207 réponses à ce sujet

[Delta_V2]

Evil Minion 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.

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.

I made the Joker analogy in an earlier post.  In The Dark Knight, the Joker was operating on flawed logic, and when the people on the ferries proved him wrong, Batman called him out on it. 

The problem I had was that in ME3, we are never really given a chance to challenge the villain. Even choosing Destroy is still accepting one of the options laid out by the villain.  The psychopath is still in control of his own demise.  In The Dark Knight, the Joker wanted Batman to kill him, but when the Joker fell off the building Batman caught him, thus taking away all control from the villain.

[Cruders]

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.

But the reaper used the Quarian/Geth conflict to support it's actions... which actually contradicts what actually happened... The starchild refers to the reapers as "us/we" which would say that the consensis would be similar as the other reapers...

[Biotic_Warlock]

I think the Quarians tried to destroy what they created; hence the Geth retaliated.

Perhaps that's what BieberReaper suggested.

[Cobra's_back]

Delta_V2 wrote...

Evil Minion 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.

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.

I made the Joker analogy in an earlier post.  In The Dark Knight, the Joker was operating on flawed logic, and when the people on the ferries proved him wrong, Batman called him out on it. 

The problem I had was that in ME3, we are never really given a chance to challenge the villain. Even choosing Destroy is still accepting one of the options laid out by the villain.  The psychopath is still in control of his own demise.  In The Dark Knight, the Joker wanted Batman to kill him, but when the Joker fell off the building Batman caught him, thus taking away all control from the villain.

Still Star Child doesn't really want you to take the destroy option. I do remember Shepard saying "maybe" when Star Child claimed  synthetics will always kill organics. We also know that Shepard lives even when Star Child claims all synthetics die. It is possible Star Child really doesn't know the true outcomes. Shepard saying maybe means Shepard doesn't totally agree.

[LordJeyl]

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.

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.

Funny story. Hackett's point is based on something that's completely wrong. Not in the sense that we're still alive and our atmosphere is still there, but that the scientists actually went ahead with the bomb even knowing this was a possibility. I quote SF Debris in his review of Threshold that deals with the exact same issue.  

Molly: Listen, before they tested the atomic bomb, Edward Teller theorized the entire atmosphere may go up in flames. But they went ahead and tested it anyway. Why? Because there was a war going on. Who's to say that's not the case now?

SF Debris: If you haven't heard about this, let me share the more accurate explanation with you. There was a fear since back before there were even ****s, and never mind the Second World War, that enough heat and pressure could cause fusion to take place in the hydrogen, helium and nitrogen of our atmosphere, which could potentially spread around the whole world and obviously destroy all life as we know it. In 1942, Teller did the calculations that confirmed "Yes, it might ." but than Oppenheimer put everything on hold and spoke to his superior, Arthur H. Compton about the matter. And after much discussion, the decision was made that they would procede with the Manhattan Project if, AND ONLY IF it could be proven based upon serious analysis that the chances of such an event happening was less than 3 out of 1,000,000. It was less than that actually because, and here's another part that is never mentioned, Teller MADE A MISTAKE in his figures. He didn't factor in heat loss, so his calculations were way, way off. Oh, and the pièce de résistance? Teller lead a group at Los Alamos that examined this question and his new figures showed the atmosphere would not ignite, figures that agreed with the ones independently done by Hans Bethe. But they checked and re-checked this very carefully just to make sure it was almost certainly not gona happen rather than hitting the button and hoping that all would work out, because (and this highlights just how cavalier Molly's attitude is here by contrast) they felt if there was even a remote possiblilty of this igniting the atmosphere, that it was better that the ****'s conquer the world than take that chance.

So Admiral Hackett, the man in charge of the Crucible, is using horrendously flawed historical facts to justify why we should use a potentially dangerous device even though nobody knows what it will do. And you actually believe him. Do you understand why most of us don't agree with your "Synthetics WILL DESTROY all organic life eventually!" argument since you can't even get real historical facts right?

