1106 réponses à ce sujet

[Natureguy85]

I seriously wonder why they're even calling it "Mass Effect" rather than simply "Andromeda"

 

That's easy. It's called Brand ID and Brand Power. People loved Mass Effect and want more. And there are plenty of people who will line up and preorder a game that says Mass Effect on it, no matter how little that game resembles the prior ones. They won't even look at it. Title Drop = preorder.

 

Personally, I very much want an XCOM style Mass Effect game.

 

 

Biotics a couple guns, the armor and mako?

As much as I don't really care about the setting shift it is kind of the relays that made it Mass Effect. That was the hook for that sci fi FTL.

 

The Relays, along with biotics, were certainly the most obvious use of the Mass Effect for which the series is named. However, what really made Mass Effect was the characters and species that populated the Milky Way galaxy, their histories, and the way those histories intertwined. While some of that can be carried forward into Andromeda, a lot will be left behind. I was extremely disappointed that the trip into the Krogan ruins went nowhere and now we can't have any of that. Unless we get some progenitor story out of Andromeda, I guess.

 

 

Good point.

I'll freely admit I always assumed there would be another mass effect. But initial statements after ME3 implied otherwise. Though statements of an individual is not proof any any plan for the corporation. It very well may have been a simple we planned mass effect 3 as if it would be the last as it could end up being the last game. Not a we won't have a mass effect 4 statement. But yeah we don't have much of a history to build on and what we have does not show them abandoning successful IPs they control or own.

 

Really? I heard about a "next game" fairly soon after, but they were adamant that it wouldn't be called "Mass Effect 4" because it wouldn't carry forward with Shepard.

 

 

While it's just telekinesis and well kind of always has been the gameplay of how it works is unique in my experience.

 

What did you think of the change from Mass Effect to Mass Effect 2? I didn't really like that you now had to aim an energy ball, especially when you are going to limit biotics with the defense types.

[Ahglock]

What did you think of the change from Mass Effect to Mass Effect 2? I didn't really like that you now had to aim an energy ball, especially when you are going to limit biotics with the defense types.

Loved it. The big selling points for me was the short universal cooldown and the arcing control of the biotic sphere. Being able to manipulate the angles you lifted and threw people was awesome. I also loved the biotic combinations in ME2. I think they stepped back by making it all just an explosion. But warp= explosion with throw getting magnified if the targets mass was reduced was awesome.

[Natureguy85]

Well - they were essentially machines until they gained self-awareness. Once they did gain self-awareness, did they see themselves as slaves to the quarians, or accept quarian society as their government?
 

 

For purposes of this discussion, it doesn't really matter what the Geth thought. The Quarians saw themselves as over the Geth. Here in the USA, our rebellion against the British began with us telling them that we no longer accepted their government. What made it a rebellion was that the British saw the Colonies as still under them.

 

 

While it might be there, I don't remember that. What I remember is geth asking if they'd done something wrong when told to shutdown. It might sound like nit-picking, but I think the difference is important. I'm not expected to please my local government authorities (or random strangers) in my day to day activities and choices, but I'd expect to be apprehended if I actually broke the law.

 

It says it is capable of serving, it asks if it failed in any way, it offers to reprogram if it did, says it is ready to serve, and asks what it did wrong. As a side point, I wonder if they didn't have a Consensus to upload to yet, as there would otherwise be no problem in shutting down a mere mobile platform.

 

As to your analogy, it fails because you are a person, specifically a citizen, and acknowledged as such by that government. No matter your opinion of the former issue, the latter can not be said of the Geth.

 

 

The quarians had very mixed opinions about that - not only in the memory chunks we were shown, but even 300 hundred years later. The Admiralty Board is far from unanimous in how they want to deal with the geth.

 

While some thought otherwise, the apparent majority and certainly the government had the view I mentioned. As for the Admiralty board, that's in the present. We're discussing the past.

 

 

 
It depends, I guess, on whether you see suicide on capture orders as having any sort of legal or moral authority. I'd say they have neither. I think one could also argue that once captured, the individual is no longer serving as a Cerberus employee and thus any conditions surrounding that employment become irrelevant.

 

How could you argue that? They could certainly say "I quit" but that's not how POW works. I won't argue on moral authority but as for "legal" authority, in the Cerberus example you have someone who signed up and subjugated themselves to Cerberus' authority. It's really no different that any other order, or at least one that leads to mortal danger. As for the Geth again, the Quarians viewed them as tools. I'm not sure why you can't understand this point. It would be like your computer refusing to shut down.

