Aller au contenu

Photo

You trust the Catalyst....


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
161 réponses à ce sujet

#126
Deathsaurer

Deathsaurer
  • Members
  • 1 505 messages

iakus wrote...

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 Image IPB


That would have made it a much more interesting character.

#127
Obadiah

Obadiah
  • Members
  • 5 734 messages

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

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.

Is there an in-game reason to trust any of the leaders you encounter? You don't know most of them, and leaders have repeatedly turned on Shepard before. You needed them, just like you need the Catalyst to stop the Reapers.

#128
ImaginaryMatter

ImaginaryMatter
  • Members
  • 4 163 messages

Obadiah wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

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.

Is there an in-game reason to trust any of the leaders you encounter? You don't know most of them, and leaders have repeatedly turned on Shepard before. You needed them, just like you need the Catalyst to stop the Reapers.


Those are different, Shepard has much more information about those characters, he can talk to them ask them their motives and such, and/or other characters in the game can talk about them; also these characters are established by some form of alien government or military which lends them credibility, and even though their motivations, methods, and priorities may be different they are established to have the same general goal as Shepard. These characters are established in the game. The Catalyst has none of that (the only time he is ever mentioned in the game is at the end), he admits to being the leader of your enemies and then gives you a bunch of revelations, which are often contradictory to what Shepard has already experienced, and the only source of these claims is the Catalyst himself, there are no Codex entries, other characters, or any other kind of data that adds to the validity of the Catalyst, except for the Catalyst himself.

#129
Deathsaurer

Deathsaurer
  • Members
  • 1 505 messages

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

and the only source of these claims is the Catalyst himself, there are no Codex entries, other characters, or any other kind of data that adds to the validity of the Catalyst, except for the Catalyst himself.


*cough* Leviathan

#130
ImaginaryMatter

ImaginaryMatter
  • Members
  • 4 163 messages

Deathsaurer wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

and the only source of these claims is the Catalyst himself, there are no Codex entries, other characters, or any other kind of data that adds to the validity of the Catalyst, except for the Catalyst himself.


*cough* Leviathan


Oh jeez I feel silly now, I completely forgot about those guys.

Um... this is awkward. I hate admitting I'm wrong.

#131
Iakus

Iakus
  • Members
  • 30 309 messages

Deathsaurer wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

and the only source of these claims is the Catalyst himself, there are no Codex entries, other characters, or any other kind of data that adds to the validity of the Catalyst, except for the Catalyst himself.


*cough* Leviathan

You mean the $10 DLC Leviathans? :innocent:

#132
Deathsaurer

Deathsaurer
  • Members
  • 1 505 messages
Yes, the $10 squids that make me look like an idiot when I talk to the Rannoch destoryer or Vendetta.

#133
Linkenski

Linkenski
  • Members
  • 3 452 messages
I think "trust" is the wrong angle to look at it from. The Catalyst is the embodiement of Synthetic singularity. He's the prime example of what happens when AI overthrows their creators and thus a proper solution should be considered because it might only be a matter of time before something like it happens again.

The Reapers are abominations. They are the result of a machine intelligence lacking empathy or sense of ethics to know committing galaxy-wide genocide for ceveral cycles is wrong, and therefore an option like Synthesis (if you look aside from the canon dumb explanation) is an ideal solution to forever close the book on synthetics not being able to comprehend organic thinking.

#134
TheMyron

TheMyron
  • Members
  • 1 802 messages
After the Destroy ending, you should have the New Council pass a few new laws...

1. One needs a license to make V.I. synthetics.

2. Accidental creation of an A.I. results in permanent revocation of said license.

3. Deliberate creation of an A.I. results in Capital Punishment followed simultaneously followed by said A.I.'s destruction.

#135
David7204

David7204
  • Members
  • 15 187 messages
Clearly, the Catalyst has many people very convinced. Considering how many people eagerly agree with him entirely that synthetics are a danger after all?

Modifié par David7204, 08 décembre 2013 - 03:01 .


#136
ImaginaryMatter

ImaginaryMatter
  • Members
  • 4 163 messages

David7204 wrote...

Clearly, the Catalyst has many people very convinced. Considering how many people eagerly agree with him entirely that synthetics are a danger after all?


'People' as in player, or 'people' as in people in the Mass Effect universe?

#137
o Ventus

o Ventus
  • Members
  • 17 261 messages

David7204 wrote...

Clearly, the Catalyst has many people very convinced. Considering how many people eagerly agree with him entirely that synthetics are a danger after all?


You say this as if convincing one of 7 billion potential people ( in terms of real life population) of ANY idea is difficult.

