447 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

ElSuperGecko wrote...
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.

No, they could not. Sovereign couldn't do this with the element of surprise on his side, but somehow a single Reaper is doing "untold destruction"? And I was referring more to the how of the Reaper than the why.

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

Agreed.

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

This is at the heart of every villain's belief system.

[Iakus]

Deathsaurer wrote...

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.

"There was no mistake.  It still serves its purpose"

Apex species?  More like Too Dumb to Live.

[Deathsaurer]

I seriously doubt they believe there was no mistake with the fact they say what it did was a betrayal. This comes off more as unwillingness to admit they can make mistakes.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Mecha-Cthulhu. That is why the final battle should have taken place in Tokyo instead of London. Godzilla! Godzilla vs. Harbinger! The battle at the beam! Don't forget Godzilla's special attack. Radiation, and it cooks things like reaper cores.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Deathsaurer wrote...

I seriously doubt they believe there was no mistake with the fact they say what it did was a betrayal. This comes off more as unwillingness to admit they can make mistakes.

I think that line was just there to tell the slow ones that the Catalyst is simply a bot following its set directives.

... that, as opposed to these wild interpretations of it as a rogue AI trying to dominate the galaxy for teh evuhlz.

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...


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

This is where the contradictions within the catalyst seem to come to a point.  Destroy is a solution to the problem but the catalyst seems to say it is not because the chaos will return.  But nothing he has ever attempted has been a permanent solution, either.  He says as much.  And even if Synthesis is his preferred solution (if he prefers things-again an organic trait), it too can be seen as temporary as well.  As I've said it only changes organics that apparently can be reached by the relays, but there are systems that are not reachable within the galaxy-so organics may not be changed there.  But let's presume all organic life is changed-internally tech and organic could "fight" just as much as the body can reject any foreign object and that foreign object may do toxic damage to the body.  That's speculation of course but based upon some reality.

And again, organic life could again be created and synthetic life exists.  The conflict/chaos can return.  None of the choices permanently solve the kid's stated goal.  So, even Destroy solves the problem just as much as any of the choices do.  The problem always returns-the kid says it does and as he presents it, even in his attempts to solve it, he all but ensures it will always return. 

I have said that I actually do agree with the kid in part-the conflict will return.  I can't say always because we don't truly know ever that we will even be alive tomorrow-but generally if organics and synthetics exist, there will at some point be conflict just as much as there will be conflicts between men and women, kids and adults, cats and dogs, and every other organism that comes in contact with another organism and tries to occupy the same space.

Where I disagree is with the idea that this will inevitably lead to synthetics either accidentally or intentionally killing all organic life.  Peace and conflict are transitory-an inevitability is not and cannot be altered.  It will happen.  But I don't believe THIS will happen and cannot be altered.  The kid does ("believe"). 

He is working toward that end because it's unalterable.  It isn't about wants, needs, preferences, hopes, or any such thing.  It is about what must happen.  His programming tells him this is so, that this will happen.  He was set to solve the unsolvable based upon the parameters of his programming.  It's like telling a computer that 1+1 always equals 2 and then telling it to try and make it not equal to 2.  It can't be done, so it will always fail.  That's its overriding rule, it's knowledge.  It can't change it so it can try and try and it knows whatever it does will be wrong.  And it's ok with that, because it has to fail.  The kid has been told that it's inevitable that synthetics will kill all organics and he's also told he must stop that.  If he does stop it, the first part of his programming is wrong (it was not inevitable), so he would not need to stop it.  If he cannot stop it, the first part of his programming is right but there's no way he can achieve his objective. 

[3DandBeyond]

StreetMagic wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Mecha-Cthulhu. That is why the final battle should have taken place in Tokyo instead of London. Godzilla! Godzilla vs. Harbinger! The battle at the beam! Don't forget Godzilla's special attack. Radiation, and it cooks things like reaper cores.

Personally, I think the game would have been way cooler as a non-serious Godzilla knockoff. My favorite parts were when you actually took down Reapers. Story wise, emotion wise, and visually it was badass. Not nightmares and getting pushed into a corner by them. It tried way too hard to make me feel like I was experiencing a "real war", and had to feel sad. **** all of that.

