4520 réponses à ce sujet

[Seival]

Lizardviking wrote...

So what is this thread take on the moment that the camera focuses on the old catalyst when it looks on as Shepard is taking assuming direct control?

For those that want a screenshot:
http://desmond.image...jpg&res=landing

Some say that he smiles (if so, its a really subtle smile) because the Reapers will survive, but in the EC we know that the Catalyst does not approve of control. My own take on it is that since a lot of my Shepard's motivation to pick control was to spare the Geth, the Catalyst realises this and looks on as a single organic is damning himself in order to stop the Reapers without killing anyone else, even though those might be synthethics.

In destroy, the Catalyst dies shaking his head, believing himself to be right as he sees Shepard willfully destroy all synthethic life to stop the Reapers. In synthesis, his viewpoints are vindicated and justified. In control however, the Catalyst spends his last moments perhaps realising just how bloody wrong he is.

But thats my own take on it, feel free to disagree with me or whatever.

Actually, the original Catalist approves any choice Shepard can possibly make. Even surrender... Errr, I mean "Refusal"

...As I already said, I strongly believe that victory over the Reapers was about convincing the original Catalist that it was wrong about its "solution". And in the end nothing could be done without the original Catalist's permission... Well, surrender (...errr I mean "Refusal") could be done even without permission. But critical mission failures can't be considered as "true endings".

Modifié par Seival, 15 juillet 2012 - 10:56 .

[masster blaster]

Hello everyone. I am trying to get the ITers and Literalist to get along. I ask that if you want this thread war to stop please lets combin our theorys together. I know it's crazy, but who knows we may come up with some thing new that even Bioware did not even see that could happen.

So please come by my poll and vote, and remember to spread the word about this plain okay.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Seival wrote...
Actually, the original Catalist approves any choice Shepard can possibly make. Even surrender... Errr, I mean "Refusal"

...As I already said, I strongly believe that victory over the Reapers was about convincing the original Catalist that it was wrong about its "solution". And in the end nothing could be done without the original Catalist's permission... Well, surrender (...errr I mean "Refusal") could be done even without permission. But critical mission failures can't be considered as "true endings".

He does not approve of either control or destroy as proven in the dialog.

"But the peace won't last, soon your children will create synthethics and then the chaos will come back."

and

"And I do not look foward to being replaced by you, but I will have no choice but to accept."

The catalyst does not like control or destroy, but he has no choice but accept whatever choice Shepard makes.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

HagarIshay wrote...

Actually I like this idea. I don't really pay attention to the catalyst in that moment, since I can barely understand his expression (and his eyes are creepy) but I think from now on I think I'll take your interpetation, Lizardviking. If you don't mind

Thank you.

Control is the only ending where there is a focus on the Catalyst' reaction, which is why I wonder what the point of it was.

[Ageless Face]

Lizardviking wrote...
He does not approve of either control or destroy as proven in the dialog.

"But the peace won't last, soon your children will create synthethics and then the chaos will come back."

and

"And I do not look foward to being replaced by you, but I will have no choice but to accept."

The catalyst does not like control or destroy, but he has no choice but accept whatever choice Shepard makes.

It can also explain why the catalyst is angry with low EMS. Cause he doesn't have a choice he likes from the crucible. He's only pleased with synthesis.

[Seival]

masster blaster wrote...

Hello everyone. I am trying to get the ITers and Literalist to get along. I ask that if you want this thread war to stop please lets combin our theorys together. I know it's crazy, but who knows we may come up with some thing new that even Bioware did not even see that could happen.

So please come by my poll and vote, and remember to spread the word about this plain okay.

I think that any ending support thread (except "Refusal" support I believe) is pure anti-"IT". Moreover, I believe that "IT" was already debunked completely. And "IT"ers already got their beloved "indoctrinated" or "harvested" Shepard by choosing "Refusal". So, I see no point in discussing "IT" especially in Control Ending Support thread.

...No offence.

