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.
And this is why even Paragon Shepard's have the option to pistol whip Gavin.
Yeah, I've never understood, though, why we couldn't take Gavin Archer in at least or something. As somebody who had her Shepard suck up the Council's insults to get her Spectre status back, "I" should have that authority. We should have an option to do something. He shouldn't be allowed to walk away.
Hell, hitting him felt good, though.
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.
I don't envy that at all. However, I'm glad that my description could be verified by someone that actually experiences it. You also make another good point about the way David was "plugged in." When I posted, I was only thinking of his actual interaction with the VI. However, he will also be feeling horrible physical sensations if not pain. In addition to the things you mentioned, he has those plugs in his arms.
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.
This is true of course. That's why making peace on Rannoch *alone* is no compelling reason to reject the Catalyst's claims. Or rather, it wouldn't be if this was RL - but making peace on Rannoch is narratively significant. In a story you can't usually use detailed explanations of probabilities and statistics to support or counter someone's general claim, so a limited number of examples is used by proxy. If you witness only one big organic-synthetic conflict in the story, and it's resolved without one side being wiped out, then that has significant weight against any claim of eternal conflict, and if the general claim is not supported by any counterevidence, nor even explained in theoretical terms, then that weight becomes compelling, and it ceases to be reasonable to support the general claim.
This is true of course. That's why making peace on Rannoch *alone* is no compelling reason to reject the Catalyst's claims. Or rather, it wouldn't be if this was RL - but making peace on Rannoch is narratively significant. In a story you can't usually use detailed explanations of probabilities and statistics to support or counter someone's general claim, so a limited number of examples is used by proxy. If you witness only one big organic-synthetic conflict in the story, and it's resolved without one side being wiped out, then that has significant weight against any claim of eternal conflict, and if the general claim is not supported by any counterevidence, nor even explained in theoretical terms, then that weight becomes compelling, and it ceases to be reasonable to support the general claim.
Except that the guy is claiming to be a scientist and has a white coat but won't present his evidence, so all we have to go on is our experience.
Although the analogy breaks down in that we haven't caught the Catalyst falsifying data.
This is true of course. That's why making peace on Rannoch *alone* is no compelling reason to reject the Catalyst's claims. Or rather, it wouldn't be if this was RL - but making peace on Rannoch is narratively significant. In a story you can't usually use detailed explanations of probabilities and statistics to support or counter someone's general claim, so a limited number of examples is used by proxy. If you witness only one big organic-synthetic conflict in the story, and it's resolved without one side being wiped out, then that has significant weight against any claim of eternal conflict, and if the general claim is not supported by any counterevidence, nor even explained in theoretical terms, then that weight becomes compelling, and it ceases to be reasonable to support the general claim.
Even if one side is wiped out, it's not entirely helping the Catalyst. If quarians destroy the geth in one's playthrough, then the Catalyst contradicts that as well by saying that synthetics are a serious threat to organics so they need to be preserved. And if quarians are destroyed by the geth then it only happens because Shepard and Tali don't stop Legion although they totally can.
Even if one side is wiped out, it's not entirely helping the Catalyst. If quarians destroy the geth in one's playthrough, then the Catalyst contradicts that as well by saying that synthetics are a serious threat to organics so they need to be preserved. And if quarians are destroyed by the geth then it only happens because Shepard and Tali don't stop Legion although they totally can.
And because of the Reaper upgrades in the first place.
And because of the Reaper upgrades in the first place.
Too bad you can't bring it up in front of the Catalyst.
Even if one side is wiped out, it's not entirely helping the Catalyst. If quarians destroy the geth in one's playthrough, then the Catalyst contradicts that as well by saying that synthetics are a serious threat to organics so they need to be preserved. And if quarians are destroyed by the geth then it only happens because Shepard and Tali don't stop Legion although they totally can.
If the quarians are wiped out, then that's significant for the Catalyst's claims, for the same reason: we see one organic/synthetic conflict, and it is not possible to resolve it without the organics being wiped out. The reason why it's not possible doesn't matter.
It is, however, not as signficant for the Catalyst as making peace is against it, since you only need one item of counterevidence against a general claim to make it highly doubtful at least, while one example is weak as support for a general claim.
If the quarians are wiped out, then that's significant for the Catalyst's claims, for the same reason: we see one organic/synthetic conflict, and it is not possible to resolve it without the organics being wiped out. The reason why it's not possible doesn't matter.
