329 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

There can be few other choices if the Crucible turns out to be something that benefits the Reapers more than it does us.
Sovereign made a similar offer in ME1. Join me or die. But everyone accepts Shepard refusing that. No doubt because the threat was further away but the point is some of us refuse to capitulate to the will of a mass murderer. It isn't arrogance, it isn't pride.
It's doing the same as defying Sovereign in ME1 or destroying the Collector base in ME2, it's refusing to compromise ourselves and give up our liberty for safety.

Actually, Sovereign never made that offer in ME1; it pretty much just said "die." Saren did, but Vigil made it fairly clear that Saren had been duped and was wrong about the Reapers following through on the deal. Even Harbinger, despite being much more chatty, never made an offer for Shepard to join, just said that Shepard's defeat was inevitable. The Reapers themselves have never before made any sort of offer to Shepard.
As for the Collector base, well, at least in EMS terms, destroying it is the wrong decision.
Finally, Sovereign wasn't undefeatable; it was only ever just one ship. The Collector base was a giant unknown, but could be investigated. The Reaper fleet in ME3, on the other hand, is very clearly stomping the rest of the galaxy into the ground and in desperate need of unconventional force to defeat it.

See the main problem I have is that it doesn't matter if it's better or worse, if synthesis is utopia or indoctrination, it's that it's a) unecesarry as the problem exists only in the Catalyst's head and not a solution to any problem, because conflict will still exist (assuming everybody's minds haven't been altered).

I think our perceptions of this particular issue are too different for us to have a meaningful discussion on the matter. Though if you want to try, I don't believe it's an issue of direct mind alteration so much as an alteration of experience through other factors, as sort of a short version. I also consider humanity as a whole gruesomely suboptimal in mindset, me included, and I would love being mentally upgraded to be less weak.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 23 août 2012 - 04:34 .

[WhiteKnyght]

Whether or not everyone will accept the catalyst is irrelevant.

It's impossible for everyone to like every aspect of the game. Some people hate the existence of Catalyst, some accept it. Some people hate the existence of The Illusive Man and the fact that Cerberus, a glorified generic enemy from ME1 was given a huge presence in ME2, 3, and the novels, but some like it.

It's all subjective and up to the individual player.

[saracen16]

AresKeith wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

The enemy is not to be trusted haven't you learned that by now or has the illusive mans betrayal and his personal assasssin kai leng have not made it seep in yet?

You're arguing from emotion, not logic. This is NOT a traditional enemy. A program designed for a singular purpose can not be held responsible like a man would. This is a machine that has no remorse and no moral judgement. To itself, it believes that it is doing the right thing for synthetics and organics in the long run. It does not see any other recourse because it tried other solutions but failed. It is a machine. It does not think beyond what it's destined to do.

If this was an organic enemy like the Illusive Man, I would think differently.

so you'll trust an AI you killed his own creators, which makes him unshackled, with a flawed logic which has also been proven untrue based on how you played

You are intentionally avoiding the other responses I made to LiarasShield in this thread and plucking up more strawmen. His axiom was that conflict is inevitable: it only needs one occurrence to be proven true. The opposite of that statement would be, "Conflict can never happen." His statement is that it only needs to happen once to be an inevitability.

And to entertain your strawman, he didn't kill his creators casually. He killed them and turned them into a Reaper because he saw no other recourse. He saw it as the only way to fulfill his program. Thus, if anything, the Creators are at fault for not shackling him. The Crucible shackles him insofar as he can not continue to use it without Shepard's input.

[The Angry One]

Xilizhra wrote...

Actually, Sovereign never made that offer in ME1; it pretty much just said "die." Saren did, but Vigil made it fairly clear that Saren had been duped and was wrong about the Reapers following through on the deal.

Saren stated that Sovereign has basically extended an offer, and he has no reason to lie about that nor would Sovereign say something he didn't mean. Sovereign was nothing if not honest in what he said.
Now sure, Saren was being used like all organics, but I don't see why Sovereign wouldn't think that Shepard would be of use after Virmire.

Even Harbinger, despite being much more chatty, never made an offer for Shepard to join, just said that Shepard's defeat was inevitable. The Reapers themselves have never before made any sort of offer to Shepard.
As for the Collector base, well, at least in EMS terms, destroying it is the wrong decision.

By then Harbinger would realise Shepard is not open to any offers.. at least ones that are presented by actual Reapers. He did still want Shepard to cooperate one way or another.

