1057 réponses à ce sujet

[EpyonX3]

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...


EDI is not Geth so I don't know what you're trying to link. But yes, EDI is a tool with freee will. She was at first a bodyless AI bound to the ship. She then took control of a mobile platform. At heart she's still an AI and still a tool. A tool with a personality.

Legion is a platform that hosts many programs at once. Legion's personality is the collection of those programs together with every other geth in the consensus. Legion's platform is a tool. Legion's character is a collection of software tools.

Liking them like organics doesn't change what they are. They were created for a purpose. Their intellegence was given to them by organics so that they can be more efficient at what they do.

Javik said it best. They know where they came from and they know what they're capable of. Once they see ortganics as a hinderance, they will dispose of them.

Legion also says that they were young when they speared the quarians, they couldn't calculate the risk of killing them all. But that was hundreds of years ago. Now they are willing to destroy them all to self preserve. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't mean they can't do it.

If you don't think EDI or Legion have a soul, I can't help you with that.

But after you make peace between the Geth and Quarians, Javik kinda backpedals on his own racism and tells you to "always do what you think is best" after practcally beggin you to "throw him (legion) out the airlock"

Do organics have a soul? What is a soul in this case?

My answer is no EDI and Geth and all synthetic life have no soul. They are machines and software created by organics to simulate organic behavior. You can become attached to it if you'd like, but it's no different then falling in love with your car.

The subject gets really blurry after Synthesis is used. But then again, if IT is correct this shouldn't matter because it never happened and the reapers kill everything.

Dang bro, you cold!

It's not about being cold. I liked EDI and Legion. But not because they were synthetics, but how their personality changed perspectives. But that was the result of software interacting with organics.

Just becaus you acknowledge something for what it is doesn't mean you're racist. If the Catalyst were racist, why does he kill both synthetic and organics? Why not just kill the synthetics?

[balance5050]

EpyonX3 wrote...


It's not about being cold. I liked EDI and Legion. But not because they were synthetics, but how their personality changed perspectives. But that was the result of software interacting with organics.

Just becaus you acknowledge something for what it is doesn't mean you're racist. If the Catalyst were racist, why does he kill both synthetic and organics? Why not just kill the synthetics?

Exactly, you like EDI and Legion because of their personalities, It had nothing to do with them being synthetic. They proved through their actions and dialogue that they could be caring and selfless, like any other sentient species. And like other species they could choose their own destiny. I don't know what a soul is either, but I think you have to have one to have a romantic relationship, or sacrifice yourself for peace.

[SubAstris]

[/quote]

You're right, having different dialogue based on EMS is pointless, theres no reason why they did it. Just like there is no reason for the reapers to indoctrinate Shepard<_<

I'm not going to argue what the kid is trying to say, because he is not trust worthy.

Next peice of evidence against I.T. please? In game evidence only.

[/quote]


I'm not sure whether you subscribe to this, because there are so many different theories out there concerning indoctrination (bit like there are so many about 9/11) that it is hard to know exactly what people think. But the fact that material from the Shadow Broker's ship is often touted as being evidence of Shephard bringing up familiar environments from his unconscious can be easily refuted, since if your Shephard didn't play LOTSB DLC, then Liara says that she got some mercenaries to do the mission and not Shep. Therefore you don't ever get the Base, yet somehow it is in your memory. How is this possible?

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


I don't see what you first point really proves except possibly you mean that because Shephard didn't die, then the Catalyst is lying. But remember he doesn't actually say that Shephard will certainly die, he just says that he is part synthetic. What he means exactly by that I don't know, since Shephard clearly isn't synthetic like the geth, and the Catalyst says that all synthetic life will be destroyed which Shepard isn't. I suppose he means his synthetic parts will be destroyed, but that doesn't mean he will die. The thing about it being a "good" motivator is irrelevant, the Catalyst is just giving solutions, some are going to bad consequences.

In addition you neglect to tell us that the Catalyst informs Shephard that he will die in Control or Synthesis, that is the downside to it. Those options are seen as the perfect ones by any stretch of the imagination, what is best is deliberately meant to upto debate.

The EDI thing can be explained through a glitch, given the shoddiness of parts of the ending, I frankly wouldn't be surprised.

It is never said that he is the head Reaper, or a Reaper himself

It's been confirmed that EDI living in the destroy ending was intentional by Patrick Weekes.

Link?

[EpyonX3]

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...


It's not about being cold. I liked EDI and Legion. But not because they were synthetics, but how their personality changed perspectives. But that was the result of software interacting with organics.

Just becaus you acknowledge something for what it is doesn't mean you're racist. If the Catalyst were racist, why does he kill both synthetic and organics? Why not just kill the synthetics?

