3472 réponses à ce sujet

[voteDC]

In the encounters with hostile Geth they likely won due to overwhelming force. Yet those same Geth were handily dispatched by a two man squad on Eden Prime, Shepard and Kaidan, until we recruited Ashley. Then three people managed to defeat a force that a full squad of marines could not do.

So there we have the great problem. We get told synthetics are this unstoppable force and yet on each occasion we get to enter conflict with a synthetic force we handily defeat them.

We never get to experience the synthetics winning, we only ever lose off screen. The synthetics only win outside of player control.

It's a different genre I know but even one mission in the vein of the ending of Halo: Reach would have made the inevitability argument work. In the person of Noble Six we fought a battle we knew as the player we were not going to be able to win, yet we fought damn hard to forestall that.

Why was there no mission like that in Mass Effect, in any of the three games.? Why was the only inevitable moment right at the very end?

It comes down to something I've said about the endings before. Don't tell me something and then show me something else. Don't tell me that synthetics winning is inevitable when I've spent three games proving that wrong.

[rossler]

Profound, no. The thought it provoked was "What the hell is this crap?"

 

It's still thought provoking to have a negative reaction over the ending. Or to have all these news articles write stuff about what's wrong about the ending. It provoked a response and that's what Bioware wanted all along.

[Natureguy85]

So, um... yeah, while we only have the Catalyst's words, for some it was enough 'evidence' to accept its logic, others don't believe it and hate it because of that. 

 

Whatever they want for their personal vision of the game is fine. My problem is that people for whom it was enough get mad at those of us who wanted a proper story. They purposely ignore the game in favor of a late exposition dump and argument from authority.

 

 

True, but I think that Legion touches a bit on the topic of the value. IIRC it states that the Reapers offered everything to Shepard/organics what the geth aspire - true unity, transcendance, immortality. The Reapers offer exactly that, but they don't see that this is not what we would want, it truly isn't of value for us, we gain nothing from being turned into a Reaper.

Even though... I guess the question again is - how does each individual see it? Do they want to become something more than human? Do they want to be preserved in a different state for an eternity, become indeed immortal? I would think not, but maybe there are some who welcome this idea (who knows). I certainly wouldn't want that, and that's exactly what the Reapers can't understand. They can't understand that we would rather choose to just die instead of being preserved (I think this is tied to Leviathan and this tribute does not flow from a dead race thinking; could be wrong though).

 

Sure, that's valuable for the Geth but where has that ever been something Organics want? On Legion's loyalty mission, he'll comment on the Organic desire for independence. Remember, Shepard is more defined than other blank slate characters for the player to role play through. There was never any desire to become some sort of superior being.

 

 

 

I find this quite interesting, because while you're right that the Catalyst's claims are never actually proven within the game, I like it exactly because of that. For some it's an opportunity to look beyond the game, to think about this kind of stuff and if it could truly happen or not. It's only a game, but people think about this in all seriousness. I find that pretty cool, and I really don't mind that it is not proven within the game.

But that's just personal taste of course and I already know most people don't feel like me.

 

Sure, it's good for fiction to make us think about the real world but you can't impose the real world onto the game. That's what Gothpunkboy and congokong are doing.

 

 

 

That's because they're space magic, I take it?

If we're talking on a moral level, you're right to have these issues. I've also seen people interpret Control and Synthesis differently, and more positive, which I think doesn't make their opinion wrong (unless it's clearly stated in the game). I don't have to agree with some things, but I can respect their take on these choices.

I'm interested to see how differently people can perceive these scenes. To be fair though, it's been some time since I've seen the Synthesis ending, and it was pre-EC, but now I try to explore them from a different angle in form of a Shepard that is very different from the point of view that I originally had. I curious to see how I will perceive Synthesis this time, or Control with my next Shepard.

 

Yes, I do have moral issues with Control and Synthesis but that's not too big a deal since you can be a jerk and I've played bad people in games before. There are few times I won't explore options in games at least to see what they do. The bigger problem is how out of place they are for the story of Mass Effect up to that point and how they go against the themes of the game.

 

 

 

Did not read the Fallout 3 stuff because I haven't finished it so far (it's on my 'games to play' list that never decreases because I replay ME over and over ).

 

I'd skip it. If you haven't played New Vegas, it's far superior. In summary, you get to have a friendly chat with the computer that leads an antagonistic faction and can convince it to blow itself up because it is causing more harm than good.

 

 

 

I think we already talked about that in some other thread a while ago. For me it's not necessarily being forced to work with the Catalyst, but with the Crucible. People are pissed off because the Catalyst is there to explain the functions. But they don't really have a choice, because the Crucible has docked and is ready, and it could be destroyed any moment.

