Question about an element of Mass Effect 3 ending and the hatred towards it.

[luckshot]

all planets with a gate in their system is destroyed.

Can we please stop spreading this. It's wrong and it's giving me an ulcer each time I have to read it. The destruction of the Mass Relays at the end of ME3 is NOT the same as the destruction of the Mass Relays at the end of Arrival. The explosions do NOT destroy the systems with the relays. They are used to spread the Space Magic of choice across the entire galaxy. That's why they have to be destroyed. Because if they weren't destroyed, then the Space Magic would only effect the Reapers in Sol system, and they would still be annihilating Palaven, Thessia and all the other planets not in the Sol System.

so it says this somewhere in game and we all just missed it?


maybe they do both, they send the signal and then explode like a nova

No, it doesn't explicitly say it, but you could easily figure it out if you pay any attention whatsoever to the ending of the game. It boggles my mind that so many people do not get that there is a difference between the Relay Explosions in ME3 and the Relay Explosion in Arrival.

I have to agree. I hated the ending with a passion, but that part never bothered me.

Also, I have to say, this whole thread seems familiar: an argument about ME3 in which the OP dismisses his opponents out of hand because they disagree with him...is DigitalAtlas just Zeel with the reverse position? Anyone else getting that vibe?

maybe it was just the explosion animation it used that has me thinking they also produced destructive energy as well

 

[VeryOddGamer]

Well, for me the main thing I hate about The Catalyst is the fact that it has the form of the little kid who I did not care about but still appeared in the dream sequences. I mean, the dreams would have been a lot more effective if in his place would have been Mordin, for example. Also, I think that the voice actor for The Catalyst/Little kid is awful.

 

[AdamRhodes]

Well, for me the main thing I hate about The Catalyst is the fact that it has the form of the little kid who I did not care about but still appeared in the dream sequences. I mean, the dreams would have been a lot more effective if in his place would have been Mordin, for example. Also, I think that the voice actor for The Catalyst/Little kid is awful.

They really fail at making us care about that kid. In my opinion, the Catalyst should have taken the form of whoever died on Virmire. At least then it would have some emotional impact. Or make it Jenkins. Sort of a "the first death you caused" thing or something.

 

[AdamRhodes]

and B) If you want a great written and story experience DONT go to bioware! thats not what they are good at contrary to what most people have convinced themselves of. they do many things well but come on you fight "the reapers (they reap ppl), the collectors (take ppl), the illusive man, and the shadow broker" They never really tried very hard with a lot of this stuff did they?

I think most people agree that their stories are bland and token. But their characters are where they really shine. They have a knack for making memorable and likable characters with actual depth and complexity to them rather than just "love interest because girl."

 

[Nimcha]

Actually, I don't have a problem with the Catalyst. I have a problem with the only reactions to it Shepard can have. I haven't been calling it "God child" like others have. Why? Because it is an AI. It is a Reaper AI. It is a Reaper AI telling you that you don't have to destroy the Reapers. It is a Reaper AI telling you that you don't have to destroy the Reapers when you are on the cusp of doing just that. And it does this while trying to manipulate Shepard by sort of "taking the form" of the child he feels guilty of not being able to save.

Why the hell would Shepard believe anything it says?

The only options you have are to blindly accept its claims and pick one of the options offered to you by a freaking Reaper AI.

It might have been good if we had to option to tell it to shove off, or to convince it that its claims that an synthetic-organic peace is impossible are wrong...or if the dozen shots or so that I put into its head actually killed it or at least initiated a hostile encounter.

Yeah trusting a Reaper AI doesn't sound like a good idea. However, the only alternative is to tell him to fuck off and let the Reapers do exactly what you've been trying to stop them from doing for three games. Which, as you'll agree, an even less likely course for anyone coming that far to take. So that's why I think that option wasn't included.

 

[Savagezion]

So the post that supports your love of the end is fucking smart and the others aren't?

A) Bolded part - If "the star child said so" was considered reliable, we wouldn't be in this mess. I am more prone to believe he could call it off but won't no matter how much proof you give him.

B) The star child basically says that synthetics will kill organics because it is in their nature. (paraphrasing) As it is in organic's nature to push against them. (Your implied sentiment not the star child's) How the hell do we know this? This "part of nature" was directly contradicted with the geth-quarian war being able to be resolved peacefully AND as the war beginning over the geth trying to save their organic creators. Further contradiction comes when EDI shows up and decides to help Shepard for no other reason than compassion for organics from an AI. To top it off, none of the end choices solve this "inevitable crisis". Being given the Destroy option contradicts it even further by allowing organics to wipe out the system of cycles, all synthetics and many organics. This ultimately leads us to an "inevitable doom" in ~60,000 years. Synthesis could be seen as a genocide of organics or at least a slow genocide as we begin to "upgrade" towards immortality. Control pretty much allows everything to go on the way it was but now the reapers are friendly synthetics. (Basically, he "called them off" See A) However, under control synthetics still exist so the will inevitably wipe us out at some point.