Finally, Sovereign wasn't undefeatable; it was only ever just one ship. The Collector base was a giant unknown, but could be investigated. The Reaper fleet in ME3, on the other hand, is very clearly stomping the rest of the galaxy into the ground and in desperate need of unconventional force to defeat it.

Then we fight unconventionally. But I just don't see the logic in rolling over and giving up because we've been given the easy way out when we've always been shown there's another way.

I think our perceptions of this particular issue are too different for us to have a meaningful discussion on the matter.

Perhaps, but my point is the problem is conflict. Synthesis can't eliminate conflict. "Understanding" isn't a guarantee of anything. I think Krogan "understand" organics pretty well, and still waged a war of conquest.

Modifié par The Angry One, 23 août 2012 - 04:39 .

[JamieCOTC]

I've found the best way to look at it is that Shepard dies after activating the panel on the Citadel and the rest is just a dream she's having while in the process of dying. And the end choice simply reflects Shepard's personality.

[Baronesa]

JamieCOTC wrote...

I've found the best way to look at it is that Shepard dies after activating the panel on the Citadel and the rest is just a dream she's having while in the process of dying. And the end choice simply reflects Shepard's personality.

Game should have ended before magic elevator -.-

[Xilizhra]

Saren stated that Sovereign has basically extended an offer, and he has no reason to lie about that nor would Sovereign say something he didn't mean. Sovereign was nothing if not honest in what he said.
Now sure, Saren was being used like all organics, but I don't see why Sovereign wouldn't think that Shepard would be of use after Virmire.

It's simpler for Shepard to be killed. Saren wandered into indoctrination without understanding it, but Shepard already knows what's going on and won't be fooled by that. Shepard's death is a much more efficient and safer outcome to pursue. I believe that Saren believes the offer, but it's a lie.

By then Harbinger would realise Shepard is not open to any offers.. at least ones that are presented by actual Reapers. He did still want Shepard to cooperate one way or another.

Either as dead or imprisoned; it wouldn't be cooperation.

Then we fight unconventionally. But I just don't see the logic in rolling over and giving up because we've been given the easy way out when we've always been shown there's another way.

Because the Reapers have to be stopped. I don't care how. I don't care if only one way works or if three do, they have to be stopped. Maybe I've taken risks at other times, back when there was more time to address the results, and to change things if anything went wrong. But now isn't a time like that. The fleets, the combined strength of the entire galaxy, are already losing the battle over Earth. Harbinger is attacking the Crucible. There is no time left for things like heroism and sticking solely to principle, no time left for risks that might lead to an optimal outcome, no time to throw away any way out. This is the point of no return, the point where if Shepard fails, absolutely everything will have been for naught. And if I sacrifice a bit of principle there, well, that's a ****ing tiny sacrifice compared to what billions of other people in the galaxy have already lost. I'll stomach it.

[saracen16]

The Angry One wrote...

Refusing means fighting the cycle. Fighting it's solutions, the old and the new. Resisting until the end.

Chest-pounding jargon and military bravado. And you know will never happen conventionally: you are well-aware of the consequences of not using the Crucible: "the Reapers bleed us slowly". The forces you gathered throughout this whole trilogy did not go to Earth to just fight and die. They went to Earth to win. And you would choose to fail them knowing that you have the solution right in front of you, but denied it.

You are responsible for letting this cycle continue.

Their DNA is tampered with to give them some sort of molecular cybernetic augmentation without their consent.
But this is besides the point. You claim they are ready. I am asking you how a 20th century society that is launching rockets is ready for this?

Are you claiming humanity would've been ready for synthesis in 1960?

This is not just ONE society. This is talking about a galaxy at large. With the advantages of synthesis, all societies will eventually be integrated. But see, here's the thing: those organics won't be organics after synthesis. They will also be half-synthetic. We know that it doesn't take a lot of time for synthetics to adapt to new situations. Legion himself said it on the Heretic Station in ME2.

You realise that makes the impact worse?

No, it doesn't. Read above.

The Rachni do not even compare, don't bring that up again. It's already been debunked a thousand times.

Says you (rolls eyes). The Rachni are not just mere observers in this galaxy, but also in it. Choosing to save them or exterminate them will have an impact on the future of the galaxy as a whole. The same goes for the genophage and the krogan as well as the quarian-geth conflict... practically almost every big decision in Mass Effect. Don't dare belittle the impact every choice can make.

Even if you were making a valid comparison, you're talking one species vs. ALL species, everywhere in the galaxy.

