207 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr. Big Pimpin]

Leafs43 wrote...

Mr. Big Pimpin wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Mr. Big Pimpin wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

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.

No it's not.

The only main mission after Rannoch I can recall was Horizon.  Then after that was TIM's base.

So Rannoch was one of the last stops, at least for me.

The geth consensus mission is not the last Rannoch mission. Also, you forget Thessia. Plus, there are those side quests.

Thessia is so short and forgettable and I generally do side quests first to get them out of the way.

Doesn't change the facts; the geth consensus mission is not second-to-last before TIM's base.

[Verit]

It's not a contradiction as there's no telling what would happen in the future when the Ai become more intelligent. But it's definitely odd how the game never shows you a side of synthetics that would support the Catalyst's claims, which is also one of the reasons why the ending just doesn't work.

[Leafs43]

-Draikin- wrote...

It's not a contradiction as there's no telling what would happen in the future when the Ai become more intelligent. But it's definitely odd how the game never shows you a side of synthetics that would support the Catalyst's claims, which is also one of the reasons why the ending just doesn't work.

The only way the geth become more intelligent is making more geth.

So it's pretty conceivable that geth will have the same disposition towards the quarians no matter how smart they get.  Because the geth consensus sees the creators the ones that give the geth purpose.

Modifié par Leafs43, 14 avril 2012 - 05:56 .

[The Spamming Troll]

SilentK wrote...

Just because the Geth and Quarians are at peace at this moment if Shepard helped them and that option was possible it doesn't mean that that is written in stone. Perhaps the Synthetics evolve at a faster pace than the Biological beings, one day in the future the situation might be very different from what it is now. The Catalysts doesn't speak only of today. I see no contradiction is this specific point.

and also at one point in time maybe humans will evolve to where monkeys fly out of their butts.

[Rilke21]

The short answer is that the writers had no part in the ending.

[MrTijger]

Leafs43 wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

Erm.....

It's not actually a "contradiction?"

Actually it is.

The geth wanted the creators to remain alive.  Legion says so and the geth's actions speak towards that.

Uh...that was when the first uprising of the Geth happened and you do know you can choose to have the Geth obliterate the Quarians, right?
Even if you choose to make peace that alone doesnt negate what Starchild says, he's not saying these Geth want or will destroy organic life, just that synthetic life will wipe out organic life at some point.

[Stegoceras]

Starchild may not have meant the Geth at all, come to think of it. He could have been describing a future threat. If the Geth were about to destroy the rest of the galaxy aren't they sort of guessing a bit on the dangerous side with the whole 50,000 year cycle, shouldn't they be better of with a 45,000 year cycle so they have a bigger margin to stop galaxy threatening Synthetics from being created?

Modifié par Stegoceras, 14 avril 2012 - 06:07 .

[Verit]

Leafs43 wrote...
The only way the geth become more intelligent is making more geth.

So it's pretty conceivable that geth will have the same disposition towards the quarians no matter how smart they get.

Legion does state that they didn't know what would happen after the geth finish their Dyson Sphere. They couldn't see what their future would hold as the increased intelligence would open up new possibilities which they couldn't even imagine at this point. The Catalyst and Javik were both entirely convinced that synthetics would inevitably attack organics, as the more they approach technological perfection the more they'd consider organics to be flawed. It's perfectly possible they could suddenly devaluate the lives of organics once they actually "understand" them. But that's never shown and it's unlikely that we'll ever get to see what would happen, and that's why the game's ending fails. It would have been great if the endings always destroyed the Reapers and only gave us a warning of what would happen without them around. It could lead up to a Mass Effect 4 for example, where we do get to see synthetics become an actual danger. But that's no longer possible with the Synthesis ending that pretty much rules out any sequel.

[kaztas]

The thing that always got me was this whole Synthetics MAY down the line kill off organics. Yeah and...Organics are just as likely to kill off Organics down the line. Look at how much in fighting there is between organics. Not counting the Rachni since the whole Rachni War was started by Sovereign...for...some reason...

Krogan Rebellion, First Contact War, Skyllian Blitz. Compared to Organics, synthetics are docile.

[Evil Minion]

-Draikin- wrote...

It's not a contradiction as there's no telling what would happen in the future when the Ai become more intelligent. But it's definitely odd how the game never shows you a side of synthetics that would support the Catalyst's claims, which is also one of the reasons why the ending just doesn't work.

They do.

It was called "Mass Effect 2," which has you blowing away "rogue AIs" left and right.

They give you evidence for either position and you're supposed to come to your own conclusion.

[Bfler]

Another point is that the Geth turn against their former masters, the Reapers. Isn't the reason for the existence of the Reapers that synthetics could turn against the organics? With that in mind the child and the Reapers would also have to kill themselves and also other synthetics, because the Geth synthetics become strong enough to fight against them, what means synthetics fight against and destroy synthetics.

[Blind2Society]

Leafs43 wrote...

The Earth being swallowed by the sun is an eventuallity, doesn't mean we have to blow up the Earth

...or blow up the sun.

This is probably the best analogy I've heard yet.

[Leafs43]

Evil Minion wrote...

-Draikin- wrote...

It's not a contradiction as there's no telling what would happen in the future when the Ai become more intelligent. But it's definitely odd how the game never shows you a side of synthetics that would support the Catalyst's claims, which is also one of the reasons why the ending just doesn't work.

They do.

It was called "Mass Effect 2," which has you blowing away "rogue AIs" left and right.

They give you evidence for either position and you're supposed to come to your own conclusion.

Actually they never let you come to your own conclusion because star kid substitutes his reasoning for yours and you have to decide on what star kid decided.

[Mr. Big Pimpin]

It's kind of ridiculous how you get beaten over the head with a silly "The geth are totally innocent for everything!" message, only for the game to turn around and then do the exact opposite.

