587 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

clennon8 wrote...

I really shouldn't be referring to Starchild as "the Catalyst," because I think "I am the Catalyst" is one of his lies. More likely, the Citadel is the Catalyst, just as Vendetta said. Starchild is the Intelligence mentioned by the Leviathans. He is housed on the Citadel, and he is a factor that the designers of the Crucible didn't account for.

The Starchild is not the catalyst; he's just a very naughty boy -- seriously he's "the Intelligence". Shepard is "The Catalyst" because Shepard initiates the action. The Crucible turns the Citadel into a weapon. This is how I read it.

[mvaning]

o Ventus wrote...

1. So it's a wild coincidence
that Leviathan describes the Intelligece in a specific manner, and the
Catalyst describes itself in a nearly identical manner?

2. It
most certainly does not claim to be the Citadel. Verbatim, the Catalyst
says "the Citadel is a part of me", meaning that the Catalyst is housed
somewhere inside the Citadel, presumably in the area Shepard is
transported to after passing out.

If I say. .  My arm is part of me.     That does not mean that "I live in my arm"   So
while it looks as though the Catalyst is housed in the Citadel, I don't think that the Catalyst is trying to convey that messege.

1)  The catalyst says that "I embody the collective intelligence of the reapers"

em·bod·y    /emˈbädē/

Verb
Be an expression of or give a tangible or visible form to (an idea, quality, or feeling).Provide (a spirit) with a physical form.


2) The catalyst states that he is a construct

con·struct    /kənˈstrəkt/

Noun
An idea or theory containing various conceptual elements, typically one considered to be subjective and not based on empirical evidence.

3) The citadel is part of the Catalyst.


So what we have is. . . 
The Catalyst is a subjective idea that expresses the citadel and the collective intelligence of the reapers?

This leads me back to my point that the Catalyst is ambigious.

Now looking at Leviathon

Leviathon:  ". . . . we created an Intelligence with the mandate to preserve life at any cost."

4) The Catalyst is an Intelligence with the mandate to preserve life at any cost


So what we have is. . .

The Catalyst is an Intelligent being with the subjective mandate to preserve life at any cost.  This intelligence is an expression of the citadel and the collective intelligence of the reapers.

However, we know that the Intelligence was made before the first reaper so wouldn't it be better to say that the reapers are an expression of the Intelligence?

Again, seems a little confusing. 

EDIT:  I have moved this topic to another thread:    social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/15879970

Or maybe this thread, because that one was locked:  social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/15879017

Modifié par mvaning, 13 février 2013 - 10:35 .

[High Kicks]

That's about how I feel OP!

[Almostfaceman]

Ariella wrote...

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.

It's a much safer and completely logical safe assumption that the A.I. who controls the Reapers has Reaper capabilities. It's also a completely logical safe assumption that there are at least a couple of Reapers inside the Citadel in case of trouble. When in doubt of your situation, assume the worst. There is NO reason to assume that the Starbrat does NOT have indoctrinal capabilities or that he does not have some sort of backup on the way once noticing your intrusion. No benign Reaper technology has ever been found. 

[mvaning]

Paranoidal nemesis wrote...

Synthesis replaces DNA, it acknowledges that all organics are inherently flawed, and that the only way to save it is to no longer make it organic

I also made a thread about why Synthesis is a betrayal of all the life that came before it. Synthesis, the apex of evolution as the catalyst calls it, brings life thousands, maybe millions, of years further, all within the span of a few minutes.
These new superior life forms: your squad, your LI, everyone, is a much higher evolved life form than they were when they knew you. As EDI says, they have immense access to knowledge and may transcend mortality.

The problem is this: the intellectual distance between those that have become synthesized and those that died as organics, is too great for the two different to meaningfully relate to each other anymore.
Do you think your LI, thousands of years more advanced than she/he was when they knew you, could or would really have any emotional connection to a Shepard that died as an inferior life form? No; look at the history of evolution.


Everyone that wasn't apart of synthesis is akin to neanderthal's and everyone who was apart of it is akin to ****** sapiens.

