70 réponses à ce sujet

[Ranger1337]

I think the bottom line of the endings is that each one has it's own risks and benefits, such that there is no right or wrong choice, but rather the choice will be dictated by the player himself - his opinion, his experience in the game and the ultimatum of the decisions he has made in the past few games. In this sense, the decisions we made in the previous games do matter. Saving the Rachni, saving the Geth or destroying them in favor of the Quarians' existence etc. These heavy choices will ultimately influence the way the player thinks such as his perspective of the value of life, whether it is worth sacrificing synthetic life and so on. Each of the three endings cater to different people.

I know it's a lot to take, cuz Im typing this at half-past 1 in the morning. But here's an example:

Destroy the Reapers: (Benefits)-End extinction cycle, avenge the fallen
(Disadvantage)-Synthetic life annihilated, Legion's sacrifice in vain
(Risks)-Future civilizations invent AI which wipes out all life indiscriminantly
<Destroy is for those willing to risk it on the pretense that the civilizations of the galaxy is responsible and powerful enough to quell or thwart any advanced AI uprising, and that they can develop the surveillance of the entire galaxy to ensure no unknown species is currently developing one. These players also value organic life over synthetic life and those who are not willing to choose other options that contradict the vast majority opinion of the galaxy on how to deal with the Reapers>


Control the Reapers: (Benefits)-End extinction cycle, Military power, Shepard's memories preserved
(Risks)-AI could corrupt and turn on organics once again
(Disadvantages)-Future AI development could lead to extinction of all life

<Controlling the Reapers are for those who believe Shepard is strong enough to lead the Reapers, having amassed such an enormous fleet forged from the alliances of countless former rivaling species. Those who choose control also believe that Shepard AI and the Reaper vessels are powerful enough to prevent and destroy any synthetic life that decides to go on a galactic-wide genocide>

Synthesis: (Benefits)-Extinction cycle ended, peace between synthetics and organics
Catalyst finally achieves its billion year-long goal

(Disavantages)-Shepard dies, significant change in galaxy
(Risks)-Unknown hidden repercussions, organics may be controlled by synthetics

<Synthesis is for those who sympathize with the Leviathans and the Catalyst, understanding fully its intent and context. Those who choose synthesis believe that the galaxy is ready for a big change, which cannot be any worse than having whole homeworlds decimated and trillions of lives lost>

[congokong]

AlanC9 wrote...

congokong wrote...

If you're role-playing then destroying the reapers would be the only reasonable thing to do. Would you really jump into a laser or merge with blue energy not knowing what it really does? The catalyst created the reapers. The reapers will do anything to get their way. No honor at all. The catalyst is the last one you should trust.

Doesn't that "logic" lead to Refuse rather than Destroy? If the Catalyst's going to lie about anything, lying about shooting the tube would be at the top of the list.

How about you respond to my whole post and not remove the quote that answers your question?

"Destroy was the only sensible thing to do even if you're possibly
damning organic life in the future. Shooting the machinery isn't likely
going to improve the catalyst's health at least; even if it didn't do
what the catalyst claimed by destroying all synthetics."

[von uber]

Ranger1337 wrote...

Legion's sacrifice in vain
 

Nope, because it gives a high enough EMS for Shepard to live and go have blue babies

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

It's also a matter of "do you really believe all the knowledge of building that technology will be lost?" The Catalyst is playing the long game.... a very very long game. The worlds are a mess in every single scenario. I think everyone forgets this. Bioware forgot this. "Months" to rebuild? How long did it take to rebuild after Katrina? That was a single city. We're talking entire worlds. 2 km tall reapers aren't the best at manual dexterity either. They're not going to be able to rebuild cities. People are going to have to do that. "It will take time." As Hackett said in the destroy ending. But that applies to Control and Synthesis as well. But I forget, Bioware controls Space Magic, and the worlds will be rebuild in mere months. Everything will be fine in a year. Not to worry.

