The geth deliberately held back from wiping out the quarians, then went into isolation for 300 years, while the krogan drove the rachni to extinction (or so they elieved) then proceeded to wage genocidal wars on the other Council races
In addition, the geth worked to repair the enviromental damage done to Rannoch and other quarian worlds damaged in teh Morning Wars, while the krogan deliberately destroyed at least three garden worlds in their rebellions, and nearly took out Palaven.
if anything, we are shown organics are more dangerous to organic life than synthetics
Krogans were allowed to wipe out the Rachni because they showed no capability or willingness to negotiate. Geth and Quarians are both capable of negotiation. Neither side choose to at any point during any of their conflict. Geth essentially just let the Quarians kill them till they changed their mind over it. Then killed without question, conscious or any attempt to mitigate or reduce the casualties on both sides.
The Asari and Salarians attempted to negotiate with Rachni. When the Krogans rebelled they attempted to negotiate with Krogan. Geth did not try to negotiate with Quarians.
Rannoch was the main one talked about but the Quarians had multiple planets. If Rannoch was damaged then inevitably other colony planets would be damaged as well. And inevitably Asari, Salarians and Turians would attempt to repair the planets damaged by krogans.
But if you want to make direct comparison the threat is even more. Krogans still need a certain degree of livability on the planet to survive. Geth can literally completely wipe out a planet and still live on it.
Krogans were allowed to wipe out the Rachni because they showed no capability or willingness to negotiate. Geth and Quarians are both capable of negotiation. Neither side choose to at any point during any of their conflict. Geth essentially just let the Quarians kill them till they changed their mind over it. Then killed without question, conscious or any attempt to mitigate or reduce the casualties on both sides.
Demonstrably untrue as seen in the geth consensus (Bloodymares provided a link)
Rannoch was the main one talked about but the Quarians had multiple planets. If Rannoch was damaged then inevitably other colony planets would be damaged as well. And inevitably Asari, Salarians and Turians would attempt to repair the planets damaged by krogans.
The krogan dropped asteroids on the worlds, a Tier 1 Weapon of Mass Destruction. There's no "repairing" that kind of damage.
But if you want to make direct comparison the threat is even more. Krogans still need a certain degree of livability on the planet to survive. Geth can literally completely wipe out a planet and still live on it.
It's your speculation. It might have happened (very unlikely), but there's no proof.
9:53
And organics can blow up Mass Relays.
Oh very unlikely? You mean all what 5-6 billion Quarians. Men, Women and Children no matter what their job was were armed soilders capable of defending and fighting against the Geth? What little bit we are told about Pre Morning War Quarian life that seems highly unlikely. Turians or Krogan yea I would belive that. Quarians, Humans, Asari, Salarians not so much.
The video isn't actually negotiation. It is a Geth not understanding the concept of death because their mobile platforms are expendable. Since all of this is based on the videos shown in the consensus. None of them show the Geth at any point during the Morning War attempting to negotiate with the Quarians for a cease fire. Requesting simply to be left alone maybe have the Quarians conceded a colony or two to let the Geth live there alone and in peace. In fact this is a point shared by both Geth and Quarians. There were no attempts to mitigate the death and destruction. Just a constant escalation of violence till the Quarians were down to a few million and in danger of being completely wiped out before the Geth apparently stopped.
Organic, Synthetic, sheer dumb luck can all blow up a Mass Relay.
Oh very unlikely? You mean all what 5-6 billion Quarians. Men, Women and Children no matter what their job was were armed soilders capable of defending and fighting against the Geth? What little bit we are told about Pre Morning War Quarian life that seems highly unlikely. Turians or Krogan yea I would belive that. Quarians, Humans, Asari, Salarians not so much.
The video isn't actually negotiation. It is a Geth not understanding the concept of death because their mobile platforms are expendable. Since all of this is based on the videos shown in the consensus. None of them show the Geth at any point during the Morning War attempting to negotiate with the Quarians for a cease fire. Requesting simply to be left alone maybe have the Quarians conceded a colony or two to let the Geth live there alone and in peace. In fact this is a point shared by both Geth and Quarians. There were no attempts to mitigate the death and destruction. Just a constant escalation of violence till the Quarians were down to a few million and in danger of being completely wiped out before the Geth apparently stopped.
