The OPs logic is sound. The Star Child is making two fundamental assumptions in it's claims. One, that organics will always create synthetics, and two, that synthetics will not only always turn on organics, but that organics will inevitably create some kind of synthetic that's powerful enough to destroy the entire universe.
The Star Child states both of these points as irrefutable facts and absolutes. As though they were fundamental tenants of the universe, and cannot ever be violated. And while I might be willing to accept the first as inevitable, I will not accept the second, and yet the Star Child tries to force it down your throat anyway.
Players rightfully take offense to this, and with good reason. It is totally, entirely, completely possible to prove the Star Child wrong. In the game.
"Synthetics will always try to destroy organics."
"The geth did not try to destroy the Quarians. The Quarians started the Dawn War, and it has continued for this long thanks entirely to a combination of Quarian aggression and Reaper meddling. What's more, they've made peace now. Ergo, your statement is wrong. They will not 'always' do this. It is not inevitable, and it is not an absolute. By my actions, I have proven you wrong."
This is what most players were thinking. This is what most players probably would have said, had they been given the option. I certainly would have. The Star Child isn't just wrong, it's
provably wrong.Even if you
didn't solve the Geth-Quarian conflict with peace, the Star Child is still wrong, because the Geth didn't try to destroy the Quarians. The Quarians started that fight, and it's arguable that were it not for the direct interferance of the Reapers, the Geth and Quarians would have made peace by now without Shepard's help.
As a general rule of thumb, you as an outside power can't keep stirring up war and then say "war is inevitable." That's like spraying napalm over everything and preaching that fire is inevitable, using all the fire everywhere as support for your claim.
I might, possibly, have been willing to accept the Star Child's logic, if it had said something to the effect of "organic technology will inevitably lead to synthetic life, and organics, fearing what they have made, will inevitably lash out against their creation. Infinitely more suited to combat and extermination than organic life, synthetics will ultimately dominate any organic-provoked conflict. It is only a matter of time before organic life creates and provokes war with a form of synthetic life powerful enough to destroy all organic life. This must not be allowed to happen."
But he didn't. He did not elaborate like that at all. All he said was "synthetics will always kill you, so we're going to kill you before they can." Simplified as it was and without any further explaination or extrapolation, it makes no sense.
Especially when you consider the fact that, strictly speaking, there's no reason for the Reapers to harvest organics at all. Using the Star Child's logic, it would be far more logical, sensible, and efficient to appear every fifty thousand years and harvest whatever
synthetic forms of life there were that organic life had created. The systematic harvesting of synthetic life to prevent synthetic domination makes sense, and could potentially have even been a valid reason for mass-harvesting of humanity and other alien species, provided we were all heavily self-augmented with cybernetics (look to Deus Ex as a possible example for that).
But no. The Star Child's logic, no matter how you cut it, makes no sense. Even if you prop up his flawed
arguments and take away his statements of provably-wrong absolutes as though they were universal truths, the entire alledged motivation of the Reapers
still makes no sense, because if that was really what this was all about, then the Reapers would just harvest EDI and the Geth and be done with it.
As such, we can, in-character, only arrive at two possible conclusions.
1.) TheStar Child is insane. It genuinely believes it is doing the right thing even though it clearly is not, and possesses no ability to self-reflect or otherwise realize how faulty and absurd it's premise is. It is somehow broken or has had it's data corrupted, and is incapable of understanding that it's stated justification for it's actions makes about as much sense as burning down the entire forest to take care of deer overpopulation.
or
2.) The Star Child is lying. It is the head-intelligence, the birth mind, of all Reapers, and as such, has it's own inscrutable reasons for the destruction and harvesting of sentient organic life. The reasoning it uses against you
is nothing more than a (rather poor) lie, crafted specifically to get you to side with it.
Either way, the Star Child is incorrect, not to be believed, and cannot be trusted. Considering it's origins (it is the Reapers), many players reasonably conclude that 2 is the more logical explaination,
especially since two of the options it presents, Synthesis and Control, are literally what the villains of the series have been trying to accomplish all along. It would be akin to Frodo making it all the way to Mt. Doom, only for Melkor (long story, evil god, basically Sauron's boss) to randomly appear out of nowhere and say "good job for getting this far, little Hobbit! I actually was the ring, but decided to show myself now because you've made it to Mt. Doom! I will now present you with three choices. You can give the ring back to Sauron which I totally promise will solve everything, claim the ring and use it for yourself which totally won't backfire at all, or destroy the ring, which would coincidentally destroy you and, let's say, the dwarves."
It's not just that the logic is bad. It's that nearly everyone comes away from that exchange feeling as though the Star Child was trying to trick or decieve them, and
rightfully so. So my choices are do what the Reapers and Saren wanted, do what the Illusive Man wanted, or do what I intended to do all along, with the caveat that I will die along with all of my synthetic friends (who shouldn't be my friends to begin with according to you).
The first two are, blatantly, the ends that the
villains of the series have been attempting to gain, and the third one, i.e. your goal for the entire trilogy, is not only pitched to you as being the worse possible outcome, but the Star Child also tells you that bad things will happen to you and others if you take it.
The Star Child is clearly pressuring Shepard to pick Synthesis or Control. Why?
Most players arrive at the entirely reasonable conclusion that it's because the Star Child is tryng to decieve you. This is where the Indoctrination Theory
comes from. It's the entirely justifiable and supportable idea that the Star Child is
lying to you, that it is trying to manipulate you into picking a 'Bad End.'
Try to keep in mind this as well: The only ending that Shepard arguably survives, the only ending that provides the shot of Shepard in the ruins of London taking a shuddering breath, is the Destroy ending.
You know. The one that the Star Child said would kill you.
I don't understand how someone could say that the OP's logic is unsound. It is completely sound. In fact, I'm incredibly shocked that the writers and game designers were themselves apparently unable to realize how the Star Child comes off as a manipulative liar. Did they not think that players would take seriously the Final Boss telling you that your plan to destroy it is a bad idea, and that you should really much rather go with one of these other, Final Boss Approved plans, which coincidentially happen to be identical to the goals of the villains you've thwarted up until now?
I'm still holding out on the hope that the developers are saying "eh" because they want us to figure out the Indoctrination theory for ourselves, as opposed to it actually being incredibly sloppy, last-minute rush writing. Primarly because a part of me refuses to believe that the writers could actually expect us to
buy such an argument without question.
But my hope is slipping away. Quickly.
Modifié par Lord Raine, 10 avril 2012 - 04:35 .
Retour en haut
