450 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

I did specifically mention Wrex. He has good intentions but a krogan population explosion would still lead to conflict which is never shown.
All Paragon Endings are utopian in nature, not just Synthesis.

Modifié par MisterJB, 08 juillet 2012 - 01:07 .

[MetioricTest]

MisterJB wrote...

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

What are you talking about? It happened in the endings. You're asking us to pretend things we didn't see happened, ignore what we did see and use that as evidence.

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?

As I just said there wouldn't be any major hostility towards Salarians and Asari. Why would there be? You've got Asari and Turians and humans fighting side by side to stop the Reapers.

And as for Krogans they're focusing on rebuilding for now. If you didn't cure them, their land is desolate. If you did and Wrex is dead, they're still warhungry, if you did and Wrex is alive they're improving.

These are all logical conclusions following what just happened. Standing side by side with a Reaper is not

The Reapers never considered us vermin to be wiped out;

Direct in game dialogue states the complete opposite.

“You are bacteria.
“You are vermin.”
“They are bacteria.”
“They are vermin.”
You will know pain, Shepard.”
"you exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it."
"Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything."
"You cannot escape your doom"

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.

Yes it can. I certainly would. To imply otherwise is to imply we've lost part of our minds. An irrational part maybe but that's still brainwashing.

It's insane to wave your hand and say "Sure there's still conflict but we don't see it because everyone everywhere got over it." planets destroyed, billions dead, everyone in agony. They just "got over it"?... And this isn't brainwashing?

and Reapers just stopped being dicks because...?

Modifié par MetioricTest, 08 juillet 2012 - 01:26 .

[MisterJB]

MetioricTest wrote...
What are you talking about? It happened in the endings. You're asking us to pretend things we didn't see happened, ignore what we did see and use that as evidence.

What I am saying is that just because we don't see racism in any of the endings, that doesn't mean racist people have stopped existing.

As I just said there wouldn't be any major hostility towards Salarians and Asari. Why would there be? You've got Asari and Turians and humans fighting side by side to stop the Reapers.

And as for Krogans they're focusing on rebuilding for now. Once the

And after America and the URSS fought side by side to defeat Germany, they started a Cold War that almost ended the world in nuclear fire.

Direct in game dialogue states the complete opposite.
and Reapers just stopped being dicks because...?

You ignored parts of my post to suit your view.
The Reapers viewed themselves as our superiors. However, they also attempted to raise us to their level in a bid to save us. Couple this with evidence that suggests the Reapers have no choice other than obey the Catalyst's purposes, and it's entirely possible that, once free of its control, they wouldn't choose to continue the Harvest. Especially if the chances of organics and synthetics destroying each other have been reduced.

Yes it can. I certainly would. To imply otherwise is to imply we've lost part of our minds. An irrational part maybe but that's still brainwashing.

It's insane to wave your hand and say "Sure there's still conflict but we don't see it because everyone everywhere got over it." planets destroyed, billions dead, everyone in agony. They just "got over it"?... And this isn't brainwashing?

Governments don't have the luxury of acting based on irrational emotions. We joined the gallactic community after the FCW and our need of help wasn't as great. People will protest and maybe form Anti-Reaper groups but that's only to be expected. And it might be mitigated if some bother to hear the Reaper side of the story.

"Sure, there is conflict but we don't see it because Bioware received tons of complaints how hopeless the original endings were and they wanted the EC to be as hopeful as possible."

[Ieldra]

Ryzaki wrote...
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.

You see different slides in Synthesis depending on the genophage decision and the quarian/geth situation as well. I haven't tried them all, but you only get the "galactic peace" slide if you cured the genophage, and if you got the geth/quarian co-existence slide with one side dead, I'm sure someone would've mentioned it by now.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 juillet 2012 - 01:58 .

[MetioricTest]

What I am saying is that just because we don't see racism in any of
the endings, that doesn't mean racist people have stopped existing.

