This is the talk page for Geth.
Please limit discussions to topics that go into improving the article.
If you wish to discuss matters not relevant to article upkeep, take it to the blogs, forums,
chatroom, or discussions module.
Thank you.

Heretics Revision Edit

Legion's revelations about the nature of the heretics and other geth I believe should be heavily reflected in this article. This article at present gives the inaccurate perception that all geth have the same ideology, utilize the same combat tactics, and technology. Legion's statements back this up.

No race, species, gender or demographic of any kind should be judged based on the actions of a single group within that demographic. This article does just that, and I believe that problem should be rectified.

--Phildog 02:19, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Well then, don't just comment on it here, get to editing! If you want this article changed as described above, change it! SpartHawg948 02:33, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
I want to, but I just didn't feel right doing it. I've only made around one edit on this wikia. However reading that makes me feel it's safe to go ahead. I'll start working and post the revision tonight. --Phildog 16:23, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

If you join Cybernations and join The Legion you will make me feel like I'm living a teenage dreaaaam

Take comments like this to the forums or a blog post as this isn't remotely what talk pages are for. Lancer1289 03:16, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Unable to operate outside the Veil Edit

I might have missed this, but when does Legion state this? I assumed that they were chosen to do forays as they housed so many intelligences at once they could make independent decisions and be thought to better represent the geth. I never thought this was a physical limitation of the geth, I mean to say. :) --ABCoLD 17:10, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

My guess it is a range issue, most geth "platforms" wouldn't be able to stay in contact with the rest of the geth without lag, unless there's a lot of them, which organics would see as an invasion and attack them.

I was wondering this as well. Where is it in the game exactly? If anyone could tell me, I'd appreciate it. --Effectofthemassvariety 04:47, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Naming Conventions Edit

Though the species name 'geth' should still kept in lower case, after considering it, I think specific enemies like Geth Armatures should be given proper nouns, as these are titles of specific enemies. (Should also make it easier to write articles.) Shout out here if you disagree. I think I was the only one writing them in lower case anyway :p. Will fix. --Tullis 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I neither agree or disagree with the convention, but I do believe that we need one. Let's stick to yours. Now we must also say "Asari Commando" rather than "asari commando", right? EliTe X HeRo 20:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Bipedal? Humanoid? Edit

There are several full fledged geth intellegences encountered in the game that are neither bipedal nor humanoid. While it is true several of the geth could be described as such this describtion would be better suited for their individual pages as opposed to blinket statements made about the entire race. Tetracycloide 18:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

While I don't disagree, that paragraph was actually taken verbatim from the official Mass Effect site, from the Galactic Codex entry on the geth. --Tullis 19:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinkin'Edit

Y'know in the trailer it showed a Geth wearing human armor,and then another image showed a geth holding a human sniper rifle,do ya think that maybe,whatever this new threat is,that it's abducting humans and transforming them into geth?I know i sound bathsit insane,but it was just a thought. M471/952G 16:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the geth was wearing that N7 armour. It was just standing behind it. --Tullis 18:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
That seems a bit weird,in the trailer:Maybe,in the screenshot:DEFINETLY WEARING N7,but then again,it's been ages since ive seen N7 armor,just kept using scorpin,mercenarary(Wrex's starting armor) and then colossus. M471/952G 18:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I also thought it looked like the geth was standing behind the armor, as opposed to wearing it. SpartHawg948 18:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I can't speak for any other ME2 media, but the first time I saw that teaser was on a pretty big screen and I'm fairly sure the geth was standing behind it. --Tullis 18:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe they're taking hostages now?Kinda weird if it is,it coulda been a reference to gears of war 2,where the locust (Main enemies) start taking hostages after losing a leading figure (Geth:Saren Locust:RAAM) Mr.Wolf 19:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the new geth squadmate is a geth experiment done by cerberus, they say quote "he's a specific character, you probably recognize him from the trailer...people will really connect with him". I reckon they say this as the geth sort of sound like R2D2. Mrspectre 01:15, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Geth Evolution Edit

Does it actually say anywhere how the geth evolve? Do they simply build newer versions, upgrade to newer versions, or a combination of the two? Example: Will a trooper be upgraded to a destroyer, or will a trooper always be a trooper?

I've been looking over whatever I can find, but haven't found an answer. SjadoJai 19:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Though I cannot backup my answer with in-game facts, my guess is, the geth build the platforms they have demand for. Upgrading a platform to a fully new type does not seem logical because there were designed to serve a specific pupose.

I think the term evolution describes the development of fully new platforms like the geth stalker. A new need occurred for the Heretics when they turned from defense against the quarians and the following evasion to offense and invasion lead by Souvereign/Nazara. And the geth answered the demand with a new design for their mobile platforms.--LegioN 16:33, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

geth ghosts and stalkers Edit

i just noticed that i have never seen a thing called a geth hopper. all are either called geth stalkers o geth ghosts which are black instead of gray and seem to use a sniper like weapon instead of the laser. an example is the big fight with the armature outside the make on the laira's dig site planet. (i forgot the name). where did anyone get the name hopper?

They're referred to as hoppers in the Codex and in the old X06 footage: "hoppers" is a collective term for Stalkers, Sappers and Ghosts. --Tullis 01:49, September 5, 2009 (UTC)
Hopper seems to be the name the Alliance soldiers gave those platforms--LegioN 16:36, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Collective Memory? Edit

Where is it stated that the geth have a collective memory? When Tali's talking about them? --Tullis 15:10, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think when Shepard take Tali to to the ambassador to present the evidence. --silverstrike 15:16, October 3, 2009 (UTC)
It's not stated, or even demonstrated, I don't think. For all we know, the geth that Tali obtained the memory core from was present when Saren and Benezia had that conversation. SpartHawg948 21:31, October 3, 2009 (UTC)
The Geth do share a collective memory, so long as they are connected to the network. Legion explains this over his conversations and loyalty mission. Aboard the Heretic Station, you run into a database, which Legion pokes around in a little to see what they've been up to. And later he pulls a recording of the first time a quarian was worried when a geth asked if it had a soul from the collective network, as long as you let him access the FTL comms. Their memories are definitely shared. Greatak 05:15, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Section for fleet Edit

