329 réponses à ce sujet

[Wayning_Star]

Ice Cold J wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Another annoying itch in the back of my throat is that in mass effect 1 or 2 their is not hint or any idea to the catalyst existence at all and to me personally soverign and harbinger made the reapers seem like powerful united individuals here to destroy us or that soverign and harbinger were powerful leaders of the reapers.

Mostly this for me, but I do somewhat agree with and definitely understand your other points.

well, the keepers alway gave me the creepers.. pesky little know it alls...but untalkative and nobody knew them at all, muchless a little. Couldn't even scan them out for clues that meant anything. Plus the secret hiding places in the citadel and the fact that it was indeed a trap of sorts. Left me unsurprised that some 'other' creature was involved. Made me imagine 'the others', out of thin air when playing earlier game segments.? Just say'n..

[Mathias]

saracen16 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

That's pretty rude, all I did was respond to your point and you get fresh with me? 

My apologies. I thought you were talking about me walking away from the debate.

But to respond to your point, that's true, but even refusing to make a decision is a choice as well that has ramifications.

Refusing leads to the inevitable defeat of the current cycle, but also the defeat of the Reapers in the next cycle, without sacrificing the soul of their species. Refusal is the greatest sacrifice the player can make, but it also eventually produces the greatest outcome.

[Wayning_Star]

[quote]saracen16 wrote...

[quote]The Angry One wrote...

Why do you keep forgetting that nobody was aware of the Crucible's true nature at that time?
As far as they knew it was an anti-Reaper weapon.[/quote]

That didn't stop them from going to Earth in order to deploy it. They know that it is a weapon capable of defeating the Reapers. Deploying it was their main objective. And as far as anyone knows, the Crucible still is an anti-Reaper weapon: no one oversaw Shepard's convo with the Catalyst.



[quote]Not everyone believes in being turned into a new type of cyborg either.[/quote]Then let`s just agree to disagree, then.

[quote]Again, Shepard does not let anything continue. Shepard fights to stop it.[/quote]

Actions speak louder than words, TAO. Let me ask you again: which action let's




[quote]With this type of thinking, you can never be a leader. A leader must be flexible and consider the options, no matter how heinous they appear to be. Emotion will only be your downfall. The Creators are responsible for the Catalyst, but punishment is long gone and long overdue. This is not a machine with a malevolent end-goal. This a machine with a logic loop, and as such can not be held responsible if it doesn't see beyond the goal it has set for itself.[/quote]


[quote]Again with the headcanon. The Catalyst is a sentient being and responsible for it's own actions.[/quote]
It and it alone continues the cycle, not Shepard.[/quote]

So, if you can't convince me otherwise, you repeat what you said before? This is not debate. You say, "the Catalyst is sentient being responsible for its actions." I explained that it can't be responsible because it is bound by its programming. Your response is repeating the same statement. Convince me otherwise. Convince me that this is not a machine with a logic loop and convince me that it is malevolent. Convince me, then, that it wasn't the Creators' fault for limiting its programming and making sure that it doesn't implement a solution such as the Reapers.


[quote]Oh sure, as long as they're all part synthetics. Hence, homogenity. Nobody can be left out. Nobody can be different.[/quote]

What makes them different is their initial organic species. Never mind that there are different synthetics. The geth are a synthetic networked intelligence. The Zha'til are cyborgs born of organics. They're not the same, either.


[quote]It's two different things. So no.[/quote]

It all comes down to choice. That's the essence of life: a series of choice.


[quote]Potentially. But I don't deal in appeals to probability. In the here and now, the Rachni are affecting and changing nothing because they're already dead.[/quote]

Maybe in your playthrough, but not in mine. Butterfly Effect works both ways: if you eliminate the Rachni, you eliminate the chance that they can see the galaxy again.


[quote]Which STILL isn't even a tenth of the magnitude of synthesis.[/quote]

It's not the same, yes, but it still has a large magnitude. It still makes you responsible.

[quote]

[quote]And now you're going to tell me that I am not responsible for my own decisions.[/quote]
Say what?[/quote]

A counterargument to what you were implying.


