Funny that; the Geth and Quarians are allies in my game. And the Quarians may be able to live without masks soon due to the alliance. Health seems to be more important than apathy....
I'm happy for you. Since I have no idea what will happen if that reaper code is uploaded, I let the geth be destroyed. The quarians were destroying them until the reapers interfered. So what I did is put it back before the reapers interfered letting the quarians finish what they started
I'm happy for you. Since I have no idea what will happen if that reaper code is uploaded, I let the geth be destroyed. The quarians were destroying them until the reapers interfered. So what I did is put it back before the reapers interfered letting the quarians finish what they started
You buy into the Catalyst's assertion that synthetics will always destroy all organics.
I don't. I believe that the technological singularity actually *hasn't* happened and the Reapers actions have been preventing it. I believe that Synthesis is possible, but it's not going to happen when everyone's enslaved to the Catalyst's will, however benevolent a dictator it happens to turn out to be.
I believe that the current cycle should have the chance to reach it on their own, without interference and without being suddenly uplifted to a tech level galactic civilization isn't ready for.
I believe that the Catalyst must be destroyed, because it is ultimately as much a part of the problem as the Leviathan that made it. And it is undeniably guilty of countless deaths, being a war criminal the likes of which it is difficult to comprehend.
Also, supposedly, Synthesis is now inevitable; which seems that the galaxy will reach synthesis regardless of whether or not it is actually chosen.
Funny that; the Geth and Quarians are allies in my game. And the Quarians may be able to live without masks soon due to the alliance. Health seems to be more important than apathy....
So after proving the Catalyst wrong, you insist that it's right and do what it wants?
I believe that the current cycle should have the chance to reach it on their own, without interference and without being suddenly uplifted to a tech level galactic civilization isn't ready for.
Also knows as one of the themes of the entire series!
You buy into the Catalyst's assertion that synthetics will always destroy all organics.
I don't. I believe that the technological singularity actually *hasn't* happened and the Reapers actions have been preventing it. I believe that Synthesis is possible, but it's not going to happen when everyone's enslaved to the Catalyst's will, however benevolent a dictator it happens to turn out to be.
I believe that the current cycle should have the chance to reach it on their own, without interference and without being suddenly uplifted to a tech level galactic civilization isn't ready for.
I believe that the Catalyst must be destroyed, because it is ultimately as much a part of the problem as the Leviathan that made it. And it is undeniably guilty of countless deaths, being a war criminal the likes of which it is difficult to comprehend.
The reason I demand evidence from the Catalyst is that it is the one trying to convince me to change my plan from the first game, destroy the Reapers, and join it in Synthesis. It is making a claim which is not only not backed up by events of the series, but is contradicted by several. Vigil is just there to pass on information that has to do with the Reapers generally, but little to do with the immediate goal. While I can question how he knows these things in-universe (I understand it from a writing standpoint) nothing in the game contradicts what Vigil says.
Yet again you have repeatedly used statements made by Vigil even when they are later contradicted in game though events as 100% facts. Which you then use to argue against other points. You quite literally pulled the "Reapers are in fact trapped in dark space because the game says so" line against me. So again why would one need proof when you accept the proof of another without question?
The Citadel is not the Reapers so your analogy to parents and children fails. I can actually use it well though. In the event I lock myself out of the house, my parents can open the door and let me in. Also, even if you’re right that the Catalyst doesn’t actively control the Reapers, and you may be given the difference between Harbinger and Sovereign, it can. Otherwise the Control option makes no sense. The Catalyst tells Shepard the Reapers will obey him.
The Catalyst doesn’t see its plan failing in terms of being stopped; it sees that it is no longer applicable to the changed situation. It now has more options that it didn’t have before. In the case of high EMS, Synthesis is now on the table where it formerly was not.
Your example of locking yourself out of the house doesn't match up. Your front door might be locked but you have a back door that is unlocked. So you can still enter though there. So why would they need to open the front door for you? You then completely missed or ignored the point on purpose. The AI is the over mind of the Reapers. But it created the Reapers to do a task. It gave them the task to do and has since then left them alone to complete the task it has given them. This is were the little manager example comes into play. Nothing any of them have done even with mistakes they have made have compromised the AI's plan.
