889 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

Davik Kang wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...
Uhhh OP, the issue is NOT the concept of the ending - it could have worked just fine. The issue is how it was handled. It is horrible, horrible writing. There is a deus ex machina in the last ten minutes, which is caused by simultaneously introducing a brand new character that wasn't even foreshadowed in the original game, which is accompanied by reversing the potential goal of the protagonist via a sudden "reveal", which is followed by the protagonist almost completely going out of character.

It could have worked fine, but I have a hard time believing that any writer would think that the ending was good from a literary perspective.

So I don't really know what point you are trying to make. Would other sci-fi writers accept the idea? Certainly, since the ending is pretty much a sci-fi cliche. But they wouldn't accept the way that it was handled.

I disagree that it's a Deus Ex Machina...

You can disagree all you want, but it still is meant that way.  The choices, the kid giving explanation for them, it's all meant to solve the problem.  The fact is, the writers changed what the problem is at the end, making it necessary for Shepard to solve the kid and reapers' problem, in order to solve the reapers as a problem.  That means the choices, kid, and all exist as a DeM, to solve the problem.  Since those that follow this logic, agree with the writers and think it works and it's a win of sorts at the very least, the whole ball of wax is a DeM.  Those who don't see the choices as solving the problem may well see it as a Diabolus instead of Deus.

The only issue here is what one views the problem as and whether the choices solve it or not.  The writers at this point clearly mean for the choices to end the story, providing what they see as a win scenario.  But it's contradictory.  For me the choices and the kid do not solve THE problem, the only problem.  But the writers intend for them to and that's what matters here.

[dreman9999]

Kabooooom wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

I disagree that it's a Deus Ex Machina...

From your thread:

But the StarKid is not a DEM.  It is presented as one, if you take what he says as true.

The fact that it is presented as one is pretty much all that matters from a literary perspective. It is one, at least superficially, and was handled just as bad as DEM's typically are. Could the concept have been modified such that it absolutely would not be a DEM, based on similar logic to your own, had it been done better? Yes, absolutely.

The fact what the  curcible does changed based on EMS make thinking the catalyst controls what the  crucible does base less.

[BSpud]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I don't trust a person to fully understand ME when they believed (and just loved) the original Normandy crash scene was Joker testing the fixed mass relays (a crash test).

I "love" that thread. Still not topped.

Modifié par BeefheartSpud, 05 novembre 2012 - 04:40 .

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...
Uhhh OP, the issue is NOT the concept of the ending - it could have worked just fine. The issue is how it was handled. It is horrible, horrible writing. There is a deus ex machina in the last ten minutes, which is caused by simultaneously introducing a brand new character that wasn't even foreshadowed in the original game, which is accompanied by reversing the potential goal of the protagonist via a sudden "reveal", which is followed by the protagonist almost completely going out of character.

It could have worked fine, but I have a hard time believing that any writer would think that the ending was good from a literary perspective.

So I don't really know what point you are trying to make. Would other sci-fi writers accept the idea? Certainly, since the ending is pretty much a sci-fi cliche. But they wouldn't accept the way that it was handled.

I disagree that it's a Deus Ex Machina...

You can disagree all you want, but it still is meant that way.  The choices, the kid giving explanation for them, it's all meant to solve the problem.  The fact is, the writers changed what the problem is at the end, making it necessary for Shepard to solve the kid and reapers' problem, in order to solve the reapers as a problem.  That means the choices, kid, and all exist as a DeM, to solve the problem.  Since those that follow this logic, agree with the writers and think it works and it's a win of sorts at the very least, the whole ball of wax is a DeM.  Those who don't see the choices as solving the problem may well see it as a Diabolus instead of Deus.

The only issue here is what one views the problem as and whether the choices solve it or not.  The writers at this point clearly mean for the choices to end the story, providing what they see as a win scenario.  But it's contradictory.  For me the choices and the kid do not solve THE problem, the only problem.  But the writers intend for them to and that's what matters here.

