206 réponses à ce sujet

[Display Name Owner]

"If ME2 had done just a little more to introduce the Reaper's downfall, like bringing in the Crucible"

 

The final choice of the game could have been what to do with the Human Reaper. Do you distrust Cerberus and hand it over to the Council or do you think they lack the will to do what is necessary and give it to Cerberus. The research done on it could then be the base for defeating them in the third game.

 

As it is giving the player the option to nuke the Collector base let them blow up the plot (the Paragon reasoning is also very dumb)  rendering the second game irrelevant.

 

Yeah, discovering the creation process of the Reapers and capturing the facility in which it's done should be pretty handy in eventually defeating them, one would think. I guess they decided we needed to be given the option to stick the middle finger to TIM, which I do understand, but the result was that the Collector Base had to be unnecessary and kind of useless down the line so people who destroyed it didn't ruin themselves.

 

Weirdly the CB is both totally meaningless and totally key to ME3. It doesn't matter if you kept it because it serves no purpose, but it doesn't matter if you destroyed it because it still spawns the Cerberus plotline which was pretty much the secondary main story.

[SwobyJ]

Hmm, I've never thought about it that way. I can see it though. 

 

Well, its what happens.

 

Sure, the wording is more 'we are your doom' in ME1, but it maintains.

 

The Reapers think that by killing us, they avoid the explosion of an even worse problem, and they make up for it by taking our material (which we know in the MEU does have magicky characteristics that reproduce a sort of 'genetic memory') to create a new synthetic life. That instead of everyone being killed by synthetics and then organics becoming neigh extinct, Reapers hold back and only kill us every so often and ascend our existences (death and pain and life are very differently understood by them) into another form.

 

From our perspective, it IS evil. It IS wrong. It IS incomprehensible. We can't really go into 'Reaper POV' here - only hear some things about it.

 

But Shepard may, possibly, at the final hour, understand or believe enough about it to give the Reapers enough of a chance to still exist, even if in a restrained or altered form.

[RiouHotaru]

I'm going to go wildly against the grain and say ME3's ending was not a train wreck.  Far from it.  What it did was take a theme that most completely overlooked or ignored (Organic vs Synthetic) which had been present in every single game since ME1, and made in the motivation of the antagonists.  Unfortunately since people mostly overlooked or ignored it as a theme, that conflict being the primary driving force of the antagonist made little sense to most.

 

As a writer, who has spent a lot of time writing, Drew makes a lot of good points.  You can't always know how a story will end.  Or, sometimes you do, but as you go along, the story goes off in it's own direction and makes the ending you originally wanted irrelevant or impossible to achieve.  And like people have said, trying to railroad your story to fit a set ending when the story will not go in that direction is bad.

 

But honestly, the process isn't perfect, and it's not a science.  I mean, if anyone owns the ME1 artbook it clearly indicates that the Geth were originally going to be anthropomorphic bats at first.  And look at what the Geth are now?  Writing is a journey in which even the destination isn't always certain or clear.  Even when you know where you think you want to go, you may wind up going in a completely different direction.

 

It's like going on a road-trip where your own real goal is to travel X number of miles, no matter where the trip ends.

[CptFalconPunch]

I'm going to go wildly against the grain and say ME3's ending was not a train wreck.  Far from it.  What it did was take a theme that most completely overlooked or ignored (Organic vs Synthetic) which had been present in every single game since ME1, and made in the motivation of the antagonists.  Unfortunately since people mostly overlooked or ignored it as a theme, that conflict being the primary driving force of the antagonist made little sense to most.

 

As a writer, who has spent a lot of time writing, Drew makes a lot of good points.  You can't always know how a story will end.  Or, sometimes you do, but as you go along, the story goes off in it's own direction and makes the ending you originally wanted irrelevant or impossible to achieve.  And like people have said, trying to railroad your story to fit a set ending when the story will not go in that direction is bad.

 

But honestly, the process isn't perfect, and it's not a science.  I mean, if anyone owns the ME1 artbook it clearly indicates that the Geth were originally going to be anthropomorphic bats at first.  And look at what the Geth are now?  Writing is a journey in which even the destination isn't always certain or clear.  Even when you know where you think you want to go, you may wind up going in a completely different direction.

