191 réponses à ce sujet

[Grimwick]

I'm sorry, OP, but I don't see any of this 'proof' of yours.

Just speculation - and some loose speculation at that.

[Quackjack]

I hope that they wanted to be blown to hell

[BDelacroix]

So you theorize that Reapers want Shepard to win to free them from their AI created nightmare? I had entertained that idea. They had no say in what the catalyst boy told you, though so at best they (if indeed any they still exists) would just be happy to be free (should you have chose destroy).

If you chose control, then their slave master simply changes.

If you chose synthesis, then nothing changes for them at all, just their catalyst boy controller now has no purpose and his loop can exit.

I chose to delete his programming.

[Krunjar]

Yep I basically came up with the same thing myself. It completely fits and makes the ending totally believable. Mass effect 3's ending just turned into a pile of awesome for me. As mordin  said .. no proof but ... theory fit's evidence!

Modifié par Krunjar, 05 juillet 2012 - 03:42 .

[Xandurpein]

The whole issue of Catalyst being unable to break his programming is interesting, missing one point about the nature of the Catalyst. This is also a giant plot hole in the ending, especially after the Extended Cut.

Catalyst wasn't programmed to kill all sentient organics, he was programmed to save organics from being exterminated by synthetics. The Catalyst himself was the one who formulated the Reaper cycle as a solution to this. It's clearly evident in the EC that his programmers did not intend Catalyst to do this. Catalyst cannot change its prime directive or deviate from its goal, but it can devise its own strategies about how to best achieve this goal.

So it really makes no sense, if we believe what Catalyst explains about it's origin, that its unable to decide on a new course of action, once it's been integrated with the Crucible. The moment Catalyst was docked with the Crucible it ought to have been able to just fire it by itself.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 05 juillet 2012 - 03:46 .

[Krunjar]

Xandurpein wrote...

The whole issue of Catalyst being unable to break his programming is interesting, missing one point about the nature of the Catalyst. This is also a giant plot hole in the ending, especially after the Extended Cut.

Catalyst wasn't programmed to kill all sentient organics, he was programmed to save organics from being exterminated by synthetics. The Catalyst himself was the one who formulated the Reaper cycle as a solution to this. It's clearly evident in the EC that his programmers did not intend Catalyst to do this. Catalyst cannot change his prime directive or deviate from his goal, but he can devise his own strategies about how to best achieve this goals.

So it really makes no sense, if we believe what Catalyst explains about it's origin, that it's unable to decide on a new course of action, once it's been integrated with the Crucible. The moment Catalyst was docked with the Crucible it ought to have been able to just fire it by itself.

The catalyst says it himself doesn't he. The crucible and shepards presence changed the variables. He can  formulate new solutions but it's entireley possible that as long as the harvest remains the "best" solution by his programmed parameters then he can't deviate from it.

I already mentioned in another topic that assuming the  technological singularity exists (and the creation of something like the catalyst would probably be dumb if it didn't) The "Harvest" has saved more lives than it ever took. A Brutal but entireley logical choice.

Modifié par Krunjar, 05 juillet 2012 - 03:47 .

[Gyroscopic_Trout]

Xandurpein wrote...

The whole issue of Catalyst being unable to break his programming is interesting, missing one point about the nature of the Catalyst. This is also a giant plot hole in the ending, especially after the Extended Cut.

Catalyst wasn't programmed to kill all sentient organics, he was programmed to save organics from being exterminated by synthetics. The Catalyst himself was the one who formulated the Reaper cycle as a solution to this. It's clearly evident in the EC that his programmers did not intend Catalyst to do this. Catalyst cannot change its prime directive or deviate from its goal, but it can devise its own strategies about how to best achieve this goal.

So it really makes no sense, if we believe what Catalyst explains about it's origin, that its unable to decide on a new course of action, once it's been integrated with the Crucible. The moment Catalyst was docked with the Crucible it ought to have been able to just fire it by itself.

