247 réponses à ce sujet

[Eire Icon]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Except we know differently. Wreav is a moron, he knows pretty much nothing about what the Salarians did, and doesn't even use his brain to think about the situation. He's allowing old racial memories to shape his beliefs. 

Thats not the point - the point is that trust is not always required to go along with something

The Night Mammoth wrote...
The Reapers just kill everyone. There's no distinction between species or individuals. There's no flip-side or alternative view on what they do.

This is only a minor point but thats not actually true. The Reapers only go after organics once they've reached a certain stage of advancement. They spare less advanced races. This does prove there is more to their motives then simply killing organics

[SoloPala]

The Night Mammoth wrote...
That's why this is hypothetical. 

But not everything in-game states that. Some characters waffle on about how its 'impossible' like they did with every other obstacle Shepard eventually overcame, whilst you run around the Galaxy owning face with very conventional means whilst reading about others doing the same in the Codex. 

Theres actually a lot in the game that says you can defeat them conventionally, like the reapers inability to take Palaven despite going there in force, and the reapers inability to defeat the Asari fleets until they force them to take a stand at thessia.  So imagine if the remaining alliance fleet joined the Turians at Palaven, instead of jerking off all game getting the races together to retake earth which is basically a wasteland by the time you get there.

[His Name was HYR!!]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

No, I didn't. 


Except we know differently. Wreav is a moron, he knows pretty much nothing about what the Salarians did, and doesn't even use his brain to think about the situation. He's allowing old racial memories to shape his beliefs. 

We know Mordin is here to help, we [i[know[/i] why the Salarians used the Genophage instead of just wiping the Krogan out completely. 

The Reapers just kill everyone. There's no distinction between species or individuals. There's no flip-side or alternative view on what they do. The only thing that might present that is the Catalyst, and it is for all intents and purposes their master. It is a Reaper. 

We're completely justified in our distrust of the Reapers and the Catalyst. Wreav is just a moron without all the information or the mental agility to comprehend the situation properly. He isn't justified in his hatred of all Salarians.

Yes you did.

That we know better is irrelevant. Because when we meet the Catalyst, we are at a disadvantage, we don't know better here. We have to decide whether or not we trust him. And really, the arguments for not trusting him are on the exact same page as Wreav's reasons for not trusting Mordin: its history is bad/killed our people, for all we know its trying to trick us.

And, about using our head to think about the situation... there's reason to trust the catalyst, if you actually do. Because, your needs are aligned. He is a safeguard to protect the galaxy from "tech singularity" where AI dominate organics, but deems that his solution will no longer work. You are there to stop the Reapers. So, you have to help each other to achieve a common goal. Better, the ball is in your court. The catalyst can't stop you from choosing any paths.

Frankly, I believe the conspiracy-theory of Starchild trying to trick you is nonsense, but I can see why fans want to believe it. Emotional response to lack of happy-ending: create a new enemy (Starchild) and invalidate synthesis/control paths completely as his trickery, claim small victory over him by choosing Destroy - path closest to what fans all wanted.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 11 mai 2012 - 02:11 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Eire Icon wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Except we know differently. Wreav is a moron, he knows pretty much nothing about what the Salarians did, and doesn't even use his brain to think about the situation. He's allowing old racial memories to shape his beliefs. 

Thats not the point - the point is that trust is not always required to go along with something

Yes, but some people are saying that our distrust of the Reapers shouldn't interfere, when we're being presented a plan with pretty much zero information, by a Reaper, when we have nothing else to prove that they are trustworthy. 

Wreav does not trust Mordin. He shouldn't distrust him or hate him, but he has reasons no matter how flawed. We know differently about Mordin, we know his motives and purpose, and we've met many agreeable Salarians along the way. We have that alternative perspective.

The Night Mammoth wrote...
The Reapers just kill everyone. There's no distinction between species or individuals. There's no flip-side or alternative view on what they do.

This is only a minor point but thats not actually true. The Reapers only go after organics once they've reached a certain stage of advancement. They spare less advanced races. This does prove there is more to their motives then simply killing organics

So that they can harvest them later, for whatever reason. Their time will come. They allow these less advanced species to live for a little longer. 

Still, we have no alternative view that might prove them more trustworthy. We have no provable justification presented by a more neutral party. To us - to everyone - the Reapers are here to kill, without pity or mercy, and that's the only thing they've ever done. 

[a.m.p]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

No, I didn't. 


Except we know differently. Wreav is a moron, he knows pretty much nothing about what the Salarians did, and doesn't even use his brain to think about the situation. He's allowing old racial memories to shape his beliefs. 

We know Mordin is here to help, we [i[know[/i] why the Salarians used the Genophage instead of just wiping the Krogan out completely. 

The Reapers just kill everyone. There's no distinction between species or individuals. There's no flip-side or alternative view on what they do. The only thing that might present that is the Catalyst, and it is for all intents and purposes their master. It is a Reaper. 

