2390 réponses à ce sujet

[Natureguy85]

So Shepard has a fantastically protective suit that no one mentions? In the scans you clearly see multiple bone breaks, so Shepard's body was damaged. The fact is that the body did survive re-entry and planet fall, so I'm not too worried about how. Especially since when you see the wreckage, nothing else is damaged beyond the Collector ship attack. The Mako doesn't even have a flat tire. There are "fragile crates" you shoot at to pick up dog tags. Those certainly should have been subjected to atmosphere and fall, but they weren't. At least they were consistent in considering how things got damaged. And I think we can all agree that no one at Bioware is a rocket scientist, so I can overlook bad science for the sake of a story. I mean, even the storm on Mars is impossible.

 

Oh, please, don't be silly. The death and resurrection of the protagonist are too big a thing for us to have to head-canon crazy scenarios in order for it to make sense. So Shepard is wearing a suit of space ship heat resistant material? Shepard didn't fall a few feet here. He fell from space and slammed into the ground. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand what that would do. I'm not. True, in extremely rare circumstances, people have actually survived some crazy falls but I don't care for reliance on that. Most of new Shepard must be cybernetic. As for the Normandy wreck, that's just there for some pathos in an optional dlc and doesn't matter.

Is it enough to totally break everything? No, but it is really dumb. As for the storm on Mars, it was in the next game and it depends on what part you mean is impossible. There are planet-wide dust storms on Mars.

[Monica21]

Oh, please, don't be silly. The death and resurrection of the protagonist are too big a thing for us to have to head-canon crazy scenarios in order for it to make sense. So Shepard is wearing a suit of space ship heat resistant material? Shepard didn't fall a few feet here. He fell from space and slammed into the ground. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand what that would do. I'm not. True, in extremely rare circumstances, people have actually survived some crazy falls but I don't care for reliance on that. Most of new Shepard must be cybernetic. As for the Normandy wreck, that's just there for some pathos in an optional dlc and doesn't matter.
Is it enough to totally break everything? No, but it is really dumb. As for the storm on Mars, it was in the next game and it depends on what part you mean is impossible. There are planet-wide dust storms on Mars.

I'm not being silly. I'm going with what the game gives me. And the game gives me a broken-up Normandy without a single scorch mark on it so it's not something I have to headcanon. Everything about it may be wrong, but it's consistently wrong. Also, I don't really care that much, and I don't know why it's such a huge sticking point for so many people, to be honest.

And yes, there are planet-wide dust storms on Mars. But the winds it kicks up are impossible. The atmosphere is too thin for winds that strong. 175kph would feel like a gentle breeze.

[gothpunkboy89]

Then you should have quit the game and never played it beyond that point. If the premise of the story is that bothersome to you, then nothing the story does will work for you. This is like starting Bioshock and being hung up on how they built Rapture. Things established that early are the "price of entry" for the story.

 

http://forum.bioware...illiant/page-63

 

Mr. Fob kind of sort of if you were really drunk agrees with me and mentions how he thinks there are some irregularity and you jump right to the well you should have quit. Which within the confines of what is actually allowed on the forums is an attack. Because that line of logic is very similar though much more polite way of telling someone if they don't like it then....Well it starts with an F and ends in an off if they don't like it.  I've always been more on the path of intent is more important then how it is said. And the intent was there to lash out at him for his statement.

 

As for you claiming you don't care. I think you do other wise you wouldn't go back 3-4 days to drag up something a page or two ago to complain about it when the topic has shifted onto other things. So either you do care, you desperately want the last word on things or you are displaying an odd form of narcissism were your post has to be the longest on the page so everyone has to know you are there.

 

No I've seen many of the complaints from people on forums and a few friends who have this game and others on the MP side when I am lucky (or unlucky with those music blaring bum nuggets) and nearly every complaint is what they want vs what happened. They aren't judging it based on what actually happened but what they wanted to happen in their own mind to what really happened. This is particularly evident in complaints about Man of Steel movie as the internet loves to jump on how much damage Superman caused. But they ignore the fact that Superman caused only minor damage it was Zod punching Superman though buildings that caused the damage. But because the movies didn't pull the comic bit of glossing over the fact that 2 god tier aliens fighting in the middle of a populated city would cause large amounts of collateral damage.

 

There are points and areas in the story they could have made clearer to the player. But that doesn't make it a bad narrative or story telling. From start to finish the ME trilogy tells a complete story that can be followed from start to finish with no difficulty. From the very start of the game ME1 Sovereign states "The pattern has repeated itself more times then you can fathom. Organic civilizations rise, evolve, advance. And at the apex of their glory they are extinguished."  "We Impose Order on the chaos of organic evolution.

 

 

Why would they allow organic species to rise, evolve and advance before harvesting them? Why would they leave the Relays out to be found and utilized by organic civilizations in the first place? Particularly after Sovereign makes it very clear we are but ants and Reapers are the apex of evolution. Why would they repeat this cycle time and time again? Why not simply wipe out organic life before it can develop? Why leave humans alone when the Protheans were harvested? Particularly when at the time it was fairly obvious humans would evolve into advanced life forms. So much so the Prothean's even build a small study building on Mars to watch us. With or without Leviathan DLC it gives meaning to the actions the Reapers have taken. Why they take so much trouble to harvest rather then out right destroy. Why they keep repeating the cycle time and time again when they have the power and technology to end it by removing all organic life from the galaxy any time they want. The actions of the Reapers make absolutely no sense what so ever until the concept of conflict between organic and synthetics comes into play. Then like a musical instrument just slightly out of tune the sound becomes clear.

 

Leviathan just helps expand on this simple set up for players that might have missed it before. As well as provide some much wanted back story to how the Reapers were created in the first place. As for Catalyst the repeated theme in the game is how history repeats itself. Despite the many different variations the same paths are followed time and time again. And the core issue is how synthetics have the capability to greatly surpass organics. This is the part that you and others seem to want to ignore as hard as you can.  As far as synthetic life goes EDI or the Geth would be the equivalent of a Curtiss P-40 Warhawk from WW2. Being compared by you to an F22- Raptor for what actual potential synthetics live has. Mean while Organic life is a Sopwith Camel.

 

That is the underlying point people like you seem to ignore for all they are worth. Conflict happens because one race creates another that completely and utterly surpasses them. The change doesn't happen right away but the growth potential for synthetics is much much greater then the growth potential for organics. The only way an organic could keep up is if they augmented themselves with synthetic implants to boost their abilities. Which is the entire basis for synthetics that so many players consider one of the worst endings. But even that would have it's limitations on what it could do. In a way organic's are limited while synthetics are limitless. Evolution of organic life takes thousands of years. Evolution of synthetic life takes hundreds of years.

 

They only managed to take down 1 AA gun emplacement meaning any attack from any other corridor then that would result in them getting blown out of the sky. Ravangers are basically walking AA guns and a few of them on roof tops would make any ship attempting to move though that area become a target. They cleared out one path and so they could only move down that one path.  Those spirals were at the base of the beam meaning they would have to reach them before being used as cover. Harbinger started picking them off before they got that close.

 

Beam technology isn't new. How do you think Saren would get inside of Sovereign? How would they transport troops to be dropped out of them from orbit? As for dead humans in side it they could have simply been killed during the attack or are being sent up there to be processed into the soup we see in ME2. The possibilities of what they could do with the corpses is many. Could be how the keepers keep their numbers replenished by turning a portion of last cycle into a soup for them to be created out of when one breaks down. Or is the keeper's feed organic life that finds the citadel.

