3598 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Exactly. The importance of the characterization is the difference between the kids in the class and Some Kid that we see dying in the intro and are supposed to believe is the specter (no pun intended) haunting Shepard as a symbol of humanity throughout the war. It's easier to care about the former as people where the latter is an obvious attempt to manipulate us because it's a child.

 

(I took the name Some Kid from Shamus Young in his excellent Mass Effect Retrospective series)

I'm just reading that completely (as opposed to one or two episodes I read a few weeks ago). An excellent analysis so far. 

[Eryri]

Oh, wow. Am I touching your mind incapable of understanding? For real? I didn't expect such arrogance.
Why do you avoid answering my question? Am I wrong or am I right? Or you don't have a point at all and argue just for the heck of it? If I'm wrong (about your logic, not about the game) then tell me why is that.
I feel like I'm talking to the Catalyst, really.
And to answer your question: If I have Reapers in my disposal why would I attack every species when I can just indoctrinate everyone (from the times when they are still primitive)? If the galactic society obeys Reaper instructions then it "develops along the paths we desire" and will never think about creating synthetics. Am I violating their freedoms? Yes. But are they preserved? Yes. Then my goal is achieved.

To be fair, the Reapers wouldn't be able to keep whole populations indoctrinated because their version of it is so destructive. Everyone would die of dementia, to all intents and purposes. However, the Leviathans were apparently less destructive with their abilities and probably could have compelled at least the leaders of their thrall species to stay away from AI research, thereby making the Catalyst unnecessary to begin with.

And your central point still stands, the Catalyst's methods of policing synthetic development are hopelessly convoluted and inefficient. It could definitely have come up with a better method than 'leave the Galaxy to its own devices for 50k years before having a protracted and unnecessary war, and throw your precious, preserved species into harm's way as warships.'

[gothpunkboy89]

Oh, wow. Am I touching your mind incapable of understanding? For real? I didn't expect such arrogance.

Why do you avoid answering my question? Am I wrong or am I right? Or you don't have a point at all and argue just for the heck of it? If I'm wrong (about your logic, not about the game) then tell me why is that.

I feel like I'm talking to the Catalyst, really.

And to answer your question: If I have Reapers in my disposal why would I attack every species when I can just indoctrinate everyone (from the times when they are still primitive)? If the galactic society obeys Reaper instructions then it "develops along the paths we desire" and will never think about creating synthetics. Am I violating their freedoms? Yes. But are they preserved? Yes. Then my goal is achieved.

 

Eh same level of arrogance I see time and time again on the forums. Seriously there is a reason a lot of ME fans avoid/mock these forums.

 

Again with the simplistic answer to a complicated question.

 

To start with indoctrination isn't very reliable if to weak people can break free from it. If to strong it causes mental instability. Each race also loses that uniqueness as everyone would have to be the same bland things.

 

So what is the great difference between harvesting them, preserving all their history in a Reaper. And stripping them of free will and uniqueness causing every race to be exactly the same minus physical differences and inflicting mass mental problems on the races?

[BloodyMares]

Eh same level of arrogance I see time and time again on the forums. Seriously there is a reason a lot of ME fans avoid/mock these forums.

 

Again with the simplistic answer to a complicated question.

And again no answer. What, is it so difficult to say what are you trying to say? If I don't know what is your point then how do you expect me to understand you? If you don't care if I understand you or not then what is the point of our conversation? Do you remember what we were discussing in the beginning? I forgot entirely because your arguments don't really help stay on the subject. You argue over lore, over details yet I haven't noticed that you have any point of view. If you were attentive to my comments you could notice that it's really clear what I'm trying to say and why I think that way. With you however it is a mystery. 

And about indoctrination...Stupid idea, yes. But as stupid as the Harvest. If some minor races get themselves killed by their technology then it's their own damn fault that they are not smart enough. If I was a Leviathan I wouldn't care about this conflict at all. Probably I would think about a kill-switch like the Crucible to blow up any synthetics if they become a threat to my thrall species. If Leviathans care about mere synthetics then why they don't try to solve a conflict "Organics vs Weapons of Mass Destruction" as well? Krogan nearly wiped themselves out with those nukes. There's no need to babysit organics.

