Well, looks like I popped in at the right time, doesn't it? <_<
Enough with the insults and mocking, people. As I've said time and time again, there's NO to insult each other just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion. We're here to have a civil discussion about IDT, not call another person delusional, or an idiot, or anything else in that vein.
If you disagree with IDT, simply makes your points as to why. If you agree with IDT, do the same. If you find a flaw with either argument, it's entirely possible to do so without resorting to insults.
I've noted that there are a number of people doing just that, and thanks, guys. Really. I don't enjoy coming in here and yelling at everyone to calm down. If we could all just get on board with this, things would be much more enjoyable for everyone.
Please, treat each other with respect and civility. It's not a lot to ask.
Tell me, how are the Catalyst and reapers not the very problem they claim to prevent? Why do they go straight to genocide? Why have they not attempted any real sort of communication throughout the series besides taunts? There are too many gaps and flaws with the Catalyst's argument for any reasonable person to accept as not suspect.
The problem they claim to prevent is synthetics destroying organic civilization. They achieve this by preserving life, it is stored in Reaper form. Don't believe it? Legion said it himself back in ME2, look it up on youtube. The reap'd species aren't killed, their minds live on inside the Reaper. "Each [Reaper] a nation." Also, they don't kill off all organics. Other species that haven't advanced are allowed to live, which further goes to show that they aren't just synthetics bent on wiping out organics.
And what of the harvesters? They weren't a sentient species and yet they've been huskified. Also, the distinction between 'killing all organic life' and 'killing all organic life above a certain technological level' seems pretty academic to me. If we take the ending at face-value, then it's entirely possible that the reapers haven't converted all life to their standards simply because even they didn't have sufficient capability to do so (note that in face-value, Synthesis bypasses this obstacle). Also, between having my mind collected and forcefully fused with the rest of my species into an entity alien and hostile to everything I once valued, and death, I'll pick the latter thank you very much. I don't see the reapers ascending civilizations to a better type of existence, I see the reapers making new reapers by parasitic reproduction.
And remember, we're not given sufficient information to believe the Catalyst's assumption that synthetics will never be at peace with organics.
HYR 2.0 wrote...Reapers do communicate too. But obviously, few people will take kindly to "submit to us and you will not be harmed." Some did (Saren) but most won't. That's where indoctrination comes in. However, the Catalyst isn't reasoning for Shepard to continue their work. If anything, he basically concedes defeat, on the premise that Shepard is standing there.
The reapers communicate with demands and taunts, yes. But they never communicate the why of anything. Why they were there, why they're doing what they're doing. No, it's all "beyond our comprehension." A lazy cop-out of an argument if ever there was one. And yes, the Catalyst says its solution has failed. But notice that it acknowledges destruction in a negative light ("the peace won't last"), control in a better light (though how Shepard can control the reapers when dead is beyond me), and synthesis in the best light (and synthesis is already very close to the reapers' modus operandi anyway). The solution may have failed now, but the problem still exists apparently: synthetics will wipe out organics. Never mind that we have insufficient information to believe that assumption anyway, and we have two major counterpoints to it: EDI and the geth.
Remember that for three games the reapers have been the enemy. They may indeed believe that what they're doing is a charity, according to their own value system. But it's not our value system. From our perspective we see monstrous destruction, unfathomable suffering, and the annihalation of everything that has meaning in our existence. Our history and achievements toppled, our individuality and potential forvever locked away from us. Ultimately, Legion said it best: Life must be allowed to self-determinate. The reapers force the exact opposite.
It's easy then to conclude that the Catalyst is a deceptive little ******.
HYR 2.0 wrote...
Simon_Says wrote...
And with low EMS, it's obvious that it's probably the case that the reapers already have the upper hand. They've already won. Let Shepard break free of indoc, he/she and their entire species are as good as dead already.
How does this make sense, would the Reapers not would to continue into other cycles after this one, given the Catalyst's diatribes?
