Mass Effect 3: Extended Cut ~ It's Official :O

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

SajuukKhar:

Adam Jensen:

That's ironic because it's the same logical fallacy the Catalysis is making (once evil always evil). Don't you realize that the whole "synthetics will eventually kill all organics" is nothing more than an opinion? An opinion that is in itself illogical.

-How can The Catalyst KNOW that synthetics will eventually kill ALL organics unless it happened many times in the past? And how can synthetics kill ALL organics in the galaxy more than once? All organics means ALL ORGANICS. Not just advanced races. If synthetics don't actually kill all organics then what's the point of the Reapers? And why don't the Reapers just kill all synthetics instead? It would be easier, cleaner and more to the point. Their current task doesn't make any sense whatsoever!

-So on one hand we have an assumption that synthetics will eventually kill all organics, without any shred of evidence, and on the other hand we have an entire race of synthetics that doesn't want to harm organics. Sure, you can argue that it's only for the time being, but you can't know that, and it shows that the co-existence isn't impossible. That's what's important. Assumptions can't be proved or disproved. They are based on probability. And the probability is in favor of possible co-existence. An advanced race of machines should know at least that much about logic. It turns out they aren't incomprehensible, they're just retarded.

Except The catalyst is saying A synthetic race will eventually kill everything, he never stated it would be the geth, he never once impied the geth would go evil just that at some point in he future A synthetic race would.

So no, it really isnt the same fallacy.

Also it isnt an opinion its mathematically sound based on the long-term effects of probability.

Jesus Christ!
It doesn't matter if it's geth or some other race. The Catalyst just doesn't have the necessary data to make such an assertion. If he had the data that would mean that organics already don't exist because a synthetic race destroyed all organics. But if you save both the geth and quarians then The Catalyst has the necessary data to acknowledge that co-existence is possible between synthetics and organics. It doesn't matter if they are geth, it doesn't matter how long the peace will last because that's the only data he actually has on the subject of organics vs synthetics. That and his precious Reapers. He has nothing else to go on. Nothing else to justify his assertion! He's being 100% illogical.

SajuukKhar:
beyond that just killing synthetics would leave organics alive and at a point which they could make more synthetics, which means a exponentially increase rate at which
-the Reapers have to go to war
-Have to mine resources from planets
-have to harvest organic races to replace their numbers

You are again starting from the assumption that organics must create synthetics and that synthetics must go to war with organics every time. There is no evidence to support that claim.

SajuukKhar:
Killing just synthetics would drain the galaxy of resources far faster and would most likely, end up with the organic races attacking the Reapers anyways.

Another baseless assumption.

Unsilenced:

SajuukKhar:

Except The catalyst is saying A synthetic race will eventually kill everything, he never stated it would be the geth, he never once impied the geth would go evil just that at some point in he future A synthetic race would.

So no, it really isnt the same fallacy.

Also it isnt an opinion its mathematically sound based on the long-term effects of probability.

Eventually chipmunks will ruin everything, man! It's what I've been trying to say! Probability favors that, given enough time, even the slightest chance will eventually pay off.

CHIPMUNK UPRISING WILL HAPPEN. MUST EXTERMINATE EVERYTHING!

...

Or we could just realize what an insane brand of logic that is and call it a day.

Nice hyperbole.

The possibility of a chimpmunk uprising is 0.

try harder next time kid.

Adam Jensen:

Jesus Christ!
It doesn't matter if it's geth or some other race. The Catalyst just doesn't have the necessary data to make such an assertion. If he had the data that would mean that organics already don't exist because a synthetic race destroyed all organics. But if you save both the geth and quarians then The Catalyst has the necessary data to acknowledge that co-existence is possible between synthetics and organics. It doesn't matter if they are geth, it doesn't matter how long the peace will last because that's the only data he actually has on the subject of organics vs synthetics. That and his precious Reapers. He has nothing else to go on. Nothing else to justify his assertion! He's being 100% illogical.

Actually he does

It's called
-Probability
-Time
-How long periods of time effect probability

Also organics could have already been wiped out in some previous cycle, with the synthetics trying to atone for their sins by protecting future organics.

Or

the Reapers could have easily witnessed countless syth vs organic wars were the synthetics won and The Reapers came in and destroyed them

or
any number of possible things.

SajuukKhar:

Joseph Alexander:

thats not the point.

the point is a lasting peace between organics and synthetics, which the star child(harbinger) argues is impossible... meanwhile the geth and their quarian creators are fighting and dying side by side.

its a idiotic tissue paper thin argument that shepard's very existence invalidates.

