164 réponses à ce sujet

[Galiredon]

maaaze wrote...

Galiredon wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Galiredon wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Galiredon wrote...
But the 3 solutions the Catalyst creates aren't permanent either, especially Destory.

Yeah his solution won´t work anymore either...shepard proved him wrong...so new solutions are required... but he can´t make them happen... 
He likes synthesis the best because it is permanent , he doesn´t like destroy because he sees it not as permanent.

How does Shepard prove him wrong? They can't conventionally stop the Reapers. They can't use the Crucible's power. How has his solution failed? He could squash the half dead Shepard like a bug and let the cycle continue.

Because this proves that organics can evolve beyond the reapers...the crucible docks...it has changed him...He sees that his solution won´t last anymore. In given time the Organics will overcome the reapers completly just like he feared the synthetics would...which means he can´t fulfill his Task...so he presents new solutions.

Why not change his cycle from 50k to 25k if he's worried about future Crucibles?

I don't see how docking the Crucible proves anything. If it weren't for the Catalyst Shepard would have bled out next to Anderson and the Reapers would have won another cycle and destroyed the Crucible.

If his Task is so important, why let Shepard cast the deciding vote?

sorry that i have to repeat myself :
- In given time the Organics will overcome the reapers completly just like he feared the synthetics would

What do think how many Crucible or crucible like devises they have destroyed...maybe more than one. 
The Docking changed the Catalyst...he got new input...new possibiltys...i don´t know how to make this any clearer... Reapers a solution = not permanent anymore because in given time (new crucible designs , better crucible designs, powerfull enough to destroy the catalyst without him having the chance to present a new solution....) and so on...

because he can´t make the decision...

Then why not change the cycle from 50k to 25k years if the Catalyst is worried about future Crucibles?

Modifié par Galiredon, 29 juin 2012 - 05:11 .

[Femlob]

Daveros wrote...

Galiredon wrote...

In ME1 your observation is: Synthetics are dangerous because of bombs on the 
citadel, taking over the moon, the Geth, the reapers.

In ME2/ME3 you learn, synthetics are like organics. The AI on the moon turned into EDI, your friend. The geth are indoctrinated AI, they're evil just like indoctrinated organics. The true Geth (Legion) can be your friend. The Reapers aren't AI after all. They're liquifying people as a form of reproduction, they're your enemy.

Bascially you learn, synthetics are just like every else. They can be good or evil. If we can broker peace we can live with them. i.e. Quarian/Geth peace. EDI/Legion become your friends. The theme was, look beyond the surface and beyond your prejudices and treat AI with the same respect any other sentient being deserves. How beautiful...

...then in the last five minutes. Oh by the way, synthetics will eventually destory organics. HUH?

You're really going to have to divorce your observations with those of the Catalyst. With what it believes, its actions are correct. By challenging it (by proxy, by fighting the Reapers) you are showing you choose to think differently. Options occur and you pick one.

The logic is sound.

'Cept the whole damn concept is retarded and shouldn't have been brought into existence to begin with.

[Evo_9]

Daveros wrote...

Galiredon wrote...

In ME1 your observation is: Synthetics are dangerous because of bombs on the 
citadel, taking over the moon, the Geth, the reapers.

In ME2/ME3 you learn, synthetics are like organics. The AI on the moon turned into EDI, your friend. The geth are indoctrinated AI, they're evil just like indoctrinated organics. The true Geth (Legion) can be your friend. The Reapers aren't AI after all. They're liquifying people as a form of reproduction, they're your enemy.

Bascially you learn, synthetics are just like every else. They can be good or evil. If we can broker peace we can live with them. i.e. Quarian/Geth peace. EDI/Legion become your friends. The theme was, look beyond the surface and beyond your prejudices and treat AI with the same respect any other sentient being deserves. How beautiful...

...then in the last five minutes. Oh by the way, synthetics will eventually destory organics. HUH?

You're really going to have to divorce your observations with those of the Catalyst. With what it believes, its actions are correct. By challenging it (by proxy, by fighting the Reapers) you are showing you choose to think differently. Options occur and you pick one.

