473 réponses à ce sujet

[OdanUrr]

The Angry One wrote...

I've pointed this out many times and I've yet to get a satisfactory response, therefore I am making a topic about it because I crave attention.

(...)

"Explain why the Catalyst lies."

Boy, am I in trouble. Let me ask you, what does he lie about, really? For the most part, I've read the following arguments:

1) The created won't always rebel against their creators as the Quarian-Geth peace accord has proven.

True, in this particular instance, depending on your choices, the Quarian and the Geth reach an understanding. Note, however, that the Catalyst doesn't really specify when the created will turn against their creators (they might always eventually do so). It could be the Geth, or it could be other synthetics further down the line. The Catalyst isn't, to my mind, proving something with mathematical certainty, he's just forming an opinion based on the data he's gathered throughout eons of culling. So, statistically, he believes the created will always eventually turn against their creators.

Personally, since he doesn't show me any proof of this, I remain skeptical.

2) Shepard doesn't die in Destroy.

So? The Catalyst never did say Shepard would die, he merely implied it since Shepard was partly synthetic. The thought probably even crossed Shepard's mind. On the other hand, the Catalyst categorically states Shepard will die if he chooses Control.

By the way, Shepard only "lives" with Destroy and high EMS (which is, so far, unachievable on the SP campaign).

3) The Catalyst is that kid who got spaced.

This is proof of what exactly?

It's more than a bit disturbing, more like annoying really, but not much else.

4) The Catalyst claims they "ascend" organics when they clearly kill them.

What's killing for one civilization can be a twisted form of ascension for another. Just because I don't particularly agree with the Catalyst's views on the preservation of organic life doesn't mean he's lying.

Now that we're past that, let's ask ourselves, could the Catalyst be lying? Sure. Does that mean everything he tells you is a lie then? Of course not. If you follow that particular line of reasoning to its conclusion, you'll realise why.
Say the Catalyst is lying to you about everything (as a lot of people seem to believe). Thus, he should also be lying to you about what your choices actually do. For instance, Destroy won't actually destroy the Reapers, nor Control control them, etc. Yet this is exactly what happens, Destroy destroys the Reapers, Control controls them, etc. Therefore, he was telling the truth about something. If he was telling one truth, he could've told many truths.

Does this prove the Catalyst is trustworthy then? Again, of course not. There's simply not enough time for the Catalyst to prove himself to you, and there's probably nothing he could do that would convince Shepard otherwise.

When all's said and done, the Catalyst doesn't have that much screen time, so we're left in the dark about a lot of things. The Catalyst claims he's in the right and, presumably, he's been around for millions of years. Is he lying? We don't know. Add to that the fact that we can't really ask him anything, and it becomes an infuriating situation. It's an incomplete information problem. What the Catalyst proposes could be true, and then again, maybe it's not. You have to choose.

Of course, maybe you simply don't want to.

Shameless self-promotion of thread dealing with the Catalyst and the Reapers:

http://social.biowar.../index/11405288 

Cheers!

[SubAstris]

kaotician wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

kaotician wrote...

No. My point is not that the deception succeeds or fails, it's that the Catalyst tries to deceive at all in the first place, by crassly represnting itself to us as something analogous to a human child - one it's lifted from Shepard's mind, and had killed too, as it happens. Whether the catalyst is succesful as a liar was not I think the question, it was whether he was per se a liar. 

If it was attempting to decieve you into believing it was a human child, it wouldn't have introduced itself as the Citadel.  And it would have probably done something about the whole glowing thing.

It may have been attempting to manipulate you - though I don't really see how appearing as the kid benefits it, if anything he's picked a form likely to ****** Shepard off - but that's not deception.  It's a normal part of communication, to attempt to present yourself and your opinions in a way that makes them appear convincing.  If I go to a job interview in a nice suit, clean shaven and with tidy hair, am I decieving them by not appearing as the slob that I truly am?

The purpose of appearing as a human child specifically means something to the Catalyst, and it must be that the Catalyst thinks it means something to you too. What exactly that is, we're not told in the writing, and can only infer. However, in representing himself in such a way, and via an ulterior or hidden motive, whilst purporting to be otherwise being completely truthful, he shows us that something is not quite true. Further, not only is something not quite true, but he hides that fact of truth from us too. That's deception, in the attempt, for me, and if he's attempting to persuade our cooperation via a deception, then he's seeking something for which his only recourse is an illusion to aid him. And that's a lie, as I see it.

Hidden or ulterior? You seem to imply that hidden necessarily means bad. If you met someone for the first time but they didn't, for example, tell you where they lived (even if it wasn't brought up in conversation), would you think they were being deceptive?