 

It wasn't a dreadnought in the opening of the game.  That was a mistake by Bioware it was actually a Cruiser but by the time they realized the mistake it was to late to alter the voice recording.  Joker was delaying the Reapers in the upper atmosphere. Then the call from Shepard came in needing an evac. Joker breaking off the attack to attempt to get Shepard and crew out of there is well within his character.  During Suicide mission Shep doesn't have the option to evac any crew members that gets injured during the attack. The Normandy is grounded until repairs get finished. Sending a shuttle would only allow Collectors to follow the ship back to the Normandy and attack it while still damaged.

 

You are again applying emotions and logic to things that don't seem to have it. In the skies above the combined fleets of the galaxy are slowly but surely being torn apart. The Normandy leaving is just like you trying to escape death. There are things you can do to evade or prolong the time on this planet yet you can not avoid it forever.  Normandy escaping means nothing to the Reapers because they will be caught and they will be harvested or killed. It is an inevitability. The only ones on a time schedule that states everything must be done this afternoon are the organics. It took them hundreds of years to fully harvest the Protheans. A few extra months is nothing to them.

 

These things I come up with how ever are extremely simplistic. I would dare expect people playing this game series even 13 year old should be smart enough to put 2 and 2 together to create 4. Players shouldn't need a massive neon sign with fire works, marching band and an blow horn in our ears to explain everything that happens in the game. I hate games that treat players like drooling idiots that need everything explained to them. Even if this was 100% pure accidental Bioware left enough that it only takes a tiny fraction of some brain power to connect dots. The series does less explaining to use like we are morons who need our hand held. And more requiring us to think about the game to fully connect everything together. And is one of the main reasons I love this game series.

[StarcloudSWG]

Here's an alternate explanation: The Reapers destroy galactic civilizations before they can advance enough to seriously and actually challenge the Reapers in a war.

 

It has nothing to do with synthetics wiping out all organics and everything to do with destroying all possible rivals before they are a threat.

 

And this explanation is just as 'crystal clear' as the gobbledygook about synthetics vs organics being some kind of apocalypse for all life.

[Natureguy85]

I'm not being silly. I'm going with what the game gives me. And the game gives me a broken-up Normandy without a single scorch mark on it so it's not something I have to headcanon. Everything about it may be wrong, but it's consistently wrong. Also, I don't really care that much, and I don't know why it's such a huge sticking point for so many people, to be honest.

And yes, there are planet-wide dust storms on Mars. But the winds it kicks up are impossible. The atmosphere is too thin for winds that strong. 175kph would feel like a gentle breeze.

 

I think you're looking at it backwards. The game doesn't give you a broken up Normandy without a single scorch mark until an optional DLC mission after Shepard's resurrection. I see it as an argument after the fact, though in fairness, I think that DLC was released at launch. Did Shepard's survival bother you until you did Crash Site? Arguing you accept that because Shepard's body somehow survived makes more sense. I'm also accepting what the game gives me, but I'm making fun of how ridiculous it is before moving on, while you're inventing an excuse for how it makes sense with Shepard having a suit that keeps him from burning up. Again, to be fair, snow would probably be really good at softening that impact!

 

Most importantly, I can overlook bad science for the sake of the story at times too (after all, plenty of sci-fi is full of it), but there was no interesting story told with Shepard's death. Rapture is essential to the story of Bioshock as it is the setting. Shepard's death and resurrection is not necessary for Mass Effect 2 or 3.

 

Yeah, I wasn't sure what exactly you were referring to with the storm.

 

 

 

 

http://forum.bioware...illiant/page-63

 

Mr. Fob kind of sort of if you were really drunk agrees with me and mentions how he thinks there are some irregularity and you jump right to the well you should have quit. Which within the confines of what is actually allowed on the forums is an attack. Because that line of logic is very similar though much more polite way of telling someone if they don't like it then....Well it starts with an F and ends in an off if they don't like it.  I've always been more on the path of intent is more important then how it is said. And the intent was there to lash out at him for his statement.

 

That's what I thought. That's not an attack or lashing out. If the premise ruins the story for you, there is no point in continuing. FOB didn't say that was the case for him, but I was pointing out that he was putting two different things with different impacts on the same level when they shouldn't be.

 

 

As for you claiming you don't care. I think you do other wise you wouldn't go back 3-4 days to drag up something a page or two ago to complain about it when the topic has shifted onto other things. So either you do care, you desperately want the last word on things or you are displaying an odd form of narcissism were your post has to be the longest on the page so everyone has to know you are there.

 

I'm responding to you. If you respond further, cool. If not, oh well. Also, the topic really hasn't shifted much in a long time. The posts are long because there are lots of comments worth addressing, good and bad, and I don't feel like making them all separate. You find weird things to complain about, but your flailing is another sign of your lack of substance on the topic. This is a funny complaint considering the size of your own posts including this one, especially when mine consist of a lot more quotes.

 

 

No I've seen many of the complaints from people on forums and a few friends who have this game and others on the MP side when I am lucky (or unlucky with those music blaring bum nuggets) and nearly every complaint is what they want vs what happened. They aren't judging it based on what actually happened but what they wanted to happen in their own mind to what really happened.

 

Yes, I wanted something good and got something bad. Those are indeed different.

 

Why would they allow organic species to rise, evolve and advance before harvesting them? Why would they leave the Relays out to be found and utilized by organic civilizations in the first place? Particularly after Sovereign makes it very clear we are but ants and Reapers are the apex of evolution. Why would they repeat this cycle time and time again? Why not simply wipe out organic life before it can develop? Why leave humans alone when the Protheans were harvested? Particularly when at the time it was fairly obvious humans would evolve into advanced life forms. So much so the Prothean's even build a small study building on Mars to watch us. With or without Leviathan DLC it gives meaning to the actions the Reapers have taken. Why they take so much trouble to harvest rather then out right destroy. Why they keep repeating the cycle time and time again when they have the power and technology to end it by removing all organic life from the galaxy any time they want. The actions of the Reapers make absolutely no sense what so ever until the concept of conflict between organic and synthetics comes into play. Then like a musical instrument just slightly out of tune the sound becomes clear.

 

And what is the answer to all those "why?" questions? What is the value of organic goop pumped into a synthetic body? How is this the pinnacle of existence?" Why is lots and lots of killing a way to "preserve life" and why can we not challenge the Catalyst on this?

 

 

Leviathan just helps expand on this simple set up for players that might have missed it before. As well as provide some much wanted back story to how the Reapers were created in the first place. As for Catalyst the repeated theme in the game is how history repeats itself. Despite the many different variations the same paths are followed time and time again. And the core issue is how synthetics have the capability to greatly surpass organics. This is the part that you and others seem to want to ignore as hard as you can.  As far as synthetic life goes EDI or the Geth would be the equivalent of a Curtiss P-40 Warhawk from WW2. Being compared by you to an F22- Raptor for what actual potential synthetics live has. Mean while Organic life is a Sopwith Camel.

 

The only point at which Synthetics sufficiently surpass Organics to present a major threat is with the Geth and the Quarians were about to defeat them before the Reapers interfered. The Reapers were not only not needed, but they were detrimental to their stated goal. EDI, whom you referenced in her surpassing of Organics, helps her Organic crewmates and views them as friends.

 

 

 

That is the underlying point people like you seem to ignore for all they are worth. Conflict happens because one race creates another that completely and utterly surpasses them.

 

One side being stronger than another does not automatically create conflict. It often does, and as far as real life one could chalk that up to human nature. But what about other species or synthetics in this universe? They are different, are they not? Or is this supposed to be a "not so different" thing?

 

 

 

They only managed to take down 1 AA gun emplacement meaning any attack from any other corridor then that would result in them getting blown out of the sky. Ravangers are basically walking AA guns and a few of them on roof tops would make any ship attempting to move though that area become a target. They cleared out one path and so they could only move down that one path.  Those spirals were at the base of the beam meaning they would have to reach them before being used as cover. Harbinger started picking them off before they got that close.