We're completely justified in our distrust of the Reapers and the Catalyst. Wreav is just a moron without all the information or the mental agility to comprehend the situation properly. He isn't justified in his hatred of all Salarians.

Yes you did.

That we know better is irrelevant. Because when we meet the Catalyst, we are at a disadvantage, we don't know better here. We have to decide whether or not we trust him. And really, the arguments for not trusting him are on the exact same page as Wreav's reasons for not trusting Mordin: its history is bad/killed our people, for all we know its trying to trick us.

Addressed previously.

And, about using our head to think about the situation... there's reason to trust the catalyst, if you actually do. Because, your needs are aligned.

Says he.

He is a safeguard to protect the galaxy from "tech singularity" where AI dominate organics, but deems that his solution will no longer work.

Says he.

The only information you have about him you get from him. Until you went up that platform you knew nothing about the motives of the reapers, the existance of the problem. Or the existance of the starchild. Sure, there were a couple lines of foreshadowing on Thessia and some more from Javik, but you still have zero information.

Frankly, I believe the conspiracy-theory of Starchild trying to trick you is nonsense, but I can see why fans want to believe it. Emotional response to lack of happy-ending: create a new enemy (Starchild) and invalidate synthesis/control paths completely as his trickery, claim small victory over him by choosing Destroy - path closest to what fans all wanted.

There is no conspiracy theory of starchild trying to trick you. There is the fact that from an in-universe point of view Shepard believing anything starchild says just because he says it is ridiculous. He isn't the enemy because I want him to be the enemy. He is the enemy because he admits to have created the cycle. You may also notice that people who keep posting this kind of threads do not consider destroy as disbelieving starchild. Because Shepard doesn't know what would happen if they shoot the tube either.

This has nothing to do with lack of happy ending (which by the way can not exist in ME simply because the galaxy is in ruin and billions are dead anyway, even if reapers just fly away without killing a single person more).
This has everything to do with the player character forced to be an idiot.

Modifié par a.m.p, 11 mai 2012 - 02:25 .

[The Night Mammoth]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Except we know differently. Wreav is a moron, he knows pretty much nothing about what the Salarians did, and doesn't even use his brain to think about the situation. He's allowing old racial memories to shape his beliefs. 

We know Mordin is here to help, we [i[know[/i] why the Salarians used the Genophage instead of just wiping the Krogan out completely. 

The Reapers just kill everyone. There's no distinction between species or individuals. There's no flip-side or alternative view on what they do. The only thing that might present that is the Catalyst, and it is for all intents and purposes their master. It is a Reaper. 

We're completely justified in our distrust of the Reapers and the Catalyst. Wreav is just a moron without all the information or the mental agility to comprehend the situation properly. He isn't justified in his hatred of all Salarians.

That we know better is irrelevant.

Concering Wreav: yes it is. If we allowed Wreav to decide in that situation Mordin would be dead and the Genophage not cured. His view is flawed, ours is evidently not. 

Because when we meet the Catalyst, we are at a disadvantage, we don't know better here. We have to decide whether or not we trust him. And really, the arguments for not trusting him are on the exact same page as Wreav's reasons for not trusting Mordin: its history is bad/killed our people, for all we know its trying to trick us.

Now you're missing the point. Wreav is not justified in his hatred. He has flawed reasons. 

WE ARE. The Reapers have done nothing else but kill and control (for the purpose of killing), we have perfectly acceptable reasons not to trust the Catalyst.

It has these solutions, but it needs Shepard to use them. So no, it's not holding all the cards. 

And, about using our head to think about the situation... there's reason to trust the catalyst, if you actually do. Because, your needs are aligned. He is a safeguard to protect the galaxy from "tech singularity" where AI dominate organics, but deems that his solution will no longer work. You are there to stop the Reapers. So, you have to help each other to achieve a common goal. Better, the ball is in your court. The catalyst can't stop you from choosing any paths.

Still no reason to trust it. 

Its problem concering synthetics is baseless, I ignore it. Our, my, objective is to destroy the Reapers and save this cycle from destruction. 

None of these present a solution to my objective, and the thing trying to persuade me is a Reaper. I'd rather find a new solution.

Frankly, I believe the conspiracy-theory of Starchild trying to trick you is nonsense, but I can see why fans want to believe it. Emotional response to lack of happy-ending: create a new enemy (Starchild) and invalidate synthesis/control paths completely as his trickery, claim small victory over him by choosing Destroy - path closest to what fans all wanted.

I don't think it's trying to trick you, just that whatever it believes is not necessarily the truth. Especially concerning its motive. 

