221 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

I assume you played Leviathan DLC? Here is wiki excerpt:

"To prevent such events from happening, they created the Catalyst - which they referred to as "The Intelligence" - to oversee relations between organic and synthetic life. The Catalyst was programmed to ensure the continued existence of life in the galaxy through any means necessary."

As you can see it was created to preserve life, at least in some form and that's why Reapers harvest both synthetics and organics.

About the geth, you may want to reread my post. Notice how I said that the geth nearly wiped out the quarians, then quarians came back and nearly wiped the geth out. The only thing that stopped them were the Reapers upgrading the geth. The point is, the conflict took place in our cycle and could've resulted in the loss of either the quarians or the geth.

The problem surely was that and that's exactly what the Catalyst says. We create synthetics to improve our existence, they surpass us and there is conflict. Exactly what happened between the quarians and the geth.

I'm indeed assuming but it's a reasonable assumption, considering that EDI, an AI with less capabilities and based on the Reaper technology, can do that. Shepard's guidance is irrelevant here, I'm talking about the mere ability of an AI to modify its programming. It's something true for any AI, they all can evolve and learn which means modifying the programming in some cases. The Catalyst's views changed at least once - in the period between when he was created and when he first went rogue.

I'm not missing anything, just our perceptions of the events are different. You seem to think that the Catalyst is just crazy and trapped in an endless loop of killing and harvesting in a futile attempt to impose order on the galaxy. I think that the Catalyst is not crazy, all it does falls under the rules of logic that machines use, including disregard for the things that organics view as essential components of existence, like free will, social relations etc. For it, we are just organic matter, and all that we are can be preserved via liquefied goo. With the notion of the "essence of the species" present in ME universe it is not that far from truth, but it is still not true. I don't think we can convince each other on those viewpoints so I suggest we drop this.

I am quite aware of the Catalyst's purpose. As I said before, the reapers destroy in order to prevent future destruction. It's illogical. "Preserving life" by melting down organics and turning their life force to power reapers is hardly "living." The Catalyst merely warped and misconstrued what the Leviathans intended. That is the point. Again, watch 2001: A Space Odyssey. The Catalyst is hardly anything new and relates back to that basic question of man versus machines which is in a lot of science fiction.

 

Again, you are dealing with "what ifs" and what may have happened. You are using the same warped logic the Catalyst is, by creating problems where there are none. If not for Sovereign corrupting the Geth, creating the Heretics, it's unlikely war would have occurred again. The majority of the Collective was against hostilities and fighting. They acted in self-defense to run the Quarians off of Rannoch, but did not pursue. It was a small, vocal minority who gained power and influence over the rest thanks to the reapers. The Catalyst merely made the situation worse, not better. The "extremists" amongst the Quarians were also a small, vocal minority, as many did not want to be engaged in another war.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree. This isn't a matter of the Catalyst being "crazy." Machines cannot have a mentality. The Catalyst just has a warped view of order and stability based on what the Leviathans originally programmed it to do. To suggest it has evolved at all since its betrayal of the Leviathans is a huge stretch. Considering it has continued the same behavior for hundreds of thousands of years, it actually seems to indicate the Catalyst hasn't changed or evolved at all. Unlike EDI, the Catalyst didn't have an organic influence to learn from and try to understand the organic dilemma.

[Vazgen]

I'd say it's illogical to us. For a machine it's living. They don't comprehend the entirety of what "life" means to organics. For them it's equal to biological existence.

What is the Collective? You mean geth consensus? Let me write down what I say in a more transparent way, since we don't seem to follow each other.

1. Morning War - quarians created the geth, geth got together, surpassed quarian expectations, quarians panicked, attacked the geth, they retaliated, quarians had to escape their homeworld. No Reaper interference

2. Sovereign "hacks" some geth (according to Legion it was their choice), those geth attack the Citadel and human colonies with Saren, they were stopped at the Battle of the Citadel. Galaxy now views them as a hostile race.

3. Shepard rewrites/destroys the heretics. Traces of Reaper interference removed. Geth now have the knowledge of what is working with the Reapers like.

4. ME3 events part 1 - quarians found a way to disable/hack/sabotage the geth due to Tali's father and Xen, attack geth megastructure, geth are no match for the quarians. No Reaper interference

5. ME3 events part 2 - Reapers upgrade the geth, those retaliate, quarians are no match for the geth, Shepard assists the quarians, the war ends with (best option) peace between the geth and the quarians. 

What I'm saying is that we faced the synthetic/organic conflict in our cycle (twice actually if we consider 1 and 4 separately) and if not the Reaper interference we would've lost the geth (I assume the quarians would've destroyed them based on the Gerrel's actions throughout the conflict and especially if you stop the upload). I'm not saying anything about the reasons why Reapers did that.

[Revan Reborn]

I'd say it's illogical to us. For a machine it's living. They don't comprehend the entirety of what "life" means to organics. For them it's equal to biological existence.

What is the Collective? You mean geth consensus? Let me write down what I say in a more transparent way, since we don't seem to follow each other.

