449 réponses à ce sujet

[Tigerman123]

Because the catalyst was created by organics to preserve that form of life?

[AlexXIV]

Tigerman123 wrote...

Because the catalyst was created by organics to preserve that form of life?

And why is it then possible to choose synthesis which destroys this form of life?

[Eire Icon]

Jenonax wrote...

I'll say it again.  The Catalyst is your enemy.  You cannot trust him.  Therefore, I'm not doing what he says.  

And I have my problems with Vigil.  But I got to talk to him thoroughly, I got to argue with him.  Yes, he's a plot device but at least he's a better explained plot device.

Shepard hasn't established what the Catalysts motives are at this time.

Having said that whether he is your enemy or not is irrelevent. If Shepard does not accept one of the new solutions, then the cycle will continue

My Shepard would not gamble all advanced galactic civilization on the fact he dosen't trust the Catalyst, when he has no other viable option available to him. To me watching Earth burn is not a vaible option.

The idea that Shepard would not stop the Carnage, and allow the Galaxy be destroyed because he dosen't like the options or the Catalyst is riddiculous

[Eire Icon]

AlexXIV wrote...

Tigerman123 wrote...

Because the catalyst was created by organics to preserve that form of life?

And why is it then possible to choose synthesis which destroys this form of life?

It dosen't destroy life it evolves it

[Leem_0001]

Back

Just read through your replies Cypher and Valkyre4, and whilst I respect these things work for you, they just don't sit well for me.

In an effort to at least understand it, I went back and watched the conversation with Starchild again on Youtube (it has been a while since I have seen it), and whilst it didn't clarify my other points, it did raise other questions for me.

Without antagonising, or fighting, as I think the debate can be a good thing, I have a question about the choices.

If the Starchild believes so strongly that synthetic life will eventually wipe out organic, why does he give Shepard the control or destroy endings? I have seen many on here make arguments about the validity of his reasoning (myself included), and whilst we point to EDI and the Geth, I know the points made by 'pro enders' (not using that in any negative way) are worth heavy consideration. But if Starchild is so sure of this, why not only offer Synthesis? Why even give the other two as options, because it flies in the face of his very purpose?

In Destroy, he basically says that organics will again go on to create synthetics, and warns us about it. But, at the end of the day, it will happen and there will be nothing he can do about it, as the reapers are gone. How is that a solution to him?

In Control, Shpeard only controls the Reapers, so synthetic life (Geth etc, and newlyy formed in the future) will go on. How is that a solution to him?

It doesn't really solve anything, he is just kind of, I don't know, bowing out and letting us get on with it (which is what many of us wanted). So why do we need to enslave the reapers or destroy our friends to do it? If he controls the Reapers, why not send them back to Dark Space, deactivate them, or something? It's the same end result - organics and synthetics go on, and the future remains to be seen.

Genuine questions up for debate.

Modifié par Leem_0001, 03 mai 2012 - 03:18 .

[EricHVela]

Eire Icon wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Tigerman123 wrote...

Because the catalyst was created by organics to preserve that form of life?

And why is it then possible to choose synthesis which destroys this form of life?

It dosen't destroy life it evolves it

Ergo: A different form of life. Not a natural evolution, but an artificial one.

[CmnDwnWrkn]

Wasn't the Reapers' whole thing that they would only go after the most advanced race? Wasn't this why they singled the humans out in ME2? Despite the fact that we are told several times that the Asaris are the most advanced? And despite the fact that the Quarians have created the most destructive synthetic life up to this point?  But now they're going after everybody except for the Quarians?

Modifié par CmnDwnWrkn, 03 mai 2012 - 03:08 .

[AlexXIV]

Eire Icon wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Tigerman123 wrote...

Because the catalyst was created by organics to preserve that form of life?

And why is it then possible to choose synthesis which destroys this form of life?

It dosen't destroy life it evolves it

In the opinion of who? A race of organics that created the Reapers to destroy galactic civilisations in cycles to uphold a status quo even though synthesis would have been an option too? A race that does obviously have no faith in life evolving all by itself and rather force it with their machines?

Not to mention that Starbrat claims it is his solution. Not the solution of their creators who happened to be organics. The problem with the ending is that it probably has been completely different about a year or half a year ago and they changed it and now things stopped making sense.

[Jenonax]

Eire Icon wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

I'll say it again.  The Catalyst is your enemy.  You cannot trust him.  Therefore, I'm not doing what he says.  

And I have my problems with Vigil.  But I got to talk to him thoroughly, I got to argue with him.  Yes, he's a plot device but at least he's a better explained plot device.

