506 réponses à ce sujet

[KingZayd]

David7204 wrote...

Having the Crucible be a Reaper crap makes utterly no sense.

As I've said countless times, the Catalyst has no reason to lie. Hence, you don't need to 'metagame' to trust that the three options will do what he says they will do.

Sovereign had no reason to lie. If the Crucible can ruin the Starchild's plans, then yes it does have a reason to lie.

[AresKeith]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I see no reason why it wouldn't be capable of lying.

If it was capable of lying about the choices, it would have no reason to present you with Destroy and Control. Or, to quote another post I read on these boards - "if you can't trust it, there's no reason to believe that shooting the tube won't just cause toxic gas to pour out all over Shepard, or that the electrodes it wants you to grasp are simply live wires."

You don't think Shepard would notice the control section and Destroy tube and not ask about them

[David7204]

KingZayd wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Having the Crucible be a Reaper crap makes utterly no sense.

As I've said countless times, the Catalyst has no reason to lie. Hence, you don't need to 'metagame' to trust that the three options will do what he says they will do.

Sovereign had no reason to lie. If the Crucible can ruin the Starchild's plans, then yes it does have a reason to lie.

Not to Shepard. If the Catalyst wanted Shepard dead or helpless, he would have just left Shepard to die.

[PsyrenY]

AresKeith wrote...

You don't think Shepard would notice the control section and Destroy tube and not ask about them

Without the kid's help there isn't even a path leading to those sections. Unless Shepard plans to shoot every inch of the Crucible hoping something will happen there's no reason to think those were special.

[KingZayd]

David7204 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Having the Crucible be a Reaper crap makes utterly no sense.

As I've said countless times, the Catalyst has no reason to lie. Hence, you don't need to 'metagame' to trust that the three options will do what he says they will do.

Sovereign had no reason to lie. If the Crucible can ruin the Starchild's plans, then yes it does have a reason to lie.

Not to Shepard. If the Catalyst wanted Shepard dead or helpless, he would have just left Shepard to die.

For all we know, the Crucible brought him up there.

Why would the Starchild do it?

[AresKeith]

Optimystic_X wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

You don't think Shepard would notice the control section and Destroy tube and not ask about them

Without the kid's help there isn't even a path leading to those sections. Unless Shepard plans to shoot every inch of the Crucible hoping something will happen there's no reason to think those were special.

Well I was able to shoot the Tube perfectly from the corner of the path

[David7204]

And that's dumb to assume. For all we know, the Crucible did everything. For all we know, the Catalyst doesn't exist at all, and it's just a little instructional video played by the Crucible.

The Catalyst talked to Shepard because he wanted to talk. Simple as that.

[dreamgazer]

Optimystic_X wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

You don't think Shepard would notice the control section and Destroy tube and not ask about them

Without the kid's help there isn't even a path leading to those sections. Unless Shepard plans to shoot every inch of the Crucible hoping something will happen there's no reason to think those were special.

Without the kid's help, the last thing Shepard would think about doing is hopping into a giant blue beam. 

[The Night Mammoth]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I see no reason why it wouldn't be capable of lying.

If it was capable of lying about the choices, it would have no reason to present you with Destroy and Control. Or, to quote another post I read on these boards - "if you can't trust it, there's no reason to believe that shooting the tube won't just cause toxic gas to pour out all over Shepard, or that the electrodes it wants you to grasp are simply live wires."

I didn't say I believed it was lying, just that I understand if people think it might be. It's the leader of an enemy who base a lot of their plans on deception, and, respective to the choice I know you and others make, Synthesis, and Control perhaps more so, are a little 'out of the blue'. When the literal master of the Reapers starts telling you about controlling the Reapers so soon after the Illusive Man's death, and about Synthesis, which the meaning and effects of aren't exactly clear I'd think you'd admit, some people are still in the 'us versus them with no compromise' mindset. Which is understandable; not everyone cares about theme and subtext.

