161 réponses à ce sujet

[Daemul]

rekn2 wrote...

how do you know the next cycle wins?

Gamble said they used the Crucible. I'm not sure if it was exactly the next cycle or a future cycle say 10 million years into the future.

Modifié par Daemul, 07 décembre 2013 - 03:37 .

[ElSuperGecko]

Andrew_S wrote...
Shepard just humors the lonely little guy with some conversation. The whole time Shep is thinking how sweet it is to have an old Carnifex with unlimited ammo and how he is going to shoot the crap out out of everything until the whole place explodes. Ya know, just like every other day in the life of Shep. It's all quite logical once you realize Shepard is the one being dishonest and biding his time until the next combat segment.

I Agree With This Post!

StreetMagic wrote...
He just doesn't understand the experience. He knows Shepard experiences something called pain "This hurts you". But he diminishes the experiences. He doesn't really understand.. only that he can inflict it.

Not sure I agree with that - our understanding of the Reapers is that they were each created from an indivivdual species, and contain some form of racial/genetic identity or blueprint.  They have been "preserved" (rather violently and painfully, judging from what we witness in ME2) in Reaper form.  They may contain some kind of organic perspective or awareness - this is not plainly or definitively revealed, but Harbinger's taunts and obsession with Shepard show some degree of emotion at least.

The Catalyst's flaws however go deeper than that.  It shows absolutely zero empathy or emotion at all.  It admits that it's is capable of making mistakes, that it does not understand organics, and it's only regret or remorse it shows when it comes to the horrific solution it devised is that it no longer works.  If it doesn't fully understand organics, how can it be sure that Synthesis is in fact "the ideal solution" until after it takes place, when in fact (should it's logic be correct), it will then have a full understanding of organics?

It's a cold, callous, emotionless machine that's pretty much playing mad doctor with the entire galaxy; it's the closest thing we see in-game to a technological singularity itself.

But back to the problem it describes; the Catalyst is allegedly an AI created by the Leviathan, with the goal of preserving "life" by elminating what was considered to be an "inevitable" organic/synthetic conflict.  As far as we're concerned, that's all very well and good, but we have zero evidence that such a conflict exists or is truly inevitable - with the obvious exception being the cycle of extinction and the Reapers themselves, which were created by the Catalyst in the first place.  So, when considering the choices laid before us,and bearing in mind the fact that the Catalyst is clearly playing favourites with them - is it's problem really OUR problem?  Are it's "ideal solutions" really OUR ideal solutions?  Or is the only conflict we need to concern ourselves with the one taking place around us as we speak to it?

[Deathsaurer]

Daemul wrote...

I've only recently discovered that most people don't get to hear all of Legions conversations in ME2, the last one most get is the Quarian recording one where a Geth asked if it had a soul. There's two more conversations after that, which are the most important ones you have with Legion , one of which has that line you quoted. 

I can't imagine why that would be the case unless they don't bother talking to him after the SM and/or don't have any missions left to unlock the new conversations when they do. If you recruit him early this isn't a problem at all. I've found talking to all the AI in the series to be very insightful into the Catalyst's thought process. For example I've seen a lot of people complain about how the Catalyst could possibly see the Reapers as a preservation of a species but Legion has a gem of a line in ME3 where he says he doesn't see a meaningful distinction between the Normandy and its crew. The only thing that strikes me as odd about the Catalyst is self preservation seems secondary to its goal which makes it unique among AI.

[KaiserShep]

I always chalked up Legion's remark and the Catalyst's definition of preservation as a serious limitation in their thought processes.

[Eryri]

Deathsaurer wrote...



The only thing that strikes me as odd about the Catalyst is self preservation seems secondary to its goal which makes it unique among AI.

I'm not sure if it's completely unique. Edi is prepared to sacrifice herself due to her loyalty to Shepard. I believe her line at the beam run is 'The Normandy's survival is not strategic'.

