439 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

Wayning_Star wrote...

no, it's 'harvesting' organics to preserve them, just like we do fruits'n veggies. It's an ugly world, but some thing has just got to save it.

Everyone 'relies' on the word 'killed' or other buzz words to describe harvest, but NONE can/will explain the necessity for the saveing of such 'stuff'. Like it's just a by product and has no purpose.

But we have no illusions as to what preserving fruits and veggies does to the living organism-we kill it, then we eat it.  We harvest things to change them from a living state to a dead one.  We know this and so harvest is synonymous with killing in talking about living organisms.  If you say you will harvest fish, it's known to mean you will kill them.  So, using that term or even preserving (in an altered state) the essence of what people are is known to mean killing.  It's like saying that a dead body is still the person because the chemicals and components of the person still exist.  Especially so, if you have some way to preserve the person's thoughts or memories, separate from the chemicals.  Or, saying that a lot of organic compounds that are similar to the makeup in people's bodies, along with someone's video memories is equal to a whole person.  The kid is just breaking down people into easily stored components, but the result is the death of the person.  I don't think any rational person could conclude that it then makes sense to help him since his rationale is skewed as is his solution.

[DirtySHISN0]

I guess they would look like tree tenders, rather than deforestation if she only played the end of ME3.

[Wayning_Star]

Eterna5 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

ElementL09 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

All I've really learned is that we shouldn't be experimenting with mutagens.

The Catalyst just really sucks at his job.

Job? what job..lol

I'm going to prevent all murder by killing everyone.

Problem audience?

He doesn't kill everyone though. A more fair comparisson is saying "I'm going to kill a few of you so everyone can survive."

I thought it was, I'm going to kill most of you so a small fraction can survive.

the majority is apparently harvested, a small percentage are capable of resistence. If you consider being harvested as being killed, that is completely gone from the scene, then you're correct to assume that. But the story concludes that harves isn't dieing per se. Just changing. Why it's that way is unknown?

You guys do realize organic life is more than just intelligent beings in space? Even after harvesting all space faring organic life you've only killed about 20 or so species. Killing them hardly puts a dent in organi life. 

yeah, it appears that the level of intelligence is qualified via the level of technology.

[SlottsMachine]

We just didn't know why they reaped us, and frankly I kinda wish we were still in the dark.

[Dr_Extrem]

Eterna5 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

All I've really learned is that we shouldn't be experimenting with mutagens.

The Catalyst just really sucks at his job.

If he sucked at his job organic life would be extinct. His solution, while nt ideal, works. 

(contains opinions)


only based on his own assumptions.

the problem is, that the catalyst gives organics the tools to build synthetics and mass effect based weapons in the first place.

the reapers lay out their relay/citadel trap. we find technology, that gives us the ability to evolve on this path. this path leads to the creation of synthetics.
if the catalyst would not want us fromt following the "build synthetics"-path, it would just need to abandon its trap. life would be limited to its own solar system without eezo and the mass effect and the may caused damage would be limited to the originating star system.

the catalysts logic is understandable - but it is based on absolute assumptions. it thinks it and the reapers are the solutions to the problem - in fact, they are part of it.


another flaw is the fact, that each cycle of destruction gets new reapers. the civilisations are harvsted and the reapers casualties are very limited .. there were only 2 losses within millions of years (that we know of). compared to the amout of reapers gained by each cycle, the solution should become easier - not harder.

our cycle is the exception - the reapers could not use their standard divide & conquer tactic for the first time. while the reaper casualties are heavy (compared to former cycles), they would learn from the done mistakes and adapt. the catalyst should know, that it has to search for survivors and cleanse the galaxy more efficient.


it seems, that it is cought in an infinity-loop.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 01 janvier 2013 - 08:43 .

[xsdob]

GT Zazzerka wrote...

She played only the ending? Then she had zero context.

With only the Catalyst's conversation to go on, it sounds more legitimate. Synthetics will always rebel, this is why, here is how we can fix it.

Did she also achieve peace on Rannoch? Did she follow EDI's development?

[Disclaimer: This is my opinion based on my university studies in both political science and history. If you don't agree that is fine, I don't meant to push this on anyone or force them to agree. This is merely my opinion]

Peace never last, for anything.

Think of how many different countries there have been and will be after yours and mine fall and are forgotten in history except in the back pages of wikipedia. All of those have experienced wars, hatred, and killings based on superfluous distinctions and justified with logical arguments.