 

So why not take out more AA guns? How do you know how much ground that covered? They drove for awhile before getting to the beam location, so why not use ground troops if you couldn't fly anything in? Did they drive near more AA guns? Why didn't they shoot down the Normandy? None of these are a major issue for me, but I'm pointing out that there is nothing wrong with people suggesting the distraction idea. That would make sense.

 

They don't have to reach the spires because they are massive. All they have to do is keep the spires between them and Harbinger.

 

 

 

Beam technology isn't new. How do you think Saren would get inside of Sovereign? How would they transport troops to be dropped out of them from orbit? As for dead humans in side it they could have simply been killed during the attack or are being sent up there to be processed into the soup we see in ME2. The possibilities of what they could do with the corpses is many. Could be how the keepers keep their numbers replenished by turning a portion of last cycle into a soup for them to be created out of when one breaks down. Or is the keeper's feed organic life that finds the citadel.

 

Saren can use shuttles or a door. Sovereign can land on Eden Prime. Why is a beam needed to drop troops from orbit? You didn't say anything about the living people, but my guess was something to do with processing like the Collectors were. However,  I really like your idea relating to the Keepers. That would be cool.

 

 

 

 

It wasn't a dreadnought in the opening of the game.  That was a mistake by Bioware it was actually a Cruiser but by the time they realized the mistake it was to late to alter the voice recording.  Joker was delaying the Reapers in the upper atmosphere. Then the call from Shepard came in needing an evac. Joker breaking off the attack to attempt to get Shepard and crew out of there is well within his character.  During Suicide mission Shep doesn't have the option to evac any crew members that gets injured during the attack. The Normandy is grounded until repairs get finished. Sending a shuttle would only allow Collectors to follow the ship back to the Normandy and attack it while still damaged.

 

That ship being a Cruiser makes more sense.

 

is it also within Joker's character to leave Shepard behind when the Crucible goes off? And again, what about the beam run being the most important thing happening? I was not really asking about the logistics of it.

[Monica21]

I think you're looking at it backwards. The game doesn't give you a broken up Normandy without a single scorch mark until an optional DLC mission after Shepard's resurrection. I see it as an argument after the fact, though in fairness, I think that DLC was released at launch. Did Shepard's survival bother you until you did Crash Site? Arguing you accept that because Shepard's body somehow survived makes more sense. I'm also accepting what the game gives me, but I'm making fun of how ridiculous it is before moving on, while you're inventing an excuse for how it makes sense with Shepard having a suit that keeps him from burning up. Again, to be fair, snow would probably be really good at softening that impact!

Well, I didn't know it was a separate DLC. It might have been part of the Origin installation, but to be honest, I don't remember if I had to install it separately. And until the DLC, I actually thought that Shepard just got scooped up from space, which would have been far more plausible, so the survivability of it never bothered me. (And as you can see, it still doesn't.) I think it's a plot device that isn't used all that well, but considering the number of things that bother me about the trilogy itself, and the fact that ME2 is my favorite in the trilogy, I overlook it because I can.
 

Most importantly, I can overlook bad science for the sake of the story at times too (after all, plenty of sci-fi is full of it), but there was no interesting story told with Shepard's death. Rapture is essential to the story of Bioshock as it is the setting. Shepard's death and resurrection is not necessary for Mass Effect 2 or 3.

I would have much preferred to see Shepard struggle with what it means to be part synthetic. But no, that didn't happen. It was just glossed over by everyone and by Shepard, and that bothers me more than the nature of Shepard's resurrection.

[ImaginaryMatter]

The strange part, at least to me, is that during the tutorial mission there are audio logs explaining the depth and complexity about bringing Shepard back due to asphyxiation in space but never addressed the atmospheric re-entry. The later seems like it would be the more problematic issue to the average player, because it seems to be common knowledge that atmospheric re-entry tends to disintegrate things and is dangerous. During the scene you even see Shepard's body get the red glow. It doesn't even get a single line handwave.

 

Question though, did anyone else think that there would be a big reveal at the end of the mission that the Shepard you were playing would be some sort of clone? That the original Shepard died and the new one was some sort of replacement?

[Natureguy85]

You are again applying emotions and logic to things that don't seem to have it. In the skies above the combined fleets of the galaxy are slowly but surely being torn apart. The Normandy leaving is just like you trying to escape death. There are things you can do to evade or prolong the time on this planet yet you can not avoid it forever.  Normandy escaping means nothing to the Reapers because they will be caught and they will be harvested or killed. It is an inevitability. The only ones on a time schedule that states everything must be done this afternoon are the organics. It took them hundreds of years to fully harvest the Protheans. A few extra months is nothing to them.

 

Sure, but why not shoot it now when it's right there? If nothing else, it's convenient. I agree that time doesn't matter to beings as ancient as the Reapers. So why bother with Sovereign's plan or a Citadel relay at all? Why not just fly in under FTL, or even under regular drives? Now we're back to actual plot questions rather than curiosities.

 

However, I'm glad you noticed that the scene doesn't have logic.

 

 

 

These things I come up with how ever are extremely simplistic. I would dare expect people playing this game series even 13 year old should be smart enough to put 2 and 2 together to create 4. Players shouldn't need a massive neon sign with fire works, marching band and an blow horn in our ears to explain everything that happens in the game. I hate games that treat players like drooling idiots that need everything explained to them. Even if this was 100% pure accidental Bioware left enough that it only takes a tiny fraction of some brain power to connect dots. The series does less explaining to use like we are morons who need our hand held. And more requiring us to think about the game to fully connect everything together. And is one of the main reasons I love this game series.

 

 

Yes they are simplistic. They are also very weak excuses for things the writer couldn't be bothered to write. These are not things left for the audience to decide. They are things the writers didn't consider when slapping the ending together. It's not my job to fill in plot holes with head canon, especially nonsense.

[Natureguy85]

Well, I didn't know it was a separate DLC. It might have been part of the Origin installation, but to be honest, I don't remember if I had to install it separately. And until the DLC, I actually thought that Shepard just got scooped up from space, which would have been far more plausible, so the survivability of it never bothered me. (And as you can see, it still doesn't.) I think it's a plot device that isn't used all that well, but considering the number of things that bother me about the trilogy itself, and the fact that ME2 is my favorite in the trilogy, I overlook it because I can.
 

I would have much preferred to see Shepard struggle with what it means to be part synthetic. But no, that didn't happen. It was just glossed over by everyone and by Shepard, and that bothers me more than the nature of Shepard's resurrection.

 

As Imaginary Matter said, at the very end you see Shepard light up. However, it's funny how removing that little graphic and using your idea of him being in orbit fixes a big chunk of the problems with the whole thing.

 

I agree that the concept was wasted. Even in ME3 when they finally bring it up, it goes nowhere.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Here's an alternate explanation: The Reapers destroy galactic civilizations before they can advance enough to seriously and actually challenge the Reapers in a war.

 

It has nothing to do with synthetics wiping out all organics and everything to do with destroying all possible rivals before they are a threat.

 

And this explanation is just as 'crystal clear' as the gobbledygook about synthetics vs organics being some kind of apocalypse for all life.

 

It is pretty easy to take out the AI vs organic part out of the ending and replace it with anything else. My idea for a replaced Catalyst conversation would be to replace the "organics that develop AI that kill all organics" to a more general "organics that develop technology that destroy the galaxy". You could make the Reapers some sort of past race that long ago had a conflict where the weapons were strong enough to obliterate entire systems (the Crucible's initial plans could be from that time). Similar to your idea the Reapers could be wiping everyone out for their own self interests to insure that such destructive force is never used again. It would be better because now the Catalyst can bring up events like the Genophage and the Quarians without undercutting it's own argument; it also somewhat ties together several of the large, overarching plot points. Probably the biggest problem with these sorts of endings is creating a plausible excuse for why the Catalyst is allowing Shepard to make these decisions, which is probably why the best thing would be to introduce the Crucible has some sort of Reaper trap and victory is instead achieved through gunning down Harbinger (or something)... which would fit better with EMS system and be way more dramatic.

