Aller au contenu

Photo

So, the Illusive Man was right after all [Control Ending support thread]


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
4520 réponses à ce sujet

#2976
Ageless Face

Ageless Face
  • Members
  • 2 786 messages

estebanus wrote...
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. 


Upgrading everyone so they'll have a permanent WiFi in their head is pretty cool actually.

Though I won't choose it. I like the transition itself, but I can't force everyone to have it. The ****storms on this forums is a proof that not everyone like the transition, won't be willing to. Not to mention the religious groups will be pretty pissed. You either love it or hate it, eh?

#2977
estebanus

estebanus
  • Members
  • 5 987 messages

HagarIshay wrote...

estebanus wrote...
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. 


Upgrading everyone so they'll have a permanent WiFi in their head is pretty cool actually.

Though I won't choose it. I like the transition itself, but I can't force everyone to have it. The ****storms on this forums is a proof that not everyone like the transition, won't be willing to. Not to mention the religious groups will be pretty pissed. You either love it or hate it, eh?

I hate it for what it represents. Changing everyone and everything to fit the pathetic views of genocidal machines. The reapers can't be redeemed for what they did. And that's why I from a moral standpoint can't accept them living after everything they've done to me, and to everyone who came before me.

I also find it simply retarded when Starchild describes synthesis. It says it can't be forced, but then it tries to get Shepard to force it on everyone. 

#2978
CrutchCricket

CrutchCricket
  • Members
  • 7 750 messages

Seival wrote...
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.

No, you misunderstand. This isn't about sufficiently advanced technology. This is about logical impossibility. You want something, anything to affect the real world, it must send and recieve to/from the real world. And to do so it must have some kind of link to the real world. It it is completely sealed, then it does not send and recieve to the real world, it does not affect the real world and it might as well not even exist.

B) 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.

Ok I'm pretty sure this is a direct contradiction to what we see in the game. The holokid is an AI, a program pure and simple, and it was created to deal with this nonsensical problem.

I think you're coming way out of left field here with things that aren't logical and seem to go against what we see ingame. But it's not my job to tell you different so I think I'll just leave it off here.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 15 juillet 2012 - 11:19 .


#2979
DirtyPhoenix

DirtyPhoenix
  • Members
  • 3 938 messages

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.


Agreed 100%

estebanus wrote...

It's the only ending I have ever despised so vehemently. 


hey estebanus [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie]

Modifié par pirate1802, 16 juillet 2012 - 07:17 .


#2980
Seival

Seival
  • Members
  • 5 294 messages

estebanus wrote...

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.


Disagree.

By choosing refuse you let the Cycles continue. What was left from the previous Cycles? Ruins, graves, dust, and thousands of newly built Reapers. Noone allowed to choose their own fate in case of refuse. You literally kill the entire Galactic Civilization just to support your own pride...

...And after this lesson the Catalist will never allow future Cycles to repeat current ending situation. By choosing refuse you also make sure that Cycles will never be stopped. And for what? Just to feed your own pride. Refusal is not just a critical mission failure, it's the ultimate mission failure.

Modifié par Seival, 16 juillet 2012 - 09:33 .


#2981
Seival

Seival
  • Members
  • 5 294 messages

CrutchCricket wrote...

Seival wrote...
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.

No, you misunderstand. This isn't about sufficiently advanced technology. This is about logical impossibility. You want something, anything to affect the real world, it must send and recieve to/from the real world. And to do so it must have some kind of link to the real world. It it is completely sealed, then it does not send and recieve to the real world, it does not affect the real world and it might as well not even exist.

B) 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.

Ok I'm pretty sure this is a direct contradiction to what we see in the game. The holokid is an AI, a program pure and simple, and it was created to deal with this nonsensical problem.

I think you're coming way out of left field here with things that aren't logical and seem to go against what we see ingame. But it's not my job to tell you different so I think I'll just leave it off here.



Yes, we just have different points of view on the matter, and we shouldn't try to convince each other. And it's really great that each ending provoke so many different debates. The endings really force us to think, even after EC. BioWare did the great job :)

Modifié par Seival, 16 juillet 2012 - 10:42 .


#2982
Jackums

Jackums
  • Members
  • 1 479 messages
I respect and understand the arguments for the RGB endings, but not people who try to justify Refuse. It doesn't let anyone "choose" their fate, because you're condemning them to death. They have no power over the Reapers, therefore they are void of all choice. And considering a later cycle just uses the Crucible anyway, the sacrifice you made was redundant.

#2983
Seival

Seival
  • Members
  • 5 294 messages

JackumsD wrote...

I respect and understand the arguments for the RGB endings, but not people who try to justify Refuse. It doesn't let anyone "choose" their fate, because you're condemning them to death. They have no power over the Reapers, therefore they are void of all choice. And considering a later cycle just uses the Crucible anyway, the sacrifice you made was redundant.


+1

Moreover, as I said, I believe that the original Catalist will just not allow subsequent Cycles to use Crucible or something like that. So, in case of refusal chances to break the Cycles in the future will be equal to zero...