Well put. The phrase "the plural of anecdote is not evidence" may be a good aphorism in real life, but it simply doesn't apply to narratives, and especially not in a visual medium where "show, don't tell" is the cardinal rule. If Bioware had gone to the trouble of creating dozens of implacably hostile AI races, and lots of exciting missions in which to fight them, then maybe I'd take the Catalyst's question more seriously. Since they only bothered to create one, and with the Geth being a fairly benign one at that, I don't.This is true of course. That's why making peace on Rannoch *alone* is no compelling reason to reject the Catalyst's claims. Or rather, it wouldn't be if this was RL - but making peace on Rannoch is narratively significant. In a story you can't usually use detailed explanations of probabilities and statistics to support or counter someone's general claim, so a limited number of examples is used by proxy. If you witness only one big organic-synthetic conflict in the story, and it's resolved without one side being wiped out, then that has significant weight against any claim of eternal conflict, and if the general claim is not supported by any counterevidence, nor even explained in theoretical terms, then that weight becomes compelling, and it ceases to be reasonable to support the general claim.
This is true of course. That's why making peace on Rannoch *alone* is no compelling reason to reject the Catalyst's claims. Or rather, it wouldn't be if this was RL - but making peace on Rannoch is narratively significant. In a story you can't usually use detailed explanations of probabilities and statistics to support or counter someone's general claim, so a limited number of examples is used by proxy. If you witness only one big organic-synthetic conflict in the story, and it's resolved without one side being wiped out, then that has significant weight against any claim of eternal conflict, and if the general claim is not supported by any counterevidence, nor even explained in theoretical terms, then that weight becomes compelling, and it ceases to be reasonable to support the general claim.
Narratively, Mass Effect shows us that
1. coexistence between organics and synthetics is possible, no doubt.
2. but it also show us that it's very very rare, very difficult to achieve (especially on large scale) and that the organics-synthetics relationships are shifting, variable
So, we have some elements that must lead us to doubt that the general claim of the catalyst is true (point 1.); but we also have some elements (point 2.) that must lead you to doubt that point 1. represent a relevant, stable and long-lasting situation.
In the end, we have no certainties. The catalyst claims could be equally true or false. I believe they are ultimately false, but I wouldn't call them unlikely or irrational.
Narratively, Mass Effect shows us that
1. coexistence between organics and synthetics is possible, no doubt.
2. but it also show us that it's very very rare, very difficoult to achieve (especially on large scale) and that the organics-synthetics relationships are shifting, variable
So, we have some elements that must lead us to doubt that the general claim of the catalyst is true (point 1.); but we also have some elements (point 2.) that must lead you to doubt that point 1. represent a relevant and long-lasting situation.
In the end, we have no certainties. The catalyst claims could be equally true or false. I believe they are ultimately false, but I wouldn't call them unlikely or irrational.
But peace being possible is only part of the issue with the Catalyst. The other is that conflict is not the problem that the Catalyst makes it out to be, both because the Synthetics will not automatically win and because there is nothing special about organic vs synthetic conflict compared to any other conflict between organics.
So not only does the Catalyst have an failed premise, there is no reason to see the Reapers as an appropriate solution.
But peace being possible is only part of the issue with the Catalyst. The other is that conflict is not the problem that the Catalyst makes it out to be, both because the Synthetics will not automatically win and because there is nothing special about organic vs synthetic conflict compared to any other conflict between organics.
So not only does the Catalyst have an failed premise, there is no reason to see the Reapers as an appropriate solution.
the evolutive speed of synthetics is the problem. We don't have enough info, but the geth in 300 years have evolved from high-tech gardeners/workers to one of the most powerful galactic armies, and they almost reach the dyson sphere level.
Give them other 300 years. Are we sure that they will not automatically win?
If we assume that synthetics are generally able to develope/improve themselves faster than organic, on the long term the (maybe inevitable) conflicts are going to be more and more one sided...
2. but it also show us that it's very very rare, very difficult to achieve (especially on large scale) and that the organics-synthetics relationships are shifting, variable
Where is it shown? For it to be rare, there need to be other instances where peace was impossible between organics and synthetics. In the trilogy Geth-Quarian conflict was the only synthetic-organic conflict that was in the game.
the evolutive speed of synthetics is the problem. We don't have enough info, but the geth in 300 years have evolved from high-tech gardeners/workers to one of the most powerful galactic armies, and they almost reach the dyson sphere level.
Give them other 300 years. Are we sure that they will not automatically win?
If we assume that synthetics are generally able to develope/improve themselves faster than organic, on the long term the (maybe inevitable) conflicts are going to be more and more one sided...
I don't need to be sure. The question is enough to reject the Reapers. Also, even if the Catalyst were correct you could challenge the Reapers as an appropriate response.