Yes, a game that knew it was a game-way more fun than one that thought it was an intellectual commentary on the future and fatalism.

[3DandBeyond]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Deathsaurer wrote...

I seriously doubt they believe there was no mistake with the fact they say what it did was a betrayal. This comes off more as unwillingness to admit they can make mistakes.

I think that line was just there to tell the slow ones that the Catalyst is simply a bot following its set directives.

... that, as opposed to these wild interpretations of it as a rogue AI trying to dominate the galaxy for teh evuhlz.

Well sure it was but not because people didn't understand that was what BW was saying about the glow boy.  Merely because they were echoing what people knew they were saying and thought was stupid.  Sure, at times it seemed more fun and yes, logical to assume he had gone rogue because almost every freaking bot in the game had done so at one time or another and then Shepard swooped in and helped lead them toward the light side.  It made far more sense than the idea that someone actually programmed this thing to follow this set of directives and then were the first victims of their own idiocy. 

And don't get me wrong-I can accept the fact that some huge squid morons programmed this catalyst like this and that they can seem to be ok that it's still following their idiotic programming.  What I can't stomach is the fact that a person with a range of understanding that is not as narrow as that of the squids hiding in the ocean (from their creation), would have nothing very important to say in the face of all this idiocy.  Advanced organics, my eye.  This organic would have clearly seen the flaws in the programming and wouldn't say "that's cool.  As long as it's still following this dumb programming you brainiacs gave it." 

Shepard (or I) would tell the freaking Leviathans to get their giant squid Geek Squad in motion and fix the freaking program ASAP.  Oh, but no, the idiots kill a reaper and go back to playing hide and seek. 

In fact, when Shepard meets them not only aren't they interested in "fixing" their little mistake.  Nuh uh.  Instead, they want Shepard to join them "under the sea".  So, not only are they a bunch of morons that created this stupid program, but they're cowards as well-don't want to fight with anyone their own size, but they'd take on one puny human.  Great.

Their claim to fame in the DLC is enthralling miners (to do well actually not very much) and to threaten a human and then to keep on hiding out.  Amazing how their inevitability concept never touched them under the ocean.  They've managed to skate by while cycle after cycle has been terminated. 

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 07 novembre 2013 - 08:31 .

[Eryri]

I've used this analogy before, but I always think dealing with the catalyst is like dealing with a maniac training a gun on your friends and family. This maniac has a some deranged and nonsensical reason for doing what he's doing - such as believing that red haired people will inevitably come into conflict with blond haired people, and unless the redheads are eliminated, the sky will fall in. He then forces you to choose one of three equally deranged "solutions" to this "problem". For example, he will let you and your blond friends go if you stab all the ginger folks for him. If you refuse to do so, he'll just shoot everybody.

Essentially the ending of ME3 puts you in the position of having to humor such a lunatic by agreeing to one of his "solutions". In the destroy ending you murder the red heads (geth) and you and you surviving friends get to walk away. And you are expected to feel happy that you managed to save at least some of your friends, instead of feeling like a cowardly D-bag for not finding some way to overcome the idiot with the gun.

Perhaps Bioware did this deliberately, in order to make us consider how low we would stoop in such a situation - some sort of antidote to the traditional video game power fantasy in which the hero triumphs without having to compromise anything, including his principles. Perhaps they intended us to feel powerless and morally tainted by such a capitulation with evil.

My response is that I have no desire or need to be reminded that I am a flawed human being, clinging to a rock hurtling through space, at the mercy of forces beyond my understanding or control. I have enough neurotic catholic guilt, thank you very much. I play games to forget that sort of thing. If Bioware intends to make a habit of this kind of story-telling, then frankly, count me out.

Modifié par Eryri, 07 novembre 2013 - 09:00 .

[ElSuperGecko]

CronoDragoon wrote...
No, they could not. Sovereign couldn't do this with the element of surprise on his side, but somehow a single Reaper is doing "untold destruction"? And I was referring more to the how of the Reaper than the why.

