Doing nothing and control are right out, and destroy must ignore an entire species. Synthesis is the only choice that looks beyond the blinders.
I disagree, it's most likely the choice which you take with blinders on. You ignore warping the minds and bodies of an entire galaxy, altering death, basicly replacing everybodies psyche with a interconnected hive-mind. The picture painted by the writers is a happy fever dream of a disabled and perverted humanity.
Are you sure you don't confuse Nazi with Germans in general? Not all of them were Nazi, you know. Anyway, how would that be relevant? There were no Reapers that opposed the Catalyst so I don't see your point.
The destruction of our allies not withstanding, generally we don't completely wipe out an enemy in a war, even if they are the antagonists, when "they promise to be nice", just to end a war or any threat of a war "for good".Even considering the Geth and other Synthetics alive, Destroy is not murder. They are collateral damage.
The primary war in the series is the one the Reapers create. It ends for good with their destruction. Your description of Synthesis here as a response to Dorktanian is letting the Reapers off the hook because they promise to be nice now.
I disagree, it's most likely the choice which you take with blinders on. You ignore warping the minds and bodies of an entire galaxy, altering death, basicly replacing everybodies psyche with a interconnected hive-mind. The picture painted by the writers is a happy fever dream of a disabled and perverted humanity.
Perhaps; it is also the writers that gave us sapient machines as a form of life. But since they wrote the ending as the one that aids both sides and brings peace, guess I will continue to choose it.
Green stuff ruined it for me. Synthesis was my first choice due to metagaming reasons (it only unlocks if you have high EMS) and boy after I saw green circuits over Joker's still limping body I immediately reloaded and picked Destroy. Everyone who wasn't indoctrinated expected the Reapers to be destroyed anyway.
The destruction of our allies not withstanding, generally we don't completely wipe out an enemy in a war, even if they are the antagonists, when "they promise to be nice", just to end a war or any threat of a war "for good".
I understand your analogy just fine, its just dumb.No, because we crush them militarily and they surrender unconditionally. Then there are severe sanctions put on them to make sure they can't be a military threat again. In this case, the Reapers have all the power still.
Secondly, are enemies in real wars are real human beings. They are not mechanical Abominations
I don't need another person who doesn't understand analogies.
The Catalyst calls it "little more than a power source." The energy spread around the galaxy through the Relays. The beam appears to come from the Presidium Tower.
But none of that answers the question as to why the Catalyst that's so intelligent and made all the technology upon which the Organic civilizations are based couldn't or didn't make the Crucible. The Organics somehow created this device bit by bit over countless cycles to work with technology they not only didn't understand, but didn't know existed.
Are you not the one that constantly tries to defend the point that the Reapers force all races down a specific path by leaving technology behind. And that if they didn't then the galaxy could have created technology that would have beaten the Reapers in conventional warfare?
Yet when it comes to Crucible suddenly you do a 180 on a grain of sand to stand there and state how could the Catalyst not figure it out before.
Green stuff ruined it for me. Synthesis was my first choice due to metagaming reasons (it only unlocks if you have high EMS) and boy after I saw green circuits over Joker's still limping body I immediately reloaded and picked Destroy. Everyone who wasn't indoctrinated expected the Reapers to be destroyed anyway.
You didn't answer the question, of course. What does 1 have to do with the other? This isn't XCOM where the aliens are trying to push human development in order to use them for a purpose. (Although, that may have been an influence on what Leviathan says.) They weren't working with some substance that only Organics could be around but would destroy the Reapers. The Crucible is nothing more than a machine and there was no story about them designing it without using Mass Effect technology as some way to circumvent or surprise the Reapers. It's just a thing that you're told about and gets built in the background. If it is necessary for synthesis, there is no reason for the Catalyst to not have built it already. Except for the fact that it's a stupid thing shoved into the story where it doesn't belong where nobody building it would have any idea what it was supposed to be, what it was supposed to do, or what it was for.Are you not the one that constantly tries to defend the point that the Reapers force all races down a specific path by leaving technology behind. And that if they didn't then the galaxy could have created technology that would have beaten the Reapers in conventional warfare?
Yet when it comes to Crucible suddenly you do a 180 on a grain of sand to stand there and state how could the Catalyst not figure it out before.