C) Bolded part - Says the Star Child. Again, not evidence. As well, the star child does say that AI has never turned on organics and as Jim Sterling would say, "Thank God for him". The synth war isn't necessarily inevitable nor is the victor. To claim it is, is nonsense. Especially on the grounds that "the star child said so".
As for the last two sentences: So the answer is a re-occuring galactic crisis? What happens if a cycle doesn't have any AI when the reapers come next time? What constitutes AI? Technically AI is just algorithms used for processing a logical programmed outcome. Maybe the next cycle the organics have alarm clocks as the only AI in existence and they get wiped out because the reapers are afraid that alarm clocks will destroy humanity. Or what if the robot revolution happens early by 20k years due to a breakthrough? The whole idea of the cycle is convoluted. Simply harvesting organic material for survival as the supreme synthetics who planted life on other planets to harvest would have made them a much more epic monster. Hell, just simply they eat peple would have been better. This cycle to save organics nonsense is just stupid.

I am not saying this to be mean. The end is junk and it stings a bit more because it had WAY more potential than this. This ending didn't deliver a quarter of the potential the trilogy held. That isn't mean, its just the way it is. Take my word on it, I am probably older than you and that is all you guys needed to hear believe the star child. (JK, couldn't resist)

A) I believe the Star Child because he's a several hundred thousand year old AI with no reason to lie to you. That's like asking why did you believe Vigil on Ilos in ME1? The Reapers have no reason to try and trick Shepard: the fight is at a stalemate. The Reapers have "won", but Shepard has them by the balls and will ultimately decide their fate. No reason not to lay it all on the line.

Again though, that is all based on if what the starchild says is true, which I can't get behind. The statements "Shepard has them by the balls" and "the fight is at a stalemate" is plenty of reason to lie to him. Shepard does not have them by the balls if the child thinks the reapers are the solution to an inevitable problem.

"I control the reapers, they are MY solution to the problem" - Starchild

The whole conversation he speaks as though he and the reapers are one. Here he basically admits he could call off the reapers and a few second later says that his "solution" will no longer work for some reason because Shepard is standing there. Honestly, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially if as you claim the reapers have already "won". The kid doesn't have to let Shepard make a decision. This means he wants him to. None of these solutions fix the problem either. Destroy just ends the cycle but doesn't solve the "problem". Control basically is like he called off the reapers but you destroy the relays for some unknown reason. I'll go into sythesis in the next quote.

B) Yes, they are contradictions. Thats the whole point of the game, is proving the Reapers wrong. It's a moral victory. However, being factually correct doesn't change anything when you can't stop your enemy from killing you anyway. The Reapers were on the move, and could not be stopped. Maybe that's the only reason the SC gave you a choice at all: He saw the potential of this cycle, and decided to throw the dice by offering synthesis. By killing the Reapers, you are only proving his point: Organics, when facing Synthetics, will not attempt coexistence. Nothing about Synthesis implies immortality, simply that organic and synthetic life have merged. We don't even know what that means, but given the tone of the ending its certainly not doom and gloom. If anything, it implies that the inherent differences that kept Organics and Synths from understanding one another have finally been removed, and now true coexistence is possible. Destruction is you basically telling the Reapers to fuck off and that you'll take your fate into your own hands. Admirable, but what if they are right? That is why its Renegade. Remember, its only an "inevitable crisis" because the Reapers say so. To their credit, they have perspective and experience, but if you think this galaxy can prove them wrong then by all means, blow the shit out of the Reapers.

The problem is the gameplay and dialogue prior to the starchild offers a lot of support that the kid is lying or just wrong. Yet, the game offers no support for his telling the truth. Synthesis is described as the highest form of evolution. The benefits of both yet the drawback of neither. One of the 'benefits' to synthetics is immortality. You are already claiming the age of the starchild means he is wise. Everything about Synthesis implies immortality. This is also where space magic comes in as to how this is even possible and is left unexplained.
The reapers DON'T have the "perspective and experience" because it has never happened before. At best you could say they were created because it happened once 37 million years ago. So their entire perspective is based on one account. In his experience of existing, the cycle always worked so it "never happens" as he himself says. However, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. All the starchild is doing with his solution is taking away possibility. Its like if someone told me that the next time you flip coin, you will either have your throat slit (if heads) or given a billion dollars (if tails) so I shoot you in the head so you can't flip the coin and have your throat slit. That is flawed logic. The starchild is essentially dividing by zero.

