375 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

Br3ad wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

I always thought Revan twist was fine as long as you didn't go to Wookie planet before the reveal.

If you did though I wanted a "No rly?" option.

"You used me Bastila! You're no better than the Sith!"


The sad thing is that the order they want is Tatooine, Kashyyyk, Manaan. There should be no surprises. 

LOL

*facepalms* 

Oh god you had to remind me of Manaan. Oh Manaan. UGH. I wanted to nuke that planet from orbit.

[brodatjust]

control guys, shepard makes the cuttlefish rebuild the mass relays much faster and he makes them leave like they were never there in the first place, then when everybody needs halp, they come back to save us

[teh DRUMPf!!]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Bar the Extended Cut additional scenes (which are completely irrelevant when it comes to Shepard actually making the final decision, as they haven't happened yet) I've yet to see any evidence from within the trilogy that supports, endorses or advocates Synthesis as a concept and a viable solution to the Reaper threat.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

EC is canon, and it adds context pre-decision. It's still relevant, if inconvenient to militant Destroy zionists.

No, they don't.  Pay attention, and learn what a fallacious argument is before you attempt to look smart.

They are fallacies... but that's fine, you can be the only person who thinks they're sound.

I'm not going to repeat myself again  - if you've got some specific "evidence" from within the game showing characters other than the Catalyst (or Saren, for that matter) or situations other than the irrelevant Extended Cut epilogues that advocate, support or otherwise address the concept of Synthesis, by all means, post it here.  I'm not going to make your case for you.

You asked to differentiate this ending from ME1 Saren, and I said it's different because the Reapers do not provide it. EC and Pre-EC quotes support that notion. So, ultimately, this comes down to faith in the Crucible, not faith in the Reapers.

As for Sync as a solution... it was never considered. No positive or negative views/opinions are expressed on it either way. However, I would point to the end of Rannoch if peace was brokered, where both parties live together and the geth make use of the quarians' implants/augmentations to help them better adapt to their planet. It's similar, in principle.

Sadly, I have to bolt again for a few hours, so I can't say everything I wanted to say here.

You'll have a few hours to think up a response, because I have classes to go to.

I hope you pay more attention there than you have to the game (or even the discussion in this thread, for that matter!) 

It's that all you got, George?

[brodatjust]

brodatjust wrote...

control guys, shepard makes the cuttlefish rebuild the mass relays much faster and he makes them leave like they were never there in the first place, then when everybody needs halp, they come back to save us

I sound like the Illusive Man with these 'control' ramblings.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

ElSuperGecko wrote...


Really?  That's the issue?

Bioware have placed so many mindfunk moments in their games that it's more improbable that they not plan a twist ending or revelation of some sort.

NWN - Hordes of the Underdark -  a LITERAL (if obvious to spot) indoctrination ending!
KOTOR - and the Revan twist
Jade Empire's "Sacrifice" ending

Then there's the bhaalspawn reveal and dream sequences in BG, not to mention Mass Effect's own, original paradigm-shifting twist on Virmire when you realise that Saren and the Geth aren't the true threat after all...

IT has issues, true - Bioware not being clever enough storytellers for it definitely isn't one of them.

They also done the opposite -- building up a specific message, only to completely turn it on its head -- very often.

I'd love to hear your take on DA:A's ending, as it's very similar to ME3's.

If you haven't played it, do so. Or, take a gander at the thread I made at the IT-forum (Dragon Age section).

[brodatjust]

*sets down a cup cake*

[Obadiah]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
Yes. Point is they aren't in the chamber and we don't know, so why bring them into it? They weren't aware of the full scope of the situation or the impact of firing the weapon.

What's the "full scope of the situation", exactly?

For me it's the Reaper fleet currently blowing the crap out of the various races of the galaxy.  Not just on/around Earth, but right throughout the galaxy.

Little Hapless VentBoy would have me believe that there's something bigger at stake, that the inevitable synthetic / organic conflict is the REAL threat, not merely the mechacuttlefish armada it personally created that is currently BRAAAAAAAAARPing their way through the Allied fleet.

To that I say:

"Fair enough, that's your opinion.  I don't have any evidence to support that opinion other than your contradictory statements, flawed logic and vague assurances.  And even if that threat is real, the galaxy can face it together, on it's own terms, with the lessons of history - YOUR history - to draw from.  So I'm going to take your logic, turn it sideways, shine it up real nice and pull the trigger on your organic-murdering Reaper children."

