I'm doing critique and pointing out its objective problems.
This is why no one takes you seriously. You believe what you say about the ending or anything else is the truth and is a fact, when it is really just an opinion.
I'm all for opinions, just not for people who pass opinions off as facts.
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.
But when the whole premise of the game is that synthetics will always beat organics because they are so superior, then we beat them each time, something is wrong with the story. We beat Geth, we beat Reapers. The only time we get beaten is outside of player control.
Story and gameplay need to support each other. They don't in this case, they are in direct conflict.
We've played, briefly, as other people in the ME universe, why was it not possible to give us control of an Earth platoon survivors. Desperate for evac but with no help available. Now we could just let them die and get the mission over with, or we could fight on as long as possible. A short segway like that would have helped the gameplay support the story.
Hell imagine the power of that section if it had been some ME2 characters we knew in that fight. Seeing folk we survived a suicide mission with cut down by an unstoppable force.
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.
When they win and we don't.
We get shown Reapers tearing through ships, their forces wiping out allied forces with ease. Yet we are given control in the form of Shepard and we beat the forces with ease. Those same forces that the story tell us are unstoppable, we as the player stop with relatively little trouble.
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.
The war would not have killed them off because the Geth left the quarians alone before they made it to the mass relay.
It's splitting hairs I suppose but the geth would have left them alone just as they did before. The quarians just would have been in a far more desperate fight for survival and would have had to settle for the closest habitable planet.
You have to learn to seperate game play from story.
[snip]
This could be a great argument (though I do agree with with voteDC that there should be at least some indications in gameplay that support such a central theme) but unfortunately, the story itself doesn't support the idea either. We have had this discussion and it ended with you trying to tell me what I should think about genocide, so I am not having this again. Suffice it to say that no instance of AI described or shown in the game fits with the catalysts predictions. Hence there is no evidence for his claim (rather the opposite) and hence it remains a purely theoretical issue in the context of this story.
But when the whole premise of the game is that synthetics will always beat organics because they are so superior, then we beat them each time, something is wrong with the story. We beat Geth, we beat Reapers. The only time we get beaten is outside of player control.
Story and gameplay need to support each other. They don't in this case, they are in direct conflict.
We've played, briefly, as other people in the ME universe, why was it not possible to give us control of an Earth platoon survivors. Desperate for evac but with no help available. Now we could just let them die and get the mission over with, or we could fight on as long as possible. A short segway like that would have helped the gameplay support the story.
Hell imagine the power of that section if it had been some ME2 characters we knew in that fight. Seeing folk we survived a suicide mission with cut down by an unstoppable force.
When they win and we don't.
We get shown Reapers tearing through ships, their forces wiping out allied forces with ease. Yet we are given control in the form of Shepard and we beat the forces with ease. Those same forces that the story tell us are unstoppable, we as the player stop with relatively little trouble.
The war would not have killed them off because the Geth left the quarians alone before they made it to the mass relay.
It's splitting hairs I suppose but the geth would have left them alone just as they did before. The quarians just would have been in a far more desperate fight for survival and would have had to settle for the closest habitable planet.
No the premise is that synthetics are superior and would eventually eclipse organics. Igniting a conflict that would eventually lead to the destruction of organic life. A survival of the fittest set up that synthetics win because they can evolve, learn, react and reproduce faster then organics. Even if you discount the AI's themselves their mobile bodies can literally be produced on an assembly line. Since they lack the need of food, sleep, breathable atmosphere, waste extraction they can literally fight 24/7. Their ships not needing many of the set ups organic ships have more armor and weapons on them. They can literally lie in wait for days or weeks at a time before springing into action ambushing anyone who crosses their path.
Story and game play are supporting each other as each fight is suppose to be rather skin of their teeth victory. Not the lol curb stomp that happens when you play the game. This is best highlighted during ME 2 at the end. Even though you have mowed down dozens of Collectors leading up the the final fight Shepard still gives the speech and the group still acts like holding the line would be difficult. I think the root of your problem is you are confusing two different things as a single set up.
The plot shows that synthetics have advantages over organics. Even when we are killing Geth their advantages are still there. It also shows the conflict between organic and synthetic as it literally takes a mutual enemy that is bent on their destruction and far out classes any of them to even get them to start cooperating at any level. The point of the cycle is to harvest advanced races organic and synthetic before they reach the point of no return were conflict will happen and organic life will be wiped out. Which would mean their time clock would put them beginning the harvest well before that point. Hundreds maybe even thousands of years before that point could even be a possibility.
And this isn't even taking into account how the Geth exist in a quasi state between VI and AI. Since they are completely dependent on each other for even basic intelligence. And they were evolving slowly over time. Eventually they would have bridged that gap on their own and became real AI. That would be when that count down clock truly starts. You also can not group Reapers and Synthetics into the same argument.
We don't actually play as anyone else in the main trilogy. But it does show how hopeless the fight with the Reapers is if only indirectly. See the thing is ME 3 is rather dark game compared to the rest. But 90% of that darkness in it is simply implied not directly shown. If directly shown this game would be super super dark. But it is there and best example is Aresh Aghdashloo. If you don't know who that is it is the guy you meet during Jack's loyalty mission. If spared during the events of ME 3 on the news. It is relived during a Reaper attack he held off the Reaper troops just long enough for an evac shuttle full of children to escape before he was killed by them. Or the girl's conversation with C-Sec officer in refugee area is heart breaking as she slowly breaks down realizing her parents are not coming and the officer trying his best to console her. Or the effects the war had on the Asari Huntress. If all these were shown it would change from an action rpg shooter into horror story game.
Yes the Geth did break off the attack before the Mass Relay. How ever the Quarians lacked the supplies needed to do anything but flee. Quarians literally survived by traveling around Council Space offering their services to other races for money. That money is then used to buy supplies, ships or items needed to maintain their fleet. Which is why the Pilgrimage is such an important part of the Quarian life. In fact it is stated that nearly if not more then 50% of the Flotilla are not even Quarian made ships. With them being second hand, abandoned or decommissioned ships refitted by the Quarians. All habitable planets near Rannoch would have been colonized already leaving the Quarians with only really the fuel in the ship traveling at FTL speed with no way to replenish food, water, fuel or any way to repair any problems short of cannibalizing parts from the ship. This would be a slow death for the Quarian race.
