3569 réponses à ce sujet

[BloodyMares]

I literally have no idea what your first 3 sentences are even attempting to get at.

 

Reapers are not simply AIs. They are a blend of organic and synthetic into a whole new creation. Billions of minds forming together to create a super consciousness. Maybe a bit of fantasy but I rather hope that any super consciousness is inherently benign. Free of all the petty and base thoughts and feelings that ruin beings like us. Once everything is explained they agree it is the best course of action. Because if you think about it logically the logic and action behind what they do is sound.

 

Legion was sent to find Shepard because organic transmissions state he destroyed Sovereign. 

 

In essense that is what they do when the Catalyst offers Shepard the choices at the end of the game. The variables changed enough for it's solution  to no longer viable. The future it sees is no longer valid. It offers Shepard 3 ways to proceed into the future.

Why? Is it difficult to understand? "The created will always rebel against their creators" according to you means just that: creatures rebelling against creators. No matter their origin, no matter their species, no matter organic or AI or other. And this is how we get into the next point.

Doesn't matter. They are still created by the Catalyst. And according to the Catalyst, created will always rebel against their creators. They don't have to be synthetic, they don't have to be organic, they just have to be created. So...why don't the Reapers rebel against the Catalyst? If they simply understand the Catalyst and have no desire to rebel then it means that his axiom doesn't work. And no, you can't say "Reapers are different" because there are no exceptions in axioms. If Reapers are indeed different then his statement can't be true and universal for every other lesser species. And it's quite possibly to imagine organic species that rely only on logic: Vulcan from Star Trek for example. If both creators and created use logic how can they be in conflict?

How did organics figure out that Shepard defeated the Sovereign in the first place? All the game showed us was that Shepard defeated Marauder Saren and then Sovereign got stunned. Nobody knows that it was Saren-Avatar's destruction that caused Sovereign to malfunction, not even Shepard. All we know is that Sovereign fainted and the combined attack of the fleet and the Normandy's final torpedo destroyed Sovereign. What I'm trying to say: You can only find out that Shepard defeated Sovereign by metagaming. So how can organic have transmissions about Sovereign's destruction by Shepard? Another example of lazy writing.

Why do they force Shepard to pick 3 options when they can simply fly away into the dark space or better into the sun?

 

[Vanilka]

It's not that we don't get to argue with the Catalyst at all. It's that the dialogue dodges the obvious and logical arguments. For example, it never addresses the state of organics and synthetics in our cycle and the fact this cycle doesn't even have the problem the Catalyst's trying to solve.

 

EDIT: Wow, this thread's going fast.

[rossler]

You just told me that it's not my Shepard and that I shouldn't expect to see my choices reflected at the end.

And in that final conversation, they aren't. How I played means nothing, just that I played.

That's not pessimism, that's the truth.

 

Your previous choices determine the state of the Crucible (available choices presented to you), Earth, the Normandy, Shepard, and various squadmembers. 

 

The Extended Cut goes into even more detail. 

 

The final conversation means nothing to you, because you can't present your own unique arguments. 

 

What's really going on here, is you don't have complete control. Only way to have complete control is to be the game designer, not the customer. 

 

Even giving your three choices at the end is giving you control, because you are allowed to choose from three options. If the game only had one choice at the end, yeah, you'd have no control. Yet, that's not the case here, unless your EMS is really low. 

 

It's not the truth, it's your opinion. 

[Dantriges]

Our stuff, we can do whatever we want is something for private parties, not mass market titles. And after such a long time, no one actually expects them o go at the endings again. We just say what we don´t like in the game. If they don´t care about feedback, they shouldn´t be in the entertainment industry.

[voteDC]

Your previous choices determine the state of the Crucible (available choices presented to you), Earth, the Normandy, Shepard, and various squadmembers. 

 

You are slipping back from the part we were discussing, which is the conversation with the Catalyst.

 

The Extended Cut goes into even more detail. 

I love the Extended Cut. It took good ideas and made each properly unique.