And again, nothing about the peace between The Geth and Quarrians gives any sort of evidence to support that it would last.

Being able to make peace with The Geth =/=
-The peace will last
-That peace with other synthetics can be made
-The peace with other synthetics will last
and so on and so on.

What you are doing is trying to that that because you can make cake that cake will be fresh for all time, and that all future cakes made will be equally as good and last as long

Your argument is flawed at the core.

Even with that argument, the main thing that bugged me, and made me had the Catalysts reasons is that, even with Shepard working for 2 games to broker a peace between the Geth and Quarians, and having a close teammate/friend in EDI, when the Catalyst says "oh, synthetic life will always kill organic life" shepard just goes

"oh...okay"

the whole thing would have went over so much smoother if they had just bothered to give shepard a couple of lines of him at least disagreeing. Even if the Catalyst didn't listen to him it would have been better than just "this is how it is" "okay".

Adam Jensen:

EA:
Through additional cinematic sequences and epilogue scenes, the Mass Effect 3: Extended Cut will give fans seeking further clarity to the ending of Mass Effect 3 deeper insights into how their personal journey concludes

It sounds like shit. We don't want answers. This isn't LOST. We want an ending that makes sense.

image

Again Jensen, you are completely right. They'll probably just fill the plot holes with more plot holes. There is no way in hell they can explain that stupid god-star-brat-glowing-testicle-thing.

undeadsuitor:

Even with that argument, the main thing that bugged me, and made me had the Catalysts reasons is that, even with Shepard working for 2 games to broker a peace between the Geth and Quarians, and having a close teammate/friend in EDI, when the Catalyst says "oh, synthetic life will always kill organic life" shepard just goes

"oh...okay"

the whole thing would have went over so much smoother if they had just bothered to give shepard a couple of lines of him at least disagreeing. Even if the Catalyst didn't listen to him it would have been better than just "this is how it is" "okay".

I wont deny it was handled like shit.

It would have been better had the Catalyst showed videos of races across time getting decimated by synthetics over and over, or something similar.

SajuukKhar:

Adam Jensen:

Jesus Christ!
It doesn't matter if it's geth or some other race. The Catalyst just doesn't have the necessary data to make such an assertion. If he had the data that would mean that organics already don't exist because a synthetic race destroyed all organics. But if you save both the geth and quarians then The Catalyst has the necessary data to acknowledge that co-existence is possible between synthetics and organics. It doesn't matter if they are geth, it doesn't matter how long the peace will last because that's the only data he actually has on the subject of organics vs synthetics. That and his precious Reapers. He has nothing else to go on. Nothing else to justify his assertion! He's being 100% illogical.

Actually he does

It's called
-Probability
-Time
-How long periods of time effect probability

Also organics could have already been wiped out in some previous cycle, with the synthetics trying to atone for their sins by protecting future organics.

Or

the Reapers could have easily witnessed countless syth vs organic wars were the synthetics won and The Reapers came in and destroyed them

or
any number of possible things.

Again. More baseless assumptions. You can't just say 'maybe this maybe that'.
If that were even remotely true wouldn't it be logical for The Catalyst to share that most important piece of information with Shepard before presenting him with a choice that without the complete explanation doesn't make any sense at all? Without that information why would Shepard believe anything The Catalyst told him when after analyzing everything he said the only logical conclusion is that The Catalyst doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about?

Here's the guy that controls the Reapers. Machines I've been trying to kill for so long. Lets believe everything he says even though the little of what he actually said is completely illogical. Yeah, that's a good idea.

Face it. Bioware is filled with morons.

Shepard had better still die.

I'm serious.

If she doesn't die I'll be pissed off. One thing they did right about the ending was for Shepard to have to make an ultimate sacrifice. It was an emotional moment for me and I'd like for it to stay in there.

SajuukKhar:

undeadsuitor:

Even with that argument, the main thing that bugged me, and made me had the Catalysts reasons is that, even with Shepard working for 2 games to broker a peace between the Geth and Quarians, and having a close teammate/friend in EDI, when the Catalyst says "oh, synthetic life will always kill organic life" shepard just goes

"oh...okay"

the whole thing would have went over so much smoother if they had just bothered to give shepard a couple of lines of him at least disagreeing. Even if the Catalyst didn't listen to him it would have been better than just "this is how it is" "okay".