Exactly, you like EDI and Legion because of their personalities, It had nothing to do with them being synthetic. They proved through their actions and dialogue that they could be caring and selfless, like any other sentient species. And like other species they could choose their own destiny. I don't know what a soul is either, but I think you have to have one to have a romantic relationship, or sacrifice yourself for peace.

Then calling someone racist based on your own definition of a soul is not really fair. A soul to me is force that lives on after you die. This comes into question after Shepard confeses that he doesn't remember anything while he was dead.

[Hawk227]

SubAstris wrote...

Rohirrim wrote...

TheTrueObelus wrote...

Main issue with IT...you have less choice than the crappy ending that Bioware actually wrote.

Lets break down the ending choices.

With "control" or "synthesis" you are indoctrinated. You dont wake up. Reapers win. Everyone dies. Everything you did up till that point was completely meaningless. Game over.

You pick "destroy" and you escape indoctrination but you die (because of low war assets). Nothing is resolved. Reapers win. Everyone dies. Everything you did up till that point was completely meaningless. Game over.

You pick destroy and escape being indoctrinated and wake up (because you have enough war assets). But that means you didn't actually witness the end of the game...you still have to defeat the Reapers. So this would also mean they gave us a totally unfinished game. This is beyond lame.

So basically the only way to win and the only choices that mattered were the few that gave you the "perfect" destroy ending. Having only one choice basically means you have no choice.

You do have choice! In fact, it could be the most important one throughout Mass Effect. Think about it as the final battle of the game. It's a novel approach but not that much different from being shot down by a human reaper when you think about it. If you picked green or blue, you just lost the game.
Of course, there is no GAME OVER screen which, at first glance, makes it somewhat unsatisfying. However, this is the ending to YOUR story of Commander Shepard. And in your mind, you just defeated the reapers and dream about a happy ending.
The problem I see with this myself is that the actual ending for those who won the final battle is still missing. The only people still waiting for their ending are those that chose red. Either you wanted to stay on your path of defeating the reapers, didn't trust Starchild or even saw through the indoctrination while you were playing - but your Shepard wakes up after being struck by Harbinger's beam, and you want to continue. This, in my mind, is the real travesty of Mass Effect 3's ending - it is not there.

So this renders your decisions completely meaningless throughout the game, failing to do one of the main things that happens in ME, player choice. Some one could have done everything right, but because they got one thing supposedly wrong, they failed. 100 hours put is effectively wasted. Whilst someone who has done much less, made bad decision, can WIN? Games generally work on the principle of the more you put in, the more you get out of, but according to ME, this doesn't happen, which is really odd (only if you subscribe to IT). It completely ruins incentive to play and makes for an unappealing game. EA want happy customers, not people annoyed with the game, so why would they do this?

I'm not sure you understand. At the end of ME1 and ME2 if you "chose" not to defeat Saren or the Human Proto-Reaper, you lost. It's the same thing here, but it isn't explicitly stated. You have to put the pieces together yourself. And no, someone who has done much less cannot necessarily win. I discussed this last night, you responded to those posts, so I know you know the (my) IT interpretation.

Your argument against IT is that you don't like it. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. If the EC comes out and literal interpretation ends up true, I can say I don't like it all I want but that won't change it or make it less legitimate. It just means I won't like it.

What happens after you beat indoctrination is up in the air. It's entirely possible that BW thought people would figure it out and fill in the blanks (the Battle for Earth is all downhill from here, up the conduit, activate the crucible, done). Bioware folks have talked about using you imagination and interpreting for yourself. This should make it clear, either way, that they wanted to leave it ambiguous. The fact that a lot of people didn't get it heightens the need for extra content (which they've announced!). There's a chance said content will spell it out for you.

[EpyonX3]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


I don't see what you first point really proves except possibly you mean that because Shephard didn't die, then the Catalyst is lying. But remember he doesn't actually say that Shephard will certainly die, he just says that he is part synthetic. What he means exactly by that I don't know, since Shephard clearly isn't synthetic like the geth, and the Catalyst says that all synthetic life will be destroyed which Shepard isn't. I suppose he means his synthetic parts will be destroyed, but that doesn't mean he will die. The thing about it being a "good" motivator is irrelevant, the Catalyst is just giving solutions, some are going to bad consequences.

In addition you neglect to tell us that the Catalyst informs Shephard that he will die in Control or Synthesis, that is the downside to it. Those options are seen as the perfect ones by any stretch of the imagination, what is best is deliberately meant to upto debate.

The EDI thing can be explained through a glitch, given the shoddiness of parts of the ending, I frankly wouldn't be surprised.

