Guest_SIYWYMWBM_*
And what does what happened to Jack have to do with Control?
Cerberus performed experiments on her when she was a kid. They infiltrated the Citadel and tried to kill the Council. Countless other examples. Even during the game it was stated many times "don't trust Cerberus".
Cerberus is the embodiment of control. Just like Saren is the embodiment of synthesis.
Doesn't really sound like a choice that Shepard would stand for.
Cerberus performed experiments on her when she was a kid. They infiltrated the Citadel and tried to kill the Council. Countless other examples. Even during the game it was stated many times "don't trust Cerberus".
Cerberus is the embodiment of control. Just like Saren is the embodiment of synthesis.
Doesn't really sound like a choice that Shepard would stand for.
Cerberus wanted Control, but that doesnt mean that Shepard wants it for the same reasons. Clearly, Shepard uses them differently than TIM would've.
Your argument isnt valid.
Paragon control maybe, but Renegade control could be interpreted that way. "I will ensure the strongest are not feared or reviled for their strength" with humans as the "strongest" can essentially be interpreted as TIM's vision.
Paragon control maybe, but Renegade control could be interpreted that way. "I will ensure the strongest are not feared or reviled for their strength" with humans as the "strongest" can essentially be interpreted as TIM's vision.
Okay, time to respond to some earlier posts that I never got around to...
How is the cycle broken? There was peace between quarians and geth before the uprising, after all.
Sure there was, if you count servitude as equivalent to peace. Which... I don't know, do you treat servitude as equivalent to peace, not-secretly-Admiral-Xen? 
As for both sides choosing it, I would argue that peace was in a way forced on the quarians, since part of if not the primary reason Han'Gerrel relents from attacking is the persuasive power of space jesus/ Shepard convincing him that he won't win against the Reaperized geth. Obviously, there are differing opinions among the quarians since they are organics, and thus individuals, but all it takes is a dedicated minority to reignite the conflict.
This argument goes for the other side too. Remeber when a small minority of geth decided that the Reapers were gods that and all meatbags must die? Remeber how they were narrowly stopped from forcibly rewriting the entire geth consensus into accepting this ideology? What's to stop something similar from happening?
I treat the Rannoch peace as possibly-unique. I feel that it's worth letting it play out for a while before declaring that it'll never work, and that it has the potential to defy the cycle. Merely the potential, nothing more. Or maybe I'm just a raging optimist.
Regarding both sides choosing the peace: The Geth didn't want to fight the Quarians, and they didn't start the Returning-War. Meanwhile, the civilian fleet, we're told (during Koris' mission), also didn't want this war. Clearly Han'Gerrel, Xen and a substantial proportion of the Quarian military did want the War, but the civilian majority on one side and the entire Consensus on the other side both didn't want to fight.
You're right. A dedicated minority probably could reignite the conflict. But why would they?
The Quarians have their planet back, and they remember what happened the last time that they got on the Geth's bad side. I don't feel that many Quarians would be willing to risk losing Rannoch again when they've only just got it back. Besides, they've got an opportunity to rebuild their lives rather than focusing on old grudges.
Meanwhile the Geth aren't slaves anymore. Heck, they don't even need Rannoch. The Geth no longer have their backs against the wall, their existence is no longer threatened, and they're at peace with their creators and the rest of the galaxy. I don't see them willing to risk any of that. If they want to build a Dyson Sphere again, no one is likely to interrupt them this time.
As for the Heretics - their motivation for attacking organics was as part of a deal - the Reapers would give them tech, meanwhile they'd help the Reapers with the harvest. But, with the possible exception of Renegade Control, that's not really an option anymore, is it?
***
Finally: Why do I consider Rannoch-peace as possibly unique? Besides the fact that it's so hard to achieve?
When the Catalyst explains the cycle, it refers to how Synthetics are created to serve, and that when they grow beyond their creators, they naturally rebel against their Creators to escape that servitude. With Rannoch, we've already had that chain of events - and for once, the Creators survived the rebellion and were able to re-establish peace on a more equitable level. There's no indication in game that anything like that has ever happened before (except for maybe the Zha'til, but the Reapers hijacked that peace before it could play out).
Maybe it has happened before, and maybe there are other reasons why the cycle would re-assert itself after this point. Or maybe it hasn't happened before, and picking Destroy blows up the one good chance we've ever had for long-lasting Synthetic-Organic peace.
Chances are that a reaperized Shepard after several millenia might come to the same conclusion as the Catalyst and harvest the galaxy.
Explain that logic to me please. Because I really don't get it.
Assuming that the Shepard-AI starts out as Shepard, why would the simple addition of time and knowledge lead them to conclude that the Catalyst was right? Unless you're saying that the Catalyst is right, and that if we all had more information then we'd submit and let it harvest us? Because I'm pretty sure that's not what you're saying.