The logic is sound.

But the catalyst goal is to restore order and prevent chaos.

Its not embedded into its thinking that the cycle is the only way to do this. It said before that it tried other solutions that didnt work.

These new options come up which still fulfill its purpose, so why cant it chose a new one after some careful analysis? 

The catalyst admits its cycle doesnt work, so okay, find a new one! why does shepard have to do it

Modifié par Evo_9, 29 juin 2012 - 05:12 .

[Daveros]

Evo_9 wrote...

But the catalyst goal is to restore order and prevent chaos.

Its not embedded into its thinking that the cycle is the only way to do this. It said before that it tried other solutions that didnt work.

These new options come up which still fulfill its purpose, so why cant it chose a new one after some careful analysis? 

The catalyst admits its cycle doesnt work, so okay, find a new one! why does shepard have to do it

I'm not going to argue with you, but remember that it is a game. If you rocked up to the Citadel and the Catalyst was all: "Hmm, well this didn't work. I'm going to have to ponder this one for a while. Bye." and then Faunts played out the credits, it wouldn't be so great. Even in comparrison.

[Lili Dragunova]

 

[Mazebook]

mauro2222 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Nothing is permanent, nothing is perfect. It's illogical to think otherwise.

its not illogical, it is just implausible...I would advice not to throw the word logic so much around.

No, implausible means not probable, it's impossible to achieve perfection as is impossible to achieve a permanent solution. It's illogical to think otherwise.

sorry you are wrong...as much as infinity is theoretically possible, so is perfection.

Here something to read : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic you will see that logic isn´t a one way train.

[Galiredon]

Evo_9 wrote...

Daveros wrote...

Galiredon wrote...

In ME1 your observation is: Synthetics are dangerous because of bombs on the 
citadel, taking over the moon, the Geth, the reapers.

In ME2/ME3 you learn, synthetics are like organics. The AI on the moon turned into EDI, your friend. The geth are indoctrinated AI, they're evil just like indoctrinated organics. The true Geth (Legion) can be your friend. The Reapers aren't AI after all. They're liquifying people as a form of reproduction, they're your enemy.

Bascially you learn, synthetics are just like every else. They can be good or evil. If we can broker peace we can live with them. i.e. Quarian/Geth peace. EDI/Legion become your friends. The theme was, look beyond the surface and beyond your prejudices and treat AI with the same respect any other sentient being deserves. How beautiful...

...then in the last five minutes. Oh by the way, synthetics will eventually destory organics. HUH?

You're really going to have to divorce your observations with those of the Catalyst. With what it believes, its actions are correct. By challenging it (by proxy, by fighting the Reapers) you are showing you choose to think differently. Options occur and you pick one.

The logic is sound.

But the catalyst goal is to restore order and prevent chaos.

Its not embedded into its thinking that the cycle is the only way to do this. It said before that it tried other solutions that didnt work.

These new options come up which still fulfill its purpose, so why cant it chose a new one after some careful analysis? 

The catalyst admits its cycle doesnt work, so okay, find a new one! why does shepard have to do it

I totally agree. Why does Shepard have to do it? It turns Shepard into a character in the Catalyst's story instead of the other way around.

[Mazebook]

Galiredon wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Galiredon wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Galiredon wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Galiredon wrote...
But the 3 solutions the Catalyst creates aren't permanent either, especially Destory.

Yeah his solution won´t work anymore either...shepard proved him wrong...so new solutions are required... but he can´t make them happen... 
He likes synthesis the best because it is permanent , he doesn´t like destroy because he sees it not as permanent.

How does Shepard prove him wrong? They can't conventionally stop the Reapers. They can't use the Crucible's power. How has his solution failed? He could squash the half dead Shepard like a bug and let the cycle continue.

Because this proves that organics can evolve beyond the reapers...the crucible docks...it has changed him...He sees that his solution won´t last anymore. In given time the Organics will overcome the reapers completly just like he feared the synthetics would...which means he can´t fulfill his Task...so he presents new solutions.

Why not change his cycle from 50k to 25k if he's worried about future Crucibles?