 

It's like going on a road-trip where your own real goal is to travel X number of miles, no matter where the trip ends.

 

One of the most important parts of game design is setting up your goals. The thing is, they didn't do that regarding the game's story adn we end up with trainwrecks such as mass effect 2. The thing is, that game thought it had the luxury to side track way off, while mass effect 3 didn't.

 

I think by not showing the reapers at the end of mass effect 2, they could have made the reapers "looming" over us but delaying the end.

 

Sort of how dark souls 1 ended. We can only delaying the end of organics for so long. But isn't that time worth fighting still?

[wolfhowwl]

I'm going to go wildly against the grain and say ME3's ending was not a train wreck.  Far from it.  What it did was take a theme that most completely overlooked or ignored (Organic vs Synthetic) which had been present in every single game since ME1, and made in the motivation of the antagonists.  Unfortunately since people mostly overlooked or ignored it as a theme, that conflict being the primary driving force of the antagonist made little sense to most.

 

As a writer, who has spent a lot of time writing, Drew makes a lot of good points.  You can't always know how a story will end.  Or, sometimes you do, but as you go along, the story goes off in it's own direction and makes the ending you originally wanted irrelevant or impossible to achieve.  And like people have said, trying to railroad your story to fit a set ending when the story will not go in that direction is bad.

 

But honestly, the process isn't perfect, and it's not a science.  I mean, if anyone owns the ME1 artbook it clearly indicates that the Geth were originally going to be anthropomorphic bats at first.  And look at what the Geth are now?  Writing is a journey in which even the destination isn't always certain or clear.  Even when you know where you think you want to go, you may wind up going in a completely different direction.

 

It's like going on a road-trip where your own real goal is to travel X number of miles, no matter where the trip ends.

 

Yeah the Geth were changed to robots because ""as Mass Effect's underlying themes of organics vs. machines emerged, the Geth were rewritten as a synthetic lifeform." It's baffling that ME2 had the synthetic avatar, Legion, be an optional character.

[Fixers0]

Quite frankly, The only time the first game specifically focussed on the innate conflict between living beings and AI was with the Presdium AI quest. All other occurences of conflict between AI and living beings had other reasons. Geth could have been replaced with an organic race and it would require negliable adjustments to the plot.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Quite frankly, The only time the first game specifically focussed on the innate conflict between living beings and AI was with the Presdium AI quest. All other occurences of conflict between AI and living beings had other reasons. Geth could have been replaced with an organic race and it would require negliable adjustments to the plot.

 

Those are largely my sentiments, although with regard to all three games. There was only a synthetic vs organic conflict in the most shallow sense; there were, at times, organics fighting synthetics, but very little thematically on that subject. For one, the second game had a radical shift in suddenly establishing the Collectors as the main adversaries and the revelation that the Reapers weren't actually AI but some mixture of the two. Mainly though, you could change the proper nouns around for things like the Geth/Quarian conflict and still have the same issues largely make sense. The closest I can think of where the game explores these issues are with the Presidium AI and space Morrigan who's views on the Geth deal with them being programs created by the Quarians (but even then she's largely avoidable and like the rest of the Quarians becomes a straw man).

 

That's where my part of my problem with the ending comes. ME3 all but jumps out of the screen to hammer the player with this idea that the Synthetics are largely the most helpful and sympathetic beings in the galaxy, only to suddenly turn the tables with this idea that they will destroy all organic life. There's been violence to be sure but all organic life? Most of the AI threats were put down by a group of three people on foot and the largest faction chose isolation, albeit enforced (the issue isn't so much that the could but rather how the series shows the conflict). As the Rannoch arc makes clear the tension that exists between the Quarians and the Geth doesn't really stem from well intentioned but fundamentally alien beings struggling to coexist, but from the Quarians being irrational jerkfaces. The ending isn't really logically wrong but it's largely undercut by mostly everything that came before it.

[cap and gown]

Quite frankly, The only time the first game specifically focussed on the innate conflict between living beings and AI was with the Presdium AI quest. All other occurences of conflict between AI and living beings had other reasons. Geth could have been replaced with an organic race and it would require negliable adjustments to the plot.

