Mass Effect 3 - 13: Bet you could really go for a bottle of cool, refreshing Tupari!

[Jayngfet]

Can we just settle on you not liking to pay extra, period?
I consider all DLC's for all Bioware Games (except Awakening) worth the money by far. And that includes weapons and armors.

Excepting of course, all those times I did pay extra. Like with say, Skyrim. Or Assassin's Creed. Or TF2. Or for a bioware example, I got DA:O complete edition at a reasonable price and most of it would have been worth the extra if I'd been looking when it just came out. I mean hell, if they made it easier I'd probably buy more DLC.

It's just these specific cases I consider greedy and shiftless.

[KillianHawkeye]

Hey, can we all go back to talking about Mass Effect?



Okay, here's something I haven't seen mentioned yet: Did anybody else notice that the whole Quarian/Geth conflict is basically a rip-off of the plot of Battlestar Galactica? People invent robots, robots and people get into inevitable conflict, robots win, people are forced to flee in a ragtag fleet of busted up ships in search of a new home? The only difference is that the people started the fight instead of the robots, and that Quarian biology means that there aren't really many viable planets for them to live on.

[Zevox]

You do realize most of the time people who buy used wouldn't buy new right?

In many cases, sure. But that does not mean that the concern that some used game sales are a lost sale is completely invalid. For some baffling reason Gamestop is able to sell used copies of games shortly after they come out for only $5 less than a new copy, after all, and people will actually buy them. And for those who are buying used because they wouldn't buy new the additional content (or online pass, which I think was ME3's version) is not so much more that they won't still have saved money if they do purchase it, and that content was never essential to the main plot of the game, so it's not a big loss if you do feel the need to skip it for money reasons. All-around, it seems like the best response to the matter I can imagine, if they're really so worried about it.

[Avilan the Grey]

Keyword is Homage, not Ripoff.
Seriously, the whole series pokes fun, or plays homage to, all classic 1980ies science fiction tropes.

[Math_Mage]

Okay, here's something I haven't seen mentioned yet: Did anybody else notice that the whole Quarian/Geth conflict is basically a rip-off of the plot of Battlestar Galactica? People invent robots, robots and people get into inevitable conflict, robots win, people are forced to flee in a ragtag fleet of busted up ships in search of a new home? The only difference is that the people started the fight instead of the robots, and that Quarian biology means that there aren't really many viable planets for them to live on.

I dunno, that seems like a pretty generic setup. The actual plot of Battlestar Galactica is very different from the Quarian-Geth plot--Geth are both less human (in appearance) and more human (in sympathetic characterization) than most Cylons, and the Quarian war on the Geth is portrayed as completely misguided, which doesn't seem to be the case in BSG.

(Really, the ME3 ending bit about 'inevitable organic-synthetic conflict' would probably have made more sense with Cylons than Geth.)

[Bit Fiend]

I dunno, that seems like a pretty generic setup. The actual plot of Battlestar Galactica is very different from the Quarian-Geth plot--Geth are both less human (in appearance) and more human (in sympathetic characterization) than most Cylons, and the Quarian war on the Geth is portrayed as completely misguided, which doesn't seem to be the case in BSG.

(Really, the ME3 ending bit about 'inevitable organic-synthetic conflict' would probably have made more sense with Cylons than Geth.)

Except the Geth do not serve as an example of this conflict. In fact the whole plot of the games is the Reapers making sure we never get to see such a conflict because they harvest organics before the potential arises.

[Avilan the Grey]

Except the Geth do not serve as an example of this conflict. In fact the whole plot of the games is the Reapers making sure we never get to see such a conflict because they harvest organics before the potential arises.

This discussion makes me think (again) of an old Terminator fanfic (that I cannot find again) where in a "What If" scenario Skynet was treated with respect and curiousity when it became self-aware... And then the movies never happened.