So regardless of the ending, the technological knowledge is not lost. If you really think about it, the idea of synthesis is not that far away. With the advancements in artificial limbs, implants that have occurred in just the past few years it's amazing. Just think in the next thirty years what might be available. My feeling is that some sort of synthesis in reality would have occurred before the events of Mass Effect. I'm sure by then we'll have cybernetic implants to assist with thought processing.

I think the main objection to the synthesis ending is the way it was presented. I really don't even think it was necessary to present it. It was more of an afterthought. There should have been more of it in the MEU to begin with IMO.

With destroy there should have been no need to destroy the synthetics, except it was to fulfill the needs of the Catalyst, not yours - the destruction of synthetics could have been something the Protheans added. But then that wasn't foreshadowed very well.

The only ending that was foreshadowed well was control. You knew there was going to be a price.

[Sir DeLoria]

The things the Geth did in the Morning War serve as ample proof to me, that AIs are too dangerous to let exist. The Geth have wrought more death and destruction than any WMD. Destroy creates a world free of that danger. It's too bad it doesn't prevent the creation of AIs in the future, now that would be paradise.

In that regard, the Protheans were absolutely right.

[Wayning_Star]

I'm still trying to figure out what "worth living"" might represent....

[Sir DeLoria]

von uber wrote...

Ranger1337 wrote...

Legion's sacrifice in vain
 

Nope, because it gives a high enough EMS for Shepard to live and go have blue babies

Eww, little space squid smurfettes:unsure:

[Redbelle]

I figure the Cat was afraid of becoming obsolete. It's entire self ordained mandate is..... "This far, no further."

So what happens if we go beyond the Catalyst's limits? Well, for one thing. The Catalyst loses control of the thing that makes it believe it is needed. The power to control the fate of species. If species grow so that they become more powerful than the Catalyst and it's armies, through any branch of progress that could render it's reasoning as flawed, then it's served it's purpose and as a machine...... Is obsolete.

So when the Cat is broken down to it's base motivations.... it doesn't want to die. And it dosen't want to be overshadowed. And if it finds it will be...... then it want's to leave a legacy so it's name will live forever.

So in many ways...... The Catalyst is just a politician in a shiny, star glow suit..

[AlanC9]

congokong wrote...


How about you respond to my whole post and not remove the quote that answers your question?

"Destroy was the only sensible thing to do even if you're possibly
damning organic life in the future. Shooting the machinery isn't likely
going to improve the catalyst's health at least; even if it didn't do
what the catalyst claimed by destroying all synthetics."

So Shepard isn't shooting the tube because he really thinks it triggers Destroy? It's just a less-stupid version of Refuse, since at least you're not shooting a hologram? Well, sure, Shepard can think that.... but how does Shepard know he isn't disabling a functioning Crucible, as H.Y.R. 2.0 mentions?

Anyway, that wasn't any kind of answer to my question. Unless you're saying that Shepard ought to be fantasizing that shooting the tube will destroy both the Catalyst and the Reapers, shooting the tube in your scenario is tantamount to Refuse, so my question still applies.

Modifié par AlanC9, 17 février 2014 - 09:57 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

StreetMagic wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

I figure the Cat was afraid of becoming obsolete. It's entire self ordained mandate is..... "This far, no further."

So what happens if we go beyond the Catalyst's limits? Well, for one thing. The Catalyst loses control of the thing that makes it believe it is needed. The power to control the fate of species. If species grow so that they become more powerful than the Catalyst and it's armies, through any branch of progress that could render it's reasoning as flawed, then it's served it's purpose and as a machine...... Is obsolete.

So when the Cat is broken down to it's base motivations.... it doesn't want to die. And it dosen't want to be overshadowed. And if it finds it will be...... then it want's to leave a legacy so it's name will live forever.

So in many ways...... The Catalyst is just a politician in a shiny, star glow suit..

Good post.

You're pointing out something often overlooked. The idea of a "tech singularity" is always brought up in relation to the endings, but to the Catalyst, he's looking at a similar crisis, just the other way around (an organic singularity, more or less). Everyone views the ending as a point of weakness for organics, but that's not how the Catalyst sees it.

"Clearly organics are more resourceful than we thought."

