171 réponses à ce sujet

[CavScout]

CronoDragoon wrote...

CavScout wrote...What you accomplish in ME3 doesn't disprove the inevitability argument as laid out by the Catalyst and by Tali in ME1. You could argue at best, there is peace for the moement but like 1918's peace between Germany and France didn't prevent WWII, saying peace "now" means peace forever in ME3 is silly.

In the end, it wouldn't even matter. You have to stop the Reapers. At least there were three choices in ME3, that's more than in ME and ME2 when it came down to the end...

There is a difference between "war" and "extermination of organic life." I sure as hell don't expect permanent peace between synthetics and organics, but the Catalyst is not shaping his solutions on the possibility of mere war.

Also, Tali herself changes her view of the geth pretty significantly over the series.

The Catalyst argues inevitability. Heck, even you are crumbling abit about peace ever-after.

Tali still tries to stop you from helping Legion upload the Reaper code. She still fears the Geth.

[CronoDragoon]

Zenor wrote...

This is why his logic is up for so much debate, I really did wish we could have the option to say something against him so I can have some more context on why he thinks this way. We don't, so oh well. I'm working with what I have, and you can, in my opinion, disagree with him with a choice. Now if these choices were a choice anyone's shepard would make, is another discussion. Along with it's logic. I still stand on the fact you can at least disagree with his logic with destroy being the biggest disagreement with him.

I agree with you to an extent, but the fact that Destroy wipes out ALL synthetic life kinda tells me that it still subscribes to his "synthetics are a threat to all organic life" theory. That and the writers just threw it in there because otherwise 95% of people would choose Destroy...

[Reofeir]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Zenor wrote...

This is why his logic is up for so much debate, I really did wish we could have the option to say something against him so I can have some more context on why he thinks this way. We don't, so oh well. I'm working with what I have, and you can, in my opinion, disagree with him with a choice. Now if these choices were a choice anyone's shepard would make, is another discussion. Along with it's logic. I still stand on the fact you can at least disagree with his logic with destroy being the biggest disagreement with him.

I agree with you to an extent, but the fact that Destroy wipes out ALL synthetic life kinda tells me that it still subscribes to his "synthetics are a threat to all organic life" theory. That and the writers just threw it in there because otherwise 95% of people would choose Destroy...

Most likely the writers wanted to make the choice hard, and it honestly does. The thing is choosing this, you allow the reapers to be gone without ANY chance of them coming back *Control failing and synthesis they just fly away for no reason?* you can continue making synthetics and life moves on without their interferance. If they were right in the end, it will be up to us on how that will work out. Control is too much of a risk for some already (if you think shepard can do that or not) and synthesis is just a completely "what" thing overall with it being based on their logic completely with no sense of security. 

[CronoDragoon]

CavScout wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

CavScout wrote...What you accomplish in ME3 doesn't disprove the inevitability argument as laid out by the Catalyst and by Tali in ME1. You could argue at best, there is peace for the moement but like 1918's peace between Germany and France didn't prevent WWII, saying peace "now" means peace forever in ME3 is silly.

In the end, it wouldn't even matter. You have to stop the Reapers. At least there were three choices in ME3, that's more than in ME and ME2 when it came down to the end...

There is a difference between "war" and "extermination of organic life." I sure as hell don't expect permanent peace between synthetics and organics, but the Catalyst is not shaping his solutions on the possibility of mere war.

Also, Tali herself changes her view of the geth pretty significantly over the series.

The Catalyst argues inevitability. Heck, even you are crumbling abit about peace ever-after.

Tali still tries to stop you from helping Legion upload the Reaper code. She still fears the Geth.

I never argued that synthetics and organics would never war. That would be ridiculous. But it's an inevitability that machines will wipe out organics? Based on what? He is arguing that the probability of something happening which has never happened is 100%.

It would help if we were perhaps shown examples of prior synthetics nearly wiping out all organic life or something. From a storytelling perspective, this would have helped.

Tali fears the geth because they are currently at war with her people. You'll notice that once the situation is resolved she tells Legion that she believes he has a soul. Clearly her view on synthetic life has changed.