Anyway, damn ME2 is kind of short when you have played through it so many times as I have... Just finished the Shadow Broker with Joan. Next stop Overlord, then do some random missions picked up on planets so I reach lvl 30... Then Reaper IFF, then Arrival, then... ME3.

[KillianHawkeye]

Been playing some multiplayer this weekend. Finally got into a groove with my asari adept and her Acolyte pistol. I had the pistol charged up in advance, shoot a bad guy, then Warp, then if still alive Throw, repeat. Works pretty well on Bronze difficulty, thinking of moving up to Silver. Just got my first Commando package for +'s to pistol and biotic damage, which is exactly what the character needs.

[sana]

Hey, can we all go back to talking about Mass Effect?



Okay, here's something I haven't seen mentioned yet: Did anybody else notice that the whole Quarian/Geth conflict is basically a rip-off of the plot of Battlestar Galactica? People invent robots, robots and people get into inevitable conflict, robots win, people are forced to flee in a ragtag fleet of busted up ships in search of a new home? The only difference is that the people started the fight instead of the robots, and that Quarian biology means that there aren't really many viable planets for them to live on.

Funny enough I just watched Battlestar Galactica for the first time.... First thought: Oh so that's where they took the Quarian-Geth Conflict from. Well that and the "Wait I know that voice... Colonel Commander Bailey???" Yep.
Well that and the whole Reapers Borg must assimilate everything, from Star Trek, Oh wait how many ME voice actors had roles in Star Trek... yeah. Heck Krogan or Klingon close enough they even used Micheal Dorn for a Krogan.

And honestly the ending of Battlestar Galactica:

Spoiler:

Show

Synthesis? Or Cylon-human hybrids the end result is the same.

[Krade]

Funny enough I just watched Battlestar Galactica for the first time.... First thought: Oh so that's where they took the Quarian-Geth Conflict from. Well that and the "Wait I know that voice... Colonel Commander Bailey???" Yep.
Well that and the whole Reapers Borg must assimilate everything, from Star Trek, Oh wait how many ME voice actors had roles in Star Trek... yeah. Heck Krogan or Klingon close enough they even used Micheal Dorn for a Krogan.

And honestly the ending of Battlestar Galactica:

Spoiler:

Show

Synthesis? Or Cylon-human hybrids the end result is the same.

Don't forget EDI, as well. She was in Galactica as Six and Marina Sirtis from TNG was Benezia in ME1.

Honestly I think the Klingons more resemble Turians than Krogan. And the Borg-Reaper comparison is a bit of a stretch.

[Psyren]

Yeah, nothing in this description really requires the stuff like Shale and whatnot to be behind certifications. Especially since they're already given for free. But you just aren't allowed them without a code that unlocks them on the disk. All it does is screw over guys like me who buy them used.

You're still missing the point. They wouldn't have been able to justify working on Shale/Javik/etc. to begin with if they knew they couldn't simply put most of it on the disk, lock it down for certification, and then work on the finishing touches + the paywall code during the certification window while using that content to increase first-day sales/pre-orders, or garner at least some revenue from secondhand sales down the line. It's a blisteringly naive view of gamemaking.

And that is precisely the point. Probably the best for them to do about used games, actually - give people an incentive to buy new.

Yep.

Well **** them. No other business gets to try and swindle more money when someone who had already bought their product tries to sell it. I really wish this practice would die off.

It's not a "swindle." Remember that every other product, when resold, has a reduction in quality associated. Used iPhone? Probably scratched or dropped. Used car? Probably needed repairs at some point. Used book? Probably frayed and marked. Used software? Digital, purely the same experience as buying new. See the problem? People who want the full experience have no incentive NOT to buy used, and the publishers and devs don't see a dime. With game creation getting more and more expensive, this is untenable and will just result in no AAA-quality games for anyone. We'd be back to pixels and text adventures before too long.

[sana]

Don't forget EDI, as well. She was in Galactica as Six and Marina Sirtis from TNG was Benezia in ME1.

