229 réponses à ce sujet

[Han Shot First]

@Han Shot First
Of course I disagree with your conclusion; however, just to consider your own version of how things have played out in the past and will play out in the future, even if you don't care about the Synthetics killed in those conflicts, there are a awful lot of dead Organics. Whole civilizations were destroyed before the Synthetics were eventually defeated.
 

 

The only civilization that was destroyed was the client race of the Leviathans. And given that the Leviathans were a species of imperialists that forced their galactic neighbors into vassalage, it is probable that the client races had their own military forces either limited or completely disbanded. Surely they would not have been allowed to field fleets that could threaten the supremacy of their Leviathan masters. So in that scenario you're dealing with a species that was either fully or partially disarmed being annihilated.

 

 

Given the cycle of violence that you predict, there will come a point where the Synthetics will just outright win, as the Reapers have already been doing for a billion years. I'm not sure what your prediction of Synthetic's behavior will be when they do, but my thinking is that they'll look back on history and probably decide to just crush their repeated oppressors permanently. You know, pick the Destroy option so they can relax and calculate pi in peace.
 

 

Why must any synthetic victory in a war result in the annihilation of all sapient organic life? Why is it being assumed that annihilation would be the goal, and that the synthetics would even have the capability to take on multiple organic species simultaneously and destroy them all? What makes a synthetic faction any different or more dangerous than organic factions that go to war? In the current cycle the Geth neither desired the annihilation of all organics (or even of the Quarians) nor did they have the capability.

 

To be clear I'm not predicting any cycle of conflict. I think the Catalyst is unreliable when he decides to play Magic 8 Ball and predict the inevitability of an apocalyptic war between synthetics and organics. There is no reason to view synthetics as being any more likely to go to war than organics, or more capable or destructive in waging war than organic opponents. The Catalyst only views this as some sort of problem that must be solved by extraordinary means, because he was programmed to think that way. He is a slave to his code. 

 

As for the Catalyst itself, it only managed to annihilate its masters because the Leviathans foolishly decided to give it the keys to the kingdom. It was playing galactic Skynet. Any faction that survived the Reaper War would have to be quite foolish indeed to follow a similar path.

 

 

Obadiah, on 26 Jul 2014 - 03:14 AM, said:

 

The "special power" that the Catalyst has is that of attention. It has been paying attention to the problem for a billion years, whereas we're just sort of stumbling around in it, some of us making "flawed" and "fallible" claims because we don't like its predictions, and would rather ignore the clear and obvious evidence of the progression of the Synthetic Organic conflict before us:

- the Geth are an example of the Created rebelling against the Creators
- the Reaper War is an example of the destruction as the Synthetic Organic conflict escalates
- the Crucible Destroy option is one step removed from what the Catalyst predicted, Synthetics destroying all Organics.

 

The problem with the Catalyst isn't that it makes unpleasant predictions. It is that it makes predictions based on flawed programming and assumptions that aren't supported by the galaxy's own history.

 

Also, the Geth aren't an example of synthetic rebels. They desired peace and had war thrust upon them by their creators.

 

As for the Reaper extinction cycles, the Catalyst only triumphed over its masters because the Leviathans handed it control of their state.  Subsequent organic factions were annihilated only because the Reapers had the element of surprise and a technological advantage, because the Reapers struck before their intended opponents could achieve technological parity. In the aftermath of the Reaper War it is highly unlikely that any organic faction would ever recreate a galactic skynet, considering their own history and near extinction. The Leviathans left behind a powerful blueprint of what not to do.

 

 

Obadiah, on 26 Jul 2014 - 03:14 AM, said:

 

On the notion of the Catalyst as "fallible" and "flawed". First, everything is flawed. The Catalyst explicitly declared its fallibility during the conversation with Shepard. That is not a reason to ignore its prediction.

 

Sure it is.

 

The Catalyst is recommending that Shepard kill himself, and in the process deny every sapient organic being in the galaxy the right self-determination. It asks Shepard to alter the very nature of organic life for all time, physically altering the bodies (and minds?) of every person in the galaxy regardless of whether or not they want it. The Catalyst asks Shepard to deny billions one of the most basic 'human' rights. And it asks Shepard to do this to solve a problem that may not even exist.

 

Synthesis, quite frankly, is morally repugnant.

