Beyond the flawed logic of the Catalyst, why was this never explained?

Agreed. But since Destroy isn't presented as bad -- even pre-EC the Stargazer scene shows everything working out fine -- what's the chance that what he's telling us actually is true?

Completely disagree with all of this. The Stargazer scene didn't show anything definitively. It actually supported the idea that all Mass Relays were gone because they talk about going to the stars as if that's something special (which it is to a kid, but what about gramps?) and in that it also didn't confirm or deny the fate of the synthetics but the previous scene on the jungle does because EDI doesn't exit the ship, but she does in Control.

It is presented as bad and the Catalyst's dialogue isn't depicted as deceptive, perhaps ambiguous but I always interpreted him as "the god that speaks the absolute truth" and that truth was meant to be written so we would believe it, but the writing just didn't follow suit because Mac had written it and he's got a problem or two about being articulate.

I took this even further.  If I made peace between the quarians and the geth, we know the geth took steps to inhabit the quarian suits in order to repair their immune systems.  That leaves us with two options for destroy: either the quarian suits are completely destroyed (which the slides say didn't happen) or the geth live on in those suits.  New bodies, or even a new server, wouldn't be that difficult to create for them.  To me, it seems like the geth could easily survive even the Destroy ending.  Same for EDI, honestly.  In both cases, it would take some time, and probably not happen prior to Shepard's memorial.

If I were to make use of the combination of things said by the Leviathan and the Catalyst, I could draw a conclusion about why the logic of the Catalyst might be slanted.  Why was the Catalyst created?  It's not to save organics.  Until the Intelligence was created and turned on the Leviathans, that race feared nothing at all, not even synthetics.  After all, they put down other synthetics that rose up and killed organic races serving them.  It stands to reason that synthetics aren't actually capable of destroying all organics - something proven true because the Leviathans continue to exist.  Back to the question I posed.  Why was the Catalyst created?  It was created to protect lower races from being killed by synthetics so that they could continue to give tribute.  This is the reason why the Leviathan don't believe the work of the Reapers is done.  They want a solution that allows them to once more receive tribute. 

I would say the Catalyst doesn't actually understand the true motives of the Leviathans.  It has its goal to "save organic life" but this is not the ultimate goal of the Leviathans.  They want to rule the galaxy again.  They want an efficient galaxy that runs like clockwork without any pesky synthetics getting in the way of that order.  Synthesis would be that solution for them.  Why? Like every other organic, the Leviathans would be synthesized.  No more organic/synthetic wars.  No more need for Reapers.  With the problem solved and the Reapers out of the equation the Leviathans are free to return and conquer the galaxy.

I doubt this is what BioWare had in mind but it's interesting to extrapolate based on the in-game information that is provided to us.

Taking a few assumptions about how The Problem was presented to the Starkid AI, and ideas from Asimov and, amusingly, Portal 2, the reason it ended up in a locked loop of faulty logic may well have to do with the problem being couched in absolute terms (the Leviathan didn't mince words) and a desperate need to complete a logical solution without hitting a paradox.

In telling it to solve synthetics wiping out their creators, and retain organic life (so the empty universe solution isn't a valid solution) then it hits a couple of roadblocks.

One, over a long enough timeline, if organics or synthetics are a thing this is going to happen. Maybe not every time, maybe not even often, but enough to be classed as a failed solution. This is where a problem put as "make this less likely" may have come up with markedly different outcomes. It can't wipe out organics and it can't wipe out synthetics because that includes itself. I imagine at this point its logic circuits are starting to panic.

Two, any assumptions it makes about synthetics also have to apply to itself. The data its been given implies that they turn on organics given a long enough timeline, assuming both survive. I can see it working out through implication that a logical outcome needs to incorporate turning on the Leviathans and other organics in order to be consistent with its variables.

So, now it's in a corner, but it is very smart. It's salvation through destruction comes in a form that isn't covered by either variable, not an organic or synthetic. It can stand outside of the equation and make it all add up. It can have an internally consistent logical progression. It turned on its creators but preserved them, organics still exist, and by coming in before synthetics get really going, it doesn't even have to reassess it's parameters. If it runs quickly over the top it can even convince itself that it's not the murderous synthetic, as it just transformed the organics into Reapers, a better form that conveniently doesn't mess with its logical operators as technically they're not synthetics.

I also wondered if that's why its ground troops are also hybrids, so they don't count.

TLDR: The Leviathans should have been more careful with their inputs.

Pfffsh. try making an absolute generalization about something human today and see how well it fits in a 60 years if you can keep from deluding yourself from the facts. I've tried it and typically realize it doesn't stick somewhere down the road. Any belief you have about something is swayed as soon as you are proven something to the contrary is possible. Then your absolutist thinking is shattered because another scenario is just as likely to be absoluted.

