381 réponses à ce sujet

[AtreiyaN7]

*sees umpteenth iteration of this topic, rolls her eyes, and wanders back to the DA:I forums*

Sometimes I regret checking topic titles that pop up in my feed - this is one of those times.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

StreetMagic wrote...


Dude, I need to bring you to the Red side. You're too cool for this. You've got Jack as an LI too. "I will destroy you!" You got to stop believing Shepard lost his limbs. I barely believe he's alive myself, but together.. we can believe.

If it means anything, I do have two pro-Destroy Shepards... versus one Control, one Sync, and one shot dead by TIM.

It just doesn't fit the profile of my "main" character in these kinds of games, which tends to a more pragmatic and progressive ideology. I admire the brutal efficiency behind Destroy and the imagined reunions to follow, but that's about it.


But I appreciate the offer... :happy:

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 02 novembre 2013 - 05:36 .

[Reorte]

AlanC9 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Control (the EC ending) would prove that wrong. If they were programmed at "birth" to follow the Catalyst's set directive and become true believers [sic] of that, they wouldn't be able to switch gears to something entirely different. The only thing the Reapers are programmed to do is whatever the Catalyst wants them to do -- which, apparently, is quite flexible.

This probably takes the form of a sort of imprint at creation, rather than continuously being receptive to orders from the Catalyst. Otherwise you wouldn't need to propagate anything in Control. This also gets around the infamous "why couldn't the Catalyst offer a ceasefire" problem.

@ElSuperGecko: if something like this is all you were arguing, we don't have a real disagreement. I think that Reapers have individuality, but only within constraints.

Something like that would make the most sense IMO. The Reapers have to be created to follow the Catalyst in some way or another. Constantly forcing them to co-operate would be risky and require a lot of effort, as would them being dumb remote-controlled machines. Why create something that you'd have to continuously coerce against its nature to follow you when you could just create it to agree with your goals in the first place? That leaves the Reapers as essentially fully-functioning autonomous beings, they just happen to be built with a given mindset. They can't be "freed" from that because that's what they fundamentally are.

From time to time the Catalyst is going to have to step in, so there needs to be some means of Control. IMO the most likely explanation is that the Reapers were created to view the Catalyst as some sort of god, so they'll happily go along with whatever it says (which raises the issue in Control as to whether they would start to have doubts if there's a complete U-turn in behaviour from it, telling them to act entirely against their instincts and mindset).

[Navasha]

You might also consider that the Reapers might have been created with absolutely no knowledge of the Catalyst at all. The catalyst might have avoided the whole idea of "rebellion" of the created by masking his existence from that at all. You can't really rebel if you have no target.

It simply created them believing they always existed, which is what Sovereign says to Shepard in ME1. He gave them their domineering attitudes and tasked them with "preserving life". They may have handled it from there. The catalyst has no concept of right or wrong as we know it, so as long as they seemed to be carrying out their objective, there would be no reason to ever interfere. If its one thing machines are good at is carrying out repetitive ordered tasks.

If this is the case they were never actually controlled before. Using the Control crucible actually enslaves them for the first time. Indoctrinating the Indoctrinators, so to speak.

[AlanC9]

Reorte wrote...
From time to time the Catalyst is going to have to step in, so there needs to be some means of Control. IMO the most likely explanation is that the Reapers were created to view the Catalyst as some sort of god, so they'll happily go along with whatever it says (which raises the issue in Control as to whether they would start to have doubts if there's a complete U-turn in behaviour from it, telling them to act entirely against their instincts and mindset).

Right. That's why I figure Control needs to alter the Reapers themselves, rather than just swap out the Catalyst.

[DARKRIDERxETFG]

 I hated the destroy ending because i did it without realizing it would wipe out the geth as well. Iknow they were enemies for 95 percent of the trilogy but they were still really cool and edi got killed off in that ending to! just not very good at all in my opinion

[Reorte]

AlanC9 wrote...

Reorte wrote...
From time to time the Catalyst is going to have to step in, so there needs to be some means of Control. IMO the most likely explanation is that the Reapers were created to view the Catalyst as some sort of god, so they'll happily go along with whatever it says (which raises the issue in Control as to whether they would start to have doubts if there's a complete U-turn in behaviour from it, telling them to act entirely against their instincts and mindset).

Right. That's why I figure Control needs to alter the Reapers themselves, rather than just swap out the Catalyst.

Could be, that would work. Whatever happens the blue beam has to somehow get the message through to them of "Stop fighting and await further instructions."