It is never said that he is the head Reaper, or a Reaper himself

It's been confirmed that EDI living in the destroy ending was intentional by Patrick Weekes.

Link?

I keep hearing this but I haven't seen it myself. What does it even matter though. If IT is correct, none of that happened.

[Hawk227]

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...


It's not about being cold. I liked EDI and Legion. But not because they were synthetics, but how their personality changed perspectives. But that was the result of software interacting with organics.

Just becaus you acknowledge something for what it is doesn't mean you're racist. If the Catalyst were racist, why does he kill both synthetic and organics? Why not just kill the synthetics?

Exactly, you like EDI and Legion because of their personalities, It had nothing to do with them being synthetic. They proved through their actions and dialogue that they could be caring and selfless, like any other sentient species. And like other species they could choose their own destiny. I don't know what a soul is either, but I think you have to have one to have a romantic relationship, or sacrifice yourself for peace.

Then calling someone racist based on your own definition of a soul is not really fair. A soul to me is force that lives on after you die. This comes into question after Shepard confeses that he doesn't remember anything while he was dead.

Racist might be inappropriate. But to say the Geth rebelled is false. They defended themselves against the Quarians. If the Government decided it didn't like Mass Effect nerds and tried to kill us, we would have every right to fight back. The fact they were machines is irrelevant. They were sentient, not mindless robots.

[balance5050]

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...


It's not about being cold. I liked EDI and Legion. But not because they were synthetics, but how their personality changed perspectives. But that was the result of software interacting with organics.

Just becaus you acknowledge something for what it is doesn't mean you're racist. If the Catalyst were racist, why does he kill both synthetic and organics? Why not just kill the synthetics?

Exactly, you like EDI and Legion because of their personalities, It had nothing to do with them being synthetic. They proved through their actions and dialogue that they could be caring and selfless, like any other sentient species. And like other species they could choose their own destiny. I don't know what a soul is either, but I think you have to have one to have a romantic relationship, or sacrifice yourself for peace.

Then calling someone racist based on your own definition of a soul is not really fair. A soul to me is force that lives on after you die. This comes into question after Shepard confeses that he doesn't remember anything while he was dead.

It's racist to think that EDI or Legion deserve to die just because they are synthetic.

[EpyonX3]

Hawk227 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...


It's not about being cold. I liked EDI and Legion. But not because they were synthetics, but how their personality changed perspectives. But that was the result of software interacting with organics.

Just becaus you acknowledge something for what it is doesn't mean you're racist. If the Catalyst were racist, why does he kill both synthetic and organics? Why not just kill the synthetics?

Exactly, you like EDI and Legion because of their personalities, It had nothing to do with them being synthetic. They proved through their actions and dialogue that they could be caring and selfless, like any other sentient species. And like other species they could choose their own destiny. I don't know what a soul is either, but I think you have to have one to have a romantic relationship, or sacrifice yourself for peace.

Then calling someone racist based on your own definition of a soul is not really fair. A soul to me is force that lives on after you die. This comes into question after Shepard confeses that he doesn't remember anything while he was dead.

Racist might be inappropriate. But to say the Geth rebelled is false. They defended themselves against the Quarians. If the Government decided it didn't like Mass Effect nerds and tried to kill us, we would have every right to fight back. The fact they were machines is irrelevant. They were sentient, not mindless robots.

They rebelled when they refused to shut down. That's the way I see it.

They wanted them shut down to reprogram them but they refused. Their programming evolved enough to become self preserving after the quarians tried to force them off.

The quarians didn't stat killing Geth because they didn't like them, they were trying to start over with their creations. That obviously backfired. If the Geth weren't rebellious, they would have just shut down and avoided the war all together.

[SubAstris]

Hawk227 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Rohirrim wrote...

TheTrueObelus wrote...

Main issue with IT...you have less choice than the crappy ending that Bioware actually wrote.

Lets break down the ending choices.

With "control" or "synthesis" you are indoctrinated. You dont wake up. Reapers win. Everyone dies. Everything you did up till that point was completely meaningless. Game over.

You pick "destroy" and you escape indoctrination but you die (because of low war assets). Nothing is resolved. Reapers win. Everyone dies. Everything you did up till that point was completely meaningless. Game over.

You pick destroy and escape being indoctrinated and wake up (because you have enough war assets). But that means you didn't actually witness the end of the game...you still have to defeat the Reapers. So this would also mean they gave us a totally unfinished game. This is beyond lame.

So basically the only way to win and the only choices that mattered were the few that gave you the "perfect" destroy ending. Having only one choice basically means you have no choice.