[incinerator950]

Lizardviking wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

Actually I like this idea. I don't really pay attention to the catalyst in that moment, since I can barely understand his expression (and his eyes are creepy) but I think from now on I think I'll take your interpetation, Lizardviking. If you don't mind

Thank you.

Control is the only ending where there is a focus on the Catalyst' reaction, which is why I wonder what the point of it was.

Probably to elaborate that the Catalyst wasn't trying to trick Shepard, like many people thought.

[Ageless Face]

Seival wrote...
I think that any ending support thread (except "Refusal" support I believe) is pure anti-"IT". Moreover, I believe that "IT" was already debunked completely. And "IT"ers already got their beloved "indoctrinated" or "harvested" Shepard by choosing "Refusal". So, I see no point in discussing "IT" especially in Control Ending Support thread.

...No offence.

IT isn't debunked. It's just have some changes. The EC didn't make indoctrination impossible. That is what the IT is basically about.

And why is it a problem discussing about the IT here? It's more or less an anti- IT thread, since we don't support it. So talking about something we don't believe is not really bad, is it?

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

masster blaster wrote...

Hello everyone. I am trying to get the ITers and Literalist to get along. I ask that if you want this thread war to stop please lets combin our theorys together. I know it's crazy, but who knows we may come up with some thing new that even Bioware did not even see that could happen.

So please come by my poll and vote, and remember to spread the word about this plain okay.

What? Why? Why should we combine our theories with the ****** IT that has been for all intents and purposes been killed by the EC.

[incinerator950]

HagarIshay wrote...

And why is it a problem discussing about the IT here? It's more or less an anti- IT thread, since we don't support it. So talking about something we don't believe is not really bad, is it?

It's not a problem, but its completely pointless.  For all intents and purposes, you have to literally pretend you are interpreting that the endings can even remotely signal IT. 

IT is about being in denial, nothing else.

[Seival]

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...
Actually, the original Catalist approves any choice Shepard can possibly make. Even surrender... Errr, I mean "Refusal"

...As I already said, I strongly believe that victory over the Reapers was about convincing the original Catalist that it was wrong about its "solution". And in the end nothing could be done without the original Catalist's permission... Well, surrender (...errr I mean "Refusal") could be done even without permission. But critical mission failures can't be considered as "true endings".

He does not approve of either control or destroy as proven in the dialog.

"But the peace won't last, soon your children will create synthethics and then the chaos will come back."

and

"And I do not look foward to being replaced by you, but I will have no choice but to accept."

The catalyst does not like control or destroy, but he has no choice but accept whatever choice Shepard makes.

Let's not forget that it was the Catalist, who saved Shepard's life in the very end, and explained everything about the options and how Shepard can trigger them. Yes, the original Catalsit's personality doesn't like some options. But it doesn't mean that the original Catalist doesn't respect and approve Shepard's choice.

I believe that the ending situation was completely under the original Catalist's control. It could just let Shepard die to avoid even the conversation. But instead, it helped Shepard. The original Catalist was convinced about it was wrong, and that what Shepard's victory was about.

Modifié par Seival, 15 juillet 2012 - 11:21 .

[Ageless Face]

incinerator950 wrote...
It's not a problem, but its completely pointless.  For all intents and purposes, you have to literally pretend you are interpreting that the endings can even remotely signal IT. 

IT is about being in denial, nothing else.

I don't think the IT is about denial. It's looking in another way about the ending, finding something behind that. I don't like it myself, but I can certainly understand why others do. And there is no right or wrong in an ending open for interpretations and speculations, EC or not.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 15 juillet 2012 - 11:21 .

[nitefyre410]

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...
Actually, the original Catalist approves any choice Shepard can possibly make. Even surrender... Errr, I mean "Refusal"

...As I already said, I strongly believe that victory over the Reapers was about convincing the original Catalist that it was wrong about its "solution". And in the end nothing could be done without the original Catalist's permission... Well, surrender (...errr I mean "Refusal") could be done even without permission. But critical mission failures can't be considered as "true endings".

