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

[DigitalAtlas]

He made a response that addressed every point and question I posted with only a few sentences. With it, I truly see an error in that segment that other games didn't make. Others did too, they just didn't say anything that wasn't full of hatred and go off onto a tangent that broke the disclaimer. I disregarded ignorance because I don't need stupidity headaches.

And that in no way reflects on your stated rationale. To quote:

Everything else misses the point or is wrapped up in "what I think the ending should've been because I'm clearly a writer for the series and know what it's been about the entire time" logic.

Again: The rationale is condecending and hypocritical considering the arguments that many of the posts in question were responding to.

It would only be hypocritical if I thought I was a writer of the series and at any point had said 'they should have done it this way' before his post. All I did was ask questions and defend an element because it exists in other games. Not one other post honestly states why it's different here.

 

[Asita]

It would only be hypocritical if I thought I was a writer of the series and at any point had said 'they should have done it this way' before his post. All I did was ask questions and defend an element because it exists in other games. Not one other post honestly states why it's different here.

Posts 7, 9, 11, 12 and 15 would like a word with you.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

It would only be hypocritical if I thought I was a writer of the series and at any point had said 'they should have done it this way' before his post. All I did was ask questions and defend an element because it exists in other games. Not one other post honestly states why it's different here.

Posts 7, 9, 11, 12 and 15 would like a word with you.

Except they're wrong.

Side note: Anything after where I said "unless you respond, I'm done with this thread." I didn't read so I believe I only read 7 and 9, disagreed and felt they missed the point, then moved on as the point of this thread was to find something I could agree with. Not debate.

EDIT: I did just skim post 12 (hi) and, like the other's before it, I stopped reading at a certain point because it was just wrong. It made some good points about the other games (still wish someone would use Gurren Lagann here), but when it got onto the subject of the Catalyst it was just wrong and sounded hateful. Sorry? I think I went two paragraphs in which is more than usual if it makes ya feel a tad better.

EDIT: Went back to post 12. I stopped the second I read "you don't need to know the Reaper's motivations." Yeah, that's just wrong. Not an opinion. It's wrong. Any villain burning down the entire universe every set amount of millenniums clearly has a motivation. The player needed to hear it. It's dumb to suggest anything else. A dumb element makes me not want to read, so I don't. Case closed.

 

[poisonedcon]

Eh, what irked me wasn't the Catalyst. The fact that the option to destroy non-organics had a cinematic showing the ground team getting the D Terminator 2 Judgement Day style.

 

[Asita]

Except they're wrong.

Put your money where your mouth is, bucko. You can't just say 'they're wrong', you have to elaborate on why they are wrong.

EDIT: I did just skim post 12 (hi) and, like the other's before it, I stopped reading at a certain point because it was just wrong. It made some good points about the other games (still wish someone would use Gurren Lagann here), but when it got onto the subject of the Catalyst it was just wrong and sounded hateful. Sorry? I think I went two paragraphs in which is more than usual if it makes ya feel a tad better.

...How on earth did that come across as hateful? And what, praytell was 'just wrong' about it?

 

[Ordinaryundone]

No.

a) "Organics vs synthetics" was arguably a present theme, but the inevitable destruction of organics by their own synthetics was most certainly not. It was made abundantly clear in ME2 and most of ME3 that the organic-synthetic situation was not a simple case of us-vs-them and did not have one inevitable outcome.

b) The Geth were a secondary subplot to the Reapers threat. A subplot that was entirely resolved in ME3. In fact, that resolution potentially makes the Catalyst's bullshit even more nonsensical. You do not supplant the central conflict with an already resolved subplot in the final ten minutes of a story.

c) "Being destroyed by reaching too far"? That's not relevant to the catalyst space-child garbage.