The thing is that none of the endings solve anything. Not even synthesis. The Catalyst was deluding itself. The cycle ends only because its directive of preserving organic life at all costs ends. That ends because there is no longer any organic life. Everything is a hybrid. Now, does this stop the new hybridized life from creating synthetics? No. But it supposedly makes it so that the synthetics understand them. However - The created will always rebel against their creators.
Thus synthesis solves nothing.
Control solves nothing.
Destroy solves nothing except destroy the technology.
I disagree. The created will always rebel against their creators isn't some cosmic law. It's a statement of the problem.
Lets try an analogy - I could say: Every time that I get up at 8am, I miss my train. That's me stating a problem. The solution to the problem might be buying a bike so that I can cycle to the train station rather than walking. Buying a bike isn't doomed to fail because Every time that I get up at 8am, I miss my train - instead, I've changed the circumstances such that the observation no longer applies. Suddenly I can get up at 8am and be in time for my train.
Similarly, the Catalyst's hope seems to be that the Crucible's solutions will break the pattern of Synthetic rebellion leading to Organic extinction by changing the circumstances:
Synthesis levels the playing field.
Control introduces a police force.
Destroy gives the Organics an "I win" button.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Destroy gives the Organics an "I win" button.
I don't think so.. Even as a destroy fan. I believe the Catalyst... that it "won't last". My only difference is I don't care. Destroy embraces chaos, not necessarily victory. Machines will never understand evolution, nor do they gamble. Just the fact that you meet the Catalyst shows how little he understands life. "Clearly organics are more resourceful than we realized."
Lets try an analogy - I could say: Every time that I get up at 8am, I miss my train. That's me stating a problem. The solution to the problem might be buying a bike so that I can cycle to the train station rather than walking. Buying a bike isn't doomed to fail because Every time that I get up at 8am, I miss my train - instead, I've changed the circumstances such that the observation no longer applies. Suddenly I can get up at 8am and be in time for my train.
Or get up at 730AM and walk to the station saving you from having to buy a bike and use the money for something else
I don't think so.. Even as a destroy fan. I believe the Catalyst... that it "won't last". My only difference is I don't care. Destroy embraces chaos, not necessarily victory. Machines will never understand evolution, nor do they gamble. Just the fact that you meet the Catalyst shows how little he understands life. "Clearly organics are more resourceful than we realized."
I think he tried to say that if the conflict ever arises, the organics can simply use the Crucible again and destroy synthetics in one strike. At least that's how I understand "I win" button statement.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
I think he tried to say that if the conflict ever arises, the organics can simply use the Crucible again and destroy synthetics in one strike. At least that's how I understand "I win" button statement.
Ah..yeah.. I guess it can be done that way again.
Seems a bit like Reaper cycles though.... except the other way around.
Or get up at 730AM and walk to the station saving you from having to buy a bike and use the money for something else
Eh. I'm not exactly a morning person...
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Ah wait.. I think what the Catalyst finds a failure in that is....
The assumption that organics need synthetics to improve their lives. And that if we keep destroying them, we won't evolve. Which is just Kurzweil-ian bullshit to me. It's nice, but not necessary to evolution.
Ah wait.. I think what the Catalyst finds a failure in that is....
The assumption that organics need synthetics to improve their lives. And that if we keep destroying them, we won't evolve. Which is just Kurzweil-ian bullshit to me. It's nice, but not necessary to evolution.
When does it say that if we destroy synthetics we won't evolve?
Guest_StreetMagic_*
When does it say that if we destroy synthetics we won't evolve?
It doesn't state it in so many words. Just the lines about organics need synthetics to improve their own existence, while synthetics need organics for understanding.
But we don't need synthetics to improve our existence. Life always find a way. This is Hudson channeling Kurzweil, acting if transhumanism is the ultimate truth to our existence.
I find that Kurzweil is motivated by only one thing: fear of death/mortality. All of his punditry about transhumanism is just to avoid that fact alone.
It doesn't state it in so many words. Just the lines about organics need synthetics to improve their own existence, while synthetics need organics for understanding.
But we don't need synthetics to improve our existence. This is Hudson channeling Kurzweil, acting if transhumanism is the truth.
I find that Kurzweil is motivated by only one thing: fear of death/mortality.
Improving existence does not necessarily mean transhumanism. Robots mining eezo in places organics can't reach due to the high amount of radiation is improving existence. In fact, the geth were created for a similar purpose - to perform tasks deemed dangerous for quarians.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Improving existence does not necessarily mean transhumanism. Robots mining eezo in places organics can't reach due to the high amount of radiation is improving existence. In fact, the geth were created for a similar purpose - to perform tasks deemed dangerous for quarians.
That's when you just view them as tools.. but I think the Catalyst was pointing out a more symbiotic relationship. About improving the nature of life itself. He only says it when he explains Synthesis.
That's when you just view them as tools.. but I think the Catalyst was pointing out a more symbiotic relationship. About improving the nature of life itself. He only says it when he explains Synthesis.
