70 réponses à ce sujet

[Ranger1337]

RangerSG wrote...

You can say the Catalyst is wrong. Because History isn't Math. Just because something HAS happened before doesn't mean it WILL happen again. And just because the Catalyst THINKS these other 'solutions' will work doesn't mean they will. Starbrat isn't a prophet. It's an AI. All it can do is extrapolate based on its flawed programming. It will do so accurately within the confines of the data it had. But it cannot interpret new data that does not yet exist. Hence the cycles. It has no other solution than to kill the strong so the weak can grow. The moment the Crucible fires, in any manner, anything the Starbrat had for data is rendered obsolete. 

Like I said, the Catalyst is simply following its programming. Remember Resident Evil, the movie? When the AI said that she won't take the chance of the virus escaping because one of the team is infected? AIs always aim for a 100% success rate. This goes the same for the Catalyst. It cannot deal in chance and probability because it's core programming restrains it in that area. If even the slightest chance of a civilization developing a genocidal AI race is left unchecked and it happens in the future, then it has failed. AIs like the Catalyst often follow the "ends justify the means" rule. The only reason why it's letting Shepard choose an option is because the docking of the Crucible and him standing in the Catalyst's lair renders the AI's efforts obsolete. It shows that there is now a chance that organics actually have the power to overthrow the Reapers. So following it's programming, it no longer has a 100% success plan. The solutions provide a better chance of ending the conflict than the AIs original programming dictates.

[RangerSG]

AlanC9 wrote...

von uber wrote...

It always amazes me that people think that the Reapers had a point, or that control or synthesis are good options.
I just can't get my head around it.

They all work out fine. What's hard to get your head around?

Edit: I'm only referring to control and synthesis being good options; there isn't very much reason to think that the Reapers had a point, though it's possible that the Catalyst really is right about everything. And of course, in a metagaming sense we know that he wasn't right, since there's no way Bio would actually let Destroy lead to the extermination of organic life.

Actually, we don't know any of them end fine. The epilogue narrators aren't prophets. They're only narrating their impressions based on the near-term aftermath. That doesn't even require a retcon to change.

[von uber]

RangerSG wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
They all work out fine. What's hard to get your head around?

Edit: I'm only referring to control and synthesis being good options; there isn't very much reason to think that the Reapers had a point, though it's possible that the Catalyst really is right about everything. And of course, in a metagaming sense we know that he wasn't right, since there's no way Bio would actually let Destroy lead to the extermination of organic life.

Actually, we don't know any of them end fine. The epilogue narrators aren't prophets. They're only narrating their impressions based on the near-term aftermath. That doesn't even require a retcon to change.

I think it depends on what you mean by good. They had to throw in the bit about killing the toasters off (why they have to die is a point - was it because of reaper tech, therefore did the geth condemn themselves?) in destroy othwerwise there would eb no reason to choose  any other option.
And as I always said, if they had made it clearer in the destroy option that Shepard gets to have his blue babies / bird babies / no babies because Miranda can't have them ending then it would be even worse for the other two options.

[AlanC9]

RangerSG wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

They all work out fine. What's hard to get your head around?

Edit: I'm only referring to control and synthesis being good options

Actually, we don't know any of them end fine. The epilogue narrators aren't prophets. They're only narrating their impressions based on the near-term aftermath. That doesn't even require a retcon to change.

That would require the Stargazer scene to be highly misleading, of course. But yeah, that could be the case.

[RangerSG]

AlanC9 wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

They all work out fine. What's hard to get your head around?

Edit: I'm only referring to control and synthesis being good options

Actually, we don't know any of them end fine. The epilogue narrators aren't prophets. They're only narrating their impressions based on the near-term aftermath. That doesn't even require a retcon to change.

That would require the Stargazer scene to be highly misleading, of course. But yeah, that could be the case.

The Stargazer scene is far enough ahead in the future that any temporary setbacks post-war will still be subsumed by the fact they survived the Great Terror and ended the Cycle. Doesn't mean that everything has to be as goody-goody as EDI and Shep AI claim it will be. 

[RangerSG]

von uber wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
They all work out fine. What's hard to get your head around?

Edit: I'm only referring to control and synthesis being good options; there isn't very much reason to think that the Reapers had a point, though it's possible that the Catalyst really is right about everything. And of course, in a metagaming sense we know that he wasn't right, since there's no way Bio would actually let Destroy lead to the extermination of organic life.

Actually, we don't know any of them end fine. The epilogue narrators aren't prophets. They're only narrating their impressions based on the near-term aftermath. That doesn't even require a retcon to change.

I think it depends on what you mean by good. They had to throw in the bit about killing the toasters off (why they have to die is a point - was it because of reaper tech, therefore did the geth condemn themselves?) in destroy othwerwise there would eb no reason to choose  any other option.
And as I always said, if they had made it clearer in the destroy option that Shepard gets to have his blue babies / bird babies / no babies because Miranda can't have them ending then it would be even worse for the other two options.

Thing is, I seem to recall that in the high EMS Destroy, the reference to Geth destruction is gone. 

