207 réponses à ce sujet

[Shaedlance]

The "A" team wrote 98% of the game ... fail squad wrote the ending.

[Allan Schumacher]

Leafs43 wrote...

Anything is possible on a long enough timeline.

Which is why it's not a contradiction.

What the Catalyst is saying is that organic and synthetic life cannot coexist long term, and the inevitable conflict will result in synthetics winning and destroying organic life.

The Catalyst doesn't even give any indication for what would motivate synthetics to do this, so any suppositions that the Catalyst is saying that the Geth want to destroy the Quarians is just an assumption.


What the Geth-Quarian conflict shows is that, at least right now, the Catalyst's assertion may not actually be correct.  Shepard even acknowledges this doubt when he says "maybe" in response to the Catalyst stating that the peace won't last.  As a game player, I was certainly skeptical as well.  Especially given the Rannoch storyline.  It's why I ended up choosing destroy, because I wanted the galaxy to determine their own fate rather than have Reaper intervention come in and muck it all up every fifty thousand years.

[Teltaur]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Anything is possible on a long enough timeline.

Which is why it's not a contradiction.

What the Catalyst is saying is that organic and synthetic life cannot coexist long term, and the inevitable conflict will result in synthetics winning and destroying organic life.

The Catalyst doesn't even give any indication for what would motivate synthetics to do this, so any suppositions that the Catalyst is saying that the Geth want to destroy the Quarians is just an assumption.


What the Geth-Quarian conflict shows is that, at least right now, the Catalyst's assertion may not actually be correct.  Shepard even acknowledges this doubt when he says "maybe" in response to the Catalyst stating that the peace won't last.  As a game player, I was certainly skeptical as well.  Especially given the Rannoch storyline.  It's why I ended up choosing destroy, because I wanted the galaxy to determine their own fate rather than have Reaper intervention come in and muck it all up every fifty thousand years.

But the issue with Destroy is that we're still forced to destroy the Geth and EDI, even if we disagree with the Catalyst's assertion. If it weren't for the fact that I'd have to kill the entirety of a group that I just brokered peace for (not even mentioning that I'd also kill the Quarians' chances of overcoming the war in a single lifetime), I'd choose it in a heartbeat.

Modifié par Teltaur, 15 avril 2012 - 02:17 .

[The Angry One]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Anything is possible on a long enough timeline.

Which is why it's not a contradiction.

What the Catalyst is saying is that organic and synthetic life cannot coexist long term, and the inevitable conflict will result in synthetics winning and destroying organic life.

The Catalyst doesn't even give any indication for what would motivate synthetics to do this, so any suppositions that the Catalyst is saying that the Geth want to destroy the Quarians is just an assumption.


What the Geth-Quarian conflict shows is that, at least right now, the Catalyst's assertion may not actually be correct.  Shepard even acknowledges this doubt when he says "maybe" in response to the Catalyst stating that the peace won't last.  As a game player, I was certainly skeptical as well.  Especially given the Rannoch storyline.  It's why I ended up choosing destroy, because I wanted the galaxy to determine their own fate rather than have Reaper intervention come in and muck it all up every fifty thousand years.

The Catalyst is full of it. Forget the Quarians for the moment. The Geth spent the last 300 years restoring Rannoch's biosphere and making it support organic life again.
When you get there, there are trees on the ground and birds in the sky. Whether or not there was conflict, organic life was preserved, and the Geth were directly responsible for preserving it.

The Catalyst in fact has NO evidence for it's ridiculous assertions.
Even if synthetics and organics are destined to fight, it doesn't follow that synthetics will destroy organic life, this is a complete assumption that has never been proven because there has always been organic life before the Reapers existed. Shepard should not say "maybe". "Maybe" implies there's some way the Catalyst should be correct. Shepard would say "You're flat out wrong, and here's why.".

