Lynata wrote:I don't think I'm missing the "main issue" - I see the points raised by those who don't like it, and I don't agree with them. Care to explain why the Catalyst's logic is flawed and circular, for example? Because imho you're not thinking of the long-term repercussions of the issue. Resetting the Cycle is safer than taking the risk to allow advanced civilizations to wipe each other out and damage the entire galaxy in a way that new life cannot take its place. That's all there is to it. The Cycles are about playing it safe, whereas you as Shepard have the choice to take the risk anyways. If, in a million years, the entire galaxy gets swallowed by an artificially created black hole, is turned into an asteroid field, or has any and all life wiped out by some synthetic lifeform, it's now on your head.
Unlike Aldarionn, you don't bother explaining why you think the ending is bad. You say it's bad and that's it. Flawed logic? Where? At odds with the theme? Where? Contradicted story? Where? All of these points you raise you don't care to back up, you just throw it into the room like half the internet these days, thinking that this must be enough for everyone to accept your position.
I also would have disliked the game being turned into the usual hackfest with everyone suddenly being able to beat down thousands of Reapers in a conventional war when they barely defeated a single one in ME1. Probably with a big boss battle at the end where you alone take down the boss Reaper by boarding him or some crazy stuff like that. Whilst the sudden burst in military power could probably be explained with space magic, it's too generic for my taste. Whilst it would have made for a fun game, storywise it would've been very boring. And unlike most games, Mass Effect is about 50% story.
The "generic super weapon route" was also dismissed the moment the characters in the game realized that the Crucible isn't actually a weapon, but just a means of unlocking the options you wished for.
I guess we just have different preferences, eh?
It is painfully obvious that you did not think the ending through thoroughly and haven't read anything about the ending. You formulated your own opinion in a bubble and obviously want it to stay that way.
CIRCULAR LOGIC
Here is a quick description of circular logic from wikipedia:
"Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion of an argument is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.[1] A circular argument will always be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and will not lack relevance. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion it doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted."
For example, Birds can fly, because birds can fly. This doesn't seem to make sense. It would make sense if the statement went, Birds can fly because their wings create enough lift that when they move at a certain pace etc etc....
Now lets examine what the star child says,
Basically he says:
"the created will always rebel against their creators" Without them to stop it (the reapers) the synthetic will wipe out all organic life. So in order to "save" organic life they have to destroy it.
That is it that is his whole reasoning for wiping out organic life. He wipes out organic life to save it. This is complete and utter circular nonsesne. With this logic you can say anything and claim it to be true. I could say the world is made of cheese, because the world is made of cheese. My premise is my conclusion, so I prove nothing. I offer no evidence for my conclusion. It is absolute nonsense. This is the kind of thing a child says when they want something and cannot justify it. Appropriate then that the star child is a child. He has the reasoning and intelligence of one.
If we translate what the star child is saying into circular Logic mode. And by translate I mean reveal what he is really saying it would go like this:
"Synthetics will always destroy organics, because synthetics will always destroy organics"
This clearly is nonsense. Lets examine what the dialogue would go like if Shepard were allowed to ask him why Synthetics will always destroy organics:
Star Child: "The created will always rebel against their creators"
Shepard: "Why?
Star Child: "Because the created will always rebel against their creators"
Pretty self-explanatory how non-sensical this is.
But Wait there is more.
MEANINGLESS UNIVERSE
Not only does the Star Child's logic not make any sense, but he essentially is claiming that the universe and all life synthetic and organic has absolutely no purpose.
Let's say for a moment that the star child is right with the belief that synthetic life will always destroy organic life.
So the ony way to stop this from happening is to make syntetic life that is powerful enough to wipe out organic life so that synthetic life does not wipe organic life.
This implies that the purpose of organic life is to advance up to a point where it can create synthetic life that has the power to destroy it. (This is so non-sensical it gets tough to write sometimes).
So organic life is essentially meaningless because it exists only to eventually be destroyed by synthetic machines.
Do not think that this is ok because Synthetic life now has a greater purpose. Nope.
It would appear based on the fact that the most intelligent form of Synthetic Life are the reapers that the purpose of synthetic life becomes simply to wipe out organic life.
Taking this all together it would seem that the only purpose of life in the universe is to try to and destroy each other. It is twisited and sick, if you ask me.
The purpose of life is destruction. If organic life does not destroy eachother they will eventually create synthetic life that will be kind enough to destroy them.
In conclusion:
The purpose of organic life is to create synthetic life
The purpose of synthetic life is to destroy organic life.
Therefore life in the universe is essentially devoid of any real meaning as what meaning can be found in a universe where life's only purpose is eternal genocide.
CONCLUSION
So as I have demonstrated here we can clearly see a that:
The Star Child's argument is a giant pile of
BS because it uses circular logic that is nonsensical because the conclusion of his argument is assumed in the premise, "the created will always rebel against thier creators, because the created will always rebel against their created.
If the Star Child's arguments were true then we would have a completely meaningless universe because the only purpose of all life synthetic and organic would be eternal self-inflicted genocide.
Therefore since the Star Child's logic is flawed and even if it were not it would present a purpose to the ME universe that is totally devoid of meaning the Star Child is an unsalavagble part of the ME ending and MUST be removed.
I wrote this post because I am very disheartened with the ending of ME3 and I am even more dissapointed that Bioware are decideding to not change the endings and instead offer clarity and closure.
I wrote this to demonstrate that you CANNOT clarify and or explain away the Star Child and his CIRCULAR REASONING
BS.
It is nonsesncial and stupid. It is childish (pardon the pun). Please tell me your opinions and let me know what you think. Post this to other forums if you feel like it is worth reading so people will know why a Clarification of the ending is not enough and a rewrite is needed.