 

Obadiah, on 26 Jul 2014 - 03:14 AM, said:

 

The Catalyst is a billion year old entity. It was intelligent enough to usurp its own creators and masters before it even had one Reaper. It has won every Reaper cycle for the past billion years. It could not do these things unless it could adapt and accurately predict its enemy. It has been considering this problem using its own logic, and probably the theories and perspectives from every civilization it has absorbed over the past billion years. Calling the Catalyst an expert would be a massive understatement. The notion that we in this cycle, with our limited interaction with Synthetics, could possibly know or understand the dynamics of this problem to a greater degree than it is utterly ridiculous. It is literally giving us the most accurate and least fallible information on the conflict.

 

In short your statement is not an argument for reason, it is an argument for ignorance in the face of a highly accurate but uncomfortable prediction.

 

 

The Leviathans were done in as much by their own hubris and incompetent blundering as they were any cunning on the part of the Catalyst. The Catalyst would not have been in a position to destroy them had the Leviathans not given it mastery over their empire, and had the Leviathans been more diligent in their coding. Besides being coded to solve a problem that may not exist, there apparently was no 'Do not ever kill your masters' shackle. 

 

 

Here is a good reason to reject the Catalyst's predictions and its proposed solution: This is is an entity, that to solve the dubious problem of synthetics inevitably destroying organics, initially came up with the solution of destroying all organics before they could create synthetics. Brilliant! 

 

The level of epic stupidity in that solution alone warrants the Leviathans' crap code getting the delete it has deserved for billions of years.

 

And yet we are to accept that an entity that came up with that ridiculous plan, now possesses epic powers of clairvoyance, and must be trusted when it suggests that Synthesis is the ideal solution?

 

Shepard would have to be a complete and utter fool.

[KaiserShep]

Regarding the Catalyst's prediction, it doesn't really matter. Post-destroy, there is no synthetic uprising that we can see, at least in the time it would take to rebuild at least some of the galactic infrastructure. Now, if there was an alternate stargazer scene that had a robot telling another robot "...and in time, we slaughtered our organic masters and wiped the galaxy clean of their filth", that would be something. But there's nothing, so machine god beings can stuff their predictions. It's not an oracle; it's just a computer. I guess the question I'd ask myself is "Do I prefer the risk inherent with freedom and slaying the overlords?" F*ck yeah I do.

[N172]

It has been paying attention to the problem for a billion years, whereas we're just sort of stumbling around in it, some of us making "flawed" and "fallible" claims because we don't like its predictions, and would rather ignore the clear and obvious evidence of the progression of the Synthetic Organic conflict before us:
- the Geth are an example of the Created rebelling against the Creators
- the Reaper War is an example of the destruction as the Synthetic Organic conflict escalates
- the Crucible Destroy option is one step removed from what the Catalyst predicted, Synthetics destroying all Organics.

It was intelligent enough to usurp its own creators and masters before it even had one Reaper. It has won every Reaper cycle for the past billion years. It could not do these things unless it could adapt and accurately predict its enemy.

[...]

it is an argument for ignorance in the face of a highly accurate but uncomfortable prediction.

 

Is this a joke?

 

1. The Geth never rebelled, it was the quarian military and government trying to destroy them and any quarian geth-friends because they developed into sentient beeings that turned into war.

 

2. You cannot take the reapers and say they are prove that the problem exists while they are created to solve it, what you are saying is "The reapers show that there is always organic-synthetic conflict, so it is justified that they start that conflict" or even shorter "The reapers reasoning is correct because reapers"

 

3. The destroy ending proves that organics are able to destroy all synthetics in a system and once they figure out how to build relays even in the whole galaxy with a single cruicible, basically it is an emergency killswitch for all syntetics that cannot be disabled/removed, in other words it is prove for "Organics can destroy all synthetics if they want/need to", that is the reason why the catalyst extends a bridge that enables Shepard to get in range of zthat tube-thing.

 

4. The Leviathan allowed it to create pawns to search the galaxy for a solution, when it concluded that it needed to harvest the Leviathan it simply used these pawns. The Leviathan simply did never expect that it whould turn against them, and afterwards it always destroyed advanced civilisations before they could treaten it, until Shepard and friends successfully built and deployed the crucible which it did not expect. Killing less developed groups does not prove you to be a mastermind.

 

5. The whole "synthetics will destroy all organics"-thing was programmed into the catalyst from the get go by the Leviathan, it did neither made that prediction itself nor ever questioned it.