The geth are no different, even with their intellegance and connected networking, they are stil different. Their difference will cause clashes and tension, even in a time of peace. There is no evidence that these tensions will not spark another war, with anyone acting as the instigator, and that the peace on rannoch will last.

You can't prove the peace on rannoch will last, and that should have been a point the catalyst brings up. Cold hard logic to take apart your feel good actions. You only managed to unite them becasue of a mutal enemy, without that enemy, what incentive do they have to work with the others of the galaxy? Rather than simply helping the quarians.

He could, and should, have brought up examples of similar alliances from the past, and how all of them fell apart due to their own internal conflicts of interest and disputes over differences.

Modifié par xsdob, 01 janvier 2013 - 08:56 .

[Mcfly616]

General Slotts wrote...

We just didn't know why they reaped us, and frankly I kinda wish we were still in the dark.

many say that now....but I don't think there's any doubt, if Bioware wouldve left the Reapers motivations or origins a complete mystery, a lot of people would've been disappointed and very pissed off.

[Dr_Extrem]

Mcfly616 wrote...

General Slotts wrote...

We just didn't know why they reaped us, and frankly I kinda wish we were still in the dark.

many say that now....but I don't think there's any doubt, if Bioware wouldve left the Reapers motivations or origins a complete mystery, a lot of people would've been disappointed and very pissed off.

it would not be optimal .. but possible.

i just played virmire and sovereign showed us, that we organics are a mutation, that needs to be cleansed.

one reason could have been, that advanced organic races entrhal lesser ones to serve them. they dont want that, because this stops life from evolving in a natural way.

because an advanced species should not be "wasted" and new reapers are needed to maintain numbers, they harvest the civilisation.


could have been better and more in accordance with the former games.

[Yate]

I love how everyone uses the geth and EDI as points against the Catalyst.

The geth nearly exterminated the quarians twice, they succeeded on one of my playthroughs. And a bunch of them nearly destroyed all life in the galaxy because of a math error.

EDI tried to kill everything that moved as soon as it gained sentience in ME1.

Most of the anti-enders don't really know the series as well as they claim.

[Obadiah]

The Catalyst's logic is easy to understand. Players just don't "like" it.

[Steelcan]

Yate wrote...

I love how everyone uses the geth and EDI as points against the Catalyst.

The geth nearly exterminated the quarians twice, they succeeded on one of my playthroughs. And a bunch of them nearly destroyed all life in the galaxy because of a math error.

EDI tried to kill everything that moved as soon as it gained sentience in ME1.

Most of the anti-enders don't really know the series as well as they claim.

Were it not for the reapers the geth would have been eradicated.

[Dr_Extrem]

Yate wrote...

The geth nearly exterminated the quarians twice, they succeeded on one of my playthroughs. And a bunch of them nearly destroyed all life in the galaxy because of a math error.

without the reapers interference, the geth would most likely not have split up.

[Pottumuusi]

Eterna5 wrote...

 So my question is, why cant you guys comprehend the Catalysts logic when a complete newbie to the series can? 

Because it's ****ing ****.

[Yate]

Obadiah wrote...

The Catalyst's logic is easy to understand. Players just don't "like" it.

basically this

all their arguments against it are just knee-jerk reactions

to be fair, they are justified, the original endings were crap

but with EC and Leviathan saying that it doesn't make sense or causes plot holes is just plain wrong

if you want to hate the ending for emotional reasons, fine

but don't try and pretend that it's flawed logically

[Yate]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Yate wrote...

The geth nearly exterminated the quarians twice, they succeeded on one of my playthroughs. And a bunch of them nearly destroyed all life in the galaxy because of a math error.

without the reapers interference, the geth would most likely not have split up.

Not really.

Sovereign provided a suitable deity figure, but the number of religions humankind has created proves that we'll worship anything - from virgins to sun gods

same is likely true of the geth

[SaidRael]

The Catalyst logic is really easy to understand.

[BD Manchild]

The Catalyst's logic is easy to understand; the problem is that it's utter horse manure that is faulty beyond belief and has no place taking the centre stage at the very end of the franchise. If your friend only saw the ending, then they're entirely missing the context, the point of why people are so pissed off with the ending is entirely missed, and thus anything they say is based on faulty logic and provable falsehoods. I'd even go so far as to call you out on purposefully misleading your friend for the sake of supporting your own weak argument. That's just low.

Modifié par BD Manchild, 01 janvier 2013 - 09:32 .

[Kabraxal]

Yate wrote...

I love how everyone uses the geth and EDI as points against the Catalyst.