It's a slippery slope because it's pretty close the basis of the Indoctrination Theory, and I'm not blind to the fact that refusing three options but choosing another (usually Destroy) with this justification could be hypocritical, but if you've got to make a choice, it's a safer bet to leap for the ledge you think looks better. 

[KingZayd]

David7204 wrote...

And that's dumb to assume. For all we know, the Crucible did everything. For all we know, the Catalyst doesn't exist at all, and it's just a little instructional video played by the Crucible.

The Catalyst talked to Shepard because he wanted to talk. Simple as that.

It's not an assumption. It's a possibility. You're the one assuming the Starchild did it. Why?

But it's not just talk is it? The Starchild is supposedly enabling Shepard to destroy it and everything it has made. He was trying to kill Shepard just a bit ago. Why the change?

[David7204]

Because nothing else makes sense.

If the Catalyst wanted to stop Shepard or deceive him or kill him, it could have done so a thousand different ways. Instead, he admits to being the leader of the Reapers and presents Shepard with Destroy point-blank.

Plus, that would be ridiculously specific instructions embedded into the Crucible.

Plus, if the Crucible has so much control over the Citadel's functions, why wouldn't it just fire Destroy right out of the gate? Why would the Destroy option exist on the Citadel in the first place?

I'm not saying it's well done. Because it isn't. But the idea is that the Catalyst is handing the choice over to Shepard because he acknowledges Shepard knows or understands something he doesn't, because the current cycle defied his expectations.

Modifié par David7204, 09 mai 2013 - 07:32 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I don't think the Catalyst is lying about any of the choices, though I don't think he's being logical or even intelligent.

I think he tells you about destroy because it's an option and I think he's programmed to provide the the truth. I really don't think he's all that advanced of a machine.

I think that he too fails in understanding perspective of organics, as he claims other synthetics do. I think he legitimately believes that Shepard will see from his perspective. He lacks emotion and empathy. He was programmed with a problem that was basically unsolvable, and he's trying to continue to solve it. He's not insane. He's not advanced enough to be insane. But he provides no reason to trust his preferences. He doesn't give a method to how he came to understand the problem or reach the solution that synthesis is inevitable. The way he explains synthesis is logically, biologically, and scientifically impossible and unsound. And I just plain don't think he understands perspective. For all I know, synthesis could turn everyone into husks. This could suit the idea of perfection (as the Reapers view themselves as perfect), as well as ensure that no conflict ever arises by "preserving" all races and making them incapable of independence as a Reaper automaton. It does solve the problem for the Catalysts, as a "perfect" solution from a certain point of view: Everyone is "preserved" in their husk/Reaper form, everyone is "perfected" as a Reaper husk, and conflict is no longer possible since everything is a husk already, making them incapable of initiating conflict.

Is that what actually happens? No. But my Shepard doesn't know that. What he hears from the Catalyst sounds exactly like that. He doesn't believe the Catalyst is lying to him, but he feels the Catalyst has an incompatible viewpoint. He knows that the beam is not the thing to do. He also believes that the Reapers have sentience (and willfully do what they do), but are still bound to the control code of the Catalyst. So the Reapers are (far) more advanced than the Catalyst, but still bound to its control via programming.

So am I going to take a chance with a solution based off a perspective that has an entirely different and alien approach than mine? I have no idea what the Catalyst means. So I don't trust his opinion. He isn't going to force it on the galaxy either, nor is he going to accept Control. He doesn't know what will happen there either. For all he knows, he may become a Reaper master who, with a sudden influx in information and a change in perspective due to his new nature, might necessitate and further propagate the cycle by reaching the same conclusions. Alternatively, the only other solution to the program is to enforce a Reaper controlling situation on the galaxy, and to essentially create a police state where growth and advancement are stunted by the omnipresent, omniscient, and near-omnipotent presence of the Reapers. So Control is out of the question as well.