Organic, Synthetic, sheer dumb luck can all blow up a Mass Relay.
We don't know about that stuff, don't make it up. Children were probably safe and then got evacuated with the rest of the quarians.
Did jews try to negotiate with Nazi during the WW2 or was there no choice but to defend? It wasn't the conflict of interest, it was genocide.
It's like people saying "hey, global warming exist, I've studied it for decades, it's global threat and one day it will kill us all" vs people arguing "What are you saying? It was so cold this winter, look at this snowball, you must be wrong!"
I'm not taking position about this topic (are synthetic a real threat for all organics or not?). Both theory are equally valid, imho (not enough evidence to claim "this is it")
Just saying that general trends (and predictions like that) cannot be disproved by few exceptions (and viceversa).
the arguments are on different logical level. You are fated to perpetually disagree, because there is no common ground.
We don't know about that stuff, don't make it up. Children were probably safe and then got evacuated with the rest of the quarians.
Did jews try to negotiate with Nazi during the WW2 or was there no choice but to defend? It wasn't the conflict of interest, it was genocide.
I'm not making anything up. The Geth were created and were by large their heavy labor forces as well as playing a part in their military set up. Nothing about the Quarians paint them as war like or having a warrior like culture the way the Krogan or Turians have. Every instant that is shown by the consensus it is armed military vs unarmed civilians. The video you show specifically shows the military/police force having shot then blown up someone attempting to help a Geth unit.
It doesn't require any sort of head cannon to make these connections. The Quarians with exception of police and military forces were incapable of defending themselves because they lack any real training. The Geth with absolute disregard for all life killed both Qurians actively fighting against them and those who were incapable of defending themselves.While I don't think they went door to door rounding people up and shooting them in the back of the head. The level of destruction would have be the likes we have never seen before to cause an entire race to abandon planet after planet before fleeing in what few ships they had left. Inevitably there would have been Quarians left behind and inevitably the Geth would have found them and killed them.
The Jews didn't have a standing army capable of matching and beating the Axis forces. If The Jews were able to not only match but beat 8 out of 10 times the Nazi army in every engagement they certainly might have. Fact is the UK did negotiate with Hilter before it started hoping to avoid another war. The after effect is debatable in the effect. With good reasons how it was helpful over all giving the various Allied Nations in Europe a few more years to recover and rearm. And bad because it made Hitler feel like a big boy and that he could get away with more. So 50/50 on that.
When I referred to Project Overlord, I was referring to the rogue VI, not David. You see, the VI is essentially the DLC's main antagonist.
Let's not forget that if you fail to defeat it, it successfully uploads itself onto the Normandy.
When talking to Gavin Archer, he says if this thing succeeds, you could have a technological apocalypse on your hands.
Does any of this paint the VI as a benevolent entity to you?
The VI is David and, quite frankly, if a bunch of Cerberus' idiots did to me what the did to him, I'd be pretty pissed, too. Even as a visitor to the facility, I don't give a damn about a single person in that building knowing they're Cerberus, especially knowing what they did.
Also, since when do we take what Cerberus guys say as trustworthy? From what we've seen, they're mostly good at getting themselves killed in pretty creative ways. (Where do they even get all those suicidal maniacs?)
Sure, David as a VI was dangerous, but he was a victim of abuse you can't imagine and his mind was trapped in virtual reality. Cerberus got what they deserved, if you ask me, and Gavin got off way too lightly. (You know you screwed up when even the paragon interrupt results in giving you a nosebleed.) And yet again, the situation got handled without the rest of the galaxy even learning of it.
The VI is David and, quite frankly, if a bunch of Cerberus' idiots did to me what the did to him, I'd be pretty pissed, too. Even as a visitor to the facility, I don't give a damn about a single person in that building knowing they're Cerberus, especially knowing what they did.
Also, since when do we take what Cerberus guys say as trustworthy? From what we've seen, they're mostly good at getting themselves killed in pretty creative ways. (Where do they even get all those suicidal maniacs?)