You do have choice! In fact, it could be the most important one throughout Mass Effect. Think about it as the final battle of the game. It's a novel approach but not that much different from being shot down by a human reaper when you think about it. If you picked green or blue, you just lost the game.
Of course, there is no GAME OVER screen which, at first glance, makes it somewhat unsatisfying. However, this is the ending to YOUR story of Commander Shepard. And in your mind, you just defeated the reapers and dream about a happy ending.
The problem I see with this myself is that the actual ending for those who won the final battle is still missing. The only people still waiting for their ending are those that chose red. Either you wanted to stay on your path of defeating the reapers, didn't trust Starchild or even saw through the indoctrination while you were playing - but your Shepard wakes up after being struck by Harbinger's beam, and you want to continue. This, in my mind, is the real travesty of Mass Effect 3's ending - it is not there.

So this renders your decisions completely meaningless throughout the game, failing to do one of the main things that happens in ME, player choice. Some one could have done everything right, but because they got one thing supposedly wrong, they failed. 100 hours put is effectively wasted. Whilst someone who has done much less, made bad decision, can WIN? Games generally work on the principle of the more you put in, the more you get out of, but according to ME, this doesn't happen, which is really odd (only if you subscribe to IT). It completely ruins incentive to play and makes for an unappealing game. EA want happy customers, not people annoyed with the game, so why would they do this?

I'm not sure you understand. At the end of ME1 and ME2 if you "chose" not to defeat Saren or the Human Proto-Reaper, you lost. It's the same thing here, but it isn't explicitly stated. You have to put the pieces together yourself. And no, someone who has done much less cannot necessarily win. I discussed this last night, you responded to those posts, so I know you know the (my) IT interpretation.

Your argument against IT is that you don't like it. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. If the EC comes out and literal interpretation ends up true, I can say I don't like it all I want but that won't change it or make it less legitimate. It just means I won't like it.

What happens after you beat indoctrination is up in the air. It's entirely possible that BW thought people would figure it out and fill in the blanks (the Battle for Earth is all downhill from here, up the conduit, activate the crucible, done). Bioware folks have talked about using you imagination and interpreting for yourself. This should make it clear, either way, that they wanted to leave it ambiguous. The fact that a lot of people didn't get it heightens the need for extra content (which they've announced!). There's a chance said content will spell it out for you.

I don't understand what you mean by chose not to defeat Saren? You can't mean killing him, so I guess indoctrination?

I'm not saying I don't like it, therefore it's wrong, I am giving reasons why a game developer would be put off going for it.

I wouldn't read to much into BW comments. Of course if you aren't happy with the ending they want you to re-evaluate it. They are not going to come out and say "it's crap" or "you're stupid that you can't get".

The fact that you didn't get an ending shows either that BW don't really care about their customer base, and instead drag this thing out (while losing sales and prestige) or there isn't another ending (which btw BW have said already)

[EpyonX3]

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...


It's not about being cold. I liked EDI and Legion. But not because they were synthetics, but how their personality changed perspectives. But that was the result of software interacting with organics.

Just becaus you acknowledge something for what it is doesn't mean you're racist. If the Catalyst were racist, why does he kill both synthetic and organics? Why not just kill the synthetics?

Exactly, you like EDI and Legion because of their personalities, It had nothing to do with them being synthetic. They proved through their actions and dialogue that they could be caring and selfless, like any other sentient species. And like other species they could choose their own destiny. I don't know what a soul is either, but I think you have to have one to have a romantic relationship, or sacrifice yourself for peace.

Then calling someone racist based on your own definition of a soul is not really fair. A soul to me is force that lives on after you die. This comes into question after Shepard confeses that he doesn't remember anything while he was dead.

It's racist to think that EDI or Legion deserve to die just because they are synthetic.

You're missing the fact that they're killing organics as well. The ones who have and are capable of creating Synthetics. In the eyes of the catalyst, they all deserve to die.

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


I don't see what you first point really proves except possibly you mean that because Shephard didn't die, then the Catalyst is lying. But remember he doesn't actually say that Shephard will certainly die, he just says that he is part synthetic. What he means exactly by that I don't know, since Shephard clearly isn't synthetic like the geth, and the Catalyst says that all synthetic life will be destroyed which Shepard isn't. I suppose he means his synthetic parts will be destroyed, but that doesn't mean he will die. The thing about it being a "good" motivator is irrelevant, the Catalyst is just giving solutions, some are going to bad consequences.

In addition you neglect to tell us that the Catalyst informs Shephard that he will die in Control or Synthesis, that is the downside to it. Those options are seen as the perfect ones by any stretch of the imagination, what is best is deliberately meant to upto debate.

The EDI thing can be explained through a glitch, given the shoddiness of parts of the ending, I frankly wouldn't be surprised.