Apart from the fact the endings strongly imply it does to ludicrous degrees.

And after America and the URSS fought side by side to defeat
Germany, they started a Cold War that almost ended the world in nuclear
fire.

Which has nothing to do with the Reapers'

You ignored parts of my post to suit your view.
The Reapers
viewed themselves as our superiors. However, they also attempted to
raise us to their level in a bid to save us. Couple this with evidence
that suggests the Reapers have no choice other than obey the Catalyst's
purposes, and it's entirely possible that, once free of its control,
they wouldn't choose to continue the Harvest. Especially if the chances
of organics and synthetics destroying each other have been reduced.

No it's not. It is utterly unreasonable to ignore all the dialogue in the game, ignore everything that's displayed and assume the complete opposite. Why would the Reaper's personality change? In fact all the evidence indicates they are already disobeying the Catalyst in ways that don't benefit us at all (taking Shepard's body for example)

What possible reason is there to assume they or us would change other than brainwashing? We have to just discard everything all three games ever say ever and create our own unsupported fanfiction. And if we're doing that let's make it more interesting.

Governments don't
have the luxury of acting based on irrational emotions.

You don't watch much news do you :/

Yes they certainly do. In fact most of the problems of Mass Effect were cased by the council irrationally rejecting and denying the Reapers out of fear.

We also don't need the Reapers to rebuild. Sure they could help but we don't need them.

We joined the
gallactic community after the FCW and our need of help wasn't as great.
People will protest and maybe form Anti-Reaper groups but that's only to
be expected. And it might be mitigated if some bother to hear the
Reaper side of the story.

lol "anti Reaper groups" the entire galaxy would be an anti-reaper group. They have literally turned every planet other than Palaven into ruins and killed billions. Everybody in the universe has suffered under them. This is not like anything else comparable in history. It's not as simple as prejudice or war reparations.

They literally obliterated society, literally destroyed almost every government agency, literally have killed billions, litterally turned our loved ones into monsters and freaks and literally have been indoctrinating us to be their slaves that kill each other. Meanwhile they call us Vermin to be erradicated and state that our planets will become their laboratories.

Now the green beam hits we forgive all that because our dead Government says so apparently. The reapers no longer think we're Vermin, give up on their laboratories/experiments and decide our planets looked nice before and we all work together to repair it.

The man with a missing leg and the husk of his brother stand side by side proudly to rebuild the apartment block were his entire family were butchered by a Reaper who called them pitiful vermin as he blasted.

And this isn't brainwashing!


No Sir I don't like it.

"Sure, there is conflict but we don't
see it because Bioware received tons of complaints how hopeless the
original endings were and they wanted the EC to be as hopeful as
possible."

I'll repeat what I said earlier. Saying the ending is bad is no defense. Doesn't matter if you like it or not you can't claim things happen that are never implied or displayed just because you want them to. That's just fanfiction.

[Ryzaki]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
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.

You see different slides in Synthesis depending on the genophage decision and the quarian/geth situation as well. I haven't tried them all, but you only get the "galactic peace" slide if you cured the genophage, and if you got the geth/quarian co-existence slide with one side dead, I'm sure someone would've mentioned it by now.

Not sure according to this: There are no gethless slides for Synthesis.

And all the negative slides are relegated only to Destroy and Control.

[Ryzaki]

MisterJB wrote...

I did specifically mention Wrex. He has good intentions but a krogan population explosion would still lead to conflict which is never shown.
All Paragon Endings are utopian in nature, not just Synthesis.

Except it's not. It's the paragon option to side with the Geth and if you pick Destroy you clearly see a desolate Rannoch. Saving the Rachni ends up with some...odd slide of them on Tuckanka? Whatever the hell they are.

And nope. Both Control and Destroy show some possible negative consequences.

[Eluril]

MetioricTest wrote...

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.