Sure, David as a VI was dangerous, but he was a victim of abuse you can't imagine and his mind was trapped in virtual reality. Cerberus got what they deserved, if you ask me, and Gavin got off way too lightly. (You know you screwed up when even the paragon interrupt results in giving you a nosebleed.) And yet again, the situation got handled without the rest of the galaxy even learning of it.
Gavin Archer is quite easily one of two characters in the Mass Effect universe I hate.
That (and I say this as a British person) but his awful British Oxford professor accent just grated on me.
The VI is David and, quite frankly, if a bunch of Cerberus' idiots did to me what the did to him, I'd be pretty pissed, too. Even as a visitor to the facility, I don't give a damn about a single person in that building knowing they're Cerberus, especially knowing what they did.
Okay, but when it was said earlier that synthetics don't pose a threat, the VI, the intelligence, is the bad guy. David, the organic, was the good guy (rather defenseless).
Okay, but when it was said earlier that synthetics don't pose a threat, the VI, the intelligence, is the bad guy. David, the organic, was the good guy (rather defenseless).
Are you living in a comic book? There is no "good guy", "bad guy" things in the real world. David was a kind human but he's no Jesus and he won't tolerate what Cerberus did to him. Every time VI shouts it's literally "Please! Make it stop!"
Okay, but when it was said earlier that synthetics don't pose a threat, the VI, the intelligence, is the bad guy. David, the organic, was the good guy (rather defenseless).
But David and the VI are one and the same entity. The Project Overlord is about creating a human VI. They uploaded David's mind into a computer so they could make the best use of his talent which was communicating with the geth, and that caused the massacre. The mess we can see in Overlord's facilities is David, hurt and terrified, going on rampage and the Cerberus scientists definitely weren't the innocent party here. We've all seen what they did to David. David was innocent, he was clearly autistic or had another disability that even further hindered his ability to cope with that much stress, and they screwed him into that device, metal through his flesh, those tubes leading into this throat all the way who-knows-where, those things holding his eyes open at all times. I see where you are coming from, but in my opinion, his attack might have been panic, it might have been self-defence, but it wasn't because "the created always rebel against their creators". As I said, if I were in David's place, I'd likely lose it, too. I mean, what do you do in his shoes and, most importantly, what do you do when you're a person that e.g. might have trouble dealing with normal life as it is, on the top of that? I know that going on a killing spree is not the best thing to do, but that's assuming David even could think rationally at all.
This is a story about organics being the bad guys. The entire thing was caused by Gavin Archer trying to save his ass because TIM was impatient with him not getting results fast enough. That's why he connected his own little brother to that thing, effectively proving that organics are more horrifying beings than synthetics could ever hope to be. I didn't hate synthetics after I finished playing. I hated Cerberus and I hated Gavin Archer and I hated that I couldn't arrest him or shoot him, despite being a Spectre, before he figured something even more horrifying was "necessary" in the name of "human advancement." I swear that reaching the end of that DLC was one of the most infuriating things in the entire game for me. (In the good way.) And it's all on Gavin Archer and Cerberus.
Either way, David still caused significantly less damage in the entire DLC than Shepard during a small fragment of her adventures and was stopped in the end.
Are you living in a comic book? There is no "good guy", "bad guy" things in the real world. David was a kind human but he's no Jesus and he won't tolerate what Cerberus did to him. Every time VI shouts it's literally "Please! Make it stop!"
No good guys or bad guys in the real world? Ever heard of terrorists or serial killers? Yeah those are bad guys.
The people who try to stop terrorists and serial killers are good guys.
No good guys or bad guys in the real world? Ever heard of terrorists or serial killers? Yeah those are bad guys.
By serial killers you mean assassins for hire (and any other sane murderer) or maniacal sociopaths?
If it's the latter then you are talking about mentally unstable people. Terrorists are fanatics so I wouldn't call them sane either. They are not bad, they are sick or delluded. And if it's the former then the motivation is money (or fear) and people are ready to do some incredibly immoral stuff for money. Google what behaviorism is to understand that nobody chooses to become something like that. Everyone is victim of their environment. You don't know what is going on inside the heads of those people but I bet they are not doing that kind of stuff for the evulz.
By serial killers you mean assassins for hire (and any other sane murderer) or maniacal sociopaths?