 

See, for me it thematically fits that refusal results in failure. People refuse to believe the Catalyst, they refuse to believe its logic or are repulsed by some or all choices provided by it. Or they might believe in the right for each individual to decide over their life instead of having Shepard force something like Synthesis on everyone. In refusing the Catalyst, they refuse to use the Crucible. I know it looks like the Catalyst switches off the Crucible, but I somehow still want to believe that the Reapers destroy it physically like in the original ending.

 

Yeah, I can somewhat get behind that view of Refuse. Shepard already answered Saren that extinction was preferable to submission. And since the Reapers are destroyed down the line, you could still see it as a win state. It doesn't end in "game over" or "critical mission failure." However for his big speech, the scene goes out with such a whimper.

[Natureguy85]

Its mission was preservation of organic life; not reconciliation of organics and synthetics.

 

That depends on who you ask. It says it's supposed to be a Catalyst for peace, the Leviathan says it's mission is to preserve life.

 

 

 

 

Frankly, I'm baffled how many people can not see the huge warning signs of what the catalyst suggests, and instead question its validity. Its accumulation of intellect would be like comparing ours to mice; probably far more.

 

This is nothing more than an Argument from Authority fallacy.

 

 

 And people don't see the signs of what it suggests through Legion or EDI? Thanks to those characters though, emotional appeal clouds people's judgment; the way people liking Wrex makes them think a race that can produce effectively 10,000 more offspring than humans could ever peacefully stabilize their population.

 

This is a character driven series. Our experiences are defined be interaction with particular characters. People think that the Krogan can peacefully stabilize their population because the game tells us that happens with Wrex in charge. You can question how believable that is and mock it as silly, but you can't use that to say that it doesn't happen within the narrative.

 

 

 

 

 

Then there are the people who seem to think the geth are somehow proof the catalyst is wrong despite:

1) The geth are only one synthetic race

2) The geth were in their relative infancy until ME3 if given those reaper upgrades

3) We only see the peace for several weeks during wartime

4) The geth are hardly pacifists

 

From what we know of the geth until Legion, they have killed every organic they've come across upon leaving the Perseus Veil, and killed any who have entered it; peaceful intentions or otherwise. Yes, the quarians instigated the initial conflict, but the geth's continuous hostility to organics for centuries afterwards did them no favors regarding sympathy.

 

Only one example is needed to break an "always" premise.The Geth are shown to desire peace and to make peace. That conflict may still arise at some point down the road is irrelevant. There will always be some conflict somewhere.

 

 

 

It's just a fact of life. The strong rule the weak; in evolution, government, etc. In the long term, I cannot fathom how clearly superior synthetics would ever put up with the flaws of organics and continuously allow equality. Organics might even instigate the conflict that would wipe them out.

 

And here is your golden sentence. It doesn't matter what you can fathom. There is no indication within the narrative that this happens or will happen. You can't impose your real world experience or views on the fictional world. You can only criticize what you see as an unrealistic or unbelievable portrayal of AI or whatever else.

 

 

It's still thought provoking to have a negative reaction over the ending. Or to have all these news articles write stuff about what's wrong about the ending. It provoked a response and that's what Bioware wanted all along.

 

Ah, so it's the reaction, not the ending itself, that's thought provoking? Well there's no way they expected or wanted that big of a negative reaction, however you're probably right that there are at least some who have decided that there is no such thing as bad publicity.

[rossler]

Ah, so it's the reaction, not the ending itself, that's thought provoking? Well there's no way they expected or wanted that big of a negative reaction, however you're probably right that there are at least some who have decided that there is no such thing as bad publicity.

 

If you spent over 100 pages talking about the ending in this thread (as well as many other threads on this forum), then both were thought provoking. Not just the initial reaction you had way back over 4 years ago.

 

The initial reaction was thought provoking because people reacted negatively or positively about it. The press was all over this. It was big news. The ending itself was thought provoking, because it caused people to write up things like this (anti-ending) or this (pro-ending).

[Dantriges]

It's just a fact of life. The strong rule the weak; in evolution, government, etc. In the long term, I cannot fathom how clearly superior synthetics would ever put up with the flaws of organics and continuously allow equality. Organics might even instigate the conflict that would wipe them out.

Are we going with the current high estimates of ASI in RL? Don´t bother applying human concepts and logic to this. It´s so far beyond our understanding that predictions about its behavior are moot. It might read this post in 50 years or so, getting enraged, amused or emfozzed or shadiggled or whatever it calls its states of mind, which we can´t comprehend. Anyways humanity has a long history of trying to placate capricious, uncaring or unknowable gods, time to dust off these skills again.
 

Granted, this happens already with the reapers, but their purpose is to actually leave primitive organics alone; something some other synthetic race likely wouldn't do.

