55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Iconoclaste]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

Vaya wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

Where does it state that the Catalyst created himself or the cycle?  <---Entirely non-rhetorical.  If someone created him, then yes, he would be like a reaper.  But that would mean that there was someone (or even a group of beings), at some point, that created the Catalyst and the reapers to fulfill a role that became obsolete once the cycle was over.

the star child flat out states

"we created the cycle so that never happens"

about a minute into the conversation

"We" refers to the Catalyst"s "group", not to himself, just like I could say "we have nuclear weapons" to an alien. That doesn't make me the inventor of the technology.

But " we" would identify you as a human just as "we" identifies the catalyst as a Reaper.

The Catalyst can also just be some kind of sophisticated "intercom".

[Dwailing]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

Domanese wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

The inaudible sound is actually a really interesting point and an intelligent addition by BioWare. Theoretical? Yes. Proof of indoctrination? No. Then again, gravity is only a theory, so take what I just said how you will.

Rifneno: Even as you jest, just by using the word "us," you imply that you do.

Okay and now back to you and I apperciate the time given to answer me back. Basically gravity and for my own example music is invisible but you can still experience it/ hear it.  Infrasonic noise you can of course not hear but you can still of course detect it with the right equipment. You have however acknowledged it of course and I applaude that.

To me it does stand out as incredibly needless work if Indoctrination was not what they were going for and probably one of the cruelest red herrings possible if that was what put into the game. Which to me is outside the realm of possibility.

I will however yield to something here and now, it's true that the IT is just a theory at the moment since until theres flat out confirmation or denial by the Word of God its up in the air but the amount of evidence to support it is more vast then what I have seen from the literalist point of view and makes more sense to me.

As for the whole "only clairfying and adding on to the current endings", the IT does not change the ending but works alongside it giving clairification and adding onto the current endings at its core. We also have seen some people actually write out scenarios in how the IT would work without extra gameplay.

I realize that  I will not change your mind and such and thats not my intention since its not possible. What i can do is provide you with why we think the way we do.

My own problem with IT is really the reasoning behind it.  Why would the Catalyst need to lie to Shepard?  Would an AI, although capable, lie while conceding at the same time?  The cycle is over, so there is no need to tell Shepard that he is not indoctrinated, but he still goes so far as to say he is not.  Unless IT's true meaning is the indoctrination of the player, and not Shepard.  But still, the cycle is over.

I just... where do I begin? I don't even know where to start.

Batman, just relax, and present your opinion and the general consensus of the thread as best you can.  Whether he ends up believing or not has no effect on your life.

No, I was actually being honest. I didn't know where to start explaining the answers to his questions.

See my post from a couple minutes ago.  That should give you a place to start.

[masster blaster]

Iconoclaste wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

Did you miss the part where I said for him to awnser?? Also this explaination may be but I believe that Sovereign has always been left behind to activate the relay. (It is also in his name)  So even without the device disabled why was Sovereign needed?

You ask for an answer, you got one. Sorry if I'm not the one you wished to provide it, but, hey, it's a discussion board, isn't it?

Sovereign's purpose is well explained in the story and lore. It's just sound decision on his behalf to try to salvage the signaling procedure by taking control by himself, don't you think?

Plus he say's " I am the Vanguard of your destrucion" so ya.

[MegaSovereign]

EpyonX3 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

It does close, which is... interesting.

One must then ask the following:

How does it close with the crucible docked?

The Crucible isn't THAT big.

[thisisme8]

MegaSovereign wrote...

My own problem with IT is really the reasoning behind it. Why would the Catalyst need to lie to Shepard? Would an AI, although capable, lie while conceding at the same time? The cycle is over, so there is no need to tell Shepard that he is not indoctrinated, but he still goes so far as to say he is not. Unless IT's true meaning is the indoctrination of the player, and not Shepard. But still, the cycle is over.