[Natureguy85]

I never settled on a solid theory for myself, but the idea of preventing opposition was the simplest one. It's the one Mr.Btongue suggests in the video in my description. When I saw the end of ME3, I thought they did a poor job of adapting what Descent Freespace did.

[Abelas Forever!]

I don't think that the problem is that organics create synthetics which evolve faster than organics evolve and eventually they will surpass organics. Problems come when they start to fight against each other and then the strongest will win. It could easily be that the synthetics will become more powerful than organics but they could still decide to leave organics alone. Even though there was a conflict between Geth and the Quarians, Geth did make the decision to not wipe them out and they allowed Quarians to run away from their home planet.

Catalyst is the product of its time and it reflects the ideas of it's creators. It's creators believed that there will always become a conflict between organics and synthetics which result will be that the organics are wiped out. But did all the organics get wiped out? Leviathans survived so the synthetics didn't wipe out everyone in their time and after creating the reapers some of Leviathans survived. So the catalyst isn't right. It just does what it was created to do and it says things to Shepard what it believes that are right.

[Artona]

 

 

The original Cycle the thrall races developed synthetic life to make their life easier(...). Keeping organic life in a cycle of developmental stasis harvesting and storing their essence in a near immortal Reaper before they can develop enough to create synthetic life that could rebel and kill them.

Firstly, you are not aswering my question: Where Bioware developers told us that "X issue will always happen because they created entire universe with X to happen". 
Secondly - I know Catalyst and Leviathan's story. I'm simply questioning their explanation. Leviathan admits itself that they didn't know why there were wars between synthetics and organics; they made the Catalyst to provide solution. And he did provide one - but the one that makes sense only if his assumption about inevitability is true. Is it? I don't know, but I think that games gives us enough of reasons to distrust it. As I said earlier - Catalyst isn't all-knowing and omnipotent and his explanation can simply be wrong - because observing the problem isn't the same as understanding it or it's origins. For an instance, humanity was observing mechanism of burning since it appeared on this muddy rock - yet no one came up with explanation before 1780s and Lavoisier. 
Catalyst explanation can be equivalent of phlogiston theory in the matter of burning. 

 

 

 

Throughout the countless ages the same repetition in civilizations appear time and time again. The very repetitions that caused the Catalyst to enact the Reaper solution.  The only reason the Catalyst appears to Shepard at the end as he sit broken and dying is that it perceives it's solution is failing. Offering Shepard multiple options on how to proceed. How ever it does try to convince Shepard to take the path it sees as the way to end the cycle completely forever (Synthesis) now that it is possible to do so. 

As above; besides, you also admit that his solution is failing; but maybe it was faulty from the very beginning, because it was based on wrong assumptions? 

 

 

 

Hard evidence is presented the very existence of the Catalyst is the hard evidence. I repeat the AI didn't just magically spring into existence. The Reapers didn't just appear because someone made a bad wish on the dragon balls. Their creation their very existence is because of the organic and synthetic conflict. This feels a lot like dealing with someone who out right refuses to admit climate change is even possible. Oh look all of Florida is now under 3 feet of water and we have to build all our houses on pillars and take boats to work. Just before that happened all the polar ice on the planet melted releasing the trapped water and rising the ocean's level. Yet you are sitting there in a canoe claiming there is no connection or proof climate change caused it.

 

C'mon, now you're twisting logic on purpose; you could say as well that "existence of Church is the hard evidence of Jesus's godhood". Catalyst isn't the evidence of unavoidable conflict, but of belief in that conflict. 

 

 

 

As I stated earlier I never made the comparison of the Catalyst to God. That comparison was to Bioware which for all intents and purposes is the God the divine creator of heaven and earth for the game's universe.

 

So what? It has nothing to do with discussion. Also, my original question is still unaswered. 

 

 

That conflict is echoed in the games. Geth all on their own decided to follow Sovereign and willingly kill any organic that gets in their way to get what they want. They start to diverge from the rest of the Geth and develop differently as they show no qualms about killing any organics that get in their way and they develop on their own a virus to brain wash for lack of better term. The rest of the Geth into following their thoughts and ideas. And besides the fact that there are 2 different Geth to deal with in ME3. The more organic friendly if Legion survived and the suspicious and paranoid Geth if Legion was never activated or died. Peace was made because both organic and synthetic were facing an outside force that would ensure their mutual destruction if they didn't form an alliance. That alliance comes with the side dish of advancing the Geth to a new level of intelligence. Which jumps them down the path towards conflict the Catalyst talks about. I'd be more willing to buy into peace with Geth means Catalyst has no idea what it is saying about conflict if the alliance didn't take place during a galaxy wide invasion of super advanced space cuddle fish.

 

 

Conflict with Geth starts with Reapers intervention; for three hundred years they were willingly isolated. Firstly Sovereign uses it to attack the Citadel, then they make deal with the Reapers to save itself; if there was no Reapers, then there would be no reason for them to end their isolation. For God's sake, I'm finding it hard to believe you're not doing it on purpose. You could say as well "Crusades proves that conflict between christians and muslims is unavoidable; because if there was no conflict, there wouldn't by any Crusades, right?". 

 

 

 

The very existence of the AI and the Reapers is proof the conflicts exists. 

And russian revolution is the proof that "class struggle" exists, right? 

 

 

 

Why would they allow organic species to rise, evolve and advance before harvesting them? Why would they leave the Relays out to be found and utilized by organic civilizations in the first place? Particularly after Sovereign makes it very clear we are but ants and Reapers are the apex of evolution. Why would they repeat this cycle time and time again? Why not simply wipe out organic life before it can develop? 

 

Because they are lead by mistaken AI. Simple as that. Funny how you bring up Sovereign, who actually is either lying or mistaken in the few things he says (for na instance, in saying that they "have no beginning and no end", or that the purpose of harvest is impossible for Shepard to understand - and "yo, we gonna harvest ya or synthetics will totally kill ya'll bro" seems to be understable enough). 

 

 

 

And the core issue is how synthetics have the capability to greatly surpass organics. This is the part that you and others seem to want to ignore as hard as you can.  As far as synthetic life goes EDI or the Geth would be the equivalent of a Curtiss P-40 Warhawk from WW2. Being compared by you to an F22- Raptor for what actual potential synthetics live has. Mean while Organic life is a Sopwith Camel.

 

Not truly - what about Thorian? What about Leviathan? First seems to be unaffected by harvest and pretty badass, and second is more advance than the Reapers. And before the harvest Prothans we're - according to Javik - winning "Metacon War". And even if you assume that synthetics *will always surpass organics* it doesn't mean that conflict is unavoidable - the solution *may* be different. 

Besides - with Reapers intervention we can't learn about that, because now every organic civilisation develops in one path - mass relays and the Citadel. 

[ImaginaryMatter]

I don't think that the problem is that organics create synthetics which evolve faster than organics evolve and eventually they will surpass organics. Problems come when they start to fight against each other and then the strongest will win. It could easily be that the synthetics will become more powerful than organics but they could still decide to leave organics alone. Even though there was a conflict between Geth and the Quarians, Geth did make the decision to not wipe them out and they allowed Quarians to run away from their home planet.

 

The problem as I see it, is that the AI vs organic conflict isn't inherently different than other inter-species conflicts. The synthetics could surpass the organics, but so could the Krogan, the Rachni, humanity itself. AI in the game are just another enemy who we can later win to our side.

