587 réponses à ce sujet

[clennon8]

I think you always have to consider the source, don't you? It isn't a thousand antagonists suggesting the same thing. Not really. It's the same antagonist suggesting the same thing a thousand times. Why keep falling for it?  Because this time will be different?

Again, it isn't that I conceptually disagree with you on a more platonic level. I'm just trying to contextualize things a little more than I think you are.

Modifié par clennon8, 12 février 2013 - 10:26 .

[Ieldra]

clennon8 wrote...
I think you always have to consider the source, don't you? It isn't a thousand antagonists suggesting the same thing. Not really. It's the same antagonist suggesting the same thing a thousand times. Why keep falling for it?  Because this time will be different?

A thousand times? I have seen.....one. Two, if you stretch things. And the second one was accidental. I don't see a pattern unless you presuppose that all kinds of organic/synthetic blending are the same. This is, btw, counteracted by Shepard. 

Again, it isn't that I conceptually disagree with you on a more platonic level. I'm just trying to contextualize things a little more than I think you are.

And it isn't that I don't know how such mechanisms are often used in stories, I just look at other aspects of the presentation and recognize that they point in a completely different direction. For instance, Shepard is supposed to be a positive example of organic/synthetic symbiosis. Aren't we "supposed to" draw the conclusion that Synthesis will have similarly generally positive effects? And aren't we here on the forums just making that association complicated by using actual science to show that you can't just equate synthetic implant with cellular cyborgization? 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 février 2013 - 10:41 .

[BirdsallSa]

I think it's interesting that the final character introduced in the game, who gives you the only insight whatsoever on the Crucible, is made to be the leader of the antagonist. They could have made the Catalyst anything, presented in any way. Yet, they chose the leader of the Reapers. I don't think that was by accident, and I certainly don't think it was so we could say "I don't think the Catalyst was meant to be seen as evil.". If that was the case, they could have made the Catalyst literally the Citadel and have Vendetta interface with it, and then he could give you the options.

[humes spork]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Also, may I mention that if it was only for the relay destruction, then I'd agree with you that this was mainly about the technological paradigm of the Reapers. However, the relay destruction together with Garden Eden scene where our iconic starship crashes and there is no technology anywhere in sight, that paints a rather different - and rather more sinister - picture.

Well, forgive the cheek here, but in every possible iteration of the ending, except low-EMS destroy in which it is implied the entire Normandy crew is lost, there is one character who always walks out of the Normandy.

Someone, who if all high-level and eezo-based technology had been destroyed or otherwise disabled, wouldn't have been able to walk anywhere. If he was lucky to survive the crash at all...

Modifié par humes spork, 12 février 2013 - 10:45 .

[Ieldra]

@BirdsallSa
The Catalyst was supposed to be seen as a god-analogue. It's incredibly obvious and I've hated it from day one. But it does mean that we can see it as a plot device explaining our choices to us, rather than having an interest in influencing us to make a specific choice.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 février 2013 - 10:45 .

[BirdsallSa]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The Catalyst was supposed to be seen as a god-analogue. It's incredibly obvious and I've hated it from day one. But it does mean that we can see it as a plot device explaining our choices to us, rather than having an interest in influencing us to make a certain choice.

If you see it as a God, then you are indoctrinated if I ever saw it. With that I say good day.

[Ieldra]

BirdsallSa wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
The Catalyst was supposed to be seen as a god-analogue. It's incredibly obvious and I've hated it from day one. But it does mean that we can see it as a plot device explaining our choices to us, rather than having an interest in influencing us to make a certain choice.

If you see it as a God, then you are indoctrinated if I ever saw it. With that I say good day.

Now you're trolling. I said we are supposed to see it that way, not that I did. In fact, I hated that aspect of the presentation with a passion. It does mean, however, that it's just the voice of the writers explaining our choices to us. I think the writers were rather surprised by the reception.

Why I think so? There is a common element in the monomyth where the hero receives the solution to a problem from a supernatural source because he, being a mortal, cannot implement it himself. Now consider Shepard's collapse at the control console. There is no reason why he should lose all agency at this point. Consider the whole "we cannot win conventionally" theme. Consider the symbolic significance of the elevator. Bioware had admitted that the monomyth had a significant influence on the story of Mass Effect.

Yet again, that I recognize this does most emphatically not mean that I like it. In fact, this is the element of the ending I hate almost as much as the dark age implication. It does, however, give me an excuse to take the Catalyst at face value.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 février 2013 - 10:55 .

[ruggly]

Wouldn't Shepard only be trans human since Cerberus rebuilt her that way? Depending on the Shepard, they may not want to be considered trans human. She didn't exactly have a choice.

[clennon8]

Heh.  BirdsallSa is indeed trolling, in a most obvious way.  But he gave me an excuse to mention my other thread: social.bioware.com/d3/en/forum/1/topic/355/index/15419696/1

Now go away BirdsallSa.