So you believe the mere presence of reapers can cause people to become indoctrinated but the ultimate Reaper consciousness does not have the ability to read your mind and at least subtly manipulate you (I'm not an IT proponent at all, but it does make sense with the lore). Alternate appearances of the Catalyst I've heard have all been no better than what we were given, the only possibility being the Virmire sacrifice but I feel THAT would need a specific explanation in-game more than the Child.

A simple way to foreshadow the Catalyst would've been to reveal right away that it was an AI program but lead the player to believe the Prothean VI was the Catalyst. Then have it reveal that the Citadel contains an AI. This would get the player thinking about what was coming without it just popping in at the end.

And yes it basically can all be explained as Bioware not wanting to give anything away until the last possible second.

Modifié par Eluril, 08 juillet 2012 - 03:39 .

[Therefore_I_Am]

Well heaven forbid Shep is pointed out that HIS reasoning is flawed, especially as a Paragon! He goes through Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 fighting the Reapers, attempting to destroy them, fighting the Illusive Man... and winds up Controlling the reapers anyway. Why? Because shepard realizes that he was wrong in some aspects, that even though TIM was a tyrannical ****, it was possible that Shep could control the reapers with his own virtuous principles. TIM's plan was doomed to fail since he was indoctrinated in ME3.
Now with Shepard being the Catalyst, and with all of the civilizations living under the watchful eye of the now-benevolent reapers, there will be a billion years of peace and prosperity .

Modifié par Therefore_I_Am, 08 juillet 2012 - 03:27 .

[Legion of 1337]

I agree with the logic of the thread.

However, I refuse to go along with the Catalyst's insane Synthesis plan. I will not force such a drastic change on the Galaxy without anyone giving consent to do so, and turn the place into some sort of monotonous utopia with little to no diversity.

[Eluril]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

I agree with the logic of the thread.

However, I refuse to go along with the Catalyst's insane Synthesis plan. I will not force such a drastic change on the Galaxy without anyone giving consent to do so, and turn the place into some sort of monotonous utopia with little to no diversity.

I laugh at someone who says this with a Geth Consensus based profile picture. There's no evidence at all that synthesis is monotonous, nor is there any evidence that there is no diversity. In fact as I've stated before EDI is MORE of an individual after synthesis than before.

[Priss Blackburne]

I can't take the chance of trusting the catalyst. even if he might be telling the Truth. The fact is the reapers used Synthesis to control Saren and Control to control the Illusive man. They both had good intentions Saren wanted to save all organic life, and the illusive man wanted to save humanity.  They both fell for the Reaper trap.

Why would I choose options I know where used by the reapers to get the people I fought against on their side.

Suddenly at the end because the Catalyst AI embodiment of the reapers tells me this, I'm to forget everything before and accept my fate. That's not my Shepard.

Modifié par Priss Blackburne, 08 juillet 2012 - 03:50 .

[Reorte]

Eluril wrote...

I laugh at someone who says this with a Geth Consensus based profile picture. There's no evidence at all that synthesis is monotonous, nor is there any evidence that there is no diversity. In fact as I've stated before EDI is MORE of an individual after synthesis than before.

Diversity will lesson. Anything that stops evolution stops new species from forming (unless created artificially) but it won't stop existing ones from becoming extinct.

[Grimwick]

I love how the large majority of your premises' are based on speculation and unfounded assumptions.

Also how you appear to ignore what an appeal to probability is and the importance of the initial premise as a part of a logical solution.

Nice effort though, shame it didn't quite work...

[memorysquid]

MetioricTest wrote...

Yes it can. I certainly would. To imply otherwise is to imply we've lost part of our minds. An irrational part maybe but that's still brainwashing.

It's insane to wave your hand and say "Sure there's still conflict but we don't see it because everyone everywhere got over it." planets destroyed, billions dead, everyone in agony. They just "got over it"?... And this isn't brainwashing?

and Reapers just stopped being dicks because...?

