1483 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

I agree, and that was what Casey said in later interviews (just before the EC's release). For a long time before that people were left hanging though, and speculation trended towards the very dark.
 
I guess the difference is that before the EC, the Stargazer scene (called something like 10000YearsLater in game files) wasn't accompanied by any indication that spaceflight (let alone the Normandy) was still a thing. Normandy always got swept up in the blast and was heavily damaged on the planet's surface. EC endings added the sequence where the Normandy outruns it, and then takes off again afterwards.

ahh okay. You were saying that the Stargazer had different implications due to the original ending. Gotcha. They definitely did.

I'm aware of what was added and what wasn't. In fact, during those times when EC was a complete unknown, people were trying to guess what it would contain. Then BW finally released 2 screens of the memorial wall scene, at which point I swore it off. There was no way more 'clarity' would fix the endings for me. Well, that day it released in June 2012 at the crack of dawn, I found out I was wrong. BW gave me what I needed with the EC. Completely unexpected.

[Iakus]

Nah a video game reviewer makes no difference, I was just challenging him to back up his claim, hence the second question. I already know what the answer will be there.

Anyway I'm not even sure how to respond to the rest of your post there. I'd have to defend things I didn't even say. "Unless you're a renowned video game reviewer"? "Simply take what we are given with no complaint?" "Too stupid to judge a game or it's dlc fix with a critical eye"?

 

You pretended your first response was sarcasm and are now trying to get me to defend things I never said? Nice try.

 

So you didn't say:

 

 

Complete and absolute nonsense. Thinking something is "insulting" or that it was a "giant middle finger to the fans" is such insane, bizzare logic.

The level of entitlement needed to view a FREE DLC as something like that is just nuts.

 

[The Bad One]

So you didn't say:

 

 

Didn't say what you quoted or didn't say what you tried to pretend I said?

I assume that whistling smiley means you think they're the same thing? The only response I could give you to that is actually read what you quoted twice.

[Iakus]

Didn't say what you quoted or didn't say what you tried to pretend I said?

I assume that whistling smiley means you think they're the same thing? The only response I could give you to that is actually read what you quoted twice.

 

You mock and belittle anyone who dares speak out against ME3's ending or the EC.  You openly ridicule them and call such people "entitled" 

 

We are done here.

[Mcfly616]

Well, when terms such as "insulted" are used...


...sounds about right.

[The Bad One]

You mock and belittle anyone who dares speak out against ME3's ending or the EC.  You openly ridicule them and call such people "entitled" 

 

We are done here.

 

Looks like you're muddling up those people with people who think the EC was "insulting" and a "middle finger to the fans". You've been spending too much time here, stuck surrounded by people who don't say how absurd that is, that you seemingly can't tell the difference anymore.

But yeah we're done here.

[Mcfly616]

ooh burrrn...


Lol

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

I'm sensing a new Bob/David here. 

You can polish a turd, but the turd is still a turd. 

First off, the EC still contains the same exact outline: a deus ex machina, which is widely accepted everywhere as just horrible story telling, a complete disregard for the promise of many "widely different endings," and the complete destruction of the Reapers. Not in the physical sense, in a character sense. Plus, still no wrap up for the story, and still makes no sense. 

 

First off, we have the "Catalyst." It is still the same as it was in the original ending; an entity that was not once eluded to in the story that changes the whole theme, narrative, and meaning of the story. The story of about how the individual can stand up to the collective, of friendship and loyalty, of idealism versus realism, and about having the deck stacked against you and still winning becomes a simple, nonsensical theme of organics versus synthetics. It is a universal literary no-no to change the theme, especially at the end of the story. Twist endings are fine if they are foreshadowed and alluded to before hand. In Fight Club, it was a good twist. There were clues beforehand. This is not the case in ME. (Leviathan DLC was not released until a bit after the EC.) The dialogues with Sovereign in ME and Harbinger in Arrival never alluded to the existence of the catalyst, or "synthetic/organic" conflict. The Reapers did it because they could. They were just running tests and experiments on life. Admittedly the dying Reaper on Rannoch talked about it a little, but that counts as part of the ending.

