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.
Can you explain the camera pan part? If you're referring to when Shepard is shot by Harbinger, the player was able to pan the camera around in both the original and extended cut to see that Anderson wasn't behind Shepard
The Metacon war is a nice mess. IIRC it was the reason Javik stated that the protheans united the galaxy. So they were around when the protheans formed their empire, during the emire and then the Reapers arrived, the Reapers allied with them. In response the protheans nova´d them out of existence.
Yep sounds weird or at least fishy. Perhaps Javik doesn´t know the whole story or the Metacon War wasn´t fought against the Zha´Til, which doesn´t sound unlikely. In that case, Sovereign completely missed one close roboapocalypse in the middle of the prothean cycle.
Can you explain the camera pan part? If you're referring to when Shepard is shot by Harbinger, the player was able to pan the camera around in both the original and extended cut to see that Anderson wasn't behind Shepard
After he goes up the beam.
The Extended Cut pans the camera around and shows you he wasn't behind you (at a much closer range, to sort of wave it in your face).
The original pans toward you, but from further way.
After he goes up the beam.
The Extended Cut pans the camera around and shows you he wasn't behind you (at a much closer range, to sort of wave it in your face).
The original pans toward you, but from further way.
Can you post a video of the original and extended cut to show the difference?
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.
But Peace is only one possible out come.
Either of the other options only prove the Catalysts statement.
Only in 33% of the galaxy's possible realities is the Catalyst wrong
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.
That's only part of what the Catalyst claims, but the issue is contradicting the events of the story, not arguing against Shepard. Opinion and perspective of the characters are not relevant to that point.
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.
No. It calls itself a construct because it was made or constructed. If Shepard was just talking to himself, then what actually happens? Is Shepard really up on top of the Citadel? Did he actually activate one of the options? How would he know what did what?
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.
You didn't "figure things out," you created your own answers by selectively grabbing bits and pieces out of the whole. I don't get your point about the camera pan. In the video you posted, the original ending shows a better shot that nobody was behind Shepard. More importantly, Anderson says he's in a different place. That was made explicitly clear. The scene just looks better in the Extended Cut, like better camera work in a movie. Likewise, the kid already told us that he was "the collective intelligence of all Reapers." The voice with Refuse was just an audio cue that it was mad now and done being friendly.
Most importantly from your weird list, we already knew why the kid's opinion was out of place because of the events of the series.
There's no indication that TIM knew what Control actually entailed. He probably thought he'd keep his human form and do to the Reapers whatever he's doing to Shepard and Anderson. Synthesis is not what Saren had in mind, What Saren ended up being is what Saren talked about and that was only to justify allowing Sovereign to implant him with that tech and make it sound like a good idea. And both were Indoctrinated.
However, in a historic and miraculous moment, you're right about one thing. Refuse was set up in the first game, which is why something along those lines would have worked to end the series. However, that option wasn't included at release and in the EC, it's arguably just a middle finger to the player.
The ending only makes sense to you because your understanding of what came before is incorrect, likely because you're trying to force what came earlier to make sense in light of the ending rather than the other way around.
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...
Another thought is that the Geth may have advanced in terms of building into a military power, but there is little indication of advanced technology over the organic species. Their small arms work differently but their other technology is largely the same.
But Peace is only one possible out come.
Either of the other options only prove the Catalysts statement.
Only in 33% of the galaxy's possible realities is the Catalyst wrong
No, the Catalyst says Synthetics will wipe out Organic life. The Catalyst is wrong in all 3 outcomes as the other two are organic victory or synthetic victory and then co-operation with other organics.
The ending only makes sense to you because your understanding of what came before is incorrect, likely because you're trying to force what came earlier to make sense in light of the ending rather than the other way around.
Maybe because I actually do understand it? Which is why it makes sense to me.