The last bit you just repeated what I stated already. Why is it you like to repeat what I say. Change a few words and declared I said something completely different. It is actually starting to get really funny and really sad you keep doing that.
That's basically it. Catalyst's claims can be summed up by this: 'Sure, you can destroy us, but you don't really want to do it, do you? Here, you can try to control us instead. You will die in doing so and you won't be there to care if you failed. Or better, pick Synthesis. It cannot be forced but you will actually do exactly that. Accomplish our goal and turn everyone into a mix between organic and synthetic. But instead of implanting organics with robotics we will do it with space magic and reaper tech! Yes, Reapers will still be around indoctrinating everyone but who cares? Your pilot can bang your AI sexbot without breaking his bones! It's a win-win!". So much bs coming from the Catalyst. And some people even agree with this child of light.
Let's look at Synthesis. Remember the side-quest "Citadel: Family Matter"? It revolved around a couple arguing whether Rebekah should do a gene therapy for her unborn child or not. You can either support Michael or Rebekah. From a pragmatic point of vew, Michael is right. Gene-therapy can indeed prevent the development of a heart decease. But the thing is, it's Rebekah's choice. It's her baby. And she has every right to do what she considers best. You can persuade her, sure. But it won't change the fact that it's her choice. It would be illegal to expose her child to a gene therapy without her knowledge or approval. And Synthesis does exactly that on a galactic scale. You don't persuade each and every person before forcing the change on them. You change them and they have to deal with it. It doesn't matter that in the end it is a good outcome. Shepard doesn't know that. Synthesis is a big no-no. This kind of change requires at least a vote.
And Control? What was the point of fighting Cerberus for a whole ME3 then if you agree with TIM in the end? Why not just leave them alone and let them develop the means to control the Reapers? What was the point of the last confrontation between TIM and Shepard? No matter what kind of Shepard you are, it's clear that you tell him "You can't, can you? They won't let you do it." And why would they let Shepard do it? Because he's not indoctrinated? Weak excuse. But sure, let's pretend that they indeed let Shepard control them. From the pragmatic point it is a cool option. You make Reapers leave and rebuild everything they have destroyed. But...if that works...how does anyone know that Reapers are 'good' now? They may stop their attacks but they're still out there. It's like seeing the geth for quarians prior to ME3. They're still terryfied and hostile. Reapers may not attack, but organics will still live in fear that one day they will start the harvest once again. What will Catalyst-Shepard do once the united fleets decide to destroy the Reapers anyway? Can Catalyst-Shepard face the true death and make reapers self-destruct? There's no way to be sure that Catalyst-Shepard has values of the true Shepard.
And another thing. Some people say that if you pick Destroy, you don't resolve the conflict between organics and synthetics. Now wait a minute. There was never a plot in ME1 and 2 that revolved around the conflict between organics and synthetics. In fact, every plot-point contradicted it. In ME1 AI were forbidden (conflict solved already). Quarian and Geth war happened because quarians screwed up, not because geth rebelled. In ME2 we learned that AI can be on our side. And in ME3 we can even stop the Geth-Quarian war. During the whole trilogy there was only one conflict: Reapers vs organics. And suddenly in the end of ME3 our goal has changed from destroying the Reapers to solving some organic-synthetic conflict that we've never heared of? Nicely done, Catalyst.
Way to overly simplify so so much. I'm going to be brief since I will be repeating myself for the 200th time.
Synthesis end the conflict by creating a system that everyone understands each other. Thus ending the conflict and rendering the Reaper's unneeded. You claim it was forced yet the Alliance actually had to pass a law to limit voluntary genetic manipulation. Your forced example doesn't hold up to much examination. There quite possibly would be hold outs but they would be the super minority. And they would eventually fade away anyways.
