473 réponses à ce sujet

[OdanUrr]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Since we're talking about the brat, his logic, etc.. I'll post some questions which were never answered in other threads. Maybe I'll have more luck here.

- If the Brat is the Catalyst, what in the hell was doing Sovereign in ME1? What was his purpose?

- Why didn't he help Sovereign?

- Why didn't the brat activate the Citadel as Relay himself? Was he taking a nap?

 

On the first part...

If you want proof, there's none.

If you want a story, here's one.

[Shallyah]

Basically, people who defend that the Catalyst is not lying claim that he thinks that what it says is right.

Examples:

1) It thinks Shepard would die, or has very high chances to. But Shepard doesn't die. It doesn't mean the Catalyst lied, it just was wrong.

2) It thinks that the Reapers are ascending races, even if to us it looks like outright mass genocide. Even when only humans in this cycle are being "ascended", while every other race is being used as brainless shock troops or killed on spot. But even then the Catalyst firmly believes that the Reapers are making way for new life, and saving Organic life through its actions. Again, it doesn't mean the Catalyst is lying. Just that, once again, its belieft or reasoning is wrong.

3) The Catalyst believes that the Created will always rebel against the Creators. And there we have the Geth and the Quarians helping each other to thrive, while EDI is having a romantic relationship with my pilot. Again, the defense consists in saying that the Catalyst doesn't lie. It's just wrong... again.


So let's buy it. Let's say the Catalyst defenders (who are usually Pro-Control people) are right. The Catalyst is not lying. It says things just as it believes them. When it tells you that you can Control the Reapers, it believes it is a possibility. When it tells you that the Geth will die, it believes it's what would happen.

It's just that, you know, of all the things the Catalyst says, those that can be proven, all prove that the Catalyst is wrong. The created are not rebelling against the creators (we have proof of the Geth and the Quarians living thriving together, the rest are assumptions and headcanoning). The Reapers are causing mass-genocide, and not ascending people, at least not in any way that remotely resembles what we understand as "ascending". And last but not least, Shepard doesn't die, despite the Catalyst heavily implying it (couldn't care lress if it says it directly or not. Every person who played that sequence understood that the Catalyst was clearly saying that Shepard would die too).

Of all the tihngs the Catalyst says, none are proven right at any point. I'll repeat for emphasis. None of the things the Catalyst says can be proven true without more assumptions and headcanoning from fans. We never get proof of the Geth dying in Destroy ending. We never get proof of Shepard controlling the Reapers in Control ending (they leave, but so do they leave with Synthesis, without Shepard's control. They may just as easily consider there is nothing left in Earth for them at that point and simply leave), there's no proof or evidence of the creators rebelling against the created. There is nothing that ever gives a glimpse of credibility to the Catalyst.

So, even if I want to buy the scenario in which the Catalyst isn't lying consciously, there's really no reason to believe anything it says, because of all it says, half of it is proven wrong, and half of it can't be proven true.

That's the only reality about the Catalyst. That's the solid facts. Then we can all let our imagination fly, and fantasize about how Shepard will make the Reapers fly into the Sun after they nicely repair the Mass Relays for you, or dream about how the Galaxy is actually saved because the created would eventually rebel against the creators, or have wet dreams about how Shepard having space-sex with Liara in Catalyst form.

But whenever you do that, remember that it's just in your head, and there is absolutely zero proof of it happening. As such, it's as valid as assuming that the Reapers will destroy all the fleets as they leave Earth, and organic life will be terminated within the year as the Catalyst smirks at your stupidity.

Modifié par Shallyah, 05 juin 2012 - 09:12 .

[AxeloftheKey]

No, OP, you're mistaken.
Shepard says, "By wiping out organic life?" to which the Catalyst responds no.

And that's true. They don't wipe out organic life. They harvest some of it, kill others, spare others. Wiping out implies killing every bit of organic life. The Reapers don't do that, they leave certain species alone each cycle. The Catalyst isn't lying.

You can't tell me that the Catalyst is lying there. His response to Shepard's exact words are true. The Reapers don't wipe out organic life. The Catalyst never claims that they don't kill anybody, just that they don't wipe out organic life, which they don't, they leave some organics each cycle and harvest the others.

Modifié par AxeloftheKey, 05 juin 2012 - 09:13 .

[Lord Goose]

It thinks Shepard would die, or has very high chances to.

If he thinks that Shepard would die, he could just said that. As he did, in, you know, Control. I think it was clear, that synthetic parts of Shepard, which were installed by Cerberus would cease to function

Even when only humans in this cycle are being "ascended", while every other race is being used as brainless shock troops or killed on spot.