[quote]And since you love metagaming, you should know that this amounted to exactly nothing.[/quote]

I'm only using this metagaming example to prove my point: that choices no matter how big or small have an impact. But my initial premise is not based on metagaming. Every decision I make has a potential consequence. It may mean nothing to you, but to a gamer who is going through this journey, it means something, because I don't know if my decision will reward me or bite me in the ****. To an individual in this universe, it means a lot, because I will be affecting the life of someone, somewhere, just like the choice to shoot a ship's railgun with or without targeting parameters (refer to the conversation between the soldiers on the Citadel).


[quote]How is that a strawman? My point is that this decision was criticised, because the Council thought that Shepard, Spectre or no, was no one to make such a decision.[/quote]

That Shepard was criticized for not being qualified to make such a decision is a strawman because it has nothing to do with the Butterfly Effect, but in retrospect to what you said, it actually proves my point: Shepard is admonished either for killing them or releasing them.


[quote]And I will say this again. You have no sense of scale or relativity.[/quote]

I do. You just seem to think that the little things in life do not matter to anyone, anywhere.


[quote]What? How is directly integrating AIs with your own brain less than this cycle?[/quote]

Because I said it before: a soldier with a biotic amp is still himself and is able to understand the implications of his upgrade and use it to improve his life. The Zha'til are enslaved and hence less evolved in that respect.


[quote]Oh come on. Use common sense.[/quote]

Commonsense once said that the Earth was flat. I fail to see your point.


[quote]If you think the Crucible is in fact more than a power source, was designed by organics and carries these functions.. how does the Catalyst know about it? How does it "change" it?[/quote]

Because the Catalyst said so itself: that it first noticed its design several cycles ago. That it changed it means that it created new possibilities. That it finally interfaced with a working Crucible means that it has new ways of fulfilling its programming and at the same time fulfilling Shepard's goal of ending the cycle (i.e. implementing a solution OTHER than the Reapers and at the same time defeating them or rendering them irrelevant).

I am changed when I see an alternative to the technology that I have at my disposal. I realize that there are new things I can accomplish because I have the means to carry them out.


[quote]Organics designing the Crucible to do this without knowing about the Catalyst would be like someone designing an addon for your computer that interfaces with it's OS without knowing what that OS is. Yeah good luck with that.[/quote]

Only that they DID know about the Catalyst: the Catalyst is the Citadel. The Crucible was designed to dock with the Citadel that was the Catalyst. What they didn't know that the Catalyst AI and the Catalyst Citadel were one and the same thing, as I also said before. They didn't have to know that the Catalyst AI existed when the Catalyst was the Citadel. Their names are merely a coincidence and more for symbolism than anything else.
[/quote]

I don't argue with TAO anymore, I just assume shes correct in all ways and accept defeat..lol

[RiouHotaru]

That's because with TAO it's not an argument. It's a "You're wrong, I'm right."

[saracen16]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

That's pretty rude, all I did was respond to your point and you get fresh with me? 

My apologies. I thought you were talking about me walking away from the debate.

But to respond to your point, that's true, but even refusing to make a decision is a choice as well that has ramifications.

Refusing leads to the inevitable defeat of the current cycle, but also the defeat of the Reapers in the next cycle, without sacrificing the soul of their species.

How do you know that they will not use the Crucible? The chance still exists, and it's clear that they won't be able to beat the Reapers conventionally (i.e. "not sacrificing the soul of their species").

Refusal is the greatest sacrifice the player can make, but it also eventually produces the greatest outcome.

Potentially, not eventually. There is a high likelihood that the cycle that wins will beat the Reapers nonconventionally with the Crucible or otherwise. That chance is still there. But some people are not willing to leave things to chance, especially when the issue is an eons-long pattern of countless cycles of extinction.

[AresKeith]

RiouHotaru wrote...

That's because with TAO it's not an argument. It's a "You're wrong, I'm right."

while you and others calls us haters, whines, and far worse

[Baronesa]

RiouHotaru wrote...

That's because with TAO it's not an argument. It's a "You're wrong, I'm right."

Funny you say that.

Her conversation with Xil has been very polite and both present their positions...


Maybe looking at the inherent hatred she provokes would be a good idea.

[CitizenThom]

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Yep.

The stream of reaper apologists on this forum lately has been disheartening.

In the end, that's what I hated about the Catalyst. It was written as a long apologist essay for the Reapers and all the horrors they've committed against organics and synthetics alike.