[admcmei]

(paragon Shepards had also just finished telling Garrus just two hours before that there was NEVER any situation possible in which this kind of dictatorial logic, "sacrifice ten billion to save twenty", was ever acceptable)

[CavScout]

CronoDragoon wrote...

CavScout wrote...The Catalyst argues inevitability. Heck, even you are crumbling abit about peace ever-after.

Tali still tries to stop you from helping Legion upload the Reaper code. She still fears the Geth.

I never argued that synthetics and organics would never war. That would be ridiculous. But it's an inevitability that machines will wipe out organics? Based on what? He is arguing that the probability of something happening which has never happened is 100%.

It would help if we were perhaps shown examples of prior synthetics nearly wiping out all organic life or something. From a storytelling perspective, this would have helped.

Tali fears the geth because they are currently at war with her people. You'll notice that once the situation is resolved she tells Legion that she believes he has a soul. Clearly her view on synthetic life has changed.

If you even acknowledge there will be wars, why is it so hard to fathom that after enough of these wars the Synthetics will say "F this noise, let's just erase these darn organics off the map!"?

We are given plenty of background on several organic and synthetic conflicts. If you have the DLC you can hear about another one and even the Prothean backs up the idea that sythetics are not to be trusted and will turn on their creators.

[Reofeir]

admcmei wrote...

(paragon Shepards had also just finished telling Garrus just two hours before that there was NEVER any situation possible in which this kind of dictatorial logic, "sacrifice ten billion to save twenty", was ever acceptable)

Well then take a chance with the control ending. You might risk you failing completly but you won't really kill anyone but yourself. Or just agree with the reapers and pick synthesis. Everyone wins if you agree with it's logic, except people becoming half machines.

[Silveralen]

It isn't just he accepts these ar his only options, it is that he trusts starchild implicitly to the point he doe something that will result in his death with no real guarantee it will actually work. Beyond the fact that synthesis makes less sense then anything else in the entire series/plot (which has a shaky scientific grounding already, somewhat understandable being sci-fi, but still limits.), we also have control. 5 min ago, Shepard thought that idea was doomed to fail, and told TIM so, even convincing him to shoot himself. Now, starkid tells him it will work, boom instant trust, even admits TIM was right. What.... the..... hell. He questions none of this, seems to agree with almost everything starchild says, even compromising beliefs he held not 5 min ago.

So yes, destroy is a mildly more "screw you" choice, but it still makes no sense he'd agree/accept the validity of the other two options with no actual proof. I actually believe indoc theory, simply because it is the only justification for his complete idiocy/lack of spine in the final convo.

[admcmei]

Zenor wrote...

admcmei wrote...

(paragon Shepards had also just finished telling Garrus just two hours before that there was NEVER any situation possible in which this kind of dictatorial logic, "sacrifice ten billion to save twenty", was ever acceptable)

Well then take a chance with the control ending. You might risk you failing completly but you won't really kill anyone but yourself. Or just agree with the reapers and pick synthesis. Everyone wins if you agree with it's logic, except people becoming half machines.

I said "paragon Shepards", not "idiot Shepards". 

[CronoDragoon]

CavScout wrote...

If you even acknowledge there will be wars, why is it so hard to fathom that after enough of these wars the Synthetics will say "F this noise, let's just erase these darn organics off the map!"?

There is a huge difference between winning a single war against a group of people, and wiping out all organics.

As far as I know, Javik's story didn't detail any real threat to organic life in its totality.

[CronoDragoon]

Zenor wrote...

admcmei wrote...

(paragon Shepards had also just finished telling Garrus just two hours before that there was NEVER any situation possible in which this kind of dictatorial logic, "sacrifice ten billion to save twenty", was ever acceptable)

Well then take a chance with the control ending. You might risk you failing completly but you won't really kill anyone but yourself. Or just agree with the reapers and pick synthesis. Everyone wins if you agree with it's logic, except people becoming half machines.

