171 replies to this topic

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Good post, I definitely see where you're coming from with this.

For myself, I'd say I definitely had to think about the issue of "does this unit have a soul?" My opinion has shifted around on that one many times. As for the Reapers, yeah, there was a horror element there. But to me, that was always an 'it is what it is' kind of a thing.

I think another place where we see this writer-player dissonance is in the stark difference between the Shepard-Catalyst exchange between OE and EC. It's quite clear that the writers were not expecting the catalyst to be met with the negative reaction that it ultimately got.

[Applepie_Svk]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I just stumbled over this line:

"All organics must destroy or control synthetic life forms"

It is from ME1, said by the AI in the Signal Tracking assignment on the Citadel, and I found it interesting how exactly it foreshadows ME3's ending...

You lost credibility right here... 

[dreman9999]

In Exile wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
(1) Synthetics cannot feel genuine emotion, or at least have a much more limited capacity for it. See EDI; and that's why Control is considered a sacrifice by Paragon Shepard. It removes one of the defining aspects of what makes you human. The capacity for genuine emotion appears to be considered an objectively desirable trait, which means synthetics are "lesser" unless they acquire that trait.  

Which, funny, enough, is what makes AI so ridiculously impossible in ME, from a cog-sci standpoint. Emotions, at least functionally (rather than our subjective experience of it) serve really important information processing functions that - quite arguably - would make any kind of sentience that we see impossible.

Your both wrong. Look how emotion are prossed in organic being and you'll see that it's a case of hard ward with organics.It a bioelectric responce. Heck, if you poke a part of someone brain, apply certin chemicals or remove parts of the brain people act differently. You missing the fact here that the body is just an organic machine.  A thing.

Your "genuine emotion" are just chemical reactions. They can be argued to be as fake as any machines illustration of emotions. If someone appied the right chemical or cut theright partofyour brian, they can control you way act and think. They can program you like how a person trains a dog to do tricks.

Shepard did not giveup his/her emotions.He/she gaveup their humanity, the limits and reaction applied and limited by the body Shepard had.

[dreman9999]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I just stumbled over this line:

"All organics must destroy or control synthetic life forms"

It is from ME1, said by the AI in the Signal Tracking assignment on the Citadel, and I found it interesting how exactly it foreshadows ME3's ending...

You lost credibility right here... 

That  is in ME1 if you don't believe it.

[Gervaise]

In replaying ME2 it struck me that there is one species, the Collectors, for whom the writers seem to be trying to direct us in the opposite line of thought to the one they had been setting up about the Geth, namely how valid synthetic life is. I am particularly thinking of Mordin's response to a paragon Shepard's question "Is there no way we can help them?", after we have ascertained that the Collectors are really Protheans that have been enslaved and modified by the Reapers. Mordin response is that there is nothing left of the original creature to save, since everything important has been replaced by tech, including "No soul, replaced by tech". Yet in the Geth we are supposedly presented with a wholly synthetic lifeform that considers such problems such as does it have a soul and in ME3 the response from Tali to Legion is "Yes".

Now a lot have people have argued on these forums about how the poor Reapers are just pawns of the Intelligence and destroying them is still genocide. Then what about the Collectors? They were pawns of the Reapers and were abruptly dumped by them when they "failed" in their appointed task. Now whilst multiplayer has apparently shown that all Collectors were not in fact wiped out when we attacked their base, at the time I assumed that in fact I was destroying the last of the Protheans and in fact I almost did feel pity for the Collector General in that moment before the blast hit because it seemed clear that it was still sentient enough to realise it had been abandoned. I have never visited the ME2 forums but did anyone ever suggest that the Collectors should not be destroyed?

I picked up on the AI in ME1 during a recent playthrough but I think its comment was mostly because it was aware of the Quarian/Geth situation (it wanted to try and join the Geth) and was basing its assertions on that. At the time, in ME1 there was no evidence to dispute its claims because Tali had admitted that to have left the Geth operational when they knew they were sentient was making slaves of them and the Quarians chose instead to try and shut them down, effectively trying to destroy them.

