540 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr. Gogeta34]

silverexile17s wrote...

1 - Yes it does. It's basically saying "Fu*k you, I'm not making the choice." Defying the options. It shows that you aren't going to make the choice and would rather have your last action be a defiant "up yours, pal." I mean, haven't you ever heard the term "actions speak louder then words"? And Shepard's action of shotting the Catalyst speak pretty loudly about what Shepard's choice is. Are you not understanding that Shepard abandoned the Crucible, thus leaving the Catalyst high and dry because he can't make any of those solutions happen, and thus can't fulfill his primary objective of finding a new Solution to replace the old one? In the original ending, it was all rushed and liniar. Now, that action of Shooting the Catalyst has an impact, as it serves as the last defiant shot of the cycle.
Again, wrong. The Reapers only attack if it is clear that Shepard "isn't going to choose." Standing idle for too long is also considered a refuse if you apperantly don't intend to use the Crucible anyway.

Again, in the original ending, shooting a hologram was not a problem.  You're making excuses for the Catalyst when the choice is likely to have been made after a few shots had been taken.  It's the Catalyst that throws a tantrum and calls the whole thing off.

As far as being idle for too long, the Crucible isn't being destroyed in one hit after too long of a pause... the Reapers are attacking it and Hackett etc. are defending it.  Eventually, the Reapers can break through and destroy it.

3 - Wrong. The real facts are that Shepard is the only being in the galaxy that could ever make the choice. No other organic did what Shepard did. Unite a galaxy. Stop Sovergein. Undermine Harbinger by defeating the Collectors. Ruin their entire invasion stratagy by preventing them from gaining control of the Citadel and the Relays. Bring peace between geth and the rest of the galaxy (okay, optioinal, but still). Bring the Leviathans into play. Breach the Reaper fleet. Dock the Crucible. Shepard single-handedly unified the entire galaxy under his/her banner. Something no other organic did, or likely could do. Something everyone, from Garrus to Anderson, makes a point of - repeatedly saying that Shepard is the one that brought them all together and united them. The Catalyst knows this to. Shepard bested the Solution. That's why no other organic is sutible. The Catalyst's "whims" have zero impact because they don't exist.

The Catalyst makes no mention of Shepard's accomplishments as a reason for him being there (or at all).  The only thing we know for certain is that Shepard was the only organic alive in the vicinity when the Crucible was docked.  Real facts homie. 

[Mr. Gogeta34]

silverexile17s wrote...

So that they can discover a solution in which the interfearance of the Reapers is no longer needed. The Catalyst never intended the Reapers to harvest forever. All this time, they've been searching for a way to end the conflict and make the cycles no longer necessary. They don't WANT to go on like this forever. They want to get their task over and done with. They don't WANT "technological dominance." They don't WANT devine rulership over life. Just it's protection. The problem is that they have a completely amoral way of doing so. Letting the races evolve lets them study the development of each, then take their collective information and strive to figure out a better solution with it.

Have an in-game quote to back this up or is this your speculation?

[Mr. Gogeta34]

silverexile17s wrote...

Wrong. The Catalyst doesn't have any control anymore. It's all up to Shepard. Whatever Shepard chooses, the Catalyst is forced to comply with because of his directives to find a Solution -- a choice he cannot make because of his own physical restrictions.

"We find a new solution" is what the Catalyst says, not "You find a new solution."  It will not entertain any unique ideas from Shepard.  It's his way or the highway.

Judging by what I've seen, that's not true. Alot of people seem to have different opinions about what the Reapers and Catalyst "are" in the long run.

But they all know they're machines made by a race that got their priorities mixed up and payed for it (assuming they paid attention).

Freedom to make your own choices. Which ME3 EDI and geth do have, and which Sovergein and Harbinger don't, since they are bound to their directives to "preserve" all life.

They only preserve one race per cycle... they wipe all of the others out.  Those they deem to be unworthy are destroyed forever.

[Swass Effect]

Why don't the reapers just leave a note on the door saying synthetics will f*** your ass up don't build them instead of murdering 90% of the galaxy. Why not just let organics wipe themselves out considering thats how nature intended it. If the same thing happens every cycle it's just human nature so to speak that, that's what should happen. And after the synthetics wipe out intelligent life send in the reapers to clear out synthetics for the next cycle. Or just have an "off" switch so we can live happily ever after instead of 3 really dumb endings?