[Noelemahc]

Frankly, I believe the conspiracy-theory of Starchild trying to trick you is nonsense, but I can see why fans want to believe it. Emotional response to lack of happy-ending: create a new enemy (Starchild) and invalidate synthesis/control paths completely as his trickery, claim small victory over him by choosing Destroy - path closest to what fans all wanted.

The path we explicitly want is to tell the holographic cuttlefish-maker to frell off and blow him up into little piece without activating his toy. Please note that he presents the options of the Crucible to Shepard, Vendetta outlines that the Crucible was adapted to use the Citadel at some point - it didn't need it originally - and no race is known to have successfully used it.

The Protheans were betrayed by indoctrinated agents, we got that, that's why they failed to get the Catalyst in time. We only discovered the Crucible in the nick of time.

But what about the PREVIOUS races? Did ALL of them also find the Crucible plans CONVENIENTLY when their homeworlds were being Reaped? Did ALL of them fail to build a suspiciously easy-to-build-except-for-Citadel-goes-here device? This sounds so absurdly fishy that ME2 Shepard, the one that is hesitant to go along with anything TIM says, would've slapped the ME3 Shepard, who consistently tries to convince TIM to do the do-gooder thing, silly. And would've been right.

[His Name was HYR!!]

a.m.p wrote...

And, about using our head to think about the situation... there's reason to trust the catalyst, if you actually do. Because, your needs are aligned.

Says he.

He is a safeguard to protect the galaxy from "tech singularity" where AI dominate organics, but deems that his solution will no longer work.

Says he.

The only information you have about him you get from him. Until you went up that platform you knew nothing about the motives of the reapers, the existance of the problem. Or the existance of the starchild. Sure, there were a couple lines of foreshadowing on Thessia and some more from Javik, but you still have zero information.

LOL, you act as though Starchild is the only person (" ") we ever encounter in the series who provides information from only himself, and that we always have credible sources past one character's word.

I could probably find 15 different examples of where this same song-and-dance happens between ME1, 2 and 3.

Just off the top of my head... ME1 Rachni Queen. Its not going to go about killing us? Says she. Its children we just fought off were not sane? Says she. For all we know, she's trying to trick us, only to resume the Rachni Wars that he ancestors started earlier - these are necessrary lies she will tell to earn her freedom. We know her past, and know next to nothing about how or why they endangered the rest of the galaxy. Clearly - one would be foolish to trust her word.

There is no conspiracy theory of starchild trying to trick you. There is the fact that from an in-universe point of view Shepard believing anything starchild says just because he says it is ridiculous. He isn't the enemy because I want him to be the enemy. He is the enemy because he admits to have created the cycle. You may also notice that people who keep posting this kind of threads do not consider destroy as disbelieving starchild. Because Shepard doesn't know what would happen if they shoot the tube either.

We don't know that. He could merely be the work of a past civilization, and is created like a VI to ensure that it goes on continuously, effectively make it his job to carry it out. In any case, there is no explanation given to say with certainty.

There's also a point where one has to step back and take narrative hints. Not knowing what will happen after shooting the tube is plain foolish. The catalyst says that it will destroy all synthetic life, you are shown how to do it with an image of Anderson walking up to it and making it blow. There's no guesswork there, there are no narrative hints made anywhere that suggest that the catalyst is lying to you about it either. You go there, shoot it, and all synthetics are wiped. The end.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 11 mai 2012 - 03:02 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Concering Wreav: yes it is. If we allowed Wreav to decide in that situation Mordin would be dead and the Genophage not cured. His view is flawed, ours is evidently not.

I'm not saying Wreav's view isn't flawed. In fact, that's my whole point. Because in the situation where we, like Wreav, do NOT know with certainty who is right or wrong... some of us use his same flawed logic. See below.

Because when we meet the Catalyst, we are at a disadvantage, we don't know better here. We have to decide whether or not we trust him. And really, the arguments for not trusting him are on the exact same page as Wreav's reasons for not trusting Mordin: its history is bad/killed our people, for all we know its trying to trick us.

Now you're missing the point. Wreav is not justified in his hatred. He has flawed reasons. 

WE ARE. The Reapers have done nothing else but kill and control (for the purpose of killing), we have perfectly acceptable reasons not to trust the Catalyst.

They seem the same to me.

Wreav's reasons:
- salarian history with krogan: they created the genophage, modified it for continuation.
- possible trickery.

Starchild conspiracy-theory:
- he's a killer.
- he could be misleading Shepard.

It has these solutions, but it needs Shepard to use them. So no, it's not holding all the cards.

Which is what I said... thank you for agreeing with me?

And, about using our head to think about the situation... there's reason to trust the catalyst, if you actually do. Because, your needs are aligned. He is a safeguard to protect the galaxy from "tech singularity" where AI dominate organics, but deems that his solution will no longer work. You are there to stop the Reapers. So, you have to help each other to achieve a common goal. Better, the ball is in your court. The catalyst can't stop you from choosing any paths.