He does not approve of either control or destroy as proven in the dialog.

"But the peace won't last, soon your children will create synthethics and then the chaos will come back."

and

"And I do not look foward to being replaced by you, but I will have no choice but to accept."

The catalyst does not like control or destroy, but he has no choice but accept whatever choice Shepard makes.

  

Your theory makes sense, it goes back to my think that the Catalyst is no malicous by nature but imcomplete in understanding because it does not value or understand what is important  to Organic life which is its orignal creates the self fulfilling prophecy  that it is.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

Lizardviking wrote...

So what is this thread take on the moment that the camera focuses on the old catalyst when it looks on as Shepard is taking assuming direct control?

For those that want a screenshot:
http://desmond.image...jpg&res=landing

Some say that he smiles (if so, its a really subtle smile) because the Reapers will survive, but in the EC we know that the Catalyst does not approve of control. My own take on it is that since a lot of my Shepard's motivation to pick control was to spare the Geth, the Catalyst realises this and looks on as a single organic is damning himself in order to stop the Reapers without killing anyone else, even though those might be synthethics.

In destroy, the Catalyst dies shaking his head, believing himself to be right as he sees Shepard willfully destroy all synthethic life to stop the Reapers. In synthesis, his viewpoints are vindicated and justified. In control however, the Catalyst spends his last moments perhaps realising just how bloody wrong he is.

But thats my own take on it, feel free to disagree with me or whatever.

That is a very good theory. I personally, never thought the catalyst was smiling. People were seeing what they wanted to see. Regardless, your explanation is good one.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Seival wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...
Actually, the original Catalist approves any choice Shepard can possibly make. Even surrender... Errr, I mean "Refusal"

...As I already said, I strongly believe that victory over the Reapers was about convincing the original Catalist that it was wrong about its "solution". And in the end nothing could be done without the original Catalist's permission... Well, surrender (...errr I mean "Refusal") could be done even without permission. But critical mission failures can't be considered as "true endings".

He does not approve of either control or destroy as proven in the dialog.

"But the peace won't last, soon your children will create synthethics and then the chaos will come back."

and

"And I do not look foward to being replaced by you, but I will have no choice but to accept."

The catalyst does not like control or destroy, but he has no choice but accept whatever choice Shepard makes.

Let's not forget that it was the Catalist, who saved Shepard's life in the very end, and explained everything about the options and how Shepard can trigger them. Yes, the original Catalsit's personality doesn't like some options. But it doesn't mean that the original Catalist doesn't respect and approve Shepard's choice.

I believe that the ending situation was completely under the original Catalist's control. It could just let Shepard die to avoid even the conversation. But instead, it helped Shepard. The original Catalist was convinced about it was wrong, and that what Shepard's victory was about.

But then why is it so pissed in low EMS endings? It seems angry and disapproving of Shepard's presence there, even saying that "And I won't" when it comes to picking a new solution. It hates the options available.

If you have just below 2700 EMS, you have unlocked the best version of control and the best version of destroy (minus Shepard living), if the Catalyst really did like both these options then why is he so mad at Shepard still?

[Seival]

HagarIshay wrote...

Seival wrote...
I think that any ending support thread (except "Refusal" support I believe) is pure anti-"IT". Moreover, I believe that "IT" was already debunked completely. And "IT"ers already got their beloved "indoctrinated" or "harvested" Shepard by choosing "Refusal". So, I see no point in discussing "IT" especially in Control Ending Support thread.

...No offence.

IT isn't debunked. It's just have some changes. The EC didn't make indoctrination impossible. That is what the IT is basically about.

And why is it a problem discussing about the IT here? It's more or less an anti- IT thread, since we don't support it. So talking about something we don't believe is not really bad, is it?

Well, the problem is that any "IT" discussion ends up in a massive holy war. And this is actually one more reason for me to dislake that theory. It was created to be depressing for many people... 

...I think that it will be better to avoid any "IT" discussions here. Othrwise we will have to calm down each "too vocal IT fan" who may come here. And there are quite many "too vocal IT fans" on this forums. I doubt they will be constructive here, especially after EC.

