80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Bill Casey]

I'm pretty sure the citadel is the catalyst...

[BatmanTurian]

Bill Casey wrote...

The voice doesn't sound like Harbinger...
Although I don't know what Harbinger's yelling voice would sound like...

exactly....

[BatmanTurian]

plfranke wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

plfranke wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

plfranke wrote...

It really bothers me how much is floating around this thread that is not based on facts. Like "The Catalyst is Shepard" and "The AI is Harbinger". No evidence for either of these things, just gut instincts.

You do realize that a piece of literature can infer something and not come out and say it. It's usually when the author expects the readers to be intelligent enough to figure it out if they just leave a few breadcrumbs. I'm sorry that it bothers you that people are coming to conclusions that are inferred by the writers.

Oh wait, no I'm not. God, you complain about everything.

Actually, the only time I complain is about Demersal's posts about the derelict man. I don't know why you feel you have to label me as such a bad guy in all of your posts.

You come off as negative sometimes. Perhaps I am misreading your tone?

While I be negative about IT, I never direct my negativity at one person (except demersal with his crazy theories). My negativity is more often against ideas and are based within the argument side of things, but that's primarily because I don't see a future for indoctrination in the end game anymore. You on the other hand are constantly personally attacking me when you respond to my posts, almost as if you believe I'm not only against IT but the people within the thread. I regulary defend stronger points of the theory and rarely side with any literalists on anything. However, what I don't agree with are ideas that are not fact based, for instance anything spawning from the notion that the voice in refuse is Harbinger's voice when that's inconclusive at best. When you have to take x that could or could not be y and then take a trail of very tiny breadcrumbs that lead to z I'm not gonna be on board.

I also don't like ideas that don't seem to add anything to the story. The derelict man is a perfect example of this. However, Shepard being the Catalyst can apply as well. This idea would have you believe that a civilization, perhaps billions of years ago, created a device that over the course of time was added to and at some point required something no one knew would even exist in order to function properly.

well, in the definition of a catalyst, the catalyst is not changed in a chemical reaction. Clearly Shepard is not changed. He/she still has hope, which can't be taken away. So the core of Shep is not changed in the reaction. Starkid himself says he is changed by new possibilities. That's not how a catalyst works.

[BatmanTurian]

you saw nothing

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 24 octobre 2012 - 06:51 .

[plfranke]

SwobyJ wrote...

plfranke wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

plfranke wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

plfranke wrote...

It really bothers me how much is floating around this thread that is not based on facts. Like "The Catalyst is Shepard" and "The AI is Harbinger". No evidence for either of these things, just gut instincts.

You do realize that a piece of literature can infer something and not come out and say it. It's usually when the author expects the readers to be intelligent enough to figure it out if they just leave a few breadcrumbs. I'm sorry that it bothers you that people are coming to conclusions that are inferred by the writers.

Oh wait, no I'm not. God, you complain about everything.

Actually, the only time I complain is about Demersal's posts about the derelict man. I don't know why you feel you have to label me as such a bad guy in all of your posts.

You come off as negative sometimes. Perhaps I am misreading your tone?

While I be negative about IT, I never direct my negativity at one person (except demersal with his crazy theories). My negativity is more often against ideas and are based within the argument side of things, but that's primarily because I don't see a future for indoctrination in the end game anymore. You on the other hand are constantly personally attacking me when you respond to my posts, almost as if you believe I'm not only against IT but the people within the thread. I regulary defend stronger points of the theory and rarely side with any literalists on anything. However, what I don't agree with are ideas that are not fact based, for instance anything spawning from the notion that the voice in refuse is Harbinger's voice when that's inconclusive at best. When you have to take x that could or could not be y and then take a trail of very tiny breadcrumbs that lead to z I'm not gonna be on board.

I also don't like ideas that don't seem to add anything to the story. The derelict man is a perfect example of this. However, Shepard being the Catalyst can apply as well. This idea would have you believe that a civilization, perhaps billions of years ago, created a device that over the course of time was added to and at some point required something no one knew would even exist in order to function properly.

