1238 réponses à ce sujet

[CDRSkyShepard]

I still don't think the IT is valid anymore, and I choose not to believe in it anymore because I don't want my story to remain incomplete, but what the OP has said makes sense. The Catalyst is and never was a trustworthy being.

I don't understand all the people that are trying to say a Reaper or the Catalyst couldn't be cunning. Hell, the geth are pretty darned cunning themselves, and the Reapers are even more intelligent. They have a very primal need to survive, yes...so do we all, but that doesn't make us unintelligent. So to say that the Catalyst is incapable of being cunning is just...I dunno, ignorant? Sovereign was smart enough to figure out how to get the Citadel relay open, cut off from the rest of its kind without arousing suspicion. The Catalyst is obviously trying to sell you Synthesis like it's trying to sell ketchup popsicles to a woman in white gloves. It's not stupid. While I may not believe IT is intended by BioWare, I do think the Catalyst has ulterior motives and is not to be trusted. It (and by extension, the Reapers) will try to preserve itself at all costs. By extension, Synthesis and Control are not viable options. Control is a mere attempt at Indoctrinating you into the Reaper ranks, controlling them maybe through your own will for a while...but in the future will you be able to remain objective? Or will you allow the power to Indoctrinate you? Synthesis is the choice of the enemy, and furthers their goal (the Catalyst even says it tried to do this before, this is what it wants). Why would you do the last bidding of the enemy now, at the end of it all?

Personally, my Shep will take her chances and shoot the tube.

I rather like the breakdown and analysis of the Catalyst's lies, OP. Some of these I had not considered before.

[MaximizedAction]

I've been waiting for such a thread to emmerge for months.

But what Bill Casey said, this is what IT has been saying, only summed up in a nice floating text form, rather than 4000+ pages of discussions and a long blog of facts.

Still nice to see the indoc. attempt on the player & Shep become 'mainstream'.

EDIT:
@OP: Care to make any references to IT for the scientific sportsmanship? Or did you come up with that all by yourself? If so, then why didn't you post that earlier?

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 31 juillet 2012 - 09:02 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Cool headcanon OP.

[viggorrah]

Nice analysis, OP. I never trusted the weird, glowing kid to begin with. Looks like I had good reason.

Modifié par viggorrah, 31 juillet 2012 - 09:09 .

[HurricaneGinger]

I liked this analysis very much. The Catalyst struck me as suspicious when it chose its form as the kid Shepard wanted to save. I still don't know if the actual child is real or not; a part of me wants to, but the other part thinks that the Reapers are using the child as an indoctrination device purposefully planted to guilt Shepard and make her mind susceptible for the process of "brain washing."

I'd also like to point out that while Saren did in fact argue for Synthesis, if Shepard's charisma was high enough she could persuade him to break through indoctrination. He realizes it's wrong, and shoots himself to retain his free will and - lack for a better word - humanity. This proves to me that Synthesis, while posing as the ideal choice for those who want absolute peace, is a scam. There were those just like Saren in the past cycles, and what did the Reapers do? They left them to die. If Synthesis is so important, so beautiful, why wasn't it valuble to the Reapers? The epilogue pictures do indeed show a idyllic society, but if there is one thing I've learned it's that there is ugliness behind the prosperity of a utopia. The Catalyst may say Synthesis is the final stage of evolution, but I don't see the Reapers pausing in their fight as the Catalyst does, waiting for Shepard to decide. The Reapers continue to harvest, and to slaughter. They are machines made for one purpose. I don't want to be tied to them in any shape or form.

Sorry EDI, and sorry Geth. I'm not taking any chances.

Modifié par PhantomGinger, 31 juillet 2012 - 09:47 .

[RadicalDisconnect]

Without metagaming, you really have no reason to trust the Catalyst, and certainly have no reason to choose control or synthesis. But I suppose this is for another topic.

zambot wrote...

This is exactly why it is a good thing to finish the game with a low EMS and destroy the reaper base in ME2. If you actually accomplish very little, the StarKid only gives you the option to win the game.

Wait, what?

Yeah, this is what really baffled me about IT after metagaming. Considering that the Catalyst can turn off the Crucible if he deems that you are unwilling to make a choice, I really don't know what the Catalyst's motive is. It just doesn't make much sense. IT doesn't quite explain it, but taking it face value also seems rather ridiculous.

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 31 juillet 2012 - 09:53 .

