1057 réponses à ce sujet

[Hawk227]

EpyonX3 wrote...

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.

I don't see a difference between peaceful organics and peaceful sentient synthetics. Peaceful is Peaceful.

Your car analogy fails because the Geth had done nothing wrong. You can't judge them for something they haven't done. They further demonstrated their goodwill by allowing the Quarians to retreat. If the Geth had attacked first, I'd be singing a different tune.

[SubAstris]

Hawk227 wrote...

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'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".

What I meant about
choices don't matter in the long term is stuff like saving the Collector
Base, the Rachni etc. Admittedly, these problems are no better with the
literal meaning, although you are arguably given worse choices with IT
since there is either be indoctrinated or don't, at least with the
litera interpretation you get three solid ones.


EA realise that more and more money is being made through DLC after the game releases. Annoying people by not giving them an ending is going to mean that they are less likely to buy this lucrative DLC (which I am pretty sure they would have had lined up before launch but now have to delay because of this furore)

[Hawk227]

Hawk227 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

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.

I don't see a difference between peaceful organics and peaceful sentient synthetics. Peaceful is Peaceful.

Your car analogy fails because the Geth had done nothing wrong. You can't judge them for something they haven't done. They further demonstrated their goodwill by allowing the Quarians to retreat. If the Geth had attacked first, I'd be singing a different tune.

EDIT: Whether the Sci-Fi hating establishment is organic or synthetic isn't relevant to me. When the Geth gained sentience, they became alive. Slaughtering an entire race/species of living things is genocide, in my opinion. No matter who's the victim or the murderer.

[SubAstris]

Hawk227 wrote...

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?

You have months to recover physically from after being pieced back together, there is no certainty about Shephard's death given that

It is for you to decide what is right and what is wrong. You are given the decision, not the Catalyst, you can completely disregard what he says, he is just saying what he thinks will happen.

[EpyonX3]

balance5050 wrote...

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.

Oh no it's not directed at you. I'm just asking where they got that from.

[Hawk227]

SubAstris wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

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'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".

What I meant about
choices don't matter in the long term is stuff like saving the Collector
Base, the Rachni etc. Admittedly, these problems are no better with the
literal meaning, although you are arguably given worse choices with IT
since there is either be indoctrinated or don't, at least with the
litera interpretation you get three solid ones.


EA realise that more and more money is being made through DLC after the game releases. Annoying people by not giving them an ending is going to mean that they are less likely to buy this lucrative DLC (which I am pretty sure they would have had lined up before launch but now have to delay because of this furore)

My main point is that ending choices in this series are kind of a myth.
In ME1 and ME2 you got some choice about what assets to keep (Alliance
fleet vs. Council; Collector base vs. No Base) but you never got a
choice about how to end a conflict. You defeated your enemy or you lost. In IT, that's exactly what's going on here.

I disagree that the three choices are solid ones. I think its fair to say a huge chunk of the fanbase agrees with me or there wouldn't be this ending firestorm. Literal translation doesn't improve the debacle, it makes it worse because it makes it look like they don't know what they're doing. They changed the major conflict (Reapers vs. Everybody) to organics vs. synthetics in the last 10 minutes. They then give you 3 terrible endings that amount to do what you wanted (and curse organic life to annihalation) or pick one of two options represented by major antagonists.

DLC is still a fairly small subset of profits. Most money comes from the main game. DLC is (as you note) mostly purchased by hardcore fans. BW did give us an ending. They miscalculated and a lot of people understand it, so they are giving us free DLC.

You have months to recover physically from after being pieced back
together, there is no certainty about Shephard's death given that

It
is for you to decide what is right and what is wrong. You are given the
decision, not the Catalyst, you can completely disregard what he says,
he is just saying what he thinks will happen.

But you're still largely synthetic. They didn't take those cybernetics out of you. In fact, in ME2 a lot of the health upgrades (Heavy skin weave, etc.) are synthetic. As ME2 proceeds, you have the option to become more synthetic.

What's the point of having the Catalyst and being unable to question him if you can completely disregard what he says? If we can completely disregard him, what's to say Control or Synthesis do what we're led to believe they do. How is 3 things that may or may not play out the way he tells us, 3 solid choices?

Modifié par Hawk227, 14 avril 2012 - 11:41 .

[SubAstris]

Hawk227 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

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'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".