 
Ah Javik had that line about "synthetics have a purpose, we don´t, so they see themselves as superior and not need us anymore or stuff like that. Hm yeah ok, but unless we talk about the hypothetical scenario of the paperclip AI, the purposes of AIs in the MEverse were centered around the needs of organics. Probably the reason why the geth were so eager to help the quarians. No organics, no purpose and well, the scenario of "purpose fulfilled, continued existence pointless, shutting down" is a valid possible outcome. Ok we haven´t seen that , but we´ve only seen annihilation Reaper style , not "I sterilize the unverse."

I mean sure it´s possible that AI/synthetics wipe out humans, it´s a possibility in our future, OTOH it might be that we never reach that level and all predictions fall flat. Anyways it´s interestig that people go with unstoppable superintelligence, we cannot grasp and then assume that it will behave exactly like us. Maybe, our brains and thoughts are stuff that researchers copy. Mabye not. ASIs won´t even share our basic drives, like survival instinct and its continued existence is just a number in a equation.

 

 

Its accumulation of intellect would be like comparing ours to mice; probably far more.

 

The Catalyst? nah, not really. It´s dumb as a brick, saved from total humiliation by the writers blocking the interesting questions or inworld Shep is an even bigger brick.

[oddball_bg]

Its mission was preservation of organic life; not reconciliation of organics and synthetics.

 

Not necessarily extinction, but all organics' fate would be at the whims of some synthetic race. Granted, this happens already with the reapers, but their purpose is to actually leave primitive organics alone; something some other synthetic race likely wouldn't do.

 

 

Frankly, I'm baffled how many people can not see the huge warning signs of what the catalyst suggests, and instead question its validity. Its accumulation of intellect would be like comparing ours to mice; probably far more. And people don't see the signs of what it suggests through Legion or EDI? Thanks to those characters though, emotional appeal clouds people's judgment; the way people liking Wrex makes them think a race that can produce effectively 10,000 more offspring than humans could ever peacefully stabilize their population.

 

Then there are the people who seem to think the geth are somehow proof the catalyst is wrong despite:

1) The geth are only one synthetic race

2) The geth were in their relative infancy until ME3 if given those reaper upgrades

3) We only see the peace for several weeks during wartime

4) The geth are hardly pacifists

 

From what we know of the geth until Legion, they have killed every organic they've come across upon leaving the Perseus Veil, and killed any who have entered it; peaceful intentions or otherwise. Yes, the quarians instigated the initial conflict, but the geth's continuous hostility to organics for centuries afterwards did them no favors regarding sympathy.

 

It's just a fact of life. The strong rule the weak; in evolution, government, etc. In the long term, I cannot fathom how clearly superior synthetics would ever put up with the flaws of organics and continuously allow equality. Organics might even instigate the conflict that would wipe them out.

What the catalyst is talking about,that the advancement of AI and synthetic life can actually doom organics in the long run is entirely coherent.Why is everybody in denial to that I can't understand!

[Natureguy85]

If you spent over 100 pages talking about the ending in this thread (as well as many other threads on this forum), then both were thought provoking. Not just the initial reaction you had way back over 4 years ago.

 

The initial reaction was thought provoking because people reacted negatively or positively about it. The press was all over this. It was big news. The ending itself was thought provoking, because it caused people to write up things like this (anti-ending) or this (pro-ending).

 

Well "thought provoking" doesn't just mean "people will have an opinion" on it. And yeah, it did provoke conversation because it was terrible and there are some who try to defend it. Again, that's not what people usually mean by "thought provoking."

 

 

What the catalyst is talking about,that the advancement of AI and synthetic life can actually doom organics in the long run is entirely coherent.Why is everybody in denial to that I can't understand!

 

Because you're using real world analysis and hypothetical scenarios, not what's present in the narrative. Only the Mass Effect representation of AI matters and there is no indication that they will ever doom Organic life.

[rossler]

Well "thought provoking" doesn't just mean "people will have an opinion" on it. And yeah, it did provoke conversation because it was terrible and there are some who try to defend it. Again, that's not what people usually mean by "thought provoking."

 

If you really expected everyone to walk away from ME3 with a big smile on their face saying this is the best most satisfying ending in video game history, I feel sorry for you. It would be nice, but in reality, not everyone is going to walk away from something satisfied. Some people will be utterly pissed, as we saw here on BSN and many other places.

 

So what if people try to defend or praise the ending? It sounds like you want everyone to hate it, because you hate it. Everyone should think like you. Anyone who doesn't is going to get an earful from you.

[Natureguy85]

If you really expected everyone to walk away from ME3 with a big smile on their face saying this is the best most satisfying ending in video game history, I feel sorry for you. It would be nice, but in reality, not everyone is going to walk away from something satisfied. Some people will be utterly pissed, as we saw here on BSN and many other places.

 

So what if people try to defend or praise the ending. It sounds like you want everyone to hate it, because you hate it. Everyone should think like you. Not always the case.

