Also, note that the exact same thing happens to Saren in ME1 -- over the course of the game he goes from a powerful enemy to a pathetic indoctrinated stooge.
Hm true. I never liked the "lol indoctrinated" plot device that every Mass Effect game uses. It got old really fast.
Guest_1m1m1m_*
To be honest? Not get an ending that basically consists of "Character arrives in a room. Character talks to a doorman. Character is allowed to choose door A, B, C, or D. The End."
Mass Effect 1 had three choices at the end (kill council, save council, focus on Sovereign). Mass Effect 2 had two choices (destroy collector base, save it). Mass Effect 3 had three main choices (destroy, control, synthesis), with various outcomes for the galaxy and Shepard's crew (Normandy scene) based on your EMS score which is calculated from decisions you made in Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3. Although, if you rip through the trilogy, you may only end up with one choice to make at the end, destroy Reapers. Least according to that chart I linked.
Also, note that the exact same thing happens to Saren in ME1 -- over the course of the game he goes from a powerful enemy to a pathetic indoctrinated stooge.
To me that´s not a contradiction. Saren is Sheps enemy, because he is indoctrinated. Without indoctrination Saren wouldn´t be an enemy. Yes, he works for the Reapers, but that doesn´t make him not powerful. It´s just the reason (or his motivation), imo.
Hell, do you think we'd still get the same outrage if Extended Cut was a part of the original game?
I was playing with EC and I am disappointed. The breathing scene is better than nothing I guess. But the ending is so... strange. The run to the beam, slow motion walk, flying floor tiles, Catalyst, synthetics against organics, control and synthesis, running towards exploding tubes ("May I finally die, please? I´m soooo tired"). For me, the EC doesn´t make anything better.
Really, this "synthetics against organics"-conflict is disturbing. In the MEU was no species wiped out by synthetics. Conflicts with synthetics were due to Reapers (ME1/3-Geth) and malfunctions (ME2 sidemission). What about organics vs. organics? Rachni - nearly (1 egg) wiped out by organics. How many people has Shep to kill to get to this point at the citadel? Cerberus, First Contact War, krogan rebellions. There are so many conflicts between the species and the catalyst thinks that synthetics against organics is a main problem?
I don't know, even outside of this forum I almost never see comments from people who had problems with Shepard dying. They have problems with how he dies. The main drawing point of MEHEM is that it bypasses the Catalyst conversation.
Again, maybe that's the bottom line for you and for others, but not everyone. I remember disagreeing on this forum a while ago with someone whose argument was that MEHEM gives us the option to have Shepard and others (EDI, geth) survive the ending and live happily ever after, an option which should have been present in the main game. And I've definitely seen comments to a very similar effect both on BSN and elsewhere. One of my MP buddies boycotted SP after her first playthrough because she was so bummed out that her FemShep dies. So it definitely does happen, and I also tend to think that people are downplaying how often it happens, but one way or another the OP is right; it's just sort of a lame complaint, however often its made.
Guest_1m1m1m_*
I remember disagreeing on this forum a while ago with someone whose argument was that MEHEM gives us the option to have Shepard and others (EDI, geth) survive the ending and live happily ever after, an option which should have been present in the main game.
Well, there's another way to look at that. He could just by lying about EDI/Geth being destroyed.
He even tells you, if you choose destroy, you will die because you are "partly synthetic". In addition to the Geth and EDI. If your EMS is high enough, you wake up. This is essentially the game telling you the Reapers were lying to you.
So essentially, there is already an ending like this in the game
Shepard lives, and no synthetics are harmed. If you ignore what was said. If you do believe it, well, then, yeah, it happens.
To me that´s not a contradiction. Saren is Sheps enemy, because he is indoctrinated. Without indoctrination Saren wouldn´t be an enemy. Yes, he works for the Reapers, but that doesn´t make him not powerful. It´s just the reason (or his motivation), imo.
Well, there's another way to look at that. He could just by lying about EDI/Geth being destroyed.
He even tells you, if you choose destroy, you will die because you are "partly synthetic". In addition to the Geth and EDI. If your EMS is high enough, you wake up. This is essentially the game telling you the Reapers were lying to you.
So essentially, there is already an ending like this in the game
Shepard lives, and no synthetics are harmed. If you ignore what was said. If you do believe it, well, then, yeah, it happens.
Of course, EDI does end up on the memorial wall. But if someone wants to make up a fantasy about the geth surviving despite their vanishing from the ending slides, I suppose that can't be helped.
