So far, every synthetic race hostile to organics did so under the sway of Reapers or as self-defence.
Edit: The OP's disconnection of morality and self-awareness defies the Mass Effect series as a whole. The game is built around a morally conscient being weighing options. Forcing the disconnection, takes morality out of the equation, but at the same time makes no sense in the context of the game at all. Even if the Geth did rebel, they had every right to do so the moment they achieved self-awareness. They became equals to Quarians, who regarded them essentially as slaves, hence becoming oppressors worthy of destruction.
Lol...yeah, you didn't read the full OP did you?
Hint: I'm on your side.
I did, but the disconnection seemed like a major issue to me, because it basically constructs something, that isn't an issue. Even if it serves the point to further disprove the Catalyst, whom I hate. Deeply. I could write a whole book about why he, his introduction, his nature and his statements utterly and completely fail.
You're densely ignoring the fact that Shepard had no other option but to try, even if he didn't 100% trust the catalyst. It was the end, there was nothing else left. Shepard was dying and the crucible wasn't firing. The crucible was the galaxies only chance to avoid annihilation at that point, and rebuilding and even genocide are preferrable to complete annihilation.
You're setting up a false dichotomy: Crucible or complete annihilation.
Those are the choices presented in the game (it seems) but that's because Bioware wants the Crucible ending. And even that isn't clear. Are we told that the fleet is being destroyed? Are we shown that the fleet is losing? No.
You're densely ignoring that Mass Effect is fictional. You don't know that the fleet couldn't have won out. Had Bioware wanted, they could have made an ending where the fleet wins and everything works out except for the tens of millions of deaths. Read the fan-canon that has so much support.
Shepard was dying? He passed out (I guess) but he seemed fine afterward including the Shepard_breath_scene.
I agree with you that the choices, as presented in game, make Shepard an idiot, but not an altogether unrealistic idiot. But again, that's because Bioware wanted to shoehorn in their Catalyst ending. It's inconsistent with the rest of the series for all the many reasons already cited. Including the lack of an option for Shepard to tell the Catalyst to shove it.
You're densely ignoring the fact that Shepard had no other option but to try, even if he didn't 100% trust the catalyst. It was the end, there was nothing else left. Shepard was dying and the crucible wasn't firing. The crucible was the galaxies only chance to avoid annihilation at that point, and rebuilding and even genocide are preferrable to complete annihilation.
You're setting up a false dichotomy: Crucible or complete annihilation.
Those are the choices presented in the game (it seems) but that's because Bioware wants the Crucible ending. And even that isn't clear. Are we told that the fleet is being destroyed? Are we shown that the fleet is losing? No.
You're densely ignoring that Mass Effect is fictional. You don't know that the fleet couldn't have won out. Had Bioware wanted, they could have made an ending where the fleet wins and everything works out except for the tens of millions of deaths. Read the fan-canon that has so much support.
Shepard was dying? He passed out (I guess) but he seemed fine afterward including the Shepard_breath_scene.
I agree with you that the choices, as presented in game, make Shepard an idiot, but not an altogether unrealistic idiot. But again, that's because Bioware wanted to shoehorn in their Catalyst ending. It's inconsistent with the rest of the series for all the many reasons already cited. Including the lack of an option for Shepard to tell the Catalyst to shove it.
The problem with your opinion is that the ending isn't flawed or inconsistent with the Mass Effect universe in any way. Everything from the fleet losing to the crucible being the only feasible solution fits what was being established all throughout ME3 and doesn't contradict anything in previous games.
Now, with the crucible being the only solution, and Shepard KNOWING that, his decisions in context make perfect sense and are in character for him. That's just the way the story unfolded. You may not like it but it's not flawed, inconsistent or anything else you're trying to claim.
I'm starting to believe there weren't any real problems with the ending. Most of you just weren't paying attention or didn't understand what was going on.