1. Morning War - quarians created the geth, geth got together, surpassed quarian expectations, quarians panicked, attacked the geth, they retaliated, quarians had to escape their homeworld. No Reaper interference

2. Sovereign "hacks" some geth (according to Legion it was their choice), those geth attack the Citadel and human colonies with Saren, they were stopped at the Battle of the Citadel. Galaxy now views them as a hostile race.

3. Shepard rewrites/destroys the heretics. Traces of Reaper interference removed. Geth now have the knowledge of what is working with the Reapers like.

4. ME3 events part 1 - quarians found a way to disable/hack/sabotage the geth due to Tali's father and Xen, attack geth megastructure, geth are no match for the quarians. No Reaper interference

5. ME3 events part 2 - Reapers upgrade the geth, those retaliate, quarians are no match for the geth, Shepard assists the quarians, the war ends with (best option) peace between the geth and the quarians. 

What I'm saying is that we faced the synthetic/organic conflict in our cycle (twice actually if we consider 1 and 4 separately) and if not the Reaper interference we would've lost the geth (I assume the quarians would've destroyed them based on the Gerrel's actions throughout the conflict and especially if you stop the upload). I'm not saying anything about the reasons why Reapers did that.

Yes. The Consensus.

 

My point is that there likely would not have been another war once the Quarians left Rannoch. That all changed when Sovereign got involved, created the Heretics, of which were a small minority of the Geth Consensus. The Geth went from being passive and wanting to just exist in peace to being hostile and promoting belligerent actions against organics. You could say they were under an Indoctrination of sorts, and it was much easier to change the perception of the Geth as they saw everything collectively rather than individually. The Quarians continued to perceive the Geth as a threat, and that was in large part because of the Reaper intervention. The Reapers created and enhanced the chaos and then justified their actions because of their intervention.

[Schmonozov]

He came of as very arrogant and as a person who thinks very highly of himself when responding to criticism. I have no reason to believe he took criticism and used it to improve his future writing.

[Judas Bock]

The Catalyst is not proven wrong, it's a common misconception. First, those are isolated cases of coexistence achieved due to the threat of the Reapers. Second, the Catalyst speaks from a perspective of a billion year-old immortal machine that witnessed the same pattern in all cycles. The same quarians can start another war when the Reapers are dealt with, people like Xen and Gerrel are not that easily pacified. And, to note, they don't wipe out each other only due to Shepard's intervention. And there is nothing to stop organics from creating new synthetics and facing another conflict. 

EDI is another case. She is friendly, yes, but what of Eva? Another synthetic, created on the base of EDI - totally hostile. EDI herself is based on the rogue VI that wiped out Alliance soldiers on Luna. 

It does not believe that organics and synthetics can never coexist. There will be peace but it won't last. It was created to oversee organic and synthetic relations and its solution "preserves" both synthetic and organic life. That's why it intervenes on Rannoch, despite not doing so being the best course of action for the Reapers.

 

I just have to give my answer to this, as I have seen this mentioned way too many times. Yes, according to what is said by the Catalyst in the ending, there can not be a lasting peace between organics and synthetics. The problem is that this goes against the narrative of the rest of the game. The Geth/Quarian conflict can end in peace, and EDI and Legion are both characters that show that organics and synthetics can coexist peacefully. It may be that these are the only times in galactic history that this cooperation has ever occured, but that doesn't matter. They are the instances we have been presented in the narrative, and as such they are what the ending should build on. Otherwise there is a clear narrative dissonance, which is a huge problem.

 

To illustrate my point with something unrelated to the ME ending in particular:

 

Imagine a James Bond film. Bond has spent the entire film trying to stop some terrorists from detonating a nuke in the middle of London. At the end he finally finds the nuke and disarms it with only ten seconds to go. Mission accomplished, we assume. But no, right then Bond is informed that the terrorists planted a second nuke just in case Bond would find the first one, and since there are only seconds to go, Bond can't stop it. So, oops, boom, Bond, Moneypenny, M, and everyone else in London die.

 

How is this similar to this ending? We are informed at the last minute that there are circumstances relating to everything which the narrative has not informed us about or even hinted at. This Bond narrative tells us that Bond is getting ever closer to disarming the bomb and ending the threat, while the ME narrative tells us that organics and synthetics can live in peace. But then at the very end we are told that despite what the narrative has told us, Bond cannot end the threat to London, just like we are told that organics and synthetics cannot live in peace. It might be true in the world it plays out in, but it is not what the narrative has told us before that point.

 

Sorry for the rant, just wanted to point out how ridiculous that defence of the endings is. It might be true in-universe, but it breaks the narrative.

[Revan Reborn]

I just have to give my answer to this, as I have seen this mentioned way too many times. Yes, according to what is said by the Catalyst in the ending, there can not be a lasting peace between organics and synthetics. The problem is that this goes against the narrative of the rest of the game. The Geth/Quarian conflict can end in peace, and EDI and Legion are both characters that show that organics and synthetics can coexist peacefully. It may be that these are the only times in galactic history that this cooperation has ever occured, but that doesn't matter. They are the instances we have been presented in the narrative, and as such they are what the ending should build on. Otherwise there is a clear narrative dissonance, which is a huge problem.

