I see this all the time on these forums. The whole: "The ending makes no sense because the catalyst says he created synthetics to kill organics to stop synthetics killing organics" argument.
I've seen the odd response to this in the forum reply but thought I'd make a thread on it because I really believe this is a very interesting argument Bioware put forth.
This argument from the Starbrat makes perfect sense to me - its not as simplistic as people reduce it to. Basically what he's saying is that if civilisations are left unchecked they can eventually create a technology (e.g. malicious AI) devastating enough to wipe out ALL organic life. So by cutting the civilizations off at a certain point they eventually save the rest of organic life.
Its like if an advanced race saw human progress and realised we now have the potential to destroy all life on earth with our nukes, so they killed humans first to ensure the safety of all the other races. Its a situation of kill one race to save all the other species, it makes sense to me! Especially if you remove the bias we have towards our own species, from a transcendent point of view like that of the Reapers it makes even more sense...any one else see it like this or am I just barking mad? Again I'm not saying the ending was good or that I agree with the Reapers but I just don't think the logic is as nonsensical as most people seem to be making out
Modifié par Yougotcarved1, 30 avril 2013 - 09:30 .





Retour en haut







