Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
SomeoneStoleMyName wrote...
Im not indoctrinated. Harbinger does not tell me what to do.
Anderson: "Listen... to yourself! You're...
....
...... Indoctrinated!"
+1
Good work Bioware! Some people are really falling for it!
Confused why some people think the reaper AI is deceiving Shepard
Débuté par
SomeoneStoleMyName
, janv. 07 2013 08:13
#26
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 08:56
Alex_Dur4and
-
- Members
- 841 messages
+1
Good work Bioware! Some people are really falling for it!
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 09:18
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 189 messages
@OP:
You are correct. The Catalyst was intended to come across as a neutral party whose objectives are, from its own viewpoints, perfectly reasonable, something we could understand worked for an entity with completely non-human priorities. It worked for me, for the most part. But the problem is that...
(1) The game doesn't exactly make it easy to get out of the us-vs.-them mentality.
(2) Gamers as a rule are conditioned into a "we win = enemy is completely eradicated" mindset.
(3) The setup required people to consider a nonhuman mindset dispassionately and abstract from their human-centred viewpoint. Evidence suggests that many players are unwilling or unable to do that. And, as I said, the game didn't exactly help.
(BTW, the tone of most of the responses in this thread is awful)
You are correct. The Catalyst was intended to come across as a neutral party whose objectives are, from its own viewpoints, perfectly reasonable, something we could understand worked for an entity with completely non-human priorities. It worked for me, for the most part. But the problem is that...
(1) The game doesn't exactly make it easy to get out of the us-vs.-them mentality.
(2) Gamers as a rule are conditioned into a "we win = enemy is completely eradicated" mindset.
(3) The setup required people to consider a nonhuman mindset dispassionately and abstract from their human-centred viewpoint. Evidence suggests that many players are unwilling or unable to do that. And, as I said, the game didn't exactly help.
(BTW, the tone of most of the responses in this thread is awful)
#28
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 09:21
fiendishchicken
-
- Members
- 3 389 messages
Poor souls have been indoctrinated. Someone needs to keep them still as we blow the Reapers away. Everything will be all better soon.
For us. The survivors.
Btw, Ieldra, it's a troll thread.
Read the title carefully. Then back away. Then look at the OP. He's a destroyer. It's not a support thread.
For us. The survivors.
Btw, Ieldra, it's a troll thread.
Read the title carefully. Then back away. Then look at the OP. He's a destroyer. It's not a support thread.
Modifié par fiendishchicken, 07 janvier 2013 - 09:25 .
#29
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 09:24
Geomon19
-
- Members
- 425 messages
I can't tell if posts like this are serious any more.
#30
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 09:25
Liamv2
-
- Members
- 19 047 messages
Geomon19 wrote...
I can't tell if posts like this are serious any more.
Neither can I
#31
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 09:32
BleedingUranium
-
- Members
- 6 118 messages
Geomon19 wrote...
I can't tell if posts like this are serious any more.
That definitely says something
#32
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 09:37
m2iCodeJockey
-
- Members
- 625 messages
The multi-genocidal AI that specializes in MIND CONTROL is telling you: "If you perform one of these three destructive actions which will also result in your suicide, you can save your friends..."SomeoneStoleMyName wrote...
Confused why some people think the reaper AI is deceiving Shepard...
...The reaper AI has no motivations or malevolent intent. And Control and Synthesis leads to positive outcomes. The "Shepards mission to destroy the reapers" argument for taking destroy is narrowminded and short sighted imo...
The second it said: "I control the Reapers," why did YOU not start looking for a way to kill that thing?
The reasons it gives you do not align to reality.
Malevolence is immaterial; It's trying to kill trillions of people. Or, do believe turning you into paste is a good thing?
Modifié par m2iCodeJockey, 07 janvier 2013 - 09:47 .
#33
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 10:02
TheProtheans
-
- Members
- 1 622 messages
That does say something.
However they are already indoctrinated, nothing can save Sevial now.
However they are already indoctrinated, nothing can save Sevial now.
#34
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 10:06
ElSuperGecko
-
- Members
- 2 314 messages
The Catalyst is intentionally trying to affect Shepard's (and the player's) decision.
First of all, simply by taking the form of the kid it is attempting to manipulate Shepard - Shepard watched the child die, and the child has literally haunted Shepard's dreams ever since. The child represents survivor's guilt, helplessness, despair and more... so why does the Catalyst choose to take such a form, if it is connected with such negative emotional responses, if it is not trying to actually use those emotions for it's own gain?
