199 réponses à ce sujet

[Astartes Marine]

Optimystic_X wrote...
You're living up to your signature I see 

And you're living up to the stereotype of synthesis "fans" like Wulf and Seival.  That's some accomplishment. <_<

You may not like the choices others pick, but it gives you no right to accuse them of anything.  To do so would lower you to the level of people like the ones mentioned above. 

Modifié par Astartes Marine, 30 avril 2013 - 07:47 .

[PsyrenY]

So they care but blow them up anyway? That doesn't compute with me.

It's not a value judgment, I'm not saying their Shepard is badwrong for it. Just an observation. I'll even modulate it if you like: "He/they do care about EDI and the Geth, but not quite enough to allow them to continue to exist."  Better?

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 30 avril 2013 - 07:53 .

[Indy_S]

I imagine the titular character in Sophie's Choice cared about both of her kids but she had to choose. If someone sees the alternatives as bad enough, killing EDI and the Geth may be seen as the best option.

[Astartes Marine]

Optimystic_X wrote...
So they care but blow them up anyway? That doesn't compute with me.

Oh I see what you did there Mr Synthesis. 

Optimystic_X wrote...
It's
not a value judgment, I'm not saying their Shepard is badwrong for it.
Just an observation. I'll even modulate it if you like: "He/they do care about EDI and the Geth, but not quite enough to allow them to continue to exist."  Better?

Who knows?  For me, I cared about them alot (about as much as is possible for something that isn't real to begin with), but it came down to a "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" event.  You even asked me to elaborate in another thread to which I responded but you never replied back.

Even if my Shepard survives the injuries from Destroy, he'd likely be a broken man carrying the guilt to the grave on Rannoch. 

So yes, I care.  I care alot, Legion was one of my top five favorite characters., but I also care about giving the galaxy a chance at a future without the Reapers, or holobrat, or any of the bad writing that came with them. 

[Megaton_Hope]

tickle267 wrote...

Yestare7 wrote...

 


Hi there, and welcome to the forum!!
I see a lot of people are getting into the questions, let me just serve you with an all-encompassing answer!!!
www.youtube.com/watch

I think you meanthis

this ?

[SpamBot2000]

3 words: Bad Writing Theory.

[Dieb]

Hey there,

I think most if not all of your questions have been sufficiently answered by now.

Just wanted to say that I like the way you write: well-formatted and non-provocative. The BSN is more than short on this kind of users - Welcome to the boards!

[Ajensis]

^ Luckily we're a little less short on polite members like you

Welcome to the forums I think Leonardo the Magnificent provided the best answers to your questions back on the first page. There are just two of his answers I would phrase a bit differently:

3 + 4. The way I see it, the harvesting isn't the most important part, that's simply a way of replacing the Reapers they lose at the end of a Cycle. The primary objective is simply killing all sentient life and all they have constructed. And this is where many people cry 'plothole' and post yo-dawg pictures, but it's important to distinguish between what the Catalyst refers to as 'life'. There's sentient life, Life(S), and there's all organic life, Life(A), which is not only Life(S) but all lesser forms of life too (animals, etc.).
Back when the Catalyst was created, the supposition was that eventually, synthetic life would exceed the limitations of organic life and eventually a conflict will arise in which organic life would be annihilated. You don't have to believe this scenario yourself, you just have to accept that this Intelligence believes it will happen at some point, whether it's in a century or 10.000 years from now. And then the synthetic powers could likely be a threat to all life - Life(A). Instead, the Reapers are used to kill off Life(S), which only accounts for a slice of Life(A) after all, and reset the technological advances they've made, so that the galaxy can have another 50.000 years of guaranteed safety.

It's wrong from our point of view, but it's simply how the Catalyst is programmed to operate. And it's not as illogical as many like to point out. A fitting explanation for the Reapers? A fitting end? That's up to you to decide. I don't personally think so. But at least this part is not non-sensical in my opinion.

2. (not so different from LtM's answer) I think there's a difference between creating physical machines for war or manual labour, and then creating an A.I. The way I understood it is that the Leviathans expected the Catalyst to merely figure out a solution like a theorist would go about it, not to take it one step further and actually put the solution in motion behind their backs, which the Catalyst had to do because his reasoning led him to view the Leviathans as part of the problem. But take this with a grain of salt; it's been months since I played the Leviathan DLC. It's just how it's connected in my brain now, so there might be some accidental head-canoning thrown in

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

1. By using their thralls, the ones not creating other synthetics, or by designing the technology themselves. We don't know how dependent the Leviathan were, but we do know they were hyper-intelligent and had access to the best the galaxy had to offer. They were likely capable of creating the Catalyst themselves.