There is no way the endings are really different. To quote a "reviewer", as you say, "Shepard does something, wave goes out, goes through galaxy, relays explode." This was in the original ending, and it stays the same in the EC endings. The only difference remains the color. Sure, they had some low-res slides of what our non-ME3 squadmates did after the war, and the fates of the ME3 squadmates aren't shown at all. That doesn't count. That didn't provide closure. 

I said this in my paragraph about the deus ex machina. The Reapers are changed from the enigmatic force that does what it wants to "I created synthetics to stop you from creating synthetics that will kill you because they're synthetics." You can't call the Star Child out on his bullshit even if you made peace between the Quarians and Geth. 

The story itself doesn't get wrapped up. There are way to many questions. You see, the story of the series is about Shepard and the fate of the Galaxy. In Synthesis, Shepard's fate is known: She dies. The end. In the others, it isn't. Did Shepard survive? Did anyone find the breathing Shepard in the wreckage? Did Shepard make a full recovery? Did she retire to a beach and live off the royalties from the vids? Did she have a lot of little blue babies? Did she continue serving? Did he build Tali a home on Rannoch? Did he retire in peace? Did he find Miranda? Were the relays rebuilt? Why didn't they supernova? Why do only the rings take damage and then the whole relay is destroyed in the next scene? What happens to the Council way of government? What do the Batarians do? How are the Quarians faring on Rannoch? What happened to the Quarians who had geth installed in their suits? What do the Salarains do when they alone have a functioning economy and intact fleets? How is everything rebuilt? Is their any animosity toward Humanity for Cerberus, the Salarians for staying out, the Asari for hiding Prothean technology? Will the Krogan stay in control? What's gonna happen next in the galaxy? How did they rebuild the relays? How did they rebuild the Citadel? Why did they rebuild the Citadel? How does Synthesis actually work? What is "organic energy"? What will Shepard do as the new god child? What exactly does her transformation into the god child entail for her? What does what she says in her monologue mean? How does grabbing onto a conduit transfer her knowledge? How does destroying a part of the crucible activate it? WHAT THE HELL IS ORGANIC ENERGY? Why would Shepard trust the Catalyst? How stupid must Shepard be to trust the Catalyst? What happens to your squadmates in ME3? And there are many more.

 

[KaiserShep]

Per the namesake, I don't think anyone should have reasonably expected something called an Extended Cut to change the premise of the original ending, let alone cut out a significant chunk of the original content, so something like the Catalyst had to remain no matter what.

 

But to say that the ending is no different really depends on your perspective. For myself, my primary focus when investing in this game is the companions as much as it is the universe of the game. The original ending is really weird in that it somehow totally abandons both. The reapers either drop dead or turn blue or green and fly away, the Normandy crashes, and it looks like the crew is stranded on some random planet, seemingly forever, and then it's over. The frak is that? No way should such a long journey end in such an abrupt, hollow conclusion. The extended cut, for me, rectified it immensely in that respect. Even if I'm not terribly satisfied with the idea of the catalyst's predictions, I can at least reject it and choose to leave the galaxy to take its chances without the reapers, and I get to see how the big things turn out. Of course, it could have done with some more detail, like crews venturing out to the relays, or even an actual brief cut scene showing teams in the process of rebuilding the Citadel (hell the reapers got such a scene), but it's sure as hell better than the original.

[Mcfly616]

 
First off, we have the "Catalyst." It is still the same as it was in the original ending; an entity that was not once eluded to in the story that changes the whole theme, narrative, and meaning of the story. The story of about how the individual can stand up to the collective, of friendship and loyalty, of idealism versus realism, and about having the deck stacked against you and still winning becomes a simple, nonsensical theme of organics versus synthetics. .  

you want something that nobody knows about, to be eluded to? Interesting. It changes the "theme" of the story? Hmm, I fail to see how, since there is no single main overarching theme of Mass Effect. Mass Effect is made up of numerous themes. The ending reflects several of them. All those things you listed are nothing more than what you wanted to take away from the experience. None of them were ever stated as being "The Theme of Mass Effect".