As Shepard says he is taking away our hope (and our freewill), and without those we may as well be machines... Oh wait, the kid it is all perfectly logical to him. You have hope, he claims as a being without a clear understanding of hope. Then he says here are 3 new solutions which still result in organic genocide according to my previous assertions. The kids logic is inconsistent. This isn't surprising though considering how unexplored they left his logic. As someone else put it, bring him in this late was narrative suicide.

C)Again, I trust the Star Child because he is a near omniscient AI that is hundreds of thousands of years old. He's seen countless cycles rise and fall, and according to him, the impending danger of the rise of synthetic life is cause to take drastic action. Take him at his word or not; he's a computer, not the Illusive Man. He's got no reason to lie to you. Heck, the evidence is stacked in his favor. The Protheans themselves were locked in bitter war with their synths before the Reapers arrived, and the Quarians nearly exterminated themselves trying to kill the Geth. And that is two cycles, back to back. Who knows how many other times this situation has played out, especially without a Shepard to unite the galaxy.

He is hundreds of thousands of years old which means he has had a LOT of time to plot, study, and contemplate organic psychology as a synthetic. He has had 37 million years to figure out how to best approach organics psychologically. As well, by being part of the citadel, he has access to all the info we upload to it about our species and culture. This ties in to the original culture thing I was talking about. You don't know his motives, his ideologies, or anything about him.

You have to assume he is telling you the truth when there is nothing there to support that - yet there is a lot of support to suggest the opposite. The protheans were in a winning bitter war when the reapers showed up and made a hard direct assault on the citadel, their capital. This effectively disrupted their forces in a divide and conquer strategy. The protheans might have won their war but the reapers (synthetics) made sure they didn't. They didn't even give them a chance.

You have to understand, this ending is what you make it. You are looking for literal, factual closure where there is none. It's open-ended. I choose to believe Shepard gave his life to send the Reapers away, with the parting message "come back in 50k years, we'll have proved you wrong" because, in the end, it was just as wrong to exterminate the Reapers as it was for them to exterminate us. You may believe the Reapers are lying and Shepard should destroy them all and be the hero the galaxy needs etc. etc. That's the beauty of it. The game series, the entire experience, has been personalized to ourselves, including the ending.

From what I can tell all I have to understand is that there are people that are determined to like this ending. This isn't about closure as the OP said to leave that out. This is only about the catalyst so anything else is considered a strawman in here. The catalyst is a mish mash of "Terminator" ideology randomly pieced together in an attempt to appear deep but falls short considering it isn't even explored. It's just superficially stated and that makes the catalyst a superficial entity.

 

[Spoonius]

Indoctrination Theory.

I reckon Indoctrination Theory is at least partly on the money... there are just too many coincidences to ignore.

I still think Bioware have a few tricks up their proverbial sleeve. Remember, PR is PR. The outcry from fans has made their game even more famous.

And if they release something game-changing (literally) as DLC, it may very well totally redeem them while simultaneously debunking all the criticisms directed towards the ending. A total reversal of the status quo, with everyone in the gaming world informed about it.

As stupid as it might sound (like we're just grasping for straws), there are very few legitimate claims (backed up with in-game or contextual evidence) that manage to disprove the theory. Here are some videos:

 

[worldruler8]

all planets with a gate in their system is destroyed.

Can we please stop spreading this. It's wrong and it's giving me an ulcer each time I have to read it. The destruction of the Mass Relays at the end of ME3 is NOT the same as the destruction of the Mass Relays at the end of Arrival. The explosions do NOT destroy the systems with the relays. They are used to spread the Space Magic of choice across the entire galaxy. That's why they have to be destroyed. Because if they weren't destroyed, then the Space Magic would only effect the Reapers in Sol system, and they would still be annihilating Palaven, Thessia and all the other planets not in the Sol System.

Maybe I'm missing something big here, but if the Relays were spreading the Space Magic, why did they have to be destroyed? I mean, I can understand they can be used to warp the magic into other Relays, but why must they be destroyed? I can understand that the explosions are different than the one in Arrival (even though they show a scene that the explosions are clearly visible from several thousands of light-years from the Galaxy, which seems to imply that they are much larger than supernova, but Bioware aren't scientists, so they probably ignored that), but why did they have to blow up to spread the magic? Can't they spread it and not go kablooey? I mean, the Reapers would still be affected in the areas regardless if they blow up, right? As long as they spread the magic?

