2390 réponses à ce sujet

[Natureguy85]

It doesn't undermine the claim of inevitability the Catalyst claims. I'm not sure how much more simplistic I can go to try and explain this. Chaos Theory, Butterfly Effect, Divergent Timelines, Alternate Realities I don't know what else to call it to get people to understand what I am stating. I go back to the Danny Phantom quote:

 

Clockwork: [switching to adult form] The Observants look at time like they're watching a parade, one thing after another passing by.in sequence right in front of them. [he gestures down at the wrecked Nasty Burger]  I see the parade from above, all the twists and turns it might [switches to old form] or might not take. [he winks]

 

 

You have to look at and understand cause and effect. The Geth for 300 years kept themselves isolated by the simple set up of blowing up any ship that gets into their territory.  The only reason any of the Geth leave is because Sovereign convinces a group of them to join it by the simple set up of offering to make them into a Reaper like itself. This sets into motion a series of events that happen in game that lead to the events that happen in game.

 

How ever if Sovereign never existed then there would be no reason for the Geth to break their isolation. Meaning the only contact with organic life would have been Quarians during the Morning War.

 

The Quarians really don't have that much of an alteration. With or without Reaper actions they are still forced into the Flotilla. Treated as pariahs by every other race in the galaxy and forced to wear their environmental suits due to their immune system. And more importantly they still blame the Geth for every wrong fate has dealt them. Without the events of ME 1 and 2 Tali's father is never killed or at least Tali never manages to make it onto the Admiralty board. Leaving the Admiral Zaal' Koris the lone voice for peace with Geth.  It might have been within the same time frame as happens in the game or it might be 100 years in the future. At some point out of desperation they would attack the Geth. And without all the lovely bits of Heretics laying around for Tali to send back to the Fleet. They would be far behind what they were in game.

 

The Geth at that point only have 1 interaction with organic life. When the Quarians were trying to kill them. Here come the Quarians again trying to kill them yet again.  2 experiences with organic's and more specifically their creators and both time they are trying to wipe them from existence. Now the fight could go either way but the fact would be 1 entire species would be wiped out. And should the Geth be the victors. That would be 2 instances of unprovoked attacks in an attempt to kill them off.

 

What do you think the conclusion they would come to after that face?

 

Woah, woah, woah... Lois, this is not my batman glass. Are you telling me that characters and events are affected by the plot?

 

Congratulations, that's pretty much every story ever. That's the entire point of stories, especially character driven ones!

[gothpunkboy89]

Yea, thanks for replying to the first 1% of my post without context. I'll just do you the same "courtesy":

Yea but that wasn't in the story and the destroy endings already show that no reapers =/= synthetics wipe us out. Cheers!

 

 

Rest of your post was irrelevant. I only asked for your responds to those questions. If you chose to answer any more then that that is your prerogative.

 

I am asking these simple questions to establish a base line before launching into a more detailed discussion so I will repeat my last post to you.

 

 

So you agree that everything happens in game as a direct effect and indirect effect of the Reaper's actions in the galaxy. Without those interactions things would have gone differently. You also agree that AI technology would develop as well much like how our computers have. Getting smaller, more powerful and allowing better storage up to a point anyways. I don't think it would be ever possible to fit an entire AI in something the size of an I phone 6. Well not without severely reducing it's capabilities.

 

Now for the next set of questions.

 

1.Would the fact the Geth were created not as AI's but as networking VI's cause their development to be slowed by this fact? 

 

Using Legion as the base line which had ~ 1,182 Geth units to achieve the ability to operate alone and reason alone without resorting to more feral and aggressive actions that happens when standard mobile platforms which only contain ~100 units are isolated. Which means that 1,182 are the minimal needed to achieve the same level cognitive awareness as the rest of the the Normandy crew minus EDI from the equation.

 

2. What would you say is the general feelings of Quarians against the Geth:

 

A) Before the events of ME 1?

B)After the events of ME 2?

C) Did they not during a galactic wide invasion instigate their own war with the Geth?

 

3. What conclusion would you come to after a nation attempted to invade your country twice?

 

Both times not interested in conquest but in simply wiping your entire nationality from the face of the planet. The first time you fought them off killing nearly all of them off. But relenting at the last moment to let survivors escape because they were no longer a threat.  Then years later they attack again trying to wipe out your entire nation and every person in it. Both attacks completely unprovoked as after the initial war you choose to isolate your nation from others to prevent any antagonism from developing accidental or other wise.

 

I can not force you to reply. The Quarian Geth conflict is build on rather key bit of information that dictate their actions and responds. I am simply trying to build a baseline of information you agree on before continuing into more complex things. You read but you do not comprehend my posts so I am going another route. Simple basic questions that are in line with the game to see your responds to them.