[CDRSkyShepard]

PhantomGinger wrote...
Sorry EDI, and sorry Geth. I'm not taking any chances.

We can rebuild them. We have the technology!

[TSA_383]

MegaSovereign wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Like I said before, this is pretty good. IT with about 70% less crazy

I agree, I don't like IT but I appreciate how the OP is making assertions that aren't based on plot holes/conveniences (Unlimited ammo, can't explain that! Must be IT!)

To be entirely fair, everything in OPs posts has long since been covered in the IT threads - it just gets a bit difficult to find amongst 4000+ pages...

[JROW317]

The ending is Indoctrination ,Deal with it

[Lonsecia]

I have a few queries:

Firstly, why if the Synthesis ending is supposed to be the ideal one for the Reapers, is it the one that requires the most effort to unlock on the part of the player? If destroy is the only true victory, why is it the one you can get with the lowest EMS? It'd seem more practical to make the actual Crucible doing its job as something for the people putting in the effort.

Secondly, if the Catalyst isn't the child, how was Shepard ever going to figure out how to get the beam to fire? Take the child away from the endings and you have a barely-alive human, bleeding heavily and all s/he sees ahead is a beam, and two pillars in different lighting. There's no actual connection that can be made that says 'right, I see what I need to do: shoot this pillar here in the blue light and that'll make things work' Likewise there's no logic to Shepard thinking jumping into the beam would do anything. The closest to an actual practical activation is the Control console.

I'm not saying this is a flaw with IT, per se. I'm saying it's a flaw with the endings as they stand. I simply don't know of anyone who'd shoot at something to make it work (outside of a comedy or an insanely stupid individual). I only ask here because you're framing such facts within the IT arc and so I'd like to know your take on these.

Basically I mean that IT can only have the endings work with the child always there, otherwise it's a dead-end. No child, no explanation on how to activate the beam. But having the child immediately (in the IT world) means that Shep is being coerced.

[Merchant2006]

I touch my nipples at night. Am I indoctranted?

[SubAstris]

The Twilight God wrote...

Destroy: The Goal of Galaxy

  
The Destruction of the Reapers. This is the purpose for which the Crucible is constructed. To understand the Catalyst’s motives in discussing the Destroy option we have to examine the circumstances leading up to it first. Because they are very important in ascertaining what the Catalyst wishes to accomplish.
 
The Star Child establishes itself as the Catalyst, even though that is mere a codename the Protheans used to hide the fact that the Citadel is the final piece of the equation. It only knows about the term "catalyst" from pulling the information out of Shepard's mind, just as it has pulled the image of the boy out of Shepard's mind (and probably put it in there to begin with). The reason for claiming it is the Catalyst is to appear to be a part of the Crucible equation. However, the Star Child is not. The Crucible never needed the Star Child to do anything. In fact, if not for the Star Child's Crucible Suppression Device (CSD) the Crucible would have armed itself immediately after it docked with the Catalyst (i.e. the Citadel).  I will continue to refer to the Star Child as the Catalyst for the sake of familiarity.
 
The Catalyst begins with a convenient accounting of events explaining how it is actually attempting to facilitate organic life. Through this convoluted dialog it hopes to paint itself as this mindless, simplistic, impartial, non-threatening, VI-like personality that is “just following orders.”
 
The Catalyst says, "You may be in conflict with the Reapers, but they are not interested in war." It continues with, "When fire burns, is it at war? Is it in conflict? Or is it simply doing what it is created to do? We are no different." In essence it is attempting to distancing itself from the Reapers and presents itself as a new, friendly, reasonable and approachable person. It wants to first disassociate itself with everything you’ve come to expect from the Reapers: Pride, arrogance, viciousness, gloating, gruesomeness, cruelty, callousness, superiority complex, perverse pleasure in the suffering of others, etc.
 
One of its most insidious ploys is to shift the conversation as to essentially make Shepard its wingman; its partner in crime.
 
The Catalyst states, "My solution won't work anymore."
Shepard replies, "So now what?"
The Catalyst replies, "WE find a new solution"
 
This shifts the focus from "Destroy the Reapers" to "Assist the Star Child with his intergalactic social studies assignment". At this point Shepard may be focusing on finding a solution to some supposed problem that may or may not exist instead of the current crisis that is very real and present.
 
