329 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

osbornep wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Is there any dislogue that indicates Shepard is interested in anything other than stopping the war?

It seems to me that this question is already rooted in a false presumption. The thematic content of a story isn't fixed by its protagonist's beliefs about those themes, or even his or her refusal to have beliefs about those themes.

If you like, but BaladasDemnevani specifically mentioned that Shepard was forced to believe in the problem. I brought this up to question that. Of course, making Shepard say that he is concerned about the organic/synthetic war would just be more bad autodialogue.

As for the rest, I didn't feel it. Conceivably I was inoculated against that perception because I always saw the Reaper operation as irrational. Sort of the opposite of the way people fooled themselves into believing IT because the Catalyst is a Reaper intelligence and so couldn't possibly be truthful with Shepard.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Is there any dislogue that indicates Shepard is interested in anything other than stopping the war?

 I'll fight and win this war without compromising the soul of our species. 

Well played sir, though I was talking about ME3. But I suppose some of the Refuse speech would fit in here too.

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...

Well played sir, though I was talking about ME3. But I suppose some of the Refuse speech would fit in here too.

And by extension the bottom right dialogue options when discussing the choices, which are really just precursors to Refuse.

[shingara]

AlanC9 wrote...

shingara wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

shingara, is this an argument that Shepard shouldn't have believed in Control working?

How is the evidence for Destroy any better? Except that Shepard really, really wants Destroy to be true, they're about the same. You seem to be flip-flopping between unrelated ideas.

 Its evidence for the fact that all the endings are hash. Ill thought through and illogical to the entire trilogy as they stand.  God knows what happened but someone at bioware lost the plot. The whole trilogy is shepard beating the reapers in one form or another to platform onto the next trilogy.

Oh, so this is just about you thinking the endings are bad because Control is, what, thematically inconsistent? You're not making any argument about what happens in the endings, or what Shepard should be thinking when he gets to the final choice, or any of that? OK. Wish you'd made that clear earlier.

But Shepard does beat the Reapers, so you're still not making much of a case.

 Its simply, ME1 go through take choices kill the boss, make another choice the end. ME2 make choices kill the boss make some more choices, the end. ME3 makes some choices, none of them mean anything and commite suicide in one form or another because bioware dont want you to play shepard in another game.

Except for the Sheps who don't die. But what do you mean by "not mean anything"? What's your standard for meaning something?

 The endings are a symtom running through the entire backbone of the ME3 plotline. From ME1 to ME2 we had soverign being the vanguard for harbringer. Harbringer is the one calling all the shots and yet Harbringer is cast out in ME3. The most we see of harbringer is about 40 seconds max in 2 cutscenes within 3. The first one when he is leaving the main battle of which we arnt even sure which of the reapers he is. The second he is just behind the beam shooting at you.

    This is the main bad guy of the reapers. The humpalumpa of evil who wants to exterminate all advanced organic life. You remember that dude. Taller then a skyscraper and the things thats been trying to kill you. Now he is replaced by what. A child.

 Seriously a child, that diluted the reapers to an extent of none significance. The reapers could have been toasters firing charded gluton free bread at you. They became nothing more then vessels, none entitys that have no significance at all. You might aswell be trying to kick a gun and hope it doesnt accidently fire into your face.

 TIM's story holds credence within 3, its a tactic harbringer had employed before to stop the reapers from being defeated. Prior to ME3 harbringer it was implied that the unkown at that time but turned out tobe leviatons had created the reapers. And this is where it flops over in ME3.

   In the previous games it was all down to Nanides. Those are the little nano tech that are injected into the humans on spikes to convert them into husks and the synthetic glue that is used to bind organic and sythetic material together into reapers main example is the proto reaper within the ending of 2. That is the basis of the reaper tech and how they control via quantum entanglement which TIM was trying to co-opt to control the reapers and the reaper forces.

 But in ME3 the writers decided no thats not correct. So they implanted an AI who controls the reapers and harbringer. But here is the thing. If this AI is controling the reapers and is the citidel why wasnt it able to control soverign in 1. If the protheans stopped the citidel from comunicating with the reapers how come they knew what todo.

 If they are simply under the same control like geth units then how come they didnt rebel once they had there own species minds back hmm. Did harbringer suddenly pop up and regain control.... but wait according to 3 harbringer never had any control to begin with.