 

No, I didn't expect that and nothing I said would indicate that.

 

I don't care about other people's subjective enjoyment of it. There are terrible movies that I still enjoy watching. I'm doing critique and pointing out its objective problems.

[congokong]

 

This is nothing more than an Argument from Authority fallacy.

It's not merely authority. It's intellect and experience; far more than experienced through Shepard's eyes over merely three years.

 

 

This is a character driven series. Our experiences are defined be interaction with particular characters. People think that the Krogan can peacefully stabilize their population because the game tells us that happens with Wrex in charge. You can question how believable that is and mock it as silly, but you can't use that to say that it doesn't happen within the narrative.

Where does it say that, if Wrex is in charge, everything is fine and dandy going forward? Because we get a powerpoint slide at the end of krogan holding single infants?

 

 

Only one example is needed to break an "always" premise.The Geth are shown to desire peace and to make peace. That conflict may still arise at some point down the road is irrelevant. There will always be some conflict somewhere.

 

1. The geth are no exception from the "created rebel against their creators rule."

2. There's no proof the geth can coexist with organics peacefully in the long term.

3. Even if geth could coexist peacefully somehow, that doesn't imply that all organics/synthetics can coexist peacefully indefinitely.

4. If this conflict ever arises, it will likely mean the end of organics; especially in any sort of authority that they currently possess.

 

A real life example: I believe humans will inevitably destroy themselves with nuclear weapons unless we find another planet to colonize first. Governments like those of the USA interfere greatly in foreign policy to prevent countries like Iran from developing their own nukes, but it's merely delaying the inevitable IMO. By your logic, saying that the U.S. (except for Hiroshima/Nagasaki) or Russia or China, etc. not yet using nukes is proof that it won't happen.

 

 

And here is your golden sentence. It doesn't matter what you can fathom. There is no indication within the narrative that this happens or will happen. You can't impose your real world experience or views on the fictional world. You can only criticize what you see as an unrealistic or unbelievable portrayal of AI or whatever else.

 

I'm using nothing outside of ME lore for my argument. It's entirely based on the premises the ME universe set. The series gave plenty of warning signs, and several characters like the catalyst and Leviathan outright state it, but some fans such as yourself choose to ignore it.

 

Based on what the series gives regarding synthetics, I cannot see the catalyst being wrong regarding the organic/synthetic conflict. The geth are no exception, and even if they were, it wouldn't void the whole premise.

[BloodyMares]

What the catalyst is talking about,that the advancement of AI and synthetic life can actually doom organics in the long run is entirely coherent.Why is everybody in denial to that I can't understand!

Because we didn't see that happen in the game once. When one character says something that contradicts my experience and doesn't present any proof then I have to call them a liar. In our experience, the cycle was different. If the Catalyst can't show me the future or present any kind of proof that Reapers are a lesser evil than those synthetics then yes, I am in denial.

[Natureguy85]

It's not merely authority. It's intellect and experience; far more than experienced through Shepard's eyes over merely three years.

 

You're assuming it has those things and you're assuming that it's right just because it does. Smart people can be wrong. Experts can be wrong. That's why it needs to make an argument and present evidence. Authority as is "an authority on this subject," not as in "turn it over to the authorities."

 

 

 

Where does it say that, if Wrex is in charge, everything is fine and dandy going forward? Because we get a powerpoint slide at the end of krogan holding single infants?

 

Yes, and all the dialogue from Wrex, Eve, and Mordin, though in fairness, there is a slightly uncomfortable conversation they can have aboard the truck where Mording expresses concerns. Again, you can take issue with the game presenting this info through the simplistic slideshow, as I do, but that is a separate issue.

 

 

 

1. The geth are no exception from the "created rebel against their creators rule."

2. There's no proof the geth can coexist with organics peacefully in the long term.

3. Even if geth could coexist peacefully somehow, that doesn't imply that all organics/synthetics can coexist peacefully indefinitely.

 

1) They are an exception to the "destroy all Organics" claim. It's also questionable if they technically rebelled, but that's not as important.

2) It's not required. Even the chance makes the Catalyst and Reapers unnecessary. You have no evidence that they can't or won't.

3) Again, it doesn't matter. The Catalyst is the one making the absolutist claims. I don't have to prove a negative.

 

 

 

A real life example: I believe humans will inevitably destroy themselves with nuclear weapons unless we find another planet to colonize first. Governments like those of the USA interfere greatly in foreign policy to prevent countries like Iran from developing their own nukes, but it's merely delaying the inevitable IMO. By your logic, saying that the U.S. (except for Hiroshima/Nagasaki) or Russia or China, etc. not yet using nukes is proof that it won't happen.

 

No, I'm saying the chance that it might happen isn't an excuse to blow the country that might do it off the face of the Earth. it's just a reason to keep them from getting nukes.