[Heimdall]

Redbelle wrote...

I figure the Cat was afraid of becoming obsolete. It's entire self ordained mandate is..... "This far, no further."

So what happens if we go beyond the Catalyst's limits? Well, for one thing. The Catalyst loses control of the thing that makes it believe it is needed. The power to control the fate of species. If species grow so that they become more powerful than the Catalyst and it's armies, through any branch of progress that could render it's reasoning as flawed, then it's served it's purpose and as a machine...... Is obsolete.

So when the Cat is broken down to it's base motivations.... it doesn't want to die. And it dosen't want to be overshadowed. And if it finds it will be...... then it want's to leave a legacy so it's name will live forever.

So in many ways...... The Catalyst is just a politician in a shiny, star glow suit..

I never really got the impression the Catalyst truly possessed a sense of self preservation.  Didn't most of the endings make the Citadel (Its basis) explode originally?

[MetalCargo999]

Ranger1337 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Can and will.

In the galaxy's recorded history, organics have been a far greater threat to organic life than synthetics.  There is no evidence that the Morning War was somehow a greater threat than the Krogan Rebellions.

The Catalyst's assertions are nothing more than a self-fufilling prophecy.  The galaxy can solve its own problems without Synthetic overlords, forced uplifting, or the extermination of all synthetics.

Thing is, The Morning War does not fit into the kind of conflict the Catalyst is trying to prevent. The Geth did not come to the conclusion that organics have no purpose and hence should be wiped out completely. They merely acted in self-defense and once the Quarians were no longer a threat, they did not pursue them past their home system. However, the possibility of them eventually coming to that conclusion remains. It may take centuries but eventually they may start wiping out organic life due to the assumption that they are all hostile to synthetics or that they perceive themselves to be enslaved by organic life due to their artificial nature. Convincing them is not a 100% guarantee. As an intelligence, they can decide whether the organics statement is true or they may rely on mathematics and statistics to come up with a different and frankly, more fatal conclusion. 

And note that the Catalyst technically does not commit genocide, because the consciousness of the harvested are uploaded into the Reaper warship's gestalt consciousness. In essence, it is similar to The Matrix. The harvested could be living in a virtual reality within The Reaper while they're combined neural activity powers the Reaper's artificial intelligence. This may contribute to The Catalyst's main goal, which is to find the ultimate solution to end conflict between synthetics and organics - the Reaper cycle was never meant to be permanent. It was a temporary makeshift solution while the AI looks for that solution : Synthesis. When the Crucible docked with the Citadel, the Catalyst realized that the galaxy is now ready for synthesis and hence, declared it the better solution over the Reaper cycle. EDI's voiceover after the shockwave incident mentions that they are now connected to all the civilzations that came before them - including The Protheans and the Innusanon. This implies that synthesis can allow the revival of all the harvested populations in previous cycles.