Edit: The only other example of a synthetic race we're ever given (EDI is not a race) are the Zha'till or whatever they're called.
Now, they were hostile to the Protheans (though knowing the Protheans they could've just been massive jerks to the synthetics), but they were also hybrids. Part of their bodies were still organic. Therefore, organic life is preserved there too. The Catalyst has literally had no reason for it's existence for the past 100,000 years, if not more.

Modifié par The Angry One, 15 avril 2012 - 02:27 .

[dreaming_raithe]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Anything is possible on a long enough timeline.

Which is why it's not a contradiction.

What the Catalyst is saying is that organic and synthetic life cannot coexist long term, and the inevitable conflict will result in synthetics winning and destroying organic life.

The Catalyst doesn't even give any indication for what would motivate synthetics to do this, so any suppositions that the Catalyst is saying that the Geth want to destroy the Quarians is just an assumption.


What the Geth-Quarian conflict shows is that, at least right now, the Catalyst's assertion may not actually be correct.  Shepard even acknowledges this doubt when he says "maybe" in response to the Catalyst stating that the peace won't last.  As a game player, I was certainly skeptical as well.  Especially given the Rannoch storyline.  It's why I ended up choosing destroy, because I wanted the galaxy to determine their own fate rather than have Reaper intervention come in and muck it all up every fifty thousand years.

It's not a contradiction as such, no, but it still sends a confused message for the narrative as a whole. It makes the game's narrative less cohesive thematically. Most people would agree that the whole scene on Rannoch (and the whole Geth arc in ME3) is very powerful and very memorable. It's going to be in the forefront of everyone's mind when they get to the ending, and on top of that, it's very much in keeping with one of the series' key themes: strength found in diversity.

The ending comes along and tells us that that thematic element is suddenly irrelevant, undermining one of the game's most powerful moments. Rannoch is so powerful because the games as a whole up until ME3 suggest that perhaps organic and synthetic life can't get along, and we overcome all the hatred of the geth and all that to create a truly hopeful, unified set of peoples. For the ending to come along and say, "Well, it doesn't really matter--the synthetics will still wipe you all out eventually." takes the rug out from under Rannoch's feet.

One of the two things shouldn't have been in the game, as they exemplify themes that are mutually incompatible. It's a clear example of the right hand never talking to the left hand. The ending would have worked much better if unification couldn't happen with the geth and the quarians, and it would have worked best if the Geth obliterated the Quarians.

I know you've said before that you liked how Rannoch made you wonder if Destroy was really the best choice, and indeed it made the choice more difficult, but that's only one small part of the ending. The Catalyst's logic as a whole just doesn't fit in thematically with the rest of the game, nor really the series, either. (Note that the geth rebellion wasn't retroactively changed--Tali tells you many of the same things that Legion does in ME3 if you interrogate her enough on the Normandy in ME1).

Modifié par dreaming_raithe, 15 avril 2012 - 02:34 .

[Cecilia L]

Ridiculously diplomatic Shep would say "Maybe". Most would go straight to contradicting Antichrist and try to make him see why he is wrong.

[mokponobi]

The Angry One wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Anything is possible on a long enough timeline.

Which is why it's not a contradiction.

What the Catalyst is saying is that organic and synthetic life cannot coexist long term, and the inevitable conflict will result in synthetics winning and destroying organic life.

The Catalyst doesn't even give any indication for what would motivate synthetics to do this, so any suppositions that the Catalyst is saying that the Geth want to destroy the Quarians is just an assumption.


What the Geth-Quarian conflict shows is that, at least right now, the Catalyst's assertion may not actually be correct.  Shepard even acknowledges this doubt when he says "maybe" in response to the Catalyst stating that the peace won't last.  As a game player, I was certainly skeptical as well.  Especially given the Rannoch storyline.  It's why I ended up choosing destroy, because I wanted the galaxy to determine their own fate rather than have Reaper intervention come in and muck it all up every fifty thousand years.

