@mutha3 said:
@TheHT said:
1. "But you killed the rest", "I think we'd rather keep our own form", "You'll never understand/We don't want to be preserved" "Maybe"
yeah, okay, when I think "protest" I think more along the lines of:
"But why do synthetics and organics inevitably kill each other ?"
"Destroying the Mass Relays will completely shatter our galactic society! How can you expect me to do this?"
"Why don't the reapers just defend Organic life as galactic police?"
"why
no seriously"
What you just wrote down I'd file more under "mild whimpering". And I'd even say acknowleding the Catalyst bullshit about synthetics and organics with a "maybe" is the opposite of being opposed to the idea.2. It's different from krogan or rachni because that's what the Catalysts purpose is concerned with: synthetics. It doesn't care about organics killing each other, only that it's organics that survive.
That's stupid. The Krogan could(and probably would) have wiped out the entire current galactic community of life. So the Catalyst is totally okay with an Organic race wiping out all organic races in the galaxy and itself? Why is the possibility of a Synthetic race wiping out an organic race placed on a higher priority?Why is an arbitrary distinction made between "organics and synthetics" in the first place? Why does the catalyst--
Wait. You have yet to answer the entire question that started this conversation. Why do synthetics inevitably wipe out organics?
3. Why would geth rebelling against the quarians be because of the Catalysts view that synthetics will destroy organics? What on Earth led you to that conclusion.
Because that's what's being put under the lens here: the hilariously poorly thought-out conflict they've decided to hinge the entire trilogy on.
"Synthetics will inevitably rise up and wipe out their creators". The Geth don't do that. They defended themselves, chased of their aggresors and then isolate themselves. They didn't even wipe out their creators when they had the chance to do it right then and there.
You're trying to pretend that the idea put forth in the last 5 minutes is sensical and thematically consistent. It ain't.
The geth rebelled because the quarians were killing them.
Right. Which is a totally normal thing to do! And in no way hints at or implies an eternal metaphysical struggle!
And yes, the geth were absolutely fighting others races. Or did you forget the fact that they were being used by Saren and the Reapers and constituted the primary enemy force in the entire first game.
We find out in the second game that they joined up due to Reaper meddling. We find out that, if left alone, Geth are perfectly content to isolate themselves from the rest of the galaxy.
I view heretic Geth the same way I view husks-- Reaper forces.
The Geth/Quarian conflict is also a subplot at best. And the only place in the ME trilogy where "organics vs synthetics" is an actual theme. And, I'll repeat this again, "Organics vs Synthetics" is not the same thing as "Synthetics will inevitably rise up and wipe out their creators".
5. Show me where it's confirmed that without the Mass Relays, all intelligent life in the entire galaxy is just going to curl up and die. Then I'll accept it as 'canon' but won't accept it as not ridiculous.
There is nothing ridiculous about the idea. Homeworlds lack the resources to support their massive populations, because they've been stripped bare. Colony worlds usually specialize in one thing only and rely on import. Here is what Chris l'Etoile had to say, the guy who wrote the codex and planet description in the ME series:
Mass relays are not the only means of FTL, as others have pointed out. They're merely the most efficient way of moving long distances. When you're moving from system to system in a cluster, you're using Normandy's own mass effect FTL drive. As I always say, only assholes quote themselves, so I'll be an asshole and quote the ME1 codex:
Four thousand years ago, the Mu Relay was knocked out of position by a supernova and lost. Since then, Ilos and its cluster have been inaccessible.
Occasionally, a university will organize an expedition to chart a route to Ilos using conventional FTL drive. These never get beyond the planning stages due to the distance and danger. The journey could take years or decades, passing through the hostile Terminus Systems and dozens of unexplored systems.
As for colonization patterns, yeah, the bulk of the galaxy is toast. There are three basic types of world in the IP:
Homeworlds: Billions of inhabitants, too many to feed and maintain standard of living without massive resource importation. (Earth, Thessia, etc.)
Colony worlds: Millions of inhabitants, self-supporting but may lack heavy industry or R&D capabilities. (Terra Nova, New Eden, Illium)
Mining worlds: Hundreds or thousands of inhabitants, uninhabitable without regular imports of manufactured goods, O2, food, and so on. These worlds supply the resources that feed the homeworlds. (Therum)
What you'd realistically see post-relay is a massive die-off back to sustainable levels. For the mining worlds, nothing is sustainable - everyone dies. For the homeworlds, massive starvation and scarcity - a Malthusian crisis akin to what killed off the drell. Life becomes nasty, brutish, and short as people fight over the leftovers. The homeworlds have all the tech, but they're mined-out - there's not enough to start again from scratch. If they use up what they have, they're not getting back into space on their own.
The colonies fare the best. They can feed themselves and maintain their level of technology (possibly barring a few key industries). They'll certainly lack for brain power (the most prestigious universities and corporate labs are on homeworlds), and the smaller ones will have problems with genetic diversity. They may not be able to get back into space for generations, but they're in good shape to do it eventually
Conventional victory against the entirety of the Reapers is highly unlikely. Hackett himself says they can't do it. So unless you think the man doesn't know the capabilities of the forces at his side and under his command,
Right, just like how the Suicide Mission in 2 can be completed with literally 0 casualties, even though almost every single character throughout repeatedly says its impossible or that there will be casualties..
that's canonically highly unlikely.
It really isn't. The codex and the planet descriptions describe several battles with the reapers were they lose ground and makes a point to describe that they're not indestructible.