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Interesting point...

[CronoDragoon]

Swass Effect wrote...

Why don't the reapers just leave a note on the door saying synthetics will f*** your ass up don't build them instead of murdering 90% of the galaxy. Why not just let organics wipe themselves out considering thats how nature intended it. If the same thing happens every cycle it's just human nature so to speak that, that's what should happen. And after the synthetics wipe out intelligent life send in the reapers to clear out synthetics for the next cycle. Or just have an "off" switch so we can live happily ever after instead of 3 really dumb endings?

Because the Catalyst is programmed not to do that. Simple. He doesn't have the free will to choose against protecting organics from synthetics.

[AlanC9]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...


Again, in the original ending, shooting a hologram was not a problem.  You're making excuses for the Catalyst when the choice is likely to have been made after a few shots had been taken.  It's the Catalyst that throws a tantrum and calls the whole thing off.

So, Shepard's shooting at a hologram, but it's the Catalyst throwing the tantrum?

[SpamBot2000]

AlanC9 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...


Again, in the original ending, shooting a hologram was not a problem.  You're making excuses for the Catalyst when the choice is likely to have been made after a few shots had been taken.  It's the Catalyst that throws a tantrum and calls the whole thing off.

So, Shepard's shooting at a hologram, but it's the Catalyst throwing the tantrum?

Hmm... firing a weapon at a hologram vs. reaping the whole galaxy even if "the solution" is somehow no longer working... Which is the bigger tantrum here?

[SpamBot2000]

Wolfva2 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Look, l'enfant terrible offers those choices to Shep because bad writing. Any reasoning about this is severely compromised by a fallacious starting point, one that presumes there is some background to the existence of this thing in Mass Effect. There isn't. It wasn't there in Mass Effect 1. It's a fiction-breaking imposition.

/facepalm


HE isn't offering ANY choices to Shep.  He's EXPLAINING what the choices are.  It's a big gun that can do 1 of 3 things.  destroy, control, or merge. 

Some of ya'll give the Reapers way to much credit.  They're just giant Roombas after all.They're not Snidely Whiplash twirling his handlebar mustachios cackling, "I'll get you YET Dudely DuShepard!  And Pretty Polly Penny to! MUAHHAHAHAHA!!"

They're Roombas controlled by a poorly designed and coded AI that was created by some VERY egotistical, arrogant aliens who thought they had all the answers when they obviously didn't.  The AI has realized this with new data, but can't do anything about his programming because he DOES NOT HAVE FREE WILL.  He's a computer program, after all. 

Please, this is just silly. There were no "Leviathans" in Mass Effect. They just added them later in a futile attempt to make their mess make sense. 

Oh, and even assuming there were stupid aliens who made a King Reaper, which there weren't, that thing coming up with the Reaping Cycle does not demonstrate a particularly obvious lack of agency. FREE WILL, in case you only read caps.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 31 juillet 2013 - 06:22 .

[CronoDragoon]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Please, this is just silly. There were no "Leviathans" in Mass Effect. They just added them later in a futile attempt to make their mess make sense.

This would apply to any and every hypothetical explanation given about the Reapers in ME3. And it was not futile, as what we have now makes a lot more sense than what we had with the OEs, sans Leviathan.

Oh, and even assuming there were stupid aliens who made a King Reaper, which there weren't, that thing coming up with the Reaping Cycle does not demonstrate a particularly obvious lack of agency. FREE WILL, in case you only read caps.

It doesn't show it either when discussing changing its purpose, which is at least what I've been discussing. It can't change its purpose, but it can change the means if a particular method is deemed the only way to achieve an end.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 31 juillet 2013 - 06:30 .

[SpamBot2000]

CronoDragoon wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Please, this is just silly. There were no "Leviathans" in Mass Effect. They just added them later in a futile attempt to make their mess make sense.

This would apply to any and every hypothetical explanation given about the Reapers in ME3. And it was not futile, as what we have now makes a lot more sense than what we had with the OEs, sans Leviathan.

1) It makes no sense and 2) it wasn't in Mass Effect 3. And Casey Hudson certainly promised that the Reaper backstory would not be sold as DLC. Either they never meant to add anything about any "Leviathans", or Hudson was lying yet again. Ah well.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 31 juillet 2013 - 06:39 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...


