447 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

Yeah I suppose I took "the story" as meaning "the Reaper plot."

[AlanC9]

The main problem with doing the handwave is that it's not appropriate for SF, where you're supposed to deliver the goods in the end. It's OK in fantasy; sort of the storytelling equivalent of "a wizard did it."

But of course, Bio did borrow some Cthulhu tropes. It's not crazy to have inferred that Bio meant the Reapers to actually be Cthulhuesque in the end, even though Bio never did intend that. Add this one to the list of aspects of ME that Bio saw one way and large numbers of fans saw another way.

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 novembre 2013 - 04:07 .

[ElSuperGecko]

CronoDragoon wrote...
Actually no, because we didn't have an explanation yet. There's nothing from which to make sense. What would it mean for the Reapers to "make sense" when we don't know anything about them?

Note that I'm not saying the Catalyst entirely makes sense, either.

We know enough about them in ME and ME2 for the story/plot to make sense.

ME1 their motives are unknown, but we know they're overseeing the development of the galaxy and harvesting the technologically advanced races; that's enough for us to know that we have to stop them.

ME2 we learn that they harvest civilisations to make more of themselves.  That each Reaper has been created from a single race; that they're targeting humanity next, that's enough for us to know that we have to stop them.

If anything, the Catalyst's peculiar line of bull and flawed logic does nothing but muddy the waters.  Distracts us from what was the immediate goal all along - the survival of the races in the galaxy.

[CronoDragoon]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

We know enough about them in ME and ME2 for the story/plot to make sense.

ME1 their motives are unknown, but we know they're overseeing the development of the galaxy and harvesting the technologically advanced races; that's enough for us to know that we have to stop them.

ME2 we learn that they harvest civilisations to make more of themselves.  That each Reaper has been created from a single race; that they're targeting humanity next, that's enough for us to know that we have to stop them.

Knowing you have to stop them is not the same thing as the information making sense. Does the Human Reaper make sense?

If anything, the Catalyst's peculiar line of bull and flawed logic does nothing but muddy the waters.  Distracts us from what was the immediate goal all along - the survival of the races in the galaxy.

Nothing has changed. Nothing about the Catalyst changes the fact that you have to stop it/the cycles.

[AlanC9]

ElSuperGecko wrote...
If anything, the Catalyst's peculiar line of bull and flawed logic does nothing but muddy the waters.  Distracts us from what was the immediate goal all along - the survival of the races in the galaxy.

In addition to what CronoDragoon said, how can flawed logic muddy the waters? And even supposing it did, what's wrong with that? 

[ElSuperGecko]

CronoDragoon wrote...
Knowing you have to stop them is not the same thing as the information making sense. Does the Human Reaper make sense?

Made perfect sense to me:  direct intervention was necessary.  The Reaper's tried and tested Citadel Trap had failed.  They had lost their agent within the galaxy when Sovereign was destroyed, so (while making the long journey from dark space) attempted to build a new Reaper agent through the Collectors.  Had they succeeded, they could have caused untold damage and scattered resistance before their main force arrived.

Humanity's role in the destruction of Sovereign piqued their interest.. so they looked to us to replace Sovereign.

CronoDragoon wrote...
Nothing has changed. Nothing about the Catalyst changes the fact that you have to stop it/the cycles.

I agree with that sentiment entirely.  The Catalyst does attempt to influence how you plan to do that, however.

AlanC9 wrote...
In addition to what CronoDragoon said, how can flawed logic muddy the waters? And even supposing it did, what's wrong with that?

Presenting flawed logic as indisputable fact answers both your questions there.

[3DandBeyond]

iakus wrote...

Psychevore wrote...

Am I really the only one here who finds the Catalyst just ****g awesome? I don't think I've ever been so excited in a video game as I was when the Catalyst started telling his story.

To me the story kinda made sense from that point on.

Because face it, people, without the Catalyst the Reapers are horrible. Without the Catalyst they are purposeless machines hellbent on destroying all life.

Maybe that's what bothers people so much about the ending: that those horrible, life destroying monsters serve a purpose.

