13 réponses à ce sujet

[Leafs43]

 I'm sure its been asked before, but why would they contradict themselves.in such a fashion?

And it's not like this is a story line right at the beginning of the game either.  It's pretty much the 2nd to last mission before TIM's base.

[Allan Schumacher]

Leafs43 wrote...

Anything is possible on a long enough timeline.

Which is why it's not a contradiction.

What the Catalyst is saying is that organic and synthetic life cannot coexist long term, and the inevitable conflict will result in synthetics winning and destroying organic life.

The Catalyst doesn't even give any indication for what would motivate synthetics to do this, so any suppositions that the Catalyst is saying that the Geth want to destroy the Quarians is just an assumption.


What the Geth-Quarian conflict shows is that, at least right now, the Catalyst's assertion may not actually be correct.  Shepard even acknowledges this doubt when he says "maybe" in response to the Catalyst stating that the peace won't last.  As a game player, I was certainly skeptical as well.  Especially given the Rannoch storyline.  It's why I ended up choosing destroy, because I wanted the galaxy to determine their own fate rather than have Reaper intervention come in and muck it all up every fifty thousand years.

[Allan Schumacher]

Teltaur wrote...

But the issue with Destroy is that we're still forced to destroy the Geth and EDI, even if we disagree with the Catalyst's assertion. If it weren't for the fact that I'd have to kill the entirety of a group that I just brokered peace for (not even mentioning that I'd also kill the Quarians' chances of overcoming the war in a single lifetime), I'd choose it in a heartbeat.

To me that's what makes the choice interesting.

The ending comes along and tells us that that thematic element is
suddenly irrelevant, undermining one of the game's most powerful
moments. Rannoch is so powerful because the games as a whole up until
ME3 suggest that perhaps organic and synthetic life can't
get along, and we overcome all the hatred of the geth and all that to
create a truly hopeful, unified set of peoples. For the ending to come
along and say, "Well, it doesn't really matter--the synthetics will
still wipe you all out eventually." takes the rug out from under
Rannoch's feet.

I disagree that it makes the theme irrelevant, because people immediately recall the theme.  Given how intensely some people have spoken out against the ending because the Catalyst's assertion doesn't fly with what the Geth's intentions are, and how many people feel that the cost of destroy isn't worth it and are upset because they feel that it invalidates everything they did on Rannoch makes me wonder if the theme isn't actually amplified.

Rightly or wrongly, I think that the choices provided in the end exist to make people pause and think by challenging what they believe within the context of the game.

Agreed, as I've said before, the whole logic of the catalyst is flawed
because for it to be true that synthetics would wipe out all organic
life without his intervention, noone would exist now. Since we exist,
obviously synthetics never did this, he just "believes" they would.

I agree with this.  The Catalyst's statement cannot be proven or disproven as long as the Reapers continue to interfere.  Also part of why I chose Destroy.  Although you could argue that Control may prevent Reaper intervention as well.

I would have called him out...if i could.

Fair point.

[Allan Schumacher]

The Catalyst is against what this current cycle is all about(the cycle we have connected with through 3 games),

Diversity of life united and working together for galactic benefit.

I actually don't think the Catalyst is actually against the diversity of life.  He feels that, unchecked, the diversity of life is eventually going to be compromised.

The only reason we have a chance against the Reapers in this Cycle, was because of the diversity of life working together. And synthetics races should be a part of that diversity, they have the right to exist as much as any Organic race. They should not be tossed aside.

I agree.  So I choose destroy.  Note, I do this regardless of whether or not the Geth are destroyed, because while the loss of the Geth IS tragic, it doesn't preclude synthetic life from existing nor does it prevent synthetic and organic life from working in harmony.  It's a crap consequence from how the energy of the Crucible affects things.  What picking Destroy does is tell the Catalyst that I think he's full of crap and the Galaxy is better off without him meddling and influencing the other lifeforms.  So boo-urns to him.

How the Crucible affects things, however, is where things get interesting.  Higher EMS scores definitely result in a more precise blast.  Shepard doesn't have to die, and evidently EDI can also survive.

No, it's not a direct in-universe contradiction.  However, it is a narrative contradiction.  The Geth-Quarian conflict (at least if resolved peacefully) showed that synthetics and organics were equally valid forms of life (in fitting with the game's overarching theme of unity despite differences).  The Catalyst directly contradicts this.  Why show us that peace is possible and then claim it's not?  Sure, from an in-universe perspective, the Catalyst might be right, but this just causes the narrative to lose focus.  If we were allowed to argue with  him it would be different.  As it is, we are essentially forced to accept his claims as an existential truth.