In ME2 EDI was effectively enslaved by Cerberus (shackled) until Joker removed them during the Collector attack. However, once free she doesn't instantly turn on the organics she is with, although she does turn against Cerberus. Likewise we discover the majority of the Geth resisted Sovereigns offer and were not interested in attacking organics provided they were left alone. If you don't have the From Ashes download, (and before Leviathan was released) the first time you are given any evidence that synthetics might be the aggressors, is by the Catalyst itself. In other words the only truly dangerous synthetics are the Reapers who have been continually creating self fulfilling prophesies in their manipulation of both organics and synthetics. I think the writers realised they had done such a good job of painting them as the boogy men that we had to destroy, that is why they forced us into a situation (only allowing the Geth to live if you allowed the Reaper code download) that meant we might consider the alternatives. However, I didn't destroy the Reapers because they were synthetics but because they were the enemy and I wanted the galaxy to be finally freed of their influence, so the ME1 speech wasn't really foreshadowing so far as I was concerned.

Edited by Gervaise, 15 December 2012 - 06:33 PM.

[dreman9999]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Wasn't it in the ME1 artbook that the organic vs synthetic theme was the underlying theme of the series or something?

but in mass effect 1, the reapers were the synthetics and not organic goo pumped into a robot-shell.

That still makes them synthetic. My car would not be organic if it'smade of chicken bones.

[MegaSovereign]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

not from the catalysts pov ..

it just atstes, that synthetics will kill organics and that the organics only fault is, to create synthetics in the first place.

but this does not really matter .. even if they intended to foreshadow the conflict between synthetics and organics as the overarching plot, it was not very successful. the big reapers showing up or sending their pawns were just too obvious.

I think you should revisit the conversation because that's not exactly how it goes.

Organics create synthetics to improve their own existence. In order to fullfill their purpose, synthetics must be allowed to evolve faster than their creators. When this occurs, synthetics no longer want to be tools. Because of this, conflict is inevitable.

Outside of this, I don't particularly agree that this conflict will result in the 100% death rate of organics. Hence why I opt for the Destroy ending.

[dreman9999]

Gervaise wrote...

In replaying ME2 it struck me that there is one species, the Collectors, for whom the writers seem to be trying to direct us in the opposite line of thought to the one they had been setting up about the Geth, namely how valid synthetic life is. I am particularly thinking of Mordin's response to a paragon Shepard's question "Is there no way we can help them?", after we have ascertained that the Collectors are really Protheans that have been enslaved and modified by the Reapers. Mordin response is that there is nothing left of the original creature to save, since everything important has been replaced by tech, including "No soul, replaced by tech". Yet in the Geth we are supposedly presented with a wholly synthetic lifeform that considers such problems such as does it have a soul and in ME3 the response from Tali to Legion is "Yes".

Now a lot have people have argued on these forums about how the poor Reapers are just pawns of the Intelligence and destroying them is still genocide. Then what about the Collectors? They were pawns of the Reapers and were abruptly dumped by them when they "failed" in their appointed task. Now whilst multiplayer has apparently shown that all Collectors were not in fact wiped out when we attacked their base, at the time I assumed that in fact I was destroying the last of the Protheans and in fact I almost did feel pity for the Collector General in that moment before the blast hit because it seemed clear that it was still sentient enough to realise it had been abandoned. I have never visited the ME2 forums but did anyone ever suggest that the Collectors should not be destroyed?

I picked up on the AI in ME1 during a recent playthrough but I think its comment was mostly because it was aware of the Quarian/Geth situation (it wanted to try and join the Geth) and was basing its assertions on that. At the time, in ME1 there was no evidence to dispute its claims because Tali had admitted that to have left the Geth operational when they knew they were sentient was making slaves of them and the Quarians chose instead to try and shut them down, effectively trying to destroy them.