 

This is why I cringed when Mac Walters piped up with the "synthetic vs organic theme" statement during the N7 day twitch stream. Mac, if that is your idea of a theme, then someone whispering during a thunderstorm counts as an air raid siren.

[angol fear]

This is why I cringed when Mac Walters piped up with the "synthetic vs organic theme" statement during the N7 day twitch stream. Mac, if that is your idea of a theme, then someone whispering during a thunderstorm counts as an air raid siren.

Then could you explain us what is a theme?

[Vazgen]

I'm going to go wildly against the grain and say ME3's ending was not a train wreck.  Far from it.  What it did was take a theme that most completely overlooked or ignored (Organic vs Synthetic) which had been present in every single game since ME1, and made in the motivation of the antagonists.  Unfortunately since people mostly overlooked or ignored it as a theme, that conflict being the primary driving force of the antagonist made little sense to most.

 

As a writer, who has spent a lot of time writing, Drew makes a lot of good points.  You can't always know how a story will end.  Or, sometimes you do, but as you go along, the story goes off in it's own direction and makes the ending you originally wanted irrelevant or impossible to achieve.  And like people have said, trying to railroad your story to fit a set ending when the story will not go in that direction is bad.

 

But honestly, the process isn't perfect, and it's not a science.  I mean, if anyone owns the ME1 artbook it clearly indicates that the Geth were originally going to be anthropomorphic bats at first.  And look at what the Geth are now?  Writing is a journey in which even the destination isn't always certain or clear.  Even when you know where you think you want to go, you may wind up going in a completely different direction.

 

It's like going on a road-trip where your own real goal is to travel X number of miles, no matter where the trip ends.

Definitely agreed. Ironically, all three aspects of the endings are present throughout the trilogy but they are sidelined in the face of some major threat. Bringing them forward in the last minute of a trilogy as being the main reason for the Reaper existence rightfully feels disconnected from the rest of the trilogy.

Instances of synthetic/organic theme in

ME1:

Presidium AI, Rebekah and Michael (Synthesis), Rogue VI on Luna, Lost Freighter (machines keep a brain-dead person alive), geth

 

ME2:

Wrecked Merchant Freighter storyline, Overlord DLC (Control), Shepard's resurrection (Synthesis), Legion and his LM, Tali's loyalty mission, EDI, proto-Reaper (Synthesis)

 

ME3:

EDI arc, geth/quarian conflict, the Reapers themselves

 

As you can see, the theme does not come out of nowhere. But, on the other hand, it does not have as major presence as, say, in Deus Ex: HR where the entire game is built on the idea of augmentation and its positive and negative sides. That's why when you are faced with a similar choice in Deus Ex: HR ending it doesn't feel disconnected. Mass Effect introduced and used the organic vs synthetic theme, but due to the lack of planning or something else, it wasn't developed deeply enough to feel like a main theme of the trilogy.

[angol fear]

That's why when you are faced with a similar choice in Deus Ex: HR ending it doesn't feel disconnected. Mass Effect introduced and used the organic vs synthetic theme, but due to the lack of planning or something else, it wasn't developed deeply enough to feel like a main theme of the trilogy.

 

Organic vs synthetic isn't the main theme, there is no main theme in Mass Effect. Organic vs synthetic is the central theme because it's the real problem. Without it there is no Mass Effect, the whole logic of the trilogy is based on that. There's didn't have to make it explicit, that's really a bad habit of reading to think that something is deeply developed if it is said explicitly. Actually when a theme is tied with other theme, they are developed and that's where the writing of Mass Effect is impressive.

Honestly, though I liked Deus Ex : Human Revolution, the augmentation theme isn't really interesting, it only became interesting when the information-power theme appeared. During the game you are said ""augmentation blabla, augmentation blabla, sure in the end you're not surprised but is it deep? The augmentation theme still "is it good or bad?", how is it deep?

Actually depth is a myth. There is no depth. There's only development.

 

An example I use a lot : Verhoeven's Robocop. The central theme is the image. How many people did see/feel it? The fact that people didn't feel the central theme isn't important. It doesn't make something less deep.

