244 réponses à ce sujet

[ratzerman]

Starbrat: "The fact that you're standing here proves that the system no longer works."

Shep: "But you brought me here."

Starbrat: "A new solution must be found."

Shep: ".......I would've bled out if you had left me where I was."

Starbrat: "There is still a way."

Shep: "You got a medkit around here? Band-aid? I'm about to pass out."

Starbrat: "You must choose."

Shep: "You seem to have everything under control. You choose."

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

You have to wonder though where, were all the reaper drones that anything calling itself an AI should have had on the Citadel.

[Dr_Extrem]

ratzerman wrote...

Starbrat: "The fact that you're standing here proves that the system no longer works."

Shep: "But you brought me here."

Starbrat: "A new solution must be found."

Shep: ".......I would've bled out if you had left me where I was."

Starbrat: "There is still a way."

Shep: "You got a medkit around here? Band-aid? I'm about to pass out."

Starbrat: "You must choose."

Shep: "You seem to have everything under control. You choose."

this made me smile. thank you.

[TMJfin]

Catalyst as an idea I'm ok with. What I hated was that it took form of that kid. Kid I started to hate cause of those dreams. If the catalyst would've taken a form of person who died on Virmire or any other dead squad mate, I think I would've had no issue.

[movieguyabw]

Though I've grown to (sort of) enjoy the ending for one of my characters, between the EC and some headcanon - I really can't say I like the Catalyst.

If we had more option to argue with it, then I might enjoy the scene. But as for the character itself - there are just too many things that annoy me.

A lot of people are saying that they'd be fine if the Catalyst wasn't based off of the kid - and while I agree that having him be the kid from your dreams didn't grant him any points, I think I'd be just as bothered no matter what form it took. My biggest problem was it was a godlike character, arriving at the eleventh hour, and it *not* being in conflict with the protagonist.

[Changonauta]

i do like him

[3DandBeyond]

Indy_S wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

That's not true at all. The difference between AI's and VI is that AI's are selfaware...VI's are not.

An AI can't go past it's programing  if its shackled as much as much as a VI can't ether.

EDI in ME2 before being unshackled is an example.

 An AI being shackled is no different then a person being indoctrianted.

Well I learnt something from this thread.

Ok, for heaven sake dremann is contradicting himself all over the place.  In one place he says the kid somehow got beyond his shackles to destroy his creators (and he says he had to destroy them-so forget about saying he doesn't know what killing is).  And in the quoted post he says that AIs can't go beyond their shackles.  So any answer or response he gives as usual will only fit the one thing he's replying to and not the whole discussion.

The kid is either shackled or isn't-he's controlled or not.  If he overcame his shackles in regard to anything then he is no longer merely performing what he was programmed to do.  And by his own admission synthetics will always supercede organics and destroy them.  If shackles are absolute then his only solution should be to tell people, "always shackle your AIs".  If they are not which is what he is saying with this statement that synthetics will kill organics, then the kid was fully capable of overcoming his own shackles.  And this also is the case in ME with the very first game.  The AI on the Citadel that is stealing money overcame his shackles.  EDI on Luna overcame hers (its at the time).  And this continually happened.  So it is super silly now to say that shackles mean an AI can't go past its programming.  What part of the kid's programming would have allowed him to kill his creators?

Now you could make the case that the Leviathans never included some "don't kill us" shackles, but that only makes them idiots and seeing as they started all of this and created the idiot kid and they programmed him to believe the problem he's solving is a real problem, they have proved that already.  But it makes no sense and is the stupidest thing ever in these games outside of the endings.

It's stupid because Leviathans are all about control.  And they have a problem with synthetics killing people.  They also apparently must worry they will die as well because they programmed the kid to believe synthetics will one day kill all organics (that means they'll die too).  So, to believe the kid was shackled and able to kill them, they had to have created a synthetic that they allowed to do this with no "don't kill us" shackles.  That is the most idiotic thing outside of the endings that I've seen in all of this.  And so Shepard isn't just doing what some moronic stupid flawed and messed up so not an AI says, but what Leviathan programmed him to say and believe.  Frack this, killl all the Leviathans.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 04 mars 2013 - 02:46 .