I sometimes wonder if the Catalyst is actually an imperfectly shackled AI. It my be obligated to try to find a solution to the Leviathan's 'problem', and to offer the 3 so-called solutions with the Choiceomatic, but he's not necessarily obligated to like it. Nor to respect or like organics (he did judge his creators to be better off rendered into goo and poured into Harbinger). Or to present the 3 options in a fair and impartial manner. He quite clearly has preferences of his own.

Modifié par Eryri, 07 décembre 2013 - 04:48 .

[Deathsaurer]

Eryri wrote...

I'm not sure if it's completely unique. Edi is prepared to sacrifice herself due to her loyalty to Shepard. I believe her line at the beam run is 'The Normandy's survival is not strategic'.

EDI can learn that but it wasn't default. We'll probably never know if the Catalyst was so obsessed from creation or if it was learned behavior. It probably was learned.

I sometimes wonder if the Catalyst is actually an imperfectly shackled AI. It my be obligated to try to find a solution to the Leviathan's 'problem', and to offer the 3 so-called solutions with the Choiceomatic, but he's not necessarily obligated to like it. Nor to respect or like organics (he did judge his creators to be better off rendered into goo and poured into Harbinger). Or to present the 3 options in a fair and impartial manner. He quite clearly has preferences of his own.

I kinda think it's shackled into its directive but with complete freedom in every other area. Devoting eons to this is boarding on dogmatic belief if an AI is capable of such a thing. Preserving life won't allow it to kill anyone, right? Right?

It having preferences isn't surprising. EDI has plenty of those.

[LinksOcarina]

StreetMagic wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

“Pain is an illusion.”

Sounds more like philosophy to me, and to certain extent, pain is an illusion. I don't think that line indicates that Harby or the Catalyst have no concept of pain.

What does "philosophy" mean? Is Harbinger a Tibetan monk now?

He just doesn't understand the experience. He knows Shepard experiences something called pain "This hurts you". But he diminishes the experiences. He doesn't really understand.. only that he can inflict it.

Or, he doesn't want to because its irrelevent to their design.

Considering the reapers are eliminating billions of species, they know what pain is, they probably know how it feels too because they are destroyed and killed and sacrificed like everything else, but they see it as something unimportant to the grander schemes.

It could just be a simple case of ignoring pain, not understanding it. 

[AlanC9]

Deathsaurer wrote...

I can't imagine why that would be the case unless they don't bother talking to him after the SM and/or don't have any missions left to unlock the new conversations when they do. If you recruit him early this isn't a problem at all. 

A lot of folks try to complete all the LMs before the SM, from what I've seen. That leaves just N7 missions unless you own DLC and have't played the missions, and I can see just putting the game aside rather than finishing all of the N7s off

[AlanC9]

Eryri wrote...


I'm not sure if it's completely unique. Edi is prepared to sacrifice herself due to her loyalty to Shepard. I believe her line at the beam run is 'The Normandy's survival is not strategic'.

I believe it's that "this platform's survival" isn't important. She's right. In low-EMS Control EDI survives even if her robot body is vaporized.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Gamble said it was the next cycle, and that they used the crucible. It is the "twitter canon." They found Liara's time capsules in the archives. "They (us) fought a terrible war so we wouldn't have to."

[Eryri]

AlanC9 wrote...

Eryri wrote...


I'm not sure if it's completely unique. Edi is prepared to sacrifice herself due to her loyalty to Shepard. I believe her line at the beam run is 'The Normandy's survival is not strategic'.

I believe it's that "this platform's survival" isn't important. She's right. In low-EMS Control EDI survives even if her robot body is vaporized.

I stand corrected. Perhaps I'm getting confused with one of the conversations on the Normandy. I do remember her saying that she would risk non functionality for Joker.

[AlanC9]

Of course, even if they did use the Crucible, you can choose to believe that they improved the design so Destroy works better, or even that the next cycle hadn't developed AIs yet. Bio won't contradict you.