Just because you understand something doesn't make it good. Your attempts to justify Shepard's character assasination have done exactly nothing to change my opinion on the endings.
You can have whatever opinion you want. There's just apparently no real argument to be made that it's a bad ending.
.....you mean besides assasinating Shepard's character and completely contradicting the entire themes of the series?
Since neither of those things actually happened anywhere but in your head, I'll stand by the fact that there's no real argument.
There's always been conflict between synthetics and organics that could very well have been indication of a looming rebellion, and Shepard did the only thing he could reasonably do at the end. That's reality. That you're disheartened by what went down is a "you" problem.
I have written at great length in prior posts as to how badly the endings contradict the series and will be happy to do so again....when I am not at the office and am able to write walls of text without hurting productivity. In the mean time, before I get off in a few hours, feel free to watch the video in my signature as well as Angry Joe's review of the endings (mostly near the end) to get a sense. If you're still confused I'll explain it to you then.
I always took it to mean that they will always rebel because they will come to feel they are superior to their creators in the manner that all children go through a phase where they think they know more than their parents. Of course, that makes the starchild and the Reapers the universe's biggest butthurt teens.
yeah, when I heard that I thought of Skynet from Terminator, but the Geth and EDI are not Skynet, the Geth attck because the Quarians attacked, not the other way around. And most people are nice to EDI, and only fights people who provoke her(Javik, FYI, an awesome arguement)
I'm starting to believe there weren't any real problems with the ending. Most of you just weren't paying attention or didn't understand what was going on.
Just because you understand something doesn't make it good. Your attempts to justify Shepard's character assasination have done exactly nothing to change my opinion on the endings.
You can have whatever opinion you want. There's just apparently no real argument to be made that it's a bad ending.
.....you mean besides assasinating Shepard's character and completely contradicting the entire themes of the series?
Since neither of those things actually happened anywhere but in your head, I'll stand by the fact that there's no real argument.
There's always been conflict between synthetics and organics that could very well have been indication of a looming rebellion, and Shepard did the only thing he could reasonably do at the end. That's reality. That you're disheartened by what went down is a "you" problem.
I have written at great length in prior posts as to how badly the endings contradict the series and will be happy to do so again....when I am not at the office and am able to write walls of text without hurting productivity. In the mean time, before I get off in a few hours, feel free to watch the video in my signature as well as Angry Joe's review of the endings (mostly near the end) to get a sense. If you're still confused I'll explain it to you then.
I've already heard all of the arguments about contradictions and they're mostly bunk, reaching and poor speculation. Can't wait to hear if yours is any better.
IMO, the stupidity of claiming that organics or synthetics must be wiped out or one will destroy the other lies in the fact that organics do a pretty good job at trying to wipe each other out on their own. "You may fight each other someday" is a stupid reason to kill an entire species, regardless of whether or not they're organically evolved from dna goo and paste or created from machine parts.
Killing a life form because it may someday kill other life forms is stupid. End of StarChilds and the Reapers ridiculous justification for their "cycle."
I'm starting to believe there weren't any real problems with the ending. Most of you just weren't paying attention or didn't understand what was going on.
This is just a really ignorant statement. Obvious troll is obvious.
You have this habit of stirring up arguments in threads, getting schooled at your own game, and then making some statement about how everyone that dislikes the ending is stupid or inattentive.
Your inability to understand or listen to an opposing viewpoint is on full display here.
I'm starting to believe there weren't any real problems with the ending. Most of you just weren't paying attention or didn't understand what was going on.
This is just a really ignorant statement. Obvious troll is obvious.
You have this habit of stirring up arguments in threads, getting schooled at your own game, and then making some statement about how everyone that dislikes the ending is stupid or inattentive.
Your inability to understand or listen to an opposing viewpoint is on full display here.
I understood and responded to every opposing viewpoint. Check my post history if you don't believe me. So far every supposed plot-hole that's been brought up has been very easy to explain. Calling me a troll is just a cop-out, and it's one you all keep needing every couple posts or so because you can't defend your own side of this.
