540 réponses à ce sujet

[silverexile17s]

phillip100 wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

phillip100 wrote...

The Catalyst never said that Destroy wouldn't work. When you ask it if the Reapers will be destroyed, it actually says "Yes, but the peace won't last. Soon you're children will create synthetics and then the chaos will come back."

That means it won't work.

Then why is destoy an option? If it doesn't work, then the destroy solution shouldn't be given in the first place.

Because it's still an option. The Catalyst only thinks it won't work, even though there is a chance that organics will maintain the peace. It all comes down to if Shepard thinks that organics can beat out the Catalyst's predictions of chaos if given the chance to do so, and the Catalyst will acknowldege and accept Shepard's judgement if he/she does.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 12 août 2013 - 07:03 .

[silverexile17s]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

@silverexile17s

Stay focused, I already told you we'll get to every point that you have.  You get too far off track with multi-point posts though.  So we'll address them one at a time...

Starting with:

Is it the Catalyst's purpose to find and implement a solution that rids the universe of organic vs synthetic conflict?

You said the Catalyst is code-bound to find a solution to the organic/synthetic conflict, correct?


If you're not just arguing for the sake of arguing, then now's the time to have a serious debate and get to the bottom of this.  Answer the questions when you're ready.

You haven't refuted any of them before. Why would you now?
Also, once again, you are the only one that didn't respond to the questions, or refute the points with any kind of valid information. Your entire sentance is a discription of what you should be doing. How about you actually re-read my posts before accusing me of not being the one to refute the question, since I already told you that the Catalys was code-based to find a solution to conflict. All you have to do is actually read the posts. It's not that hard.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

@silverexile17s


All of your points have been addressed already, but you keep missing them for some reason.  Hitting them one at a time, in smaller bites, should help.

If you want to do that then let's do it.  Otherwise, that was fun.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 12 août 2013 - 07:56 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

silverexile17s wrote...

Wrong. That means he thinks it won't work, but will accept that Shepard thinks it will. There is a chance that the peace will last and that they will learn from their mistakes. The Catalyst personally doesn't believe this is the case, but if Shepard does, then the Catalyst will acknowledge and submit to his judgement.

Submitting to the judgement of Shepard... so... giving Shepard permission to do what he feels is best (instead of sticking to what it believes)?

Keep thinking it through.  You're so close.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

silverexile17s wrote...

However, you constantly ignoring fact and replacing it with IT headcannon doesn't help that.

I never replace game facts with 'IT headcannon.' 

This is why continuing in smaller bites is the only way for us to proceed.  It'll keep everyone on track and minimize the chance of things being made up.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 12 août 2013 - 08:03 .

[David7204]

The entire point of the exchange is the Catalyst handing the choice over to Shepard.

So yes, he offers Shepard the option of Destroy freely and willingly, knowing full well it goes against what he thinks.

Modifié par David7204, 12 août 2013 - 08:25 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

David7204 wrote...

The entire point of the exchange is the Catalyst handing the choice over to Shepard.

So yes, he offers Shepard the option of Destroy freely and willingly, knowing full well it goes against what he thinks.

That's what I thought as well.  He'll stand by and watch while you do anything you want with the Crucible... but only with the Crucible.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 12 août 2013 - 08:26 .

[silverexile17s]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

@silverexile17s


All of your points have been addressed already, but you keep missing them for some reason.  Hitting them one at a time, in smaller bites, should help.

If you want to do that then let's do it.  Otherwise, that was fun.

Wrong. That's you. You are the only one that keeps missing them "for some reason," and you are the one that failed to adress any of my points with anything besides IT headcannon.
And did you not read what I said? You know, about the Catalyst being hardwired by it's programming to do whatever it takes to fix the solution?
It also means that if a better athourity/judgement in that choice is found (Shepard, as proven by defeating the solution), the Catalyst's programming ensures that he oblidges that person's judgement as superiour.