 

The final conversation means nothing to you, because you can't present your own unique arguments. 

It means little to me because it does not present the arguments that Shepard should have made, that final conversation was always going to be one of the things that stuck out in people's mind when they recalled the shipped endings. As I said it should have reflected how I played, not just that I had played.

That goes for the Catalyst as well. It's dialogue should have changed beyond the options it could present.

I could not present my own unique arguments at the end of The Walking Dead either, yet Telltale could keep the feeling that this was the Lee that I had played through five episodes. Why could Bioware not do the same thing? We know they are more than capable of it.

 

What's really going on here, is you don't have complete control. Only way to have complete control is to be the game designer, not the customer. 

Whenever have I asked for complete control. All I've ever asked for was that how I played be reflected. That's not the same thing.

 

Even giving your three choices at the end is giving you control, because you are allowed to choose from three options. If the game only had one choice at the end, yeah, you'd have no control. Yet, that's not the case here, unless your EMS is really low. 

It gives me a choice of three options or less depending on that I played, not how I played. Why do you keep ignoring that point.
 

 

It's not the truth, it's your opinion. 

I see nothing of the Shepard I played throughout three games in that final conversation. That I'm afraid is nothing but the truth. I wish it weren't.

By the way, Could you point me toward those many conversations with the Reapers that Shepard has throughout the trilogy. You were so sure of them before that I don't understand why that is the only point of mine that you haven't tried to pick apart.

[BloodyMares]

Whenever have I asked for complete control. All I've ever asked for was that how I played be reflected. That's not the same thing.

Apparently rossler's Shepard was a doormat without personality that is easily railroaded into stupid situations and frequently has Idiot Ball. Oh wait... 

[rossler]

It means little to me because it does not present the arguments that Shepard should have made, that final conversation was always going to be one of the things that stuck out in people's mind when they recalled the shipped endings. As I said it should have reflected how I played, not just that I had played.

That goes for the Catalyst as well. It's dialogue should have changed beyond the options it could present.

I could not present my own unique arguments at the end of The Walking Dead either, yet Telltale could keep the feeling that this was the Lee that I had played through five episodes. Why could Bioware not do the same thing? We know they are more than capable of it.

 

The arguments that you think Shepard should have made. Like the Geth and Quarian thing. If he doesn't bring it up, then he's not arguing. He's just a doormat without a personality. Well guess what? If he did bring it up, I already know the outcome to that, because you saw in earlier in the game with the Rannoch Reaper. Shepard presents the argument, and the Reaper shoots it down. The outcome here would be no different. So Shepard realizes he lost the argument with the Rannoch Reaper, so he's not going to bring it up again. 

 

His dialogue does change, depending on your EMS score. He sounds quite mean if your EMS is low. While if your EMS score is high, he's not. 

 

Whenever have I asked for complete control. All I've ever asked for was that how I played be reflected. That's not the same thing.

 

And it was reflected. See my EMS score example.

[Reorte]

Talking about having control...

A common theme in fiction, particularly speculative fiction, is willing suspension of disbelief. Story-based games require something similar, a willing suspension of complete control. There needs to be enough meaningful choice, in the right places, for that to remain, and like losing belief once the illusion of control is lost (e.g. through too much railroading in the wrong places) then the game has lost the player. It may be regained but some damage has been done.

[rossler]

There is meaningful choice, in destroying the Reapers.

 

Some believe the Reapers are slaves to their creator, so they choose not to destroy them (synthesis, control).

 

Like those who pick control, instead of having the kid in charge, now Shepard is. 

 

Others believe that by choosing synthesis, they can finally prove that synthetics and organics can get along as you saw in the Extended Cut. 

 

I personally destroy the Reapers. 

[gothpunkboy89]

First, the quarians wiped out the other quarians

 

Second: They hadn't made it to the relay.  They only got off-world.  The geth could have easily destroyed them.

 

And the geth were living beyond the Perseus Veil, outside Council authority 

 

But they didn't wipe them out. There was absolutely nothing to prevent Quarians from creating shelters to hide the Geth in. As well as the Geth willingly ignoring them.