It is never said that he is the head Reaper, or a Reaper himself

It's been confirmed that EDI living in the destroy ending was intentional by Patrick Weekes.

Link?

http://social.biowar.../index/11154234 

he says "
We argued a lot about this, I said that she was made of Reapertech and should therefore be destroyed " which confirms it was not a glitch, if you believe the interview:P

[EpyonX3]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


I don't see what you first point really proves except possibly you mean that because Shephard didn't die, then the Catalyst is lying. But remember he doesn't actually say that Shephard will certainly die, he just says that he is part synthetic. What he means exactly by that I don't know, since Shephard clearly isn't synthetic like the geth, and the Catalyst says that all synthetic life will be destroyed which Shepard isn't. I suppose he means his synthetic parts will be destroyed, but that doesn't mean he will die. The thing about it being a "good" motivator is irrelevant, the Catalyst is just giving solutions, some are going to bad consequences.

In addition you neglect to tell us that the Catalyst informs Shephard that he will die in Control or Synthesis, that is the downside to it. Those options are seen as the perfect ones by any stretch of the imagination, what is best is deliberately meant to upto debate.

The EDI thing can be explained through a glitch, given the shoddiness of parts of the ending, I frankly wouldn't be surprised.

It is never said that he is the head Reaper, or a Reaper himself

It's been confirmed that EDI living in the destroy ending was intentional by Patrick Weekes.

Link?

http://social.biowar.../index/11154234 

he says "
We argued a lot about this, I said that she was made of Reapertech and should therefore be destroyed " which confirms it was not a glitch, if you believe the interview:P

How do we know she's reaper tech? Wouldn't edi be able to detect it? She seems to be good at picking up hybrid human reaper technology.

[Hawk227]

SubAstris wrote...

Hawk wrote

[...]
From a storytelling perspective, indoctrination is the last weapon you haven't faced. But it's a big deal, Saren and Tim were indoctrinated. Shepard was knocked out for 2 days by Object Rho. It's kind of a copout if shepard never has to confront it. But to indoctrinate shepard you have to indoctrinate the player. Indoctrination is underhanded persuasion. Saren and Tim thought they were doing the right thing. The end game is trying to convince you that Control(TIM) or Synthesis(Saren) are the right thing. To adopt the reaper worldview. If you wanna have a meta gaming experience like this, you have to do certain things to prevent ruining the experience. That includes not having shepard snap out of it after picking destroy and going straight into a boss fight. That would be on youtube within 48hrs and the experience (and speculation) would be killed

You have to let the players figure out on their own what happened. That means going on BSN and arguing about it.
[...]

How exactly does the game try and convince you that Control and Synthesis is the better option than Destroy? 
As for wanting a "meta-gaming experience", that's all very well, but it is to the absolute detriment of the narrative; would BW really try that, it doesn't make good business or narrative sense. Things will always be on Youtube, that's not an argument why BW wouldn't put it in-game. In fact, people would soon realise what they have done, be happy with it, and go on to buy more DLC!!

The way the Catalyst describes the choices clearly paints Control and Synthesis in a better light. 1) In persuasion, you always give your side last, because people respond better to the most recent thing they've heard 2) He tells you destroy will kill you, the geth, edi, and synthetics will eventually wipe out organics (at least two of which are disproven in the end, therefore this is a lie) 3) He provides no downsides to either control or synthesis, and even tells you that synthesis is the pinnacle (that means best, or final stage) of evolution. The catalyst clearly is trying to persuade you.

The fact that you didn't like it is not relevant. If there is a fact we know absolutely, its that BW wanted lots of speculation. By not putting the end game on the disc, they accomplish that. It's been more than a month and we're still debating this! If there was a youtube clip showing Shepard pwn Harbinger after waking up in london rubble, we wouldn't be having this discussion. That's the point!

Furthermore, leaving the ending at face value equally destroys the narrative (IMO, much more). It invalidates the entire series. It effectively tells us that the Reapers (and Saren and Tim) were right all along, and we've just been getting in the way. Even if you hate IT, Literal interpretation is much worse for the game and the series than IT is.

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


I don't see what you first point really proves except possibly you mean that because Shephard didn't die, then the Catalyst is lying. But remember he doesn't actually say that Shephard will certainly die, he just says that he is part synthetic. What he means exactly by that I don't know, since Shephard clearly isn't synthetic like the geth, and the Catalyst says that all synthetic life will be destroyed which Shepard isn't. I suppose he means his synthetic parts will be destroyed, but that doesn't mean he will die. The thing about it being a "good" motivator is irrelevant, the Catalyst is just giving solutions, some are going to bad consequences.