I'm not entirely sure what that garbled sentence is supposed to mean. But if I were to venture a guess as to what you tried to say. Yes. Assuming the Catalyst was decieving Shepard, IT or no, it's goal is to protect the reaper agenda. Note that in control and synthesis, the reapers explicitly continue to exist, and we only have the Catalyst's word that they won't be a problem. The cycles may very well continue if the reapers aren't destroyed.
HYR 2.0 wrote...
Simon_Says wrote...
You also seem to forget that the ending that requires the most work to unlock is... the destroy ending where Shepard survives. That Shepard even survives is even an argument agains the Catalyst, as it had explicityl claimed that Shepard would die if they picked destroy.
No, he says that Shepard is partly synthetic. Not that he/she will die. Just went back and watched destroy-only bad ending on youtube to double-check:
Up to this point, the headcanon's plausibility remains to be seen.
The obvious implication was that Shepard wouldn't survive. Also, please stop using the term headcanon the way you're doing. Yes, to the IT crowd accept it as their headcanon. Is it wrong for them to do so?
We're speculating whether it's actual canon. Please disregard the folks who are already proclaiming it as fact when obviously there's no proof for it. We've found plenty of evidence that could support it, in the games' narratives, extended canon and the game files themselves, but the rational ones among us still concede that what we have doesn't prove anything. Only Bioware could prove IT at this point. Until then, we're testing IT's plausibility as canon, headcanon or actual.
Also, would't it be a big, big missed opportunity on Bioware's part if they introduced and used indoctrination as a plot element that's so integral to the series' plot and narrative, that has so much potential for storytelling possibilities, and then waste it with one scene with TIM and then promptly forget it?
EDI is synthetic, kid said that synthetics will die, EDI doesn't die, kid is a liar. DUH!
Missing the point. The writers goofed. They themselves couldn't decide this thing for themselves. Ultiamately, they made an illogical decision which I doubt they can defend. EDI's survival of destroy jut proves bad writing, nothing more.
I should be more clear: there are no concrete hintsforeshadowings within the narrative for the player to logically reason that the Cataylst is deceiving them in any way. Because this all came after the fact anyway.
llbountyhunter wrote...
1.1. if shepard becomes a bigger threat is it not logical to try harder to make him lose?
2. shepard is half synthetic. half of him would die= the other half cannot live alone. starkid says it would destroy ALL synthetis, you can pick and choose.
bringing up something about the authors that is common knowladge isnt helping your point
1.) Shepard is not really a threat until the Catalyst makes him one. Come to think of it, how do you explain the Catalyst giving Shepard is options to stop the Reapers. Because without Shepard's decision, the Crucible doesn't fire. And without that, obviously, the Reapers win. So, why did he even bother invite Shepard up to his "home?"
Look, I found another flaw.
2.) I don't think the Destroy path works like that. It destroyed the Reapers, and geth most likely because of their Reaper upgrades. But those were individual life forms. Maybe Shepard's synthetics are still functional, the C never said they'd shut down. Maybe he can live without them. Maybe he only lived because hihg EMS protected him from the full pulse? Whatever the reason, the fact remains he didn't lie.
Tirian Thorn wrote...
So if my son were to create something that tries to attack him I should just kill my son instead? Based on "reaper logic."
Yes, that is reducing the problem to a ridiculous scenario - but it doesn't change the point.
My point is that the Star-Child is full of S***.
Well yes, that's kind of the point. Their solution is wrong, but up 'til now, no one cared about the proverbial son. Now, son is facing dad, crucible in hand.
Tell me, how are the Catalyst and reapers not the very problem they claim to prevent? Why do they go straight to genocide? Why have they not attempted any real sort of communication throughout the series besides taunts? There are too many gaps and flaws with the Catalyst's argument for any reasonable person to accept as not suspect.