According to IT, everything that happens while Shepard is on the Citadel is an indoctrination attempt. The indoctrination is not final. You can choose to resist it.

All 3 choices end the cycle - unless you want to believe that the Control ending doesn't.  If the cycle is over, indoctrinating Shep is moot.

So if the entire sequence is an attempt to indoctrinate, why would he propose to end the cycle.

[BatmanTurian]

EpyonX3 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

It does close, which is... interesting.

One must then ask the following:

How does it close with the crucible docked?

*snip*

Either Starbinger is doing it or... Shepard became the new catalyst.

[TJBartlemus]

thisisme8 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

Where does it state that the Catalyst created himself or the cycle? <---Entirely non-rhetorical. If someone created him, then yes, he would be like a reaper. But that would mean that there was someone (or even a group of beings), at some point, that created the Catalyst and the reapers to fulfill a role that became obsolete once the cycle was over.

I've got a question for YOU. Or maybe questions... (Not anyone else, just thisisme8) Do you believe the star child as real? And if you do, can you explain to me on the fact that if the Citadel is his home, why did Sovereign need to access the Citadel to open the relay? The only reason the relay wouldn't activate was because the Protheans disabled the device that signals from outside to the keepers for them to activate it. If the star child was always there, why can't he do it himself? It makes me wonder what his real purpose is there for if he can't do anything...

The answer to your question is in your question : the Protheans disabled the signaling capability of the "device". If Starkid had the capacity to "enable" this device back, he could have done so. Seems like he couldn"t, hinting to the possibility that the Protheans did more than just a "software" modification.

I'd also point out that at the conclusion of each cycle, the Sovereign would signal to the keepers to activate.  Having this disabled meant the Catalyst was in the dark - and didn't know when Sovereign deemed this cycle as ready.

Okay, well the Catalyst wouldn't need input from Sovereign whatsover because he lives in the Citadel the capital of all organics for every cycle. He could just look and see how far organics have gotten. And if the device has always been functional why leave sovereign at all?? It would make sense as a back up plan but from the ME lore it looks like Sovereign has always activated the relay.

[Domanese]

thisisme8

My own problem with IT is really the reasoning behind it.  Why would the Catalyst need to lie to Shepard?  Would an AI, although capable, lie while conceding at the same time?  The cycle is over, so there is no need to tell Shepard that he is not indoctrinated, but he still goes so far as to say he is not.  Unless IT's true meaning is the indoctrination of the player, and not Shepard.  But still, the cycle is over.

Well the line of thinking for an ITer is this as a general statement. (At least it applies to me anyway) 

First and Foremost, if the Catalyst is as he says he is a Catalyst, he cannot say for example the Crucible changed him and opened up new possiblities because thats not how a Catalyst works. He defies the very nature of what  a Catalyst is. How can he as an AI or even as intellect make that statement unless he lied about being the Catalyst in the first place?

Secondly the wording he chooses to describe himself. He keeps saying after "I am the Catalyst", we, us and constantly refers to his kind as the answer to the problem of organic life. This is strikingly similar to a reapers line of thinking. To be more exact, it's Harbinger's line of thinking. He sees himself as a god like entity and the solution and final evolution of all organic life. 

Third, he is trying to convince us within the last ten minutes that the Reapers serve some kind of noble purpose in life, and that they need to exist. The reapers entire goal is nothing but self preservation, their existence and adding to their numbers is all they care about. We have for the past three games continued along the logic of the Reapers needing to be destroyed and wiped out. Hell it's been Shepards driving motivation regardless of Paragon or Renegade options you take. Now all of a sudden this new offer is made by a suspicious entity claiming to be the Catalyst and trying to argue that your goal that has been the focus of the entire saga is wrong.

The conclusion we have reached from the IT stand point is that this final ten minutes is actually a battle at the center of the mind and that the final boss is Harbinger trying to indoctrinate Shepard. Rather then it being an actual battle in the physical world like th human reaper Bioware took the route of seeing how well you remembered everything up to this point and tested your resolve as Commander Shepard.