If it's the latter then you are talking about mentally unstable people. Terrorists are fanatics so I wouldn't call them sane either. They are not bad, they are sick or delluded. And if it's the former then the motivation is money (or fear) and people are ready to do some incredibly immoral stuff for money. Google what behaviorism is to understand that nobody chooses to become something like that. Everyone is victim of their environment. You don't know what is going on inside the heads of those people but I bet they are not doing that kind of stuff for the evulz.
I know what you mean, but in practice I'd still call terrorists, murderers and the like sick bastards at best, somebody I wouldn't shed a tear for. I've got to say that I consider them "bad guys" myself, so to speak. Sure, they have their reasons, maybe they're deluded, maybe they're sick in the head, maybe that's what they were brought up to be like, but in the end they go out and shoot up a bar full of innocent people that are just trying to have fun or something, and such person deserves only to be removed from society for which he/she is dangerous, by whatever means. I know calling them "bad guys" is simplistic at best, but I don't think it's wrong, either. I think deeds like that fit what we'd consider evil perfectly because people die horrible deaths for no good reason, reasons like hate, like trying to instigate fear. It's horrifying and disgusting and it makes me angry. But, hey, I grew up on superhero stories and the like.
The reason I make a difference between these people and David who slaughtered the entire Cerberus facility is because he was killing his abusers and might have been in state of panic and confusion. Because I don't expect anybody to keep his morality and perhaps even sanity intact towards his torturers who don't see more value in a human being besides profit and in such circumstances. (I still don't think that completely everybody in the facility knew or unanimously agreed that was the right thing to do.) David's case is luckily not so black and white. It was a rather unusual scenario.
Either way, I think we're deep in the off-topic territory, heh.
David's case is luckily not so black and white. It was a rather unusual scenario.
"Luckily" (?) not so black and white, just like the guy who has been tortured by Cerberus in Mass Effect 1. Just like the geth-quarians story, just like the reapers, etc...
Hey, hey, I'm back. There were some interesting posts while I was away. I promise I won't go through them all, but I did pick out a few worthy of responses, particularly this first one, since it was directed at me. Special thanks to Vanilka and Bloody Mares for excellent posts holding down the fort while I was away!
Wrapping things up cleanly, is just another way of saying you don't like ambiguous endings. You like clear cut answers with very little to debate. Which, I pretty much expected a game about choice to not wrap up cleanly and be open to interpretation. You should have seen this coming.
That is ridiculous. I like ambiguous endings when the story merits them. I love the ending of Inception, for example. It's up the viewer to decide if Dicaprio's character is awake or dreaming. Not only did that fit with the running theme in the movie about dreams, but it called back to a specific conversation in the movie about that very issue. Everything was done using established elements and knowledge. There was nothing new thrown in at the end. Mass Effect 3 did not do that. You had a completely new character come in claiming things that were new, unfounded, and contrary to the events of the series.
It's also a silly assertion that a game being about choice (though you don't understand the way in which it was about choice) merits an ambiguous or unexplained ending. The choices and endings were perfectly clear in the previous two entries. The same is true for other games like Dragon Age Origins. Clear consequences or at least knowledge of what they might be, are critical for making an informed decision.
Ok, genuine question for some folks here.
Up until what point did most of you start taking issue with the ending for ME3? Did your problems with it begin from the get go, say when the Fleets arrived? Earlier, the beginning of ME2? Or is it just the Catalyst scene?
Cause there are a lot of things I liked about London as a final level, and the set up that our confrontation with TIM and Anderson gave made the Catalyst seem all the out of the blue IMO. I can see why some saw it as a contrived arty move by BioWare for some.
Many others mentioned other things in the story, but since you asked specifically about the ending, it was on the Citadel for me. I got sucked into the action of the gameplay on Earth. Despite being silly tactically, the beam run was nice and dramatic. Shepard getting blasted slams the breaks on everything though. This can work sometimes, but I think there was way too much game left in this case. I hated limping along that corridor. I didn't like the scene with TIM because I didn't know how TIM was controlling Shepard and Anderson. The conversation was boring. I didn't get it, but I hate that TIM can commit suicide like Saren. He doesn't deserve that moment. The Renegade path is way better. And then after that, there is a nice scene with Anderson, if he is alive. Then there's another one sided conversation with the Catalyst.