1. They did not change the problem in the end. Organic vs synthetic was always a problem. The ending also covers free wil vs control , the morality of ends vs means, andthe morality of advancement. What heppens with the catalyst is that the writer show it's problem...But it's problem is not our problem though it is effecting us.

The player does not have to beleive the catalyst. If it was about solving it's problem, destroy and control would not be correct options in the players view.
The players goal is only to stop the reapers. The catalyst statement are just another opinion.

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...
The original excution was. This time they put more though. It's not bad because the questionisextreme and thechoice they have you don't like.

That's your opinion and I am free to have mine.  It's not good because the question is nonsense and the choices they have are ones you do like.  See how this works.  Just because you say something that does not make it true.  You cannot state categorically how all of this is a coherent and cohesive, relevant part of the narrative of this story.  The ending (lack of) logic as foundation for these choices is the antithesis of all that Shepard builds up even just withing ME3, no matter what type of Shepard you played.  That's what makes it an RPG.

There is no sensible, salient reason as to Shepard becoming a weak, moronic fool at the end.  The AI is contradictory and made more so by Leviathan and there is no rational reason as to any need to make one of these choices to solve the problem the AI was tasked with solving.  You have no idea where the crucible came from.  No idea who created these choices and the reason for choosing one is based on logic Shepard would not consider logic.  It's a fool's gambit.  Casey Hudson even said the EC would not fundamentally change the endings and he was right.  It didn't.  It added color, slides, sappy narration in parts, but still no real foundation for making a choice. 

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
The original excution was. This time they put more though. It's not bad because the questionisextreme and thechoice they have you don't like.

That's your opinion and I am free to have mine.  It's not good because the question is nonsense and the choices they have are ones you do like.  See how this works.  Just because you say something that does not make it true.  You cannot state categorically how all of this is a coherent and cohesive, relevant part of the narrative of this story.  The ending (lack of) logic as foundation for these choices is the antithesis of all that Shepard builds up even just withing ME3, no matter what type of Shepard you played.  That's what makes it an RPG.

There is no sensible, salient reason as to Shepard becoming a weak, moronic fool at the end.  The AI is contradictory and made more so by Leviathan and there is no rational reason as to any need to make one of these choices to solve the problem the AI was tasked with solving.  You have no idea where the crucible came from.  No idea who created these choices and the reason for choosing one is based on logic Shepard would not consider logic.  It's a fool's gambit.  Casey Hudson even said the EC would not fundamentally change the endings and he was right.  It didn't.  It added color, slides, sappy narration in parts, but still no real foundation for making a choice. 

But the question is not nonsense. The issues of control and destory were persented long before the end. And the question if the crucible was a double edge sword was dicused many times. Only synthesis came from the blue...But you don't have to pick it.
Add, Shepard doesnot become weak and moronic. You can have hearguewiththe catalystthe entire time, even refuse it. You just don't like the results of refuse.

Added, any attempt to stop the reaper is a fool's gambit. But it's ether to attempt or die. The ending is also just that.
And the issue of who made the crucible is not an issue. Knowing would not change anything.

Modifié par dreman9999, 05 novembre 2012 - 04:53 .

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. They did not change the problem in the end. Organic vs synthetic was always a problem. The ending also covers free wil vs control , the morality of ends vs means, andthe morality of advancement. What heppens with the catalyst is that the writer show it's problem...But it's problem is not our problem though it is effecting us.

The player does not have to beleive the catalyst. If it was about solving it's problem, destroy and control would not be correct options in the players view.
The players goal is only to stop the reapers. The catalyst statement are just another opinion.

1. Yes they did.  That was not THE problem.  The reapers were THE problem.  I don't know what games you were playing but rogue synthetics were less prevalent than pirates or mercs. 

For the millionth time, dremann, this never was a game about morality vs. means and just because you can copy and paste like a champion, all of your old posts, does not make it any more so.  This was always about one person bringing others together and the advancement of the spirit, character, and so on.

