80611 réponses à ce sujet

[ElSuperGecko]

Restrider wrote...
If he would not offer Destroy, he would automatically raise suspicions. By disavowing Destroy and offering better solutions he wants to trick you to not choose Destroy. We can agree on that.
What concerns me is the fact that Destroy is not a hoax in IT Con. Starbrat could tell Shepard that he has the possibilty to destroy the reapers by shooting the tubes, but in fact nothing happens. Starbrat would know if either Shepard is ready for indoctrination (Control/Synthesis/(Refusal)) or not (Destroy) by letting him choose freely. If he choses Control/Synthesis/(Refusal) the indoc party starts and Shepard is united with the reapers. If he choses Destroy (which I suppose should be a hoax/mock-up) Starbrat knows that his attempts to indoctrinate Shepard have been in vain, so it is safe to kill Shepard, since he is of no use for the reapers. Starbrat playing roulette seems just too bizarre and convenient for Shepard.

I hope I underlined my stance here comprehensively enough (not saying that anyone is stupid who "does not get it". I am just aware of the fact that convinving others requires a certain amount of communication skills).
Edit: Made it more coherent.

Yeah, that's fine - I understand what you're saying.

I guess my counter argument would be that despite it's control over the Reapers, the Catalyst is built into the Citadel.  It is just a projection - it has no physical form, no way of stopping or harming Shepard once he is onboard the Citadel/Crucible.  It is relying on indoctrination, or it's persuasion and it's arguments to stop him (and judging by the amount of people that seem to favour Control or Synthesis, it seems to be doing a damn fine job ;-).  The Reapers themselves can't stop Shepard by destroying the Citadel/Crucible, because they would destroy the Catalyst in the process.

Like I said earlier - the indoctrination attempt, trying to persuade Shepard not to destroy the Reapers, but instead to harness the power of the Crucible for Control or Synthesis - is a last-ditch attempt to stop Shepard.  Destroy is talked down with the threat of collateral damage, death and the eventual death of all organics anyway, Control and Synthesis are talked up, despite TIM and Saren pursuing those goals and ultimately becoming indoctrinated.

[Restrider]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Restrider wrote...
If he would not offer Destroy, he would automatically raise suspicions. By disavowing Destroy and offering better solutions he wants to trick you to not choose Destroy. We can agree on that.
What concerns me is the fact that Destroy is not a hoax in IT Con. Starbrat could tell Shepard that he has the possibilty to destroy the reapers by shooting the tubes, but in fact nothing happens. Starbrat would know if either Shepard is ready for indoctrination (Control/Synthesis/(Refusal)) or not (Destroy) by letting him choose freely. If he choses Control/Synthesis/(Refusal) the indoc party starts and Shepard is united with the reapers. If he choses Destroy (which I suppose should be a hoax/mock-up) Starbrat knows that his attempts to indoctrinate Shepard have been in vain, so it is safe to kill Shepard, since he is of no use for the reapers. Starbrat playing roulette seems just too bizarre and convenient for Shepard.

I hope I underlined my stance here comprehensively enough (not saying that anyone is stupid who "does not get it". I am just aware of the fact that convinving others requires a certain amount of communication skills).
Edit: Made it more coherent.

Yeah, that's fine - I understand what you're saying.

I guess my counter argument would be that despite it's control over the Reapers, the Catalyst is built into the Citadel.  It is just a projection - it has no physical form, no way of stopping or harming Shepard once he is onboard the Citadel/Crucible.  It is relying on indoctrination, or it's persuasion and it's arguments to stop him (and judging by the amount of people that seem to favour Control or Synthesis, it seems to be doing a damn fine job ;-).  The Reapers themselves can't stop Shepard by destroying the Citadel/Crucible, because they would destroy the Catalyst in the process.

Like I said earlier - the indoctrination attempt, trying to persuade Shepard not to destroy the Reapers, but instead to harness the power of the Crucible for Control or Synthesis - is a last-ditch attempt to stop Shepard.  Destroy is talked down with the threat of collateral damage, death and the eventual death of all organics anyway, Control and Synthesis are talked up, despite TIM and Saren pursuing those goals and ultimately becoming indoctrinated.