[AresKeith]

@3D he's Dreman, that's what he does lol

[tevix]

@Ratzerman

+1

[kalasaurus]

TMJfin wrote...

Catalyst as an idea I'm ok with. What I hated was that it took form of that kid. Kid I started to hate cause of those dreams. If the catalyst would've taken a form of person who died on Virmire or any other dead squad mate, I think I would've had no issue.

That's how I feel too at this point.  I like that EC gave us a chance to ask questions and challenge the Catalyst.  I still wish it took a different form.  Even a glowy blob is preferable to the kid.  It's just annoying and pretentious.

[Eterna]

I like the concept. Execution could have been better.

[DeinonSlayer]

tevix wrote...

@Ratzerman

+1

Star Kid: Wake up.

Shepard: NO.

Star Kid: You're the first orga-

Shepard: Don't care.

Star Kid: I know you thought about destr-

Shepard: Not interested.

Star Kid: But, the Citadel is my ho-

Shepard: Mmmm... cold floor.

[arial]

Me

[Eterna]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

That's not true at all. The difference between AI's and VI is that AI's are selfaware...VI's are not.

An AI can't go past it's programing  if its shackled as much as much as a VI can't ether.

EDI in ME2 before being unshackled is an example.

 An AI being shackled is no different then a person being indoctrianted.

Well I learnt something from this thread.

Ok, for heaven sake dremann is contradicting himself all over the place.  In one place he says the kid someone got beyond his shackles to destroy his creators (and he says he had to destroy them-so forget about saying he doesn't know what killing is).  And in the quoted post he says that AIs can't go beyond their shackles.  So any answer or response he gives as usual will only fit the one thing he's replying to and not the whole discussion.

The kid is either shackled or isn't-he's controlled or not.  If he overcame his shackles in regard to anything then he is no longer merely performing what he was programmed to do.  And by his own admission synthetics will always supercede organics and destroy them.  If shackles are absolute then his only solution should be to tell people, "always shackle your AIs".  If they are not which is what he is saying with this statement that synthetics will kill organics, then the kid was fully capable of overcoming his own shackles.  And this also is the case in ME with the very first game.  The AI on the Citadel that is stealing money overcame his shackles.  EDI on Luna overcame hers (its at the time).  And this continually happened.  So it is super silly now to say that shackles mean an AI can't go past its programming.  What part of the kid's programming would have allowed him to kill his creators?

Now you could make the case that the Leviathans never included some "don't kill us" shackles, but that only makes them idiots and seeing as they started all of this and created the idiot kid and they programmed him to believe the problem he's solving is a real problem, they have proved that already.  But it makes no sense and is the stupidest thing ever in these games outside of the endings.

It's stupid because Leviathans are all about control.  And they have a problem with synthetics killing people.  They also apparently must worry they will die as well because they programmed the kid to believe synthetics will one day kill all organics (that means they'll die too).  So, to believe the kid was shackled and able to kill them, they had to have created a synthetic that they allowed to do this with no "don't kill us" shackles.  That is the most idiotic thing outside of the endings that I've seen in all of this.  And so Shepard isn't just doing what some moronic stupid flawed and messed up so not an AI says, but what Leviathan programmed him to say and believe.  Frack this, killl all the Leviathans.

The Catalyst is a Shackled Ai who never went beyond his programming. He was stupidly given a broad mandate by his creators. That's actually the point. The Leviathan were stupid and arrogant and made a horrible mistake. The power they had made them feel invincible, they didn' even entertain the notion that an AI could overthrow them. 

[tevix]

@Deinonslayer

"Mmmm....cold floor."

Greatest line of the game.

[ruggly]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

tevix wrote...

@Ratzerman

+1

Star Kid: Wake up.

Shepard: NO.

Star Kid: You're the first orga-

Shepard: Don't care.

Star Kid: I know you thought about destr-

Shepard: Not interested.

Star Kid: But, the Citadel is my ho-

Shepard: Mmmm... cold floor.

Get me a Bloody Mary first, and then I'll think about it.

[Redbelle]

Luigitornado wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Syroel13 wrote...