[ed87]

Helmschmied wrote...

Please, stop calling him the Catalyst. He can't be Catalyst, because if he is, the ones that designed the Crucible to begin with were the Reapers themselves, which don't make no sense.

The ending has provided us with the moral that you dont need to make sense.

[kaotician]

If I met someone for the first time, and I already knew that they were white, 26 and came from Wyoming, and then represented themselves to me as black, 46 and from england, I'd have been quite comfortable with saying they were lying.

Sorry, this post in answer to the next but one above me.

Modifié par kaotician, 05 juin 2012 - 04:38 .

[Grimwick]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

The difference being that the reapers aren't fighting a war with anyone but the organics they are trying to 'preserve'.
It's not a 'necessary evil/cost' it's really not.
Also ignores the point that the reapers obliterate smaller cities as a waste of time - that's hardly a necessary sacrifice.

No, it's a war. They need to fight for their own survival to ensure their own plans.

Because bombing cities = fighting for survival. And it doesn't matter if it is war. If they are trying to preserve the organics then why are they killing them to ensure their own survival in the first place? They started it after all.

Because that's preserving isn't it... /sarcasm off

You can clone with that material IRL. Why couldn't the Reapers do something similar? The whole point is that they upload minds from genetic material to form a "nation" that is a Reaper.

Cloning =/= preservation. That is an interesting concept that has been debated many many times before. Uploading minds from genetic material is also ridiculous.
1) it is an assumption/heavy speculation. 2) chaos theory predicts that it would be nigh impossible to perfectly replicate it. 3) It's ridiculous from a sci-fi point as it requires unbelievable space-magic.

@2) Therefore it wouldn't be preserved.

Liara is completely irrelevant for a start. Nice red herring.

Also would like to point out that even if 'he just got carried away with it' it still doesn't matter. That doesn't really answer the question "why should we believe him?".

Writing-off trends in the narrative as "irrelevant" just ensures that you're not going to understand what's going on.

Mac has his obsessions, and he gets carried away. He's obsessed with Liara, got carried away with her. He loves Space Bieber, got carried away with him. He hates politicians, and got carried away with the Cerberus/Udina plot.

Again, the Catalyst as Space Bieber is not some ploy by Harbinger to trick you. It's Mac's bad writing, beleving that the little boy is so cute and endearing, so people would accept their literary device that was the Catalyst.

I wasn't writing off the narrative trend. I was writing it off as evidence to your claim. It's not evidence to say that if a writer did X in case A then it's obvious that he did X in case B. From the evidence I've seen the SC simply has no reason to be trusted/has no evidence to back his claims and saying that this is poor writing only proves my/TAO's point - that there is nothing to suggest that we should trust him.

Modifié par Grimwick, 05 juin 2012 - 04:43 .

[General User]

SubAstris wrote...

kaotician wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

kaotician wrote...

No. My point is not that the deception succeeds or fails, it's that the Catalyst tries to deceive at all in the first place, by crassly represnting itself to us as something analogous to a human child - one it's lifted from Shepard's mind, and had killed too, as it happens. Whether the catalyst is succesful as a liar was not I think the question, it was whether he was per se a liar. 

If it was attempting to decieve you into believing it was a human child, it wouldn't have introduced itself as the Citadel.  And it would have probably done something about the whole glowing thing.

It may have been attempting to manipulate you - though I don't really see how appearing as the kid benefits it, if anything he's picked a form likely to ****** Shepard off - but that's not deception.  It's a normal part of communication, to attempt to present yourself and your opinions in a way that makes them appear convincing.  If I go to a job interview in a nice suit, clean shaven and with tidy hair, am I decieving them by not appearing as the slob that I truly am?

The purpose of appearing as a human child specifically means something to the Catalyst, and it must be that the Catalyst thinks it means something to you too. What exactly that is, we're not told in the writing, and can only infer. However, in representing himself in such a way, and via an ulterior or hidden motive, whilst purporting to be otherwise being completely truthful, he shows us that something is not quite true. Further, not only is something not quite true, but he hides that fact of truth from us too. That's deception, in the attempt, for me, and if he's attempting to persuade our cooperation via a deception, then he's seeking something for which his only recourse is an illusion to aid him. And that's a lie, as I see it.

Hidden or ulterior? You seem to imply that hidden necessarily means bad. If you met someone for the first time but they didn't, for example, tell you where they lived (even if it wasn't brought up in conversation), would you think they were being deceptive?

If they deliberately chose to give the name and address for someone I knew that had been murdered.  "Thinking them deceptive" would not even begin to cover my reaction.

[ThomaswBloom]

MisterJB wrote...