We must have differening notions of what "untold destruction" means.  How many human colonies did the Collectors manage to take down?  How many thousands of human lives were lost creating the Reaper embryo?  Nowimnagine how much more damage could be done witha Reaper supporting the Collector forces... 

Sovereign was (just barely) destroyed mounting a direct attack on the Citadel.  It took the combined forces of the Citadel fleet and the human fleet to stop it from activating the Citadel Relay... and Shepard severing the connection with it's avatar.

Think outside the box.  I'm not suggesting that the Human Reaper would have thrown itself blindly into a full frontal attack on the Citadel attempting to succeed where Sovereign failed.  I'm suggesting that a live Reaper and a Collector fleet could mount a MASSIVE guerrilla war against the Citadel races.  Use the Relay system to get nto a system, attack a colony and get out before a response could be co-ordinated.  Attack communication installations.  Fuel depots.  Shipyards.  Staging posts.  And there would be very little the Citadel races could do to stop it.

That's without considering what dissent an active Reaper could spread through indoctrination.  We could have been fighting a full-scale war with the Batarians when the Reapers arrived.

This is at the heart of every villain's belief system.

Indeed.  Which makes it all the more surprising that some still do not accept the Catalyst as an actual villain...

[Deathsaurer]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I think that line was just there to tell the slow ones that the Catalyst is simply a bot following its set directives.

... that, as opposed to these wild interpretations of it as a rogue AI trying to dominate the galaxy for teh evuhlz.

I'm going to go with 3D here, it being a rouge AI made sense at the time so saying anyone was slow isn't the best thing to do. I get it is dogmatically obsessed with its directive but there was a clear mistake in giving it such a vague mission that could be so easily creatively reimagined in such a way. It went rogue the same way Clu and VIKI did, the I know better than you route. Still faithful to its programming as it understands it but hostile to its creators.

3DandBeyond wrote...

And don't get me wrong-I can accept the fact that some huge squid morons programmed this catalyst like this and that they can seem to be ok that it's still following their idiotic programming.  What I can't stomach is the fact that a person with a range of understanding that is not as narrow as that of the squids hiding in the ocean (from their creation), would have nothing very important to say in the face of all this idiocy.  Advanced organics, my eye.  This organic would have clearly seen the flaws in the programming and wouldn't say "that's cool.  As long as it's still following this dumb programming you brainiacs gave it." 

Shepard (or I) would tell the freaking Leviathans to get their giant squid Geek Squad in motion and fix the freaking program ASAP.  Oh, but no, the idiots kill a reaper and go back to playing hide and seek. 

In fact, when Shepard meets them not only aren't they interested in "fixing" their little mistake.  Nuh uh.  Instead, they want Shepard to join them "under the sea".  So, not only are they a bunch of morons that created this stupid program, but they're cowards as well-don't want to fight with anyone their own size, but they'd take on one puny human.  Great.

The Leviathans apathy made sense to me. Why would they want to risk their lives when they can fight through proxies whenever it interests them? Would you be rushing to the front lines if you could make slaves do it for you? We can't think the way they do because we don't have such an absurd power and hilarious lack of creativity. They only care about themselves just like they always have. In the face of that butting heads beyond the obvious we're all paying for your mistake is a waste of effort. Might feel good but they can still screw this cycle over by kidnapping Shepard if they ****** the cuttlefish overlords off. If it makes you feel any better I'm sure anyone that reads the report will instantly call them idiots.

Amazing how their inevitability concept never touched them under the ocean.  They've managed to skate by while cycle after cycle has been terminated.

I wouldn't say that. Their creation is still hunting them and uses Shepard to find them. But that's more their mistakes coming back to bite them (lol mistakes).

Modifié par Deathsaurer, 07 novembre 2013 - 09:17 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

3DandBeyond wrote...


Well sure it was but not because people didn't understand that was what BW was saying about the glow boy.  Merely because they were echoing what people knew they were saying and thought was stupid.  Sure, at times it seemed more fun and yes, logical to assume he had gone rogue because almost every freaking bot in the game had done so at one time or another and then Shepard swooped in and helped lead them toward the light side.  It made far more sense than the idea that someone actually programmed this thing to follow this set of directives and then were the first victims of their own idiocy.