I wont deny it was handled like shit.

It would have been better had the Catalyst showed videos of races across time getting decimated by synthetics over and over, or something similar.

See, that would have been really cool. Too see Shepard witness the fall of so many other races at the hands of synthetics, and maybe see why the Reaper cycle might be justified.

But no, it was shit.

It's true, Shepard was indoctrinated, but not by the Reapers. He was just being controlled by a really shitty writer.

Bioware could have avoided all the controversy if they simply made an epilogue screen akin to what they did in Origins. The endings would have still sucked but at the very least they would have provided some form of closure.

SajuukKhar:

Adam Jensen:

But the biggest problem of all is the nonsense that is the reason for the cycle. Synthetics will always want to kill organics? HELLO? The Geth?!!! They never wanted to fight. They just wanted to download themselves in a huge server and become more intelligent. It seems like the only synthetics that want to wipe out organic life are the fuckin' Reapers. Even other synthetics don't like them.

And even if synthetics are gonna kill all organics eventually, what's it to you? Why the fuck do you care? Didn't Sovereign say that organic life is just an accident? Reaper motives cannot be benevolent. They are supposed to be logical. If they view organic life as a mistake then they shouldn't care if organic life exists at all. Which means they aren't concerned about organics for the sake of organics. They are concerned because they need organics for whatever their evil reason may be.

And again your missing the entire point of what The Catalyst said.

He said EVENTUALLY Synthetics will kill organics, he never said the Geth would be the ones to do it.

Also the geth being peaceful for the brief existence they had had shows nothing about how they would act in a post-upgrade universe were they have individuality.

Your entire argument works on the flawed principal of once nice = can never be evil for all time afterwards.

But why would you take what the catalyst says at face value?

For all we know it could be full of crap, you can't discredit what it says because you lack context, but you can't prove it either.

Who's to say that its statement isn't just a biased perspective that was given to it when it was created?

The only examples given to you are the geth, who don't really fit that idea, and that one AI race mentioned by Javik, who actually seem to fall into that category. (I won't include the reapers because of their connection to the catalyst)

Those are all the examples given by the game, and it's 50/50. By your own experience you can't confirm or deny the catalysts argument, and there is no evidence that suggests the "problem" for wich it created that elaborate solution actually exists.

Edit: took a bit too long to post my reply.

MC1980:

But why would you take what the catalyst says at face value?

For all we know it could be full of crap, you can't discredit what it says because you lack context, but you can't prove it either.

Who's to say that its statement isn't just a biased perspective that was given to it when it was created?

The only examples given to you are the geth, who don't really fit that idea, and that one AI race mentioned by Javik, who actually seem to fall into that category. (I won't include the reapers because of their connection to the catalyst)

Those are all the examples given by the game, and it's 50/50. By your own experience you can't confirm or deny the catalysts argument, and there is no evidence that suggests the "problem" for wich it created that elaborate solution actually exists.

I personally don't agree with The Catalyst's actions myself, nor did I ever say he wasn't bullshitting.

Nor did I like the fact that you couldn't tell him off because by Shepard's, limited, view he would be wrong, and you should have been able to say that.

I am merely pointing out that his statement of "inevitability" is backed up by math, be it the real reason he does what he does or not.

SajuukKhar:
I am merely pointing out that his statement of "inevitability" is backed up by math

No it isn't. There's not enough data for that to be true. You have to create your own assumptions for that and then it wouldn't be math.

Adam Jensen:

SajuukKhar:
I am merely pointing out that his statement of "inevitability" is backed up by math

No it isn't. There's not enough data for that to be true. You have to create your own assumptions for that and then it wouldn't be math.

Except there is enough data, again you are ignoring the long term effects of probability

Be it this cycle, the next one, the one 1000 cycles for now or the one 10000000000000 cycles from now, the fact of the matter is eventually a race will build synthetics that will kill all organic life currently living in the galaxy.

given enough time, in this case over millions of years, the probability of all things becomes 100%.

If you were to live for 1 million years and they used cars from now until then the chance of you not getting hit at some point is 0.

You are thinking in timespans of a couple thousand years, The Reaper use timespans of millions, and your inability to is why you cant understand it.

An extended cut could do a lot to patch up some of the plot holes the ending left. It might not make the Catalyst sound reasonable, but i think this is probably the best option we could've hoped for. A rewrite would feel cheap, but a re-cut to address concerns should end up making it at least tolerable.