In ME2 EDI was effectively enslaved by Cerberus (shackled) until Joker removed them during the Collector attack. However, once free she doesn't instantly turn on the organics she is with, although she does turn against Cerberus. Likewise we discover the majority of the Geth resisted Sovereigns offer and were not interested in attacking organics provided they were left alone. If you don't have the From Ashes download, (and before Leviathan was released) the first time you are given any evidence that synthetics might be the aggressors, is by the Catalyst itself. In other words the only truly dangerous synthetics are the Reapers who have been continually creating self fulfilling prophesies in their manipulation of both organics and synthetics. I think the writers realised they had done such a good job of painting them as the boogy men that we had to destroy, that is why they forced us into a situation (only allowing the Geth to live if you allowed the Reaper code download) that meant we might consider the alternatives. However, I didn't destroy the Reapers because they were synthetics but because they were the enemy and I wanted the galaxy to be finally freed of their influence, so the ME1 speech wasn't really foreshadowing so far as I was concerned.

You miss judged their point. That never an issue on synthetic life. That was an issue on the points of self determination vs control.

[Applepie_Svk]

dreman9999 wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I just stumbled over this line:

"All organics must destroy or control synthetic life forms"

It is from ME1, said by the AI in the Signal Tracking assignment on the Citadel, and I found it interesting how exactly it foreshadows ME3's ending...

You lost credibility right here... 

That  is in ME1 if you don't believe it.

I know it, but you also missing the component of ME2 where Legion said that they have no wish in killing their creators as much other organics because they wish no harm. It was the only reason why they were living alone for 300 years...

[Dr_Extrem]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

not from the catalysts pov ..

it just atstes, that synthetics will kill organics and that the organics only fault is, to create synthetics in the first place.

but this does not really matter .. even if they intended to foreshadow the conflict between synthetics and organics as the overarching plot, it was not very successful. the big reapers showing up or sending their pawns were just too obvious.

I think you should revisit the conversation because that's not exactly how it goes.

Organics create synthetics to improve their own existence. In order to fullfill their purpose, synthetics must be allowed to evolve faster than their creators. When this occurs, synthetics no longer want to be tools. Because of this, conflict is inevitable.

Outside of this, I don't particularly agree that this conflict will result in the 100% death rate of organics. Hence why I opt for the Destroy ending.

i maybe oversimplified the matter ... shame on me ..

but still, the reapers and their pawns were too obvious as the overarching plot. to the majority, the synthetic vs. organic-plot was a side plot, resolved on rannoch.

[MegaSovereign]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

not from the catalysts pov ..

it just atstes, that synthetics will kill organics and that the organics only fault is, to create synthetics in the first place.

but this does not really matter .. even if they intended to foreshadow the conflict between synthetics and organics as the overarching plot, it was not very successful. the big reapers showing up or sending their pawns were just too obvious.

I think you should revisit the conversation because that's not exactly how it goes.

Organics create synthetics to improve their own existence. In order to fullfill their purpose, synthetics must be allowed to evolve faster than their creators. When this occurs, synthetics no longer want to be tools. Because of this, conflict is inevitable.

Outside of this, I don't particularly agree that this conflict will result in the 100% death rate of organics. Hence why I opt for the Destroy ending.

i maybe oversimplified the matter ... shame on me ..

but still, the reapers and their pawns were too obvious as the overarching plot. to the majority, the synthetic vs. organic-plot was a side plot, resolved on rannoch.

Yea, the series seemed to change directions a lot. I still notice some of that Dark Energy foreshadowing. That subplot seems to be just hanging there for now.

[dreman9999]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

not from the catalysts pov ..

it just atstes, that synthetics will kill organics and that the organics only fault is, to create synthetics in the first place.

but this does not really matter .. even if they intended to foreshadow the conflict between synthetics and organics as the overarching plot, it was not very successful. the big reapers showing up or sending their pawns were just too obvious.

I think you should revisit the conversation because that's not exactly how it goes.

Organics create synthetics to improve their own existence. In order to fullfill their purpose, synthetics must be allowed to evolve faster than their creators. When this occurs, synthetics no longer want to be tools. Because of this, conflict is inevitable.

Outside of this, I don't particularly agree that this conflict will result in the 100% death rate of organics. Hence why I opt for the Destroy ending.