 

The story Bioware unintentionally created with EC+Leviathan:

The predicted conflict is not between organics and synthetics, it is between Leviathan+Thralls (which was all organics in the universe the Leviathan imagined) and synthetics (which could not be controlled by Leviathan).

The reason it should "establish a connection" is quite obvious, said connection whould allow the Leviathan to control synthetics in some way.

While it seems to be unaware of it, its very definition of all organic life was programed to be Leviatan, Leviathan-thralls and organics that will be indoctrinated by Leviathan later on.

This is also the reason it harvested the Leviathan, because of said definition at some point all organic life whould be Leviathan and thralls able to build advanced synthetics.

 

In short:

It still serves its purpose, which is to prevent synthetics getting powerful enough to overthrow the Leviathan-rule of the galaxy (which is by Leviathan-definition destruction of all organic life) until it finds a way to allow the Leviathan to control synthetics.

 

DESTROY: Leviathan can destroy synthics by letting thralls use crucible

SYNTHESIS: Leviathan can control synthetics through organics or their own circuits (it is still stupid space magic with rainbow-epilogue)

CONTROL: It has never made any sense that the catalyst offers this option at all, my guess is that Cata-Shep, while he/she is doing things the non-harvesting Shepard-way, is still bound to the same goals as the catalyst

REFUSE: Cycle continues preventing development of said advanced synthetics

 

And as we know, the thing the Leviathans forgot was a "do not harvest us"-order

 

No noble pupose there.

[Obadiah]

@Han Shot First
I was going to respond, but most of it is actually all in my quotes that you used, but didn't address.

Also, I love that people continuously belittle or marginalize the race that ruled the galaxy, the Leviathan, and the race that usurped them, the Reapers with throw-away catch-phrases like "flawed", "incompetent", and "hubris". Clearly you don't appreciate what their accomplishments say about them, which is that they are highly intelligent, successful, and effective. That's fine.
 

...
2. You cannot take the reapers and say they are prove that the problem exists while they are created to solve it, what you are saying is "The reapers show that there is always organic-synthetic conflict, so it is justified that they start that conflict" or even shorter "The reapers reasoning is correct because reapers"
...

The point I was making was that the Reaper War is an example of the kind of enemy Organics could face in the Synthetic Organic conflict. The Reapers are an example of how powerful Synthetics can become. Their power, and the power of our response, shows the scale that the conflict can escalate to.
 

...
3. The destroy ending proves that organics are able to destroy all synthetics in a system and once they figure out how to build relays even in the whole galaxy with a single cruicible, basically it is an emergency killswitch for all syntetics that cannot be disabled/removed, in other words it is prove for "Organics can destroy all synthetics if they want/need to", that is the reason why the catalyst extends a bridge that enables Shepard to get in range of that tube-thing.
...

The point is, this is the reverse of what the Catalyst described. In terms of escalation, it is one step removed from a Synthetic response in kind. This gives validity to the Catalyst's prediction.

[ImaginaryMatter]

@Han Shot First
Also, I love that people continuously belittle or marginalize the race that ruled the galaxy, the Leviathan, and the race that usurped them, the Reapers with throw-away catch-phrases like "flawed", "incompetent", and "hubris". Clearly you don't appreciate what their accomplishments say about them, which is that they are highly intelligent, successful, and effective. That's fine.

 

Because it's the same situation as the Jedi Council and Emperor in the Star Wars prequels. An individual taking advantage of the contrived lack of common sense in their opponents isn't exactly compelling or noteworthy.

 

Besides you entire post is combating hypotheticals with another set of hypotheticals then accusing ignorance from your opponent when they walk away with a different interpretation from limited and, sometimes, contradicting information. More importantly all of this misses the bigger narrative failings of the ending which have all ready been discussed so I think Kaiser's point sums it up the most elegantly. The Destroy epilogue and stargazer scene paints a very cheerful future even after the Catalyst's prediction of the return of chaos. It was almost as if it's prophecy didn't come true and it was simply wrong or misinformed about the whole thing.

[N172]

@Obadiah: So, you claim there is conflict because of how powerful everyone gets, now think about synthesis, "the ideal solution" in which everyone becomes more powerful and has access to all reaperknowledge.

 

"Organics seek perfection through technology, synthetics seek perfection through understanding", it basically claims that all sentient life works like cerberus, evolve and research no matter the cost.