By the way, idealism vs realism and winning with the deck stacked against you aren't any less simple than organics vs synthetics. Speaking of nonsensical, 'idealism vs realism'.....really?


No, the EC didn't change the concept of the ending. It fleshed it out. The Catalyst explains itself. Shepard gets to interact. Squadmates don't just vanish into thin air. The impact that Shepards final choice had on the galaxy is shown.

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

you want something that nobody knows about, to be eluded to? Interesting. It changes the "theme" of the story? Hmm, I fail to see how, since there is no single main overarching theme of Mass Effect. Mass Effect is made up of numerous themes. The ending reflects several of them. All those things you listed are nothing more than what you wanted to take away from the experience. None of them were ever stated as being "The Theme of Mass Effect".

By the way, idealism vs realism and winning with the deck stacked against you aren't any less simple than organics vs synthetics. Speaking of nonsensical, 'idealism vs realism'.....really?


No, the EC didn't change the concept of the ending. It fleshed it out. The Catalyst explains itself. Shepard gets to interact. Squadmates don't just vanish into thin air. The impact that Shepards final choice had on the galaxy is shown.

It makes the theme into Synthetics versus Organics. The whole motivation of the antagonists is changed "to stop organics from killing themselves by making synthetics through killing them to stop them make making synthetics." The whole reason behind the plot of the series is that. The driving force is that. 

Exactly. They aren't less simple. They are more complex and far less stupid. Also, you know, Paragon versus Renegade?  That's what I meant. 

The Catalyst doesn't explain itself. It still says to stop synthetics from killing organics it created synthetics to kill organics. It explained itself in the original ending. It explained itself in the EC ending. It was a stupid explanation in both. Sure, maybe there's a dialogue wheel. Shepard still doesn't question it. She can't point out peace between the G&Q, she can't ask how exactly throwing herself into the beam or how grabbing onto a power coupling or how shooting a tube will activate the crucible. It's bad interaction. 

I'm not saying the EC is worse than the original. It is better than the original. Still like saying gonorrhea is better than AIDS.

You can polish a turd, but it's still s***.  

[Mcfly616]

It makes the theme into Synthetics versus Organics. The whole motivation of the antagonists is changed "to stop organics from killing themselves by making synthetics through killing them to stop them make making synthetics." The whole reason behind the plot of the series is that. The driving force is that.
Exactly. They aren't less simple. They are more complex and far less stupid. Also, you know, Paragon versus Renegade? That's what I meant.
The Catalyst doesn't explain itself. It still says to stop synthetics from killing organics it created synthetics to kill organics. It explained itself in the original ending. It explained itself in the EC ending. It was a stupid explanation in both. Sure, maybe there's a dialogue wheel. Shepard still doesn't question it. She can't point out peace between the G&Q, she can't ask how exactly throwing herself into the beam or how grabbing onto a power coupling or how shooting a tube will activate the crucible. It's bad interaction.
I'm not saying the EC is worse than the original. It is better than the original. Still like saying gonorrhea is better than AIDS.
You can polish a turd, but it's still s***.

first of all, their motivations were never changed. They were never even revealed until that very moment. So, there goes that argument. Secondly, revealing an antagonists motivations doesn't all of the sudden make it 'The Theme' of the series.

You think it was stupid. That's your opinion. But then again, you're still quoting the "Yo Dawg" xzibit nonsense. Considering the ending is still over your head, I'd say your point on the matter is moot.




FYI: 'less simple' = 'more complex'

You'll figure it out...

[ImaginaryMatter]

you want something that nobody knows about, to be eluded to? Interesting. It changes the "theme" of the story? Hmm, I fail to see how, since there is no single main overarching theme of Mass Effect. Mass Effect is made up of numerous themes. The ending reflects several of them. All those things you listed are nothing more than what you wanted to take away from the experience. None of them were ever stated as being "The Theme of Mass Effect".