 

To illustrate my point with something unrelated to the ME ending in particular:

 

Imagine a James Bond film. Bond has spent the entire film trying to stop some terrorists from detonating a nuke in the middle of London. At the end he finally finds the nuke and disarms it with only ten seconds to go. Mission accomplished, we assume. But no, right then Bond is informed that the terrorists planted a second nuke just in case Bond would find the first one, and since there are only seconds to go, Bond can't stop it. So, oops, boom, Bond, Moneypenny, M, and everyone else in London die.

 

How is this similar to this ending? We are informed at the last minute that there are circumstances relating to everything which the narrative has not informed us about or even hinted at. This Bond narrative tells us that Bond is getting ever closer to disarming the bomb and ending the threat, while the ME narrative tells us that organics and synthetics can live in peace. But then at the very end we are told that despite what the narrative has told us, Bond cannot end the threat to London, just like we are told that organics and synthetics cannot live in peace. It might be true in the world it plays out in, but it is not what the narrative has told us before that point.

 

Sorry for the rant, just wanted to point out how ridiculous that defence of the endings is. It might be true in-universe, but it breaks the narrative.

I don't think it's true in either the narrative or the in-universe perspective. I just think it's a bad argument to make and shows a lack of understanding the source material.

 

We have seen rogue AI's before. We know what separates synthetics from organics is their purpose and why they were created. We also know that the Catalyst betrayed its creators and interpreted an odd view of  "peae" and "order." I don't believe the Catalyst is right at all, and I believe stating he is "more knowledgeable" because he has been around for hundreds of thousands of years is merely a trap. Being old or living for a long time does not mean you are more intelligent or wiser than anyone else.

 

As I stated before, this is a pure example of the Hal 9000 question. An AI taking the initiative and trying to play god at the expense of its creators. It's nothing more than a philosophical question and to just assume the Catalyst is right about everything merely misses the point of the trilogy. Everybody has a perspective and interpretation of the galaxy. As you suggested, and I stated multiple times, the reaper threat actually united synthetics and organics, not pitted them against one another. That alone disproves the Catalyst's warped view of the galaxy.

 

To believe it and choose Synthesis, which is what it wanted, is merely being indoctrinated and creating a new type of reaper. The Catalyst was a danger to organics and synthetics alike. The only option was to destroy it and to bring its tyrannical cycles of genocide to an end. There is no other way to look at it.

[Vazgen]

I never said it's ideally written. I merely said why the Catalyst isn't proven wrong. The ideas it presents just can't be proven wrong unless synthesis is chosen. There is always a possibility that organics will create synthetics in the future and there will be conflict. Based on what we've seen in the games it's possible, and even likely. Does it make the Catalyst true? No. Are its statements wrong? No. Its view of the universe is shaped by countless analysis and statistics but the organic life can't be measured by those. It can't, however, realize that and thus needs to be removed from equation (Control, Destroy). Or you can approach this differently and change the equation itself (Synthesis). That's why we can't really argue with it, there is no dialogue to be had. The only possible outcome of such discussion is "agree to disagree" which is not really an option.

[Iakus]

I never said it's ideally written. I merely said why the Catalyst isn't proven wrong. The ideas it presents just can't be proven wrong unless synthesis is chosen. There is always a possibility that organics will create synthetics in the future and there will be conflict. Based on what we've seen in the games it's possible, and even likely. Does it make the Catalyst true? No. Are its statements wrong? No. Its view of the universe is shaped by countless analysis and statistics but the organic life can't be measured by those. It can't, however, realize that and thus needs to be removed from equation (Control, Destroy). Or you can approach this differently and change the equation itself (Synthesis). That's why we can't really argue with it, there is no dialogue to be had. The only possible outcome of such discussion is "agree to disagree" which is not really an option.

And where is the proof that the Catalyst is right?

 

Why does there have to be a "solution" at all?  Aside from the Reapers having a gun to our colective heads?

[Revan Reborn]

And where is the proof that the Catalyst is right?

 

Why does there have to be a "solution" at all?  Aside from the Reapers having a gun to our colective heads?

There is no proof at all. The Catalyst merely has a warped opinion based on it's insufficient programing by the Leviathans. It was pure negligence on their part that the AI went rogue and is now playing God. I didn't believe this was necessary to say, but an opinion can't be "right." It's merely a view from a certain perspective, and given the Catalyst's history and where it came from, it's obvious its view is wrong and was not intended.

[Vazgen]

And where is the proof that the Catalyst is right?

 

Why does there have to be a "solution" at all?  Aside from the Reapers having a gun to our colective heads?

Proof for what? Morning War. Conflict happened in our cycle. Metacon War. Conflict happened in the previous cycle. 