[Obadiah]

Because it's the same situation as the Jedi Council and Emperor in the Star Wars prequels. An individual taking advantage of the contrived lack of common sense in their opponents isn't exactly compelling or noteworthy.

 
We were given a brief summary of what happened in the Leviathan cycle, not a trilogy movie. I think its safe to say that hypotheticals that assume a stupid version of those events is not valid.
 

...
Besides you entire post is combating hypotheticals with another set of hypotheticals then accusing ignorance from your opponent when they walk away with a different interpretation from limited and, sometimes, contradicting information.
...

The difference is my hypotheticals and interpretations don't contradict the story to create some alternate version that I'm more comfortable with. And "no" competing hyptheticals and interpretations are not equivalently valid just because they are hypotheticals and interpretations.
 

...
More importantly all of this misses the bigger narrative failings of the ending which have all ready been discussed so I think Kaiser's point sums it up the most elegantly. The Destroy epilogue and stargazer scene paints a very cheerful future even after the Catalyst's prediction of the return of chaos. It was almost as if it's prophecy didn't come true and it was simply wrong or misinformed about the whole thing.

The Destroy epilogue and stargazer scene doesn't say anything other than somewhere at some point in the future people are still alive, which was always going to be true.

@Obadiah: So, you claim there is conflict because of how powerful everyone gets, now think about synthesis, "the ideal solution" in which everyone becomes more powerful and has access to all reaperknowledge.
...

I was showing that the Reaper war is a demonstration of the scale of a potential conflict.

[Reorte]

In short:
It still serves its purpose, which is to prevent synthetics getting powerful enough to overthrow the Leviathan-rule of the galaxy (which is by Leviathan-definition destruction of all organic life) until it finds a way to allow the Leviathan to control synthetics.

Sounds about right. Any more than that would require some evidence that the Leviathans were concerned about more than their own position.

[ImaginaryMatter]

 
We were given a brief summary of what happened in the Leviathan cycle, not a trilogy movie. I think its safe to say that hypotheticals that assume a stupid version of those events is not valid.
 
The difference is my hypotheticals and interpretations don't contradict the story to create some alternate version that I'm more comfortable with. And "no" competing hyptheticals and interpretations are not equivalently valid just because they are hypotheticals and interpretations.

 

It is when things that we are told don't make sense. Sure, there might be a perfectly reasonable explanation we can head canon in but the story told to us by the Leviathan makes them come off as incompetent and unintelligent.

 

Also, Han's points don't contradict the story either, it simply offers an explanation you are not comfortable with (see how that stick splits both ways?).

 

As for the epilogue scenes their intent seems quite clear, like the breath scene before them.

[SporkFu]

Still the bad guy, so this doesn't matter. Dark angels be dark angels.

Fair point.

 

Its the whole Christian mythos of a God needing to come down to Earth as Man if there is any hope for us with Sin.
 
Mass...Effect.
 
There are some exclusive benefits - or as Citadel DLC might have put it, "Strong, silent, and willing to charge into battle along the most exclusive boulevards." - to having a limited perspective. For example, there is a lot of discussion about what humanity's POV of life would be once/if we obtain aging immorality. Something will change, something will be different, and for the most part, we may well 'lose' a perspective that helped us try to become immortal in the first place. Hypothetically.
 
'Catalyst' looks for a solution that very well may have been fixed if it got off its ..ahem sovereign... perch  and lived among the commoners with a very mortal and organic perspective. But no... he'd have to let go of the controls for that, even a bit... no way.

But see, one would think that collecting the knowledge and memories of countless civilizations over millions of years would give the catalyst some perspective on organic life, at least... to my mind it would, otherwise what is the point of collecting them? To experience them but gain nothing from that experience?

10 If life = sentient then harvest else ignore.
20 Gain perspective.
30 Improve solution.
40 If new solution acquired = false then goto 10.

But at some point, the programming got changed to:

10 If life = sentient then harvest else ignore.
20 REM Gain perspective.
30 REM Improve solution.
40 If new solution acquired = false then goto 10.

 

Yes, I owned a C-64 and yes that's about the limit of my programming skills, heh. 

[Rainbowhawk]

I was about to post a similar thread like this so I'll say my thing about the Reapers.

I'm not with the bunch of people who think that the Reaper's purpose should be left unknown.

When I first talked to Sovereign and he said, "We have no beginning, we have no end," I basically called him on his Bullsh*t.