Again, in the original ending, shooting a hologram was not a problem.  You're making excuses for the Catalyst when the choice is likely to have been made after a few shots had been taken.  It's the Catalyst that throws a tantrum and calls the whole thing off.

So, Shepard's shooting at a hologram, but it's the Catalyst throwing the tantrum?

Hmm... firing a weapon at a hologram vs. reaping the whole galaxy even if "the solution" is somehow no longer working... Which is the bigger tantrum here?

Having played the Original Ending, I'd say turning off the computer or the console is the best solution to the problem. Shooting at the hologram was in response to the thing's circular logic and the complete idiotic writing and presentation. The response in the EC was the big middle finger refuse ending.

The solution is no longer working because someone actually made it that far. The crucible actually docked with the Citadel. That's never happened before.

Shepard: "So what now?"
Starbrat: "We find a new solution?"
Shepard: "...."
Starbrat: "I know you've thought about destroying us. You can destroy all synthetic life in the galaxy if you want, including the Geth."
Shepard: "But the reapers will be destroyed?"
Starbrat: "Yes. But the peace won't last. Soon your children will make synthetics and the cycle will begin again."
Shepard: "There has to be another way."
Starbrat: "There is."

 Okay, So Starbrat goes and presents its one or two other ways depending upon your EMS. But who is this WE? Why 'tis the reapers of course! You're (Shepard) the one who chooses. Destroy is always there, unless you're low EMS and had the brain of the Collector Base reaper, because that's the default function of the Crucible.  That's why Starbrat always presents Destroy. It's not the choice of Starbrat. The other two are. Perhaps the Protheans added the "destroy all synthetics" to the the Destroy ending? You know Javik's feelings about synthetics. Or perhaps that was added several cycles before?

Robots are useful for going into hazardous areas and into toxic environments, but robotics should be highly regulated. IMO. We don't need artificial people.

[silverexile17s]

AlanC9 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...


Again, in the original ending, shooting a hologram was not a problem.  You're making excuses for the Catalyst when the choice is likely to have been made after a few shots had been taken.  It's the Catalyst that throws a tantrum and calls the whole thing off.

So, Shepard's shooting at a hologram, but it's the Catalyst throwing the tantrum?

Nice one:D
That's the point that @Mr. Gogeta34 keeps ignoring - how is it the Catalyst's fault if Shepard starts shotting him? It's an action that makes it quite clear what Shepard wants and doesn't want.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...


Again, in the original ending, shooting a hologram was not a problem.  You're making excuses for the Catalyst when the choice is likely to have been made after a few shots had been taken.  It's the Catalyst that throws a tantrum and calls the whole thing off.

So, Shepard's shooting at a hologram, but it's the Catalyst throwing the tantrum?

Yes

[silverexile17s]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

1 - Yes it does. It's basically saying "Fu*k you, I'm not making the choice." Defying the options. It shows that you aren't going to make the choice and would rather have your last action be a defiant "up yours, pal." I mean, haven't you ever heard the term "actions speak louder then words"? And Shepard's action of shotting the Catalyst speak pretty loudly about what Shepard's choice is. Are you not understanding that Shepard abandoned the Crucible, thus leaving the Catalyst high and dry because he can't make any of those solutions happen, and thus can't fulfill his primary objective of finding a new Solution to replace the old one? In the original ending, it was all rushed and liniar. Now, that action of Shooting the Catalyst has an impact, as it serves as the last defiant shot of the cycle.
Again, wrong. The Reapers only attack if it is clear that Shepard "isn't going to choose." Standing idle for too long is also considered a refuse if you apperantly don't intend to use the Crucible anyway.

Again, in the original ending, shooting a hologram was not a problem.  You're making excuses for the Catalyst when the choice is likely to have been made after a few shots had been taken.  It's the Catalyst that throws a tantrum and calls the whole thing off.

As far as being idle for too long, the Crucible isn't being destroyed in one hit after too long of a pause... the Reapers are attacking it and Hackett etc. are defending it.  Eventually, the Reapers can break through and destroy it.