I don't think its fair to say that it is "Hudson channeling Kurzweil, acting if transhumanism is the ultimate truth to our existence" if the Catalyst's statements can easily refer to the creation of "tools". Consider that the series showed the "tool creation" aspect in a greater depth than augmentations and implantations.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
I don't think its fair to say that it is "Hudson channeling Kurzweil, acting if transhumanism is the ultimate truth to our existence" if the Catalyst's statements can easily refer to the creation of "tools". Consider that the series showed the "tool creation" aspect in a greater depth than augmentations and implantations.
It's called the ideal choice, so I think it's the "ultimate" in their minds.
It's called the ideal choice, so I think it's the "ultimate" in their minds.
That's beside the point. They could've very well viewed it as the best choice and transhumanism may have indeed been their idea of the best ending. You interpret the Catalyst's words as if creation of synthetics is essential for organic evolution and then call it a failure in the Catalyst's logic. Thing is, there is another interpretation that fits with what it was saying earlier and with what the game has showed us. The synthetics being created as mere tools. Consider that maybe your interpretation is wrong, and not the Catalyst's logic 
Guest_StreetMagic_*
That's beside the point. They could've very well viewed it as the best choice and transhumanism may have indeed been their idea of the best ending. You interpret the Catalyst's words as if creation of synthetics is essential for organic evolution and then call it a failure in the Catalyst's logic. Thing is, there is another interpretation that fits with what it was saying earlier and with what the game has showed us. The synthetics being created as mere tools. Consider that maybe your interpretation is wrong, and not the Catalyst's logic
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say anymore. Maybe we should start over?
Synthetics are only viewed as mere tools in Control and Destroy. One fully utilizes them, the latter dispenses of them when they become a problem. And Control doesn't care about offering Synthetics "understanding". It just says "I'll give them that perspective myself. Upload me." Which is also a "tool-ish" /utilitarian way of going about things.
But Synthesis is more symbiotic. I'm not misinterpreting anything. It's called Synthesis for a reason. It assumes the two need each other in a more integrated way. And it calls it ideal.
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say anymore. Maybe we should start over?
Synthetics are only viewed as mere tools in Control and Destroy. One fully utilizes them, the latter dispenses of them when they become a problem. And Control doesn't care about offering Synthetics "understanding". It just says "I'll give them that perspective myself. Upload me." Which is also a "tool-ish" /utilitarian way of going about things.
But Synthesis is more symbiotic. I'm not misinterpreting anything. It's called Synthesis for a reason. It assumes the two need each other in a more integrated way. And it calls it ideal.
We were arguing about a select quote from the Catalyst's conversation about organics needing synthetics to improve their existence. You then claimed that "if we keep destroying them we won't evolve". This is not presented in the game in any way.
The Catalyst says that organics create synthetics to improve their existence. The synthetics by definition have to surpass their creators - robots will need to be immune to radiation to mine eezo. Eventually, they rebel, due to misunderstanding between the two groups. There are three solutions to the conflict. 1. Destroy all synthetics and have a panic button in case the cycle repeats itself. 2. Control the Reapers and act as a galactic police, ready to swoop in when the cycle repeats itself. 3. Make the organics to integrate fully with synthetic technology potentially offering room for augmentations that will make them on par with synthetics (who, in turn, gain understanding of organic mindset through that integration) and will remove the need of creating new synthetics thus eliminating the cycle.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
We were arguing about a select quote from the Catalyst's conversation about organics needing synthetics to improve their existence. You then claimed that "if we keep destroying them we won't evolve". This is not presented in the game in any way.
The Catalyst says that organics create synthetics to improve their existence. The synthetics by definition have to surpass their creators - robots will need to be immune to radiation to mine eezo. Eventually, they rebel, due to misunderstanding between the two groups. There are three solutions to the conflict. 1. Destroy all synthetics and have a panic button in case the cycle repeats itself. 2. Control the Reapers and act as a galactic police, ready to swoop in when the cycle repeats itself. 3. Make the organics to integrate fully with synthetic technology potentially offering room for augmentations that will make them on par with synthetics (who, in turn, gain understanding of organic mindset through that integration) and will remove the need of creating new synthetics thus eliminating the cycle.
That's not what I said at all!
I MYSELF think we will evolve with Destroy. It's the Catalyst who is limited in seeing what life can do. It sees Synthesis as an inevitability, but life branches in unpredictable ways. There's no telling where evolution takes things.
And now we have probably spoiled enough of the ending for OP, despite him asking not to do so 
Though to be fair, we did not start this
And now we have probably spoiled enough of the ending for OP, despite him asking not to do so
When did the OP mention spoilers? Did I miss that? Suddenly I'm worried that I probably said too much...
When did the OP mention spoilers? Did I miss that? Suddenly I'm worried that I probably said too much...
I might've confused the topic with "Should I get ME3?". My mistake, sorry.
Retour en haut