This entire time, you haven't done anything except try to worm your way out of the debate -  Your own debate, I might add - which concidently started the moment I pointed out that Non-Crucible options wouldn't have been treated any differently. Can you really not admit you were wrong about something?

Modifié par silverexile17s, 13 août 2013 - 09:21 .

[silverexile17s]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Wrong. That means he thinks it won't work, but will accept that Shepard thinks it will. There is a chance that the peace will last and that they will learn from their mistakes. The Catalyst personally doesn't believe this is the case, but if Shepard does, then the Catalyst will acknowledge and submit to his judgement.

Submitting to the judgement of Shepard... so... giving Shepard permission to do what he feels is best (instead of sticking to what it believes)?

Keep thinking it through.  You're so close.

Wrong. AGAIN.
To give "permission" means oblidging out of your own free will. The exact opposate of what the Catalyst does. He submits because his programming demands he do so. Shepard beat the Solution -- he/she proved himself/herself superiour, and thus, the Catalyst programming forces him to acknowledge Shepard as a higher athourity then it, and thus, differ to Shepard on the ultimate outcome of the New Solution. It doesn't give "permission" because there's no "permission" to give. Because he doesn't have free will - he's shackled to his overruling directive of finding a Solution, and thus, it's not his choice.

"keep thinking it through. You're so close." (Actually, you're pretty far off, but this might help you get there)

Modifié par silverexile17s, 13 août 2013 - 09:25 .

[silverexile17s]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

However, you constantly ignoring fact and replacing it with IT headcannon doesn't help that.

I never replace game facts with 'IT headcannon.' 

This is why continuing in smaller bites is the only way for us to proceed.  It'll keep everyone on track and minimize the chance of things being made up.

Yes you do. That's all you have done this entire time.

You try to say the Catalyst "gave permission" to Shepard when the Catalyst himself says that everything he's doing right now is compelled by his programming. He doesn't want to be destroyed (Destroy) or replaced (Control) as he doesn't think it will help, but his programming compells him to submit to the one that proved themselves capable of picking a better solution through defeating the old one (Shepard).
You try to say that he was "restricting options" to only the Crucible, even though he flat-out states that there are no other possible options because all the galaxy's resources were used in making the Crucible.
You try to say he's "controling everything" even though he's incapable of stopping the Reapers from destroying the Crucible - which is basically his salvation at this point through a new solution.

All you have done is use "IT Headcannon" in your belief that the Catalyst is the one controling everything to it's specifications, when everything says the exact opposate.

[silverexile17s]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The entire point of the exchange is the Catalyst handing the choice over to Shepard.

So yes, he offers Shepard the option of Destroy freely and willingly, knowing full well it goes against what he thinks.

That's what I thought as well.  He'll stand by and watch while you do anything you want with the Crucible... but only with the Crucible.

Because no other option exists. If it did, he would have presented it alongside the Crucible options. He even explisitly makes note of this in the EC, saying that the galaxy used up the majority of all their collective resources to make the Crucible, and thus, no other options exist.
If you think you know better, why not prove it? How about you tell us just what you think these "filtered-out options" that don't require the Crucible were?

[Iakus]

silverexile17s wrote...

Because no other option exists. If it did, he would have presented it alongside the Crucible options. He even explisitly makes note of this in the EC, saying that the galaxy used up the majority of all their collective resources to make the Crucible, and thus, no other options exist.
If you think you know better, why not prove it? How about you tell us just what you think these "filtered-out options" that don't require the Crucible were?

Yes, there's another option.

The Reapers can back off  

We have a functioning Crucible, an adaptive power source that's freaking magical. Even while under seige from teh repaers, the galaxy manage to build and deplay it.  And it potentially holds the answers to everyone's problems.  Back off, parlay, and find a new solution.