Actually that 'civilization' may be either the Reapers as a trap, or the Leviathans as their 'uber secret plan that never quite works out'.

Or both.

If Leviathans have been guiding organic evolution over many millenia......

And again, I guess I have to repeat that this stuff here is GUESSING and SPECULATING. Obviously. But somehow that seems to get to you.

All I'm saying is, I think people get a little attached to their ideas around here. Let me give examples. I was in the midst of coming up with a theory a while back about Kai Leng being a part of Shepard's subconscious mind. I won't go into the long version but here were some of the important parts.

No one really pays attention to Kai Leng and only Shepard directly talks to him. People tend to go out of their way to ignore him in cutscenes, most notably on the Citadel and in TIM's office. I killed this theory primarily because of the conversation Shepard can have with Miranda about Kai Leng, and the events at Sanctuary. Now there are several people here who with some of their ideas, would take a different line of thinking. They might say, "Well Shepard could have just dreamed up that conversation with Miranda" or any number of other unrealistic things. Just go into things with more of an open mind to your ideas not being right. People are acting like they die with their ideas here. You can always come up with new ones.

[plfranke]

BatmanTurian wrote...

plfranke wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

plfranke wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

plfranke wrote...

It really bothers me how much is floating around this thread that is not based on facts. Like "The Catalyst is Shepard" and "The AI is Harbinger". No evidence for either of these things, just gut instincts.

You do realize that a piece of literature can infer something and not come out and say it. It's usually when the author expects the readers to be intelligent enough to figure it out if they just leave a few breadcrumbs. I'm sorry that it bothers you that people are coming to conclusions that are inferred by the writers.

Oh wait, no I'm not. God, you complain about everything.

Actually, the only time I complain is about Demersal's posts about the derelict man. I don't know why you feel you have to label me as such a bad guy in all of your posts.

You come off as negative sometimes. Perhaps I am misreading your tone?

While I be negative about IT, I never direct my negativity at one person (except demersal with his crazy theories). My negativity is more often against ideas and are based within the argument side of things, but that's primarily because I don't see a future for indoctrination in the end game anymore. You on the other hand are constantly personally attacking me when you respond to my posts, almost as if you believe I'm not only against IT but the people within the thread. I regulary defend stronger points of the theory and rarely side with any literalists on anything. However, what I don't agree with are ideas that are not fact based, for instance anything spawning from the notion that the voice in refuse is Harbinger's voice when that's inconclusive at best. When you have to take x that could or could not be y and then take a trail of very tiny breadcrumbs that lead to z I'm not gonna be on board.

I also don't like ideas that don't seem to add anything to the story. The derelict man is a perfect example of this. However, Shepard being the Catalyst can apply as well. This idea would have you believe that a civilization, perhaps billions of years ago, created a device that over the course of time was added to and at some point required something no one knew would even exist in order to function properly.

well, in the definition of a catalyst, the catalyst is not changed in a chemical reaction. Clearly Shepard is not changed. He/she still has hope, which can't be taken away. So the core of Shep is not changed in the reaction. Starkid himself says he is changed by new possibilities. That's not how a catalyst works.

"Poetic but as usual you miss the point." I'll just quote the last part of my post

"This idea would have you believe that a civilization, perhaps billions of years ago, created a device that over the course of time was added to and at some point required something no one knew would even exist in order to function properly."
Edit: Although I agree that Starkid is bogus as the Catalyst in many ways. Like his line about how the Crucible is a power source, yet the Catalyst was always described as what powers the Crucible and there are even war assets that support this.

Modifié par plfranke, 24 octobre 2012 - 06:54 .

[BatmanTurian]

plfranke wrote...
"Poetic but as usual you miss the point." I'll just quote the last part of my post

"This idea would have you believe that a civilization, perhaps billions of years ago, created a device that over the course of time was added to and at some point required something no one knew would even exist in order to function properly."
Edit: Although I agree that Starkid is bogus as the Catalyst in many ways. Like his line about how the Crucible is a power source, yet the Catalyst was always described as what powers the Crucible and there are even war assets that support this.