So before I begin, let me say that I have profound respect for your defense of the story as is, and perhaps even your love for it.  But I'd like to take the time to say why, as I see it, the points you bring up (which I think are all legitimate) fail in the context of making a story a good story; good, as I would see it.
Your first point, in defense of the catalyst's logic, is logically sound as a defense, and in that sense is inscrutable.  However, in the context of writing a good story, I would have to argue that an ending that suggests that everything you've experienced in the game world which seems to have been designed to explore the themes that the catalyst exposits (I assume that the morning war is actually meant to address the same issue the catalyst brings up because it seems to give narrative incentive NOT to choose destroy but rather synthesis as the morally right decision, or perhaps control) is weak story telling.  What do I mean by weak?  I mean that the gamer experiencing the story should not have to search outside of the narrative itself to find a logical reason to justify the narrative.  A strong story does this automatically either by providing the necessary expository information in the story itself with a logical if not intuitive resolution (think mystery novels) or provides thematic structure, continuity, and development consistent with the gamer's experience of the story to allow the gamer to intuitively accept the ending as valid; all of this while respecting the given genre of the story.  So why do we think that the morning war addresses the same issue as the catalyst's?  Because, thematically speaking, it is set up against synthesis and control, which are the other two options that are meant to be, in some sense, antitheses to destroy, and all of which are present in the morning war's options for an outcome.  The choices made by the geth and organics involved in the conflict are narratively bound to the conflict trying to be resolved by the reapers, and you can only assume otherwise, sans narrative justification, by suggesting that what seemed to be the point of the morning war in exploring the main themes of the story (as provided by the catalyst) was an unwarranted experience on the part of the gamer.  To throw in a logically sound point at the end of the story to suggest that MAYBE in a few millenniums the cycle might restart upon the choice of destruction is the sign of a weak narrative with, as you seem to admit in your analysis of the morning war, no narrative precedent.
As for your second point, note how similar your line of reasoning is to your first justification of the narrative  These are all assumptions, based on the story, but which have not been explored in the story itself beyond vague notions.  Don't get me wrong!  I think that the game would have been much better HAD they explored these questions in more detail (your last point about EDI is fascinating.  Why isn't it in the story itself?!), making the main plot about the reapers instead of Cerberus (itself a weak decision but that's for another time).  But when looking at the story as is, it seems that you have very little narrative justification for your conclusions, having to rely on other stories such as The Matrix which explore and justify the concepts you need to rescue Mass Effect's narrative, to justify your points, and that's why I think this game remains too vague to give any real reason, provided for from the narrative itself, to fight for something worthwhile (besides the "TAKE BACK EARTH" slogan in the marketing).  It's a shame, I think.    

[von uber]

Necanor wrote...
Eww, little space squid smurfettes:unsure:

[ShadowLordXII]

Ranger1337 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Can and will.

In the galaxy's recorded history, organics have been a far greater threat to organic life than synthetics.  There is no evidence that the Morning War was somehow a greater threat than the Krogan Rebellions.

The Catalyst's assertions are nothing more than a self-fufilling prophecy.  The galaxy can solve its own problems without Synthetic overlords, forced uplifting, or the extermination of all synthetics.

Thing is, The Morning War does not fit into the kind of conflict the Catalyst is trying to prevent. The Geth did not come to the conclusion that organics have no purpose and hence should be wiped out completely. They merely acted in self-defense and once the Quarians were no longer a threat, they did not pursue them past their home system. However, the possibility of them eventually coming to that conclusion remains. It may take centuries but eventually they may start wiping out organic life due to the assumption that they are all hostile to synthetics or that they perceive themselves to be enslaved by organic life due to their artificial nature. Convincing them is not a 100% guarantee. As an intelligence, they can decide whether the organics statement is true or they may rely on mathematics and statistics to come up with a different and frankly, more fatal conclusion. 

And note that the Catalyst technically does not commit genocide, because the consciousness of the harvested are uploaded into the Reaper warship's gestalt consciousness. In essence, it is similar to The Matrix. The harvested could be living in a virtual reality within The Reaper while they're combined neural activity powers the Reaper's artificial intelligence. This may contribute to The Catalyst's main goal, which is to find the ultimate solution to end conflict between synthetics and organics - the Reaper cycle was never meant to be permanent. It was a temporary makeshift solution while the AI looks for that solution : Synthesis. When the Crucible docked with the Citadel, the Catalyst realized that the galaxy is now ready for synthesis and hence, declared it the better solution over the Reaper cycle. EDI's voiceover after the shockwave incident mentions that they are now connected to all the civilzations that came before them - including The Protheans and the Innusanon. This implies that synthesis can allow the revival of all the harvested populations in previous cycles.

I'm strongly against the notion that the Catalyst does not commit genocide.

Remember the protheans? Remember how the reapers couldn't make the protheans into reapers so they turned them into collectors instead? With the exception of Javik, the Prothean race is gone. After their cycle was wiped out, nothing has been "preserved" in reaper form.

So how do we know that this hasn't happened in previous cycles? How many cycles of civilizations failed to be "preserved" and are now just gone? Even if you could argue that Synthesis isn't the worst possible thing that you could force upon the galaxy, it's not going to bring back those lost civilizations. They're gone. How is that not genocide?