Still no reason to trust it. 

Its problem concering synthetics is baseless, I ignore it. Our, my, objective is to destroy the Reapers and save this cycle from destruction. 

None of these present a solution to my objective, and the thing trying to persuade me is a Reaper. I'd rather find a new solution.

It's your prerogative, though I'm not sure what "new" solution you'd rather find than destroying them.

I don't think it's trying to trick you, just that whatever it believes is not necessarily the truth. Especially concerning its motive.

You may not, but many do. And so Indoctrination Headcanon was born.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 11 mai 2012 - 03:04 .

[The Night Mammoth]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I'm not saying Wreav's view isn't flawed. In fact, that's my whole point. Because in the situation where we, like Wreav, do NOT know with certainty who is right or wrong... some of us use his same flawed logic. See below.

We know with certainty that the Reapers want to kill us, and are justified in that conclusion. Wreav thinks all Salarians are scheming idiots who are out ot get him, so he is not. 

They seem the same to me.

Wreav's reasons:
- salarian history with krogan: they created the genophage, modified it for continuation.
- possible trickery.

Faulty reasoning. Obvious examples of Salarians who aren't like that. Bias causes him to believe the Salarians despise his people and want them dead despite the evidence. Allies providing alternate view to his. 

Side note: he has no idea the Genophage was modified. 

Starchild conspiracy-theory:
- he's a killer.
- he could be misleading Shepard.

Reapers are just one massive group, with one purpose, and no alternate perspective. They want to kill everyone. That's it. No mercy, no pity, no Reapers who aren't like that. Everyone in agreement that the Reapers are evil and must be stopped. No evidence to the contrary. Perfectly reasonable thing to believe. 

Which is what I said... thank you for agreeing with me?

Not at that point you hadn't. 

It's your prerogative, though I'm not sure what "new" solution you'd rather find than destroying them.

Destroying them whilst not doing what the Catalyst wants. 

You may not, but many do. And so Indoctrination Headcanon was born.

I can see why people might think that, but the ending in general seems pretty straight forward. I don't think you're bing mislead or lied to, so I think BIoWare's intention was for you to trust the Catalyst and make a choice based on what it says, but that they utterly fail in that. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 11 mai 2012 - 03:44 .

[a.m.p]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

LOL, you act as though Starchild is the only person (" ") we ever encounter in the series who provides information from only himself, and that we always have credible sources past one character's word.

I could probably find 15 different examples of where this same song-and-dance happens between ME1, 2 and 3.

Just off the top of my head... ME1 Rachni Queen. Its not going to go about killing us? Says she. Its children we just fought off were not sane? Says she. For all we know, she's trying to trick us, only to resume the Rachni Wars that he ancestors started earlier - these are necessrary lies she will tell to earn her freedom. We know her past, and know next to nothing about how or why they endangered the rest of the galaxy. Clearly - one would be foolish to trust her word.

Thank you for bringing that up.
See, I get to choose whether I trust her or not. If I don't, I can kill her right there and see her die. I am pretty sure I can act on my justified mistrust in all 15 of your different examples. Be it Legion, Grunt, TIM, the other queen, (should I kill the first) or anyone else.

The only time I can't act on that mistrust is the ending.

There is no conspiracy theory of starchild trying to trick you. There is the fact that from an in-universe point of view Shepard believing anything starchild says just because he says it is ridiculous. He isn't the enemy because I want him to be the enemy. He is the enemy because he admits to have created the cycle. You may also notice that people who keep posting this kind of threads do not consider destroy as disbelieving starchild. Because Shepard doesn't know what would happen if they shoot the tube either.

We don't know that. He could merely be the work of a past civilization, and is created like a VI to ensure that it goes on continuously, effectively make it his job to carry it out. In any case, there is no explanation given to say with certainty.

So... you've just said that not necessarily everything he says is absolutely true. And you still want me to go along with what he claims are options of stopping the cycle?

There's also a point where one has to step back and take narrative hints. Not knowing what will happen after shooting the tube is plain foolish. The catalyst says that it will destroy all synthetic life, you are shown how to do it with an image of Anderson walking up to it and making it blow. There's no guesswork there, there are no narrative hints made anywhere that suggest that the catalyst is lying to you about it either. You go there, shoot it, and all synthetics are wiped. The end.

In other words the only reason I, the player, can arrive at the conclusion that there is no trap and shooting the tube is safe, is by knowing that this is the ending of a videogame about stopping reapers therefore it will probably stop reapers.

Well, this is exactly what I am talking about here. Shepard doesn't know this is a videogame. Shepard only knows what they see or are being told. What they see and are being told suggests this is a reaper Shepard is forced to be an idiot for plot purposes.

Not to mention all the character stupidity (We have no idea what it does!) throughout the game that I mistook for foreshadowing that the crucible will turn out to be a trap. Well, who'd have known that it was plain old plot-induced idiocy too.