It's still in essence the same. Choices that appear small actually have a big impact. It's Chaos Theory and Butterfly Effect. 

.... if cyborgs have nothing to do with this, how can you use cyborgs as justification for organics being "ready"?

Because they are interfacing with technology and are therefore ready with the changes that come with full integration? Never mind that like I said before, the Zha'til were slaves while those of this cycle who have augmented tech are actually themselves and successfully integrating tech to improve life as it is.

So somehow they're more ready than the ones who supposedly designed it? The ones who would've had to know about the Catalyst (somehow) and the Citadel yet couldn't build or deploy it? Even though the Protheans built it too?

The Protheans were unable to build the Crucible let alone meet the Catalyst himself. I would doubt that they were ready for implementing the solution at the time, don't you?

[AresKeith]

saracen16 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

The enemy is not to be trusted haven't you learned that by now or has the illusive mans betrayal and his personal assasssin kai leng have not made it seep in yet?

You're arguing from emotion, not logic. This is NOT a traditional enemy. A program designed for a singular purpose can not be held responsible like a man would. This is a machine that has no remorse and no moral judgement. To itself, it believes that it is doing the right thing for synthetics and organics in the long run. It does not see any other recourse because it tried other solutions but failed. It is a machine. It does not think beyond what it's destined to do.

If this was an organic enemy like the Illusive Man, I would think differently.

so you'll trust an AI you killed his own creators, which makes him unshackled, with a flawed logic which has also been proven untrue based on how you played

You are intentionally avoiding the other responses I made to LiarasShield in this thread and plucking up more strawmen. His axiom was that conflict is inevitable: it only needs one occurrence to be proven true. The opposite of that statement would be, "Conflict can never happen." His statement is that it only needs to happen once to be an inevitability.

And to entertain your strawman, he didn't kill his creators casually. He killed them and turned them into a Reaper because he saw no other recourse. He saw it as the only way to fulfill his program. Thus, if anything, the Creators are at fault for not shackling him. The Crucible shackles him insofar as he can not continue to use it without Shepard's input.

wow one occurrence means it will happen everytime, which is a flawed logic because that probably wouldn't have happen every cycle.

And one of your statements to TAO states that he is Shackled, and how can a power source for the Citadel shackle an AI

[aj2070]

The Angry One wrote...

<snip lots of other stuff>

Perhaps, but my point is the problem is conflict. Synthesis can't eliminate conflict. "Understanding" isn't a guarantee of anything. I think Krogan "understand" organics pretty well, and still waged a war of conquest.

This is also my problem with the catalyst.  It pretty much forces the galaxy to sing "Kumaya" either at reaper-point or by violating every life form in the galaxy.  Failing that, it destroys all synthetics in an ill-concieved plan to resolve a crisis that may never happen.  Synthesis will not resolve conflict, it is not a panacea.

Furthermore, both EDI and the geth prove it does not take forced violation of entire species in order for synthetics to "understand" organics.

Modifié par aj2070, 23 août 2012 - 04:49 .

[The Angry One]

Xilizhra wrote...

It's simpler for Shepard to be killed. Saren wandered into indoctrination without understanding it, but Shepard already knows what's going on and won't be fooled by that. Shepard's death is a much more efficient and safer outcome to pursue. I believe that Saren believes the offer, but it's a lie.

It may be simpler, but on the other hand if Shepard capitulates then the Reapers gain a valuable ally.
Sovereign is convinced he's going to win either way so from his point of view he has nothing to lose by extending this offer.

Regardless we're talking about Shepard's point of view.
Does Shepard know Sovereign is sincere? Well no, but then how does she know the Catalyst is sincere? At least Sovereign has proven himself to be honest while the Catalyst has repeatedly lied during it's conversation.

Either as dead or imprisoned; it wouldn't be cooperation.

More likely as an augmented husk. Harbinger wanted the body after all. It's cooperation.. to the Reapers.

Because the Reapers have to be stopped. I don't care how. I don't care if only one way works or if three do, they have to be stopped. Maybe I've taken risks at other times, back when there was more time to address the results, and to change things if anything went wrong. But now isn't a time like that. The fleets, the combined strength of the entire galaxy, are already losing the battle over Earth. Harbinger is attacking the Crucible. There is no time left for things like heroism and sticking solely to principle, no time left for risks that might lead to an optimal outcome, no time to throw away any way out. This is the point of no return, the point where if Shepard fails, absolutely everything will have been for naught. And if I sacrifice a bit of principle there, well, that's a ****ing tiny sacrifice compared to what billions of other people in the galaxy have already lost. I'll stomach it.