 So that states that the AI was still in control of the reapers. And if thats the case why did the reapers leave the citidel alone right until the point they realise it can be used as a weapon. The citidel is one of the easiest things to take over and control in the entire universe. Its the biggest mass relay in the milky way. Ontop of that its also the very thing that controls them and the seat of power fighting the reapers.  Never forgeting the fact that it was the reapers who created the citidel and the other mass relays so they apparently did a terminator style time travel to create the thing that then created them.

 So we have all that and then somehow the now implanted AI can communicate with shepard at will within there dreams. It somehow could communicate with shepard on earth. The very thing that has been trying to kill shepard all along. We know that shepard would never try to control the reapers as he has fought TIM over it constaly from 2.

 There last words to TIM are it cannot be done. The last words he said to saren was it could not be done. That its been proven synthesis cannot work as the reapers are already in a synthesis state and there nanides make them immune to control in such a fasion as the minds of each and every individual reaper is beyond the scale of any organic or synthetic being. Which legion himself told you.

 The fact that shepard would never just give up is woven so deeply into shepards story proves they would never let the harvest continue. Destroy is the only conclusion you can come to and then also that is jaded as it requires to sacrifice your own life and the geth. According to the stupid child it would also kill anyone with sythetic enhancments so that means kasumi and anyone else with a biotic implant so thats the asari, alot of the turians and every single quarian as there suits run on them and EDI who's cyberwarefare unit is built on reaper tech.

 Yet aslong as you kill evas body then edi survives. The asari and quarians survive. even though it doesnt show a pic of the geth there is no reason to assume they wouldnt survive. All the ships running on the tech derived from mass relay tech survives.

  So all in all that states that the reapers themselves if any are left in dark space will also survive. All the endings are BS. Thats plain and simply the facts. We had the big bad enemy neutered into a child and a final battle reduced to a cutscene.


 OW and here is the kicker, if the prime order is to stop all synthetic life destroying organic life why do they kill the organics and hire the synthetics.

Modifié par shingara, 06 août 2013 - 06:11 .

[Scorpion1O1]

Enhanced wrote...

OnlyMrChill wrote...

I'm a bit late on the Mass Effect trilogy but I've been playing it these past few months and I just beat the last game (ME3 extended cut) and I got an ending that I believe might just be one of the best ending I have ever experienced in a video game. It was the Destroy Ending.

 I maxed out my readiness by playing multiplayer, had all the war assets and went all out.
I:
Killed the Reapers
My Crew survived (except for edi, didn't care for her tho)
Shep survived
Life is back to normal, they just got to repair the mass relays

I also didn't care for the Geth or Tali and her species dying. I only cared about me, Miranda, ensuring humanities survival and killing those damn reapers.



So why all the hate towards the ending(s) of this game?

If you are talking about the Destroy ending itself and not the what happens to galaxy after the ending, yes it's the best one. The Reapers are killed.  However it does not the solve problem that they were trying to solve. Organic/synthetic conflicts , aka..."Chaos" will continue to happen. Synthetic life will be rebuilt and then they'll eventually try to destroy the races that create them. It's inevitable. The synthetics may not succeed everytime, but just like in the Quarian/Geth Wars, lots of lives will be lost.

Oh come on, that is not necessarily true. I'm sure organics and synthetic can co-exist and learn from the Reaper conflict.

[3DandBeyond]

KaiserShep wrote...

I have to say, when facing imminent extinction from synthetic monsters hellbent on wiping the galaxy clean of advanced civilizations, the "soul" of a species is about as meaningful as a fart in a hurricane. Besides, once the galaxy is saved and the monsters are dead, there's always time for atonement.

If you decided to harness the monsters, the way you made the path up to that point can shape the tone completely. Of course, I don't agree with the option at all, but at least it varies based on the personality you steered toward.

Synthesis is a funky animal. I don't care to really delve into that one too much because it's such a theme-breaking left fielder, but on its face, at least it saves everyone, even if it does so in a manner you may consider repugnant.