It's one thing to have a quasi-sympathetic writing of the antagonist... it's another for it to be slapped onto the antagonist in the last minutes of the story.

[Applepie_Svk]

RiouHotaru wrote...

That's because with TAO it's not an argument. It's a "You're wrong, I'm right."

You know... it´s mutual.

Where I see logic you see flaw, and where I see flaw you see logic...

[RiouHotaru]

Baronesa wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

That's because with TAO it's not an argument. It's a "You're wrong, I'm right."

Funny you say that.

Her conversation with Xil has been very polite and both present their positions...


Maybe looking at the inherent hatred she provokes would be a good idea.

It's polite, sure.  But it's still "my position is right, yours is wrong".  I actually agreed with her on something in a previous thread, and it STILL devolved back into the same thing.

[r3apz515]

people cant comprehend the story, too lazy to analyse it. there are reasons as to why such thing exists.

[Wayning_Star]

.
[/quote]
My point being that none of the people of the galaxy were given a choice as to whether or not they wanted to die for Shepard's morality.
[/quote]

yeah, reapers can't live with'em can't shoot'em...gotta deal with'em.. Nobody in the MEU were given a choice(s) but Shepard, eventually.. to stop the cycle/pattern.

[Mathias]

saracen16 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

That's pretty rude, all I did was respond to your point and you get fresh with me? 

My apologies. I thought you were talking about me walking away from the debate.

But to respond to your point, that's true, but even refusing to make a decision is a choice as well that has ramifications.

Refusing leads to the inevitable defeat of the current cycle, but also the defeat of the Reapers in the next cycle, without sacrificing the soul of their species.

How do you know that they will not use the Crucible? The chance still exists, and it's clear that they won't be able to beat the Reapers conventionally (i.e. "not sacrificing the soul of their species").

One of the biggest reasons why the Reapers can't be beaten conventionally is because they always take the cycle by surprise. I have argued that at the end of Mass Effect 1, if the galaxy united right then and there and began preparing for the arrival of the Reapers however way they could, there's a chance they could've won. During the 2.5 years they had to prepare, there is so much they could've done to ready themselves, including setting up traps, superweapons, massive fleets, etc.

Now if Liara's set up multiple time capsules on multiple planets like she did, there's a good chance that the next cycle was warned about the Reapers waaaay in advance. We're probably talking at least a decade up to a century at least. Not only that but Liara probably had details on the Reapers themselves and certain weakpoints etc etc. There's no doubt in my mind the next cycle won conventionally. I'm sure it wasn't easy though. It was probably a very tough, very intense battle. But the Reapers aren't unstoppable.

Also i doubt the next cycle would bother much with the Crucible if Liara specifically said it didn't work.

Refusal is the greatest sacrifice the player can make, but it also eventually produces the greatest outcome.

Potentially, not eventually. There is a high likelihood that the cycle that wins will beat the Reapers nonconventionally with the Crucible or otherwise. That chance is still there. But some people are not willing to leave things to chance, especially when the issue is an eons-long pattern of countless cycles of extinction.

Like I said, chances are they didn't use the Crucible. At the time they were warned about the Reapers, which was probably well in advance, they had the choice to either win through conventional victory and preparation, or put their faith into something that you were just informed did not work.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 23 août 2012 - 06:35 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

RiouHotaru wrote...

That's because with TAO it's not an argument. It's a "You're wrong, I'm right."

Nah. Usually she clearly states why. And that pisses off a lot of people who are not able to counter her logic. What then follows are rationalizations, diversions, or head canon, in an attempt to make their belief system more agreeable. That of course does not work.

[RiouHotaru]

Well here's the thing. All she said was that they build the Crucible, hooked it up, and nothing happened. There's a LARGE number of explanations as to why nothing happened. Also, we're just hearing part of the message.

Besides, I'd find it hilarious that they discover the plans for the Crucible (which Liara seemed to have included, why include plans for a "weapon" that doesn't work?), build it, wait RIGHT until the Reapers arrive, and then flip it on and nuke 'em.

[Ieldra]

saracen16 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
I like the Catalyst. People don't like the Catalyst because he presents 3 (4) options that require players Shepards to get their hands dirty with no get out of jail free card that they're spoon fed at every major decision.