I don't choose to believe this myself, because if I'm choosing Refuse in the first place the whole point is the sweet, sweet irony. Liara's the real hero, and Shepard's the fool who got his cycle destroyed for nothing.

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 décembre 2013 - 05:55 .

[Obadiah]

Well, there is also all of that information Shepard gathered on the Reapers (the unknown cycle, armor weak points, weapons that can hurt them, methods researched on how the Reapers control, etc...) and the Crucible, that through Liara he gives to the next cycle so that they can defeat the Reapers.

That's how each cycle contributed to the next in order the finally defeat the Reapers in Refuse.

Unique to this cycle was the "rally cry" that brought all races together to attack the Reapers as a unified force, thus weakening the Reapers, who can only create one at the end of every cycle.

Modifié par Obadiah, 07 décembre 2013 - 08:34 .

[JamesFaith]

liggy002 wrote...

 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.

Suuure, but it sounds like little hypocrisy to me, because you are on other hand probably the biggest supporter of Harbinger  on BSN and he is Catalyst's complice (well, except one cycle), so why are you supporting one mass serial killer and preaching against his complice?

[David7204]

First of all, the Catalyst has no reason to lie. He gains nothing whatsoever from it.

Second of all, Hitler eating sugar does not mean sugar is bad.

[David7204]

JamesFaith wrote...

Suuure, but it sounds like little hypocrisy to me, because you are on other hand probably the biggest supporter of Harbinger  on BSN and he is Catalyst's complice (well, except one cycle), so why are you supporting one mass serial killer and preaching against his complice?

Okay, that's a little silly.

Supporting a villain from a meta-context is not supporting their actions in the real world at all. Most stories need villains.

Modifié par David7204, 07 décembre 2013 - 06:53 .

[DeathScepter]

*looks at the notes*


*knows that the test subject is still very much indoctrinated*


*tells the Cerberus Scientists to keeps the test running*

[AlanC9]

David7204 wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Suuure, but it sounds like little hypocrisy to me, because you are on other hand probably the biggest supporter of Harbinger  on BSN and he is Catalyst's complice (well, except one cycle), so why are you supporting one mass serial killer and preaching against his complice?

Okay, that's a little silly.

Supporting a villain from a meta-context is not supporting their actions in the real world at all. Most stories need villains.

Right. liggy's problem is that he wants the Catalyst to be more of a villain. 

[liggy002]

Alan,

He engineered the slaughter of trillions or more individuals. He wiped out many races as some part of a twisted agenda. If you can't see that he's a villain, then you are blind like most of the people on here who think that he is a good guy.

Modifié par liggy002, 07 décembre 2013 - 08:38 .

[AlanC9]

Right. He's bad enough already. So why do we see all these desperate attempts to make him a liar too?

And does anybody actually call him a good guy, ever? Except for when you attempt to caricature other people's views, that is.

Edit: I should point out that the slides don't prove the Catalyst is right about stuff, since the dreaded synthetic rebellion hasn't actually happened by the Stargazer's time. Of course, you can always say that it will happen in the Stargazer's future if you really want to believe that the Catalyst was right about everything.

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 décembre 2013 - 09:07 .

[Iakus]

liggy002 wrote...

Alan,

He engineered the slaughter of trillions or more individuals. He wiped out many races as some part of a twisted agenda. If you can't see that he's a villain, then you are blind like most of the people on here who think that he is a good guy.

This.

The Catalyst has, in a very real sense been the villain for teh entirety of teh trilogy.  It's been Sovereign's boss (and by extension, Saren's)  it's been Harbinger's boss, and thus by extension the Collectors.  It's been controlling TIM and all the other indoctrinated Cerberus goons in ME3.  The Reapers have been the antagonists of the trilogy.  And the Catalyst controls the Reapers.

So the point is, why should we trust it now that it looks like a ghost child?  Because we're "supposed" to? 