[Seival]

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...
Actually, the original Catalist approves any choice Shepard can possibly make. Even surrender... Errr, I mean "Refusal"

...As I already said, I strongly believe that victory over the Reapers was about convincing the original Catalist that it was wrong about its "solution". And in the end nothing could be done without the original Catalist's permission... Well, surrender (...errr I mean "Refusal") could be done even without permission. But critical mission failures can't be considered as "true endings".

He does not approve of either control or destroy as proven in the dialog.

"But the peace won't last, soon your children will create synthethics and then the chaos will come back."

and

"And I do not look foward to being replaced by you, but I will have no choice but to accept."

The catalyst does not like control or destroy, but he has no choice but accept whatever choice Shepard makes.

Let's not forget that it was the Catalist, who saved Shepard's life in the very end, and explained everything about the options and how Shepard can trigger them. Yes, the original Catalsit's personality doesn't like some options. But it doesn't mean that the original Catalist doesn't respect and approve Shepard's choice.

I believe that the ending situation was completely under the original Catalist's control. It could just let Shepard die to avoid even the conversation. But instead, it helped Shepard. The original Catalist was convinced about it was wrong, and that what Shepard's victory was about.

But then why is it so pissed in low EMS endings? It seems angry and disapproving of Shepard's presence there, even saying that "And I won't" when it comes to picking a new solution. It hates the options available.

If you have just below 2700 EMS, you have unlocked the best version of control and the best version of destroy (minus Shepard living), if the Catalyst really did like both these options then why is he so mad at Shepard still?

Because on low EMS ratings it was not completely convinced, it still has some doubts, but still prefer to respect Shepard's and Galactic Civilization's actions. And on high EMS ratings the original Catalist convinced completely, and so looks more friendly.

[Ageless Face]

Seival wrote...

Well, the problem is that any "IT" discussion ends up in a massive holy war. And this is actually one more reason for me to dislake that theory. It was created to be depressing for many people... 

...I think that it will be better to avoid any "IT" discussions here. Othrwise we will have to calm down each "too vocal IT fan" who may come here. And there are quite many "too vocal IT fans" on this forums. I doubt they will be constructive here, especially after EC.

Well this war is not really holy...:innocent:

Thank god we are over the internet. We'd start killing each other otherwise.

[nitefyre410]

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...
Actually, the original Catalist approves any choice Shepard can possibly make. Even surrender... Errr, I mean "Refusal"

...As I already said, I strongly believe that victory over the Reapers was about convincing the original Catalist that it was wrong about its "solution". And in the end nothing could be done without the original Catalist's permission... Well, surrender (...errr I mean "Refusal") could be done even without permission. But critical mission failures can't be considered as "true endings".

He does not approve of either control or destroy as proven in the dialog.

"But the peace won't last, soon your children will create synthethics and then the chaos will come back."

and

"And I do not look foward to being replaced by you, but I will have no choice but to accept."

The catalyst does not like control or destroy, but he has no choice but accept whatever choice Shepard makes.

Let's not forget that it was the Catalist, who saved Shepard's life in the very end, and explained everything about the options and how Shepard can trigger them. Yes, the original Catalsit's personality doesn't like some options. But it doesn't mean that the original Catalist doesn't respect and approve Shepard's choice.

I believe that the ending situation was completely under the original Catalist's control. It could just let Shepard die to avoid even the conversation. But instead, it helped Shepard. The original Catalist was convinced about it was wrong, and that what Shepard's victory was about.

But then why is it so pissed in low EMS endings? It seems angry and disapproving of Shepard's presence there, even saying that "And I won't" when it comes to picking a new solution. It hates the options available.

If you have just below 2700 EMS, you have unlocked the best version of control and the best version of destroy (minus Shepard living), if the Catalyst really did like both these options then why is he so mad at Shepard still?