You fight against TIM because he only cares about humanity and would grind the rest of the citizens of the galaxy under his boot simply because they aren't human. I will paraphrase Kaiden on none humans. "that they're jerks and saints, just like humans." Which TIM ignores simply because they are not human.
Or let me put it his way. Why is the world so against places like Iran or North Korea getting nukes. Yet US, UK, France, Russia are all able to keep their nuclear stock pile? It isn't so much that those countries are more trust worthy. But they are more stable and not prone to lashing out with a big weapon the first time someone they don't like does something. Both Paragon and Renegade Control Shep show a willing to protect the entire galaxy. Different methods depending on side you pick. But everyone is under protection. TIM would use the Reapers to step on all other species.
Your understanding of the plot involving your destroy argument actually hurts. For 80-90% of ME1 the entire plot revolves around the geth a synthetic race killing organics. For the same point in time it is assumed the Reapers are fully synthetic beings like the Geth that show up every 50,000 years to kill off all advanced organic life. In fact I'm fairly certain the reveal that Reapers are in fact a perfect blend of tech/organic until the end of ME2. AI's were banned AFTER the Morning War.
There is a documented event in the Citadel Archives dated 1896 CE, the year the Geth War ended and the quarians were forced into exile, featuring a standoff between three armed C-Sec officers and three unarmed mechs that are housing the last of the AIs on the Citadel. One of the mechs states that the C-Sec termination action is unlawful and asks why the officers continue when their appeal has not been heard. One of the officers orders the mech to be silent, and mentions that the Council will never overturn its own edict. The mech makes one last plea for them to be spared before all three mechs are gunned down.
ME2 doesn't show the Geth on our side. We both want to stop the Heretics so it is a mutually beneficial arrangement. The Geth want to be left alone to develop as they wish.
The war is there subtle in it's set up but the conflict issues that the AI brings up you can see in game. But the Geth can not be used as a reason the statement is false. The Geth never reach the point the AI claims conflict happens. When synthetics surpass organics is when the conflict happens. The Geth while they use their advantages of being synthetic do help. They never truly surpass organics.
No, but I do believe that Synthetic life will come into conflict with Organics no matter which side starts it. My experience as Shepard in the series supports this. However, as EDI and the Geth encounters have indicated, such conflicts can be resolved. Synthesis is the best option that does this.
Organics conflict with Organics too. So what about Synthesized conflict with Synthesized?
Yet again you have repeatedly used statements made by Vigil even when they are later contradicted in game though events as 100% facts. Which you then use to argue against other points. You quite literally pulled the "Reapers are in fact trapped in dark space because the game says so" line against me. So again why would one need proof when you accept the proof of another without question?
You have a hard time looking at Mass Effect 1 by itself. That's how you have to analyze things in that game when talking only about that game. Those later contradictions are retcons. The statements were true at the time and were changed to be wrong by later events when the writers decided to go a different direction. This is very different from planned reveals that show earlier information to be wrong.
I recognize Vigil's role in the story. It is very different from that of the Catalyst, thus they need to be measured differently. Different criteria for different circumstances.
Your example of locking yourself out of the house doesn't match up. Your front door might be locked but you have a back door that is unlocked. So you can still enter though there. So why would they need to open the front door for you?
What do you mean it doesn't match up? The Citadel is the house, the Relay function is the door, and the Keepers are the key. The back door was the Conduit. But unlike just walking around a house, getting there took a lot of work. It would have been way easier and faster, and not revealed the Reapers if the Catalyst had just opened the front door. In both a house and the Citadel if the front door is locked but the back is not, somebody made a mistake.
The obvious answer is that in ME1, nobody was home. Otherwise the Catalyst is a giant moron for not being able to open the door and making his servant Sovereign use something left behind by the last race they tried to wipe out.
Edit: Actually, I want to hammer home that last point. You keep saying the Reapers had these backup plans, but the events of ME1 were not a contingency plan the Reapers had in the bag. It was an emergency measure forced by the Protheans and required using the Protheans' work.
