55 réponses à ce sujet

[JShepppp]

MrFob wrote...

It's a cute analogy but it doesn't really explain anything as far as I can see.
Maybe a small logical point first: You are saying the original assigned command for the catalyst is supposed to be "make it warm enough for life to live". I think you should change this to just "make it warm" (which is a stupid command by the creators in the first place but that's a different point). If you keep the rest, it should prevent the catalyst from burning any life to death and it would rather have invented air conditioning.
Now, the main problem with the logic of the ending is the destroy option. With this option the catalyst suddenly and without reason abandoned it's task. You allegory also doesn't cover very well the fact that the catalyst is an integral part of the water bomb. The bomb won't work without it and thus the catalyst becomes complicit in the destruction of it's own solution. Why?
As for the other endings - the real ones in the ME universe - it can be argued that they aren't solutions either (as has been done in other threads lot's of times) but even if they are, since they - again the real ones - require Shepard to trust the catalyst completely before any results are shown, there is a big question mark as to why Shepard would do so. Basically the catalyst says 'through yourself into the fire and I will end it after that/make your people immune to the cold." Given that the catalyst and it's fire had the potential to alter the cavemans' minds before in order to turn them into pyromaniacs, that is a very bold leap of faith for Shepard to take.

In conclusion, I think you can sugar coat and rewrite the endings however you like, they will never be entirely logical, bearable for any but the most renegade or compromising Shepards or consistent with the rest of Mass Effect's story.

EDIT: I just reread my post and realised it comes off as a bit hostile. Please understand that this is not intended. I am happy that you can apparently make sense of the catalyst and the endings and that they work for you. I am happy for anyone for which they do (I really wish they would for me). However I have yet to find the line of reasoning that removes enough of the logical and narrative fallacies to make them work for me.

No problem for "appearing" hostile, it's cool. I know what you're saying about sloppy writing. I loved the EC, but hints of rushed-ness were still there. Getting thrown into the midst of it and being told to trust the Catalyst can, in-game, be a bit disconcerting. 

As for the analogy, it only goes so far. I originally had it to "make things warm" but just changed it at the last minute without thinking because I thought it'd be more applicable to the creators. But yeah.

[BatmanPWNS]

Understanding the catalyst is like trying to blow up your brain.

Modifié par BatmanPWNS, 07 juillet 2012 - 09:40 .

[JShepppp]

Dendio1 wrote...

nhcre8tv1 wrote...

EVERYBODY.
HEY EVERYBODY.
READ THIS.

This

Lol thank you guys.

[Dendio1]

Bookmarked, awesome story telling and great analogy

Was reading something online and this thread came to mind

Modifié par Dendio1, 19 juillet 2012 - 02:42 .

[Tritium315]

****'s were just burning away the inferior races, so it's all good; they're like fire!

[JShepppp]

Dendio1 wrote...

Bookmarked, awesome story telling and great analogy

Was reading something online and this thread came to mind

Thanks Dendio for the praise.

[MetioricTest]

Fire has never caused my species vermin and declared that it is beyond my comprehension as it burns me.

Nor has it chased after me if I run away from it.... Well unless I'm running alongside a path of flammable objects

[Bill Casey]

Child: "When Gonorrhea burns, is it at war?"

Shepard: "That's... space-terrible"

Modifié par Bill Casey, 20 juillet 2012 - 03:26 .

[Hey]

Bill Casey wrote...

Child: "When Gonorrhea burns, is it at war?"

Shepard: "That's... space-terrible"

*cough*  projecting a personal experience, Bill? 

[OdanUrr]

"If you immediately know the candle light is fire, then the meal was cooked a long time ago."B)

[Bill Casey]

Festae9 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Child: "When Gonorrhea burns, is it at war?"

Shepard: "That's... space-terrible"

*cough*  projecting a personal experience, Bill? 

Yes...
I too once knew a child who wouldn't shut up...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 20 juillet 2012 - 03:30 .

[Hey]

Bill Casey wrote...

Festae9 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Child: "When Gonorrhea burns, is it at war?"

Shepard: "That's... space-terrible"

*cough*  projecting a personal experience, Bill? 

Yes...
I too once knew a child who wouldn't shut up...

lol.  nice..  Good you didn't shoot him then.

[Taboo]

One intresting caveat.

When there is nothing left to burn, it dies.

The analogy is pretty awful.

[Zuka999]

still sucks

[GreyLycanTrope]

The Reapers are not a natural disaster that simply scorches everything it touches, they destroy specific targets.
/thread

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 20 juillet 2012 - 04:09 .

[Galifreya]

Fire isn't controlled by an insane computer. It's a part of nature. A very chaotic part of nature. Something the Catalyst is adamantly against.

This simply leads me to believe that they must be killed with fire. Which you can do. Also, you get to live. YAY. I guess.