From an in-universe perspective, the Catalyst might also be wrong.  I think it's entirely valid to feel that the Catalyst's perspective contradicts what you've experienced.  I felt the exact same way.  So I picked destroy and am letting the Galaxy prove him wrong.  I disagreed with TIM's perspective, as well as Saren's perspective, too.

[Allan Schumacher]

dreaming_raithe wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

From an in-universe perspective, the Catalyst might also be wrong.  I think it's entirely valid to feel that the Catalyst's perspective contradicts what you've experienced.  I felt the exact same way.  So I picked destroy and am letting the Galaxy prove him wrong.  I disagreed with TIM's perspective, as well as Saren's perspective, too.

Honestly, that's another reason I think the ending fails, though. If you've paid attention to the "univty through diversity" theme of the games, you have to reject the Catalyst's logic, and the only close that comes even close to rejecting his logic is Destroy (barring the "fly the Reapers into the sun" headcanon, for Control, anyway). It means I didn't get an interesting choice at the end because I knew the Catalyst was full of it.

I thought the choice at the end of ME2 was far more interesting, and in the end it was a pretty minor choice. We could anticipate the consequences of that choice, and both choices were justifiable based on what we knew about the universe and how it relates to the choice we had to make. We can't relate the universe to the choices at the end of the game because the universe takes a 180 and we have a bunch of unclear, muddled statements from a new character that is very clearly painted as an unreliable narrator.

If the Catalyst is an unreliable narrator (and everything in the games seems to suggest that he is), we have no context in which to truly make a decision at the end of the game. It honestly would have worked better if the Catalyst weren't there at all and we got to the control panel and it gave us the same three options. Without the information that suddenly contradicts what we know about the universe, we can make an informed choice using what we have in fact learned over the course of the three games.

Instead, since the Catalyst is unreliable, and Shepard always tells people with poor justifications for doing wicked things to jump off a cliff, we really only get one choice. I didn't feel the heart-wrenching confusion I felt when I had to decide what to do with the Geth in Legion's ME2 mission. I didn't stare at my screen in shock (well, okay, I did, but for different reasons) like I had to when faced with the decision to tell Mordin about the genophage cure sabotage or like I did when Legion told me about uploading the Reaper code.

If the choice was supposed to be tough, they really dropped the ball.

Excellent points and I agree with a lot of it.  I was never a particularly big fan of the Crucible as a plot device because it lends itself to allowing fantastic elements into the story that are unexpected.

I agree that the choices themselves could have been explained in a different way, without requiring the Catalyst as its presented.  I don't mind the Catalyst and his assertion, but given the context it's not as fleshed out as it should have been.  Alternative explanations could have also presented the choices (and given the Crucible you do have additional freedom).

You and I definitely saw the presentation a little bit differently.  For myself, I was more skeptical/doubtful, which means considering the other choices is more palatable to me.  For you, you outright rejected the Catalyst, so I can understand why the weight of the choice doesn't apply to you.


Anyways I do find it an interesting discussion, so thanks!

Cheers.

[Allan Schumacher]

Teltaur wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

To me that's what makes the choice interesting.

Why? I mean, no matter what we're having to accept the Starchild's logic, even if we personally disagree with it. I, like you, think that the Geth and EDI are great proof that synthetics won't always kill organics and that the universe should function by its own right, but my only option to destroy the Reapers means that I must also accept the Catalyst as being right and have to destroy the Geth with them. If I truly disagreed with the Catalyst, which I do, then I would have no reason whatsoever to also kill the Geth, making Destroy a bad option for defying the Starchild's logic. So, why is it forced on the player?

I find it interesting because I see it as a consequence of the Crucible's energy release.  It kills synthetics indiscriminantly, and I feel that it makes sense because the Crucible was an unknown and Hackett foreshadowed the uncertainty of unleashing it earlier in the game.

I find the choice interesting enough that I would be perfectly fine it regardless of how it is presented (Shepard deducing it himself, or whatever else that could have been used).

Essentially, the inclusion of the destruction of the Geth is adding a completely superfluous downside to killing the Reapers and defying the Catalyst. Choosing Destroy should mean that you're willing to take the risk of synthetics destroying organics later down the line, but why does that transfer over to current genocide on the Geth? It's just stacking on bad outcomes to make the option less appealing, and you're still stuck agreeing with the Starchild about everything he says as fact, instead of actually defying him.

