1057 réponses à ce sujet

[Zolt51]

By the way. If you want the catalyst logic in summed up in non tl:dr; fashion try this:

</tldr>
"Dealing with synthetics is like Russian roulette. You won't always lose. You can even win most of the time. But if you lose you lose BAD."

<Now for some more tldr, cos I can't resist it>
Synthetics are nothing if not thorough. If they really decide that organic life is bad for them *they* can wipe it down to the last bacteria. Everywhere.

So... why exterminate organics who have done nothing? Why not wait until some synthetics actually turn hostile, and then come in and save the day?

<read the following in The Doctor's voice, any Doctor is ok but 11 is the one I have in mind>
That is actually a very good plan. And it would make a lot of sense IF the Reapers were stronger than they are. But the reapers have one great, huge weakness. Something that makes them weaker than us. Weaker than even the youngest, fledgling civilization. And you know what that is?

<Harbinger voice>
"We are eternal. We are the pinnacle of evolution"

Right. That's what they tell themselves to rationalize the fact that they don't evolve any more. They can't. Why they are like that we don't know. My guess is they're a somewhat flawed attempt at Synthesis, the last desperate gamble of several species on the brink of extermination. Only way they can improve themselves, or even reproduce is by absorbing new species. The more advanced the species, the better the reaper, I guess.

But they can't afford to let us grow *too* advanced. Because we do evolve. And some of us do that wicked fast too. With a bit more time, maybe even a few more centuries, there's the odd people who may surpass them, or at least pose a significant threat. And then these guys might create synthetics that are even stronger than they are. And then the whole plan just*doesn't*work! Unacceptable. They're playing the long game so they're taking every precaution so that this doesn't happen.

Of course they can't harvest us too young either. Would make fewer, weaker Reapers, they need bigger numbers at least. Space faring civilizations with a number of garden worlds under their belt. Or did you think it was a coincidence that there was such a high prevalence of them near Relays?

So that's it, the whole cycle thing makes quite a bit of sense... and that organic vs synthetic thing, although it got the cycle started, is not something we need to think about all that much afterwards.
</tldr>

Modifié par Zolt51, 27 avril 2012 - 03:13 .

[Ruusaar Cin]

After reading this explanation, I can finally understand the catalyst's logic.I actually like this better than the Dark Energy motivation personally.

That being said, I think the catalyst is completely WRONG. My Shepard does not agree with him, and rejects his logic and solutions. Or would, if that was an option...

[Yorkston9152]

the wall of text!

IT BURNS

[sdinc009]

This was very well put together. However, the Catalysts logic still has some holes and the fact that much of it is based on leaked scripts and not on actual game contect makes it flimsy. Even with a sound logical explanation, it it still completely disrupts the theme, plot, and story structure of ME3. In the final scene, the Catalyst is still altering the ME series main antagonist, no longer generates a conflict within the story because the protagonist just accepts what is being told, and changes the main driving goal of the whole trilogy. It's very presence and method of introduction are counter to proper story telling which causes the ending to rapidly fall apart. Also, understanding the reasons why the antagonist does what they do weakens the dramatic elements of the story. We don't need to understand why the Catalyst or the Reapers do whatt they do. Making them a mysterious, powerful, and unknowable evil threat is a tried and tue method of creating a good antagonist. Lifting the veil and humanizing them or making us sympathize with them throws a wrench into the story mechanics. If this is going to be attempted ( which is not impossible) it needs to done somewhere in the rising or falling action NOT in the resolution and NEVER in the very final scene.

[AmstradHero]

JShepppp wrote...
I. The Catalyst's Assumptions

6. If there is war, organics will be wiped out. 
(a) Peace (coexistence, subjugation, banishment) and eradication of organics are all options.
( Due to the singularity, synthetics will always win and dictate the terms.
© If there is peace, due to nonzero probabilities of both peace and war, war will eventually occur again after enough time.
(d) A cycle of peace and war will continue with synthetics always dictating the winning terms.
(e) At some point, synthetics will realize the cycle, realize peace is temporary, and so will simply eradicate organics during a period of war; also, it can be reasoned that eradication is a possibility and will eventually be realized.
(f) Therefore, regardless of the current state of affairs, synthetics will wipe out organics.