Now we're just going in circles. The Catalyst never claimed it saved everyone, only that it preserves organic races which it does.

Cream of Chicken soup is not preserved chicken.  

Turning folks into goo and using the resulting chemical mix to construct something that fullfills a specific purpose, a purpose that the formerly living sentiants fought against, is also not preservation.  Using the word preservation is a lie.  

 Turning people into goo, vaporizing with lasors, crushing and burning with orbital bomardments, and ripping apart with monsters is killing.  English is a bit tricky but the difference between killing and preservation is fairly clear.

[kaotician]

ed87 wrote...

Helmschmied wrote...

Please, stop calling him the Catalyst. He can't be Catalyst, because if he is, the ones that designed the Crucible to begin with were the Reapers themselves, which don't make no sense.

The ending has provided us with the moral that you dont need to make sense.

Funnily enough, when the idea of the Crucible was first mooted in-game, I thought it was another system of control of the Reapers ie what better way to weaken your enemies strengths than forcing their best minds away on a fool's errand chasing an intergalactic Excalibur, or a survivalist myth.

Modifié par kaotician, 05 juin 2012 - 04:42 .

[SubAstris]

kaotician wrote...

If I met someone for the first time, and I already knew that they were white, 26 and came from Wyoming, and then represented themselves to me as black, 46 and from england, I'd have been quite comfortable with saying they were lying.

Sorry, this post in answer to the next but one above me.

As if indeed this is a far comparison

[BDelacroix]

Forgetting about all of that. The first casualty in any war is the truth. It is only a naive and apparently recent notion that your enemies are somehow compelled to tell the truth. It is most assuredly the opposite. You can't believe anything the enemy says without verification.

[Jackums]

You're basically just nitpicking at a statement that the Catalyst wasn't being entirely literal with, out of desperation to prove a point. When it said "no", it was referring to organics as a whole, not literally every single living being killed in the war.

[MisterJB]

Grimwick wrote...
Retaining the actual consciousness is also impossible - Legion claims that they all become one linked mind, that's not preservation of an individual consciousness at all. In fact that destroys the consciousness as it changes into another. It's not preserved.

A group consciousness of humanity would still be more preservation than the alternative that is extinction.

I do in fact have evidence that nothing is preserved. It's that slimy orange liquid. Also would like to point out that if I don't have 'evidence' as you claim then where is yours that any consciousness is preserved? The default standpoint shows liquification. I'd like to see how liquification maintains the necessary neurone connections to maintain the consciousness in it's original form...

Any sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be magic. Legion describes in ME2 a Reaper as billions of organic minds conjoined. The Codex in ME3 supports this by saying the Reapers have a Gestalt mind.
Also, from the wiki:

"Dialogue was removed fromMass Effect 2 that details theReaper harvesting process. EDI states that the captive humans were being reduced to their basic components by being dissected down to the atomic level. The data from the process could then be uploaded into aReaper's neural network, thus storing the knowledge and essence of the individual that was liquefied in the process. Harbinger indicates that being turned into aReaper is a form of rebirth. In reference to the fight with the Human-Reaper, Harbinger also states that Shepard is the one "wasting lives."

[Grimwick]

BDelacroix wrote...

Forgetting about all of that. The first casualty in any war is the truth. It is only a naive and apparently recent notion that your enemies are somehow compelled to tell the truth. It is most assuredly the opposite. You can't believe anything the enemy says without verification.

All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

Agreed.

[Uncle Jo]

The Reapers with their new boss don't care about organics. The Brat is lying.

As EDI said it, they are selfish and think only about their own self-preservation.

"Synthetics will always wipe out synthetics, that's why we ascend you". Yes, yes whatever...

Harvest: used to enhance themselves, produce new Reapers, replace eventual losses.

Tech singularity? Sure.

They harvest us before our technological advance makes us a threat for them.

They use overwhelming firepower, better tech and still have hard times. Imagine if they let us, let's say 5000 years more? They wouldn't stand a chance.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 05 juin 2012 - 04:56 .

[TheCrazyHobo]

I love how many people trust and believe the Catalyst even after the parallels that exist between them and Hitler's Germany.

Read the Codex entry on Reaper Harvesting and then go read/watch material on the Holocaust. Go listen to EDI's account of the death camps on Earth. When the Catalyst called the Reaper's his "Solution," I cringed. It immediately brought Hitler's "Final Solution" to mind.

If you want to trust the über-Hitler, fine go ahead, as for me, I shall be a little more discerning.

Modifié par TheCrazyHobo, 05 juin 2012 - 04:54 .

[SubAstris]

General User wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

kaotician wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

kaotician wrote...