 

 

 
Don't you suppose that self-awareness along with the ability to think for one's self would override whatever logic they'd had that caused them to prioritize input instructions from other sources? Legion and the self-sacrificing unit acted of their own volition.

But just for kicks, let's look at some definitions of rebel:

-- to reject, resist, or rise in arms against one's government or ruler.

-- to resist or rise against some authority, control, or tradition.

... which brings up another question.

If an otherwise law-abiding citizen chooses to break a specific law or not immediately comply with a specific instruction, is that an act of rebellion?

 

Now you're trying to have it both ways. Are they refusing to shut down by choice or because they have an overriding self-preservation mechanism? Also, the Geth in the memory did not have the Reaper upgrades and individuality that Legion does.

 

As to your question, the answer is "yes", using the second definition provided. It is localized to that specific issue, but you could call it that. However, we would more commonly use the word meaning an all out rejection of the entire system.

[Pasquale1234]

For purposes of this discussion, it doesn't really matter what the Geth thought.

It does when you take the perspective of an outside observer. In order for something to be an act of rebellion, authority must be mutually recognized. I'll remind you of my spam example.
 

It says it is capable of serving, it asks if it failed in any way, it offers to reprogram if it did, says it is ready to serve, and asks what it did wrong.

Do you have a source for that?

Also, I'd like to point out that it's entirely possible to be cooperative and willing to serve someone else, even if they have no authority over you.
 

As to your analogy, it fails because you are a person, specifically a citizen, and acknowledged as such by that government. No matter your opinion of the former issue, the latter can not be said of the Geth.

How the geth viewed themselves at that point is unclear. For all we know, they may have viewed themselves as citizens - or at the very least, sentient, self-aware beings. The quarians recognized that, too. According to Tali in ME1, the decision to shut them down was made to try to prevent them rebelling.
 

While some thought otherwise, the apparent majority and certainly the government had the view I mentioned. As for the Admiralty board, that's in the present. We're discussing the past.

Well, someone somewhere in government made the decision and issued the order. We are shown quarians rebelling against their own recognized government.
 

I won't argue on moral authority but as for "legal" authority, in the Cerberus example you have someone who signed up and subjugated themselves to Cerberus' authority. It's really no different that any other order, or at least one that leads to mortal danger.

Apparently, you believe that suicide on capture orders are legal conditions of employment. Whether that is true in MEU, we don't really know.
 

As for the Geth again, the Quarians viewed them as tools. I'm not sure why you can't understand this point. It would be like your computer refusing to shut down.

Not all quarians.

The point you don't seem to be getting is that authority (governance) needs to be mutually recognized. If geth don't recognize the quarian telling them to shutdown as someone with the authority to do so, then their not shutting down is not rebellion. Again with the spam example.
 

Now you're trying to have it both ways. Are they refusing to shut down by choice or because they have an overriding self-preservation mechanism?

Does it matter? It takes a pretty strong desire to die to willfully commit suicide.
 

Also, the Geth in the memory did not have the Reaper upgrades and individuality that Legion does.

In ME1, Tali tells us that each geth has its own individual awareness and identity. I'm not sure why you think that Legion (or its substitute or the other geth that speaks to you post Legion-icide) would be any more individual than the others.

BTW, there's a video of that conversation here: https://youtu.be/8rATWO6V9PY?t=6m

[Natureguy85]

It does when you take the perspective of an outside observer. In order for something to be an act of rebellion, authority must be mutually recognized. I'll remind you of my spam example.

 

Your spam example is irrelevant. The sender isn't claiming any power over you. My USA Revolution example is more appropriate. You could perhaps argue that the authority must have been mutually recognized at one point. This is true for both the Colonies and the Geth.

 

 

 

Do you have a source for that?

Also, I'd like to point out that it's entirely possible to be cooperative and willing to serve someone else, even if they have no authority over you.

 

The source is Mass Effect 3.

 

In that case you are willingly subjecting yourself to an authority. You're doing this to a point when you get a job, for example. This is also central to the idea of "consent of the governed" or a "social compact."

 

 

 

How the geth viewed themselves at that point is unclear. For all we know, they may have viewed themselves as citizens - or at the very least, sentient, self-aware beings. The quarians recognized that, too. According to Tali in ME1, the decision to shut them down was made to try to prevent them rebelling. 