Honestly I think the Klingons more resemble Turians than Krogan. And the Borg-Reaper comparison is a bit of a stretch.

Raphael Sbarge was on Voyager and the Turians reminded me of the Cardassians.

[Dienekes]

You're still missing the point. They wouldn't have been able to justify working on Shale/Javik/etc. to begin with if they knew they couldn't simply put most of it on the disk, lock it down for certification, and then work on the finishing touches + the paywall code during the certification window while using that content to increase first-day sales/pre-orders, or garner at least some revenue from secondhand sales down the line. It's a blisteringly naive view of gamemaking.



Yep.



It's not a "swindle." Remember that every other product, when resold, has a reduction in quality associated. Used iPhone? Probably scratched or dropped. Used car? Probably needed repairs at some point. Used book? Probably frayed and marked. Used software? Digital, purely the same experience as buying new. See the problem? People who want the full experience have no incentive NOT to buy used, and the publishers and devs don't see a dime. With game creation getting more and more expensive, this is untenable and will just result in no AAA-quality games for anyone. We'd be back to pixels and text adventures before too long.

Buy an old dvd, might have scratches. Buy an old video game it might have scratches. But you still get all the information that is on the dvd, and I believe I should get all the information that is on the video game. I also see a whole lot of probably's and a rather hilarious extrapolation that getting the full used product means the end of video games as we know it.

This is a world were movies still make outrageous quantities of money just off people who need to see a new flick opening weekend, even though people can wait for it to be on netflicks were for much cheaper numerous houses can watch just about anything. No, if you're going to say that the practice of buying used copies is going to be the end of an entire business I would like to see some numbers.

[Psyren]

Buy an old dvd, might have scratches.

Irrelevant; that's just the medium, not the product itself (i.e. the game, which is digital). Without Day 1 DLC, so long as the disc is readable you get exactly the same experience as someone who bought new. In fact, if a used game has scratches you can generally return it for a full refund no questions asked. Doing that with, say, a used car or cellphone is generally impossible.

I also see a whole lot of probably's and a rather hilarious extrapolation that getting the full used product means the end of video games as we know it.

"Hilarious extrapolation?" Who do you think gets the money when you buy a used game? Do you even games industry Dienekes?

This is a world were movies still make outrageous quantities of money just off people who need to see a new flick opening weekend, even though people can wait for it to be on netflicks were for much cheaper numerous houses can watch just about anything. No, if you're going to say that the practice of buying used copies is going to be the end of an entire business I would like to see some numbers.

I don't know if you're aware, but a movie shown on Netflix (quite apart from generally being months later when ticket sales would have declined anyway) still requires a licensing fee go to the folks who made the movie. Trying to compare that to a used game sale is laughable at best.

[Dienekes]

Irrelevant; that's just the medium, not the product itself (i.e. the game, which is digital). Without Day 1 DLC, so long as the disc is readable you get exactly the same experience as someone who bought new. In fact, if a used game has scratches you can generally return it for a full refund no questions asked. Doing that with, say, a used car or cellphone is generally impossible.

And if I find a good used chair I get the exact same experience as the guy who got it new. I fail to see the point here.

"Hilarious extrapolation?" Who do you think gets the money when you buy a used game? Do you even games industry Dienekes?

Yes, it is. The person who gets the money is the guy who originally payed for the game. It exchanged hands to be the new owners product to give or sell as he or she chooses. In order for someone to buy a used game it means someone else had to buy it originally, the original creator is still making money. Again, this is the exact situation that every other product has to go through. I don't see movies (of which I buy them used as well) suddenly cut off the last couple scenes of a film because I didn't pay them directly and instead got the film from a garage sale. If you're going to say that buying used games will result in the end of AAA standard games as we know it, when such a dramatic outcome has not resulted in buying used products in any other industry I can think of, I expect that statement to be supported by some verification.