What bothers people is that it's a stupid purpose.  And we can't stop the Catalyst without signing on to some aspect of that purpose ourselves.

This exactly.  Also, prior to the kidalyst coming along the reapers were more like smoothtalking evil sharks playing with their food, taunting, and yet conversing with it.  Cool, evil, arrogant beings that didn't think we needed to know why they were doing what they were doing-they just wanted WANTED to kill organics.  And they didn't much like synthetics either but tolerated their adulation temporarily because they needed the slave labor to do the heavy lifting.

When glow boy arrived, these huge nightmarish creatures bent on "our" destruction became sock puppets being used for some stupid purpose that we'd spent big chunks of the game proving to be irrelevant and not true-the idea that organics and synthetics can't solve a conflict between themselves by themselves, even if that means synthetics are destroyed by organics or that a peace is forged through mutual need.  Its purpose is stupid.

Its purpose is not created by forming any foundations that show organics and synthetics cannot co-exist or that organics cannot totally destroy problem synthetics.  Its purpose was created by and needed Leviathans and their DLC to even sort of explain in a laughable way. 

I've said this before and will repeat it:

The Leviathans are gigantic dumb arrogant organics that are all about controlling other people/races.  They are afraid of synthetics that their controlled races keep creating because they keep killing organics and might kill them.  So, they control others and fear synthetics will destroy organics.  They create a synthetic they do not control that destroys them and organics.  Brilliant.  And this idiot is brought in at the end to tell us this is the purpose of the reapers and he gave them this purpose.  I may vomit.

The glow boy is so illogical as to make any kindergarten graduate look like a savant.  He was programmed to be super stupid by the dumbest apex race that has ever existed.  And this is what BW decided to use to end this trilogy.  I'd rather have a mysterious reason that just stands out as quite possibly more like Predator than this-monsters that just enjoy killing and don't even have the reason a shark may have-food.  Though the games prior to ME3's ending fully hinted that the reason for the killing was nutrition-based and reproduction-based.  And that in between the cycles the reapers were hibernating like many organic creatures do in between eating and breeding.

[AlanC9]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
In addition to what CronoDragoon said, how can flawed logic muddy the waters? And even supposing it did, what's wrong with that?

Presenting flawed logic as indisputable fact answers both your questions there.

Did they actually do that? We can accept it as highly probable that the Catalyst believes the logic he purports to believe; we can call that "indisputable fact," though I suppose there's a non-zero chance that there's some other explanation for the cycles which he isn't telling you.

But this doesn't mean he's right.

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...
If anything, the Catalyst's peculiar line of bull and flawed logic does nothing but muddy the waters.  Distracts us from what was the immediate goal all along - the survival of the races in the galaxy.

In addition to what CronoDragoon said, how can flawed logic muddy the waters? And even supposing it did, what's wrong with that? 

It muddies the waters because it detracts from the central goal which is survival of current organic life.  The "logic" is so much like a bait and switch ploy.  Don't pay attention to the problem over here-this is what you need to fix.  It's an old trick used to fool the elderly into parting with their money. 

The kid uses this convoluted idea of destroying advanced organic life in order to save all organic life from killer synthetics, rather than focusing on what real logic (if this was real) would say is the problem.  If synthetics are going to kill all organics then why is it that synthetics are sent to kill organics to fix this problem?  And if the goal is to keep synthetics from killing organics then why haven't the reapers been purposed with destroying or disabling all synthetics and then some communication being set up to let organics know that synthetics will inevitably rebel and set about to destroy all organic life?

The goal of organics is vastly different from the goal of the kid.  Survival which means the destruction of the reapers (based upon the only relevant POV that now exists-the organics that are advanced enough to understand what's happening) vs. destruction and some twisted idea of this leading to survival of other organic life (that is not the relevant POV at this time) based upon cycles. 

The point being that today I care about surviving.  Should I survive past today and this cataclysm, then I can devote time to the consideration of the lesser species that have not been advanced yet.  It's all about the kid seeing some future life as always more important (life that we care about but can't think of as we struggle to survive) than current life and those alive today believing that they also have a right to survive.  In fact current life looks back in horror at all the lives that have been taken up till this point.  The kid is in a never-ending loop of always trying to save some distant future life by using a slash and burn policy on current life. He dislikes evolution but keeps asserting it.

