9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Enthalpy]

  Chashan wrote...
It still promotes the approach of Green the most out of all the three. It can be argued that Blue equals a way of succession for it - one it might not be looking forward to but accepts - but Green definitely is painted as the brightest of the three as far as it is concerned.

Jumping in at an odd spot but I have to ask -- why does it matter what the Catalyst prefers? Of course it's going to push the one it desires the most to Shepard, but Shepard has three other choices. Is that a bad thing? 

Modifié par Enthalpy, 14 août 2012 - 03:33 .

[Taboo]

The Catalyst is a machine. It will vote for the solution it believes to be ideal. Past that, the other two are still better than his solution.

The reason he gets angry in Refuse is because he cannot understand why someone who consciously refuse a better solution. He continues the cycle because it's the only logical one he can perform, as Shepard is to stubborn to do anything.

Destroy is a better solution in his eyes, even if it kills him.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 14 août 2012 - 03:41 .

[Mobius-Silent]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Catalyst is a machine. It will vote for the solution it believes to be ideal. Past that, the other two are still better than his solution.

The reason he gets angry in Refuse is because he cannot understand why someone who consciously refuse a better solution. He continues the cycle because it's the only logical one he can perform, as Shepard is to stubborn to do anything.

Destroy is a better solution in his eyes, even if it kills him.

I'm not sure it even views it as a better solution, just that is must provide the choice, refuse is the only one where it it makes it out intact so the only one where we see a real response.

[Taboo]

From an organics point of view what he's doing is monstrous. He has not factored this in for millions of years.

The fact that he hasn't devised something that functions in the same manner as the Crucible that will target only Synthetics makes me wonder just how many "solutions" he tried.

What he has now is a workaround, not a solution. Firing the Crucible every five years is still a better solution to his problem than Reaping, as cruel as it is.

Synthesis is ideal because it makes Synthetics and Organics live in peace. It fits the parameters of his programming, which is why he insists it's the best solution. I factor that in when playing, but decide ultimately that I cannot function soley on hypothetical issues. I also take into account all life, Synthetic and Organic. Perhaps, my Shepard thinks, we can prove him wrong.

And as the Stargazer takes place ten thousand years down the line, I'd say we're doing a damn fine job. The Catalyst is pretty insistent that my Shepard children will create new Synthetics and that they will bring back the chaos. I'd say that ten thousand years is quite a grace period. It doesn't prove him "wrong" per se, but it shows that his fear of immediate destruction is fallible.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 14 août 2012 - 03:55 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

 I think it would see Destroy as a better option for one of the following reasons:

1.) The Reapers failed to stop their imminent destruction, so the galaxy proved more capable than them and therein more capable of dealing with the singularity issue.
2.) He does not, but can't hide it now. An organic made it to his chamber. If they figured out the Crucible, they can figure out how to activate the Citadel's Destroy-function.

Destroy/Control appear to be built into the Citadel. I think the reason they were put there was for an organic to stop the harvesting cycles in case it ever created a better solution and/or the singularity issue is no longer a problem.

[Master Xanthan]

I might have liked this ending had it not been for the fact that husks are still alive, its just wrong.

[Mobius-Silent]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Destroy/Control appear to be built into the Citadel. I think the reason they were put there was for an organic to stop the harvesting cycles in case it ever created a better solution and/or the singularity issue is no longer a problem.

Destroy and control are part of the Crucible. There is a "nubbin" on the end of the crucible that appears to fold out to become the center choice dais (Open image in a new window, it's quite large)

Modifié par Mobius-Silent, 14 août 2012 - 04:28 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Destroy/Control appear to be built into the Citadel. I think the reason they were put there was for an organic to stop the harvesting cycles in case it ever created a better solution and/or the singularity issue is no longer a problem.

Destroy and control are part of the Crucible. There is a "nubbin" on the end of the crucible that appears to fold out to become the center choice dais (Open image in a new window, it's quite large)

*snip*

OH SNAPS!

I guess #1 it is, then.

[Taboo]

^ Pretty much. Even firing the Crucible via Destroy every fifty or so years is a better solution than his.

Not that that's what's going to happen but it certainly makes him look like he didn't look for many solutions...

[Ranger Jack Walker]

What I don't understand is why the Crucible enters the Citadel from one side but ends up docking on the other side.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Enthalpy wrote...