Modifié par a.m.p, 11 mai 2012 - 03:59 .

[mcgreggers99]

incinerator950 wrote...

Missile ****** and laser eyes are hard to pass up. Ah Headcanon, I can see why people like it.

"Missle ******" would be a great band name.

[His Name was HYR!!]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I'm not saying Wreav's view isn't flawed. In fact, that's my whole point. Because in the situation where we, like Wreav, do NOT know with certainty who is right or wrong... some of us use his same flawed logic. See below.

We know with certainty that the Reapers want to kill us, and are justified in that conclusion. Wreav thinks all Salarians are scheming idiots who are out ot get him, so he is not. 

Starchild conspiracy-theory:
- he's a killer.
- he could be misleading Shepard.

Reapers are just one massive group, with one purpose, and no alternate perspective. They want to kill everyone. That's it. No mercy, no pity, no Reapers who aren't like that. Everyone in agreement that the Reapers are evil and must be stopped. No evidence to the contrary. Perfectly reasonable thing to believe. 

Not exactly correct. The Reapers harvest organics to preserve them, and therein, protect from hostile synthetics that WILL kill all organics outright. Harvested species continue to live within the Reaper, each a nation. This is talked about back in ME2 with an oft-missed dialogue from Legion: .

Understanding that helps make sense of why we can safely work with the Catalyst. As I said, needs are aligned. He's needs to throw out his solution, which actually is not one to mercilessly kill off all organic life, but he can't. And you need to stop further Reaper cycles. In fact, you don't even need to buy his hypothesis about tech-singularity at all.

[The Night Mammoth]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I'm not saying Wreav's view isn't flawed. In fact, that's my whole point. Because in the situation where we, like Wreav, do NOT know with certainty who is right or wrong... some of us use his same flawed logic. See below.

We know with certainty that the Reapers want to kill us, and are justified in that conclusion. Wreav thinks all Salarians are scheming idiots who are out ot get him, so he is not. 

Starchild conspiracy-theory:
- he's a killer.
- he could be misleading Shepard.

Reapers are just one massive group, with one purpose, and no alternate perspective. They want to kill everyone. That's it. No mercy, no pity, no Reapers who aren't like that. Everyone in agreement that the Reapers are evil and must be stopped. No evidence to the contrary. Perfectly reasonable thing to believe. 

Not exactly correct. The Reapers harvest organics to preserve them, and therein, protect from hostile synthetics that WILL kill all organics outright. Harvested species continue to live within the Reaper, each a nation. This is talked about back in ME2 with an oft-missed dialogue from Legion: .

Yes I remember Legion's dialgoue. 

They kill everyone. Whether the basic genetic 'essence' is stored is kind of moot. To get to that stage the harvested people have to die. Then these Reapers are used to kill more organics. In my mind that makes everything worse. The Reapers are using their defeated enemies as the material to build more death-dealing machines to commit the same attrocities their enemy tried to fight against. 

Understanding that helps make sense of why we can safely work with the Catalyst. As I said, needs are aligned. He's needs to throw out his solution, which actually is not one to mercilessly kill off all organic life, but he can't.

His needs don't make sense and is something I largely ignore, leaving some litte kid telling me its the Reaper's controller and that it has three colored doors I can pick from. 

And you need to stop further Reaper cycles.

Not my singular objective. Shepard wants to save this iteration of the cycle by destroying the Reapers. 

In fact, you don't even need to buy his hypothesis about tech-singularity at all.

I know, I don't, it's a load of baseless bullsh*t. 

[His Name was HYR!!]

a.m.p wrote...

Just off the top of my head... ME1 Rachni Queen. Its not going to go about killing us? Says she. Its children we just fought off were not sane? Says she. For all we know, she's trying to trick us, only to resume the Rachni Wars that he ancestors started earlier - these are necessrary lies she will tell to earn her freedom. We know her past, and know next to nothing about how or why they endangered the rest of the galaxy. Clearly - one would be foolish to trust her word.

Thank you for bringing that up.
See, I get to choose whether I trust her or not. If I don't, I can kill her right there and see her die.

That's because the decision about killing/sparing the rachni was intended to revolve around that. The ending was not about trusting/distrusting the catalyst, it is about deciding how to end the Reaper threat. Of course, how you play is up to you. If it's an issue of trust to you, play accordingly. Personally, I call that overthinking, when you believe something is an issue when it's never established to be.

Besides which, how did the rachni decision turn out in the end?

There is no conspiracy theory of starchild trying to trick you. There is the fact that from an in-universe point of view Shepard believing anything starchild says just because he says it is ridiculous. He isn't the enemy because I want him to be the enemy. He is the enemy because he admits to have created the cycle. You may also notice that people who keep posting this kind of threads do not consider destroy as disbelieving starchild. Because Shepard doesn't know what would happen if they shoot the tube either.