I don't see how docking the Crucible proves anything. If it weren't for the Catalyst Shepard would have bled out next to Anderson and the Reapers would have won another cycle and destroyed the Crucible.

If his Task is so important, why let Shepard cast the deciding vote?

sorry that i have to repeat myself :
- In given time the Organics will overcome the reapers completly just like he feared the synthetics would

What do think how many Crucible or crucible like devises they have destroyed...maybe more than one. 
The Docking changed the Catalyst...he got new input...new possibiltys...i don´t know how to make this any clearer... Reapers a solution = not permanent anymore because in given time (new crucible designs , better crucible designs, powerfull enough to destroy the catalyst without him having the chance to present a new solution....) and so on...

because he can´t make the decision...

Then why not change the cycle from 50k to 25k years if the Catalyst is worried about future Crucibles?

this would only delay the invitable...and if he shortens the cycle further and further he will get to the point where he can´t  fulfill his task anymore.to preserve organics so the young one may live. 

Modifié par maaaze, 29 juin 2012 - 05:23 .

[Evo_9]

Daveros wrote...

Evo_9 wrote...

But the catalyst goal is to restore order and prevent chaos.

Its not embedded into its thinking that the cycle is the only way to do this. It said before that it tried other solutions that didnt work.

These new options come up which still fulfill its purpose, so why cant it chose a new one after some careful analysis? 

The catalyst admits its cycle doesnt work, so okay, find a new one! why does shepard have to do it

I'm not going to argue with you, but remember that it is a game. If you rocked up to the Citadel and the Catalyst was all: "Hmm, well this didn't work. I'm going to have to ponder this one for a while. Bye." and then Faunts played out the credits, it wouldn't be so great. Even in comparrison.

lol yeah....

hang on i just found biowares answer.

The catalyst says this

"The Crucible has altered my function. I can't proceed. I can only guide you in it's use" 

so there you go, the crucible is blocking the catalyst.

[Daveros]

Galiredon wrote...

I totally agree. Why does Shepard have to do it? It turns Shepard into a character in the Catalyst's story instead of the other way around.

So, is it the logic or the narative in general you have problems with? I can understand not caring for the narative, but I still hold to the fact that the logic that Catalyst offers is sound.

[Mazebook]

Evo_9 wrote...

Daveros wrote...

Evo_9 wrote...

But the catalyst goal is to restore order and prevent chaos.

Its not embedded into its thinking that the cycle is the only way to do this. It said before that it tried other solutions that didnt work.

These new options come up which still fulfill its purpose, so why cant it chose a new one after some careful analysis? 

The catalyst admits its cycle doesnt work, so okay, find a new one! why does shepard have to do it

I'm not going to argue with you, but remember that it is a game. If you rocked up to the Citadel and the Catalyst was all: "Hmm, well this didn't work. I'm going to have to ponder this one for a while. Bye." and then Faunts played out the credits, it wouldn't be so great. Even in comparrison.

lol yeah....

hang on i just found biowares answer.

The catalyst says this

"The Crucible has altered my function. I can't proceed. I can only guide you in it's use" 

so there you go, the crucible is blocking the catalyst.

the easiest answer is always the best 

[mauro2222]

maaaze wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Nothing is permanent, nothing is perfect. It's illogical to think otherwise.

its not illogical, it is just implausible...I would advice not to throw the word logic so much around.

No, implausible means not probable, it's impossible to achieve perfection as is impossible to achieve a permanent solution. It's illogical to think otherwise.

sorry you are wrong...as much as infinity is theoretically possible, so is perfection.

Here something to read : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic you will see that logic isn´t a one way train.

Perfection requires a system without changes, this universe doesn't allow you that, so is impossible. Evolution is also a non stop process due to the nature of this universe, there's no apex to it.

And logic in all its extent is different from illogical. Means without sense or senseless. To deny facts is senseless, illogical.

[Galiredon]

maaaze wrote...

Galiredon wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Galiredon wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Galiredon wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Galiredon wrote...
But the 3 solutions the Catalyst creates aren't permanent either, especially Destory.

