12 réponses à ce sujet

[Der Estr Bune]

 I can't really believe I'm defending the ending of this game, but I've seen the entire logic behind the cycle paraphrased as something along the lines of, "Build synthetics to kill organics so organics don't build synthetics that kill organics" (correct me if that's wrong, please). But the Reapers only wipe out sufficiently advanced life. When the Catalyst speaks, he doesn't mention the cycle leading to the destruction of advanced life, he mentions all life. He's basically assuring the whole system doesn't collapse, and is skemming the top beings to protect universal destruction of organic beings of every level. He's not worried about people developing technology that will destroy themselves (the Quarians, more or less), but technology that will destroy all life.

Is my understanding, anyway, and I think it helps to close the giant logical gap perceived? Not a total solution to the finale by any means, but it's a start, right?

[QuirkyGroundhog]

Yes, that's what they're doing. They're also 'preserving' those advanced life forms which is pretty messed up, but if you believe that this is the only way to keep the system going, it's sort of a better alternative to extinction.


My one question that still remains...I assume they destroy synthetic life as well, or there'd be other Synthetics from previous Cycles, right? That's a legit plothole question.

[Karrie788]

It's still incredibly arrogant. It assumes that all attempts from the organics to master their technology, or to achieve peace between synthetics and organics is doomed to fail with no actual proof.
The resolution of the Geth/Quarian conflict proves it wrong.

And besides, it completely denies the organics (and synthetics)' free will. Not that I think that Catalyst actually has any ethics to speak of. They try to show us that the Reapers have a good side, but I fail to see it.

Modifié par Karrie788, 10 mars 2012 - 08:12 .

[thavleifrim]

the reapers don't see themselves as synthetics killing organics, they see themselves simply as immortal beings harvesting and storing the essence of organic beings. the rest is right, but the ending still sucks.

[IrishSpectre257]

Karrie788 wrote...
The resolution of the Geth/Quarian conflict proves it wrong. 

No it doesn't, as it could have easily been a temporary alliance. They were allied for a few weeks at most.

[QuirkyGroundhog]

Karrie788 wrote...

It's still incredibly arrogant. It assumes that all attempts from the organics to master their technology, or to achieve peace between synthetics and organics is doomed to fail with no actual proof.
The resolution of the Geth/Quarian conflict proves it wrong.

And besides, it completely denies the organics (and synthetics)' free will. Not that I think that Catalyst actually has any ethics to speak of. They try to show us that the Reapers have a good side, but I fail to see it.

But that's the whole point of the game. You prove them wrong. Well not every player, but you can. And then you can tell the Reapers to leave because you think peace is possible.

Of course, you still might be wrong. Brief peace is possible.

[Karrie788]

IrishSpectre257 wrote...

Karrie788 wrote...
The resolution of the Geth/Quarian conflict proves it wrong. 

No it doesn't, as it could have easily been a temporary alliance. They were allied for a few weeks at most.

Does that mean their alliance was doomed?

[deathscythe517]

It's not that the logic is almost circular, take away 'advanced' and it really is, but it's the fact that you can disprove the damn thing's logic just be pointing to examples from the previous or this game. Hell you can even point to examples in the first that no one NEEDS the Catalyst since the Council/Citadel already had laws against making advanced synthetic life. Its interference was unnecessary, its existence unwanted, and in the end the Catalyst was little more than the -thing- that Bioware used to force their faux deep ending upon us all. Some people can stomach that without being obnoxious, those people have my respect, some need to attack people who are dismayed over the ending likely to try and rationalize why it's not so bad so they can keep playing, these people I do not respect.

They point is, it's not because the logic is circular, it's because it feels out of place and it's false. The fact that Shepard doesn't resist omnipotent god child just serves to make it even worse, the damn thing taking the appearance of a child that represented what humanity was going through made things weird and idiotic. And afterwards many people now hate the kid's role in the game entirely.

The opening with the child was fine, the dreams were stomachable, but when the freaking god sue ultimatum plot device looks like a child and you can't refute its insane logic? Yes, you have every right to be pissed off.

[Karrie788]

QuirkyGroundhog wrote...

Karrie788 wrote...

It's still incredibly arrogant. It assumes that all attempts from the organics to master their technology, or to achieve peace between synthetics and organics is doomed to fail with no actual proof.
The resolution of the Geth/Quarian conflict proves it wrong.

And besides, it completely denies the organics (and synthetics)' free will. Not that I think that Catalyst actually has any ethics to speak of. They try to show us that the Reapers have a good side, but I fail to see it.

But that's the whole point of the game. You prove them wrong. Well not every player, but you can. And then you can tell the Reapers to leave because you think peace is possible.

Of course, you still might be wrong. Brief peace is possible.

I agree. My issue is that... I don't know, I have the feeling that they wanted us to "sympathize" with the Reapers' objectives, hence the kid, when I think they are complete monsters.

[QuirkyGroundhog]

But those are the end game options!

Either, through your observations you've decided the Geth/synthetics will inevitably turn on you and you choose the red option, killing them and the Reapers and then, we assume, not build synthetics again, OR...

You have, through your observations, decided peace is possible and tell the Reapers to leave, leaving the Geth intact.

That's literally the point. Your observations throughout the series dictate your endgame decision. Or they should.

[kramerfan86]

There is no defending it, even if you ignore the fact Shepard proved you could get synthetics and organics to get along, it still makes no sense. If you are going to make this purge route why do it every 50k years? Why not just sit back and monitor and IF a synthetic-organic total war breaks out rush in and purge the galaxy.

[MrChowderClam]

Der Estr Bune wrote...

He's not worried about people developing technology that will destroy themselves (the Quarians, more or less), but technology that will destroy all life.

Is my understanding, anyway, and I think it helps to close the giant logical gap perceived? Not a total solution to the finale by any means, but it's a start, right?

Yeah, this was my understanding of it as well - preventing the destruction of all organic life. But still, there are a lot of other things that weren't clearly resolved (origin of the reapers, nature of the catalyst).

Although the catalyst also mentions that the the "created will always rebel against their creators," which is true in a sense, however, within shep's cycle, it's clear that this rebellion was a result of a giant misunderstanding between the quarians and the geth (one that you can help resolve in the game).

[Turkeysock]

Well, I can understand the whole "Catalyst" thing. I see the Catalyst as either a being who survived and saw much of the organic life in his cycle wiped out by synthetics, including those who were not advanced enough to even fly.

Or similar to the Geth/Reapers hive mind, as in he/she/it is the voice of an entire race (or possibly races) that came together to create the first Reaper(s) as a means to fight. Biding their time and eventually overthrew the synthetics. And their "consensus" was this cycle system.

That much, I can believe.