2. The Leviathan didn't create the Intelligence to destroy synthetics, but to mediate peace and bring synthetics under Leviathan control (the last bit is extrapolated). One of their defining traits is hubris, and as beings who quite nearly controlled a galaxy, they no doubt considered themselves "above" the problems of the lesser races. At the time, they saw no other alternative as their thralls kept building synthetics to "improve" themselves.

3. The Catalyst's mandate is to "preserve" life. Both the definitions of preserve and life were unspecified to it and, after its observance period, developed wholly different definitions from its creators. To the Catalyst, storing the genetic material, cultural/technological data, etc. of a species in Reaper form counts as preservation.

4. See above links.

5. Yes, this is to be assumed. There is no evidence of any lasting synthetics nor is there any indication that synthetics are left standing. In "cleaning up" after the Harvest, the Reapers destroy most if not all of the function equipment of the previous cycle, synthetics included (once again inferred from Reaper behavior).

6. The nature and definition of the Catalyst is fairly undefined. While the Catalyst was originally the Intelligence, it likely "transcended" into the Reaper Consensus upon the completion of Harbinger. Once the cycles were initiated, it was transferred to the Citadel and resided there for the rest of its existence (all of this is my interpretation). None of this is required to understand what the Catalyst, at its core, is, however. Just know that it resides on the Citadel, is the collective consciousness of the Reapers, and is capable of activating the Crucible, though that may be more a function of the Citadel itself.

7. By connecting the Crucible to the Citadel, Shepard has proven that the Reapers are truly fallible, that the cycles are unsustainable. His solution is no longer the ideal, as it was just foiled. Thus, he invites Shepard up to his "private chambers" and, since Shepard is the Paragon of organic life, allows him to create a new solution via the options presented. In short, the Catalyst accepts its inevitable defeat and allows the "worthy" organics to design a new solution.

8. From the perspective of the Catalyst, it's a metaphorical rejection of a new solution, leaving it with its unsustainable solution for at least one more cycle.

9. See number 7. The Catalyst is allowing Shepard to create a new solution through various means, though Shepard is in no way obligated to.

10. They did indeed know it was a weapon, just not the intricacies of its design or function. In short, they were building a gun knowing only that it worked somewhat like a crossbow, only it required an extra oomph (for the metaphor, gunpowder) to get it to work.

11. It targets Reaper code, and the only synthetics we know run on that modified code. I cannot justify the technological workings of synthesis. Shepard replaces the Catalyst and his control is broadcasted to Reapers everywhere. The formermost and lattermost fall under a reasonable suspension of disbelief, synthesis much less so.

12-14. Each of these deal with the emotional and character closure that was severely lacking in the original. Logical leaps, often large ones, were made to create the scenes. Ignore them if you so choose.

Modifié par Ajensis, 30 avril 2013 - 09:11 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Optimystic_X wrote...

So they care but blow them up anyway? That doesn't compute with me.

It's not a value judgment, I'm not saying their Shepard is badwrong for it. Just an observation. I'll even modulate it if you like: "He/they do care about EDI and the Geth, but not quite enough to allow them to continue to exist."  Better?

But you would care so little about the rest of nature, so little about every single living animal, plant, every single living organism that you would singlehandedly decide to change them forever for your own selfish wants. You would permanently destroy nature as we know it. You would play God, not just in a laboratory, not just with a single crop in a greenhouse, not just with an isolated instance, but across the entire galaxy, you would choose to venture into territory you have no business or right in which to venture.

What makes you think you have that right?

Feel better now?

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 30 avril 2013 - 09:18 .

[jkflipflopDAO]

The ending was a trilogy destroying, lore-shattering trainwreck. I'm still flabbergasted as to how it's still there. Do Bioware not take any pride in their work any longer? Does the Mass Effect team know that it doesn't make any logical sense at all? What the hell is wrong with you people? How can you let it all end like this? Terrible.

[o Ventus]

Optimystic_X wrote...

So they care but blow them up anyway? That doesn't compute with me.

It's not a value judgment, I'm not saying their Shepard is badwrong for it. Just an observation. I'll even modulate it if you like: "He/they do care about EDI and the Geth, but not quite enough to allow them to continue to exist."  Better?

This is probably the least intelligent thing be seen on these boards in recent memory.

That is saying a lot.

[jkflipflopDAO]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

So they care but blow them up anyway? That doesn't compute with me.

