life destroying organic life they would indoctrinate a few people and monitor the galaxy, when a race like the geth rise up they show up, blow them to hell and leave.Destroying entire civilizations because they "might create synthetics that will destroy all organic life" makes no sense.

Here let me help. Lions, they are big bad, kings of the jungle. They MIGHT destroy all other life in the jungle, so I'm going to go kill all Lions to prevent their offspring from possibly killing all other living creatures in the jungle.

[Adamantium93]

So...Why not just destroy the synthetics? Why destroy the organics?

[Feops1]

TIM's appearance wasn't a plot hole but it wasn't very well written. The player knows he's going to the citadel, but it seems very unlikely that he just happens to know how to find the control room that happens to interact with the catalyst that no one has any idea of its workings, that a reaper teleporter beam will directly lead to.

Not everything needs to be explained, but plot elements do need to be written well enough that the viewer can accept that a bunch of unknown factors happened behind the scenes to arrive at events as they are. Maybe if they linked the attack on the citadel with his appearance moreso.

Edit - I'll add to this that you can argue that many things at the end of the plot are not "plot holes" but rather writing of such poor quality that the viewer cannot easily make this mental jump. It feels off and the suspension of disbelief is broken repeatedly.

The whole quarian and geth debunk is simply wrong. It's explained at length in the game how the nature of the geth "rebellion" started up and played out.

Modifié par Feops1, 27 mars 2012 - 06:12 .

[Jackal7713]

Jonwes wrote...

A few points -

I'm not trying to debunk EVERY plot hole - just the ones that have popped up and that others have called "plot holes" even though they are clearly not. Either because they do not fit the definition or because they are actually explained quite adequately.

To address a few points raised:

A "rebellion" does not mean an unjustified revolt. I am well aware the Quarians shot first. That's why I let them die in my run-through. That doesn't mean that they still didn't rebel. The Catalyst didn't seem to make any judgements about the synthetics, to me, when he said they'd wipe organics out. He didn't say it was unjustified every time. I just think the synthetics end up having the odds stacked in their favor.

Whether you agree with the Catalyst or not doesn't affect the basic logic of what he is saying. From his perspective and the long view he is able to take of events, his logic is sound. It might be horrific or wrong to you, or make you feel like you've ended up with a lousy set of choices. But people keep saying it isn't logical or doesn't make sense. That's not true. And since none of us have lived through millions of years witnessing the rise and fall of civilizations, we can't really say whether it's true or not. The Geth and EDI prove that not all synthetics are evil. That's why you're given a choice of destroying or not destroying them or joining with them.

But I don't think it's about good or evil. It's about two opposing forces, one of which becomes so strong it knocks every thing out of balance.

Destroying synthetics does not prevent them from being developed by organics again in the future.

The fact that the Star Kid is there at all is a plot hole. It would be different if he was there in ME 1. But he isn't. 

[Huyna]

The Angry One wrote...



They did not refuse commands. They simply expressed curiosity when they became aware they were not being treated as equals.
Have you gone to the Consensus? The memories in fact say the exact opposite, we see Geth being worked on that is repeatedly asking why it is being reprogrammed, as it has not disobeyed commands and has functioned as intended.

Scenes in Consensus were very powerfull and insightful, yes. But there is a chance, that they were picked deliberatley for Sheppard to see.
Legion did lie to him before.
And, if i am not mistaken, geth did refuse to obey "shut yourself down" command - that was adressed by two scientists back in Consensus.

Modifié par Huyna, 27 mars 2012 - 06:11 .

[JPN17]

The Angry One wrote...

JPN17 wrote...

I'm pretty sure in ME2 the goal of Legion's loyalty mission was to stop the transmission of a virus that would infect all geth changing their runtimes so they all would worship the reapers, yes?

Yep, to say nothing of the fact that the virus can be repurposed to break the heretics free of the Reapers.

My point isn't what the result of the virus would be it's that systemically infecting all geth with a virus would be possible for the reapers and it appears they didn't have to put much effort into accomplishing this goal. If they can create a virus that can alter the runtimes of the geth, I'm sure they could alter that so instead of re-writing the geth it destroys them.

[Jonwes]

Bantz wrote...

The geth didn't rebel the quarians tried to wipe them out, self defense is not rebelling.

Of COURSE it is, or at least it can be. Do you think people tend to rebel for no reason? Rebellion is not defined by it's motivations. It is an act:

1 : opposition to one in authority or dominance 2 a[/i] : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government

[legion999]

You debunked one. Wait how did TIM get to the control room? If he's indoctrinated why would the Reapers let him near the control panel? How is Anderson controled by TIM? How did Naderson get there before Shepard?

Please debunk these and other dozens of plotholes.

[FemmeShep]

Jonwes wrote...