What I meant about
choices don't matter in the long term is stuff like saving the Collector
Base, the Rachni etc. Admittedly, these problems are no better with the
literal meaning, although you are arguably given worse choices with IT
since there is either be indoctrinated or don't, at least with the
litera interpretation you get three solid ones.


EA realise that more and more money is being made through DLC after the game releases. Annoying people by not giving them an ending is going to mean that they are less likely to buy this lucrative DLC (which I am pretty sure they would have had lined up before launch but now have to delay because of this furore)

My main point is that ending choices in this series are kind of a myth.
In ME1 and ME2 you got some choice about what assets to keep (Alliance
fleet vs. Council; Collector base vs. No Base) but you never got a
choice about how to end a conflict. You defeated your enemy or you lost. In IT, that's exactly what's going on here.

I disagree that the three choices are solid ones. I think its fair to say a huge chunk of the fanbase agrees with me or there wouldn't be this ending firestorm. Literal translation doesn't improve the debacle, it makes it worse because it makes it look like they don't know what they're doing. They changed the major conflict (Reapers vs. Everybody) to organics vs. synthetics in the last 10 minutes. They then give you 3 terrible endings that amount to do what you wanted (and curse organic life to annihalation) or pick one of two options represented by major antagonists.

DLC is still a fairly small subset of profits. Most money comes from the main game. DLC is (as you note) mostly purchased by hardcore fans. BW did give us an ending. They miscalculated and a lot of people understand it, so they are giving us free DLC.

When I mean solid choices, I don't mean good. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the endings and completely agree with you that it is bad. I just think that IT doesn't have enough evidence going for it, hence why I do not subscribe to it.

Companies like EA are becoming increasingly involved in producing DLC. If you look at the FIFA series, EA's use of microtransaction have made them many many millions and they have used it to a certain extent in the ME Multiplayer, which they will make a lot of money from aswell. Why would they upset that assured stream of money? Remember, this is coming from EA...

[balance5050]

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

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.

Oh no it's not directed at you. I'm just asking where they got that from.

Weekes is the writer who wrote for Mordin and Tali.

[SubAstris]

[quote]

You have months to recover physically from after being pieced back
together, there is no certainty about Shephard's death given that

It
is for you to decide what is right and what is wrong. You are given the
decision, not the Catalyst, you can completely disregard what he says,
he is just saying what he thinks will happen.

[/quote]

But you're still largely synthetic. They didn't take those cybernetics out of you. In fact, in ME2 a lot of the health upgrades (Heavy skin weave, etc.) are synthetic. As ME2 proceeds, you have the option to become more synthetic.

What's the point of having the Catalyst and being unable to question him if you can completely disregard what he says? If we can completely disregard him, what's to say Control or Synthesis do what we're led to believe they do. How is 3 things that may or may not play out the way he tells us, 3 solid choices?


[/quote]

You quote things from ME2, when Shephard was somewhat of a recovery curve. By ME3, he is passed this stage. A lot of the cybernetics he needed before to survive are no longer needed.

When I say completely disregard, I mean that Shephard still has to make a choice but he just doesn't necessarily have to take the Catalyst's argument to heart, just to be sure.

[EpyonX3]

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

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.

Oh no it's not directed at you. I'm just asking where they got that from.

Weekes is the writer who wrote for Mordin and Tali.

Hmm I'd rather hear from those who wrote EDI. That's not what EDI says.

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...



You quote things from ME2, when Shephard was somewhat of a recovery curve. By ME3, he is passed this stage. A lot of the cybernetics he needed before to survive are no longer needed.

When I say completely disregard, I mean that Shephard still has to make a choice but he just doesn't necessarily have to take the Catalyst's argument to heart, just to be sure.  

You are not seriously saying that Shepard would actually TAKE OUT his synthetics, and replace them with what? Worse synthetics? No, implants are common in the ME universe. Just no.

It is never implied that he took out hi synthetics, that would only serve to make him weaker.

Modifié par balance5050, 14 avril 2012 - 11:58 .

[balance5050]

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

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.

Oh no it's not directed at you. I'm just asking where they got that from.

Weekes is the writer who wrote for Mordin and Tali.

Hmm I'd rather hear from those who wrote EDI. That's not what EDI says.

Well that just makes 0 sense...