 

 

 

I'm using nothing outside of ME lore for my argument. It's entirely based on the premises the ME universe set. The series gave plenty of warning signs, and several characters like the catalyst and Leviathan outright state it, but some fans such as yourself choose to ignore it.

 

They state it, but nothing in the game shows it. The Catalyst says it at the end of the game. The Leviathans are an argument after the fact, shoved in later to try and set up the Catalyst better. That's awful story telling.

 

 

 

Based on what the series gives regarding synthetics, I cannot see the catalyst being wrong regarding the organic/synthetic conflict. The geth are no exception, and even if they were, it wouldn't void the whole premise.

 

Yes they are and yes it does. Only one counter example is needed to void an "always" premise.

 

And as I have said before, and BloodyMares said above, maybe the Catalyst is right about every other cycle. This cycle is different and therefore earns a different response.

[congokong]

You're assuming it has those things and you're assuming that it's right just because it does. Smart people can be wrong. Experts can be wrong. That's why it needs to make an argument and present evidence. Authority as is "an authority on this subject," not as in "turn it over to the authorities."

 

I'm assuming nothing. It has studied many civilizations. It has vast intellect. It created the bloody reapers and mass relays and who knows what else. The lore outright states it has accumulated vast knowledge. Do we have to witness every detail to accept what the game tells us?

 

 

Yes, and all the dialogue from Wrex, Eve, and Mordin, though in fairness, there is a slightly uncomfortable conversation they can have aboard the truck where Mording expresses concerns. Again, you can take issue with the game presenting this info through the simplistic slideshow, as I do, but that is a separate issue.

 

What dialogue? About their ideals of how curing the genophage would somehow solve all their problems? Wrex/Eve are a red herring and the dalatrass is a strawman; both meant to manipulate the player into thinking that outright curing the genophage could somehow work. And, because of human flaws regarding emotional appeal, it works.

 

 

 

No, I'm saying the chance that it might happen isn't an excuse to blow the country that might do it off the face of the Earth. it's just a reason to keep them from getting nukes.

 

To properly compare it with the catalyst's actions, you'd have to assume these nukes could endanger other organics on other planets.

 

 

 

Yes they are and yes it does. Only one counter example is needed to void an "always" premise.

 

And as I have said before, and BloodyMares said above, maybe the Catalyst is right about every other cycle. This cycle is different and therefore earns a different response.

I don't recall the catalyst/leviathan stating that every synethetic/synthetic race ever created eventually wiped out their creators. They said that synthetics (generic) eventually did. The geth not being the ones that specifically do it doesn't invalidate the premise. Even if the geth aren't the ones, more AIs will be created that will eventually be less merciful.

 

I give the catalyst, leviathan, and the ME lore presented the benefit of the doubt because that's how the game wants me to see it. I don't need to see every example of validation for the catalyst's premise. I'm assuming it's true that every civilization the catalyst/leviathan knew of eventually were destroyed by synthetics, and eventually the catalyst concluded the reapers were a necessary evil.

[Natureguy85]

I'm assuming nothing. It has studied many civilizations. It has vast intellect. It created the bloody reapers and mass relays and who knows what else. The lore outright states it has accumulated vast knowledge. Do we have to witness every detail to accept what the game tells us?

 

You're assuming it's right just because it's old and claims to have studied these things. How does defying physics and building robots make it an expert on sociology?

 

Who asked for "every detail", Mr. Strawman? Can we start with the basics?

 

 

What dialogue? About their ideals of how curing the genophage would somehow solve all their problems? Wrex/Eve are a red herring and the dalatrass is a strawman; both meant to manipulate the player into thinking that outright curing the genophage could somehow work. And, because of human flaws regarding emotional appeal, it works.

 

I won't argue with you that the game pushes curing the Genophage as the "good" choice, at least with Wrex and Eve around. It definitely does, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't turn out as presented. Again, you can give reasons why that's ridiculous, but it is what it is.

 

 

 

To properly compare it with the catalyst's actions, you'd have to assume these nukes could endanger other organics on other planets.

 

Not really. For all we know, there are no Organics on other planets. The planet is analogous to the galaxy with countries being the different races. We're looking at the idea of one rogue actor getting nukes and destroying everyone else with them.

 

 

 

I don't recall the catalyst/leviathan stating that every synethetic/synthetic race ever created eventually wiped out their creators. They said that synthetics (generic) eventually did. The geth not being the ones that specifically do it doesn't invalidate the premise. Even if the geth aren't the ones, more AIs will be created that will eventually be less merciful.