Letting the player draw their own conclusions instead of telling them how to think is hard.

Modifié par Mr. Big Pimpin, 14 avril 2012 - 06:12 .

[Evil Minion]

Leafs43 wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

-Draikin- wrote...

It's not a contradiction as there's no telling what would happen in the future when the Ai become more intelligent. But it's definitely odd how the game never shows you a side of synthetics that would support the Catalyst's claims, which is also one of the reasons why the ending just doesn't work.

They do.

It was called "Mass Effect 2," which has you blowing away "rogue AIs" left and right.

They give you evidence for either position and you're supposed to come to your own conclusion.

Actually they never let you come to your own conclusion because star kid substitutes his reasoning for yours and you have to decide on what star kid decided.

No you don't.

[The Night Mammoth]

Evil Minion wrote...

-Draikin- wrote...

It's not a contradiction as there's no telling what would happen in the future when the Ai become more intelligent. But it's definitely odd how the game never shows you a side of synthetics that would support the Catalyst's claims, which is also one of the reasons why the ending just doesn't work.

They do.

It was called "Mass Effect 2," which has you blowing away "rogue AIs" left and right.

They give you evidence for either position and you're supposed to come to your own conclusion.

List them. 


No seriously, list them, each mission that has you killing a rogue AI that wants to destroy all organic life. Then tell me if any of them are mandatory and not optional side quests. 

[Arik7]

Short answer: different writers.

The Rannoch mission was written by a talented writer and is consistent with the rest of Mass Effect.  It was peer-reviewed by BioWare's writing team.

The star child, on the other hand....  well.... it's "art".

Modifié par Arik7, 14 avril 2012 - 06:13 .

[spirosz]

The Starchild is just generalizing about synthetics, simple as that.

But remember, it's logic is always right, you know... artistic ingetrity and Shepard not being able to reject that logic.  

Modifié par spiros9110, 14 avril 2012 - 06:14 .

[Evil Minion]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

-Draikin- wrote...

It's not a contradiction as there's no telling what would happen in the future when the Ai become more intelligent. But it's definitely odd how the game never shows you a side of synthetics that would support the Catalyst's claims, which is also one of the reasons why the ending just doesn't work.

They do.

It was called "Mass Effect 2," which has you blowing away "rogue AIs" left and right.

They give you evidence for either position and you're supposed to come to your own conclusion.

List them. 


No seriously, list them, each mission that has you killing a rogue AI that wants to destroy all organic life. Then tell me if any of them are mandatory and not optional side quests. 

In "Mass Effect 2," you blow away "rogue AIs left and right. That's a fact.

Whether or not they're "optional" is irrelevant.

The evidence was presented. Either you agree with the Reapers, or you don't.

Modifié par Evil Minion, 14 avril 2012 - 06:17 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Evil Minion wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

-Draikin- wrote...

It's not a contradiction as there's no telling what would happen in the future when the Ai become more intelligent. But it's definitely odd how the game never shows you a side of synthetics that would support the Catalyst's claims, which is also one of the reasons why the ending just doesn't work.

They do.

It was called "Mass Effect 2," which has you blowing away "rogue AIs" left and right.

They give you evidence for either position and you're supposed to come to your own conclusion.

List them. 


No seriously, list them, each mission that has you killing a rogue AI that wants to destroy all organic life. Then tell me if any of them are mandatory and not optional side quests. 

In "Mass Effect 2," you blow away "rogue AIs left and right. That's a fact.

Is it? Give more than one example, and prove your point. Just a few examples of rogue AI's trying to wipe out all organic life. 

Whether or not they're "optional" is irrelevant.

Yes it ****ing is. If you're going to explain something as important as the Reaper's motivations in the last five minutes you better make sure the player has enough to back up that revelation. A few optional side missions in a game where this hadn't even been thought of yet isn't enough, evidently.

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 14 avril 2012 - 06:22 .

[N7Gold]

Leafs43 wrote...

 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.

Its the Star Kid who is contradicting himself.

[CDHarrisUSF]

Why? Because:

Modifié par CDHarrisUSF, 14 avril 2012 - 06:26 .

[LKx]

Leafs43 wrote...

 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.

It's not a contradiction: The fact that the catalyst is a circular logic douchebag who have been proven wrong by the geths (because we know now that the quarians were the ones who decided to terminate the geths and begun the war, not the opposite, the geths just foughts to survive), doesn't meant that he's not entitled to be a circular logic douchebag.

The actual contradiction is only that Shepard doesn't say "f*ck you starbrat!"

edit: i mean, he did argue about the solution, but he doesn't argue about the problem

Modifié par LKx, 14 avril 2012 - 07:49 .

[Evil Minion]

In ME2, you blow away "rogue AIs" left and right. That is a fact.

You are presented with examples of AIs behaving badly. You are presented with AIs behaving well. You have to make up your own mind whether you believe synthetics will eventually attempt to wipe out organics.

Whether or not they're "optional" is irrelevant.

Yes it ****ing is. If you're going to explain something as important as the Reaper's motivations in the last five minutes you better make sure the player has enough to back up that revelation. A few optional side missions in a game where this hadn't even been thought of yet isn't enough, evidently.

Whether or not the "rogue AI" mission were "optional" is irrelevant. The Reapers think synthetics will eventually attempt to wipe out organics. You are not required to agree.

Every single species in the galaxy employs "Reaper logic" to some extent. Every. Single. One.

If you missed it, you missed it, but I don't see how you could.

Modifié par Evil Minion, 14 avril 2012 - 06:30 .

[Leafs43]

N7Gold wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

 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.

Its the Star Kid who is contradicting himself.

You have to make your final discision based on a contradiction.

That's the bigger problem.