So it's just a matter of time? The fact that there is no beginning and no end, the fact that what happens in Terminator is not logically possible, isn't a problem but for Mass Effect it is? Could you explain how the context of Terminator makes it good and the one from Mass Effect makes it bad?
Yes! Terminator was built on time travel. Sure, we question the idea of John Connor sending his own father back in time to conceive him because of cause and effect and time being linear, but the entire movie was based on time travel. This wasn't out of nowhere and fit with things established over the course of the entire movie. While there are scientific studies and theories regarding time being non-linear, let's ignore those for the moment. This is a "suspension of disbelief" issue because the concept works so well for the story that it's ok for it to not be technically possible in the real world.
If I tell you that I've observed infinite civilizations, all around the universe, and I've noticed that:
a. there are always conflict between factions
b. in the end, some weapon of mass destruction in created (iper-uber-nuclear waepon, bacteriological weapon, or something more advanced) and, sooner or later, used.
Do you think that you can convince me that on the Earth there is no risk because of:
a. the friendship/love between some very different people from Usa, Europe, China and Russia (Edi-Joker/Shep)
b. the UN/UE and/or 60 years of absence of major conflicts between the super-power (geth-organic)
c. the regulation and strictly controls for weapons of mass destruction
I can simply answer you "wait and you'll see"...
To which the response is, "Ok, thanks for the head's up. You can go now."
But it isn't even vaugly close to the white man's burden. You seem to ignore that what you are claiming involved the white man showing up and attempting to remove everything unique about the culture they found to turn it into a direct copy of their own. Only this time with a funny new accent. Reapers preserve everything about the races they harvest. Adding it to the collective nature of the Reapers. Each Reaper is unique and that uniqueness is based on the species that were harvested to create it. Reapers are the greatest melting pot in all of existence.
Humans consider themselves above dogs, cats and apes. Reapers have the same view. The arrogance displayed by Sovereign is well earned. But you can be arrogant and a benign being at the same time.
I know this is what we're told at the end, but where is this demonstrated? How are the individual cultures represented by the Reapers? What is the value of this preservation? We don't see several Reapers of vastly different personalities. There is a substantial difference between Sovereign and Harbinger, but what does that have to do with what species they were made from? It's not that surprising that they are different from each other based on Sovereign's words, even if they are united in purpose. The Rannoch Reaper doesn't get characterization, but doesn't sound too different from Harbinger.
Get Magna Carter, Reorte, KrrKs et 3 autres aiment ceci
By serial killers you mean assassins for hire (and any other sane murderer) or maniacal sociopaths?
If it's the latter then you are talking about mentally unstable people. Terrorists are fanatics so I wouldn't call them sane either. They are not bad, they are sick or delluded. And if it's the former then the motivation is money (or fear) and people are ready to do some incredibly immoral stuff for money. Google what behaviorism is to understand that nobody chooses to become something like that. Everyone is victim of their environment. You don't know what is going on inside the heads of those people but I bet they are not doing that kind of stuff for the evulz.
People are not only formed by their environment and are responsible for their actions. They may believe they are doing what's right, but people like the terrorists we've mentioned are evil people. Plenty of people kill because they want something or feel slighted. We can also call them "sick," but evil still applies, particularly when it drives their existence, like with those in ISIS.
I know what you mean, but in practice I'd still call terrorists, murderers and the like sick bastards at best, somebody I wouldn't shed a tear for. I've got to say that I consider them "bad guys" myself, so to speak. Sure, they have their reasons, maybe they're deluded, maybe they're sick in the head, maybe that's what they were brought up to be like, but in the end they go out and shoot up a bar full of innocent people that are just trying to have fun or something, and such person deserves only to be removed from society for which he/she is dangerous, by whatever means. I know calling them "bad guys" is simplistic at best, but I don't think it's wrong, either. I think deeds like that fit what we'd consider evil perfectly because people die horrible deaths for no good reason, reasons like hate, like trying to instigate fear. It's horrifying and disgusting and it makes me angry. But, hey, I grew up on superhero stories and the like.