Modifié par clennon8, 12 février 2013 - 10:56 .

[humes spork]

ruggly wrote...

Wouldn't Shepard only be trans human since Cerberus rebuilt her that way? Depending on the Shepard, they may not want to be considered trans human. She didn't exactly have a choice.

Let's keep in mind that for the purposes of the MEU, "transhuman" is defined as through technology improving one's mental abilities. Gene therapy and implantation are the norm among humans, and not considered "transhuman", in the MEU.

[Ieldra]

LOL. I have to admit, interpreting Destroy as "Destroy the god" gives it a certain thematic appeal. If I didn't interpret Synthesis as "everyone (eventually) becomes as a god", which amounts to the same thing.

Hmm. Something to explore with one of my unplayed Shepards. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 février 2013 - 11:04 .

[clennon8]

Ieldra2 wrote...

LOL. I have to admit, interpreting Destroy as "Destroy the god" gives it a certain thematic appeal.

At last, we agree! 

[Almostfaceman]

clennon8 wrote...

Why Destroy is NOT a trick

1. Association:  Destroy has not been negatively associated with any major villains in the game series.  Control was promoted by the Illusive Man.  Synthesis was promoted by Saren.  They were both shown to be indoctrinated.  Control and Synthesis are ideas encouraged by the Reapers, to confuse, distract, and sow discord among organics.  It's a trick, designed to ensure the survival of the Reapers and the successful continuation of the Harvest.  When the Catalyst offers you those choices once again, it is more of the same. 

Note that this is not an "association fallacy," as sometimes claimed.  The Catalyst can rightly be placed in the same category as indoctrinated Saren and indoctrinated TIM for the purposes of this logical connection.  If a Control- or Synthesis-like solution were independently arrived at by a non-indoctrinated ally, and summarily discarded on the basis of being "What TIM wanted" or "What Saren wanted," then one could claim that an association fallacy was being made.  That is not the case here.  Control and Synthesis are never once suggested as viable solutions within the game series, except by the Reapers or indoctrinated agents of the Reapers.

In short, I believe the association of Control and Synthesis with negative outcomes are associations we are SUPPOSED to make, and SHOULD make, if not the first time around that at least upon reflection.  Destroy is not burdened with the same connotations as Control and Synthesis.

2. The Crucible:  While nobody understands precisely how the Crucible works, Shepard is informed on more than one occasion that the Crucible is capable of incredible destructive power, sufficient to wipe out the Reapers.  Therefore, when Shepard arrives at the decision chamber, he arrives with the knowledge that he should be able to destroy the Reapers.  To be told otherwise would be a dead giveaway to an alert Shepard that something was amiss.

Note: The low-EMS "control only" scenario is a corner case where the Crucible was built to incorporate the human proto-Reaper "brain" salvaged by TIM from the intact Collector base, but is too heavily damaged to destroy the Reapers.  In the low-EMS "destroy only" scenario, the Crucible was built to incorporate the human proto-Reaper "heart," a power source which gives it sufficient power to destroy the Reapers despite the heavy damage the Crucible has sustained.

3. Meta-logic.  So, if the Catalyst is trying to trick Shepard into picking Synthesis (the Catalyst's obvious first choice) or Control, then why isn't Destroy some sort of trick to get Shepard to blow himself up or whatever?  It's a reasonable question, but not the knock-down argument some of you may think it is.  Let me explain.  First, as I mentioned above, Shepard arrives at the decision chamber with the expectation that he will be able to destroy the Reapers.  And in all cases but the low-EMS scenario where an intact Collector base was turned over to TIM at the end of ME2, he can.  To arrive there and find out there is no Destroy option at all would be... strange, to say the least.  So, the Catalyst must offer the Destroy option, if at all possible.  If the Catalyst is trying to trick Shepard, and by extension Bioware is trying to trick the player, then the illusion must be carefully maintained.  Things have to be depicted and told in a certain way.  There are constraints on what Bioware can do, if they're trying to pull off this grand trick and get players to talk about their game for the next year.  If, for example, the Catalyst said "Go shoot that tube if you want to destroy us," but then Shepard was able to explore the area and find the "real" Destroy option...  Well, that would be a dead giveaway, wouldn't it?  The illusion would be shattered, not only for Shepard, but for the player.  Again, Bioware is constrained in what they can do, both from a cinematic perspective and a story-telling perspective, in order to maintain the illusion.  Thus we see Shepard walking up to the tube, shooting it as it explodes in his face, and presto, all the Reapers fall over dead. 

The entire game the Reapers are not to be trusted. Not only that, they have the ability to mess with your mind and control it.