Asfor the Catalyst himself, the reason why he would act this way is that he is not the Catalyst but actually Harbinger posing as this god like AI that claims to be the creator of the Reapers, lying to you that there are better ways. He's trying to turn you the player as Shepard to the reapers line of thinking. That they need to exist. Two out of three options allow the Reapers to live.

Modifié par Domanese, 24 juin 2012 - 02:25 .

[Dwailing]

Well, I'm off for the night. I'll see you all at some point before Tuesday, though I think I'll slow down posting for a while. What can I say, I think I need to have some semblance of a life.

[Bill Casey]

MegaSovereign wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

It does close, which is... interesting.

One must then ask the following:

How does it close with the crucible docked?

The Crucible isn't THAT big.

Actually, the Crucible is longer than the space alloted...

[masster blaster]

Iconoclaste wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

Vaya wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

Where does it state that the Catalyst created himself or the cycle?  <---Entirely non-rhetorical.  If someone created him, then yes, he would be like a reaper.  But that would mean that there was someone (or even a group of beings), at some point, that created the Catalyst and the reapers to fulfill a role that became obsolete once the cycle was over.

the star child flat out states

"we created the cycle so that never happens"

about a minute into the conversation

"We" refers to the Catalyst"s "group", not to himself, just like I could say "we have nuclear weapons" to an alien. That doesn't make me the inventor of the technology.

But " we" would identify you as a human just as "we" identifies the catalyst as a Reaper.

The Catalyst can also just be some kind of sophisticated "intercom".

Then Shepard should just say GTF***O to the Catalyst and there you go and and Shepard should have just say "

no to many have died all because of you and the Reapers choice so no  I won't help you and this is for all those who have died to get here and for all of the innocent people that have been harvested by your Reapers so"  "Destroy ending"

[BatmanTurian]

Iconoclaste wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

Vaya wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

Where does it state that the Catalyst created himself or the cycle?  <---Entirely non-rhetorical.  If someone created him, then yes, he would be like a reaper.  But that would mean that there was someone (or even a group of beings), at some point, that created the Catalyst and the reapers to fulfill a role that became obsolete once the cycle was over.

the star child flat out states

"we created the cycle so that never happens"

about a minute into the conversation

"We" refers to the Catalyst"s "group", not to himself, just like I could say "we have nuclear weapons" to an alien. That doesn't make me the inventor of the technology.

But " we" would identify you as a human just as "we" identifies the catalyst as a Reaper.

The Catalyst can also just be some kind of sophisticated "intercom".

He seems to express himself as a program that directs the primary actions and machinations of the Reapers, as I understood it.

[Vaya]

thisisme8 wrote...

Vaya wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

Where does it state that the Catalyst created himself or the cycle?  <---Entirely non-rhetorical.  If someone created him, then yes, he would be like a reaper.  But that would mean that there was someone (or even a group of beings), at some point, that created the Catalyst and the reapers to fulfill a role that became obsolete once the cycle was over.

the star child flat out states

"we created the cycle so that never happens"

about a minute into the conversation

I get that, but does that mean that a random, ancient AI just suddenly decided to create the cycle, or was he created to create the cycle?

You asked where it was stated, non rhetorically. thats where I found it.

thisisme8 wrote...

My own problem with IT is really the reasoning behind it. Why would the Catalyst need to lie to Shepard? Would an AI, although capable, lie while conceding at the same time? The cycle is over, so there is no need to tell Shepard that he is not indoctrinated, but he still goes so far as to say he is not. Unless IT's true meaning is the indoctrination of the player, and not Shepard. But still, the cycle is over.

IT postulates that the last part of the game, after being hit by the beam is Harbinger directly attempting to indoctrinate Shepard. Harbinger has since ME 2 wanted shepard, Shepard's body, and when Shepard was brought back, wanted alive.