Can you elaborate on this?   Because I feel sad when my dog dies.  That's not quite the same comparison but it is along the same lines.

[john-in-france]

I agree with Clennon8.

To me it is essential to judge the endings according to the ME universe...not other SF shows/books/theories.

That only leaves 2 endings for me. Shoot the Brat (fail) or Destroy.

Control is problematic. Just like the Overlord Project. How long would Shepard be in control? This puts off the inevitable Reaper invasion but does not stop it. Also, corruption of the Shepard control program would be easier than indoctrination of Shepards physical form. Reapers win.

Synthesis. Well I have read the Synthesis thread and it is a very nice idea in theory, but not based on ME lore. In ME, synthesis is what Saren was talking about on Virmire. Forced changes made to people to 'improve' them. If this ending used the word Dominate most people would see it as bad. The Reapers win again...but there would be 'peace' and everyone would work together as 'one'. Perhaps if you had only played ME3, then this would look like a good ending, to those of us who have played the other games...not so much.

Destroy still allows free choice, and the individual races to have their unique part in the universe. It will destroy the Reapers. The Geth and EDI agreed to fight the Reapers, that is their tacit approval. Individuality and free will remain.

[clennon8]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

I really shouldn't be referring to Starchild as "the Catalyst," because I think "I am the Catalyst" is one of his lies. More likely, the Citadel is the Catalyst, just as Vendetta said. Starchild is the Intelligence mentioned by the Leviathans. He is housed on the Citadel, and he is a factor that the designers of the Crucible didn't account for.

The Starchild is not the catalyst; he's just a very naughty boy -- seriously he's "the Intelligence". Shepard is "The Catalyst" because Shepard initiates the action. The Crucible turns the Citadel into a weapon. This is how I read it.

Making Shepard the Catalyst raises the question of what it is about Shepard that is needed for the Crucible to work.  Honestly, the Citadel makes more sense to me, in this regard.

[BleedingUranium]

john-in-france wrote...

I agree with Clennon8.

To me it is essential to judge the endings according to the ME universe...not other SF shows/books/theories.

That only leaves 2 endings for me. Shoot the Brat (fail) or Destroy.

Control is problematic. Just like the Overlord Project. How long would Shepard be in control? This puts off the inevitable Reaper invasion but does not stop it. Also, corruption of the Shepard control program would be easier than indoctrination of Shepards physical form. Reapers win.

Synthesis. Well I have read the Synthesis thread and it is a very nice idea in theory, but not based on ME lore. In ME, synthesis is what Saren was talking about on Virmire. Forced changes made to people to 'improve' them. If this ending used the word Dominate most people would see it as bad. The Reapers win again...but there would be 'peace' and everyone would work together as 'one'. Perhaps if you had only played ME3, then this would look like a good ending, to those of us who have played the other games...not so much.

Destroy still allows free choice, and the individual races to have their unique part in the universe. It will destroy the Reapers. The Geth and EDI agreed to fight the Reapers, that is their tacit approval. Individuality and free will remain.

That is an excellent summary.

[StarcloudSWG]

 In one of the variant EDI dialogs, she says "If the Reapers capture me, I would be rewritten to serve them. I would rather cease functioning than be rewritten against my will."

And a little later, paraphrasing here, "I want to assure you, the Reapers will never take me alive."

EDI is perfectly fine with Destroy over Control or Synthesis, both of which are variants of "The Reapers Win."

To get that dialog, dont' speak with her while she's on the Citadel Presidium commons, but support her when she's in Purgatory and other places.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 14 février 2013 - 02:10 .

[clennon8]

I'm not sure I've ever seen that "The Reapers will never take me alive" dialogue. Can you point me to a YouTube link?

