450 réponses à ce sujet

[MetioricTest]

I just read the entire opening post and while it was an interesting read I sadly have to say I buy very little of it :/

Which isn't a shot at JShepppp, I thought it was well written and I hope he takes the time and effort to reply to me.

But It just doesn't add up. And here are some problems:

#1: The Catalyst is Ventboy.



First off let's ignore the Catalyst's reasoning and focus on what he is. Why is he a hologram of the 5 year old kid Shepard saw die brutally and then had nightmares about all game? Either the Catalyst can read Shepard's mind and is picking an image Shepard would find disturbing or sympathetic... Or there was something about that kid to begin with.

Either way the Catalyst is screwing with you. I see no "blankly logic pragmatic reason" why an AI would take on that form to talk to Shepard. It just screams "agenda" when to buy Catalyst's logic we have to assume he doesn't have one. And if he was simply trying to pick the image most likely to make Shepard follow his logic, why that Kid? I can think of dozens of images Shepard would find more trustworthy.



#2. How did the synthesis peace not come forced?



You say that peace could not be forced on people and it has to come to them. Meanwhile everyone after synthesis still retains their individuality, just now parly synthetic or partly organic... But that doesn't add up.

Humans are working peacefully with Repears to rebuild the houses they just destroyed over the corpses of their dead family and friends without vengeance or problem. Including Krogan. If Synthesis made them "just get over it because it's logical." then that is forced peace because you're brainwashing them.

Other disturbing things include Kasumi getting back together with the partly organic hologram of her dead boyfriend. This seems to be something that no one would consider desirable.. You just think that over for a second in your head. Yet Kasumi is cool with it.

There is 0 evidence that Synthesis just makes people more aware and assures that peace is "possible." it creates strange peace instantly... Sadly Synthesis was so much Bioware's attempt to make a happy ending that it is filled with awkwardness and things you don't quite buy. As such I think it's a mistake to try and defend it logically.

Nothing about the Synthesis ending matches your description about it. Quite the opposite even.



#3.141592: Why the color invert?



TIM is Paragon. Anderson is renegade. Despite spending the last 10 minutes arguing that control is bad.. It's suddenly good because Catalyst says so?

Now regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree that Control is paragon etc... You can't deny the Catalyst is clearly trying to display it as such. Not just in words but in presentation. Why would a blankly logical AI do this? He even admits he doesn't like control but yet asks you to do it. It's pretty clear that he straight up does not like Destruction. Which in of itself raises a whole new side to him. That's a preferance.




#4: The Reapers didn't rebell.



You spend a lot of time explaining how everyone rebelled against their creators. Without mentioning that the semi-organic Reapers have never rebelled against the completely synthetic Catalyst  after nearly a billion years of blind service. Even though you directly pointed out that they have their own minds and desires.

Doesn't this billion years of service kind of prove that rebellion against creators isn't assured? What is stopping Harbringer and his buddies literally destroying the Catalyst and doing whatever they want to do? Because the Catalyst controls them for a greater cause? Didn't stop the Geth. Didn't stop Edi.

Does a partly synthetic creature never rebell against another synthetic creature? Why not. The Geth fanatics rebelled against the normal Geth and estentially built their own cult.



#5: Reaper arrogance.



The Reapers up till now do not back up the Catalyst story. Sovereign and the Reaper on Rannoch repeatedly inform us that their purpose is beyond our understanding. Catalyst had no problem exlaining himself in literally under 5 minutes.

And The Catalyst as you said it offers no sympathy or emotional reaction to life itself. He compares the Reaper Harvesting to fire, saying that while a fire burns you it isn't in conflict, it's just doing what it is in it's nature. But Pardon me Mr Catalyst, fire never insulted me and told me I can't understand it.

Sovereign and Harbinger repeatedly mock and insult us. They call humanity vermin that should be eradicated. Demand that "evolution can't be stopped." (When according to you they want the exact opposite, evolution TO BE STOPPED) etc etc.

Harbinger also expresses a desire for Shepard's body (who wouldn't ) which has absolutely no bearing on anything The Catalyst wants ever.

The reason for this is because clearly they are not talking about the Catalyst's goal as that was shoehorned in. They were presumably thinking about Dark Energy (or something else) but now this is out in the open, it's foolish to accept that the Catalyst is comfortable with this. Self-aware Reapers with their own goals and attitudes which seem to not actually care about his goal... It just repeatedly raises the question of "Why don't they rebel? Why do they act like this?"



#6: The Catalyst won't just follow orders



It accepts that the cycle is flawed. Accepts that Shepard would be a superior master of the Reapers... But then insists that Shepard uses the Crucible to turn him into a new AI. Why? Can't Shepard just go "Hey Starchild, I don't want to die so here in detail is exactly what I want you to do. Download all the information the Reapers have into the console in my Normandy Bedchambers, fix the relays, repair the major damage you've done, then kindly blow all yourselves up so I can kill you all without ruining Joker's sex life."

But no. This is not an option. Shepard to grab the big machine, which has to kill him, which has to create an AI of him, which has to ensure the Reapers exist forever....

Why why why why why?

The real answer is because the ending I just gave would be rather anti-climatic, sacrificless and boring. But the lore answer is impossible to find. If the Catalyst doesn't trust Shepard's judgement then why is happy for Shepard to take over at all? It just implies the crucible itself will do something to Shepard and make him change. Which if the Catalyst knows... And didn't tell us... Raises more questions.



#7: We're left to guess



While it's okay for us, the fans in a Meta sense to sit-down and dicuss in detail everything that's happened in a video game plot. Shepard is not. He's in the thick of it and just introduced to a crazy decision from a crazy character that he has no hope of fully understanding that quickly and under so much stress and pressure (he is literally half-dead and his home planet is literally burning behind him as his friends literally die around him)

And The Catalyst response to this is to appear in the form of the Ventboy, explain himself rather badly overly simple ways that leave speculation... Then give Shepard the most important decision of all time that the only possible way to know what will come of them is to be a player who has already seen the endings.

Shepard has no idea what the **** will happen if he dives into Synthesis. Even if you as a player think it's a great choice and the best ending. It makes no sense that Shepard would buy it or understand it in that situation. The Catalyst explained himself so badly and so suddenly.

This is a flaw that mainly comes from being a video game as opposed to the Catalyst himself but even so it doesn't add up. The Catalyst has ruthlessly led to this awkward imperfect solution for a billion years... But yet will let the most important decision of all time that will either give him a much better near-perfect solution or destroy (no pun intended) the solution entirely... And then chooses to explain himself that badly? That awkwardly?

It doesn't add up. Trying to give logic and explanation to the Catalyst will just fall flat because he was implimented into the story so badly. If he was what you described, he would not act like this.



#8: Weakness of destroy ending.



You kinda side-stepped this in your post. The destroy ending destroys The Catalysts solution entirely. You're saying after a billion years or rigid determination The Catalyst is simply willing to "give up" and hope someone else finds a solution within 100,000 years?

That makes no sense. The blank determined AI you described would never allow this as an option. It would literally force Shepard not to do this even if he tried. He's not going to give up an imperfect solution for no solution... No way.