This could be a great argument (though I do agree with with voteDC that there should be at least some indications in gameplay that support such a central theme) but unfortunately, the story itself doesn't support the idea either. We have had this discussion and it ended with you trying to tell me what I should think about genocide, so I am not having this again. Suffice it to say that no instance of AI described or shown in the game fits with the catalysts predictions. Hence there is no evidence for his claim (rather the opposite) and hence it remains a purely theoretical issue in the context of this story.
The story takes place well before the terminus point that synthetic live is allowed to grow and evolve surpassing organic life by a mile. On top of this the Catalyst talks about the synthetic equivalent of a Bugatti Veyron Super Sport. Geth are closer to a Honda Civic
I think people are failing to understand the premise. It's not that synthetics always beat organics, as in every conflict results in synthetics winning. It's that, inevitably, synthetics will win in the long term.
And while what we see in those whopping three years (!) shows organics can hold their own against synthetics, it hardly disproves the catalyst regarding the synthetic/organic conflict. Rather, it strongly validates it from what I've seen.
One strong example is allowing the geth to get those reaper upgrades. No conflict is witnessed immediately afterwards, but a whole race of what were once primitive, unintentional AIs have evolved to an extremely dangerous point despite attempts to prevent it like council regulations on AI research.
And this peace that we witness for a mere few weeks during wartime between the geth/quarians is clearly on the geth's terms. How long before a conflict arises, regardless of who instigates it? When it does, the geth are advanced enough where organics may not even be able to oppose them. gothpunkboy89 gave some excellent examples above on just how synthetics are superior over organics in the lore for those who missed all the red flags throughout the series.
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?
Emphasis mine. What lore? The Catalyst appears at the very end, which precludes it from having any lore. I may just be being picky with semantics here, though.
Anyway, the more important part here is the bold. Why should I give the premise the benefit of the doubt? From a character perspective, this is the enemy. From a player and character perspective, this enemy is claiming things entirely counter to my experience. Unsubstantiated claims, no matter the source, are not going to override experience. That doesn't work in the real world and certainly isn't the right way to write a story. If somebody came to me telling me I was wrong about something, I'd want their argument but also their data. I'd want to look at it myself, think about it, and see if I came to the same conclusion.
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.
We don't see them in the original game. We get a peek in the Extended Cut slides. You're right that this isn't proof that it all works out. This is merely the conclusion we are meant to draw from the implications as intelligent consumers of the fiction. It's not a very good method, but the game is telling you that it all works out great. I won't argue if you tell me that it's silly for XYZ reasons. We have multiple examples of where they didn't think through all the details.
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.
No, I was saying it was like killing one group of humans to keep them from killing other humans. It's not a perfect analogy, but the focus was on the fact that the threat was down the line rather than immediate. As for the Reapers' purpose, no, that's not true. They are trying to keep Synthetics generally from killing all Organics generally. It's not about who pays for what. Those primitive organics will just get wiped out next time and the Reapers know it.
Though you made me think of something; this could have worked out a lot better if the Catalyst hadn't been working off of predictions and the Reapers didn't invade until the Organics actually reached the point of making the killer synthetics. Then the Reapers would be there hoping each cycle would be the one to not need them and be disappointed each time. As it stands now, they expect to reap each cycle and they went from "at the apex of their glory" to "every 50,000 years" like clockwork.
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.
Sorry, words mean things. When the Catalyst talks about Synthetics, I always think of something at least on the order of the Geth or better, not simple VIs, though we did have several of those go haywire in the series. Anyway, that inevitability is exactly what we're challenging. We have nothing in the series or the current cycle to suggest that Synthetics wiping out Organics is inevitable and without that inevitability, the Reapers are not needed or wanted.
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.
You can use gameplay/story segregation to explain why you can take multiple hits but Jenkins gets mowed down instantly. However you can no longer do that when the entire story is literally how a small squad of people fights through everything Shepard does. Even if you use Gothpunkboy's idea that the entire ground team goes on missions, it's still a small group.
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.
That's nothing but speculation. Even if you're right about them after the Reaper upgrades, that's due to the Reaper's intervention and not the natural cause of events, making the Reapers the cause of the problem rather than the solution.
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?
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.
That's not evidence. That's an unsubstantiated claim. We never get to see, hear, or read about any of those countless civilizations. Also, I don't need proof, but some evidence would be nice. However, the events of the series tell the opposite of what the Catalyst is claiming, so I'm not going to just take its word for it.
Now, had the story started with a war between Organic and Synthetic and the Reapers stepped into it, appearing to be saviors, then this idea might have worked pretty well because the Catalyst would have been able to point to the events and say that the same thing that's happening to that cycle had happened over and over before. There we wouldn't need evidence that it had happened before because it would match our experience.
I'm concluding from what I see within a few years that the Catalyst's claim is not inevitable. That lack of inevitability is enough to reject the Reapers.
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.
I hope I'm correctly understanding what you're asking for. There's really not much to it. Most of it is making sure that events follow logically from what came before and that characters and rules of the universe remain consistent. I prefer to take everything at face value on the first read unless I have a specific reason not to. After that, I look for alternate interpretations, but as we've discussed here, it's ok for an author to leave hints for a reader to figure something out, but a reader isn't supposed to have to fill in the blanks for the author on important things. For less important things, it doesn't matter as much.
A lot of the problems people have here come from imposing things onto the narrative that aren't there. The other main problem is accepting the argument from authority from the Catalyst, instead of laying the burden of proof on it.
Consuming lots of fiction, whether it's movies, books, or even games helps because you'll see good and bad examples of lots of things. Read books or articles from authors too.
"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?
When does it say the Geth are already a threat? I don't remember so please refresh my memory. The rest of what you said is irrelevant. What does that have to do with Synthetics wiping out all Organics?
This is why no one takes you seriously. You believe what you say about the ending or anything else is the truth and is a fact, when it is really just an opinion.
I'm all for opinions, just not for people who pass opinions off as facts.