The German civilians didn't tell the allies in West Germany to take off and bring their Marshall Plan with them.  Why?  Both synthesis and control leave Reapers that are completely different in mindset.  People don't seem to object in principle to prison works gangs, which don't go that far, do they?  I just think your psychological analysis ignores actual fact.

[memorysquid]

Priss Blackburne wrote...

I can't take the chance of trusting the catalyst. even if he might be telling the Truth. The fact is the reapers used Synthesis to control Saren and Control to control the Illusive man. They both had good intentions Saren wanted to save all organic life, and the illusive man wanted to save humanity.  They both fell for the Reaper trap.

Why would I choose options I know where used by the reapers to get the people I fought against on their side.

Suddenly at the end because the Catalyst AI embodiment of the reapers tells me this, I'm to forget everything before and accept my fate. That's not my Shepard.

That's cool I guess.  I just wouldn't say that it happens to be a good choice within the context of the game.  Your Shepard is willing and able to ignore plain evidence for the best of intentions.  It leads to disaster.  The next cycle chooses synthesis.  The end.

[Legion of 1337]

Eluril wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

I agree with the logic of the thread.

However, I refuse to go along with the Catalyst's insane Synthesis plan. I will not force such a drastic change on the Galaxy without anyone giving consent to do so, and turn the place into some sort of monotonous utopia with little to no diversity.

I laugh at someone who says this with a Geth Consensus based profile picture. There's no evidence at all that synthesis is monotonous, nor is there any evidence that there is no diversity. In fact as I've stated before EDI is MORE of an individual after synthesis than before.

The whole point of Synthesis is to try to bring synthetics and organics colser to being the same - the pinnacle of evolution. It doesn't quite do that, but it's closer.

I also do not think it right to force such a change on everyone in the Galaxy because some AI says so and one person (Shepard) agrees with him.

[ragecage559]

 

Metioric Test wrote...


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 the greatest point made in this thread. Like you said, it's bad to introduce a new character right in the end and there is also absolutely no reason he should be trusted or taken seriously. 

Also if you're willing to trust a new character, I can deal with that, another reason is that apparently because he controls the Reapers that makes him the Antagonist. In what movie/game/book does the Hero "Shepard" at the end just joins the enemy? That's how I feel if you even accept anything the Antagonist tells you. It would be like John McClain joining forces with Hans Gruber right at the end of Die Hard. Which you know that would be frustrating if it were to happen in the movie, I felt the same frustration at the conclusion of ME. My thoughts were, "Who the F are you to lay this bull out before me."

Another point, is throughout the Series the Reapers (who is controlled by this Starchild) referred us as "Vermin that needs to be erraticated." Then when we meet the person who controls them is suddenly nice? Well he isn't that nice, but he isn't near as evil or douchy as what we've known the reapers before this point. Point is, if someone tells me that I need to be erradicated, I'm not going to have the vibe of feeling trustworthy when I finally meet him.

There is no trust element to buy into, at all, which (among other things) are why the endings are so terrible. The core of trust is where it all starts.

[Master_Smurf]

Priss Blackburne wrote...

I can't take the chance of trusting the catalyst. even if he might be telling the Truth. The fact is the reapers used Synthesis to control Saren and Control to control the Illusive man. They both had good intentions Saren wanted to save all organic life, and the illusive man wanted to save humanity.  They both fell for the Reaper trap.

Why would I choose options I know where used by the reapers to get the people I fought against on their side.

Suddenly at the end because the Catalyst AI embodiment of the reapers tells me this, I'm to forget everything before and accept my fate. That's not my Shepard.

The one point that you are missing is the intentions and character of Saren and Illusive Man. Shep is the "ascended":sick: one which can make a "better" choice for the galaxy. I am not disputing your choice. To me all choices should be valid and rewarding to the player that made them. I only have an issue with refusal but that is another thread.

I wonder though, If a renegade Shep chooses control, is the ending bleak and should the cycle cease. 