#2984
DirtyPhoenix

DirtyPhoenix
  • Members
  • 3 938 messages

Seival wrote...

Yes, we just have different points of view on the matter, and we shouldn't try to convince each other. And it's really great that each ending provoke so many different debates. The endings really force us to think, even after EC. BioWare did the great job :)


Agreed. At the risk of getting lynched, I'd say I like how bioware gave us 3 (or 4 after EC) each with its benefits and failings, and no 100% win ending. And I really like how people with different moral/psychological/whatever orientations are attracted towards different endings :D

Modifié par pirate1802, 16 juillet 2012 - 12:01 .


#2985
Seival

Seival
  • Members
  • 5 294 messages

pirate1802 wrote...

Seival wrote...

Yes, we just have different points of view on the matter, and we shouldn't try to convince each other. And it's really great that each ending provoke so many different debates. The endings really force us to think, even after EC. BioWare did the great job :)


Agreed. At the risk of getting lynched, I'd say I like how bioware gave us 3 (or 4 after EC) each with its benefits and failings, and no 100% win ending. And I really like how people with different moral/psychological/whatever orientations are attracted towards different endings :D


+1

...But I strongly believe that refusal gives some benefits only to the original Catalyst and its Reapers :)

Modifié par Seival, 16 juillet 2012 - 05:24 .


#2986
Seival

Seival
  • Members
  • 5 294 messages
One more interesting thing about the Control...

...I think Shepard-Catalist will rename The Reapers, and ask everyone to use their new name. What name could it be? I think "The Guardians" will be nice in case of Paragon Shepard, and "The Wardens" in case of Renegade Shepard.

Modifié par Seival, 16 juillet 2012 - 07:57 .


#2987
Ageless Face

Ageless Face
  • Members
  • 2 786 messages
Nope. My Shepard will stick to Darkspawn. She played computer games as a child, you see... Even if she grew up on Earth carrying a shotgun.

But if we're on that type of subject, really, how should new Shepard be called? I don't think Shepalyst (or anything like that) will work, I'm not even sure if the catalyst and Shepard control in the same way.

#2988
Seival

Seival
  • Members
  • 5 294 messages

HagarIshay wrote...

Nope. My Shepard will stick to Darkspawn. She played computer games as a child, you see... Even if she grew up on Earth carrying a shotgun.

But if we're on that type of subject, really, how should new Shepard be called? I don't think Shepalyst (or anything like that) will work, I'm not even sure if the catalyst and Shepard control in the same way.


How should new Shepard be called?... The picture I told about some pages ago, the picture I'm creating right now, it's also about this matter. Picture is far from the final, but i'm doing my best. I hope you will enjoy it :)

#2989
Seival

Seival
  • Members
  • 5 294 messages
...I really want to finish the picture faster, but I just can't rush with it. It's so much about my feelings on the Control Ending. I want it to be beautiful and understandable at the same time. So I think that I'll need several more weeks to finish it... If I only was a professional artist...

#2990
Tenshi

Tenshi
  • Members
  • 361 messages
i agree, it is best solution. everything will go back to normal with reapers help. :-) synthesis and destroy are too drastic.

edit: dam! girlish banner, well i wont go through painfull upload again. girlish is ok i quess. nice banners anyway. i like it. :-D

Modifié par xxx2emo4Uxxx, 17 juillet 2012 - 12:32 .


#2991
CrutchCricket

CrutchCricket
  • Members
  • 7 750 messages

HagarIshay wrote...

Nope. My Shepard will stick to Darkspawn. She played computer games as a child, you see... Even if she grew up on Earth carrying a shotgun.

But if we're on that type of subject, really, how should new Shepard be called? I don't think Shepalyst (or anything like that) will work, I'm not even sure if the catalyst and Shepard control in the same way.

I say it refers to itself as "Commander". It's a nod back to Shepard but also befitting the function as "identifier" thing its Reaper predecessors had.

And as far as I'm concerned, there are no more Reapers. There is only Commander. One entity, many parts.

#2992
CroGamer002

CroGamer002
  • Members
  • 20 674 messages
I just call Catalyst Shepard, instead of Commander Shepard.

Shepard got new title/rank.

#2993
Seival

Seival
  • Members
  • 5 294 messages

xxx2emo4Uxxx wrote...

i agree, it is best solution. everything will go back to normal with reapers help. :-) synthesis and destroy are too drastic.

edit: dam! girlish banner, well i wont go through painfull upload again. girlish is ok i quess. nice banners anyway. i like it. :-D


Thanks. I will make more banners when I'll have time :)

#2994
nitefyre410

nitefyre410
  • Members
  • 8 944 messages

Seival wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

Nope. My Shepard will stick to Darkspawn. She played computer games as a child, you see... Even if she grew up on Earth carrying a shotgun.

But if we're on that type of subject, really, how should new Shepard be called? I don't think Shepalyst (or anything like that) will work, I'm not even sure if the catalyst and Shepard control in the same way.