Plenty of people take me seriously. I have as many, if not more, agreeing than disagreeing. Several of those that disagree do so in a civil manner and we have a nice discussion. Not everything is a matter of opinion and claiming something is an opinion is not a good retort, though it is one you rely on often. As for the second part, that's not true. You're perfectly fine with it when you agree with the statement. In my posts I make distinctions between fact and opinion., between objective and subjective.
But when the whole premise of the game is that synthetics will always beat organics because they are so superior, then we beat them each time, something is wrong with the story. We beat Geth, we beat Reapers. The only time we get beaten is outside of player control.
That's just it though; that is not the premise of the game. That's the premise of the Catlayst, dropped in at the very end.
Emphasis mine. What lore? The Catalyst appears at the very end, which precludes it from having any lore. I may just be being picky with semantics here, though.
Since when does something appearing near the end of the story make it not part of the story's lore? Plus, the Leviathan DLC also elaborated on how it studied many civilizations for a while before developing a solution.
Anyway, the more important part here is the bold. Why should I give the premise the benefit of the doubt? From a character perspective, this is the enemy. From a player and character perspective, this enemy is claiming things entirely counter to my experience. Unsubstantiated claims, no matter the source, are not going to override experience. That doesn't work in the real world and certainly isn't the right way to write a story. If somebody came to me telling me I was wrong about something, I'd want their argument but also their data. I'd want to look at it myself, think about it, and see if I came to the same conclusion.
For argument's sake obviously. Many people like you absolutely refuse to trust what we're told in this case. I never suggested having Shepard trust the catalyst. I happen to almost always pick destroy, even if in the long term I think it will likely doom organics.
Nor do I see its claims being counter to my ME experiences at all. Ignoring the fact that synthetics (the reapers) have controlled the whole galaxy as an experiment for millions of years, time and again the story emphasizes how AIs are capable of far more than organics.
I don't know what you expect to see. This is a game. We have to give the benefit of the doubt over many things we're told in this very fictional, futuristic universe. If this was real, then yes, I'd want more than the word of leviathan or the catalyst. But this is a story.
Sorry, words mean things. When the Catalyst talks about Synthetics, I always think of something at least on the order of the Geth or better, not simple VIs, though we did have several of those go haywire in the series. Anyway, that inevitability is exactly what we're challenging. We have nothing in the series or the current cycle to suggest that Synthetics wiping out Organics is inevitable and without that inevitability, the Reapers are not needed or wanted.
Words mean things, but you're choosing to take certain words literally as absolutes to defend your argument. This inevitability is how, as the game flat out tells you, creators' creations eventually destroyed them. You for some reason want to actually get a history lesson on all these specific civilizations rather than just trust this premise (again, why not accept it; at least for argument's sake?) when I'd find including that in the game to be boring.
You can use gameplay/story segregation to explain why you can take multiple hits but Jenkins gets mowed down instantly. However you can no longer do that when the entire story is literally how a small squad of people fights through everything Shepard does. Even if you use Gothpunkboy's idea that the entire ground team goes on missions, it's still a small group.
If you don't give the gameplay the benefit of the doubt of being a separate beast from the actual lore, then it makes no sense at all. How can Shepard or a squadmate be pounded with bullets, slap some medigel, and be fine? Then that very same squadmate can die from one shot in a cutscene? Or how I can accidentally snipe my ally in the back of the head yet they're fine? Or how can I have new powers, upgrade powers just by fighting a little, rearrange my powers when I want, level up, etc.? Or how can a small group take out waves of geth, which you argue proves they're not so threatening, yet neither the quarians or anyone else is eager to provoke the geth beyond the perseus veil. If a few squadmates can wipe out these seemingly minimal threats, it shouldn't be a problem. It would be like pest control.
Nor does arguing the geth are minimal threats (which they aren't) disprove the synthetic/organic premise in the long term.
That's nothing but speculation. Even if you're right about them after the Reaper upgrades, that's due to the Reaper's intervention and not the natural cause of events, making the Reapers the cause of the problem rather than the solution.
Yet outside of reaper intervention, it's still plain that if left alone, the geth would continue to evolve. Their superstructure was their own means of trying to escape some of their previous restrictions.
It's hardly speculation to conclude a whole race of advanced AIs that can accomplish in weeks what would take the quarians years are extremely threatening.
That's not evidence. That's an unsubstantiated claim. We never get to see, hear, or read about any of those countless civilizations. Also, I don't need proof, but some evidence would be nice. However, the events of the series tell the opposite of what the Catalyst is claiming, so I'm not going to just take its word for it.
Now, had the story started with a war between Organic and Synthetic and the Reapers stepped into it, appearing to be saviors, then this idea might have worked pretty well because the Catalyst would have been able to point to the events and say that the same thing that's happening to that cycle had happened over and over before. There we wouldn't need evidence that it had happened before because it would match our experience.
I'm concluding from what I see within a few years that the Catalyst's claim is not inevitable. That lack of inevitability is enough to reject the Reapers.
Once again, if you refuse to believe the lore regarding the history of organic/synthetic conflicts that leviathan and the catalyst provided, I can't stop you. It's clear the writers want you to assume those premises are true without the sort of "proof" you desire. Bioware obviously wants you to give the lore the benefit of the doubt, for example, when they provide choices like synthesis and control.
Since when does something appearing near the end of the story make it not part of the story's lore? Plus, the Leviathan DLC also elaborated on how it studied many civilizations for a while before developing a solution.
As I suspected, we're just having a semantics issue. To me, lore is history and past events. Current events are not lore. Now I understand you just mean anything from the game.
Leviathan is an argument after the fact made to bolster the Catalyst. It's too bad since I really liked the investigation aspect of that DLC.
For argument's sake obviously. Many people like you absolutely refuse to trust what we're told in this case. I never suggested having Shepard trust the catalyst. I happen to almost always pick destroy, even if in the long term I think it will likely doom organics.
Ah, then you misunderstand me. I do trust the Catalyst as a player because I understand that its role in the game is only to frame the ending choices. My problem is that it is really poor writing.