As a community we've always taken this to mean the Reapers are just mindless machines. However, we have witnessed enough evidence to counter the Catalyst's inferences.  We've resented the fact that the Catalyst's introduction has dissolved 2.9 games worth of established lore concerning the Reapers. But all this anger hinges on one assertion: That the Catalyst is being honest. What makes the claims of the "Reaper Ambassador" in the last 10 minutes more valid than the last 120 hours?  Do you think the Reapers are stupid enough to think they could ever convince anyone to not Destroy them if they were as brutally honest as they have been when they believed themselves unassailable? Think about it.
 
The Star Child's entire opening conversation is meant to accomplish four things:
1. To establish itself as vital to Shepard's success by deceiving Shepard into believing it is the Catalyst.
2. To establish itself as a non-threatening, unbiased, VI-like, neutral party unmotivated by self-interest.
3. To de-demonize the reapers and present them as mere tools who shouldn't be held accountable for their actions.
4. To shift the focus from "Destroy the Reapers" to "Assist the Star Child with his galactic social studies Assignment".
 
Option 1: Destroy the Reapers
 
"It is now in your power to destroy us".
 
The Catalyst is not a fool. It is wise to put this option on the table first as it is going to be the first and only thing on Shepard’s mind. In fact, it is the very first inquiry Shepard makes after introductions are made asking, “I need to stop the Reapers. Do you know how I can do that?” The Catalyst knows that it has to tackle the most obvious threat to its continuation before it can even bother to introduce its own suggestions. If it tried to ****foot around the Destroy option it would garner suspicion and its motivations would be immediately brought into question. The Catalyst's only hope is to maintain the illusion of impartiality and otherwise convince Shepard that its options are simply more beneficial. In other words, it has to hope indoctrination succeeds.
 
It immediately begins to paint a dire picture.
 
The Catalyst says, "But be warned: others will be destroyed as well. The crucible will not discriminate. All synthetics will be targeted. Even you are partly synthetic.” It further adds, “Technology you rely on will be affected.” Shepard will have to sacrifice his friend, EDI, and his new Geth allies; Negating his work in securing a peace with the Quarians and discarding the sacrifice of his friend Legion. Shepard has to destroy that which flies in the face of the Catalyst's assertions about the inability of organic-synthetic cooperation.
 
Oh, and don't forget that "The Chaos" will return. Can't have that, right? Shepard is forced to accept this assertion. However, this is the least of Shepard's trust problems as will be covered in later segments of this thesis.  Shepard's lethargic tendency to accept the Catalyst's assertions actually make sense in an indoctrination scenario. 
 
This entire exchange is intended to make Shepard hesitate and second guess his objective.  The Catalyst also notes that Shepard’s body contains synthetic parts to imply that the Crucible will target him as well. It wishes to remove self preservation as a factor in Shepard's decision. In this way Shepard's decision is weighed solely on the negatives associated with the destroy avenue verses the seeming lack of negatives associated with the Catalyst's own suggestions.
 
The Crucible is made out to be the equivalent of a sawed-off shotgun being used to create an incision for open eye surgery. Now that the Reapers have soured the taste of using the Crucible for its intended purpose they offer their own suggestions. Shepard has not been fully indoctrinated, but he is susceptible to suggestions. Shepard is clearly not all there and the Catalyst is playing on that fact.
 
Next Up: Control - The Illusive Man's Folly

It's like none of thse people have heard of a plot twist

[shepdog77]

Merchant2006 wrote...

I touch my nipples at night. Am I indoctranted?

Do you use ice?  If not, then yes.

[Cheviot]

The Twilight God wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

Or the designers of the Crucible designed it to interact with the Catalyst.

No, Control is a console built into the Citadel for the supposed purpose of rewriting the Star Child. Nobody knew about the Star child so the idea that it was designed with the Star Child in mind is absurd. I already went over this in my posts.

The designers of the Crucible knew about the Catalyst, they designed the Crucible with the Catalyst in mind.

Cheviot wrote...

Control and Destroy are both functions of the Catalyst (their method of activation is on the Catalyst side), but the Synthesis function is less clear-cut: it's a beam cascading from the Crucible, but going through the top of the Citadel. 

Destory is suposed to trigger automatically. The Star Child placed a suppression device that prevents it from arming itself. Again this has been covered already.

