Aucune réponse à ce sujet

[DrixDZanth]

I don't understand the
ending. I mean... just the very reasoning behind it all.


I get there are plenty of threads who, quite
rightly, point out the fact that the ending fails to finish out the
series. The ending, while it destroys the reaper threat, seems to take all of
galactic society with your decision. A series which heralded and prided itself
on being one driven by the CONSEQUENCES of your actions has an ending that
appears entirely independent of your decisions. The result is inevitably the
same. The characters we care so much about have no resolution. The finale
fails.

We all get that.



But, having played through the game in a sort of ... depressed nostalgia...I actually
paid attention to the dialogue between Shepard and the Catalyst.

It goes like this:

The catalyst "controls
the reapers" and they are "his solution." All right, I'm
following so far. But what's the problem they are meant to solve? The catalyst
replies, simply, "Chaos". Wait... what? Chaos? Okay, before I come
back to the biggest problem with the Catalyst's logic I have to ask: why is chaos
a problem? Especially given that a fundamental property of the universe IS
chaos (Entropy) and that it is the accumulation of GREATER chaos that permits
order (2nd law, baby). I mean... for a machine that's chosen to solve a
problem, Chaos seems like a pretty arbitrary one. That's like a machine trying
to solve the problem of "heat".

 

Fans will rightly point out
that the Catalyst had something specific in mind when he said
"Chaos". And I'm digressing. The Catalyst says "The created (synthetics)
will always rebel against their creators (organics)."

What? Why? How does one
follow the other? Synthetics ALWAYS rebel and attempt to destroy organic life? Isn't
a massive portion of the plot of ME2-3 figuring out that the Geth would live in
harmony with the Quarians? Isn't one of the main themes of AI in sci-fi the
fact that, after a given point, it becomes indistinguishable from organic
intelligence? Isn't the whole point of EDI to show that AI CAN achieve the same
status and existential purposes as her organic peers? If that is the case, what
is the big motivation for created AI to kill the creators? Why? How does the
catalyst justify this argument?

He doesn't. It's just
assumed, arbitrarily, by the writers that AI, after superseding the
capabilities of their organic peers, would eventually attempt to dominate them.
All of this when there is no evidence whatsoever that this *MUST* be the case.

Let's continue...

So the catalyst says
something about "stopping that from happening" by creating these
cycles of reapers. I'll come back to this because it is the most glaring flaw
in the plot of the game I can think of. So the catalyst explains that the
reapers are this solution to his problem. Shepard shows up after uniting
organics to create the crucible. Shep calls the catalyst out on this problem
saying that the reapers are no solution... they give organic life no future, no
hope. The catalyst simply replies, "You have hope, more than you think.
The fact you are standing here, the first organic ever, proves it. But it also
proves my solution won't work anymore."

Wait.... what? Why? Why does
the catalyst concede defeat? How does Shepard showing up change things? Why
does the catalyst draw this conclusion? As you can see, there is nothing
preventing the catalyst from simply keeping the floor to the three different
options from extending. Hell, the catalyst seems perfectly capable of
indoctrinating Shepard as it did TIM. Shepard is there to destroy the catalysts
"solution" to the problem. So why does the catalyst give Shepard the
choice? Did that catalyst change its mind? Does the catalyst think that
organics should be allowed to decide their fate after all if only they got
their act together? How is this choice any less monstrous than the reapers
themselves? Because it offers some temporary hope to the few organics that
survive?

Why isn't this the ending:

"The fact you are standing here, the first organic ever, proves that you
are persistent and resilient. I admire your resolve. However, the problem
remains and I possess a solution. You have given me no reason to believe my
solution isn't the best solution and so I will drop this platform down,
continue harvesting your advanced races, and allow you to die."

Let's rewind a bit, though,
because here's where the most obvious philosophical difficulty hits me: How do
Reapers solve the problem? Lemme lay it out as simply as I can:

1. The problem is: Created
synthetics will rebel (and presumably destroy) their creators (organics
advanced enough to create synthetic life).

2. The catalyst wishes to
solve this problem.

3. The catalyst's solution
is... an army of synthetics that... destroy.. organic life advanced enough to
create synthetic life.... (oh but they preserve the organic goo in reaper
form.... yeah... they don't "destroy them" they are simply killed and
preserved as reapers...... see?)

I'm not sure what the
perfect definition of the word CONTRADICITON is, but this comes pretty damn
close.

Did the Bioware writing
staff have a stroke or anyeurism? Are there any answers to these massive plot
holes?



Don't even get me STARTED on the endings. Synthesis? What the hell is that? How
is overlaying everything with glowing circuitry fixing anything?

I'm interested in your
thoughts, BSN.