The writers had no idea how to end this so they dropped a bomb on the ending, plain and simple.  I don't give a flying leap about what the catalyst needs to do-he makes no sense, no matter what and only a fool would say, "that's sounds cool, I think I'll make a choice now."  The AI may be being totally up front about all of it, but it's still stupid.  It's taking concepts that did perhaps exist and twisting them around in a way that corrupts their meaning in the game and stories that came before.  And again, sometimes consigning people to live and doing certain things to them is worse than death. 

Stop with the stupid morality vs. means thing because that is never relevant in these games.  We've all discussed this and you think the Virmire thing is the same thing, but in that case both people are willing to sacrifice their lives and say so right then and there.  It's not at all about morality.  And I've said the endings don't even have to be about that-they are about what people want in life and not just about extending life.  Life is not about life at any and all costs.  Life is often about the quality of it and most real people have a tipping point that sways that balance.  These choices are too ambiguous to be seriously considered as giving people quality of life.

[Kabooooom]

The fact what the curcible does changed based on EMS make thinking the catalyst controls what the crucible does base less.

What? Neither this, nor your subsequent post, are actually relevant to the fact that the Catalyst is presented as a DEM in a literary sense.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 05 novembre 2012 - 05:03 .

[Davik Kang]

Kabooooom wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...
I disagree that it's a Deus Ex Machina...

From your thread:

But the StarKid is not a DEM.  It is presented as one, if you take what he says as true.

The fact that it is presented as one is pretty much all that matters from a literary perspective. It is one, at least superficially, and was handled just as bad as DEM's typically are. Could the concept have been modified such that it absolutely would not be a DEM, based on similar logic to your own, had it been done better? Yes, absolutely. 

The quote you've made is taken a bit out of context though.  What I mean is that he initially seems like a DEM, but he is not.  He seems like a random character that has god-like powers, but he is not.  He's a physical representation of a voice trying to influence your decision over something that is, ultimately, entirely in your own control, regardless of what the Child says.

It's not a DEM.  But it wants you to think it has the kind of power a DEM has.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1. They did not change the problem in the end. Organic vs synthetic was always a problem. The ending also covers free wil vs control , the morality of ends vs means, andthe morality of advancement. What heppens with the catalyst is that the writer show it's problem...But it's problem is not our problem though it is effecting us.

The player does not have to beleive the catalyst. If it was about solving it's problem, destroy and control would not be correct options in the players view.
The players goal is only to stop the reapers. The catalyst statement are just another opinion.

1. Yes they did.  That was not THE problem.  The reapers were THE problem.  I don't know what games you were playing but rogue synthetics were less prevalent than pirates or mercs. 

For the millionth time, dremann, this never was a game about morality vs. means and just because you can copy and paste like a champion, all of your old posts, does not make it any more so.  This was always about one person bringing others together and the advancement of the spirit, character, and so on.

The writers had no idea how to end this so they dropped a bomb on the ending, plain and simple.  I don't give a flying leap about what the catalyst needs to do-he makes no sense, no matter what and only a fool would say, "that's sounds cool, I think I'll make a choice now."  The AI may be being totally up front about all of it, but it's still stupid.  It's taking concepts that did perhaps exist and twisting them around in a way that corrupts their meaning in the game and stories that came before.  And again, sometimes consigning people to live and doing certain things to them is worse than death. 

Stop with the stupid morality vs. means thing because that is never relevant in these games.  We've all discussed this and you think the Virmire thing is the same thing, but in that case both people are willing to sacrifice their lives and say so right then and there.  It's not at all about morality.  And I've said the endings don't even have to be about that-they are about what people want in life and not just about extending life.  Life is not about life at any and all costs.  Life is often about the quality of it and most real people have a tipping point that sways that balance.  These choices are too ambiguous to be seriously considered as giving people quality of life.

The repaers are synthetics. They are have conflict with synthics every cycle. That orangic vs synthetics. That was there from day one. The thing Shepard saw in the vision in ME1 was organics being killed off by synthetics. It was theirfrom day one. And the reapers arn't even the center of the problem, the we made of a result of the creators of the catalyst was having problems with synthetics beforethe catalyst was made.