Itnot that synthetics don't want to be tools. It the fact here that they actual have to out perform organics to do their task. That action can lead to the organic trying to over control the synthetics, or the synthetics miss understanding organics.

You have to look at the issue for both shackled and unshackled AI's. Look at the geth, they never regeled because they did not want to be tools. They rebeled because their creators tried to control too much and want to kill them off. Look atwhat happens when the quarian and geth peacefully resolve the war,the geth go back to being tools for the quarians. The geth help the quarians adapt and rebuild.
Lookat the cause withthe catalyst. He never did not want to stop being a tool to be use. The problem is that he is doing a too good of a job being a tool tobe used. He is just blindly doing his programming.

The issue here is translation. Machine sonly understand things with their programing and organics only understand things with their insticts. Ofcourse missunderstanding happens, it an issue oftranslation. Organicsand synthetics think differently.

[TheProtheans]

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Wasn't it in the ME1 artbook that the organic vs synthetic theme was the underlying theme of the series or something?

but in mass effect 1, the reapers were the synthetics and not organic goo pumped into a robot-shell.

That still makes them synthetic. My car would not be organic if it'smade of chicken bones.

No, they are not Synthetics and they are not Organics.
If they were Synthetics then the Catalyst's logic would be flawed at a simple level.

You would probably cause him to terminate if you argued with him.

[dreman9999]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I just stumbled over this line:

"All organics must destroy or control synthetic life forms"

It is from ME1, said by the AI in the Signal Tracking assignment on the Citadel, and I found it interesting how exactly it foreshadows ME3's ending...

You lost credibility right here... 

That  is in ME1 if you don't believe it.

I know it, but you also missing the component of ME2 where Legion said that they have no wish in killing their creators as much other organics because they wish no harm. It was the only reason why they were living alone for 300 years...

You missing the fact here thatthe synthetic/organic conflictisa two sided arguement. The fault is based with both organics and synthetics. It matter not if thegeth had no intetions to kill, the quarians did. And in the seen with the AI on the citadel, Shepard can have no intetions to kill the AI but the AI would have intetions to kill any organic that come up and find it.

What causes the conflict areboth organics and synthetics.

[Dr_Extrem]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

not from the catalysts pov ..

it just atstes, that synthetics will kill organics and that the organics only fault is, to create synthetics in the first place.

but this does not really matter .. even if they intended to foreshadow the conflict between synthetics and organics as the overarching plot, it was not very successful. the big reapers showing up or sending their pawns were just too obvious.

I think you should revisit the conversation because that's not exactly how it goes.

Organics create synthetics to improve their own existence. In order to fullfill their purpose, synthetics must be allowed to evolve faster than their creators. When this occurs, synthetics no longer want to be tools. Because of this, conflict is inevitable.

Outside of this, I don't particularly agree that this conflict will result in the 100% death rate of organics. Hence why I opt for the Destroy ending.

i maybe oversimplified the matter ... shame on me ..

but still, the reapers and their pawns were too obvious as the overarching plot. to the majority, the synthetic vs. organic-plot was a side plot, resolved on rannoch.

Yea, the series seemed to change directions a lot. I still notice some of that Dark Energy foreshadowing. That subplot seems to be just hanging there for now.

my guess is that dark energy was meant to take a big place in me3 ... but they dropped it for the organic vs. synthetic theme .. (what failed even in me3) ... at this point, me2 was already shipped and could not be altered.

they changed something big between me2 and 3 ...


dark energy gets more attention than organics vs, synthecits (outside the geth/quarian conflict).

[dreman9999]

TheProtheans wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Wasn't it in the ME1 artbook that the organic vs synthetic theme was the underlying theme of the series or something?

but in mass effect 1, the reapers were the synthetics and not organic goo pumped into a robot-shell.

That still makes them synthetic. My car would not be organic if it'smade of chicken bones.

No, they are not Synthetics and they are not Organics.
If they were Synthetics then the Catalyst's logic would be flawed at a simple level.

You would probably cause him to terminate if you argued with him.

