207 réponses à ce sujet

[MrRag]

Near the end reaper code turns the Geth into individuals. They help the Quarians to rebuild Rannoch and they even cure them. For the first time the Quarians don't see them as slaves, but an own race. Should truly alive synthethics be seen as a lesser form of life?

Now the starchild assumes that the next generation of synthethics will kill organics, excluding the fact that other races (including the Geth) could forge an alliance against those rebel synthethics. Organics have always been killing other organics, so there will always be chaos.

Now destroy is the only option that allows me to destroy the reapers and truly save humanity. Control won't destroy the reapers and by choosing synthesis I would force every being in the galaxy to be a hybrid.

The endings are simply badly thought out.

[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.

[dreaming_raithe]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Don't even get me started on that part. I think you can in fact clarify the stuff with the Catalyst enough that I could accept it. But they're going to need frankly illegal quantities of space magic to make sense of the Normandy scene. They're better off just cutting that part out entirely.

[Teltaur]

dreaming_raithe wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Don't even get me started on that part. I think you can in fact clarify the stuff with the Catalyst enough that I could accept it. But they're going to need frankly illegal quantities of space magic to make sense of the Normandy scene. They're better off just cutting that part out entirely.

This, so much this.

See, that's the main reason that I'm somewhat annoyed with the writers for not being willing to change anything in the DLC ending. I mean, yes, I can completely understand taking the stance of not wanting to do a page 1 rewrite of the ending, whether or not I agree with it, but they should also be willing to retcon and adjust small things that may have simply not worked in the original endings instead of locking it all in place and having to work around it.

Modifié par Teltaur, 15 avril 2012 - 04:47 .

[Sorael.A]

My biggest question is:

Why does the AI want to prevent organics from destroying themselves?

What does 'saving organics from themselves' do for the AI? satisfy an unending objective maybe? but then that leads me to wonder who made the Catalyst to begin with to have such an objective.

[Blind2Society]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Here we go Bruins, here we go!

Modifié par Blind2Society, 15 avril 2012 - 04:59 .

[Isichar]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

i know exactly how you feel.

CALGARY FLAMES FTL

[nickkcin11]

Sorael.A wrote...

My biggest question is:

Why does the AI want to prevent organics from destroying themselves?

What does 'saving organics from themselves' do for the AI? satisfy an unending objective maybe? but then that leads me to wonder who made the Catalyst to begin with to have such an objective.

I got the impression that the Catalyst wasn't made, rather it was like... ummm it's hard to explain. The best comparison I have is the Watcher or Eternity from Marvel comics. But I would like to see why the Reapers were made... I mean did he really think his solution made any sense? And why did he care about saving organic life? Was he an AI or was he like just an omnipotent power? I doubt these questions will be answered in the name of art. I'm starting to hate that word, "art".

Modifié par nickkcin11, 15 avril 2012 - 05:20 .

[Federally]

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.

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!

[2papercuts]

@allan Schumacher
About an hour ago I said something like " that's like saying everyone's a murder" I'd like to explain that. Typing on a phone do didn't feel like quoting.

You said something like the catalysts logic wasn't flawed even with the geth developments. But that's like an assumption of guiltiness. If your going to use the logic "it could happen in the future" then we could just presume anything.

Let's say that the catalyst had some data to support his beliefs. Even in this case, because he says "always rebel" if there is just one case where the created didn't rebel then his belief is automatically proven wrong and he is then running in faulty logic. So by the time Shepard gets to the catalyst, the star kid is already running on faulty premises and is therefore illogical, and therefore plausibly contradictory. Don't really remember the original quote by now so not sure this is a very good response.

[MaxMcKay]

Leafs43 wrote...

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.

Geth have not destroyed the Quarians for 300 years and have had no desire to do so for very specific reasons.


I cannot remember the line, but it was along the lines of, "Creators give their creations purpose and without the creators, the geth would have no purpose."

now if the writers only took their own advice and realised that pissing off their fans to this extent threatens their existance which is only made because of the fans themselves....

[111987]

My biggest problem with the Geth in ME3 is that it shows how they let some Quarians escaped. And yet, they had already wiped out literally over 99% of the Quarian population...if they were okay with doing THAT, why was it not okay to just finish them off?

It's like a murderer shooting 9 out of 10 people in a room, but leaving the last person alive because he wouldn't feel right killing all of them. It just doesn't make sense.

[Trikormadenadon]

Evil Minion wrote...

Without going into why I think even the choice part is bad, yeah I kind of agree.
However, I think it would have been better achieved if there was an example, a major example, of some form of synthetic which expresses the motive of wiping out all organic life. That I think would better explain their intentions. They already have the 'good' side of synthetics with the Geth and EDI, all they need is one really important example to contrast.

Well, Javik "sorta" gives an example, but it was pretty weak.

I agree that a really good example of hostile synthetics would've made the Reapers (and the eventual choice we have to make) much more potent.

As for what I think the "real" problem was, I couldn't help but notice that there were many organic races that were using exactly the same "logic" as the Reapers ("We need to dominate and control this other species for their own good because we're more advanced and know better.").