Is it superfluous because it doesn't make any sense why a pulse destroying the Reapers would also destroy the Geth?  If it was truly superfluous then any race could be put into its place, but I think putting any other race does make less sense.  The Geth are also synthetic, and the Crucible's energy discharge takes out synthetics.  You can even drill down and state that the Crucible's energy discharge takes out Reaper related technology, of which the Geth are at least partially composed of.

You can dismiss anything in fiction as being arbitrary to the writer's whims, but I disagree that having the Geth vulnerable to the pulse is arbitrary.  I think it would have made much less sense had it been any other race, which shouldn't be the case if the inclusion is genuinely arbitrary.

Is it something added to make the choice more difficult?  Sure.  The writers could have easily omitted it.  I don't think that makes it a more interesting choice.  I think it would make the choices less relevant and less interesting, because I do not see the inclusion of the Geth as being purely arbitrary nor explicitly unnecessary.

JMO.

Cheers.



EDIT:

thats like assuming everyone will be a murderer so we should put everyone in jail

I don't think that that analogy makes sense to what I said at all.  Care to elaborate on it so I can better understand it?

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 15 avril 2012 - 04:01 .

[Allan Schumacher]

/delete

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 15 avril 2012 - 04:09 .

[Allan Schumacher]

hippanda wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Is it superfluous because it doesn't make any sense why a pulse destroying the Reapers would also destroy the Geth?  If it was truly superfluous then any race could be put into its place, but I think putting any other race does make less sense.  The Geth are also synthetic, and the Crucible's energy discharge takes out synthetics.  You can even drill down and state that the Crucible's energy discharge takes out Reaper related technology, of which the Geth are at least partially composed of.

You can dismiss anything in fiction as being arbitrary to the writer's whims, but I disagree that having the Geth vulnerable to the pulse is arbitrary.  I think it would have made much less sense had it been any other race, which shouldn't be the case if the inclusion is genuinely arbitrary.

Is it something added to make the choice more difficult?  Sure.  The writers could have easily omitted it.  I don't think that makes it a more interesting choice.  I think it would make the choices less relevant and less interesting, because I do not see the inclusion of the Geth as being purely arbitrary nor explicitly unnecessary.

JMO.

Cheers.

So why does EDI survive?

Why does Shepard survive?

[Allan Schumacher]

Allan its painful for me to see you write such long thought out responses well submitting to faulty logic.

Is it?

Anything is possible in a long enough timeline, case and point the reapers were finally defeated. This only mean something is inevitable because its played out on an almost endless timeline, saying "if there is any peace, it will eventually end" is cheap. War will always happen with synthetics or organics, the reaper threat in no way changed that.

The Catalyst doesn't state the obvious and say that organics will eventually die. He definitively states that organics will perish due to a particular event.

And what possible argument can the catalyst make to prove that peace is not also possible? None. He obviously did not witness the destruction of every organic life yet hes certain that's where it would lead? WHY?

I can't answer this. I will state that his assertion is unfalsifiable. It can be neither proven nor disproven. He believes it for some reason.

Do you honestly believe these were not questions important enough to ask? Is the motivation of a million year old godlike being so cut and dry it only takes 14 lines of unquestionable dialogue to explain?

I have no issue with people being upset with the Catalyst. I am not sure how bringing this up really relates to what I was trying to say though

In a long enough timeline the survival rate of everything drops to 0

This is true, but it's not what the Catalyst was saying.

Sorry. I think I miss the part where it states synthetics will eventually win in the story. Can you quote the lines? I think I saw "understated nerd rage video" and there were like only 14 lines of star jar, and I simply can't recall them winning.

"Without us to stop it synthetics would destroy all organics."

[Allan Schumacher]

Teltaur wrote...

I would completely understand that aspect, but if that was the writer's intent then it should've been made more clear in the narrative, because as it was it seemed that the Starchild's assertion of the Destroy option as equating to Shepard simply wanting to "destroy all synthetic life" turned it into a genocide rather than a form of collatoral damage. I don't want to wipe away all synthetic life in a flash just to disagree with the Starchild, but if it's made clear that the reasoning behind that outcome is that the Crucible simply can't differentiate between Reapers and other synthetic life, it'd make the option much more understandable as a whole.

Understandable.  I have no idea what's going into the ending DLC, but hopefully this type of stuff can be made clearer in it.  I have seen a large number of posts and tweets that feel that any choice is agreeing with the Catalyst, which is something I didn't agree with.