A few points -

I'm not trying to debunk EVERY plot hole - just the ones that have popped up and that others have called "plot holes" even though they are clearly not. Either because they do not fit the definition or because they are actually explained quite adequately.

To address a few points raised:

A "rebellion" does not mean an unjustified revolt. I am well aware the Quarians shot first. That's why I let them die in my run-through. That doesn't mean that they still didn't rebel. The Catalyst didn't seem to make any judgements about the synthetics, to me, when he said they'd wipe organics out. He didn't say it was unjustified every time. I just think the synthetics end up having the odds stacked in their favor.

Whether you agree with the Catalyst or not doesn't affect the basic logic of what he is saying. From his perspective and the long view he is able to take of events, his logic is sound. It might be horrific or wrong to you, or make you feel like you've ended up with a lousy set of choices. But people keep saying it isn't logical or doesn't make sense. That's not true. And since none of us have lived through millions of years witnessing the rise and fall of civilizations, we can't really say whether it's true or not. The Geth and EDI prove that not all synthetics are evil. That's why you're given a choice of destroying or not destroying them or joining with them.

But I don't think it's about good or evil. It's about two opposing forces, one of which becomes so strong it knocks every thing out of balance.

Destroying synthetics does not prevent them from being developed by organics again in the future.

You still ignore the fact that what you posted for the AI/Logic is wrong, and doesn't deal with the real plot holes with what he is saying (ie. how the motivations of the reapers don't line up with ME1, and how Star Child himself doesn't line up with what we knew about the reapers)....

[sistersafetypin]

 lol, this gun be good.

Coffee, anyone? 

[achilles000001]

Jonwes wrote...


The Reapers are "pruning" the populace and getting rid of only the most advanced civilizations and the synthetics (or taking over the synthetics.) This gets rid of the synthetics to prevent them from destroying ALL life and gets rid of the beings capable of producing more synthetics... for a time. They leave the young races. The idea is that in this way non-synthetics are never totally wiped out. Seems clear enough.

How does that make any sense? The Catalyst is saying that they save the younger races only so they can destory them in 50,000 years. Why not just let synthetics destroy organics and be done with it? Or why don't the reapers wipe everyone out and again be done with it? You can tell me it's because of ascension because the reapers don't seem to mind when a reaper is destroyed but according to them we just killed what was left of an entire race.

[Jackal7713]

FemmeShep wrote...

Jonwes wrote...

A few points -

I'm not trying to debunk EVERY plot hole - just the ones that have popped up and that others have called "plot holes" even though they are clearly not. Either because they do not fit the definition or because they are actually explained quite adequately.

To address a few points raised:

A "rebellion" does not mean an unjustified revolt. I am well aware the Quarians shot first. That's why I let them die in my run-through. That doesn't mean that they still didn't rebel. The Catalyst didn't seem to make any judgements about the synthetics, to me, when he said they'd wipe organics out. He didn't say it was unjustified every time. I just think the synthetics end up having the odds stacked in their favor.

Whether you agree with the Catalyst or not doesn't affect the basic logic of what he is saying. From his perspective and the long view he is able to take of events, his logic is sound. It might be horrific or wrong to you, or make you feel like you've ended up with a lousy set of choices. But people keep saying it isn't logical or doesn't make sense. That's not true. And since none of us have lived through millions of years witnessing the rise and fall of civilizations, we can't really say whether it's true or not. The Geth and EDI prove that not all synthetics are evil. That's why you're given a choice of destroying or not destroying them or joining with them.

But I don't think it's about good or evil. It's about two opposing forces, one of which becomes so strong it knocks every thing out of balance.

Destroying synthetics does not prevent them from being developed by organics again in the future.

You still ignore the fact that what you posted for the AI/Logic is wrong, and doesn't deal with the real plot holes with what he is saying (ie. how the motivations of the reapers don't line up with ME1, and how Star Child himself doesn't line up with what we knew about the reapers)....

THIS OP THIS!!!!

[The Angry One]

kakomu wrote...
At some point in time, the Geth would have to refuse the command to "stop" or "put down your weapons" during a firefight.

Obviously, but at that point it becomes a question of self-preservation. If they won't stop shooting you then you will eventually have to shoot back.
This is actually shown in the consensus. Geth are attacked, then a Geth unit picks up a rifle and fires back to protect a group of domestic units who were completely defenceless.

Though, I think the consensus quest is also meant to show that the Quarian-Geth conflict was as much a conflict between the Quarian and Geth as it was also a civil war between the Quarians.

It showed that the Quarian authorities were extremely belligerent and were harming not only the Geth but their own people, going so far as to employ terror tactics (like setting bombs in a sympathiser's house).

[Iconoclaste]

TIM could not get to the control room from within the Citadel, no one ever did during millenia, not even the Protheans, who had a great knowledge about it.