The reason I make a difference between these people and David who slaughtered the entire Cerberus facility is because he was killing his abusers and might have been in state of panic and confusion. Because I don't expect anybody to keep his morality and perhaps even sanity intact towards his torturers who don't see more value in a human being besides profit and in such circumstances. (I still don't think that completely everybody in the facility knew or unanimously agreed that was the right thing to do.) David's case is luckily not so black and white. It was a rather unusual scenario.
Either way, I think we're deep in the off-topic territory, heh.
I agree with the beginning. I don't think David was acting out of any desire for revenge. He is lashing out wildly due to his brain being unable to process all of the sensory input from being plugged into the machine. There is such a thing as "sensory overload" and people with Autism, like David, can be susceptible to it. In addition to constantly saying "Please, make it stop," doesn't he also complain about it being too loud at one point? Anyway, I don't think he had any sense or control of what he was doing.
On the other hand, I like the interpretation someone mentioned that David was leading Shepard to him, looking for help.
People are not only formed by their environment and are responsible for their actions. They may believe they are doing what's right, but people like the terrorists we've mentioned are evil people. Plenty of people kill because they want something or feel slighted. We can also call them "sick," but evil still applies, particularly when it drives their existence, like with those in ISIS.
They are if you look at people in retrospect. But this is a complex issue, and as Vanilka pointed out, is off-topic.
"Luckily" (?) not so black and white, just like the guy who has been tortured by Cerberus in Mass Effect 1. Just like the geth-quarians story, just like the reapers, etc...
Do you have a point there or...? What are you getting at exactly? Again just grabbing one of the words and not even forming any argument to go with it.
I agree with the beginning. I don't think David was acting out of any desire for revenge. He is lashing out wildly due to his brain being unable to process all of the sensory input from being plugged into the machine. There is such a thing as "sensory overload" and people with Autism, like David, can be susceptible to it. In addition to constantly saying "Please, make it stop," doesn't he also complain about it being too loud at one point? Anyway, I don't think he had any sense or control of what he was doing.
I agree. He was under a great deal of stress and in his condition it must have been twice as terrifying. If I were him, I'd have no idea whether things could or would ever return to normal, either, if he thought of such a thing. He was pretty much trapped in purgatory with no obvious way out. "Quiet, please, make it stop!" doesn't sound like a murder machine to me. He cried when he was freed.
On the other hand, I like the interpretation someone mentioned that David was leading Shepard to him, looking for help.
That might've been me:
What does he do in the end? He guides Shepard, somebody who's not a bloody Cerberus, to him, shows her everything that the bastards did to him, and gives her a chance to help him. (source)
That's how I understood the situation anyway. I can't think of any other reason why he'd show Shepard all those things and why he'd lead her to where he was trapped. It seemed like he tried to make her understand and get help.
I agree with the beginning. I don't think David was acting out of any desire for revenge. He is lashing out wildly due to his brain being unable to process all of the sensory input from being plugged into the machine. There is such a thing as "sensory overload" and people with Autism, like David, can be susceptible to it. In addition to constantly saying "Please, make it stop," doesn't he also complain about it being too loud at one point? Anyway, I don't think he had any sense or control of what he was doing.
On the other hand, I like the interpretation someone mentioned that David was leading Shepard to him, looking for help.
I have autism and sensory overloads are the worst. When it is really bad for me it can sometimes feel like literal nails are being driven into my brain and that my skin is screaming. That's not me being metaphorical, that's literally what it feels like. If it goes on for long enough, it can feel like I am going insane from it.
David was unable to remove himself from the enviroment that caused him pain and he was unable to use any form of coping techniques he might have had so he was literally being subjected to constant torture. Add what else being plugged into the machine could have entailed and it becomes even worse. An example would be the tubes we see inserted down his throat, his eyes beind held open and his body kept in a certain position. During a sensory overload, you can become even more sensitive to things such as feeling things and texture. David could have felt all of those aforementioned things like the tubes and the light in his eyes tripled.
Basically, it is my interpretation as well that David was lashing out wildly due to what was happening to him and that he was just trying to make it stop and good grief, Gavin Archer was lucky I never shot him.
Retour en haut