[Natureguy85]

Eh same level of arrogance I see time and time again on the forums. Seriously there is a reason a lot of ME fans avoid/mock these forums.

 

Again with the simplistic answer to a complicated question.

 

To start with indoctrination isn't very reliable if to weak people can break free from it. If to strong it causes mental instability. Each race also loses that uniqueness as everyone would have to be the same bland things.

 

So what is the great difference between harvesting them, preserving all their history in a Reaper. And stripping them of free will and uniqueness causing every race to be exactly the same minus physical differences and inflicting mass mental problems on the races?

 

Well, they would still be alive and that's all that matters to the Catalyst. But those brain dead servants wouldn't even reproduce, which is why it wouldn't work.

[Dantriges]

The catalyst´s plan is needlessly complicated. We are talking about the Reapers actively controlling other species from primitive beginnings as an alternative.

One of the solutions is Control, where the Reapers actively police the galaxy on behalf of their new AI mastermind. So was active policing of the galaxy one of the solutions tried and discarded, did the catalyst not think of it or is it some kind of "let´s hope it works under a new management?"

 

You don´t need indoctrination, you can use religion which is just as good, especially when your mile high gods actually do rain fire from the sky when you displease them or can shower you with marvelous tech, when you please them.

[General TSAR]

And in an ideal world, even they shouldn't be allowed. 

Thankfully, you don't have power of legislation of such matters.

[gothpunkboy89]

And again no answer. What, is it so difficult to say what are you trying to say? If I don't know what is your point then how do you expect me to understand you? If you don't care if I understand you or not then what is the point of our conversation? Do you remember what we were discussing in the beginning? I forgot entirely because your arguments don't really help stay on the subject. You argue over lore, over details yet I haven't noticed that you have any point of view. If you were attentive to my comments you could notice that it's really clear what I'm trying to say and why I think that way. With you however it is a mystery. 

And about indoctrination...Stupid idea, yes. But as stupid as the Harvest. If some minor races get themselves killed by their technology then it's their own damn fault that they are not smart enough. If I was a Leviathan I wouldn't care about this conflict at all. Probably I would think about a kill-switch like the Crucible to blow up any synthetics if they become a threat to my thrall species. If Leviathans care about mere synthetics then why they don't try to solve a conflict "Organics vs Weapons of Mass Destruction" as well? Krogan nearly wiped themselves out with those nukes. There's no need to babysit organics.

 

Again you don't look at the problem in the eye because you want it to be stupid and simple.

 

 

Yes if some organic race kills themselves with their own tech it is their own fault. Your Krogan example of them nearly killing themselves off with nuclear weapons is a good example. The problem how ever that the Catalyst was created to solve and the problem that does exist is far more complex then something that simple. If a race of synthetic life is powerful enough to wipe out an entire race then they would equally have the ability of any space fairing race to spread across the galaxy. Either knowing how to from the start or developing the technology much like the Rachni did. This then expands the problem beyond one race being wiped out by their own means like the Krogan. This threat that was already capable of topping a technological equal is now able to spread to other worlds. Expanding, developing and growing in numbers as they go.

 

This means that singular mistake by 1 species can spread to effect multiple species.

 

As for your kill switch like Crucible

 

https://youtu.be/dCRnp54h6eQ?t=2m27s

[Natureguy85]

^ One of many reasons why EDI is one of my favourite characters, and honestly one of the biggest reasons stopping me from picking Destroy. That and the geth. 

 

 

^ And this is one of my own ires with the ending. Also kind of why I and I'm sure a lot of people hated the Catalyst. For an intelligence he was anything but.

 

 

And it's funny. EDI was able to break free from her initial program when the Catalyst isn't able to do it. Too bad you can't bring EDI with you in the choice room.

 

Lol, “the biggest reasons stopping [you] from picking destroy” are the ONLY reasons to not pick Destroy.

 

Yeah, I’ve said for a long time that the Catalyst is merely a VI. It is way more limited than Legion or EDI.

 

 

 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is obvious, easy, and wrong.