PercyBoleyn:
Bioware could have avoided all the controversy if they simply made an epilogue screen akin to what they did in Origins. The endings would have still sucked but at the very least they would have provided some form of closure.

not entirely, much of the rage is from 2 other things:
1. the backwards logic and justification presented by the "star child", which is easily refuted by having a working brain.
2.the fact there is maybe one or two thing differing from ending to ending, making them in effect the same thing but with different colored space magic.

Adam Jensen:

EA:
Through additional cinematic sequences and epilogue scenes, the Mass Effect 3: Extended Cut will give fans seeking further clarity to the ending of Mass Effect 3 deeper insights into how their personal journey concludes

It sounds like shit. We don't want answers. This isn't LOST. We want an ending that makes sense.

image

Yeah, this. They get points for trying, but it's not going to make their fans any less suspicious of future releases. I certainly won't be pre-ordering any more BioWare games. If they're lucky, I'll pick something up when it hits the bargain bin.

image

I can honestly see them messing up again. They shouldn't explain the ending, its an abomination and should be cut completely and redone. Take your "team's artistic vision" and toss it out the window and just give us a damn good ending like you should've done in the first place.

Don't try to go deep and throw in a shitty twist, just end it properly, and give us a big 20 minute slide show explaining the history and fates of all our squad and how our decisions played out, a la Fallout New Vegas.

There's no amount of clarification that makes the 'kill all synthetics everywhere' option seem like anything other than space magic. Or the 'make all organics part machine and all machines part organic' option seem like anything other than space magic. Or make the 'control the reapers who are masters of controlling every organic being without effort...except you of course, you're immune to it and can control then, yes...only you can!' option seem like anything other than space magic.

Hmm...I remember that Mass Effect was heralded as being one of the most 'hard sci-fi' games on the market and the Mass Effect universe was extremely hard sci-fi, working off of laws of physics we're familiar with and concepts that scientists are using now for FTL travel. Funny how that changed so much. But then everything that's been said about Mass Effect has been turned on it's head by ME3 and the ending. Except the industry accolades...those are all still the same.

SajuukKhar:

Adam Jensen:

SajuukKhar:
I am merely pointing out that his statement of "inevitability" is backed up by math

No it isn't. There's not enough data for that to be true. You have to create your own assumptions for that and then it wouldn't be math.

Except there is enough data, again you are ignoring the long term effects of probability

Be it this cycle, the next one, the one 1000 cycles for now or the one 10000000000000 cycles from now, the fact of the matter is eventually a race will build synthetics that will kill all organic life currently living in the galaxy.

That's not a fact. You don't even know what probability is and how it works. Outcome doesn't depend on probability. Events aren't governed by probability. It doesn't matter how probable something is it NEVER means that it WILL happen with certainty. Yet again you have to base everything on an assumption.

You can toss a coin in the air a million times and it CAN still turn on tails every single time, because the outcome doesn't depend on probability. It depends on countless physical factors. The Catalyst should know this. Screw that, you should know this. And because the outcome of an event doesn't depend on probability everything The Catalyst says is illogical.

Adam Jensen:

That's not a fact. You don't even know what probability is and how it works. Outcome doesn't depend on probability. Probability is an indicator. Events aren't governed by probability. It doesn't matter how probable something is it NEVER means that it WILL happen with certainty. Yet again you have to base everything on an assumption.

You can toss a coin in the air a million times and it can still turn on tails every single time, because the outcome doesn't depend on the probability. It depends on countless physical factors. Advanced machines should know that. Screw that, you should know this.

You can grab only blue marbles out of a bag of blue and red marbles for 1 trillion years and regardless of managing that feat for 1 trillion years it is FACT you WILL eventually pick a red one.

Same with your flipping a coin example. It DOES NOT matter how many times you manage to get tails you WILL inevitably over a period of time get heads at least once.

Over time, specifically longer periods of time over 1million years, it WILL happen, to say otherwise shows a lack of understanding about how the universe works.

SajuukKhar:

Adam Jensen:

SajuukKhar:
I am merely pointing out that his statement of "inevitability" is backed up by math

No it isn't. There's not enough data for that to be true. You have to create your own assumptions for that and then it wouldn't be math.

Except there is enough data, again you are ignoring the long term effects of probability

Be it this cycle, the next one, the one 1000 cycles for now or the one 10000000000000 cycles from now, the fact of the matter is eventually a race will build synthetics that will kill all organic life currently living in the galaxy.

given enough time, in this case over millions of years, the probability of all things becomes 100%.

