374 réponses à ce sujet

[Memnon]

saracen16 wrote...

For the second time, Stornskar, I know what metagaming is. He's not a "kid". He's a machine. A machine built with a singular logic, to be the Catalyst for peace between synthetics and organics. And that was what you thought. I thought differently, so don't assume that one observer has the monopoly on what the event in front of him or her means.

I feel like we're talking past each other here - I get what you're saying and I understand your point. I'm talking about a simple intellectual exercise, not debating what is and what isn't true or assumed. For the sake of argument, let's say that the Catalyst is lying. His primary function as a program is to kill Shepard, and he has the ability to use deception to achieve that goal. From that baseline, how would you expect the Catalyst to act?

[saracen16]

Stornskar wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

For the second time, Stornskar, I know what metagaming is. He's not a "kid". He's a machine. A machine built with a singular logic, to be the Catalyst for peace between synthetics and organics. And that was what you thought. I thought differently, so don't assume that one observer has the monopoly on what the event in front of him or her means.

I feel like we're talking past each other here - I get what you're saying and I understand your point. I'm talking about a simple intellectual exercise, not debating what is and what isn't true or assumed. For the sake of argument, let's say that the Catalyst is lying. His primary function as a program is to kill Shepard,

His primary function as a program is to use the Reapers to harvest organics and synthetics. Shepard is just a collateral in that equation and not a specific variable.

and he has the ability to use deception to achieve that goal. From that baseline, how would you expect the Catalyst to act?

He could use any means to lie such as present himself as anyone such as Shep's LI, not necessarily a little boy. Besides, I don't think Shepard would be stupid enough to believe in ghosts.

What's your point?

[Memnon]

saracen16 wrote...

He could use any means to lie such as present himself as anyone such as Shep's LI, not necessarily a little boy. Besides, I don't think Shepard would be stupid enough to believe in ghosts.

What's your point?

Keep in mind that a ghost is almost exactly what he was before EC when he was retconned to be an AI. When asked if he was a VI/AI, BW tweeted that he was "presumed to be a being of light." Having said that, my point is that people who refuse generally say it's because they don't trust the Catalyst. Furthermore, if the Catalyst was being deceptive the way he was presented in game is one way he would have behaved to make Shepard believe him. That's all I'm saying ...

[Lt_Kitty]

saracen16 wrote...
You can't assume its motives based on its actions.

But you too are assuming the "Catalyst lacks ambition and is guided by its singular logic" based on his actions... I quote from you're previous statement:

saracen16 wrote...
Did you even read what I said? I mentioned that the dialogue
at the end (i.e. the Catalyst's conversation with Shepard) led me to
the conclusion that the Catalyst lacks ambition and is guided by its
singular logic.

The conversation with Soverign years back is more evidence to the fact that reapers can not be understood.  He was very blatent about their superiority.  Harbinger is very adament about melting you down into reaper goo, your "genetic destiny".  I can not fathom why you would believe and trust the very controller of such beings and entrust the fate of the galaxy via his solution based on less than 5 minutes of dialogue when you have been struggling to survive against the damn things for years...

In hindsight, I hardly think it is a being of pure logic when it gets pissy when you disagree with its choices.

[anmiro]

The Catalyst has no reason to lie. Shepard bled out at the control panel. The Catalyst could have simply left him to die and the cycle would have continued as usual. What does the Catalyst gain by reviving him?

[RiouHotaru]

I find it funny that people considering using the Crucible "cooperating" with the Reapers, just because one of the solutions involving agreeing with the Catalyst that the conflict needs to be stopped.

But anyway, I agree. Refuse is a glorified game over. Picking it when you clearly have an option (plural in fact) to stop the Reapers simply because you don't want to use it stinks of pride and hubris. At least Shepard has the decency to admit "Yeah, I know I'm going to die."

[AlanC9]

Lt_Kitty wrote...
The conversation with Soverign years back is more evidence to the fact that reapers can not be understood.  He was very blatent about their superiority. 

I thought it was evidence that Sovereign was spewing a line of obscurantist b.s.. Which some people ate up, for reasons I don't really comprehend.

[Memnon]

AlanC9 wrote...

Lt_Kitty wrote...
The conversation with Soverign years back is more evidence to the fact that reapers can not be understood.  He was very blatent about their superiority. 

