79 réponses à ce sujet

[Helios969]

 For me, "trust" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

Trust and belief are two different things. You can be distrustful of a source, but still believe it is speaking truth. You can trust something, but not believe it is correct.

 

The Catalyst? I do not trust it. I do not trust anyone I have just met. However, I do believe that what it is saying is true to the best of its knowledge, and I dispute any claims that what it says expressly contradicts what we know to be true.

 

At that point, it really does not take a genius to figure out why Godchild is willing to help Shepard make sense of the device (I hate how EC made Shepard suspiciously ask "Why help me?" but I know it had to be there, because fanbase... this is why we can't have nice things). This is not some sort of human/organic entity we are dealing with, interested in protecting its position, status, personal pride, or whatever. It is a machine, guys. A damn machine. All it cares about is fulfilling its function. If that means helping some organic operator Destroy, Control, or Synthesize, then it will do so without any second thought.

 

Really, this isn't rocket surgery. 

Well for me my ability to believe is explicitly tied to trust.  A few times in my life I have gone counter to what my intuition was screaming at me and had it bite me in the posterior...and each time I go through the conversation with the Catalyst that little voice is screaming it's a trap.  It doesn't help that a supposed "magnitudes above us" AI cannot put forth an infallible argument.

 

You also seem to suggest an AI is incapable of lying...that as you say it only 'cares about fulfilling its function.'  But what if it's function is to persuade you to its optimal conclusion synthesis or in lieu of that control (continue the cycles - my interpretation)?  That's pretty much where I am at and why destroy is the only viable option - low/high ems, Shep lives/doesn't live...regardless.  I don't, can't, and won't trust the Catalyst; and therefore will not take what it says at face value.  Maybe that's just a byproduct of the overall poor presentation.  (Well Bioware wanted for us to speculate so here we are.)

[JasonShepard]

Doesn't Hackett say the Crucible isn't firing? That's not exactly the same as not doing anything. I think it lights up briefly before the shot cuts away so it's doing something. Whether energy buildup would be detected would depend on what it was suppose to do. Which is really the problem with the "we're building a giant thing we don't know what it does" plan. It makes sense that they wouldn't notice things like restraining systems but of course, it doesn't make sense that they wouldn't know what the damn thing does in the first place.

 

Hackett says: "Nothing's happening. The Crucible's not firing. It's got to be something on your end."

 

It's not much. Considering that he presumably got that information from the Crucible scientists before passing it on to Shepard, then it's second-hand information at best. And Shep is almost certainly receiving the abridged version. But it's the best piece of independent evidence that we've got against the idea of a Crucible-charge-up time.

 

In other words, that line from Hackett tells Shepard that s/he has to do something, or else all is lost. If we're willing to rely on that, then we can rule out Refuse. Unfortunately, that leaves us with trusting the Catalyst when it tells us our options.

 

It doesn't value free will but it knows we do. If it comes at us with an off button for the Reapers and says "you must press this", we might refuse on principle. I know we're not metagaming but just look at how many people attacked the endings and other ME3 issues on choice alone and how many refused for the very reason I'm describing.

 

In any case, if it is a trap, all three options are preferable. Either they sabotage the Crucible or they directly speed up/accomplish the Reaper's goals. So why not? Having "choice" sells the deception and it can't really lose.

 

Sticking with the "Crucible is charging up, Catalyst is restrained and therefore must use us to sabotage the Crucible" line of thinking here. Why would it tell us that it's the leader of the Reapers? Why not impersonate Vigil? Or Vendetta? Or Avina? Someone Shepard is actually likely to trust? If it wants to deceive us, lie to us, then telling us that it controls the Reapers is a really bad first step. It's the primary reason that most players don't trust the Catalyst.

 

It could show up, pretend to be Prothean AI, tell us that the Crucible requires manual activation, and direct us to do whatever sabotage requires doing. If it wants to deceive us, why wouldn't it do something like that?

 

You can argue that perhaps whatever restraints the Crucible put on the Catalyst force it to tell the truth about who it is.... except those restraints simultaneously allow it to lie about the 3 options (within this line of thinking). This is beginning to feel like a very specific set of restraints to make this line of thought work.