 

The catalyst mentions that he tried different solutions. None of them worked. Eventually, synthetics and organics always came to conflict. The Reapers were the only solution that would guarantee the continuance of organic life. If you choose the "Destroy" option, eventually there will be another war between synthetics and organics in the future - one that organics may not win.  If you choose 'Control', you may end up implementing the same radical solution yourself down the road when synthetics and organics come to blows across the galaxy.

 

The crucible 'changed' him - basically he was a virgin who finally got laid (the sexual symbolism in the catalyst/crucible joining is pretty obvious). That let him see things in a new light and consider new possibilities.  I'm not saying this is a Good Thing™, but that's the direction the ending went at that point.

 

Putting all that together is why 'synthesis' was the 'good' ending: it's the only one that won't devolve into a repetition of the past.

 

I mentioned this to Gothpunkdope, but that simply won’t cut it. A blanket statement that it tried other things and they failed and this is the only solution is not believable. Look at the Architect in The Matrix Reloaded. He tells you about his previous attempts, why they didn’t work, and why the current system did work.  We also know why the machines put humans in their machine. We don’t know what is so great about being a Reaper and what value organic goop in a shell has. While organic material might be preserved in the Reaper, LIFE is not. Those organics are dead. (Yes, I repeated my earlier comment.)

 

It doesn’t matter that there will be further conflict. There will always be further conflict. It also doesn’t matter that Organics might not win, and we should focus on that word “might.” According to the Catalyst, there is no “might” because it is inevitable that Synthetics will win. This is not a certainty in any one case, and even if it is inevitable in the sense of eternity, that may be the acceptable cost of continuing to exist rather than being slaughtered and stuffed into a robot. 

 

Control at least frees Shepard up to be a smarter Catalyst, but still is problematic in the galactic police state sense. The problem with Synthesis is that we have to take the Catalyst’s word that it will solve a problem that we have to take the Catalyst’s word exists. Neither are known or knowable and we have evidence to the contrary to the Catalyst’s claims in the current cycle.

 

 

 

 

This is what I meant by them inserting hope where it didn't belong.  EDI in ME2 was fine. Her development in ME 3 and the possibility of peace between the Quarians and Geth are not.  The ending of a story is generally one of the first things written. The stuff in the middle is what gets hammered out last, and I feel like the bulk of ME3 was added long after the plot should have been settled.

 

But people like happy endings (there's even a 'happy ending' mod out there).  This should have been a dark and bleak tale with a spectre of solemn finality instead of the happy happy joy joy campfire song ending that we were given.

 

What was wrong with those things? The foundations were laid down in ME2. You can criticize the execution but they were not out of place. Overcoming these long feuds in the face of the Reaper threat is a big part of the story. Arguably, they ARE the story, more so than actually fighting the Reapers.

 

 

 

 

As well as you can't even pull the Geth into this because again the Catalyst's actions before creating the Reapers was to attempt peace. But it always ended in conflict. Claiming 6 months of cooperation while facing an mutually assured destruction does not automatically equal the end of the conflict forever.

 

The end of conflict for all time is not the point. What matters is to “give peace a chance” and then to solve the problem on their own if and when it comes up.

 

 

 

 

I totally agree with this. There's really nothing about the game that makes you think it's leading toward a dark ending. I'm actually fine with the original ending, if they wanted a galactic dark age ending. I just don't think it fits the context of what Shepard has been doing over the course of not just ME3, but the entire trilogy. Shepard succeeds in the face of overwhelming odds. Always. And then the end wasn't even about Shepard.

 

It doesn’t. It does fit the tone of the Protheans, but not Shepard.

 

 

 

 

Says Me

 

To be clear - I'm saying the ending we got in the game was much too happy for the story. Even the destroy and control options. You're absolutely right about synthesis.  There was (again, IMHO) far too much 'happy' in ME3.

 

The addition of hope and triumph over adversity is what caused those inconsistencies.

 

Here's the ending I think the game was aiming for originally - I'll keep this in the context of a conversation with Star Lord, Jr. just because.

 

1) Star Child explains that he tried everything else, but the Reaper cycle was the only option to keep preserving "Life", even though it destroyed lives. He then explains the consequences of stopping the Reapers but allows Shepard to make the call.