EDI can alter her core programming to become more altruistic.  If the Catalyst is so far advanced, he can at least tell the Reapers "stop shooting for a moment" 

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

iakus wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Because no other option exists. If it did, he would have presented it alongside the Crucible options. He even explisitly makes note of this in the EC, saying that the galaxy used up the majority of all their collective resources to make the Crucible, and thus, no other options exist.
If you think you know better, why not prove it? How about you tell us just what you think these "filtered-out options" that don't require the Crucible were?

Yes, there's another option.

The Reapers can back off  

We have a functioning Crucible, an adaptive power source that's freaking magical. Even while under seige from teh repaers, the galaxy manage to build and deplay it.  And it potentially holds the answers to everyone's problems.  Back off, parlay, and find a new solution.

EDI can alter her core programming to become more altruistic.  If the Catalyst is so far advanced, he can at least tell the Reapers "stop shooting for a moment" 

No. Can't stop shooting. Having too much fun. Do you know what it's like waiting 50,000 years to do this? Man, did you just see that dreadnought blow up? Your cycle is so weak, Shepard. The Protheans put up a decent fight, but yours? It just sucks. I should have stayed in dark space for another 10,000 years and it might have been a challenge, but I like these one-sided matches. OMG! there goes another one.

[Omega Torsk]

StarJar should've never even existed. Somebody just thought it was a good idea to hijack the ending and make it as much like the "Deus Ex" ending as possible.

The Crucible should've just fired an EMP burst, removing the Reapers' shields and disabling their weapons systems. The casualties are determined by how ready your fleet was at the start of the battle. Cue epilogue showing the fate of your Shepard and how our choices affect the galaxy in the future. Yes, it's a cut-and-dry ending that doesn't have many variances, but so were the endings to ME1-2.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

@silverexile17s

Hitting the same debate, one point at a time, is not "worming" out of anything. Either you want to do it or you don't. But you can't seem to stay focused (and are more prone to make things up) when you're hit with multiple points at once.

One point at a time (the same points), should make it easier for you to understand.  Again, we'll get to every topic you want to address.  From IT head cannon, to Shepard's importance.

No more excuses.. and no escape, let's hit it or quit it, your choice.  Let your programming compel you either way.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 14 août 2013 - 04:29 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
No. Can't stop shooting. Having too much fun. Do you know what it's like waiting 50,000 years to do this? Man, did you just see that dreadnought blow up? Your cycle is so weak, Shepard. The Protheans put up a decent fight, but yours? It just sucks. I should have stayed in dark space for another 10,000 years and it might have been a challenge, but I like these one-sided matches. OMG! there goes another one.

lol

[Mr. Gogeta34]

silverexile17s wrote...

He doesn't want to be destroyed (Destroy) or replaced (Control) as he doesn't think it will help, but his programming compells him to submit-

Tell you what, here's an instant fix for you.  Replace 'permission' with 'submittance.'

Feel better?

We need the Reaper King's 'submittance' to stop the Reapers.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 14 août 2013 - 04:48 .

[Wolfva2]

iakus wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Because no other option exists. If it did, he would have presented it alongside the Crucible options. He even explisitly makes note of this in the EC, saying that the galaxy used up the majority of all their collective resources to make the Crucible, and thus, no other options exist.
If you think you know better, why not prove it? How about you tell us just what you think these "filtered-out options" that don't require the Crucible were?

Yes, there's another option.

The Reapers can back off  

We have a functioning Crucible, an adaptive power source that's freaking magical. Even while under seige from teh repaers, the galaxy manage to build and deplay it.  And it potentially holds the answers to everyone's problems.  Back off, parlay, and find a new solution.

EDI can alter her core programming to become more altruistic.  If the Catalyst is so far advanced, he can at least tell the Reapers "stop shooting for a moment" 

Wow.  This is the first time I've actually seen someone come up with a GOOD alternative.  I guess maybe their programming wouldn't allow it though?  Man, I tell ya, those Leviathans SUCKED at computer programming!