I thought it was evidence that Sovereign was spewing a line of obscurantist b.s.. Which some people ate up, for reasons I don't really comprehend.

Either way, one of them is being deceptive - why does everyone give the Catalyst the free pass here instead of Sovereign?

[BDelacroix]

You mean other than the fact that "you lose".

[RiouHotaru]

Stornskar wrote...

Either way, one of them is being deceptive - why does everyone give the Catalyst the free pass here instead of Sovereign?

Deception implies intent, which implies forethought.  I don't think either one is being deceptive at all.  They both carry a strong belief based on some form of logic, and believe that logic to be true.  That it's not true doesn't mean they're intentionally lying or trying to misdirect you.

If you believe something to be the truth strong enough, than for you, it is as valid as truth.  Just because it turns out not to be true doesn't mean you're lying.  You believed that you were right.

[ericjdev]

I agree with those that posit that synthesis is far worse. Also, having played through ME1 and 2 a lot of times with a lot of different Sheps I would say that there are more than 2 kinds of Sheps and having more decisions is better. If refuse is the choice most consistent with that character then it's what they should do. 4 crappy choices is better than 3 crappy choices, only marginally so but still better.

[AlanC9]

Stornskar wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I thought it was evidence that Sovereign was spewing a line of obscurantist b.s.. Which some people ate up, for reasons I don't really comprehend.

Either way, one of them is being deceptive - why does everyone give the Catalyst the free pass here instead of Sovereign?

Is Sovereign being deceptive? He's not trying to convince us of anything except that he's big and scary and we can't hope to comprehend him. I suppose the last part counts as deceptive. The whole convo makes no sense except as a weak attempt to frighten Shep and company.

As for the Catalyst... if he's being deceptive, it just doesn't matter. The Crucible won't do anything without Shep using one of the options. And without the Crucible the Reapers will win. So you might as well trust him. Of course, you can just wait a couple of minutes and see if the Crucible does anything without Shep. It doesn't.

[saracen16]

Stornskar wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

He could use any means to lie such as present himself as anyone such as Shep's LI, not necessarily a little boy. Besides, I don't think Shepard would be stupid enough to believe in ghosts.

What's your point?

Keep in mind that a ghost is almost exactly what he was before EC when he was retconned to be an AI.

Not quite. It was meant to be ambiguous. He could have been a ghost, but he also could not have.

When asked if he was a VI/AI, BW tweeted that he was "presumed to be a being of light."

...which can be both synthetic or organic.

Having said that, my point is that people who refuse generally say it's because they don't trust the Catalyst.

That's their prerogative. I didn't see any reason to distrust him.

Furthermore, if the Catalyst was being deceptive the way he was presented in game is one way he would have behaved to make Shepard believe him. That's all I'm saying ...

I understand, but I disagree. We'll leave it at that.

[AlanC9]

saracen16 wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

He could use any means to lie such as present himself as anyone such as Shep's LI, not necessarily a little boy. Besides, I don't think Shepard would be stupid enough to believe in ghosts.

What's your point?

Keep in mind that a ghost is almost exactly what he was before EC when he was retconned to be an AI.

Not quite. It was meant to be ambiguous. He could have been a ghost, but he also could not have.

Pre-EC, did anyone actually think that he was anything other than an AI/VI?

[Lt_Kitty]

AlanC9 wrote...

I thought it was evidence that Sovereign was spewing a line of obscurantist b.s.. Which some people ate up, for reasons I don't really comprehend.

I agree.  Because of the air of malicious mystery set up by an entire game's worth of trying to figure out what the absolute duck a reaper is and their motivations.  Then we finally meet one and he rapes our ears with that bone-chilling tone of absolute futility.  Later on we find out that Soverign was indeed full of himself because, oh look, we actually beat him.

The Catalyst is magically free from being full of b.s. how?

@OP and OP agreers:

Sure you can trust him... you got nothing to lose except the fate of the cycle and your life.  What if you chose, died, and nothing happend?  The reapers show your last ditch effort of trusting them to the resistance... and you died a stupid death.  Shepard, the last hope of the galaxy demoralized and broken to the last moment.  The fight crumbles and the 50k year cycle continues without any further complications.  That's a very impractical situation.  How noble of you to accept the doctrines of the catalyst and his ideals, though.