We don't know that. He could merely be the work of a past civilization, and is created like a VI to ensure that it goes on continuously, effectively make it his job to carry it out. In any case, there is no explanation given to say with certainty.

So... you've just said that not necessarily everything he says is absolutely true. And you still want me to go along with what he claims are options of stopping the cycle?

I never said that everything he says is necessarily true, just that he's not trying to lie/deceive deliberately. Frankly, this was a miserable job in explanation, on the writers' part. In any case, I'm not holding it over the in-game characters that the out-of-universe writers believed it was a good idea to keep everything as vague as possible.

In any case, yes, I say go along with his options to stop the cycle. I guarantee none of them entail continued Reaper harvesting.

There's also a point where one has to step back and take narrative hints. Not knowing what will happen after shooting the tube is plain foolish. The catalyst says that it will destroy all synthetic life, you are shown how to do it with an image of Anderson walking up to it and making it blow. There's no guesswork there, there are no narrative hints made anywhere that suggest that the catalyst is lying to you about it either. You go there, shoot it, and all synthetics are wiped. The end.

In other words the only reason I, the player, can arrive at the conclusion that there is no trap and shooting the tube is safe, is by knowing that this is the ending of a videogame about stopping reapers therefore it will probably stop reapers.

Well, this is exactly what I am talking about here. Shepard doesn't know this is a videogame. Shepard only knows what they see or are being told. What they see and are being told suggests this is a reaper Shepard is forced to be an idiot for plot purposes.

Not to mention all the character stupidity (We have no idea what it does!) throughout the game that I mistook for foreshadowing that the crucible will turn out to be a trap. Well, who'd have known that it was plain old plot-induced idiocy too.

Yes, that's exactly the reason. Nobody plays the game without meta-gaming. Some do more than others, but in the end, everybody does it.

Why does anyone playing the game search around the cargo bay for loot/medi-gel when Miranda's sister is in danger of being kidnapped by Eclipse mercs? Because we know it's a game. Why does a player choose a dialogue option highlighted in blue or red on the dialogue wheel instead of a similarly-worded options that are not highlighted? Because we understand the gameplay mechanics. Why does one not worry about Legion running out of ammo by ordering him to use a Widow, and not changing weapons for the length of the mission? It has low ammo-capacity and squadmates don't ever pick up clips on their own. But, we know that squadmates never run out of ammo either.

At some point, the player has to fill in the blanks where it applies. There's no way around it.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 11 mai 2012 - 04:29 .

[httinks2006]

Eire Icon wrote...

ardensia wrote...

[So, you want the choice to trust him, which can only be shown if you have the option to not trust him, and you are disinclined to trust him in the first place because he's the boss of the Reapers, and it makes no sense to inherently trust someone who just told you they're the boss of the things that are trying to genocide everyone.

Which means the question this thread is attempting to answer (assuming your thoughts are in line with the OP, which they probably are) isn't why someone would agree with the Catalyst. It's why the game devs would force this agreement on the players.

Am I right yet? Sorry, I tend to be a very literal person, and the fact that I get paid to be so probably doesn't help.

I just don't know why the "Why does Shepard trust the Catalyst" question keeps coming up

Shepard has no options but the ones presented to him by the Catalyst. If he does not make a choice the cycle continues, and all advanced organic life is wiped out

He has nothing to lose by making the choice, he has everything to lose by not making a choice.

Shepard never indicates he agrees with the Catalyst or believes him to be right at any stage

People are dying, fleets are being destroyed, worlds are falling. The Catalyst is giving Shepard an option to end this

The Catalyst believes his logic to be correct, he neither needs nor seeks Shepards agreement 

@Eire Icon

The questions keeps coming up because it lies at the heart of  why many people find the ending  so distasteful . In a ground breaking earth shattering triology based on choice , and where the choice matters the most .
We are as greatly stated  ,railroaded into making  out of character choices ,given by the enemies leader which our very survivor depends on ,without even a heated arguement of why it's logic is flawed or even the choice to flatly refuse it's logic as a supposed surperior life form with it's own agenda .
I'm not a believer in a no win scenario as long as we live ,as long as we can fight we will and can find a way . i remember many of rpg battles that I had felt were impossible to win , I found a way . I recall reading guides to how people approached their end battles and won , but were totally destroyed when using their sugestions and play styles .
I know from experience at the beginning of the majority of games the villian is untouchable , at the end you always have a chance no matter the difficulty you can find a way to win .
Life has proven so many times we can overcome what people percieve as an impossible feat , and you know what its no longer impossible once it's been accomplished .

You know what myself as Shepard I neither need nor seek the Catalysts SOLUTIONS . And I believe my options of destroying the Catalyst is a CHOICE I should have been given .