See, I'm simply not buying this. Why would synthetics, would have presumably evolved, not see the potential benefits of organics. Organics can evolve through ways that the synthetics cannot predict, therefore eliminating them is actually potentially harming their own continued existence and/or that of the galaxy.

This is one part of the nihilistic view of the technological singularity that I've always had a problem with, the assumption that synthetic life would automatically and implacably believe (calculate?) that organics are more trouble than they're worth and should be wiped out. It may be pre-singularity in the cycle at the moment (although with the Reaper upgrades for the Geth and EDI's ability to pretty much do whatever she wants suggests it may be approaching if it hasn't already arrived), but synthetic life is still admired by organic life. Yet according to this theory, when the synthetics hit a technological singularity, this immediately goes out of the window for some unspecified reason. There's no good justification for this leap provided by the Catalyst, and the game itself undermines this line of thinking.

JShepppp wrote...

THE CATALYST'S CONCLUSION: Synthetics will wipe out all organics after the naturally-occurring technological singularity.

The Catalyst clearly makes some leaps of logic in its assumptions, but that doesn't mean its reasoning is stupid. For a scifi universe, it is very valid. It may feel out of place in the ME universe and may feel very rushed altogether, but the idea itself, I feel, can be respected.

The thematic inconsistency is a major consideration here. The game almost switches genre in the last ten minutes, which is why it is a failure as part of Mass Effect. I agree that it could be quite an interesting, but not when it doesn't fit thematically with the rest of the series. 5-10 minutes should not undermine 100-150 hours of previous gameplay. Admittedly this is a literary consideration rather than a logic one, but it does mean that the (apparently intended) literary/philosophical value of the ending is effectively destroyed.

JShepppp wrote...
The nature of the singularity also means that we can't really comprehend what happens beyond the point. There is no reason to assume peace/friendliness, hostility, or indifference by the synthetics. The Catalyst seems to go around this difficulty by using probabilities and deciding that they will be realized given enough time. 

Except this is never shown or expressed in any form to justify this conclusion. Players can't assume it's logic if the rationale or evidence is never provided for this statement. All the players receive are assertions. I can't and won't rely on a leaked script: because it's not in the game.

If we have to rely on a leaked script to attempt to justify the ending, then the ending simply isn't logically sound. It's underdeveloped and poorly executed. The ending has to stand on its own as part of the entire trilogy of games, without comic books, novels, twitter feeds, leaked scripts or anything else. If it relies on any of these things, then the logic is invalid.

JShepppp wrote...
5. The Catalyst uses circular reasoning. This is true - the Catalyst is basing assumptions almost entirely on the assumptions it ends up making. Basically, circular reasoning is an argument that relies on itself to exist. ". A very valid point that seems to be the core of those who disagree with the Catalyst. 

How does this then sit with a validation of its logic? Surely this undermines the Catalyst's entire argument?

JShepppp wrote...
12. The "red" ending destroys "all synthetic life" killing the Reapers - thus the Reapers are completely synthetic.
Remember that Shepard is supposed to die too because he is "partly synthetic". This implies that all partly synthetic life forms will be killed - ironically the Quarians, people with biotic implants, and Shepard seem to be on the list as well, implicitly, according to the Catalyst's logic. Thus it really is killing anything that is at least partly synthetic, indicating the Reapers must be at least partly synthetic but not necessarily wholly synthetic. EDI's statement at the end of ME2 about Reapers being organic/sentient hybrids, I believe, is canon. Yet the N7 ending throws all of this into question, so I don't have an answer for this at all. A valid plot hole to point out. 

Not just the N7 ending. Tali can be seen to survive in the destroy ending. So can Kaidan. The ending also undermines whether the Reapers are synthetic or organic. They "store organic life in Reaper form", yet they allow the Geth to become a fully evolved AI. It's not clear if they're synthetic, organic or both. The latter seems to be the most likely, but this undermines the Catalyst's assessment that Synthesis is a new option it hadn't considered before made possible by the Crucible.

JShepppp wrote...
14. Logic is pointless to justify the Catalyst's motives/actions as we must do so by facts.

1 billion years (Leviathan of Dis) with approximately 50,000 years per cycle implies 20,000 cycles. We have information about two cycles for sure, maybe more from the Prothean VI. Statistically, we can't really extrapolate our sample data to the population because it's not very significant, I think. I would argue that the lack of facts' validity means that we can neither disprove/prove the Catalyst's assertions with them.