 

2) Shepard can choose destroy. This means that all mass relays are destroyed, devastating all worlds in those sectors, and pretty much killing everyone. No one will be able to travel home, so everyone in the battle in the Sol system is screwed. On the off chance enough souls survive, eventually they will develop synthetic life down the road and in all likelihood be destroyed by it.

 

3) Shepard can choose control. Again, all relays will be destroyed, but Shepard will control the Reapers. She may be able to use her new Star Lord knowledge to help the civilizations rebuild, but eventually, she will be faced with how to preserve life in the face of the synthetic vs. organic conflicts to come. Maybe she can find a different solution, but she's essentially becoming the new catalyst, and may well come to the same conclusion over time.

 

3) In the event of a near perfect game, you could choose synthesis. Again, all relays will be destroyed, no one can travel, but if enough creatures survive (not a given), they just might have a chance of continuing without running into the synthetic-organic conflict.

 

For all possibilities, it should be made clear that the chance of complete and total extinction of all galactic life is a very real possibility if the Reapers do not finish their mission.

 

I'm not a fan of the 'three doors' presentation of the ending. Honestly, at that point just pushing through with a cutscene with interactive dialog based on all your choices may have been the better way to go. Ultimately though, none of your choices should matter in the end since you're waging a battle in the face of futility. THAT should have been the theme that stayed in the forefront instead of being pushed aside. Futility was a major theme through the series, they just stopped pushing it near the end.

 

The entire series was spent overcoming adversity. It was prominent in the first game. The second kept referring to the attack on the Collectors as a suicide mission. How do you see this as a late insert?

1. The problem with this is that because all of this is ancient history we know nothing about and is contrary to our experience, we can’t understand or become invested in it.
2. This might have been a good idea. It would have given more weight to Destroy. However, because we never see nor experience the Catalyst’s problem, we can’t fear its return.
3. The problem with Control is that we’ve been fighting against it the entire game and are never given a reason it’s a good idea except for that it won’t kill Synthetics like EDI. Shepard just told TIM humanity wasn’t ready.
4. Synthesis is just the worst.

The endings aren’t happy on their face, but the EC epilogues sugarcoat all the problems or just whitewash them away. Waging a futile effort can work, but it’s hard to pull off, especially in a video game where the consumer is a player and not merely a viewer. Or you can have the characters win an internal struggle even though they lose the framing struggle, like in the movie Glory. After all, the first game said that extinction was preferable to submission. However, the series had constantly been full of hope for victory, we just didn’t know how. It was never hopeless.

 

 

 

I think the problem was more that the original ending didn't have a relatable emotional touchstone left. Who were we saving? Exactly nobody as yet alive in the original dark age endings. Shepard dies for nothing in which we were invested. The few of the Normandy team who can survive do not have enough narrative weight against all of civilization. Basically, we do not win. We lose in two different ways: by not saving what we were out to save, our civilization, and by having to adopt the antagonist's solutions.

Then the writers realized they f****d thinks up and gave us the EC, which turns things around by 180 degrees, which is equally problematic because now it's suggested that the antagonist's solutions are actually good solutions, creating a whole new set of thematic inconsistencies.

Both sets of endings feel like endings of a different story, because nothing had set us up to foresee and accept the end of civilization (OE), and nothing had prepared us for accepting that antagonist's solutions as good (EC).

 

 

You’re exactly right. Shamus Young calls it “assumed empathy.” Mr.Btonge says “we’re told to replace our emotional attachment to the characters with an emotional attachment to Organic Life.” I disagree that the pre- and post-EC give that different of story though. For me, the tone is largely the same but the cutscenes at the end whitewash many of the problems. I think even the Original Ending was telling you that the Reapers were actually good guys.

 

 

 

It's not thematically inconsistent to have the enemy win in a few outcomes. 

 

In any other game, if the enemy (boss) defeats you, he wins; if you defeat him, you win. 

 

Yeah, and that would be fine. I like the idea of too low EMS means the Reapers win or everything is destroyed. Low EMS Destroy works pretty well, though they needed to construct it a bit differently. The problem is that in all endings but Destroy, you have to accept what the Catalyst says and pick from one of its options. And a major problem is that we don't really get to fight this boss.

