226 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

*rolleyes*

What, no tirade of insults this time, dear? 

[txgoldrush]

Ieldra2 wrote...

*sigh*

Another of *these* threads. A very transparent attempt to invalidate one option by associating it with an antagonist. That's an association fallacy. Very common around here. I say the merits and drawbacks of each of the ending options stand on their own. Their association with anyone in particular is completely irrelevant.

Also, if I may point out:

"You altered the variables".
"The Crucible changed me, created new....possibilities".

That sounds as if the Crucible made the new solutions possible, as well as Shepard's presence. If Shepard's sacrifice has any meaning, something of her will influence how exactly Synthesis works. The Catalyst promotes Synthesis as the best solution, but who designed it is anyone's guess. We simply do not know.

The protagonist is the Deus Ex. Shepard is the solution to the Catalyst's problem. Three reasons.

A) She changed the variables for the Catalyst. Her success at bringing the Crucible to the Citadel has made the Catalyst rethink his cycle. Without Shepard the cycle continues. The fact that Shepard gives the head of the Reapers pause is a huge victory in itself.

He cannot enact the solutions himself for logical reasons. He wouldn't  destroy himself and he already controls the Reapers....and for synthesis

C) It is Shepard that proves to the Catalyst that organics are ready for synthesis. Of course, being a hybrid, Shepard is the only one that can enact it. Shepard once again, a solution to the Catalyst's problem, enacting synthesis.

This is a classic from its greek roots Deus Ex Machina subverted. The roles of the hero and the god from the machine are BACKWARDS.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 19 juillet 2012 - 09:44 .

[Ex-Cerberus]

Well this is pretty much a no-brainer considering the Reapers are practically synthesized beings themselves, both organic and synthetic. I always thought the synthesis ending was just an easier way to turn everyone into Reapers. Only with Shepard synthesis, the victims retain free will.

That's pretty much why I find the synthesis ending the absolute dumbest of all the endings. Well, one of the great many reasons.

[Humakt83]

I made same kind of conclusions a while back.

It should always have been clear how Catalyst was manipulating. According to the current ending it is even more likely that Crucible is Reaper origin, unless you trust Catalyst's word for word.

Modifié par Humakt83, 19 juillet 2012 - 09:40 .

[Taboo]

Synthesis is inevitable, the Catalyst states this.

But his attempts at it have been unsuccessful, as the Cannibals for example, prove.

He believes he is correct because he was programmed that way.

You don't have to choose Synthesis. There are three other options.

Two of them solve the immediate threat.

[Wayning_Star]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

first: it's not a brat second: it's not an AI, but an IA, big difference three: It's dealing with us/MEU, not the other way around. Fourth: It doesn't have 'victims', merely parts of it's programs. Fifth: It doesn't 'dream', the original creators do that 'for' it. Sixth: The "proof" is in the pudding, as it's been at the cycle for millions, maybe billions of years. That kinda leave organics/the entire MEU out of the loop of what to do about anything regarding the motivations of the catalyst and who actually programmed the thing. The crucible is more than just a power supply, but the catalyst doesn't even know that cause it's no longer within it's programming priorities. Who's programming priorites is a mystery. The objection to the synthesis is more proof of that. We/MEU beings couldn't even imagine such choices. Because.....???

1) It's a brat because it is interfering with things that are none of its business and because it tried to be naughty by disguising itself as a child while committing an incredible number of atrocities. 2) It has identified itself as an extremely smart artificial intelligence, so it can reason and thus it can be held accountable for its actions. 3) It is obvious that it tries to deal with the "us" in the MEU, and, considering the body count, that is the main problem. 4) Given its solutions which violate the right of self-determination in any horrific way imaginable the term "victims" seems to be appropriate. 5) The brat is an AI, and thus it can reason. It should be good at it, because it claims to be very smart. 6) If you love to eat that pudding then go ahead, but I don't see any proof in it. The motivations of the brat are totally irrelevant, because, as naughty as it is, the brat sticks its nose in things that are none of its business.

You may think the Crucible is more than just a power supply, but the brat disagrees. The Crucible itself doesn't do much. It requires the Citadel and the mass relays to become effective.

Child: The device you refer to as the Crucible is little more than a power source. However, in combination with the Citadel and the relays, it is capable of releasing tremendous amounts of energy throughout the galaxy. It is crude but effective and adaptive in its design.

And now we are back on topic.

brat cause we're mad at it? It looks like a child cause it's communing with possible choice makers the way it's programmed? It has an identity crises, or do we have that? It doen's care about self determination, other than it's own programming, isn't even part of the equation, but is later introduce to us by it as a choice or choices. It can only reason within the perimiters of its core programming, but untill the crucible introduction, that didn't cover our 'feelings'. Apparently,being in existence even Before the MEU came into existence and beyond, it has every right given it by it sheer ability to do so, just like any other race, we just feel bad cause we couldn't do a damn thing about it, so..we call it names and make petty excuses why we don't/cannot understand it. Jarvik would probably be upset with that scenerio. Form of false pride, exihibited by false/ineffectual bravado.  The catalyst only assumes it to be 'just a power source', it doesn't have the proper program to explain it, not a coincendence, considering what it means for the catalyst. It still decides to utilize an unknown as programming, hows that done, it's infected with a virus, overrunning it's core programming and self defense protocalls.Only ONE race capable of that trick...it aint us. Some organics are plainly sneaking up on it. Shep wants the cycle to stop, the reapers to go the way of all things and MEU to see peace.