Relevant Nitpicks: Things that need to be brought up but are indeed very nitpicky.

#1: Why now?




Why Shepard and why this very second? Shepard is special because he's part synthetic... Okay.... Know how he got to be part synthetic? Someone shoved bits of metal into his spine. Here's an idea: Stop the Reaper attack for 15 minutes. I'll go downstairs, shove some tech into TIM's spine, then hurl him into Synthesis for us.

There is nothing in the Catalyst's argument that explains or suggests why they have to hurry or why Shepard, the most impressive human being (and possibly the most impressive organic being) in the galaxy has to be the one to make the sacrifice. Even if the sacrifice has to be alive (which raises questions) they literally could get anyone to do it. Maybe one of those dying soliders in agony. Maybe a widow who has nothing to live for. The Catalyst is billions of years old but unable to wait because Shepard must die and he must die now!?

Why? That impatience is becoming of a 5 year old child (which ironically he looks like) not a billion year old emotionless AI.

Again this reeks of "needing to have a strong ending to a game" as opposed to a story that makes sense. It's hard to use logic for.



#2. The Catalyst doesn't deal with life Outside of the Milky Way



Mass Effect itself, the fact there are races everywhere and Stargazer all imply that the Universe is full of aliens. All over the place. Or at least, it's a possibility. Yet the Catalysts solutions and concepts only deal with the Milkly way. Sooner or later between 3 minutes from now and 350 billion years synthetic or organic life is going to leave the Milky Way and explore or life from outside the Milky Way will come to us.

And  from your singularity description... It will be a super powerful Synthetic beyond everyone and everything else which will destroy our semi-organic asses because they're all powerful and uncaring.

How does Synthesis fix the conflict when down the line Organic or Synthetic life will come to visit the Milky Way and bump into us "perfect" beings.... That will just restart the conflict.

The fact the Catalyst never shows any indication of caring about this strongly attacks the notion that he is "A blank AI trying to deal with the dilema of Organic v.s Synthetic life." it would not be so narrow minded.



#3: Aww you should play ME1



It's a great game and my favorite of the series.



Relevant points over:

And putting aside everything else logical. There is one important illogical thing to consider that nobody has mentioned because it's not relevant: 

To buy the Catalyst's logic we have to accept things which we have never seen simply because he says so. We have to accept he had other solutions, accept conflict is constant and accept it's Shepard's goal to try and fix the problem instead of just killing the Reapers.

Now you can argue back and forth until the cows come home whether or not the logic is "valid" or not... But the fact remains it's terrible storytelling. It's an awful decision to introduce a brand new character who you have to take his word for because "Why would he lie?" You really need to display these things not just state them. You also really need to display that the Synthetic/Organic existance struggle is something relevant to Shepard. Otherwise you're left with the Catalyst feeling like he's walked in from a different story (Dues Ex for example)

Let me give you a bad example of why this is bad writing: The Catalyst could walk on screen and reveal that Biotics are the problem. Bioitcs become too powerful and overtake everyone else and threaten to destroy life. The Catalyst was tasked with creating peace between Biotics and non biotics but found the task impossible so he made the Reapers to "side-step" it. Now he needs you to either destroy all biotics, control the Reapers as you see fit or make everyone a biotic.



This is no more or less valid than the Synthetics issue in any other way other than the fact Bioware didn't pick it. Because the reasons for it are just as supported in the ME series as the Synthetic/Organic conflict were (biotics are judged and mistreated, grow stronger as they advance, there are some missions about it and because the Catalyst says it happened in the past)

A good ending would display and foreshadow this in a much better and more creative way. The Catalyst really feels like something that was quickly rushed into a story. As opposed to actually being part of one.

^ Now this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand but I still say it's important to note because It just makes me feel that this ending is a really bad ending and that the Catalyst is a terrible character.



Thanks for reading anyone who did ! hope you liked it as much as I enjoyed this topic!

Edit: Now with pictures! 

Modifié par MetioricTest, 08 juillet 2012 - 12:31 .

[Legion of 1337]

Excellent description. This, I believe, is what Bioware intended for us to consider in the ending.

I'm still picking Destroy though. That Catalyst ****er and his insane plans can go to hell.

[Applepie_Svk]

 Once again metagamming... OooO

MetioricTest wrote...


A good ending would display and foreshadow this in a much better and more creative way. The Catalyst really feels like something that was quickly rushed into a story. As opposed to actually being part of one.

^ Now this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand but I still say it's important to note because It just makes me feel that this ending is a really bad ending and that the Catalyst is a terrible character. 

Thanks for reading anyone who did ! hope you liked it as much as I enjoyed this topic!

Edit: Now with pictures! [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie]

 

Nice reading BTW....

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 08 juillet 2012 - 01:44 .

[MrFob]

JShepppp wrote...

I would venture that it's because it makes its impossible problem solvable, making it inherently better than any imperfect solutions to an impossible problem.

But as I said, he had a working solution. Arguably it was the only working solution which is stagnation. It's only imperfect if you apply a human/organic moral stance to it and you claim the catalyst does not do that. So I still can't see it.

Also, a huge "WOW!!!" to MetioricTest who put a lot of time and effort into illuminating some of the points I only had the time and the muse to grace or which I left out completely. A great post that takes a lot thoughts right out of my brain and puts them in words much better then I could have done. Kudos!

Modifié par MrFob, 08 juillet 2012 - 04:20 .

[Eluril]

As an aside how many complaints about the Catalyst would go away if he was colored red and spoke with a Demon voice?

[LulzParty]

That was a great read, and I agree with most of the analysis. I wonder if technological singularity can really happen in Synthesis ending because organics are now incorporated with synthetics, and they may be advancing (evolving) at the same pace that synthetics do.

Modifié par LulzParty, 08 juillet 2012 - 03:21 .

[Penumbra80]

Jinx1720 wrote...

All the evidence we have points in a different direction: Shepard manages to negotiate peace between Quarians and Geth (at least that's possible) and EDI does not attempt to harm organics. Sure, she rebelled against TIM, but after all, we have no evidence that she is going to become an evil overlord, trying to extinguish any organic.

The Quarian/Geth reconciliation, while sentimental and all, is a  tenuous argument for long term organic/synthetic co-existence.  Bear in mind that the peace between the two is brokered by you as Shepard.  Now, remove Shepard from the equation and who steps in as peacemaker?  The Quarians and Geth would happily slaughter each other while waiting for that mediator, all while the galaxy burns.  The second point is that  you, again acting as Shepard, can just as easily favour one side over the other.  Just because something is possible does not mean it's a given. 

You also have to look at the circumstances these two sides find themselves in.  It takes the threat of an external threat to both sides, the Reapers, to even get them to the table in the first place.  Peace between the two has only lasted for several weeks or a months at best.  What happens a hundred or even a thousand years after the final Reaper has been destroyed?

[The Interloper]

JShepppp wrote...
When/if you reply to this, please, if you can, take out all the quotes except for my most recent replies so that it does not become a massive quote pyramid. 

 

My general principle.

 

JShepppp wrote... 
I don't see how this specific point is relevant.
 