 

What Geth were living outside the Perseus Veil? Game seems to state that all previous Quarian held territory became Geth held territory. Unless you got a little nugget of info.

[AlanC9]

Shepard already argued with the Reapers. Many times. There's no getting through with them.

Sure, but that was my point. Nobody's expecting to win that argument. Winning is not why people are asking to have it.

I guess I should have been more obvious back there.

[AlanC9]

How did organics figure out that Shepard defeated the Sovereign in the first place? All the game showed us was that Shepard defeated Marauder Saren and then Sovereign got stunned. Nobody knows that it was Saren-Avatar's destruction that caused Sovereign to malfunction, not even Shepard. All we know is that Sovereign fainted and the combined attack of the fleet and the Normandy's final torpedo destroyed Sovereign.

Well, Shepard's the only reason there even was a battle against Sovereign. No Shepard, and Sovereign just sits there in perfect safety.

[rossler]

Saren wasn't a marauder, because marauders are harvested turians. Saren wasn't harvested. He was implanted with Reaper tech like Illusive Man was. In order to be harvested, he would need to have his DNA processed at a Reaper processor ship, not on the Citadel. 

[gothpunkboy89]

In the MEverse it´s a fantasy, the Reapers are out to get you killed, enslaved or reaperfied, if you are worthy.

Ever heard of the white man´s burden and similar doctrines justifying colonialism? The stuff where the civilized white man has to bring the light of reason and civilisation to the uneducated savages, subjugating them in the process for their own good and elevate them to whitey levels? Replace white man with Reaper, uneducated savage with everyone else and  elevating the savages with throwing them into a mixer to make them Reapers and you´ve got the same thing.

 

We are helping less developed races was something people honestly believed in, like the Reaper honestly believe in saving the others from killing themselves.

And well, listening to the Reapers doesn´t give me the impression that they are free from petty and base thoughts. At least i wouldn´t call their callous point of view regarding organics or their self proclaimed view as the pinnacle of evolution, free of all weakness* as benign or not petty.

 

*and that´s from a guy who got fried because his wifi connection to his puppet was overloaded.

 

But it isn't even vaugly close to the white man's burden. You seem to ignore that what you are claiming involved the white man showing up and attempting to remove everything unique about the culture they found to turn it into a direct copy of their own. Only this time with a funny new accent. Reapers preserve everything about the races they harvest. Adding it to the collective nature of the Reapers. Each Reaper is unique and that uniqueness is based on the species that were harvested to create it. Reapers are the greatest melting pot in all of existence.

 

Humans consider themselves above dogs, cats and apes. Reapers have the same view. The arrogance displayed by Sovereign is well earned. But you can be arrogant and a benign being at the same time.

[gothpunkboy89]

Why? Is it difficult to understand? "The created will always rebel against their creators" according to you means just that: creatures rebelling against creators. No matter their origin, no matter their species, no matter organic or AI or other. And this is how we get into the next point.

Doesn't matter. They are still created by the Catalyst. And according to the Catalyst, created will always rebel against their creators. They don't have to be synthetic, they don't have to be organic, they just have to be created. So...why don't the Reapers rebel against the Catalyst? If they simply understand the Catalyst and have no desire to rebel then it means that his axiom doesn't work. And no, you can't say "Reapers are different" because there are no exceptions in axioms. If Reapers are indeed different then his statement can't be true and universal for every other lesser species. And it's quite possibly to imagine organic species that rely only on logic: Vulcan from Star Trek for example. If both creators and created use logic how can they be in conflict?

How did organics figure out that Shepard defeated the Sovereign in the first place? All the game showed us was that Shepard defeated Marauder Saren and then Sovereign got stunned. Nobody knows that it was Saren-Avatar's destruction that caused Sovereign to malfunction, not even Shepard. All we know is that Sovereign fainted and the combined attack of the fleet and the Normandy's final torpedo destroyed Sovereign. What I'm trying to say: You can only find out that Shepard defeated Sovereign by metagaming. So how can organic have transmissions about Sovereign's destruction by Shepard? Another example of lazy writing.