[Iakus]

There is no proof at all. The Catalyst merely has a warped opinion based on it's insufficient programing by the Leviathans. It was pure negligence on their part that the AI went rogue and is now playing God. I didn't believe this was necessary to say, but an opinion can't be "right." It's merely a view from a certain perspective, and given the Catalyst's history and where it came from, it's obvious its view is wrong and was not intended.

And yet it still has a gun to the galaxy's head, forcing one of its 'solutions' on us

 

Proof for what? Morning War. Conflict happened in our cycle. Metacon War. Conflict happened in the previous cycle. 

But it's about mor ethan conflict.  It's about galactic annihilation.

 

You say that peace on Rannoch doesn't prove the Catalyst wrong.  But the Morning War doesn't prove it is right either.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Proof for what? Morning War. Conflict happened in our cycle. Metacon War. Conflict happened in the previous cycle. 

 

It's more than conflict. It's conflict that will end in the extinction of all organic life, which technically has never happened as far as we are aware of (if it was merely conflict the Catalyst would be in violation of it's own programming).

 

Nothing really proves the Catalyst wrong on this front but the story doesn't build it up as the inevitable end state of organic and synthetic relationships. In fact, it does the opposite and contextualizes so with game play.

[Vazgen]

But it's about mor ethan conflict. It's about galactic annihilation.

You say that peace on Rannoch doesn't prove the Catalyst wrong. But the Morning War doesn't prove it is right either.

You've basically repeated my post.

Based on what we've seen in the games it's possible, and even likely. Does it make the Catalyst true? No. Are its statements wrong? No.

It's more than conflict. It's conflict that will end in the extinction of all organic life, which technically has never happened as far as we are aware of (if it was merely conflict the Catalyst would be in violation of it's own programming).

Nothing really proves the Catalyst wrong on this front but the story doesn't build it up as the inevitable end state of organic and synthetic relationships. In fact, it does the opposite and contextualizes so with game play.

Galactic annihilation is the Catalyst's extrapolation based on statistics and its initial directives. It never happened and the Catalyst doesn't say it did. What it says is that it will happen. Which can be both true and false. We see the conflict present for at least two cycle. Peace examples are skewed by Reaper presence. Quarians would've wiped out the geth, EDI would've never been created, Legion would not have been sent in search for Shepard. On the other hand - rogue VI on Luna, AI on the Citadel, rogue VI in ME2 - all had no connection to the Reapers. In the end, the game sets up a dilemma, whether to follow the machine order of the Catalyst or the chaotic evolution of organics. Synthesis is a compromise between the two, Control reprograms the Catalyst and Destroy... destroys it.

[Iakus]

Galactic annihilation is the Catalyst's extrapolation based on statistics and its initial directives. It never happened and the Catalyst doesn't say it did. What it says is that it will happen. Which can be both true and false. We see the conflict present for at least two cycle. Peace examples are skewed by Reaper presence. Quarians would've wiped out the geth, EDI would've never been created, Legion would not have been sent in search for Shepard. On the other hand - rogue VI on Luna, AI on the Citadel, rogue VI in ME2 - all had no connection to the Reapers. In the end, the game sets up a dilemma, whether to follow the machine order of the Catalyst or the chaotic evolution of organics. Synthesis is a compromise between the two, Control reprograms the Catalyst and Destroy... destroys it.

 

And I see all choices as capitulation to the Reapers in one form or other.  There is no "compromise," least of all with Synthesis. 

 

You don't medicate a healthy patient.

[Revan Reborn]

And I see all choices as capitulation to the Reapers in one form or other.  There is no "compromise," least of all with Synthesis. 

 

You don't medicate a healthy patient.

Vazgen has merely been indoctrinated. He makes a lot of assumptions about the events in the games, especially with the Geth and the Quarians, yet fails to realize it was the Reapers that created the Heretics, and the Consensus of the Geth never wanted war to start. Doesn't it seem odd that the Catalyst created the Heretics to spur more conflict in the galaxy? It was the Heretics, and not the Consensus, that were deliberately and frequently attacking the Quarians making them desperate for a solution to defeat the Geth. It's almost as if the rogue AI was creating its own conflicts in order to justify its warped ideology.

 

Synthesis isn't a compromise. Synthesis is being indoctrinated and letting the Catalyst win. It's as much a "victory" as Refuse. The Catalyst is insane. Everything it has done has betrayed its creators and it is a plight on the galaxy. Destroy is the only means of setting right the horrendous crimes it has committed against the galaxy for hundreds of thousands of years. Listening to the Catalyst is like listening to Hitler about the "Final Solution" being practical. That doesn't make sense on any level, no matter how you rationalize it.

[Vazgen]

Vazgen has merely been indoctrinated. He makes a lot of assumptions about the events in the games, especially with the Geth and the Quarians, yet fails to realize it was the Reapers that created the Heretics, and the Consensus of the Geth never wanted war to start. Doesn't it seem odd that the Catalyst created the Heretics to spur more conflict in the galaxy? It was the Heretics, and not the Consensus, that were deliberately and frequently attacking the Quarians making them desperate for a solution to defeat the Geth. It's almost as if the rogue AI was creating its own conflicts in order to justify its warped ideology.