 

[Goofguy]

Seeing people claiming things like this as a plot hole always bothers me, it's a logical misinterpretation. The reaper's plan is to wait for the most advanced civilizations of the current cycle to reach a certain threshold before initiating a cull, this is why they leave one of the ships like sovereign in the system watching to send the signal back. the plan is not as people say we save you by killing you. People mistakenly take the more individualistic view of this where the reapers claim to take the macro view, the problem as stated being organics always war with synthetics, eventually as a means of self preservation, the synthetics will wipe out ALL organic life, not just the most advanced races that could cause an immediate threat. Consider it as though it is their belief that they can cull several high civilizations every 50,000 years or let "nature" run its course where there may never be any civilizations again.

How do you explain Shepard's straight up compliance with the Star Child in playthroughs where peace is achieved between the Quarians and Geth? Sure, we don't know if it will be an everlasting peace but then again, neither do the Reapers.

Synthetics eradicating the galaxy's organic civilizations on the grounds that eventually, other synthetics would have done it seems a cop out, no? The cycle you play through has potentially proven that synthetics can co-exist and co-operate with organics in order to achieve the same ends.

Frankly, I would have been content if the Reapers were just out to kill everyone because they're dicks and that's what they do. You'd think that when a super race of synthetics came out of hibernation every 50000 years and were met with fierce resistance that they'd realize maybe these organics want to achieve their own fates rather than go quietly in to the night. After all, isn't that what the Geth had always wanted from the beginning, too?

 

[Savagezion]

So the post that supports your love of the end is fucking smart and the others aren't?

I have no side. I proposed a question with reasonable evidence and wanted a reasonable answer. I got that. I think people thinking an ending doesn't sum up a story is just ignorance and they had a different view point. Sadly, they aren't the developers nor the writers, so I don't care. It's like saying Final Fantasy VII isn't about fighting stopping Sephiroth. Hell, the people who say that ME3's ending wasn't what the story was about are clearly ignoring the fact that a piece of media can be about multiple things. (Also, stop just referencing Geth vs Quarians, because it makes it seem like you can only take things at face value. Fear of an uprising and extinction was present in the Genophage story and it was VERY clear.)

Also, who said I loved the ending? Who even said I played the game?

An ending doesn't sum up a story. It is not a summary to an essay, you seem to have two formats of writing confused. An ending is the culmination and outcome of multiple events set up through a narrative. The starchild is a cop out to not having to pay any homage to previous events of the story and provides outcomes that make no sense considering the the previous events of the story. The events of the story do NOT culminate and resolve because the starchild said so. When he shows up, it is now a different story and everything that happened before doesn't matter because he is going to spell out what you should be thinking (despite it being in direct contrast with events of the narrative) and you have no choice but to believe him and comply. (Again, despite it being being contradictory to what the narrative has been telling you all along.)

If you want me to stop referencing actual events in the game, then I challenge you to name 1 event in the game that backs up the catalysts theory. I bring those up because they back up Shepard's theory. I have evidence to bring to the table that the kid's tale is not objective fact but hogwash and you tell me to stop bringing evidence because you want objective facts and not opinions?

You are backpedaling is all this is but you are so foolish as to think you haven't backed yourself in a figurative corner with your argument. Your argument is very inconsistant considering you asked "Why do you guys have negative opinions about this? Please just state objective facts and not opinions. Kthnxbye." It's no wonder you are here defending the cataylst. Don't play like you have no side, you are fighting tooth and nail about the validity of the starchild despite people showing you evidence of how he does not coincide with the narrative. Those are your "objective facts". Considering 90% of the arguments in favor of the starchild is "Starchild said he makes perfect sense" and they believe him which is just an opinion and you fully support those ideas and quotes as objective despite they can offer no part of the game to back it up other than "Starchild".

If you want to see it as there is nothing wrong with the catalyst (read: its good), go ahead. But don't act hostile to those who find fault in the catalyst then claim your some neutral party seeking truth. It just shows extreme levels of ignorance and arrogance, a dangerous combination.

 

[Elamdri]

all planets with a gate in their system is destroyed.

Can we please stop spreading this. It's wrong and it's giving me an ulcer each time I have to read it. The destruction of the Mass Relays at the end of ME3 is NOT the same as the destruction of the Mass Relays at the end of Arrival. The explosions do NOT destroy the systems with the relays. They are used to spread the Space Magic of choice across the entire galaxy. That's why they have to be destroyed. Because if they weren't destroyed, then the Space Magic would only effect the Reapers in Sol system, and they would still be annihilating Palaven, Thessia and all the other planets not in the Sol System.

