1086 réponses à ce sujet

[tomcplotts]

Lord Aesir wrote...

tomcplotts wrote...

it's not racist, it's misanthropic and nihilistic. it also is elitist, in that it views ordinary sentients incapable of good judgment, which probably reflects corporate classism. It's a lot of things, most bad, but amazingly, it's not actually racist. The series does two things very well in my opinion: it supports a diverse, biologically-grounded view of sexuality and it promotes race and species transcendance in relations. it's bad writing, ultimately, because the issues were more complex than the writers were capable of addressing coherently. It happens.

I don't see it as nihilistic or elitism, or at leasy elitism as you describe.  Why wouldn't a millions of year old construct not veiw itself as more intelligent than little organics a tiny fraction of it's age?  We see ourselves as more intelligent than animals and small children and tell them what's best for them.  Why assume Bioware was trying to say the Catalyst was right?  As far as the endings are concerned, whether or not the Catalyst is objectively correct is beside the point and irrelevant.  How is it elitist?

The fault is mine for not being clear. It depends on whether or not we see the catalysts "philosophy" as a reflection of the sentiments of the writer(s). That was kind of the assumption of the OP. I don't necessarily agree with that, actually, since you do have the option to blow everything mechanical up thus rejecting the catalysts right to judge/rule.

On the other hand, if this was the best logic the catalyst could pr.oduce, he was one stupid, ill-educated god.

[Orthodox Infidel]

Lord Aesir wrote...

KustomDeluxe wrote...

Synthesize and, y'know, remove the free-will and individual nature of every species & person/alien-person in the galaxy.

?

Where did you grab this idea from?  You do know that there is no Reaper technology involved in the process?

None of the people being "synthesized" get to grant or deny consent before you make this choice. If I replaced your legs with legs I considered superior while you were asleep without asking you in advance, even if it was for some really good reason, you'd feel violated, wouldn't you?

(I think it's slightly moot criticism, since you're already a member of the military and it's a Total War to end all Total Wars, so you're already committed to acting in a coercive fashion. But not a completely unreasonable one.)

[Heimdall]

Ashilana wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

I don't see it as nihilistic or elitism, or at leasy elitism as you describe.  Why wouldn't a millions of year old construct not veiw itself as more intelligent than little organics a tiny fraction of it's age?  We see ourselves as more intelligent than animals and small children and tell them what's best for them.  Why assume Bioware was trying to say the Catalyst was right?  As far as the endings are concerned, whether or not the Catalyst is objectively correct is beside the point and irrelevant.  How is it elitist?

I bolded a couple lines.  I think this was kind of the heart of what the op was trying to bring attention to.  Since you have no choice but to collaborate with the starchild/catalyst... it means that Shep has agreed that what it is saying must be true.

I disagree, all Shepard has to accept and agree with is that the Catalyst must be satisfied or defied for the Reapers to be defeated.

Control:  Replace the Catalyst and change the purpose of the Reapers themselves.  Hardly a choicee requiring agreement with the Catalyst,

Synthesis:  Pacification, removing the Catalyst's percieved need to continue the cycle and it's purpose.  Even then, Shepard only has to accept that the Catalyst believes it's logic is true, not accept it as true him or herself.

Destruction:  Flat out direct defiance of the Catalyst.

In none of these endings and choices is Shepard required to accept the reasoning of the Catalyst.

[Heimdall]

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

KustomDeluxe wrote...

Synthesize and, y'know, remove the free-will and individual nature of every species & person/alien-person in the galaxy.

?

Where did you grab this idea from?  You do know that there is no Reaper technology involved in the process?

None of the people being "synthesized" get to grant or deny consent before you make this choice. If I replaced your legs with legs I considered superior while you were asleep without asking you in advance, even if it was for some really good reason, you'd feel violated, wouldn't you?

(I think it's slightly moot criticism, since you're already a member of the military and it's a Total War to end all Total Wars, so you're already committed to acting in a coercive fashion. But not a completely unreasonable one.)

That's hardly a removal of free will.  A one time violation maybe but this is not turning everyone into Saren.