By the way, idealism vs realism and winning with the deck stacked against you aren't any less simple than organics vs synthetics. Speaking of nonsensical, 'idealism vs realism'.....really?


No, the EC didn't change the concept of the ending. It fleshed it out. The Catalyst explains itself. Shepard gets to interact. Squadmates don't just vanish into thin air. The impact that Shepards final choice had on the galaxy is shown.

 

I think the game should have had build up to what the Reaper's actual goals were other than the vague premise that they impose, "order on chaos." The problem that I find with the ending is that it seems so arbitrary and contrived, the presence of the Catalyst and the Reaper's goals doesn't arise naturally from the story (it just seems tacked on); furthermore many parts of the end seem outright contradictory.

 

To give some examples:

 

The outcomes of the Rannoch arc can never be brought up. In terms of the story this is one of the most important and relative events relating to the ending. It is our microcosm of the Synthetic vs Organic conflict and it gets completely ignored, regardless of the outcome. It's things like this that make the end feel alien to the rest of the story and thus non-conclusive. As for the contradictory parts, one of the repeated themes about the arc is that the Geth are innocent friendly robots, the game beats you over the head with this to the point where it becomes annoying and unrealistic (in ME3 the whole near Quarian extinction thing 300 years ago pretty much gets dropped unless Renegade Shepard brings it up). The nature of the Organic/Synthetic conflict as the Catalyst describes it is never reflected in this arc, which is easily the closest ME3 even touches on this subject.

 

Even the other Synthetic/Organic relationship is the story is about how AI's can have feelings and work with Organics. In fact the only synthetics that we get to know in-depth that match anywhere near to what the Catalyst is talking about is... The Reapers (and they are supposedly saving us); it's not a good sign when the ending premise is undercut by the story itself. We never see the Synthetics that the Catalyst talks about. This might not be so bad if Shepard can directly object to the notion that conflict is inevitable or point out the irony in the Catalyst's statements, but he can't. Instead the scene pretty much plays out as if Shepard hasn't been paying attention. Again it's stuff like this that really divorces the end from the story.

 

Then there's the ending options themselves which are again thematically troublesome. Many of the major antagonists of the series have been parables about how the Reapers cannot be controlled or understood, and it has been the downfall of each of them, ranging from Saren (who's attempts to understand Indoctrination led to his further Indoctrination and the conceit that he was somehow immune to it) to TIM (who tried to control the Reapers only to be controlled by them). I'm not saying that the Catalyst is somehow tricking Shepard, I'm saying how odd it is to now have this major themed be overturned because a new character said so in a sentence. Then there's Synthesis which was never even close to hinted at in the game, suddenly being presented as the best option. Meanwhile Destroy which is the only ending that has been built up by the game is painted as the worst option.

 

... and more, but it's getting late. Ultimately, all of this just makes the end not feel like an ending but rather just a stop to the story. We're introduced to an entirely new central conflict which isn't reflected by the story, only to rectify it through a number of non-sensical means.

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

first of all, their motivations were never changed. They were never even revealed until that very moment. So, there goes that argument. Secondly, revealing an antagonists motivations doesn't all of the sudden make it 'The Theme' of the series.

You think it was stupid. That's your opinion. But then again, you're still quoting the "Yo Dawg" xzibit nonsense. Considering the ending is still over your head, I'd say your point on the matter is moot.




FYI: 'less simple' = 'more complex'

You'll figure it out...

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=R_NAoNd4YyY

If it's so "over my head" then what is it? I don't give a crap if it's "artistic." If it doesn't go along with the rest of the story, then it's bad storytelling. 

And yes, I see my mistake. 

[Ieldra]

@TheOneTrueBioticGod:
Whether some flaw, perceived or real, turns the whole thing into sh*t is very much a matter of perception. Elevating "organic vs. synthetic" to the main theme while in the story before the ending, failing to present synthetics as so fundamentally other that nonstandard measures for facilitating coexistence appear plausible, yes, that is a big narrative inconsistency and rightly criticized, but that alone is unlikely to ruin the story for anyone. It just provides a somewhat objective justification.