[httinks2006]

a.m.p wrote...

ardensia wrote...

a.m.p wrote...

@ardensia
I personally want the choice to not trust him. The presence of that choice would make someone else's choice to trust him a real choice rather than the worst kind of railroading imaginable.

Mmm. Thank you, I think I understand your position better.

Thank you. I wish you worked at Bioware.

Thing is that type of choice is something they have repeatedly handled well throughout the trilogy. Whenever I was facing something I did not necessarily trust I always had the option to say "screw that, let's blow it up" or something similar.

I wasn't forced to trust the rachni queen. It was a choice. I wasn't forced to activate Legion or drag Grunt out of his tank. Sure, they are squadmates and this is a videogame so everyone does that anyway, but the very presence of the option, something any rational person with half a brain would consider, makes it a choice.
Legion's loyalty, even the collector base, as weird and unexplained as that choice was, the second encounter with the rachni queen. I could go on.
And at the end when everything depends on your choice - it's suddenly taken away.

No wonder IT persists. It explains why Shepard is not behaving like Shepard, among other things.

Agree wholeheartdly

[httinks2006]

a.m.p wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...
The Catalyst doesn't tell you how to destroy the Reapers...
You see Anderson doing it in your head...

So you're saying that it's okay to trust my hallucination about how to destroy reapers that I am having in the presence of an entity that assumed the form of a child it had taken from my memory?

@ardensia
I personally want the choice to not trust him. The presence of that choice would make someone else's choice to trust him a real choice rather than the worst kind of railroading imaginable.

1000+

[wantedman dan]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

No, the fact that the Reapers are decimating the fleets is the proof.

Which is evidenced by what exactly? The lack of a battle scene around you? Two reapers, one being destroyed in the process?

Yes, decimation.

[httinks2006]

Eire Icon wrote...

Erield wrote...

Here's a Plan B.

"Admiral Hackett:  Have all ships open fire on the Citadel.  The being Controlling the Reapers is here.  Destroy it, and we may have a chance at winning this thing."

At the point when the leader of your enemy seems to  know what your secret weapon does, and you yourself don't, you may want to NOT activate it.  There's every reason to believe that it's an instant "I win" button for the Reapers.  If this is the case, it becomes vital to let future Cycles know to not waste the resources of the entire galaxy in building it.

And the Reapers destroy the remainder of the fleet - not a good plan

Did you even read the war assest comparison level to reaper forces on your chances of winning remember that the cgi because of real life budgets cannot show you the entire war taking place .
fact different war asset levels show you different chances of you defeating the reapers go on board the Normandy check it out you may be surprised .

[Tenshi]

httinks2006 wrote...
I absolutely know my Shepard would never have given in to this

your shepard? its bioware character. not yours. just because you were choosing A or B answers dont make it your character.

they can do whatever they want with him.

Modifié par xxx2emo4Uxxx, 11 mai 2012 - 04:52 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

We know with certainty that the Reapers want to kill us, and are justified in that conclusion. Wreav thinks all Salarians are scheming idiots who are out ot get him, so he is not.

For one, the catalyst himself is NOT a Reaper in any state of the union. So the certain knowledge we know about the Reapers really do not apply to him. On that note, the characteristics that the catalyst exhbits are nothing like those of the Reapers we've spoken to: Sovereign, Harbinger...

In Wreav's case, sure, not all salarians may be bad. But Mordin being there and claiming to help is hardly compelling evidence that he's not one of those bad apples. Besides, it really seems as though those salarians that are not supportive of the genophage are few and far between: Mordin (after he was supportive of it earlier), Padok, and that's about it. Kirrahe appears neutral, Lt. Tolan standing in his place does support it. Both salarian councilors commend Shepard if the cure was sabotaged. And of couse, the dalatrass.

Yes I remember Legion's dialgoue. 

They kill everyone. Whether the basic genetic 'essence' is stored is kind of moot. To get to that stage the harvested people have to die. Then these Reapers are used to kill more organics. In my mind that makes everything worse. The Reapers are using their defeated enemies as the material to build more death-dealing machines to commit the same attrocities their enemy tried to fight against.

But surely, Reaper harvesting cycles are at least better than what they are meant to protect against: synthetics that kill all organic life outright, advanced or not, and with no preservation of that organic life at all.

In that sense, their goal is not to kill, but protect.

His needs don't make sense and is something I largely ignore, leaving some litte kid telling me its the Reaper's controller and that it has three colored doors I can pick from.

And you need to stop further Reaper cycles.

Not my singular objective. Shepard wants to save this iteration of the cycle by destroying the Reapers.

Still not clear how this is different than the Destroy path he proposes, unless you believe that destroying the Citadel is the answer. In the end though, if you want to play the game, you have to deal with the cards dealt to you.



I'll be back.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 11 mai 2012 - 04:56 .