[Ashilana]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Ashilana wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

I don't see it as nihilistic or elitism, or at leasy elitism as you describe.  Why wouldn't a millions of year old construct not veiw itself as more intelligent than little organics a tiny fraction of it's age?  We see ourselves as more intelligent than animals and small children and tell them what's best for them.  Why assume Bioware was trying to say the Catalyst was right?  As far as the endings are concerned, whether or not the Catalyst is objectively correct is beside the point and irrelevant.  How is it elitist?

I bolded a couple lines.  I think this was kind of the heart of what the op was trying to bring attention to.  Since you have no choice but to collaborate with the starchild/catalyst... it means that Shep has agreed that what it is saying must be true.

I disagree, all Shepard has to accept and agree with is that the Catalyst must be satisfied or defied for the Reapers to be defeated.

Control:  Replace the Catalyst and change the purpose of the Reapers themselves.  Hardly a choicee requiring agreement with the Catalyst,

Synthesis:  Pacification, removing the Catalyst's percieved need to continue the cycle and it's purpose.  Even then, Shepard only has to accept that the Catalyst believes it's logic is true, not accept it as true him or herself.

Destruction:  Flat out direct defiance of the Catalyst.

In none of these endings and choices is Shepard required to accept the reasoning of the Catalyst.

Control... is obviously just a trap.  Unless you can make the leap to believe that TIM's goals while indoctrinated were still somehow a good idea.

Synthesis is sickening (but violating the rights of all lifein the galaxy is a whole seperate topic).

And I am still not sure how destruction can be seen as defiance.   It is one of the three options that the starchild gives you...and it requires you to commite genocide (something that the starchild thinks is fine and dandy if it is for the greater good).

[Heimdall]

tomcplotts wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

tomcplotts wrote...

it's not racist, it's misanthropic and nihilistic. it also is elitist, in that it views ordinary sentients incapable of good judgment, which probably reflects corporate classism. It's a lot of things, most bad, but amazingly, it's not actually racist. The series does two things very well in my opinion: it supports a diverse, biologically-grounded view of sexuality and it promotes race and species transcendance in relations. it's bad writing, ultimately, because the issues were more complex than the writers were capable of addressing coherently. It happens.

I don't see it as nihilistic or elitism, or at leasy elitism as you describe.  Why wouldn't a millions of year old construct not veiw itself as more intelligent than little organics a tiny fraction of it's age?  We see ourselves as more intelligent than animals and small children and tell them what's best for them.  Why assume Bioware was trying to say the Catalyst was right?  As far as the endings are concerned, whether or not the Catalyst is objectively correct is beside the point and irrelevant.  How is it elitist?

The fault is mine for not being clear. It depends on whether or not we see the catalysts "philosophy" as a reflection of the sentiments of the writer(s). That was kind of the assumption of the OP. I don't necessarily agree with that, actually, since you do have the option to blow everything mechanical up thus rejecting the catalysts right to judge/rule.

On the other hand, if this was the best logic the catalyst could pr.oduce, he was one stupid, ill-educated god.

Maybe.  I find it difficult to judge a being who's experience of rea;ity is likely far different than our own.  If we knew the full circumstances of the Reaper's creation, we might have a better understanding.

[Raynulf]

Lord Aesir wrote...

KustomDeluxe wrote...

Synthesize and, y'know, remove the free-will and individual nature of every species & person/alien-person in the galaxy.

?

Where did you grab this idea from?  You do know that there is no Reaper technology involved in the process?

Odds are someone's already beaten me to this but... here goes anyway: Of course Reaper tech is involved in the Synthesis ending.

The Citadel/Spacechild made the reapers, ergo, as the source of "Reaper tech", the Citadel itself is as well.

Next, the Crucible (much as I hate discussing this painfully simple plot device) is an add-on to the Citadel (given that it uses the spacechild as part of it) to produce a variety of colour coded effects, one of which being synthesis.

Given that the source of all reaper technology is part of the Crucible, yes, I think it's fair to say that synthesis involves reaper tech.


On that note: Mass effect, in particular the ending, does a very poor job of actually defining what it is talking about when it refers to Organics and Synthetics.

The simple defination it adopts early on: "Biological entities = organics, created computer-stuff = synthetics" works for the simple usage of the Geth in ME1 - as boogeymen to shoot up. Later it gets... vague. Very vague. But the ending pretends otherwise.


