473 réponses à ce sujet

[Uncle Jo]

MisterJB wrote...

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.

Cool comment.

[ArchDuck]

OdanUrr wrote...

"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:

...

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.

There are more lies as well. It is actually pretty impressive the amount of false/twisted statements they fit into only 14 lines of dialogue.
My personal pet peeve: "final evolution" The term is a falsehood as well as the concept.

As to the bolded part, we don't know if he is lying (intent to deceive) but he does tell falsehoods so we can say he is lying or delusional. Take your pick.

[MisterJB]

Grimwick: I'm tired of arguing semantics. Regardless if it is preservation or not, a Reaper's sentience is, as the game makes a point of making clear, born from the organics that compose it. The Catalyst belives this semblance of life is preferable to extinction which it considers to be inevitable. You can disagree with it if you want.
And FTL travel is also impossible but the Reapers created it.

[ArchDuck]

ThomaswBloom wrote...

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.

Just thought this point deserved a bump as it counters the main preservation/ascension argument.

[General User]

SubAstris wrote...
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

It's an interesting point to consider, and it's exactly why the Catalyst taking the form of that child is such an outrage. 

It may be that the Catalyst was just so fundamentally ingnorant of human nature that it actually believed assuming the child's form was actually an accepatble means of communicating.

That the catalyst does not seem to understand that Reapers are not infact "preserved" organics speaks to it being a legitimate mistake.  That the Catalyst lies about "ascending" individuals (vice just plain killing them) points to the Catalyst's nature as a liar.

I think... both.  The Catalyst tried to deceive Shepard, but was so ignorant it screwed it up.

[MisterJB]

Uncle Jo wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

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.

Cool comment.

Much obliged.

[The Night Mammoth]

It takes me to it via a magic lift when Shepard is on the edge of passing out from blood-loss.

The situation you find it in is suspect. Those two structures pertaining to control and destroy existing as part of the Citadel throws the Crucible's origin and purpose into susicious territory. The very existence of such an entity makes me question the point of ME1's and ME2's main plot.

By some means, it takes the form of a child Shepard has been dreaming about, who she subconsciously focused all her uncertainty, fear, and grief on, meaning it is likely manipulating you.

One of its lines of dialogue inform you that it controls the Reapers. Yes, the giant murder robots that are responsible for the deaths of uncountable trillions and who you have been fighting against for the past three years. It also considers itself part of them, it is a Reaper for all intents and purposes.

After that gem, it talks about some baloney problem involving synthetics wiping out organics, that makes literally no sense, which has no proof, and runs contrary to pretty much everything I did with Legion, on Rannoch, and with EDI.

But graciously, it tells me the outcomes of the three choices. Well, I say outcome, but I really mean almost nothing at all, and none of it makes any sense.

To top it all off, it only allows me to choose, and it determines at least one of the options. So I'm ending things on its terms.

Other than "you're almost dead", which is evidently wrong, and "you have no choice", which is undetermined because we aren't allowed to find one, why should I trust? Anyone have a reason?

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 05 juin 2012 - 05:10 .

[Grimwick]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

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.

The Citadel corpses aren't seen as being processed/preserved. They aren't evidence.

Dead corpses are dead. The consciousness is gone. That isn't preservation at all.

Taking out cities is not necessarily tactical, but that's beside the point.
The point I was trying to make is that bombarding cities rather than harvesting them is counter to the original goal.

They took out the Citadel because it is usually the political hub and contains masses of census data, other cities wouldn't provide this oppurtunity.

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.

You can't change a definition to justify your opinion.

Of course the reaper's method's fit their MO. the SC is the guardian of the cycle! It's whether or not WE should believe in the methods which is the problem. If we don't believe in his original methods then we shouldn't trust the SC when he suggests other methods.

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.

The optive word here is highlighted. It's also irrelevant.

The SC's appeal to emotion is also not the point, it's whether or not you can trust him.

[OdanUrr]

ArchDuck wrote...

My personal pet peeve: "final evolution" The term is a falsehood as well as the concept.

As to the bolded part, we don't know if he is lying (intent to deceive) but he does tell falsehoods so we can say he is lying or delusional. Take your pick.