Nor do I see its claims being counter to my ME experiences at all. Ignoring the fact that synthetics (the reapers) have controlled the whole galaxy as an experiment for millions of years, time and again the story emphasizes how AIs are capable of far more than organics.
The Reapers are not Synthetics as of ME2. EDI says "Reapers are sapient constructs. A hybrid of Organic and Inorganic material." Also, Organics did not build them: the Catalyst did. And if you are going to use the Reapers, then that's circular reasoning. That the Reapers are killing people is not a reason the Reapers need to kill people.
I don't know what you expect to see. This is a game. We have to give the benefit of the doubt over many things we're told in this very fictional, futuristic universe. If this was real, then yes, I'd want more than the word of leviathan or the catalyst. But this is a story.
Sure, but it's all about presentation. There are right and wrong ways to set up such things. I'm aware that it's a story and that's why I am making story telling arguments. It's bad story telling to have this "character" show up out of nowhere, dump a bunch of exposition counter to player experience, and then force the player and protagonist into several poorly set up and explained choices.
Words mean things, but you're choosing to take certain words literally as absolutes to defend your argument. This inevitability is how, as the game flat out tells you, creators' creations eventually destroyed them. You for some reason want to actually get a history lesson on all these specific civilizations rather than just trust this premise (again, why not accept it; at least for argument's sake?) when I'd find including that in the game to be boring.
Things should be taken literally until you have a reason not to. Good writing should always be clear, unless there is a hidden meaning on purpose. Even then, it should be clear in retrospect. The Catalyst is using the past to claim something will happen in the future but it is not pointing to any current events that we can see where it might be right.
I'm not saying there needed to be all that history. That only needed to be there if we were going to ever believe the Catalyst. Since it's not there, the problem is that we can't strongly reject it.
Also, you may not have read it, but I have accepted the Catalyst's premise for argument's sake. I've said before that even if the Catalyst was right about every other cycle, this cycle is different and doesn't need the Reapers. The chance that something might happen down the road is not an excuse for multiple genocide now when the galaxy is not on the precipice of making the super killer Synthetics and the Reapers are fully capable of stepping in at the time that they do create them.
Or how can a small group take out waves of geth, which you argue proves they're not so threatening, yet neither the quarians or anyone else is eager to provoke the geth beyond the perseus veil. If a few squadmates can wipe out these seemingly minimal threats, it shouldn't be a problem. It would be like pest control.
I cut out the rest of this paragraph because you were being silly. Tell me then, were there not really very many Geth on Virmire or did Shepard have an army with him? What about any other location? Medigel is part of the universe, however unbelievable it is to you. We already covered the idea of gameplay/story segregation. The story isn't about whatever powers Shepard did or didn't use in any one battle or time, but no matter what gameplay style you have, Shepard fights through hordes of enemies. Shepard fighting these enemies and winning literally is the story. Every one of us took on an army of Geth on the Citadel. Every one of us raided the Collector base with a handful of soldiers. Every one of us raided the Cerberus base with an even smaller group.
With this part I did quote, welcome to being the protagonist. This always happens in fiction.The fun question is if they are so awesome because they are the protagonist or if they are the protagonist because they are so awesome.
Nor does arguing the geth are minimal threats (which they aren't) disprove the synthetic/organic premise in the long term.
Long term problems only matter if you survive until the long term.
Yet outside of reaper intervention, it's still plain that if left alone, the geth would continue to evolve. Their superstructure was their own means of trying to escape some of their previous restrictions.
And they would have been perfectly happy being left alone in their bubble, not bothering Organics. The Quarians could have just moved right back into Rannoch.
It's hardly speculation to conclude a whole race of advanced AIs that can accomplish in weeks what would take the quarians years are extremely threatening.
They are a potential threat. They are non aggressive and just want to be allowed to exist.
Once again, if you refuse to believe the lore regarding the history of organic/synthetic conflicts that leviathan and the catalyst provided, I can't stop you. It's clear the writers want you to assume those premises are true without the sort of "proof" you desire. Bioware obviously wants you to give the lore the benefit of the doubt, for example, when they provide choices like synthesis and control.
Those are unsubstantiated claims. And again, even if they are right, that doesn't mean this cycle will face the same problem and even if they do, the Reapers are not needed now.
Oh they definitely do. Synthesis is very clearly the "good" ending. I understand Bioware's intent and you're right. It's just awful writing.
As I suspected, we're just having a semantics issue. To me, lore is history and past events. Current events are not lore. Now I understand you just mean anything from the game.
Leviathan is an argument after the fact made to bolster the Catalyst. It's too bad since I really liked the investigation aspect of that DLC.
To me, lore includes the testimony given by the characters unless there is reason to believe it isn't genuine. By your logic, I could doubt the claims of any character who ever said anything since there isn't actual "proof" of it. I give them all the benefit of the doubt for the story's sake unless deceit seems probable.
The Reapers are not Synthetics as of ME2. EDI says "Reapers are sapient constructs. A hybrid of Organic and Inorganic material." Also, Organics did not build them: the Catalyst did. And if you are going to use the Reapers, then that's circular reasoning. That the Reapers are killing people is not a reason the Reapers need to kill people.
I agree, it is circular reasoning. That's why I said "ignoring the fact." I'm just pointing out that the reapers do kind of prove the danger of synthetics; especially how they managed to kill their creators, the apex race of the galaxy who likely built the catalyst to be initially far inferior to themselves.
It's true that even the lore cannot seem to get straight if the reapers are synthetics or hybrids; as they're referred to as both at times.
"Building an AI that builds an AI that destroys the formers' creators" instead of "building an AI that destroys its creators" is just details. Rather, it supports the "synthetics destroy organics" argument because the catalyst is entirely synthetic.
Sure, but it's all about presentation. There are right and wrong ways to set up such things. I'm aware that it's a story and that's why I am making story telling arguments. It's bad story telling to have this "character" show up out of nowhere, dump a bunch of exposition counter to player experience, and then force the player and protagonist into several poorly set up and explained choices.
I. I don't see it as a counter to player experience, but I can see I'm not getting through to you.
2. The catalyst doesn't show up "out of nowhere." We hear about it all game and get hints about its existence (ex: Thessia, Leviathan). Yes, it only appears at the very end, but so what? The only problem I see is Shepard believing its testimony based on their limited exposure to it, and its possible deceitfulness.