Modifié par iakus, 07 décembre 2013 - 08:56 .

[AlanC9]

Is this some kind of thematic point? The villain shouldn't be believed because he's the "villain"?

If we're talking about Shepard's POV, when you actually run down the options distrusting the Catalyst doesn't end up getting you anywhere. As CronoDragoon pointed out the other day, once you go down that route you might as well throw a dart to determine Shepard's actions.

Of course, typically people who claim to not trust the Catalyst do trust the Catalyst. They simply pick which things to trust in order to support their preferred option, which is almost invariably Destroy. Though there is a splinter group who claim that they pick Refuse every time for RP reasons.

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 décembre 2013 - 09:14 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Is this some kind of thematic point? The villain shouldn't be believed because he's the "villain"?

Well...yeah.  the villain is the one trying to foil the hero.  Or the hero is trying to foil the villain.  Either way, they work in opposition on some very basic level.  If one side is suddenly willing to parlay, request that they join forces, or whatever, a very compelling case needs to be made. 

I mean, otherwise, why wouldn't Luke have teamed up with Vader at the end of The Empire Strikes Back?  Why all the throne room shenanigans in Return of the Jedi? 

If we're talking about Shepard's POV, when you actually run down the options distrusting the Catalyst doesn't end up getting you anywhere. As CronoDragoon pointed out the other day, once you go down that route you might as well throw a dart to determine Shepard's actions.

Hey, now you're seeing the stupidity of the scene!  It is like throwing a dart to determine Shepard's actions!

Of course, typically people who claim to not trust the Catalyst do trust the Catalyst. They simply pick which things to trust in order to support their preferred option, which is almost invariably Destroy. Though there is a splinter group who claim that they pick Refuse every time for RP reasons.

Ypu can only trust the Catalyst on a meta level.  You can trust the Catalyst because you're supposed to trust the Catalyst.  And if people who don't trust the Catalyst pick destroy it's because the Reapers have spent the entire trilgoy trying to kill Shepard (as well as everyone else in teh galaxy), and they have no reasonsto start trusting them now.

[ImaginaryMatter]

David7204 wrote...

First of all, the Catalyst has no reason to lie. He gains nothing whatsoever from it.

Second of all, Hitler eating sugar does not mean sugar is bad.

Sure he does. It would be no less more contrived than the actual ending for the Reapers knew to know Shepard was close to activating the Crucible which would kill them, like their was a 'activate Crucible' button Shepard just had to press to obtain victory. So, in order to trick Shepard the Reapers use the Citadel to project a hologram which fools Shepard into either blowing up the Crucible through firing upon a vulnerable fuel line (destroy), or killing himself by electrocution (control) or jumping into a beam of energy and disintegrating (synthesis). With Shepard dead or the Crucible destroyed the Reapers have eliminated the only threat to them and the Reapers win.

This seems just as likely as Shepard instantaneously trusting an entity it just met which claims to be the boss of his mortal enemies and keeps talking in vague or contradictory statements. That isn't to say I as the player don't trust the Catalyst, because the writers clearly want me to trust the Catalyst. But there is no in game reason for Shepard to do so and there is no in game reason for why the Catalyst has to be telling the truth.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 07 décembre 2013 - 10:51 .

[Iakus]

David7204 wrote...

First of all, the Catalyst has no reason to lie. He gains nothing whatsoever from it. 

Sure he does

"Wanna destroy the Reapers?  Shoot that pipe"

::Shepard shoots an auxillary power venting tube, incinerating himself::

Catalyst  ::snickers::

"Wanna control us?  Grab those rods"

::Shepard grabs electrified plates, frying himself

Catalyst  ::snickers::

"Wanna achieve a Green Galactic Nirvana?  Jump into that beam of energy

::Shepard does so::

Catalyst "I can't believe that actually worked"

Much more entertaining than just letting Shepard bleed out on the floor