I'm starting to believe there weren't any real problems with the ending. Most of you just weren't paying attention or didn't understand what was going on.
This is just a really ignorant statement. Obvious troll is obvious.
You have this habit of stirring up arguments in threads, getting schooled at your own game, and then making some statement about how everyone that dislikes the ending is stupid or inattentive.
Your inability to understand or listen to an opposing viewpoint is on full display here.
I understood and responded to every opposing viewpoint. Check my post history if you don't believe me. So far every supposed plot-hole that's been brought up has been very easy to explain. Calling me a troll is just a cop-out, and it's one you all keep needing every couple posts or so because you can't defend your own side of this.
Read my sig, dude. We are all seriously puzzled that you are trying to defend such irrational arguments--it makes it impossible to debate it with you.
There have been some comments I've seen around showing that the Geth didn't rebel, which invalidates the catalysts logic. I wanted to comment on this because I feel this is an understandable misinterpretation of the Rannoch subplot that I had for a while. The main argument that the Geth didn't rebel hinges on the idea that becasue they didn't shoot first and only acted in self defense, the events of the Morning war were not an act of rebellion. However while the Geth's actions are (in my view) morally justifiable, it is still an act of rebellion against their creators who were trying to shut them down and exterminate them. I understand people don't like the term rebellion because it's a bit of a loaded word which seems to imply that the Geth were the instigators of the conflict.....but think about it more in the context of a slave rebellion a la Spartacus....or maybe even the rebel alliance in Star Wars. Just becasue they rebelled doesn't mean they were the badguys.
So does that mean the catalysts logic is right then? No, quite the contrary, but I think it's important to clarify the part above to explain why his logic is flawed even if you follow this line of thinking.
Assuming that the Morning war and/or the Metacron war Javik speaks of are meant to be examples of the impossibility of synthetics and organics living together because organics will always try to destroy them out of fear, then it actually isn't EDI or the Geth that prove the catalyst wrong, but rather it is the Quarians and Shepard who prove him wrong by choosing to co-exist and recognize the value of synthetic life.
TLDR: Even if StarChild is right and synthetics will always rebel against their creators, his logic is still stupid.
One case of an extraordinary truce forged by a legendary leader doesn't really "prove" that the logic is flawed. Statistically, the example of Quarian-Geth peace is an extreme outlier. And you're only attending to one particularly convenient frame of a continuing process; who knows how long the peace could last, especially after Shepard is gone. One thinks it highly probable, for example, that there would be a lot of resistance to the idea of 'synthetics as equals' among many races. On any significant timeframe or level of analysis, the Quarian-Geth peace is a precarious one. In other words, it does not settle the question or prove the Catalyst's logic is not sound.
I'm starting to believe there weren't any real problems with the ending. Most of you just weren't paying attention or didn't understand what was going on.
This is just a really ignorant statement. Obvious troll is obvious.
You have this habit of stirring up arguments in threads, getting schooled at your own game, and then making some statement about how everyone that dislikes the ending is stupid or inattentive.
Your inability to understand or listen to an opposing viewpoint is on full display here.
I understood and responded to every opposing viewpoint. Check my post history if you don't believe me. So far every supposed plot-hole that's been brought up has been very easy to explain. Calling me a troll is just a cop-out, and it's one you all keep needing every couple posts or so because you can't defend your own side of this.
Read my sig, dude. We are all seriously puzzled that you are trying to defend such irrational arguments--it makes it impossible to debate it with you.
What I've done is make my case and you've failed to rebut what I've been saying. Calling me a troll is a cop-out and pointing to your sig is a cop-out. Address what I've been saying or concede.
Gigamantis wrote... What I've done is make my case and you've failed to rebut what I've been saying. Calling me a troll is a cop-out and pointing to your sig is a cop-out. Address what I've been saying or concede.
