439 réponses à ce sujet

[Cheviot]

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? 

The Catalyst's logic here is sound, as your friend has proven by getting it so quickly.  In fact, anyone who has a passing knowledge of what reaping is in the real world, or what a harvest is, would get it pretty quick too.

[ld1449]

Yate wrote...

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

You've never taken much of a science class have you?

Problem solving skills?

I can talk up and down of why the Catalysts logic is flawed to the ninth degree, I can even provide alternative solutions that do a much better job of preserving life and averting the so called technological singularity he claims would wipe out all organics.

And all this within the span of a ten minute thought process. He's had billions of years.

His logic is crap, the ending is crap. Its not a knee jerk reaction, its analisis.

[N7Keller]

The is nothing wrong with the catalyst having bad logic. Its what makes villains evil.

[ME859]

The Reapers motivations were never really the problem. It was always the execution as well as the options we were given with the crucible to stop the Reaper threat. The little boy introduced in the final 5 minutes as the mastermind. The lackluster Priority Earth mission.

Bioware might have well have used the ending to educate us on other thought provoking concepts like the morality behind eating meat, global warming, corporate greed at the expense of third world suffering.

The fact that they choose to end the game with a *meh* instead of a bang was the real problem. There was no real satisfaction like the end of the previous 2 games or in others experience the end of Dragon Age Orgins. Instead we were given a contrived and forced moral choice and introduced to the concept of technological singularity at the worst possible time.

So yes the Catalyst genocidal logic has a point, and it's fine to have that as the motivation but representing it with a misguided child and lackluster options at the end of what should of easily been the greatest video game series ever is what has allowed this controversy to continue.

[Cheviot]

ME859 wrote...

The Reapers motivations were never really the problem. It was always the execution as well as the options we were given with the crucible to stop the Reaper threat. The little boy introduced in the final 5 minutes as the mastermind. The lackluster Priority Earth mission.

Bioware might have well have used the ending to educate us on other thought provoking concepts like the morality behind eating meat, global warming, corporate greed at the expense of third world suffering.

The fact that they choose to end the game with a *meh* instead of a bang was the real problem. There was no real satisfaction like the end of the previous 2 games or in others experience the end of Dragon Age Orgins. Instead we were given a contrived and forced moral choice and introduced to the concept of technological singularity at the worst possible time.

So yes the Catalyst genocidal logic has a point, and it's fine to have that as the motivation but representing it with a misguided child and lackluster options at the end of what should of easily been the greatest video game series ever is what has allowed this controversy to continue.

So we're agreed that the ending makes sense?

[ME859]

Cheviot wrote...

ME859 wrote...

The Reapers motivations were never really the problem. It was always the execution as well as the options we were given with the crucible to stop the Reaper threat. The little boy introduced in the final 5 minutes as the mastermind. The lackluster Priority Earth mission.

Bioware might have well have used the ending to educate us on other thought provoking concepts like the morality behind eating meat, global warming, corporate greed at the expense of third world suffering.

The fact that they choose to end the game with a *meh* instead of a bang was the real problem. There was no real satisfaction like the end of the previous 2 games or in others experience the end of Dragon Age Orgins. Instead we were given a contrived and forced moral choice and introduced to the concept of technological singularity at the worst possible time.

So yes the Catalyst genocidal logic has a point, and it's fine to have that as the motivation but representing it with a misguided child and lackluster options at the end of what should of easily been the greatest video game series ever is what has allowed this controversy to continue.

So we're agreed that the ending makes sense?

At the most basic level yes, Technological Singularity makes perfect sense as a motivation for the reapers.  However the current design of the crucible with space magic, the cataylst just letting you pick destroy, the vague breath scene, introducing the cataylst in the last 5 minutes and portraying him as a child you saw on Earth.   The reapers motivations are the least of the problems with the ending.  

Like I said the main problem is the execution.  Basically in regards to this it's not what you say but rather how you say it.

Modifié par ME859, 01 janvier 2013 - 11:17 .

[Warrior Craess]

The Geth responded to an attempted Genocide with a successful elimination of a threat. Yes, they killed off nearly all of the Suit rats. However they left them with a more than sufficient gene pool size to continue as a race, And they didn't pursue them once their own continuation was ensured.