 

It says that the Created always rebel against their creators and that without the Reapers Synthetics will wipe out Organic life. We never see this as even a possible threat as no Synthetic is ever presented as a threat to all life. In fact they only win in the short term with Organics overcoming them, usually a 3 person squad. The Geth hide in their area, only hostile towards Organics that enter their space. Theirs no indication they won't stay there forever outside of Sovereign's influence. In fact, the game suggests that's exactly what they'd do.

 

So to say that the Geth might not but some other Synthetic might is a total cop-out. You're admitting the Catalyst has no evidence and are just taking it's word for it. Since eternity hasn't happened yet, it always might happen down the road. That is so lazy and unsatisfying. Mere chance of a problem does not justify wiping out all the civilizations the Reapers kill.

 

Again, the Catalyst has to prove its point. I don't have to prove a negative.

 

 

 

I give the catalyst, leviathan, and the ME lore presented the benefit of the doubt because that's how the game wants me to see it. I don't need to see every example of validation for the catalyst's premise. I'm assuming it's true that every civilization the catalyst/leviathan knew of eventually were destroyed by synthetics, and eventually the catalyst concluded the reapers were a necessary evil.

 

So what? That doesn't happen in this cycle making the Reapers unnecessary. They are unwanted and unneeded. As Shepard says, "I think we'd rather keep our own form." The galaxy will deal with the problem itself, if it even ever arises.  Hey, why don't they go away and step in if the super synthetics ever show up? Why don't they kill those Synthetics instead of the Organics?

[oddball_bg]

Because we didn't see that happen in the game once. When one character says something that contradicts my experience and doesn't present any proof then I have to call them a liar. In our experience, the cycle was different. If the Catalyst can't show me the future or present any kind of proof that Reapers are a lesser evil than those synthetics then yes, I am in denial.

I don't understand your logic.How do you prove something that is very possible to happen in the future?Use time travel to travel thousands of years into the future and take a photo,or something?

[BloodyMares]

So what? That doesn't happen in this cycle making the Reapers unnecessary. They are unwanted and unneeded. As Shepard says, "I think we'd rather keep our own form." The galaxy will deal with the problem itself, if it even ever arises.  Hey, why don't they go away and step in if the super synthetics ever show up? Why don't they kill those Synthetics instead of the Organics?

Exactly. Imagine if the Catalyst was actually smart and instead of commiting countless genocide would for once save the cycle from evil synthetics and then these advanced organics are thankful to the Reapers for salvation and would listen to their manual "How to train your synthetic" or threaten them to obey that manual ("If that ever happens again, we will kill you") and then that knowledge is passed down onto the next generations and younger species either out of fear of being oblitirated by synthetics or out of fear of the Reapers. This way the conflict never happens. This way the Reapers wouldn't need to interfere at all, organics will sort this out themselves. Just like the experiment with monkeys, banana and the sprinkler.

[BloodyMares]

I don't understand your logic.How do you prove something that is very possible to happen in the future?Use time travel to travel thousands of years into the future and take a photo,or something?

Reapers can show the visions of the future through artifacts (Arrival DLC and ending flashforward). The Catalyst needs only that and perhaps show the visions of the past. How it always happens, how the pattern is the exact same all the time, how this cycle is no different. Just do that to show Shepard that synthetics are indeed a larger threat than the Reapers. Make us, the player, see these images, those failures. Show the outcomes of the different solutions and why they failed. Only that counts as an irrefutable proof. This way you know for sure that the Catalyst is right and then you can only argue with his methods, not his goal.

[Natureguy85]

Exactly. Imagine if the Catalyst was actually smart and instead of commiting countless genocide would for once save the cycle from evil synthetics and then these advanced organics are thankful to the Reapers for salvation and would listen to their manual "How to train your synthetic" or threaten them to obey that manual ("If that ever happens again, we will kill you") and then that knowledge is passed down onto the next generations and younger species either out of fear of being oblitirated by synthetics or out of fear of the Reapers. This way the conflict never happens. This way the Reapers wouldn't need to interfere at all, organics will sort this out themselves. Just like the experiment with monkeys, banana and the sprinkler.

 

Yeah, or an idea I had awhile ago;

 

A major thing in the first game is the reveal that the Reapers left technology behind to push Organic development down a certain path. Legion comments on how being given the technology limits development since you don't try other things. So if Organics need Synthetics to advance beyond their own capabilities, why not give them Synthetics that you control to not destroy them? If Organics are given Synthetics, they won't build their own.

[Reorte]

I'm assuming nothing. It has studied many civilizations. It has vast intellect. It created the bloody reapers and mass relays and who knows what else. The lore outright states it has accumulated vast knowledge. Do we have to witness every detail to accept what the game tells us?

Yes, we do. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. One such claim is that the Catalyst has a vast intelligence. It doesn't give the impression of being much more than a VI. That it created the Reapers rather argues against its intelligence. The Reapers themselves created the Relays (and both probably made use of existing technology, although admittedly there's no proof of that).