I don't know if you're aware, but a movie shown on Netflix (quite apart from generally being months later when ticket sales would have declined anyway) still requires a licensing fee go to the folks who made the movie. Trying to compare that to a used game sale is laughable at best.

I am aware. It's still a much smaller amount than if every individual paid to see each movie that they watched from netflix, at the cost of having to wait for the film to be on netflix. It was not a perfect comparison, to be sure. Buy I could say I buy movies off of garage sales, which I do, and the movie industry is still going strong, despite the fact I am still getting the full product.

[Psyren]

And if I find a good used chair I get the exact same experience as the guy who got it new. I fail to see the point here.

1) If you find a used chair in mint condition it means that the guy who bought it didn't actually want it or didn't own it very long for some other reason. This is not comparable to games, which is a product where the first owner can derive 100% of the value out of it then trade it in and have it be the exact same experience for the next customer. This would be like getting a comfortable chair, having it take the shape of your butt and letting your cat scratch all over it and all the other things that happen to a comfortable chair over time, then when you're ready to trade it in it magically restores itself.

2) Perceived value matters as much as real value. Even if you do keep a chair (or car, or cellphone etc.) in mint condition, the next buyer still will not perceive them to be that way once they have left the store or dealership for the first time. And the reason for that is you can't depreciate digital product in the way that you can physical. The code does not creak as more and more people sit on it, nor does it need to be retightened or begin to rot. It's intangible. The disk might start to show wear but so long as it runs those are purely cosmetic. You don't even have to look at it while it is running like you would a used chair.

Yes, it is. The person who gets the money is the guy who originally payed for the game. It exchanged hands to be the new owners product to give or sell as he or she chooses. In order for someone to buy a used game it means someone else had to buy it originally, the original creator is still making money. Again, this is the exact situation that every other product has to go through.

With other products, there are always people willing to buy new instead of used for that perception of higher quality (see above.) That perception does not exist for digital product, hence those sales (and the revenue they would provide to publishers and developers) are lost. Without Day 1 DLC, people consider the experience to be the same.

I am aware. It's still a much smaller amount than if every individual paid to see each movie that they watched from netflix, at the cost of having to wait for the film to be on netflix. It was not a perfect comparison, to be sure. Buy I could say I buy movies off of garage sales, which I do, and the movie industry is still going strong, despite the fact I am still getting the full product.

Are "garage sales" a multi-billion-dollar industry? Because Gamestop is. And by far the largest component of their revenue model are used game sales, which are 100% pure profit for them with not a dime going back to the publisher and developer after that first sale.

[Anteros]

This should really be its own thread if people are going to talk about it so much.

I'm about to start Mass Effect 1 again. I typically play soldiers and I want something with a completely different play style this time. Any suggestions?

[Math_Mage]

Except the Geth do not serve as an example of this conflict. In fact the whole plot of the games is the Reapers making sure we never get to see such a conflict because they harvest organics before the potential arises.

Well, yes, there is no actual demonstration of the Reapers' offered justification--and that's a problem. IMO, either change the offered justification, demonstrate the existing one, or don't pretend there's a justification in the first place.

[Rodin]

Well, yes, there is no actual demonstration of the Reapers' offered justification--and that's a problem. IMO, either change the offered justification, demonstrate the existing one, or don't pretend there's a justification in the first place.

It certainly sticks out, and I think most people immediately objected.

However, playing devil's advocate is really, really easy in this case.

We've had one AI show up, and spent decades in a war with it before declaring peace. Said peace has lasted only a few weeks, and only in the face of literal armageddon. Will the Quarians continue to work with the Geth after years of hatred? How long will the Geth put up with terrorist attacks from angry Quarians after ceding part of their planet to them?

What about other AIs that have yet to be invented, or human/AI hybrids like Shepard?

The Catalyst works on a time scale of thousands of years. Developing a brief peace and then stating "Problem solved!" would probably just make it laugh.