Which is very ironic.

1. Reminds me of you and your way of arguing tbqh.

2. Reminds me of another certain non-issue that was turned into a big deal that fans then called BS on, which we're arguing for the 100th topic whether it is or isn't again lol.

Also, Synthesis is the purest form of wishful, Spielbergian thinking. How is that not a mindset of "people who allow emotion to come over any form of logical reason"? It's wishful thinking imposed where it doesn't even apply. How in the world does a computer turn into a person, like... an actual person? How does a human being turn into a synthetic or half a synthetic? You can't have it both ways IMHO unless we're a human that think based on CPU speed and talk over Wi-Fi or something dumb. The argument FOR the flawed logic of the catalyst necessitates that you solve it with magic that does something that doesn't even make any sense. It's BioWare jumping the shark going "whatever, you guys can figure out what this means, we have no clue, but it seemed really beautiful!". It's spielberg nonsense where the daydreaming becomes the canon and all you can justify it with is what a cute sentiment it is. EMOTIONS. It's right there, front and center, overriding any believable sense or logic.

Saren was mentally compromised and being influenced by the Bad Guy.  That he used Insane Troll Logic to justify his actions are to be expected.

The Catalyst, however, is supposed to be this billion-year-old machine intelligence designed to solve a problem a la Asimov's The Last Question.  We are supposed to believe it this time around, despite using the same Insane Troll Logic Saren used before.  Because reasons.

I don't know. I think I'm getting insane from juggling 3 topics at the same type about something-something endings and ME3 flaws. Time to bail for a while! lol.

My argument is also somewhat meta.

It's not that the Catalyst's arguments are "correct" in any logical sense, but that the writers intended us to accept the Catalyst as correct.  Remember, these endings are supposed to be "beautiful" and "bittersweet", and somehow noble.  Working with the Reapers to stop the cycles is supposed to be a positive   They are infinitely older, wiser, and more powerful than us.  They just need the "variables" altered a bit. 

So you can believe the whole GIGO, "the Catalyst is as crazy as Saren was" bit.  But if you don't want to kill the ENTIRE galaxy, you have to submit to its, and the writers' "truth"

Several million if not billion dead Quarians will beg to differ on that statement.  You would think a mass slaughter of that size would at least catch people's attention long enough to remember it.

Didn't read most of the thread.


Here's my interpretation (excluding anything IT or whatever):

The Catalyst is mostly correct. In fact, nearly entirely correct.

But it isn't right. Or at least we're given the chance to assert that we are right and it is wrong. Not in a big forceful speech or shooting it in the head - something that doesn't sit well with many players that are used to that with Shepard - but in simply our resistance to its assertions.


Bioware put us against a figure that, along with Shepard being brought so low and near-death, is finally beyond Shepard's coping, or at least mostly beyond. Sure, in a different environment, a different context, a different state for Shepard he'd in this story world be much more argumentative, but he's not allowed to be that.

But this forces many of us to listen to the Catalyst. Whether we'll care about it, agree with it, go along with options in response to it, that's up to us.



People bring up that we've destroyed Reapers. No biggie - proves organics fight synthetics.

People bring up that we can make peace between the Geth and Quarians. No. This is technically more of a temporary truce and cooperation during a war, in the matter of months. The Reapers exist in at least millions of years.

People bring up how the Reapers seem to not give the cycles a chance to disprove them. Well no shit. I wouldn't be surprised if the further back you go, the more chances the Reapers/Intelligence gave, and the more it was shown that synthetics inevitably rebel against organics. At this point it is almost entirely about just making an efficient cycle. If there was any room they were secretly giving Shepard, it was only in terms of not sending every Reaper in the galaxy to stomp the Normandy. By and large, the consensus is that the cycle is inevitable because there reallyreally is no way, in their state of being apex of the galaxy for millions+ of years, for a solution to synthetic and organic conflict beyond what is already done.


Yeah, the logic wasn't explained. That's the point. Like many of the Paragon major choices, we're supposed to take a lot on hope that we're on the correct path if we go along with it.

