473 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Time to change the topic here:

"Those who think TEH ANGRY WUN!!!11 knows what the hell she's talking about: explain why she ignores the points refuting her argument that no one has laid to rest in her own thread."

[Ageless Face]

Stornskar wrote...

The child makes no distinction regarding whether creators and created are organics - he makes a flat-out statement of fact, right after he mentions that the Reapers are his solution (creation?) to the problem of "chaos." The child contradicts himself so many times - he refers to the Reapers as his creation then refers to them as 'us' and 'we' (I'm going to keep pointing that out until someone explains why he would do that). He says created will always rebel after hinting that the Reapers are his creation. When Shepard says that he (they) have been killing organics, the child says 'no.' Just like that ... whether or not you believe harvested organics maintain their sentience (I don't), there is no denying that the Reapers ARE killing plenty of organics.

To the bolded part, I have an easy explanation.
To the "Us":

If you picked destroy, Didn't you also want to destroy the catalyst as well as the reapers?

If you picked control, it's a statement that (I assume) means Shepard will control alone. The catalyst will become just another pawn controlled by Shepard.

The catalyst also controls the reapers. He tell them what to do. That means, when he says "We already controlled him (TIM)" he also controlled TIM, even if not directrly. When he says "We helped them (organics) accened" He means that he also had a part in it. Which he did. 

I'll give the example of TIM. Even if he didn't directly killed anyone with his experiments, he was still responsible for it. And the people who oporated under him has also the same amount of responsibility. Since the catalyst is not an organics, and he sees all the synthetics as equals, And he does not have emtions that put him or the reapers more as more responsible, he see himself as responsible to the organic's "assencsion" or the control of TIM as much as the reapers are. Both are responcible for the death (even if they don't see it as death). 

Modifié par HagarIshay, 08 juin 2012 - 03:27 .

[KingZayd]

Geneaux486 wrote...

"So the illusive man was right"

About control being a possibility of the Crucible.  Not accepting Catalyst logic there, accepting the capabilities of the weapon designed and built by organics.  Also hey man what's up, I feel like it's been a little while since we've crossed paths.

That was a response to this part: "Shepard never indicates an acceptance of anything the Catalyst tells him or her. " And I believe it works as an example where he does accept something the Catalyst tells him.

Hey, yeah I had exams, so i had to stop going on these forums, because I was always getting caught up in LONG discussions that always moved so quickly. At least they seem to have slowed down a little now

[LinksOcarina]

[quote]httinks2006 wrote...

You want me to give you proof that what I'm telling you is based on facts within the game  not my own personal knowledge of multiple playthroughs , observations, and experiences throughout the three Mass Effect Games .

 You'd like me to explain to you countless examples  throughout my gaming  of how vent  boy is lying and the relevence of it to the mass effect universe and our characters .
 
Then on top of that give you additional proof that Bioware presented this game to us with the expectation of how the character/Shepard  is our Avatar throughout the past fives years ,and then list all of them for you so you can understand my reasoning  of  why I've stated this to you . [/quote]

I just wanted proof of your claim, that BioWare said Shepard was a character you owned, not one that was already established. The rest of that stuff is irrelevant to your claim, because A) there is no way to discern that the Catalyst is lying fully, and facts within the game have little to do with the intent of the developers.

[quote]
I Am The CAtalyst , you only need to know that I'm telling you is the truth because I am a gamer and my purpose is to beat the game . I'm going give you three choices of how you can take this you can stand in disbelief and go hide out of embarrassment that:

you got caught with your own circular logic .

you can admit defeat and say good show .

you can stomp your feet and fall to the floor wailing ,kicking,screaming and become the ultimate jerk and say you're just full of s&^t [/quote] 

Uh...ok? I am not sure what this has to do with anything...