You then completely missed or ignored the point on purpose. The AI is the over mind of the Reapers. But it created the Reapers to do a task. It gave them the task to do and has since then left them alone to complete the task it has given them. This is were the little manager example comes into play. Nothing any of them have done even with mistakes they have made have compromised the AI's plan.
No, I dismissed it because it was stupid. Why would it be completely hands off, particularly if the "project" was so important? Those mistakes most certainly harm the plan, they just don't ruin it entirely. However, all of those contingency plans would be absolutely unnecessary if the Catalyst just opened the Relay itself. There is no reason it shouldn't be able to.
The last bit you just repeated what I stated already. Why is it you like to repeat what I say. Change a few words and declared I said something completely different. It is actually starting to get really funny and really sad you keep doing that.
No, we said two different things. Your lack of reading comprehension is just sad. You said the plan was failing because Organics were working around it. They didn't work around it at all. They can't stop the Reapers. Shepard can't stop the Reapers unless the Catalyst brings him up to that room (unless the little elevator was activated by a button Shepard randomly hit on the console) and lets Shepard shoot the tube. The Catalyst is trying to get Shepard to pick Synthesis. If Synthesis isn't on the table because of EMS, well then the "solution won't work anymore" because reasons.
Way to overly simplify so so much. I'm going to be brief since I will be repeating myself for the 200th time.
Synthesis end the conflict by creating a system that everyone understands each other. Thus ending the conflict and rendering the Reaper's unneeded. You claim it was forced yet the Alliance actually had to pass a law to limit voluntary genetic manipulation. Your forced example doesn't hold up to much examination. There quite possibly would be hold outs but they would be the super minority. And they would eventually fade away anyways.
You fight against TIM because he only cares about humanity and would grind the rest of the citizens of the galaxy under his boot simply because they aren't human. I will paraphrase Kaiden on none humans. "that they're jerks and saints, just like humans." Which TIM ignores simply because they are not human.
Or let me put it his way. Why is the world so against places like Iran or North Korea getting nukes. Yet US, UK, France, Russia are all able to keep their nuclear stock pile? It isn't so much that those countries are more trust worthy. But they are more stable and not prone to lashing out with a big weapon the first time someone they don't like does something. Both Paragon and Renegade Control Shep show a willing to protect the entire galaxy. Different methods depending on side you pick. But everyone is under protection. TIM would use the Reapers to step on all other species.
Your understanding of the plot involving your destroy argument actually hurts. For 80-90% of ME1 the entire plot revolves around the geth a synthetic race killing organics. For the same point in time it is assumed the Reapers are fully synthetic beings like the Geth that show up every 50,000 years to kill off all advanced organic life. In fact I'm fairly certain the reveal that Reapers are in fact a perfect blend of tech/organic until the end of ME2. AI's were banned AFTER the Morning War.
There is a documented event in the Citadel Archives dated 1896 CE, the year the Geth War ended and the quarians were forced into exile, featuring a standoff between three armed C-Sec officers and three unarmed mechs that are housing the last of the AIs on the Citadel. One of the mechs states that the C-Sec termination action is unlawful and asks why the officers continue when their appeal has not been heard. One of the officers orders the mech to be silent, and mentions that the Council will never overturn its own edict. The mech makes one last plea for them to be spared before all three mechs are gunned down.
ME2 doesn't show the Geth on our side. We both want to stop the Heretics so it is a mutually beneficial arrangement. The Geth want to be left alone to develop as they wish.
The war is there subtle in it's set up but the conflict issues that the AI brings up you can see in game. But the Geth can not be used as a reason the statement is false. The Geth never reach the point the AI claims conflict happens. When synthetics surpass organics is when the conflict happens. The Geth while they use their advantages of being synthetic do help. They never truly surpass organics.