[Luxure]

TL;DR

StarBrat's logic is flawed, his whole programming is flawed. No matter what you come up with, StarBrat is and will be pointless. Get over it.

[JShepppp]

Luxure wrote...

TL;DR

StarBrat's logic is flawed, his whole programming is flawed. No matter what you come up with, StarBrat is and will be pointless. Get over it.

Read the very last line in my introduction, before Section I (the disclaimer).

Modifié par JShepppp, 08 juillet 2012 - 07:48 .

[JShepppp]

ragecage559 wrote...

 

Metioric Test wrote...


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 the greatest point made in this thread. Like you said, it's bad to introduce a new character right in the end and there is also absolutely no reason he should be trusted or taken seriously. 

Also if you're willing to trust a new character, I can deal with that, another reason is that apparently because he controls the Reapers that makes him the Antagonist. In what movie/game/book does the Hero "Shepard" at the end just joins the enemy? That's how I feel if you even accept anything the Antagonist tells you. It would be like John McClain joining forces with Hans Gruber right at the end of Die Hard. Which you know that would be frustrating if it were to happen in the movie, I felt the same frustration at the conclusion of ME. My thoughts were, "Who the F are you to lay this bull out before me."

Another point, is throughout the Series the Reapers (who is controlled by this Starchild) referred us as "Vermin that needs to be erraticated." Then when we meet the person who controls them is suddenly nice? Well he isn't that nice, but he isn't near as evil or douchy as what we've known the reapers before this point. Point is, if someone tells me that I need to be erradicated, I'm not going to have the vibe of feeling trustworthy when I finally meet him.

There is no trust element to buy into, at all, which (among other things) are why the endings are so terrible. The core of trust is where it all starts.

The quality of the storytelling, though, isn't what I was trying to debate, though if you want to go down that road, feel free. I'm trying to use what we're given and go from there; one of the things is if you can't take the Catalyst at face value, then you can't trust it on anything, including destroy, and you should just choose the refusal ending.

Obviously trusting the Catalyst is an implicit axiom here. We can't make sense of it otherwise, meaning we can't say it's stupid or smart or whatever if we don't allow ourselves to take any of what it says at face value.

[JShepppp]

Grimwick wrote...

I love how the large majority of your premises' are based on speculation and unfounded assumptions.

I took the dialogue we were given and reasoned things out from there.

Also how you appear to ignore what an appeal to probability is and the importance of the initial premise as a part of a logical solution.

The appeal to probability is something I noted in the OP, with relevance to the singularity and inevitability of synthetic dominance. 

As for conflict, let's look at the probability a different way and consider how examples of peace we see are not mutually exclusive to the created will always rebel against the creator conflict. Therefore, we can't disprove that specific statement.

I'm  confused about the "initial premise as a part of a logical solution" part.

[JShepppp]

The Interloper wrote...

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.

Ah, okay. The Catalyst feeling like it was randomly and suddenly placed is something I can agree with.
 

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.

I wish Javik was a normal character and not paid DLC; I had to watch youtube videos of the DLC to get the conversations and lore and whatnot. I thought the Zha'til's implants were corrupted by the Reapers, but those synthetic implants were meant as a solution anyways to their own synthetic war.

If they were corrupted a la the Geth, then it was more of a divide and conquer strategy, and the rebellion had already occurred.
 

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.

And you'd be valid in saying that about the Krogan and choosing to sabotage the genophage if you wanted, with everyone understanding your reasoning. There'd be some who'd disagree for some reasons, but you'd be going off of evidence you have. Disagreements would likely be regarding how Wrex can "change" the Krogan and whatnot, which would be a crude analogy to either (a) the Catalyst's inability to understand organic morals and beliefs such as redemption and ( synthesis.

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.

If conflict is inevitable, I'd say it's probably better to have control of when the situation approaches a critical point versus allowing them to develop randomly and hoping they're "slower" along the way. It also arguably allows the Catalyst to better monitor what's going on so its Reaper "solution" is more effective.