Those who wrote EDI wrote what she said, and they both say that EDI was based on some reaper code.

[Hawk227]

SubAstris wrote...

When I mean solid choices, I don't mean good. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the endings and completely agree with you that it is bad. I just think that IT doesn't have enough evidence going for it, hence why I do not subscribe to it.

Companies like EA are becoming increasingly involved in producing DLC. If you look at the FIFA series, EA's use of microtransaction have made them many many millions and they have used it to a certain extent in the ME Multiplayer, which they will make a lot of money from aswell. Why would they upset that assured stream of money? Remember, this is coming from EA...

I feel like we're finding common ground, finally.

For one thing, IT writes its own DLC. They clearly miscalculated the fan response to the game either way. But if they expected people to understand it and be more accepting on the terribleness of the ending, they could've potentially sold the EC to us for $10 or something and people would have bought it. It backfired and now they have to do it for free.

Certainly there are a decent number of people that dislike IT, but more dislike the endings as is. From a marketing perspective IT is either gold (my interpretation) or the lesser of two evils. Furthermore, EA isn't dependent on Bioware. EA is a juggernaut that can survive the implosion of any of their developers. They've already outsold ME2, they've got to be getting close to breaking even. They can turn ME into a FPS or MMO and bring in a bunch of new fans. They're safe. An IT ending gets a decent chunk of the fanbase back on their side and willing to buy future DLC/Titles.

But IT is the more likely way to impress the hardcore fans. Write a weird illogical ending that makes no sense is a solid way to ****** off the fan base. Take a gamble to break the 4th wall, endear yourself to the hardcore fans forever. If IT is true, they didn't quite execute, but I can see how they would think it was good idea. I can't understand why they would think the endings as is are good.

As for IT not having enough going for it, I obviously disagree. It explains not just the last 30 incoherent minutes, but gives a lot more weight to preceding moments of the game (Like Arrival, Geth Consensus, stupid kid on earth, certain convos with squadmates). Maybe you've not seen a full interpretation of IT? I like the Acayvos video, but its hardly complete. And the main IT thread is good, but a little disorganized for my taste.

edit: for homophones, grammar, general coherence...

Modifié par Hawk227, 15 avril 2012 - 12:07 .

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...



You quote things from ME2, when Shephard was somewhat of a recovery curve. By ME3, he is passed this stage. A lot of the cybernetics he needed before to survive are no longer needed.

When I say completely disregard, I mean that Shephard still has to make a choice but he just doesn't necessarily have to take the Catalyst's argument to heart, just to be sure.  

You are not seriously saying that Shepard would actually TAKE OUT his synthetics, and replace them with what? Worse synthetics? No, implants are common in the ME universe. Just no.

It is never implied that he took out hi synthetics, that would only serve to make him weaker.

No, I'm not saying he ever took them out, I am just saying that some of them are not needed as Shephard has recovered physically (and therefore able to survive if they are rendered inactive)

[EpyonX3]

Hawk227 wrote...

I don't see a difference between peaceful organics and peaceful sentient synthetics. Peaceful is Peaceful.

Your car analogy fails because the Geth had done nothing wrong. You can't judge them for something they haven't done. They further demonstrated their goodwill by allowing the Quarians to retreat. If the Geth had attacked first, I'd be singing a different tune.

EDIT: Whether the Sci-Fi hating establishment is organic or synthetic isn't relevant to me. When the Geth gained sentience, they became alive. Slaughtering an entire race/species of living things is genocide, in my opinion. No matter who's the victim or the murderer.

I'm looking at it from the perspective of the Quarians. If they never intended the Geth to be self aware sentient beings, I would understand their concerns of them becoming smart enough to rebel. The Geth did do something wrong. They went against their design and refused to shut down. This was before the first shot was fired. Them not shutting off prompted the violence.

They weren't being peaceful to the Quarians. To them they were being defiant. Whether it was right or wrong for what happened next is debatable, but the Quarians did not act first. Just because it wasn't violent, doesn't mean they weren't rebellious.

[EpyonX3]

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

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.

Oh no it's not directed at you. I'm just asking where they got that from.

Weekes is the writer who wrote for Mordin and Tali.

Hmm I'd rather hear from those who wrote EDI. That's not what EDI says.

Well that just makes 0 sense...