If the ending is based on a specific premise, then it is up to the game to prove that premise. It doesn't.


On the whole, I have to commend you for making a fairly well-thought out argument. However, this really doesn't excuse the fact that the premise of the ending isn't supported by the material that the players are given, and in fact is undermined by content within the series. Even if the leaked script was included in the game, it still provides no evidence to support the claims/conclusion. The premise is simply stated as fact without anything to back it up.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 28 avril 2012 - 06:38 .

[JShepppp]

Zolt51 wrote...

By the way. If you want the catalyst logic in summed up in non tl:dr; fashion try this:

</tldr>
"Dealing with synthetics is like Russian roulette. You won't always lose. You can even win most of the time. But if you lose you lose BAD."

Permission to use this? lol

And yeah the idea of Reaper self-preservation has popped up but I haven't had the time yet to add it to the OP, which I will do sometime soon. 

[JShepppp]

Ruusaar Cin wrote...

After reading this explanation, I can finally understand the catalyst's logic.I actually like this better than the Dark Energy motivation personally.

That being said, I think the catalyst is completely WRONG. My Shepard does not agree with him, and rejects his logic and solutions. Or would, if that was an option...

Yay! Lol yeah my Shepard still disagreed too primarily on moral grounds. Rejecting the catalyst's logic I think can be manifested through the red/blue endings. Ahem, I meant destroy/control. 

[JShepppp]

Yorkston9152 wrote...

the wall of text!

IT BURNS

Sorry. I will update the OP sometime soon and will try to think about a way to TL;DR most of it; the problem in general though is that there are a lot of different points. Zolt51 had a nice TL;DR quote though. 

[JShepppp]

sdinc009 wrote...

This was very well put together. However, the Catalysts logic still has some holes and the fact that much of it is based on leaked scripts and not on actual game contect makes it flimsy. Even with a sound logical explanation, it it still completely disrupts the theme, plot, and story structure of ME3. In the final scene, the Catalyst is still altering the ME series main antagonist, no longer generates a conflict within the story because the protagonist just accepts what is being told, and changes the main driving goal of the whole trilogy. It's very presence and method of introduction are counter to proper story telling which causes the ending to rapidly fall apart. Also, understanding the reasons why the antagonist does what they do weakens the dramatic elements of the story. We don't need to understand why the Catalyst or the Reapers do whatt they do. Making them a mysterious, powerful, and unknowable evil threat is a tried and tue method of creating a good antagonist. Lifting the veil and humanizing them or making us sympathize with them throws a wrench into the story mechanics. If this is going to be attempted ( which is not impossible) it needs to done somewhere in the rising or falling action NOT in the resolution and NEVER in the very final scene.

I agree. I think having to look and rely on leaked stuff is extremely indicative of the sloppiness of the ending. It was rather unexpected and stuff. I was actually thinking all along that the Reapers just thought being a Reaper was boss and ascended races that had "proven themselves" and exterminated the rest. I was perfectly fine with them chilling in dark space and imposing their will upon others in a very disagreeable fashion. But having them try to be the "saviors" in a very "epic" kind of sense fell flat because they are disagreeable on so many levels. 

Personally, I would've ripped out my hair trying to figure out the Reapers' motivations if they didn't tell me. I know a lot of people would be okay with not knowing and I respect that, but for me, I gotta know. That'd be like finishing Harry Potter and not knowing whose side Snape was on; to me, it was that important (e.g. imagine if Snape just randomly dies, Dumbledore's portrait in the office tells Harry everything about horcruxes but nothing about Snape). But that's just me. 

[JShepppp]

[quote]AmstradHero wrote...

[quote]JShepppp wrote...
I. The Catalyst's Assumptions

6. If there is war, organics will be wiped out. 
(a) Peace (coexistence, subjugation, banishment) and eradication of organics are all options.
( Due to the singularity, synthetics will always win and dictate the terms.
© If there is peace, due to nonzero probabilities of both peace and war, war will eventually occur again after enough time.
(d) A cycle of peace and war will continue with synthetics always dictating the winning terms.
(e) At some point, synthetics will realize the cycle, realize peace is temporary, and so will simply eradicate organics during a period of war; also, it can be reasoned that eradication is a possibility and will eventually be realized.
(f) Therefore, regardless of the current state of affairs, synthetics will wipe out organics.
[/quote]
See, I'm simply not buying this. Why would synthetics, would have presumably evolved, not see the potential benefits of organics. Organics can evolve through ways that the synthetics cannot predict, therefore eliminating them is actually potentially harming their own continued existence and/or that of the galaxy.[/quote]

They could. Beyond the singularity lies the unknown. The Catalyst can't know what's what. It goes around this by using probabilities and just assuming they will be realized given enough time. Propensity for war is high given what we've seen between synthetics and organics. Peace is possible but the Catalyst is unwilling to take the chance of war when it will by definition be impossible ofr organics to win.