[Hadeedak]

Given a choice, I kneejerk to gambling on an unknown to preserve knowledge, rather that destroying it out of fear or revenge. Now, no decision, in my opinion, is the right one. But it's not as though destroy is objectively superior to the others. It is more familiar and certain: here's a Reaper off switch, wipe them out and reset to zero (or negative one, I guess, given how much destruction they cause). And it's easier to grasp. People understand weapons. Weapons kill things. It's easy. The other two are a bit less defined and decidedly more alien. What does taking control or creating synthesis actually entail? I think that's part of the reason most people intuitively grab hold of destroy and advocate so strongly for it. We understand how a big gun works. We even get that it might have splash damage. Certainty and destruction of the enemy are comforting.

That being said, I like control. To me, it's morally problematic to destroy knowledge, even that contained in the Reapers. Each one is literally an archive of data about a people we will have no other way of remembering or knowing. As much as it's a science fiction trope that studying something inevitably leads to destruction, it .... well, that's not a view I really can get behind. I get that the unknown is scary, but I have trouble wiping out data or stopping thinking about something because it MIGHT BE BAD. Science and increasing knowledge are things I view as positive, dangerous or not. I dunno, that's just my thing. And I really doubt there's a lot of people on BSN who have trouble destroying the Reapers because of what they are and what they might be freed of the whole "need to murder everyone every 30,000 years" stuff.

Modifié par Hadeedak, 14 février 2013 - 03:37 .

[StarcloudSWG]

Yeah, I thought about that, but for me, the consequences aren't 'preserve knowledge or destroy knowledge', the consequences are 'preserve knowledge in the form of the Reapers or let everyone die. Horribly. Painfully. Losing all individuality in the process.'

As for a youtube link, no, I don't have one. Since I experienced it directly in the game, I didn't need a youtube link. Perhaps a better youtube search would find it. I wasn't able to. It takes place on the Normandy, and replaces the "I would risk my existence to keep Jeff alive" dialog near the end of the game.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 14 février 2013 - 03:25 .

[o Ventus]

I'm honestly getting tired of people saying that Destroy also wiped out the cultural history or knowledge of the dead species. There isn't anything to indicate that anything of the sort actually exists. Genetic smoothie =\\= preservation of scientific and/or philosophical knowledge. Logically speaking, nothing at all exists of those old species aside from some genetic material. Genetic material that would ultimately be worthless in the long run.

Also the not-so-subtle implication that people who pick Destroy are either brutes or afraid of change. Armchair psychology is fun, but it also runs the risk of looking like an idiot.

Modifié par o Ventus, 14 février 2013 - 03:37 .

[Hadeedak]

No worries. That's not.... how I view the endings, but it's not something I mind.

For me, to simplify the choices, I'd call destroy the safe bet. Reapers gone. Boom. No more threat. Good job, everyone still alive can enjoy a cookie in a Reaperfree galaxy.

Control: Well. Shep's dead. Something, we're not quite sure what, has her memories and remembers her. We don't know what will happen next, or how the Reapers will interact with Catalyst 2.0 and its Shep-based Operating System. There's a lot of unknown and some clearly scary stuff there.

Ditto for Synthesis. It's a big blank slate. What happens next is largely up to you. What we know is the green glow and that organics and synthetics have a mutually sympathetic perspective. And that EDI's really happy about it. So there's that.

Then there's Refuse. Throw everything out on principle. Shepard is NOT giving in to the enemies, there will be no compromise, and Shepard will not use their tools.

I get why destroy's attractive. It's a much more standard victory. Bad guys are punished (with destruction), good guys get to rebuild. Yay! There's a lot less left open, and it's a more standard narrative.... Complete with the possible survival of your hero.

[Hadeedak]

o Ventus wrote...

I'm honestly getting tired of people saying that Destroy also wiped out the cultural history or knowledge of the dead species. There isn't anything to indicate that anything of the sort actually exists. Generic smoothie == preservation of scientific and/or philosophical knowledge. Logically speaking, nothing at all exists of those old species aside from some genetic material. Generic material that would ultimately be worthless.

Also the not-so-subtle implication that people who pick Destroy are either brutes or afraid of change. Armchair psychology is fun, but it also runs the risk of looking like an idiot.