Mission critical. but by who's actual mission? The pudding..

[The Angry One]

txgoldrush wrote...

This is a classic from its greek roots Deus Ex Machina subverted. The roles of the hero and the god from the machine are BACKWARDS.

No it's not, because the Catalyst becomes the protagonist and Shepard's input becomes irrelevant in a master stroke of bad writing.
The roles aren't backwards if the Catalyst takes ALL of the roles. It becomes antagonist, protagonist and deus ex machina all rolled into one.

Modifié par The Angry One, 19 juillet 2012 - 09:45 .

[Taboo]

The Catalyst is a proxy.

He merely states what options you have and what it does. He even offers his advice on what the best solution is.

Like the Microsoft Office Paperclip.

[Bill Casey]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...


Since watching and loving the EC, this is how see the choices.

Control : Take the catalyst's place and become a true AI hybrid (like the one david became but failed due to him not being ready for it) by having your body destroyed and your mind digitized and spread throughout the reaper forces to control as you see fit.

Synthesis : This is what the catalyst sees as the only real way to stop the cycle of violence between creator asnd created. And so is the reapers main choice. (you dont want to agree with them do you. The kind of peace and happiness that this creates should be earned by hard work and trust from all parties involved. Like it was starting to when Shepard brought all the races together against the reapers. It cant just be given out, thats to easy)

Destroy : This is the true refusal, where you basically tell the catalyst he is wrong about the organic/synthetic arguement and so destroy him and the reapers (yes the geth and Edi are gone too, but they are casualties of war. And I believe if given the choice, they would agree... I certainly know EDI would after she spoke about risking destruction if joker's life was on the line.)

Refusal : This is the cowards choice. In taking no action you condemn the whole cycle to oblivion because you didnt have the balls to make a choice (One of ME main themes is choice by the way) and so it is then shown that the next cycle was man enough to use the crucible to break the reapers hold on the galaxy.

I think your appraisal of Refusal is off...


Refusal is the idealistic choice in the face of a problem that requires a pragmatic solution...
In some ways, it's the bravest choice Shepard can make...

It's very much in line with Paragon Shepard when he destroyed the Collector Base...
However, any Shepard who has played Arrival knows the score. The Reapers are here. It's the Godzilla threshold. If there's an opportunity to wipe all of the Reapers out at once, we have to take it...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 19 juillet 2012 - 09:52 .

[The Angry One]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Like the Microsoft Office Paperclip.

I'm pretty sure that Paperclip has never been personally responsible for herding people into death camps then melting them into goo.

[Ex-Cerberus]

Refusal is more of a stupid choice than anything else. You have the ability to end the war at that very moment, but your decision is... "nah".

Honestly, I don't even resent the idea of the Reapers winning the war in the end, but not when it results from Shepard being a complete moron.

[The Angry One]

Ex-Cerberus wrote...

Refusal is more of a stupid choice than anything else. You have the ability to end the war at that very moment, but your decision is... "nah".

Honestly, I don't even resent the idea of the Reapers winning the war in the end, but not when it results from Shepard being a complete moron.

You have the opportunity to surrender. Surrendering will end a war, sure. But don't pretend you're winning it.

[Cheviot]

- "What about destroy and control?"
With this theory, they are also functions of the Citadel and not the Crucible. Possibly a creator failsafe that forces the Catalyst to make these functions available.

So why can't the Catalyst design both Destoy and Control too?  It seems to know just as much about them.  It doesn't make any pretence about their function, doesn't lie about what they do, which you may expect if it was being forced to give these options as failsafes.  It obviously favours Synthesis, but at the same time doesn't try to dissuade Shepard from choosing the other options.

[Bill Casey]

[Bill Casey]

The Angry One wrote...

Ex-Cerberus wrote...

Refusal is more of a stupid choice than anything else. You have the ability to end the war at that very moment, but your decision is... "nah".

Honestly, I don't even resent the idea of the Reapers winning the war in the end, but not when it results from Shepard being a complete moron.

You have the opportunity to surrender. Surrendering will end a war, sure. But don't pretend you're winning it.

Yes, I 'm surrendering to the Reapers by killing them...
You sure got one over on the Catalyst by not using the Crucible and letting the Reapers harvest everyone...
You sure fooled him...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 19 juillet 2012 - 09:58 .

[Village_Idiot]

Ex-Cerberus wrote...

Refusal is more of a stupid choice than anything else. You have the ability to end the war at that very moment, but your decision is... "nah".

Honestly, I don't even resent the idea of the Reapers winning the war in the end, but not when it results from Shepard being a complete moron.