Should there be a section added, with images, describing the geth fleet of dropships and cruisers? Tophvision 14:21, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

No. We have no information whatsoever on a unified geth fleet or geth naval doctrine, and there is little to no evidence for the existence of geth cruisers other than what you have extrapolated from a video.
EDIT: *reads new section on Talk:Starships* All right, but there's no picture supporting this, and you're talking about a ship that may have been glimpsed briefly and which we know nothing about aside from appearance! I'm also disappointed that you took it upon yourself to put this all over the Storyline page without actual proof, and when, as I have said before, this image shows only geth dropships. Put a note in Trivia: Geth Dropships if you wish, but again: we have no information on geth fleet and naval doctrine, so a section here would be mostly speculative. --Tullis 14:24, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
I would venture to say that many of those ships may be geth cruisers, due to their more elongated nature. But you're right, I'll hold off until I can get a solid image for proof. Any help with that would be nice. Tophvision 14:36, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
I have to admit, I'm still not entirely clear on how a more elongated design denotes an entirely different class of ship. Those silhouettes are indistinguishable from geth dropships. Please put a note in Trivia: Geth Dropships if you wish to mention the possible existence of geth cruisers, and the evidence you have, then I'd really appreciate it if you'd leave this be, at least for now. It's not been a good week for us when it comes to speculation and problematic edits, and I really don't want to wrangle over this. --Tullis 14:46, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
Yes. There's some information, that could be added there, that doesn't fit anywhere else; like the fleet strength of 5.000 to 10.000 ships, see Codex Far Rim > Dholen > Charoum --LegioN 13:31, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
That's probly just the heretics too (5% of total Geth)

No, there was no indication of that whatsoever. In fact, it seemed to me that this figure, taking into account were it was provided, was referring to the plain old non-heretic geth, especially given that this is one of the quarian worlds that was overrun by the geth. Also take into account that if they had 5,000 to 10,000 ships, they'd likely have used them, either to support Sovereign's attack on the Citadel, or to fight the Alliance after the events of the first game. Remember what Anderson says- the geth heretics were largely wiped out by the Alliance, with groups of them being picked off as they were discovered. The Alliance wouldn't have been able to do that if the heretics had 5,000 to 10,000 ships at their disposal, would they? Common sense says 'no'. SpartHawg948 04:59, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Husks Edit

Husk are not a subtype of geth, so unless anyone has any objections I will be removing them from the list of geth subtypes.

No objections here. Matt 2108 20:04, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. But maybe leave a link to the husks. And it might be a spoiler, somewhat.
I don't see any relation between the geth and husks (apart from the geth helping by mounting humans on the Dragon's teeth) --silverstrike 20:14, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
Until Horizon everyone in the game thinks husks are made by the geth? The final proof of the relation between the husks and the reapers is aboard the derelict reaper. What do I miss?--LegioN 20:37, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
True. But no one will miss the link to the husk and it won't be a spoiler by not being mentioned (after all, even while playing ME it is clear that the geth and the husk are of different technology and you can't call both of them 'geth'). --silverstrike 20:42, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed.--LegioN 20:53, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

I guess we have something of a consensus then. That went well. Bastian964 01:24, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

There is still the matter of the small paragraph mentioning "psychological warfare" regarding husks. The article does not mention that Husks are Reaper technology, and I think that Husks do not belong in this article in the first place. I see that the article about Husks has a fair bit of these contradictions too. I'll take the liberty of removing the bit about Husks in this article, seeing as they were also removed from the Geth subtypes. LTK 70 22:06, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Don't remove something just based on your opinion. That should stay becuase it is lidgit because they do use them and it is phychologlical warfare. Something like that is only removed when a concensus has been reached. And you alone doesn't count. Lancer1289 22:07, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Hive MindEdit

Doesn't Tali say specifically that the geth are not like a hive mind when you talk to her in Mass Effect? Matt 2108 20:12, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I guess it could be worded better. What is a better way to state this? They say it's not hive mind, but when I read about the Geth, half the time it sounds exactly like a hive mind mentality. I mean, they share all their processes and Legion states that when one Geth experiences something, it uploads it to the "SOMETHING" (I guess NOT hive mind, even though it is a mind that all Geth share) which makes all Geth believe that they shared that same experience. --Saren72 20:26, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Just thinking out loud here, the geth share sensory data and all memory which basically makes it one single mind when they connect, right? There is no single geth, isn't that, what Legion tries to explain?--LegioN 20:52, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

See that's why I'm confused. That is basically the definition of hive mind. But they say it is not hive mind and then I remember things like when Legion plays back a recording of a geth asking a quarian "Do I have a soul?" which points to individual thinking and judgment. --Saren72 21:21, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Except Tali says in the first game that Geth do not share sensory data, which is precisely why they are not a "hive mind". Their collective subconscious allows them to free up processing when they are in proximity, so they get smarter when closer together. Legion indicates otherwise, that all view points are shared and a consensus is reached. This is either a Retcon, or the Geth have evolved significantly beyond what Tali said in the first game, into more of a hive mind. Except it isn't a true hive mind because each program truly is individual--note A House Divided, not only are the Geth divided into the true geth and the heretics, but Legion "himself" is divided, half the programs favor wiping out the heretics, half the programs favor reprogramming. Thus, even with all viewpoints shared, the programs are truly individuals with individual opinions.—ErzengelLichtes (Contribs) 21:33, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

The geth do not have a hive mindThe geth rule 18:37, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

The geth are not a hive mind nor do they share sensory data. Each geth has its own viewpoints but when they are connected through a computer system they share memories. When Legion was talking about a consesus reached he was refering to all the programs inside him reaching a consesus.Bastian964 18:35, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Am I Playing the Right Game? Edit

There is a lot in this article like the geth not living on quarian worlds and that they want to build one stucture to house all geth. Where does this info come from. I've done every dialogue path possible for Shepard and have never heard any of this.