[quote]This is one part of the nihilistic view of the technological singularity that I've always had a problem with, the assumption that synthetic life would automatically and implacably believe (calculate?) that organics are more trouble than they're worth and should be wiped out. It may be pre-singularity in the cycle at the moment (although with the Reaper upgrades for the Geth and EDI's ability to pretty much do whatever she wants suggests it may be approaching if it hasn't already arrived), but synthetic life is still admired by organic life. Yet according to this theory, when the synthetics hit a technological singularity, this immediately goes out of the window for some unspecified reason. There's no good justification for this leap provided by the Catalyst, and the game itself undermines this line of thinking.[/quote]

It's pre-singularity by the Catalyst's definitions, and at the moment, synthetics are not evolving so much faster than organics that organics no longer know what's up and can't catch up in terms of technology and stuff. 

At the moment, we're actually given indication that synthetics aren't really that important to organics. The Quarians, sure, but if the Geth died they don't seem like they'd regret it too much. Shepard is a special case. Everyone kind of distrusts the Geth and only goes on Shepard's word. There are actually laws making it illegal to do advanced AI experimentation and stuff. And after the Reapers, people would probably be even more biased towards synthetics even if those synthetics had nothing to do with it. It would of course be ideal if there was peace, but the peace that is there was only really made possible by extraordinary circumstances (Reapers, Shepard) and may not last. Tali was not enough to get peace, nor was Korris. It took Shepard, the Reaper conflict, and Reaper upgrades for the Quarians to back down. 

Again, no one's saying there'll be eternal war. The idea is that there will be war eventually; that is, after enough time. Conflict will result. And remember the Catalyst views time in HUGE numbers that can even be hundreds of millions of years.

[quote][quote]JShepppp wrote...

THE CATALYST'S CONCLUSION: Synthetics will wipe out all organics after the naturally-occurring technological singularity.

The Catalyst clearly makes some leaps of logic in its assumptions, but that doesn't mean its reasoning is stupid. For a scifi universe, it is very valid. It may feel out of place in the ME universe and may feel very rushed altogether, but the idea itself, I feel, can be respected.
[/quote]
The thematic inconsistency is a major consideration here. The game almost switches genre in the last ten minutes, which is why it is a failure as part of Mass Effect. I agree that it could be quite an interesting, but not when it doesn't fit thematically with the rest of the series. 5-10 minutes should not undermine 100-150 hours of previous gameplay. Admittedly this is a literary consideration rather than a logic one, but it does mean that the (apparently intended) literary/philosophical value of the ending is effectively destroyed.[/quote]

I agree it was sloppily done. 

[quote][quote]JShepppp wrote...
The nature of the singularity also means that we can't really comprehend what happens beyond the point. There is no reason to assume peace/friendliness, hostility, or indifference by the synthetics. The Catalyst seems to go around this difficulty by using probabilities and deciding that they will be realized given enough time. 
[/quote]
Except this is never shown or expressed in any form to justify this conclusion. Players can't assume it's logic if the rationale or evidence is never provided for this statement. All the players receive are assertions. I can't and won't rely on a leaked script: because it's not in the game.

If we have to rely on a leaked script to attempt to justify the ending, then the ending simply isn't logically sound. It's underdeveloped and poorly executed. The ending has to stand on its own as part of the entire trilogy of games, without comic books, novels, twitter feeds, leaked scripts or anything else. If it relies on any of these things, then the logic is invalid.[/quote]

I agree that merely because I had to look to leaked materials to try to make sense of it all indicates it was all sloppily done. This is something a lot of people have a problem with here which is fine and understandable. I would probably be skeptical too. It's more that my desire for answers overcomes any hesitation I have in using leaked materials when I believe the leaked materials are close enough to the real stuff anyways (e.g. organics vs synthetics, not dark energy).

