LateNightSalami, damn finally someone who finally brings up some good points, but I have some comments
You're trying to argue that the Catalyst contradicts his own motives and that there's no good reason why he doesn't have some control of the Citadel. All of your examples back up these claims except for the middle section:
[color=rgb(20, 20, 20)">"Next line of relevant catalyst dialogue: “The created will always rebel against their creators.” He is saying this in reference to synthetics exterminating organics…What?...How do you know that? Hey transparent pre-adolescent, how do you know that? Did the writers show you something that they did not show the player? Are you able to see into the future to know that all synthetic societies will actively seek out and hunt down organic ones? That seems odd because I just got done showing EDI what it means to be alive. This was after she tried to kill us all on luna when she was still a VI. I also just got done forming a peace between the geth and the quarians. This was only after the minor conflicts of Mass Effect 1 in which the geth tried to kill us all. So in a sense we have already seen exactly what the catalyst is talking about. Then we avoided it. In fact, as he controls the reapers, he witnessed us changing it on Rannoch but still maintains this stance (must be insane count: 6) which we have proven incorrect. This is one of two things, either the writing of the character is flawed as they are relying on him being insane to justify him being able to say anything they want no matter how contradictory, or they were intending to broadcast the idea that the conflict between organics and synthetics was inevitable and they ]. In fact they show the exact opposite of this idea. Keep in mind that the point of a story is to show the players these types of themes through the plot, not tell them at some random point when you feel like it. This is a very basic mistake that professional writers should never make. The point is to show the audience, not tell them…and certainly do not show them the [/color]exact opposite of what you want to tell them.
[color=rgb(20, 20, 20)">So next we discover that the reapers are his solution to a problem that we have already fixed no less than two times throughout the series. His solution for keeping organics from being ] wiped out by synthetics is to[/color]systematically wipe them out (must be insane count: 7). I suppose technically he did succeed but I feel like emphasizing semantics to that degree is cheating. This is apparently the solution you get when you use a synthetic AI to solve a problem of conflict between synthetics and organics…ahhhh I see what they did there…deep irony is deeply deep.
(I realize that I am glossing over some things right now but I am becoming wary with exponentially growing number of contradictions that I have to address after each point.)
Ah yes next is the famous fire analogy. “When fire burns, is it at war? Is it in conflict? Or is it simply doing what it was created to do?” Let us be clear here: he just compared the purposeful, deliberate, systematic extermination of entire civilizations by a semi-sentient (at the very least) race of giant metallic space squids to a random natural disaster. He says himself that he gave the reapers purpose and allowed them to impose that will upon the rest of the galaxy…that seems like war like belligerence to me, not some natural disaster arising out of a natural reaction. Their intent is to attain resources and propagate themselves by “storing” civilizations in reaper form. If that is not militaristically violating the status quo of nations then I must have been fooled by my social studies teachers and I want my online college tuition back. I think Shepard’s description was accurate, they were at war. I think the point the catalyst was trying to get to was that reapers are nothing but a tool. That seems to be a good way of castrating a previously imposing villain. It needs to be emphasized though that the reapers are in any conventional definition, a tool of war.
I think one of the main points is that the reapers are killing you to “preserve” you somehow but it never is really elaborated on…and I don’t mean give me more dialogue options I mean show me what you mean exactly with a developed plotline and story and motivations…Any way In this process you lose your society, culture, individuality, and all other defining aspects that make up your civilization. So really they are not preserving much of you at all. At least not anything the organics would care about…oh wait he is a synthetic right? Oh… it’s the irony thing again I get it.
Next relevant line: “Reapers harvest all life-organic and synthetic- preserving them before they are forever lost to conflict”. Um…I thought that we learned in ME1 and ME2 that the reapers were only interested in harvesting organics as synthetics were not suitable. In fact, didn’t Sovereign hold the geth in complete contempt hardly worthy of his attention? And wasn’t the whole point of this originally to preserve organics? He presented the problem as though synthetics were never at risk, only organics but now all of a sudden they are at risk too?(All right fine I will start this count finally, writers must be insane count: I am not sure but I think we are at least 4, this is hard to keep track of.)"[/i]
In your opening paragraph you specifically said,
"You cannot say that someone or something is insane and then use that to justify whatever action the writer wants the character to make no matter how contradictory it is." That section only proves that the Catalyst has bad programming/is insane/something like that, those aren't examples of contradictory motivations or his inconsistant abilities. So I think you should discard those sections because it doesn't back up your main points.
I think that you should change the name of the thread to "Why does the Catalyst contradicts his own motivations and why does he have inconsistent abilities" or something along those lines. I know it's a mouthful, but it focuses on the point of your post, and will stop people from saying "Oh but the Catalyst is insane of course he doesn't make sense" because I don't think that you are trying to argue that he's insane.
The other sections like the one about how the Catalyst has no good reason to tell you about Destroy and Control are great. I'm glad someone else noticed these things.
EDIT: Can't get the formatting right, but the middle section is what he said. My stuff is seperated from his by a 3 line wide space.
Modifié par elitehunter34, 10 juillet 2012 - 07:06 .
Retour en haut