Yeah his solution won´t work anymore either...shepard proved him wrong...so new solutions are required... but he can´t make them happen... 
He likes synthesis the best because it is permanent , he doesn´t like destroy because he sees it not as permanent.

How does Shepard prove him wrong? They can't conventionally stop the Reapers. They can't use the Crucible's power. How has his solution failed? He could squash the half dead Shepard like a bug and let the cycle continue.

Because this proves that organics can evolve beyond the reapers...the crucible docks...it has changed him...He sees that his solution won´t last anymore. In given time the Organics will overcome the reapers completly just like he feared the synthetics would...which means he can´t fulfill his Task...so he presents new solutions.

Why not change his cycle from 50k to 25k if he's worried about future Crucibles?

I don't see how docking the Crucible proves anything. If it weren't for the Catalyst Shepard would have bled out next to Anderson and the Reapers would have won another cycle and destroyed the Crucible.

If his Task is so important, why let Shepard cast the deciding vote?

sorry that i have to repeat myself :
- In given time the Organics will overcome the reapers completly just like he feared the synthetics would

What do think how many Crucible or crucible like devises they have destroyed...maybe more than one. 
The Docking changed the Catalyst...he got new input...new possibiltys...i don´t know how to make this any clearer... Reapers a solution = not permanent anymore because in given time (new crucible designs , better crucible designs, powerfull enough to destroy the catalyst without him having the chance to present a new solution....) and so on...

because he can´t make the decision...

Then why not change the cycle from 50k to 25k years if the Catalyst is worried about future Crucibles?

this would only delay the invitable...and if he shortens the cycle further and further he will get to the point where he can´t  fulfill his task anymore.to preserve organics so the young one may live. 

Would you say that if he shortened the cycle to 200 years organics might still create a Crucible that destroys the Catalyst?

[Mazebook]

mauro2222 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Nothing is permanent, nothing is perfect. It's illogical to think otherwise.

its not illogical, it is just implausible...I would advice not to throw the word logic so much around.

No, implausible means not probable, it's impossible to achieve perfection as is impossible to achieve a permanent solution. It's illogical to think otherwise.

sorry you are wrong...as much as infinity is theoretically possible, so is perfection.

Here something to read : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic you will see that logic isn´t a one way train.

Perfection requires a system without changes, this universe doesn't allow you that, so is impossible. Evolution is also a non stop process due to the nature of this universe, there's no apex to it.

And logic in all its extent is different from illogical. Means without sense or senseless. To deny facts is senseless, illogical.

Well there could be a last stage at the endtimes of our universe where all energie is gone and everything stands still...and you could make an argument that this is perfection...

[Mazebook]

Galiredon wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Galiredon wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Galiredon wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Galiredon wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Galiredon wrote...
But the 3 solutions the Catalyst creates aren't permanent either, especially Destory.

Yeah his solution won´t work anymore either...shepard proved him wrong...so new solutions are required... but he can´t make them happen... 
He likes synthesis the best because it is permanent , he doesn´t like destroy because he sees it not as permanent.

How does Shepard prove him wrong? They can't conventionally stop the Reapers. They can't use the Crucible's power. How has his solution failed? He could squash the half dead Shepard like a bug and let the cycle continue.

Because this proves that organics can evolve beyond the reapers...the crucible docks...it has changed him...He sees that his solution won´t last anymore. In given time the Organics will overcome the reapers completly just like he feared the synthetics would...which means he can´t fulfill his Task...so he presents new solutions.

Why not change his cycle from 50k to 25k if he's worried about future Crucibles?

I don't see how docking the Crucible proves anything. If it weren't for the Catalyst Shepard would have bled out next to Anderson and the Reapers would have won another cycle and destroyed the Crucible.

If his Task is so important, why let Shepard cast the deciding vote?

sorry that i have to repeat myself :
- In given time the Organics will overcome the reapers completly just like he feared the synthetics would

What do think how many Crucible or crucible like devises they have destroyed...maybe more than one. 
The Docking changed the Catalyst...he got new input...new possibiltys...i don´t know how to make this any clearer... Reapers a solution = not permanent anymore because in given time (new crucible designs , better crucible designs, powerfull enough to destroy the catalyst without him having the chance to present a new solution....) and so on...

because he can´t make the decision...