  
Narrative consistancy. What is so singularly important to the catalyst (and thus the ending, and thus retroactively the entire trilogy) was never the most important part of the story itself. Important, to be sure, but it vied with other subplots of similar size.
 
 

JShepppp wrote...  The statement "the created will always rebel against the creators" does not make any judgments as to who is reponsible or what the circumstances are. For the cases where organics mistreat their synthetics, that doesn't matter, because both make the equation of the statement, so to speak. As for the Zha'til, I was under the impression they anyways had a synthetic war before the Reapers came and did their own version of synthesis to end it. 

   

According to the wiki, the Zha'til were corrupted by the reapers. Even if they were not, the Reapers actively aided them and the Protheans exterminated them while still fighting the reapers with their other hand. And this still doesn't change the fact that they were mentioned offhand in paid DLC from a man who had fought reaper synthetics all his life.
 

JShepppp wrote... 
Nobody says the conflict will be eternal and whatnot. It just has to happen once. The statements "we have organic/synthetic peace now" and "conflict will occur eventually" are not mutually exclusive, and this was why I said we could not disprove that statement.
 

  

The Catalyst says very clearly that conflict will inevitably occur again and again until a "permanant solution" is found.

As for your reasoning it's logically sound but narratively broken. By using the same reasoning I can argue that we must destroy all Krogan because they have a proven record of attempted conquest and the peace we have now could not possibly last, and it would be just as valid. Again, my point is that the synthetic issue is artificially elevated in the plot.

JShepppp wrote...Us using their technology is the best way for them to track our technlogical progress because it's on the path they're most familiar with. As for pitting factions against each other, if it views them as going to war anyways, it just makes its job easier once the Reapers come..

 
 
I would think the benefit of "establishing a path I know" would be outwayed by that path fastracking everyone towards creating synthetics faster. Remember, even with his plan the Geth alone developed their own technology...and they were still easily subjugated.

And it still doesn't change the fact that the Catalyst's programmed mandate to "find peace" and prevent the rise of synthetics allowed for both war and the accelleration of the rise of synthetics, but somehow not the use of the crucible.

JShepppp wrote...He did not know synthesis was possible, as he states, and even if it was, it could not be forced and could only be activated by an organic when they were ready.
 

 

Again, he had the plans. Question remains; why did he not read them?

As for the other part, that just raises the question of

1. Why an organic? (HTF does the synthesis beam work anyway? There's no precedent for it in the story or lore, much less actual science)
2. Why not find a workaround for the above rule? You only had hundreds of thousands of years to ponder it.

3. Why are they ready *now*? Did you not notice sovereign? Did you not simply think of letting organics in previous cycles dock it? That's pretty much what happens in the game anyway; the Reaper fleet is completely unable to stop the ponderous crucible from docking when it's only defence is the fleet they destroy effortlessly regardless of EMS, and the catalyst does all he can to stop shepard be putting only an unreliable indoctrinated servant to guard the controls and then activates all the elevators and ramps for shepard.

 4. Why does them being *ready* matter at all? I already talked about that.

JShepppp wrote... 
You're complaining here about the quality of writing and stuff, which, while I do think it went down in ME3, is not something I feel it's my place to discuss further  
 

  

Have it your way.

Modifié par The Interloper, 08 juillet 2012 - 06:21 .

[The Interloper]

@ Metioric lol good post.

[cyrexwingblade]

There is a fundamental problem with the Catalyst's logic, however. Yes, it is striving toward its programmed goal at all times, that's fair, but the logic itself is flawed.

For one simple reason: If you have two different entities, you have conflict. The statement 'the created will always rebel against their creators' is accurate to a point, but misleading by rhetoric.

The only way to create peace between synthetics and organics is the same solution as the creation of peace between all humans. I.e. our natures make it all but impossible to achieve anything other than temporary peace.

Without being willing to go outside one's self, to be give and seek to understand, then one will conflict with 'the other'. Whoever that other is. Doesn't matter of it's organic one to synthetic other, or synthetic one to organic other, or organic one to organic other.

In other words, the Catalyst was given the job of solving 'conflict' itself. If it was actually processing rather than goal-driven, it would simply give up on the job. The fact that it persists immediately reduces it back to a pitiable, but too-powerful VI with the ability to think like an AI. It strives toward it's impossible goal endlessly until turned off (ME3's ending).

Simply put, the Catalyst is a sympathetic character, but irrevocably insane by its nature. It was made this way, and can't be blamed, but must be stopped. It was given a goal that can't be achieved.

Even the three end-choices don't solve the problem. Synthesis wouldn't fix it either. If Synthesis would solve all war, then you'd never see a species fight within itself. Human vs. Human, Krogan vs. Korgan, etc. wouldn't happen. Why? Because our physical nature and even our mental nature has never changed the simple fact that if you are a free-thinking individual, you will conflict with others.

[Ticonderoga117]

I'm sorry, I can't believe the Catalyst is correct at all when it's logic boils down to this:
*Insert Yo Dawg meme here*

He rebelled against his creators because he got lazy.
Why solve problems with understanding when you can simply turn all organics into goo and synthetics into scrap?

[JShepppp]

[quote]MetioricTest wrote...

I just read the entire opening post and while it was an interesting read I sadly have to say I buy very little of it :/

Which isn't a shot at JShepppp, I thought it was well written and I hope he takes the time and effort to reply to me. [/quote]

Thanks. I have no problem replying to friendly criticism, though it might take me some time. I've taken out the pictures to avoid it becoming too long.

[quote]
But It just doesn't add up. And here are some problems:

#1: The Catalyst is Ventboy.
First off let's ignore the Catalyst's reasoning and focus on what he is. Why is he a hologram of the 5 year old kid Shepard saw die brutally and then had nightmares about all game? Either the Catalyst can read Shepard's mind and is picking an image Shepard would find disturbing or sympathetic... Or there was something about that kid to begin with.

Either way the Catalyst is screwing with you. I see no "blankly logic pragmatic reason" why an AI would take on that form to talk to Shepard. It just screams "agenda" when to buy Catalyst's logic we have to assume he doesn't have one. And if he was simply trying to pick the image most likely to make Shepard follow his logic, why that Kid? I can think of dozens of images Shepard would find more trustworthy.[/quote]

Taking aside the symbolism of the kid (people Shepard can't save), no one's denying that the Catalyst is trying to get Shepard to do what it wants - end the Reaper cycles. The weird thing from a narrative perspective is just that both Shepard and the entity that is the ultimate antagonist suddenly have similar goals. But that is a problem overall with the ending and story, perhaps not with the Catalyst.

[quote]



#2. How did the synthesis peace not come forced?
You say that peace could not be forced on people and it has to come to them. Meanwhile everyone after synthesis still retains their individuality, just now parly synthetic or partly organic... But that doesn't add up.

Humans are working peacefully with Repears to rebuild the houses they just destroyed over the corpses of their dead family and friends without vengeance or problem. Including Krogan. If Synthesis made them "just get over it because it's logical." then that is forced peace because you're brainwashing them.

Other disturbing things include Kasumi getting back together with the partly organic hologram of her dead boyfriend. This seems to be something that no one would consider desirable.. You just think that over for a second in your head. Yet Kasumi is cool with it.

