4520 réponses à ce sujet

[obZen DF]

Maybe the look from the Catalyst is a last look from his existence.
He sees Shepard taking Control and become the new Catalyst.
So, maybe the close up scene is to emphasize his last seconds as the Catalyst.
And his existence is gone.

[Seival]

obZen DF wrote...

Maybe the look from the Catalyst is a last look from his existence.
He sees Shepard taking Control and become the new Catalyst.
So, maybe the close up scene is to emphasize his last seconds as the Catalyst.
And his existence is gone.

Well, yes, I think it's clear that only one Catalist can exist at the same time. The original Catalist let Shepard in, and allowed to replace itself with her mind. That's how the Catalist-Shepard was born. And as I already said, I strongly believe that the process of becoming the new Catalist involved changing the original Catalist on atomic level, which is only possible with the original Catalist's permission. Crucuble's explosions alone (or any other "hack attempt") would be completely useless.

Modifié par Seival, 15 juillet 2012 - 03:17 .

[nitefyre410]

Seival wrote...

obZen DF wrote...

Maybe the look from the Catalyst is a last look from his existence.
He sees Shepard taking Control and become the new Catalyst.
So, maybe the close up scene is to emphasize his last seconds as the Catalyst.
And his existence is gone.

Well, yes, I think it's clear that only one Catalist can exist at the same time. The original Catalist let Shepard in, and allowed to replace itself with her mind. That's how the Catalist-Shepard was born. And as I already said, I strongly believe that the process of becoming the new Catalist involved changing the original Catalist on atomic level, which is only possible with the original Catalist's permission. Crucuble's explosions alone (or any other "hack attempt") would be completely useless.

 

Well the Catalyst is a victim of its own twisted logic because it is creating  they very problem it was  created to solve by using  its Reaper solution. Its entire  stance and solution is a contradriction of its purpose.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

It seems that Control and Synthesis fans get along just fine (for the most part).

[Seival]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Seival wrote...

obZen DF wrote...

Maybe the look from the Catalyst is a last look from his existence.
He sees Shepard taking Control and become the new Catalyst.
So, maybe the close up scene is to emphasize his last seconds as the Catalyst.
And his existence is gone.

Well, yes, I think it's clear that only one Catalist can exist at the same time. The original Catalist let Shepard in, and allowed to replace itself with her mind. That's how the Catalist-Shepard was born. And as I already said, I strongly believe that the process of becoming the new Catalist involved changing the original Catalist on atomic level, which is only possible with the original Catalist's permission. Crucuble's explosions alone (or any other "hack attempt") would be completely useless.

 

Well the Catalyst is a victim of its own twisted logic because it is creating  they very problem it was  created to solve by using  its Reaper solution. Its entire  stance and solution is a contradriction of its purpose.

I agree... Also this clearly states that the original Catalsit was made of some "unstable" person. Reapers' creators clearly made a bad choice about who of them should become the Catalist.

Modifié par Seival, 15 juillet 2012 - 04:23 .

[Seival]

Snake91 wrote...

So, the Illusive Man was right after all :lol:

Yes, he was right about Control possibility, but wrong about methods to gain it.

[CrutchCricket]

Seival wrote...
Disagree. The original Catalist could left Shepard to die near the Anderson. Instead it helped her. Moreover, the original Catalist admitted that its "solution" doesn't work anymore, and explained Shepard what are the "new possibilities" and how Shepard can trigger them. The original Catalist helped Shepard willingly. That's why I believe Shepard's victory was about convincing the original Catalist that it was wrong. And that's why I believe nothing could be done without the Catalist's permission. Even if they managed to trigger Crucible's explosion from outside.

Crucible already docked, variables already altered. Nobody convinced anybody of anything. Crucible forcibly modified the holokid. Again it has nothing to do with explosions. Crucible docks, holokid gets hacked, comes to the conclusion its crappy solution to its nonexistant problem doesn't work anymore and only then is it willing to talk to Shepard.

You know what the Crucible really did? Inception. It changed a few subtle variables and planted the idea that Reaping doesn't work. The holokid processed this as its own and bam! choose your own color.

I respect your headcanon as much as anybody else. But these two things make absolutely no sense in any context and you might wish to consider revising:
a) Schrodinger's computer- no computer is completely sealed from the outside world because input/output is a fundamental function of computational devices- that's what it means to be a computer. If you poist it's completely sealed then I can call its existence into question just like Schrodinger's cat. It's a matter of logic, not of "this is how I see it"
holokid consent- its entire purpose for existing is the cycles because it is convinced they are the best solution. There is no way it would allow you to stop them, or destroy it without a modification in its programming. It would not allow such a modification, hence it must be hacked. It is hacked by the Crucible, because this change does occur and it does allow you to stop the cycles and destroy it in two of three scenarios.