 

(It offering us 3 options still feels problematic to me, regardless of whether the Catalyst is lying to us or telling the truth. But that may be a separate topic.)

[dorktainian]

you wanna know what will happen in synthesis.  Mordin will tell you. 

 

[dorktainian]

Why I don't trust starjar as far as I can kick him.

 

When you get to the end, out of nowhere you end up taking the express elevator of light (note the light bit) and supposedly end up at the base of the citadel, but if you look you are upside down and open to the vacuum of space.   Starjar looks like the kid that shepard saw die, that should be a massive red flag right there.

Shepard has choices apparently.

 

You can destroy the reapers.  Why would you not pick this?  If you have max EMS and shoot the tube, shepard will take a breath, although EDI and the geth will be destroyed. I have no problem with this to be fair.  EDI overstepped the mark when it took over EVAs body, the geth have been trying to kill us from the beginning, once again no problem there.

 

You can throw your brain in a microwave and attempt to control the reapers.  His body will be dissolved, but his thoughts and memories will apparently continue.  He will be able to control the reapers but will lose everything he has.  Everything he has.... including his humanity.

 

You can choose synthesis, which is akin to what mordin described as happened to the protheans.  Everything becomes synthetic, ergo you cannot feed, internal digestive organs become redundant and are replaced by tech.  Before you know it what happened to the collectors would happen to everyone you just screwed over by choosing synthesis.  Good job you.

 

If you choose to create your own destiny by choosing refuse, he throws his toys out the pram and orders the reapers to kill everyone. So which is the best option?

It has to be destroy because it offers you a sense of being able to control what happens.  Control & Synthesis require a lot of faith on your part that starjar is telling the truth.  Wouldn't it be embarrassing if you died and then starjar just killed everyone anyway?

 

The second best option is refuse.  Why?  Once again you are in control of your own destiny, even though you will probably lose, you can do so on your own terms, and maybe even cripple the reapers to enable the next cycle to wipe em out.

 

I mentioned Light earlier on.  It should be noted that the geth prey to a ball of light in ME1, indoctrination devices are composed of light, and starjar is made of light.

Coincidence?  No!  Kick him out of an airlock.

[Farangbaa]

I always envisioned this as a different Stargazer scene, with a couple of synthetics talking about how Shepard was so wise and selfless that he willingly let evolution take its natural course even though he knew that this would eventually doom his own species.

This would've been a GLORIOUS destroy ending.

I still secretly wish they make ME4 with a canonized destroy ending and the entire story is you trying to stop synthetics from destroying everyone.
 

That doesn't prove anything. Three years later, I still don't know what it's on about. How does Shepard prove the cycles "won't work"? Because he's ostensibly about to win? That just means they got sloppy with the clean up. If it thinks giant killbots melting people down every 50,000 years is a good plan, nothing we've done should dissuade it or convince it of anything other than that it needs to confirm its kills. And the three choices make even less sense from its perspective. Destroy is just flat out abandoning its post and committing suicide. Control is passing the buck and synthesis doesn't make enough sense to be evaluated.

Because organics have proven they can pass on information over billions of year while being periodically and systematically exterminated/preserved in Reaper form. Which doesn't mean it likes the destroy option though (for as much as a severely shackled AI 'likes' things) or thinks it's a good option. It flat out tells you it's the worst option.

And I agree, But that's a different discussion.
 

Seriously, why would it feel that Shepard and co. (with or without the former in charge of its playthings) are suddenly going to be safe from a problem it thought worthy of repeated genocide? Why does Destroy convince it we can take care of ourselves when making peace or killing the geth did not? Why does it think Shepard will do a better job as overlord without the cycles?

It doesn't think we can take care of ourselves. It flat out tells you this.
It doesn't think Shepard will do a better job, but at the very least it'll postpone the invevitable destruction of organics for another cycle.
Obviously it prefers synthesis, because this removes the disctinction between organics and synthetics. That is the only solution, but it can't do it on it's own. Except, in Reaper form. (*BADUMTSSSS*)
 

As for the holokid itself, shoot it in the head or refuse to play ball. Then you'll see how distinct it really is.