Put it this way. In ME2 we established that Reapers are a composite of organic and synthetic components: They harvest civilisations, combining the essence of millions of individuals into a vast, super-entity. So what are they? Synthetic, because they are 'created'? But how does their process of 'eating' civilisations to reproduce differ from any other reproduction method when viewed on a fundamental level? Organic, because of they operate under a reproduction imperitive? Both? 

Now that we've elevated the question to be more than a rough justification for Bad Guys, what defines synthetic life vs organic life? If "Synthetic" means "deliberately created/designed", then is the Synthesis ending actually just eliminating all organic life altogether by instead making it synthetic?

Throughout Mass Effect, the reapers are continued to be refered to as "Synthetics", despite their composition and reproductive method clearly being inconsistent with Geth/AI/etc, which lends itself to the above definition that the Synthesis ending actually refers not to 'a compromise', but a literal recreation of all organic life into synthetic.

So... how does that impact on the endings?


Honestly, I don't think it does. I don't think whoever wrote the ending had thought into it that far.

[Darth_Trethon]

This I think just goes further into supporting the indoctrination theory.

[Orthodox Infidel]

Ashilana wrote...

And I am still not sure how destruction can be seen as defiance.   It is one of the three options that the starchild gives you...and it requires you to commite genocide (something that the starchild thinks is fine and dandy if it is for the greater good).

If you have low EMS, it's the only option the Starbrat gives you. He's also a lot more bratty about it the entire time.

[Ashilana]

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

Ashilana wrote...

And I am still not sure how destruction can be seen as defiance.   It is one of the three options that the starchild gives you...and it requires you to commite genocide (something that the starchild thinks is fine and dandy if it is for the greater good).

If you have low EMS, it's the only option the Starbrat gives you. He's also a lot more bratty about it the entire time.

So... if you were doing worse in the war, your only option is to not work with the starchild?  Not sure that line of reasoning makes sense, or if you were being sacastic in pointing out that detail.

[Ahdia]

I agree the OP has a point.

Specifically for me, the more I thought about the synthesis ending, the more repulsive I found it.To convert billions and billions of sentient creatures against their will is an absolutely hideous idea to me.
To decide what perfection is for another creature is abhorrent to me. Not nice. Not nice at all.

I think the writers need to seriously look at how their perceiving things to think this is a wonderful thing.

Modifié par Ahdia, 03 avril 2012 - 03:22 .

[Heimdall]

Ashilana wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Ashilana wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

I don't see it as nihilistic or elitism, or at leasy elitism as you describe.  Why wouldn't a millions of year old construct not veiw itself as more intelligent than little organics a tiny fraction of it's age?  We see ourselves as more intelligent than animals and small children and tell them what's best for them.  Why assume Bioware was trying to say the Catalyst was right?  As far as the endings are concerned, whether or not the Catalyst is objectively correct is beside the point and irrelevant.  How is it elitist?

I bolded a couple lines.  I think this was kind of the heart of what the op was trying to bring attention to.  Since you have no choice but to collaborate with the starchild/catalyst... it means that Shep has agreed that what it is saying must be true.

I disagree, all Shepard has to accept and agree with is that the Catalyst must be satisfied or defied for the Reapers to be defeated.

Control:  Replace the Catalyst and change the purpose of the Reapers themselves.  Hardly a choicee requiring agreement with the Catalyst,

Synthesis:  Pacification, removing the Catalyst's percieved need to continue the cycle and it's purpose.  Even then, Shepard only has to accept that the Catalyst believes it's logic is true, not accept it as true him or herself.

Destruction:  Flat out direct defiance of the Catalyst.

In none of these endings and choices is Shepard required to accept the reasoning of the Catalyst.

Control... is obviously just a trap.  Unless you can make the leap to believe that TIM's goals while indoctrinated were still somehow a good idea.

Synthesis is sickening (but violating the rights of all lifein the galaxy is a whole seperate topic).

And I am still not sure how destruction can be seen as defiance.   It is one of the three options that the starchild gives you...and it requires you to commite genocide (something that the starchild thinks is fine and dandy if it is for the greater good).

The Reapers demolished Cerberus' research lab the moment when they started to make progress, that should be enough to tell you that it can work.  The indoctrinated him with that goal because they knew his pursuit of it would disrupt the defense of the rest of the galaxy, much as occured in the Prothean cycle.  They didn't plan for him to succeed, in fact they actively stopped him from going through with it on the Citadel.