Had this occurred pre-space-flight I'm sure that the Quarrians would have ceased to exist. However it didn't, they didn't and an option for peace exists even if it's a small one and takes an exception hero to achieve it.

This highlights exactly why the Catalyst logic is wrong. Too many variables in any future society. Maybe this cycle was indeed doomed to have a synthetic/organic conflict, That doesn't mean that all future ones will. Nor does the mere possibility of Organic vs Synthetic conflict mean that a lasting peace can not be achieved in our cycle. Too many races, too many possibilities to be accounted for.

[Cheviot]

Warrior Craess wrote...

The Geth responded to an attempted Genocide with a successful elimination of a threat. Yes, they killed off nearly all of the Suit rats. However they left them with a more than sufficient gene pool size to continue as a race, And they didn't pursue them once their own continuation was ensured.

So, they do something which has a logic very similar to that of the Catalyst.

[xsdob]

Warrior Craess wrote...

The Geth responded to an attempted Genocide with a successful elimination of a threat. Yes, they killed off nearly all of the Suit rats. However they left them with a more than sufficient gene pool size to continue as a race, And they didn't pursue them once their own continuation was ensured.

Had this occurred pre-space-flight I'm sure that the Quarrians would have ceased to exist. However it didn't, they didn't and an option for peace exists even if it's a small one and takes an exception hero to achieve it.

This highlights exactly why the Catalyst logic is wrong. Too many variables in any future society. Maybe this cycle was indeed doomed to have a synthetic/organic conflict, That doesn't mean that all future ones will. Nor does the mere possibility of Organic vs Synthetic conflict mean that a lasting peace can not be achieved in our cycle. Too many races, too many possibilities to be accounted for.

So killing almost 99 percent of their entire race was justified? Just to stop what was a military campaign?

Destroying their military wasn't enough? They had to kill civilians? Women? Children? Babies? For some supposed sense of security?

You calling them suit rats gave me all the information I need on you, racist git. I suppose if my country orchestrated the killing of 99% percent of your counties population, than let just a tiny bit of you become refugees forced to wander the planet for all entirnity, that would be perfectly okay.

I was going to have an intellegant conversation with you, but people with such ignorance and blissful dismissal of an unjust act of retaliation are incapable of having such talks.

I would say good day to you as well, but since I don't wish for you to have a good day after reading that post, I simply say, go jump off a cliff.

Modifié par xsdob, 02 janvier 2013 - 12:17 .

[Ameno Xiel]

The meaning of the ending is so open to debate that your view of it is purely subjective.
I'm glad for you two that she sees it exactly as you do but to say that others(me included) don't understand the ending is simply ignorant and to an extend even arrogant.

[szkasypcze]

your friend is indoctrinated. use it to have sex with her. is she hot??

[Kabraxal]

xsdob wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

The Geth responded to an attempted Genocide with a successful elimination of a threat. Yes, they killed off nearly all of the Suit rats. However they left them with a more than sufficient gene pool size to continue as a race, And they didn't pursue them once their own continuation was ensured.

Had this occurred pre-space-flight I'm sure that the Quarrians would have ceased to exist. However it didn't, they didn't and an option for peace exists even if it's a small one and takes an exception hero to achieve it.

This highlights exactly why the Catalyst logic is wrong. Too many variables in any future society. Maybe this cycle was indeed doomed to have a synthetic/organic conflict, That doesn't mean that all future ones will. Nor does the mere possibility of Organic vs Synthetic conflict mean that a lasting peace can not be achieved in our cycle. Too many races, too many possibilities to be accounted for.

So killing almost 99 percent of their entire race was justified? Just to stop what was a military campaign?

Destroying their military wasn't enough? They had to kill civilians? Women? Children? Babies? For some supposed sense of security?

You calling them suit rats gave me all the information I need on you, racist git. I suppose if my country orchestrated the killing of 99% percent of your counties population, than let just a tiny bit of you become refugees forced to wander the planet for all entirnity, that would be perfectly okay.

I was going to have an intellegant conversation with you, but people with such ignorance and blissful dismissal of an unjust act of retaliation are incapable of having such talks.

I would say good day to you as well, but since I don't wish for you to have a good day after reading that post, I simply say, go jump off a cliff.