The Catalyst is full of it. Forget the Quarians for the moment. The Geth spent the last 300 years restoring Rannoch's biosphere and making it support organic life again.
When you get there, there are trees on the ground and birds in the sky. Whether or not there was conflict, organic life was preserved, and the Geth were directly responsible for preserving it.

The Catalyst in fact has NO evidence for it's ridiculous assertions.
Even if synthetics and organics are destined to fight, it doesn't follow that synthetics will destroy organic life, this is a complete assumption that has never been proven because there has always been organic life before the Reapers existed. Shepard should not say "maybe". "Maybe" implies there's some way the Catalyst should be correct. Shepard would say "You're flat out wrong, and here's why.".

Edit: The only other example of a synthetic race we're ever given (EDI is not a race) are the Zha'till or whatever they're called.
Now, they were hostile to the Protheans (though knowing the Protheans they could've just been massive jerks to the synthetics), but they were also hybrids. Part of their bodies were still organic. Therefore, organic life is preserved there too. The Catalyst has literally had no reason for it's existence for the past 100,000 years, if not more.

Agreed, as I've said before, the whole logic of the catalyst is flawed because for it to be true that synthetics would wipe out all organic life without his intervention, noone would exist now. Since we exist, obviously synthetics never did this, he just "believes" they would.

I would have called him out...if i could.

[ahandsomeshark]

Delta_V2 wrote...

To be clear: it's not a direct contradiction in-universe, as the situation with the geth doesn't prove anything long term (nevermind the Catalyst's logic is based on an unfalsifiable claim and thus completely 100% worthless).

But it is a narrative contradiction. Bioware just spent how many hours showing us that synthetics are every bit as worthy of being called 'life' as organices, only to contradict themselves at the end. Contradicting a major theme of your story in the last five minutes is not a good idea.

[Delta_V2]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Anything is possible on a long enough timeline.

Which is why it's not a contradiction.

What the Catalyst is saying is that organic and synthetic life cannot coexist long term, and the inevitable conflict will result in synthetics winning and destroying organic life.

The Catalyst doesn't even give any indication for what would motivate synthetics to do this, so any suppositions that the Catalyst is saying that the Geth want to destroy the Quarians is just an assumption.


What the Geth-Quarian conflict shows is that, at least right now, the Catalyst's assertion may not actually be correct.  Shepard even acknowledges this doubt when he says "maybe" in response to the Catalyst stating that the peace won't last.  As a game player, I was certainly skeptical as well.  Especially given the Rannoch storyline.  It's why I ended up choosing destroy, because I wanted the galaxy to determine their own fate rather than have Reaper intervention come in and muck it all up every fifty thousand years.

No, it's not a direct in-universe contradiction.  However, it is a narrative contradiction.  The Geth-Quarian conflict (at least if resolved peacefully) showed that synthetics and organics were equally valid forms of life (in fitting with the game's overarching theme of unity despite differences).  The Catalyst directly contradicts this.  Why show us that peace is possible and then claim it's not?  Sure, from an in-universe perspective, the Catalyst might be right, but this just causes the narrative to lose focus.  If we were allowed to argue with  him it would be different.  As it is, we are essentially forced to accept his claims as an existential truth.

EDIT: @ahandsomeshark:   Forgot I already made this point earlier in the thread.

Modifié par Delta_V2, 15 avril 2012 - 02:45 .

[NormanRawn]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Anything is possible on a long enough timeline.

Which is why it's not a contradiction.

What the Catalyst is saying is that organic and synthetic life cannot coexist long term, and the inevitable conflict will result in synthetics winning and destroying organic life.

The Catalyst doesn't even give any indication for what would motivate synthetics to do this, so any suppositions that the Catalyst is saying that the Geth want to destroy the Quarians is just an assumption.


What the Geth-Quarian conflict shows is that, at least right now, the Catalyst's assertion may not actually be correct.  Shepard even acknowledges this doubt when he says "maybe" in response to the Catalyst stating that the peace won't last.  As a game player, I was certainly skeptical as well.  Especially given the Rannoch storyline.  It's why I ended up choosing destroy, because I wanted the galaxy to determine their own fate rather than have Reaper intervention come in and muck it all up every fifty thousand years.