Obadiah wrote...
Shepard is the Spectre empowered by the Council to act on his own to protect the galaxy as he deems appropriate. That's his job. And, no, his job as Spectre is not to do only what his superiors want - that's why they keep making him a Spectre when he defies them.

This is very true.  Shame so many people appear to forget that bolded part when listening to VentBoy's half-assed, three-minute exposition on the virtues of turning everybody green with free circuit boards.

"It's the perfect solution!  No, really!  ... what do you mean, what for?"

Yes, and shame on you for assuming you have the only correct conclusion based on your interpretation of that scene. 

[Reorte]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Good thing you're not forced to pick either.

Yeah, the third option engages in wholesale slaughter of an entire form of life.

For no remotely rational reason though; I've given up bothering to pay any more attention than I feel like when nonsense happens Because The Writers Said It Happens rather than for any rational reason that a particular outcome occurs for a particular event. Remember we're dealing with the sort of logic here that would have an ending where you release a flesh-eating virus have nothing but positive outcomes. I'll still call anyone who released it a mad, dangerous lunatic and the writer stupid and the outcome we're shown biased propaganda if it only showed positives.

Modifié par Reorte, 19 novembre 2013 - 07:01 .

[ElSuperGecko]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
EC is canon, and it adds context pre-decision. It's still relevant, if inconvenient to militant Destroy zionists.

The EC epilogues occur AFTER making that choice.  Unless your Shepard is clairvoyant and can see the future, they're completely irrelevant when it comes to actually making that decision.  You can't use them (or the pre-EC endings, for that matter) to justify your Shepard's decision.  So, with that out the way, what else you got to support Synthesis?

HYR 2.0 wrote...
They are fallacies... but that's fine, you can be the only person who thinks they're sound.

No, they're not.  And if you want to persist along your invalid line of thinking, answer me these questions - yes or no answers only please:

Does Venboy refer to itself and introduce itself as the "Catalyst"?
Does the Catalyst take responsibility for the Reapers and their actions?
Dose the Catalyst admit to controlling the Reapers?
Does the Catalyst admit to setting in motion the cycle of extinction and the Reaper harvest?
Does the Catalyst tell us it embodies the collective intelligence of all the Reapers?
Does the Catalyst admit to having made mistakes before?
Do the Reapers have an established history of (directly and indirectly) manipulating organics to do their bidding?
Do the Reapers use organic agencies to achieve their goals?
Does the Catalyst admit to not having a full understanding of organics?
Does the Catalyst have an agenda, interests and motives of it's own?
Does the Catalyst deliberately evade answering some of Shepard's questions?
Does the Catalyst attempt to influence the decision Shepard is about to make?
Does the Catalyst have a clear favourite out of the three (four) options presented to Shepard?
If so, is that option the one that it presents to Shepard itself, and no other being in the Mass Effect series (other than potentially the indoctrinatined and Reaper Saren) ever even considers a possibility?

I'll look forward to your answers.

HYR 2.0 wrote...
You asked to differentiate this ending from ME1 Saren, and I said it's different because the Reapers do not provide it. EC and Pre-EC quotes support that notion. So, ultimately, this comes down to faith in the Crucible, not faith in the Reapers.

Show me these supposed "quotes" - pre-EC or post-EC - that suggest that Synthesis is NOT a solution which comes directly from the Reapers.  While you're frantically fumbling for a non-existant answer, I'll show you some that suggest it IS:

HYR 2.0 wrote...
As for Sync as a solution... it was never considered. No positive or negative views/opinions are expressed on it either way. However, I would point to the end of Rannoch if peace was brokered, where both parties live together and the geth make use of the quarians' implants/augmentations to help them better adapt to their planet. It's similar, in principle.

Well done.  Now we're getting somewhere.  Sync as a solution was never considered - except by the Catalyst, who has attempted a similar solution before, with (not so) sexy results.  If you want to submit Quarian/Geth interactivity as an example of a  "positive, similar in principle" to Synthesis (it's not, not really),  then let me submit another:

HYR 2.0 wrote...
It's that all you got, George?

Nope.  Not by a long shot.

