39 réponses à ce sujet

[Constant Motion]

Because by reaching the firing booth, you've proven that galactic unity is possible without reaper intervention, meaning the reapers are now unnecessary, and firing the crucible is the only way to stop the reapers.

The catalyst isn't evil. He's not interested in preserving the reapers. He's basically the instruction manual. I don't know where this idea that he doesn't want you to defeat the reapers has come from.

Modifié par Constant Motion, 21 octobre 2012 - 09:13 .

[BansheeOwnage]

Constant Motion wrote...


The catalyst isn't evil.

This is my response to that.

[Verit]

drayfish wrote...
The Catalyst makes us choose a Reaper solution to a Reaper problem. We have to become Reapers, and in doing so the Reapers are no longer required.  Indeed, we've proven that we are more than capable of doing the Reaping for ourselves.

I hate to think of Mass Effect becoming a love note to intollerance and hate crimes, but to me that's literally the only way that the nonsense at the end is in any way coherent.Yay nihilism. 

It does seem exactly what the ending is supposed to portray. The Catalyst basically asks you if "submission is not preferable to extinction". But in the context of the ending, submitting actually means accepting the Reaper ideology. Refusal makes this even more obvious in the EC. This makes it a terrible ending as all this time you're led to believe that Shepard can actually make the difference. But in the final moments, Shepard is shown just how futile everything he/she did actually was. And a last, desparate, stand from Shepard to defy the Reapers' ideology ends in utter anihilation. Yay nihilism indeed.

[BansheeOwnage]

-Draikin- wrote...

drayfish wrote...
The Catalyst makes us choose a Reaper solution to a Reaper problem. We have to become Reapers, and in doing so the Reapers are no longer required.  Indeed, we've proven that we are more than capable of doing the Reaping for ourselves.

I hate to think of Mass Effect becoming a love note to intollerance and hate crimes, but to me that's literally the only way that the nonsense at the end is in any way coherent.Yay nihilism. 

It does seem exactly what the ending is supposed to portray. The Catalyst basically asks you if "submission is not preferable to extinction". But in the context of the ending, submitting actually means accepting the Reaper ideology. Refusal makes this even more obvious in the EC. This makes it a terrible ending as all this time you're led to believe that Shepard can actually make the difference. But in the final moments, Shepard is shown just how futile everything he/she did actually was. And a last, desparate, stand from Shepard to defy the Reapers' ideology ends in utter anihilation. Yay nihilism indeed.

All that would be okay if this was a 2-hour movie or perhaps a standalone game. But this is a 150 hour trilogy where we spend time learning about it and growing close to the characters. This is unacceptable for that kind of game. In the end, nothing matters? What?

[JPR1964]

drayfish wrote...

Isn't it obvious?

Because Shepard managed to stand on an arbitrary spot on the floor, the Catalyst realises that countless eons of genocidal destruction can be finally stopped by the having her make one of three arbitrary choices. And you know that the Catalyst has learned his lesson, because instead of arbitrarily using genocide, totalitarian brain washing, or eugenics to change the galaxy, he makes Shepard use genocide, totalitarian brain washing, or eugenics to remake the universe...

And it has to be done because it is inevitable that synthetics will destroy organics... Although it is also apparently inevitable that organics and synthetics with synthesise together (we're just speeding up the process after all) - even though the one 'inevitability' seems to utterly contradict the other...

...Yeah. Yeah, I guess that's all not so obvious after all.

In all seriousness though, the only way I can make sense of it is to think of the Reapers as the galactic war-crime training wheels for biological life. The Catalyst is finally satisfied that organics are resourceful enough to build something as powerful as the Crucible, and now they just have to prove themselves amorally willing to inflict horror upon the universe in order to save themselves.

Are you willing to genocide a friendly race to save your own skin? Cause if you are, no doubt you'll do it again in the future, so we Reapers can retire...

Are you willing to take on the leadership of almighty unstoppable space monsters and terrify the universe into compliance? Well then, here are the keys, we'll see ourselves out...

Are you willing to mutate everyone against their permission and arrogantly remake all life to suit your ideology? Then sweet, we Reapers will be kicking back on a beach in Maui...

The Catalyst makes us choose a Reaper solution to a Reaper problem. We have to become Reapers, and in doing so the Reapers are no longer required.  Indeed, we've proven that we are more than capable of doing the Reaping for ourselves.

I hate to think of Mass Effect becoming a love note to intollerance and hate crimes, but to me that's literally the only way that the nonsense at the end is in any way coherent.

Yay nihilism. 

this!!! I like you very much!



JPR out!

[Spectre Impersonator]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

-Draikin- wrote...

drayfish wrote...
The Catalyst makes us choose a Reaper solution to a Reaper problem. We have to become Reapers, and in doing so the Reapers are no longer required.  Indeed, we've proven that we are more than capable of doing the Reaping for ourselves.

I hate to think of Mass Effect becoming a love note to intollerance and hate crimes, but to me that's literally the only way that the nonsense at the end is in any way coherent.Yay nihilism. 