How should new Shepard be called?... The picture I told about some pages ago, the picture I'm creating right now, it's also about this matter. Picture is far from the final, but i'm doing my best. I hope you will enjoy it :)

  

Well In my headcanon  it takes the name   Sentinel  because that its new role and the renames the  Reapers  and calls them  the Vangaurd.

#2995
DirtyPhoenix

DirtyPhoenix
  • Members
  • 3 938 messages

Seival wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Seival wrote...

Yes, we just have different points of view on the matter, and we shouldn't try to convince each other. And it's really great that each ending provoke so many different debates. The endings really force us to think, even after EC. BioWare did the great job :)


Agreed. At the risk of getting lynched, I'd say I like how bioware gave us 3 (or 4 after EC) each with its benefits and failings, and no 100% win ending. And I really like how people with different moral/psychological/whatever orientations are attracted towards different endings :D


+1

...But I strongly believe that refusal gives some benefits only to the original Catalyst and its Reapers :)


I got the impression for some reason the catalyst was pissed if we don't pick any option. hence his "SO BE IT" in harby voice. Frustrated at our indecisiveness maybe?

#2996
nitefyre410

nitefyre410
  • Members
  • 8 944 messages

pirate1802 wrote...

Seival wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Seival wrote...

Yes, we just have different points of view on the matter, and we shouldn't try to convince each other. And it's really great that each ending provoke so many different debates. The endings really force us to think, even after EC. BioWare did the great job :)


Agreed. At the risk of getting lynched, I'd say I like how bioware gave us 3 (or 4 after EC) each with its benefits and failings, and no 100% win ending. And I really like how people with different moral/psychological/whatever orientations are attracted towards different endings :D


+1

...But I strongly believe that refusal gives some benefits only to the original Catalyst and its Reapers :)


I got the impression for some reason the catalyst was pissed if we don't pick any option. hence his "SO BE IT" in harby voice. Frustrated at our indecisiveness maybe?

 

Yes because it was  tasked with finding a solution... that is  the AI  primary function above all else.   The Catalyst in  trapped in a  self fulfiling prophecy of its own creation because its solution is the very  that will eventually lead to what its trying to prevent.

#2997
Seival

Seival
  • Members
  • 5 294 messages

pirate1802 wrote...

Seival wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Seival wrote...

Yes, we just have different points of view on the matter, and we shouldn't try to convince each other. And it's really great that each ending provoke so many different debates. The endings really force us to think, even after EC. BioWare did the great job :)


Agreed. At the risk of getting lynched, I'd say I like how bioware gave us 3 (or 4 after EC) each with its benefits and failings, and no 100% win ending. And I really like how people with different moral/psychological/whatever orientations are attracted towards different endings :D


+1

...But I strongly believe that refusal gives some benefits only to the original Catalyst and its Reapers :)


I got the impression for some reason the catalyst was pissed if we don't pick any option. hence his "SO BE IT" in harby voice. Frustrated at our indecisiveness maybe?


Yes, in case of refusal the original Catalist was indeed frustrated at our indecisiveness... One more reason for it to make sure no other Cycle will be able to revolt.

#2998
DirtyPhoenix

DirtyPhoenix
  • Members
  • 3 938 messages

nitefyre410 wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Seival wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Seival wrote...

Yes, we just have different points of view on the matter, and we shouldn't try to convince each other. And it's really great that each ending provoke so many different debates. The endings really force us to think, even after EC. BioWare did the great job :)


Agreed. At the risk of getting lynched, I'd say I like how bioware gave us 3 (or 4 after EC) each with its benefits and failings, and no 100% win ending. And I really like how people with different moral/psychological/whatever orientations are attracted towards different endings :D


+1

...But I strongly believe that refusal gives some benefits only to the original Catalyst and its Reapers :)


I got the impression for some reason the catalyst was pissed if we don't pick any option. hence his "SO BE IT" in harby voice. Frustrated at our indecisiveness maybe?

 

Yes because it was  tasked with finding a solution... that is  the AI  primary function above all else.   The Catalyst in  trapped in a  self fulfiling prophecy of its own creation because its solution is the very  that will eventually lead to what its trying to prevent.


So he was unhappy because he was so close to achieving his objective but couldn't since Shepard chose to be a ******? And now he has to wait for 50,000 years more :blink:

#2999
nitefyre410

nitefyre410
  • Members
  • 8 944 messages

pirate1802 wrote...

*Snip* 



So he was unhappy because he was so close to achieving his objective but couldn't since Shepard chose to be a ******? And now he has to wait for 50,000 years more :blink:

 

Happy? No... I don't think the Catalyst even understands what happiness is  but it understands purpose.  The so be it is what they call a passing   nodded or an Easter Egg.  It's not to be looked  at or thought about too deeply.. 

Bioware put the line in there  like that  just to stir up the fan base,  IMO its a back handed rebuttal of IT. 

#3000
Examurai

Examurai
  • Members
  • 415 messages
 Hey everyone! I'm late to the party but I approve of this thread :D 
Complete support, but there is something i'd like to ask. Noob question, but how do I add one of those banners into my signature below?
Being trying to find instructions on how but can't find it anywhere, any instructions would be nice :)