There's a lot of information in the codex and in the codex of the planets in geth space, though citations would be nice, indeed.--LegioN 08:44, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

@First person: That information came from talking with Legion. Clearly you didn't talk with him enough to get that information or you simply don't remember.Bastian964 18:30, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

"Do these units have a soul?"Edit

I was watching First Spaceship on Venus (Mystery Science Theater 3000) and I noticed that the little robot's voice sounds exactly like the geth that asks if it has a soul. Not necessarily something to mention in the article, but I thought it was interesting. Ninsegtari 14:40, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Trivia Edit

As you can see goblins from the earlier game Too Human are nearly identical to Geth. Mictlantecuhtli 21:37, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Feros Geth Hopper
Goblin blue
Except visual comparisons aren't enough to justify trivia. I don't know how many times I have said that now. While yes they do look similar, visual comparision area again not enough. Also Too Human was released after Mass Effect, so it is more likely the Too Human things are based off the geth, not the other way around. Mass Effect was released on November 20, 2007, while Too Human was released on August 19, 2008. So the drones are again more likely based off the geth, and that still isn't trivia. Lancer1289 21:42, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
I can see few changes will be allowed at this wiki. Wish you luck in the future. Mictlantecuhtli 21:52, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
Not when they're wrong, no. PhoenixBlue 21:57, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
(eidt conflict)We allow changes, when they are relevant, and this one wasn't. You said that Too Human was developed BEFORE Mass Effect, which is false, and because of that, the drones are more likely based off of the geth and not the other way around. Unless the geth were completely removed from Mass Effect when I wasn't looking. Trivia is valid when i has some backup, but yours didn't and was false. Too Human was released after Mass Effect, so your entire argument was false, and therefore invalid trivia. Lancer1289 21:58, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that Commdor removed the trivia statement I added regarding this, although I stated that the "Too Human" enemies appeared to be based off the geth, not the other way around. I don't mean to point fingers, but exactly what prevents this from becoming viable trivia if it is stated as speculation? InfiniteAmo 04:48, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

The origins of the Geth are remarkably similar to the origins of the Cylons in the Re-Imagined version of Battlestar Galactica in that both were created to be simple autonomous robots but as more and more changes were made to the core software they eventually became self-aware. The ensuing conflict and final resolution between both sides is also very similar with victory for the machines and the surviving organics being forced to survive in a ragtag fleet of civilian and military vessels.--Apache287 (talk) 13:35, December 9, 2014 (UTC)

Emotionlessness of the geth. Edit

Are the geth lacking emotion because they were originaly planned to be worker robots? Other AIs have (I think). for example: Sovereign when taking saren's husk squall's in "his" anger that the citadel is his. EDI likes Joker. the AI you can find on the presidium is quite violent, when it states that it will take you with it to death. Legion always talks about logical things. I still like that guy, but he is a bit strange without emotions.

Due to their sentience, it is somewhat possible the geth have developed limited emotion. For instance, in ME2, if you ask Legion why he used Shepard's N7 armor while their was plenty of more suitable material around, the only response he gives is: "ERROR. DATA NOT FOUND." Or some other error message. This would imply that Legion had NO logical reason for his actions - meaning he made a PERSONAL choice, based on preference alone. InfiniteAmo 00:16, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

And EDI does not 'like' Joker. As a non-sentient machine, she is not capable of experiencing 'hormone-based emotional preference'.

EDI is an AI, not a VI. She is sentient.

To respond to the EDI: VI or AI question: A good comparison for EDI is Data from Star Trek. Data wished to become more human, and explored various elements that make us who we are. More specifically, Data (at one point) focused on humor, which is something EDI struggles with throughout ME2. She constantly prods Joker to see his "emotional response"; she is essentially experimenting on Joker. Finally, EDI HERSELF claims she is "at least partly based on Reaper technology", and we know the Reapers are AI. The above points prove EDI is an AI.

As for the geth, it is quite different. The geth aren't a single AI like EDI. One geth is actually a VI, designed for a specific purpose. However, when they were first created by the quarians, they were often grouped together and then were allowed to self-optimize. Legion says that the geth discovered that grouping more of themselves together allowed for increased functionality and furthered their capabilities. This eventually let to a "platform" having hundreds of runtimes, and eventually, slowly, as more runtimes grouped/communicated through different platforms, the geth as a group became self-aware. Basically, they get smarter when more of them are put together. Compare legion (1000+ "geth") to a regular geth platform (stated to be 100 geth, usually seen as a soldier). Legion has geth that allow him to create "facial" expressions, speak with organics, AND process information. Regular geth can't do all these things.

All of this is explained ingame by Legion.Cheeseburgz

Where the hell is the geth Cruiser? Edit

As you can see here , Sovereign is acompanied by a lot of geth Cruisers. Why there is no article about those?

Here is another image which shows a geth Cruiser in close up. Those are not geth Dropships. SoulRipper 18:59, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