Another can of worms I don't quite want to open here is that since all choices destroy the relays, Shepard is sort of forced into this philosophy no matter what...

[Reofeir]

admcmei wrote...

Zenor wrote...

admcmei wrote...

(paragon Shepards had also just finished telling Garrus just two hours before that there was NEVER any situation possible in which this kind of dictatorial logic, "sacrifice ten billion to save twenty", was ever acceptable)

Well then take a chance with the control ending. You might risk you failing completly but you won't really kill anyone but yourself. Or just agree with the reapers and pick synthesis. Everyone wins if you agree with it's logic, except people becoming half machines.

I said "paragon Shepards", not "idiot Shepards". 

Well it is techniqually "paragon" shepard because he's still sacrificing himself instead of others. And really if were going to say "idiot shepards", I find it "idiotic" that shepard believed in the reapers just because of a vision which may of just been a dream and some asari saying "return of the reapers" and that theg geth believe in them. A smart shepard would of maybe agreed with the council and went after saren, finding proof of the reapers before saying the exist and start getting a hissy fit if they don't believe you on it.
Shepard seems to work on fast reactions, and thus his morality (sacrifice himself before others) or (Make the hard choice for the greater good) is what is invovled in this.

[Silveralen]

CavScout wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

CavScout wrote...The Catalyst argues inevitability. Heck, even you are crumbling abit about peace ever-after.

Tali still tries to stop you from helping Legion upload the Reaper code. She still fears the Geth.

I never argued that synthetics and organics would never war. That would be ridiculous. But it's an inevitability that machines will wipe out organics? Based on what? He is arguing that the probability of something happening which has never happened is 100%.

It would help if we were perhaps shown examples of prior synthetics nearly wiping out all organic life or something. From a storytelling perspective, this would have helped.

Tali fears the geth because they are currently at war with her people. You'll notice that once the situation is resolved she tells Legion that she believes he has a soul. Clearly her view on synthetic life has changed.

If you even acknowledge there will be wars, why is it so hard to fathom that after enough of these wars the Synthetics will say "F this noise, let's just erase these darn organics off the map!"?

We are given plenty of background on several organic and synthetic conflicts. If you have the DLC you can hear about another one and even the Prothean backs up the idea that sythetics are not to be trusted and will turn on their creators.

Yes, and then we see the geth memory core. Remember that? They turned on their creators because their creators feared them. All this "terrified of synthetics, so we must destroy" actualy causes the very situation the organic life feared. Thus, we see throug example that the fears cause the synthetics to turn, rather than the fears being caused by dangerous synthetics. Chicken and egg argument, except we got to watch the orginal event.

So why can't Shepard at least say this to the starchld? Even if he just dismisses it, it needs to be said!

[Reofeir]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Zenor wrote...

admcmei wrote...

(paragon Shepards had also just finished telling Garrus just two hours before that there was NEVER any situation possible in which this kind of dictatorial logic, "sacrifice ten billion to save twenty", was ever acceptable)

Well then take a chance with the control ending. You might risk you failing completly but you won't really kill anyone but yourself. Or just agree with the reapers and pick synthesis. Everyone wins if you agree with it's logic, except people becoming half machines.

Another can of worms I don't quite want to open here is that since all choices destroy the relays, Shepard is sort of forced into this philosophy no matter what...

What ahppens after the relays are debatable, another topic yes. techniqually though, no one died if you pick those 2 choices by you. It's more of a longterm aftermath. 

[admcmei]

I mean, you know what? I would even have been ok with our side losing before accepting this logic. Show Shepard refusing to bow down to this logic and saying "sorry, we'd better go down fighting you" and then show the cycle losing after a long long battle, even Shepard and everyone else dying. I accept the reapers are invincible in physical warfare, I'm ok with that. I accept it. Cut to 20'000 years later, someone finds Liara's plans. We lost, but we gave the next cycle a huge advantage, we gave them hope, they have plenty of time to prepare. Again, it's a no-brainer of an option. Not giving it is stupid, they only had to write one line of dialogue and do one different cinematic. Which I guess was too much seeing how all the tohers are identical, yeah.