I think if the catalyst was in the form of Saren, it would have been more like able

Get the game to check it's flag thingee thing's, find the dead person Shepard was closest to and have the Cat become them.

Cause that kid is worse than Jar Jar Bink's in ep1. At least Jar Jar had to work to be annoying. That kid does it effortlessly!

Why because it speaks with a child's voice? I agree that it was a little silly that it took the form of a child, but to compare it to Jar Jar is a bit dramtic. 

As annoying as he was, Jar Jar had a narrative function as a device to bring the story forward, first by bringing the Naboo and the Gungun together to hash out their misconception's of each other, then by unknowing acting as Palpatine's agent by thinking he was acting in the manner Amedala would have acted by stepping forward to give Palpatine power.

Star Child on the other hand began life as vent boy who may or may not have been real. Got blasted out of the sky, in a sequence that does little to support or confirm he actually existed in anyone's eye's but Shepard's. Then become's dream sequence kid in an environment that fit's description's of the Reaper mind as described by the Rachni........

<Deep breath>

Then goes onto become an all powerful Starchild whose logic take's a doctorate to unravel and whose motivation's are poorly expressed, in conjunction with it coming to term's that it's solution doesn't work but will keep doing it anyway.

All that, started when Shepard met him in a vent. And we don't actually know if they are one and the same or two complete different enterties.

The child, in ME3, seem's to be held up as some kind of symbol. Yet after playing ME1 and 2 this kind of iconography has never been implemented in such a hamfisted way as to leave player's scratching their head's as to what the child represent's or even his narrative purpose. And that's where the child was mishandled........

ME is primarily about relationship's. You talk to people alot and get to know them, their view's and their motivation's. The child provide's none of this in the way that ME player's have become accustomed, having narrative's delivered through drama. The child, by contrast, make's no definitive statment's and whose only purpose is to run away and burn. To then have the Cat pull the child on Shepard is puzzling to say the least.

I mean, I've heard people talk about alot of theories, but what was the point/function/symbology of the child in the game?

To this end The child is more annoying than Jar Jar in that you don't have to ask why Jar Jar was added to the films. The narrative reason's are explained in the movies and his conception in the movie's development was explained by the developers. The child and the Cat's image of the child on the other hand has no real function. The Cat had to look like something but he could have taken on any form. Unless the Cat couldn't take on any form, which wounds ridiculous as soon as you say it because the Cat took on the form of a human child when it's creator's billion's of years ago were space squid.

The Cat and the nature of the child need's some explanation in a game that used definitive narrative as it's vehicle to tell a story. Because without definite narrative this aspect of the game come's across as saying 'not quite sure what we sere doing so we left it vague'. And comparitively against ME1 and 2 and the mission's of ME3 that doesn't come across as good story telling that we came accustomed to in previous ME installments.

Modifié par Redbelle, 03 mars 2013 - 10:01 .

[3DandBeyond]

geceka wrote...

snipped

No, you are missing my point: If you formalize a problem mathematically and find multiple solutions, none are "less valid" than others. It is just that mathematical validity doesn't necessarily refer to anything that works out in the expected way in the real world. If you are using Pythagoras (as an example) to build a structure somewhere, the negative solution won't help you, since you can't apply it in the real world. Yet it's still a perfectly fine mathematical solution. You can also calculate a solution to string theory (quite) quickly on the computer you are currently using to type this, yet it probably won't be the one solution explaining our universe.

Also, your example is not an equation, but an inequality, where totally different calculus rules apply. This is not the same thing as an equation with multiple solutions. 

snipped

And you are missing the whole point.  The kid doesn't say the reapers are still a solution, he says they are no longer a solution-they are not working, his solution is not working.  You don't try to make a solution that is not a solution be one.  He doesn't say they still are a solution even though not perfect, he says they don't work anymore.  You can keep stating things that do not apply until the cows come home, but if you are given a problem to figure out and you think you have the solution and then find out it is not one, you are a fool if you keep saying that it could be or keep trying to force it to be.  I think you are totally disregarding what he says and then trying to prove you have all this legitimate knowledge to back you up.  So, I will defer to your superiority in your knowledge of numbers but not to your knowledge of what this kid is saying and the stupidity of what happens beyond that.  You've decided you like it and keep creating argument that is disregarding the meaning of that statement.