And murdering other synthetic life forms is as vile. But with Synthesis, Reapers cease Harvesting, synthetics and organics cease killing, and both build a co-op future of advancement.
Not there to play judge; am trying to end the war for good.
I'm here to play a game and enjoy a story. Not to play progenitor to the new Master Race simulator.
What analogy? I didn't make one. You're the one who made the analogy to real war. That said, I deleted that line from the post because it was harsher than I wanted to be with you.I understand your analogy just fine, its just dumb.
Unless you can crush the enemy and incur an unconditional surrender you want them completely destroyed, more so in this case since the Reapers are "mechanical abominations" which apparently means they are beings with no merits deserving of existence. Its ridiculous. Not everyone sees victory in those terms or the Reapers that way, and even if the did, not to the point of destroying our own allies to meet these requirements for victory.
I'm here to play a game and enjoy a story. Not to play progenitor to the new Master Race simulator.
I disagree, it's most likely the choice which you take with blinders on. You ignore warping the minds and bodies of an entire galaxy, altering death, basicly replacing everybodies psyche with a interconnected hive-mind. The picture painted by the writers is a happy fever dream of a disabled and perverted humanity.
Or you understand that you're doing those things, and you don't care.Try it like this: There's nothing particularly sacred about human nature as it stands at this minute; it's just an accident of evolution. Free will is an illusion anyway. So, where are the downsides of synthesis?
Better them destroyed than the rest of the Galaxy. What exactly are the merits of these killing machines? Oh, right they can help rebuild the things they destroyed or share the knowledge of all the civilizations they wiped out. Although I'm not sure how much value there is in that since each cycles' civilizations developed along the same path by design.
Wait a minute. By the time we get to the ending choice "better them destroyed than the rest of the Galaxy" isn't in play anymore; the only way the Reapers are going to destroy the galaxy is if Shepard wants them to.
As for their merits, they have the same merits other sapient life does. Well, unless we're working from an ethical standpoint where some sapients don't have value, but are you really going there?
Are you not the one that constantly tries to defend the point that the Reapers force all races down a specific path by leaving technology behind. And that if they didn't then the galaxy could have created technology that would have beaten the Reapers in conventional warfare?
Yet when it comes to Crucible suddenly you do a 180 on a grain of sand to stand there and state how could the Catalyst not figure it out before.
The Crucible is NOT independent of reaper technology
You mentioned thre AI are "collateral damage" and not murder, which is a reference to the humanitarian laws governing proportional collateral damage due to military necessity. I assumed that was what you were referring to. I guess not.What analogy? I didn't make one.
...
I wouldn't call that an analogy - I was directly and referencing how we fight wars, and how we accept surrender, because its applicable. The Reaper invason is a war after all. It is different, of course, for any number of reasons, but everybody thinks that about the war they're in, especially if they're losing....
You're the one who made the analogy to real war. That said, I deleted that line from the post because it was harsher than I wanted to be with you.
Or you understand that you're doing those things, and you don't care.Try it like this: There's nothing particularly sacred about human nature as it stands at this minute; it's just an accident of evolution. Free will is an illusion anyway. So, where are the downsides of synthesis?
If human nature isn't sacred, then why try so hard trying to save humans using synthesis at all? If free will is an illusion, why fight the reapers in the first place?
You mentioned thre AI are "collateral damage" and not murder, which is a reference to the humanitarian laws governing proportional collateral damage due to military necessity. I assumed that was what you were referring to. I guess not.
I wouldn't call that an analogy - I was directly and referencing how we fight wars, and how we accept surrender, because its applicable. The Reaper invason is a war after. It is different, of course, for any number of reasons, but everybody thinks that about the war they're in, especially if they're losing.
Wait a minute. By the time we get to the ending choice "better them destroyed than the rest of the Galaxy" isn't in play anymore; the only way the Reapers are going to destroy the galaxy is if Shepard wants them to.
As for their merits, they have the same merits other sapient life does. Well, unless we're working from an ethical standpoint where some sapients don't have value, but are you really going there?
Aye; but the Protheans were the last civilization to build on it. And I do not know the others to name them. Rule's lawyers....
All that said, it was the Catalyst that seemingly created the switches, even the ones that supposedly were opposed to their own interests. This speaks of objectivity to me. But if one suspects deception, why then pull the switch that supposedly destroys them? Rhetorical; they will come back anyway....