A). Even if the current cycle wouldn't end in destruction, the Reapers had already mobilized and begun their cleansing. They couldn't be called off, regardless of how much evidence Shepard had to convince them otherwise. The Star Child says as much. Thats why he gives you the big choice: Dominate the Reapers at the cost of your own life, wipe them out at the cost of synthetics, or merge the two with unknown consequences. If you played a Paragon Shep who spared the Geth because "Synths are people too!", then destroying the Reapers would be hypocritical. You'd be wiping out an ancient sentient race because they threatened you; aka exactly what the Star Child was talking about. Synths and Organics work on entirely different levels.

B.) They are a subplot, but indicative of a much larger whole. EDI is part of it too; that the AIs in Mass Effect are beginning to gain true sentience. Its all foreshadowing to the revelation that the Reapers are also sentient beings, and the moral question of "is it ok to genocide them just because we are fighting? Especially if there is another option? What if they can be persuaded to be good, like the Geth or EDI?"

C.) It's exactly what the Star Child is talking about. Every cycle has it's examples of civilizations who grasp too far with technology and end up shooting themselves in the foot. It's in the nature of organics to keep pushing like that. The inevitable Synth war is simply the climax of these actions, which is what the Reapers are trying to prevent by blasting all galactic civilization back to the stone age. The Quarians, Krogan, Salarians, and even Humans are all examples of civilizations who have gone hog wild with their tech and caused galatic level crisis as a result. Can any of them be trusted with sentient AI?

 

[DigitalAtlas]

Except they're wrong.

Put your money where your mouth is, bucko. You can't just say 'they're wrong', you have to elaborate on why they are wrong.

EDIT: I did just skim post 12 (hi) and, like the other's before it, I stopped reading at a certain point because it was just wrong. It made some good points about the other games (still wish someone would use Gurren Lagann here), but when it got onto the subject of the Catalyst it was just wrong and sounded hateful. Sorry? I think I went two paragraphs in which is more than usual if it makes ya feel a tad better.

...How on earth did that come across as hateful? And what, praytell was 'just wrong' about it?

I do? I didn't see that in the rules. I'm pretty sure I can very well say "You're wrong." and leave it.

But I did elaborate in my second edit of that post on where I stopped reading and why.

I'm quite touched you want my approval so much.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

No.

a) "Organics vs synthetics" was arguably a present theme, but the inevitable destruction of organics by their own synthetics was most certainly not. It was made abundantly clear in ME2 and most of ME3 that the organic-synthetic situation was not a simple case of us-vs-them and did not have one inevitable outcome.

b) The Geth were a secondary subplot to the Reapers threat. A subplot that was entirely resolved in ME3. In fact, that resolution potentially makes the Catalyst's bullshit even more nonsensical. You do not supplant the central conflict with an already resolved subplot in the final ten minutes of a story.

c) "Being destroyed by reaching too far"? That's not relevant to the catalyst space-child garbage.

A). Even if the current cycle wouldn't end in destruction, the Reapers had already mobilized and begun their cleansing. They couldn't be called off, regardless of how much evidence Shepard had to convince them otherwise. The Star Child says as much. Thats why he gives you the big choice: Dominate the Reapers at the cost of your own life, wipe them out at the cost of synthetics, or merge the two with unknown consequences. If you played a Paragon Shep who spared the Geth because "Synths are people too!", then destroying the Reapers would be hypocritical. You'd be wiping out an ancient sentient race because they threatened you; aka exactly what the Star Child was talking about. Synths and Organics work on entirely different levels.

B.) They are a subplot, but indicative of a much larger whole. EDI is part of it too; that the AIs in Mass Effect are beginning to gain true sentience. Its all foreshadowing to the revelation that the Reapers are also sentient beings, and the moral question of "is it ok to genocide them just because we are fighting? Especially if there is another option? What if they can be persuaded to be good, like the Geth or EDI?"

C.) It's exactly what the Star Child is talking about. Every cycle has it's examples of civilizations who grasp too far with technology and end up shooting themselves in the foot. It's in the nature of organics to keep pushing like that. The inevitable Synth war is simply the climax of these actions, which is what the Reapers are trying to prevent by blasting all galactic civilization back to the stone age. The Quarians, Krogan, Salarians, and even Humans are all examples of civilizations who have gone hog wild with their tech and caused galatic level crisis as a result. Can any of them be trusted with sentient AI?