Except we are shown no proof they killed any other than hostile Quarians.  They were in fact, proud and thankful of those Quarians that stood up to their own people on the Geth's behalf.  Is it possible collateral damage claimed innocent lives?  Sure, happens all the time in war.  But you are really jumping the gun to assume the Geth were methodically seeking to eliminate the Quarians... especially since it is quite clear they had every ability to do so and WILLINGLY didn't.

Really... did any of you actually play the mission in the Geth Consensus or did you all go "MWUAR synthetic bad organic good me smash!"?

[Jenonax]

Its really not he Catalyst's logic that I have a problem with. Its cold, calculating, without an ounce of emotion - it is, in short, a machine's logic.

However the problem lies in the fact that firstly the Leviathans came down with a raging case of the stupids and built a synthetic to come up with the solution of synthetics rebelling and killing organics, then wondered why their synthetic ended up killing everything. Nice one guys.

We are also shown repeatedly that the Reapers use the Cycles synthetics to assist in the genocide of the Organics. Now we're allowed to bring this to the Catalyst's attention but ultimately it doesn't mean much we still have to go along with his logic.

My problem, ultimately, is not the logic itself, but that we have to go along with it. If we pick red, blue or green we have to ultimately accept that yes, one day synthetics will rebel against organics and murder us all. I don't accept that, the game never showed me enough evidence that this would happen. I'm not willing to gamble the fate of the entire universe on a machine's logic.

Its a game at the end of the day, so I picked Destroy. I just wish it had had the spirit of Refuse instead.

[Cheviot]

Jenonax wrote...

My problem, ultimately, is not the logic itself, but that we have to go along with it. If we pick red, blue or green we have to ultimately accept that yes, one day synthetics will rebel against organics and murder us all. I don't accept that, the game never showed me enough evidence that this would happen. I'm not willing to gamble the fate of the entire universe on a machine's logic.

Firstly, choosing one of the options doesn't mean accepting the Catalyst's ideas about synthetics vs organics.  It's about choosing how to defeat the Reapers.  Secondly, the Destroy option is the only one that explicitly goes against the inevitability of synthetic and organic conflict; the Catalyst tells you that even though all Synthetics will be destroyed, later generations will make them again.  By choosing Destroy, you're saying that maybe the cycle won't happen.

[Nykara]

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? 

I dont think that it is so much a matter of people not getting it. People get it they just think it was a pretty lame way to end the series. Or at least that is how I saw it. I understood it. I didn't like it. I thought it was a very bad direction to take the game I had spent so many hours with characters in. It was far far from the kind of ending I expected from Bioware and it's writers. It was the fast, easy way out.

[xsdob]

Kabraxal wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

The Geth responded to an attempted Genocide with a successful elimination of a threat. Yes, they killed off nearly all of the Suit rats. However they left them with a more than sufficient gene pool size to continue as a race, And they didn't pursue them once their own continuation was ensured.

Had this occurred pre-space-flight I'm sure that the Quarrians would have ceased to exist. However it didn't, they didn't and an option for peace exists even if it's a small one and takes an exception hero to achieve it.

This highlights exactly why the Catalyst logic is wrong. Too many variables in any future society. Maybe this cycle was indeed doomed to have a synthetic/organic conflict, That doesn't mean that all future ones will. Nor does the mere possibility of Organic vs Synthetic conflict mean that a lasting peace can not be achieved in our cycle. Too many races, too many possibilities to be accounted for.

So killing almost 99 percent of their entire race was justified? Just to stop what was a military campaign?

Destroying their military wasn't enough? They had to kill civilians? Women? Children? Babies? For some supposed sense of security?

You calling them suit rats gave me all the information I need on you, racist git. I suppose if my country orchestrated the killing of 99% percent of your counties population, than let just a tiny bit of you become refugees forced to wander the planet for all entirnity, that would be perfectly okay.

I was going to have an intellegant conversation with you, but people with such ignorance and blissful dismissal of an unjust act of retaliation are incapable of having such talks.

I would say good day to you as well, but since I don't wish for you to have a good day after reading that post, I simply say, go jump off a cliff.