 

The Crucible the name itself implies that its a test of shorts for organic Civilazations . If you have Low EMS it shows that Organics are not ready yet which it has the effects that it has .  I.E Destory turn  Earth into a smolders ball of rock and iron.  

If you look that scene how the set  it up... the Catalyst serves a Gatekeeper and then you have 3 paths that are open. High enough EMS  and all paths are open which indicates to it that things have progress far enough to reach this point.  Of course this just speculatiing  and looking the imagery that  is used and names. Crucible  - Testing ground and  Catalyst - something that sparks change.  

[DirtyPhoenix]

Does something like this thread exists for synthesis supporters? :S

[incinerator950]

Iedra should have that covered.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

I stand by and say that the Catalyst is forced to help Shepard whatever reason, and only in high EMS is he okay with it (and where he would have done it anyway) because Synthesis is possible, the Catalyst hates control or destroy. Any other explaination and specific version of the scenes do not make sense.

[Seival]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...
Actually, the original Catalist approves any choice Shepard can possibly make. Even surrender... Errr, I mean "Refusal"

...As I already said, I strongly believe that victory over the Reapers was about convincing the original Catalist that it was wrong about its "solution". And in the end nothing could be done without the original Catalist's permission... Well, surrender (...errr I mean "Refusal") could be done even without permission. But critical mission failures can't be considered as "true endings".

He does not approve of either control or destroy as proven in the dialog.

"But the peace won't last, soon your children will create synthethics and then the chaos will come back."

and

"And I do not look foward to being replaced by you, but I will have no choice but to accept."

The catalyst does not like control or destroy, but he has no choice but accept whatever choice Shepard makes.

Let's not forget that it was the Catalist, who saved Shepard's life in the very end, and explained everything about the options and how Shepard can trigger them. Yes, the original Catalsit's personality doesn't like some options. But it doesn't mean that the original Catalist doesn't respect and approve Shepard's choice.

I believe that the ending situation was completely under the original Catalist's control. It could just let Shepard die to avoid even the conversation. But instead, it helped Shepard. The original Catalist was convinced about it was wrong, and that what Shepard's victory was about.

But then why is it so pissed in low EMS endings? It seems angry and disapproving of Shepard's presence there, even saying that "And I won't" when it comes to picking a new solution. It hates the options available.

If you have just below 2700 EMS, you have unlocked the best version of control and the best version of destroy (minus Shepard living), if the Catalyst really did like both these options then why is he so mad at Shepard still?

 

The Crucible the name itself implies that its a test of shorts for organic Civilazations . If you have Low EMS it shows that Organics are not ready yet which it has the effects that it has .  I.E Destory turn  Earth into a smolders ball of rock and iron.  

If you look that scene how the set  it up... the Catalyst serves a Gatekeeper and then you have 3 paths that are open. High enough EMS  and all paths are open which indicates to it that things have progress far enough to reach this point.  Of course this just speculatiing  and looking the imagery that  is used and names. Crucible  - Testing ground and  Catalyst - something that sparks change.  

These are exactly my thoughts by the way

Crucible is a Testing Ground, while the original Catalist is a Gate Keeper. Shepard and the entire Galactic Civilization had to pass the test in order to convince the original Catalist to open the gates. I think it was pretty clear, especially after EC release.

[Seival]

pirate1802 wrote...

Does something like this thread exists for synthesis supporters? :S

Yes, it does: http://social.biowar.../index/12153660

[TeasingJewel]

I knew this thread would attract some IT'ers. This is a thread to support a ending that *I* chose and liked. IT being correct or not.

Bioware wanted the endings to be interpreted in the players own way because they came up with generally bad endings. We were promised sixteen original endings at some point and we only got one to three endings in the vanilla game (four if you include the EC). Not to mention the numerous small problems within the game. (I can't even play online on my 360 atm for some reason)

Anyway, Imo IT people should keep to their own thread as control/synthesis/destroy/refusal supporters should keep to there's. This argument about "who is right" has gone on for far too long now.

I may just be adding fuel to the fire however so that is all I will say about the matter.