We don't know enough about them to make an article. Same for Alliance cruisers and turian frigates. We know these things exist, we have pictures of them, but that's the extent of our knowledge. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:15, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
We also had a long disccsion about this just a few weeks ago on the Talk:Geth Dropship page. We have no factual evidence for Geth Cruisers while we do for Dropships. All we have is speculation, guesswork, and a few pictures. If we had facutal evidence, then we can say differently, but unfortunatly we don't. Lancer1289 19:46, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
Oh Dear God... not this again. Find canon proof demonstrating that those ships are geth cruisers. That would be an immediate prerequisite for the geth cruiser article. And no, just to stave this off, the model ship doesn't count. I won't go into full detail, but there's way too much wrong with saying 'well it looks like the model' for that to work. Zaeed's model ship looks like a turian cruiser, doesn't it? But it isn't. Then, as Commdor says, find some more info. The geth dropship has an article because it appears several times in both games, including at least twice as an adversary, and we get to see quite a bit of it and get to know its characteristics. Please though, I beg of you, let's not get into a big 'Those are geth cruisers!' "We need canon proof!" 'Those are geth cruisers!' "Still need canon proof!", etc, etc. argument. Two was more than enough, we don't need #3. SpartHawg948 20:22, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
You dont want to search a little by yourselves, hah? Anyway, here we go:
Mass Effect artbook. Image: geth ships. This image shows a geth gunship (top left), a geth transporter (top right) and a geth Cruiser (bottom). Is the top left ship the same with the one to the bottom? NO. The sizes of the ships are correct. The geth Cruiser is much more bigger than the transporter. And before you start saying that its a concept art and things like that, here comes the second image: ingame models. This image shows a geth transporter to the left and a geth Cruiser the right. I have highlighted the names of the models. Are those two ships the same? Similar, yes, identical, NO.
Both models can be found in "C:\Program Files\Mass Effect\BioGame\CookedPC\Packages\GameObjects\Vehicles" (normally). The files are "BIOG_VEH_GethTransport.upk" for the geth transporter and "BIOG_VEH_GethCruiser.upk" for the geth Cruiser. Anyone who wants to check those just go here, download UModel (Unreal Model Viewer), unrar or unzip the files and drag&drop the .upk files in the UModel program (dont run it, just drop the file over the icon of the program).
Also another image here. This image shows Sovereign with the geth Cruisers. The "2" is the ship number 20 (where the arrow points) scaled some times. Dont you see any similarities betwin 1 and 2? As you can see in the final cutscenes of Mass Effect, NONE of the geth ships has any of those "legs". Thats because those ships aint transporters.
Also check this video from Youtube. Its HD and evrything is pretty clear. Just concentrate on the geth ships and you'll see that those are not transportes. Also you can see that those ships are way larger than the Normandy.
Also I take my hat off to whoever did that analysis in the Geth Dropship talk page.
SoulRipper 22:17, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
Why would I bother to search a little? I'm not trying to prove anything. So... let's see. Images from a non-canonical artbook, which demonstrates its status pretty clearly by displaying cut content in the image you provide. Hmmm... In-game files. Ok. Not sure what the revelation is here. I've freely admitted several times that there are geth cruisers, and that some were at the Citadel. In-game files, however, do not prove that the ships in the screenshots you provided are geth cruisers. They more than likely are, but there are some things that don't mesh as well. Next, no, can't really see jack in the Sovereign and geth ships image you provided. The blown-up image is way too distorted to see, for example, the bank of antennae that is one of the distinguishing features of the geth cruiser. Ultimately, though, this is all moot. You still have not answered the one question that needs to be answered before a geth cruiser article (which you were, as I recall, pushing for) can be created. What would go in the article? We have next to no info on them, as we do with most large warships, such as Alliance cruisers, turian cruisers, and turian frigates. SpartHawg948 22:26, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Additionally, not sure why you're tipping a hat. The user who did that "analysis" made some fairly serious blunders that in my mind, and ultimately his, kind of jeopardizes the entire point of his statement. Kind of hard to rely on his visual assessments when he labels ships that display significant differences from geth dropships as 'geth dropships', and then uses these misidentified ships to point out why other vessels then cannot be geth dropships. SpartHawg948 22:29, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • "We have no factual evidence for Geth Cruisers while we do for Dropships. All we have is speculation, guesswork, and a few pictures". Lancer says that the existance of geth cruisers its a speculation. Common, WTF!!!
  • Non-canonical artbook? What do you mean? I created it? Its a scan from the original.
  • What things dont mesh? Take every screenshot that shows a geth cruiser, download the UModel and compare it yourself. Also go check in Shepards room and tell me, is that a geth dropship or not? In Harots emporium, the discription of the model ship says, geth cruiser.
  • Both the cruiser and the dropship have the same antena. The distinguishing features of the geth cruiser its that is more than twice the size of a dropship, it has not the legs/claws and it is more of a straight design. The droship is more curved.
  • Ok, an article cant be made but in the whole geth article there is nothing about geth cruisers. SoulRipper 23:03, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
Geth cruisers are mentioned in the trivia section of Geth Dropship. Maybe something similar can be added here. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:09, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Common? I think you mean Come on. Next, did I say you created the art book? No. I mean it isn't canon. It's concept art, much of which did not make it into the game. Concept art is not canon. I can't think of a simpler way to explain it. Concept art is as canon a source as are TV commercials.
And didn't I already make clear the problem with comparing the model to the ships in the cutscene? Pretty sure I did. If we were to apply that logic, then clearly the model ship Zaeed has is a turian cruiser. After all, the model matches the turian cruisers seen in the cutscenes. Is it a turian cruiser? Nope. It's a frigate. Models are notoriously unreliable, as is made clear in the discussion on the geth dropship page.
As for a mention in the geth article: why? Does the Alliance article (or the human article) mention that humans employ cruisers, frigates, dreadnoughts, and carriers? No. Does the turian article mention turian frigates and cruisers? No. Does the asari article mention asari cruisers and dreadnoughts? No. Why make the geth a special exception? Now, if we knew any sort of detail about them, maybe it could get a mention, as the batarian article does mention that the batarian navy does (or did) employ Hensa-class cruisers, as that's an actual bit of info that distinguishes it. I don't see the need to make the geth article the one and only article noting that 'the geth are known to employ cruisers' or something like that. Addendum- this includes the trivia section for the aforementioned reasons. SpartHawg948 23:16, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
I would also disagree with the mention of a trivia section. This article should be no excpetion. As to speculating as to the cruiser's existance, I have reread the argument and I have yet to find where I said that geth cruisers are speuclation. I mention speculaiton on the dementions that the user trying to use, but I didn't say that cruisers are speculation. So wehre do I say that iI'd like to know, since words are apparently being put into my mouth. They have never been called cruisers in universe and I asked for proof that they have. Since they haven't we have no proof that they are cruisers, I asked for proof that they were called cruisers, and by not using the model name. Lancer1289 23:29, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