I agree on that. This could be an explanation.
Still I am more intrigued with IT Dream, since there you do not have to argue with this problem and the breathe scene makes more sense (if it is taking place in London).
If you want to know more about the discussion of the breathe scene, here are a few interesting links:
Why Shepard cannot/should not survive the Citadel blast:
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/13414717/729
Well, and the comparison between London and breathe scene:
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/9727423/1643#11594085
Though I think byne can provide you with an even more detailed version of the comparison that I am just too dumb to find right now.

Modifié par Restrider, 17 septembre 2012 - 11:56 .

[demersel]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

I guess my counter argument would be that despite it's control over the Reapers, the Catalyst is built into the Citadel.  It is just a projection - it has no physical form, no way of stopping or harming Shepard once he is onboard the Citadel/Crucible.  It is relying on indoctrination, or it's persuasion and it's arguments to stop him (and judging by the amount of people that seem to favour Control or Synthesis, it seems to be doing a damn fine job ;-).  The Reapers themselves can't stop Shepard by destroying the Citadel/Crucible, because they would destroy the Catalyst in the process.

Like I said earlier - the indoctrination attempt, trying to persuade Shepard not to destroy the Reapers, but instead to harness the power of the Crucible for Control or Synthesis - is a last-ditch attempt to stop Shepard.  Destroy is talked down with the threat of collateral damage, death and the eventual death of all organics anyway, Control and Synthesis are talked up, despite TIM and Saren pursuing those goals and ultimately becoming indoctrinated.

I'm sorry but everything you wrote just doesn't make any sense. 

Catalyst is clearly capable of doing thing on its own. For starters - it turns on the panel and takes shepard to himself - if he wanted to stop him, or prevent him from reaching the crucible - he would just left him there do die, and everyone would be killed just like in refuse. 

He himself wakes shepard up. If he didn't do anything, like a thing that cannot influence shepard in any way, but with an agenda to stop him would, - shepard would never wake up, to activate the cricible. 

The catalyst clearly has total control over what is happening with the crucible, In refuse he just turns it off. 
The catalyst clearly has physycal form to some degree - shooting him irritates him and causes to turn the crucible off. 

Then the fact that he actually tells you the real way to destroy the reapers destroys your theory completely. If everything is real, the chamber, the crucible etc. - the catalyst doesn't have to tell shaperd anything. (since you agree that he has the reaper agenda and is capable of telling a lie). 
At this point in story:
Shepard DOESN'T know what is the crucible. 
Shepard DOESN'T know what is the catalyst.
Shepard DOESN'T know what activating the crucible would do. 
Shepard DOESN'T know how to activate it.

The catalyst could have told him anything at this point and shepard would have no way of knowing it to be true or false. Anything. Your agrument is that the catalyst tells shepard about destroy because shepard knows there must be a way to destroy the reapers - using this argument automatically makes everything that is happenening a dream. In real life (if it were a real life) - the catalyst could have just said - "ok jump into the beam. it is the only way. that is what the crucible does. Only function. Ow you thought it will destroy the reapers somehow? No. Synthesis." 

Modifié par demersel, 17 septembre 2012 - 12:58 .

[demersel]

 BTW! About Udinas involvment in a cerberus coup -

[Restrider]

demersel wrote...

 BTW! About Udinas involvment in a cerberus coup -
*snip*

It is always easy to blame the dead guy. I guess there is still more information to come about the whole Cerberus arc and the Citadel coup and the involvement of Udina. At least that's what I hope.

[estebanus]

Wait, it's BleedingUraniums birthday?!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, BLEEDINGURANIUM!

[RavenEyry]

Restrider wrote...

It is always easy to blame the dead guy.

Especially Udina.

[RavenEyry]

estebanus wrote...

Wait, it's BleedingUraniums birthday?!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, BLEEDINGURANIUM!

I second that motion.