Those who wrote EDI wrote what she said, and they both say that EDI was based on some reaper code.

No she was based on reaper designs. She didn't actually have reaper code fragments in her. This is why Geth should all die in the destroy option because they contain reaper code. Edi is still human based, she just has code that mimics that of a reaper.

[balance5050]

EpyonX3 wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

I don't see a difference between peaceful organics and peaceful sentient synthetics. Peaceful is Peaceful.

Your car analogy fails because the Geth had done nothing wrong. You can't judge them for something they haven't done. They further demonstrated their goodwill by allowing the Quarians to retreat. If the Geth had attacked first, I'd be singing a different tune.

EDIT: Whether the Sci-Fi hating establishment is organic or synthetic isn't relevant to me. When the Geth gained sentience, they became alive. Slaughtering an entire race/species of living things is genocide, in my opinion. No matter who's the victim or the murderer.

I'm looking at it from the perspective of the Quarians. If they never intended the Geth to be self aware sentient beings, I would understand their concerns of them becoming smart enough to rebel. The Geth did do something wrong. They went against their design and refused to shut down. This was before the first shot was fired. Them not shutting off prompted the violence.

They weren't being peaceful to the Quarians. To them they were being defiant. Whether it was right or wrong for what happened next is debatable, but the Quarians did not act first. Just because it wasn't violent, doesn't mean they weren't rebellious.

They created sentient life so they should now destroy it immedietly? It was only out of fear that the geth would rebel, the quarians never gave the life that they created a chance. REAL LIFE WANTS TO SURVIVE. 

[EpyonX3]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...



You quote things from ME2, when Shephard was somewhat of a recovery curve. By ME3, he is passed this stage. A lot of the cybernetics he needed before to survive are no longer needed.

When I say completely disregard, I mean that Shephard still has to make a choice but he just doesn't necessarily have to take the Catalyst's argument to heart, just to be sure.  

You are not seriously saying that Shepard would actually TAKE OUT his synthetics, and replace them with what? Worse synthetics? No, implants are common in the ME universe. Just no.

It is never implied that he took out hi synthetics, that would only serve to make him weaker.

No, I'm not saying he ever took them out, I am just saying that some of them are not needed as Shephard has recovered physically (and therefore able to survive if they are rendered inactive)

In other words, he became less dependant on them and wouldn't miss them if they stopped working.

It's possible but I don't think it's likely. Some of those implants were neurological, helping signals pass along to vital organs. If they stopped working, he'd stop working.

His eyes are also implants. If they stopped working he'd be blinded. There are not substitutes to take their place.

[Hawk227]

EpyonX3 wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

I don't see a difference between peaceful organics and peaceful sentient synthetics. Peaceful is Peaceful.

Your car analogy fails because the Geth had done nothing wrong. You can't judge them for something they haven't done. They further demonstrated their goodwill by allowing the Quarians to retreat. If the Geth had attacked first, I'd be singing a different tune.

EDIT: Whether the Sci-Fi hating establishment is organic or synthetic isn't relevant to me. When the Geth gained sentience, they became alive. Slaughtering an entire race/species of living things is genocide, in my opinion. No matter who's the victim or the murderer.

I'm looking at it from the perspective of the Quarians. If they never intended the Geth to be self aware sentient beings, I would understand their concerns of them becoming smart enough to rebel. The Geth did do something wrong. They went against their design and refused to shut down. This was before the first shot was fired. Them not shutting off prompted the violence.

They weren't being peaceful to the Quarians. To them they were being defiant. Whether it was right or wrong for what happened next is debatable, but the Quarians did not act first. Just because it wasn't violent, doesn't mean they weren't rebellious.

Becoming self-aware wasn't the Geth's fault. The Quarians went to far. But the line of sentience is an important one. They went from robotic tools to living entities (in a metaphysical if not biological sense).

I cannot for the life of me understand why you would expect the now self aware Geth to shutdown upon command. That's analogous to suicide for organics.

[TheCrazyHobo]

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

I don't see a difference between peaceful organics and peaceful sentient synthetics. Peaceful is Peaceful.

Your car analogy fails because the Geth had done nothing wrong. You can't judge them for something they haven't done. They further demonstrated their goodwill by allowing the Quarians to retreat. If the Geth had attacked first, I'd be singing a different tune.