Synthesis really breaks the game, so I'm not particularly blaming the Catalyst for it. That's some really lousy (with all due respect) writing, it just doesn't make sense neither from a biological nor from a physical standpoint as to how the Crucible is able to make organics more synthetic and synthetics more organic.

I may have missed some of the "falsehoods" you mention above. If you'd be so kind as to direct me to them, I'll do my best to meditate upon them.

[Grimwick]

MisterJB wrote...

Grimwick: I'm tired of arguing semantics. Regardless if it is preservation or not, a Reaper's sentience is, as the game makes a point of making clear, born from the organics that compose it. The Catalyst belives this semblance of life is preferable to extinction which it considers to be inevitable. You can disagree with it if you want.
And FTL travel is also impossible but the Reapers created it.

Whether or not the Catalyst believe in it is not the point. The point is whether WE should believe in it.

If we don't believe in his original method why should we believe any other suggestions he makes? We shouldn't.
So yes, I disagree with the SC's methods and therefore cannot trust him.

Also, although this is a moot point, FTL travel is possible because of eezo, an introduced and expanded concept. The concept which underpins the game.
It allows some of the physics of the universe to change whereas the rest remains largely the same.

Introducing something which can do something as absurd as recreating matter on an exact molecular scale is not based on sci-fi, it's based on space magic.

Modifié par Grimwick, 05 juin 2012 - 05:19 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

If the reapers are supposed to make sure that synthetics do not dominate organics then it seems counterproductive to me to exterminate or "ascent" organics in the most horrific way imaginable. By using terror the good intentions are questionable, to say the least. To me extermination and "ascension through destruction" are genocide, because the races involved cease to exist one way or another. In the case of violent ascension it is clear that the reapers lost all empathy, compassion and ethics. It also violates the right of self-determination. It also ends free will, because the "nation" locked up in a reaper has nowhere to go and has nothing left than to accept its faith. The cyclical nightmare was intended to go on until the end of time with no chance to wake up.

The reapers are not interested in synthetics. That is a rationalization. They are interested in harvesting organics and technology. It is their way to reproduce and stay on top of the food chain.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 05 juin 2012 - 05:37 .

[Sisterofshane]

MisterJB wrote...

Grimwick: I'm tired of arguing semantics. Regardless if it is preservation or not, a Reaper's sentience is, as the game makes a point of making clear, born from the organics that compose it. The Catalyst belives this semblance of life is preferable to extinction which it considers to be inevitable. You can disagree with it if you want.
And FTL travel is also impossible but the Reapers created it.

I can agree that somehow the Reapers are capable of preserving both our genetic material and our collective consciousness - Legion says as much if you ever take the time to talk to him about it.

But then the Catalyst uses them as mere tools - they are not allowed to think for themselves, and they are sacrificed in battle to "ascend" the most current species of organics.  The fact of the matter is that if the Catalyst truly cared about ascending species, they would not be risked in combat.  Period.

So why all the spin about "ascension", if it is not somehow trying to convince Shepard that it has been just in it's actions?  Why is it so adament to avoid the term "kill", even though as The Angry One so correctly put in the OP, it does kill some individuals in order to achieve it's goal? Why does it need us to accept it's solution?

[Grimwick]

OdanUrr wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...

My personal pet peeve: "final evolution" The term is a falsehood as well as the concept.

As to the bolded part, we don't know if he is lying (intent to deceive) but he does tell falsehoods so we can say he is lying or delusional. Take your pick.

Synthesis really breaks the game, so I'm not particularly blaming the Catalyst for it. 

But he suggested it. It's a suggestion which is impossible so why should we trust him?

[Sisterofshane]

ArchDuck wrote...

ThomaswBloom wrote...

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.

Just thought this point deserved a bump as it counters the main preservation/ascension argument.

LOL, just wanted to point out that when you make fruit into a jam, it is sometimes called "preserves".  You know, it's the idea that as a jam the fruit will last longer then if it was left as just fruit, which totally fits the catalysts views IMO.

I do agree, however, that it is not turning us into Reapers for the mere sake of "preserving" us, but rather to use us as tools to further in it's goals.

[SubAstris]

General User wrote...

SubAstris wrote...
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

It's an interesting point to consider, and it's exactly why the Catalyst taking the form of that child is such an outrage. 

It may be that the Catalyst was just so fundamentally ingnorant of human nature that it actually believed assuming the child's form was actually an accepatble means of communicating.

