473 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

TJX2045 wrote...

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

He can't make RGB happen, but he could easily let the Crucible get destroyed.

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).

No sense was made here.

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.

The Critical Mission Failure screen at the end of the game says otherwise. The Crucible gets destroyed somehow if Shepard stands around too long without making a decision. No destruction of the Citadel, and if there were, it wouldn't be a mission failure if that would destroy the Reapers.

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.

Except the five - count 'em, FIVE - counterpoints I made to that "argument" that no one has successfully proven wrong.

[httinks2006]

MisterJB wrote...

Grimwick wrote...
No it doesn't. It kills them.
There is nothing left of the original race that is preserved within the reapers...
And in the end it kills all organic races...
Your point?

From your perspective, not the Catalyst's.
And my point is that it is not lying. It just looks at things differently.

so if a mass murder looks as his killings from a different perspective and saying he was helping his victims find peace that would be ok with you ???? really ???

[httinks2006]

MisterJB wrote...

Grimwick wrote...
The word preservation represents a universal concept.
He can't randomly change the definition to suit his liking.

Preservation means to keep alive. If something is sentient, it is alive. The Reapers that originated from organics are alive. Therefore, it is preservation. From a certain point of view.

so if you cut out my heart and place it in someone elses body I live on ??

[httinks2006]

MisterJB wrote...

Grimwick wrote...
Preservation: The act of preserving.

Preserving: 

Maintain (something) in its original or existing state/Retain (a condition or state of affairs).
I'm sorry but that's just wrong.

"To maintain in safety from injury, peril, or harm; protect."

by turning them into husks you're keeping them in safe , by mutating them your stopping them from being injured ?so by killing organics your saving them from harm ? your preventing them from being in peril ? and you're protecting them  from death ?

[httinks2006]

MisterJB wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
It's like Frankenstein's Monster.

It's a combination of bodies.

It is NOT me.

Maybe so but it is still a preservation of organics since the alternative is extinction at synthetic hands. Depending on the perspective, something surviving is better than nothing at all.
This goes for you too, grimwick, BTW.

That would be an assumption there is no proof , just a word of an admitted mass murderer and torture of trillions of lives

[OdanUrr]

Uncle Jo wrote...

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.

Of course, there' just one problem. This is not how the Reapers have operated in the past. Their MO has always been activating the dark space relay, taking control of the Citadel, shutting down the relay network, and then begin their culling one system at a time. On the other hand, you propose (or someone else did, dunno) that the Reapers somehow anticipated this cycle would be "different" and thus knew their plan would fail, committed resources to it anyway, and also left blueprints for a device that was never supposed to work in the hopes someone would find them and actually commit resources to building the thing, bypassing the fact that nobody understands what it is or how it works.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 05 juin 2012 - 11:27 .

[Candoo]

Theodoro wrote...

Not to mention that the Catalyst also says that Shepard will die in the Destroy ending, saying that even he/she is "partly synthetic". The mere fact that Shepard does survive the Destroy ending when the Catalyst just said that he/she wouldn't is a hint that he should not be trusted.

How do you know, 100%, that IS Shepard that you see in the breathe scene?

[George-Kinsill]

TJX2045 wrote...

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.

I know that BioWare WANTS me to trust the Catalyst, but everything considered, they have not given me a reason to trust him. Until the EC proves otherwise, I'm taking everything he says with a grain of salt. You shouldn't take everthing a dishonest person says as inherently the truth.

Also, thanks for the definition and back up. 

[TOBY FLENDERSON]

The catalyst is the universes most accomplished mass murderer, why would any one ever trust him?

[OdanUrr]

Candoo wrote...

Theodoro wrote...

Not to mention that the Catalyst also says that Shepard will die in the Destroy ending, saying that even he/she is "partly synthetic". The mere fact that Shepard does survive the Destroy ending when the Catalyst just said that he/she wouldn't is a hint that he should not be trusted.

How do you know, 100%, that IS Shepard that you see in the breathe scene?

You know, something I never did realise is that, apparently, those wouldn't be Shepard's dog tags in that scene? Never gave much thought to it because, to my mind, the purpose of that scene was to imply Shepard (somehow) survived.

[Uncle Jo]

OdanUrr wrote...


Of course, there' just one problem. This is not how the Reapers have operated in the past. Their MO has always been activating the dark space relay, taking control of the Citadel, shutting down the relay network, and then begin their culling one system at a time. On the other hand, you propose (or someone else did, dunno) that the Reapers somehow anticipated this cycle would be "different" and thus knew their plan would fail, committed resources to it anyway, and also left blueprints for a device that was never supposed to work in the hopes someone would find them and actually commit resources to building the thing, bypassing the fact that nobody understands what it is or how it works.