No. My point is not that the deception succeeds or fails, it's that the Catalyst tries to deceive at all in the first place, by crassly represnting itself to us as something analogous to a human child - one it's lifted from Shepard's mind, and had killed too, as it happens. Whether the catalyst is succesful as a liar was not I think the question, it was whether he was per se a liar. 

If it was attempting to decieve you into believing it was a human child, it wouldn't have introduced itself as the Citadel.  And it would have probably done something about the whole glowing thing.

It may have been attempting to manipulate you - though I don't really see how appearing as the kid benefits it, if anything he's picked a form likely to ****** Shepard off - but that's not deception.  It's a normal part of communication, to attempt to present yourself and your opinions in a way that makes them appear convincing.  If I go to a job interview in a nice suit, clean shaven and with tidy hair, am I decieving them by not appearing as the slob that I truly am?

The purpose of appearing as a human child specifically means something to the Catalyst, and it must be that the Catalyst thinks it means something to you too. What exactly that is, we're not told in the writing, and can only infer. However, in representing himself in such a way, and via an ulterior or hidden motive, whilst purporting to be otherwise being completely truthful, he shows us that something is not quite true. Further, not only is something not quite true, but he hides that fact of truth from us too. That's deception, in the attempt, for me, and if he's attempting to persuade our cooperation via a deception, then he's seeking something for which his only recourse is an illusion to aid him. And that's a lie, as I see it.

Hidden or ulterior? You seem to imply that hidden necessarily means bad. If you met someone for the first time but they didn't, for example, tell you where they lived (even if it wasn't brought up in conversation), would you think they were being deceptive?

If they deliberately chose to give the name and address for someone I knew that had been murdered.  "Thinking them deceptive" would not even begin to cover my reaction.

I contest your view that the reason the Catalyst is in the form of the kid. It assumes first that Shepard cannot divorce mentally the boy from the image of it taken by the Catalyst.

Equally it could be argued the boy works on the contrary, by adopting this form it reminds Shepard of the Reaper's past atrocities

[SubAstris]

BDelacroix wrote...

Forgetting about all of that. The first casualty in any war is the truth. It is only a naive and apparently recent notion that your enemies are somehow compelled to tell the truth. It is most assuredly the opposite. You can't believe anything the enemy says without verification.

This is a story created intentionally by BW, just remember

[SubAstris]

TheCrazyHobo wrote...

I love how many people trust and believe the Catalyst even after the parallels that exist between them and Hitler's Germany.

Read the Codex entry on Reaper Harvesting and then go read/watch material on the Holocaust. Go listen to EDI's account of the death camps on Earth. When the Catalyst called the Reaper's his "Solution," I cringed. It immediately brought Hitler's "Final Solution" to mind.

If you want to trust the über-Hitler, fine go ahead, as for me, I shall be a little more discerning.

What it did was despicable. Whether he is lying or not, that is a different matter

[MisterJB]

Uncle Jo wrote...

The Reapers with their new boss don't care about organics. The Brat is lying.

As EDI said it, they are selfish and think only about their own self-preservation.

"Synthetics will always wipe out synthetics, that's why we ascend you". Yes, yes whatever...

Harvest: used to enhance themselves, produce new Reapers, replace eventual losses.

Tech singularity? Sure.

They harvest us before our technological advance makes us a threat for them.

They use overwhelming firepower, better tech and still have hard times. Imagine if they let us, let's say 5000 years more? They wouldn't stand a chance.

Nice fanfiction.

[kaotician]

SubAstris wrote...

kaotician wrote...

If I met someone for the first time, and I already knew that they were white, 26 and came from Wyoming, and then represented themselves to me as black, 46 and from england, I'd have been quite comfortable with saying they were lying.

Sorry, this post in answer to the next but one above me.

As if indeed this is a far comparison

How not? You've merely asserted a thing, not argued its' veracity.

[Grimwick]

MisterJB wrote...

Grimwick wrote...
Retaining the actual consciousness is also impossible - Legion claims that they all become one linked mind, that's not preservation of an individual consciousness at all. In fact that destroys the consciousness as it changes into another. It's not preserved.

A group consciousness of humanity would still be more preservation than the alternative that is extinction.

If you mix two liquids together to the point that they are inseparable then you are not preserving them.

Conjoing all the conscious minds together to the point that they form one hive mind is like reacting two chemicals together, it's not preservation.

I do in fact have evidence that nothing is preserved. It's that slimy orange liquid. Also would like to point out that if I don't have 'evidence' as you claim then where is yours that any consciousness is preserved? The default standpoint shows liquification. I'd like to see how liquification maintains the necessary neurone connections to maintain the consciousness in it's original form...