It's not a value judgment, I'm not saying their Shepard is badwrong for it. Just an observation. I'll even modulate it if you like: "He/they do care about EDI and the Geth, but not quite enough to allow them to continue to exist."  Better?

But you would care so little about the rest of nature, so little about every single living animal, plant, every single living organism that you would singlehandedly decide to change them forever for your own selfish wants. You would permanently destroy nature as we know it. You would play God, not just in a laboratory, not just with a single crop in a greenhouse, not just with an isolated instance, but across the entire galaxy, you would choose to venture into territory you have no business or right in which to venture.

What makes you think you have that right?

Feel better now?

Then why is such a choice even possible? The answer is self evident. It is Shep's right to choose.

[George Costanza]

Huh. You know what I just noticed? Loads of things about Mass Effect 3 don't make sense.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

George Costanza wrote...

Huh. You know what I just noticed? Loads of things about Mass Effect 3 don't make sense.

Everything makes sense.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

George Costanza wrote...

Huh. You know what I just noticed? Loads of things about Mass Effect 3 don't make sense.

Everything makes sense.

Elaborating would help, instead of just telling people to play the game again.

[Steelcan]

Optimystic_X wrote...

So they care but blow them up anyway? That doesn't compute with me.

It's not a value judgment, I'm not saying their Shepard is badwrong for it. Just an observation. I'll even modulate it if you like: "He/they do care about EDI and the Geth, but not quite enough to allow them to continue to exist."  Better?

. Or how about, "Shepard regrets the death of EDI and the Geth, but is willing to pay that price to free the galaxy"

[Yestare7]

Optimystic_X wrote...

"He/they do care about EDI and the Geth, but not quite enough to allow them to continue to exist."  Better?

Not quite there yet, but at least you're trying!!

and since you seem to support Synthesis...

Modifié par Yestare7, 30 avril 2013 - 12:17 .

[Megaton_Hope]

If EDI and the Geth continue to exist but the humans, Asari, Krogans, Turians, Quarians, Volus, Vorcha, Yahg, Hanar, and even more boring races all die out, it seems like a pretty raw deal, there.

[Mastone]

@OP
You are basically trying to get logical answers to an illogical developed storyline.
Without wanting to make this into a love ending vs hate ending discussion, I think you should look how Bioware as a company is evolving or lack there off.
I love their old games( KOTOR1 is a game I cherish), but they never moved on from there.
Sure their games look nicer and gameplay is somewhat smoother, but the core mechanic is still the same.

If I look at the ME trilogy only, I see a huge shift in focus from a choice-based storydriven RPG with shooter elements as a side show and great and memorable character interactions ( Mass Effect 1) to a linear corridor shooter with some story elements ( ME2+3).
With ME2 I had the feeling/hunch that Bioware focussed more on a shooter based game where the story took a ( huge) back seat and to compensate they threw in a (bleep) load of characters who all seemed to have daddy issues and I never made any connection with ( at least not to the extend you had with the original characters from ME1).
It was a dissapointment to me that none of the choices made in ME1 had any effect on ME2, but the biggest let down was that they went of the fighting the reapers path, instead you end up fighting a huge terminator which never came back as a plotdevice.
The only thing that showed me that Bioware did still have some know how on how to make a game is that the endgame was at least a real choice ( I hated the speech parts though)
Now on to ME3:
First thing I found poorly implemented is the fact that the huge choice you made at the end of ME2 never got implemented, I hoped that if you would side with Cerberus at the end of that game you would start at Cerberus station not on earth with the alliance.
To me almost everything in ME3 was a big joke, except Tuchanka and the part where you made peace between the Geth and Quarians.
Story was on the level of a 3rd grader, day one -essential-DLC( why not make Diana Allers an optional downloadable or James), linear gameplay, no real choices and ridiculous ending make ME3 a fail( in my opinion that is).
I have tried playing again using MEHEM patch but I can't get through it anymore, but I watched that ending on You tube and just by excluding the spacekid part it got way better, because Deus Ex machina just don't fit in a ME universe ( again my opinion).

If I were you I would stop contemplating what the ending means or head cannon your way around it or worse trying to find a logical explanation to this travesty of storytelling, since none make sense and quickly go to symbolic almost religious means.
Just accept the fact that Bioware probably stretched their resources on developing their other "great" project Knights of the old republic which was a "huge succes" and ran out of time quickly and because EA being a stockmarket company could not extend the deadline because of laws prohibiting stockmarket companies from doing so, Casey and Mac went into a back room and concocted this story so they were able to make the deadline.
So forget all the press releases and comments from the devs where they fall back on artistic integrity, it is just a money thing

Modifié par Mastone, 30 avril 2013 - 12:40 .