Shepard hasn't established what the Catalysts motives are at this time.

Having said that whether he is your enemy or not is irrelevent. If Shepard does not accept one of the new solutions, then the cycle will continue

My Shepard would not gamble all advanced galactic civilization on the fact he dosen't trust the Catalyst, when he has no other viable option available to him. To me watching Earth burn is not a vaible option.

The idea that Shepard would not stop the Carnage, and allow the Galaxy be destroyed because he dosen't like the options or the Catalyst is riddiculous

You think not listening to the Catalyst is ridiculous.  I believe listening to it is ridiculous.  Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

The fact that he is your enemy is not irrelevant, it is in fact all that exists at that point in time.  It comes down to Shepard and him.  You're right, Shepard has few options at this point.  It comes down to believe the Catalyst or don't.  I don't.  I will never believe him because I have no reason to believe him and every reason to think that doing what he wants will lead to my destruction.  Shepard does not know the consequences of his so called choice because it comes from an unreliable source.  Shepard knows that he is the creator of the reapers, he knows that the Catalyst means destruction because we've had three games worth of being told Reapers = bad.  There's no grey area here.  The Reapers are the enemy.  The Catalyst is the enemy, therefore I have no basis to do what he says.

[humes spork]

AlexXIV wrote...

Then explain me how you can be neutral in this? There is a large group of people who are dissatisfied and there is a not so large group who have taken it upon them to defend Bioware. Reasons for both sides are clear to me. I take upon me whatever responsiblility I have because I am certain that I am doing the right thing. Whether it actually is the right thing remains to be seen. At least I am not trolling people knowing I am wrong for the lulz.

Allowing people to speak for themselves, through which their attitude and behavior, and ultimately their credibility and validity of their points becomes self-evident, is more than enough for me.

I'm confident enough in my own beliefs to not engage in needless debate with people who are not reasonable.

[Lenseflare]

Eire Icon wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Tigerman123 wrote...

Because the catalyst was created by organics to preserve that form of life?

And why is it then possible to choose synthesis which destroys this form of life?

It dosen't destroy life it evolves it

Which is not preserving it.

[Valkyre4]

AlexXIV wrote...

Valkyre4 wrote...

Now, with the Star Child's information he does know. He is certain this is ONE way of ending things successfully. He is also not indoctrinated and he is told that IM was right, but he could never actually do it because he was indoctrinated beyond return.

I really seriously and honestly cannot find where this whole thing seemd wrong to you.....no way.

What is there not to understand? It's clearly wrong. The boss Reaper is not any more trustworthy than TIM. In opposite. I'd trust TIM to at least have had our best interests in mind, even if he was wrong. The Catalyst is as alien as an alien could be. Why trust him without evidence? The fact that people are dying is bad, but will you make a quick decision to save a couple of lifes to then witness how you made the wrong choice and doom everyone? If you make a choice you should at least be sure of it. And you can only be sure of the destroy option. Even though the Catalyst could still lie to you. However, that shepard is making the choice doesn't make any sense either. Why does the Catalyst want Shepard to make the choice, explain that.

Turns out he WAS telling the truth and besides I will repeat that yet again.....is that really the fist time you encounter something like this storytelling-wise?

Besides I would classify the Reapers and especially the Catalyst as a villain. He doesnt kill just because he likes to do so, he has a reason. A reason he thought until that very moment that was perfect, and impossible to be flawed in any way. Yet Shepard showed that the Catalyst's solution is not as perfect as it thought it would be. In fact Shepard proved that things can be different. And he proved that to the catalyst. By uniting the galaxy, synthetics and organics for the first time, fighting for their freedom. Remember Javik's words. never before something like that happened.

I dont mind people hating the end because they envisioned it differently, but I do mind people trying to convince me that somehow I did not understand what was going on, or I am stupid to trust the Catalyst (which AGAIN, was right afterall....).

Besides.... why would the catalyst bother explaining all this crap to Shepard if he wanted to simply kill him off or make him do his bidding? Shepard was half dead by then, if the cataslyst wanted to use Shepard he wouldnt give him a number of choices... he would simply take control of him. In fact the catalyst could take control of anyone he wanted if he simply wished to do something particular with the crucible mechanism.

Most of all I find it stupid to writing walls of texts discussing how and why Shepard believed what the Catalyst told him when we know for a fact that the Catalyst actually did tell him the truth anyway....

[PsyrenY]

kmol wrote...

Which is not preserving it.

Legion disagrees.

