JShepppp wrote...
I hope everyone's mature enough to avoid flaming. I'm not saying I support how the Catalyst was introduced or how it all played out. I do believe it was a bit rushed. Just my views on the Catalyst's logic. I know everyone won't agree.
Either way, the Catalyst's reasoning is pretty solid, I think. I see alot of people refering to this as a way to refute the Catalyst's logic. Here are some Catalyst lines from the leaked script back in Nov; not in any particular order:
"I am the Catalyst. I was created eons ago to solve a problem; to prevent organics from creating an AI so powerful it would overtake them and destroy them. The Reapers harvest fully developed civilizations, leaving the less developed ones intact, just as we left your species when we were here last. We helped them ascend and become one of us, allowing new life to flourish, while preserving the old life forever in Reaper form. Organics will always trend to a point of technological singularity, a moment in time where their creations outgrow them. Conflict is the only result, and extinction the consequence. My solution creates a cycle which never reaches that point. Organic life is preserved."
From this plus in-game dialogue, I deduce the following in response to some qualms with the Catalyst's reasoning:
1. The Catalyst is using synthetics to kill organics...but this is the problem it's trying to solve! There are two things wrong with this statement. First, the Reapers aren't synthetics. They're synthetic/organic hybrids, something that EDI makes clear during the Suicide Mission in ME2 (she even says calling the Reapers machines is "incorrect"). Second, the Reapers don't believe they're killing organics - they believe they're preserving them and making way for new life. We don't see how Reapers are actually made, but we are given some indication that they do somehow preserve their species' essence at the cost of tons (trillions?) of lives, so while we don't agree with it, we can accept it as a valid point for the sake of argument.
2. In my playthrough, Joker/EDI hooked up and the Geth/Quarians found peace, therefore conflict isn't always the result! Several arguments can be made against this. First, giving two examples doesn't talk about the bigger, overall galactic picture (winning a battle doesn't mean the war is won, so to speak). Second, we haven't reached that technological singularity point yet by which creations outgrow organics - basically, when synthetics will normally come to dominate the galaxy. Third, evidence for the synthetic/organic conflict is there in the past - in the Protheans' cycle (Javik dialogue) and even in previous cycles (the Thessia VI says that the same conflicts always happen in each cycle).
3. If synthetics are the problem and the Catalyst is trying to protect organics, it should just kill Synthetics instead! A few things here. First, the Catalyst believes it's "harvesting/ascending" organics, not killing them. Second, one of the goals of the Catalyst (leaked script above) is to allow new life to flourish as well, indicating that they value the diversity of the "accident" that is life and believe that clearing the galaxy of more advanced races helps lower ones advance peacefully. Arguably, this is true, as the Javik DLC reveals that the Prothean Empire would have either enslaved or exterminated us; since the Reapers killed them, humanity, arguably, was allowed to develop in peace. Third, killing Synthetics may allow for organics to repeatedly develop AIs (as the Reapers keep "helping out" by killing the AIs) until they reach a level that even the Reapers cannot overcome, then organic life would be royally screwed throughout the galaxy.
4. The Catalyst should've done Synthesis instead of Reaping in the first place! First, doing synthesis may stop new life from flourishing by the Reapers' logic (see leaked script above); without clearing out more advanced races, younger ones might not be able to develop freely. Second, the Catalyst would've needed the Crucible. A pseudo-argument (i.e. not based on fact from the story, but interesting) can be made that the Synthesis was the long-term solution but the Catalyst would only enact it when the galaxy was "ready" for it by building the Crucible.
5. But...the Catalyst is justifying genocide! It doesn't view it as genocide. Rather than exterminating species, it believes it's preserving them and even stopping them from being exterminated or enslaving/exterminating others; arguably, it believes it's doing the exact opposite. But of course, it is actually genocide, and we should try to stop it. Just because the idea of what the Catalyst is doing is evil doesn't mean that its logic is flawed. I personally don't agree with its methods, but its reasoning seems sound.