[Artona]

The problem as I see it, is that the AI vs organic conflict isn't inherently different than other inter-species conflicts. The synthetics could surpass the organics, but so could the Krogan, the Rachni, humanity itself. AI in the game are just another enemy who we can later win to our side.

I agree. I think that problem also makes Synthesis less impressive than it can seems - I mean, it's cool that synthetics won't kill organics, but it doesn't mean that organic-synthetics hybrids restrain from fighting, just like organics fight organics and AI fight AI. 

[Abelas Forever!]

The problem as I see it, is that the AI vs organic conflict isn't inherently different than other inter-species conflicts. The synthetics could surpass the organics, but so could the Krogan, the Rachni, humanity itself. AI in the game are just another enemy who we can later win to our side.

I agree that synthetics vs organics conflict isn't different than a conflict between organics. However the conflict between synthetics and organics was a problem in Leviathan's time and it was a reason why Catalyst was created and therefore Catalyst presents it as a fact that will always happen even though it's not true. Shepard can also prove it wrong by choosing destroy ending.

 

 

I agree. I think that problem also makes Synthesis less impressive than it can seems - I mean, it's cool that synthetics won't kill organics, but it doesn't mean that organic-synthetics hybrids restrain from fighting, just like organics fight organics and AI fight AI. 

But that's not Catalyst's problem anymore because they are hybrids and not synthetics and organics which was the original problem. 

[gothpunkboy89]

Firstly, you are not aswering my question: Where Bioware developers told us that "X issue will always happen because they created entire universe with X to happen". 
Secondly - I know Catalyst and Leviathan's story. I'm simply questioning their explanation. Leviathan admits itself that they didn't know why there were wars between synthetics and organics; they made the Catalyst to provide solution. And he did provide one - but the one that makes sense only if his assumption about inevitability is true. Is it? I don't know, but I think that games gives us enough of reasons to distrust it. As I said earlier - Catalyst isn't all-knowing and omnipotent and his explanation can simply be wrong - because observing the problem isn't the same as understanding it or it's origins. For an instance, humanity was observing mechanism of burning since it appeared on this muddy rock - yet no one came up with explanation before 1780s and Lavoisier. 
Catalyst explanation can be equivalent of phlogiston theory in the matter of burning. 

 

As above; besides, you also admit that his solution is failing; but maybe it was faulty from the very beginning, because it was based on wrong assumptions? 

 

 

C'mon, now you're twisting logic on purpose; you could say as well that "existence of Church is the hard evidence of Jesus's godhood". Catalyst isn't the evidence of unavoidable conflict, but of belief in that conflict. 

 

 

So what? It has nothing to do with discussion. Also, my original question is still unaswered. 

 

 

Conflict with Geth starts with Reapers intervention; for three hundred years they were willingly isolated. Firstly Sovereign uses it to attack the Citadel, then they make deal with the Reapers to save itself; if there was no Reapers, then there would be no reason for them to end their isolation. For God's sake, I'm finding it hard to believe you're not doing it on purpose. You could say as well "Crusades proves that conflict between christians and muslims is unavoidable; because if there was no conflict, there wouldn't by any Crusades, right?". 

 

And russian revolution is the proof that "class struggle" exists, right? 

 

 

Because they are lead by mistaken AI. Simple as that. Funny how you bring up Sovereign, who actually is either lying or mistaken in the few things he says (for na instance, in saying that they "have no beginning and no end", or that the purpose of harvest is impossible for Shepard to understand - and "yo, we gonna harvest ya or synthetics will totally kill ya'll bro" seems to be understable enough). 

 

 

Not truly - what about Thorian? What about Leviathan? First seems to be unaffected by harvest and pretty badass, and second is more advance than the Reapers. And before the harvest Prothans we're - according to Javik - winning "Metacon War". And even if you assume that synthetics *will always surpass organics* it doesn't mean that conflict is unavoidable - the solution *may* be different. 

Besides - with Reapers intervention we can't learn about that, because now every organic civilisation develops in one path - mass relays and the Citadel. 

 

The fact that Bioware made the choice to introduce the synthetic vs organic conflict and make it centralized to the entire Reaper mythos. ME1 and 2 we know what, when, where but we don't know who or why to their actions.  They even bring up the fact on Thessia even Protheans see the repeat patterns of development. Each time the harvest happens the same set ups follow time and time again. They only remove species that have advanced to a certain point. They don't seed planets with life forms they don't harvest everyone. Yet the pattern continues to repeat it self time and time again.  The AI only bring up Shepard because it see the solution failing because organics are adapting to it for lack of better term. Getting better and better each cycle at hiding and passing information along to the next.

 

Catalyst is much proof of unavoidable conflict as the fact that we humans are armed to the teeth to levels ridiculously beyond anything needed to defend ourselves from nature. Why do any nation, state or tiny providence on this planet have some form of standing army? Why do the more developed nations have and continue to develop and advance weapons that are capable of destruction on such a massive scale you could almost call it divine retribution. But more importantly why does even a single solitary gun outside of hunting exist in the ME universe? Why was the Destiny Ascension even created in the first place? Why did TIM ever create Cerberus? Why does the Salarian STG even exist? Why do the Turians maintain the largest standing army in the galaxy?  Why has it become a stereotype that Asari are always either strippers or guns for hire when they are in their maiden years?

 

Thane even has a little unquie dialoge in ME 2 if you talk to the VI on Zakera Ward. While talking to Avina on level 26 of the Zakera Ward on the Citadel, Shepard may ask how the problem of poverty on the ward can be solved. Avina will state that, according to asari futurists, poverty cannot be eliminated without Cornucopia technology, which Thane refutes by saying, "Technology cannot cure greed."

 

No conflict with the Geth started when the Quarians instigated a war with them that lead to their near extinction as well as turning them into the pariahs of the galaxy.  Turning them into gyps stereotype but in space. This caused anger and resentment for the Quarians all directed at the Geth. With or without Reaper intervention the Quarians would have taken on the Geth again in an attempt to retake their home world. It was only a matter of time. Geth already chose isolation and enforced it by killing any ship that gets into their range. They only spared the Quarians because they were unsure of the repercussion of wiping out an entire race. How ever another completely unprovoked attack by the Quarians would alter that idea very quickly. Remember there are 2 Geth you can interact with in ME3. The Organic friendly Geth if Legion survived ME2. And the suspicious, paranoid and pretty sure Organics will screw them over Geth if Legion is never activated or dies in ME2. Guess which Geth would exist if the Reapers never existed. It isn't the friendly one you get thanks to Legion.

 

Yes class struggle is real. There are many examples of workers going on strike over working conditions and things turning violent to the point the police or some of their military force is called into restore order. The US has plenty of examples of this happening in it's history. As well as a continuing history of companies and corporations treating workers with the bare minimum care needed by law. And firing people at the drop of a hat if they so much as disagree with someone high enough on the totem pole. Because they can create bullshit reasons and you have no way to use any proof against it.  He said she said and they can afford the lawyer fees. Because you know people that don't make more then 20K a year don't exactly have a lot of surplus money laying around.

 

Sovereign shows a high degree of arrogance but I would expect that considering what it is. The no beginning and no ends fits with that arrogant statement because it has existed for so long that beginning has no meaning anymore. And because it's body is near indestructible it will under normal circumstances exist until the death of the universe. It is an impossibility for people to comprehend that their deaths are needed. If tomorrow the US government came out and said they could end all conflict in the world but it would require the death of every US citizen to achieve it. Well lets just say that no one would agree to it and we would probably have a new government in a few years. Even though from a logical stand point it makes sense. The US only has what 15% world population. The removal of conflict would over time save more lives then were lost.  But it still wouldn't be looking well on by many people in the world and particularly by the US citizens who would need to be killed to achieve it.