[MrFob]

Haha, it seems, gothpunkboy89, that you are too smart for me. You have the uncanny brainpower to start responding to a post that I made (with no relation to you), you then try to steer the conversation into a different direction (but obviously the one I must have intended all along) and then you can decide which parts of the ensuing discussion are relevant unilaterally. Really, you must know me better than I know myself. That is fascinating.

 

Alright, to keep getting your invaluable and completely non-condescending input and maybe learn something about myself from it (and because I am thoroughly amused), I'll continue to play your game of 3 leading questions at a time.

 

Answer 1: I can't speculate on this. The geth are described multiple times throughout the trilogy in very different ways, some promoting to answer your question with "yes", others with "no". So any clear answer to this would be pure speculation or biased.

 

Answer 2:

A) I can;t speculate on this either, we don't really have a valid quarian perspective from before ME1.

B ) Divided, there seem to be people who see the quarians at fault for what happened and others that seem to see the geth at fault. Since we only see a very small sample size, the general attitude of the overall population cannot be accurately gauged.

C) No because there was no galactic invasion (we are still talking about the hypothetical no-reaper timeline since the things that are actually in the story are irrelevant, right?)

 

Answer 3: Since my nation exists on a spec of land that originally belonged to the hostile nation, and since my nation could just as well live basically anywhere else if we wanted, I'd personally feel rather ambivalent. Sounds like a case for the UN to sort out. Anyway, not a big issue since my nation seems to be so super strong that these attacks are easily fended off.

 

Next 3 questions please your honor. I hope I am doing this right. I did read your post but I am not sure if I did comprehend it properly, so my answers may be wrong. In that case, please let me know. I wouldn't want to prohibit you from building the right "baseline of information". You seem to definitely need one, now that you have discarded the actual ME story-line as a baseline.

[gothpunkboy89]

Haha, it seems, gothpunkboy89, that you are too smart for me. You have the uncanny brainpower to start responding to a post that I made (with no relation to you), you then try to steer the conversation into a different direction (but obviously the one I must have intended all along) and then you can decide which parts of the ensuing discussion are relevant unilaterally. Really, you must know me better than I know myself. That is fascinating.

 

Alright, to keep getting your invaluable and completely non-condescending input and maybe learn something about myself from it (and because I am thoroughly amused), I'll continue to play your game of 3 leading questions at a time.

 

Answer 1: I can't speculate on this. The geth are described multiple times throughout the trilogy in very different ways, some promoting to answer your question with "yes", others with "no". So any clear answer to this would be pure speculation or biased.

 

Answer 2:

A) I can;t speculate on this either, we don't really have a valid quarian perspective from before ME1.

B  ) Divided, there seem to be people who see the quarians at fault for what happened and others that seem to see the geth at fault. Since we only see a very small sample size, the general attitude of the overall population cannot be accurately gauged.

C) No because there was no galactic invasion (we are still talking about the hypothetical no-reaper timeline since the things that are actually in the story are irrelevant, right?)

 

Answer 3: Since my nation exists on a spec of land that originally belonged to the hostile nation, and since my nation could just as well live basically anywhere else if we wanted, I'd personally feel rather ambivalent. Sounds like a case for the UN to sort out. Anyway, not a big issue since my nation seems to be so super strong that these attacks are easily fended off.

 

Next 3 questions please your honor. I hope I am doing this right. I did read your post but I am not sure if I did comprehend it properly, so my answers may be wrong. In that case, please let me know. I wouldn't want to prohibit you from building the right "baseline of information". You seem to definitely need one, now that you have discarded the actual ME story-line as a baseline.

 

Condescending the irony.

 

1. What multiple descriptions are given for the Geth?

 

My view they have been pretty consistent in describing the Geth. VI programs created to do simple menial tasks for Qurarians. Who were networked them together to increase their CPU power to allow them to handle more and more complex  Much like the folding@home were computer can link together though the internet to share their processing power thus creating a singular computer capable of processing power that would normally require a multi million dollar super computer to achieve the same processing power.  At some point in time after various upgrades and improvements to the VI to create more efficient VI's capable of doing even more complicated tasks a technological singularity of sorts happened. The geth linked globally though a wireless network achieved consciousness. Their level of intelligence is hevily reliant on the number of Geth programed networked.
 

 

The geth possess a unique distributed intelligence. An individual has rudimentary animal instincts, but as their numbers and proximity increase, the apparent intelligence of each individual improves. In groups, they can reason, analyze situations, and use tactics as well as any organic race.

 

Direct quote from ME 1 Codex.  Mean while in ME 2 Legion makes it very clear that the platform is special holding 11x the standard amount of Geth programs. Which continues the trend started because the only reason I could see for adding so many Geth units to a single platform is specifically to ensure maximum intelligence while they are disconnected from the Geth Collective.  As well as Legion also making it clear in ME 3 that the destruction of the Geth at the incomplete Dyson Sphere actually caused their over all intelligence to fade. They paniced as the result accepting the Reaper's offer of aid to prevent their complete destruction since they were given no other choice.