Obadiah wrote...
Yes, and shame on you for assuming you have the only correct conclusion based on your interpretation of that scene. 

Impressive retort.  I notice like our buddy HYR over there you didn't actually bother to address the question asked either.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 19 novembre 2013 - 07:24 .

[Iakus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

They also done the opposite -- building up a specific message, only to completely turn it on its head -- very often.

I'd love to hear your take on DA:A's ending, as it's very similar to ME3's.

If you haven't played it, do so. Or, take a gander at the thread I made at the IT-forum (Dragon Age section).

Awakening does not alter anyone but the darkspawn, who are almost without exception without sentience.

Awakening also demonstrated that granting the darkspawn sentience is potentially a disasterous move, and in any case, peaceful coexistence between awakened darkspawn and surface dwellers is highly unlikely.

How is this like Synthesis again?

[Obadiah]

ElSuperGecko 

Obadiah wrote...
Yes, and shame on you for assuming you have the only correct conclusion based on your interpretation of that scene. 

Impressive retort.  I notice like our buddy HYR over there you didn't actually bother to address the question asked either.

Asked and answered before on other threads, and when not directly addressed, the answers are fairly obvious. Push-polling is only useful for those with an agenda. 

The simple answer is that others had a different interpretation of that scene, and acted accordingly. Some saw a million year old being that ought not be so easily dismissed, some saw an opportunity, some saw a sacrifice that was too great. I'm sure there are other interpretations.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

The EC epilogues occur AFTER making that choice.  Unless your Shepard is clairvoyant and can see the future, they're completely irrelevant when it comes to actually making that decision.  You can't use them (or the pre-EC endings, for that matter) to justify your Shepard's decision.  So, with that out the way, what else you got to support Synthesis?

Okay... I wasn't using the EC epilogues to begin with, so I'm not sure why you're harping on it.

No, they're not.  And if you want to persist along your invalid line of thinking, answer me these questions - yes or no answers only please:

Does the Catalyst deliberately evade answering some of Shepard's questions?

I'll look forward to your answers.

"Yes" to all the ones I cut out. "No" to this one I quoted.

Show me these supposed "quotes" - pre-EC or post-EC - that suggest that Synthesis is NOT a solution which comes directly from the Reapers.

What, did you ignore the thread I linked in re: to you?

Never mind, I'll repost it: http://social.biowar.../index/16890923


Quotes on the choices in general being outside his/their hands:

Yours Truly wrote...

1.) Catalyst on finding a new solution: "You have altered the variables." (keyword: you).
2.) Catalyst, on finding a new solution: "I can't make them happen. If there is to be a new solution, you must act." (common sense: why design three choices that he "wants" -- some more than others -- but has to rely on someone else to activate? Also, why would he just "sit on" three solutions that -- by his admission -- are better than his own??)

Sync-specific quotes:

Yours Truly wrote...
7.) Catalyst on Sync: "Add your energy to the Crucible's. The chain reaction will combine organic and synthetic life into a new framework." (keyword: the Crucible).
8.) Catalyst on Sync: "The energy of the Crucible, released in this way, will alter the matrix of organic life in the galaxy."

... everything works with the options are Crucible outcomes, not pre-determined Catalyst choices.

#7 and half of #2 are pre-EC. So, you wanted in-game evidence? There it is (... again).

I'll show you some that suggest it IS:

... really? That's your evidence? They tried (and failed) to do it in the past, so that means this is also their doing??

Pray tell how your premise yields your conclusion, because I'm not seeing it at all.

Not to mention that if you rewind to 10:48, you get him saying, "Now that we know it is possible, it is inevitable (...)," indicating that the Catalyst didn't even know or believe it was a viable solution after all his prior failed attempts. Which makes sense ... if he tried and failed so many times, it's likely he'll come to the conclusion that it simply is not doable, period.

After all, this is the same guy who has given up on peace between organics and synthetics. Maybe he's just a quitter.

Well done.  Now we're getting somewhere.  Sync as a solution was never considered - except by the Catalyst, who has attempted a similar solution before, with (not so) sexy results.  If you want to submit Quarian/Geth interactivity as an example of a  "positive, similar in principle" to Synthesis (it's not, not really),  then let me submit another:

I'm working with the idea that Sync = organics integrated w/ tech. Quarians basically are cyborgs, anyway. Then there's also: Shepard(!), Garrus, Kasumi, biotics in general, the virtual-aliens, Shepard entering geth-consensus.... It's far from non-existent in this setting, just downplayed, and human negativity-bias makes people remember the bad more readily.