It says it needs a catalyst. We don't know what it is. I'm not defending that it's Shepard. But it's clearly not star beiber, by proof of his own slimy wording.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 24 octobre 2012 - 06:56 .

[BleedingUranium]

The "so be it" is not Harbinger's voice, but it's not like that's the only thing we have suggesting Harbinger and the AI are one and the same.

As for Shepard being the Catalyst, that doesn't mean he'd have to do anything with the Crucible. Maybe the Crucible's a trap or a paperweight, doesn't matter. Shepard is the Catalyst for galactic unity, and for the defeat of the Reapers. It doesn't have to be a device, or physical object. The Catalyst is an idea, much like "The One" from the Matrix, just without the special powers.

[BatmanTurian]

BleedingUranium wrote...

The "so be it" is not Harbinger's voice, but it's not like that's the only thing we have suggesting Harbinger and the AI are one and the same.

As for Shepard being the Catalyst, that doesn't mean he'd have to do anything with the Crucible. Maybe the Crucible's a trap or a paperweight, doesn't matter. Shepard is the Catalyst for galactic unity, and for the defeat of the Reapers. It doesn't have to be a device, or physical object. The Catalyst is an idea, much like "The One" from the Matrix, just without the special powers.

Well it sounds like him to me, but I'm fine if you guys disagree. We all have our own differences in interpretation.

[byne]

I'm pretty sure way back when the EC first came out, someone here messed with the "So be it" audio and it turned out to be just Mark Meer's voice.

Anyhow, bed time for me.

[BatmanTurian]

SwobyJ wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

I'm pretty sure the citadel is the catalyst...

Thessia VI is weird..

Uses seeming 'air quotes' around 'destroy them'. (this may be nothing)

"They are only the servants of the pattern, not its master."
"It's presence is inferred rather than observed."
"The only certainty is its intention, galactic annihilation."

"Very well. If you have followed the plans for the Crucible I will interface with your systems and assist with the Catalyst to-"

Wait, assist with the Catalyst? Assist with the Citadel, which in seemingly ALL previous cycles, was taken over by the Reapers ASAP?

.... No, I actually don't think so.


I'll venture a wild guess (woooo so wild and vague) that the Catalyst is one who is resistant to indoctrination and able to spread it throughout. Essentially shut down the Reapers at their source - their 'indoctrination' by Harbinger.
Very rough idea and likely at least 50% wrong, but I think you get the idea.

Yeah, that assist with the Catalyst part was always wierd. It's either referring to Shep in the third-person or it's talking about something completely different.

[plfranke]

BatmanTurian wrote...

plfranke wrote...
"Poetic but as usual you miss the point." I'll just quote the last part of my post

"This idea would have you believe that a civilization, perhaps billions of years ago, created a device that over the course of time was added to and at some point required something no one knew would even exist in order to function properly."
Edit: Although I agree that Starkid is bogus as the Catalyst in many ways. Like his line about how the Crucible is a power source, yet the Catalyst was always described as what powers the Crucible and there are even war assets that support this.

It says it needs a catalyst. We don't know what it is. I'm not defending that it's Shepard. But it's clearly not star beiber, by proof of his own slimy wording.

Indeed. Perhaps the Reapers created the crucible as a means to create a "Super Reaper" if you will, consisting of all the races of a cycle funneled into one Reaper. This would however require a catalyst, being who ever was strong enough to unite all the races.

[plfranke]

SwobyJ wrote...

plfranke wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

plfranke wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

plfranke wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

plfranke wrote...

It really bothers me how much is floating around this thread that is not based on facts. Like "The Catalyst is Shepard" and "The AI is Harbinger". No evidence for either of these things, just gut instincts.