In addition you neglect to tell us that the Catalyst informs Shephard that he will die in Control or Synthesis, that is the downside to it. Those options are seen as the perfect ones by any stretch of the imagination, what is best is deliberately meant to upto debate.

The EDI thing can be explained through a glitch, given the shoddiness of parts of the ending, I frankly wouldn't be surprised.

It is never said that he is the head Reaper, or a Reaper himself

It's been confirmed that EDI living in the destroy ending was intentional by Patrick Weekes.

Link?

http://social.biowar.../index/11154234 

he says "
We argued a lot about this, I said that she was made of Reapertech and should therefore be destroyed " which confirms it was not a glitch, if you believe the interview:P

The interview, although unverifiable in its accuracy, seems legit, so it can be taken as evidence to an extent. The problem is though that the answer to the question is incomplete, and therefore to comment on it too much would be wrong ( after all, he could have said in the following part, "Scrap that, the EDI thing was actually a glitch!"). Unlikely, put we don't know

[Stegoceras]

balance5050 wrote...

http://social.biowar.../index/11154234 

he says "
We argued a lot about this, I said that she was made of Reapertech and should therefore be destroyed " which confirms it was not a glitch, if you believe the interview:P

Think this needs to be added as well:

"Okay, here is what I asked Patrick Weekes, and his answers as best as I
can remember them. I've paraphrased but I'm doing my best to stick to
what he said rather than introduce any interpretation.

THESE ARE NOT DIRECT QUOTES."

Also second half of the comment on the EDI question is missing and god knows what he says there. Keep it in context please.

[Hawk227]

EpyonX3 wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...


It's not about being cold. I liked EDI and Legion. But not because they were synthetics, but how their personality changed perspectives. But that was the result of software interacting with organics.

Just becaus you acknowledge something for what it is doesn't mean you're racist. If the Catalyst were racist, why does he kill both synthetic and organics? Why not just kill the synthetics?

Exactly, you like EDI and Legion because of their personalities, It had nothing to do with them being synthetic. They proved through their actions and dialogue that they could be caring and selfless, like any other sentient species. And like other species they could choose their own destiny. I don't know what a soul is either, but I think you have to have one to have a romantic relationship, or sacrifice yourself for peace.

Then calling someone racist based on your own definition of a soul is not really fair. A soul to me is force that lives on after you die. This comes into question after Shepard confeses that he doesn't remember anything while he was dead.

Racist might be inappropriate. But to say the Geth rebelled is false. They defended themselves against the Quarians. If the Government decided it didn't like Mass Effect nerds and tried to kill us, we would have every right to fight back. The fact they were machines is irrelevant. They were sentient, not mindless robots.

They rebelled when they refused to shut down. That's the way I see it.

They wanted them shut down to reprogram them but they refused. Their programming evolved enough to become self preserving after the quarians tried to force them off.

The quarians didn't stat killing Geth because they didn't like them, they were trying to start over with their creations. That obviously backfired. If the Geth weren't rebellious, they would have just shut down and avoided the war all together.

So in my analogy, The Mass Effect nerds should just submit to the Sci Fi hating establishment and be slaughtered?

The motivations of the Quarians is irrelevant. They shot first. They tried to eliminate a sentient species. That's Genocide. Self-Defense does not equal Rebellion. At least not to me.

Furthermore, they didn't try to reprogram them (still horrible, analogous to brainwashing). The visuals in the Geth Consensus mission show the Quarians opening fire on a Geth Platform when they realize he's self aware.

[balance5050]

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


I don't see what you first point really proves except possibly you mean that because Shephard didn't die, then the Catalyst is lying. But remember he doesn't actually say that Shephard will certainly die, he just says that he is part synthetic. What he means exactly by that I don't know, since Shephard clearly isn't synthetic like the geth, and the Catalyst says that all synthetic life will be destroyed which Shepard isn't. I suppose he means his synthetic parts will be destroyed, but that doesn't mean he will die. The thing about it being a "good" motivator is irrelevant, the Catalyst is just giving solutions, some are going to bad consequences.

In addition you neglect to tell us that the Catalyst informs Shephard that he will die in Control or Synthesis, that is the downside to it. Those options are seen as the perfect ones by any stretch of the imagination, what is best is deliberately meant to upto debate.

The EDI thing can be explained through a glitch, given the shoddiness of parts of the ending, I frankly wouldn't be surprised.

It is never said that he is the head Reaper, or a Reaper himself

It's been confirmed that EDI living in the destroy ending was intentional by Patrick Weekes.

Link?

http://social.biowar.../index/11154234 

he says "
We argued a lot about this, I said that she was made of Reapertech and should therefore be destroyed " which confirms it was not a glitch, if you believe the interview:P

How do we know she's reaper tech? Wouldn't edi be able to detect it? She seems to be good at picking up hybrid human reaper technology.