Zha'til were actually fine until the Reapers invaded and turned the AI hostile. Check the wiki. I forget where Javik makes this clarification; I believe it's on the geth dreadnought, provided you see him ahead of time... but again, I'm forgetting.

I wonder if the Zha'til's AI gave them immunity to conventional indoctrination before the Reapers hacked it...

[teh DRUMPf!!]

iakus wrote...

Awakening does not alter anyone but the darkspawn, who are almost without exception without sentience.

Awakening also demonstrated that granting the darkspawn sentience is potentially a disasterous move, and in any case, peaceful coexistence between awakened darkspawn and surface dwellers is highly unlikely.

How is this like Synthesis again?

It's not. I was responding to the notion (and frequent IT talking-point) that BioWare employs "trickery" oh so much.

See, IT basically disregards the entire ending as written... except for the Catalyst's "I control the Reapers"-part. IT does not even stay consistent between two of its supporters, but every denomination of it accepts that part as truth and revolves around it. Then it becomes a juvenille "beat the indoctrination!" minigame hosted by the Catalyst, who is portrayed as a villain of the 2-dimmensional/mustache-twirling variety (that's apparently the level of maturity they desire from a story).

Little do they know, however, that BioWare also has a story whereby you encounter the leader of a group that has long been indentified as your enemy and irredeemibly bad/evil. Said leader explains himself and makes a case for his plans, then you're left to decide to kill or spare him. It's the exact same sort of "enemy" encounter that inspires IT interpretations. In the end, though, DA:A has an ambiguous ending, not at all like the black-and-white minigame that is IT.


I went to the ITers' forum and asked what people thought of it. No wild theories, but nonetheless, there were a couple of people that staunchly supported the "Destroy-equivalent" option and defended it as if objectively right, despite all evidence to the contrary. Again, that's apparently the kind of story they're into: 2D villains that need to be killed, no hard thinkun.

[SwobyJ]

That feeling where you see dozens of viewpoints and see them all at at least partially correct. I guess I'm a wishy-washy crazy weirdo.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 20 novembre 2013 - 05:27 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Never mind, I'll repost it: http://social.biowar.../index/16890923


Quotes on the choices in general being outside his/their hands:

Yours Truly wrote...

1.) Catalyst on finding a new solution: "You have altered the variables." (keyword: you).
2.) Catalyst, on finding a new solution: "I can't make them happen. If there is to be a new solution, you must act." (common sense: why design three choices that he "wants" -- some more than others -- but has to rely on someone else to activate? Also, why would he just "sit on" three solutions that -- by his admission -- are better than his own??)

Sync-specific quotes:

Yours Truly wrote...
7.) Catalyst on Sync: "Add your energy to the Crucible's. The chain reaction will combine organic and synthetic life into a new framework." (keyword: the Crucible).
8.) Catalyst on Sync: "The energy of the Crucible, released in this way, will alter the matrix of organic life in the galaxy."

... everything works with the options are Crucible outcomes, not pre-determined Catalyst choices.

Can anything concrete really be gained by closely analyzing the Catalyst conversation? The kid is vague enough as is. Like the Catalyst acknowledges that it's 'solution' won't work any more and it seems to accept it's own destruction so why can't it just fly the Reapers into the sun, because they no longer have a purpose (I guess?). But then you could respond with a vague snipet from the conversation that can have 100 different interpretations and I could explain why your interpretation is wrong with another vague snipet from the conversation that I interpretted in a certain way. It just goes on-and-on and at the end of the day no one would be right because we're tacking on meaning to the Catalyst's tecno-magic-space babble. Ultimately, I think the only discussion about Synthesis is whether or not merging DNA is right or not, or controlling the Reapers, or Destroying EDI and the Geth... or just telling the kid to screw off.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 20 novembre 2013 - 05:31 .

[favoritehookeronthecitadel]

Synthetis ending is a good ending because EDI lives and she has cute legs. Though Shepard isn't alive so he doesn't get to kiss them or anything. Make them rust.