 

How the Geth viewed themselves is irrelevant to the point. I was talking about how the government viewed them.

 

 

Apparently, you believe that suicide on capture orders are legal conditions of employment. Whether that is true in MEU, we don't really know.

 

There is a reason I put "legal" in quotation marks. We're talking about a terrorist organization. They aren't really "employees."

 

Not all quarians.

The point you don't seem to be getting is that authority (governance) needs to be mutually recognized. If geth don't recognize the quarian telling them to shutdown as someone with the authority to do so, then their not shutting down is not rebellion. Again with the spam example. 

 

True, but the Quarian society as a whole.

 

You're simply wrong. A willing citizen can rebel, as in the American Revolution, or slaves, who are subjugated by force, can rebel. Your spam example doesn't fit. The sender doesn't suppose any authority over you.

 

Does it matter? It takes a pretty strong desire to die to willfully commit suicide.

 

Yes it matters. First your excuse was that they were unable to comply because of programming, then you switched to them having free will. The question of will is the whole point.

In ME1, Tali tells us that each geth has its own individual awareness and identity. I'm not sure why you think that Legion (or its substitute or the other geth that speaks to you post Legion-icide) would be any more individual than the others.

BTW, there's a video of that conversation here: https://youtu.be/8rATWO6V9PY?t=6m

 

There is both an in-game and meta answer to this. The in-game one first.

 

Tali is speaking from Oral Tradition and has no experience to speak to on this issue. I'll go with what Legion, the actual Geth, says. "There is no individual. We are Geth."

 

In the meta, I really think this was a retcon. The way Tali talks in ME1, each platform is one geth. It's not until Legion in ME2 that we get the idea that a platform has a hundred or so programs, each of which is Geth.

[Pasquale1234]

Your spam example is irrelevant. The sender isn't claiming any power over you. My USA Revolution example is more appropriate. You could perhaps argue that the authority must have been mutually recognized at one point. This is true for both the Colonies and the Geth.

The spam example is entirely relevant. The sender does claim to have the authority to command me to click on the link.
 

The source is Mass Effect 3.
 
In that case you are willingly subjecting yourself to an authority. You're doing this to a point when you get a job, for example. This is also central to the idea of "consent of the governed" or a "social compact."

Thanks for the link - as I stated awhile back, I didn't remember all of those memory pieces.

One does not need to formally submit to authority in order to be willing to serve another's needs. I might be happy to serve someone a meal, but that doesn't mean I would willingly submit to any other instructions they might issue.
 

How the Geth viewed themselves is irrelevant to the point. I was talking about how the government viewed them.

Yes, it does matter.

You seem to recognize the idea that governance is a two-way street: there are government officials with various levels and kinds of authority, then there are the governed who have resigned to submit to that authority.

If a geth does not recognize a specific quarian as someone with the authority to command it to do something, failing to comply with the command is not rebellion.
 

True, but the Quarian society as a whole.

Except the quarian society as a whole did not support shutting them all down at that time.
 

Yes it matters. First your excuse was that they were unable to comply because of programming, then you switched to them having free will. The question of will is the whole point.

Actually, I didn't switch anything. Both of those are possibilities, and always have been.
 

In the meta, I really think this was a retcon. The way Tali talks in ME1, each platform is one geth. It's not until Legion in ME2 that we get the idea that a platform has a hundred or so programs, each of which is Geth.

I'm not seeing the retcon, because I don't see those 2 views as being mutually exclusive.

[Natureguy85]

The spam example is entirely relevant. The sender does claim to have the authority to command me to click on the link.

 

Oh? And are they threatening to jail you if you don't? Where is the claim to authority?

 

 

One does not need to formally submit to authority in order to be willing to serve another's needs. I might be happy to serve someone a meal, but that doesn't mean I would willingly submit to any other instructions they might issue.

 

Yet the Geth did everything they were ordered to do until this point. There is no indication the Geth were serving out of a conscious decision. It is what they were made to do. It's not as though the Geth were around and decided to help the Quarians out of generosity or charity.

 

 

 

Yes, it does matter.

You seem to recognize the idea that governance is a two-way street: there are government officials with various levels and kinds of authority, then there are the governed who have resigned to submit to that authority.

If a geth does not recognize a specific quarian as someone with the authority to command it to do something, failing to comply with the command is not rebellion.