Codex entry states, that Reapers was going to harvest all sentient races, actually. Codex also states this:

Unfortunately, the Reapers' greater numbers allowed them to accept certain losses, so they soon ignored the attacks against them and began orbital bombardment of Thessia. This in turn forced the asari to defend their homeworld with a more traditional stance, facing the Reaper forces directly. As soon as the Reapers landed on Thessia, the harvesting began.

The Reapers are causing mass-genocide, and not ascending people, at least not in any way that remotely resembles what we understand as "ascending".

Why would we understand the Reapers, if it was stated numerous times what we cannot comprehend?

[Shallyah]

Lord Goose wrote...

Why would we understand the Reapers, if it was stated numerous times what we cannot comprehend?

So basically, because flies eat sh*t and it's good for them, one day the fly Catalyst will come and tell us its logic, and then we all gotta accept they are right and begin eating sh*t. 

Which is what you do by accepting the Catalyst's logic.

You know, I think I rather keep eating vegetables and steaks in my infinite ignorance.

Modifié par Shallyah, 05 juin 2012 - 09:21 .

[AtlasMickey]

The Catalyst has a very warped view of everything. That doesn't mean he's lying.

Edit: But he could be. I have not counted that out. He could also just simply be wrong. He's not god.

Modifié par AtlasMickey, 05 juin 2012 - 09:39 .

[Taboo]

AtlasMickey wrote...

The Catalyst has a very warped view of everything. That doesn't mean he's lying.

Edit: But he could be. I have not counted that out. He could also just simply be wrong. He's not god.

I don't think he's lying, I believe he is fallible. He presents a theory and doesn't do much to back it up. He reminds me of people who try and disprove evolution with the Bible.

Perform a study, have it peer reviewed and get back to me with results.

I would think in several million years he should be able to do that.

[TJX2045]

The Angry One wrote...
The "ascension" lie is particularily damning because it is SHOWING YOU the proof that it's lying right there. 
It would be like a serial killer proclaiming their innocence while carrying the severed heads of their victims in a bag right there in court.

RavenEyry wrote...

Funny how a lot of the people who say he's not lying about Shep dying in destroy because he only infers it also insist the geth must die because Mr. Sparkle says so, even though that was also an inference.

 

+1 Internets to both of you.

And I myself am really interested to see what people think who believe that the Catalyst is completely trustworthy.

Modifié par TJX2045, 05 juin 2012 - 09:59 .

[Uncle Jo]

OdanUrr wrote...


On the first part...

If you want proof, there's none.

If you want a story, here's one.

Very interesting read.  As for the organic mind being chosen as Overseer... I don't know... I always think of David Archer and Overlord.
Every AI has a blue box and can't be transferred across a computer network, so how was it going to transfer his consciousness in the Citadel? A new blue box create a new personnality and without blue box the AI is no more than a file compilation?

Anyway the Brat in this case is sure a poser...

- the Brat: The Reapers were my solution... but betrayed me and...trapped me here... waaaaaaa!
- Shep : Shhh... come on... don't cry... everthing will be fine...

The organics sure search for immortality or at least live as long as possible... However I don't think that they would like be to changed/merged with synthetics to achieve it.

Thanks for the read.

[Lord Goose]

Which is what you do by accepting the Catalyst's logic.

I'm not accepting his logic. But I'm trying to understand his logic. Do not need to go so WH40K, and treating me as moral hazard.

Of course, Catalyst logic is twisted. His ascension leaves people without future, choice, hope. He clearly doesn't understand what life is.

But that doesn't make him liar. He really thinks that it is better to give people ascension, than let organic life to be wiped out by synthetics.

I would like to compare him to Han'Gerel. Was he fighting for future of quarians? Yes. Was he an idiot? Yes. Was he lying? No.

[Uncle Jo]

AtlasMickey wrote...

The Catalyst has a very warped view of everything. That doesn't mean he's lying.

Edit: But he could be. I have not counted that out. He could also just simply be wrong. He's not god.

An AI (since most of people seem to think the brat is one) is able to evolve. I just think of EDI or the Geth and see the way they went in ME2 and ME3, how much they've changed.
Yet the Brat is older than 1 Billion of years and couldn't modify or adapt his perception of the world?
He's indeed the most stupid AI the galaxy has ever known... Let alone the Reapers.

[George-Kinsill]

Although I'm sure this will be lost in the flood of posts, the Catalyst can be dishonest and not lie. If some one purposefully leaves out important facts, uses the context of what has been said to make strong inferences or make someone believe something off that statement based on logical flow, they are not being entirely honest. They may not be blatant liars, but they are dishonest.

Example: A student is enrolled in 7 classes with 4 A's and 3 F's. Their parent asks, "How did you do this semester," and the student replies, "I got 4 A's!" while not telling them about the other grades. This would be a lie of omission.

In any case, I hope we can all agree that the Catalyst is not the exemplar of openness and honesty. He uses questionable tactics (especially taking the form of the child) and uses common shady lawyer maneuvers and legal speak (I know this because I have done this myself in legal cases).

In any event, I can't bring myself to trust the Catalyst. The fact we can't challenge him or even conduct some investigative dialogue is a bad move. If we can't challenge him because everything he says is true, then BioWare did a poor job making us believe him with poor writing.

[TJX2045]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
4.) He could destroyed the Crucible himself and carried on, but he didn't. Even when Destroy is the only option (and he clearly objects to it).

This is wrong.  He says the Crucible opened up new opportunities but he can't make them happen.



Even if he COULD, they've docked the crucbile on board the Citadel.  The Reapers knew nothing about the Crucible until TIM told them, and the Cataylst may have known any attempt to attack them would be inevitable since they would not be able to preserve anyone in their new forms (no more human reaper from ME2) and they've already lost 4 Reapers from their army (Sovereign, the Human Reaper, Tuchanka Reaper and Rannoch Reaper).

Sure, he could attempt to blow up the Crucible, but the explosion would not have been "contained" as it is in the ending.  The Reapers were too late to destroy it before it was fully completed.  Why would he destroy the Crucible when it's docked right on the CItadel where he resides?  It'd destroy him too.  He could be trying to save his own skin when talking to Shepard of course because he knows that unless he provides other options he will be destroyed.

We were told numerous times that we don't know how strong the Crucible really is, and the Reapers may not even know how much stronger it's been made with all the war assets.

Of course all we have overall is speculation but there's nothing that proves that Starchild isn't sitting there and lying to your face or blocking out the truths presented to him.

Modifié par TJX2045, 05 juin 2012 - 10:11 .

[TJX2045]

George-Kinsill wrote...

Although I'm sure this will be lost in the flood of posts, the Catalyst can be dishonest and not lie. If some one purposefully leaves out important facts, uses the context of what has been said to make strong inferences or make someone believe something off that statement based on logical flow, they are not being entirely honest. They may not be blatant liars, but they are dishonest. 

I know you do not trust the starchild, but there was something you posted I wanted to highlight.

Dishonest - characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness :unfair, deceptive.

(source:Merriam-Webster)

More paradox with Starchild.  He is dishonest AND does lie.

[httinks2006]

Malchat wrote...

Let's say for a moment I accept the Catalyst premise and find his goal of preserving organic life in Reaper form a reasonable and proportionate solution to his stated problem...

...then I still have to rationalize the incomprehensibly extensive and enduring cruelty of the Reaper´s methods.

They don't just surgically and methodically reap the Galaxy, in an efficient and detached manner... no, they violate, mutilate and twist organic life into ugly, barbaric and disposable new forms to be thrown against the desperate survivors.

They instigate strife and bitter warefare among races, creating the horror of the Rachni war or the despair of the Geth invasion.

They invade the very minds and souls of people, perverting them to betray and murder their former friends and allies.

Their sparse communications are deliberately taunting, omnious and calculated to cause despair.

The Reapers are god-machines with no other purpose than to perpuate cruelty on an unimaginable scale, for eternity.

The Catalyst claims he masterminded all of this.

And somehow Commander Shepard, and by extension the player, is supposed to listen to this thing and think 'Hmm... you know what, he has a point. I better follow his suggestions.'

Even my most Renegade Shepard would not go along with this. As a player, I cannot twist my personal ethics to even consider this monster's position as valid.

Bioware representatives who think that going along with (or, equally bad, being mind-controlled by) the Catalyst is somehow heroic and appropriate after subjecting the player to three games of Reaper horror... well, I'll be over here deriding your artistic choices.

this

[malakim2099]

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.

Actually, it makes perfect sense.

Think about it. And about all the resources devoted to build the Crucible... only to have it do... nothing???

Modifié par malakim2099, 05 juin 2012 - 10:30 .

[Thor187]

httinks2006 wrote...

Malchat wrote...

Let's say for a moment I accept the Catalyst premise and find his goal of preserving organic life in Reaper form a reasonable and proportionate solution to his stated problem...

...then I still have to rationalize the incomprehensibly extensive and enduring cruelty of the Reaper´s methods.

They don't just surgically and methodically reap the Galaxy, in an efficient and detached manner... no, they violate, mutilate and twist organic life into ugly, barbaric and disposable new forms to be thrown against the desperate survivors.