Uh duh. You have the option to deploy the crucible, but decide you'd rather take a moral stance. I get infuriated it by it. The Catalyst probably burns several circuit boards witnessing such a ridiculous amount of stupidity and rightfully decides you've spilled your chance. And if it even had the slightest doubt it's solution was the wrong one (the cycles, not synthesis, it can't do the latter on it's own...except in Reaper form), by shooting it you do nothing but confirm the cycles are the right choice.

[CrutchCricket]

Hackett says: "Nothing's happening. The Crucible's not firing. It's got to be something on your end."
 
It's not much. Considering that he presumably got that information from the Crucible scientists before passing it on to Shepard, then it's second-hand information at best. And Shep is almost certainly receiving the abridged version. But it's the best piece of independent evidence that we've got against the idea of a Crucible-charge-up time.
 
In other words, that line from Hackett tells Shepard that s/he has to do something, or else all is lost. If we're willing to rely on that, then we can rule out Refuse. Unfortunately, that leaves us with trusting the Catalyst when it tells us our options.

Charging up is not the only delay the Crucible can have. It could take time to fully interface with the Citadel without any sort of energy buildup people on the outside could detect. Quite simply it could be doing stuff without a progress bar. What's anyone going to say looking at it? It's not doing anything. Even though it is.

Either way, this doesn't lead to the conclusion that the holokid is to be trusted. At best it may lead to concluding Shepard has to do something. That's not to say the holokid isn't barring the real controls with its sabotage plans and babble.
 

Sticking with the "Crucible is charging up, Catalyst is restrained and therefore must use us to sabotage the Crucible" line of thinking here. Why would it tell us that it's the leader of the Reapers? Why not impersonate Vigil? Or Vendetta? Or Avina? Someone Shepard is actually likely to trust? If it wants to deceive us, lie to us, then telling us that it controls the Reapers is a really bad first step. It's the primary reason that most players don't trust the Catalyst.
 
It could show up, pretend to be Prothean AI, tell us that the Crucible requires manual activation, and direct us to do whatever sabotage requires doing. If it wants to deceive us, why wouldn't it do something like that?
 
You can argue that perhaps whatever restraints the Crucible put on the Catalyst force it to tell the truth about who it is.... except those restraints simultaneously allow it to lie about the 3 options (within this line of thinking). This is beginning to feel like a very specific set of restraints to make this line of thought work.
 
(It offering us 3 options still feels problematic to me, regardless of whether the Catalyst is lying to us or telling the truth. But that may be a separate topic.)

There are two things here. How the holokid looks and what it says. The reason it looks like the kid is obvious- cheap emotional manipulation. We're forced to "dream" about the stupid kid over and over again and lo and behold who should greet us at the end? It's just as infuriatingly manipulative in game as it is IRL. In the game though Shepard is irrevocably broken up about the kid (despite seeing tragedy upon tragedy before and never flinching). So showing up as the kid is immediately exploiting an emotional vulnerability that Avina or a Prothean VI would never be able to.

As to why it it would say it's the enemy, I think authority just about sums it up. Both Avina and the Prothean VIs have nothing to do with the Crucible, or the Citadel for that matter. They're both late additions relative to these ancient machines. Avina is a Council tour guide and the Protheans never finished their Crucible. Furthermore it's the Citadel that's supposed to be the Catalyst (that we know of). Therefore they're unlikely prospects to be there now, guiding the final decision. The Citadel on the other hand being a Reaper construct, having a Reaper intelligence there makes some sense. And having it say it controls the Reapers, while seemingly an overstep, serves lend credence to its nonsense as being real solutions. From its perspective anyway. From our perspective having someone come out and say "I'm the source of all your problems, let's make a deal" has the exact opposite effect. I suppose we could attribute this to fallibility. It knows enough to try emotional manipulation but it fails to account for the other emotions raised when it says it controls the Reapers. There's no reason to assume it's perfect. And it would be in line with the general themes of machines not being quite able to figure out the subtleties of organic emotions.
 