1. The catalyst wants to perseve both organics and synthetics. Just making it clear if you still don't get it.
2.The reapers are synthetic like how the shepard ai is synthetics.
3.The organic races bodies are made into synthetic parts fora reaper, like how plastic can be used as parts ofamachine.

[o Ventus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Nope. He says that the created will always rebel against their creators. The reason for the rebellion is obviously inferred. Just think back to how every organic vs synthetic conflict starts: Organics trying to control synthetics.

That happens approximately once. Not counting Overlord, because the conflict is unrelated to the motivation.

[dreman9999]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

not from the catalysts pov ..

it just atstes, that synthetics will kill organics and that the organics only fault is, to create synthetics in the first place.

but this does not really matter .. even if they intended to foreshadow the conflict between synthetics and organics as the overarching plot, it was not very successful. the big reapers showing up or sending their pawns were just too obvious.

I think you should revisit the conversation because that's not exactly how it goes.

Organics create synthetics to improve their own existence. In order to fullfill their purpose, synthetics must be allowed to evolve faster than their creators. When this occurs, synthetics no longer want to be tools. Because of this, conflict is inevitable.

Outside of this, I don't particularly agree that this conflict will result in the 100% death rate of organics. Hence why I opt for the Destroy ending.

i maybe oversimplified the matter ... shame on me ..

but still, the reapers and their pawns were too obvious as the overarching plot. to the majority, the synthetic vs. organic-plot was a side plot, resolved on rannoch.

1. The reapers arepart of the syntheic vs organic plot.

2. Why would a recent peaceof rennock resolve the organic vs synthetic plot. That's like a spacific peace talk in the middle east would make sure no more wars happen in the area for ever, which it never does.

[Kabooooom]

The writers did stress the relevance of synthetic life. You were supposed to re-evaluate any personal biases you may have, and ponder about the philosophical or scientific definition of "alive". And for the majority of players, I think that was roundly successful. Most people DO come to see the Geth as a valid form of life, and not as tools or inanimate objects.

Myself, like you OP, immediately accepted this in ME1, because as a biologist I was already very open minded to the concept of non-organic life. I'm not sure if most people even did that. I do think that by the time you talk to Legion in ME2, and you see the Geth-Quarian conflict in ME3, the vast majority of players have accepted Geth (and EDI for that matter) as being fully alive.

But I think that is largely because of the way they were presented as characters in ME2 and ME3. So, I think that the reason there is a disconnect cannot possibly be because what the writers intended and what they conveyed were two different things. They succeeded in conveying what they intended to, in my opinion. The reason there is a disconnect is simply because the story progression in ME3 was haphazard.

Edited by Kabooooom, 15 December 2012 - 06:58 PM.

[MegaSovereign]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

not from the catalysts pov ..

it just atstes, that synthetics will kill organics and that the organics only fault is, to create synthetics in the first place.

but this does not really matter .. even if they intended to foreshadow the conflict between synthetics and organics as the overarching plot, it was not very successful. the big reapers showing up or sending their pawns were just too obvious.

I think you should revisit the conversation because that's not exactly how it goes.

Organics create synthetics to improve their own existence. In order to fullfill their purpose, synthetics must be allowed to evolve faster than their creators. When this occurs, synthetics no longer want to be tools. Because of this, conflict is inevitable.

Outside of this, I don't particularly agree that this conflict will result in the 100% death rate of organics. Hence why I opt for the Destroy ending.

i maybe oversimplified the matter ... shame on me ..

but still, the reapers and their pawns were too obvious as the overarching plot. to the majority, the synthetic vs. organic-plot was a side plot, resolved on rannoch.

Yea, the series seemed to change directions a lot. I still notice some of that Dark Energy foreshadowing. That subplot seems to be just hanging there for now.

my guess is that dark energy was meant to take a big place in me3 ... but they dropped it for the organic vs. synthetic theme .. (what failed even in me3) ... at this point, me2 was already shipped and could not be altered.

they changed something big between me2 and 3 ...


dark energy gets more attention than organics vs, synthecits (outside the geth/quarian conflict).