If there was any insult, I apologize. We do only have the Reapers' words on the fact that they each represent a nation, but they're literally all that's left in most cases, and if nothing else, they certainly were there to witness each species they wiped out. Even assuming they're simple machines, Harbinger's records would be amazing. Very, very scary. But... Well, data.  I don't think picking destroy makes you a brute, certainly, any more than I think picking refuse makes you uncompromising or picking control makes you a facist. I was trying to explain why I think it's the most popular option: it's final, it's effective, it's familar.  I'm also trying to argue for the others, because I don't think they're being portrayed in a very positive light here, and there's certainly room to see positive aspects as well as negatives in all of the endings. Besides, a discussion that pretty much goes backpat, backpat, backpat on what's supposed to be a controversial topic that makes you think is really, really dull.

If I came off as unnecessarily harsh, I'm sorry. That's not what I was shooting for. I was trying to show how different views of the endings can carry different moral weight, and how you can read different things into them. And present my personal take on things, which in no way is the only possible view. Or even a very good one. It's just why I kneejerk a certain way. I do that with a lot of things, not just mass effect. Every time someone's like "THINGS MAN SHOULD NOT KNOW OF" in fiction, I'm pretty much like "No, I want to poke it with a stick."

Modifié par Hadeedak, 14 février 2013 - 03:39 .

[o Ventus]

Despite the Reapers being ancient, what could they possibly share with us? The Catalyst all but disproves any notion of Reaper autonomy or personality, I steadying demoting them all to being little more than tools.

The Reapers have never been known to give a damn about history or culture, and like I said, nothing at all would exist of what those species formerly were. Lilith being blended and the numerous news messages and secondary codex entries in ME3 make it clear enough.

No offense to anyone in particular, but I find the idea that knowledge is preserved in the Reapers (in spite of the face of evidence) is naive, bordering on stupid in an attempt to romanticize the Reapers and make them seem less antagonistic.

[Indy_S]

o Ventus wrote...

Despite the Reapers being ancient, what could they possibly share with us? The Catalyst all but disproves any notion of Reaper autonomy or personality, I steadying demoting them all to being little more than tools.

The Reapers have never been known to give a damn about history or culture, and like I said, nothing at all would exist of what those species formerly were. Lilith being blended and the numerous news messages and secondary codex entries in ME3 make it clear enough.

No offense to anyone in particular, but I find the idea that knowledge is preserved in the Reapers (in spite of the face of evidence) is naive, bordering on stupid in an attempt to romanticize the Reapers and make them seem less antagonistic.

That last paragraph matches my views pretty well.

[Auld Wulf]

It's just easy to demonise people who play games and actually don't like picking the 'kill everything' option every time they're given an option. I'm actually very much used to that. I've frequently called for more choice and diplomacy in RPGs of the past, and the ME series is one example that I like very much, of doing it at least partially right. Another good example is Fallout: New Vegas, where you can even talk the enemy general out of war (right at the end of the game).

I know that someone who doesn't just want to 'kill ****' is also a person who isn't familiar for those who play games only to kill ****. But I started off gaming with the home computers, so I was introduced to a lot of text adventures, puzzle games, and platformers where the goal was avoidance rather than just slaughtering everything that got in my way. I think that culturally we just get swept up in our paths.

Due to my background of text adventures, avoidance games, point & click adventures, RPGs, and so on, I tend to continue to want to follow that route. I easily get tired of games which are just kill kill kill. I think you can test skill in other ways, VVVVVV was a particularly fine example of that. But I think that some gamers have a very narrow scope of experience, having started off with Megaman, or Final Fight, or Tomb Raider, or Call of Duty.

For those players, the option to just kill everything you run into is natural. It's a binary condition. The player is 1, the good guy. The enemies are 0, the bad guys. And 1 exists to destroy 0 and bring light back to the land. Which is pretty much the plot of almost every console game ever, to be honest. So it's easy to get into that mindset. Those players go into a game expecting to be 1, to kill 0, and to get a big congratulatory ending where they're heralded as some godlike being of good.