3 - Wrong. The real facts are that Shepard is the only being in the galaxy that could ever make the choice. No other organic did what Shepard did. Unite a galaxy. Stop Sovergein. Undermine Harbinger by defeating the Collectors. Ruin their entire invasion stratagy by preventing them from gaining control of the Citadel and the Relays. Bring peace between geth and the rest of the galaxy (okay, optioinal, but still). Bring the Leviathans into play. Breach the Reaper fleet. Dock the Crucible. Shepard single-handedly unified the entire galaxy under his/her banner. Something no other organic did, or likely could do. Something everyone, from Garrus to Anderson, makes a point of - repeatedly saying that Shepard is the one that brought them all together and united them. The Catalyst knows this to. Shepard bested the Solution. That's why no other organic is sutible. The Catalyst's "whims" have zero impact because they don't exist.

The Catalyst makes no mention of Shepard's accomplishments as a reason for him being there (or at all).  The only thing we know for certain is that Shepard was the only organic alive in the vicinity when the Crucible was docked.  Real facts homie. 

That was then, this is now. In the original ending, they didn't even think about any of that - the long-term effects, the full ramafacations. The ending was rushed out incomplete. Back then, they never even thought about that option. It's just gaming mechanics, that. When they actually completed the ending, they gave consideration to this "refuse" option and decided "actions speak louder then words." I mean, you are griping about game mechanics and pre-factored limitations in gameplay, rather then the cannocal in-game events. Which the EC is, and everything before is retconned. You are using a retconned, and thus, completely and utterly invalid event as proof of something?
Also, shooting the invunerable hologram isn't tantamount to throwing a tantrum?
Last I checked, that's pretty much the definition of throwing a tantrum, and the action indicitive that you aren't going to make the choice if you'd rather take potshots at the Catalyst, so he doesn't waste time with you if you proved unreasonable and react viloently. He can't make it happen, and he now knows that you won't do it either based on your actions. Once again, an event Shepard is guilty of causing, not the Catalyst.

Wrong! The Crucible's core is extremely vunerable - why do you think they spent all that time building an armored shell over it? Because the core components are vunerable and can be destroyed easily by the Reapers. One would be all it takes. Also, you'll notice that you never actually see the Reapers attacking the Crucible. Just the ships around it. No indication of concentrated attack anywhere whatsoever. Indication that just one hit can end it. Hell, Shepard can trigger a reaction with a hand-held pistol,  and you're seriously trying to make the assumption that Reaper cannons can't be fatal without concentrated effort?
Also, again, if Shepard stands idle too long, that's basically a refuse anyway. Shepard isn't making the choice.

It doesn't Need to - Shepard's actions speak for themselves. How many times is the phrase "actions speak louder then words" going to fly over your head? It's not a hard concept to grasp. Just look at the differences between High and Low EMS - in high, the Catalyst is impressed by Shepard. In low, the Catalyst is surprised. Shepard is the sole organic that lead and unified the galaxy. Shepard pesonally lead each and every successful effort against the Reapers. These are stated facts, as said by everyone in the entire game, from Anderson, to Joker, to Hackett, to Garrus, to Harbinger itself. To qoute James Vega on the trip to the Earth HQ - "Shepard united them."
Those are the Real facts, "homie." Why don't you actually consider them?

[silverexile17s]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...


Again, in the original ending, shooting a hologram was not a problem.  You're making excuses for the Catalyst when the choice is likely to have been made after a few shots had been taken.  It's the Catalyst that throws a tantrum and calls the whole thing off.

So, Shepard's shooting at a hologram, but it's the Catalyst throwing the tantrum?

Yes

Righttt...... How does that figure?<_< Last I checked, shotting the invunerable hologram, which you know isn't going to be affected, is the standard definition of a 'tantrum."

[SpamBot2000]

silverexile17s wrote...

Righttt...... How does that figure?<_< Last I checked, shotting the invunerable hologram, which you know isn't going to be affected, is the standard definition of a 'tantrum."

Mindbending drugs and dictionaries are a dangerous combo.

[Iakus]

silverexile17s wrote...

It doesn't Need to - Shepard's actions speak for themselves. How many times is the phrase "actions speak louder then words" going to fly over your head? It's not a hard concept to grasp. Just look at the differences between High and Low EMS - in high, the Catalyst is impressed by Shepard. In low, the Catalyst is surprised. Shepard is the sole organic that lead and unified the galaxy. Shepard pesonally lead each and every successful effort against the Reapers. These are stated facts, as said by everyone in the entire game, from Anderson, to Joker, to Hackett, to Garrus, to Harbinger itself. To qoute James Vega on the trip to the Earth HQ - "Shepard united them."
Those are the Real facts, "homie." Why don't you actually consider them?