Maybe I'm missing something big here, but if the Relays were spreading the Space Magic, why did they have to be destroyed? I mean, I can understand they can be used to warp the magic into other Relays, but why must they be destroyed? I can understand that the explosions are different than the one in Arrival (even though they show a scene that the explosions are clearly visible from several thousands of light-years from the Galaxy, which seems to imply that they are much larger than supernova, but Bioware aren't scientists, so they probably ignored that), but why did they have to blow up to spread the magic? Can't they spread it and not go kablooey? I mean, the Reapers would still be affected in the areas regardless if they blow up, right? As long as they spread the magic?

My understanding from what we know in Arrival and what happens in the end of ME3 is that eezo core of the Relay in Arrival melted down, and that caused the explosion. In ME3, the Crucible is using the energy of the EEZO cores to spread the space magic, but in doing so it causes the eezo to explode, but instead of the energy destroying the system, it's altered to spread the space magic.

 

[AdamRhodes]

My understanding from what we know in Arrival and what happens in the end of ME3 is that eezo core of the Relay in Arrival melted down, and that caused the explosion. In ME3, the Crucible is using the energy of the EEZO cores to spread the space magic, but in doing so it causes the eezo to explode, but instead of the energy destroying the system, it's altered to spread the space magic.

I thought in Arrival what caused the relay to explode was the asteroid crashing into it. In ME3 they seem to be just shutting down rather than exploding, because all the energy in the eezo core is turned into magic.

 

[worldruler8]

all planets with a gate in their system is destroyed.

Can we please stop spreading this. It's wrong and it's giving me an ulcer each time I have to read it. The destruction of the Mass Relays at the end of ME3 is NOT the same as the destruction of the Mass Relays at the end of Arrival. The explosions do NOT destroy the systems with the relays. They are used to spread the Space Magic of choice across the entire galaxy. That's why they have to be destroyed. Because if they weren't destroyed, then the Space Magic would only effect the Reapers in Sol system, and they would still be annihilating Palaven, Thessia and all the other planets not in the Sol System.

Maybe I'm missing something big here, but if the Relays were spreading the Space Magic, why did they have to be destroyed? I mean, I can understand they can be used to warp the magic into other Relays, but why must they be destroyed? I can understand that the explosions are different than the one in Arrival (even though they show a scene that the explosions are clearly visible from several thousands of light-years from the Galaxy, which seems to imply that they are much larger than supernova, but Bioware aren't scientists, so they probably ignored that), but why did they have to blow up to spread the magic? Can't they spread it and not go kablooey? I mean, the Reapers would still be affected in the areas regardless if they blow up, right? As long as they spread the magic?

My understanding from what we know in Arrival and what happens in the end of ME3 is that eezo core of the Relay in Arrival melted down, and that caused the explosion. In ME3, the Crucible is using the energy of the EEZO cores to spread the space magic, but in doing so it causes the eezo to explode, but instead of the energy destroying the system, it's altered to spread the space magic.

See, what I thought it was doing (and I'm probably wrong, but whatever) was sending the "space magic" out like it would send a ship. The only difference is that this space magic wasn't a ship, it was space magic. This was shown in the hilariously inaccurate clip of the Galaxy. We could clearly see they were sent to the Mass Relays that each were corresponded to. So maybe the space magic was like, pure energy, or something. Or it had a code that said "send, then (moderately) blow up", or something like that. But as far as I know, this isn't shown or even hinted at through the Codex, and the Star-Child makes no hints, other than what we do will sort of do something on the galactic scale. So, is there anything in-game or in-Codex that shows that A) the space magic is an exception, and not only is able to be warped to its mass relay on the other end, but also causes this to blow up, and B) (feel free to yell at me for re-iterating this) show that the explosion is indeed NOT the Arrival kind, and would only be harmful to any ships stupidly at the Mass Relay at the time of it's explosion?

Captcha: what's that. >_> Captcha, get out of my head!

 

[Elamdri]

My understanding from what we know in Arrival and what happens in the end of ME3 is that eezo core of the Relay in Arrival melted down, and that caused the explosion. In ME3, the Crucible is using the energy of the EEZO cores to spread the space magic, but in doing so it causes the eezo to explode, but instead of the energy destroying the system, it's altered to spread the space magic.

I thought in Arrival what caused the relay to explode was the asteroid crashing into it. In ME3 they seem to be just shutting down rather than exploding, because all the energy in the eezo core is turned into magic.