Then we have the way it presents the choices. Destroy - the option the Alliance has been aiming for and working towards, the solution most often considered and condoned by Shepard, Hackett, Anderson and the vast majority of your friends, love interests and allies. It presents it first, talks it down, says it will not work in the long run, points out the potential costs, sows doubt in Shepard's mind.
Then it points out Control. It tells you that you can succeed where TIM failed, that you can Control the Reapers where he could not, but that you wil die in the process. It is not dismissive of the idea as it was Destroy, but it is not it's preferred choice.
No, that's Synthesis - an idea and suggestion entirely of it's own making, one not previously considered by Shepard or any of Shepard's allies, or TIM either, for that matter. No, Synthesis is the Catalyst's idea. It clearly prefers it. It does its level best to persuade us that it is the best possible solution - it's "perfect solution" - but refuses to go into too much detail, neatly sidestepping our enquiries and questions.
So we have a being, that claims to be the creator and master of the Reapers, taking on a form designed to provoke a response within us, attempting to dissuade us from taking our planned course of action and trying to persuade us that it's own solution is the best, despite the fact that it's previous solution caused the nightmare that the galaxy is facing to begin with.
Seems legit.
Then of course you think about Synthesis, and what the Catalyst is advising you to do. Synthesis is foreshadowed by Saren, by the Collectors, by husks, by the way the Reapers themselves were created - hell practically every encounter we have with the Reapers ends with us battling creatures which are organics fused with synthetics.
It really drives it home in the EC with the Catalyst's dialogue "we have tried a... similar solution before".
What else would that "similar solution" be, other than husks? Organics involuntarily fusing with Synthetics. That's what the Prothean Beacon vision shows, and that was the Prothean's fate. To become organic/synthetic hybrids, and Reaper thralls. That's what happened to Saren, and that's essentially what the Reapers are themselves, as we saw with the creation of the Human proto-Reaper in ME2.
All throughout the series, we've been fighting against organics that have been fused with synthetics. Then, at the end of the series we're offered the opportunity to fuse ALL organics with ALL synthetics. It's OK for people to say "this time it's different", but it's the Catalyst's solution, not ours and at the point Shepard makes the decision how would (s)he know that it wouldn't end up exactly the same as we saw with the Collectors? If that's not foreshadowing, if that doesn't set alarm bells off ringing, then you have to wonder what will.
First of all, simply by taking the form of the kid it is attempting to manipulate Shepard - Shepard watched the child die, and the child has literally haunted Shepard's dreams ever since. The child represents survivor's guilt, helplessness, despair and more... so why does the Catalyst choose to take such a form, if it is connected with such negative emotional responses, if it is not trying to actually use those emotions for it's own gain?
Then we have the way it presents the choices. Destroy - the option the Alliance has been aiming for and working towards, the solution most often considered and condoned by Shepard, Hackett, Anderson and the vast majority of your friends, love interests and allies. It presents it first, talks it down, says it will not work in the long run, points out the potential costs, sows doubt in Shepard's mind.
Then it points out Control. It tells you that you can succeed where TIM failed, that you can Control the Reapers where he could not, but that you wil die in the process. It is not dismissive of the idea as it was Destroy, but it is not it's preferred choice.
No, that's Synthesis - an idea and suggestion entirely of it's own making, one not previously considered by Shepard or any of Shepard's allies, or TIM either, for that matter. No, Synthesis is the Catalyst's idea. It clearly prefers it. It does its level best to persuade us that it is the best possible solution - it's "perfect solution" - but refuses to go into too much detail, neatly sidestepping our enquiries and questions.
So we have a being, that claims to be the creator and master of the Reapers, taking on a form designed to provoke a response within us, attempting to dissuade us from taking our planned course of action and trying to persuade us that it's own solution is the best, despite the fact that it's previous solution caused the nightmare that the galaxy is facing to begin with.
Seems legit.
Then of course you think about Synthesis, and what the Catalyst is advising you to do. Synthesis is foreshadowed by Saren, by the Collectors, by husks, by the way the Reapers themselves were created - hell practically every encounter we have with the Reapers ends with us battling creatures which are organics fused with synthetics.
It really drives it home in the EC with the Catalyst's dialogue "we have tried a... similar solution before".