The problem they claim to prevent is synthetics destroying organic civilization. They achieve this by preserving life, it is stored in Reaper form. Don't believe it? Legion said it himself back in ME2, look it up on youtube. The reap'd species aren't killed, their minds live on inside the Reaper. "Each [Reaper] a nation." Also, they don't kill off all organics. Other species that haven't advanced are allowed to live, which further goes to show that they aren't just synthetics bent on wiping out organics.
Reapers do communicate too. But obviously, few people will take kindly to "submit to us and you will not be harmed." Some did (Saren) but most won't. That's where indoctrination comes in. However, the Catalyst isn't reasoning for Shepard to continue their work. If anything, he basically concedes defeat, on the premise that Shepard is standing there.
Why don't the Reapers just kill the synthetics then?
If they are truly trying to prevent organic life from beig destroyed by synthetics, just destroy the synthetics.
Oh no. Not this again. Please not this again.
Which part?
Because I think that's a valid question.
Seriously, if the Reapers true goal was to preserve organics, why not just kill the synthetics instead?
The reapers could have outposts on major worlds and when synthetics rise up to slay their creators the reapers could be signaled to show up and wipe out the mean, nasty machines.
From a mathematical perspective, it makes sense that the Reapers would kill organics. Synthetics can only make other synthetics to whom they are friendly. Organics create other organics and synthetics, who are dangerous to organics. What the Catalyst saying is that highlt-formed organics are the root of the cause of the problem and most effective way to make sure organic life can survive in the galaxy. If they killed only synthetics, then organics would then try to make new synthetics, and ad infinitum, which would take a lot more work than killing the most advanced races ever 50,000 years
I don't want the "widely different endings" or a "happy ending" hell I can honestly say at this point I don't even want "Multiple endings" I just want an ending(s) that make sense and gives me the closure I was promised.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
Again, this is all fixed with I.T.
Possibly fixed. If EC doesn't confirm it and then provide a proper ending then we're stuck with coming up with fanfiction for our respective Shepards. <_<
Also, notice the spectral refraction into blue<->green/yellow<->red. Already in ME2. But I admit, it was much more noticable in ME3. Like that Keeper on Dock D24.
Modifié par MaximizedAction, 02 mai 2012 - 06:32 .
Missing the point. The writers goofed. They themselves couldn't decide this thing for themselves. Ultiamately, they made an illogical decision which I doubt they can defend. EDI's survival of destroy jut proves bad writing, nothing more.
I should be more clear: there are no concrete hintsforeshadowings within the narrative for the player to logically reason that the Cataylst is deceiving them in any way.
All the interview said was that it was a concious decision to have EDI survive, Weekes disagreed because he said that she is part reaper tech, NOT because she is synthetic. EDI is synthetic, it was a decision to keep her in the end, kid says synthetics will die. Open your eyes man cause your logic stinks.
EDI is synthetic, kid said that synthetics will die, EDI doesn't die, kid is a liar. DUH!
Missing the point. The writers goofed. They themselves couldn't decide this thing for themselves. Ultiamately, they made an illogical decision which I doubt they can defend. EDI's survival of destroy jut proves bad writing, nothing more.
I should be more clear: there are no concrete hintsforeshadowings within the narrative for the player to logically reason that the Cataylst is deceiving them in any way. Because this all came after the fact anyway.
llbountyhunter wrote...
1.1. if shepard becomes a bigger threat is it not logical to try harder to make him lose?
2. shepard is half synthetic. half of him would die= the other half cannot live alone. starkid says it would destroy ALL synthetis, you can pick and choose.
bringing up something about the authors that is common knowladge isnt helping your point
1.) Shepard is not really a threat until the Catalyst makes him one. Come to think of it, how do you explain the Catalyst giving Shepard is options to stop the Reapers. Because without Shepard's decision, the Crucible doesn't fire. And without that, obviously, the Reapers win. So, why did he even bother invite Shepard up to his "home?"