So we're arguing if these particular geth ships are classified as cruisers or not? That clears things up, I thought we were arguing about whether or not these ships existed at all and were different from dropships. I'll have to back Lancer and Spart on this, we have no direct evidence the ships are officially classified as cruisers in the ME universe. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:37, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what my contention is. I conceded way back when ME2 released that geth cruisers exist, and that there were geth cruisers at the Battle of the Citadel. And I do think that there is a decent chance that the ships seen in the cutscenes are geth cruisers. I'm just not willing to say it's a fact, without canon proof. Snippets from non-canon art books and blurry blown-up images are not canon proof, nor are comparisons relying on model ships. And, given that consistency is a big issue, I'd like to keep the geth article consistent with all the other races articles, and pointing out that 'the geth are known to employ cruisers' (or anything along those lines) is utterly inconsistent with the other race articles. SpartHawg948 23:45, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
And I agree to that. If we had canon proof the this would be a different story, but the fact of the matter is, we don't. We only have blurry images, pictures from a non-canon book, and a proven bias ship model description, non of which are valid enough evidence. We aren't arguing that they exist, we just can't classify them as cruisers until we have canonical evidence, and what we have doesn’t meet the mark for that by any stretch. Lancer1289 00:23, August 26, 2010 (UTC) as
The geth model ship that can be purchased in Harrots emporium is a Geth Cruiser and those geth ships in the battle of the citadel were geth cruisers as you can CLEARLY read here. See? Geth Cruiser typical of the kind involved in the Battle of the Citadel. SoulRipper 00:49, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
Oh not this with the model descriptoins again. We have proven those descriptions to be inaccurate and misleading, see Sovereigns description, which I have already quoted on the Talk:Geth Dropship page. To quote Spart "MODELS DESCRIPTIONS ARE NOT INDISPUTABLE PROOF", and I would agree with that. They aren't proof as we have proven that they are bias and written from the point of the merchant, not to be taken as canonical proof. If you want to know why, Sovereign's description is inaccurate, and the model for the UT-47 Kodiak Drop Shuttle isn't even the correct ship. Again please see arguments on the Talk:Geth Dropship page for more. And to finish this, find some other source of proof and not the model descriptions which are proven to be inaccurate and bias. Lancer1289 00:57, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yup. And there was quite a bit of the Battle of the Citadel we didn't see. Remember the bits involving C-Sec fighting the geth? No? Well that's odd. It happened, after all. It just wasn't shown. Remember all the damage caused by the attack to the various wards? It happened, but we didn't see it happen. Again, I think it likely that the ships in question are geth cruisers. But it can't be canonically stated. What are you driving at here? Because several comments have been made regarding your desire to see info about geth cruisers added to the article, and you have yet to respond to any of them. I'm beginning to get pretty confused about why this discussion is even still taking place. SpartHawg948 00:59, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed I keep trying and failing to understand why this argument keeps going, espiecally when both times the person arguing for the inclusing of it has yet to respond to the comments about why it can't be added. I am still waiting for responces on the other one, but I don't htink they will be coming. Lancer1289 01:02, August 26, 2010 (UTC) At 0:24 is a large geth ship, anyone else think this is a geth cruiser? Or is it just a dropship on steriods. P.S. This is the Integrated Storytelling trailer with some spoilers so fair warning. Also sorry I don't have an account I'll be sure to make one soon.

According to the ME3 site, it's a geth dreadnought. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:28, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Ah okay, I didn't see that, are we going to wait to make the page for it when the game comes out?

The article is already up. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:38, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

What about the Geth frigate? They were in ME3 and we have confirmation from a Quarian Admiral who was asking for assistance (At rannoch, priority Geth base) because geth frigates were attacking civilian ships.

We usually don't make articles for ships or types of ships unless they are in-game locations or play a significant role in the story. Most likely any details about geth frigates would be placed under the Military section of this article. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:25, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Define "ingame" because they were in all of the space scenes for Rannoch and if you have the geth fleet with you then they are in the fleet assault cut scene.

You would have to be able to walk around on a geth frigate, as in a mission, which would make it a visitable location. Since it sounds like geth frigates appear only in cut-scenes or in brief bits of dialogue, they can be explained in a sentence in this article. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:21, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Ah okay, well I'll let someone else do it because I always cringe when editing articles.

Geth Gunships in-game? Edit

According to the article, Geth Gunships are not present in the game. However, after reviewing video at 00:29-00:30 you can clearly distinguish 2 smaller ships, in a non-dropship like appearance right next to a Geth Dropship. This photo also shows what appears to be a Geth Gunship underneath Sovereign.

No documentiation to support this, just the obvious differences in size, appearance(they have claws extended in space, unlike the Geth Dropship...which IMO reduces the whole "they aren't Geth cruisers cause the legs pull up into the ship and therefore look exactly the same as dropships" argument) the ships also have a silhouette of what appears to be a nose gun, which isn't present on any other geth ships known to us other than the Geth Gunship.

But, if you will note, they do appear to be much larger than Geth Gunships, at least from what we see of the gunships in the art book, which is the only confirmed image we have of one. SpartHawg948 00:41, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

What we mean when we say 'geth' Edit

I've noticed that the article is somewhat inconsistent with its references to 'geth'. Sometimes it refers to the mobile platforms; at other times it refers to the individual programs housed within those platforms. It should be noted that those views correspond to the general public's view of geth and the geth's self-reflective view respectively, and I'll be editing the article to reflect that. --CosmicSpiral 03:17, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Related to this issue is the various meanings of the word "Geth." Organics consider each mobile platform to be an individual Geth. According to Legion, you could consider each run-time to be an individual Geth. However, the individual run-times do not think of themselves as an individual. "We are all Geth." I don't know the best way to convey this concept, but this article should reflect this distinction. Also, individual platforms may or may not be part of the overall collective. Apparently, the Legion platform cannot communicate with the "Geth" without access to Normandy's FTL comm system. Blindman25 17:28, February 10, 2011 (UTC)Blindman25

Selkath and Geth? Edit

Has anyone noticed the Geth seem to share some of the design with the Selkath from KOTOR? --James777 20:51, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

No not really. I can't even see a resemblance between the two. Lancer1289 20:54, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
Look at the hands, feet, body structure and listen to the voices. --James777 21:04, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
Interesting observation... though we've had trouble with KOTOR trivia before, heh. I think the overall design is similar enough to add as trivia, though not phrased as "geth were modeled after selkath." Just mention similarities. ~~ Swordser, 02:16, July 11, 2011
And it won't be trivia without devconfirmation. There are more differences between the two than there are similarities. Just because KotOR was made by BioWare, doesn't instantly mean that everything in Mass Effect has to relate to something from it. BioWare could have come up with it on their own, did anyone ever think of that? KotOR trivia doesn’t instantly mean that it gets in, it is subject to the same rules and standards everything else is. Lancer1289 16:03, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Flashlight Heads Edit

Did anyone else realize that, under close examination, geth 'flashlight' heads resemble the lower chin section of a Quarian Environment Suit? This can be easily seen on the cover of Ascension. I believe this could've been one reason why the geth look the way they do, as the rest of their body also at least slightly resemble Quarians.