I don't find it sickening at all, but as you said, another topic.

Easily, the Catalyst outright tells you it doesn't really agree with that option because it fails to address his issue.  My first playthrough was a renegade that had already annihilated the geth she didn't have a genocide consequence to that choice.

What's important to realize is that the Catalyst has no control over what choices are presented to Shepard.  It is only explaining it's reasons and explaining how they can proceed forward.

[gekko513]

@op

You don't have to accept the star child's truths. If you listen to the star child, who says that it's inevitable that the conflict will reappear, and still choose destruction or control you presumably do that because you don't think that's true. The star child explains what the reapers believe and it explains their actions, but it's not a belief that you are forced to share. If you choose destruction or control, you think there is a chance that organics and future synthetics can find a better solution.

What you are forced into is making one of the choices that are built into the design of the Crucible. The moral implications of the choices are your own, so no, the game does does not force a moral on you.

But yes, the morals and psychology of war, conflict, genocide, group thinking, individualism, black and white thinking, all those things are definitely the major themes of the game series. And they've all been explored and seen from different perspectives in the conflicts throughout the game.

I'm increasingly inclined to consider the whole series a great masterpiece of fiction.

Modifié par gekko513, 03 avril 2012 - 03:21 .

[armondram]

Very interesting points OP. I felt the tinge of racism with the leading words like "solution" I didnt think of the Holocaust right off the bat but I did think ethnic cleansing, just added Synthetics.

[Johanna]

OP is right.

Ugh.

[Orthodox Infidel]

Ashilana wrote...

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

Ashilana wrote...

And I am still not sure how destruction can be seen as defiance.   It is one of the three options that the starchild gives you...and it requires you to commite genocide (something that the starchild thinks is fine and dandy if it is for the greater good).

If you have low EMS, it's the only option the Starbrat gives you. He's also a lot more bratty about it the entire time.

So... if you were doing worse in the war, your only option is to not work with the starchild?  Not sure that line of reasoning makes sense, or if you were being sacastic in pointing out that detail.

I'm being serious. The Starbrat's dialog is different if you have very low EMS, and you're only offered the "Destroy" choice. I didn't believe it myself until I saw it on YouTube: 

So, the idea that somehow, picking the only choice you're offered from this boy is "defiance" doesn't really add up. At least not to me.

[Ashilana]

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

Ashilana wrote...

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

Ashilana wrote...

And I am still not sure how destruction can be seen as defiance.   It is one of the three options that the starchild gives you...and it requires you to commite genocide (something that the starchild thinks is fine and dandy if it is for the greater good).

If you have low EMS, it's the only option the Starbrat gives you. He's also a lot more bratty about it the entire time.

So... if you were doing worse in the war, your only option is to not work with the starchild?  Not sure that line of reasoning makes sense, or if you were being sacastic in pointing out that detail.

I'm being serious. The Starbrat's dialog is different if you have very low EMS, and you're only offered the "Destroy" choice. I didn't believe it myself until I saw it on YouTube: 

So, the idea that somehow, picking the only choice you're offered from this boy is "defiance" doesn't really add up. At least not to me.

I think you misread what I posted (or I wasn't very clear).  I was saying that I don't think destruction was defiance.

[Orthodox Infidel]

Ashilana wrote...

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

Ashilana wrote...

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

Ashilana wrote...

And I am still not sure how destruction can be seen as defiance.   It is one of the three options that the starchild gives you...and it requires you to commite genocide (something that the starchild thinks is fine and dandy if it is for the greater good).

If you have low EMS, it's the only option the Starbrat gives you. He's also a lot more bratty about it the entire time.

So... if you were doing worse in the war, your only option is to not work with the starchild?  Not sure that line of reasoning makes sense, or if you were being sacastic in pointing out that detail.

I'm being serious. The Starbrat's dialog is different if you have very low EMS, and you're only offered the "Destroy" choice. I didn't believe it myself until I saw it on YouTube: 

So, the idea that somehow, picking the only choice you're offered from this boy is "defiance" doesn't really add up. At least not to me.

I think you misread what I posted (or I wasn't very clear).  I was saying that I don't think destruction was defiance.

Oh. Ok. Yes, we agree.

[Heimdall]

Raynulf wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

KustomDeluxe wrote...