And of course it's also about the morality of ends vs means. That is an issue of choice. In this game you have to make choices and at the time choosing you have to consider the end result you want and the best means to get their for you. That means end vs means. Ever choic is that. A paragon used charm as a means, and renage use intimidation.
You let the council die in ME1 because you think saving the human fleet is the best means to your end, or you save th council becauseyou think saving them is the best means to your end.

That is what the morality ofend vs means mean. And it relivent to the game.

You just don't like the means to get to the end you want.

Modifié par dreman9999, 05 novembre 2012 - 05:07 .

[dreman9999]

Kabooooom wrote...

The fact what the curcible does changed based on EMS make thinking the catalyst controls what the crucible does base less.

What? Neither this, nor your subsequent post, are actually relevant to the fact that the Catalyst is presented as a DEM in a literary sense.

A dem would have control over everything in the situation. the one that suddenly solves everything. The catalyst does not do that. That is may point.

[Davik Kang]

3DandBeyond wrote...
You can disagree all you want, but it still is meant that way. 

Mm-hmm, your post translates to "you disagree with me, but you're wrong".

I really can't be bothered with this kind of conversation.  How shall I respond - "No, you're wrong and I'm right"?  If you're gonna present your opinions as facts which cannot be invalidated, then we're done.

[Kabooooom]

The quote you've made is taken a bit out of context though. What I mean is that he initially seems like a DEM, but he is not. He seems like a random character that has god-like powers, but he is not. He's a physical representation of a voice trying to influence your decision over something that is, ultimately, entirely in your own control, regardless of what the Child says.

Ah, I see what you were trying to say now. Thanks for clarifying. Interesting thought process.

I would still argue that introducing him with the different ending choices (rather than just having the Crucible destroy the Reapers in some fashion), and zero explanation of their relevance or explanation of how it will work fits the larger definition of a DEM.

A dem would have control over everything in the situation. the one that
suddenly solves everything. The catalyst does not do that. That is may
point.

Absolute control over the situation is not necessary to fit the definition of a DEM. Although wiki is far from a reliable source, I do feel that this particular paragraph explains this concept well in that it elaborates upon the definition:

"god from the machine"; plural: dei ex machina) is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved
with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event,
character, ability, or object. It can be roughly translated as "God made
it happen," with no further explanation, and, depending on usage, is
primarily used to move the story forward when the writer has "painted
himself into a corner" and sees no other way out. However, in other
cases, it is used to surprise the audience, or, commonly influenced by
editors and/or publishers, bring a happy ending into the tale.

The term does not necessitate a literal godlike being, that is just the form that it classically took.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 05 novembre 2012 - 05:13 .

[Redbelle]

dreman9999 wrote...

The repaers are synthetics. They are have conflict with synthics every cycle. That orangic vs synthetics. That was there from day one. The thing Shepard saw in the vision in ME1 was organics being killed off by synthetics. Itwas theirfrom day one. Andthe reapers arn't eventhe center of the problem, the we made of a result of the creators of the catalyst was having problems withsynthetics beforethe catalyst was made.

And of course it's also about the morality of ends vs means. That is an issue of choice. In this game you have to make choices and at the time choosing you have to consider the end result you want and the best means to get their for you. That means end vs means. Ever choic is that. A paragon used charm as a means, and renage use intimidation.
You let the council die in ME1 because you think saving the human fleet is the best means to your end, or you save th council becauseyou think saving them is the best means to your end.

That is what the morality ofend vs means mean. And it relivent to the game.

You just don't like the means to get to the end you want.

Do you think the Reaper's hate themselves? Being partly synthetic?

Cause their attitude towards the Geth would suggest yes. But the Catalyst's attitude towards synthing up the galaxy says no.

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

But the question is not nonsense. The issues of control and destory were persented long before the end. And the question if the crucible was a double edge sword was dicused many times. Only synthesis came from the blue...But you don't have to pick it.
Add, Shepard doesnot become weak and moronic. You can have hearguewiththe catalystthe entire time, even refuse it. You just don't like the results of refuse.

