Biotic Sage wrote...
knightnblu wrote...
I see your points, but I ask you to consider the following:
Both the control and destruction options result in the destruction of the mass relays and this will lead to the termination of life on Earth, Palavin, Thessia, and any other occupied planet where there are sentients living. That spells the deaths of trillions and the possible destruction of the attendant civilizations.
The synthesis option presents an entirely new dilemma. One of Shepard subverting the will of the individuals and species in the galaxy. What gives Shepard the right to take that option? How can he, in good conscience, force such a change on the citizenry of the galaxy both known and unknown? The mass relays are destroyed in order to obtain the energy to re-write the organic genome to one of both organic and synthetic a la Battlestar Galactica's solution to the problem of the Cylons.
Then there are the issues of why couldn't the AI stop the Reapers himself? It was his solution, therefore he created the Reapers to implement that solution and he comes right out and says that the solution is no longer a good one. At that point, why does he not order his servants to stand down? Once the AI has reached that conclusion, then what is the point of the continued slaughter unless it is merely for the sake of slaughter itself? Why does he force Shepard to destroy himself in an effort to solve a problem that the AI could easily solve?
Those who praise the ending never answer any of these questions and I wonder if they truly understand the implications of the endings.
As to your first point, I think it should have been clarified in the scene with the Catalyst that the Relays being "destroyed" actually means they are being deactivated, their energy being negated. I never got the impression that it's another Arrival incident where an asteroid is slamming into them. Bioware obviously didn't intend for us to think that all life on Earth was destroyed. They showed people cheering and the Reapers defeated. Like I said, this could have been clarified with more dialogue between the Catalyst and Shepard, and the question definitely should have been asked by Shepard, who has first hand experience with relays being "destroyed" and is still haunted by it.
For your second point, that's why I chose not to take the Synthesis ending. If you are a transhumanist or you accept the fact that organics will inevitably be destroyed by their synthetic creations, however, it is quite appealing. See the bottom part of my original post for my take on the endings.
For your final point, I didn't think that the Catalyst was an AI personally, but it's open to interpretation so that's a completely valid inference. I liked that ambiguity. I thought of the Catalyst as a being that was neither organic or synthetic, perhaps one of pure energy, but definitely completely alien to all that we know about "life" and with a much different way of thinking. It almost seems godlike to us, much as the Protheans seemed godlike to the Hanar because they were so far beyond the Hanar. Anyway, it seemed to me that for whatever reason, the Catalyst was operating under strict parameters. It had no control of anything and could not alter those parameters. It couldn't move the Citadel itself even though it is a part of the Citadel, it needed the Illusive Man to do that. And even with the Crucible, which allows for modification of its prime directive, it cannot step outside its parameters. In fact, it even says that "I can't and won't." So take that how you will. It is a bit ambiguous, but we can't pretend to understand this being's nature from that brief interaction.
The AI says that the Reapers were
his solution to the problem of chaos. In order for him to have formed a solution he had to first recognize a problem. Once he arrived at the solution he would then need to implement that solution. Hence he constructed the first Reapers. He also admits that he is in fact in control of the Reapers.
Therefore, if he has recognized that his solution to the problem of chaos has failed, i.e. that the Reapers can no longer stem the tide of entropy, then what is the point of the slaughter? If there is no point to the slaughter, then why would you continue it? Why not stand down the Reapers until you could arrive at another viable solution to the problem of entropy?
It seems to me that organic life is being forced to comply with the synthetic ideal of order when organic life is in reality a component of entropy. In short, the AI seeks to control nature by imposing arbitrary rules on reality in order to create a universe in violation of the laws of nature. By definition, that is unsustainable and the AI could logically foresee the end of his plan. Therefore, why implement it in the first place? Why was the cycles of death and destruction necessary when it was obvious that it was an unsustainable solution?
From the machine perspective, the only viable solution to the problem of entropy represented by organics is the extermination of all life. But the machine seems to have a moral objection to this path and one could infer from that, that an argument could be constructed that would convince the machine that it is indeed in error. That didn't happen.
As to the negation of energy in the mass relays, had they imploded I might have been persuaded by your assertion. But they did not implode, they exploded indicating a massive release of energy. On the galaxy map in the cut, one can witness the wave of energy expanding out from the starting point of the relay. Our last experience with such an event was the Arrival DLC and as we all know, it didn't end well for the Batarians. As for the cheering humans, I would suppose there would be quite a bit of celebrating as the energy released would be limited by the speed of light and would therefore not arrive at Earth for about 20 minutes or so and the party would be over forever.
The world where we see the crashed SR2 is supposed to represent the re-emergence of life on the ashes of the old. A sort of new beginning, again like BSG. They must really have loved that show.
Retour en haut