Look, I found another flaw.
2.) I don't think the Destroy path works like that. It destroyed the Reapers, and geth most likely because of their Reaper upgrades. But those were individual life forms. Maybe Shepard's synthetics are still functional, the C never said they'd shut down. Maybe he can live without them. Maybe he only lived because hihg EMS protected him from the full pulse? Whatever the reason, the fact remains he didn't lie.
Tirian Thorn wrote...
So if my son were to create something that tries to attack him I should just kill my son instead? Based on "reaper logic."
Yes, that is reducing the problem to a ridiculous scenario - but it doesn't change the point.
My point is that the Star-Child is full of S***.
Well yes, that's kind of the point. Their solution is wrong, but up 'til now, no one cared about the proverbial son. Now, son is facing dad, crucible in hand.
the destroy option wasnt planted by the reapers....it was planted by shepard! it was a mental battle between him and harbinger.
Tell me, how are the Catalyst and reapers not the very problem they claim to prevent? Why do they go straight to genocide? Why have they not attempted any real sort of communication throughout the series besides taunts? There are too many gaps and flaws with the Catalyst's argument for any reasonable person to accept as not suspect.
The problem they claim to prevent is synthetics destroying organic civilization. They achieve this by preserving life, it is stored in Reaper form. Don't believe it? Legion said it himself back in ME2, look it up on youtube. The reap'd species aren't killed, their minds live on inside the Reaper. "Each [Reaper] a nation." Also, they don't kill off all organics. Other species that haven't advanced are allowed to live, which further goes to show that they aren't just synthetics bent on wiping out organics.
Reapers do communicate too. But obviously, few people will take kindly to "submit to us and you will not be harmed." Some did (Saren) but most won't. That's where indoctrination comes in. However, the Catalyst isn't reasoning for Shepard to continue their work. If anything, he basically concedes defeat, on the premise that Shepard is standing there.
Why don't the Reapers just kill the synthetics then?
If they are truly trying to prevent organic life from beig destroyed by synthetics, just destroy the synthetics.
Oh no. Not this again. Please not this again.
Which part?
Because I think that's a valid question.
Seriously, if the Reapers true goal was to preserve organics, why not just kill the synthetics instead?
The reapers could have outposts on major worlds and when synthetics rise up to slay their creators the reapers could be signaled to show up and wipe out the mean, nasty machines.
From a mathematical perspective, it makes sense that the Reapers would kill organics. Synthetics can only make other synthetics to whom they are friendly. Organics create other organics and synthetics, who are dangerous to organics. What the Catalyst saying is that highlt-formed organics are the root of the cause of the problem and most effective way to make sure organic life can survive in the galaxy. If they killed only synthetics, then organics would then try to make new synthetics, and ad infinitum, which would take a lot more work than killing the most advanced races ever 50,000 years
I think were forgeting something else. NEVER in the entire mass effect series have synthetics struck first.
already the whole "so synthetic dont kill organics" can go out the window.
From a mathematical perspective, it makes sense that the Reapers would kill organics. Synthetics can only make other synthetics to whom they are friendly. Organics create other organics and synthetics, who are dangerous to organics. What the Catalyst saying is that highlt-formed organics are the root of the cause of the problem and most effective way to make sure organic life can survive in the galaxy. If they killed only synthetics, then organics would then try to make new synthetics, and ad infinitum, which would take a lot more work than killing the most advanced races ever 50,000 years
Organics = feuls and a means to reproduce for the reapers, that's all we need to know.
Tell me, how are the Catalyst and reapers not the very problem they claim to prevent? Why do they go straight to genocide? Why have they not attempted any real sort of communication throughout the series besides taunts? There are too many gaps and flaws with the Catalyst's argument for any reasonable person to accept as not suspect.