6. Wait, Sovereign/RannochReaper told us we couldn't comprehend them, but I understand this! There are two ways to interpret what they said. One is that we actually couldn't academically comprehend it, in which case they must've been lying or it's just bad writing. Another is that we couldn't possibly comprehend the magnitude/scope of it, which is true. A human with a lifespan of 150 years (canon) can't comprehend hundreds of millions of years of organic evolution and stuff.
7. Even if the Catalyst's logic is right, it's a numbers-based approach that really doesn't appreciate the miracle of organic life (which they're apparently trying to protect), I still don't like him. He was poorly introduced, annoying, confusing, and I especially don't like that I couldn't talk back or ask him more questions. I agree with you here. The Catalyst wrongly assumes that the threat of impending death and intergalactic annihilation implies Shepard doesn't want dialogue options for a friendly chat. For my sarcastic take on ME3's plot holes, see this. Yes, I'm bumping my own thread again.
Finally, just because I agree with the Catalyst's logic doesn't mean I agree with its methods and/or solution(s). I know I said it before but wanted to say it here again for emphasis.
That's all I have to say. I'm sure I have a few flaws in my reasoning here or there, and I don't think I'm completely right. I'm interested to hear others' thoughts though on these issues. It'd help if you could indicate the number of the argument when you address it so this may be able to flow smoothly.
I'll bottom line it. Bioware decided to trash their best selling franchise ever. We've given all the counter arguments to these points in various posts on the forum. You can look them up. The logic in them is sound. The ending is a massive Charlie Foxtrot that goes nowhere. It is a static plot device at the end of a dynamic plot. It is a large pile of dog feces in a block of clear acrylic and called art.
-------
1. I don't agree with EDI. They're machines. They just happen to have an organic component. They are not naturally occuring. They are manufactured as we saw the factory at the Collector Base. Hence they are synthetic.
2. The Geth/Quarian truce, and EDI/Joker "relationship" won't necessarily last, especially the first one. When the Quarian population grows to a point where they need the northern continent for expansion, and the Geth are already there what do you think will happen? Peace or another war? Now that the two are more alike I'd say war, and given that the Geth don't require an environmentally sound place to live this also is going to lead to disagreements down the road. Heck, humans can't even seem to want to keep our own backyards environmentally clean.
3. It is in the nature of organics to destroy themselves anyway. The Reapers should just let nature take its course. Instead they, via their programming commit xenocide every 50,000 years. The 50,000 years itself is a pretty arbitrary number. It might take millions of years for a life form to reach a level where it discovers a mass relay. A civilization may destroy itself before it gets off world. The Krogans did, and I expect the Yahg will as well. Galactic civilization had a law against AI research, of course Cerberus never put safety first, and neither did the Quarians, but the Quarians I would think have learned a lesson, and the two would be held up as examples to the rest of galactic civilization.
4. Synthesis? You're using the leaked script here that was changed. Then it was thrown back in at the end. But then with synthesis, don't we get to have the strengths of both organic and machine without the weakeness of either one? That's what Saren Arterius was advocating in ME1. It also stifles advancement because it removes limitations. Need to move block of stone up hill invent wheel. Limitation. Advancement. No limitation. No advancement. No advancement. No culture. Husks. But it's green! It's hipster! And it's only available when you've maxed out everything which means it's the "best" ending!
5. I don't need to understand their motives. I just need to know where they are and how to kill them. The code is quite strict here. Give no quarter to the enemy. Still the logic is circular. They keep repeating the same mantra "You cannot comprehend us." Well perhaps they cannot comprehend themselves. Perhaps the writers cannot comprehend them.
6. See #5
7. Shepard doesn't really want a friendly chat. Shepard wants James to help her out of that pile of debris and shout "Walk it off, Lola! We're headed into overtime!"
Retour en haut
![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
