3 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

This is 100% fact, shown within the game when the head Reaper itself not only promotes synthesis as the best thing ever, but admits that it tried it before.

No this isn't about the morality or lack thereof of synthesis, there are enough topics about that.
Here I ask.... if we are to believe that the Crucible was designed by some unknown organic race and improved upon in the following eons... why does it have an option for synthesis?

Not only is it what the Reapers want. But think about this. Really think about this. The people who designed/added to the Crucible wouldn't be thinking "We need to merge with synthetics for greater understanding/final evolution of life/blah blah blah!". They'd be thinking "Oh my god those giant metal cuttlefish are going to kill us, we need to build something to stop them."
I really have to wonder what kind of mentality would see giant metal killbots and think "You know what would be a good idea? Merging our bodies with them!".

[Allan Schumacher]

Destroy: Sure the Catalyst and reapers die... but you achieve THEIR GOAL by destroying synthetics.

Synthesis: What the catalyst wanted, it does even SAY SO IN DIALOGUE.

The Catalyst states that choosing destroy will result in the cycle starting again without any sort of restriction. Using the Catalyst's words, their goal has been about the preservation of organic life.

Even if the destroy ending destroys all currently existing synthetics, if we're already taking the Catalyst's words as evidence, then we can definitively conclude that choosing destroy does not accomplish, in any way, the purpose of the Reapers. It's decidedly not what the Catalyst wanted, even excluding any sort of self preservation.

Nothing is stopping synthetic life from being created again. The Catalyst states this is actually inevitable. Whether or not they're doomed to fight organics is up to the future to prove the Catalyst wrong.


My $0.02

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 05 juillet 2012 - 08:12 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I probably shouldn't get too involved, but just one more response won't hurt right?

wantedman dan wrote...

Which was proven to be completely false by their willingness to destroy it, only moments before. If the true intention was to preserve organic life, would the Catalyst have allowed Harbinger to eradicate those running down to the beam?

Of course not.

Of course the Catalyst would.  Any threat to achieving its objective would be dealt with.  The loss of a few lives is inconsequential to it.  You're thinking on far too much of a microlevel.  To have the goal of preserving organics does NOT require them to preserve every single organic lifeform.

If your goal is to stop more loss of life in a war, and some belligerent people with violent opposition towards that goal come at you and you end up killing them, it doesn't undermine your overall goal.

Preservation of organics by not having synthetics destroy them.

All organics are not being killed.  Your point is invalid.  No one, not even the Catalyst, has stated that the goal is to preserve 100% of all organic life forms, even the ones that are belligerently resisting through violent means and present a threat to achieving the overall objective.  The fact that the Catalyst is killing some organic (and synthetic in the case of the Geth) life doesn't undermine the overall objective.

And appealing to the probability that they will do so as a definite circumstance is wrong.

I agree.  It's why I picked Destroy.  The fact that I could reconcile the Geth and Quarians was all the proof I needed that the Catalyst's assertions were false.

[Allan Schumacher]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

You seem to be the first BioWare employee who remotely likes Destroy, Allan. It's a nice change of pace.

I was a fan even with the original endings. 

Sucked to kill the Geth (though it was less certain in the original ending), but ultimately freeing the galaxy from Reaper influence is what my Shep wanted to do.