I don't know about it getting more attention, but it feels weird to introduce the conflict without ever resolving it. I think it'll be revisited through DLC or maybe in a future Mass Effect game.

[dreman9999]

o Ventus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Nope. He says that the created will always rebel against their creators. The reason for the rebellion is obviously inferred. Just think back to how every organic vs synthetic conflict starts: Organics trying to control synthetics.

That happens approximately once. Not counting Overlord, because the conflict is unrelated to the motivation.

How does overlord not count? It doesnot matterifit related to the catlayst motivation or not. If organics have conflict with synthetics in any way, it's a point for his arguement no matter what.

[eddieoctane]

OP, I agree that BioWare failed to make synthetics feel alien enough for the Catalyst's logic to resonate with players. But I think the source of that issue goes far beyond the realm of Mass Effect. Star Trek, Star Wars, and damn near every other sci-fi IP has familiarized us with AIs and how they think across a wide spectrum that the Geth weren't boogeymen because they were robots, but because they were actively shooting at us. The logic of looking down on an AI as less than us simply because they were built rather than grown when we, the players and fans, have been saved by Cortana, R2, Data, and a host of other AIs countless times is just crap.

Ultimately, I think this shows a fundamental failing on the part of the writers. They are trying to push a point that has been dealt with so often in so many other stories that the "robots must be evil because...robots" line is just cliche. There's not much left to explore there. And in BioWare's attempt at reusing this old plotline, the well ran dry.

[dreman9999]

eddieoctane wrote...

OP, I agree that BioWare failed to make synthetics feel alien enough for the Catalyst's logic to resonate with players. But I think the source of that issue goes far beyond the realm of Mass Effect. Star Trek, Star Wars, and damn near every other sci-fi IP has familiarized us with AIs and how they think across a wide spectrum that the Geth weren't boogeymen because they were robots, but because they were actively shooting at us. The logic of looking down on an AI as less than us simply because they were built rather than grown when we, the players and fans, have been saved by Cortana, R2, Data, and a host of other AIs countless times is just crap.

Ultimately, I think this shows a fundamental failing on the part of the writers. They are trying to push a point that has been dealt with so often in so many other stories that the "robots must be evil because...robots" line is just cliche. There's not much left to explore there. And in BioWare's attempt at reusing this old plotline, the well ran dry.

BW never made synthetic feel alien? Did you not listen to Legion explination to why the heritics joined the reapers?

Added, the issue ismostly efldetermination vs control.

[shepskisaac]

Bioware didn't want us to see Geth/synthetics differently. On the contrary, they wanted us to love Geth & EDI, that's the only way the ending they planned could achieve the effect they were aiming for. They wanted players to have a hard choice. They gave each ending a down side. Destroy - Geth & EDI die. Control - Shep more or less dies. Synthesis - Shep dies completely + do you have the right to change everyone moral question? If they didn't (succesfuly) make people care about Geth/EDI, there would never be any big deal about Destroying killing them and the ending wouldn't be a hard choice at all.

You make like it or not, but it's clear what they wanted (a hard ending choice) and frankly, they succeeded with it.

And no, they didn't want the players to agree with the Catalyst. Why would they if they THEMSELVES established that the Catalyst is wrong?

Edited by IsaacShep, 15 December 2012 - 07:05 PM.

[Kabooooom]

OP, I agree that BioWare failed to make synthetics feel alien enough for the Catalyst's logic to resonate with players.

It resonated enough with me. After talking to Legion in ME2, I was convinced that the Geth were the most alien species I've ever encountered in a sci-fi story. Even more alien than the Thorian. However, I will agree that in attempting to give Legion a distinct personality, it anthropomorphizes him - despite his descriptions to the contrary. You can't help but like him because of that.

But I do think you are incorrect there. They made the Geth feel truly alien. In ME1,they were beyond alien. And in ME2, Legion's descriptions of Geth consciousness underscores that a thousandfold. It is only his personality that makes them feel less alien.

Edited by Kabooooom, 15 December 2012 - 07:06 PM.