You didn't "figure things out," you created your own answers by selectively grabbing bits and pieces out of the whole. I don't get your point about the camera pan. In the video you posted, the original ending shows a better shot that nobody was behind Shepard. More importantly, Anderson says he's in a different place. That was made explicitly clear. The scene just looks better in the Extended Cut, like better camera work in a movie.
I didn't create any answers, except from what the game told me. You guys think the kid is a new character that comes out of nowhere and contradicts the story. Which many have proven to be incorrect.
As for Anderson, do you know that after being blasted by Harbinger and having your armor melted, that your radio should not be working? You just have to think about it.
We're battling this from two different sides. You are taking your face value approach (taking everything you see and hear as what really happened), and I'm reading between the lines and picking up on hidden messages that aren't explicitly spelled out for me.
We're battling this from two different sides. You are taking your face value approach (taking everything you see and hear as what really happened), and I'm reading between the lines and picking up on hidden messages that aren't explicitly spelled out for me.
In other words, filling the holes with your mind i.e. making up your headcanon.
Maybe because I actually do understand it? Which is why it makes sense to me.
You understand your imaginings, not what the events actually showed and told.
I didn't create any answers, except from what the game told me. You guys think the kid is a new character that comes out of nowhere and contradicts the story. Which many have proven to be incorrect.
As for Anderson, do you know that after being blasted by Harbinger and having your armor melted, that your radio should not be working? You just have to think about it.
We're battling this from two different sides. You are taking your face value approach (taking everything you see and hear as what really happened), and I'm reading between the lines and picking up on hidden messages that aren't explicitly spelled out for me.
You ignored what the game told you before and are mangling it to fit with what you were told later. New information can force you to look at old information in a different light, but that should be a smooth transition. You have to really contort things to make sense with the Catalyst.
The Catalyst wasn't foreshadowed until the Cerberus base. It does contradict the story. Nobody has proven otherwise. There has only been weak speculation attempting to make the two work together.
Yeah, the radio probably shouldn't work. And Shepard should have been incinerated in the atmosphere of Alchera after the Normandy was destroyed. The radio works so that Shepard and Anderson can talk. It was done in service of the story and that's fine for minor details like that.
You're not reading between the lines or picking things up. You're inventing the narrative.
Everyone keeps saying that the peace Shepard brokered between the quarians and the Geth proves peace between synthetics and organics is possible, but that's not really true. It's a temporary peace in a desparate crisis. The Geth -and other synthetics, like EDI - are known to constantly evolve and adapt over time. They will only get stronger and more sophisticated. And if they will be sharing Rannoch with the quarians, or sharing the galaxy at all, conflicts may arise, again, in the future, as they would between organics sharing space.
Remember that the geth consensus is not always unanimous. Part of the geth consensus can agree to do one thing while another can agree to do something else. More importantly, organics are even less trustworthy and homogenous in agreement. While the Admirals of this generation (and not even all the Quarian Admirals) might honor the peace and keep away from the geth, it's likely that other Quarians will eventually want to break the peace. But the Geth would only be stronger next time and crush the Quarians.
So no, one peace treaty brokered over Rannoch by Shepard is not conclusive proof that peace can last between organics and synthetics.
Everyone keeps saying that the peace Shepard brokered between the quarians and the Geth proves peace between synthetics and organics is possible, but that's not really true. It's a temporary peace in a desparate crisis. The Geth -and other synthetics, like EDI - are known to constantly evolve and adapt over time. They will only get stronger and more sophisticated. And if they will be sharing Rannoch with the quarians, or sharing the galaxy at all, conflicts may arise, again, in the future, as they would between organics sharing space.
Remember that the geth consensus is not always unanimous. Part of the geth consensus can agree to do one thing while another can agree to do something else. More importantly, organics are even less trustworthy and homogenous in agreement. While the Admirals of this generation (and not even all the Quarian Admirals) might honor the peace and keep away from the geth, it's likely that other Quarians will eventually want to break the peace. But the Geth would only be stronger next time and crush the Quarians.
So no, one peace treaty brokered over Rannoch by Shepard is not conclusive proof that peace can last between organics and synthetics.