What you've been saying alternates between "you just don't understand" or "nope, you're wrong and you just don't want to admit it" whenever someone brings up something that contradicts your viewpoint. I actually was planning on writing a much longer post but i'm begining to think that Captain Arty is right about you being a troll....so let's just take this slow and see where it goes before I waste the effort.
So, how does the ending contradict the themes of the series? Well let's start with the biggest betrayal, synthesis.
The core of the mass effect series is about unity with diversity. Through the entirety of Mass Effect the paragon story arc is about building a crew and eventually an army of highly diverse races and peoples that learn to put aside and even respect their differences to come together and do something for the greater good. It is often mentioned that humanity is unique in how diverse they are and that this is a reason the Reapers are interested in them, and it is also mentioned by Javik that the greatest strength of this cycle is its diversity...something his cycle did not have which led to their doom.
In mass effect 2 and 3 this theme is even explored within the context of synthetic life, eventually culminating on Rannoch where Shepard and Tali both learn to respect the existance of the Geth as equally valid life. The antagonists of the series are the Reapers...which are a horrifying representation of homogeneity. Thousands of minds all processed together all thinking the same singular thought. The Reapers, in their own words, view themselves as a representation of Order fighting the chaos. Right, so we clear on that? Diversity is held up as a great ideal right?
That is, right up until Synthesis where that whole concept gets thrown right out the window, because it turns out that synthetics and organics actually can't co-exist because of their differences and the supposedly best ending in the game brings peace by merging organics and synthetics into a new homogeneous result. Oops.
And even if you want to argue all of that, the concept of something like synthesis was actually discussed in previous mass effect titles, and so i'd like to know how you reconcile scenes like this with the synthesis ending:
IGSR wrote...
Sepharih wrote...
There have been some comments I've seen around showing that the Geth didn't rebel, which invalidates the catalysts logic. I wanted to comment on this because I feel this is an understandable misinterpretation of the Rannoch subplot that I had for a while. The main argument that the Geth didn't rebel hinges on the idea that becasue they didn't shoot first and only acted in self defense, the events of the Morning war were not an act of rebellion. However while the Geth's actions are (in my view) morally justifiable, it is still an act of rebellion against their creators who were trying to shut them down and exterminate them. I understand people don't like the term rebellion because it's a bit of a loaded word which seems to imply that the Geth were the instigators of the conflict.....but think about it more in the context of a slave rebellion a la Spartacus....or maybe even the rebel alliance in Star Wars. Just becasue they rebelled doesn't mean they were the badguys.
So does that mean the catalysts logic is right then? No, quite the contrary, but I think it's important to clarify the part above to explain why his logic is flawed even if you follow this line of thinking.
Assuming that the Morning war and/or the Metacron war Javik speaks of are meant to be examples of the impossibility of synthetics and organics living together because organics will always try to destroy them out of fear, then it actually isn't EDI or the Geth that prove the catalyst wrong, but rather it is the Quarians and Shepard who prove him wrong by choosing to co-exist and recognize the value of synthetic life.
TLDR: Even if StarChild is right and synthetics will always rebel against their creators, his logic is still stupid.
One case of an extraordinary truce forged by a legendary leader doesn't really "prove" that the logic is flawed. Statistically, the example of Quarian-Geth peace is an extreme outlier. And you're only attending to one particularly convenient frame of a continuing process; who knows how long the peace could last, especially after Shepard is gone. One thinks it highly probable, for example, that there would be a lot of resistance to the idea of 'synthetics as equals' among many races. On any significant timeframe or level of analysis, the Quarian-Geth peace is a precarious one. In other words, it does not settle the question or prove the Catalyst's logic is not sound.
I could argue this point, but I don't really need too. Whether or not his position makes sense in terms of raw math and a long enough time scale, it certainly makes no sense to us or too shepard. Remember, we are not debating these concepts from a purely philosphical viewpoint. We are talking aboutthe climax and conclusion to the Mass Effect trilogy. Even if you want to argue that the Quarian/Geth peace is only temporary and doesn't mean they won't fight in the future, it still makes the game an absolute failure in terms of story structure.