Well yeah, the Astroid caused the explosion, but it did that by destroying the eezo core, which caused the overload.

 

[Elamdri]

See, what I thought it was doing (and I'm probably wrong, but whatever) was sending the "space magic" out like it would send a ship. The only difference is that this space magic wasn't a ship, it was space magic. This was shown in the hilariously inaccurate clip of the Galaxy. We could clearly see they were sent to the Mass Relays that each were corresponded to. So maybe the space magic was like, pure energy, or something. Or it had a code that said "send, then (moderately) blow up", or something like that. But as far as I know, this isn't shown or even hinted at through the Codex, and the Star-Child makes no hints, other than what we do will sort of do something on the galactic scale. So, is there anything in-game or in-Codex that shows that A) the space magic is an exception, and not only is able to be warped to its mass relay on the other end, but also causes this to blow up, and B) (feel free to yell at me for re-iterating this) show that the explosion is indeed NOT the Arrival kind, and would only be harmful to any ships stupidly at the Mass Relay at the time of it's explosion?

If you watch the ending, then you see that what is happening is this:

The crucible sends out the space magic to the Sol Relay.

The space magic hit's the sole Relay's Eezo core.

The Sol relay's eezo core changes color.

The Sol relay sends out the space magic to it's corresponding Relays in the network

The Eezo core on the Sol relay releases all it's energy as Space Magic.

The we see on a galactic scale the space magic traveling from Relay to Relay in the network and all the relays exploding shortly after the Space Magic hits them, and we see the waves of space magic cover the galaxy (Assumedly killing/controlling/hybridizing the Reapers in other systems).

Reasons why the ME3 explosions are different:

1. Most obviously: The ending wouldn't make sense otherwise.
2. If you look carefully, you notice that right before the Mass Relay explodes, the eezo core is gone. It was the eezo core that caused the Arrival explosion and if you look carefully, you will see there is no eezo core inbetween the spinning rings as the Relay explodes.
3. If you look at the galaxy wide explosions, you will notice that the explosions are much bigger than the Arrival explosions. In Arrival, the Relay explosion just destroys that one system. In ME3 you can see that the shockwave of the explosions (Spaaaaace Magic) cover a good 5-10% of the entire galaxy, meaning thousands of star systems for EACH explosion.
4. If you watch the end with the little boy and the grandfather, it's pretty clear that life is still surviving in the galaxy.

 

[RJ 17]

Okay, spoilers, yadayada, blahblah

So it's come to my attention that a lot of people dislike Catalyst in the Mass Effect 3 ending and... I don't actually QUITE understand why.

Yes, a random omnipotent and cryptic character appearing at the end of something can blow.... or it's been done a ton and usually raises the most interesting questions and theories in the most interesting games.

I mean, G-Man did it in both Half-Life and Half-Life 2, the Anti-Spiral appeared out of nowhere at the end of Gurren Lagann as an omnipotent and rebellious presence as opposed to the giant fighting force we were led to believe the Anti-Spirals were, the end of Deus Ex comes to mind, and even the Moon Children at the end of Majora's Mask.

All of these aren't just critically acclaimed in whatever medium they are, they're some of the best around.

So, why is it when Mass Effect 3 did this, the character is deemed horrible, too spontaneous, and a blight on the entire franchise? I really just want some clarification here.

Disclaimer: This is not a thread to talk about the lack of closure in the ending or any of the other "problems." This is a thread to discuss this ONE element in the game.

Begin.

I'd imagine this has already been said within the 4 pages of comments, but in case it hasn't, here it is:

From what I've noticed the complaint isn't about the Catalyst as a character, it's how that scene was carried out. You only get one or two dialogue options and people thought it was very out-of-character for Shepard - who is naturally a very inquisitive person who likes to investigate - to just accept everything that the Catalyst has to say at face value. Why can't you ask him "Where the FUCK did you come from?! Who the FUCK built the Reapers?! What the FUCK is going on here, damnit?!" Obviously I doubt a half-dead Shepard would be dropping F-Bombs, but you get the point.

Had the scene (and really the ending as a whole) been executed better, I think people wouldn't have had a problem with Space Ghost Timmy.

And just for the record, everyone applying to the hypocritical notion of the "Yo' dawg! I heard you didn't want to get killed by Synthetics so I sent some Synthetics to kill you!" Apparently you're forgetting a key part of the story: not all organic races are harvested.

The plan as laid out - use synthetics to harvest advanced organic life so they never develop synthetics that end all organic life - does indeed make sense.

Your goal: create a solution that prevents synthetics from ever being developed and killing all organic life in the galaxy.