Yeah here's the thing. Synthesis isn't stopping them. Synthesis is them achieving the Catalyst's long term goal and winning.
Are they benevolent now? Maybe. But only because all life has been remade in their image. It "stops" them, like capitulating to a hostile nation stops them from invading you. It validates everything they've done and mocks the deaths and sacrifices of those already gone.
Sometimes the price for safety is just too damn high.

Modifié par The Angry One, 23 août 2012 - 04:51 .

[garf]

scyphozoa wrote...

Yeah, it is called a twist. The wirters changed the context of what the player thought they knew. In the last moments of the trilogy, the full context of the conflict and struggle has been revealed and now the story is not a black-and-white "kill the bad guys and save the day." 

A cheap twist is a cop out. and an example of bad writing. One Authors' omnibus to good professional writing called it "And we are all really living in a giant jar of TANG!" and dissmissed it as a conceit that would get you relegated to the editor's slush pile.

[saracen16]

Nyoka wrote...

saracen16 wrote...
His axiom was that conflict is inevitable: it only needs one occurrence to be proven true. The opposite of that statement would be, "Conflict can never happen." His statement is that it only needs to happen once to be an inevitability.

Actually, the opposite of "this is inevitable" is "this is not inevitable".

The opposite of "this will necessarily happen" is "this will not necessarily happen", which is the same as "this may or may not happen".

Do you know Set Theory? The negation of "X will never happen" is "X may happen once." The negation is the opposite that is needed to prove it false.

[saracen16]

AresKeith wrote...

wow one occurrence means it will happen everytime, which is a flawed logic because that probably wouldn't have happen every cycle.

But it happened every time with the Catalyst: he even said it himself, that" our efforts always resulted in conflict." Therefore, he is brought to the assumption that organic-synthetic conflict is inevitable.

And one of your statements to TAO states that he is Shackled, and how can a power source for the Citadel shackle an AI

Because he says so himself, that he can not make any of these solutions happen? He is bound by his programming. He can not go outside of it. With respect to the Crucible choices, he is bound to the cycle. Only Shepard can make these new solutions happen, and only then will the Catalyst purpose itself to Shepard's whim.

[The Angry One]

saracen16 wrote...

Chest-pounding jargon and military bravado. And you know will never happen conventionally: you are well-aware of the consequences of not using the Crucible: "the Reapers bleed us slowly". The forces you gathered throughout this whole trilogy did not go to Earth to just fight and die. They went to Earth to win. And you would choose to fail them knowing that you have the solution right in front of you, but denied it.

You are responsible for letting this cycle continue.

Yes, they went to Earth to win. Not capitulate to the Reapers. Not to trade our liberty for safety. Not to tell the Reapers everything they did was okay and justified.
We choose to fight. The Catalyst is responsible for it's own crimes.

This is not just ONE society. This is talking about a galaxy at large. With the advantages of synthesis, all societies will eventually be integrated. But see, here's the thing: those organics won't be organics after synthesis. They will also be half-synthetic. We know that it doesn't take a lot of time for synthetics to adapt to new situations. Legion himself said it on the Heretic Station in ME2.

Yes. There are all the socities in the galaxy. So who are you to homogenise them? What makes them "ready"?

No, it doesn't. Read above.

Has nothing to do with this.

Says you (rolls eyes). The Rachni are not just mere observers in this galaxy, but also in it. Choosing to save them or exterminate them will have an impact on the future of the galaxy as a whole. The same goes for the genophage and the krogan as well as the quarian-geth conflict... practically almost every big decision in Mass Effect. Don't dare belittle the impact every choice can make.

Says common sense. They are one species. Technically. At that point, you're dealing with one individual.
By their unique nature, she represents an entire species. But the impact is nowhere near the same.

It's still in essence the same. Choices that appear small actually have a big impact. It's Chaos Theory and Butterfly Effect.

Appeals to probability mean nothing here. The Rachni may potentially have an impact, but they're still only one species.
By the way, Shepard is criticised for making such a unilateral decision. Just for that.

Because they are interfacing with technology and are therefore ready with the changes that come with full integration? Never mind that like I said before, the Zha'til were slaves while those of this cycle who have augmented tech are actually themselves and successfully integrating tech to improve life as it is.

Then the Zha'til count. Also, again, the Reapers enslaved them. They were free before.