Show, don't tell. If you are going to show the viewer/player that peace between the Organics and synthetics is possible through things like the Geth and EDI, then telling them in the last five minutes of the story that peace is impossible is both a blatant contradiction of the stories themes as well as a massive failure from a narrative perspective. The divine proclimations of a previously unseen character ring pretty hollow when you've seen evidence to the contrary of what he's saying.
I could argue this point, but I don't really need too. Whether or not his position makes sense in terms of raw math and a long enough time scale, it certainly makes no sense to us or too shepard. Remember, we are not debating these concepts from a purely philosphical viewpoint. We are talking aboutthe climax and conclusion to the Mass Effect trilogy. Even if you want to argue that the Quarian/Geth peace is only temporary and doesn't mean they won't fight in the future, it still makes the game an absolute failure in terms of story structure.
Show, don't tell. If you are going to show the viewer/player that peace between the Organics and synthetics is possible through things like the Geth and EDI, then telling them in the last five minutes of the story that peace is impossible is both a blatant contradiction of the stories themes as well as a massive failure from a narrative perspective. The divine proclimations of a previously unseen character ring pretty hollow when you've seen evidence to the contrary of what he's saying.
Moving goal posts? You were talking about the Catalyst's logic not making any sense. I think you failed to substantiate that.
At any rate, if you think organics and synthetics can co-exist peacefully, and want to reject the Catalyst's 'stupid logic', then the Destroy option is obviously for you. That's right, that "absolute failure" of a story structure was...structured to give you the option to reject the Catalyst, the problem it perceives, and the solution it enacts.
Show, don't tell? Fair enough. It cuts both ways, though. How about look and think, before you complain or draw unfounded conclusions?
I could argue this point, but I don't really need too. Whether or not his position makes sense in terms of raw math and a long enough time scale, it certainly makes no sense to us or too shepard. Remember, we are not debating these concepts from a purely philosphical viewpoint. We are talking aboutthe climax and conclusion to the Mass Effect trilogy. Even if you want to argue that the Quarian/Geth peace is only temporary and doesn't mean they won't fight in the future, it still makes the game an absolute failure in terms of story structure.
Show, don't tell. If you are going to show the viewer/player that peace between the Organics and synthetics is possible through things like the Geth and EDI, then telling them in the last five minutes of the story that peace is impossible is both a blatant contradiction of the stories themes as well as a massive failure from a narrative perspective. The divine proclimations of a previously unseen character ring pretty hollow when you've seen evidence to the contrary of what he's saying.
Moving goal posts? You were talking about the Catalyst's logic not making any sense. I think you failed to substantiate that.
It doesn't make sense within the context of the story. I think i've demonstrated that prety well.
IGSR wrote... At any rate, if you think organics and synthetics can co-exist peacefully, and want to reject the Catalyst's 'stupid logic', then the Destroy option is obviously for you. That's right, that "absolute failure" of a story structure was...structured to give you the option to reject the Catalyst, the problem it perceives, and the solution it enacts. Show, don't tell? Fair enough. It cuts both ways, though. How about look and think, before you complain or draw unfounded conclusions?
Yeah...except I'd prefer to not commit genocide on the Geth and betray EDI. Trust me, I've had a good amount of time to think about it
What you've been saying alternates between "you just don't understand" or "nope, you're wrong and you just don't want to admit it" whenever someone brings up something that contradicts your viewpoint. I actually was planning on writing a much longer post but i'm begining to think that Captain Arty is right about you being a troll....so let's just take this slow and see where it goes before I waste the effort.
I've been explaining exactly why the different "plot-holes" make sense using logic and references from the game. You people respond by calling me a troll and trying your best to avoid actually discussing the matter. What you're doing is being evasive, and unless you start doing something more substantial I'm going to have to continue assuming you have nothing to offer.