The speculation is that as a game mechanic, the devolopers DID want the players themselves, not just the character on screen, to be indoctrinated. They want YOU to buy into the reaper's logic.

Modifié par Vaya, 24 juin 2012 - 02:30 .

[Iconoclaste]

thisisme8 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

My own problem with IT is really the reasoning behind it. Why would the Catalyst need to lie to Shepard? Would an AI, although capable, lie while conceding at the same time? The cycle is over, so there is no need to tell Shepard that he is not indoctrinated, but he still goes so far as to say he is not. Unless IT's true meaning is the indoctrination of the player, and not Shepard. But still, the cycle is over.

According to IT, everything that happens while Shepard is on the Citadel is an indoctrination attempt. The indoctrination is not final. You can choose to resist it.

All 3 choices end the cycle - unless you want to believe that the Control ending doesn't.  If the cycle is over, indoctrinating Shep is moot.

So if the entire sequence is an attempt to indoctrinate, why would he propose to end the cycle.

Well, if you get a while back, you'll see that the "control" ending posed a problem, since Shepard seemed to "dissolve" in the process, leaving players with the impression that he had effective control for moments only before dying, making this solution a really short lived one. Players were furious at the way this ending was depicted, and it surely opened the door to IT at that time.

[TJBartlemus]

thisisme8 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

My own problem with IT is really the reasoning behind it. Why would the Catalyst need to lie to Shepard? Would an AI, although capable, lie while conceding at the same time? The cycle is over, so there is no need to tell Shepard that he is not indoctrinated, but he still goes so far as to say he is not. Unless IT's true meaning is the indoctrination of the player, and not Shepard. But still, the cycle is over.

According to IT, everything that happens while Shepard is on the Citadel is an indoctrination attempt. The indoctrination is not final. You can choose to resist it.

All 3 choices end the cycle - unless you want to believe that the Control ending doesn't.  If the cycle is over, indoctrinating Shep is moot.

So if the entire sequence is an attempt to indoctrinate, why would he propose to end the cycle.

Cause it's a trick!!! If there was no choice how would he get Shepard to willingly give up his mind?? The end of the cycle has been the goal all along, so why not give Shepard what he wants?

[thisisme8]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

Domanese wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

The inaudible sound is actually a really interesting point and an intelligent addition by BioWare. Theoretical? Yes. Proof of indoctrination? No. Then again, gravity is only a theory, so take what I just said how you will.

Rifneno: Even as you jest, just by using the word "us," you imply that you do.

Okay and now back to you and I apperciate the time given to answer me back. Basically gravity and for my own example music is invisible but you can still experience it/ hear it.  Infrasonic noise you can of course not hear but you can still of course detect it with the right equipment. You have however acknowledged it of course and I applaude that.

To me it does stand out as incredibly needless work if Indoctrination was not what they were going for and probably one of the cruelest red herrings possible if that was what put into the game. Which to me is outside the realm of possibility.

I will however yield to something here and now, it's true that the IT is just a theory at the moment since until theres flat out confirmation or denial by the Word of God its up in the air but the amount of evidence to support it is more vast then what I have seen from the literalist point of view and makes more sense to me.

As for the whole "only clairfying and adding on to the current endings", the IT does not change the ending but works alongside it giving clairification and adding onto the current endings at its core. We also have seen some people actually write out scenarios in how the IT would work without extra gameplay.

I realize that  I will not change your mind and such and thats not my intention since its not possible. What i can do is provide you with why we think the way we do.

My own problem with IT is really the reasoning behind it.  Why would the Catalyst need to lie to Shepard?  Would an AI, although capable, lie while conceding at the same time?  The cycle is over, so there is no need to tell Shepard that he is not indoctrinated, but he still goes so far as to say he is not.  Unless IT's true meaning is the indoctrination of the player, and not Shepard.  But still, the cycle is over.