The geth nearly exterminated the quarians twice, they succeeded on one of my playthroughs. And a bunch of them nearly destroyed all life in the galaxy because of a math error.

EDI tried to kill everything that moved as soon as it gained sentience in ME1.

Most of the anti-enders don't really know the series as well as they claim.

Hmmm... the Geth let the Quarians escape instead of wiping them out and the only reason any Geth becomes a threat is because of Reaper interference.

EDI's violent birth didn't result in world wide destruction and being born within a trainining simulation with no contextual references to self awareness... it's the equivalent of throwing an overstressed individual into a a seeminly hostile enviroment with stimulus assaulting them at all angles.  An organic is just as likely to "flip out" and cause some damage.  The fact EDI not only overcomes it, but works to integrate and be accepted by organics actually further proves that synthetics are more like organics than the idiotic proclamations of the Catalyst tries to deny.  

The anti-enders as you call them, actually do understand the saga quite well.  In fact, it's because of that understanding that the Catalyst does not work at face value.  It clashes with so many different points of the series for there to be any real chance that the ending makes any contextual sense.  We actually paid attention to what came before and thus the Catalyst's very foundation is already gone before he even opens his mouth.

[Dr_Extrem]

Yate wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Yate wrote...

The geth nearly exterminated the quarians twice, they succeeded on one of my playthroughs. And a bunch of them nearly destroyed all life in the galaxy because of a math error.

without the reapers interference, the geth would most likely not have split up.

Not really.

Sovereign provided a suitable deity figure, but the number of religions humankind has created proves that we'll worship anything - from virgins to sun gods

same is likely true of the geth

geth are not a normal society. they share their knowledge - the only difference is their viewpoint. the geth were isolationists for 300 years - and they would still be, if the reapers would not have used them.

the reapers added an variable to their system. any organic mind, would not be intersting, because they are not important for the geths advancement, as a race. the reapers were introduced as a synthetic race - the pinnacle of synthetic evolution. by adding this variable, the splinter geth changed their doctrine from "finding the own path" to "accept the old machines gifts".

the math error was something different - it was part of the "bioweapon", the heretics wanted to use on the "normal" geth, to "convert" them to heretics.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 01 janvier 2013 - 09:42 .

[Warrior Craess]

Eterna5 wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

GT Zazzerka wrote...

She played only the ending? Then she had zero context.

With only the Catalyst's conversation to go on, it sounds more legitimate. Synthetics will always rebel, this is why, here is how we can fix it.

Did she also achieve peace on Rannoch? Did she follow EDI's development?

I told her what the Geth were and who EDI was. Not in great detail but she got the overall picture. Anyways, you don't need those to understand the Catalysts point. 

So you just summerized up those characters in a few sentences and she automatically knows their depth and personalities and importance.

...what the hell, yes you do need to understand them, that way you know how stupidly wrong Starbrat is.

He isn't wrong though, The geth did rebel and almost cause the extinction of their creators. Would peace have been achieved without Shepard? Or would the Quarians have just died? 

Shepard being an exception to the rule does not disprove the rule.  The whole Galaxy bends to shepards whims, but what happens if SHepard isn't there?

Wha? Almost caused the extinction of the Quarrians? Pardon but the quarrians look anything but extinct. In Fact their lack of a home world is entirely their own fault. Geth were not common beyond the veil until ME1 so there is no reason for the quarrians to stay ship bound for as long as they did. 

The Geth paused in their anti-quarrian war long enough for everyone except the Asari and Krogans to forget what they look like. That doesn't just happen in 20 or even 50 years.  That is a very long time for a synthetic race to create weapons, and ships of war. especially since it's not like they actually need any kind of working eco system on their home planet. 

Sorry, but this whole argument that the geth rebelled and were seeking the destruction of the Quarrians not supported by facts.  Rebelled? yes (for what ever reason, self defence or otherwise); Sought the destruction of?  not even close. 

[AxeloftheKey]

I agree, his logic makes sense to me. Always has.

But people don't really think his logic is bad. That's not why they hate the endings. They want his logic to be wrong. They want thematically for all the things they've hoped for (Geth/Quarian peace, EDI/Jeff relationship) to be good and happy, and for the Reapers to be destroyed. They don't want to accept that those things are in fact opposed, simply because they've worked for it for three games. ME3 is depressing because it forces you to acknowledge that just because you worked for something doesn't mean it can happen.

I don't think this makes ME3's ending bad. I think it makes all the hope they've built up not pay off, but at the same time, I was prepared for an ending that forced me to make a difficult choice, and they give it to you.

[Dr_Extrem]

AxeloftheKey wrote...