That the catalyst does not seem to understand that Reapers are not infact "preserved" organics speaks to it being a legitimate mistake.  That the Catalyst lies about "ascending" individuals (vice just plain killing them) points to the Catalyst's nature as a liar.

I think... both.  The Catalyst tried to deceive Shepard, but was so ignorant it screwed it up.

And yet you believe that he was actively trying to deceive Catalyst, how can one attempt to deceive without knowledge of human nature?

He never says he ascends every single individual of every single species because some want to destroy the Reapers. That is not feasible. It is feasible however that having subjugated the races they can then be transformed into Reaper form

[Grimwick]

Sisterofshane wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...

ThomaswBloom wrote...

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.

Just thought this point deserved a bump as it counters the main preservation/ascension argument.

LOL, just wanted to point out that when you make fruit into a jam, it is sometimes called "preserves".  You know, it's the idea that as a jam the fruit will last longer then if it was left as just fruit, which totally fits the catalysts views IMO.

A fruit preserve is independent of the word preserve.

In a fruit preserve the preserve indicates that the fruit lasts longer. Not that it is retained in it's original state which is what preserve means.

Thats a misapplication of the word.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Grimwick wrote...

The Citadel corpses aren't seen as being processed/preserved. They aren't evidence.

The point I was trying to make is that bombarding cities rather than harvesting them is counter to the original goal.

It is reasoned by Anderson and Shepard that the corpses are rounded up at the Citadel to make a new Reaper, which makes it the obvious intent of the writers to establish it as such.

What, are Reaper husks supposed to just go door-to-door and send out invitations to being harvested?

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.

You can't change a definition to justify your opinion.

Of course the reaper's method's fit their MO. the SC is the guardian of the cycle! It's whether or not WE should believe in the methods which is the problem. If we don't believe in his original methods then we shouldn't trust the SC when he suggests other methods.

The one changing definitions is you. Sorry, the Reapers only care about what they believe is preserving, not what you do (if they did, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place).

Look, NOBODY here believes in his methods. Again, Shepard doesn't either, the last dialogue-wheel we get is disagreeing with what the Reapers do. It's the premise that he's lying about preserving organics in Reaper form, because there is collateral damage that won't be properly harvested. But it can be reasoned with common sense why not EVERYTHING in the galaxy will be. It would likely be impossible to accomplish that, and surely inefficient to try it.

The optive word here is highlighted. It's also irrelevant.

The SC's appeal to emotion is also not the point, it's whether or not you can trust him.

And people make the case that his form as Space Bieber means he can't be trusted, because the Reapers are using that to make Shepard emotionally-invested and therein manipulate him. So nope, still a relevant point.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 05 juin 2012 - 05:32 .

[ArchDuck]

Grimwick wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...

ThomaswBloom wrote...

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.

Just thought this point deserved a bump as it counters the main preservation/ascension argument.

LOL, just wanted to point out that when you make fruit into a jam, it is sometimes called "preserves".  You know, it's the idea that as a jam the fruit will last longer then if it was left as just fruit, which totally fits the catalysts views IMO.

A fruit preserve is independent of the word preserve.

In a fruit preserve the preserve indicates that the fruit lasts longer. Not that it is retained in it's original state which is what preserve means.

Thats a misapplication of the word.

But still an amusing observation.

[The Night Mammoth]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

The Citadel corpses aren't seen as being processed/preserved. They aren't evidence.

The point I was trying to make is that bombarding cities rather than harvesting them is counter to the original goal.

It is reasoned by Anderson and Shepard, which makes it the obvious intent of the writers to establish it as such.

What, are Reaper husks supposed to just go door-to-door and send out invitations to being harvested?

Seeker swarms. 

Not that they seemed to have a problem subjugating populations anyway, cooperation isn't required when they already have people funneled into giant oppresive death camps. 

[kaotician]

If he turned me into a Reaper, and if I had free will, I'd turn around and blow the little b*****d and his Citadel to kingdom come. The fact that the Reapers don't implies to me that they are subjugated and merely used by the Catalyst as weapons of war, to be discarded and abndoned at their end - see Reaper relic details in ME1.

Modifié par kaotician, 05 juin 2012 - 05:43 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

The Citadel corpses aren't seen as being processed/preserved. They aren't evidence.