Then why not change the cycle from 50k to 25k years if the Catalyst is worried about future Crucibles?

this would only delay the invitable...and if he shortens the cycle further and further he will get to the point where he can´t  fulfill his task anymore.to preserve organics so the young one may live. 

Would you say that if he shortened the cycle to 200 years organics might still create a Crucible that destroys the Catalyst?

But you couldn´t distinguish between advanced and none advanced civilazation. The amount of time would be so short that you had to terminate all live.

But my argument doesn´t matter anymore because of this :

 "The Crucible has altered my function. I can't proceed. I can only guide you in it's use"  
"

[Galiredon]

Evo_9 wrote...

Daveros wrote...

Evo_9 wrote...

But the catalyst goal is to restore order and prevent chaos.

Its not embedded into its thinking that the cycle is the only way to do this. It said before that it tried other solutions that didnt work.

These new options come up which still fulfill its purpose, so why cant it chose a new one after some careful analysis? 

The catalyst admits its cycle doesnt work, so okay, find a new one! why does shepard have to do it

I'm not going to argue with you, but remember that it is a game. If you rocked up to the Citadel and the Catalyst was all: "Hmm, well this didn't work. I'm going to have to ponder this one for a while. Bye." and then Faunts played out the credits, it wouldn't be so great. Even in comparrison.

lol yeah....

hang on i just found biowares answer.

The catalyst says this

"The Crucible has altered my function. I can't proceed. I can only guide you in it's use" 

so there you go, the crucible is blocking the catalyst.

I just rewatched it. The catalyst doesn't say that.
 

[Armass81]

Femlob wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

A woodchuck could chuck no amount of wood since a woodchuck couldn't chuck wood.

But if a woodchuck could chuck and would chuck some amount of wood, what amount of wood would a woodchuck chuck?

[Galiredon]

Daveros wrote...

Galiredon wrote...

I totally agree. Why does Shepard have to do it? It turns Shepard into a character in the Catalyst's story instead of the other way around.

So, is it the logic or the narative in general you have problems with? I can understand not caring for the narative, but I still hold to the fact that the logic that Catalyst offers is sound.

I don't like the narrative and I have too many questions about the logic to like it either. Why does the Catalyst need Shepard?

[Evo_9]

Galiredon wrote...

Evo_9 wrote...

Daveros wrote...

Evo_9 wrote...

But the catalyst goal is to restore order and prevent chaos.

Its not embedded into its thinking that the cycle is the only way to do this. It said before that it tried other solutions that didnt work.

These new options come up which still fulfill its purpose, so why cant it chose a new one after some careful analysis? 

The catalyst admits its cycle doesnt work, so okay, find a new one! why does shepard have to do it

I'm not going to argue with you, but remember that it is a game. If you rocked up to the Citadel and the Catalyst was all: "Hmm, well this didn't work. I'm going to have to ponder this one for a while. Bye." and then Faunts played out the credits, it wouldn't be so great. Even in comparrison.

lol yeah....

hang on i just found biowares answer.

The catalyst says this

"The Crucible has altered my function. I can't proceed. I can only guide you in it's use" 

so there you go, the crucible is blocking the catalyst.

I just rewatched it. The catalyst doesn't say that.
 

I got it from here....cant check on youtube atm.

http://webcache.goog...n&ct=clnk&gl=au

Modifié par Evo_9, 29 juin 2012 - 05:57 .

[Torrible]

I love the insane A.I conclusion. It's like the movie (or book) 'I, Robot' where the robots, designed by Humans to protect them, came up with the conclusion that they needed to save humans from themselves by killing them. From a humanistic perspective, it is completely insane and contradictory, but it seems entirely plausible that an insane A.I driven by pure logic can arrive at that conclusion.

[Thornne]

IMO the EC Star Kid dialogue is a lot better. It went from a largely incomprehensible mess to a mostly comprehensible mess.