Did Sheppard create true Geth individuals? Edit

Legion mentions in his loyalty mission that the heretics have run-times (spies) operating on Geth platforms. Legion explains that the idea that the heretics would spy on the Geth had never occurred to them. Legion asks Sheppard where they went wrong. Sheppard can answer in a number of ways that do not change much and the conversation ends. The interesting thing is that because of Commander Sheppard, the Geth learned the value of suspicion. (The Geth could not have learned this on their own. Legion states that they need the stealth capabilities of the SR2 Normandy to infiltrate the station.) The Geth will be forced to store data in smaller and more easily protected locations, and restrict information to certain programs and run-times. This over hundreds (or thousands) of years, could force each mobile Geth platform to be an individual in its own right, with all the limitations that entails.

First of all, you missed signing your name. Secondly, what you say would only work if you assume that the heretics continue to split up into smaller splinter groups independent of one another, which really won't happen due to the large amount of geth needed to be fully sapient. Keep in mind that when Legion talks to Shepard about this situation, he implies that although the geth accepted the heretics' split from the main collective, they had been gone for enough time that the need for espionage becomes apparent. Then I believe Shepard makes the remark that being raised apart after a long time then brought back together results in unease. H-Man Havoc 12:13, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

That is a lot of speculation on your part because it does assume a lot. If anything Sovereign or Saren taught the geth, remember it’s just geth, asari, turian, the value of suspicion. Or maybe the geth learned it themselves after the split. Do we as humans not spy on each other because there that whole US Government agency called the CIA? The heretics were probably spying the true geth since the time they left because of conflicting ideologies. After all wouldn't you keep an eye on someone else if they walked away from your group/(insert thing here) after a conflict about the path the group should take?
Also remember it is Shepard, not Sheppard, and Legion is an it, not a he. And while we would prefer everyone sign their comments, often it doesn’t happen. Lancer1289 17:27, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

uncertian how to deal with spoilerish line Edit

I ran across this in the article: "It should be stressed, however, that practically all geth encountered outside the veil likely belong to a violent faction of the geth and will react with hostility to any organic not working for the Reapers."

My first thought was to remove, alter, or place this below a spoiler tag, but then I thought about it. The first time a player ever encounters a geth is Eden prime, where they are hostile, that certainly isn't a spoiler, but the reference to a hostile faction of geth and the Reapers are what set off alarms. It would be best just to say that they're hostile, but I can't think of a way to do this without chalking it up to just simple organic AI paranoia or justifying it properly without referencing the heretics or reapers or Saren. Arbiter099 16:34, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, that entire section should be under the spoiler tags as there are some spoilers even in the design section, and that subtypes section is a spoiler in of itself. I'll move them. Lancer1289 16:40, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

I decided to remove the line, feel free to add it back if you want it in there now with the moved tags. It still reads a bit odd in that location though. Arbiter099 16:42, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I'm going to have to say no on removing the line, as it is below a spoiler tag, there is no reason to remove it. The reason it is there because we don't know what actual forms the geth have to begin with, so we only see the ones working for the Reapers. Lancer1289 16:49, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that (I removed it before I'd seen your move of the tags) now that its labeled as a spoiler. Arbiter099 16:56, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Geth as enemies in Mass Effect 3? Edit At 0:45, Shepard fires a Warp at a Geth Trooper. I normally would add this to the Geth Trooper article, but it's late right now. Would this work as a source for Me3? LordDeathRay 03:55, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

Right now, it isn't very clear what it is exactly, and I'd rather wait for further confirmation on this one. We do know the geth will be in ME3, but we don't have a strong enough source yet to say definitively. Lancer1289 03:58, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll hold off on it for now. Thanks! LordDeathRay 04:04, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
They would most certainly be enemies f you don't complete Legion's loyalty mission, or sell him to Cerberus, or really... even let Overlord continue. Part of the multiple and cascading endings? 05:18, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
Please take the speculation to the appropriate places, which are the forums or a blog post. Lancer1289 05:19, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
It's not speculation is it? It would be the same as pointing out that Killing someone off in ME2 would prevent their appearance in 3. We know helping characters will lead to easier results like the Geth and Quarian conflict, and the Krogan and Salarian issues. Before you claim I'm jumping the shark,it is not speculation to point out that not getting rid of the Heretics who worship the Reapers, will lead to their inclusion as an enemy. It's logic. 05:33, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
No it is speculation as you are speculating what will happen as a result of Legion's Loyalty mission, even taking into account the fact that it was done in the first place. You are pointing out things that are speculation and again, please take that to the appropriate places as this isn't the place for them. You have no way of knowing what are the long term results of Legion's Loyalty mission, so unless you have information we don't have access to, please stop saying that you are pointing things out when you don't know what will happen. Speculation doesn’t belong on talk pages, and the forums and blogs are where that belongs. Lancer1289 05:39, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

Name Origin Edit

Just wondering, is it possible that the name "geth" was formed from the word "together". I just had this thought since Geth are a collection of programs, and the programs are together when in a unit.--Sincerely, Cprl. Echo 1 High Resolution, Poor Quality 02:03, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Topics like this belongs more in the forums or in a blog post as this really isn't what a talk page is for. Lancer1289 02:10, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Photos Edit

Can anyone give me very good photos of Geths?