The Catalyst was not created to save organics from synthetics.  He was basically a synthetic diplomat designed to bridge the gap between the two groups.  Kind of like what David Archer was supposed to become in Project Overlord.

I like this whole theory of the Reapers wanting Shepard to win, though I think it more likely that they want to be free of the Catalyst and that it's the only one in this scenario with free will.  He's just an oblivious little s**t who can't see how he's hurting the people he's trying to "save."

[Xandurpein]

Krunjar wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

The whole issue of Catalyst being unable to break his programming is interesting, missing one point about the nature of the Catalyst. This is also a giant plot hole in the ending, especially after the Extended Cut.

Catalyst wasn't programmed to kill all sentient organics, he was programmed to save organics from being exterminated by synthetics. The Catalyst himself was the one who formulated the Reaper cycle as a solution to this. It's clearly evident in the EC that his programmers did not intend Catalyst to do this. Catalyst cannot change his prime directive or deviate from his goal, but he can devise his own strategies about how to best achieve this goals.

So it really makes no sense, if we believe what Catalyst explains about it's origin, that it's unable to decide on a new course of action, once it's been integrated with the Crucible. The moment Catalyst was docked with the Crucible it ought to have been able to just fire it by itself.

The catalyst says it himself doesn't he. The crucible and shepards presence changed the variables. He can  formulate new solutions but it's entireley possible that as long as the harvest remains the "best" solution by his programmed parameters then he can't deviate from it.

That's still not logical. Either harvesting is the best solution by its parameters or not. If reaping still is the "best" solution, then it's impossible for Catalyst to aid Shepard in breaking it. If one of the new solutions are "better" then Catalyst would be compelled to execute it immediately.

I guess that Catalyst could have been programmed to automatically accept an override command from an organic being in the chamber, but then they should have said so in the game.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 05 juillet 2012 - 03:58 .

[tettenjager]

I like your theory, it makes the reapers the "tragic villains"

and ignore the angry one, you just can't argue with her.

[Ieldra]

@OP:
I've thought along those lines myself, but you put it together more comprehensively than I had time for. Many thanks for this fascinating perspective.

Perhaps you're also interested in my thread

*On the nature of the Catalyst and the Reapers, and why Synthesis is an attractive choice. An exploration of the nature of the Reapers and their relationship to the Catalyst.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 juillet 2012 - 04:12 .

[tettenjager]

@ OP: I think you will find this post also interesting
http://social.biowar.../index/12866670

[Krunjar]

@ Xandurpein

I see your point. However I disagree. It's true that this theory does speculate to some degree about the nature of the catalyst and the reapers but there isn't a single interpretation of the endings on this forum that doesn't do that to some degree or another. Saying it "should have been mentioned" is all well and good but if we have to mention everything that could possibly be relevant to the decision then the conversation with the Starchild would probably go on for a day and a half. I believe we are meant to infer this stuff for ourselves based on what we are told. We are told that the catalyst can't make the changes happen by itself. Perhaps Shepards decision itself is a part of the "variables" mentioned? He certainly seems to be a necessary component in both the control and synthesis endings. It would depend on the exact programming of the catalyst and I don't think any of us want to be drawn into that line of speculation. As all that ends in a Uh-huh!/Nu-uh! Argument. I like this interpretation and I think it holds water just as much as any other. No one is forcing anyone to ascribe to it though.

Modifié par Krunjar, 05 juillet 2012 - 04:11 .

[jeff359]

Well done, best theory I've seen on these boards in a long time.

[stephen_dedalus]

JustinElenbaas wrote...


Remember Reapers are sentient ships made up the combined matter of entire species...there is no argument that could be logically made that EVERY species harvested by the Reapers is inherently evil and prone to willingly continuing with the cycle.