The biggest thing it does is clarify the argument about whether Star Kid is some omniscient being who's argument is 'right' just because he is making it. I think it is clear now that he is not, and it is not.

He was given a problem to solve and he has found a solution that has been working. Moral concerns not directly related the parameters of the task he was given are (apparently) irrelevant to him.

From the dialogue we can learn:

1) He is some sort of AI / synthetic construct.

2) He was created by organics.

3) His creators were apparently in (or at least very concerned about) violent conflict with synthetics.

4) He was given the task of finding some way for the two life forms to co-exist peacefully. This is the problem he is trying to solve.

5) He has tried at least two other solutions in the past (he uses the plural I believe -- I think this implies more than two, but this would be the minimum) but they didn't work.

6) So he came up with his current solution. Process both life forms (organic and synthetic) and combine them into a new life form -- a Reaper. By forcing them to become a single being he forces them to co-exist peacefully.

He does not care whether the original life forms want to be part of his solution or not. This is clearly irrelevant to him, as he says he reaperized he creators even though they didn't approve. Rightly or wrongly, he clearly believes that Reaperizing is preserving the original life forms, not destroying them.

As for the "Yo dawg" bit -- now with the EC I think this part is sort of tangential. It comes up when Shepard says "But we'd rather keep our own forms [and not be reaperized]." Star Kid says "You can't" because if he didn't save you via reaperization, you'd eventually create synthetics who would wipe you out. It's not that he cares (morally) about organic life, it is just that if all organic life were destroyed his task of creating peaceful co-existence would be impossible.  He refuses to risk a fail state for HIS task just to accomodate life forms who don't like his solution, basically.

As for the whole "let's introduce a new character and a whole new plot line at the climactic moment in the game and do a huge exposition dump" nature of the Star Kid ... yeah, not a shining moment for the series IMO. In fact my favorite endings are the fan cuts where it goes straight from Anderson's farewell to Destroy, and there is no Star Kid at all.

Modifié par Thornne, 29 juin 2012 - 06:01 .

[Galiredon]

Evo_9 wrote...

Galiredon wrote...

Evo_9 wrote...

Daveros wrote...

Evo_9 wrote...

But the catalyst goal is to restore order and prevent chaos.

Its not embedded into its thinking that the cycle is the only way to do this. It said before that it tried other solutions that didnt work.

These new options come up which still fulfill its purpose, so why cant it chose a new one after some careful analysis? 

The catalyst admits its cycle doesnt work, so okay, find a new one! why does shepard have to do it

I'm not going to argue with you, but remember that it is a game. If you rocked up to the Citadel and the Catalyst was all: "Hmm, well this didn't work. I'm going to have to ponder this one for a while. Bye." and then Faunts played out the credits, it wouldn't be so great. Even in comparrison.

lol yeah....

hang on i just found biowares answer.

The catalyst says this

"The Crucible has altered my function. I can't proceed. I can only guide you in it's use" 

so there you go, the crucible is blocking the catalyst.

I just rewatched it. The catalyst doesn't say that.
 

I got it from here....cant check on youtube atm.

http://webcache.goog...n&ct=clnk&gl=au

I read through that. Definately not the original dialogue in game.

[Galiredon]

Thornne wrote...

IMO the EC Star Kid dialogue is a lot better. It went from a largely incomprehensible mess to a mostly comprehensible mess.

The biggest thing it does is clarify the argument about whether Star Kid is some omniscient being who's argument is 'right' just because he is making it. I think it is clear now that he is not, and it is not.

He was given a problem to solve and he has found a solution that has been working. Moral concerns not directly related the parameters of the task he was given are (apparently) irrelevant to him.

From the dialogue we can learn:

1) He is some sort of AI / synthetic construct.

2) He was created by organics.

3) His creators were apparently in (or at least very concerned about) violent conflict with synthetics.

4) He was given the task of finding some way for the two life forms to co-exist peacefully. This is the problem he is trying to solve.

5) He has tried at least two other solutions in the past (he uses the plural I believe -- I think this implies more than two, but this would be the minimum) but they didn't work.