[Verit]

Zenor wrote...
Now to me destroy is disagreeing with them. It pretty much says "We don't need you." Right? Sure there's a heavy price tag, the geth dying with them, but it allows us to start anew without the reapers doing their thing with their logic.

Certainly, destroy is doing what you intended to do in the first place, but consider the price tag: you wipe out the very beings that made you realize that the Catalyst is wrong. Here's what Destroy is:

"Thanks for making me realize the Catalyst's reasoning is wrong guys, I now know synthetics don't want to kill organics, too bad I'm going to sacrifice all of you to get rid of the Reapers and save organics."

[CavScout]

Silveralen wrote...

CavScout wrote...
If you even acknowledge there will be wars, why is it so hard to fathom that after enough of these wars the Synthetics will say "F this noise, let's just erase these darn organics off the map!"?

We are given plenty of background on several organic and synthetic conflicts. If you have the DLC you can hear about another one and even the Prothean backs up the idea that sythetics are not to be trusted and will turn on their creators.

Yes, and then we see the geth memory core. Remember that? They turned on their creators because their creators feared them. All this "terrified of synthetics, so we must destroy" actualy causes the very situation the organic life feared. Thus, we see throug example that the fears cause the synthetics to turn, rather than the fears being caused by dangerous synthetics. Chicken and egg argument, except we got to watch the orginal event.

So why can't Shepard at least say this to the starchld? Even if he just dismisses it, it needs to be said!

The eventuality doesn't depend on who starts the conflict...

PS: Why doesn't Shep argue against the Geth "memory" and justs accept it? It's no more self-serving than the Catalyst's.

Modifié par CavScout, 28 mars 2012 - 05:24 .

[CronoDragoon]

CavScout wrote...

Silveralen wrote...

CavScout wrote...
If you even acknowledge there will be wars, why is it so hard to fathom that after enough of these wars the Synthetics will say "F this noise, let's just erase these darn organics off the map!"?

We are given plenty of background on several organic and synthetic conflicts. If you have the DLC you can hear about another one and even the Prothean backs up the idea that sythetics are not to be trusted and will turn on their creators.

Yes, and then we see the geth memory core. Remember that? They turned on their creators because their creators feared them. All this "terrified of synthetics, so we must destroy" actualy causes the very situation the organic life feared. Thus, we see throug example that the fears cause the synthetics to turn, rather than the fears being caused by dangerous synthetics. Chicken and egg argument, except we got to watch the orginal event.

So why can't Shepard at least say this to the starchld? Even if he just dismisses it, it needs to be said!

The eventuality doesn't depend on who starts the conflict...

PS: Why doesn't Shep argue against the Geth "memory" and justs accept it? It's no more self-serving than the Catalyst's.

For one, the geth saga is a show and the Catalyst only tells. I'd be more interested in hearing what the Catalyst has to say if I got to see the conflict that spawned him and the Reapers.

[Reofeir]

-Draikin- wrote...

Zenor wrote...
Now to me destroy is disagreeing with them. It pretty much says "We don't need you." Right? Sure there's a heavy price tag, the geth dying with them, but it allows us to start anew without the reapers doing their thing with their logic.

Certainly, destroy is doing what you intended to do in the first place, but consider the price tag: you wipe out the very beings that made you realize that the Catalyst is wrong. Here's what Destroy is:

"Thanks for making me realize the Catalyst's reasoning is wrong guys, I now know synthetics don't want to kill organics, too bad I'm going to sacrifice all of you to get rid of the Reapers and save organics."

Heavy risk, the other two choices seem like a temporary easy way out. The destroy ending is the for sure best way (again exlcluding the mass relay debate) to end it and disagree with them...along with it being the hardest choice you ever made in your life. No longer are we in fear of the reapers; if we make brand new synthetics then we fix it knowing that we made that choice, not some machine doing stupid things because of what it thinks.
 The future is now ours.

[Xandax]

CronoDragoon wrote...

I think "agreeing with them" is short-hand for "he accepted without question that these options were the only ones possible."