While ultimately your theory may be validated, right now I don't think we have enough information about the relationship between the individual uploaded organic minds that populate a Reaper and the emergent Reaper consciousness generated by these minds to know how completely, if at all, they may be identified with one another.  Do the harvested minds collectively participate in an individual Reaper's consciousness, or do they merely facilitate it?  In the latter case, it would not matter what the inherent moral predisposition of the harvested race was (as if an entire species could ever be reduced to a single, homogenous moral perspective): the emergent Reaper consciousness, because it structurally exceeds the limitations and influence of the harvested minds that provide the raw materials for its operation, could conceivably exhibit the hubris and condescention we see in Sovereign and Harbinger no matter how benevolent or malevolent the harvested species may have been.  The implications are crucial: when you suggest that "they no longer wish to fulfill their programming," to what does the pronoun "they" refer?  The harvested organics, or the emergent Reaper personality?

If, on the other hand, the harvested minds somehow come to collectively identify themselves as participatory in Reaper consciousness (as Legion's dialogue about Sovereign in ME2 seems to suggest), then it would seem necessary to invoke some other mechanic to explain how a diverse, heterogenous collective would come to behave as if in obedience to some unilateral mandate from above.  Perhaps some internal process of indoctrination is at work here.

An intriguing possibility is that the harvested minds may, if the conditions are right, muster enough willpower to engage in brief moments of resistance against the emergent Reaper personality.  If, as has been suggested by others in these forums, Harbinger speaks the words "save us" before attacking Shepard, then perhaps the harvested were able to wrest control from the Reaper personality long enough to communicate with Shepard, before the Harbinger personality regained control and resumed aggressions. 

Some further questions: does the relationship of each individual Reaper to the Catalyst obey the same structural principles as the relationship between each harvested organic and the Reaper in which they are incarcerated?  For example, does Sovereign or Harbinger participate in the consciousness of the Catalyst, or is the Catalyst something that exists above and beyond individual Reapers?  Do the Reapers become benevolent in the Synthesis ending because each Reaper personality is freed from the influence of the Catalyst, or because the harvested organics are freed from the influence of the Reaper personality to which they give rise?  Will the rumored Leviathan DLC shed any light on these matters?  Let's hope so.

Modifié par stephen_dedalus, 05 juillet 2012 - 06:10 .

[Krunjar]

Great post Stephen! unfortunately I think that any answers to those questions can only be the result of speculation. We just aren't given enough proof to nail anything down 100%. However I am much looking forward to the leviathan of DIS dlc now, previously I wanted Retake Omega first but this is now my most wanted

So down to some important issues .. first we need a catchy name for this theory like the IT boys have XD

Any ideas XD ?

Modifié par Krunjar, 05 juillet 2012 - 04:36 .

[stephen_dedalus]

Krunjar wrote...

Great post Stephen! unfortunately I think that any answers to those questions can only be the result of speculation. We just aren't given enough proof to nail anything down 100%. However I am much looking forward to the leviathan of DIS dlc now

Thanks!  I too am eagerly awaiting the chance to meet Leviathan.  I can't help but think he'll be spilling plenty of inside information.

[Verit]

JustinElenbaas wrote...
Next we have the extended cut moment that fleshes this Reaper act of rebellion so exquisitely.  Just before firing in Shepard's general viscinity.  Harbinger literally musters up the ability to say "save us", before firing.  This act of rebelliion on Harbinger's part is extremely difficult.

I'm not sure if that's even Harbinger. You actually hear that voice at least once before the final beam from Harbinger. Listen closely to the following part (before the gunfire starts):

"Save us" during the Normandy evac

And that's not Harbinger. Not sure what the meaning behind it is, I don't know if Bioware even knows or they just threw that in for more speculation.