 

 

25:11-26:11

 

This seems like fairly consistent writing.  Your proof of inconsistencies?

 

2.

A) We actually do have a fairly consistent view of what Quarians think about the Geth.Tali's father and back story and views of the Admiralty Board are things not effected by  Reaper intervention. The fact that as Tali tells it it seems like the Geth attacked without reason and without any sort of provocation. The Quarian PoV and by extension the rest of the galaxy's PoV is the Geth pulled a Skynet. Gaining sentience then attacking and killing the Quarians for no reason.

 

B ) Only one Admiral sees the Geth as sympathetic. The rest view them as a threat or as something that can be taken apart at will and reprogrammed back to servitude. If you take Legion with you on Tali's loyalty mission the reaction of those Quarians is best described with as shock and fear.

 

C) No we are talking about the actual events that happened in game. During a galactic wide invasion by giant synthetic space cuddle fish because they thought they had an opportunity to finally wipe out the Geth with the Ladar Jammer. Even though this is probably the worst time to ignite conflict they did so anyways because they thought they had a shot at wiping them out. This denotes rather strong hostilities from the Quarians. Which backs up A and B on their over all views of the Geth as being hostile.

 

3. You didn't actually answer the question.  I'm fairly certain that you are aware of the parallel I was trying to draw in that example. So your complete avoidance of the question puzzles me.

 

I think EDI stated it best

 

59:50

 

The Geth are ostracized by all organic races. They had no other choice, except die.

 

The funny thing is the Geth are in a no win situation with Organics. The Quarians want to see them wiped out. All other organic races fear them and would offer no support to help them. If the Geth did wipe out the Quarians without the Reaper threat to excuse it the rest of the organic races of the galaxy would see that as confirmation of their threat.

[MrFob]

Aaaahhh, and there are the right answers as expected. I am sorry I didn't comprehend enough to provide them in the first place.

 

1) Inconsistency of the geth: In ME1, Tali specifically states that they cannot share data, just processing power. Also, in ME1, they are described as being confined to a platform (which would make sense given the description of AIs in the codex and the need for specialized hardware that must work in concert with the software to create the AI). In ME2, they are described as sharing data (perspectives, they can also up- and download specifics like audio data) and they can upload and download from servers to mobile platforms and vice versa. This is very different from the geth in ME1. But in ME2, they still don't have a problem with what they are, they don't value their state of being as less than individualism (if anything, Legion at least seems to take pride in what they are). In ME3, they do want to become individuals very badly and if you side with the geth or make piece, they do.

So with all these different facts floating around, you want me to give an estimate of how their nature impacts on the speed of their development? Sorry, but as I said, I can't do that with any kind of intellectual sincerity. There are simply too many variables and unknowns to make a prediction that is not distorted by cognitive bias. That is precisely why I want to stick to what's actually in the game.

 

2A) Tali states outright that the quarians attacked preemptively, even in ME1. You can even take her to task for it. She doesn't agree and her father wouldn't agree but that's 2 quarians. We have no idea what the others think or thought. I would have to assume that Zaal'Koris and his agenda didn't just pop into existence in 2185, so my guess is that the answers for 2A and 2B are fairly similar.

B ) That one admiral seems to have quite some cloud among the quarians. In ME3, it turns out that the majority of the quarian people seem to follow him much more readily than any other. Another admiral doesn't want to go to war either. The one battle hardened soldier we meet is skeptical as well, he just doesn't want to speak out because he has low rank and wasn't asked. When Tali is an admiral in ME3, she was also against attacking the geth, hoping for a chance for peace. Who knows what the rest of the quarians think. I didn't see a poll.

C) Oh, if we are talking about the game again, maybe you want to go back and read the rest of my previous posts.

 

3. I did answer the question as it was posed directly and sincerely. I just didn't answer what you wanted to hear.

But in order to save us both some time, I'll try and cut through your attempted innuendos and tell you this: In my opinion, the geth are either strong enough, not to have to worry about the attacks of others, in which case they would ignore organics that don't attack (according to Legion and all observed actions by the geth throughout the trilogy) or they would be weak enough not to be a serious galactic threat in the first place (like in ME3 before the reaper upgrades) and get wiped out. Either way, they don't fit into the catalyst's picture, reapers or no reapers.

By the way, we know what conclusion the geth come to after they have been attacked twice. It's in the game (and it really has very little to do with the reapers at all). As soon as it is clear they don't have to defend themselves against the quarians any longer, they want to cooperate in peace, despite the fact that they now have the upgrades and therefore the upper hand.