Modifié par ShadowLordXII, 17 février 2014 - 11:09 .

[RangerSG]

Ranger1337 wrote...

Because most people are stuck in the conviction that the Reapers are wrong. The very reason we oppose the Reapers is because we want to live. It is because as organics, we have a self-preservation instinct. The Catalyst is not wrong in its conclusion. The ones to really blame are the Leviathans because they programmed the AI to search for the solution to preserve life and end conflict between synthetics and organics.

The conclusion it came up with is simple and absolute:
"Advanced organics must be pushed aside because they carry a risk of creating synthetics that may turn on ALL organics, even the younger species and potentially all life, present and future".

You cannot say the Catalyst is wrong. It's like saying your calculator is wrong because it gave you a figure of the amount of money left in your bank account and it hurts you to know you have 10 dollars left in your savings. Like it said, it is only carrying out it's core programming just as fire is meant to burn. Even the Leviathans acknowledged that the Catalyst is merely doing what it was programmed to do.

Yes, it is perfectly understandable to Destroy the Reapers because we as organics should be able to make our own decisions about our future and the players have every right to do so. Even the Catalyst itself was open to the decision to close the book on the Reapers forever, because Shepard's armada and him standing in the Citadel control room has made the AI reassess itself, realizing that this occurrence means that there was a chance of organics eventually overcoming the Reapers themselves, making its solution invalid.

You have to understand the extreme dilemma that is placed upon the Catalyst as an AI. It is programmed to preserve life at all costs but it realizes that even the smallest chance of any future organics, it could be thousands or millions of years after Mass Effect's timeline, creating even a single synthetic race that eventually self-evolved and turned on its creators and wiping out ALL life, which is WAY worse than the Reapers' agenda is.

So in layman's terms, yes, as Organics, we have the right to live on our own terms and we are right for doing so. But we cannot discount the reality that the Catalyst's realization can happen at any time. In a way, it is selfish. Because we want to live, because of our nature to want to survive, we are carrying the risk of the death of our descendants. Because when the time comes, when the humans, turians, asari, vorcha, quarians and whatnot are finally gone, we cannot predict what the future advanced civilizations that come after us will do. Maybe it's not our problem. It's they're fault, they pay for it. Doesn't matter, we're already extinct or have migrated to the Andromeda.

In essence, Destroy the Reapers because I can't be f***ed about what the future races eventually do to themselves and I just wanna live to see me having a Quarian-Human baby.

You can say the Catalyst is wrong. Because History isn't Math. Just because something HAS happened before doesn't mean it WILL happen again. And just because the Catalyst THINKS these other 'solutions' will work doesn't mean they will. Starbrat isn't a prophet. It's an AI. All it can do is extrapolate based on its flawed programming. It will do so accurately within the confines of the data it had. But it cannot interpret new data that does not yet exist. Hence the cycles. It has no other solution than to kill the strong so the weak can grow. The moment the Crucible fires, in any manner, anything the Starbrat had for data is rendered obsolete.  

And the Geth/Quarian war and EDI both show that there is potential for reconciliation between synthetics and organics. Some say there's no promise it will last. Well of course not. Nothing is eternal. By that logic, we should just annihilate the galaxy, since it's not going to last forever anyway. 

Life presents possibilities, and the wise choose from the best of them (or at least the least-bad they are presented). An AI can only choose in line with its programming. It doesn't understand new paradigms. So if you accept its logic, you end in the same place. But if you understand that it has no comprehension of organic life in the 1st place. That all it can do is read the data its given, and repeat the conclusions, then you're free to choose a different path. 

It might end in destruction. But what, other than Starbrat's guesswork, says the others won't as well? (And again I will note, the Epilogues aren't promises. They are only the conjectures of a giddy friend in the immediate aftermath.)

[RangerSG]

ShadowLordXII wrote...

Ranger1337 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Can and will.

In the galaxy's recorded history, organics have been a far greater threat to organic life than synthetics.  There is no evidence that the Morning War was somehow a greater threat than the Krogan Rebellions.