[Seival]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Seival wrote...
Disagree. The original Catalist could left Shepard to die near the Anderson. Instead it helped her. Moreover, the original Catalist admitted that its "solution" doesn't work anymore, and explained Shepard what are the "new possibilities" and how Shepard can trigger them. The original Catalist helped Shepard willingly. That's why I believe Shepard's victory was about convincing the original Catalist that it was wrong. And that's why I believe nothing could be done without the Catalist's permission. Even if they managed to trigger Crucible's explosion from outside.

Crucible already docked, variables already altered. Nobody convinced anybody of anything. Crucible forcibly modified the holokid. Again it has nothing to do with explosions. Crucible docks, holokid gets hacked, comes to the conclusion its crappy solution to its nonexistant problem doesn't work anymore and only then is it willing to talk to Shepard.

You know what the Crucible really did? Inception. It changed a few subtle variables and planted the idea that Reaping doesn't work. The holokid processed this as its own and bam! choose your own color.

I respect your headcanon as much as anybody else. But these two things make absolutely no sense in any context and you might wish to consider revising:
a) Schrodinger's computer- no computer is completely sealed from the outside world because input/output is a fundamental function of computational devices- that's what it means to be a computer. If you poist it's completely sealed then I can call its existence into question just like Schrodinger's cat. It's a matter of logic, not of "this is how I see it"
holokid consent- its entire purpose for existing is the cycles because it is convinced they are the best solution. There is no way it would allow you to stop them, or destroy it without a modification in its programming. It would not allow such a modification, hence it must be hacked. It is hacked by the Crucible, because this change does occur and it does allow you to stop the cycles and destroy it in two of three scenarios.

Yes, we clearly have different points of view on how the victory was achieved, and I respect your opinion too. But I have to disagree with your arguments:

a) A concept of "no computer is sealed from outside" is not a good analogy here, because it describes a common representation of avarage modern computer. The sci-fi-system I told you about some pages before is different, and completely sealed. It's impossible to make such system nowdays of course. But ME Universe is sci-fi universe, so we can really talk about unlimited possibilities here.

Considering what I've said in (a) and before, I think it's impossible to hack the Catalist. But the original Catalist is still a person. And I believe it was a living being once, just like Shepard, but with different way of thinking. I believe it was unstable and ill person. Person, who has some reason inside him, but can change his way of thinking at will. First he wanted to solve the problem peacefully, then he decided to deal with it in completely barbaric way. Such person can be influenced, which was the weak spot of the original Catalist.
What I want to say here is that the original Catalist was unstable person before it became the Catalist. So, the original Catalist itself was also unstable and could be influenced. Shepard's and Galactic Civilization's actions convinced the original Catalist that its "solution" was wrong. It already tried different ways to solve the problem, but failed. So it desided to give the responsibility for the future to the person it thought deserves that the most - Shepard. So, if you roleplay the Shepard, who never gives up and has only one way of thinking, then your Shepard-Catalist will never repeat the original Catalist's mistakes, and will be completely Invulnerable. Its as simple as that: Shepard-Catalist's code will never allow it to do something stupid.



...All I said above is just a part of an attempt to "explain how it works", but this is not the main point. The main point is that victory in your interpretation is a conventional victory. And I strongly believe that the Trilogy clearly states that conventional victory is impossible. That's why I consider the Crucible as a Testing Ground, and the original Catalist as a Gate Keeper. Shepard and the entire Galactic Civilization have to prove they are truely ready for the responsibilities in order to convince the original Catalist to Open the Gates. This is what the entire Trilogy about: ways of thinking, decisions, consequences, responsibilities. It was never about "my hacking skill is better then yours".

Modifié par Seival, 15 juillet 2012 - 08:40 .

[Seival]

Also, considering what I've said above, I think there is the best description of Refusal ending: Shepard failed the test and proved that we are not ready for the responsibilities, because we place our pride above the sake of everyone else.

...And that's why I don't like Refusal ending even more than Destroy ending.

[Ageless Face]

I can at least understand why people will choose destroy. I don't like that ending personally, but it's understandble why people will pick it. Destroy the enemy at all cost.

Refuse... What? You are letting everyone turn into goo for the sake of your pride? Even in roleplay, the odds the catalyst is not lying (even if we ignore the fact there is no reason for him to lie) are much higher than the fleets winning against the reapers. It's just absurd. In my opinion, at least.

[mango smoothie]

HagarIshay wrote...

I can at least understand why people will choose destroy. I don't like that ending personally, but it's understandble why people will pick it. Destroy the enemy at all cost.