I maintain that there are two main causes for perceiving the story as ruined: when the ending destroys or invalidates things the player was emotionally invested in, or if the perceived inconsistencies pile up so much that the whole thing comes across as a parody (which amounts to the same as the former only more generalized).

Examples: I am invested in the theme of advancement, so the original ending with its hint of a dark age was immensely annoying for me, while the EC rectified almost everything in that regard for those endings I liked in the first place (Control and Synthesis). I am not so much invested in things like the hero overcoming all odds so Shepard's death, while not exactly my favorite outcome, doesn't bother me as much. Meanwhile, I am *very* invested in maintained a naturalistic view of the game universe, so the allusion at metaphysical elements being literal in the Synthesis ending was something I perceived as almost insulting.

So, when maintaining that the whole ending is sh*t from your perspective, keep in mind that your perspective is as much to blame. ME3's ending requires some drastic adaptations in our perspective in order to work. Whether we have enough motivation or reason to follow, that lies in the individual player. The only thing I think we can say with reasonable confidence is that it required more drastic adaptations the more knowledgeable you were about the lore of the ME universe, so it was particularly difficult for many old fans to swallow. While I personally agree that there are some inexcusable flaws in the ending (though probably not where you would see them), "the whole thing is sh*t" is a far too simplistic judgment IMO.

[Tython]

Personally I think ME4 will not address anything about these issues whether we think ME3's ending was insulting, awesome or something in between. I see an Ark type ship with a bunch of races on it trying to escape the Milky Way galaxy and making it to Andromeda or another galaxy. It will fit with the new races and exploration themes that are rumored. That would be a fresh start for sure.  

[Tython]

That's a good idea. Could you link me a renowned game reviewer who considered the EC a "middle finger to the fans"? One that said it was "insulting"?

After you do that, could you explain how it's both of those things in a logical way?

I'll wait.

 

 

By the looks of it you didn't even read the post you quoted.

 

http://www.forbes.co...-mass-effect-3/

 

Here's something I found in a quick search. Perhaps "renowned" is not a good term to use for video game reviewer merely a more known magazine or website is what I was getting at. There's likely more and better out there. We can take this into pm's if you wish but I think enough people have come forward in the past 2 years and made the same statements in a more logical way than I ever could. I'm surprised you've never heard it before and that's not meant to be a jab of any sort. Anyway, many people watched those endings and had different feelings about them. Just like seeing the ending of a movie or reading a book you'll have a multitude of feelings and opinions. Mine is no more valid than yours and vice versa. It's how we feel about it and that will shape our response to the trilogy and the next game whether we buy it or not.

[von uber]

You think it was stupid. That's your opinion. But then again, you're still quoting the "Yo Dawg" xzibit nonsense. Considering the ending is still over your head, I'd say your point on the matter is moot.

FYI: 'less simple' = 'more complex'

You'll figure it out...

 

You do realise that you are probably in the minority of actually fniding them any good? And therefore Bioware failed in the respect of actually providing a satisfactory conclusion?

 

Protip: insulting people's intelligence as part of your argument just turns you into a poor man's david.

[The Bad One]

-Deus Ex Machnia, Organics Vs Synthetics, and stuff that'll happen in sequel-

 

I snipped your post mainly due to the sheer volume despite the fact you only make about 3 points. Repeating 3, faulty, points over and over just wastes time and space.

First off you called the Catalyst a DEM, which shows what little understanding you have of an actual DEM. The Catalyst would have to be both unexpected and solve the unsolvable problem.

He is and does neither.

The Catalyst was mentioned right near the start of the game, and is the driving force behind five priority missions. He'd also need to solve the situation, which is activating the Crucible, something which Shepard does. The Catalyst mearly states the choices the Crucible brings.