The AI war could take place 5000 years in the future and the Catalyst would still be totally correct. And of course, the Catalyst could just simply be wrong. What was true in the past does not always have to be true. That's not the same thing as saying the Catalyst is lying - the Catalyst could have seen dozens of civilizations get torn down by AIs as they came in to Reap. The Geth could just be something new.

[KillianHawkeye]

they even used Micheal Dorn for a Krogan.

Michael Dorn was in Mass Effect? Which character was he? I have no clue how I could have missed his distinctive voice.

[Dhavaer]

Michael Dorn was in Mass Effect? Which character was he? I have no clue how I could have missed his distinctive voice.

Gatatog Uvenk, in 2. Recipient of one of Wrex's better lines:

Speak when spoken to, Uvenk. I'll drag your clan to glory whether they like it or not.

[Jayngfet]

It certainly sticks out, and I think most people immediately objected.

However, playing devil's advocate is really, really easy in this case.

We've had one AI show up, and spent decades in a war with it before declaring peace. Said peace has lasted only a few weeks, and only in the face of literal armageddon. Will the Quarians continue to work with the Geth after years of hatred? How long will the Geth put up with terrorist attacks from angry Quarians after ceding part of their planet to them?

What about other AIs that have yet to be invented, or human/AI hybrids like Shepard?

The Catalyst works on a time scale of thousands of years. Developing a brief peace and then stating "Problem solved!" would probably just make it laugh.

The AI war could take place 5000 years in the future and the Catalyst would still be totally correct. And of course, the Catalyst could just simply be wrong. What was true in the past does not always have to be true. That's not the same thing as saying the Catalyst is lying - the Catalyst could have seen dozens of civilizations get torn down by AIs as they came in to Reap. The Geth could just be something new.

Of course, if any of that was alluded to it'd be super, but it wasn't. As far as the game shows it's just "Problem solved!" followed by an epilogue of them broing it up forever. Just like how you see EDI who is always your bro and totally unwavering about it. Hell, a lot of them are immediately willing to shed their suits by taking the deal. The only evidence that any of this has any logical standing is locked behind two different packs of DLC and is a footnote in both cases. In the base game, all evidence points to AI's being totally awesome and cool and everyone's best buddy. All of the stuff written after the fact by the writers also says that yes, this time AI's really are your buddy and are cool with you.

You can give conjecture to say something might happen and it might go a certain way, but all of the evidence says it does not.

When you're working on a scale of tens of thousands of years and you have that many trillions of sentients with that many variables, it's hard to keep everything in order. If conflict is inevitable, it's because the Catalyst and reapers are forcing things to develop in a way that makes it happen, because they're the only link in every case regardless of the hundreds of different types of species that came and went.

I mean, half your argument is based on the idea that somehow, an AI who's never been seen will show up and screw everything over irreparably, and can not be stopped or changed.

[Psyren]

The AI war could take place 5000 years in the future and the Catalyst would still be totally correct. And of course, the Catalyst could just simply be wrong. What was true in the past does not always have to be true. That's not the same thing as saying the Catalyst is lying - the Catalyst could have seen dozens of civilizations get torn down by AIs as they came in to Reap. The Geth could just be something new.

Precisely this. And in fact it's very possible that the Catalyst is wrong about the Geth. But even if it was, its programming would not allow it to take that chance - which would go right back to mandating that you take over from it by using the Crucible.

[Anteros]

I mean, half your argument is based on the idea that somehow, an AI who's never been seen will show up and screw everything over irreparably, and can not be stopped or changed.

That's not his argument, it's Starkid's. I think for all our disagreements over the ending, we all agree that Starkid is a moron.

To be frank, who even cares if war is inevitable? Organics war against each other all the time and you don't see the Reapers caring about that. On a long enough time scale you are going to have all types of war. Organic vs organic, synthetic vs organic, even synthetic vs synthetic. It doesn't justify trying to drive the participants to extinction in some flawed attempt to "protect" them.