This is sort of the bottom line- once you're allowing that anything shown in game can be explained away as a dream or hallucination or whatever, you don't have to worry about your "theory" being consistent with the actual game. This is, I suppose, simultaneously IT's greatest strength and greatest weakness- its immune from disproof, because it really doesn't have much to do with the game in the first place.
Well, there's another way to look at that. He could just by lying about EDI/Geth being destroyed.
He even tells you, if you choose destroy, you will die because you are "partly synthetic". In addition to the Geth and EDI. If your EMS is high enough, you wake up. This is essentially the game telling you the Reapers were lying to you.
So essentially, there is already an ending like this in the game
Shepard lives, and no synthetics are harmed. If you ignore what was said. If you do believe it, well, then, yeah, it happens.
Well, I disagree. The catalyst do not tell lies. (at 13:11)
The dialogue is : "You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want. Including the geth. Even you are partly synthetic..."
If the catalyst told lies it would be "Including the geth, even you, who are partly synthetic". But here the sentence doesn't work this way. What happens to the geth and what happens to Shepard isn't in the same sentence, this two events are separated ("Including the geth. Even you are partly synthetic..."). While for the geth it is sure that they will be destroyed, the catalyst only reminds Shepard about his situation : he is partly synthetic. He doesn't explicitly say what will happen to him, that's why we have "...". So the catalyst only say that if Shepard choose destroy there will be an impact on Shepard himself. He never say that he will die. He never told lies.
Anyway, is there a reason for the catalyst to tell lies? If he doesn't want Shepars to choose Destroy, he just have to not tell him, not give him that choice. In the trilogy, is there a moment when a synthetic told lies? I don't see any moment. The catalyst which is the most advanced synthetic would be the only one to act this way? He would fear death while the synthetics do not fear death. That interpretation doesn't make sense and goes against the writing of the trilogy.
Mass Effect 1 had three choices at the end (kill council, save council, focus on Sovereign). Mass Effect 2 had two choices (destroy collector base, save it). Mass Effect 3 had three main choices (destroy, control, synthesis), with various outcomes for the galaxy and Shepard's crew (Normandy scene) based on your EMS score which is calculated from decisions you made in Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3. Although, if you rip through the trilogy, you may only end up with one choice to make at the end, destroy Reapers. Least according to that chart I linked.
It's not how you ended the threat, the main conflict, that the game presented you with. Regardless of those choices, the game's villain died. Those choices were there to merely alter the world state you played in, in the following games. It's not the same. You didn't win the fight by making those choices. You got those choices but you still had to beat the villains. You didn't meet Saren/Sovereign and solve the whole encounter by just talking and picking the outcome. You didn't arrive to the Collector Base and solve the suicide mission with its final boss with just talking and picking the outcome, either.
In the trilogy, is there a moment when a synthetic told lies? I don't see any moment.
Eh yes, all the time. EDI lied to the Alliance, pretending to be a VI all the time in drydock. Some of her jokes had a part where she was not telling a truth like "I only forget oxygen reprocessing when I am really distracted. Just a joke."
During the Rannoich arc Legion is keeping some information from you, like "Oops, yes, I still carry Reaper code."
You asked if there is a moment when a synthetic told lies.
Yes. Ok, if we discount any questionable behaviour from Legion, because we exclude "not telling the whole truth" and EDI in general it gets a bit harder. There aren´t many other synthetics Shep had meaningful interaction with.
Why do you exclude EDI. If EDI can lie, because she wants to be more like organics, it´s technically possible, if it is an option to further the particular´s AI motivations.
So yes your point is probably true if you redefine every instance of untrustworthy behaviour or outright lying from synthetics as not valid.
Edit: Oh you edited a bit to it.
Ah well, you can probaby pick that apart because I am not watching this scene again but it should be enough to show that talking part truth can totally twist what you say.
Starkid: You can pick Red, Green or Blue or you can walk around to the other side where the manual control panel is located and turn off every Reaper and me without harming anyone.
Guest_1m1m1m_*
Anyway, is there a reason for the catalyst to tell lies?
It's a Reaper (see Extended Cut, and shoot the kid).
Why doesn't it want Shepard to pick destroy? Self-preservation, as EDI states. They'll do or say anything to stay alive.
With a little bit of "oh, but if you pick destroy, bad stuff happens". So some people believed him, and picked the other choices. Allowing the Reapers to live.
Why give him the choice at all? Like with any game, it gives us the choice to kill the final boss. He doesn't want to get destroyed, but they put it in. Otherwise, the game doesn't end.