1) It doesn't matter that the majority will like it. Shepard is only one person and he doesn't ask anyone's opinion on the matter and it's just not right to change everyone without their say in it. Imagine that one day you wake up with your nipples pierced. Sounds like not such a big deal but you didn't actually want to get a piercing. You think it's an annoyance and want to to get it off (except you can't, just because). The person who did that to you didn't care whether you wanted it or not. They thought that everyone should get nipple piercing because reasons. Sounds ridiculous, right? But this analogy is exactly what synthesis is. You may find the idea of transhumanism and bodymodification cool but what if you don't and you are changed anyway? And no, holdouts wouldn't be a minority. If you actually pay attention to the game, EDI says that salarians embrace the concept of transhumanism and humans have diverse and contentious opinions. So basically salarians and half of the humans would embrace the change but what about the other half? And there's no info on asari, turian, krogan and other species' opinions on this matter. And Shepard is ready to change everyone anyway? Really? "Is that the kind of person we want protecting the galaxy?"
2) You miss the point. Yes, TIM is a dick to everyone (especially his employees) and yes, his death is the result of this quality but Shepard deliberately says that the Reapers won't let him control them. Did Shepard read the script and knew that Control works only for those who are not indoctrinated? Why would we trust the Star Child on this subject? The Catalyst says "You will die". It would be a deal breaker for me. "You tell me I can control them and yet you tell me that I would be dead. How can I be sure that you're not trying to screw me over into committing suicide"?
3) You contradict yourself. You refer to the geth as an example of synthetics in conflict with organics. And when I refer to them as an example of the possibility to achieve peace you dismiss it because the geth never reach the point conflict happens. What?
So you're saying that the Geth War is an ok example of the conflict between organics and synthetics and yet you claim that the resolution of this conflict cannot be treated as a reason to call the Catalyst on its bullshit. Do you know how to have a productive discussion? You need to value the evidence of your opponent equally to yours.
If you dismiss my evidence that organics can resolve the conflict then I can dismiss your evidence that the conflict exists (we haven't reached that point as you say). Then you prove me right because this conflict never happened and therefore we don't need to resolve it. If you actually count Geth War as an example of the conflict between organics and synthetics then admit my counter-argument that organics can resolve this conflict by themselves (Shepard is not the only one who can stop wars).
And Reapers are not synthetics. They are organics (harvested species) mixed with synthetics. So they can't be treated as an example of the conflict either. Therefore Shepard doesn't have to resolve this conflict but do what was expected of him: destroy the Reapers once and for all.
The reason the Catalyst is so pissed in low EMS destroy is because it is about to lose the war it's been waging against organic life since its creation. It has no way to physically stop Shepard at that point and no way to persuade Shepard to commit suicide.
"So why did it bring Shepard up to the decision room?" "Shut up. Maybe the elevator was automated or something." -- Mac Walters & Casey Hudson: "More speculation for everyone!"
The only reason to choose something other than Destroy is because you buy into the bullshit the Catalyst is spouting and because you're sentimental. Or because you've been conditioned to jump at the possibility of 'heaven on earth' without thinking through the consequences. Or maybe because you put no value on free will. Or maybe you enjoy the idea of martyrdom. Or maybe you buy into the "Shepard is Jesus and must die for our sins" symbolism the writers have been trying to impose.
Too much Star Trek got dumped into Mass Effect. It started with Mass Effect 2 and its 'humans are special' theme, and the bullshit lines about how the Reapers "absorb the essence of a species." Plus powers like Reave, which blurred the line between the gravitic / inertia altering properties of the mass effect and sheer magical healing.
This was compounded many times over in Mass Effect 3, with both EDI and the Geth being forced through "Pinnochio" story arcs instead of continuing to be explored as alien, if understandable, life forms.
And then there's the frustratingly cringeworthy line about how adding "your organic energy" to the beam would force a change in the DNA of synthetic life. There are SO many things wrong with that statement. "Organic" has a very specific meaning; it means a carbon based compound or carbon based molecule. In a broader sense, it means cellular and multi-cellular organisms with a carbon-based chemical structure.
So what is "organic energy?" Energy, too, has specific definitions. In the context of technology, it is the usable power derived from chemical or mechanical or nuclear particle interactions. "Organic energy" then is the usable power derived from carbon-based chemical interactions.