 

Thorian are organic they don't use technology and go into a hibernation state for thousands of years at a time. Because of that it is bypassed by Reapers who are looking for active advanced life.  Leviathan hides on a technologically dead world. The only tech that exists besides crashed ships are the orbs which they use to focus and send their mind control ability to other places. Using those thralls to continue with technological development and studying each cycle completely hidden. The Protheans were winning the Metacon wars because they forcibly united every organic race under their banner. Even if they were winning it still shows conflict. The Protheans would have inadvertently created something else as well.

 

So you pull outside facts and ideology to defend your point about conflict not being an inevitability. But now you jump both feet into what the game says with the last point. Can you please pick a side and stick with it. Because first you are against the Reapers and Catalyst claiming conflict is inevitable but then you are fully with them claiming the Citadel and Mass Relays. They can not be wrong about one statement yet 100% correct about another statement. When both are 100% reliant on the ideology that history repeats it self.

[MrFob]

Yep, I also agree. Synthesis is either even more horrible as it is portrayed already (i.e. to really solve anything for good, it would have to massively alter the behavior of every living being) or it doesn't really solve anything.

The same goes by the way for the other two endings as well.

 

But that's not Catalyst's problem anymore because they are hybrids and not synthetics and organics which was the original problem. 

 

Yea, this is what makes the ending so insanely stupid for me. The problem is framed as this big galactic issue that everyone would have to worry about. It is described as the fate of all organics is hanging in the balance. But if you stop to think about it, it's really only the catalyst's own problem that we need to solve. Once his "win condition" is fulfilled, it doesn't matter anymore what the future will actually look like. This is what makes the downsides of the choices so outrageous. I could probably even live with wiping out the geth IF I'd feel like the reason why I am doing it is actually important and I can get behind it. As it is however, I - as in the player/audience - feel like I am doing this just to satisfy the completely insane demands of a broken mind (i.e. the catalyst).

 

It's like at the end of Wolfenstein, Hitler would say: "I have a button here to blow up the world. To prevent it, you need to choose:

1. Destroy me but also destroy all Jews

2. Merge with me and together we'll take command of my soldiers to keep order in the Reich, which will now span the entire world, no exceptions or choice for anyone (though you may transform it into a more benign dictatorship if you like)

or 3. Use my Gene-Machine (developed by Dr. Komplettverrückt) to give everyone arian genes.

So what's it gonna be?"

 

Sorry to go all Godwin's Law on you guys here but it is the best comparison I can think of (with the major difference being that Hitler is established better in Wolfenstein before the final 10 minutes than the catalyst is in Mass Effect ). This is not about saving the galaxy anymore (at least not in the way the catalyst thinks). We have to accommodate the delusions of some crazy guy with a big weapon at our heads and an ideology that we cannot stand behind. And people seriously wonder why this ending is upsetting people?

[gothpunkboy89]

That's what I thought. That's not an attack or lashing out. If the premise ruins the story for you, there is no point in continuing. FOB didn't say that was the case for him, but I was pointing out that he was putting two different things with different impacts on the same level when they shouldn't be.

 

I'm responding to you. If you respond further, cool. If not, oh well. Also, the topic really hasn't shifted much in a long time. The posts are long because there are lots of comments worth addressing, good and bad, and I don't feel like making them all separate. You find weird things to complain about, but your flailing is another sign of your lack of substance on the topic. This is a funny complaint considering the size of your own posts including this one, especially when mine consist of a lot more quotes.

 

Yes, I wanted something good and got something bad. Those are indeed different.

 

And what is the answer to all those "why?" questions? What is the value of organic goop pumped into a synthetic body? How is this the pinnacle of existence?" Why is lots and lots of killing a way to "preserve life" and why can we not challenge the Catalyst on this?

 

The only point at which Synthetics sufficiently surpass Organics to present a major threat is with the Geth and the Quarians were about to defeat them before the Reapers interfered. The Reapers were not only not needed, but they were detrimental to their stated goal. EDI, whom you referenced in her surpassing of Organics, helps her Organic crewmates and views them as friends.

 

One side being stronger than another does not automatically create conflict. It often does, and as far as real life one could chalk that up to human nature. But what about other species or synthetics in this universe? They are different, are they not? Or is this supposed to be a "not so different" thing?

 

So why not take out more AA guns? How do you know how much ground that covered? They drove for awhile before getting to the beam location, so why not use ground troops if you couldn't fly anything in? Did they drive near more AA guns? Why didn't they shoot down the Normandy? None of these are a major issue for me, but I'm pointing out that there is nothing wrong with people suggesting the distraction idea. That would make sense.

 

They don't have to reach the spires because they are massive. All they have to do is keep the spires between them and Harbinger.

 

Saren can use shuttles or a door. Sovereign can land on Eden Prime. Why is a beam needed to drop troops from orbit? You didn't say anything about the living people, but my guess was something to do with processing like the Collectors were. However,  I really like your idea relating to the Keepers. That would be cool.

 

That ship being a Cruiser makes more sense.

 

is it also within Joker's character to leave Shepard behind when the Crucible goes off? And again, what about the beam run being the most important thing happening? I was not really asking about the logistics of it.

 

Intent is always more important then what is said. Because you can be an a hole without breaking what is generally considered polite or acceptable language.

 

There is a rather important line in the sand between what you want and what happens and if it is good or bad. More and more every day it seems people miss that line or try and shift it. I'm really getting ready to declare it is because people are just self centered children. Who lack the even thin layer of maturity it takes to experience something and see that it isn't 100% as they wanted it. But to still be able to make the grown up statement that it wasn't that bad. I for instance don't like Game of Thrones. Just never interested me. How ever because I am kept up to date on it due to friends talking about it a lot. I'm not interested in it yet I can see the good points of the series and the bad points. I don't jump right to calling it complete and utter garbage because it doesn't fall completely on my line of the sand of what I think should happen or what I like to happen in TV shows. Because that is something grown ups are capable of doing. And what you are failing to do.

 

I already gave you the answer to those why questions. Bioware gave you the answer to those why questions. They break down organic bodies into their base element then recombine them in new set ups to create the Reaper bodies. Whole new meaning to using every part of the buffalo. Well as I see it societies would have 2 options. Complete and utter servitude to the AI to prevent conflict from happening. Or freedom to grow and develop at their own pace to become something unique in the galaxy with the fact you have an expiration date counting down. And If I had to pick one I would go with the one that leads to harvest. Because at least in that moment we get to be unique in the galaxy. With our memories our uniqueness being stored forever in a Reaper body. We never truly die.

 

The only moment shown in game you mean. I made the comparison between war planes for a reason.  You try to use the Geth and Reapers yet you ignore so hard the fact the Quarians are only able to take on the Geth from a superior position is also because of the Reapers. Without Sovergein and the Heretics the Quarians wouldn't have access to the same amount of Geth tech. Without access to that Geth tech they couldn't create the jammer which they used to cripple them. It is fairly obvious they would go to war with them anyways out of desperation. With out that Jammer the Geth would finish wiping out the Quarians. It continues to amuse me the way you drastically over simply things to try and prove your point.

 

Knowledge is power. Power breeds fear from those who lack it. The galaxy stood in fear of the Geth ever since the Morning Wars. Species spending billions of credits to have fleets in position to intercept any possible attacks from them. Any ship venturing into their space was destroyed completely. No one struck first because they were afraid of the results of that. How ever if the Geth were not so isolated and actively showed off all their advancements like ships capable of dealing even more damage then what organic dreadnoughts could do. Then things would have altered significantly as the threat would have been perceived and people would have eventually acted. Even if it was lone group of people those actions could trigger a full scale war.