Start from the top: http://social.biowar...9372/1#13419372

There's no in-game evidence of this.  In fact, if you have a low enough EMS and destroyed the Collector Base then Destroy is the only "choice" given.  Where's your "suppression device" then?

[clennon8]

Cheviot wrote...

<snip>

 if you have a low enough EMS and destroyed the Collector Base then Destroy is the only "choice" given.  Where's your "suppression device" then?

That question is nonsensical.  A better question is why, in some scenarios, Destroy isn't available at all.  Only Control.

[Cheviot]

clennon8 wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

<snip>

 if you have a low enough EMS and destroyed the Collector Base then Destroy is the only "choice" given.  Where's your "suppression device" then?

That question is nonsensical.  A better question is why, in some scenarios, Destroy isn't available at all.  Only Control.

How is it nonsensical?

[dorktainian]

shepdog77 wrote...

Merchant2006 wrote...

I touch my nipples at night. Am I indoctranted?

Do you use ice?  If not, then yes.

[clennon8]

@Cheviot:  Because you still have to walk up and shoot the tube. That's the "suppression device" OP is talking about. You could still pick Refuse.

If your point is simply "How does it fit into IT that there are fewer options at lower EMS?" then there's a better way of asking that. And that's a pretty good question. IT'ists have an answer for it, but I've never found it very satisfying. And I say that as someone who would like for IT to be true, although I got off that train a while ago.

Modifié par clennon8, 31 juillet 2012 - 02:22 .

[The Twilight God]

MaximizedAction wrote...

EDIT:
@OP: Care to make any references to IT for the scientific sportsmanship? Or did you come up with that all by yourself? If so, then why didn't you post that earlier?

Not sure what you are asking.

I came to this conclusion on my own. My ideas have evolved over time as I have studied the endings and noticed more a more details. As new evidence is discovered I've refined it. However, from the very first time I played it and encountered the Catalyst I did not trust it first because of the room you're in. It's pre-built and it claims he wasn't expecting the Crucible. I thought a Matrix 2 "the machines are expecting the One (i.e. Crucible)" moment was going to happen. I simply have no reason to trust the Reapers now then I did 1 minute ago.

I actually picked refusal by mistake as I thought everything , the whole situation, felt "wrong". It just didn't feel believable and I'd never played the game prior or looked at any spoilers. I thought I'd make some renegade comment about how this situation blows and it was going to drop the charade and some other option would emerge. Or at least, there would be a comment saying, "Are you sure? There are no other choices!! This is actually it." Nope, just shoved refusal down my throat and I was like "WTF! How is that even an option?!?! That's absurd. How can you LET them win when the means to stop them is RIGHT THERE!!!" I heard Liara's voice, exited game, reloaded and picked Destroy as I would have if I had known refusal would have been forced on me. NEVER imagined in amillion years that would be possible. Instead of saying "I Reject these choices!" it should say, "[GIVE UP AND DON'T ACTIVATE CRUCIBLE]". I thought Shepard would simply point out that the options suck in a renegade manner. Not surrender.

[Soultaker08]

The catalyst was a very bad idea to end the trilogy.

I still choose control and with the EC i will never choose anything else (except on youtube)

Shoot me

Modifié par Soultaker08, 31 juillet 2012 - 02:26 .

[Cheviot]

clennon8 wrote...

@Cheviot:  Because you still have to walk up and shoot the tube. That's the "suppression device" OP is talking about. You could still pick Refuse.

Fair enough, but even considering that point, what's the sense in creating a "suppression device" that you want to protect from destruction but then direct Shepard to destroy it with no other options (with low EMS)?  Also, why let Shepard into the same area as it in the first place if you want to protect it as badly as the OP thinks the Catalyst does?

[The Twilight God]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 Cool headcanon OP.

You clearly don't know what "headcanon" means. Liara and Shep having blue babies; that's headcanon. Admiral Hackett becomeing the King of all Humans; that's headcanon. Control Shepard making a terminator body and reuniting with LI; That's headcanon.

Everything I've posted else is based on in-game events and dialog.

The only thing that can be remotely considered close to headcannon is the indoctrinated epilogues. But even that is interpreation based on evidence. There is plenty of evidence to conclude that Control and Synthesis are not in our best interest.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

Nice Headcanon OP. Since everything you say is based on interpretation, it's head canon.

[Cheviot]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

Nice Headcanon OP. Since everything you say is based on interpretation, it's head canon.

Like all those plot holes people say they've found.