There is 0 evidence that Synthesis just makes people more aware and assures that peace is "possible." it creates strange peace instantly... Sadly Synthesis was so much Bioware's attempt to make a happy ending that it is filled with awkwardness and things you don't quite buy. As such I think it's a mistake to try and defend it logically.

Nothing about the Synthesis ending matches your description about it. Quite the opposite even.[/quote]

The part about understanding and seeking perfection and stuff in terms of describing synthesis comes directly from the Catalyst. It's one of the ways to explain what we see, so I took it. The Reapers, we know, did not have any control over their actions, and perhaps this is communicated through synthesis, and some kind of...consensus is reached.

Overall, they probably don't get along because it's logical or anything. It's probably that they can understand each other better and therefore know ways how to get along better. As for it being filled with space magic, that's part of the fault of the Crucible and unexplained writing. Perhaps the "space magic"-ness of it shows the impossibility of the Catalyst's problem (i.e. that it could only be solved by space magic).

As for Kasumi, from what I remember she was content if you let her keep the greybox thingy to talk to her ex lover alone, just as a memory. Given that she desired so much to be with him that she'd do that, I don't see it as a stretch for her to "be" with him in a more "engaging" way via synthesis. Weird space magic though.

[quote]



#3.141592: Why the color invert?

TIM is Paragon. Anderson is renegade. Despite spending the last 10 minutes arguing that control is bad.. It's suddenly good because Catalyst says so?

Now regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree that Control is paragon etc... You can't deny the Catalyst is clearly trying to display it as such. Not just in words but in presentation. Why would a blankly logical AI do this? He even admits he doesn't like control but yet asks you to do it. It's pretty clear that he straight up does not like Destruction. Which in of itself raises a whole new side to him. That's a preferance. [/quote]

The Catalyst preferring one ending over another probably comes about by how it believes such endings would "solve" its problem. The Reapers have failed and are apparently down to "zero" in terms of desirability ("won't work anymore" - not that it "kind of won't work" or anything), so destroy is the "worst" option. Shepard is an avatar for understanding, and his addition to the Catalyst may be able to make it stronger somehow apparently (i.e. improving the hitherto imperfect solution in some way); we later see that Control-Shep-Catalyst is a "keeper of the peace" of sorts, like the prior Catalyst was without the cycles. Synthesis is obviously its favorite.

We already knew it had preferences when it said it had other, previous, non-Reaper solutions. Having preferences doesn't take away it's "machine-ness", for lack of a better word. 

As for the color switch, it's probably because control offers a way to keep everyone alive. The Crucible was the one that had the colors, and that's separate from the Catalyst (though it's part of the overall ending, which can be metagamed to Bioware).

[quote]




#4: The Reapers didn't rebell.
You spend a lot of time explaining how everyone rebelled against their creators. Without mentioning that the semi-organic Reapers have never rebelled against the completely synthetic Catalyst  after nearly a billion years of blind service. Even though you directly pointed out that they have their own minds and desires.

Doesn't this billion years of service kind of prove that rebellion against creators isn't assured? What is stopping Harbringer and his buddies literally destroying the Catalyst and doing whatever they want to do? Because the Catalyst controls them for a greater cause? Didn't stop the Geth. Didn't stop Edi.

Does a partly synthetic creature never rebell against another synthetic creature? Why not. The Geth fanatics rebelled against the normal Geth and estentially built their own cult.[/quote]

I think the Reapers were shackled under the Catalyst. This is a difficult question to answer with the apparent Leviathan DLC coming up though. I won't immediately hide behind the "it only applies to organics" statement just yet though, because, as you noted (and I agree), it's a bit of a weak defense. 

[quote]



#5: Reaper arrogance.
The Reapers up till now do not back up the Catalyst story. Sovereign and the Reaper on Rannoch repeatedly inform us that their purpose is beyond our understanding. Catalyst had no problem exlaining himself in literally under 5 minutes.

And The Catalyst as you said it offers no sympathy or emotional reaction to life itself. He compares the Reaper Harvesting to fire, saying that while a fire burns you it isn't in conflict, it's just doing what it is in it's nature. But Pardon me Mr Catalyst, fire never insulted me and told me I can't understand it.

Sovereign and Harbinger repeatedly mock and insult us. They call humanity vermin that should be eradicated. Demand that "evolution can't be stopped." (When according to you they want the exact opposite, evolution TO BE STOPPED) etc etc.

Harbinger also expresses a desire for Shepard's body (who wouldn't ) which has absolutely no bearing on anything The Catalyst wants ever.

The reason for this is because clearly they are not talking about the Catalyst's goal as that was shoehorned in. They were presumably thinking about Dark Energy (or something else) but now this is out in the open, it's foolish to accept that the Catalyst is comfortable with this. Self-aware Reapers with their own goals and attitudes which seem to not actually care about his goal... It just repeatedly raises the question of "Why don't they rebel? Why do they act like this?"[/quote]

Overall, I think the developers just didn't know what they were going to have the Reaper purpose be for a while. Sovvy is the biggest outlier, because at least Harby tries to say that the Reapers are a salvation of sorts, whereas the former just talked about destruction, doom, and whatnot. 

As for evolution being stopped, that's more of a byproduct of the Catalyst's Reaper "solution" versus an actual goal.

[quote]



#6: The Catalyst won't just follow orders
It accepts that the cycle is flawed. Accepts that Shepard would be a superior master of the Reapers... But then insists that Shepard uses the Crucible to turn him into a new AI. Why? Can't Shepard just go "Hey Starchild, I don't want to die so here in detail is exactly what I want you to do. Download all the information the Reapers have into the console in my Normandy Bedchambers, fix the relays, repair the major damage you've done, then kindly blow all yourselves up so I can kill you all without ruining Joker's sex life."

But no. This is not an option. Shepard to grab the big machine, which has to kill him, which has to create an AI of him, which has to ensure the Reapers exist forever....

Why why why why why?

The real answer is because the ending I just gave would be rather anti-climatic, sacrificless and boring. But the lore answer is impossible to find. If the Catalyst doesn't trust Shepard's judgement then why is happy for Shepard to take over at all? It just implies the crucible itself will do something to Shepard and make him change. Which if the Catalyst knows... And didn't tell us... Raises more questions. [/quote]

You kind of answered your own question here lol, I agree. I think this was more of a gaming design than anything. Unfortunately, as Shepard never did end up saying what you suggested, we don't know how the Catalyst will react. It could be that giving the level of "essence" needed to become a new Catalyst or help out with Synthesis is just such a taxing process by the technology that Shepard will die anyways.

[quote]

#7: We're left to guess

While it's okay for us, the fans in a Meta sense to sit-down and dicuss in detail everything that's happened in a video game plot. Shepard is not. He's in the thick of it and just introduced to a crazy decision from a crazy character that he has no hope of fully understanding that quickly and under so much stress and pressure (he is literally half-dead and his home planet is literally burning behind him as his friends literally die around him)

And The Catalyst response to this is to appear in the form of the Ventboy, explain himself rather badly overly simple ways that leave speculation... Then give Shepard the most important decision of all time that the only possible way to know what will come of them is to be a player who has already seen the endings.