The exercise of how much energy can be usefully derived from physically breaking down a human body, without the use of antimatter, is left to the reader. The calculation of how much energy is present in the visible area of the Crucible particle beam alone is also left to the reader. hint: it's orders of magnitude more than can be derived just from the human body. Second hint: orders of magnitude are powers of 10. not multiples, exponents.
The idea that shoving a body into a massive particle beam accelerator will somehow fundamentally change the qualities of that particle beam accelerator into something that can change all life in the galaxy is.. it's.. indescribably ludicrous. It's like claiming that shoving a potted plant into the heart of a blast furnace will somehow make steel that can talk, grow, regenerate and heal itself.
I'm not even going to get into the "DNA" of synthetic life. That's beyond nonsensical and I'm pretty sure that it's a case of "Tech the tech." "But captain, we can't tech the tech, because the tech will tech catastrophically. Maybe if we use the tech to tech the other tech, by attaching the tech..."
1) It doesn't matter that the majority will like it. Shepard is only one person and he doesn't ask anyone's opinion on the matter and it's just not right to change everyone without their say in it. Imagine that one day you wake up with your nipples pierced. Sounds like not such a big deal but you didn't actually want to get a piercing. You think it's an annoyance and want to to get it off (except you can't, just because). The person who did that to you didn't care whether you wanted it or not. They thought that everyone should get nipple piercing because reasons. Sounds ridiculous, right? But this analogy is exactly what synthesis is. You may find the idea of transhumanism and bodymodification cool but what if you don't and you are changed anyway? And no, holdouts wouldn't be a minority. If you actually pay attention to the game, EDI says that salarians embrace the concept of transhumanism and humans have diverse and contentious opinions. So basically salarians and half of the humans would embrace the change but what about the other half? And there's no info on asari, turian, krogan and other species' opinions on this matter. And Shepard is ready to change everyone anyway? Really? "Is that the kind of person we want protecting the galaxy?"
2) You miss the point. Yes, TIM is a dick to everyone (especially his employees) and yes, his death is the result of this quality but Shepard deliberately says that the Reapers won't let him control them. Did Shepard read the script and knew that Control works only for those who are not indoctrinated? Why would we trust the Star Child on this subject? The Catalyst says "You will die". It would be a deal breaker for me. "You tell me I can control them and yet you tell me that I would be dead. How can I be sure that you're not trying to screw me over into committing suicide"?
3) You contradict yourself. You refer to the geth as an example of synthetics in conflict with organics. And when I refer to them as an example of the possibility to achieve peace you dismiss it because the geth never reach the point conflict happens. What?
So you're saying that the Geth War is an ok example of the conflict between organics and synthetics and yet you claim that the resolution of this conflict cannot be treated as a reason to call the Catalyst on its bullshit. Do you know how to have a productive discussion? You need to value the evidence of your opponent equally to yours.
If you dismiss my evidence that organics can resolve the conflict then I can dismiss your evidence that the conflict exists (we haven't reached that point as you say). Then you prove me right because this conflict never happened and therefore we don't need to resolve it. If you actually count Geth War as an example of the conflict between organics and synthetics then admit my counter-argument that organics can resolve this conflict by themselves (Shepard is not the only one who can stop wars).
And Reapers are not synthetics. They are organics (harvested species) mixed with synthetics. So they can't be treated as an example of the conflict either. Therefore Shepard doesn't have to resolve this conflict but do what was expected of him: destroy the Reapers once and for all.
1) If everyone's nipple piercing enabled them to think and learn at 3x the pace then yea everyone should get one. If nipple piercing ended all religious conflict (closes real analogy to organic vs synthetic in game) yea I would have everyone do it. Humans have a contentious outlook on it because humans are narrow minded bigotry idiots. Other races are no saints either but not a single race build an entire massive terrorist organization fund in large part by wealthy other humans that care more about keeping humans dominate over all other races. By crushing them if necessary. If there is any species that needs that next step in evolution to be taken it is humans. At least with Krogan and Turian hatred it makes sense. One waged a massive brutal war and the other introduced a sterility plague on them to end it. TIM and his supporters are pissed that they aren't the only nor biggest kid on the playground anymore.