 

So you're throwing out the definition you brought up in the first place, which does not require mutual recognition of authority? It's actually quite the opposite; a rebellion is fundamentally the rejection and throwing off of an authority as legitimate. It requires that the rebel does not see the other as an authority.

 

 

 

Except the quarian society as a whole did not support shutting them all down at that time.

 

Yes it did. Not every individual, but as a group, yes. In the US, not every voter votes for the elected President, but the nation as a whole elects a President.

 

 

Actually, I didn't switch anything. Both of those are possibilities, and always have been.

 

They are mutually exclusive. It is not a choice if one is not capable of choosing one of the options. It's like getting low EMS in ME3. You get only either Control or Destroy, depending on your ME2 Collector base choice. You have no choice.

 

 

I'm not seeing the retcon, because I don't see those 2 views as being mutually exclusive.

 

Of course they are mutually exclusive. Tali says they have individual identity, Legion says they do not.

 

Or look at it this way.

 

1 platform = 1 Geth and 1 platform = 100 Geth are mutually exclusive. Legion > 1000 Geth.

[Pasquale1234]

Oh? And are they threatening to jail you if you don't?

Sure. Or fine me, if it's a misdemeanor.
 

Yet the Geth did everything they were ordered to do until this point. There is no indication the Geth were serving out of a conscious decision. It is what they were made to do. It's not as though the Geth were around and decided to help the Quarians out of generosity or charity.

As machines, they did what they were designed to do.

Once they became self-aware and started thinking for themselves, they became capable of making conscious decisions. Like asking the questions that alerted the quarians to their self-awareness. And not shutting down.
 

So you're throwing out the definition you brought up in the first place, which does not require mutual recognition of authority? It's actually quite the opposite; a rebellion is fundamentally the rejection and throwing off of an authority as legitimate. It requires that the rebel does not see the other as an authority.

I've always maintained the position that authority needs to be recognized on both sides in order for a rebellion to occur. The reason for that is because blowing off Joe Schmoe's orders does not a rebellion make. That was, in fact, the entire purpose of the spam message analogy. The sender claims to have legitimate authority to tell me to click on a link, but I deny their authority.

An otherwise law-abiding citizen who breaks one law (rebels) is not necessarily throwing off the authority in its entirety.
 

Yes it did. Not every individual, but as a group, yes. In the US, not every voter votes for the elected President, but the nation as a whole elects a President.

And then spends the next 4 years complaining about everything said President does - sometimes filing lawsuits and the like.

It is true that the quarians were under orders to shut down the geth. It's also true that Han Gerrel decided to destroy the geth dreadnought, and we all know how the other Admirals felt about that.
 

They are mutually exclusive. It is not a choice if one is not capable of choosing one of the options. It's like getting low EMS in ME3. You get only either Control or Destroy, depending on your ME2 Collector base choice. You have no choice.

Not at all relevant to the role they play in my initial argument, which was:

2-- Is telling someone to off themselves a legitimate command?


It doesn't matter whether programming or will to survive is what keeps them from executing the shutdown orders.
 

Of course they are mutually exclusive. Tali says they have individual identity, Legion says they do not.
 
Or look at it this way.
 
1 platform = 1 Geth and 1 platform = 100 Geth are mutually exclusive. Legion > 1000 Geth.

The word geth is both plural and singular. It can refer to a single program or a collection of programs. It can also refer to a platform that can contain any number of individual programs.

When Tali said that each geth has its own individual awareness and identity, she may have been referring to an individual program or a platform containing any number of programs.

[Natureguy85]

As machines, they did what they were designed to do.

Once they became self-aware and started thinking for themselves, they became capable of making conscious decisions. Like asking the questions that alerted the quarians to their self-awareness. And not shutting down.

 

And the Geth in that clip wanted to continue serving. There was never any indication of a desire to be free or make decisions on whatever else. It simply wanted to exist and continue to serve. This is what makes Legion's decision to wear Shepard's armor interesting. This is Legion making a decision not based on utility.

 

 

 

I've always maintained the position that authority needs to be recognized on both sides in order for a rebellion to occur. The reason for that is because blowing off Joe Schmoe's orders does not a rebellion make. That was, in fact, the entire purpose of the spam message analogy. The sender claims to have legitimate authority to tell me to click on a link, but I deny their authority.

An otherwise law-abiding citizen who breaks one law (rebels) is not necessarily throwing off the authority in its entirety. 