This claim is based on what? Yourself? Because a lot of people didn't understand that then and still don't now.

I don't see what doesn't make sense about the idea that it is just doing it's job, really. You had to figure the Reapers started somewhere, and to me, I always got the sense that they were the mistake of a past civilization spilling over to others.

Nothing nonsensical about that. I think the ending in general just suffers from being over-scrutinized.

[Montana]

Eryri wrote...

I've used this analogy before, but I always think dealing with the catalyst is like dealing with a maniac training a gun on your friends and family. This maniac has a some deranged and nonsensical reason for doing what he's doing - such as believing that red haired people will inevitably come into conflict with blond haired people, and unless the redheads are eliminated, the sky will fall in. He then forces you to choose one of three equally deranged "solutions" to this "problem". For example, he will let you and your blond friends go if you stab all the ginger folks for him. If you refuse to do so, he'll just shoot everybody.

Essentially the ending of ME3 puts you in the position of having to humor such a lunatic by agreeing to one of his "solutions". In the destroy ending you murder the red heads (geth) and you and you surviving friends get to walk away. And you are expected to feel happy that you managed to save at least some of your friends, instead of feeling like a cowardly D-bag for not finding some way to overcome the idiot with the gun.

Perhaps Bioware did this deliberately, in order to make us consider how low we would stoop in such a situation - some sort of antidote to the traditional video game power fantasy in which the hero triumphs without having to compromise anything, including his principles. Perhaps they intended us to feel powerless and morally tainted by such a capitulation with evil.

My response is that I have no desire or need to be reminded that I am a flawed human being, clinging to a rock hurtling through space, at the mercy of forces beyond my understanding or control. I have enough neurotic catholic guilt, thank you very much. I play games to forget that sort of thing. If Bioware intends to make a habit of this kind of story-telling, then frankly, count me out.

This is basically what makes the ending(s) "feel" wrong (there's plenty of plotholes also).

Every choice you can make, is giving in to the Catalysts insanity to some degree. The only option that comes close to a "win" is Destroy, even if the price is almost unbearably high.
At least Destroy is the option that the Catalyst DON'T want you to choose.

There should have been an option to say "**** you! I'm Commander Shepard and I'm doing this instead! I win!"
Now we're at the mercy of an insane AI.

Man I hate the star-brat!

[Deathsaurer]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

This claim is based on what? Yourself? Because a lot of people didn't understand that then and still don't now.

No... Those are people that don't want to accept it because they think it's stupid. Slightly different.

I don't see what doesn't make sense about the idea that it is just doing it's job, really.

When the company it keeps with its reasoning is Clu and VIKI I think the problem with this is quite obvious.

I think the ending in general just suffers from being over-scrutinized.

Nah, it has some legit issues. I don't hate the idea of the Catalyst but it as a character needed development.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Deathsaurer wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

This claim is based on what? Yourself? Because a lot of people didn't understand that then and still don't now.

No... Those are people that don't want to accept it because they think it's stupid. Slightly different.

There are those people, and there are also people that flat-out do not understand, too.

I don't see what doesn't make sense about the idea that it is just doing it's job, really.

When the company it keeps with its reasoning is Clu and VIKI I think the problem with this is quite obvious.

I don't know of Clu, but there's nothing about VIKI that doesn't make sense. Only "problem" I can see with her -- as it relates to Starbrat -- is that their methods horrify the player/viewer. Except, they're antagonists, so that's a non-problem.

And really now, what reasoning could possibly exist to make one "okay" with systematic genocide?

Rhetorical question.

I think the ending in general just suffers from being over-scrutinized.

Nah, it has some legit issues. I don't hate the idea of the Catalyst but it as a character needed development.

Think of it as a plot-device instead of character. Problem solved.

[David7204]

Is this the only two flavors the world is capable of? "Life sucks and I need escapism because I'm weak and unhappy so give me happy endings." "Happy endings are for stupid silly children, and to be mature and realistic, a story must have pointless deaths and everything must be crap."