AlexXIV wrote...

Not to mention that Starbrat claims it is his solution.

The Reapers were his solution, not Synthesis. Synthesis is your solution, thanks to the Crucible.

[Cypher_CS]

AlexXIV wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Devil's advocate here - but you are trying to humanize that which is not human.
You try to understand an AI logic with human logic.

Well, let's try the first error here - to it, to the Starchild, to the Catalyst, there is no concept of friendship. Or even victory.
It only has one motivation. And that all that matters.

And based on this motivation, it really has no need to lie. Does it?

Of course it does. Lies are a means to an end. And the Reapers use is excessively. As I said, that is what indoctrination is all about.

Just to make sure we're on the same page here - but how is Indoctrination a lie?

[Eire Icon]

Versidious wrote...

 It certainly doesn't need for its nature to be significantly changed by an external source to just decide that this needs doing. It's already said it can control them.?

According to the Catalyst it does - "The Crucible changed me" The crucible opened new options to the Catalyst

Very weak story telling I admit, no arguments there

Versidious wrote...

Destroy: Does not end the cycle at all. Not only that, but it allows for the destruction of all the means of preserving harvested/ascended species. As far as the Catalyst is concerned, this is genocide on a par with everything it has ever done, added all together. It literally completely undoes all its work..?

Agree with all of the above. I see destroy as a renegade option. But people seem to have more of a problem with the consequences of the choice rather then the choice itself. I suspect that if you could just destroy the reapers with no reprecusions to the Geth EDI etc, most would accept that

Versidious wrote...

Synthesis: Ends all organic life by transforming it into something else. If the only issue was that organic species are preserved in some non-organic form, then Reapers would just wipe out all life straight away, and float around the galaxy being all Reaper-y and ascended, without worrying about letting organics develop at all..?

Its not destroying anything, its the final evolutionary step, and a solution to the chaos. Joker looked fine to me when he got off the Normandy

Versidious wrote...

The only way we can accept the Catalyst's behaviour is if we consider it to be insane or deluded in some way.

Finally, another related problem with the endings, is *why* would you believe anything the Catalyst says?

Whether the Catalyst is deluded, or his logic is flawed etc is irrelevent - he is holding all the cards. Shepard has nothing to bargin with and is all out of options. He chooses A,B,or C or he watches the cycle end

Modifié par Eire Icon, 03 mai 2012 - 03:19 .

[AlexXIV]

humes spork wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Then explain me how you can be neutral in this? There is a large group of people who are dissatisfied and there is a not so large group who have taken it upon them to defend Bioware. Reasons for both sides are clear to me. I take upon me whatever responsiblility I have because I am certain that I am doing the right thing. Whether it actually is the right thing remains to be seen. At least I am not trolling people knowing I am wrong for the lulz.

Allowing people to speak for themselves, through which their attitude and behavior, and ultimately their credibility and validity of their points becomes self-evident, is more than enough for me.

I'm confident enough in my own beliefs to not engage in needless debate with people who are not reasonable.

That's good for you. I don't care, but good for you. Though I am not suprised judging by your language that you would judge the validity of a point on the language, not on the point as such. Because that's why you talk like that, no? You think because you use this educated language you don't need to argue because the language alone makes you right. That's comfortable, and ... good for you.

[shodiswe]

ItsNotMyProblem wrote...

Here's the difference I've noticed...

Pro-Enders can't answer the questions that have gone unanswered, and they agree that they are indeed unanswered questions that anyone would want answers to...even them.

The difference between us lies on how much that matters to us. It matters a lot to me. In fact, it made the whole ending crap. To a pro-ender, they might say, "Yeah, it'd be nice to know, but I'm ok with it. I like speculating".

I like speculating but the end conversation between Shepard and the catalyst makes no sense what so ever.. Shepard makes no sense, the catalyst makes no sense... What hapend to them? None of them seem real or in character.. They are like best friends agreeign to everythign and comming up with weird ideas and showing absolute trust and respect for eachother....

I can't speculate on why both of those characters behaves that way... It's just too weird and takes too many unknows to project a possible answer... To accept that wnind you woudl have to be a religious fanatic that accepts what youre given without question, and if it seems weird to you then you have to tell yourself, I trust in Bioware therefore the ending is good. Bioware is good.

I never thought the ending would look like a drugged down shepard complimenting a drugged down reaper leader and then the two mentaly disabled buddies decided to flip a coin to decide the future of the galaxy. Why talk about it, let's do something, it will be fun! It will be just like new years eve lots of pretty colors!!