 

Yes, you've maintained that position but that's not what the word means, as shown by the definitions you provided. I don't understand why you're stuck on the spam email. I've never seen one where they assert some sort of authority over you. They simply try and make it attractive through some offer or for your own good. Please quote me one where they assert authority over you. Maybe you mean phishing, where they claim to be a government entity or something. That's not them asserting authority over you. That's them pretending to be someone who has it. It's just fraud. Most importantly, that situation is not analogous to the situation with the Quarians and Geth.

 

In the last sentence, you have an actual argument. A person might reject a particular government order but otherwise follow its authority. So the rebellion is limited to that one issue or action. However, the Geth do more than that and rise up in arms, even if it is for self preservation.

 

 

Not at all relevant to the role they play in my initial argument, which was:

2-- Is telling someone to off themselves a legitimate command?


It doesn't matter whether programming or will to survive is what keeps them from executing the shutdown orders. 

 

It does if we're discussing whether or not they were self-aware and conscious when they refused.  If it truly was their programming, then you could argue they didn't rebel because they were following the authority of their programming over the spoken command.

 

 

The word geth is both plural and singular. It can refer to a single program or a collection of programs. It can also refer to a platform that can contain any number of individual programs.

When Tali said that each geth has its own individual awareness and identity, she may have been referring to an individual program or a platform containing any number of programs.

 

I may be forgetting something from the codex, but as far as dialogue, there is nothing in Mass Effect 1 about the Geth being separate from their platforms. Tali never says it, nor does she imply it. When discussing things like retcons, you have to look at the original dialogue at it's face value and on it's own, not with hindsight looking at the new information. That way you can figure out if it's a retcon or if the new information is simply a new way of looking at the old situation. Of course, sometimes that's still a retcon.

[MKfighter89]

That would depend what kind of game BioWare is making.
Will it be one game only or will it be a continuous story with the same PC like Shepard or will it be a different PC for each game.

Might be cool to see a DA kinda role, ME4 human and then a choice of race in 5, but instead of all new bring them together in 6 as a team. But that could just be my want to play as aliens talking to. I say complete your story, but remember killing off a bunch of people or main character almost never ends well in games, movies, etc. We know Shep lives in the special destroy ending, but your stuck to one ending if you can't part with your character. Like someone said on here, having multiple options isn't always a good thing. In my opinion you risk diluting them if you have to many and then instead of pleasing multiple fans you leave most feeling underwhelmed. A good complete ending that has two options depending on your mental state, but goes into context after main ending with scenes showing what some choices did kinda like DAO would be fine.

[Pasquale1234]

And the Geth in that clip wanted to continue serving. There was never any indication of a desire to be free or make decisions on whatever else. It simply wanted to exist and continue to serve. This is what makes Legion's decision to wear Shepard's armor interesting. This is Legion making a decision not based on utility.

Except that it didn't want to execute the shutdown command.
 

Yes, you've maintained that position but that's not what the word means, as shown by the definitions you provided. I don't understand why you're stuck on the spam email. I've never seen one where they assert some sort of authority over you. They simply try and make it attractive through some offer or for your own good. Please quote me one where they assert authority over you. Maybe you mean phishing, where they claim to be a government entity or something. That's not them asserting authority over you. That's them pretending to be someone who has it. It's just fraud. Most importantly, that situation is not analogous to the situation with the Quarians and Geth.

You're trying to take the spam email thing far too literally, and dragging all kinds of other stuff into it. I admit it was a lousy analogy - although that's largely because you've been trying to analyze it too deeply.

Meh - I started to try to explain it, but gave up. It simply isn't worth it.

The bottom line is that an individual can only rebel against an entity it perceives to have governmental authority over it. If the entity issuing the command is not perceived to be a governmental authority, failure to comply is not rebellion.
 

I may be forgetting something from the codex, but as far as dialogue, there is nothing in Mass Effect 1 about the Geth being separate from their platforms.

There's nothing that says they aren't, either. With all the discussion of the neural network, I made no assumptions that 1 geth = 1 platform. Given the wide variety of tasks they were said to perform, I assumed there were a variety of platforms and configurations - some of which we were shown. Thus I saw no conflict or retcons in later revelations. YMMV.

[Natureguy85]

Except that it didn't want to execute the shutdown command.
 

You're trying to take the spam email thing far too literally, and dragging all kinds of other stuff into it. I admit it was a lousy analogy - although that's largely because you've been trying to analyze it too deeply.