 

More then 1 AA gun isn't taken down because we lack the troops and equipment. A galaxy wide conflict that has lasted at least 6 months resulting in millions of deaths a day on every planet. Results in a very limited amount of soldiers and equipment to use. Because they would have been killed or used already. Not to mention to even get those soldiers and equipment to ground level first requires them to go though the AA fire to start with. This typically results in even less troops and equipment landing. Added onto this suck salad is the fact that there is a great bit count down timer out in space. They have to clear out a path and make it to the Citadel before the Reapers in orbit destory the fleet. Without the Fleet the Crucible has no protection and they can blow it out of the sky with ease.

 

In a sense they pulled a Lord of the Rings. Aragon (Hackett) leads a collection of solders into a battle with the forces of Mordor (Reapers) in a fight they can't possibly win against. The entire point of that is to distract them while Frodo (Shepard) and The Ring (Crucible) make it to Mt Doom (Citadel) were they can end Saron (Reapers) once and for all.

 

Reapers can land on the planet but they are required to keep the up right stance due to how their bodies are set up. Unless their feet have stairs in them some how people and troops would need something to be able to get into it for transportation. I just can't see Brutes using a shuttle. Though that does have a very funny image.

 

Joker thinking Shepard is on board yes. It would also explain his hesitation to leave when the Curcible is charging up to fire. He thought he was saving him then finds out that Shepard didn't get on the ship. Hackett mentioning that someone got into the beam and that it is Shepard would explain why when Hackett order the retreat Joker is one of the last ships that leaves. He is waiting for some sort of signal from Shepard to rush in and save him. Till he is literally forced to leave.

[BloodyMares]

 

Reapers can land on the planet but they are required to keep the up right stance due to how their bodies are set up. Unless their feet have stairs in them some how people and troops would need something to be able to get into it for transportation. I just can't see Brutes using a shuttle. Though that does have a very funny image.

 

Saren had a glider. He could just fly up into the Sovereign. Geth had their own ships. As for Brutes and other reaper troops, they are transported by Harvesters.

[Dantriges]

The difference between your GoT experience and the debates here is that most of the people actually liked the games enough to shell out money for three games and probably even for a huge pile of DLCs.

 

There is no point for a civilisation advanced enough to wipe out the entire rest of the galaxy to actually do so. There is no point in attacking such a civilisation as it is suicide. We managed that feat not killing ourselves with MAD hanging over our heads in a ideology laden and emotional atmosphere. Unless the AI has some weird thought processes programmed into it, it should manage.

 

The catalyst is proof of nothing and a negation of its own dogma, the Leviathan are evidence that its creators actually were compulsive control freaks, a thought pattern which led to the problem to begin with. the leviathan wouldn´t stand something leaving their grasp, a trait which their thralls were probably unable to resist and get suicided out of existence.

 

The Reapers don´t harvest everyone. Quite a lot of planets are bombed into oblivion, on harvested planets people are chosen for harvest, huskification or slave labor.

 

We´ve never seen beam tech before, but at least for deployment it seems that even organics are quite able to airdrop out of a flying ship. Reapers also drop their troops by harvesters, troop transports (which we never saw but there was a codex entry) or these weird meteors. Ths beam thingies also seem to need a sending station. Takes time to assemble and there should have been something left on the planet even if they blast it. 

[Abelas Forever!]

@MrFob
I actually like the AI plot. But I have trouble with the endings. I guess I should accept that there was several alien species who managed to design Crucible and that they were able to design it so that species who will come after them will be able to build it without understanding much about it and now the species in this time managed to build it and somehow magically when it's integrated to Citadel, it can be used either to destroy the reapers, which I think is a possible but also control them or making everybody a hybrid. The other possibility is that Catalyst let organics to build that device (which it had designed) so that one day somebody would come and meet it and make the choice. Although it doesn't make much sense that there is also destroy option designed as well. I guess I'm trying to say that it makes sense why Catalyst did what it was doing but then the choices doesn't make sense. I can't find a good enough explanation for those choices to exists except just being there so you could choose and get different outcome and then everything ends there.

[Natureguy85]

The fact that Bioware made the choice to introduce the synthetic vs organic conflict and make it centralized to the entire Reaper mythos. ME1 and 2 we know what, when, where but we don't know who or why to their actions.  They even bring up the fact on Thessia even Protheans see the repeat patterns of development. Each time the harvest happens the same set ups follow time and time again. They only remove species that have advanced to a certain point. They don't seed planets with life forms they don't harvest everyone. Yet the pattern continues to repeat it self time and time again.  The AI only bring up Shepard because it see the solution failing because organics are adapting to it for lack of better term. Getting better and better each cycle at hiding and passing information along to the next.

 

That conflict was introduced in the first game, but the second game told us it was actually "ascension" and "salvation." Mass Effect 3 specifically and explicitly says that the Reapers are not in conflict with Organics. We laugh at that line, but it's there.

 

Of course the pattern repeats; the Reapers push Organics down the same path each cycle.

 

I don't know why you think the Catalyst thinks it's failing because Organics are adapting. What does Shepard actually accomplish before meeting the Catalyst? So what if they made the Crucible. They can't stop the Reapers from killing them all, as evidenced by Refuse. Destroy and Control are possible because the Catalyst explains them and offers them. The Catalyst wants and needs Shepard to do Synthesis. That's really all there is to it.

 

 

Catalyst is much proof of unavoidable conflict as the fact that we humans are armed to the teeth to levels ridiculously beyond anything needed to defend ourselves from nature. Why do any nation, state or tiny providence on this planet have some form of standing army? Why do the more developed nations have and continue to develop and advance weapons that are capable of destruction on such a massive scale you could almost call it divine retribution. But more importantly why does even a single solitary gun outside of hunting exist in the ME universe? Why was the Destiny Ascension even created in the first place? Why did TIM ever create Cerberus? Why does the Salarian STG even exist? Why do the Turians maintain the largest standing army in the galaxy?  Why has it become a stereotype that Asari are always either strippers or guns for hire when they are in their maiden years?

 

All that means is conflict exists. There is nothing special about conflict between Organic and Synthetic.

 

 

Yes class struggle is real. There are many examples of workers going on strike over working conditions and things turning violent to the point the police or some of their military force is called into restore order. The US has plenty of examples of this happening in it's history. As well as a continuing history of companies and corporations treating workers with the bare minimum care needed by law. And firing people at the drop of a hat if they so much as disagree with someone high enough on the totem pole. Because they can create bullshit reasons and you have no way to use any proof against it.  He said she said and they can afford the lawyer fees. Because you know people that don't make more then 20K a year don't exactly have a lot of surplus money laying around.

 

But socialism and marxism have been so successful and built utopias all over. Suuuuure.

 

 

 

Sovereign shows a high degree of arrogance but I would expect that considering what it is. The no beginning and no ends fits with that arrogant statement because it has existed for so long that beginning has no meaning anymore. And because it's body is near indestructible it will under normal circumstances exist until the death of the universe. It is an impossibility for people to comprehend that their deaths are needed. If tomorrow the US government came out and said they could end all conflict in the world but it would require the death of every US citizen to achieve it. Well lets just say that no one would agree to it and we would probably have a new government in a few years. Even though from a logical stand point it makes sense. The US only has what 15% world population. The removal of conflict would over time save more lives then were lost.  But it still wouldn't be looking well on by many people in the world and particularly by the US citizens who would need to be killed to achieve it.

 

Some might but you'd have to show how that would be possible. Others wouldn't be interested because they don't want to sacrifice innocent people and would rather target the problem people. And for this analogy, they'd have to wipe out a lot more than 15% of the world's population and they'd have to do it again every time the world repopulated.

 

 

So you pull outside facts and ideology to defend your point about conflict not being an inevitability. But now you jump both feet into what the game says with the last point. Can you please pick a side and stick with it. Because first you are against the Reapers and Catalyst claiming conflict is inevitable but then you are fully with them claiming the Citadel and Mass Relays. They can not be wrong about one statement yet 100% correct about another statement. When both are 100% reliant on the ideology that history repeats it self.