 

 

Oh and btw:

Condescending the irony.

You were condescending as hell. I was just sarcastic in the face of an insulting post. I did answer all your points seriously though (a courtesy you don't show when it doesn't suit your agenda), even if I framed it in a less than serious manner (what can I say, even when talked down to, I'm a funny guy ).

[Natureguy85]

Okey Dokey. I'll touch on a few things in regards to what I've learned are important for good story telling. Like I said, you can make exceptions for pretty much anything, but you have to really know what you're doing and it can be a risk.

 

Since we mentioned it, I'll start with "Show, don't tell." This has to do with detail and allowing the audience to "see" something for themselves rather than just take your word for it. Obviously you can truly show something in a visual medium, but I put "see" in quotes because you can do this with just words. For example, I could tell you "the woman is old." To "show" you the woman is old, I might say:

 

The woman shuffled more than walked, hunched over and relying heavily on her silver cane. Her thin, white hair was done up in a bun and her skin was pale.

 

With the description, you probably know this woman is old without being told. Ironically, somebody like Gothpunkboy complains that everyone else "needs everything explained to them," but would prefer "the woman is old" to that description.

 

 

Another big thing is internal consistency. Tolkien said this was critical for immersion. When setting up a fictional world, you have to let the audience know what the rules are, particularly where things are different from the real world. During this set up, and later, you can establish almost anything. Accepting things at this point, no matter how fantastic, is the "price of entry" for the story. So we may know Bioshock's Rapture to be impossible, particularly at the time period, but we accept it so we can have the story and game. When rules are established however, they need to be followed and any breaks from those must be explained. It doesn't have to be complicated, but must be addressed. The most glaring point at which Mass Effect violates this is with the destruction of the Relays. Arrival established that destroying a Relay creates a solar system destroying explosion. This happens even if you didn't play it with that Shepard. So when the Catalyst says the Crucible will destroy the Relays, that's what we have to think will happen. Now people will make excuses for how this was different and point to the animation, but not only is that not good enough because the story needed to address the issue, but it's an argument after the fact because that was shown after the decision was made. Timing of introducing new elements ties into this as well. This is why introducing the transport beam in Priority Earth is weird.

 

Two more things are pretty ending specific. The ending needs to resound and affirm the themes of the story, if there are any. Usually, the events of the story point to something or there is a message behind them. The ending needs to be in keeping with those themes. I describe one of, if not the primary themes of Mass Effect as "strength through diversity."  Differences were ok if not actually good. This is why I don't really care for making the Geth individuals instead of keeping them what they were. This is why I hate Synthesis, along with it's violation of "self-determination", which I see as the other key theme.

 

Finally, most experts would say the ending must be "inevitable," which is interesting given our focus on that word in regard to Mass Effect 3. They say the ending must be the only way that story could have ended. I don't really agree with that being so absolute, but I agree with the basic idea that the events of the story must point to the ending, even if you can only see that from the end looking backwards.

This is the problem with the Catalyst. It shows up at the end telling you something that has not been shown by the events of the story. The best example of Synthetics killing Organics is the Reapers themselves, but we're being told they were made to stop it. Yet we can't throw this in the Catalyst's face. We're ultimately forced to play its game and chose from its options.

[Natureguy85]

It's pretty clear from Tali's dialogue in ME1 that One platform = One Geth. Legion retcons this but it was actually cool at I can roll with it as Tali describing it poorly or even understanding it poorly given how long it's been since the Quarians were on Rannoch. I do wish they'd brought attention to it though.

 

Do we know that it was the "true geth" destroying ships in the Veil and not Saren's Geth Heretics? Also, doesn't Legion say that any hostile contacts with Organics were from Organics attacking them?

[Reorte]

It's pretty clear from Tali's dialogue in ME1 that One platform = One Geth. Legion retcons this but it was actually cool at I can roll with it as Tali describing it poorly or even understanding it poorly given how long it's been since the Quarians were on Rannoch. I do wish they'd brought attention to it though.

They were built like that but seeing as how it was the networking between them that changed them to be what they are moving away from that doesn't seem an unreasonable consequence.

[Natureguy85]

They were built like that but seeing as how it was the networking between them that changed them to be what they are moving away from that doesn't seem an unreasonable consequence.

 

Right, which is why I accept the retcon. Like these are more advanced platforms or something.

[gothpunkboy89]

@ Mr Fob

 

1. You seem to miss the context of what Tali states involving their inability to share data.

 

6:02

 

Shepard compares them to a group mind which Tali denies stating that they would not be able to handle that much simultaneous input to function as a group mind. The context the statement is made in is that the Geth are not a singular entity split into multiple bodies. The Geth are incapable of sharing sensory data from all other Geth at the same time.  This means they are incapable of seeing and hearing the same thing as other Geths at the same time. The ability to upload and download  visual or audio data is not the same as this.  Unless you consider using a phone to record a video and show it to someone later the exact same thing as them being there seeing and feeling everything you did at the exact same moment.  Which I know for a fact isn't what happens because a live concert album of a band doesn't share the exact same sensory input as me actually being there in the crowd for the concert.