[quote]
I personally don't believe you guys are stupid for what you believe in , though it  does appear you're ignorant of the game you've been playing for the past five years. The unique thing about Mass effect was this was your character it wasn't Squall or Cloud from Final Fantasy where the best you could do was name them and follow the linear path that square set in front of you.Mass Effect gave us something special and different which I Applaud them for and if people happened to have missed out on this part of the game I truly feel for them. [/quote]

See, this I take issue with because no, hes not like Squall or Cloud or anything, but Shepard fits that role because of the nature of the games design. This is why its a hybrid style of character were dealing with here, one that is both BioWares for their story, and ours for our experience during the game. Its putting a Western RPG mentality into a Light RPG setting. 

[quote]
It's sad how  you can demand from the player communtity proof when they argue agaisnt your statements ,but the catalyst a video game villian you blindy follow despite the facts  he's a proven murdering genocide evil entity  leader of the reapers that have killed trillions . But when he tells you it's okay to listen to him and make a choice out of the two(ems) three that he gives you , that's ok and you follow like sheep to the slaughter ...........[/quote]

No. People do that to me all the time when I debate with them, or they just call me a jerk and stop. Either way if you can't provide a solid argument or proof of a statement then thats a problem when doing a discussion. As for the Catalyst being a video game villian, how?

He is not the leader of the reapers. He was a creator, from what I remember the Catalyst was there to oversee the reapers because its race was effectively destroyed by machines, again going into the synthetic/organic debate, because otherwise, synthetics and organics would destroy the galaxy, as in no one would survive.

A line from Mordin can sum this up fairly well, which I have to paraphrase here. He basically says something to the effect of maximizing potency of the Genophage to hit a 1 in 1,000 target, so the Krogans wouldn't go extinct. He compared it to gardening. 

Thats kind of what the reapers are supposed to do. They are basically gardening the galaxy so it doesn't get out of hand and kill itself. The catalyst said the point was to eliminate chaos for the long-term, but the lack of foresight in the Catalyst as a whole doesn't make it a liar, it just makes it wrong in the end. 

As for the endings...well, not much I can say really. The catalyst suggests them end the cycle, and thats it. And taking into account the end-game cut scenes, it would be contrary to what you say, because things look fine in the end for everyone, as the stargazer scene details. [/quote]

[quote]
Yes yes it is a video game , but as many have stated quite often it still needs to follow its own rules .Maybe sometime in the near future when I have more time on my hands I'll play all three games again document all the games,every mission every interaction  to show how Shepard was a consistant Avatar up until the last 5-10 mins of ME3 .Then research the whole internet for you guys finding all the promises ,statements and marketing that told us that Mass Effect was something you had to play. 

Where when you entered the Mass Effect universe you were Shepard you would chooose what you looked like ,how you acted towards the universe and their reaction to what  you did in words and actions. Every choice you made would carry consequences .

I can hear people saying now well you just said Shepard , Do you realize a character is named so they can do voice acting for them . I know for a fact that a smart phone can sound out names you type for contacts but
it's not the same just chew on that before you bring that argument up.

[/quote]

You don't have to play it again, because like I said, the games design supports the theory. It doesn't matter that you can customize Shepard, in the end they still have one of three backstories and a pre-determined path to a finale, unlike a game like Skyrim that is fully open world and does not follow a linear plot, but rather just random questlines to go through.

 All you need to do is look through marketing for Mass Effect 1 and even 2 for an extant. But like I said, Shepard is not just your character in the end. Everything you said is true, you choose what Shepard looked like, how they acted, and their reactions would have a consequence. But the point is that the main storyline is still following an arc, one for three games, and as I said before, the storyline is basically taking precedence over the roleplaying, so Shepard, as Biowares character, was always in character for the storyline.

Let me put it this way. Your main character in Skyrim, as a popular example, is a blank slate you create. You have a main storyline you can follow, but how pronounced is the main storyline? How important is it to the game's overall design? Or how about the secondary story arc between the Stormcloaks and the Imperials? Are we told how important it is, is it forced upon the dragonborn for the first act of the game to follow a linear storyline, or can you get to it when you want to? Do you see the difference I am talking about now?