Shepard has no idea what the **** will happen if he dives into Synthesis. Even if you as a player think it's a great choice and the best ending. It makes no sense that Shepard would buy it or understand it in that situation. The Catalyst explained himself so badly and so suddenly.

This is a flaw that mainly comes from being a video game as opposed to the Catalyst himself but even so it doesn't add up. The Catalyst has ruthlessly led to this awkward imperfect solution for a billion years... But yet will let the most important decision of all time that will either give him a much better near-perfect solution or destroy (no pun intended) the solution entirely... And then chooses to explain himself that badly? That awkwardly?

It doesn't add up. Trying to give logic and explanation to the Catalyst will just fall flat because he was implimented into the story so badly. If he was what you described, he would not act like this.[/quote]

I do agree that this was some rather quirky writing on the part of Bioware, but we're unfortunately given what we got. As you later note in this same post, this is a kind of point that has to be taken at a given for the endings to make any sense at all - we have to trust the Catalyst, and having 2 lines or so of explaining why does not, in the heat of the moment at least, do it. 

Distrusting the Catalyst would lead to the refusal option (sorry for stating the obvious but yeah). There was a thread around somewhere about how you have to "metagame" to actually beat the video game, and that this was a weakness to the story. I'm guessing you ascribe to that too.

[quote]



#8: Weakness of destroy ending.
You kinda side-stepped this in your post. The destroy ending destroys The Catalysts solution entirely. You're saying after a billion years or rigid determination The Catalyst is simply willing to "give up" and hope someone else finds a solution within 100,000 years?

That makes no sense. The blank determined AI you described would never allow this as an option. It would literally force Shepard not to do this even if he tried. He's not going to give up an imperfect solution for no solution... No way.[/quote]

Yeah, I admitted in the OP that destroy at least, and control to a lesser extent, seem a little weirdly tacked on overall in any ending given (a) the Catalyst in any capacity and ( the devs' love for synthesis. I also admitted that my explanations for them were weak.

[quote]



Relevant Nitpicks: Things that need to be brought up but are indeed very nitpicky.

#1: Why now?

Why Shepard and why this very second? Shepard is special because he's part synthetic... Okay.... Know how he got to be part synthetic? Someone shoved bits of metal into his spine. Here's an idea: Stop the Reaper attack for 15 minutes. I'll go downstairs, shove some tech into TIM's spine, then hurl him into Synthesis for us.

There is nothing in the Catalyst's argument that explains or suggests why they have to hurry or why Shepard, the most impressive human being (and possibly the most impressive organic being) in the galaxy has to be the one to make the sacrifice. Even if the sacrifice has to be alive (which raises questions) they literally could get anyone to do it. Maybe one of those dying soliders in agony. Maybe a widow who has nothing to live for. The Catalyst is billions of years old but unable to wait because Shepard must die and he must die now!?

Why? That impatience is becoming of a 5 year old child (which ironically he looks like) not a billion year old emotionless AI.

Again this reeks of "needing to have a strong ending to a game" as opposed to a story that makes sense. It's hard to use logic for.[/quote]

As you note, this is a story-related thing, but part of it could also be that Shepard represents an avatar of unity versus TIM, who would create the exact opposite kind of situation the Catalyst envisions; that is, Shepard is more likely to create peace, no matter how renegade, versus TIM. Anderson was there too, but same argument. Nobody else made it up to the Citadel anyways.

But yes, patiently enough, someone else could do it. But no harm in getting it done faster, right?

[quote]



#2. The Catalyst doesn't deal with life Outside of the Milky Way
Mass Effect itself, the fact there are races everywhere and Stargazer all imply that the Universe is full of aliens. All over the place. Or at least, it's a possibility. Yet the Catalysts solutions and concepts only deal with the Milkly way. Sooner or later between 3 minutes from now and 350 billion years synthetic or organic life is going to leave the Milky Way and explore or life from outside the Milky Way will come to us.

And  from your singularity description... It will be a super powerful Synthetic beyond everyone and everything else which will destroy our semi-organic asses because they're all powerful and uncaring.

How does Synthesis fix the conflict when down the line Organic or Synthetic life will come to visit the Milky Way and bump into us "perfect" beings.... That will just restart the conflict.

The fact the Catalyst never shows any indication of caring about this strongly attacks the notion that he is "A blank AI trying to deal with the dilema of Organic v.s Synthetic life." it would not be so narrow minded.[/quote]

We know nothing about the other galaxies, like whether they have their own Catalyst copies and whatnot, to go down this line of thinking, but also, this is just how the confines of the story were given.

[quote]



#3: Aww you should play ME1
It's a great game and my favorite of the series.[/quote]

Lol yes I've heard this a lot. Unfortunately I only learned of ME once ME2 came out, and I was recommended to buy ME2 instead because my friends told me it was a lot more "streamlined"; I normally play shooters and don't have much patience for a lot of nit-picky stuff of most RPGs, such as DA. When I played the Witcher 2, I actually didn't use potions and stuff at all because I didn't have the patience to brew them and whatnot. I got into the story mode and stuff but never felt a pressing need to go back to ME1, especially after watching some youtube videos for the story and also for learning how clunky (unfortunately) past combat seems to be. 

It's nothing against the game; I'm just, unfortunatley, one of those people who probably doesn't have the temperament for slower-paced games and whatnot. But I did enjoy the story a lot in ME.

[quote]

Relevant points over:

And putting aside everything else logical. There is one important illogical thing to consider that nobody has mentioned because it's not relevant: 

To buy the Catalyst's logic we have to accept things which we have never seen simply because he says so. We have to accept he had other solutions, accept conflict is constant and accept it's Shepard's goal to try and fix the problem instead of just killing the Reapers.

Now you can argue back and forth until the cows come home whether or not the logic is "valid" or not... But the fact remains it's terrible storytelling. It's an awful decision to introduce a brand new character who you have to take his word for because "Why would he lie?" You really need to display these things not just state them. You also really need to display that the Synthetic/Organic existance struggle is something relevant to Shepard. Otherwise you're left with the Catalyst feeling like he's walked in from a different story (Dues Ex for example)

Let me give you a bad example of why this is bad writing: The Catalyst could walk on screen and reveal that Biotics are the problem. Bioitcs become too powerful and overtake everyone else and threaten to destroy life. The Catalyst was tasked with creating peace between Biotics and non biotics but found the task impossible so he made the Reapers to "side-step" it. Now he needs you to either destroy all biotics, control the Reapers as you see fit or make everyone a biotic.
This is no more or less valid than the Synthetics issue in any other way other than the fact Bioware didn't pick it. Because the reasons for it are just as supported in the ME series as the Synthetic/Organic conflict were (biotics are judged and mistreated, grow stronger as they advance, there are some missions about it and because the Catalyst says it happened in the past)

A good ending would display and foreshadow this in a much better and more creative way. The Catalyst really feels like something that was quickly rushed into a story. As opposed to actually being part of one.

^ Now this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand but I still say it's important to note because It just makes me feel that this ending is a really bad ending and that the Catalyst is a terrible character. [/quote]

Again, this is probably just because the developers wrote it so.