The Catalyst's assertions are nothing more than a self-fufilling prophecy.  The galaxy can solve its own problems without Synthetic overlords, forced uplifting, or the extermination of all synthetics.

Thing is, The Morning War does not fit into the kind of conflict the Catalyst is trying to prevent. The Geth did not come to the conclusion that organics have no purpose and hence should be wiped out completely. They merely acted in self-defense and once the Quarians were no longer a threat, they did not pursue them past their home system. However, the possibility of them eventually coming to that conclusion remains. It may take centuries but eventually they may start wiping out organic life due to the assumption that they are all hostile to synthetics or that they perceive themselves to be enslaved by organic life due to their artificial nature. Convincing them is not a 100% guarantee. As an intelligence, they can decide whether the organics statement is true or they may rely on mathematics and statistics to come up with a different and frankly, more fatal conclusion. 

And note that the Catalyst technically does not commit genocide, because the consciousness of the harvested are uploaded into the Reaper warship's gestalt consciousness. In essence, it is similar to The Matrix. The harvested could be living in a virtual reality within The Reaper while they're combined neural activity powers the Reaper's artificial intelligence. This may contribute to The Catalyst's main goal, which is to find the ultimate solution to end conflict between synthetics and organics - the Reaper cycle was never meant to be permanent. It was a temporary makeshift solution while the AI looks for that solution : Synthesis. When the Crucible docked with the Citadel, the Catalyst realized that the galaxy is now ready for synthesis and hence, declared it the better solution over the Reaper cycle. EDI's voiceover after the shockwave incident mentions that they are now connected to all the civilzations that came before them - including The Protheans and the Innusanon. This implies that synthesis can allow the revival of all the harvested populations in previous cycles.

I'm strongly against the notion that the Catalyst does not commit genocide.

Remember the protheans? Remember how the reapers couldn't make the protheans into reapers so they turned them into collectors instead? With the exception of Javik, the Prothean race is gone. After their cycle was wiped out, nothing has been "preserved" in reaper form.

So how do we know that this hasn't happened in previous cycles? How many cycles of civilizations failed to be "preserved" and are now just gone? Even if you could argue that Synthesis isn't the worst possible thing that you could force upon the galaxy, it's not going to bring back those lost civilizations. They're gone. How is that not genocide?

I'm in agreement here as well. Saying the Cycle isn't genocide because the consciousness is uploaded into the Reaper "mind" doesn't mean the civilization continues. There is no further growth. The only 'culture' that exists thereafter is the Reaper culture. And their programming dictates everything the new Reaper will do. The 'culture' is preserved as a museum piece. Nothing more. 

The culture is no more alive than one can claim the Carthaginians survived the Romans because someone dug up a portrait of Hannibal. 

[Redbelle]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

I figure the Cat was afraid of becoming obsolete. It's entire self ordained mandate is..... "This far, no further."

So what happens if we go beyond the Catalyst's limits? Well, for one thing. The Catalyst loses control of the thing that makes it believe it is needed. The power to control the fate of species. If species grow so that they become more powerful than the Catalyst and it's armies, through any branch of progress that could render it's reasoning as flawed, then it's served it's purpose and as a machine...... Is obsolete.

So when the Cat is broken down to it's base motivations.... it doesn't want to die. And it dosen't want to be overshadowed. And if it finds it will be...... then it want's to leave a legacy so it's name will live forever.

So in many ways...... The Catalyst is just a politician in a shiny, star glow suit..

I never really got the impression the Catalyst truly possessed a sense of self preservation.  Didn't most of the endings make the Citadel (Its basis) explode originally?

Hence it's desire to leave a legacy, and tries to maneuver Shepard towards it's prefered choice. It's helpless at this point..... brushing the fact the Cat can turn off the Crucible and prevent destruction....... <sigh> I'd just say the Cat is operating on a logic gate system at that point.

• The Shepard must choose our future.
• If yes, offer 3 options.
• If no, turn off the crucible.
• If three options are chosen represent according to Catalyst programmed preference.
• Overarching command gate. Future must be chosen by cycle representive. Any choice supercede's previous commands.
• ..............Stupid Leviathans!!!