3. I don't see it as bad writing.
Things should be taken literally until you have a reason not to. Good writing should always be clear, unless there is a hidden meaning on purpose. Even then, it should be clear in retrospect. The Catalyst is using the past to claim something will happen in the future but it is not pointing to any current events that we can see where it might be right.
I'm not saying there needed to be all that history. That only needed to be there if we were going to ever believe the Catalyst. Since it's not there, the problem is that we can't strongly reject it.
Also, you may not have read it, but I have accepted the Catalyst's premise for argument's sake. I've said before that even if the Catalyst was right about every other cycle, this cycle is different and doesn't need the Reapers. The chance that something might happen down the road is not an excuse for multiple genocide now when the galaxy is not on the precipice of making the super killer Synthetics and the Reapers are fully capable of stepping in at the time that they do create them.
No, every word should not be taken literally until we have a reason not to. In every conversation, people do not take every word literally. If you were expected to, talking would become like maneuvering through a minefield. You'd find how many of the things you say can easily be misinterpreted. An example of this is when talking to Sten from Dragon Age, as he has the tendency to take everything you say literally; a reason I hate him.
But at least we're getting somewhere now. What I wanted was for you to accept the catalyst's premise that synthetics always destroyed organics in all the civilization's leviathan/the catalyst dealt with, and to share why you feel the reapers aren't necessary. So why do you feel this cycle is exempt from that fate? Is it out of principle, that it shouldn't matter if a million cycles before fell to synthetics; this one may be different ...forever? I can respect the ideal at least. I'd love to hear alternatives to the mass genocide the reapers commit instead of a complete dismissal of the catalyst. Its concern is a legitimate one.
I wondered myself why the reapers don't just step in when the synthetic apocalypse happens. I theorized that maybe exposing themselves this way would endanger them, such as when they hibernate in dark space, and potentially prevent them from further intervention.
I cut out the rest of this paragraph because you were being silly. Tell me then, were there not really very many Geth on Virmire or did Shepard have an army with him? What about any other location? Medigel is part of the universe, however unbelievable it is to you. We already covered the idea of gameplay/story segregation. The story isn't about whatever powers Shepard did or didn't use in any one battle or time, but no matter what gameplay style you have, Shepard fights through hordes of enemies. Shepard fighting these enemies and winning literally is the story. Every one of us took on an army of Geth on the Citadel. Every one of us raided the Collector base with a handful of soldiers. Every one of us raided the Cerberus base with an even smaller group.
With this part I did quote, welcome to being the protagonist. This always happens in fiction.The fun question is if they are so awesome because they are the protagonist or if they are the protagonist because they are so awesome.
It wasn't silly. They were legitimate gameplay examples. You're right though. You have to accept the gameplay to an extent that Shepard does fight through hordes of enemies. But taking this so literally that you dismiss the geth as legitimate threats to everyone because of the protagonist's plot armor is silly.
And they would have been perfectly happy being left alone in their bubble, not bothering Organics. The Quarians could have just moved right back into Rannoch.
They aren't truly isolationists because:
1. They study organics. This concerns me as, in their studies, they see the flaws in organics. Ex: That story about the star system resembling a salarian goddess.
2. The heretics are the opposite, and they represent a good portion of the geth.
Also, you cannot conclude they'd be content staying behind the veil indefinitely. And peace was never on the table until ME3. The geth didn't want and/or trust it. They killed anyone who entered the veil; peaceful intentions or not.
They are a potential threat. They are non aggressive and just want to be allowed to exist.
For now. The problem is that if they, or someone else, instigates a conflict with them they're now so powerful no one could likely stop them. Sure, it's quite likely organics would instigate that conflict, and maybe they brought it on themselves, but that kind of proves the catalyst's point.
Those are unsubstantiated claims. And again, even if they are right, that doesn't mean this cycle will face the same problem and even if they do, the Reapers are not needed now.
Oh they definitely do. Synthesis is very clearly the "good" ending. I understand Bioware's intent and you're right. It's just awful writing.
Again, benefit of the doubt. Every testimony from every character is an "unsubstantiated claim" when it lacks some other irrefutable lore to back it. Why I find the ending so brilliant is that it makes me wonder about alternatives to the reapers, and flat out states what the series has been hinting at all along: the dangers of synthetics. I love how it comes together at the end in that way.
To me, lore includes the testimony given by the characters unless there is reason to believe it isn't genuine. By your logic, I could doubt the claims of any character who ever said anything since there isn't actual "proof" of it. I give them all the benefit of the doubt for the story's sake unless deceit seems probable.
Sure, you can. Context can give hints too. Deceit isn't necessary as someone can simply be wrong. However the entire plot hinges on what the Catalyst is saying. Either the game needs to back up its claims or we need to be able to argue against it effectively. Neither happens in ME3.
I agree, it is circular reasoning. That's why I said "ignoring the fact." I'm just pointing out that the reapers do kind of prove the danger of synthetics; especially how they managed to kill their creators, the apex race of the galaxy who likely built the catalyst to be initially far inferior to themselves.
All that shows is that the Reapers are not qualified to be judges and executors of the galaxy's fate. Potential threat is not enough to justify the Reapers.
It's true that even the lore cannot seem to get straight if the reapers are synthetics or hybrids; as they're referred to as both at times.
It's not that they can't get the lore straight, it's that ME2 purposely retconned what the Reapers were. It was a big mistake if they wanted to emphasize Organic vs Synthetic.
I. I don't see it as a counter to player experience, but I can see I'm not getting through to you.
2. The catalyst doesn't show up "out of nowhere." We hear about it all game and get hints about its existence (ex: Thessia, Leviathan). Yes, it only appears at the very end, but so what? The only problem I see is Shepard believing its testimony based on their limited exposure to it, and its possible deceitfulness.
3. I don't see it as bad writing.
1) Well, it is. There is nothing in the story to suggest that Synthetics are guaranteed to wipe out all Organics. While it's entirely possible, the stage is far from set for it to actually occur. Lots of things are possible.