The problem they claim to prevent is synthetics destroying organic civilization. They achieve this by preserving life, it is stored in Reaper form. Don't believe it? Legion said it himself back in ME2, look it up on youtube. The reap'd species aren't killed, their minds live on inside the Reaper. "Each [Reaper] a nation." Also, they don't kill off all organics. Other species that haven't advanced are allowed to live, which further goes to show that they aren't just synthetics bent on wiping out organics.
Reapers do communicate too. But obviously, few people will take kindly to "submit to us and you will not be harmed." Some did (Saren) but most won't. That's where indoctrination comes in. However, the Catalyst isn't reasoning for Shepard to continue their work. If anything, he basically concedes defeat, on the premise that Shepard is standing there.
Why don't the Reapers just kill the synthetics then?
If they are truly trying to prevent organic life from beig destroyed by synthetics, just destroy the synthetics.
Oh no. Not this again. Please not this again.
Which part?
Because I think that's a valid question.
Seriously, if the Reapers true goal was to preserve organics, why not just kill the synthetics instead?
The reapers could have outposts on major worlds and when synthetics rise up to slay their creators the reapers could be signaled to show up and wipe out the mean, nasty machines.
From a mathematical perspective, it makes sense that the Reapers would kill organics. Synthetics can only make other synthetics to whom they are friendly. Organics create other organics and synthetics, who are dangerous to organics. What the Catalyst saying is that highlt-formed organics are the root of the cause of the problem and most effective way to make sure organic life can survive in the galaxy. If they killed only synthetics, then organics would then try to make new synthetics, and ad infinitum, which would take a lot more work than killing the most advanced races ever 50,000 years
I think were forgeting something else. NEVER in the entire mass effect series have synthetics struck first.
already the whole "so synthetic dont kill organics" can go out the window.
Utterly irrelevant who strikes first. Results are the same. Moral reasoning, not logical reasoning.
From a mathematical perspective, it makes sense that the Reapers would kill organics. Synthetics can only make other synthetics to whom they are friendly. Organics create other organics and synthetics, who are dangerous to organics. What the Catalyst saying is that highlt-formed organics are the root of the cause of the problem and most effective way to make sure organic life can survive in the galaxy. If they killed only synthetics, then organics would then try to make new synthetics, and ad infinitum, which would take a lot more work than killing the most advanced races ever 50,000 years
Organics = feuls and a means to reproduce for the reapers, that's all we need to know.
This, please THIS. Everyone just drop arguing about the starchild and assume that this is correct. it works in both interpretations and stops a stupid circular argument that never goes anywhere.
Tell me, how are the Catalyst and reapers not the very problem they claim to prevent? Why do they go straight to genocide? Why have they not attempted any real sort of communication throughout the series besides taunts? There are too many gaps and flaws with the Catalyst's argument for any reasonable person to accept as not suspect.
The problem they claim to prevent is synthetics destroying organic civilization. They achieve this by preserving life, it is stored in Reaper form. Don't believe it? Legion said it himself back in ME2, look it up on youtube. The reap'd species aren't killed, their minds live on inside the Reaper. "Each [Reaper] a nation." Also, they don't kill off all organics. Other species that haven't advanced are allowed to live, which further goes to show that they aren't just synthetics bent on wiping out organics.
Reapers do communicate too. But obviously, few people will take kindly to "submit to us and you will not be harmed." Some did (Saren) but most won't. That's where indoctrination comes in. However, the Catalyst isn't reasoning for Shepard to continue their work. If anything, he basically concedes defeat, on the premise that Shepard is standing there.
Why don't the Reapers just kill the synthetics then?
If they are truly trying to prevent organic life from beig destroyed by synthetics, just destroy the synthetics.
Oh no. Not this again. Please not this again.
Which part?
Because I think that's a valid question.
Seriously, if the Reapers true goal was to preserve organics, why not just kill the synthetics instead?
The reapers could have outposts on major worlds and when synthetics rise up to slay their creators the reapers could be signaled to show up and wipe out the mean, nasty machines.