At the end, I don't think the Cat is really around anymore. It's either destroyed..... superceded by Shepards will and new mandate, or redundunt as it goes past the ordained cycle and now has no reason to exist as it's programming of preservation through genocide render's it obsolete when it see's all life as being life it can no longer destroy

[congokong]

AlanC9 wrote...

congokong wrote...


How about you respond to my whole post and not remove the quote that answers your question?

"Destroy was the only sensible thing to do even if you're possibly
damning organic life in the future. Shooting the machinery isn't likely
going to improve the catalyst's health at least; even if it didn't do
what the catalyst claimed by destroying all synthetics."

So Shepard isn't shooting the tube because he really thinks it triggers Destroy? It's just a less-stupid version of Refuse, since at least you're not shooting a hologram? Well, sure, Shepard can think that.... but how does Shepard know he isn't disabling a functioning Crucible, as H.Y.R. 2.0 mentions?

Anyway, that wasn't any kind of answer to my question. Unless you're saying that Shepard ought to be fantasizing that shooting the tube will destroy both the Catalyst and the Reapers, shooting the tube in your scenario is tantamount to Refuse, so my question still applies.

If you "refuse" then nothing changes. You just bleed to death as the reapers harvest everything. Shooting the tube cannot make things any worse than that.

[von uber]

It always amazes me that people think that the Reapers had a point, or that control or synthesis are good options.
I just can't get my head around it.

[Iakus]

Necanor wrote...

The things the Geth did in the Morning War serve as ample proof to me, that AIs are too dangerous to let exist. The Geth have wrought more death and destruction than any WMD. Destroy creates a world free of that danger. It's too bad it doesn't prevent the creation of AIs in the future, now that would be paradise.

In that regard, the Protheans were absolutely right.

Destroy kills the krogan?

[congokong]

von uber wrote...

It always amazes me that people think that the Reapers had a point, or that control or synthesis are good options.
I just can't get my head around it.

The reapers have a point if the catalyst's premise is true that if left alone all organics will be killed by the synthetics they create.

http://social.biowar...17774888-1.html

Modifié par congokong, 18 février 2014 - 12:27 .

[Invisible Man]

von uber wrote...

It always amazes me that people think that the Reapers had a point, or that control or synthesis are good options.
I just can't get my head around it.

I don't think it's quite like that. I think it's more like such people think of synthesis or control as the lesser of three evils. at first I had that mind set about synthesis, but I've change my mind to I just don't know. 

[AlanC9]

von uber wrote...

It always amazes me that people think that the Reapers had a point, or that control or synthesis are good options.
I just can't get my head around it.

They all work out fine. What's hard to get your head around?

Edit: I'm only referring to control and synthesis being good options; there isn't very much reason to think that the Reapers had a point, though it's possible that the Catalyst really is right about everything. And of course, in a metagaming sense we know that he wasn't right, since there's no way Bio would actually let Destroy lead to the extermination of organic life.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 février 2014 - 04:25 .

[Ranger1337]

MetalCargo999 wrote...