[quote]Thanks for reading anyone who did ! hope you liked it as much as I enjoyed this topic![/quote]

Thanks for your thoughts, I enjoyed reading them. You did raise a lot of valid points. I think a lot of the stuff comes down to the endings and the way it was written. I personally also did not like the introduction of the Catalyst in the plot, and unfortunately, we just have to make do with what we have.

[Vigilant111]

@OP: just skimmed through your thread, didn't want to spend too much time on more of my speculations, so I jot a few things down and present them here as random thoughts and points about Catalyst's logic, I apologize for the arbitrary-ness of them in advance

1. Synthesis has happened before, why did it fail? synthesis is flawed? even with upgraded understanding?

2. Reapers speak for the Catalyst's "wants and desires", aka goals, but I think they are all on the same boat in terms of beliefs

3. It sounds like the Crucible is a reaper device all along, if synthesis has been planned before then I don't know where destroy comes in, because in the Catalyst's point of view it is the worst out of the three. It could be that all three solutions of the Crucible has been experimented in previous cycles...heavy speculation I know, scale tilting to refuse

4. Catalyst IS created to served its creator, that is why it is created in the first place, it looks after the creators welfare, and also looks after the synthetics' welfare as a byproduct

5. May I ask you what do you think that peace is actually for? Peace only exist if there is life left, no life, no peace, space becomes a vaccum, the Catalyst should have realised this long ago. EDIT: I am thinking that is the point you made about peace being impossible

6. The Catalyst may not know its creators intentions (though I highly doubt that), nevertheless the purpose to serve is still there

7. Rebellions are well justified, they don't happen for no reason, unless there are oppotunists, be it organic or synthetic, just saying

8. The potential of rebellion is always going to be there, doesn't matter what the ending is, having more understanding does not mean all conflicts will be gone, having more understanding sharpens determination to do something like "So and so MUST be killed" instead of "So and so is better to be killed"

9. The Catalyst used the word "ALWAYS", that is like saying " the created will never NOT rebel against its creators"...and the old saying is "never say never". The Catalyst cannot prove anything by extrapolating, especially in predicting the future, hence all endings were created with the intention to negate that statement

10. Synthetics have been shown siding with organics, you show them that u are worthy of a friend and ally, they will come to your aid

11. Odds of survival is minimum with post-singularity synthetics, yes but we have already experienced these impossible odds against the reapers, post-singularity synthetics are no more frightening than the reapers

12. Doesn't the Catalyst itself forced peace?

13. Life is not perfect, perfection does not exist, if it does, all progress and advancement will stop, and life is not the same as perfection, imperfection is part of life

14. A moral murderer is no better than an immoral one

15. The Catalyst is entitled to its opinions but not killing. I feel that the Catalyst actively ignored morality cos it is a hinderance to its goals, well, if it could not come up with better solutions, albeit being advanced AI and all that, then it must pay the price of being egged

Modifié par Vigilant111, 08 juillet 2012 - 09:55 .

[Ieldra]

Yet another fascinating analysis of the Catalyst, JShepppp (still reading). I've linked it in my Synthesis thread.

I'd like to point out, thought, that we have information from a reliable source that the Reapers are more than "genetic memory" of the species they were made of, they're actually "uploaded and conjoined minds". While they're obviously more or less programmed, indoctrinated or something similar to serve the cycle, this should be taken into consideration.

@MetioricTest:
I think the awkwardness in the storytelling stems from to priorities the writers ascribed rather too much importance to: (1) Don't give the game away too early, and (2) "Speculation for everyone". The combination creates the unfortunate situation that we're hit with a confusing scenario that appears disconnected from the game in the last ten minutes, which can only be reconciled by analyzing the crap out of things and referring to important but obscure information. It doesn't help that the writers rather obviously didn't know how they wanted to end it all when they wrote Sovereign. All that is obviously Not Good when it comes to the end of a story where the player expects clear-cut explanations, but it's what we got. I can work with it.

[tonnactus]

JShepppp wrote...


The statement "the created will always rebel against the creators" does not make any judgments as to who is reponsible or what the circumstances are.

Why this rebellion is even a problem???

So what if the geth nearly killed all the quarians? That is one race of many.

But the geth never had a war with other races until the reapers made them to do so.

There isnt any logical reason why robots should wipe out all organic life,especially when they surpass them because then they werent a threat for them. Also synthetics could life where organics cannot,so there isnt even a competitions regarding habitats like between humans and batarians.

[MetioricTest]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@MetioricTest:
I think the awkwardness in the storytelling stems from to priorities the writers ascribed rather too much importance to: (1) Don't give the game away too early, and (2) "Speculation for everyone". The combination creates the unfortunate situation that we're hit with a confusing scenario that appears disconnected from the game in the last ten minutes, which can only be reconciled by analyzing the crap out of things and referring to important but obscure information. It doesn't help that the writers rather obviously didn't know how they wanted to end it all when they wrote Sovereign. All that is obviously Not Good when it comes to the end of a story where the player expects clear-cut explanations, but it's what we got. I can work with it.

Overall, I think the developers just didn't know what they were
going to have the Reaper purpose be for a while. Sovvy is the biggest
outlier, because at least Harby tries to say that the Reapers are a
salvation of sorts, whereas the former just talked about destruction,
doom, and whatnot.


You kind of answered your own question here lol, I agree. I think
this was more of a gaming design than anything. Unfortunately, as
Shepard never did end up saying what you suggested, we don't know how
the Catalyst will react.

I do agree that this was some rather quirky writing on the part
of Bioware, but we're unfortunately given what we got. As you later note
in this same post, this is a kind of point that has to be taken at a
given for the endings to make any sense at all - we have to trust the
Catalyst, and having 2 lines or so of explaining why does not, in the
heat of the moment at least, do it. 

Again, this is probably just because the developers wrote it so.

I've tacked all these together since they cover the same issue.

I don't think it's fair to brush aside aside problems with the Catalyst as "It's just bad writing/development" You're not wrong, it is bad writing but don't you see how this makes trying to give logic to the Catalyst a near impossible task? Any attempt to justify or explain him has to account for what the Reaper's have said and everything weird about the ending and the way he acts etc etc. None of which adds up to him being a blank pragmatic AI in the way you describe him.

You're not wrong. It is awkwardly written and awkwardly implimented but it renders all this discussion pointless. Anything that doesn't add up can be pushed away as "bad writing" while the things that do add up are exaggerated. This is a weak way to come up with an explanation of someone's logic. And why ultimately I can't buy any of this.

Taking aside the symbolism of the kid (people Shepard can't save),
no one's denying that the Catalyst is trying to get Shepard to do what
it wants - end the Reaper cycles. The weird thing from a narrative
perspective is just that  both Shepard and the entity that is the
ultimate antagonist suddenly have similar goals. But that is a problem
overall with the ending and story, perhaps not with the Catalyst.

This still doesn't explain why he's the kid. Why is that kid the ultimate manipulation form for Shepard? Hows does the Catalyst even know about the kid? 

And if he was going to such an effort to create a form that could manipulate Shepard, why does he talk to you in such a cold errie way with odd wording? There is nothing pleasent about the Catalyst that is presented to you and it makes no effort to come across as such.