The Protheans were unable to build the Crucible let alone meet the Catalyst himself. I would doubt that they were ready for implementing the solution at the time, don't you?

Due to indoctrinated agents, sure. But again, what about the ones who, if you think organics designed the Crucible, would've HAD to have met the Catalyst. This is not up for debate. If organics designed the Crucible alone, then SOMEBODY knew about the Catalyst enough to alter it.

[saracen16]

scyphozoa wrote...

Yeah, it is called a twist. The wirters changed the context of what the player thought they knew. In the last moments of the trilogy, the full context of the conflict and struggle has been revealed and now the story is not a black-and-white "kill the bad guys and save the day." 

This. So much this.

[RiouHotaru]

Oh boy, more of these threads.

Look, you don't have to like the Catalysts. But just imagine getting to that last area and him just being inexplicably absent (Since the endings we see are what we get). I'd rather have him even if his exposition dump is pointless in retrospect.

[Xilizhra]

Regardless we're talking about Shepard's point of view.
Does Shepard know Sovereign is sincere? Well no, but then how does she know the Catalyst is sincere? At least Sovereign has proven himself to be honest while the Catalyst has repeatedly lied during it's conversation.

Actually, Sovereign lies several times during its conversation, though most of those aren't revealed in the immediate game. As for the Catalyst... if it wanted Shepard dead, it could have left her to bleed out. If it needed someone to press a button to do something Reaperish, it could have called a cannibal up to do it. I believe that the Catalyst is revising its strategy based on Shepard getting so far, and I don't believe it has the motive to just kill Shepard and have the Reapers win ordinarily. Not based on what it says, but on what it does and does not do.

Yeah here's the thing. Synthesis isn't stopping them. Synthesis is them achieving the Catalyst's long term goal and winning.
Are they benevolent now? Maybe. But only because all life has been remade in their image. It "stops" them, like capitulating to a hostile nation stops them from invading you. It validates everything they've done and mocks the deaths and sacrifices of those already gone.
Sometimes the price for safety is just too damn high.

Note that I was advocating against Refusal, not for Synthesis. All three endings have their own problems, but are all infinitely better than Refusal. Advocating for Synthesis is a different matter, and not one that I'm that interested in doing; I more say that not all Shepards who would choose Synthesis are monsters. The single safest option to me is Control, Synthesis is sort of a wish-fulfillment thing for the universe as a whole, and Destroy carries the emotional satisfaction of Shepard surviving.
However, I do still consider Synthesis better than Refusal. If the Reapers win without bloodshed, that strikes me as far better than them winning with complete bloodshed and still being enslaved, rather than with peace and them being free.

[RiouHotaru]

The Angry One wrote...

Who turns off the Crucible in refuse?
Hint: It's not Shepard.

It's also not the Catalyst.  Or rather, there's no evidence he turns it off.  He just turns around and walks away and it shuts down on it's own.

[AresKeith]

saracen16 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

wow one occurrence means it will happen everytime, which is a flawed logic because that probably wouldn't have happen every cycle.

But it happened every time with the Catalyst: he even said it himself, that" our efforts always resulted in conflict." Therefore, he is brought to the assumption that organic-synthetic conflict is inevitable.

And one of your statements to TAO states that he is Shackled, and how can a power source for the Citadel shackle an AI

Because he says so himself, that he can not make any of these solutions happen? He is bound by his programming. He can not go outside of it. With respect to the Crucible choices, he is bound to the cycle. Only Shepard can make these new solutions happen, and only then will the Catalyst purpose itself to Shepard's whim.

Yea, the Reapers are the cause of that conflict every cycle, they turned the Zha'til into slaves for them, they started the Rachni Wars, Sovereigns and Saren used the Heretic Geth to kill people and try to take over the Citadel. Everything about conflict has be pointed to the Reapers

He never said he was bound to his programming, and its obvious that he needed an Organic to help him start Synthesis

[Baronesa]

RiouHotaru wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Who turns off the Crucible in refuse?
Hint: It's not Shepard.

It's also not the Catalyst.  Or rather, there's no evidence he turns it off.  He just turns around and walks away and it shuts down on it's own.

Are you suggesting that the Catalyst is constrained only as that holographic representation and nothing more?

[Applepie_Svk]

RiouHotaru wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Who turns off the Crucible in refuse?
Hint: It's not Shepard.

It's also not the Catalyst.  Or rather, there's no evidence he turns it off.  He just turns around and walks away and it shuts down on it's own.

So it was Shepard´s magic words ...  OOOO:wizard: please more space magic...