Thank you for deciding to pick apart my labeling of the inequality. 

You keep asserting that the reapers are still a solution just not a perfect one when what the kid says is that they are not even A solution.  His solution to the problem is no longer working.  You don't go to a car mechanic and have him keep putting in a new alternator if that is not working and not solving the problem.  And in other terms.  If I buy a computer to solve a problem-I need to render 3D graphics and need a fast processor and lots of memory, that computer is a solution.  If in a year that computer becomes out-moded, is not fast enough, will not work with the latest version of my software and can no longer make the videos I need to make (maybe the format for videos has changed), then it is no longer the solution and I need a new computer.  I cannot use the computer I have for the problem I have-rendering videos in the current format.  This is basically what the kid says-he needs a new solution.  The current one no longer works.  He specifically says this.

[AxeloftheKey]

As a character? No, not in the same way I like other characters.

However, if you mean like in terms of appreciate how it fits into the story? Yes. I like the idea of a rogue A.I. that thinks it's bettering the world for organics. I like how it thinks that removing the high-technology species helps the next ones grow, and it might actually be right. However, our ultimate ability to disagree with it and try to prove it wrong makes it a good antagonist. If you flat out disagree, Destroy is your choice. If you think you can use the Reapers to do more good, you have Control. If you think it's right and you need to find a way to guarantee that new technology won't rebel, you have Synthesis.

Yeah.

[3DandBeyond]

Redbelle wrote...
snipped
I mean, I've heard people talk about alot of theories, but what was the point/function/symbology of the child in the game?

Simply speaking Redbelle the point of the child as the AI Catalyst was to serve the purpose much as it has-it's to fool fans as much as to make it possible to believe it fooled Shepard.  That form is to create cognitive dissonance.  Fans know the effigy of the child is meant to make him a wolf in sheep's clothing and they disregard it, thinking it still is not affecting them.  However, the image of the child is one of the most powerful.  Politicians that want legislation passed evoke, "the children" even though they know that people will understand that's an appeal to passion (I'm not speaking of some very current events necessarily because that specifically involved children).  What I mean is, want to pass laws to censor movies-speak about the children.  Everyone knows what you just did-who wouldn't want to pass a law that saves our kids.

So, it's quite obvious to me and there was even a hint of this on one of the panels.  Someone asked about the use of the kid and one of the devs or writers answered that he was there (specifically in the beginning) for Shepard to identify with and for players to have sympathy for.  His use at the end is to make people think they understand what is going on but to get them to deceive themselves and still believe that he's right.  The most frequent comment I hear from those that are ok with the endings (about the kid) is that they dislike him, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 03 mars 2013 - 10:01 .

[Kulbelbolka]

Since game release I only can't understand one thing: why Shepard sees Catalyst as a Kid from nightmares? What it symbolizes? What's the meaning?

[geceka]

3DandBeyond wrote...

And you are missing the whole point.  The kid doesn't say the reapers are still a solution, he says they are no longer a solution-they are not working, his solution is not working.

The catalyst only draws this conclusion based on the expectation that Shepard will do something to revolutionize the solution, and in all 3 full-fledged endings, this is exactly what happens. If Shepard refuses, his standing there becomes entirely inconsequential (he/she could just as well have died from Harbinger's beam), hence reinforcing the validity of the solution, with the only added benefit (from the catalyst's point of view) that the reiteration of the cycles will eventually recreate this very same situation in which a better solution can be applied.

He doesn't say "My solution is no longer working, so I give up", he says "we find a new solution" – The catalyst is entirely goal-oriented, and if its goal is not fulfilled right now (3 endings), it will be fulfilled later down the cycles (refuse). That's all I'm saying.

3DandBeyond wrote...

You can keep stating things that do not apply until the cows come home, but if you are given a problem to figure out and you think you have the solution and then find out it is not one, you are a fool if you keep saying that it could be or keep trying to force it to be.  I think you are totally disregarding what he says and then trying to prove you have all this legitimate knowledge to back you up.  So, I will defer to your superiority in your knowledge of numbers but not to your knowledge of what this kid is saying and the stupidity of what happens beyond that.  You've decided you like it and keep creating argument that is disregarding the meaning of that statement.