 

 

 

Of course, blowing up civilization has a long pedigree in SF; see, for instance, The Fall of Hyperion. Maybe this can't work in an RPG?

 

Sure it can, but an audience will want there to be hope that civilization can rise from the ashes and recover. Apocalypse can be an interesting setting, but it’s a tough sell as an ending, unless it’s to set up another story, like a prequel.

[AlanC9]

The Fall of Hyperion makes ME3's endings look good in comparison.
 
Heck I expected something like that to happen.
 
Instead we got something totally bizarre, more akin to The Rise of Endymion

Agreed. In effect we've got the ME3 ending split in two. First we get the blowing-up-the-setting part, and then a couple books later we get the transforming-all-conscious-life part. Of course, Simmons is a better writer than Bio's guys, and he pulls it off better.

Though in retrospect Bio maybe should have stolen from somebody else. Peter Hamilton comes to mind.

[gothpunkboy89]

The end of conflict for all time is not the point. What matters is to “give peace a chance” and then to solve the problem on their own if and when it comes up. 

 

And yet the Catalyst has tried that and it always ended in conflict.  Saying all that matters is to give peace a chance is....frankly child like. We humans have been giving peace a chance for thousands of years and that hasn't stopped any of the fighting, the death, the destruction at all.

[BloodyMares]

Again you don't look at the problem in the eye because you want it to be stupid and simple.

 

 

Yes if some organic race kills themselves with their own tech it is their own fault. Your Krogan example of them nearly killing themselves off with nuclear weapons is a good example. The problem how ever that the Catalyst was created to solve and the problem that does exist is far more complex then something that simple. If a race of synthetic life is powerful enough to wipe out an entire race then they would equally have the ability of any space fairing race to spread across the galaxy. Either knowing how to from the start or developing the technology much like the Rachni did. This then expands the problem beyond one race being wiped out by their own means like the Krogan. This threat that was already capable of topping a technological equal is now able to spread to other worlds. Expanding, developing and growing in numbers as they go.

 

This means that singular mistake by 1 species can spread to effect multiple species.

 

As for your kill switch like Crucible

 

https://youtu.be/dCRnp54h6eQ?t=2m27s

All I want to say right now is "So?". What problem are you talking about? You didn't make any point.

[Dantriges]

How did you get the idea that humans have been giving peace a chance for thousands of years? Warfare was considered to be an appropriate tool to achieve your goals for most of history. This slowly changed beginning in the 19th century when the death tolls skyrocketed (which resulted in certain agreements to limit unrestrained warfare and the establishment of the Red Cross) and in the 20th century when war between certain countries meant "ups we are all dead now."

[gothpunkboy89]

All I want to say right now is "So?". What problem are you talking about? You didn't make any point.

 

to put it simply you over simply the problem so you can complain that the Catalyst's solution is over complicated.

 

In essence more interested in being "right" then correct.

[gothpunkboy89]

How did you get the idea that humans have been giving peace a chance for thousands of years? Warfare was considered to be an appropriate tool to achieve your goals for most of history. This slowly changed beginning in the 19th century when the death tolls skyrocketed (which resulted in certain agreements to limit unrestrained warfare and the establishment of the Red Cross) and in the 20th century when war between certain countries meant "ups we are all dead now."

 

Because there have been moments of peace for years to decades at a time before fighting inevitably breaks out again.

[BloodyMares]

to put it simply you over simply the problem so you can complain that the Catalyst's solution is over complicated.

 

In essence more interested in being "right" then correct.

Not really. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that Catalyst's solution is overcomplicated. It is simple. It just doesn't make any sense. Do you want me to tell you why? Well then.

1) It doesn't solve anything. "Organics rise, evolve, advance. And at the apex of their glory, they are extinguished". The cycle repeats itself over and over. Instead of being wiped out by their own synthetics organics are wiped out by Catalyst's synthetics. How does it help organics? If your point is that it helps primitive organics then guess what their fate will be in the next cycle? Why bother helping primitives if you plan to kill them off in the next cycle? It just looks like child's play really (irony?) instead of solving anything. It doesn't stop organics from creating synthetics. It doesn't help organics survive. So my question is: How are Reapers any different from those synthetics that they want to save organics from?