[Leafs43]

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.

If anything can happen on a long enough timeline, organics can wipe each other out, which given human nature seems much more likely.

So, it is plenty contradictory because the catalyst just assumes it will happen when evidence up to that point claims otherwise.

Heck, the only evidence we have of the organics-synthetics paradigm is when the reapers interfere.  If the reapers removed themselves from the equation all together, organics vs synthetics doesn't seem likely.

Modifié par Leafs43, 15 avril 2012 - 04:58 .

[Evil Minion]

Delta_V2 wrote...

Evil Minion 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.

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.

I made the Joker analogy in an earlier post.  In The Dark Knight, the Joker was operating on flawed logic, and when the people on the ferries proved him wrong, Batman called him out on it. 

The problem I had was that in ME3, we are never really given a chance to challenge the villain. Even choosing Destroy is still accepting one of the options laid out by the villain.  The psychopath is still in control of his own demise.  In The Dark Knight, the Joker wanted Batman to kill him, but when the Joker fell off the building Batman caught him, thus taking away all control from the villain.

We do get to "challenge" the Reapers, just not the "Reaper King."

Shepard tells-off the Reapers on Virmire and Rannoch.

But, yes, he probably should've had an opportunity to question the "Reaper King."

I think it's debateable whether the endings were really Ghostdweeb's "logic" or if they were just the options provided by The Crucible, which Ghostdweeb merely explains (providing he wasn't just lying....which is another possibility).

In any case, I don't think any of the options actually "solved" the problem. Destroy and Control leave the door wide open for further synthetic v. organic conflict, and Combine only solves part of the issue.

[Ck213]

Poor writing.
The Geth/Quarian conflict becomes an arugement against a major premise instead of foreshadowing it.

You can argue the the peace is only temporary and synthetics will eventually go on to destroy all organic life, but why put the Geth/Quarian peace in there in the first place to weaken the plot? It needs to fail to support the premise.

That's why I expected an option that would let Shep bring that fact up to the Catalyst. It's not even mentioned.

[Evil Minion]

Ck213 wrote...

Poor writing.
The Geth/Quarian conflict becomes an arugement against a major premise instead of foreshadowing it.

You can argue the the peace is only temporary and synthetics will eventually go on to destroy all organic life, but why put the Geth/Quarian peace in there in the first place to weaken the plot?

Unless it was SUPPOSED to weaken the Reaper argument.

That's why I expected an option that would let Shep bring that fact up to the Catalyst. It's not even mentioned.

He brings it up to the Reaper on Rannoch.

[CronoDragoon]

The problem here is that Destroy was supposed to represent challenging the Catalyst and rejecting his reasoning. But we don't get that feeling because we have to destroy all synthetic life, which seems on the surface to still agree with the Catalyst. The problem is that BioWare knew that everyone would pick Destroy and reject the Catalyst, so they arbitrarily included all synthetic life besides the Reapers to make the decision tough. And that just doesn't cut it.

[Luigitornado]

It is not a contradiction.

[Nobrandminda]

 It's not technically a contradiction.

It's just not an especially powerful motivator since it flys in the face of a lot of conflicting experience.  It's a matter of theory vs practice.

It's not even a very good theory.  Everything that has a beginning has an end.  Something will eventually happen to wipe out organic life.  And I don't see why that "something" has to be a technological singularity.  I mean, that could happen, or it could be a war amongst ourselves.  It could be a natural phenominon that we're simply incapable of stopping like the destruction of our planet(s).  And the Catalyst doesn't give us any reason, let alone a compelling one, to believe that his threat of a technological singularity is greater than any of the other posibilities.

[Zuka999]

The worst part about it is that the Reapers just sort of.. let you win. You don't even defeat them yourself, you straight up are given 3 ways to destroy them. Why would they do that? The whole ending sequence is dumb and the fact that they refuse to change them is ridiculous. What a way to ruin a series forever.

[Nobrandminda]

CronoDragoon wrote...