[ElSuperGecko]

AlanC9 wrote...
Did they actually do that? We can accept it as highly probable that the Catalyst believes the logic he purports to believe; we can call that "indisputable fact," though I suppose there's a non-zero chance that there's some other explanation for the cycles which he isn't telling you.

But this doesn't mean he's right.

I never said the Catalyst was right.  What I'm saying is it presents it's reasoning and logic as indisputable fact (Destroy - "the chaos will return" / Synthesis - "it is inevitable, the perfect solution" etc).  And yet we know it's logic is fundamentally flawed.

Either believes it's calculations and logic are right, or it is feeding us misinformation an a deliberate trying to deceive us.  Either way it is trying to influence our decision - thereby "muddying the waters".

3DandBeyond wrote...
It muddies the waters because it detracts from the central goal which is survival of current organic life.  The "logic" is so much like a bait and switch ploy.  Don't pay attention to the problem over here-this is what you need to fix.  It's an old trick used to fool the elderly into parting with their money. 

I like this human!  He (or she) understands!

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 07 novembre 2013 - 05:45 .

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...
The glow boy is so illogical as to make any kindergarten graduate look like a savant.  He was programmed to be super stupid by the dumbest apex race that has ever existed.  And this is what BW decided to use to end this trilogy.  I'd rather have a mysterious reason that just stands out as quite possibly more like Predator than this-monsters that just enjoy killing and don't even have the reason a shark may have-food.  Though the games prior to ME3's ending fully hinted that the reason for the killing was nutrition-based and reproduction-based.  And that in between the cycles the reapers were hibernating like many organic creatures do in between eating and breeding.

The problem with hibernation is that you do it in winter when it's hard to find food. The Reapers are creating their own winter and making themselves hibernate. As a deliberate strategy it's non-rational.

I do kind of like the idea of the Reapers just enjoying killing, though. That one almost works. They let organic life advance to the point where it can actually fight back because a proper war is more fun. But then the Citadel trap is a bit too good, isn't it?

I wonder if this goes back to how one reacted to meeting Sovereign in ME1. What I took away from that speech was that he didn't actually know why they were doing what they were doing. Some rational purpose had been mangled somehow into incoherent nonsense, and the Reapers were just playing out a crazy program. I wasn't actually right about them not knowing, but I was pretty close.

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
In addition to what CronoDragoon said, how can flawed logic muddy the waters? And even supposing it did, what's wrong with that?

Presenting flawed logic as indisputable fact answers both your questions there.

Did they actually do that? We can accept it as highly probable that the Catalyst believes the logic he purports to believe; we can call that "indisputable fact," though I suppose there's a non-zero chance that there's some other explanation for the cycles which he isn't telling you.

But this doesn't mean he's right.

But he is set up in a way to force you to believe in all of this that he is right.  People have constantly told me that he is and that the proof of his "rightness" is the slides and the cutscenes that show how wonderful everything is once a choice has been made.  That supposedly means his logic (programmed into him by idiots) was right and the choices helped to solve his problem.

I fundamentally have problems with the whole thing because it's obviously flawed, the programming derived from fatally flawed giant goobers but it is presented as indisputable fact.  The disputable part comes from anyone with a passing interest in looking at the situation more closely or even in the "yo dawg" simplistic terms others have presented.  It's disputable because it's not logical.  But he's presented as an advanced AI, EDI in the one scenario seems to think this whole thing is just brilliant.

Of course, what's also kind of disputable is the idea first off of the problem as the kid was programmed to see it and then the idea of what solves it in some real way.  I think it's all a mess.  For me what is indisputable is that it's not real logic, but clearly BW wants us to think it's cool and makes sense.  You don't end a big trilogy in this way if you believe it's all nonsense.

[AlanC9]

ElSuperGecko wrote...
I never said the Catalyst was right.  What I'm saying is it presents it's reasoning and logic as indisputable fact (Destroy - "the chaos will return" / Synthesis - "it is inevitable, the perfect solution" etc).  And yet we know it's logic is fundamentally flawed.