We're getting  off-topic, but I'll answer to your post. The idea of the Crucible being a trap can't work with the ending taken at face value.
It's a cool theory that makes the whole Crucible's story a little more interesting than "A giant cannon whose devices are conveniently found of Mars, out of all the places, this right after the Reapers invasion began and fires a blue/green/red wave that either turns the Reapers into your minions/slaves, or the whole galaxy into husks hybrids or destroy the Reapers and the Geth".
There are people who think that the Crucible was always a Reaper-device, made as plan B if something goes wrong whilst the Harvest. Others assume that ancient races indeed started to build it, but the Reapers eventually found out what's going on (it would be surprising that they've never heard of it in 1 billons of years) either altered the original device or removed a crucial component (the Catalyst in this case) that the threatened Races never find in the end or think they found. In both cases, as you said, the Crucible never works. Result: the allied forces wasted a lot of time and an incredible amount of resources which could have been used otherwise.
It leads then to the question: if the Crucible doesn't work, how are we going to defeat the Reapers?

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 06 juin 2012 - 12:44 .

[Shallyah]

The problem I seeis many people seeing the Catalyst as an omnipotent, or at least an all-knowing being when it clearly isn't. The Catalyst may not be lying, but what he says isn't the Galactic Bible either. I can go as far as saying that the Catalyst may think that he is right and truly believes that all the random nonsense he's saying is right, but that doesn't make it right.

The Catalyst is not god, it's just a piece of hardware. One with a few billion years old drivers, that doesn't belong to a cycle like ours, and ends up being mistaken about everything it says, even if not willingly.

[Geneaux486]

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!

You should make more topics.  Also the Catalyst doesn't lie.  Shepard states that the Catalyst is "killing us to save us", to which the Catalyst replies with "no", because it's not that simple.  Genetic material and individual organic minds from those harevsted are preserved in each Reaper form, so in that sense, they are not dead.  Furthermore, the Catalyst taking the form of the child from the beginning of the game tells us that it has some degree of access either to Shepard's mind or his personal history, meaning that the Catalyst already knows very well that Shepard is aware of the fact that Reapers kill organics without processing them, and the grim truth about the process of creating each Reaper.  In other words, the Catalyst doesn't go into detail about those things because it knows that Shepard is well aware of them.  What he is sharing with Shepard is his perception of the actions of the Reapers, and while most of us don't agree with it, it's not the Catalyst being dishonest with us.  Also, the Catalyst being trustworthy is irrelevant.  The fact is that once the Crucible is put into place the only way forward is by activating it.  Shepard has to choose one option, and all three have an equal chance of being the Catalyst (and the visions shown to the player about how to make each choice happen) lying to you, but it's that lack of other options that forces Shepard to make a leap of faith regardless of which choice you go with, and in the end the player is shown that the Catalyst was, indeed telling the truth about the effects of each choice, as we see the short term effects in the cutscene, and we are told of the long-term effects both by the stargazer scene and the message at the end of the game confirming that Shepard did, in fact, end the Reaper threat.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 06 juin 2012 - 01:00 .

[Candoo]

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!

For the sake of discussion, I'll play devil's advocate.

Perhaps from his perspective, he is NOT lying. He is an AI / VI that only knows the "understanding" he has been "programmed" with. It has been 50,000 years since his last appearance, and things were probably much different when he last visited. He does state that Shepard is unique, and the first organic to make it this far. Obviously, he wasn't expecting Shepard, and Shepard has put an unexpected twist into what would be his normal routine. He wasn't prepared for this to happen. Just as Legion stated "no data available", when Shepard questioned him about her armor, the kid can only reply or present what he knows/understands. It would be the same as you, being forced to give a last minute presentation, and having to use manuscripts prepared by someone else. You have no idea if what you are presenting is accurate, so in essence, you aren't lying. Unfortunately with the Starkid scene in the game, BW doesn't allow us to have a Q&A period with the kid to refute.

With the ascension; the Reapers and the kid (if he truly does control them), can only look at things from their perspective of understanding, although it may differ greatly from our own. Having a Christian up-bringing, I started to see some religious undertones during the game, and these hints started with the religious discussion with Ashley in ME1(?) and later with her questioning you about your "death experience". Add to that,  the "theme" of the Geth questioning if they have a soul, and us confirning for the most-part, that they do. If we are confirming that THEY (at least Legion) have a soul, then it would be hard to deny that we believe that WE also have a soul. Most religions believe that the body is only a vessel that the soul inhabits, and when the body dies, the soul, our essence, lives on. I can't speak for the writers, but perhaps this is what they intended with the programmed beliefs of the Reapers/Starkid; that they were collecting souls and discarding of the worthless body, that would decay and die in time (also thinking of the discussion with Saren, "best of both, weaknesses of neither"). As a side thought; as with the Geth, perhaps the Reapers themselves were seeking to have a soul, thus the harvesting of humans, to form a concensus of souls.

With only being able to look at things from OUR perspective, perhaps it was right when we were told that it was "beyond our understanding and comprehension".

[Penumbra80]

Grimwick wrote...

No flesh is actually preserved. We can SEE that when they are liquified.

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.

Would like to add that that video doesn't suggest the consciousness' retain their original form at all - therefore doesn't support preservation.

As I stated in my original post, physical bodies are nothing but detritus to the Reapers.  Their endgame is retaining the conciousness of the species they happen to be harvesting.  You refuse to entertain the notion that an organic mind cannot exist independently from an organic body.  Again, I'll ask you what you think of the Virtual Aliens?  Do they have any less of conciousness since they, like the Reapers, wish to exist in a different format than what nature designed?

@JB

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...

I take it you haven't read Dune?  One of the features of  the novels is the idea of genetic memory,  meaning that conciousness and memories are tied to genetic makeup (Other Memory).  Characters in the books can access the memories and thoughts of a host of ancestors whose experiences and thoughts are imprinted in their DNA.  In this case, genes seem to play a similar role as the vehicle for conciousness.

[Candoo]

Shallyah wrote...

The problem I seeis many people seeing the Catalyst as an omnipotent, or at least an all-knowing being when it clearly isn't. The Catalyst may not be lying, but what he says isn't the Galactic Bible either. I can go as far as saying that the Catalyst may think that he is right and truly believes that all the random nonsense he's saying is right, but that doesn't make it right.

The Catalyst is not god, it's just a piece of hardware. One with a few billion years old drivers, that doesn't belong to a cycle like ours, and ends up being mistaken about everything it says, even if not willingly.

Just for the sake of the game and the writers, wouldn't that be a jaw-dropper if what our religions over the centuries have taught us about "God", proved to be false, and the Catalyst truly is who we call God. Hmm ... "the created will always rebel against the Creator(s)" (religious undertone?)

And no, I am not trying to be blasphemis.

[OdanUrr]

Uncle Jo wrote...

(...) if the Crucible doesn't work, how are we going to defeat the Reapers?

In my epic rant/review of ME3 (that I have not yet published because it's too long) I brought up that very issue. ME1 left me with the impression that the Reapers could not be defeated, not without a massive fleet or some DEM. Because of this, I never thought Bioware would actually release a sequel. I honestly did not think they'd be able to pull off a massive galactic war, and I didn't want them to cop out with some hasty DEM.

So I was pretty surprised when I found out they'd be releasing ME2. I thought that maybe Bioware would start exploring how we're supposed to defeat the Reapers and maybe depict the war in a third installment. That's what drew me in to ME2, to find out how Bioware was planning to tackle the Reaper armada.

You can imagine my disappointment when, not only did they decide to go along with the DEM solution (which, in and of itself would have probably turned out better if they had taken the time to build up to it properly), but they also turned it into something of an eleventh-hour solution at the beginning of ME3. And they also introduced another DEM-eleventh-hour solution right at the very end of ME3.

It baffles me.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 06 juin 2012 - 01:36 .

[ediskrad327]

people trust the Catalyst? LOL

[Geneaux486]

ediskrad327 wrote...

people trust the Catalyst? LOL

You ended the game with a critical mission failure?

[ediskrad327]

Geneaux486 wrote...

ediskrad327 wrote...

people trust the Catalyst? LOL

You ended the game with a critical mission failure?

i believe it's a better ending, Catalyst dies, Reapers become more brainless VICTORY FOR ALL!

[Geneaux486]

ediskrad327 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

ediskrad327 wrote...

people trust the Catalyst? LOL

You ended the game with a critical mission failure?

i believe it's a better ending, Catalyst dies, Reapers become more brainless VICTORY FOR ALL!

The Crucible is destroyed by the Reapers in the critical mission failure.  Not only does the Catalyst live, he wins, and the Reapers keep on reaping.  It's essentially accepting their logic and surrendering.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Geneaux486 wrote...
The Crucible is destroyed by the Reapers in the critical mission failure.  Not only does the Catalyst live, he wins, and the Reapers keep on reaping.  It's essentially accepting their logic and surrendering.

Funny thing is I felt that way with all the presented options anyways.

[Geneaux486]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...
The Crucible is destroyed by the Reapers in the critical mission failure.  Not only does the Catalyst live, he wins, and the Reapers keep on reaping.  It's essentially accepting their logic and surrendering.

Funny thing is I felt that way with all the presented options anyways.

Strange considering all three options stop the Reapers, either through death, control, or invalidation.

[ediskrad327]

Geneaux486 wrote...

ediskrad327 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

ediskrad327 wrote...

people trust the Catalyst? LOL

You ended the game with a critical mission failure?

i believe it's a better ending, Catalyst dies, Reapers become more brainless VICTORY FOR ALL!

The Crucible is destroyed by the Reapers in the critical mission failure.  Not only does the Catalyst live, he wins, and the Reapers keep on reaping.  It's essentially accepting their logic and surrendering.

the explosion of the Crucible would have damaged the Citadel destroying The Catalyst's CPU and killing him, Shepard dies, Reapers get even more stupid and are killed by the fleet