[Dwailing]

RavenEyry wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Wait, it's BleedingUraniums birthday?!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, BLEEDINGURANIUM!

I second that motion.

I third it!

[ElSuperGecko]

demersel wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...
I guess my counter argument would be that despite it's control over the Reapers, the Catalyst is built into the Citadel.  It is just a projection - it has no physical form, no way of stopping or harming Shepard once he is onboard the Citadel/Crucible.

I'm sorry but everything you wrote just doesn't make any sense.

Actually, it does.  You're just not following it.

Catalyst is clearly capable of doing thing on its own. For starters - it turnes on the panel and takes shepard to himself - if he wanted to stop him, or prevent him from reaching the crucible - he would just left him there do die, and everyone would be killed just like in refuse. 

The Catalyst is an AI that in control of the Citadel's functions.  Of course it is.  I'm not disputing that.  It can raise/lower platforms, open/lock doors, activate panels.

What I said is that it's incapable of physically interacting with Shepard himself.  It cannot touch him, cannot hurt him, cannot stop him except with it's logic and persuasion (and maybe indoctrination).

And as for preventing Shepard from reaching the crucible, it doesn't want that either - it WANTS Shepard to activate the Crucible - as it says, it cannot do this itself.  So it's trying to persuade Shepard to make the choice that IT would choose itself - Synthesis, or failing that, Control.

He himself wakes shepard up. If he didn't do anything like a thing that cannot influence shepard in any way, but with an agenda to stop him would - shepard would never wake up, to activate the cricible. 

See above.  The Catalyst wants Shepard to activate the Crucible, but it wants Shepard to make the choice it has determined to be correct.

The catalyst clearly has total control over what is happening with the crucible, In refuse he just turns it off. 
The catalyst clearly has physycal form to some degree - shooting him irritates him and causes to turn the crucible off. 

No it doesn't.  It tells us itself, it cannot activate the Crucible.  Shepard has to do it.  And no it doesn't, Shepard's gunfire has no effect on it whatsoever - he is essentially shooting at a hologram.  It sees this as a futile act of defiance, a sign that Shepard will not do what it wants - and ignores him as a result.

Then the fact that he actually tells you the real way to destroy the reapers destroys your theory completely. If everything is real, the chamber, the crucible etc. - the catalyst doesn't have to tell shaperd anything. (since you agree that he has the reaper agenda and is capable of telling a lie).

No it doesn't.  Again, the Catalyst WANTS Shepard to activate the Crucible.  But it wants Shepard to pick Synthesis, or Control.  It points them out to Shepard.  Suggests them to Shepard.  It tells Shepard "DESTROYING US IS SUCH A BAD IDEA, WHY NOT DO THIS INSTEAD?"

At this point in story:
Shepard DOESN'T know what is the crucible. 
Shepard DOESN'T know what is the catalyst.
Shepard DOESN'T know what activating the crucible would do. 
Shepard DOESN'T know how to activate it.

The catalyst could have told him anything at this point and shepard would have no way of knowing it to be true or false. Anything. Your agrument is that the catalyst tells shepard about destroy because shepard knows there must be a way to destroy the reapers - using this argument automatically makes everything that is happenening a dream. In real life (if it were a real life) - the catalyst could have just said - "ok jump into the beam. it is the only way. that is what the crucible does. Only function. Ow you thought it will destroy the reapers somehow? No. Synthesis."

Because that's really infantile and would make for a pretty pathetic video game ending?  The catalyst may look like a child, but that doesn't mean that the game has to be designed in an infantile manner.

Notice I've never said anywhere that the catalyst is lying to you.  It could be entirely incapable of lying.  It obviously follows it's own logic and calculations, and believes everything it is telling you to be the undisputable truth.  But that doesn't mean that it's calculations are correct, and it doesn't mean we should trust it, or accept it's logic and suggestions without questioning them.

It was the Catalyst's logic and conclusions that led to the cycle of extinction starting in the first place.