Either believes it's calculations and logic are right, or it is feeding us misinformation an a deliberate trying to deceive us.  Either way it is trying to influence our decision - thereby "muddying the waters".

I still don't see the problem. Why wouldn't the Catalyst believe its calculations and logic are right? Shouldn't he believe that? What's wrong with him believing that?

And do we call the Catalyst "him" or "it"? I can never decide.

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 novembre 2013 - 05:51 .

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...
But he is set up in a way to force you to believe in all of this that he is right.  People have constantly told me that he is and that the proof of his "rightness" is the slides and the cutscenes that show how wonderful everything is once a choice has been made.  That supposedly means his logic (programmed into him by idiots) was right and the choices helped to solve his problem.

If anyone actually makes that argument he's an idiot. The Stargazer cutscene undermines the Catalyst's argument, if anything. The "chaos" doesn't come back. One can still believe that it will come back later, but no scene supports the proposition that super AIs will eventually.... etc.

Edit: though the cutscenes do support the idea that the Crucible does what he said it would do.

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 novembre 2013 - 06:07 .

[Deathsaurer]

I don't think anything points to its conclusions about why the conflicts keep occurring or its methods for stopping it are ever presented as being "right". I don't think any faction in Mass Effect is ever presented as being right all the time. You can easily point to mistakes everyone has made.

[ElSuperGecko]

AlanC9 wrote...
I still don't see the problem. Why wouldn't the Catalyst believe its calculations and logic are right? Shouldn't he believe that? What's wrong with him believing that?

And do we call the Catalyst "him" or "it"? I can never decide.

The Catalyst believing... wait, that's the wrong word.  Self-doubt is not a trait the Catalyst is familiar with.

As far as it is concerned, it is right.  Destroy solves nothing.  Control changes little.  Synthesis solves everything.  Refusing to make a choice... it couldn't care less.  All based on it's own calculations and logic.

Now , you ask what is wrong with it making deductions in that manner?  Simple - that kind of single-minded programmed certainty has led directly to the atrocities we've witnessed throughout the game.

See:   - that's the Catalyst's doing.

See:  http://youtu.be/si_P8BypaUk?t=25s - the Catalyst's doing.

See:   - it's ALL the Catalyst's doing.

And so forth and so on.  The entire Reaper harvest - the cycle of extinction that has spanned millenia and wiped out billions is based on the Catalyst's unflinching belief in it's own faulty logic.

BTW - we call it "it".  Always "it".  (preferably with a s-h prefix).

Deathsaurer wrote...
I don't think anything points to its conclusions about why the conflicts keep occurring or its methods for stopping it are ever presented as being "right". I don't think any faction in Mass Effect is ever presented as being right all the time. You can easily point to mistakes everyone has made.

Absolutely - in fact, everything we learn over the course of the series points to the Catalyst as being dead wrong.  Repeatedly, tragically and unforgivably wrong.  Unfortunately, it doesn't see things that way.  As far as it's concerned, it's logic is flawless and it's conclusions inevitable, Synthesis is the perfect solution and we should just jump happily into the Big Green Beam ™, grateful for the opportunity it has given us to solve the dialemma it's unquestionalbly accurate calculations have uncovered forever.

 

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 07 novembre 2013 - 06:11 .

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
The glow boy is so illogical as to make any kindergarten graduate look like a savant.  He was programmed to be super stupid by the dumbest apex race that has ever existed.  And this is what BW decided to use to end this trilogy.  I'd rather have a mysterious reason that just stands out as quite possibly more like Predator than this-monsters that just enjoy killing and don't even have the reason a shark may have-food.  Though the games prior to ME3's ending fully hinted that the reason for the killing was nutrition-based and reproduction-based.  And that in between the cycles the reapers were hibernating like many organic creatures do in between eating and breeding.

The problem with hibernation is that you do it in winter when it's hard to find food. The Reapers are creating their own winter and making themselves hibernate. As a deliberate strategy it's non-rational.