That's not the point. The point is, that peace between the quarians and the Geth is a major plot point. EDI's relationship with Joker is another major plot point. The narrative didn't show once that synthetics can be a major threat for ALL organics, only Catalyst claims it in the end. He might be right, sure, but you don't tell a story where everything you know becomes non-important just because one ancient being says so.
That's not the point. The point is, that peace between the quarians and the Geth is a major plot point. EDI's relationship with Joker is another major plot point. The narrative didn't show once that synthetics can be a major threat for ALL organics, only Catalyst claims it in the end. He might be right, sure, but you don't tell a story where everything you know becomes non-important just because one ancient being says so.
Well you're interpreting all those subplots - the quarians/geth peace treay, and EDI and Joker's relationship - as stories about the hope for peaceful union between organics and synthetics.
They're about organics and synthetics, sure, but not necessarily peaceful co-existence between them. EDI and Joker's relationship could be a foreshadowing of synthesis and the blurring line or inevitable intertwining of organic and synthetic life. The Geth subplots are about the blurring line due to true AI between what is alive, and what is not alive.
Joker came to accept EDI, obviously, and a few Admirals, at a certain point in time, are peacefully working with the Geth right now, but these aren't symbolic of lasting peace. They're anecdotal situations vaguely referring to blurring lines between life and artifice. If synthetics are shown to only get smarter, faster, and stronger, conflicts may (or inevitably, if Catalyst is right) happen again, but next time organics will have less of a chance.
So no, these subplots do not oppose the conclusion.
Well you're interpreting all those subplots - the quarians/geth peace treay, and EDI and Joker's relationship - as stories about the hope for peaceful union between organics and synthetics.
They're about organics and synthetics, sure, but not necessarily peaceful co-existence between them. EDI and Joker's relationship could be a foreshadowing of synthesis and the blurring line or inevitable intertwining of organic and synthetic life. The Geth subplots are about the blurring line due to true AI between what is alive, and what is not alive.
Joker came to accept EDI, obviously, and a few Admirals, at a certain point in time, are peacefully working with the Geth right now, but these aren't symbolic of lasting peace. They're anecdotal situations vaguely referring to blurring lines between life and artifice. If synthetics are shown to only get smarter, faster, and stronger, conflicts may (or inevitably, if Catalyst is right) happen again, but next time organics will have less of a chance.
Even your interpretation doesn't disprove my point. They may foreshadow synthesis or whatever, but neither example really foreshadows a major conflict between the two groups. The only example of synthetics posing a galactic threat for organics are the Reapers themselves.
Even your interpretation doesn't disprove my point. They may foreshadow synthesis or whatever, but neither example really foreshadows a major conflict between the two groups. The only example of synthetics posing a galactic threat for organics are the Reapers themselves.
They don't need to foreshadow conflict between two groups. The inevitability of conflict between two groups is already a given.
They don't need to foreshadow conflict between two groups. The inevitability of conflict between two groups is already a given.
The conflict must be foreshadowed for the story to work. If you don't agree, you don't know anything about good storytelling.
The conflict must be foreshadowed for the story to work. If you don't agree, you don't know anything about good storytelling.
I just don't think 'foreshadowing' is the term you're looking for. Obviously I agree they need to show conflict is inevitabl, but I do think it is shown, but it's shown as a background-given. In other words, the burden of proof in Mass Effect 3 lies with disproving the inevitability of synthetic vs. organic conflicts, not with proving it, and none of the subplots successfully disproved this inevitability. The conflict between synthetics and organics are dealt with anecdotally (Tali admits that Legion has a soul, which is promising, but not indicative that all other Quarians will agree). But the fact that this situation arose in the first place, that the Quarians had to be convinced to lay down their arms, that Tali had to go through an entire series to answer this question, and that Legion even asked the question, points to the permanent nature of the conflict at root.
