132 réponses à ce sujet

[blacqout]

Tirigon wrote...

blacqout wrote...


The Empire formed after Palpatine engineered events and circumstances to make it appear a necessity. Those in the knowsaw it for what it was (a power grab and excuse to get rid of the Jedi) so rebelled. 

Not too different to the Quarians wanting to get rid of the Geth in a way.

Also, there was all the prejudice against non-humans, allowing dictators that were loyal to the Empire to run their own little bits of space as they saw fit, and more mundane things like excessive taxation.  

Fighting against a power-hungry tyrant and killing your synthetics because they dare to wonder if they might be alive are 2 entirely different things.

I would even go so far that except for both involving the shooting of things they have nothing in common, at all.

The Empire wanted to get rid of the Jedi, and the Quarians wanted to get rid of the Geth. 

The similarity is in the fact that the Jedi and Geth were forced to stand against those in power. You know, "rebel".

[The Captainator]

CyberF3y wrote...

The Captainator wrote...

Dexi wrote...

I'm with blacqout...

Catalyst's logic makes perfect sense.
People just cry and jump from one stance on the ending to another ( no happy with LI ending? FLAOWED LOGICKZ!; not the reason I thought the Reapers been reapin'? LULZ BIOWARE YOU STUPID?! FLAAOOWWED LOGICKKKZZ!! ).

This.

You all are upset because you didn't get what you wanted.  Heaven forbid there be some ending other than ice cream with sprinkles.  You expect the whole series of sacrifice and difficult choices to change in the end and everyone lives happily ever after making helmetted babies?

All the logical flaws and ending questions and complaints are just crap.  It can all be easily explained by any person remotely capable of imagining science fiction.  And no I'm not goign to go through each one here.  Use your imagination, or shut up and wait for the extended cut.  They've stated they're not going to officially say what happened until it comes out, like any other content release.

Okay, I am capable of imagining science fiction.  I love Star Trek and the like, so how do you make Synthetics suddently have DNA?  Also, telling people to shut up on a forum will never happen.  People will type to their hearts' contents.  And why would that upset them?  They wanted plenty of speculation, which is what we're doing.  

As far as ice cream and sprinkles--no.  I EXPECT Bioware to give an experience comparable to what they gave in ME1 and ME2--an ending that took into account my past choices and didn't just downgrade them to a number.  I didn't expect Shep to live.  I expected an ending that made sense when looking at the lore of the world.  I expected there to be a reason for the Reapers' existance that wasn't simply pruning a garden so the weeds don't overrun the flowers.  I expected the fact that if your game proves the created vs creator logic wrong for that to be considered in the ending.

In fairness to Bioware, I also expected them to do a wrap-up similar to Bethesda's FallOut: New Vegas.  Sure, it's text and a picture.  However it's closure.  It took into considerations choices you made on how to complete missions, making peace, etc.  It wrapped everything up.  I guess they didn't want to copy Bethesda's endings.  

I've seen very little, if any, speculating/valid conversation on these forums.  It's all just complaining saying it doesn't make sense, as well as people raising their blood pressure by b*tching about it so much.

And there is 1 point that I agree with everyone, and that's a wrap up, not similar to Fallout: New Vegas, but similar to Dragon Age.  Remember the ending of those games?  Nice little wrap ups there.

[Tirigon]

blacqout wrote...

The Empire wanted to get rid of the Jedi, and the Quarians wanted to get rid of the Geth. 

The similarity is in the fact that the Jedi and Geth were forced to stand against those in power. You know, "rebel".

That makes no real sense. But ok.

[blacqout]

Tirigon wrote...

blacqout wrote...

The Empire wanted to get rid of the Jedi, and the Quarians wanted to get rid of the Geth. 

The similarity is in the fact that the Jedi and Geth were forced to stand against those in power. You know, "rebel".

That makes no real sense. But ok.