What else would that "similar solution" be, other than husks? Organics involuntarily fusing with Synthetics. That's what the Prothean Beacon vision shows, and that was the Prothean's fate. To become organic/synthetic hybrids, and Reaper thralls. That's what happened to Saren, and that's essentially what the Reapers are themselves, as we saw with the creation of the Human proto-Reaper in ME2.
All throughout the series, we've been fighting against organics that have been fused with synthetics. Then, at the end of the series we're offered the opportunity to fuse ALL organics with ALL synthetics. It's OK for people to say "this time it's different", but it's the Catalyst's solution, not ours and at the point Shepard makes the decision how would (s)he know that it wouldn't end up exactly the same as we saw with the Collectors? If that's not foreshadowing, if that doesn't set alarm bells off ringing, then you have to wonder what will.
Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 07 janvier 2013 - 10:10 .
#35
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 10:12
IMNOTCRAZYiminsane
-
- Members
- 450 messages
I just don't understand either the Reaper AI is my bro! Bro's don't Decive human's do 
Modifié par IMNOTCRAZYiminsane, 07 janvier 2013 - 10:14 .
#36
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 10:18
Mcfly616
-
- Members
- 8 998 messages
Because it makes them feel better ?
Who knows.....probably because the truth hurts
Who knows.....probably because the truth hurts
#37
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 10:20
ElSuperGecko
-
- Members
- 2 314 messages
#38
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 10:25
BleedingUranium
-
- Members
- 6 118 messages
ElSuperGecko wrote...
CATALYST: "we have tried a... similar solution before".
CATALYST: "we have tried a... similar solution before".
CATALYST: "we have tried a... similar solution before".
"But it's not the saaaame" LOL
#39
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 10:29
ElSuperGecko
-
- Members
- 2 314 messages
BleedingUranium wrote...
"But it's not the saaaame" LOL
You know, I'm usually a trusting sort myself, but if someone deliberately burns down my house I'll still think twice about handing them the keys to my new one!
#40
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 10:34
Fur28
-
- Members
- 729 messages
A cousin of mine, broke one of his new games and even one of mine, he´s family was in a bad econimy situation so i didn´t ask for money back. But weeks later he asked me to lend him two games, and gets mad when i say no.ElSuperGecko wrote...
BleedingUranium wrote...
"But it's not the saaaame" LOL
You know, I'm usually a trusting sort myself, but if someone deliberately burns down my house I'll still think twice about handing them the keys to my new one!
#41
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 11:04
sH0tgUn jUliA
-
- Members
- 16 818 messages
Troll post is troll. Must say this was well done.
This is the troll thread of the month so far.
This is the troll thread of the month so far.
#42
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 11:11
ElSuperGecko
-
- Members
- 2 314 messages
Did he yell "SO BE IT!" and turn all the lights out?Fur28 wrote...
A cousin of mine, broke one of his new games and even one of mine, he´s family was in a bad econimy situation so i didn´t ask for money back. But weeks later he asked me to lend him two games, and gets mad when i say no.
Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 07 janvier 2013 - 11:13 .
#43
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 12:49
SomeoneStoleMyName
-
- Members
- 2 481 messages
I can see why people think I was trolling. But again - noone has come with a good counter argument to the following:
The endings happen as the Reaper AI tells you they will happen. How is that deception? Just tell me this and Ill throw in the towel.
The endings happen as the Reaper AI tells you they will happen. How is that deception? Just tell me this and Ill throw in the towel.
#44
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 12:54
Seival
-
- Members
- 5 294 messages
+1SomeoneStoleMyName wrote...
The extended endings show that the reaper AI did infact speak the truth. Why are some people hellbent on still saying that the reaper AI is deceiving you to take control or Synthesis?
Control ends in peace and prosperity for the galaxy.
Synthesis ends in peace and prosperity for the galaxy.
Destroy only resets everything and puts the galaxy back to square one.
Some people say the Reaper AI is trying to "manipulate" you into going anything but destroy, but he is merely giving advice - and with good reason. Controlling the Reapers and Synthesis both leads to good endings. Only bad ending is destroy imo, with this - the galaxy has no ensurance against further war or synthetics as a new threat later on.
Also bear in mind that the reapers arent evil. They did what they were programmed to do. They dont take pleasure or grievance in destroying civilizations. In their eyes they are the guardians of the universe, and races "destroyed" are actually kept "alive" through reapers.
