207 réponses à ce sujet

[spartan5127]

Allan Schumacher wrote...


To me that's what makes the choice interesting.

It is what made the choice out of the question for a pure "good" shepard.  Pure shepard is a servent to the perfect duty.  A person/character whose worldview is like this would not compromise themselves no matter the cost.  This invalidated the other choices for various reasons along this theme.

The choices that should have been presented were: an any means to achieve an end choice, a middling choice, and a principled chioce.  What options were available and variations would depend on how you played the game.  Were you a ends justify the means guy?  You get shades of that theme.  Were you a servent of the perfect duty?  You get shades of that theme.  

As it stands, there is no principled choice.  A pure man of principle doesn't sacrifice them to achieve some end.

Modifié par spartan5127, 15 avril 2012 - 03:31 .

[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.

[sammcl]

I find it odd that a problem people have with the catalyst is the geth conflict. The catalyst presumably has many cycles of data suggesting that more often that not, synthetics eventually turn on organics. The Geth have only been around for what? 300 years? and Shepard brokered a peace for a couple of weeks. That does not disprove the catalyst.

What I took from the catalyst conversation was that it was probably correct, and synthetics would eventually destroy organics. This is why I hope "Destroy" didn't include the Geth, I would like to see the consequence of Shepard's choice to get rid of the reapers. It would be interesting to see if the Geth do indeed turn on organics a few hundred years later, or if it's another synthetic race, or if it never happens. I guess the stargazer and the boy are still alive so if that has any place in the continuity we can assume that synthetics have not yet killed organics at that stage.

[2papercuts]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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

[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 .

[Isichar]

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

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?

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?

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

For what its worth i appreciate the fact that at least your trying.

Modifié par Isichar, 15 avril 2012 - 04:07 .

[SilentWolfie]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Given that humans plagued themselves full of war for the past centuries, right up to Before Christ and Anno Domino, it's safe to say anything can happen within the mass aliens civilization evolution, inclusive of probable civil wars (TIM vs human groups over reaper issues) and the affairs with Krogan wars and what not. Why do we need a Jar Jar binks the second to tell us how organics will fight synthetics when organics already started fighting amongst themselves (oh look Samara hunts Morinth)? Such a farce of an ending. It wasn't even art but sheer silliness.

And the writers? Either busy defending their product by citing artistic integrity and visions on how Shephard should go sacrifice himself, instead of understanding why Star Jar ruined everything. Just a terrible way to ruin the series. There's no philosophies behind whatever, because there isn't anything "deep" about it.

[Cobra's_back]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

I really like your reasoning thanks for taking the time.

[Allan Schumacher]

/delete

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

[hippanda]

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?

[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?

[LinksOcarina]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

It's not a contradiction in absolute terms, as the Catalyst deals in something that is says is an eventuality, that could happen the future.

What it is though, is a breakdown in narrative cohesion, and ultimately narrative purpose. One guy wrote the Rannoch arc, another wrote the ending, and they flat out did not collaborate or proof-read the entire script in one go, so missed this big part. 

When you take a step back and actually evaluate what the Catalyst says, there's no contradiction. 

However, when you're playing the game after having just finished uniting the Geth and Quarians and seeing the truth of the Morning War, and then talk to the Catalyst, the effect is jarring.

"So synthetics will ultimately rebel and try to kill off all organic life? Hang on, what did I just talk to EDI about, and did I not just prove the Geth and Quarians can live side by side? What the ****?".

That was basically my reaction, and looking on it now, I'm convinced the Catalyst was full of ****, and even though I know the Indoctrination Theory isn't true, I choose to believe it so I can head-canon my own sequence of events. 

Well, there is something people tend to forget...and that is the synthetics are treated as individuals with their own minds vs a collective. Those who act on their own, EDI, Legion, the Geth survivors, each of them were modified by the reaper tech on their own. And even before that, the Geth, while they didn't rebel violently against the Quarians, kind of proved the point of the cycle to the catalyst anyway, that they could be a threat.

In other words, the Quarians took to arms against them before they became an issue, they may have shot first, but fact of the matter is the damage was done. If the Geth wanted to, they could have swept the galaxy. In fact, they did under Saren at one point...

Point is, the Geth had minds of their own, so the catalyst was essentially correct. But if the Geth showcase anything, it is that the Catalyst is wrong in that synthetics will always rebel. As far as we know, this is the first cycle where they didn't fire first.

[Isichar]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Thanks

For what its worth, I really do appreciate you been here and I do respect your opinion despite how trollish my posts are. I still stand by what i say though, i disagree with the logic.

[hippanda]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

Because he's primarily organic? We have no knowledge of how necessary the implants are for Shepard's continued survival. For all we know his body has healed to the point that he can survive without them (perhaps in a crippled state, but again, it's all speculation).