The permanent nature of war-like conflicts between synthetics and organics is also the other side of the very same coin as the question of what makes something life instead of artifice. They are basically the same thing painted in slightly different ways. In EDI and Joker's relationship, EDI constantly asks Shepard questions about organic thought processes and how to live like a person. Legion, obviously, has his question. People were always correcting each other one whether to call a true AI "it" or "her/him." Even Shepard asks him/herself, "what if I'm just a sophisticated VI?" (to paraphrase) in the Cronos Station, when going through the old recordings of his Lazarus Project. This grey area - this blurred line between life and artifice - is the basis for Synthesis.
Co-existence assumes distinction of two entities co-existing. If the two entities are the same thing, they aren't co-existing. There is no "co" - they are fused - they are one. Mass Effect 3 never proved that the two sides of the conflict (organics and synthetics) could remain distinct while co-existing. The main idea arising from all these subplots was that they are really more similar than apart. They are the same thing, and increasingly so. Co-existence will constantly be challenged as long as they remain distinguished entities and separated from each other.
Everyone keeps saying that the peace Shepard brokered between the quarians and the Geth proves peace between synthetics and organics is possible, but that's not really true. It's a temporary peace in a desparate crisis. The Geth -and other synthetics, like EDI - are known to constantly evolve and adapt over time. They will only get stronger and more sophisticated. And if they will be sharing Rannoch with the quarians, or sharing the galaxy at all, conflicts may arise, again, in the future, as they would between organics sharing space.
Remember that the geth consensus is not always unanimous. Part of the geth consensus can agree to do one thing while another can agree to do something else. More importantly, organics are even less trustworthy and homogenous in agreement. While the Admirals of this generation (and not even all the Quarian Admirals) might honor the peace and keep away from the geth, it's likely that other Quarians will eventually want to break the peace. But the Geth would only be stronger next time and crush the Quarians.
So no, one peace treaty brokered over Rannoch by Shepard is not conclusive proof that peace can last between organics and synthetics.
We don't need to prove the peace will last. The Catalyst is the one making the absolutist assertion so all we need to do is challenge the certainty.
Well you're interpreting all those subplots - the quarians/geth peace treay, and EDI and Joker's relationship - as stories about the hope for peaceful union between organics and synthetics.
They're about organics and synthetics, sure, but not necessarily peaceful co-existence between them. EDI and Joker's relationship could be a foreshadowing of synthesis and the blurring line or inevitable intertwining of organic and synthetic life. The Geth subplots are about the blurring line due to true AI between what is alive, and what is not alive.
If anything, Joker and EDI's relationship blurs the lines between Organic and Synthetic on its own and shows Synthesis to be all the more unnecessary.
In other words, the burden of proof in Mass Effect 3 lies with disproving the inevitability of synthetic vs. organic conflicts, not with proving it, and none of the subplots successfully disproved this inevitability.
No, it wasn't. The Catalyst must be able to point to at least a misinterpretation of actual events to support its assertion or we will just write it off as a nut. Because the events of the game show us that peace is possible, the Catalyst must give us reasons to both believe the peace will only be temporary and then reason to care enough that the Reapers look like a good solution to conflict.
In other words, the burden of proof in Mass Effect 3 lies with disproving the inevitability of synthetic vs. organic conflicts, not with proving it, and none of the subplots successfully disproved this inevitability. The conflict between synthetics and organics are dealt with anecdotally (Tali admits that Legion has a soul, which is promising, but not indicative that all other Quarians will agree). But the fact that this situation arose in the first place, that the Quarians had to be convinced to lay down their arms, that Tali had to go through an entire series to answer this question, and that Legion even asked the question, points to the permanent nature of the conflict at root.
The permanent nature of war-like conflicts between synthetics and organics is also the other side of the very same coin as the question of what makes something life instead of artifice. They are basically the same thing painted in slightly different ways. In EDI and Joker's relationship, EDI constantly asks Shepard questions about organic thought processes and how to live like a person. Legion, obviously, has his question. People were always correcting each other one whether to call a true AI "it" or "her/him." Even Shepard asks him/herself, "what if I'm just a sophisticated VI?" (to paraphrase) in the Cronos Station, when going through the old recordings of his Lazarus Project. This grey area - this blurred line between life and artifice - is the basis for Synthesis.
