67 réponses à ce sujet

[Falcon084]

A lot of people ay he can't be trusted, or they mention Vigil, or a number of 10000 theories, but with the Extended Addition it doesn't matter because we know what happens next!
What do you know he was telling the truth

In all endings:

[Applepie_Svk]

EC = Damage Control

Otherwise one thing is pretty clear, that Stargazer pretty much nulify all your choices.

[Falcon084]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

EC = Damage Control

Otherwise one thing is pretty clear, that Stargazer pretty much nulify all your choices.

Yeah Stargazer seems to be born no matter what lol.

[Applepie_Svk]

Falcon084 wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

EC = Damage Control

Otherwise one thing is pretty clear, that Stargazer pretty much nulify all your choices.

Yeah Stargazer seems to be born no matter what lol.

And that´s the problem...

[xsdob]

Why do people not like stargazer?

[Falcon084]

xsdob wrote...

Why do people not like stargazer?

I don't mind him
I just think all this talk about believeing the Catalist or not is stupid because what happens next is there for people to see afterwards.

[Kataphrut94]

People look for too much spin in the Catalyst's words because he created the Reapers. It's understandable, but I never got an evil vibe from the Catalyst. More that he's just a neutral program operating on a flawed solution to a flawed problem and then telling you how to come up with the better alternatives. The fact that all 3 of those solutions achieve Shepard's goal of stopping the Reaper cycle is all well and good for us, but all he cares about is how they solve his problem. Hence the discrepancy between him and Shepard based on Destroy and Synthesis.

[The Spamming Troll]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Falcon084 wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

EC = Damage Control

Otherwise one thing is pretty clear, that Stargazer pretty much nulify all your choices.

Yeah Stargazer seems to be born no matter what lol.

And that´s the problem...

destiny perhaps?

is it not fate that every shepard no matter what they do or say, still ends up waking up at the catalysts feet in ME3?

[Argolas]

Why does it matter what the catalyst says? You serious?

These few lines with the intelligence are the ONLY thing connecting the war against the reapers we just fought and this... ending thing. The story turns into a completely different direction just by the things it says.

[Nightwriter]

xsdob wrote...

Why do people not like stargazer?

The boy, the grandfather, or the scene?

If the first: because the boy is part of the scene.
If the second: because the grandfather is part of the scene.
If the third: because the scene is terrible.

[daecath]

Falcon084 wrote...

A lot of people ay he can't be trusted, or they mention Vigil, or a number of 10000 theories, but with the Extended Addition it doesn't matter because we know what happens next!
What do you know he was telling the truth

It matters because SHEPARD doesn't know. Unless Shepard has magically gained the power to see the future, then "we know what happens next" is called metagaming - using information available to the player, that the character wouldn't have, in order to make a character decision. Those of us that care about our characters and the experience of playing the game through the character, still have to believe that the catalyst is a liar, and thus refuse is the only reasonable option. Unless you like the idea of your Shepard committing suicide because his enemy tells him to.

[Nightwriter]

Falcon084 wrote...

A lot of people ay he can't be trusted, or they mention Vigil, or a number of 10000 theories, but with the Extended Addition it doesn't matter because we know what happens next!
What do you know he was telling the truth

In all endings:

I'm confused. It sounds like you're saying, "What does it matter what he says, he was telling the truth." Are you asking why the truth matters?

Or are you just saying "what's with all the debate about whether or not he was lying."

Or are you just saying "kid talks, blah blah blah -- happy ending where people stand around in dramatic world builder poses! That's all that matters!"

[KingZayd]

A mad man sees what he sees.

[Liamv2]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

People look for too much spin in the Catalyst's words because he created the Reapers. It's understandable, but I never got an evil vibe from the Catalyst. More that he's just a neutral program operating on a flawed solution to a flawed problem and then telling you how to come up with the better alternatives. The fact that all 3 of those solutions achieve Shepard's goal of stopping the Reaper cycle is all well and good for us, but all he cares about is how they solve his problem. Hence the discrepancy between him and Shepard based on Destroy and Synthesis.

This he was made to solve a problem if you wont help him you are useless to him a line GO-TO in kotor 2 does a good job of describeing it he did evil to see that the republic servived 

[LanceSolous13]

People say we have no reason to trust the Catalyst because SHEPARD has no reason to do so.

A guy tries to steal your car from you. He claims that, if he steals your car, Cancer will be cured. Let's say that this is true. But, you have absolutely no reason to believe that your car being stolen will lead to cancer being cured so you defend yourself and you car isn't stolen.

Now, listen to what the Catalyst tells Shepard. His logic is flawed (See his Fire Anology) and all of his accusations have no evidence to back them up. By all means, It is perfectly reasonable to go "Screw ya'll, I'm going home".

[Falcon084]

Nightwriter wrote...

Falcon084 wrote...

A lot of people ay he can't be trusted, or they mention Vigil, or a number of 10000 theories, but with the Extended Addition it doesn't matter because we know what happens next!
What do you know he was telling the truth

In all endings:

I'm confused. It sounds like you're saying, "What does it matter what he says, he was telling the truth." Are you asking why the truth matters?

Or are you just saying "what's with all the debate about whether or not he was lying."

Or are you just saying "kid talks, blah blah blah -- happy ending where people stand around in dramatic world builder poses! That's all that matters!"

All three.

After you see the three endings that matter, you will see that with the exception of the Geth genocide everthing is good for everyone no matter what you chose. 

Color of the choice doesn't matter, and what he says doesn't matter. The only way for the argument to be valid is if Bioware didn't make the Extended Cut.

[Falcon084]

LanceSolous13 wrote...