[Vazgen]

Poor choice of words on my part. What I was trying to say is that the organic vs synthetic conflict is not presented as the central conflict throughout the trilogy. I disagree with your notion that without it there is no Mass Effect. Mass Effect was never about solving some real problem, it was always about stopping the Reapers. Organic vs synthetic relations tagged along for a ride but their instances were too disconnected from both each other and the main plot. There was no development about those issues. An example - Shepard's resurrection. There was a lot of potential for character development here, how does he react to augmentations, information about his both physical and mental health... Instead we got "I got better". Deus Ex: HR is consistent, the whole game revolves about augmentations and their positive and negative sides. So when you are presented with a choice in the end, you know that you deal with a real problem, something your character is also a part of. When the trilogy tries to do the same, it fails to create such connection. The fact that the one who gives you the choice is a clearly biased entity that you were trying to destroy for 99% of the game makes it worse. And as a final nail in the coffin, Geth/Quarian arc can be resolved with peace between both sides creating further disconnect when the Catalyst says that the synthetics will inevitably wipe out all organic life. 

Most of the problems come from the Reapers themselves. A race of sentient machines that wipes out all advanced life in the galaxy every 50000 years and erases all traces of their existence. Their reasons needed to be explained, they are not like darkspawn - "the ultimate evil" that destroys everything because its, well, evil. They are machines, meaning they were created, meaning they have a clear task. And there is no one left to explain their reasons except the Reapers themselves. Leviathan DLC tried to deal with the creation aspect, but the motives for periodically wiping out organic life still had to come from the Reapers. And with the entire trilogy going on the promise of "we destroy them or they destroy us" players feel disconnect when the Reaper central intelligence suddenly becomes respectful and offers a choice to solve a conflict that was only slightly touched before but is presented as a galaxy-wide problem.

I'm not saying that hammering players with "this is the problem, feel it" is a good way to write a story. But if you make it the centerpiece of all your story, it should get more exposition. Think of it, if the trilogy ended right after Cerberus HQ, would you ever consider organic vs synthetic conflict to be something as large and problematic as the Catalyst makes it to be?

[dreamgazer]

This is why I cringed when Mac Walters piped up with the "synthetic vs organic theme" statement during the N7 day twitch stream. Mac, if that is your idea of a theme, then someone whispering during a thunderstorm counts as an air raid siren.

 

 

Most intriguingly of all, Karpyshyn mentioned a discarded plot idea for the beginning of Mass Effect 2 that sounds similar to what Walters and the Mass Effect 3 team eventually chose for the trilogy's ending (er, spoilers):

 

"There was some ideas that maybe Shepard gets his essence transferred into some kind of machine, becoming a cyborg and becoming a bridge between synthetics and organics - which is a theme that does play up in the game," Karpyshyn concluded. "At one point we thought, maybe that's how he survives into Mass Effect 2."

 

http://www.eurogamer...-trilogy-ending

 

(shrug)

[Iakus]

http://www.eurogamer...-trilogy-ending

 

(shrug)

I suppose shooting all those organic mercs in ME2 was part of the theme?

[TMA LIVE]

I suppose shooting all those organic mercs in ME2 was part of the theme?

I don't get what you mean with the context of that article.

 

Honestly, Organics vs Synthetics is a theme in Mass Effect. Maybe not "the" theme, but it is "A" theme, and one that kept coming up, even if ME2 had less of a focus on it with the Geth taking a back seat over the Collectors. Dark Energy however wasn't even a theme, it was a setup. And though Indoctrination was used a lot, it was never a theme, it was just a plot device to turn people into bad guys for no reason. If those can be used as the main element of the endings the people prefer, then I don't see how organics vs synthetics is any different.

 

Honestly, I don't mind the backstory they created for the Reapers in the final game. Besides "where the hell was the catalyst during ME1?", it works within the lore. Geth start there revolution, and if the Protheans didn't reprogram the keepers, the invasion would've happened right then. And during that delay, we get the birth of rogue AI's like EDI, and a crazy amount of "death by rogue AI/machines" messes we needed to clean up, you feel like it's a disaster waiting to happen that'll keep getting worse. Especially with Overlord.