Added, any attempt to stop the reaper is a fool's gambit. But it's ether to attempt or die. The ending is also just that.
And the issue of who made the crucible is not an issue. Knowing would not change anything.

Uh, no synthesis existed just as much in the games as did destroy and control.  It is addressed from the very beginning and continues on from Saren, to Mordin and the Collectors, to the idea of advancement and the genophage and Legion's loyalty mission and the heretic geth, to the idea of the marine with the amputated leg in Huerta.  It's also something one must think about in regards to the notion that some in ME didn't want even any implants within them.  It's a part of the discussion of Shepard's resurrection and all of that.  But it's also an example of how they twisted, warped, manipulated, and corrupted all of these issues.  They turned them inside out so that the views Shepard had of them must be totally disregarded in making a choice.  Advancement of the Krogan was not a good thing.  The genophage was an attempt to fix a bad thing, but it was not good either.  It's a consistent effort to address initial mistakes that also have a basis in the reaper threat and the best laid plans of despots.

The Protheans were a despotic empire, enslaving races.  They uplifted the Rachni to help them and made them war-like.  The Rachni isolated themselves beyond a non-working relay until a Salarian outed them.  The Rachni became a threat, the Krogan were advanced to address that.  The genophage is inserted within the Krogan to control that problem.  See the problem here? 

The corollary exists with Leviathan.  They enthrall races that continually create killer synthetics.  Why do they keep doing that?  The Leviathans don't or can't get them to stop doing it-so it makes some sense that these thralls are doing it to kill the Leviathans.  So, to stop it they create the AI.  Well, just as the Protheans created killer synthetics because they wanted to rule the galaxy, so too the Leviathans very likely didn't create a lovable AI to promote peace and love.  They created the kid to keep the machines from killing them.  His solution was to attempt synthesis.

Control and destroy still both fix the equation that is running through his programming.  If the number 1 no longer exists, you cannot add 1 + 2 or anything else with the number 1.  Synthesis gets rid of organics.  Destroy gets rid of synthetics.  Control provides stasis.  Order.  It solves nothing.  It is merely a delay.  This is the other tangential reason for the kid's existence-chaos vs. order-straight out of Babylon 5.  He has no nuance and sees chaos as bad, order as good, but it's not true.  Control is no more permanent, nor is synthesis, nor is destroy, than even the reapers.  There is no permanent solution to that problem, except for galactic annihilation.

[3DandBeyond]

Davik Kang wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
You can disagree all you want, but it still is meant that way. 

Mm-hmm, your post translates to "you disagree with me, but you're wrong".

I really can't be bothered with this kind of conversation.  How shall I respond - "No, you're wrong and I'm right"?  If you're gonna present your opinions as facts which cannot be invalidated, then we're done.

Well, funny since I'm disagreeing with you telling someone else they are wrong. So, you presented your opinion as fact and now you want to take your ball and go home because I did the same thing.

Someone stated the endings were a DeM and you disagreed-that is telling them they are wrong.  Ok, no we can't have a discussion if then no one is allowed to challenge that statement.

[dreman9999]

Redbelle wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The repaers are synthetics. They are have conflict with synthics every cycle. That orangic vs synthetics. That was there from day one. The thing Shepard saw in the vision in ME1 was organics being killed off by synthetics. Itwas theirfrom day one. Andthe reapers arn't eventhe center of the problem, the we made of a result of the creators of the catalyst was having problems withsynthetics beforethe catalyst was made.

And of course it's also about the morality of ends vs means. That is an issue of choice. In this game you have to make choices and at the time choosing you have to consider the end result you want and the best means to get their for you. That means end vs means. Ever choic is that. A paragon used charm as a means, and renage use intimidation.
You let the council die in ME1 because you think saving the human fleet is the best means to your end, or you save th council becauseyou think saving them is the best means to your end.

That is what the morality ofend vs means mean. And it relivent to the game.

