1057 réponses à ce sujet

[ichik]

The Catalyst is trying to stop the technological singularity

Yeah, in a retarded way, that doesn't make his logic right.

[RavenEyry]

If the created will always destroy the creator that means husks will eventually destroy the reapers, so the reapers are going to have to preserve themselves in reaper form.

[The Night Mammoth]

I remember why I haven't read this more than once!

Because the first section is laughably flawed.

Those aren't the Catalyst's assumptions, those are your assumptions. None of them have any basis in the game. So you're not really telling us why the Catalyst's logic is right, you're just waffling on about your own fabricated theory to explain an entirely different scenario, which is why everything else is inherently flawed as a result. 

If you were to actually take the Catalyst's argument and try to prove it, you'd be committing two fallacies straight off out of the starting blocks. 

So, to have any worthwhile discussion, you have to twist what the serpent actually means, and then it's not longer proof of anything and a pointless discussion. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 10 juin 2012 - 04:08 .

[JShepppp]

Eluril wrote...

This is by far the best discussion on this forum or really anywhere about the game. The Catalyst is essentially the greatest war criminal ever, being an extreme utilitarian who believes the sacrifice of millions and possibly billions of lives is justified for his ideal (the prevention of organics reaching the technological singularity.)

I think the most intriguing thing is asking what would cause a species or entity to believe this was justified? What would have had to happen? It or they must have witnessed something related to the singularity and decided it must be stopped.

Thanks. Most villains believe they are doing the right thing, and my opinion was that it was good the Reapers were like that rather than have them be insane or just liking genocide. 

Perhaps the singularity was reached before. The leaked script said as much regarding the destroy option ("the probability of singularity occurring in the future is certain").

[JShepppp]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Maybe he meant Omni as in All? Like the Omnitool - and all capable tool. Omniscient - all knowing. Etc'

Organic Omnicide - killing all organics?

Perhaps. It just wasn't a word in the dictionary, that's all. But that makes sense.

[JShepppp]

ichik wrote...

The Catalyst is trying to stop the technological singularity

Yeah, in a retarded way, that doesn't make his logic right.

Yeah, I noted at the beginning of the OP that the title of the thread, made months ago, is a bit of a misnomer. It's not 100% right, but neither is the Catalyst stupid.

[Taboo]

The Catalyst deserves a better fallacy.

LOL @ at his appeal to probability.

[JShepppp]

RavenEyry wrote...

If the created will always destroy the creator that means husks will eventually destroy the reapers, so the reapers are going to have to preserve themselves in reaper form.

This was a problem with the script we got. The leaked script clarifies this to a specific instance of created destroying creators - the tech singularity. But it's a valid point that the in-game script is the only one worth considering, and if that's the case, everything falls apart when taken at face value indeed.

[JShepppp]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Catalyst deserves a better fallacy.

LOL @ at his appeal to probability.

Lol yeah. At least he is not 100% right; it would be weird to have such a villain. 

Also, thanks for the periodic bumps, posts, and whatnot.

[Grimwick]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Catalyst deserves a better fallacy.

LOL @ at his appeal to probability.

Yup. It makes me cringe when people claim he isn't fallacious or that his solution is correct.

His foundation is just WRONG.

[JShepppp]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I remember why I haven't read this more than once!

Because the first section is laughably flawed.

Those aren't the Catalyst's assumptions, those are your assumptions. None of them have any basis in the game. So you're not really telling us why the Catalyst's logic is right, you're just waffling on about your own fabricated theory to explain an entirely different scenario, which is why everything else is inherently flawed as a result. 

If you were to actually take the Catalyst's argument and try to prove it, you'd be committing two fallacies straight off out of the starting blocks. 

So, to have any worthwhile discussion, you have to twist what the serpent actually means, and then it's not longer proof of anything and a pointless discussion. 

I noted in the OP that this was basically me trying to make sense of the ending.

[JShepppp]

Grimwick wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Catalyst deserves a better fallacy.

LOL @ at his appeal to probability.

Yup. It makes me cringe when people claim he isn't fallacious or that his solution is correct.

His foundation is just WRONG.

He is not 100% right otherwise it wouldn't make sense from a story perspective. His solution is flawed; nobody agrees with the cycles and Reaper processes. 

The problem he's trying to solve could be a potential problem. At least I think it's better than the dark energy idea.