Arrogance is another possibility. The Reapers do have it in spades.
 
Though for the record I will say that if they were going for shock value using either of those at the end would've been far better than what we got.
 

Because organics have proven they can pass on information over billions of year while being periodically and systematically exterminated/preserved in Reaper form. Which doesn't mean it likes the destroy option though (for as much as a severely shackled AI 'likes' things) or thinks it's a good option. It flat out tells you it's the worst option.

Big deal. It already knew that. "We thought the concept had been eradicated a long time ago." As long as plans for the Crucible managed to survive even one cycle the proof is the same. Anything else?
 

It doesn't think we can take care of ourselves. It flat out tells you this.
It doesn't think Shepard will do a better job, but at the very least it'll postpone the invevitable destruction of organics for another cycle.
Obviously it prefers synthesis, because this removes the disctinction between organics and synthetics. That is the only solution, but it can't do it on it's own. Except, in Reaper form. (*BADUMTSSSS*)

And yet it's willing to abandon its mission regardless?
There won't be another cycle. Shepard is flat-out opposed to it. So how does this help?
Yes yes, "it can't be forced". Except when it can. I don't remember Shepard even taking a show of hands for who would be down to get green'd. 
 

Uh duh. You have the option to deploy the crucible, but decide you'd rather take a moral stance. I get infuriated it by it. The Catalyst probably burns several circuit boards witnessing such a ridiculous amount of stupidity and rightfully decides you've spilled your chance. And if it even had the slightest doubt it's solution was the wrong one (the cycles, not synthesis, it can't do the latter on it's own...except in Reaper form), by shooting it you do nothing but confirm the cycles are the right choice.

That's a very emotional organic thing for a supposedly cold intellect to experience, wouldn't you say? And it allows you to destroy everything it built by shooting a pipe but throws a hissy fit if you shoot (fruitlessly) at it? Come on...

[Quarian Master Race]

This would've been a GLORIOUS destroy ending.

I still secretly wish they make ME4 with a canonized destroy ending and the entire story is you trying to stop synthetics from destroying everyone.

I don't think so. Why would that be necessary? Organics now have a big "I win" button that fries all toasters in the form of the crucible, should they ever decide to get uppity again like the geth did.

We don't need the machines to ask metaphysical questions or give them free will for them to serve their purpose of improving our own existence, and we don't need the cycles anymore if we can just easily destroy them and try again when they start becoming more trouble than they're worth.

I don't buy the catalyst's logic on the disadvantages of destroy and the inevitable chaos/ xtinction of organics, especially considering that the option it iterates immediately after involves a means by which an organic thought process forcibly controls the evolution all synthetics (and organics) for eternity.

[Paulomedi]

[JasonShepard]

Charging up is not the only delay the Crucible can have. It could take time to fully interface with the Citadel without any sort of energy buildup people on the outside could detect. Quite simply it could be doing stuff without a progress bar. What's anyone going to say looking at it? It's not doing anything. Even though it is.

Either way, this doesn't lead to the conclusion that the holokid is to be trusted. At best it may lead to concluding Shepard has to do something. That's not to say the holokid isn't barring the real controls with its sabotage plans and babble.

 

I guess it comes down to a judgement call then:

 

1) You can make the decision to trust the Catalyst and hope that it's not trying to trick you. This allows you to pick Destroy, Control, or Synthesis. If it is trying to trick you, none of these options are likely to pay off (see my earlier comment regarding shell games and mousetraps).

 

2) You can make the decision not to trust the Catalyst and hope that Hackett's message was wrong. Cross your fingers that the Crucible will fire of its own accord before the Reapers get close enough to start destroying it.

 

3) You can make the decision not to trust the Catalyst and start looking for an alternative Crucible-control-system. Hope that you can find it, without guidance, in the amount of time that you have before the Reapers get close enough to start destroying the Crucible.

 

(If you're going to pick 2, you might as well try 3 at the same time.)