The point I was trying to make is that bombarding cities rather than harvesting them is counter to the original goal.

It is reasoned by Anderson and Shepard, which makes it the obvious intent of the writers to establish it as such.

What, are Reaper husks supposed to just go door-to-door and send out invitations to being harvested?

Seeker swarms. 

Not that they seemed to have a problem subjugating populations anyway, cooperation isn't required when they already have people funneled into giant oppresive death camps.

True, but 'swarms had a time and place. It's unclear if they still exist, or if they are even viable for big enough populations such as Earth.

The Collectors had to be discreet and not attract attention too. The Reapers tearing things apart is different. Psychological warfare, tactical advantages in taking away resources/important infrastructure.

[Grimwick]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

The Citadel corpses aren't seen as being processed/preserved. They aren't evidence.

The point I was trying to make is that bombarding cities rather than harvesting them is counter to the original goal.

It is reasoned by Anderson and Shepard, which makes it the obvious intent of the writers to establish it as such.

What, are Reaper husks supposed to just go door-to-door and send out invitations to being harvested?

Don't resort to incredulity when none exists.

The reapers could have harvested ALL the cities rather than simply killing them all. Did I ever suggest something as stupid as you did? No. 

The one changing definitions is you. Sorry, the Reapers only care about what they believe is preserving, not what you do (if they did, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place).

Whether or not they believe in their definition is independent of the ACTUAL meaning and idea behind the word. They are wrong and there is no room for maneouvre here.. It is not preservation even if they believe it is so.

Look, NOBODY here believes in his methods.

Then why do you believe his new methods? Why should we trust that his new methods are at all different in their intent?

And people make the case that his form as Space Bieber means he can't be trusted, because the Reapers are using that to make Shepard emotionally-invested and therein manipulate him. So nope, still a relevant point.

Saying that he is being manipulative because the writers went a bit too far? From the evidence, the fact that the writers even wrote that in at all, the claim of manipulation is most evident.

Saying that he's only in child form because the writers wrote it that way is ridiculous.

[The Night Mammoth]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

True, but 'swarms had a time and place. It's unclear if they still exist, or if they are even viable for big enough populations such as Earth.

The codex mentions them at least once, and they could use them on small parts of the population at the time. 

The Collectors had to be discreet and not attract attention too. The Reapers tearing things apart is different. Psychological warfare, tactical advantages in taking away resources/important infrastructure.

All true, but the Reapers already had people in death camps. It's not like they were faced with rounding them all up, which wouldn't exactly be a problem either given indoctrination and the capability of a massive army of husks. 

[Lord Goose]

 

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.

Are we even played the same game? You're so wrong, what it almost hurts.

Catalyst: We found a way to restore order for the next cycle.

Shepard: By wiping out organic life?

Catalyst: No. We harvest advanced civilizations, leaving the youger ones alone.

Catalyst: Just as we left your people alive the last time we were here.

(Shepard meant, that Reapers destroy organic life in general. Catalyst counters this by saying that they were only targeting advanced civilizations, and didn't touched those, who were not advanced, just as they did with humanity. This statement also supported by Hackett's remark about Yahg homeworld. Reapers spared Yahg, because they were on the level of XX century).

Shepard: But you've killed the rest...

Catalyst: We helped them ascend so they can make way for new life, storing the old life in Reaper form.

"The rest", obviously, means other species. It flows from the context.

You can see all converstaion here.



So, he isn't lying. At very least, you have no evidence to claim so.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 05 juin 2012 - 05:45 .

[Sisterofshane]

Grimwick wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

LOL, just wanted to point out that when you make fruit into a jam, it is sometimes called "preserves".  You know, it's the idea that as a jam the fruit will last longer then if it was left as just fruit, which totally fits the catalysts views IMO.

A fruit preserve is independent of the word preserve.

In a fruit preserve the preserve indicates that the fruit lasts longer. Not that it is retained in it's original state which is what preserve means.

Thats a misapplication of the word.

NO, one of the dictionary definitions of Preserve is to prepare any perishable substance as to resist decomposition.  We typically apply it to food (and, well, remains of once living things).  It is not just a label, but also a process.

It is highly possible that this type of process is an allegory to what happens to organics who are turned into Reapers.  Do I want this to happen? Heck no.  Does it fit?  Yes.