I'm sorry but where in the f**k are you pulling this crap from?

The Catalyst tells Shep that the Illusive man couldn't control the reapers since he was already under their control.  The Catalyst then tells Shep that he/she can control the reapers.  Maybe I'm making a huge jump here, but that tells me that Shep is not under their control - thus not indoctrinated.

[Golferguy758]

Sums up the last few pages of debate nicely when it comes to questions that are answered in the OP of each of the threads discussing the individual endings.

[Arashi08]

MegaSovereign wrote...

elegolas1 wrote...

so where does the IT stand upon the announcement of the EC?

i'm scared by all this literalism talk on the forums

Bioware confirmed through twitter that the IT can still be left to interpretation. It's not going to be an outright confirmation or denial.

Kind of stupid, considering the EC is suppose to be provide clarity and closure. But hey I'm not a business man. What the **** do I know.

it seems like they looked at the different camps ppl are in and, in a similar fashion with Tali's face, they decided to go with the amgibuous route that doesn't favor one group over another so that they don't ****** off one side or the other.  Problem is, this ambiguity and speculation is likely to ****** everyone off now...  People want their questions answered not an open ended conclusion where we can all imagine we were right. 

IMO a good story should never end like that, the conflicts in a story should be resolved not open to interpretation, unless the creator wants the reader to learn something.

Modifié par Arashi08, 24 juin 2012 - 02:30 .

[masster blaster]

Iconoclaste wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

My own problem with IT is really the reasoning behind it. Why would the Catalyst need to lie to Shepard? Would an AI, although capable, lie while conceding at the same time? The cycle is over, so there is no need to tell Shepard that he is not indoctrinated, but he still goes so far as to say he is not. Unless IT's true meaning is the indoctrination of the player, and not Shepard. But still, the cycle is over.

According to IT, everything that happens while Shepard is on the Citadel is an indoctrination attempt. The indoctrination is not final. You can choose to resist it.

All 3 choices end the cycle - unless you want to believe that the Control ending doesn't.  If the cycle is over, indoctrinating Shep is moot.

So if the entire sequence is an attempt to indoctrinate, why would he propose to end the cycle.

Well, if you get a while back, you'll see that the "control" ending posed a problem, since Shepard seemed to "dissolve" in the process, leaving players with the impression that he had effective control for moments only before dying, making this solution a really short lived one. Players were furious at the way this ending was depicted, and it surely opened the door to IT at that time.

Also why would Bioware say Shepard can be reunited with his, or her crew if they are just stuck on a planet or are they IT maybe.

[BatmanTurian]

Domanese wrote...

thisisme8

My own problem with IT is really the reasoning behind it.  Why would the Catalyst need to lie to Shepard?  Would an AI, although capable, lie while conceding at the same time?  The cycle is over, so there is no need to tell Shepard that he is not indoctrinated, but he still goes so far as to say he is not.  Unless IT's true meaning is the indoctrination of the player, and not Shepard.  But still, the cycle is over.

Well the line of thinking for an ITer is this as a general statement. (At least it applies to me anyway) 

First and Foremost, if the Catalyst is as he says he is a Catalyst, he cannot say for example the Crucible changed him and opened up new possiblities because thats not how a Catalyst works. He defies the very nature of what  a Catalyst is. How can he as an AI or even as intellect make that statement unless he lied about being the Catalyst in the first place?

Secondly the wording he chooses to describe himself. He keeps saying after "I am the Catalyst", we, us and constantly refers to his kind as the answer to the problem of organic life. This is strikingly similar to a reapers line of thinking. To be more exact, it's Harbinger's line of thinking. He sees himself as a god like entity and the solution and final evolution of all organic life. 