Except part of the reason why this doesn't resonate with me is because we see groups of people facing down real monsters and deciding that some ethereal or esoteric things are way more important than just some sort of existence.  We see it all the time.  People decide they want to be free of dictators and thousands die rather than just go back home and live out the life proscribed by the regime.  And make no mistake to those people, the dictator may as well be a reaper sucking the goo out of people.  In a very real way they are sucking the life and lifeforce from people and have done so sometimes for decades and more.  But people draw a line in the sand and say "no further" and this in the face of fighting for the unknown.  They fight tanks sometimes with ideas or sticks and stones when they could go home and just live with what they have, the known thing.

And stories are supposed to be exaggerated, bigger than life.  So as I see it in a story of a hero and others who became heroes, and a whole galaxy that learned to work together, to decide that any sort of life handed to you by some unknown entity (who in the heck offers the choices, we have no idea) is better than death just does not resonate.  Since there is every likelihood at the very least that however any of the choices are accomplished they are done so in coordination with this messed up "kid" AI, then the implication is that there is a common origin for the choices (crucible/citadel) and the kid.  And that means the choice is death (most likely) or a dubious choice. 

It's not what I see and have seen real people do, and stories must be more over the top than real life.  In my lifetime, I've seen real people do the exact opposite of what this game says Shepard must do at the end.  Real people will face death if the alternative is either not of their choosing or not what they'd want or know will do something good.  Shepard is supposed to be this amazing being capable of doing the impossible. In order for it to sit well emotionally any sacrifice had to be for a known good.  And that means not from the player's viewpoint, knowing the outcomes (ugh), but from Shepard's.  Shepard didn't come all this way, fight this hard to end up agreeing with the reaper keeper and hand people some question mark future.

[essarr71]

Heck, 3D, ME3 makes a point of describing that very social behavior during EDI's Reaper camp stories.

[DirtyPhoenix]

dreamgazer wrote...



The BSN. The BSN never changes.

[shingara]

StreetMagic wrote...

essarr71 wrote...

Heck, 3D, ME3 makes a point of describing that very social behavior during EDI's Reaper camp stories.

Yeah, that's the strange thing. Things like this, as well as other references to Reapers (and maybe just the whole presentation of Reapers) delivers an entirely different message than the ending version of the Reapers.

Even the whole synthetic/organic dichotomy is addressed on entirely different terms. This idea that there is an inevitable conflict between the two -- that the "created will always rebel against the creators" - isn't reflected in the rest of the game as well. The Geth never rebelled against their creators. It's been made clear since ME1 that the Quarians attacked first, and the Geth just defended themselves. Then ME3 explicitly shows that the Geth let the Quarians flee and decided to only observe in isolation. This is hardly a "rebellion".

Whoever wrote the ending was not communicating with the rest of the team.. they just brought out completely new themes, seemingly without any awareness of what was being said in the rest of the game.

 Its also the same for the protheans, the protheans attacked there synthetics in the metacon war not because the synthetics would attack them but because they would surpass them.  Im at the stage where im thinking the writers on 3 decided that if they wrote 3 as it was meant tobe written that the people who designed the trilogy would take all the praise and the writers on 3 would just get a pat on the back and well done.

 So they simply went stuff that and re-write 3 and threw as much away from 1 and 2 as they could get away with and implant there own things to explain the changes, like the child.

[CronoDragoon]

StreetMagic wrote...
The Geth never rebelled against their creators. It's been made clear since ME1 that the Quarians attacked first, and the Geth just defended themselves. Then ME3 explicitly shows that the Geth let the Quarians flee and decided to only observe in isolation. This is hardly a "rebellion".

That still sounds like rebellion to me. You seem to have a very specific definition of rebellion that I don't think holds. Rebellions can often be a response to some repressive or violent act on the part of the group in power, and rebellions often don't end with everyone on one side dead.

Well, actually, since the geth were successful, I suppose revolution would be a more appropriate word.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 06 août 2013 - 05:59 .

[3DandBeyond]

Scorpion1O1 wrote...

Enhanced wrote...


If you are talking about the Destroy ending itself and not the what happens to galaxy after the ending, yes it's the best one. The Reapers are killed.  However it does not the solve problem that they were trying to solve. Organic/synthetic conflicts , aka..."Chaos" will continue to happen. Synthetic life will be rebuilt and then they'll eventually try to destroy the races that create them. It's inevitable. The synthetics may not succeed everytime, but just like in the Quarian/Geth Wars, lots of lives will be lost.