Starbrat (up until Leviathan) is revealed to be Zee Head Reaper. The Big Cheese. The Guy Who Started The Whole Ball Rolling. There is no reason to trust this Reaper. There is every reason to try and destroy the Reaper. Starbrat is an immediate and sudden Major Villian. Without metagaming, there's no reason to comply with Starbrat and considering Shep's physical trauma and his location there's every reason to believe his mind is being played with by not just Zee Head Reaper but whatever Reapers are in the Citadel. Shepard is suddenly presented with three Magic Win buttons and that has Indoctrinated Hallucination written all over it. Trust is laughable, at best. 

[AlexMBrennan]

3. Meta-logic. So, if the Catalyst is trying to trick Shepard into picking Synthesis (the Catalyst's obvious first choice) or Control, then why isn't Destroy some sort of trick to get Shepard to blow himself up or whatever?

That's assuming knowledge of the epilogue... In which case it's immediately obvious that none of the options are a trap.

Note that this is not an "association fallacy," as sometimes claimed

Actually, it is - you are saying that C/S are not viable solutions because they were only suggested by indoctrinated agents. Whilst you wouldn't trust them (that is, it does not follow that C/S is viable because a Reaper says so), it is nevertheless possible for it to be true.

[Ariella]

Almostfaceman wrote...



Starbrat (up until Leviathan) is revealed to be Zee Head Reaper. The Big Cheese. The Guy Who Started The Whole Ball Rolling. There is no reason to trust this Reaper. There is every reason to try and destroy the Reaper. Starbrat is an immediate and sudden Major Villian. Without metagaming, there's no reason to comply with Starbrat and considering Shep's physical trauma and his location there's every reason to believe his mind is being played with by not just Zee Head Reaper but whatever Reapers are in the Citadel. Shepard is suddenly presented with three Magic Win buttons and that has Indoctrinated Hallucination written all over it. Trust is laughable, at best. 

Cat isn't a Reaper itself and we've seen NO evidence that it has the indoctrination ability.  And there are any Reapers INSIDE the Citadel at that point. Footsoliders possibly, but no Reapers, they're all out engaging the fleet or on Earth. And there's never been any indication that Shepard has been indoctrinated. And at that point the only thing that is keeping Shepard on his or her feet is the mission: activate the Crucible, so s/he is going to do it in one way or another, and hope for the best. At his point there really is nothing more Shepard can do.

[Auld Wulf]

Ariella wrote...

Cat isn't a Reaper itself and we've seen NO evidence that it has the indoctrination ability.

Shh. You're injecting facts and lore-correct statements into their delusions. You have to ease them off their craziness slowly, you can't just make them face their shameless genocide apologism right away. And it is so shameless and defensive, my goodness. But yes, you're 100 per cent right about this, and this is really the thorn in the side of Catalyst haters. They want to portray him as this faceless ebil, and yet there's nothing in the game to justify it.

Ah, binary thinkers... so limited, and so violent! Reapers are 0, so... the Catalyst must be 0, too because he's not 1! 1 is me, 1 is good. 1 must destroy all of 0 in order to preserve 1, the geth will die too? Well, the geth must be 0! 1 must be preserved at all cost! Sigh. Binary thinkers and their bizarre love of genocide as an easily chosen option. And hey, if you're a luddite on top of that, it becomes so much easier to hate the Catalyst and just brush over lore.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 13 février 2013 - 12:37 .

[clennon8]

Hey, Auld Wulf, share some more of your "lore" with us binary thinkers wallowing in our delusions. Tell us again how the game proves that the green wave only affects people who want Synthesis.

[DeinonSlayer]

clennon8 wrote...

Hey, Auld Wulf, share some more of your "lore" with us binary thinkers wallowing in our delusions. Tell us again how the game proves that the green wave only affects people who want Synthesis.

Luddite simpleton. Something something something genocide fetishist. Pork chops.

[ruggly]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Hey, Auld Wulf, share some more of your "lore" with us binary thinkers wallowing in our delusions. Tell us again how the game proves that the green wave only affects people who want Synthesis.

Luddite simpleton. Something something something genocide fetishist. Pork chops.

*picks nose* ruggly smash reapers

[clennon8]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Hey, Auld Wulf, share some more of your "lore" with us binary thinkers wallowing in our delusions. Tell us again how the game proves that the green wave only affects people who want Synthesis.

Luddite simpleton. Something something something genocide fetishist. Pork chops.

And now suddenly I'm hungry.

[DeinonSlayer]

ruggly wrote...

Wouldn't Shepard only be trans human since Cerberus rebuilt her that way? Depending on the Shepard, they may not want to be considered trans human. She didn't exactly have a choice.

I never asked for this.

[ruggly]

That damn man, stealing my cereal...

[DeinonSlayer]

ruggly wrote...

That damn man, stealing my cereal...

[ruggly]

[clennon8]

Please no more gifs. Not that those aren't funny, but string too many of those in a row and the thread will get locked.