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

No idea. Perhaps synthesis was added after they "knew" of the Crucible and was therefore in later plans they didn't see, but I'll readily admit that's a lackluster answer. 

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.

1. Probably because then it won't be "forced" as the "cycle" will choose it. As for the space-magic-ness, all the Crucible's choices reek of it.
2. Probably for the same reason as above again; it can't be "forced".
3. I think part of how the Crucible "disproves" or lowers the "effectiveness" of the Reaper "solution" is that it works in spite of the Reapers trying to harvest.
4. Again, likely because the Catalyst believes peace and/or synthesis cannot be "forced"; they apparently tried a "similar method" in the past (dunno if that's a reference to the Reapers or otherwise).

I agree overall with your sentiments about narrative consistency being important. I also personally didn't really like the Catalyst that much. I'm just trying to make sense of what we've got.

[JShepppp]

MetioricTest wrote...

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.

I understand where you're coming and accept that. Consider this a concession lol. As Ieldra2 said (somewhere in this thread), the Catalyst isn't really a role model literary character because despite everything, we still get a few minutes of conversation, he's thrust on us randomly, and it requires a bunch of thinking afterwards to decide what happened.

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.

Well, the kid's apparently been on Shep's minds from the dreams, and the Catalyst/Reapers, after Shep has been in their presence for a while in general, probably has some insight into Shep's mind somehow. I'm sure if it had appeared as a Reaper there's no way Shep would've done anything it said.

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 don't think the Reapers had control over their actions. Sovvy's dialogue is horribly out of place and an indicator that the writers didn't plan ahead, but at least Harby discusses the idea of "salvation" (even if through destruction). 

We also don't know how long in the future the epilogue slides are. It could even be a few years or so into the future, not instantaneous, but with enough duration that everyone can forgive each other; people could forgive the Reapers because they weren't in control of their actions, and the Reapers would "forgive" everyone else trying to kill them because the Catalyst was using them to harvest others. 

I'm sure they still care in synthesis, as EDI at least talks about. 

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.

I thought that wanting Shep's body to be in a Reaper was in line with the Catalyst's Reaper solution by using Shepard's essence to build a more powerful Reaper or something. As for shackled or not, the Catalyst clearly has control of them, something that is at least verified more so in the Control ending.

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.

Yeah, I remember from ME2 where Harby was saying Reaper existence was the best thing ever; I actually originally thought the Reapers started out as some civilization that uploaded itself to a Reaper form for some reason (escape disease, achieve immortality, etc.), and was originally friendly enough that they "offered" it to other races. Some conflict or disagreement or insanity must've occurred and the Reapers eventually just forced this "ascension" on everyone, assuming that it was the best thing for them and that organics were too stupid to realize it. That was what I thought the Reapers were about. 

Perhaps Harby, with that big mouth of his, views the Reapers as inevitable, and they're inevitable enough that they're naturally the next step in evolution. This isn't narratively consistent with what we see in ME3, though it could be explained away by the Catalyst allowing the Reapers to say whatever but they can't DO any actions of their own accord. I suppose that is one way to retroactively bridge the gap between the games. 

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.

Perhaps, but apparently the Crucible didn't allow for this because that's how it was built.

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."

You are right from a metagaming perspective. 

In-universe, Shepard has probably just resisted indoctrination (the black tendril thingies during TIM's convo; not IT) and/or the Crucible was just docked, and the Catalyst didn't "reconsider" until it was.

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.

I don't know what to say. Metagaming tells us it's just the galaxy for the constraints of storytelling, and in-universe justification could be that its creators were only in this galaxy and only tasked it with this galaxy, but there's not enough information to go either way on anything. Just as you can say there's no catalyst solution in other galaxies and stuff, I can say that there are other catalysts and reapers in other galaxies and whatnot, and we'd both be right because we're not given any evidence either way.