The problem here is that Destroy was supposed to represent challenging the Catalyst and rejecting his reasoning. But we don't get that feeling because we have to destroy all synthetic life, which seems on the surface to still agree with the Catalyst. The problem is that BioWare knew that everyone would pick Destroy and reject the Catalyst, so they arbitrarily included all synthetic life besides the Reapers to make the decision tough. And that just doesn't cut it.

And now Bioware is hinting that the Geth survived after all, and they've actually confirmed that EDI survives.

If that gets confirmed by the Extended Cut, they might as well remove the Synthesis and Control endings because nobody is going to pick them.  No matter how well the Catalyst argues his points (and he does a pretty terrible job of it to begin with) there are still three games of build up towards the moment where you get to destroy the Reapers.  One monologue from the leader of the Reapers himself isn't going to cut it.

[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.

[TheJiveDJ]

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.

Another user put it very well, "Earth is bound to get devoured by the sun.......so lets blow up the Earth so Earth doesn't get devoured by the sun." IT. IS. A. COP. OUT. IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. I've had enough of artistic integrity, just admit you screwed up and fix it Mac. Or don't, I guess, torch the franchise and run, but it will be the last BW game I purchase, period.

[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.

[Ozai75]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

But it is an example of where the Catalyst /is/ wrong and we cannot even show that evidence to it in the ending.  You cannot interupt the Catalyst and go.. "Wait wait wait..."  *points*  see those ships?  They're Quarian and Geth...look at what they're attacking.  That's right.. not each other.  They're attacking the Reapers."  To force the Catalyst into explaining its assertation that synthetics will always (a claim it DOES make) destroy organics when with the Geth it's clearly not been the case.

It's like arguing with a racist who says "all <race> is evil because of <this>"  and when you have evidence to prove them wrong you don't say anything about it.  I don't know how that makes sense in this narrative.

[Leafs43]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

The only evidence we have of synthetics turning against organics in context of a war is when the reapers involve themselves in it to begin with.

With no reaper involvement, the geth probably would have never left the Persus Veil. 

And the AI in Javik's time, was because of reaper manifestation.

Modifié par Leafs43, 15 avril 2012 - 08:59 .

[kegNeggs]

 Ooh, shepard actually said something meaningful to the catalyst? as in, nopes, my favourite colour is beige?
dah nope. 
OP: speculation!

[CronoDragoon]

Contradiction isn't the right word here. Narrative incoherence is probably closer.

[Leafs43]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Contradiction isn't the right word here. Narrative incoherence is probably closer.

Nah, I think contradiction is the right word.


The writers presented the option that the geth and quarians could have a peaceful resolution.

Only a couple hours later, we are told that a peaceful resolution is impossible.

[2papercuts]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

maybe he doesn't contridicte himself, but his logic is undeniably flawed.

[2papercuts]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

I think a better question is how the original creators knew to make the crucible

[CronoDragoon]

Leafs43 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Contradiction isn't the right word here. Narrative incoherence is probably closer.

Nah, I think contradiction is the right word.


The writers presented the option that the geth and quarians could have a peaceful resolution.

Only a couple hours later, we are told that a peaceful resolution is impossible.

It's a contradiction if you state it in really broad terms like that. The truth is more like:

1. The geth and quarians achieved peace in their situation.
3. There will be a situation at some point where AI wipe out all organics.

That's not a contradiction. It's stupid of them to spend most of the game showing you AI and organics working together and then assert the other at the end of the game, but that isn't reeeeally what's happening either. What's happening is that the villain is claiming this. Most narratives follow just such a process: Villain claims one thing, hero spends the journey showing the opposite, villain is defeated. The problem is that BioWare did not fully understand that the way the endings play out, it FEELS like the HERO is being forced to believe the VILLAIN. Again, Destroy was supposed to represent the rejection of the villain's assertion, but due to all synthetic life being destroyed (for a reason external to the narrative that I mentioned in a previous post) it FEELS like we are still agreeing.