I would really appreciate seeing a few more people deviate from this supposed dichotomy.

Modifié par David7204, 08 novembre 2013 - 01:40 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Seeing phantom posts again, David?

[David7204]

Seeing posts that say "I play games to forget that sort of thing."

And very little else to justify any kind of happiness or success on Shepard's part.

Modifié par David7204, 08 novembre 2013 - 01:44 .

[Deathsaurer]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

There are those people, and there are also people that flat-out do not understand, too.

I've never seen them.

I don't know of Clu, but there's nothing about VIKI that doesn't make sense. Only "problem" I can see with her -- as it relates to Starbrat -- is that their methods horrify the player/viewer.

Well I don't find the AI that creatively interpreted its directive causing untold death and destruction to be particularly compelling. I found Clu and VIKI to be the least interesting things in their particular universe largely because their characters aren't really explored. It's like they're the token evil AI. I'd like to see what led them to their conclusions in more depth. Of course I've only seen the movie version of I Robot, perhaps the novel treats this better.

Think of it as a plot-device instead of character. Problem solved.

The fact that it is treated as a simple plot device is part of the problem.

[Obadiah]

David7204 wrote...

Seeing posts that say "I play games to forget that sort of thing."

And very little else to justify any kind of happiness or success on Shepard's part.

*Shrug* It's page 13 of a "Not Satisfied" thread - what did you expect?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Deathsaurer wrote...

I don't know of Clu, but there's nothing about VIKI that doesn't make sense. Only "problem" I can see with her -- as it relates to Starbrat -- is that their methods horrify the player/viewer.

Well I don't find the AI that creatively interpreted its directive causing untold death and destruction to be particularly compelling. I found Clu and VIKI to be the least interesting things in their particular universe largely because their characters aren't really explored. It's like they're the token evil AI. I'd like to see what led them to their conclusions in more depth. Of course I've only seen the movie version of I Robot, perhaps the novel treats this better.

Isn't that basically double-speak, considering your issue with the Catalyst is that it's not developed enough?

I'll give you one thing, though: coming to us as ventboy makes the Catalyst very hard to take seriously. Associating a little boy with the Reapers is such a pretty jarring clash of characterization. I wonder how much of the problem is just visceral.

Which leads me to...

Think of it as a plot-device instead of character. Problem solved.

The fact that it is treated as a simple plot device is part of the problem.

I disagree. I think people seeing it as a character leads down a slippery-slope of expecations that come with that.

In the Catalyst's case, it's the expectation for it to be consistent with the Reapers' prior characterization...

... when in truth, it was put there (by the writers) as a glorified user-interface.

[David7204]

It's not a jarring clash at all.

The ultimate villain should be very physically non-threatening and speak in very simple, non-technical language. It's the way God would appear. Or Satan. 

Modifié par David7204, 08 novembre 2013 - 02:00 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

It's not a jarring clash at all.

The ultimate villain should be very physically non-threatening and speak in very simple, non-technical language. It's the way God would appear. Or Satan. 

Especially for the endings to work.

If the Catalyst sounded like a Reaper I don't think people would be so amenable to what he says.

[sjsharp2011]

69_Gio_69 wrote...

It isn't certain if Cerberus is under reaper control. Because there are some contradicting statements. On the one hand, you have Javik who talks about a same type of splinter group in his cycle that obstructed them in fighting the reapers. So this infers they are actually under reaper control.

But on the other hand, you have Reapers also fighting Cerberus at sanctuary. Probably because they have found a way of controlling people themselfs. And so are getting near a Reaper controlling device (I think). So that means they aren't under their control.

And the 'husk' you see on mars isn't a husk made by reapers, but by Cerberus themselfs.

I think Cerberus aer under Reaper control as the Star Child at the end admits that the Illusive man could never control the reapers as they had already got control of him and were using him and his organisation to try to stop Shepard from reaching his/her goal and for the most part they were doing that. I think the Cerberus troops and repears that we re fighting were just people that maybe weren't fully indoctrinated