And here's the important part: Even if you want to argue that the Catalyst did solve the problem, it's irrelevant, as 50% of a DEM is not a DEM. Something that is the driving force behind so many priority missions, that is mentioned right near the start of the game as being something we needed for the Crucible, is not unexpected. Not knowing what the Catalyst is and the Catalyst being unexpected are two very different things.

You dismiss the Rannoch Reaper because lolwhynot, and seem to think that showing the peace between the Quarians and the Geth would disprove the Catalyst's assertion that the "peace wont last". Ok, how?

Your final section can be summed up as "That's what sequels are for".

 

http://www.forbes.co...-mass-effect-3/

 

Here's something I found in a quick search. Perhaps "renowned" is not a good term to use for video game reviewer merely a more known magazine or website is what I was getting at. There's likely more and better out there. We can take this into pm's if you wish but I think enough people have come forward in the past 2 years and made the same statements in a more logical way than I ever could. I'm surprised you've never heard it before and that's not meant to be a jab of any sort. Anyway, many people watched those endings and had different feelings about them. Just like seeing the ending of a movie or reading a book you'll have a multitude of feelings and opinions. Mine is no more valid than yours and vice versa. It's how we feel about it and that will shape our response to the trilogy and the next game whether we buy it or not.

He doesn't actually say what you said, but I'll actually let that one pass, it was irrelevant to the argument anyway.

 

And not that it actually changes anything. You say that people had "different feelings about them", but that's not what I asked. Thinking something is an "insult", that's it's a "middle finger to the fans" is different from an actual insult and middle finger to the fans. These are pretty clear cut things, I couldn't say that in my opinion this grey white background on the forum is a middle finger to the fans, because it's ludicrous. An actual insult, and an insult in your opinion, are two different things.

If you can't explain how it's a "middle finger to the fans" then be prepared to be called out on how completely and utterly absurd that is. How thinking like that, with a victim mentality that turns free dlc into a personal attack against you, is completely and utterly ridiculous. A sense of perspective is in major need there.

[The Bad One]

You do realise that you are probably in the minority of actually fniding them any good? And therefore Bioware failed in the respect of actually providing a satisfactory conclusion?

 

You'd need sources if you wanted to make a claim like that.

[Iakus]

 

Protip: insulting people's intelligence as part of your argument just turns you into a poor man's david.

But isn't that half the fun in bashing anti-enders?

[Massa FX]

I can't address the posts above. I believe everyone is "entitled" to their own opinion. I can only speak for myself.

 

The original endings (pre EC) were painful to me. I distrusted the Reaper AI, primarily because what it said to Shepard was (to me) manipulative and one sided. Shepard throughout the trilogy had always come up with a better way. In the endings (pre and post EC), Shepard isn't given that opportunity. The pre EC ending had my Shepard dead lying in rubble with no breadth scene. I had not played multiplayer and my EMS score wasn't high enough. If you recall, pre EC high EMS requirement was insane and required multiplayer or mobile games to add to your EMS score.

 

Then EC came out. At first I felt it was an improvement. The Reaper AI had more of an explanation of what was going on. They lowered the EMS requirement so that I got the breadth scene (I'm a Destroy ender always and forever). They also threw in that the Normandy attempted a rescue for Shepard (which is a bone, but not enough). They added the LI scene which was endearing. The revised enough to nullify the horror of the original endings. They also added the ability to shoot the AI, which was my first instinct on my virgin playthru.

 

But in reflection (self reflection not BSN reflection), I realized the glaring problem with EC was that it didn't address Shepard's uncharacteristic lack of response to the AI. Yes, she's injured. Yes, she's been through a terrible time. She just watched her mentor die before her eyes (which I hated seeing. Anderson RIP). But, come on... this is Shepard! The hero I had come to believe in. The hero I'd molded and shaped (yes, through Biowares design) and counted on. Her behavior and response to the AI doesn't hold true to everything I'd experienced in the games.

 

Who was that endgame Shepard? I don't know her.

 

Why did the AI not acknowledge the state of the galaxy? Shepard had ended wars. Ended the genophage. She'd united the galaxy against the Reapers. A feat never done before in all the harvestings of the past. This accomplishment was not addressed by the AI. It should have been.