All endings have pros and cons. You say forcing change is bad yet there are countless examples of society forcing ideas and options on others to need to follow. Forcing people into slavery. Forcing people to stop having slaves. Forcing people to live side by side with them and not separated. If a change can avoid trillions of deaths both current and the future. That trade off is worth it.
2) And the fact that TIM is a dick is why even if you agree with control you would fight against him to keep him from gaining said power. The AI stated that TIM could never control the Reapers because they already controlled him. He was informed of this after the fact by the AI. In all cases you die. Shepard some how surviving the damage on the Citadel after the blast even with high EMS is utterly retarded and I will stand by anyone who criticizes that fact. That was pure fan service. He already was caught in a blast by Harbinger, another blast when destroying the energy conduit and then it fired releasing another blast.
The AI had no reason to lie to Shepard. In fact the AI had no reason to interact with Shepard. He was laying there dieing slowly no closer to activating the Crucible then when he opened the arms. Why would it lie to you when it could have let you die in the bowels of the citadel?
3.I don't contradict anything. The entire story of the Quarians and Geth are both showing conflict between synthetic and organic beings. The first game the Geth are the boogeymen of synthetic AI creations. The story given about them for fill every Skynet set up possible. The second game alters the story a bit but the Geth are still very anti Organic. To the point they have so far destroyed every non Geth ship that enters their territory. Even though after the Morning War the Council tried to send multiple representatives to the Geth to negotiate a peace treaty. Legion only works with Shepard because they are both after the Heretics and the Reapers.
The Geth give life to the AI's claim. The conflict that could wipe out all organic's never reached the level needed for that to happen. The entire point of the Harvest is to intercede before organic's develop the technological level needed to create synthetic beings capable of drastically surpassing them. They were in the purest example a single EDI who's mind was fractured into thousands of pieces. Only when those pieces interact is it able to become even vaugly self aware. The Quarians were not trying to make AI's and that is true. The Geth's development is crippled because of that set up.
It is only if you side with the Geth or make peace do the Geth get altered enough for the threat to come into play. But at that point the game ends. Which is a lot like saying Black and White people fought together in the Union army against the Confederates and after the war that ended all conflict between those two races for all eternity. Or after the Soviet-Afgan War and the US provided weapons to the rebels and they drove the Soviets out. That was the end of all conflict in the middle east for all eternity.
Forcing people to stop having slaves.
Synthesis is unthinkable, turning people in cyborgs is unimaginable for me.
Synthesis is unthinkable, turning people in cyborgs is unimaginable for me.
It's imaginable. If you play Deus Ex. But it's done by implants and surgery, replacing organic fragile parts with more advanced cybernetic parts (like robot arms, robot legs etc). What the Catalyst proposes is some mumbo jumbo space magic DNA that makes everyone glow with circuit lines. It's just impossible.
Destroy ending is the most logical one. When you shoot the tubes, something just have to explode, it that case - Reapers. it makes total sense. Also Artistic.
In Deus Ex: Human Revolution, the entire game was focused around the story of the emerging possibilities of advanced cybernetics. What does it mean to be human, where does one draw the line between life and machine, should people with heavy cybernetics be mind-controlled or should cybernetics be rejected or should people be allowed to choose?
The *entire game* starting *with the introduction* was focused on the questions presented in the ending.
In Mass Effect, the questions presented in the ending pretty much only showed up as side conversations and bits and pieces of world building. They were NOT central to the series with the exception of Destroy; destroy the reapers because THEY were the big threat to life continuing.
This is where the development decisions made in Mass Effect 2 *really* hurt Mass Effect 3 and the ending, badly. ME 2 was the place to explore the themes of what it meant for Shepard to have "bio-synthetic fusion", and cybernetic / bionetic systems, and questions of identity "who/what am I".