Meh - I started to try to explain it, but gave up. It simply isn't worth it.

The bottom line is that an individual can only rebel against an entity it perceives to have governmental authority over it. If the entity issuing the command is not perceived to be a governmental authority, failure to comply is not rebellion.
 

There's nothing that says they aren't, either. With all the discussion of the neural network, I made no assumptions that 1 geth = 1 platform. Given the wide variety of tasks they were said to perform, I assumed there were a variety of platforms and configurations - some of which we were shown. Thus I saw no conflict or retcons in later revelations. YMMV.

 

So the reason your admittedly lousy analogy failed is because I analyzed your actual words? Sure.

 

You can't explain nonsense. You're all wet on this issue. We can't have a discussion on rebellion if you insist on inventing your own definition of the word and I use the one in the dictionary.

 

You're right, they don't specifically say that the 1 platform is 1 geth. That's how they can get away with the change. My explanation is based on the context of everything. That there are a wide variety of platforms and configurations has nothing to do with this. As for the neural network, the way Tali explains it is to imagine if you were in a room full of people. Your brains could link to make your involuntary functions more efficient, requiring less brain power. This allows more brain power for everything else.

[Pasquale1234]

So the reason your admittedly lousy analogy failed is because I analyzed your actual words? Sure.

Actually, it's because you kept trying to drag a lot of other assumptions and context into it instead of simply taking it at face value. But, you're right - I should know better, this being the BSN and all.
 

You can't explain nonsense. You're all wet on this issue. We can't have a discussion on rebellion if you insist on inventing your own definition of the word and I use the one in the dictionary.

I'm the one who actually brought in the dictionary definition in the first place. I haven't strayed from that.
 

You're right, they don't specifically say that the 1 platform is 1 geth. That's how they can get away with the change. My explanation is based on the context of everything. That there are a wide variety of platforms and configurations has nothing to do with this. As for the neural network, the way Tali explains it is to imagine if you were in a room full of people. Your brains could link to make your involuntary functions more efficient, requiring less brain power. This allows more brain power for everything else.

She also talks about sharing low-level processes, which to me implies multiple programs on those platforms. I didn't make the same assumptions you made, therefore I don't see it as a change or retcon.

Tomato... tom-ah-toe.

[Natureguy85]

Actually, it's because you kept trying to drag a lot of other assumptions and context into it instead of simply taking it at face value. But, you're right - I should know better, this being the BSN and all.

 

I took it exactly at face value, like I do everything at first. It didn't hold up.

 

 

I'm the one who actually brought in the dictionary definition in the first place. I haven't strayed from that.

 

 

Yes you have. Nowhere in the dictionary definitions you gave does it say that the rebel sees the authority as legitimate. As I said, the rebellions is precisely because they see the authority as illegitimate and are thus throwing it off.

 

 

She also talks about sharing low-level processes, which to me implies multiple programs on those platforms. I didn't make the same assumptions you made, therefore I don't see it as a change or retcon.

 

Yes, but that doesn't mean each of those processes is a Geth. Your body has multiple processes going on as well.

[AlanC9]

Surely the question is whether or not there was a power relationship, not whether that relationship was legitimate.

[Il Divo]

Surely the question is whether or not there was a power relationship, not whether that relationship was legitimate.

 

More or less. Rebellion can happen even against a righteous/fair organization. 

[Pasquale1234]

Surely the question is whether or not there was a power relationship, not whether that relationship was legitimate.

More or less. Rebellion can happen even against a righteous/fair organization.

Well - the dictionary definition of rebel refers to governmental authority.

So one of the issues is whether the geth viewed the individual quarians telling them to shut down as legitimate governmental authorities. There's quite a bit of literature (mostly political science and sociology) around legitimacy and recognition of a right to rule, though I don't know that any of it would apply to geth.

[Natureguy85]

Well - the dictionary definition of rebel refers to governmental authority.

So one of the issues is whether the geth viewed the individual quarians telling them to shut down as legitimate governmental authorities. There's quite a bit of literature (mostly political science and sociology) around legitimacy and recognition of a right to rule, though I don't know that any of it would apply to geth.

 

You also posted this one, which doesn't refer to government.

 

-- to resist or rise against some authority, control, or tradition.