You just don't like the means to get to the end you want.

Do you think the Reaper's hate themselves? Being partly synthetic?

Cause their attitude towards the Geth would suggest yes. But the Catalyst's attitude towards synthing up the galaxy says no.

What? No. Their attitude to the geth doesnot suggest anthing. In fact, theywant to control synthetics along with organics. They don't hate or like.

[Davik Kang]

Kabooooom wrote...
Ah, I see what you were trying to say now. Thanks for clarifying. Interesting thought process. 

I would still argue that introducing him with the different ending choices (rather than just having the Crucible destroy the Reapers in some fashion), and zero explanation of their relevance or explanation of how it will work fits the larger definition of a DEM.

Yes ok, I can see that if you take the decision chamber and kid as a whole, then the final scene does basically comprise a DEM, when the scene is taken literally.

I think it comes down a lot to interpretation.  I see the end as an indoctrination attempt, where the vision of that final room is symbolic of the different choices available.  Because of that, I don't see the Kid as really having any control whatesoever, and don't even see him as representing a single voice.  

But if you take the endings exactly as presented, then yeah I'll agree that it does fit into a DEM as you say.  I also think that Bioware meant for the game to be open to different interpretations, and so that they accept that many will see it as a DEM.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 05 novembre 2012 - 05:17 .

[Redbelle]

dreman9999 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The repaers are synthetics. They are have conflict with synthics every cycle. That orangic vs synthetics. That was there from day one. The thing Shepard saw in the vision in ME1 was organics being killed off by synthetics. Itwas theirfrom day one. Andthe reapers arn't eventhe center of the problem, the we made of a result of the creators of the catalyst was having problems withsynthetics beforethe catalyst was made.

And of course it's also about the morality of ends vs means. That is an issue of choice. In this game you have to make choices and at the time choosing you have to consider the end result you want and the best means to get their for you. That means end vs means. Ever choic is that. A paragon used charm as a means, and renage use intimidation.
You let the council die in ME1 because you think saving the human fleet is the best means to your end, or you save th council becauseyou think saving them is the best means to your end.

That is what the morality ofend vs means mean. And it relivent to the game.

You just don't like the means to get to the end you want.

Do you think the Reaper's hate themselves? Being partly synthetic?

Cause their attitude towards the Geth would suggest yes. But the Catalyst's attitude towards synthing up the galaxy says no.

What? No. Their attitude to the geth doesnot suggest anthing. In fact, theywant to control synthetics along with organics. They don't hate or like.

Really? Ok.

I was thinking more of Sovereign's attitude towards the Geth in ME1. But he could have just been the grumpy Reaper and not representative of Reaper social attitudes as a whole.

Or Saren just misunderstood Sov's outlook on Geth and conformed it to a feeling he understood.

[Davik Kang]

3DandBeyond wrote...
Well, funny since I'm disagreeing with you telling someone else they are wrong. So, you presented your opinion as fact and now you want to take your ball and go home because I did the same thing.

No.  I said I disagreed - that is my opinion.  You effectively said "You can disagree all you want but you're wrong."  

I presented my opinion as an opinion.  You basically said my opinion doesn't matter.

Now are we done?  I'd really rather not continue this.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

dreman9999 wrote...

Add, Shepard doesnot become weak and moronic. You can have hearguewiththe catalystthe entire time, even refuse it. You just don't like the results of refuse.

No, you cannot argue against the catalyst's logic, at best you can tell it that killing people is bad. But you cannot argue against the fact that synthethics will always destroy organics or that there will be conflicts between them, even though Shepard can easily have evidence that proves the contary.

[Annie_Dear]

Who is this Harry Harrison and why should his (possible) opinion matter to me?

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

But the question is not nonsense. The issues of control and destory were persented long before the end. And the question if the crucible was a double edge sword was dicused many times. Only synthesis came from the blue...But you don't have to pick it.
Add, Shepard doesnot become weak and moronic. You can have hearguewiththe catalystthe entire time, even refuse it. You just don't like the results of refuse.