You personally lost the chance to fight and perhaps, maybe, stop bleeding enough to unite the galaxy and fight off the threat... like Shepard has done in the past.  See, I can make a situation up just like Bioware does.  Perhaps this human reaper somehow makes a last minute appearance and effects things?  We don't know.

Your logic does indeed work, though.  What if trusting the catalyst works?  Great.  But to say refuse is an idealist choice based on your opinion isn't very compelling, my friend, just as my arguement is equally uncompelling(donno if this is a word lol).

EDIT: In short this might be one of those "agree to disagree" threads.  Both side's ideas and input were most intreguing.

Modifié par Lt_Kitty, 23 août 2012 - 06:26 .

[Solaxe]

Lt_Kitty wrote...


Sure you can trust him... you got nothing to lose except the fate of the cycle and your life.  What if you chose, died, and nothing happend?  The reapers show your last ditch effort of trusting them to the resistance... and you died a stupid death.  Shepard, the last hope of the galaxy demoralized and broken to the last moment.  The fight crumbles and the 50k year cycle continues without any further complications.  That's a very impractical situation.  How noble of you to accept the doctrines of the catalyst and his ideals, though.

Reapers win in both scenarios according to your logic, whether Shep trusts them or not, so what's your point? 

Modifié par Solaxe, 23 août 2012 - 06:26 .

[Lt_Kitty]

Solaxe wrote...

Reapers win in both scenarios according to your logic, whether Shep trusts them or not, so what's your point?

Point is, both have an equal chance of suceeding or failing.  Saying that refuse is an idealistic way of looking at the situation isn't exactly true, imo.

[robertthebard]

Lt_Kitty wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I thought it was evidence that Sovereign was spewing a line of obscurantist b.s.. Which some people ate up, for reasons I don't really comprehend.

I agree.  Because of the air of malicious mystery set up by an entire game's worth of trying to figure out what the absolute duck a reaper is and their motivations.  Then we finally meet one and he rapes our ears with that bone-chilling tone of absolute futility.  Later on we find out that Soverign was indeed full of himself because, oh look, we actually beat him.

The Catalyst is magically free from being full of b.s. how?

@OP and OP agreers:

Sure you can trust him... you got nothing to lose except the fate of the cycle and your life.  What if you chose, died, and nothing happend?  The reapers show your last ditch effort of trusting them to the resistance... and you died a stupid death.  Shepard, the last hope of the galaxy demoralized and broken to the last moment.  The fight crumbles and the 50k year cycle continues without any further complications.  That's a very impractical situation.  How noble of you to accept the doctrines of the catalyst and his ideals, though.

You personally lost the chance to fight and perhaps, maybe, stop bleeding enough to unite the galaxy and fight off the threat... like Shepard has done in the past.  See, I can make a situation up just like Bioware does.  Perhaps this human reaper somehow makes a last minute appearance and effects things?  We don't know.

Your logic does indeed work, though.  What if trusting the catalyst works?  Great.  But to say refuse is an idealist choice based on your opinion isn't very compelling, my friend.

EDIT: In short this might be one of those "agree to disagree" threads.  Both side's ideas and input were most intreguing.

If I chose, died and nothing happened, at least I chose to try.  At this point, looking at the Galaxy map, what's going on outside, er, over by where you're at, because you may actually be outside, what happened to Hammer getting to this point, what happened to Shepard getting to this point, how many ships we lost defeating Sovereign, 8, if we saved the Council, not sure if we don't, nor am I sure how many Council ships are lost either way, what have I got to lose by trying?  Imminent death?  By doing nothing, from everything I've been through to get where I currently am, that's what I have coming anyway.  So, why not try?  Because maybe he's lying?  Because maybe my eyes are deceiving me, and the galaxy map isn't really Reaperville?  Because none of the other cycles existed, and we're really the first one to get harvested?