Any sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be magic. Legion describes in ME2 a Reaper as billions of organic minds conjoined. The Codex in ME3 supports this by saying the Reapers have a Gestalt mind.
Also, from the wiki:

"Dialogue was removed fromMass Effect 2 that details theReaper harvesting process. EDI states that the captive humans were being reduced to their basic components by being dissected down to the atomic level. The data from the process could then be uploaded into aReaper's neural network, thus storing the knowledge and essence of the individual that was liquefied in the process. Harbinger indicates that being turned into aReaper is a form of rebirth. In reference to the fight with the Human-Reaper, Harbinger also states that Shepard is the one "wasting lives."

1) Sci-fi does stretch the imagination but this really does take the biscuit (well I'd probably give synthesis that one). There are reasons as to why this was cut.
2) Storing essence =/= preservation. In fact, what on earth is the 'essence' of an individual, it obviously insn't a consciousness or they would have said that.
3) Rebirth =/= preservation. Also would like to say that since the discussion is whether you can trust the SC or not, I would not take Harbinger's words as evidence.
4) Chaos theory, chaos theory, chaos theory mixed with quantum mechanics ensures that it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to replicate objects exactly at the atomic level. I know this is sci-fi but the arguments from both sides are taking it to extreme levels here.
5) See point about hive mind.

[Sisterofshane]

ed87 wrote...

Helmschmied wrote...

Please, stop calling him the Catalyst. He can't be Catalyst, because if he is, the ones that designed the Crucible to begin with were the Reapers themselves, which don't make no sense.

The ending has provided us with the moral that you dont need to make sense.

Aesop must be rolling in his grave right about now.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Grimwick wrote...

Because bombing cities = fighting for survival. And it doesn't matter if it is war. If they are trying to preserve the organics then why are they killing them to ensure their own survival in the first place? They started it after all.

They can still use the dead corpses, as they show in the end with human corpses on the Citadel. Also, taking out cities puts them in tactical position to win. It's why they take away the Citadel at the beginning of their normal harvesting cycles.

It makes no tactical sense to sacrifice themselves to ensure that every last organic soul is harvested. They can't continue the cycles if they lose. Besides, plenty or organic species will come and go without them anyway. You think the 300,000 drell will be preserved? Harby says that Thane is useless in ME2, they probably won't even get a Destroyer.

Cloning =/= preservation. That is an interesting concept that has been debated many many times before. Uploading minds from genetic material is also ridiculous.
1) it is an assumption/heavy speculation. 2) chaos theory predicts that it would be nigh impossible to perfectly replicate it. 3) It's ridiculous from a sci-fi point as it requires unbelievable space-magic.

@2) Therefore it wouldn't be preserved.

You can't have it both ways. The Reapers have their own set definition of what they see as preserving organics. Whether or not YOU agree that it is really "preservation" is not the question here. Hell, Shepard disagreeing about it is canon anyways (see: last dialogue-wheel).

In
the end, what's being asked for here is if the Reapers' methods fit
their MO according to the Catalyst. And to him, they do. That they need to sacrifice and strategize to win the war is just common sense.

I wasn't writing off the narrative trend. I was writing it off as evidence to your claim. It's not evidence to say that if a writer did X in case A then it's obvious that he did X in case B. From the evidence I've seen the SC simply has no reason to be trusted/has no evidence to back his claims and saying that this is poor writing only proves my/TAO's point - that there is nothing to suggest that we should trust him.

It's more like, if a writer did X in case A, case B, and case C, then it's pretty likely he did X in case D.

People think the Catalyst takes Space Bieber's form to appeal to Shepard's emotional side. I say it's just Mac being an idiot.

[TMA LIVE]

The Angry One wrote...

I've pointed this out many times and I've yet to get a satisfactory response, therefore I am making a topic about it because I crave attention.

For the purposes of this discussion, we will assume that Reaper ascension is just that, that somehow melting bodies into grey/orange goo does ascend them into the mind of a superior (in the Catalyst's view) Reaper form.

Now, when Shepard states that the Reapers are killing organics, the Catalyst replies with a flat "No."
Reapers do not kill organics, they ascend and preserve them in Reaper form. It entirely dodges the fact that it murders other beings without "ascending" them.
Most blatantly, it takes the form of Vent Boy. Vent Boy, if you need any reminders, was blown up in a shuttle by a Reaper laser. No ascension to Reaper form, but vaporised in a fireball.

So really, how is the Catalyst at all believable when it not only lies to your face, it also flaunts the proof that it's lying in front of you for the entire scene!

Actually, it says it's not killing "All organic life". Not "Organic life".