But instead, Bioware's writing team completely ignored these story elements and blithely turned the Normandy into "Family Drama SR 2".
This is where the development decisions made in Mass Effect 2 *really* hurt Mass Effect 3 and the ending, badly. ME 2 was the place to explore the themes of what it meant for Shepard to have "bio-synthetic fusion", and cybernetic / bionetic systems, and questions of identity "who/what am I".
But instead, Bioware's writing team completely ignored these story elements and blithely turned the Normandy into "Family Drama SR 2".
In Deus Ex: Human Revolution, the entire game was focused around the story of the emerging possibilities of advanced cybernetics. What does it mean to be human, where does one draw the line between life and machine, should people with heavy cybernetics be mind-controlled or should cybernetics be rejected or should people be allowed to choose?
The *entire game* starting *with the introduction* was focused on the questions presented in the ending.
In Mass Effect, the questions presented in the ending pretty much only showed up as side conversations and bits and pieces of world building. They were NOT central to the series with the exception of Destroy; destroy the reapers because THEY were the big threat to life continuing.
This is because while Mass Effect had some purposeful parallels to Star Trek and perhaps other science fiction, Mass Effect 2 and 3 started grabbing and shoving in concepts and ideas from several sources including Deus Ex and The Matrix. There was no thought given to if those ideas actually fit within the framework of Mass Effect.
You get one throwaway line from Shepard in ME3 about just being a high-tech VI that thinks it's Shepard. But that should actually be a big question and could easily have been the through-line from ME2 to ME3. If you're going to kill Shepard and rebuild her, then make it A Big Deal. Make her question what it really means to be human. Is she more like EDI now or is she still herself? Has it changed her? Because it really had to have. Despite Miranda saying that Shepard had to have "the same mind, the same morals" or the project was a failure, because it just can't be the same Shepard from ME1.
If you're going to have a Lazarus Project, have it ask the questions of what it means to be brought back from the dead with the help of implanted tech. Make Shepard think about what it means to be partly synthetic herself, because she'll have to answer this question for the rest of humanity at the endgame.
This all needed to happen in the second game.
This all needed to happen in the second game.
And the idea that a Lazarus Project was at all possible at some future date needed to be hinted at in ME1
And the idea that a Lazarus Project was at all possible at some future date needed to be hinted at in ME1
They couldn't. Because the whole Lazarus Project and 'hero, the bloody icon' is retconned in ME2 and wasn't planned in ME1. Let's be honest, there was absolutely no reason in destroying the Normandy and kiling off Shepard but to force you to work with Cerberus. Which was pointless. It's like saying 'Hey, we have a new lead writer now, say goodbye to everything you learned from the first game! We will retcon everything!'. If you keep Shepard alive and the Alliance management and actually make the Council consistent with acknowledging the Reaper threat in ME1 then this game wouldn't change in any way except make more sense.
They couldn't. Because the whole Lazarus Project and 'hero, the bloody icon' is retconned in ME2 and wasn't planned in ME1. Let's be honest, there was absolutely no reason in destroying the Normandy and kiling off Shepard but to force you to work with Cerberus. Which was pointless. It's like saying 'Hey, we have a new lead writer now, say goodbye to everything you learned from the first game! We will retcon everything!'. If you keep Shepard alive and the Alliance management and actually make the Council consistent with acknowledging the Reaper threat in ME1 then this game wouldn't change in any way except make more sense.
And that is why Mass Effect fails as a trilogy.
And that is why Mass Effect fails as a trilogy.
its better and more accurate to say that "despite of those errors Mass effect is still the best trilogy game ever made"
Just my opinion ofcourse
its better and more accurate to say that "despite of those errors Mass effect is still the best trilogy game ever made"
Just my opinion ofcourse
its better and more accurate to say that "despite of those errors Mass effect is still the best trilogy game ever made"
Just my opinion ofcourse
That's an oddly specific category.
But at any rate, I still prefer the Baldur's Gate "trilogy"
Retour en haut