[JShepppp]

OdanUrr wrote...

"If you immediately know the candle light is fire, then the meal was cooked a long time ago."B)

you, sir, win the internet for your quote of stargate. stargate is actually my favorite scifi series of all time (i may recieve a lot of flak for that but yeah)

[JShepppp]

Greylycantrope wrote...

The Reapers are not a natural disaster that simply scorches everything it touches, they destroy specific targets.
/thread

Well, as I noted, the analogy only goes so far. But good of you to bring the negatives to the light so others will keep it in mind.

[JShepppp]

Taboo-XX wrote...

One intresting caveat.

When there is nothing left to burn, it dies.

The analogy is pretty awful.

Apologies it didnt meet ur expectations Taboo lol.

[Taboo]

JShepppp wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

One intresting caveat.

When there is nothing left to burn, it dies.

The analogy is pretty awful.

Apologies it didnt meet ur expectations Taboo lol.

Not yours, the Catalyst's.

A fire is created and dies when it is either put out or cannot burn anything else.

It doesn't just sit there.

[saracen16]

OP, you are FANTASTIC!

[The Eruptionist]

comrade gando wrote...

the catalyst is a reaper. and reapers are bad news.

I came here to destroy the reapers, not understand them. DESTROY THEM! don't get distracted...

once they distract you, they control you. pick red.

So would you ignore the fact that the man holding a gun to your head was doing so only because he had a gun held to his own head? The Reapers were simply tools of the Catalyst and the Catalyst is the tool of its original faulty programming.

"I came here to destroy the reapers, not understand them". If all you wanted was 'good v.s evil' then you were playing the wrong game. Saying you don't want to understand something is tantamount to saying that you don't want to have to think. 


Anyway... Great post OP. A shame it didn't recieve more attention. But that is the drawback of creating long posts. I only found this thread after clicking on the 'final frontier' that is the second thread page. I must admit that I wasn't going to read the post after seeing how long it was but did so anyway and am glad I did. 

You say that the analogy has its limitations but it does do its job and providing an alternative framework for looking at something may be the key for some people to make them think about the endings in a different way. It's hard to convince anyone to question their views (as indicated by some of the posts here) but at least you gave a decent show of it.

I agree with the implications of your allegory and the role that was given to the Catalyst with its indifference to anything other than its central goal. It was created for a purpose and so fulfils that purpose. Nothing more, nothing less. The obvious limitations built into the Catalyst's programming produce some very interesting questions regarding its origins and the story of its creators. I love the thought of there once existing a civilization which was at war with its own synthetic AI creations and out of desperation created another AI as a final hail-Mary to fix the problem. Perhaps from lack of time, a major programming stuff up, or lack of technical ability they ended up making something beyond their control in almost every sense of the word. It simultaneously saved and doomed them. Tragedy is the best word to describe it. So many options and awesome implications arise from that situation. Sure the 'Skynet' theme is an old one but it has enough of its own unique details that it becomes original and appropriate for the ME series (at least for me).

I've seen criticism regarding the endings that they abandoned the main themes of Shepard's story but if you actually look at it you can find virtually every single theme discussed in the game present within the final 15 minutes. But this post is already long enough so I won't go into that.

Regarding Mr Fob's comment. It was not the Catalyst that came up with the 3 options presented at the end. They were either introduced to it or unlocked by the Crucible. The Catalyst did not willingly give you the 'kill me' button; the Crucible did that and so the options exist against the Catalyst's will not because of it. If you are looking for a reason to trust the Catalyst then I might suggest reading this blog entry I created a while ago: http://social.biowar...42/blog/214788/

Once again, great post JShepppp.

 

Modifié par The Eruptionist, 20 juillet 2012 - 08:32 .

[JShepppp]

@TheEruptionist: Thanks a lot for your comment, it's very humbling. As for the blog entry you created, I suggest you make it an actual thread for people to read it, because it is an interesting point. The Catalyst actually saying it controls the Reapers can be a strong indicator that it isn't trying to control you or subtly deceive you, because if that was what it was trying to do, it'd be stupid for it to say it's the one thing that'd make you least likely to trust it.

[CosmicGnosis]

Fantastic post. I really didn't know what to expect, but I was pleasantly surprised.

[Hazegurl]

JShepppp wrote...
Snipped

No fire isn't at war because fire doesn't think, doesn't contain warfare logic and tatics, and isn't premeditated. It doesn't kill everyone you love then turn them into monsters mind controlled to kill you, it doesn't destory every single living being in a planet every 50,000 years, it doesn't threaten you, attempt to break your morale, attempt to use everyone and everything you care about against you. It doesn't decide where to blaze first or last, doesn't have scouts watching you,and it doesn't send other beings to kidnap your people.

You want to know who can do a good number of those things? Someone starting a war.