Chashan wrote... It still promotes the approach of Green the most out of all the three. It can be argued that Blue equals a way of succession for it - one it might not be looking forward to but accepts - but Green definitely is painted as the brightest of the three as far as it is concerned.

Jumping in at an odd spot but I have to ask -- why does it matter what the Catalyst prefers? Of course it's going to push the one it desires the most to Shepard, but Shepard has three other choices. Is that a bad thing?

I never figured this out. What does it matter what the catalyst prefers? If never factored in my choice. The kid can prefer refuse all it wants, still won't make me pick it.

@Mobius-Silent: thanks I was looking for that pic for a long time. that's a pretty good indicator that the choices (at the very least control/destroy) comes from the crucible right?

Modifié par pirate1802, 14 août 2012 - 05:09 .

[fiendishchicken]

Taboo-XX wrote...

^ Pretty much. Even firing the Crucible via Destroy every fifty or so years is a better solution than his.

Not that that's what's going to happen but it certainly makes him look like he didn't look for many solutions...

Here's another solution. Why doesn't the catalyst just moniter the Galaxy. Shepard should have been able to convince glowboy to call off the Reapers and check in every century or too to make sure Organics and Synthetics weren't killing off each other.

It's a non-solution but if the Reapers are called off for the time being...

[DirtyPhoenix]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...
What I don't understand is why the Crucible enters the Citadel from one side but ends up docking on the other side.

I never understood this too. It enters from the arms side, but ends up docking fro the backside.

[Chashan]

Enthalpy wrote...

  Chashan wrote...
It still promotes the approach of Green the most out of all the three. It can be argued that Blue equals a way of succession for it - one it might not be looking forward to but accepts - but Green definitely is painted as the brightest of the three as far as it is concerned.

Jumping in at an odd spot but I have to ask -- why does it matter what the Catalyst prefers? Of course it's going to push the one it desires the most to Shepard, but Shepard has three other choices. Is that a bad thing? 

It matters since Green being a goal of the thing would redeem what the Reapers have done up to that point to make it happen.

The choice itself may still be the perfect utopia and the solution to securing lasting prosperity and peace in the galaxy. Yet, it was developed by trying and failing large-scale social experiments carried out by beings guilty of eons of galaxy-wide genocide.

A comparison I brought up before: in C&C: Tiberian Sun, the Brotherhood of Nod works towards Divination, employs gruesome methods to research into that, is a morally questionable organisation through-out that does not shy away from terrorism and deceit.
Yet this Divination, the "Technology of Peace" is supposed to end all wars, the one way into the future in unison with Tiberium.

And more importantly, the Brotherhood's leader and messiah, Kane, is quite charismatic about it indeed. Thus my favoring the "evil-doers", Nod, over their "good guy" opponents, GDI in that particular franchise.


The thing loses out on two factors there - no charisma to speak of, incoherent non-sensical prime directive -, and has overseen far worse atrocities for far longer that simply dwarf the shady operations of the Brotherhood of Nod if we'll allow a comparison based on scale. As such, I see Synthesis as an undeserved redemption based on the Reapers' doings alone.

 Not to mention that I abhor its presentation, personally. But that, of course, is a different, subjective matter. 

Modifié par Chashan, 14 août 2012 - 05:26 .

[Ieldra]

Enthalpy wrote...

Chashan wrote... It still promotes the approach of Green the most out of all the three. It can be argued that Blue equals a way of succession for it - one it might not be looking forward to but accepts - but Green definitely is painted as the brightest of the three as far as it is concerned.

Jumping in at an odd spot but I have to ask -- why does it matter what the Catalyst prefers? Of course it's going to push the one it desires the most to Shepard, but Shepard has three other choices. Is that a bad thing?

It doesn't. Some people think the Catalyst having an agenda might cause it to lie about certain options, but in that case it could have lied about which action triggers which outcome or just refused to bring Shepard up to the platform in the first place.

@Mobius-Silent:
That's an excellent find. We can then plausibly speculate that all options are built into the Crucible. CulturalGeekGirl has explained rather well why some species would want to do that. I've quoted her post in the OP in the section "The origin of the Synthesis option".