SEE ASITA? THIS IS A SMART ****ING POST! THIS POST MAKES MY BRAIN ROCK-HARD!

Honestly, this, this, this, and all of this. I think we disagreed earlier or you were one of the ones I ignored, don't care. This post is exceptional. It's actually a SOLID defense of Catalyst and how the choices did matter. Point "A" pretty much states "you had to make them matter" which is perfect because if you don't care or expect the game to spell it all out for you, that's not how life works.

 

[Gabanuka]

For me it was the 3 button choice deal. And dont go as "Deus Ex" did it on me.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

In Half-Life, the G-man was teased throughout. In Majora's Mask, the same thing was true with the moonfolk. They were the culmination of the plot you'd been running through the whole time. In HL, it was a bit more of a twist, but it didn't change the nature of the conflict.

The Catalyst, however, was not teased throughout. His presence actually undermined the Reaper threat, changing the very nature of the conflict. Instead of the Reapers being this world-ending force that occasionally harvested the galaxy for DNA, it was the toy of this child-god, who for some reason decided to give organic life the chance to do the exact opposite of what the Reapers were doing.

Let's also recall that this was set up over three games, not just one game or movie. This isn't like a one-off movie having a "twist" in which you learn the enemy you're fighting secretly works for someone you thought was on your side (yadda yadda). This is more like watching the Star Wars trilogy, and right when they're blowing up the second Death Star, Luke suddenly learns that it's not the Empire that's the real threat -- it's the Borg! And it doesn't set up a new conflict or anything... it's just a sudden shift, right at the end.

There's twists, and there's twists done poorly.

 

[DanielBrown]

I guess what bothered people the most was that their choices throughout the games didn't have any impact at all when it came to the ending. I wasn't to annoyed myself since I got ME3 for PS3, while I have the first two on 360, so my past choices was made for me. Made the game a lot less "epic".

Spoiler: Geth/Quarian spoiler

The one thing that did bother me like crazy was the Geth vs Quarian part. I thought the geth would work togeather with the quarians if I let them get reprogrammed, instead shit went to hell, the quarians got wiped out and Tali threw herself off a cliff. Perhaps I was just tired, but I didn't see any indication of what was about to happen.

 

[Vegosiux]

Except they're wrong.

Put your money where your mouth is, bucko. You can't just say 'they're wrong', you have to elaborate on why they are wrong.

I do? I didn't see that in the rules. I'm pretty sure I can very well say "You're wrong." and leave it.

If course you can, but don't be surprised if people generally don't take you seriously if you just say "You're wrong." and leave it. Or if someone reports your post for low content, for that matter.

Eh anyway, I'm one of those weirdos who dare say the ME franchise wasn't the awesome digitalized orgasm people seem to make it out to be - even before the ending, it wasn't. It was good, but it was not the awesome digitalized orgasm people seem to make it out to be.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

Except they're wrong.

Put your money where your mouth is, bucko. You can't just say 'they're wrong', you have to elaborate on why they are wrong.

I do? I didn't see that in the rules. I'm pretty sure I can very well say "You're wrong." and leave it.

If course you can, but don't be surprised if people generally don't take you seriously if you just say "You're wrong." and leave it. Or if someone reports your post for low content, for that matter.

Eh anyway, I'm one of those weirdos who dare say the ME franchise wasn't the awesome digitalized orgasm people seem to make it out to be - even before the ending, it wasn't. It was good, but it was not the awesome digitalized orgasm people seem to make it out to be.

Hence why I generally ignore ignorance rather than respond to it. Here, I felt the need and had to do a lot of edits to make sure that didn't happen.

 

[Something Amyss]

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

Gurren Lagann was supposed to make sense?