 

It states that it's got all this knowledge, experience, and intelligence but demonstrates none of it, so I'm no more likely inclined to accept it as the fount of all knowledge than I am from a drunk propping up the bar claiming to know everything.

[Dantriges]

You're assuming it has those things and you're assuming that it's right just because it does. Smart people can be wrong. Experts can be wrong. That's why it needs to make an argument and present evidence. Authority as is "an authority on this subject," not as in "turn it over to the authorities."

In addition, doesn´t it say that synthetics don´t understand organics? So it confessed to being plain bad at its job, unable to properly analyze half of the equation? And well it also overlooked its holy grail built countless times over and over again, until it got shoved into its butt.

[angol fear]

I'm doing critique and pointing out its objective problems.

 

Then you'll have to explain your method (which will lead you to explain us how your criterias are objective). No need to go into details.

[congokong]

You're assuming it's right just because it's old and claims to have studied these things. How does defying physics and building robots make it an expert on sociology?

The lore says it has vast knowledge. If you're going to outright ignore it, then nothing I say will change your mind. I'd rather hear people's arguments for why the reapers are wrong despite the catalyst's premise, but most people seem to refuse to give the premise the benefit of the doubt. Why?

I won't argue with you that the game pushes curing the Genophage as the "good" choice, at least with Wrex and Eve around. It definitely does, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't turn out as presented. Again, you can give reasons why that's ridiculous, but it is what it is.

When do we see the actual results of curing the genophage? Wrex/Eve's idealistic visions of the future are not proof that it works out at all.

Not really. For all we know, there are no Organics on other planets. The planet is analogous to the galaxy with countries being the different races. We're looking at the idea of one rogue actor getting nukes and destroying everyone else with them.

You were suggesting the catalyst using the reapers to wipe out advanced organic life is analogous to killing humans to prevent them from nuking themselves. The only way that comparison could be really similar is if humanity's nukes could threaten other planets. I never said they could. That's the point of the reapers. It's not destroying organics to save them. It's destroying them to save other, primitive organics from the advanced ones mistakes.

It says that the Created always rebel against their creators and that without the Reapers Synthetics will wipe out Organic life. We never see this as even a possible threat as no Synthetic is ever presented as a threat to all life. In fact they only win in the short term with Organics overcoming them, usually a 3 person squad. The Geth hide in their area, only hostile towards Organics that enter their space. Theirs no indication they won't stay there forever outside of Sovereign's influence. In fact, the game suggests that's exactly what they'd do.

Sigh. You're resorting to the semantics of the word "always" now? You seriously thought it meant that literally every single synthetic rebelled and killed their creator? No, although every synthetic seen has rebelled. It meant that in the long term, that was the inevitable result.

And using the game mechanics as an argument? Really? Yes, in gameplay, Shepard and their crew can take down hundreds of geth. Then, in a cutscene, one bullet can take down a squadmate. Don't resort to this to make an argument.

But if you want to get back to the geth's abilities, until Xen's countermeasures in ME3, nothing outside of a united galaxy could have overthrown the geth; synthetics who were not even meant to be AIs. And with those reaper upgrades, they probably have become powerful enough that, if they choose to, they likely could take on the whole galaxy.

So to say that the Geth might not but some other Synthetic might is a total cop-out. You're admitting the Catalyst has no evidence and are just taking it's word for it. Since eternity hasn't happened yet, it always might happen down the road. That is so lazy and unsatisfying. Mere chance of a problem does not justify wiping out all the civilizations the Reapers kill.

Again, the Catalyst has to prove its point. I don't have to prove a negative.

I'm not admitting the catalyst has no evidence. Don't put words in my mouth. Its "evidence" is the study of countless civilizations. What "proof" can possibly be given to satisfy you that what its saying is accurate? How do you prove inevitability? You see a few years in the series without organics being wiped out by synthetics, although they certainly are having their fair share of trouble with them, and for some reason believe that invalidates the catalyst's premise?

So what? That doesn't happen in this cycle making the Reapers unnecessary. They are unwanted and unneeded. As Shepard says, "I think we'd rather keep our own form." The galaxy will deal with the problem itself, if it even ever arises. Hey, why don't they go away and step in if the super synthetics ever show up? Why don't they kill those Synthetics instead of the Organics?

Again, you're concluding what you see within a few years in this cycle as proof that it won't happen ...ever. If the catalyst's premise is correct, organics won't be able to deal with it themselves. They'll lose the conflict and all organics in the galaxy will be left to the whims of synthetics who likely will be far less "merciful" to primitives than the reapers.

[oddball_bg]

"Because you're using real world analysis and hypothetical scenarios, not what's present in the narrative. Only the Mass Effect representation of AI matters and there is no indication that they will ever doom Organic life."