2) The Catalyst says that it preserves organics in Reaper form. How? The organic goo is just DNA. Like sperm or blood. It has no consciousness. All that Harvest does is expand the numbers of the Reapers. It doesn't preserve anything. Maybe some historical data but in this case Reapers are just cybernetic graveyards / museums.

[Reorte]

Not really. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that Catalyst's solution is overcomplicated. It is simple. It just doesn't make any sense. Do you want me to tell you why? Well then.

1) It doesn't solve anything. "Organics rise, evolve, advance. And at the apex of their glory, they are extinguished". The cycle repeats itself over and over. Instead of being wiped out by their own synthetics organics are wiped out by Catalyst's synthetics. How does it help organics?

It stops the (rather dubious) issue of synthetics wiping out organic life entirely (presumably down to the last bacterium). Of course if that really were a concern then the Reapers should hang around the galaxy and destroy any species that so much as invents the wheel.

[BloodyMares]

It stops the (rather dubious) issue of synthetics wiping out organic life entirely (presumably down to the last bacterium). Of course if that really were a concern then the Reapers should hang around the galaxy and destroy any species that so much as invents the wheel.

Is it really possible to exterminate all life? You can exterminate every living and breathing species but not the life itself (well, not if you plan to destroy every planet of every star system which is absurd). Even if you scorch the planet of all life it will develop again. From bacteria to more complex creatures. Slowly, but it will flourish. So it doesn't make sense that the Catalyst would bother at all. If all it wants is to preserve (new) life then why interfere? Let the synthetics destroy organics. The life is still there.

[Vanilka]

Is it really possible to exterminate all life? You can exterminate every living and breathing species but not the life itself (well, not if you plan to destroy every planet of every star system which is absurd). Even if you scorch the planet of all life it will develop again. From bacteria to more complex creatures. Slowly, but it will flourish. So it doesn't make sense that the Catalyst would bother at all. If all it wants is to preserve (new) life then why interfere? Let the synthetics destroy organics. The life is still there.

 

Okay, but... just imagine it... like... synthetics chasing butterflies in order to exterminate them to the last. SERVES YOU RIGHT, YOU FLUTTERY PIECES OF ORGANIC MATTER!

 

[BloodyMares]

Okay, but... just imagine it... like... synthetics chasing butterflies in order to exterminate them to the last. SERVES YOU RIGHT, YOU FLUTTERY PIECES OF ORGANIC MATTER!

 

Y

LOL. Yeah. what kind of buggy AI would do that? Gothpunkboy defends the Catalyst when his own arguments make the Reaper actions make even less sense.

[gothpunkboy89]

Not really. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that Catalyst's solution is overcomplicated. It is simple. It just doesn't make any sense. Do you want me to tell you why? Well then.

1) It doesn't solve anything. "Organics rise, evolve, advance. And at the apex of their glory, they are extinguished". The cycle repeats itself over and over. Instead of being wiped out by their own synthetics organics are wiped out by Catalyst's synthetics. How does it help organics? If your point is that it helps primitive organics then guess what their fate will be in the next cycle? Why bother helping primitives if you plan to kill them off in the next cycle? It just looks like child's play really (irony?) instead of solving anything. It doesn't stop organics from creating synthetics. It doesn't help organics survive. So my question is: How are Reapers any different from those synthetics that they want to save organics from?

2) The Catalyst says that it preserves organics in Reaper form. How? The organic goo is just DNA. Like sperm or blood. It has no consciousness. All that Harvest does is expand the numbers of the Reapers. It doesn't preserve anything. Maybe some historical data but in this case Reapers are just cybernetic graveyards / museums.

 

 

Catalyst or anyone else ever claims it is the best solution just the only working one. Putting the galaxy in a stat of stasis so to speak to keep the end results of the cycle from happening. Waiting for a new solution that would work to show up. Hence why it jumps at the chance at the end of ME 3. It helps because it prevents the extinction of life. Killing off species at their apex and having new ones develop is the same cycle of life and extinction that always happens in nature. Synthetic's represent the total death of advanced organic life forever. Nothing would grow or develop to take it's place.  Again I refer to my fruit tree example. Reapers harvest the fruit each cycle but keep the tree healthy enough to bare fruit time and time again. Synthetics taking over would cut the tree down and drive copper stakes into the stump.