Those are excellent questions. IMO, that's something that can only be explained by "plot reasons".
As players, we can only take an educated guess as to why the Catalyst (or the Intelligence) would show the Reapers' off-switch to an organic, stuck in the cycle.
My guess would be based on the Intelligence's logic that it couldn't find a REAL solution to the organics-synthetics mutual destruction problem. It knows it found an imperfect solution, for it's obliged to destroy life in order to preserve it. The ideal solution would be to find a way for organics and synthetics to coexist, a solution it failed to provide.
So, from the moment Shepard is able to kill two Reapers, succesfully unite the galaxy against the Reapers and arrive at the Catalyst's chamber, three fantastic feats no life form had ever managed to achieve, the Intelligence saw that their solution was no longer working. Organics managed to create minimal conditions to turn the tide to their favor. How long would it be until the civilizations of the next cycles would finally become advanced enough to destroy even the Reapers? To surpass their technology and finally bring them down?
This is why the Intelligence surrendered. It realized its provisional solution could no longer keep up with the galaxy's natural evolution. Organics would eventually become aware of the existence of cycles, understand Reaper technology and destroy the Reapers for good. So it relinquished control of the galaxy's evolutionary cycle and allowed the leader of the fight, Shepard, to hold the fate of the galaxy in their hands instead.
Or you understand that you're doing those things, and you don't care.Try it like this: There's nothing particularly sacred about human nature as it stands at this minute; it's just an accident of evolution. Free will is an illusion anyway. So, where are the downsides of synthesis?
Decaying, sensation seeking minds inside immortal bodies and the lengths they will go to for satisfaction when they can process new information at the speed of an A.I.
This is why the Intelligence surrendered. It realized its provisional solution could no longer keep up with the galaxy's natural evolution. Organics would eventually become aware of the existence of cycles, understand Reaper technology and destroy the Reapers for good. So it relinquished control of the galaxy's evolutionary cycle and allowed the leader of the fight, Shepard, to hold the fate of the galaxy in their hands instead.
Why couldn't it simply command its Reaper toys to fly into the dark space or into sun? Why force Shepard to make a decision at all? Instead of giving the option of Control the Catalyst could've just obeyed Shepard's will. Instead of making Shepard shoot the tube it could've make Reapers self-destruct. The only thing the Crucible is needed for is the Synthesis because Reapers can't do that by themselves.
Everytime I see comments about the Catalyst's (Reapers') surrender, I always think about how the Catalyst tries so hard to justify the killing done by the Reapers initially.
Why couldn't it simply command its Reaper toys to fly into the dark space or into sun? Why force Shepard to make a decision at all? Instead of giving the option of Control the Catalyst could've just obeyed Shepard's will. Instead of making Shepard shoot the tube it could've make Reapers self-destruct. The only thing the Crucible is needed for is the Synthesis because Reapers can't do that by themselves.
Everytime I see comments about the Catalyst's (Reapers') surrender, I always think about how the Catalyst tries so hard to justify the killing done by the Reapers initially.
1- IMO, the Catalyst's choice to let Shepard choose the Reapers' fate was created by the writers because they wanted Shepard's story to end like the Hero's Journey dictates.
By the end of the third game, Shepard had already learned everything there was to learn about the enemy. He figured out how to destroy that threat, aka he obtained the magical artifact needed to kill the villain. He vanquished all battles and emerged victorious. He had losses along the way and survived. He ultimately obtained the secret knowledge; that is to say, he became a master, of himself and of the world. Now all that was left was for him to use said knowledge to finish the villain and become the ultimate hero. Hence why it's up to Shepard to end the Reaper threat.
Of course the logical conclusion to the trilogy would be similar to one of the suggested endings you made. That would make a lot more sense. I guess we can all pretty much agree on that. But that would defeat the purpose of ensuring Shepard died like a hero, making the Ultimate Sacrifice for the good of everyone.
Oops. Does it sound like the Warden in DA: Origins?
2- [About the Catalyst's surrender] That's certainly how it sounds.
I'm not sure how that makes sense....
If your comparison to real world wars wasn't meant to be an analogy, it holds no value to this discussion and i don't know what your point was. It's not some little difference in the war. It's a difference which side has the power.
Retour en haut