If you were to live for 1 million years and they used cars from now until then the chance of you not getting hit at some point is 0.

You are thinking in timespans of a couple thousand years, The Reaper use timespans of millions, and your inability to is why you cant understand it.

"If it can happen, it will." is a very broad way of looking at this, though conceptually it isn't false.

I'm actually thinking we're reading too much into faulty writing.

SajuukKhar:

Adam Jensen:

That's not a fact. You don't even know what probability is and how it works. Outcome doesn't depend on probability. Probability is an indicator. Events aren't governed by probability. It doesn't matter how probable something is it NEVER means that it WILL happen with certainty. Yet again you have to base everything on an assumption.

You can toss a coin in the air a million times and it can still turn on tails every single time, because the outcome doesn't depend on the probability. It depends on countless physical factors. Advanced machines should know that. Screw that, you should know this.

You can grab blue marbles out of a bag of blue and red marbles for 1 trillion years and regardless of doing so for 1 trillion years it is FACT you WILL eventually pick a red one.

Same with your flipping a coin example. It DOES NOT matter how many times you manage to get tails you WILL inevitably over a period of time get heads at least once.

that's flawed, there is a physical difference, yours has a finite amount while the heads/tails does not.

i know i wasn't the greatest and engineering probability when i took the class, but your logic is definitely flawed in the fact thinking that synthetics, at some point, somewhere, will kill all organics. you could use your same logic and apply it to anything.

SajuukKhar:

Adam Jensen:

That's not a fact. You don't even know what probability is and how it works. Outcome doesn't depend on probability. Probability is an indicator. Events aren't governed by probability. It doesn't matter how probable something is it NEVER means that it WILL happen with certainty. Yet again you have to base everything on an assumption.

You can toss a coin in the air a million times and it can still turn on tails every single time, because the outcome doesn't depend on the probability. It depends on countless physical factors. Advanced machines should know that. Screw that, you should know this.

You can grab blue marbles out of a bag of blue and red marbles for 1 trillion years and regardless of doing so for 1 trillion years it is FACT you WILL eventually pick a red one.

Same with your flipping a coin example. It DOES NOT matter how many times you manage to get tails you WILL inevitably over a period of time get heads at least once.

It is not a fact it is an assumption (if there's an infinite number of marbles). If the number is finite, it's not a very good example either.

Again, it doesn't matter how probable something is, events aren't governed by probability. And even if they were, synthetics destroying all organics is not very probable from the data The Catalyst has. He has more data indicating that we can all co-exist. The probability is still in our favor. But that still doesn't prove much. It proves co-existence is possible but that's it. And it's enough to call The Catalyst an idiot.

And why bother anyway when it's a FACT that our galaxy will collide with Andromeda in the future? There is a chance that when that happens everyone will die. There's a chance nothing major will happen at all. But because it's more probable that it will, should we just accept it as a fact? In which case, why bother with the Reapers at all when nothing lasts forever?

I'm looking forward to it. However, I find it hard to believe that they can logically explain every one of the gaping plot holes they made (the exploding Mass Relays, and is everyone dead, The fleeing Normandy, and how did it get there etc). If they can explain all that, I will eat my own shoes.

hopefully it will be enough to leave fans-if nothing else, contempt.

I'm honestly skeptical at this whole thing. I love Mass Effect and the ending was BAD but at this point I have somewhat high hopes but the little voice in the back of my head says there is a good chance we are going to get another kick in the face.

gmaverick019:

that's flawed, there is a physical difference, yours has a finite amount while the heads/tails does not.

i know i wasn't the greatest and engineering probability when i took the class, but your logic is definitely flawed in the fact thinking that synthetics, at some point, somewhere, will kill all organics. you could use your same logic and apply it to anything.

the bag in question is supposed to be infinitely large

MC1980:

"If it can happen, it will." is a very broad way of looking at this, though conceptually it isn't false.

I'm actually thinking we're reading too much into faulty writing.

I wont deny the writing blows, I am just pointing out the math behind it is right.

No it isn't. You can't base math on an assumption that something will happen because you believe it must happen eventually. You're misusing probability.

SajuukKhar:

Over time, specifically longer periods of time over 1million years, it WILL happen, to say otherwise shows a lack of understanding about how the universe works.

No, you're wrong. As the number of trials for a binary event approaches infinity, the limit of the probability of getting the same outcome every time approaches zero.

You'd need an infinite set of trials to be able to say that both outcomes are guaranteed to be in it.