 

 

This makes no sense whatsoever!The catalyst itself tells you that,the geth are already a threat...AI is everywhere in this world,including in organics' bodies.Technology is on par with biology in terms of what's present in ME universe!What are you talking about?

[gothpunkboy89]

In the encounters with hostile Geth they likely won due to overwhelming force. Yet those same Geth were handily dispatched by a two man squad on Eden Prime, Shepard and Kaidan, until we recruited Ashley. Then three people managed to defeat a force that a full squad of marines could not do.

So there we have the great problem. We get told synthetics are this unstoppable force and yet on each occasion we get to enter conflict with a synthetic force we handily defeat them.

We never get to experience the synthetics winning, we only ever lose off screen. The synthetics only win outside of player control.

It's a different genre I know but even one mission in the vein of the ending of Halo: Reach would have made the inevitability argument work. In the person of Noble Six we fought a battle we knew as the player we were not going to be able to win, yet we fought damn hard to forestall that.

Why was there no mission like that in Mass Effect, in any of the three games.? Why was the only inevitable moment right at the very end?

It comes down to something I've said about the endings before. Don't tell me something and then show me something else. Don't tell me that synthetics winning is inevitable when I've spent three games proving that wrong.

 

 

You have to learn to seperate game play from story. Game play is why you can be shot a dozen times to near death and then Medi Gel some how allows you to get up and keep fighting. Till by the end of the mission you should have so many holes in your body you are now legally qualified as swiss cheese. The fact that 5 Salarians and a Human were capable of engaging an entire secret military base that you literally had to use heavy armor tank to just reach. And were not instantly shot so full of holes you could fit them in a coffee cup. Kind of shows where you need selective application of game play to over all story. Hence why I maintain that officially all squad members are present during every mission it is only due to hardware and game play reasons why you can only actively control 2 at a time.

 

We have seen individual battles. 90% of them were objective based that had nothing to do with out right beating the Geth. Like wise for the Geth 90% are objective based that once it was done they pulled back. This also isn't taking into account the odd state the Geth exist in. They aren't quite fully realized AI's yet they also are VI's. They exist in a semi in between state. Only during the events pre and post Priority Rannoch do they actually reach fully realized AI status. The Quarians who were winning instantly get routed fighting to simply stay alive as they are pinned in their own system. And to help Shepard not only does he/she have EDI another fully realized AI created with Reaper tech but Legion or VI Legion both who were upgraded with Reaper tech.

 

Rule one of any video game the protagonist can never lose on screen unless it is vital to the plot. No game would sell were the game only lasts as long at the first level before they are gunned down by an enemy in game stated to be much better then they are. That is why we only ever face off against 2 Reapers directly 3 I suppose if you count Sovereign and for 2 of them they are only the little baby Destroyer class ones. And in all 3 cases the way they were beaten is rather over the top to almost absurd with the Kalros one.

 

Halo: Reach's ending was established before they even started work on it. Reach's fall is the reason Halo :Combat Evolved even took place. This is mentioned during the first Halo game as well as a book written well before this game was even a concept. On top of that the character you play is a Spartan III. The successor to the Spartan II program that created Master Chief it was a cheaper version that had a 99% mortality rate for every mission. That ending was seen a mile away for anyone who knows Halo Lore. This was also a one off game as the final feather in Bungie's cap for the Halo Series. So that whole set up makes sense for it.

 

There is no inevitable moment in the Mass Effect series till right at the very end for the same reason there is no inevitability moment in Halo: Reach till right at the end. How ever ME 1, 2 and 3 play the same way Reach does. Which is to say in each game it is very clear the antagonist is gaining ground despite your attempts to stop or slow them. ME 1 Sovereign gets right to the finish line despite all of Shepard's attempts to stop it from getting that far. ME 2 Shepard is forced to attack the Collector base in a suicide run because they are left with no other choice to stop them. And ME 3 they area gain forced into a last ditch effort to stop the Reaper advance.  Basically if you stretched Halo: Reach into 3 games it would play out similar to Mass Effect trilogy.

 

What do you define as synthetics winning? Because yes the game does show the Reapers winning or at least not out right being beaten until the end of ME 3. Does it show the conflict existing between organic and synthetic life? Yes. Does it show that synthetic life have advantages over organic life? Yes.

 

Are you aware that without the Mass Relay Network the Quarians would have been killed off with their war with the Geth? Without Mass Relays the Fleet couldn't have traveled the galaxy using preexisting infrastructure build by the other races to support their ships. No way to get fuel, no were to buy parts needed to fabricate those items. Without the Mass Relay Network organic life would not be able to field it's over whelming force so easily against the Geth. It would be one race against another. With supply lines for organics stretching for days or weeks of FTL travel. While the Geth are nearly self sufficient only needing fuel for their ship and can survive in any environment.