 

You claim it is simple yet your answers to how it would be done is lacking. You can not prevent organic's from developing synthetic is it simply how things will play out. Organic's seek to improve their lives though technology and this is a fact. Synthetic life is the end result of that advancement seeking to improve their lives. Be it purposeful (secret government program) or accidental (Geth) it will happen as technology becomes more advanced and more interconnected. Both EDI and the Geth were created because something unexpected happened and intelligence and awareness developed. Geth developed on their own while EDI was forcibly advanced by TIM and Cerberus.

 

You would need to some how force a limitation on technological development. Which is simply not feasible to do with a galaxy as large as it is.

 

We don't even understand the human consciousness and you are already declaring there would be no way to preserve it or transfer it to a new body? There is actually something related to this in ME 3. The whole bit about Christopher Huerta actually lends credit to this. Had a stroke and was legally dead for 90 minutes with his mind transferred to a computer. Came to a Supreme Court Case that was voted 5-4 that his year of Presidency post stroke was legitimate. So with the existing game world technology they were able to transfer the thoughts and memories of someone into a computer. Sending enough to allow someone to legitimately lead a large nation for a year.  The Reapers on the other hand are centuries more advanced then rest of the ME galaxy. 300-400  years of research on this topic would inevitably yeild much better transfers. The set up of turning them into goo and transferring their thoughts and memories possibly even their entire consciousness into a Reaper body is not that strange.

[gothpunkboy89]

Is it really possible to exterminate all life? You can exterminate every living and breathing species but not the life itself (well, not if you plan to destroy every planet of every star system which is absurd). Even if you scorch the planet of all life it will develop again. From bacteria to more complex creatures. Slowly, but it will flourish. So it doesn't make sense that the Catalyst would bother at all. If all it wants is to preserve (new) life then why interfere? Let the synthetics destroy organics. The life is still there.

 

 

And yet it wouldn't be allowed to grow. It would be like weeds in a garden. Just as they start to take form they are ripped from the ground.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Doesn't the epilogue though strongly imply that the Catalyst is wrong about it's predictions of inevitability? There's no sign of the roboapocolypse in any of the endings. The Rannoch arc and EDI also downplay the idea of Synthetics eventually destroying whatever stage of advanced life. The only time the story commits to this idea of rampant AI is with the actual Catalyst dialogue.

[sveners]

And yet it wouldn't be allowed to grow. It would be like weeds in a garden. Just as they start to take form they are ripped from the ground.

Do you realize how insane that hypothesis is?

[Mouser]

Not really. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that Catalyst's solution is overcomplicated. It is simple. It just doesn't make any sense. Do you want me to tell you why? Well then.

1) It doesn't solve anything. "Organics rise, evolve, advance. And at the apex of their glory, they are extinguished". The cycle repeats itself over and over. Instead of being wiped out by their own synthetics organics are wiped out by Catalyst's synthetics. How does it help organics? If your point is that it helps primitive organics then guess what their fate will be in the next cycle? Why bother helping primitives if you plan to kill them off in the next cycle? It just looks like child's play really (irony?) instead of solving anything. It doesn't stop organics from creating synthetics. It doesn't help organics survive. So my question is: How are Reapers any different from those synthetics that they want to save organics from?

2) The Catalyst says that it preserves organics in Reaper form. How? The organic goo is just DNA. Like sperm or blood. It has no consciousness. All that Harvest does is expand the numbers of the Reapers. It doesn't preserve anything. Maybe some historical data but in this case Reapers are just cybernetic graveyards / museums.

 

1) The 'solution' preserves organic life. The point isn't to save any particular species, but organic LIFE in general. Left to itself, the war between synthetics and organics would eventually wipe out all organic life. The X trilogy, particularly X3:Terran Conflict, did a beautiful job of framing that - synthetic life keeps recursively improving itself, while organic life cannot. Once synthetics destroy all organic life, life in the galaxy is over.

 

2) This part I didn't understand either... Maybe a giant museum somewhere holding the accomplishments and history of all the cycles would have been better.