 

Either backstory works in my opinion. It's just "how" it's used that was the issue. In the case of Dark Energy, it was how it was not used at all.

[angol fear]

@Vazgen, yes the "deep" word irritated me so maybe I've been too harsh.

When I'm saying that without it there would be no Mass Effect, I'm not talking about the story. Mass Effect 1 and 2 can exist without Mass Effect 3. Yes the story is about stopping the reapers, and in Mass Effect 1 The VI said that it's useless to understand the reapers. But the trilogy is based on changing the point of view, the representation of the events. I mean if you base yourself on the first game you're not talking about Mass Effect but Mass Effect 1. You're talking about a part, not the whole thing. The trilogy is changing the representations, each game is based on that. We come from basic representation, Mass Effect 1, where it's almost good vs evil to the end where there's no good and evil. I'm not saying that the whole trilogy is perfect. Actually Mass Effect 2 has got an interesting idea but the writing isn't good at all. When you take the quarian-geth peace as an example it doesn't work, it's not peace, it's more a truce because of the reapers threat. So yes, it feels disconnected if you stay on your point of view and don't go on higher level.

 

When you take Shepard's resurrection as an example where they could develop something, the problem is that you want it to be like Deus Ex. You're talking about augmentation. Mass Effect is not about augmentation. Mass Effect isn't Deus Ex, the theme are not the same. When you talk about Deus Ex, you can't say that it's about organics and synthetics.

 

 

Think of it, if the trilogy ended right after Cerberus HQ, would you ever consider organic vs synthetic conflict to be something as large and problematic as the Catalyst makes it to be?

 

It wouldn't. But most theme would be useless. And the writing would be inconsistent. But it's not fair to ask that. It would be the same to ask if Bong joon ho's snowpiercer (which is a masterpiece) would be the same if the film would stop before its ending. Just like Mass Effect, it would fail with its own theme because it finishes with a twist. A twist is supposed to make the reader read again and against his first reading. The thing is that the ending of Mass Effect gives the clue to interpret the events, to understand the logic, to understand the writing. It's one of the very few twist that are interesting, that make sense. In the event you don't see the problem, but Klencory told us in Mass Effect 1 and 3 that it was the central problem. Those who had spent time reading planets, they had a clue. You need to step back to see (just like Poe's The Purloined Letter).

[Asharad Hett]

Organic vs synthetic was not a central theme of the first game, and can be skipped by the player.  The Reapers used both Geth and Krogan to attack us in ME1.

 

In the second game, it is shown that AI can be your ally (EDI, Legion).  The portions of the game that show violent mechs can be skipped by the player.  The Collectors were a mostly organic enemy.

 

In the third game, it is shown that Quarrians are the aggressor race.  Geth can be our ally.  Cerberus is a bigger threat to our survival than Geth.  

 

The core theme of the saga is Reapers killing organics (ME1), Collectors liquefying organics (ME2), Reapers killing or huskifying organics (ME3).  They ending would have made more sense if the Reapers were trying to prevent peace between organics and AI.

[cap and gown]

I would say the theme of the series is how well different species can work together. In ME1, the big theme is humans' place in the galaxy: should they go it alone, or be more cooperative. This is the climactic decision after Shepard defeats Saren: try to save the Council, or let them die? This theme is not as prominent in ME2, but it is there. For instance, during Mordin's recruitment when everyone suspects humans of starting the plague, or the Batarian bartender, or the emphasis given to the fact that Cerberus is willing to work with aliens to stop the Collectors. And, of course, ME3 is about trying to bring about a grand alliance of as many different species to fight the Reapers as possible. This idea could be developed into a major meditation on strength through diversity.

[dreamgazer]

I would say the theme of the series is how well different species can work together. In ME1, the big theme is humans' place in the galaxy: should they go it alone, or be more cooperative. This is the climactic decision after Shepard defeats Saren: try to save the Council, or let them die? This theme is not as prominent in ME2, but it is there. For instance, during Mordin's recruitment when everyone suspects humans of starting the plague, or the Batarian bartender, or the emphasis given to the fact that Cerberus is willing to work with aliens to stop the Collectors. And, of course, ME3 is about trying to bring about a grand alliance of as many different species to fight the Reapers as possible. This idea could be developed into a major meditation on strength through diversity.