That's why you see so much "My Shepard had to give up everything he/she believed in and it's thematically revolting! QQ"

That's certainly true. Nonetheless, making the leader of the antagonists also be the one who explains your final choice to you wasn't the best idea Bioware's writers ever had. It requires an immense amount of emotional detachment to get comfortable with the idea that the Catalyst, as an AI, doesn't play to win but plays to complete an objective, in a completely neutral and amoral way, and as such isn't your standard antagonist, and that it can't be measured by human standards of morality because it isn't equipped to see those as valid.

I like the final choice and its outcomes, but the Catalyst remains a problem, not just because it explains our final choice, but also because it comes across as a pseudo-divinity with primary agency in the ending, starting with levitating Shepard up to its platform. The symbolism is galling to say the least.

The closest analogy I can get to towards the end is that the Illusive Man was right: the universe is not as black and white as we think because there's plenty of room for different shades of grey. It's more like Cerberus is the Emperor Palpatine and the Reapers are the Darth Vader, their moral ambiguities or certainties made clear at the very end. This also hearkens to Deus Ex Invisible War, where you fight one faction most of the game only to be able to side with it at the very end (the Templars, for those who need a memory check).

It's refreshing to have another not-so-clear-cut antagonist at the end. The whole good vs. evil dichotomy was getting tiresome.

Indeed. Personally, I don't have a problem with the Catalyst except for the symbolism of Shepard's collapse at the elevator and the subsequent loss of agency (even though that makes it possible to see the Catalyst as more than your typical antagonist), but nonetheless I think that emotional detachment was too much to expect from most players after a large part of the game appeared to be built on the premise "feel, don't think".

[Wayning_Star]

r3apz515 wrote...

people cant comprehend the story, too lazy to analyse it. there are reasons as to why such thing exists.

oh folks comprehend it, they just don't like what they see and want to modify reality to suit the situation, kind of like
the Bioware devs...

[RiouHotaru]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

That's because with TAO it's not an argument. It's a "You're wrong, I'm right."

Nah. Usually she clearly states why. And that pisses off a lot of people who are not able to counter her logic. What then follows are rationalizations, diversions, or head canon, in an attempt to make their belief system more agreeable. That of course does not work.

When "logic" is "I don't like what the ending tells me happens, so I'm going to fabricate negatively-inclined context to justify why I don't like it", that's not logic.  Also, she headcanons about as much as everyone else does.  She just more vehement that her's is right.

(Besides, her jusitifcations for why Refusal isn't a bad option are just as silly)

[XXXMETATRONXXX]

I think that BioWare was flustered by the changes they were making and what they were trying to do, as well as EA's refusal to give them all the time they needed to make it perfect. As some of you know, Javik was originally supposed to be the Catalyst, and that's from a long list of confirmed deleted content from ME3. He was the Catalyst, and the Vendetta VI was his, which he used for god knows what. There was supposed to be a mission where you have to rescue "the catalyst" because he was kidnapped by Kai Leng while he was in a trance, using the VI. It's very detailed, in fact. Try looking it up, if you don't believe me.

I do not blame BioWare for the bad writing. I blame EA. Still, this may not be bad writing as it is. They might have plans to AMAZE us one day with some kind of content that will clear EVERYTHING up and make us go "Whoa........"

[Wayning_Star]

XXXMETATRONXXX wrote...

I think that BioWare was flustered by the changes they were making and what they were trying to do, as well as EA's refusal to give them all the time they needed to make it perfect. As some of you know, Javik was originally supposed to be the Catalyst, and that's from a long list of confirmed deleted content from ME3. He was the Catalyst, and the Vendetta VI was his, which he used for god knows what. There was supposed to be a mission where you have to rescue "the catalyst" because he was kidnapped by Kai Leng while he was in a trance, using the VI. It's very detailed, in fact. Try looking it up, if you don't believe me.

I do not blame BioWare for the bad writing. I blame EA. Still, this may not be bad writing as it is. They might have plans to AMAZE us one day with some kind of content that will clear EVERYTHING up and make us go "Whoa........"

Yeah, I thought that too, especially with the upcoming DLC. But I can understand the frustration,as I'm getting there myself. They really should of gotten the story in tune with the mystery, not send in new and improvised  spoilers later for kicks'n giggles. It's liable to erk players even more.