Anyways, I've said it before I'll say it again.  The AI is just the freaking operators manuel for the Crucible/Citadel gun.  It isn't 'giving you options', it's explaining how the thing works.  Of course, I know many here will ignore that; they'd rather revel in the idea of being 'forced' to make decisions and yadda yadda yadda.  When all is said and done, though, it's just a stupid game.  I'm just glad some of ya'll who hate the game so much won't be in the ME4 forums.  I mean, surely you wouldn't be so sad and pathetic as to buy yet ANOTHER game that you know you'll hate from a company you abhor.  Right?  

[AlanC9]

Omega Torsk wrote...
The Crucible should've just fired an EMP burst, removing the Reapers' shields and disabling their weapons systems. The casualties are determined by how ready your fleet was at the start of the battle. Cue epilogue showing the fate of your Shepard and how our choices affect the galaxy in the future. Yes, it's a cut-and-dry ending that doesn't have many variances, but so were the endings to ME1-2.

Shields, weapons, and engines. Otherwise they can just run away.Actually, leave the weapons working or any fleet could wipe the Reapers out.

I get not liking the Catalyst. But it sounds like you're saying that less choice and less explanation are good things in themselves. Are you really going that far?

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 août 2013 - 05:55 .

[Omega Torsk]

AlanC9 wrote...

Omega Torsk wrote...
The Crucible should've just fired an EMP burst, removing the Reapers' shields and disabling their weapons systems. The casualties are determined by how ready your fleet was at the start of the battle. Cue epilogue showing the fate of your Shepard and how our choices affect the galaxy in the future. Yes, it's a cut-and-dry ending that doesn't have many variances, but so were the endings to ME1-2.

Shields, weapons, and engines. Otherwise they can just run away.Actually, leave the weapons working or any fleet could wipe the Reapers out.

I get not liking the Catalyst. But it sounds like you're saying that less choice and less explanation are good things in themselves. Are you really going that far?

Less choice (I'm not unreasonable. The Mass Effect plot has to be linear to some extent or else you get an extremely complicated game that no dev will ever touch. Your preparedness up to that point would be a choice in and of itself, anyway), but more explanation through an actual epilogue. Basically, your choices leading up to that point shape your outcome.

As to the origins of the Reapers, that should've just been saved for the Leviathan DLC. As Vigil said, your salvation lies in defeating them, not understanding them.

[David7204]

The Crucible just firing an EMP burst would be completely unnacceptable and abhorrent writing.

You know why?

When there is a plan, things cannot go according to it. If they do, the plan becomes a spoiler.

Among several other reasons. But that's the main one.

There is absolutely no drama, no tension, and no satisfaction in things happening exactly as we're told they would happen. Things never go to plan in good fiction. Never. If you look at the story missions throughout Mass Effect, not a single one has things going to plan.

Every single story mission introduces new information and new challenges to the player.

Every single one. And that's what the ending needs to do.

Modifié par David7204, 14 août 2013 - 08:10 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Wolfva2 wrote...
Anyways, I've said it before I'll say it again.  The AI is just the freaking operators manuel for the Crucible/Citadel gun.  It isn't 'giving you options', it's explaining how the thing works.  Of course, I know many here will ignore that; they'd rather revel in the idea of being 'forced' to make decisions and yadda yadda yadda.  

The only thing that makes the Crucible's options the Catalyst's options is when it refuses to entertain other possibilities outside of the Crucible itself.  I don't think anyone's saying that the choices themselves are the Catalyst's idea... just that sticking to them is.

The Reapers have proven at least 'able' to "find another way" when something doesn't work.  So I doubt there's anything in their programming that prevents them from experimenting and looking for other solutions.  Actually I think that was kind of their point (with the worlds of organics being Reaper labs).

When all is said and done, though, it's just a stupid game.  I'm just glad some of ya'll who hate the game so much won't be in the ME4 forums.  I mean, surely you wouldn't be so sad and pathetic as to buy yet ANOTHER game that you know you'll hate from a company you abhor.  Right? 

I don't hate the game.  I hate the endings. (and even 'hate' may be too strong of a word)  But this is all for fun and a nice little brain exercise.