 

Were in ME1 are they described as 1 geth = 1 body? The only place I can see that comes close to that is the Codex in ME 1. But the Codex's are written from an in game perspective. In fact the Codex for the Citadel in ME 1 directly claims it was build by the Protheans and has no hint of Reapers or Relay information. Which in that exact same game we learn who really build the Citadel.  The citizens of the galaxy not realizing the truth due to the...less then friendly nature of the Geth would come to this conclusion because for all other races 1 body = 1 being.  One Krogan isn't made up of a dozen little Krogans merged together. The fact that this issue is one of the first things Legion addresses when activated shows this is a misunderstanding of how they actually work.

 

Were does it state in ME3 that the Geth want to become individuals? Gaining a sense of individuality is a side effect of the Reaper Code Upgrade but only because it allowed each unit to not be directly tied to other units to maintain intelligence. If you pre upgrade  had 100 Geth networked together then removed 99 Geth the remaining 1 would suffer a drastic loss in intelligence. Post upgrade 100 Geth networked together and you removed 99 that single Geth would still maintain it's intelligence level. The sense of individuality is likely due to that effect they are no longer 100% depended on each other to maintain an intelligence above basic. Any individuality they develop is a side effect only not a direct goal to achieve.  Unless you got some proof to back up that claim that they were actively seeking individuality. 

 

Their growth isn't as difficult as you make it out to be. Their intelligence is heavily reliant on how many other Geth are networked together. That has rather important factors like server and data base space. Geth on out posts at the edge of Geth space would have less space and less Geth meaning less intelligence compared to Geth on instillation at the heart of Geth space were there would be larger numbers of programs with larger amount of space. Geth due to this weakness of being 100% reliant on the number of other Geth around it would result in  wildly varied rates of intelligence and growth across their race. When compared to true AI beings who are capable of standing alone while maintaining intelligence. Or to put it another way 3 EDI's working together would be far more intelligent then 3 Geth working together.

 

So again not really seeing the contradictions of their descriptions between games.

 

2. A) You ignore the multiple times that Tali describes life on the Flotilla. I'd post the videos but that would have about 5 videos to cover all conversations in ME 1 alone. But they include repairing make shift fuel lines, living on ships over 300 year old requiring constant maintenance, living in highly crowded ships that the Normandy looks empty to her in comparison, heavily control on population numbers, and almost fear of silence because of what it would mean as well as creating a ritual for young Quarians to leave the fleet to find something of use to bring back to it.

 

2:32

 

She out right states the Quarians greatest dream is to return to their home world and drive out the Geth.

 

Admiral Zaal'Koris is the leader of the Civilian Fleet. How odd must it be that Civilians might not agree or like a war that pits them against an enemy against their wishes (remember Quarians are still under Martial Law) and after an initial easy victory the tides turn and they start getting slaughtered by the Geth. Since they are civillians and not military their support being behind someone who doesn't want a war is pretty understandable. Only Koris and Tali if the right choices are made in ME 2 are against the war. The other Admirals and Tali again depending on choices are for the war.

 

Kal'Reegar is skeptical about the war because any conflict against the Geth would inevitably require ground combat. Which would be bad for Quarians. The risk of death by infection would be extremely high during a front line attack. Seriously in a ground combat I could kill a Quarian with a pocket knife without actually causing physical harm to their bodies. Just cut the suit and let the infection set in. It tooke Reegar a week to recover form the infection from the minor injurty he recived on Hastrom.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYTfg1kYtxw

23:02

 

C) I don't need to reread your post. I point out a fact in game that the Quarians instigated a War with the Geth during the early days of the Reaper invasion because they figured they had the edge they needed to finally defeat them. The timing and choice of actions show rather clearly there is a lot of hostility if not desperation for the Geth.

 

3) You still don't answer the question though. 2 unprovoked attacks by organics, their creators no less. Their first conflict was for the very right to survive. They then choose to isolate themselves enforcing the isolation with brute force of killing any non Geth who enters. Attacked again by the Quarians in an attempt to kill them off yet again.  It would be obvious isolation isn't solving anything.

 

So I will simply ask this simple question. What would be the logical choice for the Geth to make during and after  as second war with the Quarians for their very right to exist?