You do realize that a piece of literature can infer something and not come out and say it. It's usually when the author expects the readers to be intelligent enough to figure it out if they just leave a few breadcrumbs. I'm sorry that it bothers you that people are coming to conclusions that are inferred by the writers.

Oh wait, no I'm not. God, you complain about everything.

Actually, the only time I complain is about Demersal's posts about the derelict man. I don't know why you feel you have to label me as such a bad guy in all of your posts.

You come off as negative sometimes. Perhaps I am misreading your tone?

While I be negative about IT, I never direct my negativity at one person (except demersal with his crazy theories). My negativity is more often against ideas and are based within the argument side of things, but that's primarily because I don't see a future for indoctrination in the end game anymore. You on the other hand are constantly personally attacking me when you respond to my posts, almost as if you believe I'm not only against IT but the people within the thread. I regulary defend stronger points of the theory and rarely side with any literalists on anything. However, what I don't agree with are ideas that are not fact based, for instance anything spawning from the notion that the voice in refuse is Harbinger's voice when that's inconclusive at best. When you have to take x that could or could not be y and then take a trail of very tiny breadcrumbs that lead to z I'm not gonna be on board.

I also don't like ideas that don't seem to add anything to the story. The derelict man is a perfect example of this. However, Shepard being the Catalyst can apply as well. This idea would have you believe that a civilization, perhaps billions of years ago, created a device that over the course of time was added to and at some point required something no one knew would even exist in order to function properly.

Actually that 'civilization' may be either the Reapers as a trap, or the Leviathans as their 'uber secret plan that never quite works out'.

Or both.

If Leviathans have been guiding organic evolution over many millenia......

And again, I guess I have to repeat that this stuff here is GUESSING and SPECULATING. Obviously. But somehow that seems to get to you.

All I'm saying is, I think people get a little attached to their ideas around here. Let me give examples. I was in the midst of coming up with a theory a while back about Kai Leng being a part of Shepard's subconscious mind. I won't go into the long version but here were some of the important parts.

No one really pays attention to Kai Leng and only Shepard directly talks to him. People tend to go out of their way to ignore him in cutscenes, most notably on the Citadel and in TIM's office. I killed this theory primarily because of the conversation Shepard can have with Miranda about Kai Leng, and the events at Sanctuary. Now there are several people here who with some of their ideas, would take a different line of thinking. They might say, "Well Shepard could have just dreamed up that conversation with Miranda" or any number of other unrealistic things. Just go into things with more of an open mind to your ideas not being right. People are acting like they die with their ideas here. You can always come up with new ones.

I do understand that, so I'm sorry for being a bit rude.

I also have my 'pet theories' (Organic Evolution, Catalyst is Shepard, Intelligence is Harbinger, TIM is Alive and Being Badass), but I accept they could be wrong.

TIM being alive and BA , as HellishFiend would say, "IT'S NOT A THEORY! IT'S THE TRUTH!"

[BatmanTurian]

plfranke wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

plfranke wrote...
"Poetic but as usual you miss the point." I'll just quote the last part of my post

"This idea would have you believe that a civilization, perhaps billions of years ago, created a device that over the course of time was added to and at some point required something no one knew would even exist in order to function properly."
Edit: Although I agree that Starkid is bogus as the Catalyst in many ways. Like his line about how the Crucible is a power source, yet the Catalyst was always described as what powers the Crucible and there are even war assets that support this.

It says it needs a catalyst. We don't know what it is. I'm not defending that it's Shepard. But it's clearly not star beiber, by proof of his own slimy wording.

Indeed. Perhaps the Reapers created the crucible as a means to create a "Super Reaper" if you will, consisting of all the races of a cycle funneled into one Reaper. This would however require a catalyst, being who ever was strong enough to unite all the races.

I don't know. If IT Hal is true, then we never fired the crucible anyway, so we don't know what it does. All we know is that it needs a catalyst, a Crucible is a test of some kind, and It's assumed that it's a weapon. But Anderson thought the Conduit was a weapon in ME1 and that was wrong. Clearly, this is a desperate leap of faith. It may actually just be a big waste of resources and do nothing except create that huge mega-beam that indoctrinates and pulls people toward it, like a giant high-tech sweeper sucking up organics who come to it willingly after being broken mentally.