Oh come on, that is not necessarily true. I'm sure organics and synthetic can co-exist and learn from the Reaper conflict.

Seeing as the geth have already shown an ability to decide not to kill and that they could have remorse, it is totally plausible that organics and synthetics can co-exist.  Lots of lives were lost, but not all of them and why is that?  Because contrary to what the kid "thinks" it is not inevitable.  Just because something can happen or even may happen, that does not make it inevitable.  And here's how it could happen, by accident or by intent.  It is very likely that during the geth/quarian war both actually happened in that the geth did react and intentionally kill a lot of quarians AND they accidentally went too far and almost drove them to distinction.  But the most relevant thing is the word, almost.  They realized what they'd done, retreated, and had remorse, treating Rannoch like a monument to the quarians and acting as caretakers until their creators would one day return.

The kid's set up to believe that synthetics will always rebel against their creators (did not happen with the geth, they acted in self-defense) and kill all organic life.  That means kitties, fishies, and tulips too.

But in every instance in the game where Shepard encountered problems with synthetics, there was a way to work things out or just shut down the problem (ME1 on the Citadel with that AI stealing money).

However, I do actually agree that Destroy won't solve anything.  In fact if the conflict is even remotely inevitable, Destroy is the one choice that quite possibly would make it more so.  If synthetics are destroyed to save organics, that sets up a schism.  Any synthetics created will live in a reality in which synthetics were less valued than organics, even if no one ever tells the synthetics what happened.  This as opposed to a reality in which the geth could become a valued part of life and the lives of organics since they worked hand in hand to defeat a common foe and they did gain some respect for not wanting to fight their creators.  In Destroy, new synthetics would be brought into a world where they are clearly expendable.  It has nothing to do with chaos and is about decisions and about a sort of hierarchy of importance of the races in the galaxy.  The Krogan have experienced this and so have the Rachni.

But the idea that synthetics will one day inevitably or that they will always kill organics is just ridiculous.  The truth is there is this real obsession with seeing synthetics as overly interested in organic life-they either want to destroy it or emulate it and that's silly.  If synthetic life becomes fully aware and autonomous it could be that it will contain huge variances in personalities and even "desires".  It may be totally disinterested in "us".  It's not all about what synthetic life will want to do with us-kill or become like us, but what we may force them to do based upon our own bias and fear.  That's the lesson of the geth/quarians.  Lack of knowledge breeds mistrust, mistrust breeds contempt, contempt breeds conflict and conflict leads to death.  But lots of lives lost does not equate to the kid's version which is basically that synthetics will drive organic life to extinction eventually.

The whole idea of setting up chaos as necessarily bad is one of the big problems with the ending.  Chaos an order are not bad and good respectively.  They are neutral concepts.  There can be bad order and good chaos.  Chaotic math or Fractal Geometry can create beautiful things.  Chaos can lead to beneficial mutations and is sometimes one way evolution occurs.  Sometimes it's more orderly but often nature throws things at a problem and sees what works and evolution occurs.  Chaos is randomness and without it our own personalities would be boring.  Randomness helps to create differences and to even aid learning-random thought, streams of thought, and such things.  Order that is bad can best be seen with dictatorships or fascist regimes-everything works like clockwork because there is no randomness to anything.  Evolution under some orderly process would take forever.

[3DandBeyond]

essarr71 wrote...

Heck, 3D, ME3 makes a point of describing that very social behavior during EDI's Reaper camp stories.

Yep, so the writers saw this, used it and then abandoned it as being pertinent to the idea of those choices.  People in those camps didn't all capitulate and say they wanted to live at all costs.  They decided death was the only alternative and they knew what would happen.  It was an important moment.

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...
The Geth never rebelled against their creators. It's been made clear since ME1 that the Quarians attacked first, and the Geth just defended themselves. Then ME3 explicitly shows that the Geth let the Quarians flee and decided to only observe in isolation. This is hardly a "rebellion".

That still sounds like rebellion to me. You seem to have a very specific definition of rebellion that I don't think holds. Rebellions can often be a response to some repressive or violent act on the part of the group in power, and rebellions often don't end with everyone on one side dead.

Well, actually, since the geth were successful, I suppose revolution would be a more appropriate word.