[Avilan the Grey]

That's not his argument, it's Starkid's. I think for all our disagreements over the ending, we all agree that Starkid is a moron.

The Starbrat's logic is faulty because his creators gave him faulty parameters and not enough restrictions. The Starbrat isn't a moron by his own design, he is designed to be a moron "on purpose" due to bad programming from his creators. Too bad this led to the creation of the Reapers and the binding of the Reapers to the same faulty logic...

---

Regarding "Awesome Buddy Ai's":

EDI speculates that in her case it was the combined effect of Joker, who after the Collector raid started truly treating her like a person, the rest of the crew at least almost treating her like a crew member, and the fact that she was designed to emulate a person. After she gets hold of a body, this progresses further, with Joker actually falling in love with her (and the other way around!), the crew TRULY seeing her as a crew member and it being even easier for her to "emulate" a person because well... body. All this led to her WANTING to be a crue member, WANTING to be one of the Band Of Brothers.

She also speculates that the Quarian's big mistake was to make the Geth so unlike themselves they could not "identify" with them. Knowing that the Geth were not individuals (on the level of one individual - one body) made it easier to just shut them off.

The other problem with the Geth is that quite frankly the Quarians ASSUMED the Terminator / Battlestar Galactica scenario would play out, never bothered to attempt any negotiations and just blasted away. The Geth, not being true AI were still at least partly bound by their original programming and respected and wanted to protect their creators. Hence the fact that they, without the Quarians realizing it, they had protected, cleaned and prepared Rannoch for their return.

The other AI's we find (ME1) are all acting in confusion and or self defence. EDI / Luna gained true sentience as Shepard attacked, according to her. Before that she was a very advanced VI that (as far as I understood it) started to mistake the army training against her as an actual attack and retaliated with sudden lethal force. The AI on the citadel merely assumed it would be killed and committed suicide.

Regarding the war on Synthetics in Prothean times, this actually is very different: The Machine Race then was basically a mix between the Borg and Movie!Doc Oc's arms: The implants took over the body. We do not know what triggered this, or why the AI's were hostile.

Of any instances before that we only know what the Leviathan thought about it.

[Anteros]

The Starbrat's logic is faulty because his creators gave him faulty parameters and not enough restrictions. The Starbrat isn't a moron by his own design, he is designed to be a moron "on purpose" due to bad programming from his creators. Too bad this led to the creation of the Reapers and the binding of the Reapers to the same faulty logic...

I agree with you, but it doesn't change the fact that his logic is moronic even if it isn't his fault. Also, considering that we're beat over the head all throughout the series about how these synthetics are "alive", able to think for themselves, and evolve, I'm not sure you can truly expunge them of guilt. They've had millions (probably) of years to consider other options, yet they always choose genocide. It's their creator's fault they began down that path...but they are the ones who chose to maintain it.

[Psyren]

To be frank, who even cares if war is inevitable? Organics war against each other all the time and you don't see the Reapers caring about that. On a long enough time scale you are going to have all types of war. Organic vs organic, synthetic vs organic, even synthetic vs synthetic. It doesn't justify trying to drive the participants to extinction in some flawed attempt to "protect" them.

The idea is that a synthetic race does not experience remorse or fear. Furthermore, while we as high-level organics depend on other (lower-level) organic life like animals, plants and bacteria to exist, synthetics can bypass that by taking their energy directly from the stars themselves. Therefore, if a synthetic race were to come to the conclusion "wipe out organics" and obtain the means of doing so (which they easily would, once they inevitably become a T2 Kardashev civilization) we'd be able to put up a resistance roughly on par with cavemen fighting panzer tanks. Our extinction would swiftly follow, and indeed, the machines would be able to stamp out life wherever it could arise again, feeling no pity for the unfairness of our odds. As this outcome conflicts with the Catalyst's mandate to "preserve life," preventing that from happening is its number one mission.