Shepard's initial plan was to destroy the Reapers. So that was always going to be a choice at the end. Even when standing there with the kid, he knows Shepard wants to destroy the Reapers. So he tries to convince him that the other options are better. He makes destroy really bad for him (being a Reaper), while control and synthesis really good.
Based on the player reaction, this little trickery he pulled off worked. People switched from destroying Reapers, to controlling or merging with them. Hence the Reapers managed to live, and stopped Shepard from destroying them.
Even though they put the option on the table to destroy, after his speech, some people didn't want to destroy the Reapers. They chose control, or synthesis. Or refuse, if they had the Extended Cut. They were convinced that the other options were better, and they made the choice to not destroy, willingly.
Another guy from years ago talking about the ending said it better than me:
1. On the Citadel, standing before the Catalyst, Shepard has the potential to wipe out the Reapers, an unknown race that has been around for literally eons. Any intelligent villain knows trickery will work much better than brute force when they have a gun to their head. What I mean is the options presented to Shepard besides destroying the Reapers seem like they could be last ditch efforts by the Catalyst/Reapers to save themselves. They have been around for millions of years. Do you really think they are going to beg and grovel Shepard, a mere human being who managed to out-wit them, or simply cast aside their pride to admit defeat? Of course not.
2. It's interesting to see how destroying the Reapers are presented as the red-Renegade option, whereas controlling them is presented as the blue-Paragon choice. Did BioWare do this or did the Catalyst? Once again, the Reapers are about to face their own destruction. How do you think their creator, the Catalyst, is going to spin this set of choices given the Reapers have been doing his will for an unfathomable amount of time?
If you want to prove me that I'm wrong you have to show me : silence=telling lies.
A lie of omission is still a lie. A woman asking her husband if he's having an affair only to have him respond by saying, "Why would I do that? You're the most beautiful woman I know" is still a lie if he is having an affair. He didn't answer the question. Just deflected and hoped she wouldn't notice.
Is there any indication that synthetics are incapable of lying?
EDI the synthetic who wants to act like a human... (emotions, jokes etc...)
I'm talking synthetics who act like synthetic so there is a moment EDI behavior can't be considered like synthetic behavior(she wants to be like organics).
Not telling something is not lying. Synthetics don't tell, that is not to tell lies. They don't give informations that are wrong (that's what to tell lies means).
What? What does it mean to "act like synthetic"? You do realize Synthetics as they exist in Mass Effect don't exist in real life, that the rules about how a Synthetic acts in ME are entirely defined by ME. So, if you're just going to out right reject examples of ME synthetics acting in certain ways because they don't fit some preconceived idea you have about how they should act, then there's no point to any of this. Where are you getting these guidelines for what constitutes proper synthetic behavior?
What? What does it mean to "act like synthetic"? You do realize Synthetics as they exist in Mass Effect don't exist in real life, that the rules about how a Synthetic acts in ME are entirely defined by ME. So, if you're just going to out right reject examples of ME synthetics acting in certain ways because they don't fit some preconceived idea you have about how they should act, then there's no point to any of this. Where are you getting these guidelines for what constitutes proper synthetic behavior?
As I said in one of the multiple ending threads (might have been this one), angol fear is the Catalyst. They're refusing to accept any information that doesn't fit their pre-programmed view of the world, and acting like their word is law.
@ImaginaryMatter, I am using Mass Effect logic. Where did you find that I was using some "real life" elements ? Listen to Javik, compare organic and synthetic behaviour in Mass Effect you will understand the logic and the diffrence of behaviour. This difference isn't something new, most intelligent science-fiction share the same point of view. Mass Effect uses a point of view that we have seen in many other masterpieces of science-fiction.
And for the example themselves I only reject EDI when she starts to be like the organics because she doesn't want to be like the reapers. I think that human is organic so when EDI tries to be like the crew, like joker, she actually act like an organic not a synthetic. The geth never told lies. When you don't give an information, you're not lying. They never gave wrong informations.
We were talking about organic and synthetic behavior, then you rejected EDI and ignored Legion... the Geth... who lied... repeatedly, do we really have to pull up the clips? Yes, if we do start ignoring the Synthetic characters then the organics and synthetics do start having lots of differences, but I hope you see the problem there.
He actually implicitly answered. The question means that there is no reason so he didn't do anything. If he is having an affair, then he is telling lies.
Lying by omission is a lie because it's a misrepresentation of the truth. EDI deliberately misrepresented herself to the Normandy retrofit crew when she pretended to be a VI. Misrepresentation is still a lie.
In the same scene we can also see Legion acting pretty emotional: with the Renegade version acting offended and defensive, while Paragon acts ashamed. The Geth VI has similar responses.
Retour en haut