I agree, refusal is selfish and hubristic on Shepard's part. Even if the Catalyst was being less than truthful with Shepard, s/he is still faced with the choice of either consigning the galaxy to an inevitable death (conventional victory arguments aside), or taking a risk and potentially saving the galaxy.

Idealistic? Maybe not. But at least we don't all have to die.

[Ex-Cerberus]

 

The Angry One wrote...

Ex-Cerberus wrote...

Refusal is more of a stupid choice than anything else. You have the ability to end the war at that very moment, but your decision is... "nah". 

Honestly, I don't even resent the idea of the Reapers winning the war in the end, but not when it results from Shepard being a complete moron.

You have the opportunity to surrender. Surrendering will end a war, sure. But don't pretend you're winning it.

 
Hahaha, yeah pretty much exactly. You get to fullfill Shepard's secret evil desire to shoot a young child in the face, so that can be a win if you want it to be... 

Bill Casey wrote...

Brilliant. 

[Applepie_Svk]

Shadrach 88 wrote...

Ex-Cerberus wrote...

Refusal is more of a stupid choice than anything else. You have the ability to end the war at that very moment, but your decision is... "nah".

Honestly, I don't even resent the idea of the Reapers winning the war in the end, but not when it results from Shepard being a complete moron.

I agree, refusal is selfish and hubristic on Shepard's part. Even if the Catalyst was being less than truthful with Shepard, s/he is still faced with the choice of either consigning the galaxy to an inevitable death (conventional victory arguments aside), or taking a risk and potentially saving the galaxy.

Idealistic? Maybe not. But at least we don't all have to die.

metagaming / facepalm

Catalyst could simply lied, change the options and you would thinking that you are going to destroy reapers instead unshackled Catalyst with his sick mind or you would force everyone into something unpleasant.

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 19 juillet 2012 - 10:01 .

[Village_Idiot]

The Angry One wrote...

You have the opportunity to surrender. Surrendering will end a war, sure. But don't pretend you're winning it.

An utterly absurd ideology. By this logic all wars ever fought should have ended with the complete massacre of one of the antagonists, since surrender would not end in "victory". I assume the complete waste of lives is immaterial?

[Bill Casey]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

metagaming / facepalm

It's not even metagaming...
All hopes rest on the Crucible...

Everything else is buying time while the Reapers slowly bleed us dry...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 19 juillet 2012 - 10:04 .

[Bill Casey]

Shadrach 88 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

You have the opportunity to surrender. Surrendering will end a war, sure. But don't pretend you're winning it.

An utterly absurd ideology. By this logic all wars ever fought should have ended with the complete massacre of one of the antagonists, since surrender would not end in "victory". I assume the complete waste of lives is immaterial?

No, because completely massacring them would mean you lost, because you also lost some of your troops in the process...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 19 juillet 2012 - 10:05 .

[The Angry One]

Shadrach 88 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

You have the opportunity to surrender. Surrendering will end a war, sure. But don't pretend you're winning it.

An utterly absurd ideology. By this logic all wars ever fought should have ended with the complete massacre of one of the antagonists, since surrender would not end in "victory". I assume the complete waste of lives is immaterial?

Are you suggesting that regimes dedicated to conquest and genocide haven't been toppled and their leaders executed before?

[Mazebook]

Ex-Cerberus wrote...

 

The Angry One wrote...

Ex-Cerberus wrote...

Refusal is more of a stupid choice than anything else. You have the ability to end the war at that very moment, but your decision is... "nah". 

Honestly, I don't even resent the idea of the Reapers winning the war in the end, but not when it results from Shepard being a complete moron.

You have the opportunity to surrender. Surrendering will end a war, sure. But don't pretend you're winning it.

 
Hahaha, yeah pretty much exactly. You get to fullfill Shepard's secret evil desire to shoot a young child in the face, so that can be a win if you want it to be... 

Bill Casey wrote...

Brilliant. 

funny thing that you find the comic brilliant while it contradicts the statement you agreed before.

or how is destroying the reapers is somehow surrendering?
or how is controlling the reapers somehow surrendering?

does not compute.

Modifié par maaaze, 19 juillet 2012 - 10:07 .

[zambot]

Bill Casey wrote...

lol +1

[Village_Idiot]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Shadrach 88 wrote...

I agree, refusal is selfish and hubristic on Shepard's part. Even if the Catalyst was being less than truthful with Shepard, s/he is still faced with the choice of either consigning the galaxy to an inevitable death (conventional victory arguments aside), or taking a risk and potentially saving the galaxy.

Idealistic? Maybe not. But at least we don't all have to die.

metagaming / facepalm

How is this metagaming? I am looking from the viewpoint that Shepard has no reason to trust the Catalyst, which admittedly come the choice, s/he does not.

This leaves a binary decision- either reject the crucible and the choices offered, thereby leaving the galaxy to rot, or taking a big risk on the Catalyst's proposition.

Admittedly this is based on the idea that conventional victory isn''t possible, but I truly believe it isn't. Not given the state of the galaxy come ME3. And since Shepard's decisions are by extension my own, it follows that it should use my own logic.

Modifié par Shadrach 88, 19 juillet 2012 - 10:19 .