Synthesize and, y'know, remove the free-will and individual nature of every species & person/alien-person in the galaxy.

?

Where did you grab this idea from?  You do know that there is no Reaper technology involved in the process?

Odds are someone's already beaten me to this but... here goes anyway: Of course Reaper tech is involved in the Synthesis ending.

The Citadel/Spacechild made the reapers, ergo, as the source of "Reaper tech", the Citadel itself is as well.

Next, the Crucible (much as I hate discussing this painfully simple plot device) is an add-on to the Citadel (given that it uses the spacechild as part of it) to produce a variety of colour coded effects, one of which being synthesis.

Given that the source of all reaper technology is part of the Crucible, yes, I think it's fair to say that synthesis involves reaper tech.


On that note: Mass effect, in particular the ending, does a very poor job of actually defining what it is talking about when it refers to Organics and Synthetics.

The simple defination it adopts early on: "Biological entities = organics, created computer-stuff = synthetics" works for the simple usage of the Geth in ME1 - as boogeymen to shoot up. Later it gets... vague. Very vague. But the ending pretends otherwise.


Put it this way. In ME2 we established that Reapers are a composite of organic and synthetic components: They harvest civilisations, combining the essence of millions of individuals into a vast, super-entity. So what are they? Synthetic, because they are 'created'? But how does their process of 'eating' civilisations to reproduce differ from any other reproduction method when viewed on a fundamental level? Organic, because of they operate under a reproduction imperitive? Both? 

Now that we've elevated the question to be more than a rough justification for Bad Guys, what defines synthetic life vs organic life? If "Synthetic" means "deliberately created/designed", then is the Synthesis ending actually just eliminating all organic life altogether by instead making it synthetic?

Throughout Mass Effect, the reapers are continued to be refered to as "Synthetics", despite their composition and reproductive method clearly being inconsistent with Geth/AI/etc, which lends itself to the above definition that the Synthesis ending actually refers not to 'a compromise', but a literal recreation of all organic life into synthetic.

So... how does that impact on the endings?


Honestly, I don't think it does. I don't think whoever wrote the ending had thought into it that far.

Okay, I'll just address the first part of this.  The Catalyst outright tells you that the changes are coming from Shepard.  Not the Reapers, Shepard.  Nobody is being implanted with Reaper technology.  For the record, I believe the main purpose of the Catalyst was access to the relay network controls, allowing the Crucible to affect the entire galaxy,

Now that that's out of the way.  Mass Effect has consitently used the word synthetic to refer to AIs, sentient computers.  Reapers are effectively both as EDI said.  The synthetic definition of Reapers I always interpretted as an ease of reference thing, not something to be considered technically correct.  I don't see how that makes the synthesis ending turn everyone into synthetics.  Personally I imagine everyone becoming a bit like the Cylons in the reimagined BSG.  The organics are still, mostly, biological but now there's more to it and they might have the ability to interface directly with machines.  The synthetics, like the geth, will be like other technology, but metal on the outside mixed with some squishy parts on the inside.  That's offtopic though.

Just my opinion.

[Ashilana]

Orthodox Infidel wrote...
Oh. Ok. Yes, we agree.

Yay, for once miscommunication on the internet didn't explode.  

[Zine2]

gekko513 wrote...

@op

You don't have to accept the star child's truths. If you listen to the star child, who says that it's inevitable that the conflict will reappear, and still choose destruction or control you presumably do that because you don't think that's true. The star child explains what the reapers believe and it explains their actions, but it's not a belief that you are forced to share. If you choose destruction or control, you think there is a chance that organics and future synthetics can find a better solution.

What you are forced into is making one of the choices that are built into the design of the Crucible. The moral implications of the choices are your own, so no, the game does does not force a moral on you.

Factually incorrect. There is no choice which allows you to reject the Star Child entirely/

But yes, the morals and psychology of war, conflict, genocide, group thinking, individualism, black and white thinking, all those things are definitely the major themes of the game series. And they've all been explored and seen from different perspectives in the conflicts throughout the game.

I'm increasingly inclined to consider the whole series a great masterpiece of fiction.

Given that the series ultimately ends with "Genocide is okay as long as you have paranoid prejudices", it again only demonstrates that the only people who like the ending are those who are either nihilists, psycopaths, or those who deliberately ignore the realities of the ending.