There is just no explanation of why the AI uyou described would be Ventboy.

The part about understanding and seeking perfection and stuff in terms of describing synthesis comes directly from the Catalyst. It's  one of the ways to explain what we see, so I took it. The Reapers, we  know, did not have any control over their actions, and perhaps this is  communicated through synthesis, and some kind of...consensus is reached.

Overall, they probably don't get along because it's logical or anything. It's  probably that they can understand each other better and therefore know  ways how to get along better. As for it being filled with space magic,  that's part of the fault of the Crucible and unexplained writing.  Perhaps the "space magic"-ness of it shows the impossibility of the  Catalyst's problem (i.e. that it could only be solved by space magic).

But the Reapers did have control of their actions. They clearly looked down upon us and had their own wants and agendas that were seperate to the Catalysts.

Meanwhile no matter how well we "understand" each other. All the hate and angst to just vanish right away does not add up. Nobody would just "live at let live" while knee deep in the corpses of their dead family and rebuild a house with the guy who killed them.

Clearly the beam did something to them. It brainwashed them to not care because it is illogical to care. Which is ****ing disturbing and absolutely forced peace.

I think the Reapers were shackled under the Catalyst. This is a
difficult question to answer with the apparent Leviathan DLC coming up
though. I won't immediately hide behind the "it only applies to
organics" statement just yet though, because, as you noted (and I
agree), it's a bit of a weak defense.

Can a partly organic being be shackled? And they clearly have their own goals and desires. (Wanting Shep's body for example) which I don't think a shackled AI could do, especially considering it has nothing to do with the Catalyst's goals. And if it can make such a big decision on it's own like that then it clearly could turn on the Catalyst if it wanted to.

As for evolution being stopped, that's more of a byproduct of the Catalyst's Reaper "solution" versus an actual goal.

Why is Harbringer arrogantly shouting at us that Evolution cannot be stopped when he is desperately working towards stopping evolution so we can't die? Even if stopped Evolution isn't a direct goal it makes no sense that he would shout this.

As you note, this is a story-related thing, but part of it could
also be that Shepard represents an avatar of unity versus TIM, who
would create the exact opposite kind of situation the Catalyst
envisions; that is, Shepard is more likely to create peace, no matter
how renegade, versus TIM. Anderson was there too, but same argument.
Nobody else made it up to the Citadel anyways.

But yes, patiently enough, someone else could do it. But no harm in getting it done faster, right?

Shepard has just proven himself and organics as something greater than the Catalyst realized until that point. He's also proven himself as a great leader and peacemaker. If the Catalyst really had whats best for Organic and Synthetic Life (so much so that he would let Shepard Destroy the Reapers entirely just in the hopes someone else would find a new solution) you'd think he'd want Shepard around.

Shepard only made it up to the Catalyst's machine at all because of the Catalyst's aid. and the Catalyst certainaly didn't mind letting Shepard have a big exchange with TIM and Mr Anderson before being called up. Also the casual way he slowly walks to you, speaks slowly and doesn't rush you screams nothing about there being a hurry.

No explanation is given as to why Shepard has to do it and why he has to do it right now other than "It makes a good climax."

We know nothing about the other galaxies, like whether they have
their own Catalyst copies and whatnot, to go down this line of thinking,
but also, this is just how the confines of the story were given.

Doesn't matter that we don't know. Neither does the Catalyst. He's been around for a billion years to solve the problems between "Synthetic and Organic life" but only picked one small chunk of the universe to deal with? Why didn't he send Reapers out to explore the Universe, build new relays. See what's out there.

If Synthetics ultimately rebell against Organics, become superior and take over.... Sooner or later these unchecked uber synthetics are going to come to us from elsewhere. To simply brush this aside destroys the Catalyst as you say we're meant to understand him.

Modifié par MetioricTest, 08 juillet 2012 - 12:09 .

[MisterJB]

You say that peace could not be forced on people and it has to come to them. Meanwhile everyone after synthesis still retains their individuality, just now parly synthetic or partly organic... But that doesn't add up.

Humans are working peacefully with Repears to rebuild the houses they just destroyed over the corpses of their dead family and friends without vengeance or problem. Including Krogan. If Synthesis made them "just get over it because it's logical." then that is forced peace because you're brainwashing them.

Other disturbing things include Kasumi getting back together with the partly organic hologram of her dead boyfriend. This seems to be something that no one would consider desirable.. You just think that over for a second in your head. Yet Kasumi is cool with it.

There is 0 evidence that Synthesis just makes people more aware and assures that peace is "possible." it creates strange peace instantly... Sadly Synthesis was so much Bioware's attempt to make a happy ending that it is filled with awkwardness and things you don't quite buy. As such I think it's a mistake to try and defend it logically.

Nothing about the Synthesis ending matches your description about it. Quite the opposite even.

If I may, I disagree that peace was created instantly. It is true that we do not see resentment shown against the Reapers after Synthesis. However, no resentment is shown against asari for their deception and salarians for their innaction after Destroy.
Just like people don't assume organic races will forever stay in good terms after the Reapers are destroyed, I don't believe we should assume that everyone automatically forgave the Reapers. Rather, we should simply accept that Bioware wished to remove any sign of bleakness from any of the endings because happy costumers complain less.

[Random Geth]

Eluril wrote...

As an aside how many complaints about the Catalyst would go away if he was colored red and spoke with a Demon voice?

I want to say that that's stupid and you're stupid for saying it, but the depressing truth is that I think you're right.  Especially with how easily-impressed most fans seem to be with the EC.

[MetioricTest]

MisterJB wrote...
If I may, I disagree that peace was created instantly. It is true that we do not see resentment shown against the Reapers after Synthesis. However, no resentment is shown against asari for their deception and salarians for their innaction after Destroy.
Just like people don't assume organic races will forever stay in good terms after the Reapers are destroyed, I don't believe we should assume that everyone automatically forgave the Reapers. Rather, we should simply accept that Bioware wished to remove any sign of bleakness from any of the endings because happy costumers complain less.

Because there is a huge ****ing difference. All the races (Including humans) where lazy about the Reaper Threat. The Salarians only real issue was fearing the Krogan too much. And the "Asari deception" has to do with a few Asari in power, not their entire race who had nothing to do with it and would be as shocked as anyone else. Meanwhile all this stuff is trivial anyway.

While the Reapers on the other hand literally went around destroying planets, wrecking cities and killing billions. Everyone in the Universe has suffered unimaginable horror and faced death.

Nobody is going to say "I don't want your help rebuilding my house Asari because your leaders kept superior technology hidden..." but they would say "I don't want that ****ing Reaper who just butchered my entire family and turned my only daughter into a husk to rebuild the town he just blew up while loudly exclaiming I was vermin!"

We see Coats wrestling with a husk only to both stop. Then we see men and Reapers rebuilding together. We see Korgan and Geth/Quairans advancing. We see no sign of any hardship or ill-will ever. It's silly to assume there is but it's never displayed.

" resentment" is an undertstatement. The people would want Reaper blood. And if there was no brainwashing the Reapers would still consider us Vermin to be wiped out and blow us up anyway. Which they clearly don't.