 

How long do you think you have before the Reapers destroy the Crucible?

(Meta-gaming, we know that happens if you stand around for only a minute, but Shepard has no real indication of that.)

 

Balance that time against how long you think it would take you to conclude that the Crucible actually isn't doing anything, or how long it would take to find and recognise these hypothetical alternative controls. (Bare in mind that, if the Catalyst is actively tricking you, it's probably taken you FAR away from any real control system.)

 

My point is that 3 feels like a no-win scenario. If the Catalyst is hiding the true controls, you almost certainly don't have time to find them. That could take hours, which we don't have. Okay, so we don't know how long the allied fleets will hold out, but you can look up and see Reapers within sight-range of the Crucible.

 

2, on the other hand, requires hoping that whoever is advising Hackett on the Crucible is wrong and that it actually is doing something. Even if it is doing something, do we have the time to wait for it to finish? This option is only worth considering if you think we do.

 

And 1 needs us to trust the damn holo-kid who hasn't even been kind enough to call a time-out in its own battle. I really wish we could ask it why it hasn't done that.

 

My own judgement places 1 as the best option out of a bad situation. It's a terrible option, but I don't see an alternative where we have a real chance of surviving. Your mileage may, of course, vary. 

 

RE the rest of your post: So the Catalyst is willing to tell us that it controls the Reapers because of arrogance and/or not understanding organic mindsets? Yeah, I can definitely accept that explanation. If the shoe fits, and all that... 

[txgoldrush]

No, The Catalyst isn't trying to trick you.

 

The Catalyst helps you, plain and simple, because its beaten, not just this cycle but in future cycles as well. He figures organics are now so resourceful, the cycle does not work anymore. He quits while he was ahead.

 

This explains why the Catalyst is more hostile on low EMS playthroughs as well.

[CrutchCricket]

Well... at the risk of being difficult...

 

We don't see any Reapers making for the Crucible. We can look outside the entirety of our minute (and why does it give us a time limit? Is the cold dispassionate intelligence impatient for some reason?) and no Reaper ever gets closer. So we may have more time for 3 than you think. Of course, the fleets are getting slaughtered outside. But the Reapers seem content to just carry on. Which raises its own question. If they considered the Crucible a threat why wouldn't they bum rush it the minute it comes into view, never mind when it's docking or already docked?

 

Maybe we'll come back to that. But back to Shepard, yes you could hypothetically waste hours looking for the "real controls" and never get to them- time in which the holokid may overcome the restraints of the Crucible (which we can interpret it shutting it down in Refuse as such) or the Crucible may timeout, or get destroyed or endless variations. At which point what happens? Well if it was a trap the cycle continues and you just bleed out (or get vented into space if the little brat is particularly malicious). So what about 1? If you do trust it and it is a trap, then you sabotage the Crucible and rush out the end of everything that much sooner. Is it better to break it and usher in the apocalypse by your own hand? Or is a delay, no matter how insignificant preferable?

 

I won't definitively say, but I am leaning towards the latter. It's a prisoner's dilemma.

 

             Holokid lies | Holokid tells the truth

                                |

Trust it                     |

-------------------------|----------------------------

Don't trust it            |

                               |

 

My ASCII failed me but you see how it plays out. Top left is immediate death, top right is win, bottom left is delayed death, bottom right is delayed death again. Top is greater risk, greater reward, but bottom is the steadier, more stable choice.

[DeathScepter]

Listen to yourself, you are indoctrinated. You need to enter this lab to reverse the indoctrination and listen to the Cerberus Lab Techs. Don't worry about the Cerberus Phantoms.

[Massa FX]

Its almost ME4 time. 

 

Let what happened go because it will NEVER be resolved in any way that satisfies anyone that had issue with the ending.

 

Hell may freeze over if Bioware touches any of that shyte in upcoming games.

 

Speaking of ME4: My new red hot speculation is that the protagonist and friends (fellow refugees) escape the Reapers by activating a Mass Relay that's never been used before. They blind jump. So when Shepard does her RGB/Refuse thing, it won't affect new protagonist in the new area of the galaxy or a new galaxy. Shepard's fate drifts into obscurity and Bioware can move forward without her shadow.