 

So, while the EC DLC was great because it addressed many problems and provided a few bonus scenes, it didn't address the elephant in the room.

 

There are many that loved the original ending and many still that were satisfied with EC. I'm not one of them.

[Massa FX]

Note to those that argue.

 

The forums are here for discussion of opinions. Right? No-one except Bioware employees (Hudson and Walters) know what happened and why.

 

However, on the forums all of us should be allowed discussion of our opinions. Isn't that the point of open forums? Insulting others is silly because the evidence you use is also just an opinion.

 

Unless you are Hudson or Walters you KNOW nothing of the truth. Random tweets, web articles, or mag articles won't reveal the full story behind the endings. Journalists and web personalities don't know the truth. No ME fan truly knows the truth. So... stop the bashing others for their opinion with YOUR opinion. Your opinion has no more value than the next guy.

[KaiserShep]

You dismiss the Rannoch Reaper because lolwhynot, and seem to think that showing the peace between the Quarians and the Geth would disprove the Catalyst's assertion that the "peace wont last". Ok, how?

 

Personally I dismiss the reaper because at that point, my patience would be nil with those things, and would prefer they simply die than prattle on about their extinction cycles.

 

As for disproving the Catalyst's assertion that the "peace won't last", the answer is simply that you can't. Aside from being a prediction, which can't be disproved anyway, it's so vague in its conditions that it lacks any kind of real meaning.

 

"The peace won't last."

 

"OK, and? When should I expect this new war to break out? Will it happen before or after the krogan get ticked off at everyone again?"

 

"I dunno...whenever I guess."

 

What difference does such an assertion make to me when I never expect there to be everlasting peace to begin with? At the point of the conversation with the Catalyst, this is what I can only consider to be a phantasm of a problem. It might happen several years after the war, or a hundred, or a thousand, or several thousand. By then the galaxy could be such a wildly different place that such conflicts are no longer important. It's not like the Catalyst can ever really know at that point, because it's held the galaxy under tight controls for eons, disrupting the progression of the entire galaxy. So really, for myself, it's not so much about belief or disbelief in what the Catalyst says, but rather weighing in on whether or not it's worth taking the chance that what it says is ultimately horsesh*t.

 

Thinking about it, this is something I do actually like about the ending.

[Iakus]

Personally I dismiss the reaper because at that point, my patience would be nil with those things, and would prefer they simply die than prattle on about their extinction cycles.

 

As for disproving the Catalyst's assertion that the "peace won't last", the answer is simply that you can't. Aside from being a prediction, which can't be disproved anyway, it's so vague in its conditions that it lacks any kind of real meaning.

 

"The peace won't last."

 

"OK, and? When should I expect this new war to break out? Will it happen before or after the krogan get ticked off at everyone again?"

 

"I dunno...whenever I guess."

 

What difference does such an assertion make to me when I never expect there to be everlasting peace to begin with? At the point of the conversation with the Catalyst, this is what I can only consider to be a phantasm of a problem. It might happen several years after the war, or a hundred, or a thousand, or several thousand. By then the galaxy could be such a wildly different place that such conflicts are no longer important. It's not like the Catalyst can ever really know at that point, because it's held the galaxy under tight controls for eons, disrupting the progression of the entire galaxy. So really, for myself, it's not so much about belief or disbelief in what the Catalyst says, but rather weighing in on whether or not it's worth taking the chance that what it says is ultimately horsesh*t.

 

Thinking about it, this is something I do actually like about the ending.

 

Yeah teh Catalyst saying "the peace won't last" is kinda like saying "It's going to rain again" 

 

Of course there will be conflict again!  There is always conflict.  But that doesn't make the Catalyst's ultimate conclusion valid!  But we're supposed to accept everything Glowboy says at face value "Because Catalyst"  He has zero information to back up his claims.  The evidence i've seen makes the krogan a greater threat to galactic life than any synethetic.