Hudathan wrote...
A discussion on why destroying the relays does not destroy the entire galaxy, with pictures!
http://social.biowar.../index/11300813
*snip*
The fleet being stuck in Sol might be a tough deal for our heroes, but that doesn't make it a 'bad' ending as far as storytelling goes. It's simply what Bioware wanted to happen and might even be something they eventually want to build on. We might be upset at the fact that Sol is in such a terrible state at the end of the game, but that doesn't mean the writing or storytelling is objectively 'bad' like so many people claim.
As far as using the example of the Geth to argue with the Catalyst, it would have been an absolute waste of time for a wounded Shepard barely living on what little strength remained. It would also have no bearing on why Shepard was there to begin with, which is to turn on the Crucible and hope it stops the Reapers somehow and save as many lives as possible.
Also, just because the Geth rebelled out of self defense does not mean it was not a rebellion. The fact of the matter is, the servants overthrew the masters, the definition of a rebellion. If anything, the Catalyst gets us to realize that it's not always the synthetics we create who become the aggressors, but rather us organics who are unable to accept a form of life so fundamentally different from our own. It's symbolic of the limitations we organic beings place on the definition of 'life' and is always interesting to think about.
And just because the Geth and the Quarians were able to achieve peace this time around doesn't mean that it will always be possible. It's not even possible for every person who played this game with good intentions. Had the Reaper conflict not come around, the Geth vs Quarian conflict would have continued to its natural conclusion, most likely with the annhilation of the Quarians due to their eventual counterattack to retake their homeworld.
The Quarians would have never looked at the Geth as anything more than mortal enemies and would have never considered even the possibility of peace. The Geth would have been forced to make the exact same consensus they made in ME3 to defend themselves and wipe out the Quarians if need be. All this would have gone down with little outside interference from any of the other races.
Such a conflict could easily lead the Geth to reach a new consensus, one where they would never be accepted by organics and that the only way for synthetics to survive is to become the dominant life form in the galaxy, leading to exactly what the Catalyst wanted to prevent. And if the Geth isn't powerful enough to accomplish that, some other synthetic race down the line might very well be. That's why the Catalyst chose a method of prevention when it came to this issue, and that's why a single temporary example of peace between synthetics and organics is not a sufficient enough argument on the subject.
The destruction of the mass relays don't necessarily result in the destruction of the galaxy, not in this instance, despite the fact that the energy released from a destroyed mass relay has already, canononically, destroyed an entire star system. The fact that this one was "different" is a mere plot device, a "because the writers said so" deal. They should keep everything consistent, but they didn't. If they wanted a scenario where the relays were defunct, they shouldn't have destroyed them, the should have had them overload and shut down instead of having them all go Michael Bay on us.
We still have FTL travel, but the economic supply lines of the galaxy were based on instantaneous star-cluster-to-star-cluster travel, and are thus absolutely decimated. You tell me how long the galaxy would be able to survive like that if, at best, it takes 25 years to cross the galaxy. But you probably don't know the answer to that, it's all hypothetical, and BioWare could make it an "oh, it's not so bad" scenario with a snap of their fingers if they wanted to. In that case...why was the destruction of the relays necessary? To freak us out? For giggles? I don't know, you tell me.
The Catalyst clearly says,
"The created will always rebel against their creators," not the other way around. Though, you can argue from the angle that the Catalyst doesn't always mean the created will always be the agressors. However, that doesn't excuse Shepard just rolling over and accepting that what he/she worked so hard for can just be debunked by some holier-than-thou AI. I don't know about your Shepard, but my Shepard has a "never say die" attitude that would still show even if she were dragging bloody stumps behind her as she followed the catalyst to the platform.
Maybe the Catalyst is right, but at the same time, we can't assume its right. We have the right to our own destiny, and all the associated risks...thus, we have the right to be able to tell the Catalyst that he doesn't have the right to decide our destiny for us. Do you like people telling you what your destiny should be? I know I don't.
Sure, another created race down the line could screw us all over, proving the Catalyst right. But do you really, honestly think we shouldn't have the ability to tell the Catalyst we'd rather he not try and decide what's best for us? Because...what if he's wrong?
As it stands now, Shepard is making the huge assumption the Catalyst is all-knowing and all-powerful and it's the only one that knows what's best. Pretty out-of-character for the first human Spectre that called bull**** on the Council and kicked The Illusive Man around when he tried to tell Shepard to keep the Collector base. In the end, it's about how you play Shepard, and this is not how a lot of us play Shepard. If that's how you play Shepard, then that's fine. But we want the option to play our Shepard, not your Shepard, not BioWare's Shepard...
our Shepard.
Retour en haut