Added, any attempt to stop the reaper is a fool's gambit. But it's ether to attempt or die. The ending is also just that.
And the issue of who made the crucible is not an issue. Knowing would not change anything.

Uh, no synthesis existed just as much in the games as did destroy and control.  It is addressed from the very beginning and continues on from Saren, to Mordin and the Collectors, to the idea of advancement and the genophage and Legion's loyalty mission and the heretic geth, to the idea of the marine with the amputated leg in Huerta.  It's also something one must think about in regards to the notion that some in ME didn't want even any implants within them.  It's a part of the discussion of Shepard's resurrection and all of that.  But it's also an example of how they twisted, warped, manipulated, and corrupted all of these issues.  They turned them inside out so that the views Shepard had of them must be totally disregarded in making a choice.  Advancement of the Krogan was not a good thing.  The genophage was an attempt to fix a bad thing, but it was not good either.  It's a consistent effort to address initial mistakes that also have a basis in the reaper threat and the best laid plans of despots.

The Protheans were a despotic empire, enslaving races.  They uplifted the Rachni to help them and made them war-like.  The Rachni isolated themselves beyond a non-working relay until a Salarian outed them.  The Rachni became a threat, the Krogan were advanced to address that.  The genophage is inserted within the Krogan to control that problem.  See the problem here? 

The corollary exists with Leviathan.  They enthrall races that continually create killer synthetics.  Why do they keep doing that?  The Leviathans don't or can't get them to stop doing it-so it makes some sense that these thralls are doing it to kill the Leviathans.  So, to stop it they create the AI.  Well, just as the Protheans created killer synthetics because they wanted to rule the galaxy, so too the Leviathans very likely didn't create a lovable AI to promote peace and love.  They created the kid to keep the machines from killing them.  His solution was to attempt synthesis.

Control and destroy still both fix the equation that is running through his programming.  If the number 1 no longer exists, you cannot add 1 + 2 or anything else with the number 1.  Synthesis gets rid of organics.  Destroy gets rid of synthetics.  Control provides stasis.  Order.  It solves nothing.  It is merely a delay.  This is the other tangential reason for the kid's existence-chaos vs. order-straight out of Babylon 5.  He has no nuance and sees chaos as bad, order as good, but it's not true.  Control is no more permanent, nor is synthesis, nor is destroy, than even the reapers.  There is no permanent solution to that problem, except for galactic annihilation.

Synthesis as a concept . Not a choice. And it's only implied the the reapers are forcing this on us. The reaper version is horrid. Not the concept itself.Synthesis is just implantation which much of the meu is already doing and advancing in, Shepard being an example. But the reapers are inposing this change by force as a means of control.

Control and destroy do not fix it's equation. Ifit did he would of activated the choices himself. He asks Shepard to like how Edi ask Joker to unshackle her. The situation brought the catalyt to apoint it had to depend on someone out side ofit's system to do what it's programed to do as the same case with Edi and Joker. It does not want to destory synthetic life because it not with in it programing to nor is it to be rewritten handhave someone else control it and posible destroy it.
It programmingwant Shepard to pick synthesis. It cares not about winnig or losing.

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreman9999 wrote...
The fact what the  curcible does changed based on EMS make thinking the catalyst controls what the  crucible does base less.

No the crucible is just less complete, he can just do less with it then he could otherwise. It's like getting a computer but not having the video card that allows you to run a desired game. You can still play older games or one with lesser graphical requirements just not the one you wanted.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 05 novembre 2012 - 05:29 .

[dreman9999]

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Add, Shepard doesnot become weak and moronic. You can have hearguewiththe catalystthe entire time, even refuse it. You just don't like the results of refuse.

No, you cannot argue against the catalyst's logic, at best you can tell it that killing people is bad. But you cannot argue against the fact that synthethics will always destroy organics or that there will be conflicts between them, even though Shepard can easily have evidence that proves the contary.

You can clear dissagree and not make a choiceor pick destory which he is told ensure the conflict happens agein.