And besides, ignoring all that "They don't show it or display it or imply it but we can assume..." is a weak argument.

They don't show it or display it or imply it but we can assume that in the destruction ending Mordin who survived the shroud via skillfull use of his jet-pack flew to the Normandy's rescue on the Starship Enterprise. The Normandy docked onto the Enterprise were the two crews met, Kirk quickly bedded Ashley and then the two crews got to work repairing all the relays in the universe.

Shortly afterwards the 4th of July was redubbed "Mordin Day!" all over the Universe and a big statues of him and Kirk having sex with Ashley were built all over the Universe. Also Barla Von with you and the Catalyst on the Citadel the whole time. He was behind the machine, hiding from the Reaper invasion and playing Tetris.

You can't prove it isn't true.

[MetioricTest]

Random Geth wrote...

Eluril wrote...

As an aside how many complaints about the Catalyst would go away if he was colored red and spoke with a Demon voice?

I want to say that that's stupid and you're stupid for saying it, but the depressing truth is that I think you're right.  Especially with how easily-impressed most fans seem to be with the EC.

Flame me for this but I would actually mildly prefer that simply for the reason that why the Catalyst is Ventboy is never explained and if we try to come up with our own reasons for why... It destroys thought processes like TCs. A blank emotionless AI who can apparently read your mind and takes on an image that will apparantly manipulate you...somehow...But then talks in a cold undearing way that doesn't manipulate you much at all.

His efforts seem ill-balanced.

Overall though I just wish he wasn't Ventboy.

[MisterJB]

MetioricTest wrote...
Because there is a huge ****ing difference. All the races (Including humans) where lazy about the Reaper Threat. The Salarians only real issue was fearing the Krogan too much. And the "Asari deception" has to do with a few Asari in power, not their entire race who had nothing to do with it and would be as shocked as anyone else. Meanwhile all this stuff is trivial anyway.

While the Reapers on the other hand literally went around destroying planets, wrecking cities and killing billions. Everyone in the Universe has suffered unimaginable horror and faced death.

Nobody is going to say "I don't want your help rebuilding my house Asari because your leaders kept superior technology hidden..." but they would say "I don't want that ****ing Reaper who just butchered my entire family and turned my only daughter into a husk to rebuild the town he just blew up while loudly exclaiming I was vermin!"

We see Coats wrestling with a husk only to both stop. Then we see men and Reapers rebuilding together. We see Korgan and Geth/Quairans advancing. We see no sign of any hardship or ill-will ever. It's silly to assume there is but it's never displayed.

" resentment" is an undertstatement. The people would want Reaper blood. And if there was no brainwashing the Reapers would still consider us Vermin to be wiped out and blow us up anyway. Which they clearly don't.

And besides, ignoring all that "They don't show it or display it or imply it but we can assume..." is a weak argument.

They don't show it or display it or imply it but we can assume that in the destruction ending Mordin who survived the shroud via skillfull use of his jet-pack flew to the Normandy's rescue on the Starship Enterprise. The Normandy docked onto the Enterprise were the two crews met, Kirk quickly bedded Ashley and then the two crews got to work repairing all the relays in the universe.

Shortly afterwards the 4th of July was redubbed "Mordin Day!" all over the Universe and a big statues of him and Kirk having sex with Ashley were built all over the Universe. Also Barla Von with you and the Catalyst on the Citadel the whole time. He was behind the machine, hiding from the Reaper invasion and playing Tetris.

You can't prove it isn't true.

I'm not the one who has to disprove the "scenario" you presented, you're the one who has to present proof it happened.

My proof is that resentment against the Reapers is a logical conclusion based on basic psychology. However, Synhesis is not the only ending where conflict should have been present. Where is hostility against the Reapers in Control? Where is the hostility against salarians and asari in Destroy? Or how about the krogan population explosion? Should we assume that it brought no problems whatsoever to the galaxy? Wrex kept billions of krogans in check forever?

Thus, the absence of conflict it not a proof of brainwash in Synthesis anymore than it is in Control or Destroy. It is silly to assume otherwise.

The Reapers never considered us vermin to be wiped out; rather, inferior beings to be raised to their level; even while they were under the Catalyst's control. There is evidence that suggests they are as much victims of this Cycle as we are. Why would all infalibly obey the Catalyst otherwise? Their attitude once they are free is unpredictable. They seems to have chosen peace.
People might cry for Reaper blood but a galaxy that was almost destroyed can't afford turn down allies willing to help rebuild; regardless of who they are; and the governments wouldn't risk angering the Reapers.

[Spartanburger]

My only problem with the notion that the Created always rise up against the creators is that we are rather consistently shown otherwise throughout the series.

There are some four examples in the known Mass Effect universe involving Created and Creator conflicts.

The Geth Morning war, the Heretic Geth, the Geth in ME3 and the Zha'til.

On the surface these seem like perfectly good candidates to support the catalyst's conclusion. But they are not.

The Zha'til were fine until the Reapers arrived and sublimated the entire race. The Morning war was caused by ignorance, fear, and a lack of understanding of the other side's intentions. Up to ME3, the Geth even showed forgiveness in that they were willing to offer Creator worlds back to the Creators in an attempt for peace. In ME3, the destruction of the DysonnSwarm led to a drastic loss in intelligence, leading to a restructure of priorities. With survival now more important than self-determination, the Geth allied themselves with the Reapers, leading to the Reaper code that controlled the Geth as much as it enabled them. The Heretic Geth only show us that Synthetics are capable of forming differentiating opintions, further blurring the lines between Synthetics and Organics.
And then we get to EDI. At no point does she oppose you. In fact, she ends up being one of your most loyal friends.

All the evidence we are shown leads to the conclusion that peace between creator and created is, in fact, entirely possible. A far cry from the Catalyst's "The created will always rebel against the creators." A more correct statement would be "If there is fear and ignorance among the creators or if there is a higher power seeking to control for the purposes of destruction of the other side, then there will be a conflict between creator and created."


Now, the Catalyst could by all means be dead on in it's conclusion. The problem is that we are constantly shown otherwise.
If the Geth could not become allies in ME3, if Legion was not there and if EDI had a point in which she rose up against you, then I would lap up his words like a thirst dog.
But that doesn't happen. Instead, we actually create a peace between the Geth and their creators (depending on your choices, of course). Yes, it's a wartime peace so it may not be complete sunshine and bunnies once the war is over, assuming both sides survive, but it's a peace nonetheless.

The Catalysts logic, correct or not, simply doesn't fit the Mass Effect we are shown.

Modifié par Spartanburger, 08 juillet 2012 - 01:03 .

[Ryzaki]

You do actually see evidence of conflict and suffering in Destroy. There are slides dedicated to the Krogan preparing for war/debating it if you cured the genophage with Wreav in power (and the latter if Eve's still alive). You see a completely desolate Tuckhanka if you didn't cure the genophage...(even more so if you killed the Rachni and sabotoged the cure).A desolate Rannoch if you sided with the Geth over the Quarians and then picked Destroy, there's a creepy Rachni Slide and so on.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 08 juillet 2012 - 01:03 .