From a mathematical perspective, it makes sense that the Reapers would kill organics. Synthetics can only make other synthetics to whom they are friendly. Organics create other organics and synthetics, who are dangerous to organics. What the Catalyst saying is that highlt-formed organics are the root of the cause of the problem and most effective way to make sure organic life can survive in the galaxy. If they killed only synthetics, then organics would then try to make new synthetics, and ad infinitum, which would take a lot more work than killing the most advanced races ever 50,000 years
I think were forgeting something else. NEVER in the entire mass effect series have synthetics struck first.
already the whole "so synthetic dont kill organics" can go out the window.
That is true that is the biggest flaw in its reasoning. However, the Catalyst thinks this is true, and therefore it would be most logical sensible for him to cull organics, not synthetics
Tell me, how are the Catalyst and reapers not the very problem they claim to prevent? Why do they go straight to genocide? Why have they not attempted any real sort of communication throughout the series besides taunts? There are too many gaps and flaws with the Catalyst's argument for any reasonable person to accept as not suspect.
The problem they claim to prevent is synthetics destroying organic civilization. They achieve this by preserving life, it is stored in Reaper form. Don't believe it? Legion said it himself back in ME2, look it up on youtube. The reap'd species aren't killed, their minds live on inside the Reaper. "Each [Reaper] a nation." Also, they don't kill off all organics. Other species that haven't advanced are allowed to live, which further goes to show that they aren't just synthetics bent on wiping out organics.
Reapers do communicate too. But obviously, few people will take kindly to "submit to us and you will not be harmed." Some did (Saren) but most won't. That's where indoctrination comes in. However, the Catalyst isn't reasoning for Shepard to continue their work. If anything, he basically concedes defeat, on the premise that Shepard is standing there.
Why don't the Reapers just kill the synthetics then?
If they are truly trying to prevent organic life from beig destroyed by synthetics, just destroy the synthetics.
Oh no. Not this again. Please not this again.
Which part?
Because I think that's a valid question.
Seriously, if the Reapers true goal was to preserve organics, why not just kill the synthetics instead?
The reapers could have outposts on major worlds and when synthetics rise up to slay their creators the reapers could be signaled to show up and wipe out the mean, nasty machines.
From a mathematical perspective, it makes sense that the Reapers would kill organics. Synthetics can only make other synthetics to whom they are friendly. Organics create other organics and synthetics, who are dangerous to organics. What the Catalyst saying is that highlt-formed organics are the root of the cause of the problem and most effective way to make sure organic life can survive in the galaxy. If they killed only synthetics, then organics would then try to make new synthetics, and ad infinitum, which would take a lot more work than killing the most advanced races ever 50,000 years
I think were forgeting something else. NEVER in the entire mass effect series have synthetics struck first.
already the whole "so synthetic dont kill organics" can go out the window.
You mean in our cycle right? Because I swear Jarvik said the synthetics struck first in his cycle when they started reprogramming the offspring of their creators.
Utterly irrelevant who strikes first. Results are the same. Moral reasoning, not logical reasoning.
What are the results? cause if it's that synthetics win everytime then you're wrong.
"Eventually, the Protheans faced a hostile machine intelligence which threatened to overwhelm them. To defeat the machines, the Protheans decided to unite all of the galaxy's sentient organic life under their empire. Organic races that resisted the Protheans were soundly crushed. In time, each of the servant races assimilated into Prothean culture and came to think of themselves as Prothean. The Prothean Empire held its own against the machines in a conflict known as the "Metacon War"."
Missing the point. The writers goofed. They themselves couldn't decide this thing for themselves. Ultiamately, they made an illogical decision which I doubt they can defend. EDI's survival of destroy jut proves bad writing, nothing more.
I should be more clear: there are no concrete hintsforeshadowings within the narrative for the player to logically reason that the Cataylst is deceiving them in any way.