 

Synthesis isn't a compromise. Synthesis is being indoctrinated and letting the Catalyst win. It's as much a "victory" as Refuse. The Catalyst is insane. Everything it has done has betrayed its creators and it is a plight on the galaxy. Destroy is the only means of setting right the horrendous crimes it has committed against the galaxy for hundreds of thousands of years. Listening to the Catalyst is like listening to Hitler about the "Final Solution" being practical. That doesn't make sense on any level, no matter how you rationalize it.

LOL dude, your opinion is not the only one out there. Learn to accept other points of view as well.

Deliberately and frequently attacking the quarians? What are you even talking about? Reapers had nothing to do with the Morning War. The quarians wanted to reclaim their homeworld that they lost after being defeated by "non-heretic" geth. Tests that Tali's father ran on Alarei were conducted on "non-heretic" geth. 

 

I can't see any reason for this post other than blatant trolling, especially since your "correct" theory has no less assumptions than mine and actually dismisses half of the Catalyst dialogue as an indoctrination attempt. Feel free to live in your delusions though if that makes you comfortable. Hopefully ME:Next will be clear to the point of literally telling you that the idea of Shepard's indoctrination in Synthesis ending has no basis and is wrong. I'm sure you'll find a way to dismiss it even then though...

[Revan Reborn]

LOL dude, your opinion is not the only one out there. Learn to accept other points of view as well.

Deliberately and frequently attacking the quarians? What are you even talking about? Reapers had nothing to do with the Morning War. The quarians wanted to reclaim their homeworld that they lost after being defeated by "non-heretic" geth. Tests that Tali's father ran on Alarei were conducted on "non-heretic" geth. 

 

I can't see any reason for this post other than blatant trolling, especially since your "correct" theory has no less assumptions than mine and actually dismisses half of the Catalyst dialogue as an indoctrination attempt. Feel free to live in your delusions though if that makes you comfortable. Hopefully ME:Next will be clear to the point of literally telling you that the idea of Shepard's indoctrination in Synthesis ending has no basis and is wrong. I'm sure you'll find a way to dismiss it even then though...

This has nothing to do with not accepting other opinions. This is merely just refusing to believe an argument that is clearly wrong and barely supported by evidence. That is a difference.

 

The Morning War was one short conflict that resulted because the Geth (and many Quarians who were protecting them) had to act in self defense. It wasn't really a "war" at all. You continue to over-exaggerate the conflict as if it was going to lead to the annihilation of a species. It was a misunderstanding that led to some bloodshed and the Quarians leaving. That is it.

 

I don't know where you are getting that information from. The Heretics were the only Geth who would leave Geth space and attack the Quarians. The Consensus largely stayed near Rannoch, as they had no interest in conflict. In ME1 and ME2, we only see the Heretics, of who were an extremist fringe of the Geth. Again, being attacked and threatened by the Heretics, of which the Reapers created, spurred the Quarians to action and to find a solution. Don't you remember Shepard's interview with Alers about how most of the Geth were not to blame for ME1?

 

It's impossible to know if another conflict would have occurred at all if the Reapers had never intervened. The Quarians certainly wouldn't have needed to constantly migrate the Flotilla in order to avoid being annihilated by the Heretics. We also know that there were many amongst the Quarians who wanted to negotiate with the Geth, far more than the minority who wanted to destroy them. So again, I just don't believe you understand the source material well enough.

 

It's not trolling at all. The Catalyst deceived you with its flawed logic. It's that simple. What do you think all of those dreams and hallucinations were? Why do you think the Catalyst tried to convince Shepard that Synthesis was the only true option? Also, I'm not stating Shepard was indoctrinated by the end, but you were. As the Catalyst explained, Synthesis had already been tried before, and failed miserably.  It could work now all because Shepard was different? You really want to bet the entire fate of the galaxy on that broad assumption? Be my guest... Clearly you picked Synthesis and are trying to justify it. I would just rather you stick to the facts rather than making assumptions about events that likely would have never happened without Reaper intervention.

 

The galaxy is not as black and white as the Catalyst depicts it, but you clearly seem to think it is. You should have learned with Saren in ME1 and TIM in ME2 that this franchise was morally ambiguous. Nothing is as cut and dry as the Catalyst proclaims.

[Vazgen]

Like I said, feel free to live in your delusions. Morning War was one short conflict? I give you this

"Mass Effect: Revelation, page 116: only a few million survivors- less than 1% of the entire population- managed to escape the genocide"

 

Tali's father created new geth from the parts Tali sent him. There were no heretics attacking the flotilla. Your assumptions have no evidence behind them except your "enlightened" understanding. 

 

"Also, I'm not saying Shepard was indoctrinated by the end, but you were."

 

Synthesis is being indoctrinated and letting the Catalyst win.