So honestly, this is more of BioWares fault for making the games design like this, where they backed themselves into a corner in terms of storyline. but the fans are also the problem because, well, what kind of game did you expect to be frank? I know everyone says its an RPG and a shooter and what not, but I think the problem is people believe Mass Effect to be a western-style RPG,  when by design it really isen't in many of their design choices, even Mass Effect 1. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 08 juin 2012 - 03:54 .

[Vigilant111]

Did it occur to anyone of u that the Catalyst may not even know how the Crucible works itself?

So it presents 3 options, so what? but there maybe 50 options but it only chose to give u 3, there maybe only 1 option but it added 2 imaginary ones

[Vigilant111]

All resistance against the reapers had been tainted by reaper tech, that's why the reapers did not press hard, because they know they would win no matter what

[KingZayd]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Did it occur to anyone of u that the Catalyst may not even know how the Crucible works itself?

So it presents 3 options, so what? but there maybe 50 options but it only chose to give u 3, there maybe only 1 option but it added 2 imaginary ones

No wonder the previous cycles all failed then. They made the device overcomplicated adding extra features that were completely unnecessary. Whose idea was it to add synthesis to an anti-reaper weapon?

[ArchDuck]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Time to change the topic here:

"Those who think TEH ANGRY WUN!!!11 knows what the hell she's talking about: explain why she ignores the points refuting her argument that no one has laid to rest in her own thread."

No clue what you are talking about. Would you mind reposting, quoting or linking?

[ArchDuck]

KingZayd wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Did it occur to anyone of u that the Catalyst may not even know how the Crucible works itself?

So it presents 3 options, so what? but there maybe 50 options but it only chose to give u 3, there maybe only 1 option but it added 2 imaginary ones

No wonder the previous cycles all failed then. They made the device overcomplicated adding extra features that were completely unnecessary. Whose idea was it to add synthesis to an anti-reaper weapon?

It was the Catayst's idea.

[Vigilant111]

End note: the reapers, being such a sentient species yet they have to employ such impractical, cruel and ill-considerate measures such as harvesting, they are no more worthy of surviving than those they had destroyed or the ones that they are about to destroy

[teh DRUMPf!!]

ArchDuck wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Time to change the topic here:

"Those who think TEH ANGRY WUN!!!11 knows what the hell she's talking about: explain why she ignores the points refuting her argument that no one has laid to rest in her own thread."

No clue what you are talking about. Would you mind reposting, quoting or linking?

looool there are many. But if... anyone... is up for the challenge, they can pick up where I left off with Grimwick: http://social.biowar...056/12#12430923 .

I'll have to leave in twenty minutes, but can maybe get back to this in the evening.

[Geneaux486]

It still comes back to believing vent boy is telling the truth on the functions of the Crucible , leader of reaper who Happens to also be the catalyst of the device that stops them.. so let me see if vent boy is the energy source or the key that powers the space magic to either Control , Synthesis and even Destroy which is it going try to push the character towards .... (( actually villians tend to boast and give away what can defeat them weak argument once again))

The Citadel is the power source for the Crucible. The Catalyst only tells you what your weapon can do. You see in a cinematic after you make your choice that he was, in fact, telling the truth.

You want me to give you proof that what I'm telling you is based on facts within the

game not my own personal knowledge of multiple playthroughs , observations, and

experiences throughout the three Mass Effect Games .

I've already disproven the conclusions you've come to from all that, and I've done so by citing what happens in the game. All you have done is respond to those points with "No you're wrong because I say so". You've done the same thing with LinksOcarina.

You'd like me to explain to you countless examples throughout my gaming of how vent

boy is lying and the relevence of it to the mass effect universe and our characters .

The Catalyst is telling the truth. There is no evidence to suggest he is lying because we see in the resulting ending cinematic that the things he says do, in fact, come to pass.