Infinity is a lot more than a million. Or a billion. Or a trillion. It still might not happen at all before the heat death of universe. It isn't even remotely a good justification for dicking around the galaxy for millions of years, mind-raping and killing countless trillions of sapient beings on the off-chance that this will be the time they make a race of even worse killer machines than the Reapers.

Hi can I just ask, If we have already established that war is an eventuality regardless of whatever humans may in the case of the ending chose, then what significance does the final choice hold except for just a means to an end ?

Xpheyel:

SajuukKhar:

Over time, specifically longer periods of time over 1million years, it WILL happen, to say otherwise shows a lack of understanding about how the universe works.

No, you're wrong. As the number of trials for a binary event approaches infinity, the limit of the probability of getting the same outcome every time approaches zero.

You'd need an infinite set of trials to be able to say that both outcomes are guaranteed to be in it.

Infinity is a lot more than a million. Or a billion. Or a trillion. It still might not happen at all before the heat death of universe. It isn't even remotely a good justification for dicking around the galaxy for millions of years, mind-raping and killing countless trillions of sapient beings on the off-chance that this will be the time they make a race of even worse killer machines than the Reapers.

Exactly.

The best explanation for the Reapers should have been either the most simple one - that they are afraid of organics ascending to become more powerful than them eventually, or because they need us for resources. Or they could have just left it a mystery since a mysterious enemy is the most terrifying one.

Xpheyel:
No, you're wrong. As the number of trials for a binary event approaches infinity, the limit of the probability of getting the same outcome every time approaches zero.

You'd need an infinite set of trials to be able to say that both outcomes are guaranteed to be in it.

Infinity is a lot more than a million. Or a billion. Or a trillion. It still might not happen at all before the heat death of universe. It isn't even remotely a good justification for dicking around the galaxy for millions of years, mind-raping and killing countless trillions of sapient beings on the off-chance that this will be the time they make a race of even worse killer machines than the Reapers.

So letting the races of the galaxy dick around, killing each-other, making machines that try to kill then, maybe making peace with aid machines maybe not, and eventually killing themselves off and taking more worlds the The Reapers destroy with them is better?

Either way everything dies, but in the Reapers plan at least some races live past thier own annihilation.

SajuukKhar:

Asita:
snip

well first off I said BIG plot-holes, not plotholes in general. I suggest that next time you actually read someones post before yo respond to it.

You might want to take your own advice and read that spoiler you snipped. The plot holes I elaborated on all tied back to the implications of the final decision, thereby directly reflecting on the climactic moment in the main plot. I'd call those pretty big plotholes.

SajuukKhar:
Secondly organics natural hatred and distrust of anything that isn't them makes lasting peace impossible. Your assumption that lasting peace would be equally as probably as total genocide would work only if we ignored the entirety of organic evolution and how the organic mind works.

so long as two distinct individuals exist they will compete against each other making long-term peace impossible.

The only way that lasting peace would be possible is if
1. We become a hive mind like ants, or close to like The Geth were before the upgrade in ME3, were everyone and everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING, was all part of the same collective mind, but not necessarily of the some collective body.
2. We somehow pull a Neon Genesis Evangelion and merge everything into one super body.

By that logic, no lasting piece can exist between any two organic races and applying it solely to synthetics is special pleading. I mean, let's face it, Humans and Hanar are hardly mirror images of each other. But I do note that you completely ignored the thrust of my statement. Let me repeat it: Your own conclusions about the organic/synthetic conflict nonwithstanding, Shepherd's own experiences practically mandate that he/she take the claim with at least a grain of salt. Regardless of the decision made in the end, the doubt should be present. The sheer passivity with which Shepherd accepts the Catalyst's words breaks character given his/her experience with the Geth and EDI.

Asita:

By that logic, no lasting piece can exist between any two organic races and applying it solely to synthetics is special pleading. I mean, let's face it, Humans and Hanar are hardly mirror images of each other. But I do note that you completely ignored the thrust of my statement. Let me repeat it: Your own conclusions about the organic/synthetic conflict nonwithstanding, Shepherd's own experiences practically mandate that he/she take the claim with at least a grain of salt. Regardless of the decision made in the end, the doubt should be present. The sheer passivity with which Shepherd accepts the Catalyst's words breaks character given his/her experience with the Geth and EDI.

As I have said multiple times I do believe that Shepard should have been able to tell The Catalyst that it is wrong.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked