79 réponses à ce sujet

[JasonShepard]

(This came out of discussion in the Synthesis thread; I felt it deserved a topic of its own.)

 

When we choose any of the ending options - Destroy, Control, or Synthesis - we are implicitly trusting the Catalyst. After all, it is the one that told us about each option.

 

Why the heck are we trusting the Catalyst? I mean, it is the self-professed leader of the Reapers. Why do we believe anything that it says?!

 

Control and Synthesis are more commonly criticised with this than Destroy. However, if you're looking to trap a mouse, you don't leave out two primed mousetraps and one free piece of cheese, do you? Or, to make a different analogy (and to steal a quote from Order of the Stick): When playing a shell-game, the con isn't in getting you to pick the wrong shell. The con is in getting you to pick a shell at all.

 

If we can't trust the Catalyst, we can't trust any of the options it presents us with.

 

What does that leave us with? Refuse? Maybe.

 

Perhaps the Crucible merely has a charge-up time, and will fire anyway in a few moments. Perhaps the Catalyst is trying to get us to shoot a vital component (Destroy), short-circuit it with our body (Control), or jump into and overload the energy flow (Synthesis). Perhaps the best option really is to just do nothing.

 

(From meta-gaming, we know this isn't the case, but I'm trying to avoid meta-gaming here.)

 

That doesn't sit well too with me though. Mostly because there's nothing to stop the Catalyst from bringing in troops from elsewhere on the Citadel to do the shooting and sabotaging, rather than tricking Shepard. It shouldn't need Shepard.

 

Let me say that again:

 

It shouldn't need Shepard.

 

I think that, ultimately, is why I trust the Catalyst. Despite who it is. Despite the fact that it obviously hasn't called a time-out in the battle.

 

It could have left us to die. If the Crucible needed sabotaging, it has many ways of doing that don't require us. If the Crucible doesn't need sabotaging, it just needs to sit back and wait. The simple fact that it brought us in - helped us, when it didn't need to - suggests that it isn't trying to trick us.

 

Or maybe I'm wrong. That's always a possibility. I'm not a superintelligence, I can't predict what the Catalyst is thinking, I can only see what does and doesn't make sense to me if I was in its shoes.

 

What do you think?

[CrutchCricket]

I don't think so.

 

In my control thread (or perhaps other previous discussions of Control) I posited that the Crucible unshackled the holokid enough to allow him to present the options to us and it was that gap that also allowed the new control entity to totally take the system out of the bullshit programming it started with. This was in response to the thought that Shepard in Control would be just as bound by the "problem" as his predecessor.

 

Now let's swing it back the other way. What if the Crucible instead shackles the holokid further, at least for a time. Like you said, while it's spouting its nonsense the battle continues. It doesn't call any timeout, Reapers are still Reaping while it goes about its insanity. But if it was genuine, why wouldn't it pause the battle? If the Reapers stop firing and move away we're not likely to pursue (hell in two endings it's shown we don't). The trope of a godlike being (term used very loosely here) coming down and presenting the hero a choice usually includes said being hitting pause while the matter is decided. But not here. Why? Well, what if it can't?

 

If the Crucible instead of "opening new posibilities" it closes them, namely prevents the holokid from acting, it would explain why it doesn't use its own resources to sabotage the Crucible. And it would make a lot more sense given it's supposed to be an offensive weapon. It's not there to give Reapers new ideas it's there to destroy them.

 

Now why would it pick Shepard up at all? Well if the Crucible is a giant restraining bolt, it's quite the inconvenience. Even if its tools continue the fight, it can't do anything, for good or ill. Maybe its very control is being disrupted and the Reapers we see still fighting are just defending themselves. This is getting into the territory of "what would Reapers do without the holokid" which is another discussion. But if it does inhibit it, or even hurt it, it needs something (or someone) to get it off.

 

Thus Shepard is brought up and the bullshit begins. Maybe the options will all sabotage the Crucible as you said. Maybe some like synthesis, or even control are actually preferable to it. I would laugh at the irony of a "reverse IT" where Control and Synthesis work but destroy dooms us all.

 

But anyway, your idea is not necessarily true. If the Crucible does need sabotaging, Shepard may be the only one available to do it. And the holokid is still terrible in every conceivable way.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 For me, "trust" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

Trust and belief are two different things. You can be distrustful of a source, but still believe it is speaking truth. You can trust something, but not believe it is correct.

 

The Catalyst? I do not trust it. I do not trust anyone I have just met. However, I do believe that what it is saying is true to the best of its knowledge, and I dispute any claims that what it says expressly contradicts what we know to be true.

 

At that point, it really does not take a genius to figure out why Godchild is willing to help Shepard make sense of the device (I hate how EC made Shepard suspiciously ask "Why help me?" but I know it had to be there, because fanbase... this is why we can't have nice things). This is not some sort of human/organic entity we are dealing with, interested in protecting its position, status, personal pride, or whatever. It is a machine, guys. A damn machine. All it cares about is fulfilling its function. If that means helping some organic operator Destroy, Control, or Synthesize, then it will do so without any second thought.

 

Really, this isn't rocket surgery. 

[CrutchCricket]

At that point, it really does not take a genius to figure out why Godchild is willing to help Shepard make sense of the device (I hate how EC made Shepard suspiciously ask "Why help me?" but I know it had to be there, because fanbase... this is why we can't have nice things). This is not some sort of human/organic entity we are dealing with, interested in protecting its position, status, personal pride, or whatever. It is a machine, guys. A damn machine. All it cares about is fulfilling its function. If that means helping some organic operator Destroy, Control, or Synthesize, then it will do so without any second thought.

 

Really, this isn't rocket surgery. 

If a Terminator started helping me while his buddies were slaughtering my friends, I'd sure as hell ask why. Wouldn't you?

 

It needs asking precisely because it's a machine. Machines don't change their minds, they don't do one thing then stop and do the complete opposite.

[themikefest]

I would like to ask the catalyst how it knows synthesis is the final evolution of all life  

[Kynare]

I've always been doubtful of the Catalyst's "logic", but I never thought it was lying either.

[RatThing]

It has been brought up before and I don't think many people are actually thinking that the catalyst is actively deceiving Shepard (aside of the IT crowd of course). I believe it doesn't lie, but I don't trust in its understanding of life, evolution and a human mind. This thing thought that by transforming races into Reapers it preserved life. It clearly doesn't have the same understanding of life that I have. Now I should believe in its ultimate solution for evolution or that it can preserve Shepards mind somehow? Doesn't happen.  https://www.youtube....h?v=QLNXeatv2k0

[AlanC9]

I don't think so.
Now why would it pick Shepard up at all? Well if the Crucible is a giant restraining bolt, it's quite the inconvenience. Even if its tools continue the fight, it can't do anything, for good or ill. Maybe its very control is being disrupted and the Reapers we see still fighting are just defending themselves. This is getting into the territory of "what would Reapers do without the holokid" which is another discussion. But if it does inhibit it, or even hurt it, it needs something (or someone) to get it off.

Hmmm... doesn't this mean that the Catalyst would have to think that there's no downside risk to having Shepard up there? The Reapers are doing just fine without it, so there's no reason to run any risk.

 

Thus Shepard is brought up and the bullshit begins. Maybe the options will all sabotage the Crucible as you said. Maybe some like synthesis, or even control are actually preferable to it. I would laugh at the irony of a "reverse IT" where Control and Synthesis work but destroy dooms us all.
 

I always envisioned this as a different Stargazer scene, with a couple of synthetics talking about how Shepard was so wise and selfless that he willingly let evolution take its natural course even though he knew that this would eventually doom his own species.

[CrutchCricket]

Hmmm... doesn't this mean that the Catalyst would have to think that there's no downside risk to having Shepard up there? The Reapers are doing just fine without it, so there's no reason to run any risk.

Sure. What would the risk be? It's one dying man, with a pistol. Even with an inexplicably unlimited pistol, there's no damage he can do to the Citadel itself. We can speculate that the risk of not doing anything increases, depending on what effect the holokid's inhibition is having on the Reapers. But I don't see the risk of using Shepard increasing for any reason.
 

I always envisioned this as a different Stargazer scene, with a couple of synthetics talking about how Shepard was so wise and selfless that he willingly let evolution take its natural course even though he knew that this would eventually doom his own species.

Also an amusing inversion.

[NeroonWilliams]

It has been brought up before and I don't think many people are actually thinking that the catalyst is actively deceiving Shepard (aside of the IT crowd of course). I believe it doesn't lie, but I don't trust in its understanding of life, evolution and a human mind. This thing thought that by transforming races into Reapers it preserved life. It clearly doesn't have the same understanding of life that I have. Now I should believe in its ultimate solution for evolution or that it can preserve Shepards mind somehow? Doesn't happen.  https://www.youtube....h?v=QLNXeatv2k0

I posit that you are looking at the wrong use of the word "preservation".  The Reapers are not said preservation; the "younger" races are.

 

I once used this analogy to explain what the AI is doing, but it got lost to me when BSN revamped the last time:

 

Imagine a tree, growing up towards a power cable.  If any part of that tree comes in contact with the power cable, the whole tree will die (I know this is not how power cables actually work.  Just roll with the illustration.).  One of the branches is growing close enough to the cable that a strong wind might cause it to touch (and thus kill the tree).  What do you do?  Do you let it go and hope for the best?  Or do you do the responsible thing and prune the branch?

 

Now let's go back and define those parts of the above analogy.  The tree represents all life in the galaxy.  The branch that needs pruning represents a civilization capable of producing an AI, and the power cable represents the possibility of an AI that perceives ALL life as a potential enemy and intends to eliminate it.  That last is something that only has to happen once, and THAT is the possibility that the AI was programmed to prevent.  Its solution isn't to preserve civilizations as Reapers (although that does accomplish its goal in a secondary manner), but instead to preserve life as a whole by pruning away branches that are approaching the danger zone.

[RatThing]

I posit that you are looking at the wrong use of the word "preservation".  The Reapers are not said preservation; the "younger" races are.

 

I once used this analogy to explain what the AI is doing, but it got lost to me when BSN revamped the last time:

 

Imagine a tree, growing up towards a power cable.  If any part of that tree comes in contact with the power cable, the whole tree will die (I know this is not how power cables actually work.  Just roll with the illustration.).  One of the branches is growing close enough to the cable that a strong wind might cause it to touch (and thus kill the tree).  What do you do?  Do you let it go and hope for the best?  Or do you do the responsible thing and prune the branch?

 

Now let's go back and define those parts of the above analogy.  The tree represents all life in the galaxy.  The branch that needs pruning represents a civilization capable of producing an AI, and the power cable represents the possibility of an AI that perceives ALL life as a potential enemy and intends to eliminate it.  That last is something that only has to happen once, and THAT is the possibility that the AI was programmed to prevent.  Its solution isn't to preserve civilizations as Reapers (although that does accomplish its goal in a secondary manner), but instead to preserve life as a whole by pruning away branches that are approaching the danger zone.

 

Err, ...  no.

1)   "Reapers harvest all life. Organic and synthetic, preserving them before they are forever lost to the conflict"  (and I already disagree with the notion that synthetics are life)

 

2) I also don't believe that organic destruction by AI is inevitable. I've proven the opposite when I let the Quarians destroy the Geth.

 

3) Whatever it is doing, it is not what the Leviathan build it for. This already shows that it has a hard time truely understanding organics.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

If a Terminator started helping me while his buddies were slaughtering my friends, I'd sure as hell ask why. Wouldn't you?

 

It needs asking precisely because it's a machine. Machines don't change their minds, they don't do one thing then stop and do the complete opposite.

 

Not when the reason appears evident to me already.

 

Basically, your needs are aligned: it needs Shepard to choose something to wipe the slate clean, Shepard needs to stop the cycles.

 

Destroy and Control signal that we do not need him to save us anymore -- we were able to eradicate/subjugate an AI threat much bigger than ourselves.

[CronoDragoon]

Believing him about Crucible functions is different than believing his opinion about the viability of those functions. I think there's sufficient reason to both believe the former and disregard the latter.

[NeroonWilliams]

Err, ...  no.

1)   "Reapers harvest all life. Organic and synthetic, preserving them before they are forever lost to the conflict"  (and I already disagree with the notion that synthetics are life)

 

2) I also don't believe that organic destruction by AI is inevitable. I've proven the opposite when I let the Quarians destroy the Geth.

 

3) Whatever it is doing, it is not what the Leviathan build it for. This already shows that it has a hard time truely understanding organics.

In response:

1) Reapers periodically HARVEST a selection of sentient species (yes, both organic and synthetic), not all life.  They PRESERVE organic life as a whole.

 

2) In a logic argument, inevitability doesn't matter.  Is the probability greater than zero?  If yes, then it is possible and you have to judge whether or not the consequence is bad.  Your second statement here is just as irrelevant as those who say "I made peace between the Quarians and the Geth, so you're wrong Starbrat!".  Moreso in your case because you made a claim that the usual course of events happened again.

 

The point of the illustration is that it only has to happen ONCE.  The probability of it happening once is infinitesimal, but then again, so is the random putterings of protein eventually combining into self replicating RNA, but we certainly see that that has happened quite a lot in the game.

 

3) You are correct in saying that it is not doing what the Leviathans conceived of it doing.  Its understanding of intent is irrelevant to the task it was assigned.  A requested solution devoid of morality will always come up as amoral (which is not the same as immoral).

[CrutchCricket]

Not when the reason appears evident to me already.

 

Basically, your needs are aligned: it needs Shepard to choose something to wipe the slate clean, Shepard needs to stop the cycles.

 

Destroy and Control signal that we do not need him to save us anymore -- we were able to eradicate/subjugate an AI threat much bigger than ourselves.

At no point is that evident. Why are its needs thus? Because of what it tells you? It spouts so much nonsense even a first year comp sci student would know there's bugs in the software. Beyond that we're talking about machines that constantly belittle you and do everything in their power to wipe you out. And suddenly one of them wants to help. Even if you don't assume deception that's far too out of the blue to not question it. And the answers to those questions are likely more than can be expressed in a rant as inane as the holokid's.

 

I think your point is "machines can't be devious". Which is wrong, I'm afraid. The Reapers are plently devious. Legion with Reaper code is just as devious. EDI tricking the Alliance into thinking she's a VI is a benign example but one that stands nonetheless.

[RatThing]

In response:

1) Reapers periodically HARVEST a selection of sentient species (yes, both organic and synthetic), not all life.  They PRESERVE organic life as a whole.

 

2) In a logic argument, inevitability doesn't matter.  Is the probability greater than zero?  If yes, then it is possible and you have to judge whether or not the consequence is bad.  Your second statement here is just as irrelevant as those who say "I made peace between the Quarians and the Geth, so you're wrong Starbrat!".  Moreso in your case because you made a claim that the usual course of events happened again.

 

The point of the illustration is that it only has to happen ONCE.  The probability of it happening once is infinitesimal, but then again, so is the random putterings of protein eventually combining into self replicating RNA, but we certainly see that that has happened quite a lot in the game.

 

3) You are correct in saying that it is not doing what the Leviathans conceived of it doing.  Its understanding of intent is irrelevant to the task it was assigned.  A requested solution devoid of morality will always come up as amoral (which is not the same as immoral).

 

1) You purposely misinterpret the sentence. The catalyst clearly talks about the races it harvests here. In another line it says it helps them ascend. Nowhere does it says it kills or destroys them, because it doesn`t think that way. And yet it does kill them.

 

2) Destroying all organic life by synthetics? The possibility for that is zero. No synthetics even targeted all organic life. And by destroying the Geth I've proven that organics are not inferior to synthetics by definition (which also means that we don't need the catalysts' solution). To me that is proof enough a complete organic extinction by synthetics will never happen.

 

3) Who assigned the task to the catalyst? Not the Leviathans? It was created to solve their own problems, not some universal dilemma. And the solution it came up with shows me, it didn't really understood what the problem for the Leviathan was. The alternative would be, that the Leviathan are intelligent enough to create a super AI but too dumb to give it the right task. Not very likely.

[Orikon]

[JasonShepard]

@CrutchCricket:

I considered putting into the OP something along the lines of "But then, maybe the Catalyst has also been restrained by the Crucible, and it feels that manipulating Shepard is the only way to get out in time to stop the Crucible from firing." I certainly acknowledge it as a possible reason not to trust the Catalyst. At the end of the day, we're not psychic - we can't know its true intentions. Which I guess means we can't know that its trustworthy.

 

The only counter to this line of thought that I have is that Hackett contacts you, telling you that the Crucible isn't doing anything. Don't you think the Crucible scientists would have noticed a charge-up period and/or AI restraining systems kicking into gear? Then again, I guess they never noticed that the damn thing had been designed to dock with the Citadel...

 

(And I'm with you on disliking the Catalyst as a plot-device. Then again, I dislike the entire Crucible plot-device. It's far too convenient to just find the solution to the Reapers 20 minutes after they arrived...)

 

The other strange thing in this is - why is it offering us a choice at all? Presumably it has a preference as to what we should pick. It refers to Synthesis as the ideal solution, but comments that the 'chaos' will come back with Destroy. So why not just offer its preferred option? Why let Shepard have a choice? The Catalyst doesn't strike me as something that values free will...

[JasonShepard]

I've always been doubtful of the Catalyst's "logic", but I never thought it was lying either.

 

It has been brought up before and I don't think many people are actually thinking that the catalyst is actively deceiving Shepard (aside of the IT crowd of course). I believe it doesn't lie, but I don't trust in its understanding of life, evolution and a human mind. This thing thought that by transforming races into Reapers it preserved life. It clearly doesn't have the same understanding of life that I have. Now I should believe in its ultimate solution for evolution or that it can preserve Shepards mind somehow? Doesn't happen.  https://www.youtube....h?v=QLNXeatv2k0

 

Believing him about Crucible functions is different than believing his opinion about the viability.of those functions. I think there's sufficient reason to both believe the former and disregard the latter.

 

I agree with all of you that even if we conclude that the Catalyst isn't lying to us, that's no reason to necessarily trust what it's saying. Its logic could be wrong. When it says Synthesis is the ideal solution... well, I suspect it has a different idea of 'ideal' to the rest of us, and we may not want its 'ideal solution' even if it is being completely honest with us. Control? Well, what does it mean by 'you' in "You will control us", when it also just said "You will die"? What if its idea of 'me' doesn't match what I think of as me?

 

I concede that's a good argument for Destroy. At least we know exactly that's doing, even if some of us might prefer not to blow up the Geth.

[CrutchCricket]

The only counter to this line of thought that I have is that Hackett contacts you, telling you that the Crucible isn't doing anything. Do you think the Crucible scientists would have detected a charge-up period and/or AI restraining systems? I guess they never noticed that the damn thing had been designed to dock with the Citadel...

Doesn't Hackett say the Crucible isn't firing? That's not exactly the same as not doing anything. I think it lights up briefly before the shot cuts away so it's doing something. Whether energy buildup would be detected would depend on what it was suppose to do. Which is really the problem with the "we're building a giant thing we don't know what it does" plan. It makes sense that they wouldn't notice things like restraining systems but of course, it doesn't make sense that they wouldn't know what the damn thing does in the first place.

 

But to the specific points of restraints and docking, the Citadel tower isn't really a common docking spot. Only two things ever dock there that we see- Sovereign and the Crucible. So they can be forgiven for not putting two and two together. In fact if the Citadel wasn't the shape it was, I'd be questioning how they knew where the Crucible plug in at all. As for restraints, the holokid isn't your garden variety AI. I think shackles for it would not just be grander in scale but more complex, maybe even employing methods we've never seen before. It could even be less obvious if instead of simply blocking the holokid from acting, the Crucible merely hijacked admin privileges and changed the passwords.
 

The other strange thing in this is - why is it offering us a choice at all? Presumably it has a preference as to what we should pick. It refers to Synthesis as the ideal solution, but comments that the 'chaos' will come back with Destroy. So why not just offer its preferred option? Why let Shepard have a choice? The Catalyst doesn't strike me as something that values free will...

It doesn't value free will but it knows we do. If it comes at us with an off button for the Reapers and says "you must press this", we might refuse on principle. I know we're not metagaming but just look at how many people attacked the endings and other ME3 issues on choice alone and how many refused for the very reason I'm describing.

 

In any case, if it is a trap, all three options are preferable. Either they sabotage the Crucible or they directly speed up/accomplish the Reaper's goals. So why not? Having "choice" sells the deception and it can't really lose.

[AlanC9]

Sure. What would the risk be? It's one dying man, with a pistol. Even with an inexplicably unlimited pistol, there's no damage he can do to the Citadel itself. We can speculate that the risk of not doing anything increases, depending on what effect the holokid's inhibition is having on the Reapers. But I don't see the risk of using Shepard increasing for any reason.

Note that if this is the real circumstance then it doesn't matter what Shepard does. He's already lost -- there never was any way to win, in fact. So he might as well just drop this entire line of reasoning.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

At no point is that evident. Why are its needs thus? Because of what it tells you? It spouts so much nonsense even a first year comp sci student would know there's bugs in the software. Beyond that we're talking about machines that constantly belittle you and do everything in their power to wipe you out. And suddenly one of them wants to help. Even if you don't assume deception that's far too out of the blue to not question it. And the answers to those questions are likely more than can be expressed in a rant as inane as the holokid's.

 

It says plainly that its solution "will not work anymore" and that this is proven by Shepard's presence in the chamber -- on the verge of activating the Crucible.

 

With Destroy, he either feels that organics have proven they can save themselves and is willing to let go, or just recognizes that he is not going to stop it.

 

And the Catalyst is not "one of them." It is a distinctly different thing from Reapers. If it were Harbinger himself speaking to us, that would give pause, but it is not.

 

I think your point is "machines can't be devious". Which is wrong, I'm afraid. The Reapers are plently devious. Legion with Reaper code is just as devious. EDI tricking the Alliance into thinking she's a VI is a benign example but one that stands nonetheless.

No, my point is more like "machines are pragmatic." They are not like us that get hung up over trivialities. Not like us humans where some of us get stuck on "I'm not working with the leader of the Reapers!" I mean, that could go the other way, but you don't see the Catalyst refusing to work with the guy who undermined his system the most.

 

So long as we are citing examples of other synthetics, take the geth, too. They were willing to ally with the Reapers to keep themselves alive longer. Or Legion recognizing that the geth needed to evolve quickly or be slaughtered even if it meant using Reaper-tech to achieve that.

[CrutchCricket]

It says plainly that its solution "will not work anymore" and that this is proven by Shepard's presence in the chamber -- on the verge of activating the Crucible.
 
With Destroy, he either feels that organics have proven they can save themselves and is willing to let go, or just recognizes that he is not going to stop it.
 
And the Catalyst is not "one of them." It is a distinctly different thing from Reapers. If it were Harbinger himself speaking to us, that would give pause, but it is not.

That doesn't prove anything. Three years later, I still don't know what it's on about. How does Shepard prove the cycles "won't work"? Because he's ostensibly about to win? That just means they got sloppy with the clean up. If it thinks giant killbots melting people down every 50,000 years is a good plan, nothing we've done should dissuade it or convince it of anything other than that it needs to confirm its kills. And the three choices make even less sense from its perspective. Destroy is just flat out abandoning its post and committing suicide. Control is passing the buck and synthesis doesn't make enough sense to be evaluated.

 

Seriously, why would it feel that Shepard and co. (with or without the former in charge of its playthings) are suddenly going to be safe from a problem it thought worthy of repeated genocide? Why does Destroy convince it we can take care of ourselves when making peace or killing the geth did not? Why does it think Shepard will do a better job as overlord without the cycles?

 

It's all nonsense, and certainly not to be taken at face value.

 

As for the holokid itself, shoot it in the head or refuse to play ball. Then you'll see how distinct it really is.

 

No, my point is more like "machines are pragmatic." They are not like us that get hung up over trivialities. Not like us humans where some of us get stuck on "I'm not working with the leader of the Reapers!" I mean, that could go the other way, but you don't see the Catalyst refusing to work with the guy who undermined his system the most.
 
So long as we are citing examples of other synthetics, take the geth, too. They were willing to ally with the Reapers to keep themselves alive longer. Or Legion recognizing that the geth needed to evolve quickly or be slaughtered even if it meant using Reaper-tech to achieve that.

The geth had no choice after the idiot war the quarian started robbed them of most of their resources. And they, having their own idiot ball put too many eggs in one basket or too many programs into one Dyson sphere as it were, enabling this moronic outcome.

 

And pragmatism goes both ways. Why should anyone be less willing to deceive an enemy than work with them? Organics may not be considered an enemy because fire burns and all that bullshit but Shepard actively opposes them. He hurt them in the past. He is an enemy, holokid rambling be damned. And the question being considered here is why should we trust the holokid? Or more specifically, is there anything that we can use to rule out deception from it? And the answer is, no, there isn't.

[wright1978]

Yeah i don't trust the bratalyst. Before MEHEM i was actively having to headanon Shep was hoping explosion from Destroy(shooting tube) might damage it, though refuse would be an equally valid choice without knowledge it was basically 'mission failure' option.

Thankfully MEHEM came round and i could abandon the horrible trainwreck that was ME3's ending.

[voteDC]

This is perhaps my biggest issue with holo-kid. It has just told me that it created and controls the Reapers, that it is responsible for slaughter on a unimaginable scale.

Yet I was supposed to believe that it would let me stop it. I was fully expecting a turn about, where Shepard realises that it is directing him/her to electrocution, disintegration, or death by explosion. Then Shepard would have to work out a way to get back to the console below to activate the Catalyst and end the war.

After all machines are quite capable of deception. EDI and Legion demonstrate that.

 

Like Wright, the MEHEM let me replay the game without that nonsense. Though these days I prefer the Catalyst free version of John P's Alternate MEHEM (with Reignite added back into the credits by Deager.)