Then on top of that give you additional proof that Bioware presented this game to us

with the expectation of how the character/Shepard is our Avatar throughout the past

fives years ,and then list all of them for you so you can understand my reasoning of

why I've stated this to you .

That's generally how a credible argument goes, and you haven't been doing it.

I personally don't believe you guys are stupid for what you believe in , though it

does appear you're ignorant of the game you've been playing for the past five years

You're the only one displaying ignorance of the series in this discussion. The things you're saying directly contradict what is shown to us in the game, what is stated in the game.

It's sad how you can demand from the player communtity proof when they argue agaisnt

your statements ,but the catalyst a video game villian you blindy follow despite the

facts he's a proven murdering genocide evil entity leader of the reapers that have

killed trillions .

That's a lot of nonsense. In a fictional story, what's true and what isn't is determined by the people writing it. In an argument, yes, you need to back up your claims with evidence for it to be credible, and you have not been doing that. What's more, during that time, you've condescended to everyone who disagrees with you.

but as many have stated quite often it still needs to

follow its own rules

It doesn't break its own rules in the end.

Maybe sometime in the near future when I have more time on my hands I'll play all

three games again document all the games,every mission every interaction to show how

Shepard was a consistant Avatar up until the last 5-10 mins of ME3

Documenting the entire game won't make your position any less false. We've all played the three games, and have cited in game examples to back up our claims, something you haven't done.

Every choice you made would carry consequences .

Genophage arc, Rannoch arc, did you skip these?

I can hear people saying now well you just said Shepard , Do you realize a character

is named so they can do voice acting for them .
I know for a fact that a smart phone can sound out names you type for contacts but

it's not the same just chew on that before you bring that argument up.

Can you reword that? I have no idea what the hell you're talking about here.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 08 juin 2012 - 04:37 .

[Vigilant111]

Hypothetically I trust the Catalyst COMPLETELY, yet I still believe that choosing destroy is the BEST way to end reaper threat, THAT is MY opinion, I do not have to share the Catalyst's opinion to trust it, and I do not care about whether it is right or wrong, but I DO know one thing: that I should place more faith to the people around me, my friends and my allies, that I trust them to carry my legacy to build hope, without ANY reaper threat, rather than to trust this THING...whatever it is

[Apocaleepse360]

Could be one of three reasons:
1. Plot holes
2. Artistic integrity
3. Space magic

[spirosz]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Time to change the topic here:

"Those who think TEH ANGRY WUN!!!11 knows what the hell she's talking about: explain why she ignores the points refuting her argument that no one has laid to rest in her own thread."

lolol

[Vigilant111]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

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

1.) Beggars can't be choosers.
2.) He didn't have to explain anything to you about the Reapers, but he did.
3.) He didn't ahve to offer any solutions, but he did.
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).
5.) Most importantly, his needs and your needs are aligned.

1) Charles what now?
2) more lies
3) solutions not offered by it, but the Crucible
4) It doesn't need to destroy the Crucible, because the Crucible depends on the Citadel, and it controls the citadel
5) NO

[Memnon]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Time to change the topic here:

"Those who think TEH ANGRY WUN!!!11 knows what the hell she's talking about: explain why she ignores the points refuting her argument that no one has laid to rest in her own thread."

Eh, sorry we aren't as obsessed with him as you are ...

[Memnon]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Why would they do something inefficient and that would take more time? Especially when dead bodies can still be used to create new Reapers?

Where was this established? If this was true, why did the Collectors go to the trouble of paralyzing entire colonies, coccooning people, and bringing them back to base. Why not just bomb the colonies from orbit and haul the carcasses back

[Geneaux486]

Stornskar wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Why would they do something inefficient and that would take more time? Especially when dead bodies can still be used to create new Reapers?