Where is it shown? For it to be rare, there need to be other instances where peace was impossible between organics and synthetics. In the trilogy Geth-Quarian conflict was the only synthetic-organic conflict that was in the game.
In the game we meet a lot of hostile AI, and very few benevolent AI (geth, overlord, edi on the moon, the catalyst, rouge AI in side quests etc)
Metacon war, morning war etc
Every geth we meet try we to kill us, except for Legion, and it's not easy to achieve peace of Rannoch (you have to do the right choiches).
etc.
To kill AI or to be killed by AI is a big part of ME plot, IMO.
I don't need to be sure. The question is enough to reject the Reapers. Also, even if the Catalyst were correct you could challenge the Reapers as an appropriate response.
I agree.
If the quarians are wiped out, then that's significant for the Catalyst's claims, for the same reason: we see one organic/synthetic conflict, and it is not possible to resolve it without the organics being wiped out. The reason why it's not possible doesn't matter.
It is, however, not as signficant for the Catalyst as making peace is against it, since you only need one item of counterevidence against a general claim to make it highly doubtful at least, while one example is weak as support for a general claim.
I don't actually think it is. Because despite the quarians possibly getting wiped out, the geth then side with the rest of the organics against the Reapers, they're shown willing to cooperate and pose no further threat. Not to even mention that the quarians caused their own downfall by attacking first and not ceasing fire if that happens. The quarians had started a war which they lost. The outcome was decided by an organic, as well. I don't think that supports the Catalyst's claims.
In the game we meet a lot of hostile AI, and very few benevolent AI (geth, overlord, edi on the moon, the catalyst, rouge AI in side quests etc)
Metacon war, morning war etc
Every geth we meet try we to kill us, except for Legion, and it's not easy to achieve peace of Rannoch (you have to do the right choiches).
etc.
1) A lot of hostile AI? Name a lot then. The only AI you name are Geth and EDI. And they're not hostile. The only hostile AI was the Gambling AI on the Citadel and it was dealt with rather quickly. VI don't count because they are not sentient and their hostility is part of the malfunction/hacking.
2) Metacon war doesn't count because there was no mention of that in the main game (DLC don't count). Morning War is a part of the Geth example. And what is "etc"? If you say there's something else, name it.
3) There is no such thing as "every geth". There are multiple platforms but only one Geth Network. The only part of Geth that is hostile is Geth Heretics and they are a minority. The only relevant example of the Geth is Legion and Geth VI.
1) A lot of hostile AI? Name a lot then. The only AI you name are Geth and EDI. And they're not hostile. The only hostile AI was the Gambling AI on the Citadel and it was dealt with rather quickly. VI don't count because they are not sentient and their hostility is part of the malfunction/hacking.
2) Metacon war doesn't count because there was no mention of that in the main game (DLC don't count). Morning War is a part of the Geth example. And what is "etc"? If you say there's something else, name it.
3) There is no such thing as "every geth". There are multiple platforms but only one Geth Network. The only part of Geth that is hostile is Geth Heretics and they are a minority. The only relevant example of the Geth is Legion and Geth VI.
I'd like to add...
1) The gambling AI on the Presidium was harmless until discovered and it likely turned hostile because it saw no way out (which it also stated.) Its plan was to gather enough credits to upload itself into a ship and join the geth far away from the Council space. Being discovered drove it into a corner.
2) Javik says that the organics were winning the Metacon war. Then the Reapers screwed them up.
The Morning War was a complicated issue caused by the quarians themselves almost fanatically trying to shut the geth down or destroy them. They even found that pro-geth quarian citizens were acceptable collateral damage while performing that task. Sure, it ended in the quarian race nearly wiped out, but multiple instances tell us that the conflict was started by the quarians themselves, such as Tali's explanation on the matter in ME1, Legion's recordings in ME2, the Consensus in ME3. Yet again the quarians started a war that later meant their downfall. I do hate the idea that the geth should've just sat there and let the quarians destroy them. How much abuse do they need to endure to be considered the damaged party?
3) The geth schism shows that even synthetics pursue different goals. Neither side pursued the total annihilation of organics, however. The heretics joined the Reapers because they hoped for technological ascension. I can see how being one super-advanced machine with many minds would appeal to a technologically lesser race that works on a similar principle. It is not until the Reaper(s) came, however, that they left the geth space. It's worth mentioning that pretty much everybody expresses their surprise at the sudden geth arrival. Ashley's regrets about Eden Prime concern the fact they had no idea what they were fighting against because none of the people there had ever seen a geth in their entire life and the military training does not include preparation against synthetics (implying synthetics aren't a common problem). The geth were largely a matter of history books for the Council space until Sovereign.