Things like this are much more appropriate in the forums or a blog post as this isn't what talk pages are for. Lancer1289 16:53, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

Government Edit

The reference to democratic consensus is contradictory and wrong since it is stated before that Geth have no government, democracy implies government, what Geth have is a consensus build on Anarchism not democracy.-- 16:13, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

And what is the point of this comment exactly? Lancer1289 00:50, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

Why dont you just answer a question instead of saying that doesnt belong here?

Because it doesn't belong here. Lancer1289 21:49, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Dyson Sphere link? Edit

Should the reference to the Dyson Sphere be linked to the Geth Debris field page? Would be useful having that connection stated outright then be implied in my opinion--KrimzonStriker 04:57, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

It's speculation at this point since there's no direct connection. What further muddies the waters is that in ME2 it's stated that the geth are building a Dyson sphere, but the Geth Debris Field is called a Dyson bubble. In my opinion they are most likely one and the same, but that's unfortunately not enough. -- Commdor (Talk) 07:18, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

Psychology: Comparison to AI Edit

Not to be too pedantic, but the speculation in the last paragraph of the Psychology section regarding the possible change in personality with the transfer of Geth programs to new hardware seems, at the very least, not quite relevant to AI-bluebox mechanic.

To quote Legion:

"Your Brain exists as chemistry, electricity. Like AI's you are shaped by both hardware and software. We are purely software. Mathematics. The heretics' conclusion is valid for them. Our conclusion is valid for us. Neither conclusion is wrong. An analogy: Heretics say one is less than to. Geth say two is less than three."

-Legion on Geth and Reaper Viral thought 'correction' (Mass Effect 2)

This comment implies that the change in hardware would not affect an iteration of the Geth consensus in any way. So the above section in Psychology seems unneeded, or at least should be clarified as to why the issue of is even brought up with AI and bluebox mechanics, since the mechanic is not the same.

At the very least, we may want to clarify that Geth are purely software, not a Hardware/software mix like other AI, as referenced several times in Mass Effect.

--Tallon.nisar 02:55, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

That paragraph in the article is drawn from the Geth: Culture Codex entry. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:39, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

Fate in Destroy Ending Edit

The article states the Geth are destroyed in the Destroy ending. Could we change this to say their fate is unknown or at least that they're supposedly destroyed? The only "proof" we have that they're really destroyed is the Crucible's word, which is unreliable given that it said Shepard would die too. I could give more theoretical evidence to help demonstrate that they may not have been destroyed, but I'm sticking to given facts for now.

I imagine the Extended Cut DLC will give us a definitive answer, but that won't be out for awhile so I propose this change in the meantime. --Veedrock 13:52, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

And what do we have to contradict it? The answer to that is nothing. Therefore it will stay as is. Lancer1289 18:33, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Evidence suggesting Geth are destroyed:
--The Catalyst says they will be destroyed.

Evidence suggesting Geth are not destroyed:
--The Catalyst says Shepard will die, but he doesn't with enough EMS. This discredits the Catalyst as a reliable source of info.
--EDI is not destroyed. It has been confirmed that this is not a bug, she wasn't destroyed because she wasn't Reaper tech.[1] Geth are not Reaper tech either.

The answer isn't "nothing." I acknowledge that this is all speculation, but the way I see it saying they're destroyed equally speculative; the game never confirms one way or the other what happens to them, but the article is listing it as a hard fact.

Anything that happens post-ME3 is very open to interpretation and needs to be as neutral as possible on the wiki unless it's confirmed. So I still support the change.Veedrock 03:46, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

any ships that ventured into geth space were immediately attacked and destroyed Edit

Just want to know where did you get that. I've never seen this statement in codex or in-game dialogue

Geth Pockets of resistance Edit

I think it would be a good idea to add the mention of geth pockets of resistance still remaining after Priority Rannoch is complete, that way there's proper context as to why the geth are enemies in multiplayer and why geth player characters can fight them. My only concern putting the mention is that I've only ever seen the peace ending, and the explanation from the Asari Councilor about empty Geth platforms filled with Reaper code instead of thinking programs still remained. Are there any differences to that explanation in the Quarian or Geth victory endings?--KrimzonStriker (talk) 03:37, November 9, 2012 (UTC)

No we shouldn't in this article because it is quite clearly stated what you already said. They are no longer geth, they are Reapers. Lancer1289 (talk) 03:39, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
Using Geth mobile platforms though. That's almost like saying we shouldn't mention Harbinger in the Leviathan entry because most of the Leviathans got turned into paste to make him. Just because they're no longer geth/leviathans doesn't mean their information isn't related to them. Regardless, the pockets of resistance isn't mentioned anywhere else either as far as I can tell, and they could add some real context here if we could just put it somewhere--KrimzonStriker (talk) 03:55, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
That is confusing the issue because they aren't geth anymore, the Reapers are just using the bodies. Your comparison takes it out of context and creates a very inaccurate comparison. They are just tools of the Reapers. By that logic, cannibals are still batarians and humans, brutes are still krogan and turians, banshees are still asari, marauders are still turian, and ravengers are still rachnii. Clearly the answer to those questions is they are not. They have been taken over and are now jsut tools of the Reapers. Those geth are not geth, they are just tools and that doesn't belong in this article. Lancer1289 (talk) 04:09, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
The main difference though is they actually have an entries of their own to make mention of all those miscellaneous details. Look, all I'm saying is that it leaves vital context out for these pockets to not be mentioned ANYWHERE, and I couldn't think of many better places to put it except in the Geth entry. If you have a suggestion to this dilemma I would be more then open to hearing it--KrimzonStriker (talk) 04:15, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
Then put it somewhere else because this isn't the place for it. This is about the geth, not what happens after the Reapers take control of their equipment. Lancer1289 (talk) 04:26, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
......... Fine then. I'm taking a shot in the dark on this one. Hope it lands right --KrimzonStriker (talk) 04:35, November 9, 2012 (UTC)