So, how does the ending contradict the themes of the series? Well let's start with the biggest betrayal, synthesis.
The core of the mass effect series is about unity with diversity. Through the entirety of Mass Effect the paragon story arc is about building a crew and eventually an army of highly diverse races and peoples that learn to put aside and even respect their differences to come together and do something for the greater good. It is often mentioned that humanity is unique in how diverse they are and that this is a reason the Reapers are interested in them, and it is also mentioned by Javik that the greatest strength of this cycle is its diversity...something his cycle did not have which led to their doom.
The Mass Effect series taking a tone that reveres diversity and unity doesn't make synthesis impossible or even improbable. The options you get from the crucible are supposed to be lesser evils when compared to complete annihilation, and the point is to force you to make a tough decision. There isn't supposed to be a solution where everyone wins, no one has to compromise their morality and everyone holds hands under a rainbow. The end of ME3 is about dispair and compromise, because the galaxy is in a hopeless situation. You not liking that doesn't make it an inconsistency or a plot-hole; it makes it a sad ending.
In mass effect 2 and 3 this theme is even explored within the context of synthetic life, eventually culminating on Rannoch where Shepard and Tali both learn to respect the existance of the Geth as equally valid life. The antagonists of the series are the Reapers...which are a horrifying representation of homogeneity. Thousands of minds all processed together all thinking the same singular thought. The Reapers, in their own words, view themselves as a representation of Order fighting the chaos. Right, so we clear on that? Diversity is held up as a great ideal right?
Again, some anecdotal instances of cooperation and acceptance don't mean the game has to end that way. It doesn't mean a war isn't inevitable and it doesn't mean synthesis is impossible in the ME universe. You're drawing finite conclusions from anecdotal evidence which is a major logical fallacy.
I could argue this point, but I don't really need too. Whether or not his position makes sense in terms of raw math and a long enough time scale, it certainly makes no sense to us or too shepard. Remember, we are not debating these concepts from a purely philosphical viewpoint. We are talking aboutthe climax and conclusion to the Mass Effect trilogy. Even if you want to argue that the Quarian/Geth peace is only temporary and doesn't mean they won't fight in the future, it still makes the game an absolute failure in terms of story structure.
Show, don't tell. If you are going to show the viewer/player that peace between the Organics and synthetics is possible through things like the Geth and EDI, then telling them in the last five minutes of the story that peace is impossible is both a blatant contradiction of the stories themes as well as a massive failure from a narrative perspective. The divine proclimations of a previously unseen character ring pretty hollow when you've seen evidence to the contrary of what he's saying.
Moving goal posts? You were talking about the Catalyst's logic not making any sense. I think you failed to substantiate that.
It doesn't make sense within the context of the story. I think i've demonstrated that prety well.
IGSR wrote... At any rate, if you think organics and synthetics can co-exist peacefully, and want to reject the Catalyst's 'stupid logic', then the Destroy option is obviously for you. That's right, that "absolute failure" of a story structure was...structured to give you the option to reject the Catalyst, the problem it perceives, and the solution it enacts. Show, don't tell? Fair enough. It cuts both ways, though. How about look and think, before you complain or draw unfounded conclusions?
Yeah...except I'd prefer to not commit genocide on the Geth and betray EDI. Trust me, I've had a good amount of time to think about it
Oh, you'd prefer that there be no sacrifice to get what you want. Your grandchildren and all subsequent generations are free to develop synthetic life and endeavor to live in peace free from Reaper interference and the Catalyst's meddling. But the Geth being wiped out, a small sacrifice given the eventual payoff, is too much to bear.
Gigamantis wrote... The Mass Effect series taking a tone that reveres diversity and unity doesn't make synthesis impossible or even improbable. The options you get from the crucible are supposed to be lesser evils when compared to complete annihilation, and the point is to force you to make a tough decision. There isn't supposed to be a solution where everyone wins, no one has to compromise their morality and everyone holds hands under a rainbow. The end of ME3 is about dispair and compromise, because the galaxy is in a hopeless situation. You not liking that doesn't make it an inconsistency or a plot-hole; it makes it a sad ending.
No. It makes it inconsistent with themes of the series. I don't care if you want to call it possible (anything is possible in the realm of fiction, even space magic). I don't care if you like it. It's a flat out reversal of one of the key themes of the series. If you want to argue that point then explain to me how it's not contradictory. You typing out that it was the lesser of evils and it's meant to be a sad ending doesn't change that it's contradictory to the themes of the series.
Gigamantis wrote... Again, some anecdotal instances of cooperation and acceptance don't mean the game has to end that way. It doesn't mean a war isn't inevitable and it doesn't mean synthesis is impossible in the ME universe. You're drawing finite conclusions from anecdotal evidence which is a major logical fallacy.
I could argue this point, but I don't really need too. Whether or not his position makes sense in terms of raw math and a long enough time scale, it certainly makes no sense to us or too shepard. Remember, we are not debating these concepts from a purely philosphical viewpoint. We are talking aboutthe climax and conclusion to the Mass Effect trilogy. Even if you want to argue that the Quarian/Geth peace is only temporary and doesn't mean they won't fight in the future, it still makes the game an absolute failure in terms of story structure.
Show, don't tell. If you are going to show the viewer/player that peace between the Organics and synthetics is possible through things like the Geth and EDI, then telling them in the last five minutes of the story that peace is impossible is both a blatant contradiction of the stories themes as well as a massive failure from a narrative perspective. The divine proclimations of a previously unseen character ring pretty hollow when you've seen evidence to the contrary of what he's saying.
Moving goal posts? You were talking about the Catalyst's logic not making any sense. I think you failed to substantiate that.
It doesn't make sense within the context of the story. I think i've demonstrated that prety well.
IGSR wrote... At any rate, if you think organics and synthetics can co-exist peacefully, and want to reject the Catalyst's 'stupid logic', then the Destroy option is obviously for you. That's right, that "absolute failure" of a story structure was...structured to give you the option to reject the Catalyst, the problem it perceives, and the solution it enacts. Show, don't tell? Fair enough. It cuts both ways, though. How about look and think, before you complain or draw unfounded conclusions?
Yeah...except I'd prefer to not commit genocide on the Geth and betray EDI. Trust me, I've had a good amount of time to think about it
Oh, you'd prefer that there be no sacrifice to get what you want.
I'm fine with Shepard sacrificing himself. well....ok...I don't much like it....but i'd be ok with it. I'm not ok with Shepard playing god.
IGSR wrote... Your grandchildren and all subsequent generations are free to develop synthetic life and endeavor to live in peace free from Reaper interference and the Catalyst's meddling. But the Geth being wiped out, a small sacrifice given the eventual payoff, is too much to bear. K.
It's a betrayal of Legion's legacy, and it's inconssistent with the themes of the story.....at least from the Paragon arc. All the endings are.
No. It makes it inconsistent with themes of the series. I don't care if you want to call it possible (anything is possible in the realm of fiction, even space magic). I don't care if you like it. It's a flat out reversal of one of the key themes of the series. If you want to argue that point then explain to me how it's not contradictory. You typing out that it was the lesser of evils and it's meant to be a sad ending doesn't change that it's contradictory to the themes of the series.
If it's possible within the context of the series it's not inconsistent. A story can say diversity is good but allow you a bitter-sweet option to end diversity to save the uniiverse. The fact that these options are compromises with dire consequences is the entire point. The galaxy was at a point where it couldn't be saved with altruistism and idealism. A horrible compromise had to be made in one of several ways.
Not in storytelling it isn't.
So, what you're saying is because the Geth and Quarians set aside their differences once they can never have another conflict ever again or it's bad story telling? Seriously?
It seems silly that you, Shepard, have solved a century long synthetic/organic conflict, have a friendly AI on your crew, and have never shown any intention of wiping out other synthetics.
The end of Rannoch shows genuine co-operation. There is an entire level devoted to how geth AI is evolving and understanding. Why then doesnt Shepard, when chatting to the ghostbrat, argue that his logic is completely wrong? After countless examples of organic/synthetic co-operation, Shepard just agrees.
Even if you play through 1/2/3 hating on all synthetics, you still have EDI, you still see Legion helping you on the derelict reaper. You even have that silly fetch/defuse quest from me1 where the AI just wants to escape. It just seems really counterintuituve.
Sacrifice today for a better tomorrow doesn't fit within the themes of ME?
Sacrifice for a better tomorrow is all fine and good, but unfortunately in the destroy ending it's impossible to seperate it from the obvious overtones concerning how valid synthetic life is against organic life.
IGSR wrote... I fail to see how opening up a future for synthetic lifeforms like the Geth and EDI is a betrayal to Legion.
....becasue you've destroyed the Geth and Edi?
Gigamantis wrote... If it's possible within the context of the series it's not inconsistent.
Lol...oh boy....you sure you don't want to rethink this one.
Gigamantis wrote... A story can say diversity is good but allow you a bitter-sweet option to end diversity to save the uniiverse. The fact that these options are compromises with dire consequences is the entire point. The galaxy was at a point where it couldn't be saved with altruistism and idealism. A horrible compromise had to be made in one of several ways.
....which is inconsistent with the core themes of the series and reflects reversal of the tone. Hello, anybody home? Seriously...how are you not understanding this point....it's not hard.
Gigamantis wrote... So, what you're saying is because the Geth and Quarians set aside their differences once they can never have another conflict ever again or it's bad story telling? Seriously?
Uh no, I said this:
Sepharih wrote... Show, don't tell. If you are going to show the viewer/player that peace between the Organics and synthetics is possible through things like the Geth and EDI, then telling them in the last five minutes of the story that peace is impossible is both a blatant contradiction of the stories themes as well as a massive failure from a narrative perspective. The divine proclimations of a previously unseen character ring pretty hollow when you've seen evidence to the contrary of what he's saying.
Ok, off to work. Hope to continue this discussion...but we'll see how much I can reply.
It seems silly that you, Shepard, have solved a century long synthetic/organic conflict, have a friendly AI on your crew, and have never shown any intention of wiping out other synthetics.
The end of Rannoch shows genuine co-operation. There is an entire level devoted to how geth AI is evolving and understanding. Why then doesnt Shepard, when chatting to the ghostbrat, argue that his logic is completely wrong? After countless examples of organic/synthetic co-operation, Shepard just agrees.
Even if you play through 1/2/3 hating on all synthetics, you still have EDI, you still see Legion helping you on the derelict reaper. You even have that silly fetch/defuse quest from me1 where the AI just wants to escape. It just seems really counterintuituve.
"Why doesn't Shep argue" is kind of a nitpicky question, but if you want to get into it then it's not that hard to explain.
A) It's pointless. What does Shepard have to argue with? The catalyst has a long life witnessing this cycle repeating itself and Shepard himself was involved in a century long war with synthetics. You really think he's going to offer up a few anecdotes about EDI and the Geth "occasionally" cooperating and change everything?
Shepard was beaten to hell and probably close to bleeding to death. He could barely crawl his way to the trigger and had a very tough decision to make. Making a decision and moving before I bleed to death would probably take priority for me in a dire situation like that. If Shepard does nothing everyone dies.
Retour en haut
Shepard was beaten to hell and probably close to bleeding to death. He could barely crawl his way to the trigger and had a very tough decision to make. Making a decision and moving before I bleed to death would probably take priority for me in a dire situation like that. If Shepard does nothing everyone dies.