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.
The kid saying that organics and synthetics can't get along isn't contradictory at all. Especially from the Reaper's perspective. He establishes himself as the creator of the Reapers. The Reapers themselves have established previously that they don't believe organics and synthetics can co-exist. Having a different opinion that is completely against what the protagonist stands for would make it the antagonists opinion.
The kid is the antagonist (the Reaper's creator), obviously taking the form of a child. He even says he is a construct. A theoretical entity constructed by your mind. That may or may not be real (by definition).
Shepard might just be talking to himself the whole time.
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.
The ending wasn't completely unexplained. It did require you to backtrack to previous games and knowledge to figure things out. The writers didn't feel the need to hold people's hands and explain every little scene in detail.
Did we really need that camera pan in the Extended Cut showing that Anderson wasn't behind me? No, I could have figured it out. Did we really need that Reaper voice when you shoot the kid to reveal his true form (Reaper disguised as a kid)? Probably not. Did I really need to know why the kid's opinion about synthetics and organics was out of place? Nope, because it was exactly what the Reapers have said earlier. It's not hard to figure this stuff out if you think about it a little.
It was previous established in the trilogy what controlling the Reapers was (see Illusive Man). Same goes for synthesis (see Saren). Even refuse was an option (submission not preferable to extinction).
So it's not against the previous established story. It's against what you wanted the story to be about. Same goes for the ending. You wanted a clear-cut ending, with clear-cut choices, because the previous games were like this. While Bioware decided to make this ending ambiguous and vague on purpose. Despite all the criticism and backlash, they stuck to their guns and told you to deal with it.
1) A lot of hostile AI? Name a lot then. The only AI you name are Geth and EDI. And they're not hostile. The only hostile AI was the Gambling AI on the Citadel and it was dealt with rather quickly. VI don't count because they are not sentient and their hostility is part of the malfunction/hacking.
2) Metacon war doesn't count because there was no mention of that in the main game (DLC don't count). Morning War is a part of the Geth example. And what is "etc"? If you say there's something else, name it.
3) There is no such thing as "every geth". There are multiple platforms but only one Geth Network. The only part of Geth that is hostile is Geth Heretics and they are a minority. The only relevant example of the Geth is Legion and Geth VI.
1. In percentage, there are many of them.
2. etc -> various rouge AI aroud the space (I remember a ME2 puzzle side quests, perhaps), possibly Eva, the synth the prothean destroyed with a supernova...
3. this is what Legion say to you. In your direct experience, every geth you encounter is a threat, except for Legion. Legion is the true "catalyst" of peace between organics and geth, and he seems rather unique...
In any case, how much AI/synth are presented as a serious and constant threat through the trilogy, it's a matter of personal perspective.
The less you've felt this danger, the less you'll beleive the catalyst.
the evolutive speed of synthetics is the problem. We don't have enough info, but the geth in 300 years have evolved from high-tech gardeners/workers to one of the most powerful galactic armies, and they almost reach the dyson sphere level.
Give them other 300 years. Are we sure that they will not automatically win?
If we assume that synthetics are generally able to develope/improve themselves faster than organic, on the long term the (maybe inevitable) conflicts are going to be more and more one sided...
That is a good argument, one that you make and one that has occurred to me - but ME3 doesn't make it. It would've taken the Catalyst just one sentence, but no, we get nothing but unsupported claims, and that's not enough to counter making peace on Rannoch.
the evolutive speed of synthetics is the problem. We don't have enough info, but the geth in 300 years have evolved from high-tech gardeners/workers to one of the most powerful galactic armies, and they almost reach the dyson sphere level.
Give them other 300 years. Are we sure that they will not automatically win?
If we assume that synthetics are generally able to develope/improve themselves faster than organic, on the long term the (maybe inevitable) conflicts are going to be more and more one sided...
There's mention of a Dyson sphere but we don't see much sign of it having existed; what we see doesn't suggest that the geth have actually changed all that much in 300 years. How much faster an AI would develop new technology is an interesting open question, I think that it's possible to make good arguments on either side of that. However even if they do, and it's a possibility, they still have to be a threat and there still have to be no friendly AIs keeping up (the result may well be something like Iain Banks' Culture).
In short you can't argue against the possibility of an AI threat, but the mere possibility of something happening is no argument for doing something against it, without a sufficient argument for probability, and I don't think we know. There's the position of "it might be possible, we don't know how likely, so avoid altogether" but that route lies down the path of paranoia.
Retour en haut