Do they even die in the Destroy ending? Edit

The only one who says so is the Catalyst, who we know is an unreliable source for this kind of thing; he also said that Shepard would die in Destroy, yet s/he didn't. Going 100% with the assumption that the geth died when the only source we have for that is blatantly unreliable in-universe is too speculative.--RandomGuy96 (talk) 01:11, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's the only source that we have. Saying otherwise is itself speculation, and perhaps even worse, since there is absolutely nothing to back it up. I'm curious; where do you get the idea that the Catalyst is unreliable? If it's only because Shepard should be dead, then that's not good enough. Flukes happen all the time; a machine is not right 100% of the time. Lksdjf (talk) 01:17, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

Saying that it does is speculation. That "source" is blatantly unreliable in-universe. You can't say that him lying about Shepard's death was a fluke but him saying that the geth died is 100% concrete evidence. I can just as easily say that his prediction of the geth was also a fluke. It should be at least ambiguous on this page, as we have no evidence that the geth were actually destroyed and the only one who says that they will be destroyed is proven wrong on his claims of what will and won't be destroyed in the ending in-game. There's just too many variables for this page to say, with 100% certainty, the the Catalyst is completely reliable and the geth died.--RandomGuy96 (talk) 01:20, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

Simply because BioWare didn't include a picture of what happened to the geth doesn't mean that nothing happened at all. Consider that they were actually "destroyed", and not simply deactivated. Would it make sense to the gamer if all that they saw was wreckage from an indeterminate fleet? Lksdjf (talk) 01:29, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

Once again, that's speculation. Here's what we know. 100% facts: the Catalyst, and only the Catalyst, said that the geth would be destroyed. He also said that Shepard would be destroyed. Shepard is not destroyed. Geth fate is unknown. So how do you get "we're 100% sure that the geth are destroyed, no doubt about that" from that sequence of events?--RandomGuy96 (talk) 01:46, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

The geth fail to appear in the EC slideshow, and I don't see why they'd survive when EDI doesn't (which is made fairly explicit in the EC). I'm not sure this one needs to be spelled out.--Zxjkl (talk) 01:31, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

There's no canonical confirmation that they died, and the wiki is acting like there is. True, EDI was implied to have died. But Shepard definitely didn't. So you have one case of the Catalyst being right and one case of it being wrong. It isn't reasonable to think that it's right again when we don't know for sure.--RandomGuy96 (talk) 03:19, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to address the most recent edit? Lksdjf (talk) 03:17, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

I did a while ago.--RandomGuy96 (talk) 21:14, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

Hello? It's been three days. Are you going to respond or should I assume you have no objections?--RandomGuy96 (talk) 17:22, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

No one is bothering to respond because we don't seem to be getting through. I don't see why it needs to be explicitly spelled out for you that the geth die in Destroy; this is not a particularly ambiguous topic. And before you bring up Shepard, that's a different case, because s/he isn't really synthetic in the first place (and can die with lower EMS anyway).--Zxjkl (talk) 19:39, January 26, 2013 (UTC)
The page makes a concrete statement that the geth die, when no such canonical confirmation exists. You can't say "Shepard doesn't count" as it proves that the Catalyst is an unreliable source, since he said Shepard would die. Not unreliable as in "Never trust anything he says" but unreliable as in "Not everything he says is 100% true." I see no reason why we're speculating on the main page that he's completely accurate instead of leaving the wording ambiguous.--RandomGuy96 (talk) 19:44, January 26, 2013 (UTC)
No-one in the ME Universe is a 100% Reliable source. How do we know the Codex isn't lying? Because there is enough outside evidence to back it up, same with the geth. They are indeed destroyed in the Destroy ending.--Legionwrex (talk) 19:48, January 26, 2013 (UTC)
That outside evidence would be? Just their absence in the Destroy ending doesn't count, as the Catalyst is an unreliable source in the first place.--RandomGuy96 (talk) 19:49, January 26, 2013 (UTC)
And you ask why no one is bothering to respond to you. We see no geth in the EC slideshow following Destroy, unlike in the other two endings. We also see EDI about as clearly indicated to have died as you can get without actually showing her avatar falling over dead. Did the geth somehow survive when she didn't and are merely hiding offscreen? Frankly, the only reason to think that is if that's the conclusion you're already actively looking for. This is not "speculative".--Zxjkl (talk) 19:51, January 26, 2013 (UTC)
Once again, that's speculation. We have one case of the Catalyst being (implied to be) right and one case of the Catalyst being wrong. This marks it as an unreliable source, and simply being absent doesn't mean that we have 100% confirmation that they died.--RandomGuy96 (talk) 19:54, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

The catalyst was never even wrong about stating Shepard would die in destroy. All we see is him taking a breath with high EMS, he could still die. So the Catalyst is still a reliable source.--Legionwrex (talk) 19:57, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

More speculation- only this time, completely contrary to what we actually saw happen. I can just as easily say "well EDI didn't die, Shepard just thought she did in his final thoughts, so the Catalyst is an even more unreliable source". Plus there are numerous cases of Bioware staff flat-out saying that Shepard lives. Example: (talk) 20:01, January 26, 2013 (UTC)
We have a lot more than one case of the Catalyst being right. In fact, apart from its claims that synthetic-organic conflict is inevitable (which is a semi-subjective belief and not the same kind of thing being discussed here), Shepard's survival is the only case where one of its statements proves to be untrue.
Again, it's hard to see why anyone would consider this "speculative" unless they were actively seeking evidence that the geth survived in the first place.--Zxjkl (talk) 20:23, January 26, 2013 (UTC)
The Geth achieved full sentience in ME3. I wouldn't consider them synthetics at this point. They have emotions, things that a synthetic intelligence cant have. For all we know, EDI is alive as well, just not seen in the ending. There is not enough proof to show that either of them don't exist.

The developers stated that one of the possible ending slides, featuring a desolate Rannoch, was created to be seen if you chose the geth and then picked Destroy - The implication being that you have killed the geth as well as the quarians. Also the geth are featured in both Control and Synthesis if spared. Garhdo (talk) 17:46, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.