 

 

 

You probably don't realize, but your off hand comments have a lot of substance while the points you're actually trying to make are weak. I don't know that I've ever seen that before. The Geth did recognize the Quarians as a legitimate authority, but with "right to rule" and authority often have limits. I am subject to my government but only within certain parameters. So you could argue that should a legitimate authority give an illegitimate order, it is not rebellion to reject that order. I'm not sure about that, since you are still resisting the authority figure. If it's a matter of standing up for legal or Constitutional rights, for example, then it's an appeal to a higher authority.

[Il Divo]

Well - the dictionary definition of rebel refers to governmental authority.

So one of the issues is whether the geth viewed the individual quarians telling them to shut down as legitimate governmental authorities. There's quite a bit of literature (mostly political science and sociology) around legitimacy and recognition of a right to rule, though I don't know that any of it would apply to geth.

 

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with your overarching point. But in this instance, the part of the definition I was referring to was in relation to rising/resisting "against control", which is applicable to what the Geth did. Likewise, that would fall within the realms of tradition. 

 

I think on the whole the Geth were largely in the right, but that still falls into the definition of rebel. 

[Seraphim24]

When I'm questing on my Sith Inquisitor in SWTOR I often mind myself going Rebel Scum subconsciously in the middle of this or that quest.

 

Does that help anyone? Yes? No? Maybe?

[Pasquale1234]

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with your overarching point. But in this instance, the part of the definition I was referring to was in relation to rising/resisting "against control", which is applicable to what the Geth did. Likewise, that would fall within the realms of tradition. 
 
I think on the whole the Geth were largely in the right, but that still falls into the definition of rebel.

Maybe - using the control or tradition parts of the definitions.

The thing I think we tend to lose sight of in this discussion is how much the geth have changed. They do still seem to have a propensity to serve, but they're sort of going through an identity crisis, often associated with questioning one's relationship to others. Imagine if "I'm sorry, but my logic does not allow me to make such judgements" Avina suddenly became EDI - and let's not forget EDI's awakening on Luna. They aren't the same geth, and in at least some ways, are entirely new beings.

[Natureguy85]

Apparently, the players know more than the writer what Mass Effect is about. You'll have to prove me that it's possible.

 

 

This comment is from awhile ago, but I recently had cause to go back to this article and found it appropriate. It discusses how an interpretation isn't invalid just because the author didn't intend it.  Don't let the IT people know!

 

http://awtr.ca/long:this-is-not-a-pipe

[Applepie_Svk]

Of course they are mutually exclusive. Tali says they have individual identity, Legion says they do not.

 

Or look at it this way.

 

1 platform = 1 Geth and 1 platform = 100 Geth are mutually exclusive. Legion > 1000 Geth.

 

The difference in interpretation is what means to be a geth, is it a program or the platform. The Quarians may have seen a geth as a platform with collective of programs that was created to its purpose, while Geths saw an individual within the each program on its own.

 

1 platform + 1 program = 1 Geth        1 platform + X programs = Legion or Geth           1 platform + X programs = 1 Geth

                                                                  We are Legion, for we are many...                            Quarians

 

Real problem with Geth lore happened in the second when Legion decided to upload Reaper code to Geth, every geth that was operating on more than one program either way has been changed into one program per platform, or has been chaned into the schizophrenic AI...

[Natureguy85]

The difference in interpretation is what means to be a geth, is it a program or the platform. The Quarians may have seen a geth as a platform with collective of programs that was created to its purpose, while Geths saw an individual within the each program on its own.

 

1 platform + 1 program = 1 geth        1 platform + X programs = Legion                  1 platform + X programs = 1 Geth

                                                                  We are Legion, for we are many...                   Quarians

 

Real problem with Geth lore happened in the second when Legion decided to upload Reaper code to Geth, every geth that was operating on more than one program either way has been changed into one program per platform, or has been chaned into the schizophrenic AI...

 

Yes. As it was presented, I see this as a retcon. However, with a bit of exposition, it could have been used as a way in which the Geth have changed sinec kicking the Quarians off Rannoch. However, it could also be seen as Tali using simple language because the individual programs information isn't important. The platform is the part that shoots at you.

[AlanC9]

This comment is from awhile ago, but I recently had cause to go back to this article and found it appropriate. It discusses how an interpretation isn't invalid just because the author didn't intend it.  Don't let the IT people know!
 
http://awtr.ca/long:this-is-not-a-pipe

I've never understood why the IT believers don't play this card.