Refuse... What? You are letting everyone turn into goo for the sake of your pride? Even in roleplay, the odds the catalyst is not lying (even if we ignore the fact there is no reason for him to lie) are much higher than the fleets winning against the reapers. It's just absurd. In my opinion, at least.

This is what I don't understand, I'd rather take the chance that the Catalyst is telling the truth then let the fleet fight the Reapers. Because guess what if the Crucible doesn't work anyway, then we'll have to fight them head on. Better to take the chance that the Crucible will work then not.

I'd even choose the destroy vaporize ending before refuse, because that means more lives are saved in the future, for the next alien races. When you choose refuse you not only let the Reapers kill everybody in this cycle, but a portion in the next.

Modifié par mango smoothie, 15 juillet 2012 - 09:23 .

[Ageless Face]

Yep. At this point I think any ending is better than refuse. Destroy low EMS almost seem like sunshines and rainbows compared to it. At least the death is fewer- not to mention that refuse also creates new reapers. It'll make the next cycle have even tougher war. And a horrible fate to the dead.

[estebanus]

HagarIshay wrote...

Yep. At this point I think any ending is better than refuse. Destroy low EMS almost seem like sunshines and rainbows compared to it. At least the death is fewer- not to mention that refuse also creates new reapers. It'll make the next cycle have even tougher war. And a horrible fate to the dead.

 

Doesn't matter. Next cycle wins. 

As long as the reapers eventually die, I'm happy.

[Ageless Face]

estebanus wrote...
Doesn't matter. Next cycle wins. 

As long as the reapers eventually die, I'm happy.

Good thing you chose destroy then.

Refuse is letting the reapers win in this cycle, so others can destroy them in the next. Why do that, when you have the option to kill them right now? If anyone chooses to destroy the reapers through refuse, then it makes so little sense

[estebanus]

HagarIshay wrote...

estebanus wrote...
Doesn't matter. Next cycle wins. 

As long as the reapers eventually die, I'm happy.

Good thing you chose destroy then.

Refuse is letting the reapers win in this cycle, so others can destroy them in the next. Why do that, when you have the option to kill them right now? If anyone chooses to destroy the reapers through refuse, then it makes so little sense

Not entirely. Yes, I may have the option to destroy them now, but that destruction comes at the price of an ally and a friend. I'd rather want them go down fighting than sacrificing them. 

So I let them fight the reapers. To the death. Because I don't want to kill them, but I don't want the reapers to live, and the only reason the crucible will also kill the geth is because it's not completely finished, Starchild explains so. 

That means that I put my faith in Liara. I trust her to save the galaxy from the reapers, just not this cycle. We fight a terrible war so that they won't have to. By having Liara giving the next cycle a head start, they can finish the crucible in time, and fully complete it. That way, they will be able to only destroy the reapers, not all other synthetics along with them. 

And as the stargazer scene implies, my faith in Liara paid off.

Modifié par estebanus, 15 juillet 2012 - 10:00 .

[estebanus]

To be honest, I think refusal wasn't put in as an ending itself, but as a way to tell Bioware that we're doe with them and their art.

[Ageless Face]

estebanus wrote...
Not entirely. Yes, I may have the option to destroy them now, but that destruction comes at the price of an ally and a friend. I'd rather want them go down fighting than sacrificing them. 

So I let them fight the reapers. To the death. Because I don't want to kill them, but I don't want the reapers to live, and the only reason the crucible will also kill the geth is because it's not completely finished, Starchild explains so. 

That means that I put my faith in Liara. I trust her to save the galaxy from the reapers, just not this cycle. We fight a terrible war so that they won't have to. By having Liara giving the next cycle a head start, they can finish the crucible in time, and fully complete it. That way, they will be able to only destroy the reapers, not all other synthetics along with them. 

And as the stargazer scene implies, my faith in Liara paid off.

Wait. So you will let everyone (on this cycle) die instead of sacrificing few (compared to the huge number you are going to loose in refuse)  just so you won't feel bad? And don't the people who chose refuse feel responsible at all for the death, when they know they had the option to stop it?

[Ageless Face]

estebanus wrote...

To be honest, I think refusal wasn't put in as an ending itself, but as a way to tell Bioware that we're doe with them and their art.

I don't think so really. If they did, we wouldn't see Liara's compulse, and the stargazer scene.

Refuse is like one of the original endings, just with no colorfull explosions.

[estebanus]

HagarIshay wrote...

estebanus wrote...
Not entirely. Yes, I may have the option to destroy them now, but that destruction comes at the price of an ally and a friend. I'd rather want them go down fighting than sacrificing them. 