Why the Geth are included with the destruction of the Reapers is a huge issue for a lot of the fanbase IMO.

What I personally have a problem with, though, is that the reasoning for
it destroying the Geth (that it targets all synthetic life, not just
Reapers), causes a lot of weird questions. Quarians use cybernetics to
interface with their suits. Do they count as synthetic? They might, if
the Catalyst suggests that Shepard is synthetic enough to be affected by
it. What about people with biotic implants? Do they count as synthetic?
What about EDI? Does she count as synthetic? Does the Catalyst itself
count as synthetic? Does "Reaper tech" count as synthetic stuff? (If it
does, that explains the Normandy crashing a bit better in the Destroy
ending, I suppose).

Valid questions.  Hopefully we'll find out haha.  Given that low EMS eradicates humanity, I think it'd be fair to have it potentially kill other species as well (I think it'd make less sense if it didn't).  Though I can't imagine the outrage if the Quarians were all wiped out with a less than 4000/5000 EMS.  Grab the popcorn!  It's convenient to write in that it won't affect them (at least not significantly), but hopefully they do address it in some capacity.

Normandy crashing is where I do not envy the writers of the DLC... >.>

[Allan Schumacher]

Isichar wrote...

Again sorry if the first comment rubbed you the wrong way. Im not just trying to flame you.

No worries.  I actually removed my post shortly afterward because I realized that I likely took it the wrong way.  It's possible that I am jealous that all the other hockey fans have teams in the playoffs... >.>

Cheers.

[Allan Schumacher]

Federally wrote...

Alan I have a question. You mentioned EDI can live if your Ems is high enough. I'm wondering how she survives the Normandy crash regardless of choice. Without going into an in depth explanation of game lore regarding "quantum blue box AIs" I'll summarized by saying there is a computer in the AI core that physically is EDI and she can't just move to new hardware. She controls the Eva body remotely using the Normandy's communicator. So at bare minimum she should be disabled by the crash until the blue box is hooked up to something new that can support it, whether this must be a ship or could be a body is unclear.

So why is she walking around in Eva after the crash? It seems like a writer disregarded all the rules and lore in order to force this 'Adam and Eve' moment we are left with in several ending possibilities.

Hmmmm.  Personally, I was perfectly okay with thinking that EDI showing up was just a bug, but based on Weekes' comments it did sound like it was a conscious decision.  I don't have a good answer for you, in large part because I'd need to look up quantum blue box AIs hahaha.

P.S. The Blackhawks just tied their game with 5 seconds left and won in OT. So I laugh at you and your terrible hockey team!

I hope Yakupov seamlessly integrates himself onto my team XD

[Allan Schumacher]

What was the exchange again?... Hold on.

Shepard: Do you think it's risky, building something like this when we don't even know what it does?
Hackett: To be honest the thing scares the hell out of me, but the Reapers have forced our hand. Two centuries ago, scientists faced the same problem in the Second World War. They weren't sure what the atomic bomb might do. Some thought it could even ignite Earth's atmosphere, but they did it anyway.

I might be mistaken, and maybe it wasn't Hackett that said it, but I do recall a discussion about trying to make sure the Crucible targets only the Reapers.

[Allan Schumacher]

TheJiveDJ wrote...

I'm sorry but the "inevitable" argument is a major cop out. Just because there is SOME possibility that at SOME POINT in SOME TIME, SOMEWHERE synthetics MAY turn against their creators and kill organics is such SHODDY logic that it literally makes me sick thinking about it.

No one has actually stated that it is inevitable.  Nor does the Catalyst believe it "may" happen.  Especially within the context of this thread.

A single data point, the Geth-Quarian peace resolution, does not contradict the Catalyst's claims.  You can think the Catalyst is talking out of his rear and use your experience with the Geth-Quarian situation to substantiate your position, but a character making an assertion isn't a contradiction because it's just a character making an assertion.  The Catalyst believes it, just as TIM believes the Reapers can be controlled and used, just as Saren believes that working together to achieve synthesis is what's best.

At no point can any of their perspectives be proven to be correct (or proven to be false either).  TIM's maybe, but in talking with people on these boards it seems like many people questioned whether or not they could trust the idea that Shepard wouldn't eventually be compromised.  The idea that it might not work out flawlessly is certainly present.


NOTE:  I only present the context of a large scale timeline since many people use the Geth-Quarian conflict resolution as being evidence that the Catalyst is unequivocally wrong, which isn't the case.