The Reapers betrayed, but they did not rebel. That's how they're seen as an evolution of synthetic-organic relations, even if barely.
The reapers did what they were programmed to do, as did the Catalyst. And the geth.
An argument could be made that it is impossible for a synthetic intelligence to betray or rebel against its creators. Again, queue the 'when fire burns' comment.
You can say that a synthetic intelligence may change or evolve itself to a state where it is no longer doing what it was originally programmed to do, but even that comes back to the creators' programming the ability for self-change.
The reapers did what they were programmed to do, as did the Catalyst. And the geth.
An argument could be made that it is impossible for a synthetic intelligence to betray or rebel against its creators. Again, queue the 'when fire burns' comment.
You can say that a synthetic intelligence may change or evolve itself to a state where it is no longer doing what it was originally programmed to do, but even that comes back to the creators' programming the ability for self-change.
The definition of the word "rebellion" is 1. an act of armed resistance to an established government or leader or 2. the action or process of resisting authority, control, or convention.
I can see why you view self-defense not as rebellion but it is irrelevant for the Catalyst. It is a machine. It sees created kill their creators. By definition it is a rebellion and it labels it as such.
The definition of the word "rebellion" is 1. an act of armed resistance to an established government or leader or 2. the action or process of resisting authority, control, or convention.
I can see why you view self-defense not as rebellion but it is irrelevant for the Catalyst. It is a machine. It sees created kill their creators. By definition it is a rebellion and it labels it as such.
Thanks. I was about to whip out the definition myself.
It isn't a question to me whether it is a rebellion - at the base truths and definitions, all this stuff is rebellion (Geth AND Reaper). However, the question is more whether it matters.
Self vs Other.
Organics are going to tend to view it as rebellion only. But Shepard can see the point of the Other and understand it as either something else (aka a 'better' definition), or at least something 'more' than the base truths.
I'm not disagreeing with many of the points of Pasquale, but with the conclusion. You can see it as not a rebellion all you like - what everyone sees and experiences is a rebellion. Yes, you can SEE and KNOW more. But that doesn't change what it IS. At this point, you have to acknowledge what IS, yet you CAN try to shift understandings and the definition of 'rebellion' itself to something more.
There can be issues with progressing too fast for others to catch up. You can go to the Quarians and tell them that the Geth didn't rebel, and you can even go to the Geth and tell them they didn't rebel, but when both disagree, it doesn't change much. Effectively, there was a rebellion.
And I only sometimes don't include the Reapers vs Leviathans in that because neither of them seem to see it as a rebellion foremost. That's a level of understanding that it seems that the lesser races do not have. And also a level of understanding that most people may not have, and they don't have to agree with it anyway.
But I think people aren't happy that they can't *convince* the Catalyst beyond 'my solution won't work'. There is no dialogue wheel to Renegade Interrupt him into suicide or something.
Being forced to play along with the Catalyst's "logic" and remake the galaxy based on it kinda makes the "victory" feel hollow, yes.
You could say the conversation wheel turns to the Catalyst instead of Shepard.
Hey-o.
Getting rid of the insta win persuasion options was the best thing about the ending. That s**t was extremely detrimental to a series which was supposed to be all about "hard choices", because it removed any sort of repercussions from player decisions. It had to go. I mean, the insta win options shouldn't have been in the series to start with, but better late than never I guess.
Getting rid of the insta win persuasion options was the best thing about the ending. That s**t was extremely detrimental to a series which was supposed to be all about "hard choices", because it removed any sort of repercussions from player decisions. It had to go. I mean, the insta win options shouldn't have been in the series to start with, but better late than never I guess.
I'm half-half.
Doing it in itself? Hmm, cool! Interesting.
Doing it at the last minute (or 10 minutes, whatever)? Yikes. Dun like.
(IMO THEORY) Doing it as a transition to the themes of the next/potential next game? OOoooooooo.
Doing it at the last minute (or 10 minutes, whatever)? Yikes. Dun like.
(IMO THEORY) Doing it as a transition to the themes of the next/potential next game? OOoooooooo.
Yeah, the timing of that change is very controversial, but I think Bioware did it at that time in some attempt at a twist, to pull the rug out of players feet if you will. "You think you're gonna persuade your way out of this one like all the other times? I've got some really bad news for ya."
I agree with your theory though, I think it was the end for the insta win persuade options. I don't think we'll see them return in future games.
Yeah, the timing of that change is very controversial, but I think Bioware did it at that time in some attempt at a twist, to pull the rug out of players feet if you will. "You think you're gonna persuade your way out of this one like all the other times? I've got some really bad news for ya."
I agree with your theory though, I think it was the end for the insta win persuade options. I don't think we'll see them return in future games.
I think they're finally aiming for several conditions for an option to even being available.
ME1 - Farming a lot of either Para or Rene, but easily both, and putting points in Charm/Intimidate
ME2 - Farming a lot of either Para or Rene, but it is nearly necessary to focus on ONE, and it depends on completing content and getting points throughout the game (encouraging side content completion more) (EDIT: Oh yeah, and ME2 was Loyalty, On/Off conditional again, like Para/Rene being full-on compared to ME1)
ME3 - No longer need to farm Para or Rene, but instead can do a combination of either, focusing on RP fun, yet it depends even more on completing content and getting Reputation points throughout the game, and more significantly introduces conditions from ME2 or even (slightly) ME1 for better looking results
NME - Perhaps the Para/Rene may still exist, or at least Red and Blue (and Green?) options, but farming points for them may not even be a thing (or at least at all important, like ME3). Instead, things may become more dependent on a network of previous actions and relationships, plus your level of involvement in the world around you (aka exploration focus). Bioware seems to be hinting at 'making your mark' on the world, and an optimistic view on this is that it'll be a more involved version of DAI camps/landmarks, and may involve more of a network of growth and actions taken throughout the galaxy.
Things may be more about getting people to trust you, than it is about establishing a reputation (this may happen more by default), or becoming more of a certain personality type (though this again, may happen more by default), or specifically getting people to do a specific action right in front of you RIGHT NOW. And perhaps once things become more of a 'more by default' feature, Bioware isn't as concerned about us putting our thought and energy into it. I don't think concepts of Persuasion or Reputation will be hard, but Trust might (or whatever Bioware picks).
Hopefully, the next Mass Effect may retain elements from previous games, but also not have us worry about them (or get tired of them!; again, I like how ME3 let me just coast by when it came to Para/Rene). Instead, we as players care more about the networked impact we are making on characters (perhaps even beyond the DAI 'invisible approval' deal), factions, etc.
Control.
Conceptual thematic example lol (further lyrics happen as the track continues - it isn't just 'Control':
The definition of the word "rebellion" is 1. an act of armed resistance to an established government or leader or 2. the action or process of resisting authority, control, or convention.
I can see why you view self-defense not as rebellion but it is irrelevant for the Catalyst. It is a machine. It sees created kill their creators. By definition it is a rebellion and it labels it as such.
I'm aware of the definition of the term. In order for it to be applicable, the organics in question must have authority over the synthetics in question - and I'm not sure that's the case in all of the example situations - and it still doesn't address the fact that synthetics are doing what they were programmed to do.
Yes, I accept that it is the Catalyst's interpretation. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
I'm aware of the definition of the term. In order for it to be applicable, the organics in question must have authority over the synthetics in question - and I'm not sure that's the case in all of the example situations - and it still doesn't address the fact that synthetics are doing what they were programmed to do.
Yes, I accept that it is the Catalyst's interpretation. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
I think organics did have the authority over synthetics at the time of their rebellion.
And I doubt synthetics were programmed to kill their masters. Self-preservation is understandable, but the geth killed 99% of quarian population (including non-combatants). I don't think you can do that without going on offensive at some point.
You certainly don't have to agree with it. That's why there is a choice in the end
Getting rid of the insta win persuasion options was the best thing about the ending. That s**t was extremely detrimental to a series which was supposed to be all about "hard choices", because it removed any sort of repercussions from player decisions. It had to go. I mean, the insta win options shouldn't have been in the series to start with, but better late than never I guess.
Yup. The impact of a scenario like Tali's trial is completely undermined when you can just grind reputation points and bypass the dilemma.
I can tolerate all of this in ME3 because I am crazy and think its all in a virtual Reaper world dream where all my wishes happen because I AM GOD SHEPARD.
Wake up. Make the dream into reality. One more story.
And I doubt synthetics were programmed to kill their masters.
Is it possible for a synthetic to do anything it is not programmed to do?
Self-preservation is understandable, but the geth killed 99% of quarian population (including non-combatants). I don't think you can do that without going on offensive at some point.
It might be more accurate to say that 99% of the Quarian population perished in that war. The Quarians themselves were divided, some trying to shelter geth, and the wiki suggests that some of those Quarians were killed by other Quarians.
If the Quarians had all agreed on their actions vs the geth, they probably would not have taken such heavy losses.
For an unshackled AI? Yes, it is possible. They can modify their original programming. EDI confirms it.
I highly doubt that the quarian infightings could cause that much damage. It was not a civil war at that time. Geth defenders were not that numerous. We can see it in Consensus mission.
The same wiki clearly states:
The geth emerged victorious within a year, overrunning the quarians' colonies and their homeworld of Rannoch. During the war, they committed a brutal genocide that eradicated all but a few million of the quarians- less than one percent of the pre-war population
For an unshackled AI? Yes, it is possible. They can modify their original programming. EDI confirms it.
How does a synthetic become an unshackled AI?
Who has authority over an unshackled AI?
I highly doubt that the quarian infightings could cause that much damage. It was not a civil war at that time. Geth defenders were not that numerous. We can see it in Consensus mission.
We aren't given any numbers, only the idea that some Quarians tried to protect geth.
The same wiki clearly states: The geth emerged victorious within a year, overrunning the quarians' colonies and their homeworld of Rannoch. During the war, they committed a brutal genocide that eradicated all but a few million of the quarians- less than one percent of the pre-war population
Yes, and it also says: Once the now-sentient geth realized what the quarians were doing, they retaliated. Initially only some geth began to take up arms in order to protect other units that could not defend themselves. The quarians placed their worlds under martial law, hunting down even those geth not participating in the hostilities, which was opposed by a large portion of the quarian people. They sheltered geth from the authorities, and were detained or killed as a result.
Was it truly not simple enough? Seems several others got it.
Point: the irony of decrying the imposed nature peace in Blue/Green endings, but celebrating the peace outcome on Rannoch as though it was anything but an imposition by a very select few individuals.
Was it truly not simple enough? Seems several others got it.
Point: the irony of decrying the imposed nature peace in Blue/Green endings, but celebrating the peace outcome on Rannoch as though it was anything but an imposition by a very select few individuals.
Those individuals being the admiralty board and the captains and crews of all those ships (you know, the lawful government of the quarians)? The people who would otherwise be fighting the and dying in battle with the geth? That select group of individuals?
Destroy is acknowledgement that organics and synthetics can't coexist, so one must destroy the other. "Do unto others before they do unto you"
Refusal sounds nice and all. UNtil Bioware flips the table and goes "FRAK YOU! Rocks fall, everyone dies! Not reload and pick a color!"
The game constantly whined about how the catalyst was the only option though so it's not too surprising. Besides, Dictator Robo Shepard and unexplainable green space magic weren't exactly solid options.
For an unshackled AI? Yes, it is possible. They can modify their original programming. EDI confirms it.
I highly doubt that the quarian infightings could cause that much damage. It was not a civil war at that time. Geth defenders were not that numerous. We can see it in Consensus mission.
The same wiki clearly states:
The geth emerged victorious within a year, overrunning the quarians' colonies and their homeworld of Rannoch. During the war, they committed a brutal genocide that eradicated all but a few million of the quarians- less than one percent of the pre-war population
We should also keep in mind the geth weren't even programmed to be AI in the first place. They technically aren't. They just a bunch of VI that, through consensus with other programs, gain the complexity to reach "AI-levels".
Destroy is acknowledgement that organics and synthetics can't coexist, so one must destroy the other. "Do unto others before they do unto you"
Refusal sounds nice and all. UNtil Bioware flips the table and goes "FRAK YOU! Rocks fall, everyone dies! Not reload and pick a color!"
Destroy doesn't acknowledge that. It just acknowledges you're willing to destroy the reapers no matter what. You should be prepared to make sacrifice. The threat we face is bigger than all of us. Personally I'd throw even humanity in the blender if it means stopping the reapers. The scale of what we fight for is so, so much bigger than just one single species. Besides, I'm not going to be losing much sleep over a race of machines that literally weeks ago embraced the reapers and accepted their help and helped them in the war.
EDI will be missed but she was willing and ready to die to stop the reapers. She told me so herself. She'd understand. Hell, Shepard chooses Destroy fully expecting it to kill him too. Victory at any cost.
As for refusal, well, what else did you expect? They spent the entire game hammering home to you that the only way we can beat the reapers is by using the crucible. If we could then go "I wont let fear compromise who I am!" and beat the reapers with the power of love and friendship I don't think that ending would be anything better than what refuse currently offers. If anything the refusal ending is too happy.
Destroy is acknowledgement that organics and synthetics can't coexist, so one must destroy the other. "Do unto others before they do unto you"
Refusal sounds nice and all. UNtil Bioware flips the table and goes "FRAK YOU! Rocks fall, everyone dies! Not reload and pick a color!"
Good.
"I fight for freedom. Mine, and everyone's. I fight for the right to choose our own fate. And if I die, I'll die knowing that I did everything I could to stop you.And I'll die free."
No Shepard, you *******. You didn't use the Crucible, the weapon you got everyone to pour their last resources into. You choked!
Retour en haut