Except we are shown no proof they killed any other than hostile Quarians.  They were in fact, proud and thankful of those Quarians that stood up to their own people on the Geth's behalf.  Is it possible collateral damage claimed innocent lives?  Sure, happens all the time in war.  But you are really jumping the gun to assume the Geth were methodically seeking to eliminate the Quarians... especially since it is quite clear they had every ability to do so and WILLINGLY didn't.

Really... did any of you actually play the mission in the Geth Consensus or did you all go "MWUAR synthetic bad organic good me smash!"?

Collateral damage usually doesn't reduce a population in the billions to less than 20 million. Than it stops being collateral damage and everyone usually unilatirally unites to kill whoever did that out of pure moral obligation.

I saw a few quarians responsible for what was happening to the geth. But what i also know from the previous series is that the geth killed many, many more than was needed to were they simply trying to defend themselves.

The geth acted like EDI did when she started to "defend herself", they killed everything that moved because they were scared and they didn't understand.

That I get, that I could even sympathize with, but just like anders in DA2, as much as I like him and sympathize with his plight, what he did was wrong, and nothing can make what he did right at all. The only thing you can do, the only thing to ensure an endless cycle of vengeance occurs, is to make both sides move on. It isn't easy, and it damn sure won't make all the pain go away, but it's one of the only solutions that can end such conflicts.

What I will not do is stand by and cheer the geth like a blind fool, and ignore the horrific crime they did in the name of self-defense. I wouldn't do that for anyone, probably wouldn't for the jewish people if they rose up, killed 99% of all germans in germany, and made them into wandering refugees with just barley enough resources to sustain themselves.

[DeinonSlayer]

Kabraxal wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

The Geth responded to an attempted Genocide with a successful elimination of a threat. Yes, they killed off nearly all of the Suit rats. However they left them with a more than sufficient gene pool size to continue as a race, And they didn't pursue them once their own continuation was ensured.

Had this occurred pre-space-flight I'm sure that the Quarrians would have ceased to exist. However it didn't, they didn't and an option for peace exists even if it's a small one and takes an exception hero to achieve it.

This highlights exactly why the Catalyst logic is wrong. Too many variables in any future society. Maybe this cycle was indeed doomed to have a synthetic/organic conflict, That doesn't mean that all future ones will. Nor does the mere possibility of Organic vs Synthetic conflict mean that a lasting peace can not be achieved in our cycle. Too many races, too many possibilities to be accounted for.

So killing almost 99 percent of their entire race was justified? Just to stop what was a military campaign?

Destroying their military wasn't enough? They had to kill civilians? Women? Children? Babies? For some supposed sense of security?

You calling them suit rats gave me all the information I need on you, racist git. I suppose if my country orchestrated the killing of 99% percent of your counties population, than let just a tiny bit of you become refugees forced to wander the planet for all entirnity, that would be perfectly okay.

I was going to have an intellegant conversation with you, but people with such ignorance and blissful dismissal of an unjust act of retaliation are incapable of having such talks.

I would say good day to you as well, but since I don't wish for you to have a good day after reading that post, I simply say, go jump off a cliff.

Except we are shown no proof they killed any other than hostile Quarians.  They were in fact, proud and thankful of those Quarians that stood up to their own people on the Geth's behalf.  Is it possible collateral damage claimed innocent lives?  Sure, happens all the time in war.  But you are really jumping the gun to assume the Geth were methodically seeking to eliminate the Quarians... especially since it is quite clear they had every ability to do so and WILLINGLY didn't.

Really... did any of you actually play the mission in the Geth Consensus or did you all go "MWUAR synthetic bad organic good me smash!"?

Only if Legion is there. Legion's perspective didn't exist two years ago, and doesn't apply to the Geth Collective as a whole unless he makes it back to them. The Geth VI is a better representative of the Geth mindset at the time of the Morning War. The VI doesn't acknowledge the Quarians who died defending Geth in any way during the Consensus mission, expresses no remorse at the prospect of exterminating the Quarians, and offers them no quarter. If Legion returns to the Collective, they basically do what EDI does when she "chooses to be a good person." It would be like if Skynet changed its mind about its own actions several centuries after nearly exterminating humanity and decided to honor them.