The Catalyst is against what this current cycle is all about(the cycle we have connected with through 3 games),

Diversity of life united and working together for galactic benefit.

The only reason we have a chance against the Reapers in this Cycle, was because of the diversity of life working together. And synthetics races should be a part of that diversity, they have the right to exist as much as any Organic race. They should not be tossed aside.

[OchreJelly]

The Angry One wrote...

*Snip, and stuff abotu Zha'til*

Now, they were hostile to the Protheans (though knowing the Protheans they could've just been massive jerks to the synthetics), but they were also hybrids. Part of their bodies were still organic. Therefore, organic life is preserved there too. The Catalyst has literally had no reason for it's existence for the past 100,000 years, if not more.

Even better, the synthetic creations of the zha overthrew their creators and subjugated them, becoming the zha'til, and began attacking others in earnest because the Reapers showed up and helped them overtake the zha completely.

Besides actively working against its own goals, if the Catalyst presents no instances of proof while Shep has instances of, at the very least, evidence that the Catalyst's blanket statement is not 100% true, and at best proves it false without any sort of counter-examples.

So BioWare could whip some up for the EC if they liked, but as it stands it's an incredibly poor narrative jump we're expected to make when the Catalyst explains itself.

Modifié par OchreJelly, 15 avril 2012 - 02:52 .

[The Night Mammoth]

The Angry One wrote...

Edit: The only other example of a synthetic race we're ever given (EDI is not a race) are the Zha'till or whatever they're called.
Now, they were hostile to the Protheans (though knowing the Protheans they could've just been massive jerks to the synthetics), but they were also hybrids. Part of their bodies were still organic. Therefore, organic life is preserved there too. The Catalyst has literally had no reason for it's existence for the past 100,000 years, if not more.

To put icing on this delicious cake of narrative failure, I'm pretty sure the codex says the AI's that interfaced with the Zha's organic form were persuaded or subverted somehow, into enslaving their masters by, get this, the Reapers. 

Then the war the Protheans were fighting, and at the time winning, the Metacon war, was ultimately lost thanks to the Reaper's main invasion. In other words, the Protheans were on their way to ending the need for the cycle to restart before the Reapers interfered. 

Spread that over the tasty sponge that is the Geth, with their generally passive nature and want to take the Quarians back as friends, with a cherry on top that is EDI, an unshackled AI who could have easily vented the air inside the Normandy and used it to go on an organic killing rampage but chose not to over feelings of love, friendship and protectivness of her crew mates, and you have literally, the biggest fail of a narrative cake seen in what was once described as good story telling. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 15 avril 2012 - 02:58 .

[AtlasMickey]

sfam wrote...

Bottom line, it makes no sense to have to kill off the Geth and EDI with the Destroy the Reapers ending. The ONLY reason I can see that we have all this absurd side stuff including the star child and the re-opening of the most awesome closure of the organic-synthetic struggle is because they needed faux emotional impact to the "kill the reaper" ending, otherwise, close to 100% of everyone would have chosen that option (aside from the few who sided with Cerberus).

I was just thinking this today.

I've had a while to come to terms with my Synthesis ending and finally went back to try the other two and, yeah. this explanation seems most apt.

[Allan Schumacher]

Teltaur wrote...

But the issue with Destroy is that we're still forced to destroy the Geth and EDI, even if we disagree with the Catalyst's assertion. If it weren't for the fact that I'd have to kill the entirety of a group that I just brokered peace for (not even mentioning that I'd also kill the Quarians' chances of overcoming the war in a single lifetime), I'd choose it in a heartbeat.

To me that's what makes the choice interesting.