Yes but the implication of what the kid says and what type of rebelling is very narrow in scope.  It's not the idea that innocent synthetics will have to protect themselves and this is why they rebel.  It's used with more malevolent implication-that all synthetics will become killers and rebel against creators they have outgrown and they will kill them.  The idea is that synthetics will supercede their creators and at that time they will unprovoked either intentionally or accidentally kill their creators and every bit of organic life they can get their hands on.  Self-defense is a lot more targeted, narrower in scope.  It can lead to accidental deaths but it mostly would be directed at those who threaten them.

But you're technically right in a way.  But when the quarians started the wholesale shutdown of a whole race of people, the reaction was really not a rebellion.  The quarians had started a war and if someone starts a war against you, you aren't rebelling when you fight back.  This is a fun discussion but it's really meaningless semantics.  It's all based upon  the point of view.  You know the saying, "one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist."

[AlanC9]

shingara wrote...

The endings are a symtom running through the entire backbone of the ME3 plotline. From ME1 to ME2 we had soverign being the vanguard for harbringer. Harbringer is the one calling all the shots and yet Harbringer is cast out in ME3. The most we see of harbringer is about 40 seconds max in 2 cutscenes within 3. The first one when he is leaving the main battle of which we arnt even sure which of the reapers he is. The second he is just behind the beam shooting at you.

So you wanted more Harbinger? OK. I don't quite see how this ties in, unless you're just making a list of things shingara doesn't like.

 Seriously a child, that diluted the reapers to an extent of none significance. The reapers could have been toasters firing charded gluton free bread at you. They became nothing more then vessels, none entitys that have no significance at all. You might aswell be trying to kick a gun and hope it doesnt accidently fire into your face.

That metaphor doesn't work unless that gluten-free bread is coming out fast enough to kill you. The Repaers are still dangerous. I'm also not quite clear what the holographic form of the Catalyst has to do with anything.

   In the previous games it was all down to Nanides. Those are the little nano tech that are injected into the humans on spikes to convert them into husks and the synthetic glue that is used to bind organic and sythetic material together into reapers main example is the proto reaper within the ending of 2. That is the basis of the reaper tech and how they control via quantum entanglement which TIM was trying to co-opt to control the reapers and the reaper forces.

 But in ME3 the writers decided no thats not correct. So they implanted an AI who controls the reapers and harbringer. But here is the thing. If this AI is controling the reapers and is the citidel why wasnt it able to control soverign in 1. If the protheans stopped the citidel from comunicating with the reapers how come they knew what todo. 

You seem to be referencing stuff from the novels here since the games proper don't talk too much about nanites. Nothing wrong with that since they're still canon, but it's a little hard to follow why you're talking about nanites. If this is just about the Catalyst being supposedly unable to communicate with Sovereign, who says he wasn't able to? The Catalyst's problem isn't that Sovereign doesn't know what's going on; Soveriegn always has known what's going on. The problem is that the Citadel Relay won't open. Same thing for the supposed control problem. In any event, losing communication with an indoctrinated person isn't supposed to restore the original personality, so I don't see why you're assuming it would happen with Reapers

 So we have all that and then somehow the now implanted AI can communicate with shepard at will within there dreams. It somehow could communicate with shepard on earth. The very thing that has been trying to kill shepard all along. We know that shepard would never try to control the reapers as he has fought TIM over it constaly from 2.

Do we know that? Controlling the Reapers didn't come up in 2 -- using Reaper tech did, and my Sheps always kept the base. In 3  some of my Sheps aren't sure that Tim's wrong.

 There last words to TIM are it cannot be done. The last words he said to saren was it could not be done. That its been proven synthesis cannot work as the reapers are already in a synthesis state and there nanides make them immune to control in such a fasion as the minds of each and every individual reaper is beyond the scale of any organic or synthetic being. Which legion himself told you.

"There" -- their? -- refers to all Shepards, right? So Shepard says it. Doesn't make it true even if he says it. Even if you're trying to make some sort of thematic argument, the hero doesn't have to be always right about stuff. I'm also not sure you're right about the quotes, but  I suppose we could fish the actual lines up from YouTube.