I agree, his logic makes sense to me. Always has.

But people don't really think his logic is bad. That's not why they hate the endings. They want his logic to be wrong. They want thematically for all the things they've hoped for (Geth/Quarian peace, EDI/Jeff relationship) to be good and happy, and for the Reapers to be destroyed. They don't want to accept that those things are in fact opposed, simply because they've worked for it for three games. ME3 is depressing because it forces you to acknowledge that just because you worked for something doesn't mean it can happen.

I don't think this makes ME3's ending bad. I think it makes all the hope they've built up not pay off, but at the same time, I was prepared for an ending that forced me to make a difficult choice, and they give it to you.

making sense of it was never the problem.


its logic is bad, because it is based on absolute assumptions.

in addition, by passivly interfering with the progress of species (by granting access to the network), it gives the species the ability to travel the galaxy and build advanced ais in the first place.
if a civilisation would be stuck in their own system, the damage would be contained. the synthetics would not spread to threaten the rest of the galaxy.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 01 janvier 2013 - 09:54 .

[Sapeinus]

The Catalyst/Starchild is the antagonist in the story.

You're not supposed to agree with the bad guy in the narrative. Does James Bond ever switch sides in the end after the bad guy explains his plans?

You and your girlfriend were both indoctrinated.

[LordMarrick]

Eterna5 wrote...

 Yep. Tonight on of my girlfriends came over and I convinced her to play the end of ME3. When the Starkid appeared she said the typical "wut"

 I was sure she would end up being confused by what she said, but I couldn't believe the words that came out of her mouth. She said, and I quote: "Oh I get it, so the Reapers are like fire. They burn away the bigger trees so the smaller trees have a chance to grow".

 I literally laughed out loud and so did she when the Catalyst said his cleansing fire line. She ended up picking synthesis. She said the ending was pretty good, but depressing. 

 So my question is, why cant you guys comprehend the Catalysts logic when a complete newbie to the series can? 

because she has not played the first 2 games and seen what a complete failure the endings are in relation to them.

[DeinonSlayer]

Warrior Craess wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

He isn't wrong though, The geth did rebel and almost cause the extinction of their creators. Would peace have been achieved without Shepard? Or would the Quarians have just died? 

Shepard being an exception to the rule does not disprove the rule.  The whole Galaxy bends to shepards whims, but what happens if SHepard isn't there?

Wha? Almost caused the extinction of the Quarrians? Pardon but the quarrians look anything but extinct. In Fact their lack of a home world is entirely their own fault. Geth were not common beyond the veil until ME1 so there is no reason for the quarrians to stay ship bound for as long as they did. 

The Geth paused in their anti-quarrian war long enough for everyone except the Asari and Krogans to forget what they look like. That doesn't just happen in 20 or even 50 years.  That is a very long time for a synthetic race to create weapons, and ships of war. especially since it's not like they actually need any kind of working eco system on their home planet. 

Sorry, but this whole argument that the geth rebelled and were seeking the destruction of the Quarrians not supported by facts.  Rebelled? yes (for what ever reason, self defence or otherwise); Sought the destruction of?  not even close.

Before the Morning War, the Quarian population numbered in the billions (plural). After the war, there are only seventeen million of them. Assuming a minimum initial population of two billion, that comes out to a 99.15% death rate - and the timestamps in the Geth Consensus tell us the "war" lasted a single year.

This much was explicitly stated in ME1 (albeit in an easily-missed elevator conversation). The writers chose not to mention it again after that because they wanted the Geth to be seen as more sympathetic. If you can't make peace, Priority: Rannoch is like dropping an alien into the Terminator universe and letting it choose who lives - Skynet or humanity - without mentioning that Skynet nuked Earth into a cinder and killed billions of humans because the Department of Defense tried to shut it down. Granted, the Geth used chemical weapons (by Legion's offhand admission) instead of nukes, but the end result was the same.

A lot of people want to pretend otherwise, but the ugly truth is that the Geth responded to an attempted genocide with a successful one. Do a playthrough with the Geth VI in place of Legion sometime and you'll have a better understanding why this happened. Through Legion, the Geth learn the value of organic life. With his influence, the Geth are eager to atone for killing so many. Without it, they're eager to finish the job.

Honestly, if they had emphasized what happened to the Quarians in the morning war instead of sweeping it under the rug to make the Geth look more sympathetic, the Catalyst's warnings of the dangers of organic/synthetic conflict would likely be taken more seriously by the fanbase.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 01 janvier 2013 - 10:57 .