 

Eh, you can make decisions throughout the series that are completely against cooperation and diversity, thus nullifying the idea of that being a theme. 

 

Sacrifice, exerting order over the chaos of organic life, and the presence of synthetics who "inevitably" rebelled against their creators are there regardless of what you choose. 

 

The core theme of the saga is Reapers killing organics (ME1), Collectors liquefying organics (ME2), Reapers killing or huskifying organics (ME3).  They ending would have made more sense if the Reapers were trying to prevent peace between organics and AI.

 

"We impose order on the chaos of organic evolution".

 

Why is peace between organics and AI "chaos"?

[cap and gown]

Eh, you can make decisions throughout the series that are completely against cooperation and diversity, thus nullifying the idea of that being a theme. 

 

Nevertheless, it seems to be the theme around which you can shape your character: which is better, cooperation or self-reliance? The game could have worked out differing scenarios for each choice. To a tiny extent it does in ME2. If you sacrifice the Council, then the aliens on the Citadel are more hostile, while if you save the Council, then the aliens are more accepting of humans. The game doesn't do much beyond that, but it could.

[Valmar]

Organic vs synthetic was not a central theme of the first game, and can be skipped by the player.  The Reapers used both Geth and Krogan to attack us in ME1.

 

In the second game, it is shown that AI can be your ally (EDI, Legion).  The portions of the game that show violent mechs can be skipped by the player.  The Collectors were a mostly organic enemy.

 

In the third game, it is shown that Quarrians are the aggressor race.  Geth can be our ally.  Cerberus is a bigger threat to our survival than Geth.  

 

The core theme of the saga is Reapers killing organics (ME1), Collectors liquefying organics (ME2), Reapers killing or huskifying organics (ME3).  They ending would have made more sense if the Reapers were trying to prevent peace between organics and AI.

 

I can play the first game without fighting synthetics? I had no idea. Here I thought they made of the majority of the enemies you face in the main storyline. Can I also sidestep fighting the reapers while we're at it?

 

Oh, so the two instances where we can get along with synthetics, THAT should be remembered but all the other instances where there is conflict we should just sweep it to the side? Cooperation with synthetics was a theme in Mass Effect (2, 3) but so was conflict with them. Conflict more so, since its persistent throughout the trilogy. The collectors were more synthetic than they were organic. "Replaced by tech. Replaced by tech. Replaced by tech."

 

Quarian's being aggressive in no way distracts from the fact that the quarians are organics currently at war with the geth. Conflict is conflict regardless of what side shot first.

[Iakus]

I don't get what you mean with the context of that article.

 

Honestly, Organics vs Synthetics is a theme in Mass Effect. Maybe not "the" theme, but it is "A" theme, and one that kept coming up, even if ME2 had less of a focus on it with the Geth taking a back seat over the Collectors. Dark Energy however wasn't even a theme, it was a setup. And though Indoctrination was used a lot, it was never a theme, it was just a plot device to turn people into bad guys for no reason. If those can be used as the main element of the endings the people prefer, then I don't see how organics vs synthetics is any different.

 

Honestly, I don't mind the backstory they created for the Reapers in the final game. Besides "where the hell was the catalyst during ME1?", it works within the lore. Geth start there revolution, and if the Protheans didn't reprogram the keepers, the invasion would've happened right then. And during that delay, we get the birth of rogue AI's like EDI, and a crazy amount of "death by rogue AI/machines" messes we needed to clean up, you feel like it's a disaster waiting to happen that'll keep getting worse. Especially with Overlord.

 

Either backstory works in my opinion. It's just "how" it's used that was the issue. In the case of Dark Energy, it was how it was not used at all.

 

Well, I question that it's a theme at all in ME2, given the Reapers themselves take a back seat in the story, and our enemies are almost entirely organic.  All these "rogue AI's that I end up fighting are entirely side missions or DLC.  

 

In fact, it's entirely possible to avoid fighting even the geth in ME2.