I could buy that as a distinction between low and high Destroy. After all, there's a LOT of collatoral damage in the low EMS version. But yes, the theory is that the Geth get it because of their Reaper Code. Of course, the Catabrat says Shepard will get it too, being part Synthetic. And in High EMS, that's a lie. So taking the brat's word for it on the Geth is...dubious.

I do think EDI is toast though. She's far too much Reaper-tech not to get caught. 

[von uber]

RangerSG wrote...

Thing is, I seem to recall that in the high EMS Destroy, the reference to Geth destruction is gone. 

I could buy that as a distinction between low and high Destroy. After all, there's a LOT of collatoral damage in the low EMS version. But yes, the theory is that the Geth get it because of their Reaper Code. Of course, the Catabrat says Shepard will get it too, being part Synthetic. And in High EMS, that's a lie. So taking the brat's word for it on the Geth is...dubious.

I do think EDI is toast though. She's far too much Reaper-tech not to get caught. 

Agree with that - and EDI appears on the board in high destroy.
I find the convition that the Geth die problematic  - mainly based on them not appearing in the ending I guess - but then neither does Jack for example.

[von uber]

She doesn't appear in high EMS destroy ending (well not that I've noticed). Neither does kasumi, or Miranda. Doesn't mean they are dead though.

[von uber]

Ah I can't romance her. But anyway,you get my point? Just cos they aren't there doesn't mean they are dead - same for the Geth perhaps.

No, I mean panels.

Modifié par von uber, 19 février 2014 - 12:19 .

[AlanC9]

RangerSG wrote...
The Stargazer scene is far enough ahead in the future that any temporary setbacks post-war will still be subsumed by the fact they survived the Great Terror and ended the Cycle. Doesn't mean that everything has to be as goody-goody as EDI and Shep AI claim it will be. 

Depends on the nature of the setback. A Sheplyst who institutes a soul-crushing dictatorship would tend to tarnish Shepard's name a bit.

[CosmicGnosis]

AlanC9 wrote...

RangerSG wrote...
The Stargazer scene is far enough ahead in the future that any temporary setbacks post-war will still be subsumed by the fact they survived the Great Terror and ended the Cycle. Doesn't mean that everything has to be as goody-goody as EDI and Shep AI claim it will be. 

Depends on the nature of the setback. A Sheplyst who institutes a soul-crushing dictatorship would tend to tarnish Shepard's name a bit.

... Holy crap. I never considered that. Why would the Stargazer and the kid think so highly of the Shepard if the Shepard is a terrifying tyrant? This might actually limit the potential of Renegade Control Shepard.

[Excella Gionne]

  I fight for freedom. Mine, and everyone's. I fight for the right to choose our own fate. And if I die, I'll die knowing that I did everything I could to stop you. And I'll die free. -Shepard   

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

RangerSG wrote...
The Stargazer scene is far enough ahead in the future that any temporary setbacks post-war will still be subsumed by the fact they survived the Great Terror and ended the Cycle. Doesn't mean that everything has to be as goody-goody as EDI and Shep AI claim it will be. 

Depends on the nature of the setback. A Sheplyst who institutes a soul-crushing dictatorship would tend to tarnish Shepard's name a bit.

... Holy crap. I never considered that. Why would the Stargazer and the kid think so highly of the Shepard if the Shepard is a terrifying tyrant? This might actually limit the potential of Renegade Control Shepard.

Because they've been taught in school for generations how wonderful the Sheplyst is even though it is a terrifying tyrant.

[AlanC9]

More like North Korea, I think.

[ImaginaryMatter]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

RangerSG wrote...
The Stargazer scene is far enough ahead in the future that any temporary setbacks post-war will still be subsumed by the fact they survived the Great Terror and ended the Cycle. Doesn't mean that everything has to be as goody-goody as EDI and Shep AI claim it will be. 

Depends on the nature of the setback. A Sheplyst who institutes a soul-crushing dictatorship would tend to tarnish Shepard's name a bit.

... Holy crap. I never considered that. Why would the Stargazer and the kid think so highly of the Shepard if the Shepard is a terrifying tyrant? This might actually limit the potential of Renegade Control Shepard.

Because they've been taught in school for generations how wonderful the Sheplyst is even though it is a terrifying tyrant.

How funny would it be if the story of ME:4 was to fight the tyrant Sheplyst?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

It would be a loser. Sheplyst knows about the Crucible. Sheplyst wouldn't allow us to build strong fleets. There would be one solution.... smuggle nukes onto the Citadel and blow up the thing. 13.2 million people die. Sacrifices have to be made in the name of victory.

[ImaginaryMatter]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

It would be a loser. Sheplyst knows about the Crucible. Sheplyst wouldn't allow us to build strong fleets. There would be one solution.... smuggle nukes onto the Citadel and blow up the thing. 13.2 million people die. Sacrifices have to be made in the name of victory.

Should be easy enough, just smuggle them in through the beam.

[zed888]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...
How funny would it be if the story of ME:4 was to fight the tyrant Sheplyst?

 That would be one of the few things that would make me consider buying 4, no joke.  Another would be Refuse canon.