[httinks2006]

xxx2emo4Uxxx wrote...

httinks2006 wrote...
I absolutely know my Shepard would never have given in to this

your shepard? its bioware character. not yours. just because you were choosing A or B answers dont make it your character.

they can do whatever they want with him.

No not true thats also at the heart of this whole debate Bioware had this game marketed as your Shepard , your choices mattered ,so right there if thats what you truly believe you have no clue what anyone is talking about when they play Mass Effect . It's not Batman , Call of duty,battlefield, Halo ,Uncharted ,Infamous etc get your facts straight ...

Modifié par httinks2006, 11 mai 2012 - 05:13 .

[Mcfly616]

wantedman dan wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

No, the fact that the Reapers are decimating the fleets is the proof.

Which is evidenced by what exactly? The lack of a battle scene around you? Two reapers, one being destroyed in the process?

Yes, decimation.

This....

This the start of every problem with the Ending.....first of all, an ambiguous and vague ending has no place as the conclusion of a trilogy(it doesn't work, and never will, see The Matrix trilogy for an example)
The problem with the ending is that they wanted us to make up our minds.....but that's not possible, because they gave us nothing to go on....



They never "showed" us why Joker flew off....so hes a coward

They never show anybody around us after Harby's beam, but Anderson "followed" us up? Um no...

They show us the relays exploding(yeah, those f***ers blew up, I don't wanna hear crap about "overloading"), yet they expect us to take their word on twitter that they didn't? Umm no, you should've demonstrated that on screen....

The list goes on....but the one that still gets me the most is : Why humans? Why Earth? Wtf is so special about us? So we're more diverse, wtf does that matter? We're not even the most advanced race....its never explained in detail....Which is weird because it seems kinda important....but w.e I guess Bioware just thought Earth would be a cool battlefield and has no context to the story....and apparently there's something to Earth, because why would they bring the Citadel there? After capturing the Citadel, why not defend it where it is? Why bother bringing it to Earth?

[a.m.p]

HYR 2.0 wrote...


That's because the decision about killing/sparing the rachni was intended to revolve around that. The ending was not about trusting/distrusting the catalyst, it is about deciding how to end the Reaper threat. Of course, how you play is up to you. If it's an issue of trust to you, play accordingly. Personally, I call that overthinking, when you believe something is an issue when it's never established to be.

This is the one final choice upon which the fate of the galaxy is depending. There can not be too much thinking about what to do here.

A good story does not require out-of-universe explanations to work. A good story is internally consistent. The ending we have is not. It doesn't just require out-of-universe explanations, it requires everyone in-universe to be morons. It's broken.

Besides which, how did the rachni decision turn out in the end?

Saved her, actually. Because at that point of the story my character was recently made spectre and was pursuing another rogue spectre, and genocide wasn't in her job description. Later doubted that decision. Saved her the second time because needed more allies.

The option to kill her in this case makes the option to trust her a choice and gives it meaning.
Let's again look at the catalyst. The very final ultimate choice. That is not a choice at all. The fact that the people who designed this scene did not understand that baffles me. The way you end the reaper threat 100% depends on whether you trust the information you've been given. You can not just say, "okay, this reaper is a good reaper, he tells the truth, your character believes him, now pick a color". This is terrible writing and game design and it insults your audience's intelligence. Audiences generally don't appreciate that.

I never said that everything he says is necessarily true, just that he's not trying to lie/deceive deliberately. Frankly, this was a miserable job in explanation, on the writers' part. In any case, I'm not holding it over the in-game characters that the out-of-universe writers believed it was a good idea to keep everything as vague as possible.

In any case, yes, I say go along with his options to stop the cycle. I guarantee none of them entail continued Reaper harvesting.

You guarantee it based on what? On the fact that you have seen the endings?

I repeat, a good story is internally consistent. Character actions are explained by character motivations, not by writer motivations.

Yes, that's exactly the reason. Nobody plays the game without meta-gaming. Some do more than others, but in the end, everybody does it.

Why does anyone playing the game search around the cargo bay for loot/medi-gel when Miranda's sister is in danger of being kidnapped by Eclipse mercs? Because we know it's a game. Why does a player choose a dialogue option highlighted in blue or red on the dialogue wheel instead of a similarly-worded options that are not highlighted? Because we understand the gameplay mechanics. Why does one not worry about Legion running out of ammo by ordering him to use a Widow, and not changing weapons for the length of the mission? It has low ammo-capacity and squadmates don't ever pick up clips on their own. But, we know that squadmates never run out of ammo either.

At some point, the player has to fill in the blanks where it applies. There's no way around it.

Yes. Yes there is. And there always was. Until the ending. Bioware prides themselves as a developer who puts storytelling above all else. Legion running out of ammo and us looking for loot is game mechanics. They have next to nothing to do with the story being told. And that story stops making sense at the most important moment.