EDIT: bah I'm tired and it's late. I put the cart before the horse. The beam was there before the crucible was docked.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 24 octobre 2012 - 07:15 .

[BleedingUranium]

So the bad guys' ship in orbit has a beam to the ground that can jam targetting and coms, and our best idea is to run into it? Ask Olsen how well that went 

[BatmanTurian]

BleedingUranium wrote...

So the bad guys' ship in orbit has a beam to the ground that can jam targetting and coms, and our best idea is to run into it? Ask Olsen how well that went 

yeah, the whole thing doesn't make sense. Why run to the beam? why not just fly up to the citadel. Why are the Reapers leaving the back door open?

Well, I'm glad you asked that, BatmanTurian, because clearly the beam is like a rabbit trap. A carrot under a box tied to a stick holding the box up. We're the rabbit, the beam is the carrot, Harbinger is the stick and box.

[BleedingUranium]

Anyone else find it odd the Reapers started planning for the Citadel's arrival almost immediately after the coup? That's about when Anderson first tells you they're heading to London, as the Reapers are planning something big there. If you need even more proof they were building the beam thing and such, right after Cronos Anderson says that we now know what they were planning for: the arrival of the Citadel.

They had to have known about the Crucible, and that the Citadel "is" (up for debate) the Catalyst at this point

[Bill Casey]

plfranke wrote...

No one really pays attention to Kai Leng and only Shepard directly talks to him. People tend to go out of their way to ignore him in cutscenes, most notably on the Citadel and in TIM's office. I killed this theory primarily because of the conversation Shepard can have with Miranda about Kai Leng, and the events at Sanctuary. Now there are several people here who with some of their ideas, would take a different line of thinking. They might say, "Well Shepard could have just dreamed up that conversation with Miranda" or any number of other unrealistic things. Just go into things with more of an open mind to your ideas not being right. People are acting like they die with their ideas here. You can always come up with new ones.

Also, Thane is killed by Kai Leng, Anderson mentions Kai Leng, Garrus, mentions Kai Leng, James Vega mentions Kai Leng, Diana Allers mentions Kai Leng, your squad members can mention kai leng in the Thessia fight, if you try to kill the gunship Liara tells you to focus on Kai Leng, your squad can comment on Kai Leng showing up on surveillance footage on Horizon, Henry Lawson mentions him, and they use the tracer on Kai Leng to find the Illusive Man's base with the help of both Traynor and EDI...

[plfranke]

Bill Casey wrote...

plfranke wrote...

No one really pays attention to Kai Leng and only Shepard directly talks to him. People tend to go out of their way to ignore him in cutscenes, most notably on the Citadel and in TIM's office. I killed this theory primarily because of the conversation Shepard can have with Miranda about Kai Leng, and the events at Sanctuary. Now there are several people here who with some of their ideas, would take a different line of thinking. They might say, "Well Shepard could have just dreamed up that conversation with Miranda" or any number of other unrealistic things. Just go into things with more of an open mind to your ideas not being right. People are acting like they die with their ideas here. You can always come up with new ones.

Also, Thane is killed by Kai Leng, Anderson mentions Kai Leng, Garrus, mentions Kai Leng, James Vega mentions Kai Leng, Diana Allers mentions Kai Leng, your squad members can mention kai leng in the Thessia fight, if you try to kill the gunship Liara tells you to focus on Kai Leng, your squad can comment on Kai Leng showing up on surveillance footage on Horizon, Henry Lawson mentions him, and they use the tracer on Kai Leng to find the Illusive Man's base with the help of both Traynor and EDI...

As I said, I left out some of the larger parts of the theory. I had answers for many of those. All the ones that have to deal with Kai Leng and the Illusive Man broke the idea though. There was simply no explanation for why Kai Leng would ever be around him.