So if Shepard got injured in the beam run and EDI made it to the Citadel instead, could she have made the choice?

[Iakus]

silverexile17s wrote...
Righttt...... How does that figure?<_< Last I checked, shotting the invunerable hologram, which you know isn't going to be affected, is the standard definition of a 'tantrum."

Shepard shooting the hologram does nothing but waste time and ammo.

The Catalyst going "SO BE IT!!!" and laying waste to the galaxy because Shepard shoots the hologram is just petty vindictiveness on teh part of Bioware develoeprs.

[silverexile17s]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Wrong. The Catalyst doesn't have any control anymore. It's all up to Shepard. Whatever Shepard chooses, the Catalyst is forced to comply with because of his directives to find a Solution -- a choice he cannot make because of his own physical restrictions.

"We find a new solution" is what the Catalyst says, not "You find a new solution."  It will not entertain any unique ideas from Shepard.  It's his way or the highway.

Judging by what I've seen, that's not true. Alot of people seem to have different opinions about what the Reapers and Catalyst "are" in the long run.

But they all know they're machines made by a race that got their priorities mixed up and payed for it (assuming they paid attention).

Freedom to make your own choices. Which ME3 EDI and geth do have, and which Sovergein and Harbinger don't, since they are bound to their directives to "preserve" all life.

They only preserve one race per cycle... they wipe all of the others out.  Those they deem to be unworthy are destroyed forever.

1 - Because he's the one explaining the Solutions and their ramafacations to Shepard. He's providing the exposition needed to make the Choice, and Shepard will actually be the one making the Choice. His information, your actions. That's what "we" means. It's Shepard's way or the highway. Stop trying to place all the blame on the Catalyst.

2 - Nope. Some argue that the Reapers & Leviathans never did get mixed up, and that they followed their programming exactally - a view supported by the Leviathan's calm acceptance of the Catalyst's actions as "logical," and being still within the boundries of the directives they gave it. Something you should know if you payed attention.
Others say the Catalyst subverted it's programing intentionally or otherwise. Some others still believe that this is all just ID.

3 - Completely and utterly wrong. If you read the Codex, you would know that they discovered that all the Destroyers are the other races. Only one race is made into a Sovergein-Class Reaper. All the other "lesser races" are made into Destroyers. So, they do harvest every single race - None of them are "deemed unworthy" to become Reapers - it's just which class of Reaper they will become. They wipe out none besides the synthetics, whose information stores they still presverve.
Anyone that read the Codex entries about Reapers would know that.

[silverexile17s]

iakus wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

It doesn't Need to[/b] - Shepard's actions speak for themselves. How many times is the phrase "actions speak louder then words" going to fly over your head? It's not a hard concept to grasp. Just look at the differences between High and Low EMS - in high, the Catalyst is impressed by Shepard. In low, the Catalyst is surprised. Shepard is the sole organic that lead and unified the galaxy. Shepard pesonally lead each and every successful effort against the Reapers. These are stated facts, as said by everyone in the entire game, from Anderson, to Joker, to Hackett, to Garrus, to Harbinger itself. To qoute James Vega on the trip to the Earth HQ - "Shepard united them."
Those are the [b]Real facts, "homie." Why don't you actually consider them?

So if Shepard got injured in the beam run and EDI made it to the Citadel instead, could she have made the choice?

No, she could not. Shepard is the one that united the Galaxy against the Reapers, not EDI. Who, being a synthetic herself, the Catalyst sees as the bane of existance.

[silverexile17s]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Righttt...... How does that figure?<_< Last I checked, shotting the invunerable hologram, which you know isn't going to be affected, is the standard definition of a 'tantrum."

Mindbending drugs and dictionaries are a dangerous combo.

What the hell does that mean?

[dreamgazer]

Heh. Everybody would get an acute case of iron poisoning if EDI hopped in the beam.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 31 juillet 2013 - 07:34 .