And my Shepard isn't going to take a solution that is going to kill him. It's too easy to envision how the Catalyst might, just might be bull****ting him into dying. I don't think that's what's happening, but Shepard isn't going to just surrender himself to fate "because it makes the galaxy better and solves my problem", which is of course in the words of the enemy. An enemy who's ideas of "better" and "peace" are completely unknown.

That's how my Shepard sees it. He's shooting the pipe without hesitation. It's the best defined outcome, it's easily the most desirable outcome by the rest of the galaxy's opinion, and though it has its drawbacks with the deaths of Synthetics everywhere and temporarily putting the Relays out of commission, it also leaves a lot of Reaper tech laying around to exploit. And it frees the galaxy forever from the Reapers shadow. The Reapers themselves are dead. The empty husks of ships are nothing more than empty hulks with technology. We start a new and fresh, to build the future for ourselves. And the Reapers and their genocidal plans are forever ended. And yes, it does satisfy the need for vengeance and justice, outrage at the terror and cycles of obliteration that the Reapers have inflicted upon the galaxy. The Reapers don't get a voice. They never gave one to any of the other thousands of races they annihilated.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 09 mai 2013 - 07:49 .

[KingZayd]

David7204 wrote...

Because nothing else makes sense.

If the Catalyst wanted to stop Shepard or deceive him or kill him, it could have done so a thousand different ways. Instead, he admits to being the leader of the Reapers and presents Shepard with Destroy point-blank.

Plus, that would be ridiculously specific instructions embedded into the Crucible.

Plus, if the Crucible has so much control over the Citadel's functions, why wouldn't it just fire Destroy right out of the gate? Why would the Destroy option exist on the Citadel in the first place?

I'm not saying it's well done. Because it isn't. But the idea is that the Catalyst is handing the choice over to Shepard because he acknowledges Shepard knows or understands something he doesn't, because the current cycle defied his expectations.

That explanation doesn't make sense either. So why is this faulty explanation better than the others?

What different ways? If it couldn't stop Shepard from getting that far anyway, what makes you think it could him in in a thousand different ways? He never tells Shepard how to destroy the Reapers, he only says it's possible.

The reason the Starchild gives is that Shepard by being there, proves the old solution won't work any more. But if the Starchild brought him up, then he's the only reason Shepard is up there anyway. The old solution did work, as Shepard had passed out and the Crucible didn't activate.

Personally the explanation that makes the most sense to me, is: The Crucible was working, and the Starchild tricked Shepard into sabotaging the Crucible and almost certainly killing himself. Everything we see afterwards is just what Shepard hopes for as he dies.

[Argolas]

David7204 wrote...

There's nothing the Catalyst stands to gain by lying to Shepard.

Optimystic_X wrote...

If it was capable of lying about the choices, it would have no reason to present you with Destroy and Control. Or, to quote another post I read on these boards - "if you can't trust it, there's no reason to believe that shooting the tube won't just cause toxic gas to pour out all over Shepard, or that the electrodes it wants you to grasp are simply live wires."

This is also wrong. The point of the exchange is that the Catalyst is handing the choice over to Shepard, freely and willingly. Including the choice to Destroy him.

It's not concerned about it's own 'survival.' It has no sense of self-preservation.

Not outright lie. Manipulation. Telling Shepard "jump into the beam to destroy the reapers" isn't enough. Shepard must willingly accept actual Reaper doctrine, consciously or otherwise. That's indoctrination.

There are many questionable things the Catalyst says during the conversation that look disturbing when you look at them more closely than Shepard does (who shows very weak resistance and just nods to everything the Catalyst says most of the time). Just an example:

Shepard: "We'd rather keep our own form."
Catalyst: "No, you can't."

A few seconds later, it presents us three choices that all suggest that we can. It's weird, isn't it? Before the EC, there even was no choice at all that allowed the harvest to continue, so why would the Catalyst say something like that?

Because it's manipulation. It never lied, it presents facts in a way that favors the Reapers and their preferred solutions. It's not all a dream, but it's an indoctrination attempt.