[Natureguy85]

Were in ME1 are they described as 1 geth = 1 body? The only place I can see that comes close to that is the Codex in ME 1. But the Codex's are written from an in game perspective. In fact the Codex for the Citadel in ME 1 directly claims it was build by the Protheans and has no hint of Reapers or Relay information. Which in that exact same game we learn who really build the Citadel.  The citizens of the galaxy not realizing the truth due to the...less then friendly nature of the Geth would come to this conclusion because for all other races 1 body = 1 being.  One Krogan isn't made up of a dozen little Krogans merged together. The fact that this issue is one of the first things Legion addresses when activated shows this is a misunderstanding of how they actually work.

 

It's implied from the language used. Most obviously, she uses the phrase "a Geth." Tali uses phrases like "each Geth maintains individual awareness and identity", "building Geth," and "original or independent thought." She also refers to them gathering in groups rather than filling a body. She talks about them as units, not programs in a shell.

 

Yet Legion is adamant that "There is no individual; we are Geth."

 

 

Admiral Zaal'Koris is the leader of the Civilian Fleet. How odd must it be that Civilians might not agree or like a war that pits them against an enemy against their wishes (remember Quarians are still under Martial Law) and after an initial easy victory the tides turn and they start getting slaughtered by the Geth. Since they are civillians and not military their support being behind someone who doesn't want a war is pretty understandable. Only Koris and Tali if the right choices are made in ME 2 are against the war. The other Admirals and Tali again depending on choices are for the war.

 

Kal'Reegar is skeptical about the war because any conflict against the Geth would inevitably require ground combat. Which would be bad for Quarians. The risk of death by infection would be extremely high during a front line attack. Seriously in a ground combat I could kill a Quarian with a pocket knife without actually causing physical harm to their bodies. Just cut the suit and let the infection set in. It tooke Reegar a week to recover form the infection from the minor injurty he recived on Hastrom.

 

Tali can support the war when you meet her in ME3? I was not aware of this. What are those circumstances to get that?

 

Reegar also says that he won't die in battle from that suit rupture. The species might lose a war of attrition, but your pocket knife example isn't going to win you a battle.

[themikefest]

Tali can support the war when you meet her in ME3? I was not aware of this. What are those circumstances to get that?

Neither was I. I don't recall her ever saying she supports the war.

 

Here's her saying she doesn't support if exiled and no Legion

Here's her saying she doesn't support as an Admiral and Legion in game

[Natureguy85]

It's not at all irrelevant. There's no indication that the unit that asked understood the concept of the soul. It's more likely that it was parroting what it heard in conversation.

 

Not to restart the argument, but on this particular point, the Geth that asked about the soul directly before the Morning War says the word appears numerous times in a Quarian text. So it clearly read the word but probably had at least contextual understanding of it. This is from an audio Legion will play for you in ME2.

 

I found it while I was looking for the next bit, and thought it interesting.

 

Were does it state in ME3 that the Geth want to become individuals? Gaining a sense of individuality is a side effect of the Reaper Code Upgrade but only because it allowed each unit to not be directly tied to other units to maintain intelligence. If you pre upgrade  had 100 Geth networked together then removed 99 Geth the remaining 1 would suffer a drastic loss in intelligence. Post upgrade 100 Geth networked together and you removed 99 that single Geth would still maintain it's intelligence level. The sense of individuality is likely due to that effect they are no longer 100% depended on each other to maintain an intelligence above basic. Any individuality they develop is a side effect only not a direct goal to achieve.  Unless you got some proof to back up that claim that they were actively seeking individuality.

 

I don't know about the Geth as a whole, but Legion wants it. In the conversation with Shala'Raan before the base mission, they discuss an individual upgraded Geth program as a fully evolved AI. In the Legion death scene though, it's as if he is one individual, using the word "I" and being referred to as "a person" by EDI. It's as if all his programs were pulled into one being, so it's not clear what exactly happens.

 

In that scene with the representations of the Geth mind, what stands out to me is how the non-upgraded signals have very angular lines, like a circuit board. The upgraded one, however, is clearly made to look like a neuron bundle.

[Monica21]

Not to restart the argument, but on this particular point, the Geth that asked about the soul directly before the Morning War says the word appears numerous times in a Quarian text. So it clearly read the word but probably had at least contextual understanding of it. This is from an audio Legion will play for you in ME2.
 
I found it while I was looking for the next bit, and thought it interesting.

I actually just played through that part and heard it too. I think I'd only heard it one time before, which is why I'd forgotten it. The Quarian responded with something like, "You're a machine. Machines don't have souls." And then the following conversation between Legion and Shepard is interesting:

S: Is that the first time a Geth asked if it had a soul?
L: No. It was the first time a Quarian became frightened by it.

Or something like that. And I don't know what to make of that yet, except that the Quarian response was the trigger for the Geth that the answer wasn't the entirety of what was going on.