Mass Effect 3 provides them with a more nuanced option. There are endings which are more applicable to players like myself, those who didn't really find much of interest in the 'kill everything' games, and found more to capture and enthrall their attention outside of that. This is why I sometimes find myself wishing that gamers had a more rounded experience when it comes to playing games, then they wouldn't be so binary, so... 1 destroys 0, 1 wins.

But yes, I mean... there are just so many games I can think of where I was the guy who chose to run instead of fight. Always running. Proud to run. And only fighting when I absolutely had to. Ecstatica was a sublime example of that, for anyone who's played it. And if you haven't, you should try. I guess it's kind of like Doctor Who versus Rambo, which is hilarious when you think about it.

[CosmicGnosis]

o Ventus wrote...

No offense to anyone in particular, but I find the idea that knowledge is preserved in the Reapers (in spite of the face of evidence) is naive, bordering on stupid in an attempt to romanticize the Reapers and make them seem less antagonistic.

Why do I tolerate such things? It's wonderful to keep coming back to a forum to discuss a story that I care about and constantly face accusations of being a moron while I'm here.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 14 février 2013 - 04:03 .

[o Ventus]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Why do I tolerate such things? It's wonderful to keep coming back to a forum to discuss a story that I care about and constantly face accusations of being a moron while I'm here.

Considering that I made it plainly clear that I meant it as in the idea being stupid, and not anyone in particular, I'll just say "congratulations". 

Who was it that said you were a moron again?

[clennon8]

Let's chill a little bit. I don't want to have to scrape feces off the walls. Or see my thread get locked.

On another note, I have refined my "Why Destroy is NOT a trick" argument a bit in the OP.

Modifié par clennon8, 14 février 2013 - 04:11 .

[Indy_S]

Auld Wulf, I have to ask, why are you so attached to the idea that everyone here can be categorised as either a binary thinker or not? No one here has even made the connection to a 'kill everything' viewpoint but you.

I must say, you're superiority is suffering from your hypocrisy. Perhaps you should try again.

[clennon8]

I found Wulf's latest post decidedly less acerbic than his previous ones, even if he is still being a bit presumptuous.

[CosmicGnosis]

o Ventus wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Why do I tolerate such things? It's wonderful to keep coming back to a forum to discuss a story that I care about and constantly face accusations of being a moron while I'm here.

Considering that I made it plainly clear that I meant it as in the idea being stupid, and not anyone in particular, I'll just say "congratulations". 

Who was it that said you were a moron again?

Well, the mere act of seriously considering Control and Synthesis tends to upset a rather large part of BSN. People who are convinced that Destroy is the only way don't really like to have that view challenged. So I've had to put up with a lot of insults.

Also, if someone has a stupid idea in his or her mind, that doesn't reflect well on the person's logic and intelligence. Somewhere, some time, that person came to the conclusion that a stupid idea was a good idea. So if it's a stupid idea that the Reapers contain some kind of tangible knowledge, and I accept that idea... well, one could suggest that I'm stupid for believing it.

So I've probably become overly sensitive to anything that can be perceived as an insult, since that's what I've had to face since last March. And I'm sorry for derailing clennon's thread.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 14 février 2013 - 04:30 .

[Indy_S]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Well, the mere act of seriously considering Control and Synthesis tends to upset a rather large part of BSN. People who are convinced that Destroy is the only way don't really like to have that view challenged. So I've had to put up with a lot of insults.

Also, if someone has a stupid idea in his or her mind, that doesn't reflect well on the person's logic and intelligence. Somewhere, some time, that person came to the conclusion that a stupid idea was a good idea. So if it's a stupid idea that the Reapers contain some kind of tangible knowledge, and I accept that idea... well, one could suggest that I'm stupid for believing it.

So I've probably become overly sensitive to anything that can be perceived as an insult, since that's what I've had to face since last March. And I'm sorry for derailing clennon's thread.

It's more about accepting the contrivances. A blogger I follow called it trusting the narrator. The setting doesn't establish it as possible but for this instance where it just is. Control and Sythesis and to a lesser extent Destroy are fine if just a little straining on the suspension of disbelief.