[ElSuperGecko]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Does the Catalyst deliberately evade answering some of Shepard's questions?
"Yes" to all the ones I cut out. "No" to this one I quoted.

Of the top of my head I can give you two clear examples where it does.  But that's beside the point - by answering the vast majority of the questions "yes" you've already proven my point that the Catalyst simply cannot be trusted.  It is working to it's own agenda, it has it's own motives and goals, it is entirely responsible for the crisis the galaxy is facing and it has little to no understanding of organics, and as such it cannot be trusted to provide a "solution" (bear in mind any problem which requires a solution OTHER than the Reapers themselves is entirely hypothetical) where the lives of organics are at stake.

That's not any kind of association fallacy - that's cold, hard, fact, supported by evidence from within the within the game as agreed by yourself above.

HYR 2.0 wrote...
1.) Catalyst on finding a new solution: "You have altered the variables." (keyword: you).
As in:  YOU can make the solution that I have attempted before work.  Synthesis is
2.) Catalyst, on finding a new solution: "I can't make them happen. If there is to be a new solution, you must act." (common sense: why design three choices that he "wants" -- some more than others -- but has to rely on someone else to activate? Also, why would he just "sit on" three solutions that -- by his admission -- are better than his own??)

Why sit on them?  Dozens of potential reasons.  Because it is incapable of activating the Crucible itself?  Because it has no organic body to meld with the Crucible's energy?  Hell, because it has no corporeal body at all?  Because it needs us to act as it's agent?  One thing we know for a FACT is that it deliberately tries deter us from certain choices in favour of it's preferred choice (as you agreed above). 

COMMON SENSE:  The Catalyst only "designed" one of the choices, and that's the one it presents to us as it's ideal solution.  We are told the Crucible is little more than a energy source, effectively a giant battery.  It's how that energy is used that is important.  the Alliance built the Crucible with the idea of using that energy to Destroy the Reapers and win the war - hence the Destroy option is available (and hence why the Catalyst tries to deter us from it).  The Illusive Man wanted to use the Crucibles power to assume Control of the Reapers (and he knows enough about the Crucible and has had enough time on the Citadel to implement whatever technology he was working on.  The Catalyst is fairly ambivalent about the notion).  The CATALYST on the other hand wants to use that energy to make the solution it has been trying to achieve previously - SYNTHESIS - finally work.  Simple common sense!

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Sync-specific quotes:
7.) Catalyst on Sync: "Add your energy to the Crucible's. The chain reaction will combine organic and synthetic life into a new framework." (keyword: the Crucible).
8.) Catalyst on Sync: "The energy of the Crucible, released in this way, will alter the matrix of organic life in the galaxy."
... everything works with the options are Crucible outcomes, not pre-determined Catalyst choices.
#7 and half of #2 are pre-EC. So, you wanted in-game evidence? There it is (... again).

..nope!  Key words highlighted!  The ENERGY of the Crucible.  Released IN THIS WAY.  The Crucible is litte more than a power source.  The MANNER in which it's energy is released is important - and the Catalyst wants it released in a manner which will see IT'S OWN ideas and IT'S OWN schemes come to fruition, not ours.  it wants Shepard to do it's dirty work, and SYNTHESIS is it's dirty work.

HYR 2.0 wrote...
... really? That's your evidence? They tried (and failed) to do it in the past, so that means this is also their doing??
Pray tell how your premise yields your conclusion, because I'm not seeing it at all.
Not to mention that if you rewind to 10:48, you get him saying, "Now that we know it is possible, it is inevitable (...)," indicating that the Catalyst didn't even know or believe it was a viable solution after all his prior failed attempts. Which makes sense ... if he tried and failed so many times, it's likely he'll come to the conclusion that it simply is not doable, period.

It's a thousand times more compelling than any of the evidence you've displayed.  It gives us clear precedence and reason for functionality, for a start.  The Catalyst has tried solutions similar to Synthesis before.  The construction of the giant battery that is the Crucible, the energy it is capable of generating and Shepard's presence have altered the variables, allowing the Catalyst to revisit it's prior attempts at Synthesis and re-test it's previous failed experiments with new data.  So the Catalyst suggests Synthesis to us, as the "perfect solution".  Now that it knows this is possible, it is inevitable.  Because it will not stop until it achieves it.

