View Single Post
Old 11-16-2012, 06:54 PM   #835
edgecrusherhalo
 
edgecrusherhalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: nowhere, VA
Posts: 244

edgecrusher02's Gamercard
i dont think its quite that simple. obviously they wouldnt do something that they thought might make people angry, but i also think they had a time constraint due to the combination of having to change the ending because of the leak and EA running things. i get it being vague so that its up to players to make their own mind up about whats going on, but i think it was TOO vague. when it comes to sentient machines, i think you have to address their creation/creators in some way. they arent just going to be evil "because", not to mention thats lazy storytelling. having a villain with no motives is a bad idea. artificial intelligences get created with a purpose or to do something, like every one in this series. and in sci-fi in general that happens almost exclusively. they dont get made just for the sake of it.

the thing i never understood is, that vagueness led SO many people to immediately mistrust the catalyst and assume it has some sinister intention. i think it still being referred to as "starchild" and godchild" is ridiculous. even before the EC i had come to the conclusion that it had to be a machine. meaning that organics created it, and with a purpose. this is in no way a traditional villain so to assume that it is and apply that logic to it is ridiculous. and some people still have that "hope" that we will find out that it is lying. the story aside, why would they release DLCs that explain what the story is, only for that information to be false? especially after the initial ending reaction. if it is lying, then something else is going on here that we know nothing about. with this new information we got through DLCs, there is clearly a story here. im not saying everyone has to like it, but its there. i personally like it because they took a concept that has existed in science fiction for a long time but has been done almost exclusively as MAN "vs" sentient machines and applied it in a way that it has to do with all life in the galaxy. i dont see whats so bad about that. its an age old question thats existed in science fiction for a long time. i also dont see whats so bad about not having a traditional villain to beat so that we can just move on to the next game like weve done countless times before. god forbid someone try to be different in some way. as far as im concerned thats how the series has always been so id hate to see them throw that away in the end.

with the new information the story is actually pretty simple now and i think people are overthinknig things or are just disappointed that they arent defeating a traditionally evil villain. now the story is basically... organics create synthetic, conflict arises for a number of easily predictable reasons like the organic kind of freak out about what they have created and the two dont really "get" each other. an advanced organics species(leviathan) sees this and attempts to solve it by making a synthetic(catalyst) to solve it for them. the catalyst then comes up with a solution of its own. both of these attempts were miserable failures. the story that we play is the result and culmination of that and the player gets to decide how to end it. the endings are basically:

destroy - destroy the "enemy" in the hopes that organic life can sort this conflict out for themselves. some sacrifice exists in the loss of the geth and EDI.

control - attempt to use the power of the reapers to control the galaxy the way you see fit. some sacrifice exists because shepard is essentially "dead" but what becomes of shepard and what he/she will do with the reapers is unknown

synthesis - attempt to alter the conditions that lead to the conflict happening in the first place. sacrifice exists because it is a risk to initiate such a drastic change for various reasons.

refuse - .... im not really sure.... letting future cycles attempt to defeat the reapers conventionally instead of doing it right now even though you have a chance to because...?

i like synthesis because its the only option that actually addresses the real problem. to me destroy is a depressing and predictable future where the conflict eventually returns and then the life of that time has to deal with it and it is likely to result in something similar to what we have now. either that or its relying on trillions of lives to somehow agree to never create artificial intelligence again. with control, i think its obvious that someone having that much power is a bad idea. we have seen what both organics(the leviathan) and synthetics(the catalyst) have done with this power. and with refuse, well... based on how many people have taking a liking to that little speech, id say they just arent looking at this past themselves or the life of this cycle. i think its selfish and that the cycle needs to be stopped regardless.
__________________
religion is flawed because man is flawed

Last edited by edgecrusherhalo; 11-20-2012 at 04:33 PM.
edgecrusherhalo is offline   Reply With Quote