I could go on the internet and claim that there is a teapot out in space, between Mars and Jupiter, and people would bite.

#138
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 639 messages

iakus wrote...

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?  


Well,  Luke and Vader team up to destroy the Emperor, exactly as the Emperor foresaw. Which means that Vader was mostly right in ESB. It was Luke's destiny, though Vader was wrong about the ruling the galaxy as father and son part. I'm not sure how this illustrates your point.

#139
David7204

David7204
  • Members
  • 15 187 messages

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Clearly, the Catalyst has many people very convinced. Considering how many people eagerly agree with him entirely that synthetics are a danger after all?


'People' as in player, or 'people' as in people in the Mass Effect universe?

People as in people on the BSN.

#140
ImaginaryMatter

ImaginaryMatter
  • Members
  • 4 163 messages
This is somewhat unrelated.

Does any one wonder or have an idea what's on the other side of the decision chamber? The Destroy and Control options make up 2 of the pylons surrounding the central energy beam but do the other two pylons have anything on them?

#141
Guest_StreetMagic_*

Guest_StreetMagic_*
  • Guests
I would agree with him that Synthetics are a danger. But I like it that way. If I didn't, I wouldn't have played the series for 5 years or whatever. Why try to solve that problem? Chaos makes the game world spin around.

#142
Deathsaurer

Deathsaurer
  • Members
  • 1 505 messages
You say that like it's wrong for it to want organics and synthetics to coexist

#143
sH0tgUn jUliA

sH0tgUn jUliA
  • Members
  • 16 812 messages

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.


Villains don't always lie. They just view things differently. He gave you three choices. If you chose any one of them, the war ended. If you refused them, everyone died. In the original ending you couldn't refuse. You had to choose. Hence, the star child wasn't lying.

#144
Guest_StreetMagic_*

Guest_StreetMagic_*
  • Guests

Deathsaurer wrote...

You say that like it's wrong for it to want organics and synthetics to coexist


It doesn't hurt to try, but I still want a sense of continuity and danger. I didn't buy Mass Effect to act like Gandhi. As nice as it is in the real world to aspire to that, it holds no potential for games. There's a time to be juvenile and aggressive - and this is it.

#145
David7204

David7204
  • Members
  • 15 187 messages
It's more or less true. Although somewhat poorly worded.

Conflict is the basis for all narrative. If there is no conflict, there is no story.

And yes, that's perhaps something to consider for very advanced life. What remains when all the conflict is gone?

Modifié par David7204, 08 décembre 2013 - 03:33 .


#146
Deathsaurer

Deathsaurer
  • Members
  • 1 505 messages
There is plenty of room left in the galaxy for new conflicts to rise regardless of the existence of synthetics.

#147
ImaginaryMatter

ImaginaryMatter
  • Members
  • 4 163 messages

David7204 wrote...

It's more or less true. Although somewhat poorly worded.

Conflict is the basis for all narrative. If there is no conflict, there is no story.

And yes, that's perhaps something to consider for very advanced life. What remains when all the conflict is gone?


They go to the internet!

#148
Guest_StreetMagic_*

Guest_StreetMagic_*
  • Guests

Deathsaurer wrote...

There is plenty of room left in the galaxy for new conflicts to rise regardless of the existence of synthetics.


I'm still leaving room for  a world like that by picking Destroy, I guess. But I'm not doing it for that reason. I don't care if synthetics pop up again or not. I pick Destroy to get rid of Reapers specifically. That's the real problem. Not all synthetics.

On another note.. Maybe to the Catalyst, it's still a way to solve his problem. Maybe he thinks that organics are ready now to combat future synthetics without the Reaper "solution". So he lets me Destroy him. "Good luck!"

Modifié par StreetMagic, 08 décembre 2013 - 03:46 .


#149
sH0tgUn jUliA

sH0tgUn jUliA
  • Members
  • 16 812 messages
Synthesis is supposed to be the golden ending. It is supposed to be the end. Destroy and Control still leave room for conflict and stories. Hence, synthesis cannot be the canon ending for a sequel. Destroy leaves room for the most conflict, and hence the most stories. This makes it the most suitable canon for a sequel.

Who cares about the synthetics, really? We only wanted to end the war and return to normal again. You know rebuild so we can get back to fighting among ourselves.

#150
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 639 messages

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Villains don't always lie. They just view things differently. He gave you three choices. If you chose any one of them, the war ended. If you refused them, everyone died. In the original ending you couldn't refuse. You had to choose. Hence, the star child wasn't lying.


Well, in the original you could just stand there and let the Reapers blow up the Crucible. No awesome Refuse soeech, though.