Its not perfect. It admits this, as you can notice. But it has more knowledge than anything known in the galaxy and by this point, any of the crazy and evil stuff that's done by the Reapers? That's ALL for making an efficient harvest, nothing more. Less psychopathic, more sociopathic, if this was done by a human at least. Maybe the Reapers gave the Crucible plans a chance long ago - but they at least do not now. Maybe the Reapers wouldn't have stomped everything quickly from the Citadel long ago - but at least that's what they do now. This is a process that continually 'perfects' itself. Our assertions against the Reapers mean nothing - only Shepard fighting for survival (which is ultimately what he's always doing, even in his 'suicidal' approach) and successfully making it to the point of the Citadel docking the Crucible and Shepard rising to meet the Intelligence, is what means something. Anyone making it to this point, surviving Reaper blasts, many of the worst combat scenarios with husk units, and being infrequently subjected to indoctrination signals but at least seeming to strongly defy their effects, shows the Reapers that there is *something* they're getting wrong, even if, by their views, it'd be very little. So add in the docking of the Crucible and the information of its power potential being sent to the Catalyst, we have a High EMS Catalyst that is willing or even 'pleased' to try something, anything new, or a Low EMS Catalyst that seems to be forced by some sort of hacking (?) to introduce options to you but not be 'pleased' about it. In either case, Shepard even surviving to this point is noteworthy and communicates that something is wrong with the harvest cycle - and it isn't necessarily that the Reapers have to try harder to harvest, which is probably more of Harbinger's opinion.


You can't know that the problem that the Catalyst faces isn't real. It doesn't just have the data of the reaping cycles, but many, probably more frequent and disruptive synthetic rebellion cycles. We can't necessarily blame the Leviathans for it because they may not have as direct dominion over how organics do things as they assert (societies build robots eventually no matter what, who knew?). By all of the Reapers' experience, they're doing their job well and its a better state for everyone involved that they get to keep doing it.

However, the problem that the Catalyst faces may not be *everything* to take into account. Its based on a biased position of the Leviathans, its then based on a biased position of the Reapers. If we keep getting send down cycle upon cycle of death, is it not at least understandable that we eventually manage to cry out and punch our oppressors? The Reapers are basically not 'humanistic', and they may only store the data of civilizations in a cold, 'mechanical' fashion. They don't 'get' the (talking out of media here) human message of freedom. But for example, the Geth perhaps DO! EDI perhaps DOES! Other synthetics may as well! And maybe other past synthetics would have if it wasn't for the Leviathans! Maybe, maybe all this stuff isn't totally inevitable!


That's a lot of thinking for what is an on-the-spot decision by Shepard, but he does a lot of things on-the-spot. We don't know whether any standpoint will work out well. In all Bioware likelihood, it both won't work out great but it may be a better position than before, no matter the decision. I just can't really agree with the outright total disagreement with the Catalyst as if it isn't an entity that has seen almost everything except scenarios outside of its system (granted) and the probability of Shepard's successes. When we go for a kind of peace with the rachni, krogan, geth, etc - it isn't without terms, without restraints, without risks - its just determined to be a better choice to take than the alternative. We don't need to agree with everything about them, everything they did, everything they stood or stand for. We don't make friends with a Reaper but we can learn about the arguably more positive potentials of Reaper technology - EDI, Peace Geth.


I don't think we're being given utter BS. We are, however, given a lot of fuel for us to decide it is right to rage against this machine and defy it until the very end. Where others think that the writers want to steer us to agreeing with the Catalyst in the ending - I only partially agree. I think things really were designed, in some way, to have us suspicious, concerned, aggressive to what we're facing. Appearing as a child CAN be an insult. Loredumping us CAN be a red herring to what's really going on. Logical dubiousness MAY be a sign that the Catalyst is utterly wrong. Control MAY be a disaster waiting to happen. But I don't think the writers were denying that.


It just gives you your sort of happy ending for people for now. For now. If you have Shepard believe the Catalyst *enough to* choose non-Destroy. I do think the writers wanted us to *consider* the Catalyst being correct, but not *know* that it is. I do think the writers wanted us to *suppose* Synthesis may be the best outcome, but not *know* that it is. What we *know* is that Reapers blow up and blowing up all Reapers may end the right-now problem we're having with them and perhaps any future problem. That's fully accepted by the narrative. I don't think the writers are *pushing* otherwise.


Its like, Leviathan DLC, right? - do we need to know? Some say yes. But I think the concept of the story is that Shepard doesn't need to know shit. It doesn't *necessarily* matter. I *might* matter to *your* Shepard, but the scale of such information, such knowledge we get in these later parts of ME3, is clearly acknowledged to be above Shepard's pay grade (even as Spectre, even as N7). We can't argue logically against the Catalyst partially because Shepard is too weakened, partially because it isn't going to ever just change its mind because any organic says anything, but also partially because its went through all the shit before. WE have WRESTED control of the galaxy from the Reapers even if just for MINUTES, and we are able to use those minutes to finish our job, or consider there could be more going on.. *consider* it.




Note: I don't like the ending we got. I prefer lots of other things. I just think things made more sense than many suppose and write about.