Modifié par Argolas, 09 mai 2013 - 07:43 .

[David7204]

It obviously presented information to favor it's viewpoint, as we all do. But there's no denying that it also presented Shepard with Destory, clearly and explicitly.

What exactly do you think Shepard should say to the Catalyst saying "No, you can't."?

Modifié par David7204, 09 mai 2013 - 07:52 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

It obviously presented information to favor it's viewpoint, as we all do. But there's no denying that it also presented Shepard with Destory, clearly and explicitly.

What exactly do you think Shepard should say to the Catalyst saying "No, you can't."?

Are you talking to me? I pretty much stated why I won't listen to the Catalyst.

[Argolas]

David7204 wrote...

It obviously presented information to favor it's viewpoint, as we all do. But there's no denying that it also presented Shepard with Destory, clearly and explicitly.

What exactly do you think Shepard should say to the Catalyst saying "No, you can't."?

That's not what I meant, situations where Shepard should have responded differently is the stupid fire analogy or when he said "So TIM was right after all". The significance of that "No, you can't" is this: "You are getting harvested no matter what." Any deal the Catalyst is going to offer contains "You are not allowed to keep your own form". In Control and Synthesis, Shepard willingly gives up his form.

Destroy must be presented because Indoctrination only works when the Reaper doctrine is accepted willingly, that means an alternative is required. Presenting Destroy to Shepard is a risk no less stupid than setting up the beam in London in the first place instead of completely sealing the Citadel, or simply having Harbinger kill Shepard instead of leaving the beam completely unguarded to rejoin a spacebattle that the Reapers were winning anyway. Maybe it's arrogance, but indoctrination not being involved in the ending at all is unbelievable to me. Shepard literally suffers about every single known symptome of indoctrination: Buzzing and ringing in the ears, oily shadows both in the dream sequences and on the screen during the endings, headaches while hearing whispers in your ears, and the corpse piles that look like Ashley and Kaidan left and right of the area where Shepard is after getting hit by Harbinger are most likely hallucinations. I'm none of the IT crowd claiming it's all a lie and the ending isn't real, but I am certain that indoctrination is going on.

Modifié par Argolas, 09 mai 2013 - 08:14 .

[Redbelle]

David7204 wrote...

It obviously presented information to favor it's viewpoint, as we all do. But there's no denying that it also presented Shepard with Destory, clearly and explicitly.

What exactly do you think Shepard should say to the Catalyst saying "No, you can't."?

I'm Commander Shepard space boy. I can do anything the developer's coded me to do. So thank the star's they want me dead or me and player's would have spanked you and your tin soldier's to Andromeda and back. With enough left over in the tank to get hamburger and fries.

.........what? You asked what I thought he should say!

Because ultimately, it doesn't matter what Shepard said. As a character the Catalyst has it's finger's lodged firmly in it's ear's whenever something that is not on it's agenda is mentioned.

Try and discuss the weather? "No, you can't".

Try and tell him that Org's and synth's have acheived an unparalled breakthrough in Org/synth relation's. "No, you can't".

Tell the Cat you need to use the little Shepard's room? "No you can't. We're here to discuss what I want and I want it now".

Excuse me Star Boy, Shep has top billing, your a bit support character who tries, and fails, to act the roles of Tracer Tong. Morgan Everett and Bob Page + Helios. It's small wonder the Cat's so confused. He's got multiple personality/conflicting agenda issues.

Want to talk about it? "No! You can't"!

Modifié par Redbelle, 09 mai 2013 - 08:31 .

[KingZayd]

Redbelle wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It obviously presented information to favor it's viewpoint, as we all do. But there's no denying that it also presented Shepard with Destory, clearly and explicitly.

What exactly do you think Shepard should say to the Catalyst saying "No, you can't."?

I'm Commander Shepard space boy. I can do anything the developer's coded me to do. So thank the star's they want me dead or me and player's would have spanked you and your tin soldier's to Andromeda and back. With enough left over in the tank to get hamburger and fries.