Nah. Throughout the course of ME3 you destory several reapers, the codex and the world description speak of several battles were the reapers were forced to retreat and lost ground. Its really not much of a stretch. I wouldn't crying foul over that one bit.
If you refuse all of the options presented to you because they don't fit nicely into your desired outcome, then guess what, turn off the system and take a breather because you're far to invested in the series that you're trying to mold it all to fit you. Maybe go back to it when you've realized things don't always work out well for everything in the galaxy.
I refuse the options because the terms are set excusively by the Reapers. Since the beginning of this trilogy my Shepard's goal has been to safeguard the galaxy from them.
"overcoming" them means freeing the Galaxy from their influence and making the sacrifices that will cost you on your own terms. Enforcing their solutions, allowing them to set the terms as to what course the galaxy is going to take(No Mass Relays, no organic/synthetic conflict etc.) is not "overcoming them", its "carrying out their will".
Self-determinism, y'know. Maybe you've noticed, but its a pretty big theme in Mass Effect. With the way my Shepard has been characterized, she'd never let the Reapers decide the future.
It's like you took one look at the Catalyst and then just stopped playing.
I should've. When Bioware shoved a literal Deus Ex Machina in my face, I should have known these guys have no idea what they're doing.
1. Protesting or whimpering, now you're just arguing over semantics. Questioning is questioning, and if it wasn't good enough for you, perhaps you should search for answers as opposed to writing off the ending.
2. I've already responded to that as well as the question that you say started this conversation:
The Catalyst says that the harvest cycles are the solution to the problem of synthetics wiping out organics. We can tell by the way it expresses its existence as well as its appearance and the way it speaks and what it says that it's an AI. Coupling those two, the Catalyst was either tasked with solving that problem or designed to solve that problem. I suppose its possible that it came to that problem on its own through observations. However, that it speaks with such absolution (contrary to an AI speaking with more probabilistic verbiage), so it's far more likely that the Catalyst has that hard-wired into its being.
In any case, you can see the potential threat of synthetics if you only consider one aspect of the nature of organics. They're violent. Whether synthetics are created violent or not, as we've seen in the geth they're still just as capable of violence, whether their intent be malicious or justified. Ignoring the geth would be to ignore evidence of the possibility of being wiped out by synthetics.
But that peace the geth can have with organics doesn't remove the possibility of synthetics destroying all organics. Whether through violence or through integration doesn't matter, and whether or not this ever actually happens at all, the Catalyst cannot ignore the possibility of it happening.
3. That we're considering the Catalysts claim that synthetics will eventually wipe out organics has nothing to do with the reasons for the geth rebellion.
The geth didn't listen to the Catalyst and go "well shit, I guess we'd better get started".
And claiming that 'denfending themselves' isn't rising up is another semantic mistake. Rising up is rising up whether the reasons for doing so be malicious or justified. Whether you're on the offensive or defensive, if you rise up against your oppressors or peers, guess what? You're rising up. It's in defense of their life, absolutely. They rose up to defend themselves. You're oversimplying and misrepresenting the Catalysts worry.
4. No one makes mention of an eternal metaphysical struggle.
5. No, we find out in the second game that some geth wanted to help the Reapers and were made able to do so when the Reapers gave them the ability to separate from the collective. I've never said that "organics vs. synthetics" is the same thing as the Catalysts fear. Organics vs. synthetics is a theme present through the entire series, in ways I've already mentioned. The Catalysts worry is perfectly in line with it.
6. I'm beginning to worry about you duder. Really. From the quote you provided:
Mass relays are not the only means of FTL, as others have pointed out. They're merely the most efficient way of moving long distances. When you're moving from system to system in a cluster, you're using Normandy's own mass effect FTL drive.
And:
What you'd realistically see post-relay is a massive die-off back to sustainable levels.
So the official word is: there's alternative means of FTL and a massive amount of people will die until sustainable levels for the particular area are reached.
That's not at all everyone in the galaxy dying.
7. A full on engagement with the bulk of Reaper forces is not at all comparable to the suicide mission from Mass Effect 2. Like, at all. If you'd like to harp on this, we can follow up on this.
8. Losing ground is very different from "we're going to kill all the Reapers on all the planets and free the galaxy with our guns".
You defeat destroyers, not to be confused with Sovereign class ships, with a varying degree of help. If there's actual plot holes to be found in ME3, that it takes something like 5 shots from the entire quarian flotilla to take down a destroyer or just one portable nuke, is one of them.
9. The terms are conveyed by the Catalyst, and are all from the Crucible, created by organics of an undisclosed amount of cycles.
No, that's not overcoming them. Overcoming them is ending the Reaper threat. What you've described is the particular requirements for an ending that you would be absolutely content. Trying to mold the series to fit your whim.
Destroying the Mass Relays is inescapable if you activate the Crucible. If you don't activate the Crucible the cycle is lost. Did you really think the ending would be so easy? That everyone would come out unscathled? You're complaint here seems to be that you didn't get the particularly happy and easy ending you dreamed of.
10. I never understand why people choose to emphasize an example of a deus ex machina plot device being literal. How would something literrally not be a deus ex machina? At that point it isn't a deus ex machina.
Is it really a deus ex machina? The Catalyst was spoken of before the ending. We knew it would somehow end the Reaper threat and we also knew that we didn't know what exactly it was. Hmmm, it starts off more like a macguffin, but obviously isn't. I suppose what seems like a macguffin can become a deus ex machina, but by virtue of explanation alone? It's a possibility. Arguing over that would get complicated without a clear and agreed upon definition.
Well even if we did it would be inconsequetional to our discussion, so we'd best not get into it at this juncture.
Log in to comment