 

I laugh at your attempts of preaching the only "true understanding" of the events of the trilogy. It's entertaining seeing you dismissing information from games and official sources trying to justify the only theory that you were able to come up with in these two years. Be my guest, keep at it

[Revan Reborn]

Like I said, feel free to live in your delusions. Morning War was one short conflict? I give you this

"Mass Effect: Revelation, page 116: only a few million survivors- less than 1% of the entire population- managed to escape the genocide"

 

Tali's father created new geth from the parts Tali sent him. There were no heretics attacking the flotilla. Your assumptions have no evidence behind them except your "enlightened" understanding. 

 

"Also, I'm not saying Shepard was indoctrinated by the end, but you were."

 

 

I laugh at your attempts of preaching the only "true understanding" of the events of the trilogy. It's entertaining seeing you dismissing information from games and official sources trying to justify the only theory that you were able to come up with in these two years. Be my guest, keep at it

I point you towards the entire mission on Rannoch and all the various videos and footage showing the Geth acted in self defense and chose not to pursue the Quarians.

 

You just contradicted yourself. First you said Tali didn't send any Heretic parts to her father. Now you are saying that he built brand new Geth? I'll tell you what actually happened. The Geth were making new advances and were constantly changing, and Tali's father wanted to examine this "evolution." She sent him various functional, but not aware, pieces of the Geth in order for him to study. What she did not realize is he was reassembling these Geth and experimenting on them trying to find a weakness.

 

We aren't given any indication these aren't Heretics, because they likely are. He didn't create brand new Geth. Even if they weren't Heretics, they were acting in self-defense because they were being tortured, which Tali, herself, brings up during the mission. This is far from your ridiculous theory of "geth are bad and are trying to kill Quarians regardless of if they are Heretics."

 

You are indoctrinated. You believe the Catalyst word for word and have placed all your fate that its "solution" is the best for the galaxy. A mechanical construct that has committed genocide and extinction of races for hundreds of thousands of years... How can you even justify that twisted perspective? Maybe you just want everybody dead?

 

Synthesis is a ridiculous choice, and you will find that many on these forums will likely agree. You haven't provided me with any information "from games and official sources." You merely continue to try and be condescending and ignore the argument because you literally cannot counter it with facts. Again, you are more than welcome to choose whichever choice you'd like. I'm merely pointing out how silly a choice choosing Synthesis is, especially with your rationale to justify it.

[Vazgen]

I point you towards the entire mission on Rannoch and all the various videos and footage showing the Geth acted in self defense and chose not to pursue the Quarians.

 

You just contradicted yourself. First you said Tali didn't send any Heretic parts to her father. Now you are saying that he built brand new Geth? I'll tell you what actually happened. The Geth were making new advances and were constantly changing, and Tali's father wanted to examine this "evolution." She sent him various functional, but not aware, pieces of the Geth in order for him to study. What she did not realize is he was reassembling these Geth and experimenting on them trying to find a weakness.

 

We aren't given any indication these aren't Heretics, because they likely are. He didn't create brand new Geth. Even if they weren't Heretics, they were acting in self-defense because they were being tortured, which Tali, herself, brings up during the mission. This is far from your ridiculous theory of "geth are bad and are trying to kill Quarians regardless of if they are Heretics."

 

You are indoctrinated. You believe the Catalyst word for word and have placed all your fate that its "solution" is the best for the galaxy. A mechanical construct that has committed genocide and extinction of races for hundreds of thousands of years... How can you even justify that twisted perspective? Maybe you just want everybody dead?

 

Synthesis is a ridiculous choice, and you will find that even many on these forums will likely agree. You haven't provided me with any information "from games and official sources." You merely continue to try and be condescending and ignore the argument because you literally cannot counter it with facts. Again, you are more than welcome to choose whichever choice you'd like. I'm merely pointing out how silly a choice choosing Synthesis is, especially with your rationale to justify it.

So they exterminated 99% of quarian population and forced them into exile in self-defense. Wonderful, such a minor conflict. Stop changing topics, you claimed Morning War was a short conflict that led to some bloodshed and made the quarians leave. Accept that you said a total BS

 

Tali's father was reassembling geth from the deactivated parts that Tali sent him. You have no idea whether those are heretics or not. That's merely your assumption and has no basis in the game. In fact, your destruction of the heretic base has no effect on the geth on the Alarei or the geth during Tali's LM, or any other geth we encounter in ME2. Of course, you can say that those are different heretics, controlled from elsewhere but that renders Legion's LM moot. 

"We aren't given any indication these aren't Heretics, because they likely are." - existence of the evidence is not evidence. 

 

As usual, you try to get something from my posts that isn't there. I never said the geth are bad and want to destroy the quarians. I also never said that the quarians are good. 

 

I believe you already asked me that question and I answered that I didn't pick Synthesis. 