It's one of the reasons I think the Reapers were actually invented by organics at some point and were using the flawed, emotional reasoning of organics.It comes down to whether you believe it's "okay" to try and dominate other species "for their own good.

It also makes most organic species hypocrites.

Even in Javik's cycle there is no evidence that their synthetic war was going to continue to the end of all organic life. If the synthetics won they may have stopped after beating the Protheans.

Then you take into account that the Protheans were winning until the Reapers came...now the Reapers sound like a self fulfilling prophecy.

[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

[thefallen2far]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

My sympathies. Chicago fan here... I'm on cloud 9. It'll end soon... but for now. Home field advantage feels good.

[Federally]

Allan Schumacher wrote.....

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.

Well I think someone had an idea for how they wanted their ending to be, mostly synthesis since she always walks off after it, and didn't check to make sure it fit established lore.

Really I can't possibly imagine how the Mass Effect team is going to make the Normandy crash actually make sense with the new DLC. I feel the catalyst as written was a mistakes but could at least be made acceptable with some work. The Normandy crash on the other hand is in many ways a narrative failure and I can't imagine a way to save it which worries me.

[SilentK]

Leafs43 wrote...

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.

Geth have not destroyed the Quarians for 300 years and have had no desire to do so for very specific reasons.

I cannot remember the line, but it was along the lines of, "Creators give their creations purpose and without the creators, the geth would have no purpose."

But, I still feel that they have just only now become real AI. And they will still evolve. What happens if they one day reach concensus that they do not need the Creators in order to have a purpose?

EDI says in one of her convos, it only take one instance for her to adapt to a new situation. And she was not built by the Quarians. There might be other experiments out there, wouldn't surprise me if the Salarian had a secret AI-reaserach going on after seeing Sur'Kesh. It might not be the Geth who are the danger. Another form of AI that we have not encountered yet.

The thing for me is rather, I can imagine synthetics evolving faster than organics. What happens the day when they are far above the organics, and for some reason come to the conclusion that the organics are too troublesome. Or too agressive.

I do not feel that this specific thing is a contradiction, it could very well happen. But, I also don't feel like all hope is lost on this front. Lost Tali because I wanted the synthetics to be given the chance. I want to believe that it will work out, but at the same time I am a little worried of what will happen in the long run.

[YouHaveAProblem]

Omega Torsk wrote...

YouHaveAProblem wrote...

 I think it's pretty obvious that they were writing som kind of epic conclusion like IT, or maybe something entirely different, but then ran out of time/budget.

I want to believe this. I really want to believe this, but Bioware isn't giving me any reason to. Whether they're contractually obliged by the EA overlords to not admit they ran out of time or money, we don't know. All we know is that Bioware is deflecting our criticisms with the A-word and that they have a plan to give us closure.

Wouldn't it be nice if Bioware is actually planning on giving us the ending they envisioned come summer and they are simply not allowed to talk about it or the actual reasons for the current ending?

I guess they probably wouldn't comment on it if they f****d up..

And yeah, som kind of epic conclusion would be so great. 

[Riion]

SilentK wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

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.

Geth have not destroyed the Quarians for 300 years and have had no desire to do so for very specific reasons.

I cannot remember the line, but it was along the lines of, "Creators give their creations purpose and without the creators, the geth would have no purpose."

But, I still feel that they have just only now become real AI. And they will still evolve. What happens if they one day reach concensus that they do not need the Creators in order to have a purpose?

EDI says in one of her convos, it only take one instance for her to adapt to a new situation. And she was not built by the Quarians. There might be other experiments out there, wouldn't surprise me if the Salarian had a secret AI-reaserach going on after seeing Sur'Kesh. It might not be the Geth who are the danger. Another form of AI that we have not encountered yet.

The thing for me is rather, I can imagine synthetics evolving faster than organics. What happens the day when they are far above the organics, and for some reason come to the conclusion that the organics are too troublesome. Or too agressive.

I do not feel that this specific thing is a contradiction, it could very well happen. But, I also don't feel like all hope is lost on this front. Lost Tali because I wanted the synthetics to be given the chance. I want to believe that it will work out, but at the same time I am a little worried of what will happen in the long run.

Techically, the Geth now have individuality, so governing by consensus is going to be much more like an organic democracy now... and we all know how cumbersome that can be ;D

And sure, there can be another kind of AI, but who's to say an uplifted Yahg won't pose just as large a threat?

And no matter how hard we try to speculate, we can't claim to know how synthetics think, everything we propose is tainted by our organic...ness. 

Finally, sure, we can say that it might eventually happen. But that is not a 100% chance of occurrence either way. If we lived and worried about every single possibility of the future, we might as well not live at all. 

[Evil Minion]

Trikormadenadon wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

Without going into why I think even the choice part is bad, yeah I kind of agree.
However, I think it would have been better achieved if there was an example, a major example, of some form of synthetic which expresses the motive of wiping out all organic life. That I think would better explain their intentions. They already have the 'good' side of synthetics with the Geth and EDI, all they need is one really important example to contrast.

Well, Javik "sorta" gives an example, but it was pretty weak.