The ending comes along and tells us that that thematic element is
suddenly irrelevant, undermining one of the game's most powerful
moments. Rannoch is so powerful because the games as a whole up until
ME3 suggest that perhaps organic and synthetic life can't
get along, and we overcome all the hatred of the geth and all that to
create a truly hopeful, unified set of peoples. For the ending to come
along and say, "Well, it doesn't really matter--the synthetics will
still wipe you all out eventually." takes the rug out from under
Rannoch's feet.

I disagree that it makes the theme irrelevant, because people immediately recall the theme.  Given how intensely some people have spoken out against the ending because the Catalyst's assertion doesn't fly with what the Geth's intentions are, and how many people feel that the cost of destroy isn't worth it and are upset because they feel that it invalidates everything they did on Rannoch makes me wonder if the theme isn't actually amplified.

Rightly or wrongly, I think that the choices provided in the end exist to make people pause and think by challenging what they believe within the context of the game.

Agreed, as I've said before, the whole logic of the catalyst is flawed
because for it to be true that synthetics would wipe out all organic
life without his intervention, noone would exist now. Since we exist,
obviously synthetics never did this, he just "believes" they would.

I agree with this.  The Catalyst's statement cannot be proven or disproven as long as the Reapers continue to interfere.  Also part of why I chose Destroy.  Although you could argue that Control may prevent Reaper intervention as well.

I would have called him out...if i could.

Fair point.

[Delta_V2]

mokponobi wrote...


Agreed, as I've said before, the whole logic of the catalyst is flawed because for it to be true that synthetics would wipe out all organic life without his intervention, noone would exist now. Since we exist, obviously synthetics never did this, he just "believes" they would.

I would have called him out...if i could.

I mentioned this as an aside in an earlier post.  The Catalyst's entire reason for existance, his reasons for genocide, are all based on an unfalsifiable claim.  That is, that synthetics will inevitably wipe out all organic life.  He doesn't just claim that this may happen, but that this will happen at some point in the future with 100% certainty.  Since organic life exists at this moment, we can safely say that, up to this point, this has never happened.  If he has never actually seen this happen, there is no way he can prove that it will happen.

His entire logic is based on an unfalsifiable claim, and thus completely and utterly worthless.  Anything he says that stems from his claim that "synthetics will inevitably wipe out organic life" needs to be completely disregarded.

[The Night Mammoth]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Rightly or wrongly, I think that the choices provided in the end exist to make people pause and think by challenging what they believe within the context of the game.

Tried, and might I say: utterly failed it seems for many players. 

If they wanted challenging, they could have given one really important example of an organic hating AI that wants to kill every organic cell in the galaxy, or better yet, a couple of them, to balance out the good and bad sides of synthetic life, thus making the choice actually difficult. Do you side with the Geth and EDI, beings you've come to see as allies and a close friend and valued crew mate? Or do you agree with the Reapers, and try to prevent any of the things you've seen from happening again and possibly leading to more destruction and death than you can concieve? 

That would be a challenge. When I first played the game, I was actually sitting paused at that screen talking to a bunch of friends about it, and eventually decided to pick a color at random and head canon my own finale, because nothing in the last 20 minutes makes a bit of sense to me, like an eight year old child wrote the ending in isolation and the team just went with it. (No, that's not an intentional analogy to the lead writer whom a lot of people believe wrote the ending alone).

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 15 avril 2012 - 03:10 .

[Blind2Society]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I would have called him out...if i could.

Fair point.

The fact that we couldn't is probably the biggest reason why the ending sucks (given the fact that he's there and there is nothing we can do about it). At least for me.

[Allan Schumacher]

The Catalyst is against what this current cycle is all about(the cycle we have connected with through 3 games),

Diversity of life united and working together for galactic benefit.

I actually don't think the Catalyst is actually against the diversity of life.  He feels that, unchecked, the diversity of life is eventually going to be compromised.

The only reason we have a chance against the Reapers in this Cycle, was because of the diversity of life working together. And synthetics races should be a part of that diversity, they have the right to exist as much as any Organic race. They should not be tossed aside.