[angol fear]

Okey Dokey. I'll touch on a few things in regards to what I've learned are important for good story telling. Like I said, you can make exceptions for pretty much anything, but you have to really know what you're doing and it can be a risk.

 

Since we mentioned it, I'll start with "Show, don't tell." This has to do with detail and allowing the audience to "see" something for themselves rather than just take your word for it. Obviously you can truly show something in a visual medium, but I put "see" in quotes because you can do this with just words. For example, I could tell you "the woman is old." To "show" you the woman is old, I might say:

 

The woman shuffled more than walked, hunched over and relying heavily on her silver cane. Her thin, white hair was done up in a bun and her skin was pale.

 

With the description, you probably know this woman is old without being told. Ironically, somebody like Gothpunkboy complains that everyone else "needs everything explained to them," but would prefer "the woman is old" to that description.

 

OK. Video game, just like cinema, is a visual medium, we agree. But the way you understand the "show, don't tell" thing... I totally disagree. First that "rule" is actually a rule for those who want to start in writing. Actually, it's a "rule" given to beginners in order to make them realize that they use a visual medium and it's better to use the visual aspect of the medium instead of being too explicit with words, while we understand everything we see. Now, where you are wrong is that it's not a rule, it's just an advice to give good habits to the one who starts writing. Too many explicit informations is what can be called "bad writing".

The problem is when you consider it this way you think that images and words are equal. If you say show don't tell, it means that they have the same "value". Image = word. That's actually totally wrong. In an image you have a lot of information in a few moment. With words, it takes more time to give the informations. In the image, the spectator understands the informations in the order he sees, while with words the writer gives the informations in the order he wants. Anyway, they are two different things.

Here you have compared a description with words to a sentence. Here you didn't do the "show, don't tell" you want in a visual medium. But if I keep your example, those two ways are very different. You consider that there is an information implicit in the first example (old) that turned to be explicit in your second example. I agree but you forget something important : in the second example, while the explicit information is that she is old, the implicit information (if the context is the same) the is way she walks, her hair etc...). With the description it will reveal more about the one who describes. In the second it will use more the reader's knowledge, his a priori etc... It means that those two are valid.

Actually it depends on the situation and the purpose. Applying blindly "show, don't tell" doesn't work and isn't what any real writer do.

[Natureguy85]

OK. Video game, just like cinema, is a visual medium, we agree. But the way you understand the "show, don't tell" thing... I totally disagree. First that "rule" is actually a rule for those who want to start in writing. Actually, it's a "rule" given to beginners in order to make them realize that they use a visual medium and it's better to use the visual aspect of the medium instead of being too explicit with words, while we understand everything we see. Now, where you are wrong is that it's not a rule, it's just an advice to give good habits to the one who starts writing. Too many explicit informations is what can be called "bad writing".

The problem is when you consider it this way you think that images and words are equal. If you say show don't tell, it means that they have the same "value". Image = word. That's actually totally wrong. In an image you have a lot of information in a few moment. With words, it takes more time to give the informations. In the image, the spectator understands the informations in the order he sees, while with words the writer gives the informations in the order he wants. Anyway, they are two different things.

Here you have compared a description with words to a sentence. Here you didn't do the "show, don't tell" you want in a visual medium. But if I keep your example, those two ways are very different. You consider that there is an information implicit in the first example (old) that turned to be explicit in your second example. I agree but you forget something important : in the second example, while the explicit information is that she is old, the implicit information (if the context is the same) the is way she walks, her hair etc...). With the description it will reveal more about the one who describes. In the second it will use more the reader's knowledge, his a priori etc... It means that those two are valid.

Actually it depends on the situation and the purpose. Applying blindly "show, don't tell" doesn't work and isn't what any real writer do.

 

No, I say "show, don't tell" because the image is a lot more valuable.  Now there will be times where it makes sense to simply "tell" for expediency or for minor details., but if a character is going to make plot relevant claims, those claims need to either be validated by the plot or they need to be rejected. ME3 does neither. Instead it makes claims that were not set up by the plot and the protagonist does not give a strong argument against them or take control of the situation from the antagonist.

[Abelas Forever!]

3) You still don't answer the question though. 2 unprovoked attacks by organics, their creators no less. Their first conflict was for the very right to survive. They then choose to isolate themselves enforcing the isolation with brute force of killing any non Geth who enters. Attacked again by the Quarians in an attempt to kill them off yet again.  It would be obvious isolation isn't solving anything.

 

So I will simply ask this simple question. What would be the logical choice for the Geth to make during and after  as second war with the Quarians for their very right to exist?

I think Geth are still not sure is it wise to wipe out every Quarian. They even might have come to a conclusion that Quarians should be preserved because when a Quarian dies she/he is gone for good but if a Geth dies they can almost always bring it back by using a backup like when Legion dies in ME2. The logical choice could be that Geth will decide to make their defences stronger and make more backups or even backups from backups. Logically thinking it's not wise to wipe out every single member of Quarian because it would make other organics more hostile towards them if they would have destroyed entire species.