[Bizinha]

Welcome!

I gave up trying to understand the story.
Yesterday, I was playing ME1, Sovereign speaks to Shepard on Virmire, each reaper has will and own initiatives, they are legion to an end, which totally kills the idea of having a catalyst. He said he has no beginning, and the end of the harvest is to take what each organic best.

The end of ME3 was extremely poorly written. They forced the death of Shepard, and invented this catalyst.

[knightnblu]

1. The Leviathans are an apex race. They are highly technologically advanced to the tune of being millions of years ahead of the Mass Effect races. If they are not in a space ship, it is because they don't want to be and not because they can't. The spheres allow them to use the other races like tools to perform their will when they need tasks done. It is simpler and cheaper than building AI for the task and the organics can be released when they are no longer needed.

2. They were never concerned about synthetics. They were concerned about dead organics. The AI was constructed to mediate between both to insure that there would never be a conflagration that consumed the organics. The AI went insane and everybody died anyway, beginning with the Leviathan and forcing the few survivors into hiding.

The Leviathans did not really take a good look at the problem. Instead, they were essentially annoyed that they weren't getting tribute and so they slapped a band aid on the problem and forgot about it.

3. The AI is not logical because it is insane. When a farmer harvests his field do the plants he cans survive? The same can be said of the races. It is slaughter and destruction, nothing more. The AI cannot recognize this nor can he recognize that he has become what he was created to fight.

4. It is a false argument and I mean that in a formal logical context. As an absolute, all you need is one counterexample to destroy the argument. You get that counter with the Geth/Quarian conflict. The Geth never rebelled, they Geth never sought to destroy their creators, and the Geth wanted to be reunited with their creators to work in harmony with them. As such, #4 is null.

Regarding the Reapers interference, the AI controlling them is insane. The Reapers were created by an insane AI and they share in his insanity because they share a distributed intelligence with him.

5. Incorrect. Synthetics are also consumed. They fare better than the organic species in that they are shackled and not destroyed. The Geth would have likely replaced the Keepers as the Reapers client race on the Citadel after this cycle because they would be immune to evolutionary forces and would therefore be more reliable in that they would activate the relay without fail when signaled.

6. AI is not fixed to hardware. It can be loaded onto anything that will support it's mind. Just as the Geth can download into the Quarians suits, the AI can download into whatever it wants so long as the hardware is capable of supporting it.

7. The AI is manipulating Shepard. While he does say that his solution will no longer work, he also never calls off his dogs. They are used as a prod to move Shepard to make a decision. If Shepard doesn't make a decision, the Catalyst keeps killing.

8. AI is what you make it to be. The last thing that you would want is an AI that is free from emotion or moral constraint. Such a thing would be far worse than the worst serial killer as evidenced by the Catalyst. It isn't that the AI is free from these things as such, but his insanity keeps him from recognizing his errors. That and BioWare was likely having some fun at the player's expense.

9. The game has to end somehow.

10. Yes.

Running out of time and will follow up with 11 - 14.

[Xilizhra]

4. It is a false argument and I mean that in a formal logical context. As an absolute, all you need is one counterexample to destroy the argument. You get that counter with the Geth/Quarian conflict. The Geth never rebelled, they Geth never sought to destroy their creators, and the Geth wanted to be reunited with their creators to work in harmony with them. As such, #4 is null.

That wasn't the Catalyst's argument. It's not that all synthetics will try to destroy organics, it's that eventually, a synthetic race will gain enough power to destroy organics and eventually will. The reason this hasn't happened in living memory is because the Reapers always attack before that point is reached.

7. The AI is manipulating Shepard. While he does say that his solution will no longer work, he also never calls off his dogs. They are used as a prod to move Shepard to make a decision. If Shepard doesn't make a decision, the Catalyst keeps killing.

I don't believe the Catalyst can control the Reapers directly, enough to stop the attack. Remember that it doesn't want the harvest to continue at this point.

[Iakus]

Indy_S wrote...

I imagine the titular character in Sophie's Choice cared about both of her kids but she had to choose. If someone sees the alternatives as bad enough, killing EDI and the Geth may be seen as the best option.

Interestingly, I have, in the past referred to the ending as "Sophie's Choice: the RPG"

That's not what I wanted when I bought the game, Biwoare...

[George Costanza]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

George Costanza wrote...

Huh. You know what I just noticed? Loads of things about Mass Effect 3 don't make sense.

Everything makes sense.

A compelling argument. I am now converted.