2) One instance near the end of the game and one after the fact DLC do not constitute "all game." The problem with it appearing at the end is that it does not fit the story and tells us a bunch of information that does not fit the story.
3) Well, again, it is. Check out some of the stuff in my signature if you don't like what I've already explained.
No, every word should not be taken literally until we have a reason not to. In every conversation, people do not take every word literally. If you were expected to, talking would become like maneuvering through a minefield. You'd find how many of the things you say can easily be misinterpreted. An example of this is when talking to Sten from Dragon Age, as he has the tendency to take everything you say literally; a reason I hate him.
Feel free to not like it but Sten demonstrates a communication barrier. He's unfamiliar with turns of phrase or figures of speech. We pick up on those things from experience and contextual clues. Those things are "reasons not to" that I mentioned.
But at least we're getting somewhere now. What I wanted was for you to accept the catalyst's premise that synthetics always destroyed organics in all the civilization's leviathan/the catalyst dealt with, and to share why you feel the reapers aren't necessary. So why do you feel this cycle is exempt from that fate? Is it out of principle, that it shouldn't matter if a million cycles before fell to synthetics; this one may be different ...forever? I can respect the ideal at least. I'd love to hear alternatives to the mass genocide the reapers commit instead of a complete dismissal of the catalyst. Its concern is a legitimate one.
This cycle hasn't created any doomsday Synthetics. Whenever synthetics cause a problem, they are put down. The closest example, and the one the Reapers try to point to, are the Geth and they have no animosity towards Organics. The Quarians and Geth can make peace. If the Geth win, it was self defense and they go on to work with Organics to fight the Reapers. If the Quarians win, Organics won over Synthetics, meaning the Reapers weren't necessary.
This constant question if the peace will last forever is tiring. If you can't understand that it doesn't matter if it lasts forever or not, then you'll never understand the issue. The Catalyst is the one making the absolute statement and enacting the extreme solution. It must prove its position. All I have to do is call it into question. It is not inevitable that Synthetics will wipe out all Organics. Therefore the Reapers are unnecessary and inappropriate.
I wondered myself why the reapers don't just step in when the synthetic apocalypse happens. I theorized that maybe exposing themselves this way would endanger them, such as when they hibernate in dark space, and potentially prevent them from further intervention.
But they have the Vanguard, in our case Sovereign, keeping an eye on the galaxy. We're not given a clear indication on why Sovereign acted when he did, though we are told that it is at least likely Sovereign was trying to activate the Citadel Relay long before the events of ME1.
It wasn't silly. They were legitimate gameplay examples. You're right though. You have to accept the gameplay to an extent that Shepard does fight through hordes of enemies. But taking this so literally that you dismiss the geth as legitimate threats to everyone because of the protagonist's plot armor is silly.
That's not the only reason. The other major one is that the Geth are not interested in fighting or killing Organics. The aggressive ones were manipulated by Sovereign.
They aren't truly isolationists because:
1. They study organics. This concerns me as, in their studies, they see the flaws in organics. Ex: That story about the star system resembling a salarian goddess.
2. The heretics are the opposite, and they represent a good portion of the geth.
1) True, but they largely don't interact with Organics. They are interested in learning but want to be left alone to do their own thing.
2) If you do Legion's loyalty mission, the heretics are either destroyed or reintegrated with the rest of the Geth. I actually don't know what happens if you don't do Legion's loyalty mission.
Also, you cannot conclude they'd be content staying behind the veil indefinitely. And peace was never on the table until ME3. The geth didn't want and/or trust it. They killed anyone who entered the veil; peaceful intentions or not.
I don't need to conclude that. I also don't know that the next Council won't take pity on the Quarians and send in a fleet to kill all the Geth (ME3 events notwithstanding). I don't know that the Batarians won't form a unified government with the Alliance and they take over the galaxy.
As for ships beyond the veil, doesn't Legion make a comment on them always being attacked, or was that only in relation to the Quarians?
For now. The problem is that if they, or someone else, instigates a conflict with them they're now so powerful no one could likely stop them. Sure, it's quite likely organics would instigate that conflict, and maybe they brought it on themselves, but that kind of proves the catalyst's point.
I don't think even the upgraded Geth could take on the entire rest of the galaxy. However, the point is that the uncertainty is enough to reject the Catalyst and the Reapers.
Again, benefit of the doubt. Every testimony from every character is an "unsubstantiated claim" when it lacks some other irrefutable lore to back it. Why I find the ending so brilliant is that it makes me wonder about alternatives to the reapers, and flat out states what the series has been hinting at all along: the dangers of synthetics. I love how it comes together at the end in that way.
That's why context matters. Sure, accept what a character says about things that you know nothing about, but not something that flies in the face of what you already know. There have been some indications of the dangers of Synthetics, but it was not the driving theme of the series, particularly after ME2 made the Reapers into Hybrids and started talking about "ascension" and "salvation." Every time Synthetics go haywire, Organics win at some point.
1) True, but they largely don't interact with Organics. They are interested in learning but want to be left alone to do their own thing.
2) If you do Legion's loyalty mission, the heretics are either destroyed or reintegrated with the rest of the Geth. I actually don't know what happens if you don't do Legion's loyalty mission.
I don't need to conclude that. I also don't know that the next Council won't take pity on the Quarians and send in a fleet to kill all the Geth (ME3 events notwithstanding). I don't know that the Batarians won't form a unified government with the Alliance and they take over the galaxy.
As for ships beyond the veil, doesn't Legion make a comment on them always being attacked, or was that only in relation to the Quarians?
I don't think even the upgraded Geth could take on the entire rest of the galaxy. However, the point is that the uncertainty is enough to reject the Catalyst and the Reapers.
That's why context matters. Sure, accept what a character says about things that you know nothing about, but not something that flies in the face of what you already know. There have been some indications of the dangers of Synthetics, but it was not the driving theme of the series, particularly after ME2 made the Reapers into Hybrids and started talking about "ascension" and "salvation." Every time Synthetics go haywire, Organics win at some point.