All the interview said was that it was a concious decision to have EDI survive, Weekes disagreed because he said that she is part reaper tech, NOT because she is synthetic. EDI is synthetic, it was a decision to keep her in the end, kid says synthetics will die. Open your eyes man cause your logic stinks.
Agreed. There was no interview where anyone actually admitted that they goofed. So unless you (HYR2) know one the Bioware head-honchos personally, you can't know this. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the Starkid lied.
I think were forgeting something else. NEVER in the entire mass effect series have synthetics struck first.
already the whole "so synthetic dont kill organics" can go out the window.
You mean in our cycle right? Because I swear Jarvik said the synthetics struck first in his cycle when they started reprogramming the offspring of their creators.
I dont think who struck first was answered. just that the synthetics won.
Let me reiterate: Shepard has no way to defeat the Reapers, until the Catalysts provides it to him/her. On the other hand, the Catalyst could have withheld the solution-paths, thereby letting the crucible fail and ensure the Reapers' victory/continued dominance. But he didn't. And in some cases, it's only one solution: destroy, which makes Indoctrination Headcanon almost completely nonsensical.
The more I think about this, the more I believe it holds no water.
Utterly irrelevant who strikes first. Results are the same. Moral reasoning, not logical reasoning.
What are the results? cause if it's that synthetics win everytime then you're wrong.
"Eventually, the Protheans faced a hostile machine intelligence which threatened to overwhelm them. To defeat the machines, the Protheans decided to unite all of the galaxy's sentient organic life under their empire. Organic races that resisted the Protheans were soundly crushed. In time, each of the servant races assimilated into Prothean culture and came to think of themselves as Prothean. The Prothean Empire held its own against the machines in a conflict known as the "Metacon War"."
Let me reiterate: Shepard has no way to defeat the Reapers, until the Catalysts provides it to him/her. On the other hand, the Catalyst could have withheld the solution-paths, thereby letting the crucible fail and ensure the Reapers' victory/continued dominance. But he didn't. And in some cases, it's only one solution: destroy, which makes Indoctrination Headcanon almost completely nonsensical.
The more I think about this, the more I believe it holds no water.
The crucible scene is not some sort of hologram. it's not literal, and it's certainly not being controlled by Harbinger. It's the sybolic representation of the struggle within Shepards mind, designed to indoctrinate the player as much as the character. The choices you see are the choices Shepard feels he has.
Let me reiterate: Shepard has no way to defeat the Reapers, until the Catalysts provides it to him/her. On the other hand, the Catalyst could have withheld the solution-paths, thereby letting the crucible fail and ensure the Reapers' victory/continued dominance. But he didn't. And in some cases, it's only one solution: destroy, which makes Indoctrination Headcanon almost completely nonsensical.
The more I think about this, the more I believe it holds no water.
THE CATALIST ISNT REAL. thats indoctrination in the process. shepard is making sense of things. the reapers plant the ideas of "control" and "synthesis" to fool shepard, but shepards strong will is what makes the "destroy" option viable.
Utterly irrelevant who strikes first. Results are the same. Moral reasoning, not logical reasoning.
What are the results? cause if it's that synthetics win everytime then you're wrong.
"Eventually, the Protheans faced a hostile machine intelligence which threatened to overwhelm them. To defeat the machines, the Protheans decided to unite all of the galaxy's sentient organic life under their empire. Organic races that resisted the Protheans were soundly crushed. In time, each of the servant races assimilated into Prothean culture and came to think of themselves as Prothean. The Prothean Empire held its own against the machines in a conflict known as the "Metacon War"."
Nope, synthetics don't need to win every time.
Only once.
Dante, when you asked me if I wanted you to get into this all again, I was about to say no, it never helps, and then my internet died. How about now that my internet is back you stop?
Because claiming it is logical to slaughter trillions of organics over billions of years on the off-chance that if you dont do it, synthetics might, is going to make my head explode.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