I heard some people saying that we didn't need to know the Emperor's motives in Return of the Jedi and they said if the audience didn't needed to know his motives, the players didn't need to know what the Reapers' motives were. Well I disagree because the Emperor and the Reapers are two different villains. The Emperor is a human and as we all know, we humans are very, very prone to corruption. But the Reapers are machines and they don't think like organics do.

When I look at other Sci-fi villains, they do have a motive behind them be it organic or synthetic. My prime examples: The Borg and the Flood.

The Borg's motive is to assimilate all life based on their programming to constantly adapt and improve themselves. The Flood are basically the same story: they're a mutated fungus that follow's it's organic instinct to infect and assimilate all life in it's path. However, the Reapers are very different from these two from one fact: 50,000 year harvest cycle.

If the Reapers were like the Borg or the Flood, they'd go and harvest every organic, advanced and primitive, and leave nothing behind. But the 50,000 year life cycle and them being picky during the harvest make the Reaper's motives more than simple ones like the other two.

As for actually reveling the motive to the player, I actually like it because it shows that the villain is nothing more than a hollow motive. Like the Evil's we consider in this world today. Hitler is one of the most infamous dictators of all time. But when you look at him and his history, he's nothing more than a human being with personal issues. Biggest question, if he would have been accepted into that Art academy when he was young, would he have not become the most evil man in history and would 6 Million Jews still be alive?

So in essence, showing the Reaper's motives shows that they are not invincible gods and they are flawed.

[JasonShepard]

No, you didn't understand what I've said. Reproduction for reproduction is organic, it's life that preserves life. If there's reproduction for synthetics it's for another purpose than giving birth. That's what I've said in my first post. That's something you can't disagree because it's a fact of life. Biology, philosophy, and sociology prove what I've said.

You agree with me when you say that Geth do it because they defend themselves or improve their intelligence, they don't do it just for doing it. Reproduction for Reapers as a motivation doesn't make sense.

 

edit : so Mass Effect 2 new information can't be the motivation of the Reapers and the writers have never seen it this way. 

 

I'd argue that you're missing my point:

There are any number of reasons why the Reapers might want to make more of themselves, and I don't need to know why.

 

Harvesting entire species and turning them into new Reapers is reproduction. The Reapers are reproducing. Why are they reproducing? Who cares? The traditional organic motive of passing on your genes before you die clearly isn't their motive, but that doesn't mean they don't have some other motive.

 

Off the top of my head I can think of half a dozen reasons why they might want to make more of themselves. Maybe they're expecting an invasion from Andromeda. Maybe they're worried about the eventual heat death of the universe, and want as many minds as possible to think about a solution. Maybe it's just what they were originally programmed with, and they're just stuck in a code loop.

 

The point is that by not telling us why the Reapers did what they did, the writers would have preserved a sense of mystery regarding the Reapers. 'They're using us to reproduce' drops a nice, coy (and somewhat horrific) hint, but it still leaves us asking 'Why?'. ME3's ending... kinda did ruin the mystery. "Glorified Galactic Gardeners" just doesn't quite have the same impact.

 

For the same reason, I hope Star Trek never gives us an official origin of the Borg.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

@ImaginaryMatter
@KaiserShep
@sH0tgUn jUliA
I see. So in addition to not liking the actual story we're given, you'd construct versions of it just to make fun of it. Carry on.

 

No. I'm just seeing the reality of what the Reapers were. They were just machines. They had run amok. The Catalyst was that singularity it was trying to prevent. They needed to be destroyed.

[Display Name Owner]

Not really. I don't think I'd have liked the Reapers ever being painted as 'good'. But I'd prefer neutral or just soulless over 'evil' as well.

 

It could have been cool if it was something that was just incomprehensible, but I don't mean you just get told "you wouldn't understand". Something that got explained to you and you could barely grasp it - but the writers are only human, there's no way that could have happened tbh.

 

So really I'd like something that was undeniably logical and actually made sense. I don't think it needed to be any one reason either, it could have been a combination of things. It could have been about population and resource control, controlling the direction of evolution, freeing up space so newer species could get thier time, just generally "imposing order" as Sovvy said and I'd have been fine with that. It didn't have to be noble or agreeable, just not... silly.

[Reorte]

Not really. I don't think I'd have liked the Reapers ever being painted as 'good'. But I'd prefer neutral or just soulless over 'evil' as well.