Can't say the same thing about EDI.

[Cobra's_back]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

Because Star Child was not completely honest.

[SilentWolfie]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.

Edit: Okay, I ran through the video on youtube, and it says Synthetics will destroy organics eventually. Which was of course full of nonsense (since Quarians can defeat Geth in the story). That's like saying a certain species will go extinct eventually.

Modifié par SilentWolfie, 15 avril 2012 - 04:21 .

[vv238email]

All this speculation....

[TurambarEA]

Yeah I thought it was a huge contradiction as well. The worst part about it is that you're not given a choice to argue with the kid and you can't just outright reject the rubbish options that he gives you. Arguments about whether or not you agree with him pretty much go out the window because you're forced into accepting the solutions that he offers you. Building up themes throughout a series and then having your protagonist just reject them is terrible writing even if this wasn't an RPG.

Edit: Also, for the avoidance of doubt, 'speculation' on this topic is something I find extremely NOT enjoyable. I don't want a mucky 'wtf just happened' ending given to me by a 'appear in the last five minutes of the game' antagonist. Terrible writing.

Modifié par TurambarEA, 15 avril 2012 - 04:21 .

[LinksOcarina]

SilentWolfie wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.

He never said they would technically, he said that conflict was inevitable. 

Which we saw with the Geth/Quarians. So the catalyst is not wrong in the end. It honestly doesn't matter who started the war, the problem is the war will always happen.

[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."

[Isichar]

LinksOcarina wrote...

SilentWolfie wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.

He never said they would technically, he said that conflict was inevitable. 

Which we saw with the Geth/Quarians. So the catalyst is not wrong in the end. It honestly doesn't matter who started the war, the problem is the war will always happen.

War will happen regardless of whether its with synthetics or organics.

[Teltaur]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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).

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.

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.

First, thanks for explaining your perception of the choice, I genuintely appreciate that you're taking the time to discuss something like this with other fans in a civil way. When it comes down to it, now that I've gotten to understand your explaination of it more, I think my issue is more that the aspect of losing the Geth and EDI wasn't really communicated as a form of collatoral damage and was simply stated as a blanket "I want to kill all synthetics" choice. That's what really made the inclusion of all synthetic life a bit outrageous to me, and explains why I didn't see the Destroy option as being a true disagreement with the Starchild.

[dreaming_raithe]

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.

I actually largely agree--I don't really have a problem with destroying the Geth being part of the Destroy ending. (I wouldn't have chosen it in a scenario that didn't include the Catalyst, as I alluded to above, though).

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).

A lot of those questions contributed to my rejecting the Catalyst outright. There's *so much* the Catalyst could have used to get Shepard away from that choice (since it seems like he doesn't want you to choose it) and hardly any of it comes up. If Destroy axed the Quarians too, and this was made clear as day, I couldn't have done it (and my FemShep was unfairly denied her love for Tali  ). The combined loss of the Quarians and the would have been too much.

Instead, we get a "tack on" that makes the choice less attractive. It really feels like it was a tacked on bit to keep Destroy from being too obvious because it's just not elaborated on enough. It's pretty clear the writers (or writer, if you believe that only Walters did the writing, which I'm not sure on) didn't anticipate all these questions, as they do a really good job throughout the rest of the series of letting us get the information to make informed decisions.

[LinksOcarina]

Isichar wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

SilentWolfie wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.

He never said they would technically, he said that conflict was inevitable. 

Which we saw with the Geth/Quarians. So the catalyst is not wrong in the end. It honestly doesn't matter who started the war, the problem is the war will always happen.

War will happen regardless of whether its with synthetics or organics.

True, but war also ends when it is organic vs organic. Rachni Wars, Krogan Rebellions, First Contact War, all of them ended when the sides involved actually made peace with each other or used weapons/diplomacy to force peace.

If what Javik said was true in his cut-scene regarding Synthetics, then the notion of them being nothing but beings of logic, would likely make war constant. It would wipe out or enslave organic life for synthetic like, kind of a matrix-style world in a way. Or, it would destroy technology for organics and stifle technological advances.

This is all speculation, but there is a difference, I feel, between war with organics and war with synthetics. It was heavily implied in the entire storyline that a long-drawn out war would cause a grand loss of life if it was organic vs synthetic. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 15 avril 2012 - 04:26 .

[Isichar]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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."

Its a tough logic for me to swallow, not because its particularly untrue, but because it goes against what makes organics what ther are, versatile and chaotic. Chaos is constantly refrenced as been destructive, ultimately so, though chaos also implys that there is no certain outcome.

The last quote was from fightclub, i feel it was fitting because its true, and on a long timeline it becomes very easy to argue that war/death/extinction will happen regardless even without synthetics in the equation.

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