Welcome to the third group.

[MrFob]

Lord Aesir wrote...
*snip*

What's important to realize is that the Catalyst has no control over what choices are presented to Shepard.  It is only explaining it's reasons and explaining how they can proceed forward.

I just want to say something to that particular part of your post since it seems to be the upshot and since I don't really want to get into the discussion of the moral ambiguity of the choices themselves (another interesting topic IMO)

So, even if what you postulate there is true (and we have no way of confirming that), it doesn't really resolve the issue the op stated.
This is not necessarily only about what Shep will do but also how s/he reacts to the star child AI. This entity had presided over the "transformation" of countless races over countless cycles. Since it s implied that it controls the reapers, ultimately defines their purpose, these races - even if preserved in reaper form - have no free will. Thus, the essence of these races is destroyed and I (as well as my Shep) would classify that as genocide.
Now given that situation and that this is all explained to Shep in quite a bit of detail, the offensive part is that you are not given the choice to tell the star child how insanely evil you think it really is. Shep just does not get the opportunity to raise the concern about what the situation is and what role the star child played in getting us into it. Shep is effectively docile in that whole scene, from the moment the conversation starts to the choices themselves.

If red, green and blue are the choices and there is nothing anyone can do about it, than fine, I guess I have to bite the lemon (is that even an expression?). However, Shep doesn't even look for alternatives, s/he doesn't even inquire or even if it would be clear hat there are no alternative, s/he doesn't even get a chance of telling the star child what a bastard it really is for forcing this on us (or having done so for the cycles in the past). No, you just stand there, wide eyed and wondrous and then you walk into your death (and the death of pretty much everyone else).

That moment is so out of character for Shep and most player that it is offensive. It is an implied statement of consensus simply because it jsut doesn't (give us the opportunity to) state the opposite.
In my mind, that is the problem!

[Zine2]

Lord Aesir wrote...
Okay, I'll just address the first part of this.  The Catalyst outright tells you that the changes are coming from Shepard.  Not the Reapers, Shepard.  Nobody is being implanted with Reaper technology.  For the record, I believe the main purpose of the Catalyst was access to the relay network controls, allowing the Crucible to affect the entire galaxy,

Cop out argument.

Shepard did not create the choices. The Catalyst did.

If I give you a gun, and then tell you "You must shoot person A, B, or C. You are NOT allowed to continue existing unless you shoot person A, B, or C", then you are not responsible for the choices. I am for forcing you into this situation. The onus is therefore on me.

The only real moral choice you have is actually whether to be forced into committing murder, or to say "Screw it, I refuse to commit murder. Kill me instead".

The latter is even denied to us in the ending. 

In short, your logic is faulty and your assignment of moral responsibility is completely wrong.

I don't see how that makes the synthesis ending turn everyone into synthetics. 

Decent people do not forcibly implant mechanical components on another person in the name of conformity.

It's no different from forcing a black man to make his skin white so that he will "conform".

Modifié par Zine2, 03 avril 2012 - 03:39 .

[Agugaboo]

Zine2 wrote...

This is not meant to be nice. This is meant to be a blunt, honest, and to the point assessment - because everyone seems to be trying to avoid the Elephant in the room.

Mass Effect's Ending attempts to condone and justify genocide. This is why it is almost universally reviled.

The one common element in all the endings is that you will meet an entity known as the "Catalyst". Set aside all of the other plot holes and minor complaints, and focus on the Catalyst for now.

This is the entity that created the Reapers. This is the entity that is directly responsible for the genocide of multiple sentient races over tens of thousands of years. It is his fault that Earth, Palaven, Thessia, and the Galaxy is burning.

The Catalyst is in fact a war criminal on a scale worse than any of our own real-world tyrants. Hitler's gas chambers, Genghis Khan's campaigns of extermination, and Tamerlene's pyramid of skulls is nothing compared to what the Reapers have done. That it tries to disguise itself as a young child does nothing to exonerate it of the magnitude of its crimes - it's actually sickening. It's like Hitler having plastic surgery to look like an innocent child.

Even worse, this is an entity that attempts to justify its genocidal actions - in a way that is bluntly little different from the real world genocide of the Jews.