Third, he is trying to convince us within the last ten minutes that the Reapers serve some kind of noble purpose in life, and that they need to exist. The reapers entire goal is nothing but self preservation, their existence and adding to their numbers is all they care about. We have for the past three games continued along the logic of the Reapers needing to be destroyed and wiped out. Hell it's been Shepards driving motivation regardless of Paragon or Renegade options you take. Now all of a sudden this new offer is made by a suspicious entity claiming to be the Catalyst and trying to argue that your goal that has been the focus of the entire saga is wrong.

The conclusion we have reached from the IT stand point is that this final ten minutes is actually a battle at the center of the mind and that the final boss is Harbinger trying to indoctrinate Shepard. Rather then it being an actual battle in the physical world like th human reaper Bioware took the route of seeing how well you remembered everything up to this point and tested your resolve as Commander Shepard.

Asfor the Catalyst himself, the reason why he would act this way is that he is not the Catalyst but actually Harbinger posing as this god like AI that claims to be the creator of the Reapers, lying to you that there are better ways. He's trying to turn you the player as Shepard to the reapers line of thinking. That they need to exist. Two out of three options allow the Reapers to live.

Damn, Domanese, good job.

[Bill Casey]

[Starbuck8]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Domanese wrote...

thisisme8

My own problem with IT is really the reasoning behind it.  Why would the Catalyst need to lie to Shepard?  Would an AI, although capable, lie while conceding at the same time?  The cycle is over, so there is no need to tell Shepard that he is not indoctrinated, but he still goes so far as to say he is not.  Unless IT's true meaning is the indoctrination of the player, and not Shepard.  But still, the cycle is over.

Well the line of thinking for an ITer is this as a general statement. (At least it applies to me anyway) 

First and Foremost, if the Catalyst is as he says he is a Catalyst, he cannot say for example the Crucible changed him and opened up new possiblities because thats not how a Catalyst works. He defies the very nature of what  a Catalyst is. How can he as an AI or even as intellect make that statement unless he lied about being the Catalyst in the first place?

Secondly the wording he chooses to describe himself. He keeps saying after "I am the Catalyst", we, us and constantly refers to his kind as the answer to the problem of organic life. This is strikingly similar to a reapers line of thinking. To be more exact, it's Harbinger's line of thinking. He sees himself as a god like entity and the solution and final evolution of all organic life. 

Third, he is trying to convince us within the last ten minutes that the Reapers serve some kind of noble purpose in life, and that they need to exist. The reapers entire goal is nothing but self preservation, their existence and adding to their numbers is all they care about. We have for the past three games continued along the logic of the Reapers needing to be destroyed and wiped out. Hell it's been Shepards driving motivation regardless of Paragon or Renegade options you take. Now all of a sudden this new offer is made by a suspicious entity claiming to be the Catalyst and trying to argue that your goal that has been the focus of the entire saga is wrong.

The conclusion we have reached from the IT stand point is that this final ten minutes is actually a battle at the center of the mind and that the final boss is Harbinger trying to indoctrinate Shepard. Rather then it being an actual battle in the physical world like th human reaper Bioware took the route of seeing how well you remembered everything up to this point and tested your resolve as Commander Shepard.

Asfor the Catalyst himself, the reason why he would act this way is that he is not the Catalyst but actually Harbinger posing as this god like AI that claims to be the creator of the Reapers, lying to you that there are better ways. He's trying to turn you the player as Shepard to the reapers line of thinking. That they need to exist. Two out of three options allow the Reapers to live.

Damn, Domanese, good job.

Lol yeah, I admire your patience. I mean, it's in the title of the freakin thread. According to IT we think the ending is a hallucination.

[MegaSovereign]

Can't control the reapers eh?

How do you explain this?




Ladies and gentlemen, IT is now on life support.

[BatmanTurian]

Golferguy758 wrote...

Sums up the last few pages of debate nicely when it comes to questions that are answered in the OP of each of the threads discussing the individual endings.

[MegaSovereign]

Bill Casey wrote...

The Crucible is not wider or longer than the Citadel.