I'm only sort of joking. That show was the equivalent of pro wrestling. And I freaking loved it. But like pro wrestling, few were looking into it for intriguing plot twists.

Which is the issue: context.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

The main thing that I noticed above all was this:

It did take me a while after things had died down to ponder into all the other issues with the ending, but out of everything this stood out instantly and I wondered why the hell the Catalyst was operating on such, as the Reapers put it, "incomprehensible" logic when I had managed to prove it wrong.

 

[Neonsilver]

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.

You already written what most people hate about the catalyst. Basically, he just appears out of nowhere.
You have to be almost blind to not notice the G-Man in Half-Life, he is always in front of you, he doesn't seem to be armed and still he doesn't have any problem with all the aliens. It's quite clear that he isn't a normal human.
Don't know what you mean in Deus Ex. Yes, you choose your ending at the last minute, but there is not a single new character introduced.
It's been a while since I played Majora's Mask, but the moon children don't have much text, it's not much plot they give you.

It seems the thread also started a discussion about synthetics vs. organics in ME3.
First, thats more or less resolved after ranoch and during the ranoch missions it's made clear that, with the exception of the heretics, the geth never attacked first. So catalyst tells us completely the opposite of what they tell us during the ranoch missions.

Second I have always wondered. If the reaper come to prevent the organics from being killed by synthetics, why do they wait 300 years after the creation of the geth. It would be easy for the reapers or the catalyst himself to check what happens in the universe, so I doubt they couldn't know of them.

 

[Asita]

I do? I didn't see that in the rules. I'm pretty sure I can very well say "You're wrong." and leave it.

It's a key principle of civilized debate. Points and counterpoints require support. That is what prevents the argument from devolving into an endless repetition of "is not" "is so". Similarly, it's considered a debate faux pas to declare yourself the winner/right (And by correlation, declaring your opponent to be the loser/wrong). If your argument is sound, it should speak for itself without such a declaration.

But I did elaborate in my second edit of that post on where I stopped reading and why.

In my defense, the edit appeared after I started crafting my response. So let me go ahead and respond to that.

EDIT: Went back to post 12. I stopped the second I read "you don't need to know the Reaper's motivations." Yeah, that's just wrong. Not an opinion. It's wrong. Any villain burning down the entire universe every set amount of millenniums clearly has a motivation. The player needed to hear it. It's dumb to suggest anything else. A dumb element makes me not want to read, so I don't. Case closed.

Considering that I explained the statement after that line, you might have wanted to read a bit further. The use of the inexplicable or unrelatable is far from an unusual, especially in those things meant to evoke fear. The very concept was a major source of inspiration for Lovecraft's work, from which the Reapers draw some inspiration and homage. The unknown is terrifying to us, which is why it works so well with horrific characters.

I'm quite touched you want my approval so much.

At the risk of seeming snide, don't flatter yourself. Poor debate form is a pet peeve of mine and I get annoyed at people failing to elaborate on their positions.

 

[wooty]

Believe in the indoctrination theory!

Also, Sheppy weppy woo is very much still alive, depending on which choice you take of course.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

EDIT: Went back to post 12. I stopped the second I read "you don't need to know the Reaper's motivations." Yeah, that's just wrong. Not an opinion. It's wrong. Any villain burning down the entire universe every set amount of millenniums clearly has a motivation. The player needed to hear it. It's dumb to suggest anything else. A dumb element makes me not want to read, so I don't. Case closed.

There is much to be said for the effectiveness of an element of mystery. Not everything needs to be explained, especially if an explanation would severely damage its image. Nothing wrong with a good explanation, but I do take issue at the fact that you consider an absence of explanation automatically wrong, which most certainly isn't true.

The motivation was supposed to be "incomprehensible". It was in terms of how little sense it made. It's certainly a mark of hubris to assume that a motive is needed to be given, that everything must be explained, that you must know all. Sometimes it's simply more effective to never say a thing. In this case, it would've been.