"she reveals that she was in part designed by technology gained from Sovereign's remains and thus, at least partially, based on Reaper technology herself. "

From the "Wiki"
http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/EDI 

[Hawk227]

SubAstris wrote...

I don't understand what you mean by chose not to defeat Saren? You can't mean killing him, so I guess indoctrination?

I precisely mean killing him. You don't have a choice. You kill him and move on, or don't and get a Critical Mission Failure. In IT interpretation, the 3 choices are a test. You pick the right answer and move on, or you succumb to indoctrination and lose. But just like Saren and TIM, you don't know you're indoctrinated.

I'm not saying I don't like it, therefore it's wrong, I am giving reasons why a game developer would be put off going for it.

I wouldn't read to much into BW comments. Of course if you aren't happy with the ending they want you to re-evaluate it. They are not going to come out and say "it's crap" or "you're stupid that you can't get".

The fact that you didn't get an ending shows either that BW don't really care about their customer base, and instead drag this thing out (while losing sales and prestige) or there isn't another ending (which btw BW have said already)

The final hours app has "speculation for everyone" at the end of some of Mac Walters notes. That is primarily what I was referring to. They wanted speculation and the IT ending gives them that. It satisfies Biowares goals, but does EA care? The game has already outsold ME2 so probably not.

I did get in ending. I picked destroy, shepard woke up and I know from there is was all downhill. It would've been better to beat harbinger one on one, but hopefully that comes with the EC.

Also, BW said they won't CHANGE the ending. IT doesn't require them to change it, just show us what happens after shepard wakes up. That would fall under the definition of "clarification and closure".

[SubAstris]

Hawk227 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Hawk wrote

[...]
From a storytelling perspective, indoctrination is the last weapon you haven't faced. But it's a big deal, Saren and Tim were indoctrinated. Shepard was knocked out for 2 days by Object Rho. It's kind of a copout if shepard never has to confront it. But to indoctrinate shepard you have to indoctrinate the player. Indoctrination is underhanded persuasion. Saren and Tim thought they were doing the right thing. The end game is trying to convince you that Control(TIM) or Synthesis(Saren) are the right thing. To adopt the reaper worldview. If you wanna have a meta gaming experience like this, you have to do certain things to prevent ruining the experience. That includes not having shepard snap out of it after picking destroy and going straight into a boss fight. That would be on youtube within 48hrs and the experience (and speculation) would be killed

You have to let the players figure out on their own what happened. That means going on BSN and arguing about it.
[...]

How exactly does the game try and convince you that Control and Synthesis is the better option than Destroy? 
As for wanting a "meta-gaming experience", that's all very well, but it is to the absolute detriment of the narrative; would BW really try that, it doesn't make good business or narrative sense. Things will always be on Youtube, that's not an argument why BW wouldn't put it in-game. In fact, people would soon realise what they have done, be happy with it, and go on to buy more DLC!!

The way the Catalyst describes the choices clearly paints Control and Synthesis in a better light. 1) In persuasion, you always give your side last, because people respond better to the most recent thing they've heard 2) He tells you destroy will kill you, the geth, edi, and synthetics will eventually wipe out organics (at least two of which are disproven in the end, therefore this is a lie) 3) He provides no downsides to either control or synthesis, and even tells you that synthesis is the pinnacle (that means best, or final stage) of evolution. The catalyst clearly is trying to persuade you.

The fact that you didn't like it is not relevant. If there is a fact we know absolutely, its that BW wanted lots of speculation. By not putting the end game on the disc, they accomplish that. It's been more than a month and we're still debating this! If there was a youtube clip showing Shepard pwn Harbinger after waking up in london rubble, we wouldn't be having this discussion. That's the point!

Furthermore, leaving the ending at face value equally destroys the narrative (IMO, much more). It invalidates the entire series. It effectively tells us that the Reapers (and Saren and Tim) were right all along, and we've just been getting in the way. Even if you hate IT, Literal interpretation is much worse for the game and the series than IT is.

1) So by your argument, Synthesis is better for the Reapers than Control? But don't they have exactly the same outcome, that Shephard is indoctrinated? It would be very tough to give convincing evidence that the choice was deliberately postponed for persuasion, since there are only three options anywhere.

2) This is not true, he doesn't say it will kill you, he says you are partly synthetic. This does not by any means equal certain death.

3) You face a certain death? That must be a negative...