I'll be on board for ME4 if it proves itself (which won't be on launch day unless I get it for free). 

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 14 août 2013 - 09:25 .

[Wolfva2]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...
Anyways, I've said it before I'll say it again.  The AI is just the freaking operators manuel for the Crucible/Citadel gun.  It isn't 'giving you options', it's explaining how the thing works.  Of course, I know many here will ignore that; they'd rather revel in the idea of being 'forced' to make decisions and yadda yadda yadda.  

The only thing that makes the Crucible's options the Catalyst's options is when it refuses to entertain other possibilities outside of the Crucible itself.  I don't think anyone's saying that the choices themselves are the Catalyst's idea... just that sticking to them is.

The Reapers have proven at least 'able' to "find another way" when something doesn't work.  So I doubt there's anything in their programming that prevents them from experimenting and looking for other solutions.  Actually I think that was kind of their point (with the worlds of organics being Reaper labs).

When all is said and done, though, it's just a stupid game.  I'm just glad some of ya'll who hate the game so much won't be in the ME4 forums.  I mean, surely you wouldn't be so sad and pathetic as to buy yet ANOTHER game that you know you'll hate from a company you abhor.  Right? 

I don't hate the game.  I hate the endings. (and even 'hate' may be too strong of a word)  But this is all for fun and a nice little brain exercise.

I'll be on board for ME4 if it proves itself (which won't be on launch day unless I get it for free). 

That's why I said 'some of ya'll' instead of MR GOGETA HIMSELF PERSONALY!!!!   <LOL>   Brain excercises are fun; so's being a Devil's advocate.

There's plenty of things the Reapers COULD do; the thing is they won't.  What they WILL do is...Reap.  That's it.  They won't entertain other options.  Perhaps they COULD, but they won't.  They're obstinate like that.  Coulda shoulda woulda doesn't really matter when faced with what does happen.  History is replete with such examples of commanders, kings and tyrants who COULD have done something different but for whatever reason they thought good, they didn't.  So.  The catalyst really has NO options but to reap.  Apparently that's it's programming.  It can't change it.  That's all it's going to have the Reapers do.  IT has no other option.  It could, perhaps it should, and if it was fully sentient and with free will it would...but it doesn't.  SO it's only option is to reap.  Oh yeah, and to go, "By the way....here's what this machine you had no CLUE about does!"  Nice of it, dontchathink? <LOL>

[Wolfva2]

David7204 wrote...

The Crucible just firing an EMP burst would be completely unnacceptable and abhorrent writing.

You know why?

When there is a plan, things cannot go according to it. If they do, the plan becomes a spoiler.

Among several other reasons. But that's the main one.

There is absolutely no drama, no tension, and no satisfaction in things happening exactly as we're told they would happen. Things never go to plan in good fiction. Never. If you look at the story missions throughout Mass Effect, not a single one has things going to plan.

Every single story mission introduces new information and new challenges to the player.

Every single one. And that's what the ending needs to do.

I disagree, I think the Crucible firing a beam that takes out the reapers would have worked.  Because the thing that went wrong...was the Citadel's arms being closed when they were assumed to be open.  Then again, I'm the guy who thinks the crucible axing the reapers without any AI or TIM nonsense would have been the perfect ending <G>.  Anyways, that would be the denouemont, and I don't think it needs to go sideways. 

[shodiswe]

I don't like the way it was handled.

If the Catalyst was there to tell it's story and it's "Opinions" then that's fine, but Iwoudl have prefered if someone else, maybe EDI had helped you figure it out then the Catalyst appears with it's "Concerns" about what you're about to do and how it thinks it's wrong and it's "alternative solutions" And then perhaps EDI could confirm that it's possible or correct but that it's Shepards choice being the council Spectre.

Old thread and all, but it's still What I think.

The ending needed better asset recognition aswell.

Modifié par shodiswe, 14 août 2013 - 11:46 .