 The fact that shepard would never just give up is woven so deeply into shepards story proves they would never let the harvest continue. Destroy is the only conclusion you can come to and then also that is jaded as it requires to sacrifice your own life and the geth.

Don't tell me what my Shepards concluded, if you please.

 OW and here is the kicker, if the prime order is to stop all synthetic life destroying organic life why do they kill the organics and hire the synthetics.

The synthetics get destroyed harvested when they've outlived their usefulness. (Edit: thanks, CronoDragoon)

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 août 2013 - 07:02 .

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...
The synthetics get destroyed when they've outlived their usefulness.

*harvested.

[CronoDragoon]

3DandBeyond wrote...
Yes but the implication of what the kid says and what type of rebelling is very narrow in scope.  It's not the idea that innocent synthetics will have to protect themselves and this is why they rebel.  It's used with more malevolent implication-that all synthetics will become killers and rebel against creators they have outgrown and they will kill them. 

I disagree. Do you have Catalyst lines to support this interpretation? Because the feeling I got from the Catalyst is that organics are more to blame than anyone.

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
Yes but the implication of what the kid says and what type of rebelling is very narrow in scope.  It's not the idea that innocent synthetics will have to protect themselves and this is why they rebel.  It's used with more malevolent implication-that all synthetics will become killers and rebel against creators they have outgrown and they will kill them. 

I disagree. Do you have Catalyst lines to support this interpretation? Because the feeling I got from the Catalyst is that organics are more to blame than anyone.

Besides "The created will always turn on their creators"?

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

Besides "The created will always turn on their creators"?

When is this said? Rebel != turn on.

Moreover, doesn't the entire Leviathan backstory sort of show how organics are at least as much to blame for this crap as synthetics?

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 06 août 2013 - 07:13 .

[Enhanced]

3DandBeyond wrote...

The kid's set up to believe that synthetics will always rebel against their creators (did not happen with the geth, they acted in self-defense) and kill all organic life. That means kitties, fishies, and tulips too.

But in every instance in the game where Shepard encountered problems with synthetics, there was a way to work things out or just shut down the problem (ME1 on the Citadel with that AI stealing money).

Acting in self-defense was rebelling because they refused to be shut-down by their creators, who had authority over them. The Quarians saw them as tools that could just be turned off.

Shepard's ability to resolve conflict is great, but someone like him/her won't always be there at the right time.

Modifié par Enhanced, 06 août 2013 - 07:33 .

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

I disagree. Do you have Catalyst lines to support this interpretation? Because the feeling I got from the Catalyst is that organics are more to blame than anyone.

Besides "The created will always turn on their creators"?

No, this isn't  from ME3, just checked it.

Original quote is:

The created will always rebel against their creators.

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
Yes but the implication of what the kid says and what type of rebelling is very narrow in scope.  It's not the idea that innocent synthetics will have to protect themselves and this is why they rebel.  It's used with more malevolent implication-that all synthetics will become killers and rebel against creators they have outgrown and they will kill them. 

I disagree. Do you have Catalyst lines to support this interpretation? Because the feeling I got from the Catalyst is that organics are more to blame than anyone.

Actually if you'll note I said the implication of what he says and clearly it's not something that would include every type of reaction to an action.  When people speak of rebel or rebellion it is usually applied in sort of good or bad terms.  Good rebellion is like overthrowing a despot.  Bad rebellion is like a child having some temper tantrum over an item their parent won't buy them.  The kid takes pains to paint his term rebel as some sort of action and not a real reaction.  He is the best example of this and it's likely this is why he has come to the conclusion it is inevitable or always will be.  Again, he thinks that anything that can happen will always happen or inevitably happen.

But as I've said it doesn't even matter if you think the geth rebelled or not.  His perception of the idea is that it will lead to synthetics killing all organic life, including all of their creators, but the geth did not do this.  As I said the word rebel is merely a POV thing and it doesn't matter.  The idea that it can also mean synthetics will fight back if they're threatened would force the issue to be:  Either synthetics will always end up killing organics because they want to or they will do so in response to organics deciding to kill them.  Is that better?  No, I don't think so because none of this is necessarily true. 

You cannot say something that has not ever happened is inevitable because you don't know that it is, no matter how smart you are and no matter how high the degree of probability.  The very idea that something is probable means that even a slim possibility of something else happening exists. 