The Geth used enough chemical weapons in the Morning War that they're still cleaning up "toxins" and repairing "ecological damage" from the fighting centuries after the fact, and shot any organic entering their territory for centuries afterwards on sight without making any attempts to communicate, or responding to any attempts made to communicate with them. Is it really so hard to believe they exterminated the Quarians? Or do you simply not want to believe it?

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 02 janvier 2013 - 01:09 .

[Steelcan]

Not this again

[KevTheGamer]

After playing Leviathan I totally relate the catalysts pov and I own and have been playing all 3 ME games for some time now. Bought ME 1 a month after release, bought ME 2 & 3 on their release dates as well. 

Modifié par KevWestBeats.com, 02 janvier 2013 - 01:17 .

[ME859]

KevWestBeats.com wrote...

After playing Leviathan I totally relate the catalysts pov and I own and have been playing all 3 ME games for some time now. Bought ME 1 a month after release, bought ME 2 & 3 on their release dates as well. 

The catyst point of view consist of employing mind control which induces insanity, turning people against their will into zombies to kill others, and liquifying organics alive to make new reapers all in hopes of averting a theoretical war between organics and sythetics.  Then when you confront him on it he basically tells you that it isn't his fault while trying to compare himself to an aimless fire.    

That was one of the biggest mistakes Bioware made, trying to take the reapers from pure evil to simply misunderstood.  It worked fine for the Geth however it fell terribly flat when they tried to do something similar for the Reapers.

[Hazegurl]

If the Quarians were behaving anything like they were in ME3 under Gerrel then I see why the Geth slaughtered them until they got the heck off the planet. The Quarians are by far the dumbest species in the game next to the Hanar. I wouldn't be surprised if they had some hot headed idiot at the helm telling everyone to keep fighting the Geth despite how depleted their resources are and how completely out matched they are thus ending in the deaths of millions of Quarians including their own families. Actually, didn't the Quarians kill their own people who sided with the Geth? lol! Doesn't surprise me at all that their numbers were reduced.

As for the starboy's logic. It is the dumbest logic ever created. Sending an army of synethics to kill organics to prevent synethics from killing organics...seriously, this logic needs debating

Modifié par Hazegurl, 02 janvier 2013 - 03:11 .

[Bob Garbage]

This thread is hilarious.

[ME859]

Hazegurl wrote...

As for the starboy's logic. It is the dumbest logic ever created. Sending an army of synethics to kill organics to prevent synethics from killing organics...seriously, this logic needs debating

I personally don't have a problem with that concept alone.  It works as the motivation for a rogue and insane AI.  However to go with that I want to see a rogue and insane AI.   Not a child that tries to paint the reapers as some sort of misunderstood hero of the galaxy in the last 5 minutes of the game.  

If Bioware really wanted to try and paint the Reapers shades of grey then they should have given the Reapers a Leigon type character that appeared early in the game.  One that disagreed with the likes of Harbinger and the Cataylst, especially given the fact that each Reaper was suppose to be independent.  

Modifié par ME859, 02 janvier 2013 - 04:05 .

[Warrior Craess]

LOL the level to which people take this personal is rather amazing. Please show me where I said killing 99% of a race is justified. I simply stated that after the Geth deemed their own continued existence secure, they quit waging war on the Quarrians. Suit rats is easier to spell correctly than Quarrians.

However to make a point, we don't have enough lore to decide if killing civilians was indeed justified. We have no information about what Quarrian society was like. Were civilians arming themselves and attacking geth? Were children being used as booby-traps (it's happened before, with predictable results, soldiers started shooting children. Getting a shoe shine by a local kid was pretty risky at one point.)

And Cheviot, they don't do something like the catalyst. They do NOT pursue conflict until nothing is left. Even before Shepard arrives on scene (and well before Shepard's parents are even born) they stopped. That conflict happens is inevitable as we know it, however each conflict is not resolved by complete genocide.

Modifié par Warrior Craess, 02 janvier 2013 - 04:03 .

[Someone With Mass]

Yate wrote...

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

It is flawed logically, because the Catalyst isn't doing anything to solve the supposed problem (which funny enough only occurred lately because of Reaper interference), because what he does could have gone on forever, if it wasn't for some lucky accidents involving Shepard.

Also, three out of the four endings aren't stopping the Reapers. At all.