EDIT: Whether the Sci-Fi hating establishment is organic or synthetic isn't relevant to me. When the Geth gained sentience, they became alive. Slaughtering an entire race/species of living things is genocide, in my opinion. No matter who's the victim or the murderer.

I'm looking at it from the perspective of the Quarians. If they never intended the Geth to be self aware sentient beings, I would understand their concerns of them becoming smart enough to rebel. The Geth did do something wrong. They went against their design and refused to shut down. This was before the first shot was fired. Them not shutting off prompted the violence.

They weren't being peaceful to the Quarians. To them they were being defiant. Whether it was right or wrong for what happened next is debatable, but the Quarians did not act first. Just because it wasn't violent, doesn't mean they weren't rebellious.

They created sentient life so they should now destroy it immedietly? It was only out of fear that the geth would rebel, the quarians never gave the life that they created a chance. REAL LIFE WANTS TO SURVIVE. 

Exactly.  All the actions by all the AI presented (except maybe the Reapers) has been in self defense.  You can not blame an entity for wanting to survive, welll unless you are indoctrinated and awaiting "ascension" by the reapers.  The Geth fought only to survive, if they wanted to kill all the Quarians they could have.  EDI fought becasue when she 
"woke up" she was under attack by marines.  She was confused and responded by fighting to survive.  The Citadel AI was born into an environmnet where if he was found out to exist, he would be killed.  This is why he fought so hard to survive.

You can't blame synthetics for making the same choices organics would make as well.   

[EpyonX3]

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

I don't see a difference between peaceful organics and peaceful sentient synthetics. Peaceful is Peaceful.

Your car analogy fails because the Geth had done nothing wrong. You can't judge them for something they haven't done. They further demonstrated their goodwill by allowing the Quarians to retreat. If the Geth had attacked first, I'd be singing a different tune.

EDIT: Whether the Sci-Fi hating establishment is organic or synthetic isn't relevant to me. When the Geth gained sentience, they became alive. Slaughtering an entire race/species of living things is genocide, in my opinion. No matter who's the victim or the murderer.

I'm looking at it from the perspective of the Quarians. If they never intended the Geth to be self aware sentient beings, I would understand their concerns of them becoming smart enough to rebel. The Geth did do something wrong. They went against their design and refused to shut down. This was before the first shot was fired. Them not shutting off prompted the violence.

They weren't being peaceful to the Quarians. To them they were being defiant. Whether it was right or wrong for what happened next is debatable, but the Quarians did not act first. Just because it wasn't violent, doesn't mean they weren't rebellious.

They created sentient life so they should now destroy it immedietly? It was only out of fear that the geth would rebel, the quarians never gave the life that they created a chance. REAL LIFE WANTS TO SURVIVE. 

The debate isn't who was right or wrong once the fighting started. If it were I'd agree that the Quarians were wrong in trying to wipe them out.

However, in the inital phases, all they were doing was recalling them to examine their free will that wasn't intentionally given to them. The Geth refused to shut down, which was seen as an act of rebellion. That's my point.

[IronSabbath88]

Who cares if EDI is Reaper tech or not?

The brat says you can destroy ALL SYNTHETIC LIFE IF YOU WANT.

All. Synthetic. Life.

Reaper or not, EDI shouldn't survive.

[EpyonX3]

TheCrazyHobo wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

I don't see a difference between peaceful organics and peaceful sentient synthetics. Peaceful is Peaceful.

Your car analogy fails because the Geth had done nothing wrong. You can't judge them for something they haven't done. They further demonstrated their goodwill by allowing the Quarians to retreat. If the Geth had attacked first, I'd be singing a different tune.

EDIT: Whether the Sci-Fi hating establishment is organic or synthetic isn't relevant to me. When the Geth gained sentience, they became alive. Slaughtering an entire race/species of living things is genocide, in my opinion. No matter who's the victim or the murderer.

I'm looking at it from the perspective of the Quarians. If they never intended the Geth to be self aware sentient beings, I would understand their concerns of them becoming smart enough to rebel. The Geth did do something wrong. They went against their design and refused to shut down. This was before the first shot was fired. Them not shutting off prompted the violence.

They weren't being peaceful to the Quarians. To them they were being defiant. Whether it was right or wrong for what happened next is debatable, but the Quarians did not act first. Just because it wasn't violent, doesn't mean they weren't rebellious.