People say we have no reason to trust the Catalyst because SHEPARD has no reason to do so.

A guy tries to steal your car from you. He claims that, if he steals your car, Cancer will be cured. Let's say that this is true. But, you have absolutely no reason to believe that your car being stolen will lead to cancer being cured so you defend yourself and you car isn't stolen.

Now, listen to what the Catalyst tells Shepard. His logic is flawed (See his Fire Anology) and all of his accusations have no evidence to back them up. By all means, It is perfectly reasonable to go "Screw ya'll, I'm going home".

Yeah but if I'd seen the future I let him take the car.

Logic or not it matters little. People saying that they chose an ending based off color, or what he has is rediculous. Just chose the ending you like based on what you see after.

As for color red, red was never seen as a bad thing through the series just a lgitimate renegade option.

[EnvyTB075]

xsdob wrote...

Why do people not like stargazer?

Its weird.

[Nightwriter]

Falcon084 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Falcon084 wrote...

A lot of people ay he can't be trusted, or they mention Vigil, or a number of 10000 theories, but with the Extended Addition it doesn't matter because we know what happens next!
What do you know he was telling the truth

In all endings:

I'm confused. It sounds like you're saying, "What does it matter what he says, he was telling the truth." Are you asking why the truth matters?

Or are you just saying "what's with all the debate about whether or not he was lying."

Or are you just saying "kid talks, blah blah blah -- happy ending where people stand around in dramatic world builder poses! That's all that matters!"

All three.

After you see the three endings that matter, you will see that with the exception of the Geth genocide everthing is good for everyone no matter what you chose. 

Color of the choice doesn't matter, and what he says doesn't matter. The only way for the argument to be valid is if Bioware didn't make the Extended Cut.

... Then I have no idea what you're talking about.

The truth matters because it's a description of reality. So... you are essentially asking why reality matters. Which is why I thought I misunderstood you. If I didn't, and that's your actual question, then: I have no degree in pyschology and cannot help you. Say what you will about me, I acknowledge when I'm underqualified.

And if you're asking why people are debating about whether or not the Catalyst was lying, it's because what they're actually debating is how much exactly the ending sucks and whether or not any damage control can be done on the player's part. I.e., "Can I somehow roleplay or headcanon an ending where everything he said was just horse crap?"

And if you're saying "what happened doesn't matter, look at the slides!" then... I dunno, that's kind of like saying it's okay if a cancerous Nazgul oozing solar radiation enters a schoolhouse and destroys everything so long as it can fart rainbows as it leaves.

[Aiyie]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

People look for too much spin in the Catalyst's words because he created the Reapers. It's understandable, but I never got an evil vibe from the Catalyst. More that he's just a neutral program operating on a flawed solution to a flawed problem and then telling you how to come up with the better alternatives. The fact that all 3 of those solutions achieve Shepard's goal of stopping the Reaper cycle is all well and good for us, but all he cares about is how they solve his problem. Hence the discrepancy between him and Shepard based on Destroy and Synthesis.

never really trusted him to start with.

but the whole "So be it" switch he pulls when you refuse to just be a sheep and just go along with the terms he dictates to you kinda was the nail in the coffin that, yes, he is in fact a manipulative and evil (not to mention petulant) little brat.

still though, the EC closed up some of the more obvious loopholes, but left too many unfixed for me to just take the catalyst at his word.

[Aiyie]

daecath wrote...

Falcon084 wrote...

A lot of people ay he can't be trusted, or they mention Vigil, or a number of 10000 theories, but with the Extended Addition it doesn't matter because we know what happens next!
What do you know he was telling the truth

It matters because SHEPARD doesn't know. Unless Shepard has magically gained the power to see the future, then "we know what happens next" is called metagaming - using information available to the player, that the character wouldn't have, in order to make a character decision. Those of us that care about our characters and the experience of playing the game through the character, still have to believe that the catalyst is a liar, and thus refuse is the only reasonable option. Unless you like the idea of your Shepard committing suicide because his enemy tells him to.

and refuse is the only ending that shows you the catalyst's true nature.

don't worry, our benevolent catalyst overlord is there to help and protect you... until you refuse to do as you're told at least.

[Aiyie]

KingZayd wrote...

A mad man sees what he sees.

heh, this will only make sense to those of you who have played bioshock...

"A man chooses, a slave obeys.  Would you kindly pick one of these three colors?"

[nstar]

Was he telling the truth?

According to the Extended Cut, sure, the immediate aftermath of the decision suggests that he was - but is that really enough?

In synthesis, for example, everyone is all happy and smiley. Well good for them. Why are they happy and smiley? The Reapers just got what they wanted - order through synthesis on a galactic scale. For all we know, they're all Reaper pawns now - all of them controlled by the Reapers, no sense of freedom and they'll serve whatever purpose the Reapers want them to serve. It would make sense, after all. The Collectors were synthesised Protheans and utilised as tools of the Reapers to attempt (and admittedly fail) to further Reaper goals.

The Reapers can get to dark space. Do we have any evidence that they're not pulling this schtick elsewhere in other galaxies? Or do we have any evidence that now they have obtained their goal in the Milky Way they won't look to do it elsewhere... and now they just might have their own, huge army to help them along as well as their Reaper ship numbers.

[Kel Riever]

It doesn't matter if you unplug your computer after the 'Best seats in the house' comment. Honestly, it is a better way to go, I think....

[tanisha__unknown]

I don't under really understand the question.

You could ask: What does it matter what anybody says?

It's an RPG whose strong side is dialogue and this is the final enemy. So I do care, but does it matter? Why not go zoodlewurdle? Even if does matter, does it matter that it matters?

zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle zoodlewurdle