I'll just hold my nose and play along, fanboy to the end of any good/fair/middle'n sci fi story..lol

[RiouHotaru]

Ieldra2 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
I like the Catalyst. People don't like the Catalyst because he presents 3 (4) options that require players Shepards to get their hands dirty with no get out of jail free card that they're spoon fed at every major decision.

That's why you see so much "My Shepard had to give up everything he/she believed in and it's thematically revolting! QQ"

That's certainly true. Nonetheless, making the leader of the antagonists also be the one who explains your final choice to you wasn't the best idea Bioware's writers ever had. It requires an immense amount of emotional detachment to get comfortable with the idea that the Catalyst, as an AI, doesn't play to win but plays to complete an objective, in a completely neutral and amoral way, and as such isn't your standard antagonist, and that it can't be measured by human standards of morality because it isn't equipped to see those as valid.

I like the final choice and its outcomes, but the Catalyst remains a problem, not just because it explains our final choice, but also because it comes across as a pseudo-divinity with primary agency in the ending, starting with levitating Shepard up to its platform. The symbolism is galling to say the least.

The closest analogy I can get to towards the end is that the Illusive Man was right: the universe is not as black and white as we think because there's plenty of room for different shades of grey. It's more like Cerberus is the Emperor Palpatine and the Reapers are the Darth Vader, their moral ambiguities or certainties made clear at the very end. This also hearkens to Deus Ex Invisible War, where you fight one faction most of the game only to be able to side with it at the very end (the Templars, for those who need a memory check).

It's refreshing to have another not-so-clear-cut antagonist at the end. The whole good vs. evil dichotomy was getting tiresome.

Indeed. Personally, I don't have a problem with the Catalyst except for the symbolism of Shepard's collapse at the elevator and the subsequent loss of agency (even though that makes it possible to see the Catalyst as more than your typical antagonist), but nonetheless I think that emotional detachment was too much to expect from most players after a large part of the game appeared to be built on the premise "feel, don't think".

I think that looking at the Elevator scene as symbolism is overanalyzing it a bit much, really.  Otherwise I agree with the Catalyst's portrayal.  Admittedly, getting the thing that's possibly (depending on your view) actively or passively directing the reapers to tell you how to defeat them is a bit jarring, the fact he's just part of the machine makes for an interesting perspective.  (That is, for him, it's not about winning or losing, victory or defeat.  It doesn't matter that the new options will result in his erasure, even if he doesn't like it)

[D24O]

 I'm just sayin' I don't like the Catalyst. 

[Wayning_Star]

RiouHotaru wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

That's because with TAO it's not an argument. It's a "You're wrong, I'm right."

Nah. Usually she clearly states why. And that pisses off a lot of people who are not able to counter her logic. What then follows are rationalizations, diversions, or head canon, in an attempt to make their belief system more agreeable. That of course does not work.

When "logic" is "I don't like what the ending tells me happens, so I'm going to fabricate negatively-inclined context to justify why I don't like it", that's not logic.  Also, she headcanons about as much as everyone else does.  She just more vehement that her's is right.

(Besides, her jusitifcations for why Refusal isn't a bad option are just as silly)

actually that's a form of arguement,take a stance and defend it with opinion,even if false. The 'vehemence' is a tactic as well. So I gave up on it. Best defense in that instance is none...as it were.
 
A crude version of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate

[AngryFrozenWater]

RiouHotaru wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

That's because with TAO it's not an argument. It's a "You're wrong, I'm right."

Nah. Usually she clearly states why. And that pisses off a lot of people who are not able to counter her logic. What then follows are rationalizations, diversions, or head canon, in an attempt to make their belief system more agreeable. That of course does not work.

When "logic" is "I don't like what the ending tells me happens, so I'm going to fabricate negatively-inclined context to justify why I don't like it", that's not logic.  Also, she headcanons about as much as everyone else does.  She just more vehement that her's is right.

(Besides, her jusitifcations for why Refusal isn't a bad option are just as silly)

Her motivations for selecting an ending option are her own. I will not comment on those. You better ask her about that yourself. No doubt she does not agree with mine, but we fail to see why we should get nasty about that. Come to think of it: I forgot to add being nasty to the list. Assume it being inserted up there.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 23 août 2012 - 06:49 .