Does that sound like your Shepard?

This.

He accepts the Star-God-Ghost-Child's explanation and premise unconditional. Even if you choose 'destroy' you have accepted the premise that blowing up a tube will destroy all reapers, mass relays, reaper tech bla bla bla.......

Shepard in the series have been portraied as a character that stands in defiance against the no-win situation. The background traits you select in ME1 is already the first example of this.
If face with the choices - most people's Shepard would have refused the childs explanation and attempted another route altogether - conventional warfare or not - and would have prevailed or failed on his terms.
Not terms invented by some deity entity spawned out of nothing.

[Silveralen]

CavScout wrote...

Silveralen wrote...

CavScout wrote...
If you even acknowledge there will be wars, why is it so hard to fathom that after enough of these wars the Synthetics will say "F this noise, let's just erase these darn organics off the map!"?

We are given plenty of background on several organic and synthetic conflicts. If you have the DLC you can hear about another one and even the Prothean backs up the idea that sythetics are not to be trusted and will turn on their creators.

Yes, and then we see the geth memory core. Remember that? They turned on their creators because their creators feared them. All this "terrified of synthetics, so we must destroy" actualy causes the very situation the organic life feared. Thus, we see throug example that the fears cause the synthetics to turn, rather than the fears being caused by dangerous synthetics. Chicken and egg argument, except we got to watch the orginal event.

So why can't Shepard at least say this to the starchld? Even if he just dismisses it, it needs to be said!

The eventuality doesn't depend on who starts the conflict...

PS: Why doesn't Shep argue against the Geth "memory" and justs accept it? It's no more self-serving than the Catalyst's.

Mine was shown to be a loyal longtime companion who then put his money where his mouth was and sacrificed his life to help broker a new future for his people, living in harmony with the organics, making the memory seem all the more Valid.

StarChild.......... just pops up, tells you, you accept it, then kill yourself because hey, he wouldn't lie to you.

[sedrikhcain]

Zenor wrote...

 At the first part, anything the kid says is "The reapers are his" and blah blah blah. He tells Shepard his cruel and stupid logic, and then shepard says something about keeping their own form, and then later on says "maybe" and something about that the charateristic of organic life is thinking for themselves. So far, in my opinion, I do not see this as "Agreeing with the starkid" yet.
Then we are given 3 choices.
Destroy-Destroy the reapers and synthetics "Can wipe out reapers, including the geth"...he says "maybe" here. Not agreeing or disagreeing but just maybe, but to continue.
Control the reapers
Or Synthesis. 

Now to me destroy is disagreeing with them. It pretty much says "We don't need you." Right? Sure there's a heavy price tag, the geth dying with them, but it allows us to start anew without the reapers doing their thing with their logic.

Control is doing what the illusive man wanted to do, but in terms of thinking he can do it and not fail as well as not letting the geth die due to it. Heavy risk, but..well not very good prize but meh.

Now synthesis is pretty much agreeing with them, right? I mean you're doing what the reapers or at least starkid, thinks is the best solution. That would be shepard agreeing with starkid.

Sure it would be better if we were given a choice to say "You're wrong, look at the geth!" but would it listen? It would most likely say "You're wrong blah blah blah" anyways. So...Can someone help me see how shepard is just agreeing with the starchild? I'm confused on this still and I'm trying to see it.

Nevermind about the Geth, you lose EDI. That hurts -- and I felt that way before she got the fembot.

[SimKoning]

I would be fine with that scene if they just added more dialogue options, such as "what about the Geth and Quarians?" followed with a obvious moment of internal conflict on the Catalyst's part.

[Tazzmission]

what if star child controlled shepard into agreeing?


isnt shepard part synthetic anyways?

and what are the chances of that being reaper technology?

[CronoDragoon]

Tazzmission wrote...

what if star child controlled shepard into agreeing?


isnt shepard part synthetic anyways?

and what are the chances of that being reaper technology?

Pretty sure Cerberus only got access to Reaper tech from the Collector Base/remains of the Collector Base.