I agree.  So I choose destroy.  Note, I do this regardless of whether or not the Geth are destroyed, because while the loss of the Geth IS tragic, it doesn't preclude synthetic life from existing nor does it prevent synthetic and organic life from working in harmony.  It's a crap consequence from how the energy of the Crucible affects things.  What picking Destroy does is tell the Catalyst that I think he's full of crap and the Galaxy is better off without him meddling and influencing the other lifeforms.  So boo-urns to him.

How the Crucible affects things, however, is where things get interesting.  Higher EMS scores definitely result in a more precise blast.  Shepard doesn't have to die, and evidently EDI can also survive.

No, it's not a direct in-universe contradiction.  However, it is a narrative contradiction.  The Geth-Quarian conflict (at least if resolved peacefully) showed that synthetics and organics were equally valid forms of life (in fitting with the game's overarching theme of unity despite differences).  The Catalyst directly contradicts this.  Why show us that peace is possible and then claim it's not?  Sure, from an in-universe perspective, the Catalyst might be right, but this just causes the narrative to lose focus.  If we were allowed to argue with  him it would be different.  As it is, we are essentially forced to accept his claims as an existential truth.

From an in-universe perspective, the Catalyst might also be wrong.  I think it's entirely valid to feel that the Catalyst's perspective contradicts what you've experienced.  I felt the exact same way.  So I picked destroy and am letting the Galaxy prove him wrong.  I disagreed with TIM's perspective, as well as Saren's perspective, too.

[hippanda]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Anything is possible on a long enough timeline.

Which is why it's not a contradiction.

Contradiction or not, it's a meaningles argument. There are an infinite number of things that could potentially wipe out all organic life given a large enough timescale. What makes the synthetic vs. organic conflict special? Why focus the end of the game on that subject when it was already resolved earlier in the game? Why make the Reapers' prime directive so laughably stupid, gutting them as effective villains in the process?

[spartan5127]

hippanda wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Anything is possible on a long enough timeline.

Which is why it's not a contradiction.

Contradiction or not, it's a meaningles argument. There are an infinite number of things that could potentially wipe out all organic life given a large enough timescale. What makes the synthetic vs. organic conflict special? Why focus the end of the game on that subject when it was already resolved earlier in the game? Why make the Reapers' prime directive so laughably stupid, gutting them as effective villains in the process?

Agreed.  Maybe contradicting isn't the right word to describe the catalysts and games logic.  Idiotic would be more apt.

Like you said.  I can pretty much say ANYTHING and justify it with the statement that it will eventually happen.  "I killed that man becuase he was eventually going to kill another man."  While not exactly contradicting, it is stupid.  The main antagonist of the game deserved better.

Modifié par spartan5127, 15 avril 2012 - 03:19 .

[Omega Torsk]

YouHaveAProblem wrote...

 I think it's pretty obvious that they were writing som kind of epic conclusion like IT, or maybe something entirely different, but then ran out of time/budget. 

I want to believe this. I really want to believe this, but Bioware isn't giving me any reason to. Whether they're contractually obliged by the EA overlords to not admit they ran out of time or money, we don't know. All we know is that Bioware is deflecting our criticisms with the A-word and that they have a plan to give us closure.

Wouldn't it be nice if Bioware is actually planning on giving us the ending they envisioned come summer and they are simply not allowed to talk about it or the actual reasons for the current ending?

[dreaming_raithe]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

From an in-universe perspective, the Catalyst might also be wrong.  I think it's entirely valid to feel that the Catalyst's perspective contradicts what you've experienced.  I felt the exact same way.  So I picked destroy and am letting the Galaxy prove him wrong.  I disagreed with TIM's perspective, as well as Saren's perspective, too.

Honestly, that's another reason I think the ending fails, though. If you've paid attention to the "univty through diversity" theme of the games, you have to reject the Catalyst's logic, and the only close that comes even close to rejecting his logic is Destroy (barring the "fly the Reapers into the sun" headcanon, for Control, anyway). It means I didn't get an interesting choice at the end because I knew the Catalyst was full of it.