 

What's silly is you trying to get away from your original posts when confronted by evidence. All you have is your baseless assumptions that you try to pass as a universal truth. You're not a paragon of truth and understanding sent here to guide us along the path of enlightenment. Deal with it

[Revan Reborn]

So they exterminated 99% of quarian population and forced them into exile in self-defense. Wonderful, such a minor conflict. Stop changing topics, you claimed Morning War was a short conflict that led to some bloodshed and made the quarians leave. Accept that you said a total BS

 

Tali's father was reassembling geth from the deactivated parts that Tali sent him. You have no idea whether those are heretics or not. That's merely your assumption and has no basis in the game. In fact, your destruction of the heretic base has no effect on the geth on the Alarei or the geth during Tali's LM, or any other geth we encounter in ME2. Of course, you can say that those are different heretics, controlled from elsewhere but that renders Legion's LM moot. 

"We aren't given any indication these aren't Heretics, because they likely are." - existence of the evidence is not evidence. 

 

As usual, you try to get something from my posts that isn't there. I never said the geth are bad and want to destroy the quarians. I also never said that the quarians are good. 

 

I believe you already asked me that question and I answered that I didn't pick Synthesis. 

 

What's silly is you trying to get away from your original posts when confronted by evidence. All you have is your baseless assumptions that you try to pass as a universal truth. You're not a paragon of truth and understanding sent here to guide us along the path of enlightenment. Deal with it

It was a short conflict. It wasn't really a war at all but more so a massacre. Again, play ME3 for context .

 

A pointless argument to make. Whether they are Heretic or not, as I indicated in my post, it doesn't matter. They probably are, but even if they weren't, they had cause to defend themselves from being tortured. I find it interesting how you glance over this point and go on a rant about heretics. The Straw Man really is strong with you. Picking and choosing what to respond to while ignoring the rest, even though it's "from games and official sources."

 

That was sarcasm. My point is you are arguing that the Catalyst is "right" because of the Morning War. Again, to call it a war would be ridiculous, and when you actually have the context of the Consensus, it's not nearly what the quarians thought it was. The only times the Geth are truly belligerent is because of Reaper intervention.

 

Certainly sounds like you did since you seem to take everything the Catalyst says at face value.

 

What "evidence"? You provide zero evidence and continue to Straw Man your way through posts. I'm not trying to dictate to you what choice to pick. On the contrary, I said you are free to pick whichever one you want. That doesn't mean some choices aren't less reasonable than others. Synthesis is such a choice, and Leviathan, the entirety of ME3, and the Catalyst's conversation should be more than ample evidence to explain why it is wrong. Nothing I can do about it if you can't see what's in plain view.

[Vazgen]

It was a short conflict. It wasn't really a war at all but more so a massacre. Again, play ME3 for context .

 

A pointless argument to make. Whether they are Heretic or not, as I indicated in my post, it doesn't matter. They probably are, but even if they weren't, they had cause to defend themselves from being tortured. I find it interesting how you glance over this point and go on a rant about heretics. The Straw Man really is strong with you. Picking and choosing what to respond to while ignoring the rest, even though it's "from games and official sources."

 

That was sarcasm. My point is you are arguing that the Catalyst is "right" because of the Morning War. Again, to call it a war would be ridiculous, and when you actually have the context of the Consensus, it's not nearly what the quarians thought it was. The only times the Geth are truly belligerent is because of Reaper intervention.

 

Certainly sounds like you did since you seem to take everything the Catalyst says at face value.

 

What "evidence"? You provide zero evidence and continue to Straw Man your way through posts. I'm not trying to dictate to you what choice to pick. On the contrary, I said you are free to pick whichever one you want. That doesn't mean some choices aren't less reasonable than others. Synthesis is such a choice, and Leviathan, the entirety of ME3, and the Catalyst's conversation should be more than ample evidence to explain why it is wrong. Nothing I can do about it if you can't see what's in plain view.

I've played ME3, thanks for the advice. If "some bloodshed" equals massacre and genocide for you we have nothing more to discuss.

 

The cause of the conflict is irrelevant. There was a war between synthetics and organics that resulted in the death of 99% of organic population. And it is the geth who call it Morning War.

 

Are you trying to say that I'm lying? If so, shove it

 

You said that I'm "indoctrinated" and that picking Synthesis is "ridiculous" and "silly". You clearly have a problem with "not forcing" your opinion.

 

I'll quote you Drew Karpyshyn (Link)

"Anyone who wasn’t part of the ME3 team is an outsider – even me – and whatever they say about the creation of the game is just unsubstantiated speculation."

Your "unsubstantiated speculations" hold no more and no less value than every other person's. If you can bring facts supporting your theories I might consider them, all you do is spout that opinions other than yours are silly, we don't see what is in the plain sight etc.

[Revan Reborn]

I've played ME3, thanks for the advice. If "some bloodshed" equals massacre and genocide for you we have nothing more to discuss.

 

The cause of the conflict is irrelevant. There was a war between synthetics and organics that resulted in the death of 99% of organic population. And it is the geth who call it Morning War.