THE EXPERIMENTS WILL CONTINUE, SHEPARD.  YOUR WORLDS WILL BECOME OUR LABORATORIES.  WE ARE YOUR GENETIC DESTINY.  SIMPLE COMMON SENSE.

HYR 2.0 wrote...
After all, this is the same guy who has given up on peace between organics and synthetics. Maybe he's just a quitter..

The being that's patiently exterminated all advanced organic life on a cyclical basis for millenia is a quitter?  Really?

HYR 2.0 wrote...
I'm working with the idea that Sync = organics integrated w/ tech. Quarians basically are cyborgs, anyway. Then there's also: Shepard(!), Garrus, Kasumi, biotics in general, the virtual-aliens, Shepard entering geth-consensus.... It's far from non-existent in this setting, just downplayed, and human negativity-bias makes people remember the bad more readily.
Zha'til were actually fine until the Reapers invaded and turned the AI hostile. Check the wiki. I forget where Javik makes this clarification; I believe it's on the geth dreadnought, provided you see him ahead of time... but again, I'm forgetting.
I wonder if the Zha'til's AI gave them immunity to conventional indoctrination before the Reapers hacked it...

Synthetics being combined with organics into an entirely "new framework... a new DNA" sounds a little bit more all-consuming than integrated tech or implants.  And as for the Reapers turning the Zha's AI hostile... well, the Reapers would still be around post Synthesis - and the precedence set by the Reaper's subjugation of the Zha'Til simply leaves alarm bells ringing about the entire Synthesis concept.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 20 novembre 2013 - 11:41 .

[Iakus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

It's not. I was responding to the notion (and frequent IT talking-point) that BioWare employs "trickery" oh so much.

See, IT basically disregards the entire ending as written... except for the Catalyst's "I control the Reapers"-part. IT does not even stay consistent between two of its supporters, but every denomination of it accepts that part as truth and revolves around it. Then it becomes a juvenille "beat the indoctrination!" minigame hosted by the Catalyst, who is portrayed as a villain of the 2-dimmensional/mustache-twirling variety (that's apparently the level of maturity they desire from a story).

Little do they know, however, that BioWare also has a story whereby you encounter the leader of a group that has long been indentified as your enemy and irredeemibly bad/evil. Said leader explains himself and makes a case for his plans, then you're left to decide to kill or spare him. It's the exact same sort of "enemy" encounter that inspires IT interpretations. In the end, though, DA:A has an ambiguous ending, not at all like the black-and-white minigame that is IT.


I went to the ITers' forum and asked what people thought of it. No wild theories, but nonetheless, there were a couple of people that staunchly supported the "Destroy-equivalent" option and defended it as if objectively right, despite all evidence to the contrary. Again, that's apparently the kind of story they're into: 2D villains that need to be killed, no hard thinkun.

I'm well aware ofBbioware's use of plot twists.

But just because there is a twist, doesn't mean it's a good one.  M Night Shyamalan learned that the hard way

[teh DRUMPf!!]

[quote]ElSuperGecko wrote...

But that's beside the point - by answering the vast majority of the questions "yes" you've already proven my point that the Catalyst simply cannot be trusted.[/quote]


Trust/distrust is not provable. It's completely subjective.

To that end, those facts we've established do not compel me to that opinion. It's actually pretty impractical rationale, IMO. If I used that criteria on everyone (things like: has made mistakes before, associated with an enemy group, having motivations of their own, trying to influence Shepard a certain way), I'd be left with virtually no one to call an ally.


And I don't "trust" the Catalyst anyway, I simply believe that what he's saying is right, to the best of his knowledge.


I can't help but wonder what you're trying to prove here, exactly. You're adamant that I do not use post-decision information to support my pre-decision rationale, but I do not see much point in you trying to convince me that I should (pre-decision) see the Catalyst as a trickster and Sync as a trap he's trying to push me into. Because even if you were to convince me, it wouldn't change the fact that after the decision, nothing proves you were actually right in your assessment.

So, what is your stake in this, exactly? I know it's not that your curious why others are choosing differently or anything. I've visited IT forum, and they often talk amongst themselves about why (they think) people do not choose Destroy -- it's all self-serving assumptions: they're too weak-willed, they don't get it, they subscribe to the Catalyst's problem, blah blah blah.... Conventional Destroy supporters on this site are no different, either. So, if not that, then what?