 

... and so can we.

Modifié par Massa FX, 24 avril 2015 - 04:47 .

[dorktainian]

until the reapers / collectors return to this place with their human quarry and new protagonist has to face off against indoctrinated shepard.

Wham Bam Thank you Maam

[voteDC]

No, The Catalyst isn't trying to trick you.

 

The Catalyst helps you, plain and simple, because its beaten, not just this cycle but in future cycles as well. He figures organics are now so resourceful, the cycle does not work anymore. He quits while he was ahead.

 

This explains why the Catalyst is more hostile on low EMS playthroughs as well.

Except it is not beaten. in fact the only reason Shepard reaches that chamber is because it brought Shepard there.

Had it simply not activated the lift, not interacted with Shepard, then the cycle would have continued just as it always had before.

That it brought Shepard up to its chamber is one of those things that, before I saw the actual ending of course, made me believe that it wanted Shepard away from that console.

[txgoldrush]

It is beaten because it realizes that future cycles will only repeat the currents cycle's success and that organics are too resourceful now for the cycle to continue. That's why it parleys with you.

 

The refuse ending proves this, if Shep fails, the next cycle wins.

[nos_astra]

2) In a logic argument, inevitability doesn't matter. Is the probability greater than zero? If yes, then it is possible and you have to judge whether or not the consequence is bad.

Appeal to probability is a logical fallacy.

[God]

Appeal to probability is a logical fallacy.

 

Recognition of a fallacy does not break an argument. 

 

Saying so would be a fallacy fallacy.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Well for me my ability to believe is explicitly tied to trust.  A few times in my life I have gone counter to what my intuition was screaming at me and had it bite me in the posterior...and each time I go through the conversation with the Catalyst that little voice is screaming it's a trap.

 

And, knowing what we know now, you were wrong to hold to that.

If you always require trust then you are going to fail in situations where an untrustworthy source tells truth.
 

It doesn't help that a supposed "magnitudes above us" AI cannot put forth an infallible argument.

 

People always say this but only offer counterarguments with just as many holes, if not more.
 

You also seem to suggest an AI is incapable of lying...that as you say it only 'cares about fulfilling its function.'  But what if it's function is to persuade you to its optimal conclusion synthesis or in lieu of that control (continue the cycles - my interpretation)?

 
Well that is not my suggestion at all. I made it clear what my point was in my last post, one page back.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

This is perhaps my biggest issue with holo-kid. It has just told me that it created and controls the Reapers, that it is responsible for slaughter on a unimaginable scale.

I think the fact he told you that (as opposed to pretending to be something else, like the Crucible's VI interface, Avina, or something else we would have been helpless to know better about) signals that there are bigger things to worry about than what Shepard thinks about him.

To me, it shows that he really wants Shepard to just consider its point.
 

Yet I was supposed to believe that it would let me stop it. I was fully expecting a turn about, where Shepard realises that it is directing him/her to electrocution, disintegration, or death by explosion.

 
Yeah, well, that part was kind of Shepard's own fault.

[von uber]

I want to know what exactly had changed given that the decision chamber had to be in existence before the crucible showed up.
So it was expected at some point that organics would build the crucible and successfully dock it.

[nos_astra]

Recognition of a fallacy does not break an argument. 
Saying so would be a fallacy fallacy.

It may not break the argument but it does weaken it. Is it practical to worry about something because probability is higher than zero? Is the solution worth the price? Do we have to apply the solution now?

Back we are to pointing out inconsistencies and weak writing.

[God]

I'm not invested in that argument one way or the other. I'm just calling out a fallacy where I see it.

[Torgette]

I trust that it does exactly what it was programmed to do and not much else. I also believe it's a billion year old mistake that has never been necessary. In that respect i'm not reasoning with the Catalyst, rather i'm using it as a galactic hammer to be thrown away. It's a trap in that the Crucible requires the Catalyst to function, but beyond that it's up to the player to think about the answer.