But if you are unwilling to make that leap, I respect that completely.

[quote][quote]JShepppp wrote...
5. The Catalyst uses circular reasoning. This is true - the Catalyst is basing assumptions almost entirely on the assumptions it ends up making. Basically, circular reasoning is an argument that relies on itself to exist. ". A very valid point that seems to be the core of those who disagree with the Catalyst. 
[/quote]
How does this then sit with a validation of its logic? Surely this undermines the Catalyst's entire argument?[/quote]

It isn't 100% right. The point was to show it's not entirely stupid. 

Its problem can't really be disproved by our thinking the way it's presented, that's true. Maybe that was the point of the ending - organics are differentiated from the Reapers by their moral code, and the Catalyst can only be morally rejected because the way its argument is structured (not to mention the lack of dialogue options) means that it cannot be rejected on "facts". 

[quote][quote]JShepppp wrote...
12. The "red" ending destroys "all synthetic life" killing the Reapers - thus the Reapers are completely synthetic.
Remember that Shepard is supposed to die too because he is "partly synthetic". This implies that all partly synthetic life forms will be killed - ironically the Quarians, people with biotic implants, and Shepard seem to be on the list as well, implicitly, according to the Catalyst's logic. Thus it really is killing anything that is at least partly synthetic, indicating the Reapers must be at least partly synthetic but not necessarily wholly synthetic. EDI's statement at the end of ME2 about Reapers being organic/sentient hybrids, I believe, is canon. Yet the N7 ending throws all of this into question, so I don't have an answer for this at all. A valid plot hole to point out. 
[/quote]
Not just the N7 ending. Tali can be seen to survive in the destroy ending. So can Kaidan. The ending also undermines whether the Reapers are synthetic or organic. They "store organic life in Reaper form", yet they allow the Geth to become a fully evolved AI. It's not clear if they're synthetic, organic or both. The latter seems to be the most likely, but this undermines the Catalyst's assessment that Synthesis is a new option it hadn't considered before made possible by the Crucible.[/quote]

Agree with everything except the small tidbit about Synthesis. First, the Catalyst couldn't do synthesis because the Crucible made that possible. It's technology far beyond that of the Reapers (I started a thread about that here). 

EDI says they're hybrids. We can guess that this is the case because of the need for genetic mush but also the clear machine-like-ness of the Reapers. But the ending itself isfull of a series of plot holes that I honestly don't know what to do with lol. 

[quote][quote]JShepppp wrote...
14. Logic is pointless to justify the Catalyst's motives/actions as we must do so by facts.

1 billion years (Leviathan of Dis) with approximately 50,000 years per cycle implies 20,000 cycles. We have information about two cycles for sure, maybe more from the Prothean VI. Statistically, we can't really extrapolate our sample data to the population because it's not very significant, I think. I would argue that the lack of facts' validity means that we can neither disprove/prove the Catalyst's assertions with them.
[/quote]
If the ending is based on a specific premise, then it is up to the game to prove that premise. It doesn't.[/quote]

I agree. I think you missed what I said after in that quote (or maybe it was later in the OP) where I said that allowances can/should be made based on plot significance and the mere fact that writers can't provide us with 20,000 cycles for data. But given all of that we should still be careful in assigning absolutes based on observations; they're still at best guesses, in my opinion.


[quote]On the whole, I have to commend you for making a fairly well-thought out argument. However, this really doesn't excuse the fact that the premise of the ending isn't supported by the material that the players are given, and in fact is undermined by content within the series. Even if the leaked script was included in the game, it still provides no evidence to support the claims/conclusion. The premise is simply stated as fact without anything to back it up.
[/quote]

Thanks. And I agree. The nature of the problem is that it's more philosophical versus scientific in nature which makes it difficult to prove and disprove. 

[gatsu zacku]

Hi,

This is a very nice post, thanks for sharing it with us. However, I find anyway that there are tons of questions that are still remaining (due to the fact that all this mess has been introduced in the last 10 minutes of the game) even if they were able to explain the catalyst's logic in their "extended cut" DLC.

Here are few of them that came to my mind (sorry if they have already been adressed):

- how does the catalyst know there is a technological singularity? Has it already happened?

- Why is there a need to preserve organics? Who decided that?

- A related question is then who created the catalyst and came up with this "solution"?

