ArchDuck Wrote...
I guess its the difference of trusting the writer (ie: a narrator) vs. trusting a character written by the writer.
The
catalyst, as currently presented, is either a liar or delusional. There
is at least three examples where it can either not be right or has
proven to be wrong. Destroy doesn't neccesarily kill Shepard (and
possibly synthetics as some people have reported EDI in the Normandy
cutscene), Evolution doesn't have a final stage and another one is the
lie about this solving the problem of organics and synthetics. Thats
even ignoring the 'created will always rebel' stuff.
Just to
explain what I mean about the synthetic vs. organic; what is stopping
the organic/synthetic hybrids from making more pure synthetics and/or
pure organics? The synthesis ending does not actually stop the reason
that the reapers say they are doing this for. After all, pure synthetics
and pure organics can be made in the future and eventually pure organic
life will evolve again.
They may have meant the best, and maybe
the catalyst was supposed to be 100% trustworthy, but they did a
miserable job of showing that. It is not unexpected as some of the
catalyst's statements are less then convincing but then again he does
only have 14 lines of dialogue. Hopefully with the Extended Cut they
will explain more (more dialogue, more questions) so that we as players
and our avatar can be better informed as to what these choices really
mean and how they will affect the galaxy. Maybe we will get lucky and
they will make them a bit ethically sound too.
A brief note about what you mentioned in the second paragraph, it's also important to note, at least I think, that it was the Crucible that added the 3 options. If EMS is low the Catalyst not only states his refusal to make the choices he is offering Shepard but says in the previous line of dialogue that it's more chance than Shepard deserves. With a higher EMS he says he can't make the choices he is offering Shepard but that Shepard has more hope than he knows.
As for the last paragraph am in agreement there, except maybe for the last sentence, a game doesn't have to provide ethical endings but I'm glad though not surprised the vast majority of players want one.
I don't think I can actually recall anyone wishing to choose an unethical ending, which in itself shows (at least to me) where some of the ire over the endings is coming from.
Kajan451 makes another good point as well as one I've seen others make as well, the former being that human beings have tinkered not only with plant but animal life for thousands of years, the latter being that it can't possibly know everything, same goes for the consequences of anything so drastic.
ghostbusters101 wrote...
Cypher_CS wrote...
There is no "assumption" about Destroy.
It is stated plain and simple. Period.
No
there really are. Check with the responses from a BW moderator named
Allen. Depending on EMS not all synthetics are destroyed. None of these
options are clear. No one knows the future. You have to pick making some
assumptions. There are assumptions in Red. Star Child may not be
correct in his statement that AIs will always rebel and that organics
and synthetics cannot find peace.
You may not agree and that is okay. The game was designed to allow different choices.
Unfortunately (from our point of view) the waters of logic have been pretty muddied by this, Because EMS can have, even if minor changes, an effect on the endings it's even harder for anyone to pick out clues, or easier, depending on your perspective. There's a lot going on and simply not enough marrow in the bone to warrant anyone showing the teeth over.
Another point I like about ghostbusters post was also mentioned by at least
xefiroEA when they both said words of the effect:
xefiroEA wrote...
This all assumes you buy into the Catalyst's motivation. He doesn't need to be lying to be wrong.
Both mention this in the last couple of pages, am sorry I didn't look further to see if anyone else has mentioned it as well.
Retour en haut