 

You're the one who keeps trying to justify the game's claims with real world examples, or at least your incorrect views of history.

 

There is no parallel between the claim of inevitability and the claim about building the Citadel and Relays. If you can't tell the difference between a claim about the future and a claim about the past, then that part of the conversation will go nowhere. Additionally, how and when the information is presented matters.
 

 

 

It's like at the end of Wolfenstein, Hitler would say: "I have a button here to blow up the world. To prevent it, you need to choose:

1. Destroy me but also destroy all Jews

2. Merge with me and together we'll take command of my soldiers to keep order in the Reich, which will now span the entire world, no exceptions or choice for anyone (though you may transform it into a more benign dictatorship if you like)

or 3. Use my Gene-Machine (developed by Dr. Komplettverrückt) to give everyone arian genes.

So what's it gonna be?"

 

Sorry to go all Godwin's Law on you guys here but it is the best comparison I can think of (with the major difference being that Hitler is established better in Wolfenstein before the final 10 minutes than the catalyst is in Mass Effect ). This is not about saving the galaxy anymore (at least not in the way the catalyst thinks). We have to accommodate the delusions of some crazy guy with a big weapon at our heads and an ideology that we cannot stand behind. And people seriously wonder why this ending is upsetting people?

 

This is not Godwin's Law because you were using a real game that actually does use Hitler as the bad guy, not merely inserting Hitler out of nowhere.

 

 

Intent is always more important then what is said. Because you can be an a hole without breaking what is generally considered polite or acceptable language.

 

I intended what I said I intended. You shouldn't try and discern hidden meanings when you do so poorly at grasping the plain ones

[Natureguy85]

There is a rather important line in the sand between what you want and what happens and if it is good or bad. More and more every day it seems people miss that line or try and shift it. I'm really getting ready to declare it is because people are just self centered children. Who lack the even thin layer of maturity it takes to experience something and see that it isn't 100% as they wanted it. But to still be able to make the grown up statement that it wasn't that bad. I for instance don't like Game of Thrones. Just never interested me. How ever because I am kept up to date on it due to friends talking about it a lot. I'm not interested in it yet I can see the good points of the series and the bad points. I don't jump right to calling it complete and utter garbage because it doesn't fall completely on my line of the sand of what I think should happen or what I like to happen in TV shows. Because that is something grown ups are capable of doing. And what you are failing to do.

 

But it was that bad, and being a fanboy and defending it doesn't make you a grown up. All you've shown is you lack discernment and critical thinking. There are shows and games I don't care for but appreciate them as being pretty good at what they set out to be. The ending of Mass Effect 3 sucks for many reasons. Sometimes I just point out problems, sometimes I suggest fixes.

 

Remember, there are critics who get paid money to break things down and point out if they are good or bad and why. Declaring something bad also doesn't mean every single aspect of it was bad.

 

 

 

I already gave you the answer to those why questions. Bioware gave you the answer to those why questions. They break down organic bodies into their base element then recombine them in new set ups to create the Reaper bodies. Whole new meaning to using every part of the buffalo. Well as I see it societies would have 2 options. Complete and utter servitude to the AI to prevent conflict from happening. Or freedom to grow and develop at their own pace to become something unique in the galaxy with the fact you have an expiration date counting down. And If I had to pick one I would go with the one that leads to harvest. Because at least in that moment we get to be unique in the galaxy. With our memories our uniqueness being stored forever in a Reaper body. We never truly die.

 

OK, but you would be making an informed decision and choosing freedom with a timer vs subjugation. But why are those our only options? Why not break the timer?

You definitely do die. That idea that "you never truly die" is something we say about people that have a lasting impact. It's great for books, art, and philosophy. It doesn't work well for goop stuffed into a robot. What value is having those memories locked in a vault that nobody can look inside? What value is the greatest book ever written if nobody gets to read it?

 

 

The only moment shown in game you mean. I made the comparison between war planes for a reason.  You try to use the Geth and Reapers yet you ignore so hard the fact the Quarians are only able to take on the Geth from a superior position is also because of the Reapers. Without Sovergein and the Heretics the Quarians wouldn't have access to the same amount of Geth tech. Without access to that Geth tech they couldn't create the jammer which they used to cripple them. It is fairly obvious they would go to war with them anyways out of desperation. With out that Jammer the Geth would finish wiping out the Quarians. It continues to amuse me the way you drastically over simply things to try and prove your point.

 

Exactly. A major principle of story telling is "show, don't tell." Here is a good example  and a good article on it.

 

Maybe, but it's something to consider. Tali had been collecting Geth bits for two years after Sovereign's defeat. Were those all heretics? You could be right but that only means they wouldn't have gotten there as quickly. They may have achieved it later or found another solution. We also don't know how much was actually needed to achieve whatever Xen used.

It's amusing but also annoying how you selectively pull from the game to try and make a point. You say the Quarians would have attacked anyway, when the game says they went because they had the jammer and the Council was distracted.

 

 

 

More then 1 AA gun isn't taken down because we lack the troops and equipment. A galaxy wide conflict that has lasted at least 6 months resulting in millions of deaths a day on every planet. Results in a very limited amount of soldiers and equipment to use. Because they would have been killed or used already. Not to mention to even get those soldiers and equipment to ground level first requires them to go though the AA fire to start with. This typically results in even less troops and equipment landing. Added onto this suck salad is the fact that there is a great bit count down timer out in space. They have to clear out a path and make it to the Citadel before the Reapers in orbit destory the fleet. Without the Fleet the Crucible has no protection and they can blow it out of the sky with ease.

 

It takes 1 CAIN to kill the AA gun. The entire game was spent getting those resources. While Hammer has problems landing, they do land and move just fine on the ground.

 

 

 

In a sense they pulled a Lord of the Rings. Aragon (Hackett) leads a collection of solders into a battle with the forces of Mordor (Reapers) in a fight they can't possibly win against. The entire point of that is to distract them while Frodo (Shepard) and The Ring (Crucible) make it to Mt Doom (Citadel) were they can end Saron (Reapers) once and for all.

 

No because the ground force is pretty obvious and Harbinger lands in front of the beam. Sauron and his forces did not know Frodo was in Mordor or reaching Mt. Doom.

 

 

Reapers can land on the planet but they are required to keep the up right stance due to how their bodies are set up. Unless their feet have stairs in them some how people and troops would need something to be able to get into it for transportation. I just can't see Brutes using a shuttle. Though that does have a very funny image.

 

Maybe they do have them. There's no reason Brutes can't get on a shuttle. They are probably carried by Harvesters too. I agree that the Reaper forces standing around in a shuttle (or elevator) is a funny thought.

 

 

Joker thinking Shepard is on board yes. It would also explain his hesitation to leave when the Curcible is charging up to fire. He thought he was saving him then finds out that Shepard didn't get on the ship. Hackett mentioning that someone got into the beam and that it is Shepard would explain why when Hackett order the retreat Joker is one of the last ships that leaves. He is waiting for some sort of signal from Shepard to rush in and save him. Till he is literally forced to leave.

 

Joker is at the helm. He isn't forced to leave by anyone. He is ordered to, but since when has that mattered to Joker, unless it was Shepard? Then one of Shepard's crew will also push him to go rather than also wanting to stay.

[themikefest]

Joker is at the helm. He isn't forced to leave by anyone. He is ordered to, but since when has that mattered to Joker, unless it was Shepard? Then one of Shepard's crew will also push him to go rather than also wanting to stay.

Depending on the playthrough, no one will tell Joker its time to go. It shows Joker moving his elbow quickly behind him just like when someone is telling him to leave.

 

https://youtu.be/ob8EfDMxwtY?t=50s