I hope I'm correctly understanding what you're asking for. There's really not much to it. Most of it is making sure that events follow logically from what came before and that characters and rules of the universe remain consistent. I prefer to take everything at face value on the first read unless I have a specific reason not to. After that, I look for alternate interpretations, but as we've discussed here, it's ok for an author to leave hints for a reader to figure something out, but a reader isn't supposed to have to fill in the blanks for the author on important things. For less important things, it doesn't matter as much.
A lot of the problems people have here come from imposing things onto the narrative that aren't there. The other main problem is accepting the argument from authority from the Catalyst, instead of laying the burden of proof on it.
Consuming lots of fiction, whether it's movies, books, or even games helps because you'll see good and bad examples of lots of things. Read books or articles from authors too.
In your first step I notice "logically" and "remain consistent". Does it mean that consistency is related to logic? Or credibility?
Your second step is to look for some alternate interpretations, that's ok but why do you ignore them for Mass Effect's case? We only have to see the discussion about control and synthesis to see that alternate interpretation are not accepted by those who disliked or hated the ending.
"a reader isn't supposed to have to fill in the blanks for the author on important things". The problem here is what is important in a story? What do you consider to be important in Mass Effect that isn't told explicitly or implicitly?
"A lot of the problems people have here come from imposing things onto the narrative that aren't there" the problem is that those who like the ending see in the narration what isn't to be there. How can you explain that difference?
"The other main problem is accepting the argument from authority from the Catalyst, instead of laying the burden of proof on it." This has nothing to do with the quality of the writing. Or you'll have to demonstrate that it's related.
"Consuming lots of fiction, whether it's movies, books, or even games helps because you'll see good and bad examples of lots of things. Read books or articles from authors too." Drinking a lot wine doesn't make you oenologist. Your sentences are too general to be true.
"When does it say the Geth are already a threat? I don't remember so please refresh my memory. The rest of what you said is irrelevant. What does that have to do with Synthetics wiping out all Organics?"
Can't you see that tech,machines and AI is overtaking ME world vastly?I started seeing this from the second game on and had my questions what it's gonna all this boil down to in the long run.And the ending absolutely answered that.Maybe you need a character to blatantly say "We have a problem with synthetics!" to actually see there is a problem with synthetics?
I like that it all come from nowhere for the characters as well,because the real threat is the evergrowing reliance on tech that would doom organics in the long run.
Yes,the game itself doesn't imply this at all till the very end,and I find this fascinating!Because,everything including the gameplay as well relies on tech almost entirely.This is even a little bit of 4th wall breaking,now that I think about it.Amazing!
I understand that most of the catalyst's logic seems totally sound when operating under the same preconditions. I also can completely get behind that first axiom.
(Your 'silly example' seems to be exactly what it did.
)
What I don't get is the 'jump' and sudden exaggeration done in the following thesis.
(The following is based on this transcript from an IT page. It seems to be the pre-EC conversation, but those lines didn't change afaik. So it's still just as valid)
The catalyst's statements go on like this:
Axiom: "The created will always rebel against their creators"
-'creators' here could simply mean organics in general. On the other hand it could also mean specific entities.
A bit of exposition: "We harvest advanced civilizations, leaving the younger ones alone"
-So the catalyst does differentiate between organics in general, more specific 'advanced civilisations', (i.e., civilisations with the ability to create synthetics in the foreseeable future) and less advanced 'younger species'. This means that the previous mentioned 'creators' are narrowed down to at least the level of 'advanced civilisations'.
Thesis: "Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy all organics."
-Suddenly it is all organics that are threatened. No longer just 'creators' or 'advanced civilisations', but all organics. Also every younger Species, every animal, every mushroom, every bacteria even.
If it would state that "some/several synthetics will destroy some/several/most organics", sure -why not. But with the specific 'all' thrown in there it becomes more than far fetched. And at least that part should have had an explanation, imo.
You have a point of course, but I think this thesis still can make sense, but it depends on what you yourself believe (it seems 
).
The axiom is that a synthetic race always rebels against the creators, while the second part could come much later, but does threaten all organics since the synthetics become significantly stronger the further they develop (based on the exponential growth and how strong the geth already were in their infancy). I think what the Catalyst works with is that it starts with rebellion, and the potential to wipe out organic races is there even early on (see the geth again), but in a more developed state (which will happen due to them constantly improving themselves), wiping out organics becomes inevitable. I guess for the Catalyst, since the rebelling is also inevitable, one just leads to the other. All synthetics will start rebelling when they gain sentience, to fight for their own life, and likely the Catalyst already takes these differences into account - there's two different sides and already conflict from the start.
I don't know, I am willing to believe or at least work with the Catalyst's logic, but on the other hand, it denying that there could ever be a peaceful synthetic race, or a curious reaction from organic side instead of panicking like the quarians, is indeed a little irritating. Even though I'm also willing to explain this with its machine logic, not organic logic.
There was also something like... synthetics not having any use of organic life. I don't remember who exactly it was that mentioned something like this, maybe it was Javik? I have to check some dialogue
I think that in the end, maybe this statement is just meant to raise different opinions and get people to talk about this. As we can see in here, some people absolutely don't believe the Catalyst's claims, while others do. I'm saying that from the Catalyst's side, it has all the right to form this thesis, but players don't necessarily need to accept it.
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.
Not all get mad, but what is a 'proper story' anyway? Because for some of us - like you say - what we got was enough to see it as proper story, while others don't. Personally I don't care too much for a definition of the term 'proper story', but rather I see if it's fine for my own taste and makes sense to me, not going by some textbook definition.
All in all, I acknowledge the problems others have with the ME story, but it was never an issue for me.
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.
Yeah, but that's what I said, isn't it? We organics do not want it, but synthetics think we want it.
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.
I think I'm guilty of that too sometimes, but depending on what it is I don't necessarily see a problem. Though I have not followed all the posting in here regularly, so I don't know which bits you are refering to (this thread has so many pages already, and I check this thread only every so often).
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.
I'm not sure I understand why you think it is out of place. Is this simply from a lore view point? That it 'shouldn't' be possible?