I'd like to believe that the fact that Harbinger didn't shoot the Normandy was intentional and not another epic blunder from Bioware, but even if the Reapers wanted to help Shepard then the game should have made that clear. If you have to grasp at straws to try and explain why these events aren't as disjointed or nonsensical as they seem, then we're right back at where we were with the first version of ending! That's when the IT was trying to do what you're trying to do here (or is, for those that insist on still believing in IT). The EC was supposed to fix this mess, yet here we are, right back to speculation! I've come to the obvious conclusion: the ending is simply bad, and whatever artistic meaning Bioware thinks they've hidden in the ending was completely lost to their audience.

Modifié par -Draikin-, 05 juillet 2012 - 04:48 .

[Baa Baa]

This is actually a really cool theory. Hope they add some info on this in if Leviathan comes out

[Gibril]

The only thing I have against this theory is that by me picking destroy, I'm the selfish narrow minded one for killing off more than I am saving.
I believe that the reapers, even though representative of the whole species, is just one entity, one mental entity, not the entire untold millions or billions of creatures making it up. So, killing one of them is not akin to killing millions of whatever they once were. And, honestly, at this point, if they could rebel, I think they would also want death. If you were to kill off, let's say, one hundred people, then assemble their body into a macabre piece of machine that allows them to still function like they hadn't just died, and you were to do that once every ten years, you'd want to die eventually too... Also, I lost my train of thought... I'm going to leave off here and maybe come back if I can remember.

[stephen_dedalus]

There's a good deal of relevant discussion in this thread, some of which seems to have predicted the type of rogue-Reaper scenario we're apparently getting in the Leviathan DLC:

http://social.biowar.../index/12533591

Modifié par stephen_dedalus, 05 juillet 2012 - 05:36 .

[D24O]

stephen_dedalus wrote...

There's a good deal of relevant discussion in this thread, some of which seems to have predicted the type of rogue-Reaper scenario we're apparently getting in the Leviathan DLC:

http://social.biowar.../index/12533591

There's also a good youtube video on the topic here.

[Krunjar]

That vid is blocked in my region any chance of a summary of what it says ?

[Macro Dude]

The reapers strike me as kind of "borg / cylon". They still have their seperate minds, but have no control over the choices they make, having a hive mind mentality. TIM would have been a classic BORG queen, where as the catalyst is simply stuck with it's most logical desion, "the cycle". It has been a running theme of fear of unshackled AI's through out Mass Effect, due to the Geth / Quarrian conflict. It all comes down to great knowledge, without experience or wisdom equals trouble. EDI and Legion are prime examples, as both of them gain experience with living, working, and fighting with and amoung organics begin to understand, where as the catilyst dosen't have that option, and is still a slave to it's core programing. Yes, I would have liked to see an end where Shep get's to retire someplace tropical and start making little blue babies, but it just wasen't in the cards.

Modifié par Macro Dude, 05 juillet 2012 - 05:58 .

[D24O]

Krunjar wrote...

That vid is blocked in my region any chance of a summary of what it says ?

Basically that the Catalyst is a crazy AI or maybe even a VI, that knows its stuck in a faulty logical loop. Since the reapers are sentient, they know this too, but being controled by the catalyst, they are stuck in the same loop against their will. This interpertation is actually pretty interesting.

[Ericus]

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

I like this whole theory of the Reapers wanting Shepard to win, though I think it more likely that they want to be free of the Catalyst and that it's the only one in this scenario with free will.  He's just an oblivious little s**t who can't see how he's hurting the people he's trying to "save."

Good post OP.  But I do agree with Gyroscopic_Trout that the Reapers (or at least Harbinger) most likely wanted the Catalyst taken out of the picture.  Without him to shackle their thought processes, they'd be free to act as they see fit.  I could certainly believe that Shepard would be the only organic Harbinger might respect enough to try and solve the Reaper's problem.

Although it's clear in Control and Synthesis that the reaping will stop, I do wonder if the Reapers will start looking for volunteers for ascension?  They certainly seem to think they're the pinnacle of evolution, so it would make sense that they'd still want to offer that 'opportunity' to the simple organics around them.