Everything that I have learned getting to this point, from ME 1 to now, has shown me that the Reapers are going to win if I don't pull a rabbit out of a hat.  So the ultimate solution is to throw the hat away?  The logic of "If you pick Destroy, you're a mass murderer" isn't going to carry any weight if it's compared to Refusal.  Frankly, choosing Refusal is mass murder on a grander scale than I can even imagine.  "I chose to stand by my principles"  which translates roughly to one's principles being it is better to let the blind guy get hit by a truck than try to save him?  Because you are definitely blindsiding the galaxy by choosing not to decide.  Is it fear?  Is it that Shepard is so afraid of dying that s/he can't decide what to do?  That doesn't compute with the Shepard that told Wrex, after being prompted to hurry up on the second hammer that there was a Reaper in their way.  So really, the only reason to not choose at all is pride.  Shepard is too proud to accept that SC may indeed be offering several ways out.

[Lt_Kitty]

robertthebard wrote...
If I chose, died and nothing happened, at least I chose to try. 

I disagree that everything is a "rabbit out of the hat" situation before ME3, but that's a different discussion.  As your point stands and within the confinds of what actually happend in the game, it makes sense. 

However, and I apologise for making up hypothetical
situations, but what if you chose, died, and made it easier for the
reapers to harvest this cycle?  With this in mind, refuse isn't an idealist choice just as choosing isn't idealist.

[ATLAS1192]

And here I thought this would be a civil conversation about realism and idealism. Siwwie, siwwie me.

[Lt_Kitty]

xBl4ck0p5x wrote...

And here I thought this would be a civil conversation about realism and idealism. Siwwie, siwwie me.

No, you're a reaper.

[ATLAS1192]

Lt_Kitty wrote...

xBl4ck0p5x wrote...

And here I thought this would be a civil conversation about realism and idealism. Siwwie, siwwie me.

No, you're a reaper.

No, you're a Reaper (capital R).
How did you gleam that from my post?

[robertthebard]

Lt_Kitty wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
If I chose, died and nothing happened, at least I chose to try. 

I disagree that everything is a "rabbit out of the hat" situation before ME3, but that's a different discussion.  As your point stands and within the confinds of what actually happend in the game, it makes sense. 

However, and I apologise for making up hypothetical
situations, but what if you chose, died, and made it easier for the
reapers to harvest this cycle?  With this in mind, refuse isn't an idealist choice just as choosing isn't idealist.

Since I can't know what's going to happen until I try, I think I still try.  It's what Shepard has been about the entire series.  With a pretty good success ratio.  We fail hard at Thessia, allowing TIM to get Vendetta, but it's really still a nothing to lose scenario.  We put all our eggs into one basket, as bad as that is, and we've got very little like a real choice.  Liara's estimate of at least a century to finish the cycle with the Reapers winning seems logical, so even if it were cut in half...  That's the problem with the hypothetical though, as you note, it's really hard to say.  I don't even play the endings much, twice out of twelve trips to the beam because the whole getting there frustrates me to no end, but if I'm going to overlook surviving Harbinger's laser, then I'm going to choose something.  I have one Shepard that is going to choose Refusal, because he doesn't believe the galaxy is worth saving.

Leadership put more effort into denying the threat than preparing for it, and, as we see in Vancouver at the beginning, they are already looking at me like their not being ready is my fault.  The Council, right up to reprogramming Avina to disregard anything to do with Reapers as a myth from some extinction cult, has been no better.  Hence the "Ah, Reapers, we have already dismissed that claim" meme.  The Protheans bought us extra time, and they wasted it pretending it wasn't real, even before they got Sovereign cleaned out of the Presidium, as far as I can tell.  They were so dead set against it that they forced me to commit mutiny to save 'em, or not, depending, but to get in a position to stop Sovereign and Saren.  If they had put as much effort into preparing for the inevitable as they did denying it's existance, maybe we would have had a better chance.

[robertthebard]

xBl4ck0p5x wrote...

Lt_Kitty wrote...

xBl4ck0p5x wrote...

And here I thought this would be a civil conversation about realism and idealism. Siwwie, siwwie me.

No, you're a reaper.

No, you're a Reaper (capital R).
How did you gleam that from my post?

It was that big horn sound that gave you away.

[ATLAS1192]

robertthebard wrote...

xBl4ck0p5x wrote...

Lt_Kitty wrote...

xBl4ck0p5x wrote...

And here I thought this would be a civil conversation about realism and idealism. Siwwie, siwwie me.

No, you're a reaper.

No, you're a Reaper (capital R).
How did you gleam that from my post?

It was that big horn sound that gave you away.

Dat bass.