6) So he came up with his current solution. Process both life forms (organic and synthetic) and combine them into a new life form -- a Reaper. By forcing them to become a single being he forces them to co-exist peacefully.

He does not care whether the original life forms want to be part of his solution or not. This is clearly irrelevant to him, as he says he reaperized he creators even though they didn't approve. Rightly or wrongly, he clearly believes that Reaperizing is preserving the original life forms, not destroying them.

As for the "Yo dawg" bit -- now with the EC I think this part is sort of tangential. It comes up when Shepard says "But we'd rather keep our own forms [and not be reaperized]." Star Kid says "You can't" because if he didn't save you via reaperization, you'd eventually create synthetics who would wipe you out. It's not that he cares (morally) about organic life, it is just that if all organic life were destroyed his task of creating peaceful co-existence would be impossible.  He refuses to risk a fail state for HIS task just to accomodate life forms who don't like his solution, basically.

As for the whole "let's introduce a new character and a whole new plot line at the climactic moment in the game and do a huge exposition dump" nature of the Star Kid ... yeah, not a shining moment for the series IMO. In fact my favorite endings are the fan cuts where it goes straight from Anderson's farewell to Destroy, and there is no Star Kid at all.

This is how I feel as well. Thank you for sharing.

[CronoDragoon]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Galiredon wrote...

...I heard you don't wanna be killed by synthetics. So I made some synthetics to kill you every 50k years so you won't be killed by synthetics.

The problem is that this wasn't the Catalyst's logic, even before the EC.  The Reapers are techno-organic hybrids, and they essentially harvest advanced civilizations before they have the chance to create tech too powerful for them to control, not only wiping themselves out but also causing collateral damage to more primitive races.  The Catalyst's belief that this is a genuine problem is based on observing the same conflict happening repeatedly over countless cycles.  Furthermore, while individual beings are killed by the Reapers, the actual species, their memories, knowlege, and according to Legion, even their individual minds, are preserved in Reaper form, meaning that unlike death at the hands of synthetics, something does survive, which in the Catalyst's eyes makes it preferable to doing nothing.
In short, the Catalyst's logic isn't faulty, it's just cold, immoral, and barbaric, placing emphasis on the whole of a species while ignoring the value and worth of each individual person, and caring nothing for the mental and physical anguish that occurs during each extinction cycle.  It's wrong because it's evil, not because it's stupid.

I'm hoping more people look closely at the Catalyst now that we have more info about him so they can at least understand what is going on. Although one interesting note we have discovered is that the race that created the Catalyst also became the first Reaper. So, in terms of first-hand experience, the Catalyst went through less than one cycle it seems, to change the method through which he fulfilled his purpose of preserving organics and synthetics into Reaper-ifying them.

[Evo_9]

Galiredon wrote...

Evo_9 wrote...

Galiredon wrote...

Evo_9 wrote...

Daveros wrote...

Evo_9 wrote...

But the catalyst goal is to restore order and prevent chaos.

Its not embedded into its thinking that the cycle is the only way to do this. It said before that it tried other solutions that didnt work.

These new options come up which still fulfill its purpose, so why cant it chose a new one after some careful analysis? 

The catalyst admits its cycle doesnt work, so okay, find a new one! why does shepard have to do it

I'm not going to argue with you, but remember that it is a game. If you rocked up to the Citadel and the Catalyst was all: "Hmm, well this didn't work. I'm going to have to ponder this one for a while. Bye." and then Faunts played out the credits, it wouldn't be so great. Even in comparrison.

lol yeah....

hang on i just found biowares answer.

The catalyst says this

"The Crucible has altered my function. I can't proceed. I can only guide you in it's use" 

so there you go, the crucible is blocking the catalyst.

I just rewatched it. The catalyst doesn't say that.
 

I got it from here....cant check on youtube atm.

http://webcache.goog...n&ct=clnk&gl=au

I read through that. Definately not the original dialogue in game.

Yeah i think it was the original script which obviously changed.

So now we have "the crucible changed me, created new possibilities, but i cant make them happen" 

which is still kinda the same thing but less obvious.