 

Are you trying to say that I'm lying? If so, shove it

 

You said that I'm "indoctrinated" and that picking Synthesis is "ridiculous" and "silly". You clearly have a problem with "not forcing" your opinion.

 

I'll quote you Drew Karpyshyn (Link)

"Anyone who wasn’t part of the ME3 team is an outsider – even me – and whatever they say about the creation of the game is just unsubstantiated speculation."

Your "unsubstantiated speculations" hold no more and no less value than every other person's. If you can bring facts supporting your theories I might consider them, all you do is spout that opinions other than yours are silly, we don't see what is in the plain sight etc.

Apparently massacre and genocide, for you, are the most reasonable outcomes based on the Catalyst's logic of using fire to cure fire, so should you really be questioning my rationale?

 

A war is a conflict between two belligerent parties that are considered to be on equal footing. It doesn't matter what it's called. It was an unwanted massacre that was done in self-defense. If the geth didn't fight back, they likely would have been destroyed by the quarians.

 

I'm not saying you are lying at all. I just continue to question why you have so much blind faith in a rogue AI that justifies avoiding genocide and extinction by using genocide and extinction...

 

It's my opinion. You can continue to pick it if you like, as well as any of the other choices. That is what is great about a BioWare game. Again, that doesn't mean it isn't a bad choice, and certainly the games provided enough evidence to support that Synthesis is a bad choice.

 

I'm not saying anything about the "creation of the game." I'm merely pointing out what is in plain view for most that the evidence in the finished products adequately explains the Catalyst, its motivations, and why the reapers exist. I'm not making any of this stuff up. I have continuously provided you with evidence and examples from the games that you love to gloss over. I can't help you understand the pieces to the puzzle if you don't want to be helped.

[Vazgen]

Apparently massacre and genocide, for you, are the most reasonable outcomes based on the Catalyst's logic of using fire to cure fire, so should you really be questioning my rationale?

 

A war is a conflict between two belligerent parties that are considered to be on equal footing. It doesn't matter what it's called. It was an unwanted massacre that was done in self-defense. If the geth didn't fight back, they likely would have been destroyed by the quarians.

 

I'm not saying you are lying at all. I just continue to question why you have so much blind faith in a rogue AI that justifies avoiding genocide and extinction by using genocide and extinction...

 

It's my opinion. You can continue to pick it if you like, as well as any of the other choices. That is what is great about a BioWare game. Again, that doesn't mean it's a bad choice, and certainly the games provided enough evidence to support by Synthesis is a bad choice.

 

I'm not saying anything about the "creation of the game." I'm merely pointing out what is in plain view for most that the evidence in the finished products adequately explains the Catalyst, its motivations, and why the reapers exist. I'm not making any of this stuff up. I have continuously provided you with evidence and examples from the games that you love to gloss over. I can't help you understand the pieces to the puzzle if you don't want to be helped.

Yes, I should, because I've never justified the Catalyst's solution. All I was saying through all this time that the problem it tried to solve exists.

 

It doesn't matter what you want to call it or how you view it, both sides in the game perceive it as war and explicitly say so. More importantly, it's a conflict between organics and synthetics that resulted in the loss of 99% of organic population, which is exactly what the Catalyst tries to prevent.

 

I don't see why the Catalyst should lie you about the existence of that conflict, especially since you know of at least two cases of it occurring - Metacon War and Morning War. I don't trust when it says that the Synthesis will bring the eternal peace and that Control will allow me to control the Reapers. More importantly, I don't trust the Reaper intelligence enough to kill myself based solely on its words. I do believe it when it says that the problem exists, but I Destroy them because cyclic genocide is not a solution and we'd rather find our own way.

 

You've provided me with "evidence" that, as you say, explain pieces of the puzzle. Except this Bioware puzzle does not make a single picture. You can connect those pieces differently and all those pictures will have the same credibility. So when you say "it's ridiculous" or "silly" you attack something clearly subjective and try to pass your perception of the trilogy events. Once again, your opinion holds no more and no less value than any other person's and you should refrain from attacking other people's ideas in the future. Present your point of view without additions like "Vazgen has merely been indoctrinated", "picking Synthesis is ridiculous and silly".

[StealthGamer92]

Synthesis isn't a compromise. Synthesis is being indoctrinated and letting the Catalyst win. It's as much a "victory" as Refuse. The Catalyst is insane. Everything it has done has betrayed its creators and it is a plight on the galaxy. Destroy is the only means of setting right the horrendous crimes it has committed against the galaxy for hundreds of thousands of years. Listening to the Catalyst is like listening to Hitler about the "Final Solution" being practical. That doesn't make sense on any level, no matter how you rationalize it.

So by this logic I am indoctrinated too. Yet I choose Synthesis not because the Catylist says it will work but because I believed it was the best option before it even explained anything. I had an moral decision to 1- kill the Geth 2-Brainwash another sentient being or 3- "upgrade" both synthetics and organic to give them the chance to co-exist. I knew it wasn't a sure thing but I refused the other two on principle.

 

So my question for you is- Am I indoctrrinated, or am I "only human?"