I do kind of like the idea of the Reapers just enjoying killing, though. That one almost works. They let organic life advance to the point where it can actually fight back because a proper war is more fun. But then the Citadel trap is a bit too good, isn't it?

I wonder if this goes back to how one reacted to meeting Sovereign in ME1. What I took away from that speech was that he didn't actually know why they were doing what they were doing. Some rational purpose had been mangled somehow into incoherent nonsense, and the Reapers were just playing out a crazy program. I wasn't actually right about them not knowing, but I was pretty close.

My idea of Sovereign was of total arrogance and a kind of greed of purpose.  He'd use anyone and anything just for the pleasure of torturing them.  It fit him properly to have the heretic geth worship him, not knowing that their god reviled them.  I found that to be kind of cool and fit the idea of having a concept of right and wrong, but not caring at all.  They defined what was right for them and everything else was beneath them--as I've said it was sort of like a discussion over an ant in one episode of Babylon 5.  One of the coolest discussions from that show-where the idea was that the ant could not understand what had happened to it if a person picked it up and put it back down again-the ant could not explain to other ants what had happened.  And this was in relation to some evil that was present in the galaxy that could not be explained just like people were like the ants and could not understand everything.

As for hibernation, sure here on Earth hibernation occurs in the winter but it is cyclical coming when food sources are likely to be reduced and when other food has been used to build up the animal to overwinter the lean season.  But I'm not someone that has always believed everything has to be explained in a human-centric way.  Sometimes for understanding you do have to use the human POV to explain things (like saying an AI believes things or that humanity is this or that), but I find other uses of it to be silly.  For instance, scientists today focus on looking more for life that is similar to organic life rather than explaining that they're just using that as one marker.  They look for water as we know it or for signs that water may have been part of an organic eco-system.  They don't often mention that they're looking at the same time for other possible signs of life-and this may be in part due to a perception that the audience has been dumbed down.  One telling point is that NASA thought they'd discovered an arsenic based lifeform here on Earth-it was later believed that was wrong.

So, bottom line is I used the term hibernation but not meaning the same thing it implies.  Imagine if that were their (the reapers') intent-and they actually fed on organics for the mind energy and bred using organic materials altered and reconfigured to create reaper shells.  They then left tech around to build up or feed the herd again for the next harvest.  It makes sense-and also fit the fish analogy they kept throwing out there.  At fish farms people cull the fish population, and breed more, wait for them to be replenished and keep repeating the cycle.  I'm not saying this would have been my preferred thing, but it made more sense to me than the kid-and it had more foundation.

[AlanC9]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Now , you ask what is wrong with it making deductions in that manner?  Simple - that kind of single-minded programmed certainty has led directly to the atrocities we've witnessed throughout the game.

I meant wrong for the game, not wrong for the MEU.

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
But he is set up in a way to force you to believe in all of this that he is right.  People have constantly told me that he is and that the proof of his "rightness" is the slides and the cutscenes that show how wonderful everything is once a choice has been made.  That supposedly means his logic (programmed into him by idiots) was right and the choices helped to solve his problem.

If anyone actually makes that argument he's an idiot. The Stargazer cutscene undermines the Catalyst's argument, if anything. The "chaos" doesn't come back. One can still believe that it will come back later, but no scene supports the proposition that super AIs will eventually.... etc.

Except people have constantly made that argument AND that the stargazer scene was never intended to mean what you're saying it means.

In the Final Hours app and data mining done of the game's text it was meant to take place 10k years in the future and was after a galactic dark ages brought on by the crucible. 

Even without that it doesn't mean the conflict or chaos didn't return.  We have no context presented to tell us who those people are and just know that takes place in the future at some point.  We don't know (without info from data mining or anything else) that it's not right before a new cycle and that these are human beings.  They could be any bipedal race for all we know.