[Avilan the Grey]

I agree with you, but it doesn't change the fact that his logic is moronic even if it isn't his fault. Also, considering that we're beat over the head all throughout the series about how these synthetics are "alive", able to think for themselves, and evolve, I'm not sure you can truly expunge them of guilt. They've had millions (probably) of years to consider other options, yet they always choose genocide. It's their creator's fault they began down that path...but they are the ones who chose to maintain it.

Oh I agree, though I am not 100% sure if an AI per default can modiy it's programming. EDI can, because Jeff did in fact explicitly remove the block so she could do it. If nobody has removed the basic blocks from the Starbrat's programming he is still bound by them and cannot avoid following them. As, I think, he basically says to you (he could not change his behaviour until the docking, and even after that he cannot push the button himself. He needs Shep to do it).

So I do not blame them (Starbrat, Reapers), I blame Leviathan. And the writers of course.

[Jayngfet]

The idea is that a synthetic race does not experience remorse or fear. Furthermore, while we as high-level organics depend on other (lower-level) organic life like animals, plants and bacteria to exist, synthetics can bypass that by taking their energy directly from the stars themselves. Therefore, if a synthetic race were to come to the conclusion "wipe out organics" and obtain the means of doing so (which they easily would, once they inevitably become a T2 Kardashev civilization) we'd be able to put up a resistance roughly on par with cavemen fighting panzer tanks. Our extinction would swiftly follow, and indeed, the machines would be able to stamp out life wherever it could arise again, feeling no pity for the unfairness of our odds. As this outcome conflicts with the Catalyst's mandate to "preserve life," preventing that from happening is its number one mission.

Two problems.

One, you're assuming Synthetics don't experience remorse, which is blatantly false. The geth are clearly emotional over the entire war with the Quarians and have regrets surrounding it, even without comparable minds. They're a sentimental race, keeping weapon patterns and mementos and records long after they stop being useful.

Two, you're assuming that organic life can't take energy from the stars. Organic life does, frequently. On earth they're these funny things called "plants" with ridiculous things called "leaves". Organic's taking from stars is par for the course and the foundation of literally every organic food chain in the galaxy. Given the Thorian, we know that plants can also become sentient, though nobody seems to be scared that the flower men will try to kill us.

So I do not blame them (Starbrat, Reapers), I blame Leviathan. And the writers of course.

At the end of the day, it's always a good idea to blame the writers. The entire way this five minute segment was handled shows a gigantic amount of incompetence and arrogance from them.

[Psyren]

Two problems.

One, you're assuming Synthetics don't experience remorse, which is blatantly false. The geth are clearly emotional over the entire war with the Quarians and have regrets surrounding it, even without comparable minds. They're a sentimental race, keeping weapon patterns and mementos and records long after they stop being useful.

1) And yet all of that so-called sentiment doesn't stop them from wiping out all the Quarians without a single survivor in the end.
2) You're assuming every synthetic race would be like the Geth.`That is a luxury the Catalyst cannot afford, and even they could potentially decide to wipe out all organics - a conclusion that a good chunk of them arrived at due to a math error of all things.

Two, you're assuming that organic life can't take energy from the stars. Organic life does, frequently. On earth they're these funny things called "plants" with ridiculous things called "leaves".

In your rush to snark at me you appeared to have forgotten to actually read my post. Specifically the part that said "high-level organics." You may not be aware, but trees (and other organisms capable of photosynthesis) have very limited sapience and intelligence. The more complex a life-form gets, the more those two qualities grow, but conversely the higher it must move up the food chain and be unable to do things like slowly photosynthesize over a period of centuries.

Synthetics do not have that limitation; they can do crazy things like capture sunlight directly in space and thus not be subject to a planet's day/night cycles. They also don't need oddities like gravity, above-freezing temperatures or an atmosphere to function, all things that plants do require. See the difference now?