No, it makes perfect sense. I stated with some clarity that the two instances were only vaguely similar; not identical. 

But okay. I'll try to simplify things futher should i ever have the pleasure of conversing with you in the future.

[Tirigon]

blacqout wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

blacqout wrote...

The Empire wanted to get rid of the Jedi, and the Quarians wanted to get rid of the Geth. 

The similarity is in the fact that the Jedi and Geth were forced to stand against those in power. You know, "rebel".

That makes no real sense. But ok.

No, it makes perfect sense. I stated with some clarity that the two instances were only vaguely similar; not identical. 

But okay. I'll try to simplify things futher should i ever have the pleasure of conversing with you in the future.

It makes no sense.

By the same right I could attack someone on the street and claim it is similar because I wanted to get rid of this person, thus forcing it to "rebel" against me. Just stupid.

[JBONE27]

blacqout wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

blacqout wrote...


The Empire formed after Palpatine engineered events and circumstances to make it appear a necessity. Those in the knowsaw it for what it was (a power grab and excuse to get rid of the Jedi) so rebelled. 

Not too different to the Quarians wanting to get rid of the Geth in a way.

Also, there was all the prejudice against non-humans, allowing dictators that were loyal to the Empire to run their own little bits of space as they saw fit, and more mundane things like excessive taxation.  

Fighting against a power-hungry tyrant and killing your synthetics because they dare to wonder if they might be alive are 2 entirely different things.

I would even go so far that except for both involving the shooting of things they have nothing in common, at all.

The Empire wanted to get rid of the Jedi, and the Quarians wanted to get rid of the Geth. 

The similarity is in the fact that the Jedi and Geth were forced to stand against those in power. You know, "rebel".

Except there were no Jedi in the rebellion except of Luke and Obi-Wan (sort of).  I mean Obi-Wan wasn't a part of the rebellion proper he was living as a hermit on Tatooine, and Luke wasn't a Jedi until long after he joined the rebellion.

[Heimdall]

JBONE27 wrote...

Switch the order.  Instead of "Synthetics will always turn on their creators,"  have "Organics will always turn on their creations."  Done, now he's saving synthetics... but that leaves the plot hole of what happened to all of the synthetics... unless all of them joined the reapers and use their componants to make those eldrich creatures the reapers are so fond of making. 

They could just make that 'One always turns on the other."

Actually, one of the things I'd like to note since a lot of people seem to miss it.  We say the Catalyst's logic contradicts the series because it flies in the face of synthetic-organic relations we;ve seen for ourselves in game.

But we're forgetting the Shepard factor.

The factor that the Catalyst admits changes the whole situation, the factor that can bring peace to the geth and the quarians.  Think about it, Shepard is able to do things nobody in any other cycle before has managed.  Without Shepard, either the geth or the quarians would have been victims of genocide on Rannoch.  Just saying, we have to consider the Shepard factor...

[blacqout]

Tirigon wrote...

blacqout wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

blacqout wrote...

The Empire wanted to get rid of the Jedi, and the Quarians wanted to get rid of the Geth. 

The similarity is in the fact that the Jedi and Geth were forced to stand against those in power. You know, "rebel".

That makes no real sense. But ok.

No, it makes perfect sense. I stated with some clarity that the two instances were only vaguely similar; not identical. 

But okay. I'll try to simplify things futher should i ever have the pleasure of conversing with you in the future.

It makes no sense.

By the same right I could attack someone on the street and claim it is similar because I wanted to get rid of this person, thus forcing it to "rebel" against me. Just stupid.

That is a misuse of the word "rebel". As such, your sentiment falls flat.

Perhaps your should better familiarise yourself with the dictionary definition.

[Richard 060]

@The Captainator -

I've actually gone into chapter and verse (as a literary nerd/snob/critic on the side) about the logical fallacies involved with the Catalyst, but for the sake of brevity, here's one of my principle gripes.

There's a staggering lack of evidence for anything it says. 'Synthetics will always destroy their creators'. 'Synthesis is the 'final evolution' of life'. Neither of these statements have any proof, and quite frankly, plenty of evidence (both in terms of real scientific principles and in-game lore) to the contrary. But we're not even allowed to challenge them (and perhaps get a degree of explanation as to why these things are 'certain') - we just have to accept them without question.

That's a major problem, right there - the fact that we have to just blithely agree with flimsy supposition as if it's hard, immutable fact.

[blacqout]

JBONE27 wrote...

blacqout wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

blacqout wrote...


The Empire formed after Palpatine engineered events and circumstances to make it appear a necessity. Those in the knowsaw it for what it was (a power grab and excuse to get rid of the Jedi) so rebelled. 

Not too different to the Quarians wanting to get rid of the Geth in a way.

Also, there was all the prejudice against non-humans, allowing dictators that were loyal to the Empire to run their own little bits of space as they saw fit, and more mundane things like excessive taxation.  

Fighting against a power-hungry tyrant and killing your synthetics because they dare to wonder if they might be alive are 2 entirely different things.

I would even go so far that except for both involving the shooting of things they have nothing in common, at all.

The Empire wanted to get rid of the Jedi, and the Quarians wanted to get rid of the Geth. 

The similarity is in the fact that the Jedi and Geth were forced to stand against those in power. You know, "rebel".

Except there were no Jedi in the rebellion except of Luke and Obi-Wan (sort of).  I mean Obi-Wan wasn't a part of the rebellion proper he was living as a hermit on Tatooine, and Luke wasn't a Jedi until long after he joined the rebellion.

I'm not really all that familiar with Star Wars, i just thought using it as an example would speak to Sci Fi fans. 

How similar the rebellion against the Empire and the rebellion against the Quarians were (which isn't very) is not important. The important thing is that the Geth rebelled.

Modifié par blacqout, 11 avril 2012 - 09:53 .

[Morose Rumination]

Maybe it's about time to retire this infamous forum-hopping character "Valentin Seleznyov", eh? Still kinda funny, but a bit tired

Modifié par Morose Rumination, 11 avril 2012 - 09:57 .

[Il Divo]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Actually, one of the things I'd like to note since a lot of people seem to miss it.  We say the Catalyst's logic contradicts the series because it flies in the face of synthetic-organic relations we;ve seen for ourselves in game.

But we're forgetting the Shepard factor.

The factor that the Catalyst admits changes the whole situation, the factor that can bring peace to the geth and the quarians.  Think about it, Shepard is able to do things nobody in any other cycle before has managed.  Without Shepard, either the geth or the quarians would have been victims of genocide on Rannoch.  Just saying, we have to consider the Shepard factor...

The problem with the Catalyst's logic isn't just the Shepard factor. The problem is that the Catalyst, far as the narrative shows us, isn't using logic. The Catalyst is simply making a claim, but a claim in isolation is not logic, nor is it an argument.

As the audience, we're never able to see what the basis for the Catalyst's conclusion is, which is why it's so problematic. The best point of comparison is to Vigil in ME1, another end-game source of explanation, who explained in clear and understandable terms what Ilos was and its importance in the Reapers conflict. We get no such exposition from the Catalyst.

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 avril 2012 - 10:09 .

[Ck213]

The real logic is the Star Child is just a device created to tie up the various plot lines quickly and shove the game out the door so EA can get their much needed cash. So was the final battle on Earth, and so was the multi-purpose CGI.

[Tirigon]

blacqout wrote...


That is a misuse of the word "rebel". As such, your sentiment falls flat.

Perhaps your should better familiarise yourself with the dictionary definition.

So is yours.

The geth didnt rebel at all, in fact we learn that they were only protecting those Quarians who were on their side, and were willing to surrender when they concluded this would better save the Creators life.
Only because the Quarians ENCOURAGED them, they fought back.

[Arik7]

There's only one way to make sense of star child - DELETE character.

[Heimdall]

Il Divo wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Actually, one of the things I'd like to note since a lot of people seem to miss it.  We say the Catalyst's logic contradicts the series because it flies in the face of synthetic-organic relations we;ve seen for ourselves in game.

But we're forgetting the Shepard factor.

The factor that the Catalyst admits changes the whole situation, the factor that can bring peace to the geth and the quarians.  Think about it, Shepard is able to do things nobody in any other cycle before has managed.  Without Shepard, either the geth or the quarians would have been victims of genocide on Rannoch.  Just saying, we have to consider the Shepard factor...

The problem with the Catalyst's logic isn't just the Shepard factor. The problem is that the Catalyst, far as the narrative shows us, isn't using logic. The Catalyst is simply making a claim, but a claim in isolation is not logic, nor is it an argument.

As the audience, we're never able to see what the basis for the Catalyst's conclusion is, which is why it's so problematic. The best point of comparison is to Vigil in ME1, another end-game source of explanation, who explained in clear and understandable terms what Ilos was and its importance in the Reapers conflict. We get no such exposition from the Catalyst.

I know, I was just addressing those that point to the geth quarian conflict as proof that the Catalyst is wrong.

[Il Divo]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Actually, one of the things I'd like to note since a lot of people seem to miss it.  We say the Catalyst's logic contradicts the series because it flies in the face of synthetic-organic relations we;ve seen for ourselves in game.

But we're forgetting the Shepard factor.

The factor that the Catalyst admits changes the whole situation, the factor that can bring peace to the geth and the quarians.  Think about it, Shepard is able to do things nobody in any other cycle before has managed.  Without Shepard, either the geth or the quarians would have been victims of genocide on Rannoch.  Just saying, we have to consider the Shepard factor...

The problem with the Catalyst's logic isn't just the Shepard factor. The problem is that the Catalyst, far as the narrative shows us, isn't using logic. The Catalyst is simply making a claim, but a claim in isolation is not logic, nor is it an argument.

As the audience, we're never able to see what the basis for the Catalyst's conclusion is, which is why it's so problematic. The best point of comparison is to Vigil in ME1, another end-game source of explanation, who explained in clear and understandable terms what Ilos was and its importance in the Reapers conflict. We get no such exposition from the Catalyst.

I know, I was just addressing those that point to the geth quarian conflict as proof that the Catalyst is wrong.

My bad. Sorry if I got a little intense.

[blacqout]

Tirigon wrote...

blacqout wrote...


That is a misuse of the word "rebel". As such, your sentiment falls flat.

Perhaps your should better familiarise yourself with the dictionary definition.

So is yours.

The geth didnt rebel at all, in fact we learn that they were only protecting those Quarians who were on their side, and were willing to surrender when they concluded this would better save the Creators life.
Only because the Quarians ENCOURAGED them, they fought back.

Like i said, you don't seem to fully understand the word. 

"Rise in opposition or armed resistance to an established government or ruler."

Who did the order to deactivate the Geth come from? That's right, the established government of the Quarians. That the Geth had sympathisers doesn't mean they were not rebelling.

If the Syrian Rebels were only acting because they were ENCOURAGED to by some eithin the Syrian government, it wouldn't any less of a rebellion. It would just make those doing the ENCOURAGING a part of it. 

Jesus Christ. The more i talk to those that disliked the ending, the more i realise they truly didn't understand major parts of it... or even fully understand relatively basic words, such as "rebel".

[mmm buddah23]

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

blacqout wrote...

It makes perfect sense as-is. T

hat so many people think otherwise shows that the worst mistake BioWare made with the ending was over-estimating their audience.

Then, as you understand everything, you will be able to answers my questions in a cannon manner:
-Why can't the reaper just attack the synthetics when they tries to destroy organics, knowing they could side with the organics to do so and prooved to be powerful enough to fight both organics and synthethics united?
-What happens to the dark energy problem which would extinct all life in the universe before the next cycle comes anyway?
-How can the crucible turns synthethics and organics with just a light explosion. Because even in Sci-fi there's a minimum science involved to be on a credible level.
-Why should the relay explosion not destroys entire star systems?
-Why are my squadmates I take on earth on the Normandy?
-How can EDI survive the red ending?

Well, that should be enough from the get-go.
Besides, one could rant about the lacks of control on Shepard during the ending, but it's just the same during the whole game, the only difference being how important the choice is.

Edi does not survive the red ending, done it 3 times to check now, and she doesnt.

[Rubarack]

Arik7 wrote...

There's only one way to make sense of star child - DELETE character.

If they have a scene of Shepard eating a ton of peyote on the way to meet him that would about do it. Or it could be a Galaxy Quest style thing where the Star Child gets all its information from old TV shows.

But really it doesn't make much difference whether or not the Star Child's argument works on any level or not, because it fails as a narrative device. So much of the game is about stopping them that trying to make them morally ambiguous is totally incongruous.

[Tirigon]

blacqout wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

blacqout wrote...


That is a misuse of the word "rebel". As such, your sentiment falls flat.

Perhaps your should better familiarise yourself with the dictionary definition.

So is yours.

The geth didnt rebel at all, in fact we learn that they were only protecting those Quarians who were on their side, and were willing to surrender when they concluded this would better save the Creators life.
Only because the Quarians ENCOURAGED them, they fought back.

Like i said, you don't seem to fully understand the word. 

"Rise in opposition or armed resistance to an established government or ruler."

Who did the order to deactivate the Geth come from? That's right, the established government of the Quarians. That the Geth had sympathisers doesn't mean they were not rebelling.

If the Syrian Rebels were only acting because they were ENCOURAGED to by some eithin the Syrian government, it wouldn't any less of a rebellion. It would just make those doing the ENCOURAGING a part of it. 

Jesus Christ. The more i talk to those that disliked the ending, the more i realise they truly didn't understand major parts of it... or even fully understand relatively basic words, such as "rebel".

And again your prove your own incompetence and lack of understanding.

The Geth DID NOT REBEL, they CARRIED OUT ORDERS GIVEN BY THEIR CREATORS.

The Quarian sympathizers might be called rebels, but surely not the geth.

[MadMatt910]

Tirigon wrote...

blacqout wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

blacqout wrote...


That is a misuse of the word "rebel". As such, your sentiment falls flat.

Perhaps your should better familiarise yourself with the dictionary definition.

So is yours.

The geth didnt rebel at all, in fact we learn that they were only protecting those Quarians who were on their side, and were willing to surrender when they concluded this would better save the Creators life.
Only because the Quarians ENCOURAGED them, they fought back.

Like i said, you don't seem to fully understand the word. 

"Rise in opposition or armed resistance to an established government or ruler."

Who did the order to deactivate the Geth come from? That's right, the established government of the Quarians. That the Geth had sympathisers doesn't mean they were not rebelling.

If the Syrian Rebels were only acting because they were ENCOURAGED to by some eithin the Syrian government, it wouldn't any less of a rebellion. It would just make those doing the ENCOURAGING a part of it. 

Jesus Christ. The more i talk to those that disliked the ending, the more i realise they truly didn't understand major parts of it... or even fully understand relatively basic words, such as "rebel".

And again your prove your own incompetence and lack of understanding.

The Geth DID NOT REBEL, they CARRIED OUT ORDERS GIVEN BY THEIR CREATORS.

The Quarian sympathizers might be called rebels, but surely not the geth.

I think there isn't necessarily a hard and fast line here - relying more on how you define the sides. i.e. if you count rebel creaters and the geth and side 1 and other quarians as side 2 then there was a rebellion. However if you choose to count quarian rebels as side 1 and other quarians as side 2 then it can be argued the Geth were more of a tool than an organised rebellion.

Back to the original topic, I think the current catalyst logic doesn't make a lot of sense in light of the trilogy - rather than mass effect 3 as an isolated game.

In mass effect 1, the geth come out of the veil because they are lead by Saren/Sovereign. The geth that came out were shown in mass effect 2 to be heretics whilst other geth seemed largely content to remain in the veil. A really major question is whether the geth would have attacked organics without reaper influence.

You could argue that the reapers start the synthetic attacks in order to have an excuse to harvest the organics - and preserve them. Though this does make their motives a bit odd - save organics from synthetics by starting a war and then harvesting one side. Presumably the reapers just destroy the synthetics following this?

Finally, its never explained why the reapers cannot communicate with organics and say 'don't build synthetics, otherwise they woudl kill you'. Just destroying synthetics could result in organics just repeaedly doing this, but communication from the reapers coudl potentially solve this issue.

Tenuously linked, but in my mind just as important, is why sovereign/saren and the keepers are needed is the citadel is part of the catalyst. Couldn't he have performed sovereigns role - making for a guaranteed success?

[blacqout]

Tirigon wrote...

blacqout wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

blacqout wrote...


That is a misuse of the word "rebel". As such, your sentiment falls flat.

Perhaps your should better familiarise yourself with the dictionary definition.

So is yours.

The geth didnt rebel at all, in fact we learn that they were only protecting those Quarians who were on their side, and were willing to surrender when they concluded this would better save the Creators life.
Only because the Quarians ENCOURAGED them, they fought back.

Like i said, you don't seem to fully understand the word. 

"Rise in opposition or armed resistance to an established government or ruler."

Who did the order to deactivate the Geth come from? That's right, the established government of the Quarians. That the Geth had sympathisers doesn't mean they were not rebelling.

If the Syrian Rebels were only acting because they were ENCOURAGED to by some eithin the Syrian government, it wouldn't any less of a rebellion. It would just make those doing the ENCOURAGING a part of it. 

Jesus Christ. The more i talk to those that disliked the ending, the more i realise they truly didn't understand major parts of it... or even fully understand relatively basic words, such as "rebel".

And again your prove your own incompetence and lack of understanding.

The Geth DID NOT REBEL, they CARRIED OUT ORDERS GIVEN BY THEIR CREATORS.

The Quarian sympathizers might be called rebels, but surely not the geth.

Hmm. I suppose we can add the concepts of free will and choice to the rapidly growing list of things you don't fully understand. 

The very reason the Quarian authorities wanted the Geth deactivated was that they were showing signs of self-awareness. We're shown a clip of a Geth platforming questioning orders, but being pursuaded to abide by them anyway. They made a choice to to rise in armed resistance to the established government. They rebelled.

And to say "they carried out orders given by their creators" is ridiculous. The Quarians were there creators, and the Quarian authorites wished them to be deactivated. 

Just for some more perspective, the vast majority of those fighting for the Free Syrian Army are "CARRYING OUT ORDERS" too. They're still rebelling. 

If you still disagree, take it up with Merriam Webster.

[MadMatt910]

Bump - On the offchance we make some progress before some people troll each other to death

Also - again tenuously linked- why doesn't shepard argue with the starchild. I don't buy the whole 'hes tired' thing. This is a character that is killed and rebuilt and carrys on fighting. If he was going to get tired and kinda give up it would have happened long before the ending. It really does feel like character assassination.

[Drake_Hound]

Eh blacqout , eh with syria don't even go there cause after egypt and lybia ...
No reasonable middle east country is going to go trough that again .

When after a coup they are stuck with a none working infrastructure , a brutal civil war incoming in libya , another stale mate in egypt , that prevent a modern working country who was slowly progressing towards democracy , now setback into chaos with fundamentalist coming back stronger then before .

So you so sure about what you read on the media is the same as reality ?
When the camera moves on ?