I agree that a really good example of hostile synthetics would've made the Reapers (and the eventual choice we have to make) much more potent.

As for what I think the "real" problem was, I couldn't help but notice that there were many organic races that were using exactly the same "logic" as the Reapers ("We need to dominate and control this other species for their own good because we're more advanced and know better.").

It's one of the reasons I think the Reapers were actually invented by organics at some point and were using the flawed, emotional reasoning of organics.It comes down to whether you believe it's "okay" to try and dominate other species "for their own good.

It also makes most organic species hypocrites.

Even in Javik's cycle there is no evidence that their synthetic war was going to continue to the end of all organic life. If the synthetics won they may have stopped after beating the Protheans.

Then you take into account that the Protheans were winning until the Reapers came...now the Reapers sound like a self fulfilling prophecy.

Well, the fact that organic life still exists hints that synthetics have never actually  succeeded in wiping out all organic life.

Regardless, the Reaper's attempt to prevent a possible tragedy in the future by creating an actual tragedy in the present is, undeniably, a stupid idea, which is why we were fighting them in the first place. It wouldn't make sense to be fighting them if we agreed with them.

Anyway, my theory is that Reapers are the ultimate expression of ILLOGIC. They were invented by an organic species, or an individual, who incorrectly believed that dominating and controlling other species "for their own good" was justifiable. The Protheans, the Salarians, the Turians, the Quarians and many other organic species utilize exactly the same "logic" as the Catalyst. Therefore, yes, whoever invented the Reapers precipitated a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Of course, this is just SPECULATION from Evil Minion.

Modifié par Evil Minion, 15 avril 2012 - 03:25 .

[cavs25]

Okay Allan one question: You see the magic color explosions reach the whole galaxy.
You see the damage it does to the normandy
Isn't almost the whole fleet screwed?

[Delta_V2]

cavs25 wrote...

Okay Allan one question: You see the magic color explosions reach the whole galaxy.
You see the damage it does to the normandy
Isn't almost the whole fleet screwed?

One of the many problems with the Normandy scene.  If we're supposed to believe the blasts don't go all Arrival on everyone, then why do they affect the Normandy?

I think they might be able to salvage the Catalyst, but I can only hope they cut the Normandy scene altogether.  There are just far too many problems to be explained.

[shodiswe]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Yet I find it wrong for the catalyst to be the judge wether the geth gets to live or not, the reapers didn't create the geth they didn't create organics, least they never claimed to have done so... There for it's none of their bussines to interfere.
It's entierly possible they coudl get pushed into a war again but that's no more strange than an organic race gettign pushed into a war... I jsut don't see the problem, if it had been the case that the reapers had created them like they created the mass relays then it would have somehow been their responsibility to dispose of the hasardous materials... unless ofcourse the reaper tech and coding the geth stole from the reapers counts..
However I think all the warnings the catalyst gives about the destroy option is simply to try and sell the other two options claiming that synthesis is the best one.
I think the reaper is trying to play shepard like it's played with organics for millions of years.. I just wish the end conversatio was better written and more interactive like the rest of the Mass effect story....
What proof has the catalyst got that the synthetics woule destroy all organic life, it' clear that the quarrians woudl have wiped out the geth if it hadn't been for reaper intervention... The only reason the quarrians wanted or needed Shepards help was due to reaper intervention. And I never thought that what the quarians did was right.
Also in ME2 if you talk to Legion it's pretty clear that the geth don't need rannoch, they live in servers but they dotn need the plant's and wild life, most of them live in orbital servers...
So in the end the conflict wan't over resources just fear on both sides...
All this makes the catalysts assumptions and reasoning suspect at best, and we don't get to talk to it about these issues? Seriously... Synthetics always endup wiping out organics?
18 or so million Quarrians almost wiped out the geth on their own.. if it hadn't been for the reaper, ancient machinedevils with tech that million or billions of years older than that of any livign thign organic or synthetic in the galaxy... Lets just say their internetion was the only thing that stopped the geth from getting wiped out.
If it wasn't for the reapers and their attack then there woudl have been a trillion organics that coudl have helped bring the end of the geth or any synthetic unless ofcourse it's ancient and something hat's been building it's power for millions of years before any of the other life in the galaxy had even evolved.
The catalysts arguments seem very thin imo. I'm pretty sure I could sink every argument and proof the reapers have collected these last few million years. The reapers manipulated every cycle and altered the end results.
Can't we jsut ask the catalyst to leave the galaxy and never return?
I guess the catalyst realy wants to assimilate the galaxy with it's nanites.. and maybe there is an AI shackle that prevetns it from doing that, so it needs shepard to activate the synthesis pulse? can't we get a real conversation for this? It was very dissapointing to have no conversation options. Even if it turns out that the catalyst is a religious nut that sees it's views as something holy that cant be questions, just a faith it embrases then we get an explanation as to why we have to pick such a horrible ending..

[Evil Minion]

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.

Precisely.

I don't see why it's necessary I agree with the villain.

Villain's typically operate on "logic" that does not correspond to the worldview of the hero. That's why they're the VILLAINS.

I didn't agree with the Joker in "The Dark Knight," either.