[Natureguy85]

I think Geth are still not sure is it wise to wipe out every Quarian. They even might have come to a conclusion that Quarians should be preserved because when a Quarian dies she/he is gone for good but if a Geth dies they can almost always bring it back by using a backup like when Legion dies in ME2. The logical choice could be that Geth will decide to make their defences stronger and make more backups or even backups from backups. Logically thinking it's not wise to wipe out every single member of Quarian because it would make other organics more hostile towards them if they would have destroyed entire species.

 

They don't bring Legion back if he dies in ME2. In fact, that line from the Geth AI is probably the best case for considering them to be alive.

[Abelas Forever!]

They don't bring Legion back if he dies in ME2. In fact, that line from the Geth AI is probably the best case for considering them to be alive.

But the Legion you see in ME3 is his backup version before he met Shepard if he died in ME2. Isn't it not?

[BloodyMares]

But the Legion you see in ME3 is his backup version before he met Shepard if he died in ME2. Isn't it not?

Interesting. It refers to itself as a 'reconstruction of a unique intelligence network' (Legion?). Also it says "We are not Legion" because it has no memory of being called Legion... What doesn't make sense is that it doesn't have memories of Eden Prime. Why didn't Geth back up their software more frequently? It would be a great idea that the Geth VI is indeed a pre-ME1 backup of Legion but IMO Bioware did a poor job of explaining that or establishing it as a different network.

[Reorte]

IIRC Legion's ME2 death line is something like "transmitting backup - carrier not found", dead. Which suggests that Legion could transmit something (if he wasn't hundreds of lightyears away from anything to transmit to) as a backup.

[themikefest]

Interesting. It refers to itself as a 'reconstruction of a unique intelligence network' (Legion?). Also it says "We are not Legion" because it has no memory of being called Legion... What doesn't make sense is that it doesn't have memories of Eden Prime. Why didn't Geth back up their software more frequently? It would be a great idea that the Geth VI is indeed a pre-ME1 backup of Legion but IMO Bioware did a poor job of explaining that or establishing it as a different network.

 Shepard and geth vi talk about Saren on the dreadnought. Eden Prime was not mentioned.

 

Here's the post

[BloodyMares]

 Shepard and geth vi talk about Saren on the dreadnought. Eden Prime was not mentioned.

 

Here's the post

My bad. I meant after the events of Eden Prime (Sovereign's attack on the Citadel, Shepard's death, search for its body etc.

[gothpunkboy89]

Neither was I. I don't recall her ever saying she supports the war.

 

Here's her saying she doesn't support if exiled and no Legion

Here's her saying she doesn't support as an Admiral and Legion in game

 

And yet the only reason she is against the war is because she doesn't think they are strong enough. And again is a willing participant in the war.  If exiled and  no Legion. Doing everything they ask her to do. Her only hesitation is she doesn't think they can pull it off.

 

As admiral with Legion she is firmly against it and does every thing she can to try and stop the war and bring peace between the two. Every action against her will she is forced into due to lack of support on the Admiralty Board.  Is hesitant because she thinks they shouldn't do it. Not if they could or not.

 

So yea Tali if exiled with no Legion supports the war. If the Quarians were stronger she wouldn't have any qualms about taking them on. Because that clip you shared doesn't show Tali questioning the morality of the war. Only the logistics. Admiral Tali with Legion questions both logistic and morality of the war.

[gothpunkboy89]

I think Geth are still not sure is it wise to wipe out every Quarian. They even might have come to a conclusion that Quarians should be preserved because when a Quarian dies she/he is gone for good but if a Geth dies they can almost always bring it back by using a backup like when Legion dies in ME2. The logical choice could be that Geth will decide to make their defences stronger and make more backups or even backups from backups. Logically thinking it's not wise to wipe out every single member of Quarian because it would make other organics more hostile towards them if they would have destroyed entire species.

 

The hypothetical situtaion this is set in is no Reaper's exist in this universe. The Quarians attempted their second War with the Geth and were defeated. 

 

Geth can archive data like memories the same way you would archive memories though photos, videos and journals. They can not back up entire Geth how ever. Legion VI is more equivlent to finding another person who looks similar to you and had them read diaries you left behind to learn the basics about you. It is never stated that I'm aware of anyways that Geth are capable of reproduction.

 

If they are then your statement would hold true and valid. If the Geth are not capable of reproducing themselves then with each Geth lost they slowly become less and less intelligent. In a conflict with organics this would be a very slow death for them. Like getting a paper cut and slowly bleeding to death because you have no way to clot the cut.