[The Night Mammoth]

JShepppp wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I remember why I haven't read this more than once!

Because the first section is laughably flawed.

Those aren't the Catalyst's assumptions, those are your assumptions. None of them have any basis in the game. So you're not really telling us why the Catalyst's logic is right, you're just waffling on about your own fabricated theory to explain an entirely different scenario, which is why everything else is inherently flawed as a result. 

If you were to actually take the Catalyst's argument and try to prove it, you'd be committing two fallacies straight off out of the starting blocks. 

So, to have any worthwhile discussion, you have to twist what the serpent actually means, and then it's not longer proof of anything and a pointless discussion. 

I noted in the OP that this was basically me trying to make sense of the ending.

But it's not. 

It's you basically making up an entirely different story. 

[Cypher_CS]

He isn't.
He's applying "common" knowledge.

[JShepppp]

Lol thank you Cypher.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

JShepppp wrote...

The problem he's trying to solve could be a potential problem. At least I think it's better than the dark energy idea.

I wish I could agree. The Dark Energy ending at least was a clear threat established in ME2. After humanizing EDI, after uniting the Geth and Quarians, when the Catalyst told me he was stopping Synthetics from killing organics my first thought was "I thought we were done with that plot point".

[Eluril]

Ugghh get off it already. You're assuming that everyone played the game the same as you. I for one was forced to choose between the Geth and The Quarians in my game. I chose the Quarians as my renegade because the Geth intentionally chose to ally with the Reapers when given a chance (yes they were forced in a way but it doesn't excuse them). In addition, you've been fighting Geth and REAPERS which are synthetic the entire 3 games. Yes, the writers introduced counter-points to the Catalyst's ideas on purpose. No one is denying this. But synthetic/organic conflict is a far better and clearer plot idea than some vague dark energy idea.

[Iecerint]

Good post! I enjoyed reading it. I agree with you that a game ( but not ME3) could have used ideas similar to those expressed in the last 10 minutes and made a very effective ending.

EDI and Shepard's survival in Destroy makes me think something else is up, though.

[FellishBeast]

Where's the TL;DR?

[RiouHotaru]

The Catalyst is operating on an entire different (but NOT entirely wrong) set of logic.

[JShepppp]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

The problem he's trying to solve could be a potential problem. At least I think it's better than the dark energy idea.

I wish I could agree. The Dark Energy ending at least was a clear threat established in ME2. After humanizing EDI, after uniting the Geth and Quarians, when the Catalyst told me he was stopping Synthetics from killing organics my first thought was "I thought we were done with that plot point".

All the points you mention are points for the organic synthetic conflict that, as the post below yours (Eluril) said, could turn out in different ways.

I thought the dark energy was mainly halestrom, which was just one random mission, plus the human reaper and mordin talking about human genetic diversity. Synthetic/organic conflict was introduced back from me1.

[JShepppp]

FellishBeast wrote...

Where's the TL;DR?

In a quote box, in bold, in green, at the top of the OP. If there's a way you think it'd be more visible, please let me know.

[JShepppp]

Iecerint wrote...

Good post! I enjoyed reading it. I agree with you that a game ( but not ME3) could have used ideas similar to those expressed in the last 10 minutes and made a very effective ending.

EDI and Shepard's survival in Destroy makes me think something else is up, though.

Thanks. I didn't know EDI survived in destroy. As for Shep, someone mentioned an idea here that I liked - that a higher EMS means the Crucible was built "better" so only kills "more synthetic" people. The Reapers are "synthetic" enough that they, along with the Geth, will die, but Shep escapes.

[hex23]

So let me get this straight.

You seriously think Bioware/EA spent years, and millions of dollars, making a game that only makes sense if you break it down PRECISELY how you just did?

You're insane. They got lazy, that's it.

[Eluril]

hex23 wrote...

So let me get this straight.

You seriously think Bioware/EA spent years, and millions of dollars, making a game that only makes sense if you break it down PRECISELY how you just did?

You're insane. They got lazy, that's it.

You're telling me 20th Century Fox spent years and hundreds of millions of dollars making a movie (Prometheus) in which not everything is fully explained or clear to the viewer upon their first viewing/without discussion with other people?

The same point could be used against almost any sci-fi universe or story: Blade Runner, 2001, Star Wars, Star Trek, Fight Club, Inception. If you dont like fan interpretations or speculations, get off the internet please.