And you cannot say something is inevitable if it can be stopped and the idea of the choices is supposed to be that at least one of them or all of them will stop this inevitability.  So, either the choices won't stop it and it's inevitable so why make a choice?  Or, the choices will stop it, therefore it's not inevitable so why make a choice?  One is futile.  The other leads to the possibility that other things, better things could stop this inevitable conflict, rebellion, and organic extinction.

The implication still stands from the statement that the created will always rebel against their creators that this was meant as synthetics being the actors and not being reactive.  And this is also central to why the kid AI was created in the first place.  Enthralled races kept creating synthetics that killed them.  There's nothing within those stories to suggest the enthralled attacked their creations-of course, we don't have a lot of info there.  But since it all ends up with the idea being that organics need to stop creating killer synthetics, they are given more malevolence deserved or not.  Organics are to blame for creating these killers.  Or they're just to blame.

But I do agree there.  That's part of why I don't see the kid as being all that honest.  He specifically says he had to destroy his creators.  Sovereign and Harbinger seemed giddy about killing organics.  But the kid wants this to be seen as some sort of salvation?

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 06 août 2013 - 07:41 .

[shingara]

AlanC9 wrote...

Snip so not as long as the bible

 Nanides are actualy covered very deeply in 1 2 and 3. Its explained through the codex and and interwoven through the thorian line. If memory serves there are even some major references to nanides via geth terminals within feros (1) and edi and the codex explain even deeper within 2. Alot of info is desiminated from the iff ship if you remeber on nanides in 2 if you remember and sanctuary in 3 but you are also correct that alot of info on nanides within the novels and comics, grayson is a good example. And just a side note nanites and nanides are similer yet different in the ways they interact and deviate from each other.

 Whilst both are basically minitre robots nanites are quite large based on a celualar level and none adaptive in there behavour running along lines of pre programed lines, nanides on the other hand are much smaller ranging on an atomic level, nanides inherient design is to manipulate and construct via high level control specifically in the case of the reapers in bioconstruction and control. Nanides can weave synthetic and organic material on the atomic level whilst using the organic and synthetic material into a power unit none requirent of an external source.

  This means that reapers and husks themselves do not have to eat, recharge, sleep and have the higher functunality in a unit able to consist of extreme amounts of nanides to create proccesors much more powerful then atomic and quantum computers. This is how reapers are able to retain the essence and combined ancestral memorys, the very essence of the race they subsiquently use to create reapers.

 This is explained in lames terms via javik.  Javik explains how dna isnt static, how its adaptive and can retain memorys and skills. Javiks race the protheans used mass relay tech to focus this into there own prothean technology which is basicaly smaller less advanced versions of how nanides, the reaper tech is able to retain and and encompass an entire species within a reaper construct.

 This is why there are varients amongst the reapers. Whilst harbringer is the blueprint for reapers that we see now, the more varient and adaptive the dna of the species harvested for specific species the more varient and advanced the reaper it can produce.

 This is explained by mordin within his loyalty mission about how humans are the most advances and varied dna species within the milky way. Even though on the outside humans basically look alike the shear ammount of diversity within human dna makes them a divesent key. This is how the proto reaper was able to look so human. It wasnt that humans themselves are advanced its that there dna allows to go beyond the basic form of reaper without breakdown on a cellular level that stops the reapers from created much more varient species away from harbringer.

 The use of reaper tech no matter how its done or protected from always can be over ridden via the strongest unit who holds the largest nanides within its substructure. That would be harbringer. He is the control signal and why when your upon the station the AI catalyst isnt able to stop the reapers as whilst it may have started out as controlling the reapers as soon as the kid created the mega reaper harbringer the shear weight of nanides took its initial command and continued on the pre set orders. This is why the leviathons no matter how powerful there mind control abilitys through quantem entanglement which they enhance through the artifacts couldnt fight back against harbringer because harbringer holds the strongest will being derived from multiple if not thousands of the leviathon species.

 This is shown by Mirandas father as he was able to produce the strongest signal within sanctuary but as soon as a stronger signal came within range control was subsiquently lost.

 So even if shepard could try and control the reapers the essence of the leviathons and the shear size of harbringer defuses any chance of controling them. If it were as simple as taking over harbringer the kid would have done that as soon as he lost control of the reapers. And remember this isnt the first time control has been tried, TIM tried it, some of the protheans tried it and in myth the inusannon tried it.

