161 réponses à ce sujet

[liggy002]

 But would you trust a mass serial killer who killed billions of people no matter how logical you think his argument might sound?

Or, maybe you're like me and you don't buy into his B.S.  Sure, EA can show us the ending slides to convince us that he's a good guy.  But, does everyone live happily ever after?  What happens after the slides?  

Modifié par liggy002, 07 décembre 2013 - 03:38 .

[durasteel]

The problem is that once the star boy takes the stage, there is no way for any of the choices he offers you to be anything other than stupid. Trust him, don't, it matters not a bit... it's all stupid at that point.

Once everything stopped making sense, trust became a non-issue.

[KaiserShep]

Whether or not I trust it is pretty much irrelevant. It's either take it on its word only insofar that the crucible will function as it says it will, or refuse to use it, and give up. In the end, my Shepard survived, and it didn't. She'll find out how the galaxy turned out in the end soon enough.

[dreamgazer]

You trust the Catalyst....

... I do?

[Rotward]

 He's a little boy, what's the worst that could happen? 

[liggy002]

dreamgazer wrote...

You trust the Catalyst....

... I do?

"Or maybe you're like me and you don't buy into his B.S."

[Rusty Sandusky]

liggy go home, you're embarrassing yourself.

[GreyLycanTrope]

I think he's an idiot personally.

[dreamgazer]

StreetMagic wrote...

I don't trust the Catalyst. Shepard does. Because he isn't as cool as Captain Kirk.

Ah, an even worse example of the "God conversation" in a space-opera setting.  

Hell, a satirical comedy was released this year that handled it better than STV. 

[wolfhowwl]

You don't have much of a choice. You either take the Catalyst at his word and risk the chance that he is lying.

Or be a total moron, refuse, and guarantee defeat.

He says you can destroy the Reapers. You can.
He says you can control the Reapers. You can.
He says you can synthesize the Galaxy. You can.

Looks like those who trusted the Catalyst were vindicated.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 07 décembre 2013 - 04:21 .

[KaiserShep]

StreetMagic wrote...

I don't trust the Catalyst. Shepard does. Because he isn't as cool as Captain Kirk.

You know, the sad part is that Kirk meets his end under a pile of debris, and his final words are "Oh my". I can't believe he took George Takei's line in his final moments.

[dreamgazer]

StreetMagic wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I don't trust the Catalyst. Shepard does. Because he isn't as cool as Captain Kirk.

Ah, an even worse example of the "God conversation" in a space-opera setting.  

Hell, a satirical comedy was released this year that handled it better than STV. 

How is it worse though? It had a character that says... "Hey, wait a minute..."

The scenario also made even less sense than the Catalyst did, all handwaved for the rule of cool and incredibly hollow theological criticism. 

[Obadiah]

Yeah. For the most part, I trust the Catalyst. The notion that it is wrong, or lying, or tricking Shepard is nonesense.

Modifié par Obadiah, 07 décembre 2013 - 04:35 .

[KaiserShep]

I wouldn't say that it's nonsense that it may be wrong about certain things, especially when it comes to matters of predicting the future. It's no less susceptible to fallibility.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

A liggy thread. For a minute I was hoping for a Seival thread.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Personally, it's not so much that I "trust" the Catalyst but more that I believe the info he relays to us.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Personally, it's not so much that I "trust" the Catalyst but more that I believe the info he relays to us.

Why do you believe it? He's really not being very straight with how he defines the term 'synthetic'. I mean, he does change it's meaning around from destroy to synthesis.

[KaiserShep]

StreetMagic wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

I wouldn't say that it's nonsense that it may be wrong about certain things, especially when it comes to matters of predicting the future. It's no less susceptible to fallibility.

It's surprised that you even made the Crucible. So yeah, it's not omniscient or infallible. I'm not sure if it's really supposed to be a god character. It's also wrong (apparently) about Destroy's effects (high EMS at least..).

Pretty much. It recognizes patterns, but there is no guarantee that patterns can't be broken, and if its assumptions regarding the capabilities of organics can be so easily undermined, many others can be as well.

[Obadiah]

StreetMagic wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

I wouldn't say that it's nonsense that it may be wrong about certain things, especially when it comes to matters of predicting the future. It's no less susceptible to fallibility.

It's surprised that you even made the Crucible. So yeah, it's not omniscient or infallible. I'm not sure if it's really supposed to be a god character. It's also wrong (apparently) about Destroy's effects (high EMS at least..).

You don't discount the knowledge of a 37 million year old enemy just because its about to be defeated. Pretenting that we know more than it because it is fallible is ridiculous.

Modifié par Obadiah, 07 décembre 2013 - 04:54 .

[dreamgazer]

StreetMagic wrote...

Now I don't remember enough of the context to wonder if you're on to something. I do remember that they were preparing for the whole encounter long beforehand though. And Kirk is a space cowboy who questions things. That already makes it better.

Kirk's defiance is an amusing addition to the ludicrousness of what's going on involving the Enterprise and the being's motives and powers, and even less gets explained there than in ME3's vanilla ending because mystery and God commentary.  "What does God need with a starship?" was Kirk's first question that gets met with a lightning bolt to the chest; Shepard's allowed more curiosity that gets reciprocated, but less reservation (and even that's buffed in the EC).