Where was this established? If this was true, why did the Collectors go to the trouble of paralyzing entire colonies, coccooning people, and bringing them back to base. Why not just bomb the colonies from orbit and haul the carcasses back

Living and dead specimens were being put on the Citadel prior to the final mission in ME3.  I would guess that this is because dead bodies can work just as well as live bodies in terms of useable genetic material, but live bodies are needed because the Reapers also need functioning organic brains which, according to Legion in Mass Effect 2, forms the conciousness of a Reaper.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 08 juin 2012 - 10:37 .

[KingZayd]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Why would they do something inefficient and that would take more time? Especially when dead bodies can still be used to create new Reapers?

Where was this established? If this was true, why did the Collectors go to the trouble of paralyzing entire colonies, coccooning people, and bringing them back to base. Why not just bomb the colonies from orbit and haul the carcasses back

Living and dead specimens were being put on the Citadel prior to the final mission in ME3.  I would guess that this is because dead bodies can work just as well as live bodies in terms of useable genetic material, but live bodies are needed because the Reapers also need functioning organic brains which, according to Legion in Mass Effect 2, forms the conciousness of a Reaper.

They need organic minds for the Reapers, not necessarily the brains. Yes that does seem bit silly a distinction, but the Human Reaper didn't need brains apparently. They took people alive (must be deliberate), and then dissolved them into the goop they use. I suspect the Mass Effect universe is relying on some form of genetic memory?

It's said in the codex/news reports that the Reapers tried to capture people while minimising the loss of life. I suspect this is because they want live specimens. The piles of dead bodies supposedly to make a reaper is one of the problems I have with the end scenes, whose veracity I doubt.

[LinksOcarina]

Stornskar wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Why would they do something inefficient and that would take more time? Especially when dead bodies can still be used to create new Reapers?

Where was this established? If this was true, why did the Collectors go to the trouble of paralyzing entire colonies, coccooning people, and bringing them back to base. Why not just bomb the colonies from orbit and haul the carcasses back

Yeah dead bodies are dead bodies, they are pretty much useless to the reapers. Live bodies that can be transformed or harvested= magic juices or whatever the reapers use to survive. Makes sense to me they attempt to harvest as much as they can, with collateral damage being unavoidable. 

[jsadalia]

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!

Catalyst: We found a way to stop that from happening. A way to restore order for the next cycle.

Shepard: By wiping out organic life?

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


"We don't wipe out organic life" is very different from "we don't kill organics."

[Pride Demon]

It may be that the Catalyst is simply physically incapable of understanding that it is lying, or accepting that the cycle is wrong in any way, shape or form, it may know it, but is incapable of acting on it... That is done very easily with simple AI behavioural blocks... That would make the Catalyst a shackled AI I guess...

Take EDI for instance: one of her tasks is collating reports for the Illusive Man and basically spying for him, during the game she may become "attached" to the crewmembers/Shepard but she still keeps doing so until Joker unshackles her, why? Because the hardcoded instuctions in her blocks force her to comply, regardless of whether or not she actually wants to keep spying for TIM...

[LinksOcarina]

Pride Demon wrote...

It may be that the Catalyst is simply physically incapable of understanding that it is lying, or accepting that the cycle is wrong in any way, shape or form, it may know it, but is incapable of acting on it... That is done very easily with simple AI behavioural blocks... That would make the Catalyst a shackled AI I guess...

Take EDI for instance: one of her tasks is collating reports for the Illusive Man and basically spying for him, during the game she may become "attached" to the crewmembers/Shepard but she still keeps doing so until Joker unshackles her, why? Because the hardcoded instuctions in her blocks force her to comply, regardless of whether or not she actually wants to keep spying for TIM...

Fair point, but the catalyst is not an A.I...

A friend of mine and a huge fan of Mass Effect compared the Catalyst to a force ghost, an etherial being that was connected to the past. So it is much different from a VI or AI, it is basically the manifestation of a living thing, or at the very least a former living thing. Hell it even says it took on the childs form because it was a shape that was in Shepards mind...

That said, I again don't think it is lying, I just think it was incorrect in its assesment. Simply put, even the Catalyst doesn't have all the answers and is only making assumptions based on history.