- To end the cycle, reapers kill only organic species that are too advanced in order to prevent them from reaching the technological singularity but let the rest alive including synthetics...I think. Why don't the remaining synthetics do not just kill the remaining super weak organics (the gap should be at least as big as after reaching the technological singularity)?

- What is the point of preservation through eradication? Or rather, how is eradication by synthetics so different from being eradicated by the reapers that are anyway overwhelmly more powerful than the organics they kill?

The only advantage I see in this "solution" is that reapers can evolve to their next stage and get more and more powerful at each cycle (one could also ask, what it is the reason for becoming more powerful if in principle they arrive before organics can fight efficiently against them?). The cayalyst could then have been some kind of  "reaper's consensus" or something like that. The way it talks is quite similar to Legion's way of speaking...even though I don't get at all this "organics preservation" thing in the end.

[Kalas82]

and the 10000 attemp to prove the story-writers point by imagination, lots of speculation and tons of text.

The answer is the same as it was from the get go:

Nope.

The catalysts logic doesn`t get better just cause you throw tons of text out in his favour, his motives don`t get less insane just cause you ignore logic/facts we actualy got.

Synthetics haven`t killed all organic live in the ME-universe, so proof shows his theory beeing wrong, even if assuming he is just plain stupid or crazy (might actualy be a valid option) his plan is perhaps the most unpractical thing one can imagine and would be more fitting if he was a cheesy, exentric Bond-villian.
The only force actualy beeing capable to kill of all organic life (and willing to do so) is Space-God himself and his bio-borg-synthetic reapers.

The whole premise of the cycle-theory "synthetic life will someday kill of all organic life" is just wrong, cannot be backed up by any facts or logic (not in our reality and certainly not in the ME-Universe) and needs actualy god-like future-telling powers (or a magic crystal ball) to work.
Even the Terminator-franchise knows how cheesy this kinda setting is and the scale there is miles smaler.

And i do know that we got enough stupid people in reality who think pre-emptive strikes are the way to go, but not even those people would commit genocide just like this. People who actualy did those things (or still do) are treated like monstern by "normal" society.
Hitlers motives for exmaple were pretty similiar -> fear of the might a certain race had in his mind, but the only way he could actualy wage all that war and genocide was people with lust for money and power backing him up. Now which reaper owned a weapons-corporation again? Which reaper was unemployed and pretty unhappy about his life again? Etc.
Course that´s oversimplified but you get the point i guess.

There are just 3 ways the cycle-theory can be working:

a) ****ty writing
Space-God is a con and tricked Shep
c) Indoc-Theory -> everything we learned was just a bad dream

[feliciano2040]

The Catalyst = Doctor Manhattan.

That is all.

[Subject M]

OP too long to read right now.

But why would a synthetic post-singularity-entity or group want to kill organics? Even if they where just defending themselves, what is the logic of destroying those who are not involved in hostile action that is crude and primitive?

If forest animals or insects where to repeatedly causing damage to my house or people in the area, they would be dealt with, true, but there would be no logic in exterminating entire species.

Further, a purely technological lifeforms would not have the same resource requirements as a organic and would thus not compete for resources. If they would not want to be bothered by organics, they would probably populate a remote corner of the galaxy or even migrate beyond it.

Its also very important to not that in a narrative like this, what matters most is shown, not referred to in the last 10 minutes of a series. What is shown is that it is possible for organics and synthetics to co-exists, its even possible for them to merge in different ways.

[Sh0dan]

OP's statement about the ending:

It was completely unexpected and out of line with "big" ME themes so far, though - that seems to be true. 

I have to disagree:

Besides the Reaper Invasion Mass Effect's main themes have always been the Geth Rebellion and the Genophage. Nobody can deny that organics dooming themselves with advanced technology hasn't been introduced early in the game. The Krogans are cursed by this bio weapon, driving their race to the edge of extinction. The Quarians created the Geth and lost their homeworld after the rebellion war. The concept of  "consequences of technological progress" has always been there and was executed in two ways: organics vs. organics and organics vs. synthetics. Therefore I cannot understand all the complaints about the inconsistencies of the ending.

Many people claim that diversity is a strong theme, but they are wrong. Letting the Rachni queen live, curing the Genophage or make peace between Geth and Quarian is only player's choice. You can eradicate them all more or less and try to lead humanity to the supreme race in the galaxy.

The conversations with Mordin in ME2 also underline the "singularity" theme.