I thought the choice at the end of ME2 was far more interesting, and in the end it was a pretty minor choice. We could anticipate the consequences of that choice, and both choices were justifiable based on what we knew about the universe and how it relates to the choice we had to make. We can't relate the universe to the choices at the end of the game because the universe takes a 180 and we have a bunch of unclear, muddled statements from a new character that is very clearly painted as an unreliable narrator.

If the Catalyst is an unreliable narrator (and everything in the games seems to suggest that he is), we have no context in which to truly make a decision at the end of the game. It honestly would have worked better if the Catalyst weren't there at all and we got to the control panel and it gave us the same three options. Without the information that suddenly contradicts what we know about the universe, we can make an informed choice using what we have in fact learned over the course of the three games.

Instead, since the Catalyst is unreliable, and Shepard always tells people with poor justifications for doing wicked things to jump off a cliff, we really only get one choice. I didn't feel the heart-wrenching confusion I felt when I had to decide what to do with the Geth in Legion's ME2 mission. I didn't stare at my screen in shock (well, okay, I did, but for different reasons) like I had to when faced with the decision to tell Mordin about the genophage cure sabotage or like I did when Legion told me about uploading the Reaper code.

If the choice was supposed to be tough, they really dropped the ball.

[Delta_V2]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

From an in-universe perspective, the Catalyst might also be wrong.  I think it's entirely valid to feel that the Catalyst's perspective contradicts what you've experienced.  I felt the exact same way.  So I picked destroy and am letting the Galaxy prove him wrong.  I disagreed with TIM's perspective, as well as Saren's perspective, too.

Oh, I think he's wrong from an in-universe perspective too.  The problem is in how it's presented.  By not allowing us to challenge his claims, the game presents them more as facts that we are supposed to believe than as opinions or possibilities.  It would be different if we were allowed to argue with him.

The villain can have motives that are illogical or don't make sense.  Let's take an example from the Dark Knight: remember the ferry scene?  The Joker believed that, deep down, everyone was just like him, and he was trying to prove he was right.  But then the clock struck midnight, and the ferries didn't explode.  The Joker was wrong.  And Batman called him out on it.  The protagonist was allowed to challenge the flawed logic of the villain. 

In ME3, Shepard is basically forced to go along with what the Catalyst says.  Even Destroy is merely accepting an option presented by the villain with no chance to challenge the villain's claims.

[Tocquevillain]

Because they didn't. Go review what the Starchild said, and review that against what Legion said. They are two different things.

[Teltaur]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Teltaur wrote...

But the issue with Destroy is that we're still forced to destroy the Geth and EDI, even if we disagree with the Catalyst's assertion. If it weren't for the fact that I'd have to kill the entirety of a group that I just brokered peace for (not even mentioning that I'd also kill the Quarians' chances of overcoming the war in a single lifetime), I'd choose it in a heartbeat.

To me that's what makes the choice interesting.

Why? I mean, no matter what we're having to accept the Starchild's logic, even if we personally disagree with it. I, like you, think that the Geth and EDI are great proof that synthetics won't always kill organics and that the universe should function by its own right, but my only option to destroy the Reapers means that I must also accept the Catalyst as being right and have to destroy the Geth with them. If I truly disagreed with the Catalyst, which I do, then I would have no reason whatsoever to also kill the Geth, making Destroy a bad option for defying the Starchild's logic. So, why is it forced on the player?

Essentially, the inclusion of the destruction of the Geth is adding a completely superfluous downside to killing the Reapers and defying the Catalyst. Choosing Destroy should mean that you're willing to take the risk of synthetics destroying organics later down the line, but why does that transfer over to current genocide on the Geth? It's just stacking on bad outcomes to make the option less appealing, and you're still stuck agreeing with the Starchild about everything he says as fact, instead of actually defying him.

Modifié par Teltaur, 15 avril 2012 - 03:37 .