Your last statement is what fully undermines him and his logic--but I'd go further and it is largely what is wrong with him and his "logic" as a whole.  There is nothing that supports the idea that super AIs or synthetics will eventually, inevitably, always, or ever do anythiing.  That's the main point.  He was programmed to "believe" an eventuality that I do not believe, nor does the Shepard I played (with all the dialogue BW created that I had Shepard say) believe in this eventuality.  But in the end, we are forced to just go along with it, to accept that the Leviathan programmed catalyst logic matters, that the reapers were a solution to help solve this problem, and that the choices also serve this problem which we must now also serve.  There is no logic to it and no logical way to dispute it, no way to argue with a fundamentally flawed program created by fundamentally flawed organics.  And then the cutscenes pop up and say it's all good and then the slides show just how wonderful life now is-an affirmation of the choices fixing things.  The stargazer pops up and disputes nothing that we're shown-it's ambiguous and basically just says everything worked out well for now.

[Deathsaurer]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

As far as it is concerned, it is right.  Destroy solves nothing.  Control changes little.  Synthesis solves everything.  Refusing to make a choice... it couldn't care less.  All based on it's own calculations and logic.

Genophage modification program. I mean if this sort of thing didn't happen in other places I could see this as a valid complaint but computer models and confirmation bias are clearly a legit tactic in Mass Effect. And shocker the dubious intentioned extremist of an antagonist took it to horrifying extremes.

Now , you ask what is wrong with it making deductions in that manner?  Simple - that kind of single-minded programmed certainty has led directly to the atrocities we've witnessed throughout the game.

And the Reapers doing it for the evulz is better? Keep in mind I think the Reapers in general were a mistake because they're in the wrong genre. Sounds cool in theory but when you get into actually fighting them it degrades into a giant mess.

[3DandBeyond]

Deathsaurer wrote...

I don't think anything points to its conclusions about why the conflicts keep occurring or its methods for stopping it are ever presented as being "right". I don't think any faction in Mass Effect is ever presented as being right all the time. You can easily point to mistakes everyone has made.

The programming is presented as being "right".  Shepard does not really discuss this further with the Leviathans-that the reapers are a bad choice to solve the problem and the Leviathans don't even seem to believe they're a bad solution.  The kid presents them as being right as a solution, but that they are no longer a solution so he needs new ones.  The crucible gives him new ones.  The idea that "our" goal is supplanted by "his/its/their" goal doesn't make that the right goal but it makes it THE goal.  And since the ending scenes and slides show things as mostly happy, the idea is that ultimately solving the problem of organics vs. synthetics was the right problem to solve.  The choices kept it from being about destroying the reapers which up until the point where glowboy popped up was the "right" thing and made it about solving the problem he was programmed to solve. 

The endings made stopping the chaos/conflict the "right" thing.  But I say it was never that and so that's why the endings fall flat for me.  I had a goal and wanted endings that revolved around how good a job I did at achieving that and about who I was able to bring back alive with me, if anyone at all.  Success, failure, death, survival, and rebuilding.  Not about solving a problem that was not even central to the story as I saw it.

[sharkboy421]

AlanC9 wrote...
But of course, Bio did borrow some Cthulhu tropes. It's not crazy to have inferred that Bio meant the Reapers to actually be Cthulhuesque in the end, even though Bio never did intend that. Add this one to the list of aspects of ME that Bio saw one way and large numbers of fans saw another way.

Did they really not intend for that?  They borrowed heavily from the ideas of cosmic horror, the best known example of that is indeed Cthulhu. 

In ME2 we get the line on the derelict reaper mission "Even a dead god can dream."  I personally have a hard time seeing that as anything but a direct reference to Lovecraft's "The Call of Cthulhu". 

If they didn't intend for the Reapers to be seen "mecha-Cthulhus" then I feel they did a really poor job of portrayal.

[Deathsaurer]

3DandBeyond wrote...


The programming is presented as being "right".

It's presented as believing it is right. I'll give it that synthetic/organic conflicts do repeatedly occur but I don't think it understands the reasons because it can't understand organics.

Shepard does not really discuss this further with the Leviathans-that the reapers are a bad choice to solve the problem and the Leviathans don't even seem to believe they're a bad solution.

I've always told them the AI was a mistake. They even call what it did a betrayal regardless if they think it's still following its programming.