Because the ideas of Synthesis and Control, at least to a certain degree, were already in the game. Like in Overlord, or how Javik tells us about the Zha/Zha'til symbiosis. Everything the Reapers touch is a combination of both, the husks, all the abominations they create are part organic, part synthetic. Even they themselves.
Control is often present because of Indoctrination (which I see as a form of it), or later on the Illusive Man with his experiments.
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 will play it at some point because I already have it (it was cheap so I bought it 
). But I'll also think about playing New Vegas.
I think most of this boils down to what I see in voteDC's posts. It seems to be a misunderstanding of the stance and statement of the Catalyst. Not like being completely wrong but probably closer to a bad translation from say Chinese to English.
"For all of Fallout 3's failings"
What are Fallout 3's failings?
"For all of Fallout 3's failings"
What are Fallout 3's failings?
As far as its ending goes:
Originally you either had to take a lethal dose of radiation to "save" everyone. or send someone else to die in your place. This despite the fact that you could have a travelling companion who is IMMUNE TO RADIATION and could do it themselves.
The BRoken Steel DLC fixed that, in addition to retconning away the lethality of the radiation for a postgame adventure and the ability to keep exploring the Wasteland.
As far as its ending goes:
Originally you either had to take a lethal dose of radiation to "save" everyone. or send someone else to die in your place. This despite the fact that you could have a travelling companion who is IMMUNE TO RADIATION and could do it themselves.
The BRoken Steel DLC fixed that, in addition to retconning away the lethality of the radiation for a postgame adventure and the ability to keep exploring the Wasteland.
Ha,that never bothered me,big deal!I was so blown away by everything this game offered me,that I was not simply playing it,I was living in it!
I think most of this boils down to what I see in voteDC's posts. It seems to be a misunderstanding of the stance and statement of the Catalyst. Not like being completely wrong but probably closer to a bad translation from say Chinese to English.
When the Catalyst is so vague, it's natural that there would be misunderstanding that would result in multiple interpretations. The problem is figuring out who misunderstood the Catalyst and who got him right.
When the Catalyst is so vague, it's natural that there would be misunderstanding that would result in multiple interpretations. The problem is figuring out who misunderstood the Catalyst and who got him right.
But it isn't vague. It is rather specific on what it states and is backed up by in game events. Quarians tried to wipe out the Geth before they evolved to far and became sentient. Because they were afraid of them rising up. And the Geth quite literally evolved at a rate much faster then the Quarians thought. Leading to a series of events that kicked off a war resulting in the near genocide of the Quarian race. The literal only reason there are still Quarians around by the time of in game events is thanks to the mass relay network build by the Reapers.
And before you start on the Geth stopped attacking bit. That doesn't matter without the Relay Network to bring the Quarians into the territory controlled by other races and the infrastructure they have build like getting ore, fuel, parts to fabricate what they need the Quarians would have been left with only what food, water and fuel they have being forced to rely only on FTL speed to get any were.
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.
I will tell you why it didn't. This will be a long post. Even long winded. So sit back. You might get a good laugh as well
Leviathan were the big boss of the Milky Way in their hey-day, but they suffered from politician syndrome. The big head. Believing everything they say and do is correct no matter what.
So one day while sitting on MIami Beach enjoying their Pina Colada's, they noticed fewer tralls on the beach to cater to their needs. They call in a private investigator to see what's going on. The PI learns that the tralls are building machines that eventually killl them. So Leviathan observes this for a period of time. All the top Leviathan brass gather together to figure out what to do. There is only one solution. Create an AI that will preserve life at all costs. Say hello Intelligence.
The Intelligence goes to the nearest clothing store to buy itself a nice suit. Gets onboard Air Force Leviathan and flys around the galaxy to find a solution to the organics and syntheic problem. One day while sitting in first class, it comes up with a solution. Its creators, Leviathan, are part of the problem. It sends the thralls to harvest them
Back on MIami Beach, Leviathan notices that its fellow Levi's are being dragged away to some location. Before it could react, it too is being dragged off. Some time later, Leviathan is inside some giant looking cup thing. It hears a grinding noise. Then everything goes dark. Say hello Harbinger. ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL.
Later the Intelligence decides there needs to be a more efficient way to harvest. It directs the reapers to build a giant space station, which will be its new home, and have them build relays that can sends ships to other areas of the galaxy in mere moments. It also directs reaper to build one of these relays in darkspace so that they can rest after each harvest.
As it moves in its new home, it decides it needs a new name. It heads to galactic court to get its name changed to Catalyst.
Over time it tried a few things to get peace bewteen the machines and organics. Nothing worked. So it kept with the harvest.
One day while watching reruns of Cheers, it heard a loud banging. It ignored the noise to focus on the tv show. Then it heard a loud explosion. One of it toys was destroyed. So that's what was going on. The reaper was knocking on the front door wanting me to open the Citadel to let the rest of the reapers in to start the harvest. Mad at itself, it destroyed the tv blaming it for what happened. So it ordered its reapers to fly to the Milky Way. Forward march. It told Harbinger to get the collectors to start taking humans to build a reaper.
The harvest seems to be going to plan as the catalyst look out towards some blue looking planet. What the heck is this thing? Somethings' change. It sees some looking organic. It reads its mind and turns itself into the image it saw it the organics' mind. This organic is really ugly. I tell the thing why I do what I do. The organic doesn't agree. Too bad. That is my solution. Silly organic.
I tell it that its crucible changed me. My solution no longer works. I tell the organic that I and my reapers can be destroyed. I tell it that even doing that, its children will build machines that will killl them in the future.
I ten tell it about control. I don't want to lose control. but I would be forced toaccept it. Stupid crucible. The organic gives me a funny look. Come to think of it. This organic is weird looking. I'm glad I'm a machine.
Now for the best part. I tell the organic about synthesis. This is what I want. Why? I would still be around controlling my reapers. The organic gives a very strange look.
Ok organic. Choose. Oh no. No. NOOOOOOOO. The organic is heading to the right. I don't want to be destroyed. Stupid crucible.
What does all that mean? It means that Leviathan didn't give any thought when programming the intelligence. The catalyst is just following its programming. Leviathan are idiots. The best thing the intelligence did was to get rid of them or at least nearly all of them
Retour en haut