[Iakus]

I can play the first game without fighting synthetics? I had no idea. Here I thought they made of the majority of the enemies you face in the main storyline. Can I also sidestep fighting the reapers while we're at it?

 

In the first game you can't avoid fighting the geth, it's true.  But the fact that they are synthetic is secondary in importance to the fact that they worship Sovereign.   Don't forget that Sovereign also had tank-bred krogan and indoctrinated asari under its control as well.

 

 

 

Oh, so the two instances where we can get along with synthetics, THAT should be remembered but all the other instances where there is conflict we should just sweep it to the side? Cooperation with synthetics was a theme in Mass Effect (2, 3) but so was conflict with them. Conflict more so, since its persistent throughout the trilogy. The collectors were more synthetic than they were organic. "Replaced by tech. Replaced by tech. Replaced by tech."

 

Given the absolutist statement of the Catalyst, yes.  Any instances of organics and sythetics coexisting peacefully undermines its argument.

 

 

Quarian's being aggressive in no way distracts from the fact that the quarians are organics currently at war with the geth. Conflict is conflict regardless of what side shot first.

 

So what does the Krogan Rebellions say?  The Rachni Wars?  Every organic vs organic conflict ever?  The Morning War and the current flare-up between the quarians and the geth is really not much different than that.  So what if one side is synthetic?

[Vazgen]

Given the absolutist statement of the Catalyst, yes.  Any instances of organics and sythetics coexisting peacefully undermines its argument.

 

So what does the Krogan Rebellions say?  The Rachni Wars?  Every organic vs organic conflict ever?  The Morning War and the current flare-up between the quarians and the geth is really not much different than that.  So what if one side is synthetic?

"The created will always rebel against their creators" Yeah, pretty much. There is no synthetic in ME universe that doesn't rebel against its creator.

"Conflict will always arise between synthetics and organics". True again. EDI got in conflict with Cerberus, Legion - with the Quarians.

"Without us to stop it, the synthetics will destroy all organics" Assumption. Can be both true and false, no way to prove one or the other.

 

Organic vs organic conflicts are out of scope of its programming. It doesn't care about those conflicts. Partly because whatever these conflicts are, organic life will survive.

 

Also, just thought about it. The Catalyst says that it was created to be "the Catalyst for a peace between organics and synthetics". Well, it succeeded. Without the Reapers, there would be no peace between geth and the quarians (ideal outcome). 

[Asharad Hett]

 

I can play the first game without fighting synthetics? I had no idea. Here I thought they made of the majority of the enemies you face in the main storyline. Can I also sidestep fighting the reapers while we're at it?

 

Oh, so the two instances where we can get along with synthetics, THAT should be remembered but all the other instances where there is conflict we should just sweep it to the side? Cooperation with synthetics was a theme in Mass Effect (2, 3) but so was conflict with them. Conflict more so, since its persistent throughout the trilogy. The collectors were more synthetic than they were organic. "Replaced by tech. Replaced by tech. Replaced by tech."

 

Quarian's being aggressive in no way distracts from the fact that the quarians are organics currently at war with the geth. Conflict is conflict regardless of what side shot first.

 

 

Read what I said.

 

In ME1, reaper forces consisted of both mech and organics.  However, I'll play along and focus solely on the Geth portion of the reaper forces.  The Geth that sided with Nazara were only a small percentage of the population.  After Nazara was destroyed, the heretic threat mostly subsided.  

 

 

 

The collectors were more synthetic than they were organic.

 

Collectors are organic with cybernetics.  They are cloned and have DNA.  They are not AI.   The only AI in ME2 that we are forced to deal with are allies.  Any other instance of AI are in side missions and can be skipped and therefore are not mainline plot elements.

 

Quarian's being aggressive in no way distracts from the fact that the quarians are organics currently at war with the geth. Conflict is conflict regardless of what side shot first.

 

 

The Geth (except for heretics) aren't out to destroy organics.  They are defending themselves.  The Quarrians have the choice to avoid eradication.

 

My original statement is this:

"Organic vs synthetic was not a central theme of the first game" and "The core theme of the saga is Reapers killing organics (ME1), Collectors liquefying organics (ME2), Reapers killing or huskifying organics (ME3)."