.........what? You asked what I thought he should say!

Because ultimately, it doesn't matter what Shepard said. As a character the Catalyst has it's finger's lodged firmly in it's ear's whenever something that is not on it's agenda is mentioned.

Try and discuss the weather? "No, you can't".

Try and tell him that Org's and synth's have acheived an unparalled breakthrough in Org/synth relation's. "No, you can't".

Tell the Cat you need to use the little Shepard's room? "No you can't. We're here to discuss what I want and I want it now".

Excuse me Star Boy, Shep has top billing, your a bit support character who tries, and fails, to act the roles of Tracer Tong. Morgan Everett and Bob Page + Helios. It's small wonder the Cat's so confused. He's got multiple personality/conflicting agenda issues.

Want to talk about it? "No! You can't"!

A better one would be:
"So be it." *shoots tube*

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

It obviously presented information to favor it's viewpoint, as we all do. But there's no denying that it also presented Shepard with Destory, clearly and explicitly.

What exactly do you think Shepard should say to the Catalyst saying "No, you can't."?

. "I couldn't go to Ilos, I couldn't return from the Omega 4 relay, I'd could never have made it this far.  Clearly what you think we can and can't do is irreverent"

[David7204]

That would just make Shepard look really, really, really stupid. The Catalyst could probably kill him in an instant by just depressurizing the room.

[KingZayd]

David7204 wrote...

That would just make Shepard look really, really, really stupid. The Catalyst could probably kill him in an instant by just depressurizing the room.

So why hasn't it ever used any of this power throughout the series?

[terdferguson123]

I absolutely HATE with every fiber of my being the term "Star-Child". It drives me crazy when people use it becuase they are using it in a way that shows they have no idea what is going on. It is the CATALYST, not the "star-child", it's a synthetic, an AI, it is not some magical being.

Onto my next point, the Catalyst has a perfectly reasonable explanation for what "he" is doing, given the fact that he is a synthetic or an AI or what have you. To him, melting a bunch of organics down to their genetic material and using it to fuel Reaper's is just as much of a method of preserving organics as them remaining alive and sentient, although now in this "form" they won't destroy themselves due to the probable nature that organics given enough time will eventually create something they cannot control. (The geth very nearly did this, imagine thousands of years later when there is no Commander Shepard to save the day and the technology is even more sophisticated.)

The point that needs to be made here: The Catalyst is just fine, his logic makes perfect sense from the perspective of a synthetic with no understanding of organic moral behavior. Which is what he is.

Next point, Mass Effect has always had many themes, the OP mentions that he feels survival was the theme as opposed to sacrifice (in contrast to the developers). They are both right, both are themes of the game, but where the OP is missing understanding here is that survival comes at the expense of sacrifice. Something that Mass Effect pounds home throughout all 3 games time and time again.

Lastly, the question of: "Why is the catalyst a human boy?" and to that I bring up another question, and one that Legion also brought up: Why does EDI take a characteristically similar "human" body as her physical form? Legion asks this question and even sais that it is inneficient. She does this because it is familiar to the crew of the ship, becuase she knows that it will alter the crews thoughts about her if she chooses this familiar form. The catalyst is no different, it knows that the form of a human boy is familiar to Shepard, and one that he will sympathize with, especially this particular boy.

Modifié par terdferguson123, 09 mai 2013 - 09:21 .

[David7204]

Because Shepard has never been greviously injured inside a room the Catalyst has control over before?

Modifié par David7204, 09 mai 2013 - 09:06 .

[dreamgazer]

terdferguson123 wrote...

I absolutely HATE with every fiber of my being the term "Star-Child". It drives me crazy when people use it becuase they are using it in a way that shows they have no idea what is going on. It is the CATALYST, not the "star-child", it's a synthetic, an AI, it is not some magical being.

"Starchild" is at least partly in reference to this.