There's one thing BW and EA want above speculation, money;  because at the end of the day speculation doesn't pay the bills, happy customers who will go on to buy more DLC do

The game never says that the Reapers were right all along.  It gives you three options, BW doesn't push you into them or say that this or that option is the right one, they are meant to be controversial and it is down to the player to choose which one is most morally acceptable. That is the type of speculation BW wanted. Nor the fact that TIM happened to like control make it necessarily bad. He got indoctrinated, but it doesn't follow that the aim is bad aswell. TIM couldn't control the Reapers because he was indoctrinated, whilst Shephard has the luxury of not being and therefore can make a free choice. He can decide whether control, destroy or synthesis is correct

[EpyonX3]

Hawk227 wrote...

So in my analogy, The Mass Effect nerds should just submit to the Sci Fi hating establishment and be slaughtered?

The motivations of the Quarians is irrelevant. They shot first. They tried to eliminate a sentient species. That's Genocide. Self-Defense does not equal Rebellion. At least not to me.

Furthermore, they didn't try to reprogram them (still horrible, analogous to brainwashing). The visuals in the Geth Consensus mission show the Quarians opening fire on a Geth Platform when they realize he's self aware.

Your analogy assumes that the Sci-Fi hating establishment are also organics.

I see it like this, if a line of cars have a defect that can't be repaired it's trashed in mass quantities in the recall.  No imagine that the cars refused to turn off and tried to continue driving, potentially killing more people on the road later on. So we would naturally go after the cars and force them off by killing them.

This is what the quarians did. They created equpiment to serve them and gave them features that mimic organics. They messed up when they gave them free will by accident. They're fear of being overthown came only after the Geth refused to shut down.

[EpyonX3]

balance5050 wrote...

"she reveals that she was in part designed by technology gained from Sovereign's remains and thus, at least partially, based on Reaper technology herself. "

From the "Wiki"
http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/EDI 

the whole excerpt:

EDI also gains access to "Anti-Reaper Algorithms" later in the game, and
states that she devotes significant processing power to analyzing them.
When pressed on this subject by Shepard as to how she could hope to
combat beings millions of years more advanced, she reveals that she was
in part designed by technology gained from Sovereign's remains and thus, at least partially, based on Reaper technology herself.


Her programming design is based on reaper teachnology but she isn't part reaper. She was only modeled after parts of one.

[Hawk227]

SubAstris wrote...

1) So by your argument, Synthesis is better for the Reapers than Control? But don't they have exactly the same outcome, that Shephard is indoctrinated? It would be very tough to give convincing evidence that the choice was deliberately postponed for persuasion, since there are only three options anywhere.

2) This is not true, he doesn't say it will kill you, he says you are partly synthetic. This does not by any means equal certain death.

3) You face a certain death? That must be a negative...

There's one thing BW and EA want above speculation, money;  because at the end of the day speculation doesn't pay the bills, happy customers who will go on to buy more DLC do

The game never says that the Reapers were right all along.  It gives you three options, BW doesn't push you into them or say that this or that option is the right one, they are meant to be controversial and it is down to the player to choose which one is most morally acceptable. That is the type of speculation BW wanted. Nor the fact that TIM happened to like control make it necessarily bad. He got indoctrinated, but it doesn't follow that the aim is bad aswell. TIM couldn't control the Reapers because he was indoctrinated, whilst Shephard has the luxury of not being and therefore can make a free choice. He can decide whether control, destroy or synthesis is correct

He says destroy will kill all synthetics and you are partly synthetic. Which is a bit of an understatement, considering Cerberus had to piece you back together with cybernetics. He's clearly implying you will die.

In a literal interpretation, the Catalyst is telling the truth. He says that Synthetics will destroy all Organics and the Reapers are his solution. He then gives you 3 choices and tells you that the choice you've been working towards for 100 hours (destroy) is bad because it will mean that organics will create synthetics that will destroy all organic life. This statement in itself says that the Reapers are a necessary tool in the galactic cycle. We can eliminate them at our own risk (cut off our nose to spite our face kind of thing) or pick one of 2 choices that are at worst neutral (control) to the reapers purposes. How is this anything other than the reapers were right all along?

[balance5050]

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

"she reveals that she was in part designed by technology gained from Sovereign's remains and thus, at least partially, based on Reaper technology herself. "

From the "Wiki"
http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/EDI 

the whole excerpt:

EDI also gains access to "Anti-Reaper Algorithms" later in the game, and
states that she devotes significant processing power to analyzing them.
When pressed on this subject by Shepard as to how she could hope to
combat beings millions of years more advanced, she reveals that she was
in part designed by technology gained from Sovereign's remains and thus, at least partially, based on Reaper technology herself.


Her programming design is based on reaper teachnology but she isn't part reaper. She was only modeled after parts of one.

I'm just saying she's synthetic bro, Weekes was the one who said she was reaper tech.