Modifié par Sh0dan, 29 avril 2012 - 04:39 .

[gatsu zacku]

feliciano2040 wrote...

The Catalyst = Doctor Manhattan.

That is all.

So true

[Subject M]

Sh0dan wrote...

OP's statement about the ending:

It was completely unexpected and out of line with "big" ME themes so far, though - that seems to be true. 

I have to disagree:

Besides the Reaper Invasion Mass Effect's main themes have always been the Geth Rebellion and the Genophage. Nobody can deny that organics dooming themselves with advanced technology hasn't been introduced early in the game. The Krogans are cursed by this bio weapon, driving their race to the edge of extinction. The Quarians created the Geth and lost their homeworld after the rebellion war. The concept of  "consequences of technological progress" has always been there and was executed in two ways: organics vs. organics and organics vs. synthetics. Therefore I cannot understand all the complaints about the inconsistencies of the ending.

Many people claim that diversity is a strong theme, but they are wrong. Letting the Rachni queen live, curing the Genophage or make peace between Geth and Quarian is only player's choice. You can eradicate them all more or less and try to lead humanity to the supreme race in the galaxy.

The conversations with Mordin in ME2 also underline the "singularity" theme.

I guess the point is that the current ending(s) invalidates many of the choices and their consequences in the game.

Modifié par Subject M, 30 avril 2012 - 12:35 .

[Fingertrip]

The whole technical singularity is a bunch of bullcrap.

[Grimgaww]

I'm sure that OP is related to Bioware somehow.

It doesn't matter what the catalyst is saying, you can not end a series of more
than 100 hours of gaming unveiling a new character that doesn't related to anything
before the last 10 min of the whole series.
+ The only info about the catalyst is something like this:

masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Catalyst
"The Catalyst is an ancient and powerful entity of unknown origin that resides within the [/b]Citadel.
Its nature is unclear; it is identified as a machine, but it is never
specified whether it is an AI, VI or something else entirely. Before
being encountered by Commander Shepard, the Catalyst was believed to be the final component necessary to complete the Crucible"

It's disgrace not only to Shepard cycle. It's also disgrace to all cycles before Shepard.


The only reason that i forgive Bioware is because this scene was very emotinal and amazing
(without any sense ofcourse).

Still ME series is the best ever.

Modifié par Grimgaww, 30 avril 2012 - 01:14 .

[Muhvitus]

I think it is just stupid to expect war between synthetics and organics. Why would it go on those lines, i'd expect future to hold much more value oriented wars than origin based. Synthetics and organics will be on both sides fighting over values they represent.

[Zolt51]

Ruusaar Cin wrote...

After reading this explanation, I can finally understand the catalyst's logic.I actually like this better than the Dark Energy motivation personally.

That being said, I think the catalyst is completely WRONG. My Shepard does not agree with him, and rejects his logic and solutions. Or would, if that was an option...

Not a problem. He does reject it if you choose Destroy, or even Control. He just doesn't have the energy to make a vehement tirade about it. Bleeding out / running out of time remember? 

I think destroying the Catalyst and his reapers speaks louder than a thousand words.

Modifié par Zolt51, 30 avril 2012 - 01:26 .

[Zolt51]

Grimgaww wrote...
I'm sure that OP is related to Bioware somehow.

Oh yes, anyone who's less than 100% negative about the ending must be on Bioware / EA's payroll. Same old.

[Grimgaww]

Zolt51 wrote...

Grimgaww wrote...
I'm sure that OP is related to Bioware somehow.

Oh yes, anyone who's less than 100% negative about the ending must be on Bioware / EA's payroll. Same old.

Don't tell me please "being negative about the ending".
It's just illogical and doesn't make sense at all.

If there was something reasonable to take from ME3 ending i would take it,
but it's not.

Modifié par Grimgaww, 30 avril 2012 - 01:33 .

[Zolt51]

Grimgaww wrote...
If there was something reasonable to take from ME3 ending i would take it,
but it's not.

I'm not asking you to like the ending, I'm just asking you to stop throwing attacks like this at anyone who expresses a different opinion. Am I being unreasonable?

Modifié par Zolt51, 30 avril 2012 - 01:49 .

[Harorrd]

feliciano2040 wrote...

The Catalyst = Doctor Manhattan.

That is all.

Exept the Catalyst cant do anything