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 août 2012 - 05:35 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

@Chashan, I think he meant was, what does it matter what the catalyst recomends? For example, if you've decided to Destroy, does the catalyst's recommendation of Synthesis makes your decision to destroy any bit shaky or unattractive? Or imagine if the catalyst recommended Control instead; does that make Synthesis more attractive to you or would it make you gravitate toward Control?

[Enthalpy]

Chashan wrote...

Enthalpy wrote...

  Chashan wrote...
It still promotes the approach of Green the most out of all the three. It can be argued that Blue equals a way of succession for it - one it might not be looking forward to but accepts - but Green definitely is painted as the brightest of the three as far as it is concerned.

Jumping in at an odd spot but I have to ask -- why does it matter what the Catalyst prefers? Of course it's going to push the one it desires the most to Shepard, but Shepard has three other choices. Is that a bad thing? 

It matters since Green being a goal of the thing would redeem what the Reapers have done up to that point to make it happen.

(snip)

The thing loses out on two factors there - no charisma to speak of, incoherent non-sensical prime directive -, and has overseen far worse atrocities for far longer that simply dwarf the shady operations of the Brotherhood of Nod if we'll allow a comparison based on scale. As such, I see Synthesis as an undeserved redemption based on the Reapers' doings alone.

 Not to mention that I abhor its presentation, personally. But that, of course, is a different, subjective matter. 

So... the Catalyst is not convincing, and its reasoning doesn't make sense to you. Therefore, its preference for one choice irks you?

I guess it's understandable in the annoying sense. Like someone preaching the virtues of Power Balance bracelets right beside my ear. I don't understand how Synthesis would "redeem" anything, though. At least, not in organics' eyes.

[Chashan]

pirate1802 wrote...

@Chashan, I think he meant was, what does it matter what the catalyst recomends? For example, if you've decided to Destroy, does the catalyst's recommendation of Synthesis makes your decision to destroy any bit shaky or unattractive? Or imagine if the catalyst recommended Control instead; does that make Synthesis more attractive to you or would it make you gravitate toward Control?

The order in which it ranks the options of course matters - as it makes its, the enemy's, preference in how the device should be used plain; that is, the fact it is quite optimistic about Green as compared to the alternatives does not exactly convince me that choice is a good idea.

I would renounce Control no matter its recommendation, but if it were to do so, I would certainly scoff at it based on its preference as well - Synthesis would still be a dubious choice, and were the presentation not altered, I would simply dismiss it just for that alone, reload, and go for Red.

Or maybe tell it to get the heck out of my face, Refusal is cool like that.

[Kathleen321]

Master Xanthan wrote...

I might have liked this ending had it not been for the fact that husks are still alive, its just wrong.

I also found that very disturbing. Aside from that I like this ending.

[AngryFrozenWater]

@Mobius-Silent: You are unable to point out that only physical changes can resolve the hypothetical threat. The brat says a lot of things, but it does not mention mortality and envy as the cause of the non-existent chaos/order problem. What you call adding a capacity to a synthetic, is in fact a forced thought process change, because it occurs without the consent of its synthetic victim. Nor is that change required, because no synthetic ever created such a theoretical conflict. We have only evidence of reapers and the organics causing those. The burden of proof of the hypothetical threat lies with the brat, not with Shepard. There is no empirical evidence of that threat and the brat's theory is not falsifiable. And thus synthesis is a solution to a non-existent problem.

[Ieldra]

Kathleen321 wrote...

Master Xanthan wrote...
I might have liked this ending had it not been for the fact that husks are still alive, its just wrong.

I also found that very disturbing. Aside from that I like this ending.

Yeah, that's creepy. By design I guess. I wonder how they just changed from mindless killers into sapient/sentient beings.

[Meltemph]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Kathleen321 wrote...

Master Xanthan wrote...
I might have liked this ending had it not been for the fact that husks are still alive, its just wrong.

I also found that very disturbing. Aside from that I like this ending.

Yeah, that's creepy. By design I guess. I wonder how they just changed from mindless killers into sapient/sentient beings.

Stuff like this is why I dont like snythesis.  I like the transhuman idea's, like Miranda, Shep, and even the Illusive man(one of the big reasons I liked him in 2 was because he opened up a path to start talking about the subject).  I was really hoping they were going to go with a whole Star Trek DS9, side story, of transhumanism and genetic manipulation, but they didnt.  Instead we got a last ditch not very well thought out add to the idea of transhumanism, and applied it to the game in a very cheap way.