[silverexile17s]

iakus wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...
Righttt...... How does that figure?<_< Last I checked, shotting the invunerable hologram, which you know isn't going to be affected, is the standard definition of a 'tantrum."

Shepard shooting the hologram does nothing but waste time and ammo.

The Catalyst going "SO BE IT!!!" and laying waste to the galaxy because Shepard shoots the hologram is just petty vindictiveness on teh part of Bioware develoeprs.

"Actions speak louder then words." And pray tell, what exactally is the Catalyst supposed to think Shepard's answer is if the Commander is shooting him? What would any even slightly logical being think being shot at would represent? A refusal to work together. A refusal to make a choice.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 31 juillet 2013 - 07:36 .

[silverexile17s]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...


Again, in the original ending, shooting a hologram was not a problem.  You're making excuses for the Catalyst when the choice is likely to have been made after a few shots had been taken.  It's the Catalyst that throws a tantrum and calls the whole thing off.

So, Shepard's shooting at a hologram, but it's the Catalyst throwing the tantrum?

Hmm... firing a weapon at a hologram vs. reaping the whole galaxy even if "the solution" is somehow no longer working... Which is the bigger tantrum here?

Having played the Original Ending, I'd say turning off the computer or the console is the best solution to the problem. Shooting at the hologram was in response to the thing's circular logic and the complete idiotic writing and presentation. The response in the EC was the big middle finger refuse ending.

The solution is no longer working because someone actually made it that far. The crucible actually docked with the Citadel. That's never happened before.

Shepard: "So what now?"
Starbrat: "We find a new solution?"
Shepard: "...."
Starbrat: "I know you've thought about destroying us. You can destroy all synthetic life in the galaxy if you want, including the Geth."
Shepard: "But the reapers will be destroyed?"
Starbrat: "Yes. But the peace won't last. Soon your children will make synthetics and the cycle will begin again."
Shepard: "There has to be another way."
Starbrat: "There is."

 Okay, So Starbrat goes and presents its one or two other ways depending upon your EMS. But who is this WE? Why 'tis the reapers of course! You're (Shepard) the one who chooses. Destroy is always there, unless you're low EMS and had the brain of the Collector Base reaper, because that's the default function of the Crucible.  That's why Starbrat always presents Destroy. It's not the choice of Starbrat. The other two are. Perhaps the Protheans added the "destroy all synthetics" to the the Destroy ending? You know Javik's feelings about synthetics. Or perhaps that was added several cycles before?

Robots are useful for going into hazardous areas and into toxic environments, but robotics should be highly regulated. IMO. We don't need artificial people.

It's giving up on what it basically sees as a lost cause. I mean, if you flip the bird at someone, they aren't going to consider you unreasonable? Just look at the geth - they flipped the bird at the organic races and got repayed in kind by being branded unreasonable monsters. The Catalyst sees this the same way -- if you wanted to make a choice, you wouldn't be taking potshots at him.

Right - he's given up on his own Solution because, if it was still working, no one would have gotten that far to begin with. Ever.

"We" means him and you. He's explaining each Solution and the ramafacations, pros, cons, and potental long-term effects the choices will make. He tells you what's avalible, and you pick which one you want to follow. Being bound by his programming, he will comply with whatever choice you make, because you are basically ultimate athourity on what Solution should be used, since you beat the previous one.
Personally, I think that the original function was the Destroy version. After all, it makes sense that it would be targeted to synthetics -- after all, anyone looking at the Reapers is going to be sceptical of any synthetics being peaceful in the long term, so they said "hell with it - purge them all and take no risks."
As far as I can tell, the Cruicble uses dark energy as a weapon, taking the massive Dark Energy emmissions of the Citadel (core of the Mass Relay Network), and focuses it into a weapon. Now, dark energy is the same stuff as biotic energy, so it's literally a "biotic death wave." And it uses the Mass Relay Network to overclock the dark energy cores in the relays and send the pulse to each and every sector of the galaxy. Now, from what I gathered in it's Codex entry, Liara seemed to believe that it would shoot the dark energy like a focused beam. Turns out she was wrong -- it instead disperses it on a widespread scale like a tsunami, with no way to control how much of the galaxy is affected, or when, or where.

Maybe, but that hasn't stopped people from trying to develop A.I.s. Even back here on Earth in the real world, we have people trying to make the machines capable of abstract thought.