Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
- Apr 4, 2020
Actually no. The Catalyst's main point was that "the created rebel against the creators", which has not been demonstrated or even strongly implied in this cycle. In the case of the Mourning War, the quarians were the aggressors against the geth, and the latter were happy to leave well enough alone once their existence wasn't threatened. In a rather bizzare twist, the quarian-geth conflict rather neatly mirrors the Reapers. The Quarians attacked their synthetic creations because they were afraid of reprisal from those creations, despite the fact that they had displayed no aggression towards their creators, and Legion indicates that - even after the Quarians lost Rannoch - the Geth still bore them no ill-will.Nimcha said:However, that doesn't change the fact the article's points are still wrong for the reason I pointed out. The peace you speak of is only achieved due to the threat of the Reapers. Take that away and the peace would not have been able to arise. In that scenario, the Catalyst's theory is much more likely.
The Catalyst is indeed wrong in the end, and he says so himself, but not for those reasons.
The Reapers mirror the Quarians in this regard, culling the galaxy out of an almost identical fear of synthetic life rebelling despite it not being adequately demontrated[footnote]For the conclusion to truly be upheld as 'inevitible' rather than simply a possibility, they would need to be able to cite an incidence where synthetic life went on the omnicidal rampage the catalyst suggests[/footnote] and shortsightedly fail to acknowledge other possibilities until it becomes apparent that their original plan isn't working.
On a tangent, there's a general rule in writing stories: "Show, don't tell". If you are reading a book, then a character shouldn't just say "By the way, this is an apocalyptic wasteland", that fact should be adequately demonstrated in how the author describes the landscape. Similarly, if that same line is said while the described scenery looks positively idlyllic, then it should be very obvious that something is wrong in this story. If we're to take both accounts at face value, then either the writer made a rather glaring error or the claimant should rightly be considered to have either impossibly high standards or be outright delusional. Alternatively, other hints in the story could very well use this disconnect to demonstrate that the character is an unreliable narrator. In the case of ME3, we are told that organics and synthetics are eternal enemies[footnote]By the Big Bad of the series, no less, who is by nature an unreliable narrator due to a vested interest in specific results[/footnote] but we are shown the exact opposite, that not only are organics and synthetics not natural enemies but that the synthetics are actually kinda fond of organics[footnote]EDI is the most obvious example, but the over the course of the series it's made very clear that the Geth had no interest in fighting unless threatened and Legion's file in Lair of the Shadow Broker indicated they'd go out of their way to aid organics given the chance. (Of particular note are his stats for the game "Geth Attack: Eden Prime Fundraising Edition": Donation Level: Ultra Platinum, Player Score: 0 (Purchased but not played))[/footnote]. Given the two conflicting points of data, it's more natural to trust the events demonstrated than those you're told about through exposition from a questionable source.