 And its not that shepard has tobe right or wrong. Its the basis of what shepard is. What they have set there primal goal tobe from the outset.  And its not telling you what your shepard would do. Its what THE shepard would do. It doesnt matter how we play it we have to consider the implications born from shepard and how it is written through out the entire franchise. not just 3 but all of them.


 And when it comes to Harbringer its not what shingara wanted to see. Its the big badass we have been fighting from the very start. If the Ai had been prominent from the start then it would have been that but it wasnt. Harbringer was the big kahuna. The main guy, and the one to kill to beat the reapers. Its harbringers who orders all other reapers not the kid. Its harbringers mind that dominates all reapers and reaper forces not the kids. We were infact fighting harbringer right up until the point we take that lift.

 When you are on the quariun home world, the dying reaper states harbringer not the kid. Its harbringer front and center throughout the entire series.

 Ps for the toaster thing, it was an analogy, but if the bread is big enough its gonna hurt, they turned the reapers into automitons, harbringer is relegated to a puppet of no consiquence along with the other reapers. It defuses any notion of species integration within the reapers which is in essence synthesis. I also retained the CB in some of my playthroughs and when you are going through the cerb base and its there edi will tell you more about how the nanides work if you listen to her.

 Also just a note, the synthetics arnt destroyed by the reapers when there usefulness has been done. The Zha'til were destroyed by the protheans, the collectors were destroyed by shepard.

Modifié par shingara, 06 août 2013 - 08:12 .

[CronoDragoon]

3DandBeyond wrote...
Actually if you'll note I said the implication of what he says and clearly it's not something that would include every type of reaction to an action.  When people speak of rebel or rebellion it is usually applied in sort of good or bad terms.  Good rebellion is like overthrowing a despot.  Bad rebellion is like a child having some temper tantrum over an item their parent won't buy them.  The kid takes pains to paint his term rebel as some sort of action and not a real reaction.  He is the best example of this and it's likely this is why he has come to the conclusion it is inevitable or always will be.  Again, he thinks that anything that can happen will always happen or inevitably happen.

You still need evidence when you posit an implication. In this case that would be dialogue lines. Originally Street claimed that the geth did not rebel against the quarians, and I questioned this based on how "rebellion" is defined. Then you said the Catalyst posited that synthetics always rebelled unjustly by becoming malevolent killers, and so he wasn't really talking about the geth's actions. Please provide Catalyst lines that support this "implication."

Now since I can see that we're moving to another, separate claim the Catalyst makes - that synthetics will eventually wipe out all organics - I'll focus on that.

His perception of the idea is that it will lead to synthetics killing all organic life, including all of their creators, but the geth did not do this.  As I said the word rebel is merely a POV thing and it doesn't matter.  The idea that it can also mean synthetics will fight back if they're threatened would force the issue to be:  Either synthetics will always end up killing organics because they want to or they will do so in response to organics deciding to kill them.  Is that better?  No, I don't think so because none of this is necessarily true.

It's better insofar as it better represents what the Catalyst is saying, yes. But I agree that it's not necessarily true, which is why I pick Destroy so that the universe is given the chance to find out.  I don't even believe it's true that the created will always rebel against the creators- but I do believe the geth qualify in this case, because I don't believe that the Catalyst meant rebellion only in a bloodthirsty, undeserved sense.

The implication still stands from the statement that the created will always rebel against their creators that this was meant as synthetics being the actors and not being reactive.  And this is also central to why the kid AI was created in the first place.  Enthralled races kept creating synthetics that killed them.  There's nothing within those stories to suggest the enthralled attacked their creations-of course, we don't have a lot of info there.  But since it all ends up with the idea being that organics need to stop creating killer synthetics, they are given more malevolence deserved or not.  Organics are to blame for creating these killers.  Or they're just to blame.

I see no such implication. For there to be an implication, the Catalyst would have needed to make an assertion about the motivation for the created to rebel; ie it is in the nature of synthetics to rebel without cause and kill indiscriminately.

Ultimately I don't care why the Catalyst believes what he does though, because I am against his answer in principle.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 06 août 2013 - 08:07 .