It does seem exactly what the ending is supposed to portray. The Catalyst basically asks you if "submission is not preferable to extinction". But in the context of the ending, submitting actually means accepting the Reaper ideology. Refusal makes this even more obvious in the EC. This makes it a terrible ending as all this time you're led to believe that Shepard can actually make the difference. But in the final moments, Shepard is shown just how futile everything he/she did actually was. And a last, desparate, stand from Shepard to defy the Reapers' ideology ends in utter anihilation. Yay nihilism indeed.

All that would be okay if this was a 2-hour movie or perhaps a standalone game. But this is a 150 hour trilogy where we spend time learning about it and growing close to the characters. This is unacceptable for that kind of game. In the end, nothing matters? What?

Exactly, it's utterly disgusting. Worse yet, Bioware couldn't even manage to live up to their word about ending Shepard's story. Disgraceful how they caved into pressure from EA.

[Steelcan]

He puts those options in there because they are more preferable to the reapers than destroy is. Destroy is a function of the Crucible, it only needs the Citadel to spread its payload across the galaxy. The reapers know about the crucible so they installed a device that would prevent it from firing if the Crucible even docked.

Control, seems to me to be the Catalyst's "blue box" where he physically resides, Shepard going into this junction messes up the Catalyst, or Shepard just gets vaporized becaus es heard just connected a very strong electrical current.

Synthesis, this is the reapers final hope. If the catalyst can convince Shepard that Synthesis is a good idea then the cycles become unnecessary because all life is connected to the reapers and is thus indoctrinated.

[mumba]

Being alone up in the same spot for billions of years tends to drive things insane.

[Steelcan]

Mumba1511 wrote...

Being alone up in the same spot for billions of years tends to drive things insane.

. In this case, I don't mind killing crazy:devil:

[Verit]

Steelcan wrote...
He puts those options in there because they are more preferable to the reapers than destroy is

The Catalyst doesn't really care. All it wants is a solution to the problem that it's been trying to solve.  Basically, after we hand over the Crucible to the Catalyst, it analyzed it and concluded the device could be used to solve its problem. It doesn't care how the problem is solved, to the point where it doesn't care about its own survival. That's why it presents all three options as they are. The only way you can "anger" the Catalyst is by refusing to solve its problem.

in other words, Shepard basically ends up face to face with the enemy he/she had been trying to defeat, but it's only then that the big picture becomes clear and it becomes obvious how futile Shepard's (and therefore the player's) actions were. The Catalyst simply doesn't care about Shepard's ideals or motivations, as should be clear from the dialogue Shepard has with it. Shepard cannnot reason with the Catalyst and has no way of stopping it, it's in complete control. By giving them the Crucible, Shepard actually helped the Reapers. They're not interested in victory, as it wasn't even a war for them. They were simply interested in fulfilling the objective the Leviathans gave to the Catalyst. And they succeed in all of the endings.

I'm not sure why some people fool themselves into thinking the Catalyst didn't want Shepard to pick Destroy, and therefore see it as a "victory" to them. If the Catalyst didn't think it was a solution to its problem, then it wouldn't have presented the solution in the first place. The only way Shepard could defeat the Reapers is by refusing to acknowledge the problem that the Reapers try to solve. But the game denies that victory. Trying to choose that ending destroys everything you fought to protect, and simply means a future cycle will do what you didn't and help the Catalyst. For what reason? I don't know nor do I care about the reasons the writers had to end the game like this. It's a cruel, hopeless and meaningless ending.

[Deathsaurer]

Because the cycle wont work anymore. Low and behold it was right, just look at refuse. No point in harvesting this cycle if the Reapers will just be destroyed in 50,000 years.

[AlanC9]

-Draikin- wrote...

I'm not sure why some people fool themselves into thinking the Catalyst didn't want Shepard to pick Destroy, and therefore see it as a "victory" to them.

Really? That one's easy. People don't think the Catalyst wanted them to pick Destroy because the Catalyst says Destroy wouldn't solve his problem, and because it actually wouldn't solve his problem --  even if you believe that a working Crucible is a way to defeat hypothetical killer organics that might exist in the future, Shepard using the Crucible immediately wouldn't have anything to do with someone else using a Crucible in the future, except by making it harder to use a Crucible  by blowing up the relays.

The only way Shepard could defeat the Reapers is by refusing to acknowledge the problem that the Reapers try to solve. 

How would refusing to acknowledge the problem defeat them?

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 octobre 2012 - 02:28 .

[Mcfly616]

Simply put: Shepard has proven that its solution isn't ideal. The Catalyst acknowledges that the Crucible provides a better solution. No matter what choice you make.

[FlyingSquirrel]

I tend to think of the Catalyst as a very shackled AI with a limited range of options for interacting with other sentient beings. It does not necessarily have the ability to lie or deceive, so while it doesn't want you to pick Destroy, it can't simply refuse to acknowledge it as a possibility. Similarly, it does not place any special priority on preservation of its own power, at least not when its overarching goal of preventing synthetics from wiping out organics is affected. The Leviathans, after all, do not seem to be big on the whole "letting other lifeforms have free will" thing, and it was originally designed to serve their needs.

[Yate]

Because he's smart enough to realize that his solution doesn't work.