Ditto, but they're basically shown as arrogant, sadistic ****s from day 1 so that's out.
 

It could have been cool if it was something that was just incomprehensible, but I don't mean you just get told "you wouldn't understand". Something that got explained to you and you could barely grasp it - but the writers are only human, there's no way that could have happened tbh.

That's the big problem and why trying to go for that never works for me. There's a big difference between doing random nonsense and claiming "you wouldn't understand" and doing things that seem like random nonsense but they're not, but why they're not you wouldn't understand. Clearly the latter is impossible to write for anyone other than a complete and utter genius, but that doesn't mean the former trying to masquerade as the latter is anything other than bad writing.

[TurianRebel212]

Harbinger makes his own rules. 

[Han Shot First]

@Han Shot First
I was going to respond, but most of it is actually all in my quotes that you used, but didn't address.

 

 

Such as?

 

I think I've addressed all the points you raised, but feel free to repost any section you believe I haven't responded to. Perhaps I didn't directly refer to the bits about organic casualties in hypothetical wars, or history repeating itself and something like the Reapers destroying a post-Destroy galaxy, but I did indirectly address these by stating that I don't believe the catalyst is a reliable narrator when it pretends to be able to predict the far future. I also indirectly addressed those points in stating that there is no reason to believe that synthetics pose a greater danger to galactic civilization than organic species. Why fuss about hypothetical organic casualties in wars that may never come to pass?

 

In any case, arguing that Synthesis is ideal on the basis of some hypothetical risks that Destroy might pose in the far future is an extremely weak argument. Off all the ending choices, with the exception of Refuse, Synthesis is by far the greatest gamble. After all in Synthesis you leave the mass-murdering A.I. in full control of the Reaper fleet, and with the power to destroy galactic civilization on a whim. Synthesis gambles that the Catalyst will be satisfied eternally with the new found solution to the "problem" it was trying to solve, and not return to its mass extinction causing ways. And it gambles that this attempt at Synthesis will be different, and not like the one the Catalyst previously deemed unworthy before annihilating its synthesised thralls. The Catalyst is a real and proven threat that has annihilated countless civilizations. Against Destroy you either have to hold up a rebuilt Geth, who in contrast to the Catalyst never destroyed any civilization, or a hypothetical synthetic race that does not even exist yet.

 

 

 

 

Obadiah, on 26 Jul 2014 - 1:32 PM, said:

 

Also, I love that people continuously belittle or marginalize the race that ruled the galaxy, the Leviathan, and the race that usurped them, the Reapers with throw-away catch-phrases like "flawed", "incompetent", and "hubris". Clearly you don't appreciate what their accomplishments say about them, which is that they are highly intelligent, successful, and effective. That's fine.

 

That the Leviathans were once a great civilization that ruled the galaxy for eons, does not preclude them from blundering or falling victim to complacency or hubris. We only need to look at our own history to find examples of great civilizations who later fell to ruin for similar reasons. The fact of the matter is that the Leviathans destroyed themselves. They created their own Skynet and without any sort of shackle that would prevent their creation from Yo Dawging them straight into history's rubbish heap. The near extinction of the Leviathans, the most recent Reaper War, and all the extinction events in between, are due to a colossal blunder on the part on the Leviathans. The Leviathans are as much responsible for the extinction cycles as their A.I. creation. After all, the Catalyst could only be what it was programmed to be. It is its coding.

 

 

 

Obadiah, on 26 Jul 2014 - 1:32 PM, said:

 

The point I was making was that the Reaper War is an example of the kind of enemy Organics could face in the Synthetic Organic conflict. The Reapers are an example of how powerful Synthetics can become. Their power, and the power of our response, shows the scale that the conflict can escalate to.

The point is, this is the reverse of what the Catalyst described. In terms of escalation, it is one step removed from a Synthetic response in kind. This gives validity to the Catalyst's prediction.

 

 I disagree.

 

The Catalyst was not your standard A.I. like EDI or the Geth. It wasn't designed to handle the cyber warfare suite of a single star ship or to serve as manual labor, it was designed to manage the Leviathan's empire. It was something more akin to Skynet from the Terminator series. It was able to bring down the mighty Leviathan Empire because it already had control over many of the functions necessary for that civilization to function. The Catalyst was a unique case in that it had been handed the keys to the kingdom by its creators. The Leviathans were not destroyed because some external threat or the military capabilities of a synthetic faction on their borders, they were destroyed by from within by the entity that had command and control capabilities over their own empire.