The reaper AI has no motivations or malevolent intent. And Control and Synthesis leads to positive outcomes. The "Shepards mission to destroy the reapers" argument for taking destroy is narrowminded and short sighted imo.
As it stands, the reaper AI spoke the truth. Whats with the people saying he deceives and tries to manipulate you? He didnt. And destroy ending still stays as the least good ending imo. Choosing destroy is something I imagine a selfish and childish renegade I-want-revenge Shepard would pick.
#45
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 12:56
Steelcan
-
- Members
- 23 292 messages
Because he is nonsensical and illogical.
The end credits show that he was full of it. Destroy EC slides and Stargazer scene show that synthetics do not rise up or anything. The Catalyst is wrong.
The end credits show that he was full of it. Destroy EC slides and Stargazer scene show that synthetics do not rise up or anything. The Catalyst is wrong.
Modifié par Steelcan, 07 janvier 2013 - 12:57 .
#46
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 12:58
BleedingUranium
-
- Members
- 6 118 messages
SomeoneStoleMyName wrote...
I can see why people think I was trolling. But again - noone has come with a good counter argument to the following:
The endings happen as the Reaper AI tells you they will happen. How is that deception? Just tell me this and Ill throw in the towel.
Breath scene.
#47
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 01:08
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 189 messages
The standard counterargument is that you cannot know the outcome at the time when you make the decision, and at the time when you make it, the Catalyst has not given you any reason to trust it. From a roleplaying perspective, the Catalyst is the leader of the enemy, and you should be careful about accepting anything it says. Only impeccable reasoning should be able to convince you, and the writers failed to make the Catalyst's case compelling.SomeoneStoleMyName wrote...
I can see why people think I was trolling. But again - noone has come with a good counter argument to the following:
The endings happen as the Reaper AI tells you they will happen. How is that deception? Just tell me this and Ill throw in the towel.
So there are two arguments here:
(1) The Catalyst does not make a convincing case when you meet it, at least not without a lot of background knowledge on the player's part. Distrusting it on those grounds seems reasonable, and that we can't question it more is a major failing of the ending.
(2) The endings are deceptions. This is obviously false. Some people are grasping at straws because they don't like the outcome or can't believe Bioware would seriously write such "obvious nonsense". That's all there is to it. The outcomes are the outcomes, denying what's in front of your face is usually not considered sane.
Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 janvier 2013 - 01:09 .
#48
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 01:13
BleedingUranium
-
- Members
- 6 118 messages
Ieldra2 wrote...
The endings are deceptions. This is obviously false. Some people are grasping at straws because they don't like the outcome or can't believe Bioware would seriously write such "obvious nonsense". That's all there is to it. The outcomes are the outcomes, denying what's in front of your face is usually not considered sane.
"It's just so obvious because I know everything!"
Modifié par BleedingUranium, 07 janvier 2013 - 01:13 .
#49
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 01:25
Seival
-
- Members
- 5 294 messages
Steelcan wrote...
Because he is nonsensical and illogical.
The end credits show that he was full of it. Destroy EC slides and Stargazer scene show that synthetics do not rise up or anything. The Catalyst is wrong.
I see nothing illogical or nonsensical in what the Catalyst said. It was there for millions of years, and it spent enough time on investigating and attempts to solve the problem. And who is Shepard to judge that?
Sooner or later after Destroy new synthetics will be built and everything will start from the beginning. Just give galactic civilization some time. History just loves to repeat itself.
Modifié par Seival, 07 janvier 2013 - 01:27 .
#50
Posté 07 janvier 2013 - 01:33
Steelcan
-
- Members
- 23 292 messages
The Stargazer scene belittles your argument. 10,000 years in the future and no synthetic rebellion in sight.Seival wrote...
Steelcan wrote...
Because he is nonsensical and illogical.
The end credits show that he was full of it. Destroy EC slides and Stargazer scene show that synthetics do not rise up or anything. The Catalyst is wrong.
I see nothing illogical or nonsensical in what the Catalyst said. It was there for millions of years, and it spent enough time on investigating and attempts to solve the problem. And who is Shepard to judge that?
Sooner or later after Destroy new synthetics will be built and everything will start from the beginning. Just give galactic civilization some time. History just loves to repeat itself.
The Catalyst sought a solution to a problem that never existed. There wouldn't be synthetic conflicts without the reapers' interference