The kid presents them as being right as a solution, but that they are no longer a solution so he needs new ones.  The crucible gives him new ones.  The idea that "our" goal is supplanted by "his/its/their" goal doesn't make that the right goal but it makes it THE goal.  And since the ending scenes and slides show things as mostly happy, the idea is that ultimately solving the problem of organics vs. synthetics was the right problem to solve.  The choices kept it from being about destroying the reapers which up until the point where glowboy popped up was the "right" thing and made it about solving the problem he was programmed to solve. 

I can see how you can come to that conclusion but I've never looked at it that way. What it wanted never factored into my decisions. I don't care that it thinks it's right and everything it did was justifible and no one should. I simply said to myself if this is what is required to stop the Reapers then so be it. Also going to note the amended congratulations plaque is about stopping the Reapers not "chaos".

The endings made stopping the chaos/conflict the "right" thing.  But I say it was never that and so that's why the endings fall flat for me.  I had a goal and wanted endings that revolved around how good a job I did at achieving that and about who I was able to bring back alive with me, if anyone at all.  Success, failure, death, survival, and rebuilding.  Not about solving a problem that was not even central to the story as I saw it.

Can't help you there.

Modifié par Deathsaurer, 07 novembre 2013 - 06:34 .

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
If anyone actually makes that argument he's an idiot. The Stargazer cutscene undermines the Catalyst's argument, if anything. The "chaos" doesn't come back. One can still believe that it will come back later, but no scene supports the proposition that super AIs will eventually.... etc.

Except people have constantly made that argument AND that the stargazer scene was never intended to mean what you're saying it means.

People constantly making a silly argument just means there are a lot of idiots. And what I said it was intended to mean is that everything worked out fine.... eventually.

In the Final Hours app and data mining done of the game's text it was meant to take place 10k years in the future and was after a galactic dark ages brought on by the crucible. 

Even without that it doesn't mean the conflict or chaos didn't return.  We have no context presented to tell us who those people are and just know that takes place in the future at some point.  We don't know (without info from data mining or anything else) that it's not right before a new cycle and that these are human beings.  They could be any bipedal race for all we know.

I didn't argue against any of this. See the italed sentence. The scene doesn't support the proposition that the chaos willl come back. It's possible that the scene is misleading and the Stargazer's universe is doomed, sure. But the scene doesn't offer any evidence that this will happen.

But in the end, we are forced to just go along with it, to accept that the Leviathan programmed catalyst logic matters, that the reapers were a solution to help solve this problem, and that the choices also serve this problem which we must now also serve.  There is no logic to it and no logical way to dispute it, no way to argue with a fundamentally flawed program created by fundamentally flawed organics.

Yep. We can't argue with it. As a matter of RP we should have; though neither my Shepards nor I would have expected to actually get anywhere with an argument, it would have been fun to make the Catalyst do a handwave (assuming peace at Rannoch, of course).

And then the cutscenes pop up and say it's all good and then the slides show just how wonderful life now is-an affirmation of the choices fixing things.  The stargazer pops up and disputes nothing that we're shown-it's ambiguous and basically just says everything worked out well for now.

Does Destroy fix things, or not? Again, the substance of the Catalyst's postion is that it won't, not that it will.

[JamesFaith]

sharkboy421 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
But of course, Bio did borrow some Cthulhu tropes. It's not crazy to have inferred that Bio meant the Reapers to actually be Cthulhuesque in the end, even though Bio never did intend that. Add this one to the list of aspects of ME that Bio saw one way and large numbers of fans saw another way.

Did they really not intend for that?  They borrowed heavily from the ideas of cosmic horror, the best known example of that is indeed Cthulhu. 

In ME2 we get the line on the derelict reaper mission "Even a dead god can dream."  I personally have a hard time seeing that as anything but a direct reference to Lovecraft's "The Call of Cthulhu". 

If they didn't intend for the Reapers to be seen "mecha-Cthulhus" then I feel they did a really poor job of portrayal.

Yet it not work for everyone.

I read many stories from Lovecraft, Cthulhu included, yet I never saw Reapers as space Cthulhu. There were machines, machines have to be built by someone and this fact just turn all Sovereigns talks about "no beginning" in arrogant claims for me.

I always  saw them as some failed experiment, never as Cthulhu like creatures.