[quote]It is working to it's own agenda, it has it's own motives and goals, it is entirely responsible for the crisis the galaxy is facing and it has little to no understanding of organics, and as such it cannot be trusted to provide a "solution" (bear in mind any problem which requires a solution OTHER than the Reapers themselves is entirely hypothetical) where the lives of organics are at stake.[/quote]

Right, and that is precisely why I'm compelled to listen to him.

He needs a new solution to his task. We need an end to the cycle. Our needs are aligned.

Bottom line.


[quote][quote]1.) Catalyst on finding a new solution: "You have altered the variables." (keyword: you).[/quote]
As in:  YOU can make the solution that I have attempted before work.  Synthesis is[/quote] 

Yes, and we already know Sync is the desired solution of his.

[quote][quote]2.) Catalyst, on finding a new solution: "I can't make them happen. If there is to be a new solution, you must act." (common sense: why design three choices that he "wants" -- some more than others -- but has to rely on someone else to activate? Also, why would he just "sit on" three solutions that -- by his admission -- are better than his own??)[/quote]

Why sit on them?  Dozens of potential reasons.  Because it is incapable of activating the Crucible itself? Because it has no organic body to meld with the Crucible's energy?  Hell, because it has no corporeal body at all?  Because it needs us to act as it's agent?  One thing we know for a FACT is that it deliberately tries deter us from certain choices in favour of it's preferred choice (as you agreed above).[/quote]

So you're saying that Sync is not something the Catalyst is offering us, just something he is informing is an option at hand from the Crucible? Good. Thank you for agreeing with me.




[quote]COMMON SENSE:  The Catalyst only "designed" one of the choices, and that's the one it presents to us as it's ideal solution.  We are told the Crucible is little more than a energy source, effectively a giant battery.  It's how that energy is used that is important.  **** snip ****  The CATALYST on the other hand wants to use that energy to make the solution it has been trying to achieve previously - SYNTHESIS - finally work.  Simple common sense![/quote]

You're telling me, again, that the Crucible can be used to Sync and everything, and that the Catalyst is informing us of this eagerly. I'm still not seeing where you got that he "designed" it. I'm not even seeing much point in calling it "his" solution at all either, apart from the rather meaningless fact that he thinks it's the best one.

We know that this particular solution is achieved by [the Crucible + Shepard --> Sync]. Nowhere in the equation do we have the Catalyst. You can literally take him out of the ending and the result of jumping in the beam would be the same.

So, tell me now, how is this even the same as Saren helping the Reapers invade the galaxy?



[quote][quote]Sync-specific quotes:
7.) Catalyst on Sync: "Add your energy to the Crucible's. The chain reaction will combine organic and synthetic life into a new framework." (keyword: the Crucible).
8.) Catalyst on Sync: "The energy of the Crucible, released in this way, will alter the matrix of organic life in the galaxy."
... everything works with the options are Crucible outcomes, not pre-determined Catalyst choices.
#7 and half of #2 are pre-EC. So, you wanted in-game evidence? There it is (... again).[/quote]
..nope!  Key words highlighted!  The ENERGY of the Crucible.  Released IN THIS WAY.  The Crucible is litte more than a power source.  The MANNER in which it's energy is released is important - and the Catalyst wants it released in a manner which will see IT'S OWN ideas and IT'S OWN schemes come to fruition, not ours.  it wants Shepard to do it's dirty work, and SYNTHESIS is it's dirty work.[/quote]

You mean, finding a solution to organic-synthetic schism?

You have a strange definition of "dirty work."

Either that, or you've forgotten the reason for the Catalyst's existence.


[quote][quote]... really? That's your evidence? They tried (and failed) to do it in the past, so that means this is also their doing??
Pray tell how your premise yields your conclusion, because I'm not seeing it at all.[/quote]
It's a thousand times more compelling than any of the evidence you've displayed.[/quote]

Not to anyone that appreciates deductive logic. Your premise does not guarantee its conclusion. It is possible that the Catalyst had and has no hand in how Sync is implemented as a Crucible outcome, despite his similar past efforts.