It uses euphemisms to describe mass murder. It uses the term "Chaos" to describe people, as though they are a problem and not living, breathing, beings. It calls its actions a "Solution", just as the certain people called the Holocaust their "Final Solution". It even goes as far as calling the the liquification of corpses into Reaper components as "Ascension", no different from how the Concentration Camps collected the hair and skin of the dead victims to use as furniture components.

Even worse, the premise of the Catalyst is fundamentally a racist premise. It boils down to "Organics and Synthetics are so different that they will always end up destroying each other". Really? You are now judged by your component parts - metal or protein - instead of the content of your character? How offensive would it be in real life to hear someone say you should be judged by the color of your skin?

To top it all off, the player is not allowed to question its actions. It must stand idly by and accept its justifications. You are not allowed to tell it that is wrong. Mac Walters and Casey Hudson actually thought this was a good thing too, as noted here in the "Final Hours":

Mac Walters on the Star Child/Reapers
"Originally, with the catalyst, the star child at the end of the game, I had written that much more in the guise of a investigative style conversation, where there is something he tells you but then, you get to ask a bunch of questions and you get your questions answered. But then me and Casey talked and decided, lets keep the conversation "High level". Give you the details that you need to know, but don't get into the stuff that you don't need to know. Like "How long have they been reaping?" You don't need to know the answers to the mass effect universe. So we intentionally left those out"

But given that they were planning to allow the player to ask only softball questions ("How long have you been reaping?", as opposed to "Why did you not seek a different solution that did NOT involve mass murder?"), they were apparently so in love with their "Genocide is justifiable!" ending that they didn't think it was a big deal.

======
But it gets even worse. You are not simply prevented from telling the Catalyst that it is wrong. You are also forced to go along with its next plan - its next "solution".

This is why the most popular alternate ending thus far is the "I refuse all of your options" ending. Players would seriously rather have the entire galaxy wiped out than be forced to serve the Catalyst.

And you know what? Because they are absolutely right.

Genocide is wrong. Period. There is no room for debate. Nothing can justify what the Catalyst did, no matter how much it claims it's so much smarter than all of us. No matter how much Mac Walters thinks its smarter than all of us.

And this is ironically a lesson that the rest of the series spends so much time teaching us. It shows us that even beings of another races are people "just like us" with their own hopes and dreams. It doesn't matter if the Elcor are big and look funny. We love them because they have art, and culture, and feelings too, even if we cannot fully comprehend it like they do.
----

This is why the ME3 ending was a total and abject failure. It is not art. It is not deep. It is offensive.

It is about a brat AI proudly explaining his Mein Kampf. That people should be judged along racial lines: Organic vs Synthetic. And that because of these racial lines, he was totally justified in committing genocide over, and over, and over again.

And the player is forced to become one of the pawns in his game. That is why players hate the ending; and why the most popular "alternative" ending is one wherein the player completely and totally rejects the Catalyst's "options", even if it means certain military defeat.
-----
[Also... since some people will argue "But the Catalyst is correct about organics and synthetics!"

The Catalyst was in fact completely and totally wrong. Just because it says it's correct does not mean it is true. That is the trick used by propagandists everywhere.

Instead, what people should do is to analyze the strength of its arguments. And frankly, anyone with some common sense would realize that this is a very weak argument.

There is nothing that inherently forces Organics and Synthetics to fight each other. Races and people fight all the time. Turians make war on Krogans. Krogans make war on Salarians. Even without synthetics there will still be conflict in the universe.

However, the Catalyst's premise is that there is a divide between Synthetics and Organics, and that they are "fated" to kill each other. That's not a sound argument. That's just racist ideology. Again that's just judging people based on their component parts - metal or protein - rather than the strength of their character. Only a racist in the real world would claim that your character is dictated by the color of your skin, just as the Catalyst's grand assertion that being a Synthetic or an Organic hard-wires you down a particular path is no less racist.

And ironically, you can in fact forge an alliance between an organic and Synthetic race (Quarians and Geth) within the game - proving that the divide between the two is nothing more than a lie.

Therefore, what the Catalyst is saying is not factual. Just because it says "the cycle will continue" without its intervention does not make it true. It's just an arrogant being who is trying to play God, and which has killed trillons of sentient beings in the name of upholding its flawed premise.]

Wow, well said. That sure is a wizard hat there.