So I let them fight the reapers. To the death. Because I don't want to kill them, but I don't want the reapers to live, and the only reason the crucible will also kill the geth is because it's not completely finished, Starchild explains so. 

That means that I put my faith in Liara. I trust her to save the galaxy from the reapers, just not this cycle. We fight a terrible war so that they won't have to. By having Liara giving the next cycle a head start, they can finish the crucible in time, and fully complete it. That way, they will be able to only destroy the reapers, not all other synthetics along with them. 

And as the stargazer scene implies, my faith in Liara paid off.

Wait. So you will let everyone (on this cycle) die instead of sacrificing few (compared to the huge number you are going to loose in refuse)  just so you won't feel bad? And don't the people who chose refuse feel responsible at all for the death, when they know they had the option to stop it?

They had the option to leave the galaxy in a worse place than needed. 

I'm not sacrificing this cycle just so I won't feel bad, I'm sacrificing this cycle to save every other one that will ever exist. I'm doing it so that the next cycle can actually finish the crucible. 

Refusers look at the big picture. By destroying this cycle, the galaxy is much better off.

[estebanus]

HagarIshay wrote...

estebanus wrote...

To be honest, I think refusal wasn't put in as an ending itself, but as a way to tell Bioware that we're doe with them and their art.

I don't think so really. If they did, we wouldn't see Liara's compulse, and the stargazer scene.

Refuse is like one of the original endings, just with no colorfull explosions.

I actually read a pretty good description of refusal that perfectly described what I felt. 

Refusal sets the line beween us and them(Bioware). It is a way for us to get closure without having to submit to their "art."

[Ageless Face]

estebanus wrote...
They had the option to leave the galaxy in a worse place than needed. 

I'm not sacrificing this cycle just so I won't feel bad, I'm sacrificing this cycle to save every other one that will ever exist. I'm doing it so that the next cycle can actually finish the crucible. 

Refusers look at the big picture. By destroying this cycle, the galaxy is much better off.

But this is what I don't get. How will the galaxy be better off in refuse? Even if you want to destroy the reapers, how will destroy is less than refuse on that? In both cases you destroy the reapers. Yet in destroy, more will live.

[estebanus]

HagarIshay wrote...

estebanus wrote...
They had the option to leave the galaxy in a worse place than needed. 

I'm not sacrificing this cycle just so I won't feel bad, I'm sacrificing this cycle to save every other one that will ever exist. I'm doing it so that the next cycle can actually finish the crucible. 

Refusers look at the big picture. By destroying this cycle, the galaxy is much better off.

But this is what I don't get. How will the galaxy be better off in refuse? Even if you want to destroy the reapers, how will destroy is less than refuse on that? In both cases you destroy the reapers. Yet in destroy, more will live.

You destroy all synthetics. Not only synthetic life. Starchild even says so. By choosing destroy, you also choose that synthetics aren't worth it, which isn't true. 

By choosing refuse, you say that everyone is allowed to choose their own fate, organics and synthetics alike. No choice in the endings permit this. By letting the crucible be finished in the next cycle, you also permit synthetics and organics alike to live freely without reapers.

[Ageless Face]

estebanus wrote...
You destroy all synthetics. Not only synthetic life. Starchild even says so. By choosing destroy, you also choose that synthetics aren't worth it, which isn't true. 

By choosing refuse, you say that everyone is allowed to choose their own fate, organics and synthetics alike. No choice in the endings permit this. By letting the crucible be finished in the next cycle, you also permit synthetics and organics alike to live freely without reapers.

Then choosing refuse is not about the consequences themselves, but what it represents overall. I think I understand.

Well, I still hate that ending with all my heart and soul, but it's better than I had a moment ago (not even realising why not everyone hate it with all their heart and soul ). Thanks.

[estebanus]

HagarIshay wrote...

estebanus wrote...
You destroy all synthetics. Not only synthetic life. Starchild even says so. By choosing destroy, you also choose that synthetics aren't worth it, which isn't true. 

By choosing refuse, you say that everyone is allowed to choose their own fate, organics and synthetics alike. No choice in the endings permit this. By letting the crucible be finished in the next cycle, you also permit synthetics and organics alike to live freely without reapers.

Then choosing refuse is not about the consequences themselves, but what it represents overall. I think I understand.

Well, I still hate that ending with all my heart and soul, but it's better than I had a moment ago (not even realising why not everyone hate it with all their heart and soul ). Thanks.

No problem. 

I'm not a refuser myself, but I can certainly understand why one would choose it. 

Just as I can understand why one would choose control. But not synthesis. Never synthesis. That's the only ending I have ever despised so vehemently. 

Modifié par estebanus, 15 juillet 2012 - 10:30 .