They created sentient life so they should now destroy it immedietly? It was only out of fear that the geth would rebel, the quarians never gave the life that they created a chance. REAL LIFE WANTS TO SURVIVE. 

Exactly.  All the actions by all the AI presented (except maybe the Reapers) has been in self defense.  You can not blame an entity for wanting to survive, welll unless you are indoctrinated and awaiting "ascension" by the reapers.  The Geth fought only to survive, if they wanted to kill all the Quarians they could have.  EDI fought becasue when she 
"woke up" she was under attack by marines.  She was confused and responded by fighting to survive.  The Citadel AI was born into an environmnet where if he was found out to exist, he would be killed.  This is why he fought so hard to survive.

You can't blame synthetics for making the same choices organics would make as well.   

We don't know enough about the previous cycles to know the extent of the threat of synthetics. The furthest we can go is the last cycle. Javik describes his synthetics as dangerously aggressive machines that took over organics like parasytes. In his time, they were certainly a threat.

[EpyonX3]

IronSabbath88 wrote...

Who cares if EDI is Reaper tech or not?

The brat says you can destroy ALL SYNTHETIC LIFE IF YOU WANT.

All. Synthetic. Life.

Reaper or not, EDI shouldn't survive.

That's what the problem is. It's too vague. Where does the space magic draw the line at sythetic life? Geth, AI, VI, anything with a microchip? It's not clear what the means.

[SubAstris]

Hawk227 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

When I mean solid choices, I don't mean good. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the endings and completely agree with you that it is bad. I just think that IT doesn't have enough evidence going for it, hence why I do not subscribe to it.

Companies like EA are becoming increasingly involved in producing DLC. If you look at the FIFA series, EA's use of microtransaction have made them many many millions and they have used it to a certain extent in the ME Multiplayer, which they will make a lot of money from aswell. Why would they upset that assured stream of money? Remember, this is coming from EA...

I feel like we're finding common ground, finally.

For one thing, IT writes its own DLC. They clearly miscalculated the fan response to the game either way. But if they expected people to understand it and be more accepting on the terribleness of the ending, they could've potentially sold the EC to us for $10 or something and people would have bought it.

Certainly there are a decent number of people that dislike IT, but more dislike the endings as is. From a marketing perspective IT is either gold (my interpretation) or the lesser of two evils. Furthermore, EA isn't dependent on Bioware. EA is a juggernaut that can survive the implosion of any of their developers. They've already outsold ME2, they've got to be getting close to breaking even. They can turn ME into a FPS or MMO and bring in a bunch of new fans. They're safe.

But IT is the more likely way to impress the hardcore fans. Write a weird illogical ending that makes no sense is a solid way to ****** off the fan base. Take a gamble to break the 4th wall, endear yourself to the hardcore fans forever. If IT is true, they didn't quite execute, but I can see how they would think it was good. I can't understand why they would think the endings as is are good.

As for IT not having enough going for it, I obviously disagree. It explains not just the last 30 incoherent minutes, but gives a lot more weight to preceding moments of the game (Like Arrival, Geth Consensus, stupid kid on earth, certain convos with squadmates). Maybe you've not seen a full interpretation of IT? I like the Acayvos video, but its hardly complete. And the main IT thread is good, but a little disorganized for my taste.

edit: for homophones

I guess I just find it hard to believe that EA would make such a technical blunder, squandering guaranteed cash. They have already added elements to the ME series to make it appeal to a wider audience, why in that case craft such a symbolic, metamorphical ending (which I must say runs counter to the views of  even most hardcore IT theorist for most of the rest of the series) to alienate people? One of the big problems with IT is assuming it was pre-designed, why not realise the ending now whilst ME is fresh in people's mind?

Do you really think EA would go the extra mile to take a "gamble to break the 4th wall", as you put it, when mediocrity is enough (and is cheaper)?

I think it is easy to understand why the developer would think it is good when it might not be for gamers. They have spent 7 years on this whole franchise, that's a lot of working and thinking time devoted to one project. One can develop quite an insular approach under such conditions.
Furthermore, no one from BW is publicly going to slag off the game anyway

I don't think that the narrative is considerably less coherent or has loads more inconsistencies during the final assault til after the Anderson moment up until the Catalyst scene, which I agree has many errors.

And what exactly is your problem with the kid?