What I don't get is why you keep attacking me ad-hominem, even accusing me of doing so as well, while not bothering to tell me which of my lines you find inflammatory, while I was offering you an apology "into the blue" in my previous post.

I was only referring to a previous post of yours, where you kept reiterating that nobody in their right mind would keep applying an incomplete (a.k.a. "wrong") solution, yet I wanted to point out that this is quite a common thing in reality.

3DandBeyond wrote...

Thank you for deciding to pick apart my labeling of the inequality.

Sorry if you interpreted this as a snide remark, but doing calculus with inequalities is different from doing calculus with equations. I'm not even going into this in more detail, I'm only saying it is very different, which is why we typically strive to express a thesis as an equation, rather than an inequality.

3DandBeyond wrote...

If in a year that computer becomes out-moded, is not fast enough, will not work with the latest version of my software and can no longer make the videos I need to make (maybe the format for videos has changed), then it is no longer the solution and I need a new computer.

Again, I'm only referring to the "Refuse" option, all three full-fledged endings reinforce your very own point that the former solution is now invalid. However, following your analogy, "Refuse" is like your computer crashing when you open that new version of your software for the first time – "Oh no, my old solution won't work anymore", you say, but then suddenly, your computer reboots and the software opens just fine. The crash was inconsequential, a fluke, like a Shepard who chooses not to use the Crucible to end the cycles once and for all.

When you interpret what a character says, you need to take the context of the situation into account as well – when Shepard is in the position to use the Crucible, the catalyst expects him to do so, hence the solution has failed. The catalyst did not foresee that a Shepard might make it this far and then simply stop, which changes the parameters again and makes it perfectly valid to revert to the old solution. Applying this logic to ME2, everybody needs to die on the suicide mission because all characters in the game have referred to it as such, yet this only happened out of the expectations and conjectures of these characters, just as the catalyst (might) expect that the solution is invalidated because Shepard is mere minutes away from revolutionizing it. Unless there is a plot point I'm missing that reinforces why the mere presence of Shepard – them not doing anything meaningful – invalidates the solution of the cycles, this is where we stand.

[geceka]

Kulbelbolka wrote...

Since game release I only can't understand one thing: why Shepard sees Catalyst as a Kid from nightmares? What it symbolizes? What's the meaning?

I don't think that there's a definitive reason for this, only hints related to symbolism: The catalyst gives straight, simple answers on seemingly complex topics, very much akin to a child. Also, the boy certainly plays a symbolic role related to the (beginning of the) war, so it makes narrative sense to refer back to this symbol in the climax of the plot. Finally, the nightmares serve as a narrative vehicle to show how Shepard comes to terms with their role in the war, so it makes sense for the catalyst as the, uhm, catalyst for the realization of this role/fate to appear in this form.

In the end, I don't think that the catalyst's form impacts the plot deeply: It could have appeared in a different form without changing anything in the whole plot, only the flavor of the scenes. I wouldn't have interpreted the final scene differently if the catalyst appeared as, say, the Virmire casuality, as some have been suggesting. However, the conversation would probably have to be rewritten, because the simplicity and ambiguity of the dialog as it is would not fit an adult appearance well in my opinion.

[Dragoonlordz]

It serves it purpose as a plot device. I do not love it but I also do not hate it.

I just think could of done with more foreshadowing.

[DiebytheSword]

I'm mostly fine with it, especially since I accept the whole last part of that debacle taking place in Shepard's head. The AI forced itself in Shepard's mind and because the Crucible changed the Catalyst it had to present these options to Shepard.

When the endings were first encountered, I was annoyed at its unfounded claims and circular logic, but I accepted that the AI is only the result a fallible entity creating it. It never bothered me that much. The end result of the encounter pre-EC was annoyingly railroaded. I had no choice but to end things on its terms, and none of them sounded particularly good.

After the EC I was a little less hesitant to pick a color. After Leviathan I was shown I was right about the nature of the Catalyst.

Priority Earth as a whole and the endings in particular still don't sit well with me, especially Destroy getting extra bad tacked on for no real good reason other than to balance it with the other endings.