[quote]It gives us clear precedence and reason for functionality, for a start.  The Catalyst has tried solutions similar to Synthesis before.  The construction of the giant battery that is the Crucible, the energy it is capable of generating and Shepard's presence have altered the variables, allowing the Catalyst to revisit it's prior attempts at Synthesis and re-test it's previous failed experiments with new data.  So the Catalyst suggests Synthesis to us, as the "perfect solution".  Now that it knows this is possible, it is inevitable.  Because it will not stop until it achieves it.[/quote]

An experiment requires an experimenter that is actually in control of what's going on. You have not proven that the Catalyst has any hand in Sync apart from encouraging Shepard to carry it out (because it's not provable, no evidence exists).


[quote]Synthetics being combined with organics into an entirely "new framework... a new DNA" sounds a little bit more all-consuming than integrated tech or implants.[/quote]

If pressed, the Catalyst explains that Sync will allow organics to fully integrate with technology, and that this change will allow synthetics to understand them better. As for "new DNA," I truly don't know if that's meant literally or not.

Pre-Sync, organics can only do this physically, whereas synthetics can do this physically and "mentally" -- they can adapt external hardware and software through their "minds." Post-Sync, I imagine this trait is no longer exclusive to them.


[quote]And as for the Reapers turning the Zha's AI hostile... well, the Reapers would still be around post Synthesis - and the precedence set by the Reaper's subjugation of the Zha'Til simply leaves alarm bells ringing about the entire Synthesis concept.[/quote]

It changes nothing. Reapers do not need Sync to mind-control organics, they already have indoctrination. If anything, the Zha'til example hints at a way around that entirely. Reapers cannot indoctrinate AI. Next time, use firewalls.

[AlanC9]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
I can't help but wonder what you're trying to prove here, exactly. You're adamant that I do not use post-decision information to support my pre-decision rationale, but I do not see much point in you trying to convince me that I should (pre-decision) see the Catalyst as a trickster and Sync as a trap he's trying to push me into. Because even if you were to convince me, it wouldn't change the fact that after the decision, nothing proves you were actually right in your assessment.

Is it maybe that old "thematic" argument? ME simply ought to be about the Reapers using deception to.... yada yada yada. Which implies that both you and Bioware are wrong about ME.

[dorktainian]

when starjar says 'you MUST choose' is the time i seriously question why.

i mean what if the choices (all of them) are not what happens to the reapers but what happens to us? Meaning that this debate about which ending is ultimately pointless because no matter what you choose humanity is boned.

Destroy. Humans turned to Collectors. The final insult.
Control. Humans Huskified. Blue eyes all around everybody. yay.
Synthesis. Humans reaperised. We'll live forever inside ******-reaperus.

puts a different slant on which ending is best doesnt it?

[Obadiah]

iakus wrote...
...
I'm well aware ofBbioware's use of plot twists.

But just because there is a twist, doesn't mean it's a good one.  M Night Shyamalan learned that the hard way

The Catalyst gets panned on these forums WAY more than is appropriate. The enemy in ME is an AI, obviously created by someone - it stands to reason they'd have been built for a purpose and have a logical reason for behaving the way they did.

I thought it was a pretty good twist to find out this this whole fight that had been taking place was because of an inevitable battle between Synthetics and Organics, considered and judged on a massive timescale scale that, unbeknown to us, we had been part of it.

The ending is further evidence of the Catalyst's conclusion of the inevitable destruction of all Organics. Consider, the Reapers themselves are an object example of the harsh judgements or decisions that AI are capable of making, and the power they can harness to implement those decisions. The racist Crucible weapon is an object example of the kind of retaliation that power could bring, an anti-AI/tech weapon that could be fired on a galactic scale that could wipe out all AI (essentially Organics doing to AI the thing that the Catalyst believes AI will do to Organics).

If AI understood that Organics would build a weapon that functions like the Crucible, something that would destroy the Organic's AI allies to defeat their AI enemies, there is a good chance they'd look at Organics as some kind of existential threat to their existence. That we in this cycle would build such a weapon in ignorance is almost worse.

The problem the Catalyst describes is the result of cycles of conflict, and the escalation that comes with it.

Here we are at the ME3 climax getting ready to wipe them out, but we'd just create them again. I'm guessing the AI - they'd be a bit more disciplined if they did that to us.

Modifié par Obadiah, 21 novembre 2013 - 02:05 .