Your means: a fleet of nigh-invincible synthetic spaceships capable of harvesting organic races and turning them into more giant nigh-invincible spaceships. You leave races that have not yet advanced to grow into the next cycle.

Reason to your means: synthetic life is immortal, and as such your solution can last eternally.

In summation: it's either get harvested while leaving undeveloped races alone, or have synthetics advance and eventually wipe out all organic life. The only way to ensure that your cycle continues is by using things that can last for eternity...that is to say: synthetics.

Is it convoluted? Yes. Do I agree with the reasoning? No. However the plan does make sense.

 

[Elamdri]

I'd imagine this has already been said within the 4 pages of comments, but in case it hasn't, here it is:

From what I've noticed the complaint isn't about the Catalyst as a character, it's how that scene was carried out. You only get one or two dialogue options and people thought it was very out-of-character for Shepard - who is naturally a very inquisitive person who likes to investigate - to just accept everything that the Catalyst has to say at face value. Why can't you ask him "Where the FUCK did you come from?! Who the FUCK built the Reapers?! What the FUCK is going on here, damnit?!" Obviously I doubt a half-dead Shepard would be dropping F-Bombs, but you get the point.

Had the scene (and really the ending as a whole) been executed better, I think people wouldn't have had a problem with Space Ghost Timmy.

And just for the record, everyone applying to the hypocritical notion of the "Yo' dawg! I heard you didn't want to get killed by Synthetics so I sent some Synthetics to kill you!" Apparently you're forgetting a key part of the story: not all organic races are harvested.

The plan as laid out - use synthetics to harvest advanced organic life so they never develop synthetics that end all organic life - does indeed make sense.

Your goal: create a solution that prevents synthetics from ever being developed and killing all organic life in the galaxy.

Your means: a fleet of nigh-invincible synthetic spaceships capable of harvesting organic races and turning them into more giant nigh-invincible spaceships. You leave races that have not yet advanced to grow into the next cycle.

Reason to your means: synthetic life is immortal, and as such your solution can last eternally.

In summation: it's either get harvested while leaving undeveloped races alone, or have synthetics advance and eventually wipe out all organic life. The only way to ensure that your cycle continues is by using things that can last for eternity...that is to say: synthetics.

Is it convoluted? Yes. Do I agree with the reasoning? No. However the plan does make sense.

I think my problem with that explanation and just about everyone else's is that you are forced to accept the following as true.

"All synthetic races will eventually wipe out all organic races."

 

[RJ 17]

I'd imagine this has already been said within the 4 pages of comments, but in case it hasn't, here it is:

From what I've noticed the complaint isn't about the Catalyst as a character, it's how that scene was carried out. You only get one or two dialogue options and people thought it was very out-of-character for Shepard - who is naturally a very inquisitive person who likes to investigate - to just accept everything that the Catalyst has to say at face value. Why can't you ask him "Where the FUCK did you come from?! Who the FUCK built the Reapers?! What the FUCK is going on here, damnit?!" Obviously I doubt a half-dead Shepard would be dropping F-Bombs, but you get the point.

Had the scene (and really the ending as a whole) been executed better, I think people wouldn't have had a problem with Space Ghost Timmy.

And just for the record, everyone applying to the hypocritical notion of the "Yo' dawg! I heard you didn't want to get killed by Synthetics so I sent some Synthetics to kill you!" Apparently you're forgetting a key part of the story: not all organic races are harvested.

The plan as laid out - use synthetics to harvest advanced organic life so they never develop synthetics that end all organic life - does indeed make sense.

Your goal: create a solution that prevents synthetics from ever being developed and killing all organic life in the galaxy.

Your means: a fleet of nigh-invincible synthetic spaceships capable of harvesting organic races and turning them into more giant nigh-invincible spaceships. You leave races that have not yet advanced to grow into the next cycle.

Reason to your means: synthetic life is immortal, and as such your solution can last eternally.

In summation: it's either get harvested while leaving undeveloped races alone, or have synthetics advance and eventually wipe out all organic life. The only way to ensure that your cycle continues is by using things that can last for eternity...that is to say: synthetics.

Is it convoluted? Yes. Do I agree with the reasoning? No. However the plan does make sense.

I think my problem with that explanation and just about everyone else's is that you are forced to accept the following as true.

"All synthetic races will eventually wipe out all organic races."

Which is another problem with Space Ghost Timmy: people don't like how you can't tell him to fuck off because "Look at the peace I brokered between the Geth and Quarians! The Geth aren't inherently hostile, in fact they're willing to bend over backwards to make peace with organics!!!"