Again, in the Catalyst's own words.  The Crucible has created new possibilities.  It realises now the Reaper solution is flawed.  It wants the Crucible to be activated.  It cannot do this itself.  It needs Shepard to activate the Crucible, but it wants Shepard to choose according to it's own logic.  It acknowledges that Shepard and his kind want to Destroy the Reapers, but it does it's best to persuade Shepard this is A BAD IDEA.  It then offers alternative suggestions of Control (which less than 5 minutes earlier we were trying to persuade TIM was impossible) and Synthesis (an utter abomination that suggests that life as it stands is flawed).  It tries to persuade us that where TIM failed, Shepard can succeed, and that galaxy-wide involuntary eugenics (which seems suspiciously close to the Reaper's own goals) is the ideal.

[RavenEyry]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

demersel wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...
I guess my counter argument would be that despite it's control over the Reapers, the Catalyst is built into the Citadel.  It is just a projection - it has no physical form, no way of stopping or harming Shepard once he is onboard the Citadel/Crucible.

I'm sorry but everything you wrote just doesn't make any sense.

Actually, it does.  You're just not following it.

There's no proof that it can harm Shepard, but there's no proof it can't either. You're both using facts that don't exist.

Modifié par RavenEyry, 17 septembre 2012 - 01:28 .

[ElSuperGecko]

RavenEyry wrote...
There's no proof that it can harm Shepard, but there's no proof it can't either. You're both using facts that don't exist.

True.  However, if the Catalyst had a phyiscal form and it could hurt Shepard, then we could fight it, and that would be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too videogamey!  

[paxxton]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...
There's no proof that it can harm Shepard, but there's no proof it can't either. You're both using facts that don't exist.

True.  However, if the Catalyst had a phyiscal form and it could hurt Shepard, then we could fight it, and that would be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too videogamey!  

The Catalyst can electrocute Shepard if there's a sudden power surge on the grid.  

[RavenEyry]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...
There's no proof that it can harm Shepard, but there's no proof it can't either. You're both using facts that don't exist.

True.  However, if the Catalyst had a phyiscal form and it could hurt Shepard, then we could fight it, and that would be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too videogamey!  

An AI doesn't need a physical form to hurt us. And the boss fight could've been pulling out it's brain chips while it sings daisy bell.

[Lokanaiya]

Why couldn't the Catalyst just say that shooting the tube was always meant to be a last ditch option, and if activated it would vaporize everything, like in the Low EMS Destroy ending?

Also, happy birthday BleedingUranium!

[paxxton]

demersel wrote...

 BTW! About Udinas involvment in a cerberus coup -

Hmm... That's a nice case for a lawyer to ponder.

Modifié par paxxton, 17 septembre 2012 - 01:56 .

[ElSuperGecko]

RavenEyry wrote...
An AI doesn't need a physical form to hurt us. And the boss fight could've been pulling out it's brain chips while it sings daisy bell.

I agree with this ending DLC suggestion.  TAKE MY MONEY!

[TSA_383]

So, just broke up with my girlfriend of 3 years. Today's sucked. Anything awesome happened here in the past couple of days?

[Zso_Zso]

One thing that does not make sense if we assume IT is true:

Why is Destroy the lowest "cost" (in terms of war asset requirement) ending ?
If you have just the minimum war assets you only get Destroy as the single choice available, which would mean the indoctrination fails.

Shouldn't it be the other way around ? Shouldn't destroy be the most expensive ending ?

[RavenEyry]

No it sucks here too because Iconoclaste went completely insane.

[RavenEyry]

Zso_Zso wrote...

One thing that does not make sense if we assume IT is true:

Why is Destroy the lowest "cost" (in terms of war asset requirement) ending ?
If you have just the minimum war assets you only get Destroy as the single choice available, which would mean the indoctrination fails.

Shouldn't it be the other way around ? Shouldn't destroy be the most expensive ending ?

When it's the only one available it vapourises earth, so the general opinion is the reapers don't consider Shep worth indoctrinating and just torture them with horrific visions or something similar.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

RavenEyry wrote...