You have put more thought into snyhtesis, imo, then the devs ever thought to, in terms of actaully being realized in game.  IMO, synthesis doesnt deserve your devotion, because I think it is an insult to your very interest, transhumanism.  Very much hollows out the whole idea of it, to me.

Modifié par Meltemph, 14 août 2012 - 08:17 .

[Mobius-Silent]

pirate1802 wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...
What I don't understand is why the Crucible enters the Citadel from one side but ends up docking on the other side.

I never understood this too. It enters from the arms side, but ends up docking fro the backside.

Watch the docking cinematic again, the crucible approached from the rear. Both ends of the citadel have protective "claws" that slide into place

[Mobius-Silent]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

@Mobius-Silent: You are unable to point out that only physical changes can resolve the hypothetical threat. The brat says a lot of things, but it does not mention mortality and envy as the cause of the non-existent chaos/order problem. What you call adding a capacity to a synthetic, is in fact a forced thought process change, because it occurs without the consent of its synthetic victim. Nor is that change required, because no synthetic ever created such a theoretical conflict. We have only evidence of reapers and the organics causing those. The burden of proof of the hypothetical threat lies with the brat, not with Shepard. There is no empirical evidence of that threat and the brat's theory is not falsifiable. And thus synthesis is a solution to a non-existent problem.

Not at all, the Catalyst isn't presenting a hypothesis for validation, it is making a statement for which it has billions of years of backing evidence. Falsifiability only matters in a peaceful scientific investigation, ME3 was a war of survival against entities who's very existance is a violation of every organic moral imprerative. Therr  no "burden of proof".

There are only two possible options, the catalyst is lying or the catalyst is telling the truth, if it it is lying then the galaxy is screwed as it would be functionally impossible to determine a course of action.

However given we can reload we-the-players can observe the outcome of the various options. And lo and behold it is obvious that the catalyst was telling the absolute truth. Which matches the non game information that Bioware released that they intended the catalyst to be a narrator-type story element.

[Meltemph]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

@Mobius-Silent: You are unable to point out that only physical changes can resolve the hypothetical threat. The brat says a lot of things, but it does not mention mortality and envy as the cause of the non-existent chaos/order problem. What you call adding a capacity to a synthetic, is in fact a forced thought process change, because it occurs without the consent of its synthetic victim. Nor is that change required, because no synthetic ever created such a theoretical conflict. We have only evidence of reapers and the organics causing those. The burden of proof of the hypothetical threat lies with the brat, not with Shepard. There is no empirical evidence of that threat and the brat's theory is not falsifiable. And thus synthesis is a solution to a non-existent problem.

Not at all, the Catalyst isn't presenting a hypothesis for validation, it is making a statement for which it has billions of years of backing evidence. Falsifiability only matters in a peaceful scientific investigation, ME3 was a war of survival against entities who's very existance is a violation of every organic moral imprerative. Therr  no "burden of proof".

There are only two possible options, the catalyst is lying or the catalyst is telling the truth, if it it is lying then the galaxy is screwed as it would be functionally impossible to determine a course of action.

However given we can reload we-the-players can observe the outcome of the various options. And lo and behold it is obvious that the catalyst was telling the absolute truth. Which matches the non game information that Bioware released that they intended the catalyst to be a narrator-type story element.

Stories dont work like that though.  The child was not specifically advertised as a know-all-entity.  It hypothosises that the created will always rebel agaisnt the creator, this is all it is, a hypothosis.  There was no evidence of this to prove it, and even if it did happen every cycle, then conclusion would be the reapers were creating it or that BW likes to put literaly magic in there games to FORCE a philisophical view to be objective fact.

People, rightly, rejected the idea that creations of man will ALWAYS rebel against its creators.  Most here, I would wager are not anti science, so most have a desire and a want to see snythetic life, so it would only be natural for people to not want to agree with the kids idea, that progress in the synthetic sciences, specifically AI's are inharently bad/evil/mistakes in an inventors creation.

This trope of teh created vs the creator in scify has never been particularly popular in its reception and I honest to God, wish it would die.

Modifié par Meltemph, 14 août 2012 - 08:48 .