They instigate strife and bitter warefare among races, creating the horror of the Rachni war or the despair of the Geth invasion.

They invade the very minds and souls of people, perverting them to betray and murder their former friends and allies.

Their sparse communications are deliberately taunting, omnious and calculated to cause despair.

The Reapers are god-machines with no other purpose than to perpuate cruelty on an unimaginable scale, for eternity.

The Catalyst claims he masterminded all of this.

And somehow Commander Shepard, and by extension the player, is supposed to listen to this thing and think 'Hmm... you know what, he has a point. I better follow his suggestions.'

Even my most Renegade Shepard would not go along with this. As a player, I cannot twist my personal ethics to even consider this monster's position as valid.

Bioware representatives who think that going along with (or, equally bad, being mind-controlled by) the Catalyst is somehow heroic and appropriate after subjecting the player to three games of Reaper horror... well, I'll be over here deriding your artistic choices.

this

Yup, what they said.

[TJX2045]

You know...looking back at the conversation with Starchild...something else irks me...

Shepard: But there will be peace?
Starchild: "The cycle will end. Synthesis is the final evolution of life, but we need each other to make it happen. You have a difficult decision. Releasing the energy of the Crucible will end the cycle, but it will also destroy the mass relays."

So Starchild spends all that time hyping up "Synthesis" and making it seem to be the best "solution" and one that will end the cycle...when any of the choices will end the cycle. <_< ROFL. *facepalm*

Modifié par TJX2045, 05 juin 2012 - 10:33 .

[Lord Goose]

lie by omission

What exactly Catalyst did ommited?

I also remember reading an interview about pre-release changes. It was also planned to have Shepard larger interaction with Catalyst, but in the end everything was cut out.

[Heeden]

Grimwick wrote...

Maybe he doesn't hold ALL the cards and is worried that the Crucible might work.

Therefore he sets up a trap.

Maybe he can't activate the devices he wants to himself? So persuades Shepard to do it for him, where in fact they are traps/help the reapers...

Of course it would be much easier and safer to leave the Catalyst for now and have a look at it after finishing the harvest, rather than allowing a one in three chance of having everything destroyed.

EDIT - It's also a moot point because as the antagonist his default position is as an enemy.

Therefore the defaulty position of Shepard should be mistrust and therefore it is proponents of trustworthiness who have the burden of evidence.

I've always played Shepard as pursuing communication before elimination and that approach doesn't work if you assume everyone is lying - just because someone is trying to kill you doesn't make them dishonest.

You always have the fourth ending - Shepard ignores the Catalyst, bleeds to death on the Citadel watching the grand fleet explode around him and our cycle ends, ready for the next.

[httinks2006]

RavenEyry wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
Preservation as a Reaper is preferable to complete extinction.

But preservation as a reaper is complete extinction. I'm unable to look at it any other way.

so real life earth if we were told we were going be turned into gooey slime , we would just accept it ?  remind me not to join  up with you if aliens ever invade the earth.....

[TJX2045]

httinks2006 wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
Preservation as a Reaper is preferable to complete extinction.

But preservation as a reaper is complete extinction. I'm unable to look at it any other way.

so real life earth if we were told we were going be turned into gooey slime , we would just accept it ?  remind me not to join  up with you if aliens ever invade the earth.....

[Lord Goose]

as a reaper is complete extinction. I'm unable to look at it any other way.

No one is arguing that his worldview is morally acceptable. But he isn 't lying, he is just thinking in different way.

[httinks2006]

MisterJB wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
So? Even if we assume a couple of weeks passed at most, harvesting takes at least a decade for a world like Earth.
Let's assume it's half that for Kahje. No, let's be real generous and say it'd take a year. That's still too long.

Yes, it would be awfully fast, even taking into consideration Kahje would put much less resistance than Earth or Thessia. That doesn't mean it did not happen since it's hard to tell the passage of the time during the game.

It killed a significant chunk of them. It completely dodges this and chooses to lie by claiming they were ascended.

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

Actually you're the one going in circles , it does not perserve life , when you are turned into goo everything that is the definition of life is ripped away from you .

[Uncle Jo]

malakim2099 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.

Actually, it makes perfect sense.

Think about it. And about all the resources devoted to build the Crucible... only to have it do... nothing???

*image removed*

This. The Crucible being a red-herring, a failsave, leading the Galaxy to spend all the resources left to build a giant-supergun that'll never work.. Would explain why the Reapers took the citadel to Earth instead of hiding it somewhere else. All the allied forces gathered at one point, wiped out at one go, making the rest of the Reapers job easy. I would laugh my *ss off if it were to be true.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 05 juin 2012 - 10:56 .