CronoDragoon wrote...
The Catalyst's fire line is unrelated to future organic/synthetic conflicts. He's referring specifically to the Reapers and their actions.
To the Catalyst, all violence and competition is "conflict" It never refers to war, revolution, or natural selection. It's all "conflict"
Since you admit the Catalyst believes conflict will arise again, then you cannot say that the Catalyst believes Destroy is a solution because the Crucible destroys synthetics. The Catalyst does believe it to be inevitable that synthetics and organics will conflict, and so the time gap between the Crucible firing and synthetics being rebuilt again is not a "solution" at all.
"And maybe the horse will sing"
I don't blame you for zoning out during the Catalyst's EC dialogue, but he says that they harvest all organic AND synthetic life. It's there in the game, and unless you want to spiral down an IT-reminiscent hole of deciding whether or not the Catalyst is lying - and about what - then it can be taken as fact that the cycles harvest both organics and synthetics.
I didn't zone out. I'm saying that statement in EC is utter and complete nonsense on top of the sheer nonsense of the endings. Nonsense with a side of nonsense that flies in the face of everything we've learned about the Reapers over the entire trilogy. EC deserves to be mocked for that line alone.
You can provide no dialogue that this is why the Crucible works as it does (because the Catalyst wants synthetic life dead to protect organics). Instead you ask me to infer from some nebulous logic, but that is asking me to believe: The Catalyst, given the mandate to preserve life, is willing to completely destroy forms of life he has previously tasked himself to harvest for a small respite of O/S peace, even though he "knows" that further O/S conflict post-Destroy is inevitable.
Yes, because by its own logic, the current system won't work anymore (don't ask how it came to that conclusion, as letting Shepard bleed out would have ensured teh solution worked just fine)
But one "solution" is instead of harvesting organics, to allow them to prevent the rise of synthetics themselves, forwarned of how "conflict" is inevitable if they let them gain a foothold. It's not a solution the Catalyst likes. But it's one organics may be receptive to trying.
That is not logical. Since neither in-game evidence nor logic supports the "Destroy does what the Catalyst wants" interpretation, I can't accept it. Of course, since the Catalyst's dialogue and relationship to the Crucible are intentionally vague and nonsensical, I hesitate to call your viewpoint "wrong" as if there was one clear-cut explanation. The endings are a mess, but some explanations are still worse than others.
Well I can't accept a lot of things about the endings. But this "interpretation" for want of a better word, makes my brain bleed least.
Retour en haut