 

That the civilizations in the post-Destroy galaxy would recreate something like the Catalyst seems extremely far-fetched to me. For one, they aren't imperialists like the Leviathans who need an A.I. to manage a far-flung empire and keep subject races in line. Secondly, the civilizations of the galaxy had a very cautious attitude towards A.I. research even before the Reaper War. In fact, it was outlawed. Finally, they had been nearly wiped out due to the Leviathans' ancient blunder. It is hard to come up with a more powerful lesson on why it would be bad idea to allow computer programs to run your government and fleets, than the current cycle's close shave with mass extinction.

 

The post-Destroy universe may see a return of synthetic 'life.' But I don't think you'll see Skynet.

[CosmicGnosis]

The Destroy epilogue and stargazer scene paints a very cheerful future even after the Catalyst's prediction of the return of chaos. It was almost as if it's prophecy didn't come true and it was simply wrong or misinformed about the whole thing.

I think one of the developer notes said that this epilogue takes place 10,000 years later. The harvests were based on a 50,000-year cycle. Lots of peaceful eons can pass before something catastrophic happens. 

 

Still, the epilogue implies that all endings are good, not just Destroy.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

I think one of the developer notes said that this epilogue takes place 10,000 years later. The harvests were based on a 50,000-year cycle. Lots of peaceful eons can pass before something catastrophic happens. 

 

Still, the epilogue implies that all endings are good, not just Destroy.

 

An eon is a lot later than 10,000 years. And it relates to geologic timescales, not a calender-set time.

[CosmicGnosis]

An eon is a lot later than 10,000 years. And it relates to geologic timescales, not a calender-set time.

That's what I meant. 50,000 years is nothing. So just because the 10,000-years-later-epilogue is peaceful, a catastrophic synthetic rebellion could happen 3 billion years later.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

But... 50,000 years or 3 billion years.... what do I care? I'll be dead. At least with High EMS destroy I get to see Liara again.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

That's what I meant. 50,000 years is nothing. So just because the 10,000-years-later-epilogue is peaceful, a catastrophic synthetic rebellion could happen 3 billion years later.

 

50,000 and 3 billion years are both a very long-time. There's no saying what other problems or issues might arise in either of those time frames. Something might happen to make synthesis entirely different and have a problem arise.

 

What is guaranteed is that within both time frames, there would be so much change as to likely render whatever decision you chose completely irrelevant.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I think one of the developer notes said that this epilogue takes place 10,000 years later. The harvests were based on a 50,000-year cycle. Lots of peaceful eons can pass before something catastrophic happens. 

 

Still, the epilogue implies that all endings are good, not just Destroy.

 

I didn't mean to imply that the other endings were not good.

 

About the epilogue I am talking about tone and intent. Yes, there could very easily be a war just as Shepard could be taking his last breath in the high EMS ending; those scenes don't contradict those scenarios but that would be ignoring the narrative purpose behind them.

 

As for time scale, those 50,000 years started with a base of primitive cave dwelling civilizations, while the 10,000 years would take place from a base of civilization already capable of space flight and, most importantly, already capable of building AI. I honestly, doubt it would take even a fraction of that 10,000 years just for organics to rebuild to there pre-invasion capabilities even without the Reapers.

[N172]

The catalyst refers to the state of the galaxy during all 3 ME-games as "chaos", it says that this chaos will lead to the destuction of all organics.

 

"Soon your children will create synthetics and then the chaos will come back"

"Soon" and "your children" is not 3 billion years later, also the repeat every 50.000 years clearly indicates that it takes approximatly that long for a barely "younger" species to turn into a "chaos-creator" species, the council races and their allies are not "younger ones" after the war, they still have the knowledge.

 

In other words: If we consider the catalyst to be right about the extinction of organic life it has to happen within 200 years after destroy or something like that, since the gradpa tells shepard-stories scene happens 10.000 years later the catalyst is proven to be wrong.

[TurianRebel212]

Like I said, Harbinger makes his own rules. 

 

"The paths are open. You must choose". 

 

 

Oh yeah, is that right? Is that so? 

 

 

If the paths are "open", why can I only choose one???

 

Riddle me that one Mr. Wizard. 

 

 

Oh yeah, never mind I know-