 

[Savagezion]

Which is another problem with Space Ghost Timmy: people don't like how you can't tell him to fuck off because "Look at the peace I brokered between the Geth and Quarians! The Geth aren't inherently hostile, in fact they're willing to bend over backwards to make peace with organics!!!"

Don't forget EDI's extremely compasionate outlook on organics. Or the fact that the game doesn't have any sythnetics that feel a need to destroy organics, except Reapers...

 

[worldruler8]

See, what I thought it was doing (and I'm probably wrong, but whatever) was sending the "space magic" out like it would send a ship. The only difference is that this space magic wasn't a ship, it was space magic. This was shown in the hilariously inaccurate clip of the Galaxy. We could clearly see they were sent to the Mass Relays that each were corresponded to. So maybe the space magic was like, pure energy, or something. Or it had a code that said "send, then (moderately) blow up", or something like that. But as far as I know, this isn't shown or even hinted at through the Codex, and the Star-Child makes no hints, other than what we do will sort of do something on the galactic scale. So, is there anything in-game or in-Codex that shows that A) the space magic is an exception, and not only is able to be warped to its mass relay on the other end, but also causes this to blow up, and B) (feel free to yell at me for re-iterating this) show that the explosion is indeed NOT the Arrival kind, and would only be harmful to any ships stupidly at the Mass Relay at the time of it's explosion?

If you watch the ending, then you see that what is happening is this:

The crucible sends out the space magic to the Sol Relay.

The space magic hit's the sole Relay's Eezo core.

The Sol relay's eezo core changes color.

The Sol relay sends out the space magic to it's corresponding Relays in the network

The Eezo core on the Sol relay releases all it's energy as Space Magic.

The we see on a galactic scale the space magic traveling from Relay to Relay in the network and all the relays exploding shortly after the Space Magic hits them, and we see the waves of space magic cover the galaxy (Assumedly killing/controlling/hybridizing the Reapers in other systems).

Reasons why the ME3 explosions are different:

1. Most obviously: The ending wouldn't make sense otherwise.
2. If you look carefully, you notice that right before the Mass Relay explodes, the eezo core is gone. It was the eezo core that caused the Arrival explosion and if you look carefully, you will see there is no eezo core inbetween the spinning rings as the Relay explodes.
3. If you look at the galaxy wide explosions, you will notice that the explosions are much bigger than the Arrival explosions. In Arrival, the Relay explosion just destroys that one system. In ME3 you can see that the shockwave of the explosions (Spaaaaace Magic) cover a good 5-10% of the entire galaxy, meaning thousands of star systems for EACH explosion.
4. If you watch the end with the little boy and the grandfather, it's pretty clear that life is still surviving in the galaxy.

Alright, thanks for explaining it very well, now I know a bit more in what you're saying, but you really answered the second part of my question (though I will try to clarify it better). My first question wasn't "does the space magic cause an explosion", but "why did it?". The reason I ask this is you seem pretty convinced that the space magic just somehow makes the Relays go boom. But the Star-Child seems to not mention anything that would suggest that the relays would be destroyed, much less even involve the Relays (though, one could probably say that since the Relays were Reaper tech, one could assume they may be involved.). Let me explain a bit more.

1. I don't see (assuming the rest of the ending made sense) how the endings wouldn't make any less sense if the Relays were not destroyed. The only thing I can get is the Relays are Reapers themselves. And that hasn't been confirmed by anyone, other than they are Reaper Tech.

2. Honestly, we don't know too much about how they work. I looked at the Relay explosions in both Arrival and the ME3 endings. You're right on the eezo core (the glowing light in the rings, I assume.) disappears right before blowing up. Now, two things. It seems that the eezo core is shot out, because as soon as it fires, the eezo core disappears. I'm not sure why this causes the Relay to explode, because I would thing taking a reactor out of something would make it less likely to explode, not more likely. Secondly, when I saw the Arrival explosion again, I noticed two big differences. (The first being that the eezo core was moved out, and seemed to be knocked out of its rings. the Second being the big glob of light)

3. If they are much bigger, than one would assume they're also much more deadly. I understand this is a "smart bomb" that only affects whatever you programmed, but to have the force to cause the "space magic" to go faster than light itself seems a bit far fetched. The energy required, even with eezo core taken straight from a relay, would be astronomical.

4. Don't remind me of that scene. It reminds me of the last two words of the prompt. But you're right. My point is less "are these like Arrival" and more "Why are these different". You gave a decent explanation, but does Bioware give us anything other than the cinematics? Because it seems you have less info striaght from the Codex and more well-designed "what I thought happened" explanations.