Co-existence assumes distinction of two entities co-existing. If the two entities are the same thing, they aren't co-existing. There is no "co" - they are fused - they are one. Mass Effect 3 never proved that the two sides of the conflict (organics and synthetics) could remain distinct while co-existing. The main idea arising from all these subplots was that they are really more similar than apart. They are the same thing, and increasingly so. Co-existence will constantly be challenged as long as they remain distinguished entities and separated from each other.
All of that between the Quarians and Geth is not merely that one is Synthetic and the other Organic. It's very specific to their history. Yet in the peace scenario, many Quarians accept Geth into their suits. The game suggest everything goes great, however hard that may be to believe for you or someone else..
And you give more evidence that Organic and Synthetic are similar, which make Synthesis all the more stupid, pointless, and ill-fitting of the series.
The quarians and geth aren't going to start banging one another.We don't need to prove the peace will last. The Catalyst is the one making the absolutist assertion so all we need to do is challenge the certainty.
If anything, Joker and EDI's relationship blurs the lines between Organic and Synthetic on its own and shows Synthesis to be all the more unnecessary.
The quarians and geth aren't going to start banging one another.
You can't prove that 
The quarians and geth aren't going to start banging one another.
Is that the only requirement for friendship and trust to work? I call bs.
The setting of the Mass Effect franchise consistently fails to portray AIs as some black-and-white and hostile-by-default beings. There's pretty much nothing "supporting" the notion that synthetics are dangerous by default besides Tali's bullshit claim about how "they have no use for us. None!" What kind of reasoning is that? It's hilarious how the games painstakingly go out of their way to explain that every act of synthetic aggression we encounter has its cause, just like every act of organic aggression we encounter does. The fact that AIs are dangerous is merely stated a handful of times by not exactly reliable sources throughout the entire franchise at best while the games consistently portray them as beings with their own motivations that don't necessarily want anything to do with organics, much less fight them. That is pretty much only untrue for the geth that are led by the Reapers. The Reapers freaking use the geth to kill organics and we're supposed to believe they're trying to fix the problem?
Also, nobody has yet explained to me how advanced = automatically hostile.
Also, nobody has yet explained to me how advanced = automatically hostile.
As I understand it, it's not advanced = hostile. It's more like if hostile then advanced win. But many forget about if and assume that everything will be hostile eventually and there are no ways to prevent conflicts permanently without taking away individual freedom (Synthesis). It's a pessimistic viewpoint and if you share this viewpoint then it's a correct assessment. However, this is nothing different from organics having conflicts that might end up in the genocide of one group. But Reapers don't care about that for some reason.
!
Replace synthetic vs organic conflict with every possible conflict and you've got a decent Reaper logic. "Your kinds tend to exterminate each other and some species go extinct. We were designed to stop that from happening. We are your salvation. We preserve life in Reaper form. We are each a nation, free from all weakness. Prepare yourselves for the ascension."
There are many examples on Earth of more advanced civilisations being taken down by technically lesser ones. The fall of Rome to name just one.
In the Mass Effect universe the Protheans were turning the tide in the war against the technically more advanced Metacons.
What force did the Catalyst have to defeat the Leviathans? Remember that it didn't have the Reapers at the time. It used them to create the first in the form of Harbinger.
The most advanced doesn't always win.
What force did the Catalyst have to defeat the Leviathans? Remember that it didn't have the Reapers at the time. It used them to create the first in the form of Harbinger.
Gah! Don't remind me. How was the first Reaper harvested and created when there were no Reapers and when the Leviathans are so powerful that they have no trouble mind-controlling organic races and taking down Reapers millions of years after their downfall? That just makes my head hurt.
Retour en haut