So before I begin, let me say that I have profound respect for your defense of the story as is, and perhaps even your love for it.  But I'd like to take the time to say why, as I see it, the points you bring up (which I think are all legitimate) fail in the context of making a story a good story; good, as I would see it.
Your first point, in defense of the catalyst's logic, is logically sound as a defense, and in that sense is inscrutable.  However, in the context of writing a good story, I would have to argue that an ending that suggests that everything you've experienced in the game world which seems to have been designed to explore the themes that the catalyst exposits (I assume that the morning war is actually meant to address the same issue the catalyst brings up because it seems to give narrative incentive NOT to choose destroy but rather synthesis as the morally right decision, or perhaps control) is weak story telling.  What do I mean by weak?  I mean that the gamer experiencing the story should not have to search outside of the narrative itself to find a logical reason to justify the narrative.  A strong story does this automatically either by providing the necessary expository information in the story itself with a logical if not intuitive resolution (think mystery novels) or provides thematic structure, continuity, and development consistent with the gamer's experience of the story to allow the gamer to intuitively accept the ending as valid; all of this while respecting the given genre of the story.  So why do we think that the morning war addresses the same issue as the catalyst's?  Because, thematically speaking, it is set up against synthesis and control, which are the other two options that are meant to be, in some sense, antitheses to destroy, and all of which are present in the morning war's options for an outcome.  The choices made by the geth and organics involved in the conflict are narratively bound to the conflict trying to be resolved by the reapers, and you can only assume otherwise, sans narrative justification, by suggesting that what seemed to be the point of the morning war in exploring the main themes of the story (as provided by the catalyst) was an unwarranted experience on the part of the gamer.  To throw in a logically sound point at the end of the story to suggest that MAYBE in a few millenniums the cycle might restart upon the choice of destruction is the sign of a weak narrative with, as you seem to admit in your analysis of the morning war, no narrative precedent.
As for your second point, note how similar your line of reasoning is to your first justification of the narrative  These are all assumptions, based on the story, but which have not been explored in the story itself beyond vague notions.  Don't get me wrong!  I think that the game would have been much better HAD they explored these questions in more detail (your last point about EDI is fascinating.  Why isn't it in the story itself?!), making the main plot about the reapers instead of Cerberus (itself a weak decision but that's for another time).  But when looking at the story as is, it seems that you have very little narrative justification for your conclusions, having to rely on other stories such as The Matrix which explore and justify the concepts you need to rescue Mass Effect's narrative, to justify your points, and that's why I think this game remains too vague to give any real reason, provided for from the narrative itself, to fight for something worthwhile (besides the "TAKE BACK EARTH" slogan in the marketing).  It's a shame, I think.    

I agree that story telling should not require the gamer to think past the given cirucmstances within the storyline to find justification in the endings they choose. However, Mass Effect seems to have a different take on this. The players do not actually have to think outside the box but instead just assess the outcomes of the different conflicts that have been presented in the story. The Morning War is a bad example so I will choose another one. Project Overlord seems a better candidate. The events of that DLC proves that AIs can be extremely dangerous. David/AI nearly transmitted itself to the entire galaxy and Gavin himself stated that if he succeeded, it could have caused a technological apocalypse. In this sense, players may incline themselves to Destroy, as synthetics have proved themselves to be just as dangerous. Javik's backstory concerning the Zha and Zha'til also contributes to this idea, as the synthetics itself destroyed its organic creators for apparently no reason. It is unclear though what the exact circumstances were at the time. However, the peace between the Quarians and the Geth and EDI herself points at another end of the spectrum, which is that AIs will always look up to the organics for the context it desires and simply wishes to exist and not incite unnecessary conflict. This can be observed every time Legion inquires about organic understanding to Shepard in both ME2 and ME3, and finally asking if it has a soul. Even EDI did not immediately come to the conclusion that organics, having no apparent purpose, should be eradicated. Instead, she asked an organic. Shepard explains to her that organics value the time they have alive and she understood it. In this case, players may become conflicted once the three endings have been presented. BioWare obviously can't make the Destroy ending such that only the Reapers themselves are annihilated. It would point to Destroy being the best ending and everyone playing the game will choose it. The players needed a sense of cause and consequence so that they will really think carefully over the three options they are given. So, perhaps we are the only ones who seem to be thinking way out of the box but maybe it's just a side-effect of having a vague ending.

However I completely agree that the story is way too vague and way too simplified. The endings just provide way too little information. They could have explained in greater detail what effects the endings we chose have caused post-war. This seems to be caused by the fact that the story was originally going to be vastly different than what ME3 is now. I remember the writers stating that the story was meant to focus on Dark Energy. Remnants of this story can be witnessed in the first two games. For example, Haestrom's sun. My theory is that BioWare is preserving this for the next series, set after the events of Mass Effect 3. Remember how Hackett says that the Crucible uses Dark Energy to propel it's shockwave across the galaxy. Well if that happens, then we'd see more suns going supernova in the future, which can provide the backdrop of our next Mass Effect's story.