Zso_Zso wrote...

One thing that does not make sense if we assume IT is true:

Why is Destroy the lowest "cost" (in terms of war asset requirement) ending ?
If you have just the minimum war assets you only get Destroy as the single choice available, which would mean the indoctrination fails.

Shouldn't it be the other way around ? Shouldn't destroy be the most expensive ending ?

When it's the only one available it vapourises earth, so the general opinion is the reapers don't consider Shep worth indoctrinating and just torture them with horrific visions or something similar.

Also Control is the only option at low EMS if you kept the Collector Base in ME2.

[RavenEyry]

One mildly interesting thing I notice is it's not general knowledge that only control is available to those who save the base, meaning the majority chose destroy over control in 2. I wonder how many of those people know advocate control?

[paxxton]

TSA_383 wrote...

So, just broke up with my girlfriend of 3 years. Today's sucked. Anything awesome happened here in the past couple of days?

Life sucks sometimes.  Anyway, there was Gray Nayr going on a rant a few pages ago and trying to debunk IT. Don't know the details but it seemed the discussion was pretty fevered.

Modifié par paxxton, 17 septembre 2012 - 02:49 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

Guys...

About 'destroy' being a real option.

I think Leviathan answered this indirectly.

When Shepard asks how they could build an AI that betrayed them (after having seen their thrall races being 'betrayed' by AIs), the Leviathan says:

"You can not conceive of a galaxy that bends to your will."

This would most certainly apply to the Reapers. From an IT point of view, if Shepard chooses destroy, she would be the first organic ever to resist indoctrination. There's no precedent for someone resisting indoctrination, so the Reapers (in their villainous arrogance) would never expect Shepard to resist it either. They would expect her to bend to their will, like TIM and Saren.

The option is there, simply to not raise suspicion, but the Reapers just don't expect Shepard to resist succumbing to their will.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for how IT could actually work out with what we have... here is a theory of mine. It's a mix of IT dream and WNT:

- Shepard is still in London. The first part of the Citadel, is all in Shep's head. The conversation with TIM/Anderson, all of this happens while Shep is unconscious on the ground. Shep is experiencing this as a dream. This would explain why (in the TIM confrontation) Harbinger's reaper horn can be heard in the background, only it's slowed down because time goes slower inside a dream, and we hear the reaper horn as a slow rattle. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, check the link in my signature). This first part being a dream, would explain why everything on the citadel looks like things from Shep's past.

- When Shep arrives in the 'decision chamber' and Starbinger says "Wake up", that's when Shepard wakes up in London. She's on hands and knees, still looking at the Reaper beam, the Mako, etc., only Harbinger is slightly altering how Shep perceives her surroundings. This is why the decision chamber looks so much like the location of the London beam.

- If Shep chooses synthesis, she runs over to the beam and becomes huskified / is processed to become the mind of a human Reaper, the end product of this cycle's harvest. (This would be fitting if we take into account that datapad we find on the FOB, right before the run to the beam, the one that talks about "people going into that place and coming out not the same any more")

- If Shep chooses control, she walks over to some Reaper device (perhaps the curvy/Reaperish device we see in the background during the breath scene) and submits herself to it, and turns into a Reaper agent.

- If Shep chooses destroy, she walks over to the right side of the beam and starts shooting at some object that she perceives as the tube. In reality, she destroys some kind of vital part of the beam generator, which causes the beam to overload and send a huge discharge of energy towards the Citadel, where it sets off the Crucible, which is simply a huge, synthetics-killing bomb. The destroy ending as we see it play out is actually what happens for real.

- How did the Citadel arms open for the Crucible to dock? Well, this is why Hacket says: "Holy ****, she did it. Someone made it to the Citadel." Who? David Anderson. And that's why his name is on the memorial wall in the destroy ending. Anderson did not survive the explosion on the citadel, but died as a hero.

- Breath scene happens when Shep wakes up in the rubble in London after blowing up the "beam".

No need for further ending DLC in this interpretation.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 17 septembre 2012 - 02:42 .