[CmnDwnWrkn]

I don't see how "synthesis" is the final evolutionary step. If an organic's tendency is toward creating synthetic life that ultimately destroys them, then why wouldn't an organic/synthetic hybrid eventually program it's synthetic parts to kill off the organic self?

[AlexXIV]

Cypher_CS wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Devil's advocate here - but you are trying to humanize that which is not human.
You try to understand an AI logic with human logic.

Well, let's try the first error here - to it, to the Starchild, to the Catalyst, there is no concept of friendship. Or even victory.
It only has one motivation. And that all that matters.

And based on this motivation, it really has no need to lie. Does it?

Of course it does. Lies are a means to an end. And the Reapers use is excessively. As I said, that is what indoctrination is all about.

Just to make sure we're on the same page here - but how is Indoctrination a lie?

It lies to the indoctrinated. False confidence, wrong conclusions, etc. And the indoctrinated lie to others, not on purpose because they believe what they say, but they believe in the lies they were told. If they were not lies, why indoctrinate people to begin with? Because they would disagree otherwise, simple as that.

[Eire Icon]

AlexXIV wrote...

How would there be chaos without organics? In opposite. If all organics are wiped out it will be much more orderly than with organics messing around. The problem is not only the Reaper's solution. Also their motivation. Why is a world in which synthetic life forms exist but no organic life forms bad?

They protect organics because Bioware figured that would be imporant, from the point of view of an organic. Bioware says that all organics being wiped out would be bad. Because ... they are organics, we are organics. We all agree that all organics being wiped out would be bad. But why do the Reapers think so?

Agree with the above, the catalysts motivations were never explained which is why the ending was incomplete. We could speculate as to the Catalysts motives but thats all it would be - speculation.

This needs to be clarified with the extended cut.

[Cypher_CS]

savionen wrote...

Can't really argue with pro-enders I guess. They just automatically accept things as they are. The Reapers decided to do X because the Reapers decided to do X.

Oh, come on.
That's an insulting generalization and a damn cop out.

Hell, in my view the most intelligent discussions on these forums (and by intelligent I mostly mean stuff that don't include wild assumption based on Abscence of Evidence, for example) is done by your so called Pro Enders or at least people who would not describe themselves as Anti Enders.

How do you like them apples?

[Cypher_CS]

savionen wrote...

Can't really argue with pro-enders I guess. They just automatically accept things as they are. The Reapers decided to do X because the Reapers decided to do X.

Oh, come on.
That's an insulting generalization and a damn cop out.

Hell, in my view the most intelligent discussions on these forums (and by intelligent I mostly mean stuff that don't include wild assumption based on Abscence of Evidence, for example) is done by your so called Pro Enders or at least people who would not describe themselves as Anti Enders.

How do you like them apples?

[Cypher_CS]

AlexXIV wrote...

Tigerman123 wrote...

Because the catalyst was created by organics to preserve that form of life?

And why is it then possible to choose synthesis which destroys this form of life?

Red Alert!
Shields up!
Wild Assumption on a Collision Course!

Modifié par Cypher_CS, 03 mai 2012 - 03:27 .

[Jenonax]

Eire Icon wrote...

Versidious wrote...

Synthesis: Ends all organic life by transforming it into something else. If the only issue was that organic species are preserved in some non-organic form, then Reapers would just wipe out all life straight away, and float around the galaxy being all Reaper-y and ascended, without worrying about letting organics develop at all..?

Its not destroying anything, its the final evolutionary step, and a solution to the chaos. Joker looked fine to me when he got off the Normandy

There is no final step to evolution.  Did Bioware ever study Biology?  Evolution is an ongoing process, adaptation to problems in genetics and outside influences in order to become a stronger and more successful species.  Synthesis will have its problems, oh god will there be problems and guess what?  We'll evolve to overcome them.  To state that synthesis is the final step in evolution is stupid.  Sorry, but you are dead wrong on this, go read a biology textbook.

And no, Joker didn't look fine when he stepped out of the Normandy, he was still limping.  Guess synthesis didn't fix everything then.

[AlexXIV]

Optimystic_X wrote...

kmol wrote...

Which is not preserving it.

Legion disagrees.

AlexXIV wrote...

Not to mention that Starbrat claims it is his solution.

The Reapers were his solution, not Synthesis. Synthesis is your solution, thanks to the Crucible.

Well if the Reapers are Starbrats solution and also the cycles, then the question resurfaces why organics are imporant to it. If organics are a flaw of nature or whatever then only organics would protect other organics. Because to all others they are worthless.