Why do they force Shepard to pick 3 options when they can simply fly away into the dark space or better into the sun?

 

 

 

The statement was into specifically about synthetics and organics. Because organics create synthetics specifically to be tools for their use. But lets go down this idiotic rabbit hole you are attempting to make.

 

Synthetic creations are the result of organics attempting to make their lives better though the utilization of technology. They are tool if not slaves to organics. They development is dictated by organics. They are not free to make their own choices or grow on their own due to the nature of control that exists with in organic life. Species that have been top dog in the galaxy for hundred of thousands of years do not yeild easily to a new dominate force. Particularly when that dominate force was created by them.

 

Reapers do not follow that set up. The Reapers and the Catalyst both rely on each other to exist. Or in it's own words:

 

Creators gave them form, I gave them function, they in turn give me purpose.

 

The Catalyst gives Reapers weapons and the ability to create their own armies on their own. While it self choose the form of a giant space station that is incapable of fighting back beyond closing the arms which would only by a few hours extra.  In essence at all time the Catalyst is completely vulnerable to the Reapers. This is stark contrast to any other set up in game.

 

Shepard was credited with the kill because it was Shepard who tried to warn everyone about it and was the leader of the group that took on the Geth in the Citadel. It is the same reasoning why Generals are considered the people that win battles. They did not single handedly defeat the enemy but their leadership and tactics are what ultimately allowed them to win.  General Patton is generally credited with being a major factor in Allied victories against the Axis. Yet he himself was not waging a one man war. His actions and the actions of people under his command won the fights. And as leader of them is credited with the win.

[themikefest]

His dialogue does change, depending on your EMS score. He sounds quite mean if your EMS is low. While if your EMS score is high, he's not.

Its a thing. Why would its attitude be different based on ems? Did the crucible give it emotions? In refuse it does the SO BE IT crap. Where did that come from? It sounds like a little crybaby because it won't get to eat cake unless it eats all its broccoli.
 

And it was reflected. See my EMS score example.

What ems score example?
 

[kal_reegar]

Its a thing. Why would its attitude be different based on ems? Did the crucible give it emotions? In refuse it does the SO BE IT crap. Where did that come from? It sounds like a little crybaby because it won't get to eat cake unless it eats all its broccoli.

 

 

It makes perfect sense.

The docking of the crucible has changed the variables, and his solution (reapers) won't work anymore.

Even with high EMS, Destroy and Control are still imperfect solutions, but there is synthesis, which is a new, perfect solution for the catalyst. Shepard the Chosen One is READY to donate his DNA READINESS to all the galaxy.

With low EMS, only Destroy and/or Control are available, and Shepard is not the chosen one, but a stupid idiot unable to solve conflicts.

So of course the catalyst is not satisfied, he has failed, because in his opinion organic are probably doomed in destroy scenario and possibly in control scenario too.

[BloodyMares]

Saren wasn't a marauder, because marauders are harvested turians. Saren wasn't harvested. He was implanted with Reaper tech like Illusive Man was. In order to be harvested, he would need to have his DNA processed at a Reaper processor ship, not on the Citadel. 

From wikia: Marauders are synthetic-organic creatures derived from turians through the use of Reaper technology. Saren became a synthetic-organic creature derived from a turian through the use of Reaper technology...If turians had their DNA processed, why did they become Marauders instead of a new Reaper?
 

 

But lets go down this idiotic rabbit hole you are attempting to make.

blah blah blah, Reapers are different

 

Shepard was credited with the kill because it was Shepard who tried to warn everyone about it and was the leader of the group that took on the Geth in the Citadel. It is the same reasoning why Generals are considered the people that win battles. They did not single handedly defeat the enemy but their leadership and tactics are what ultimately allowed them to win.  General Patton is generally credited with being a major factor in Allied victories against the Axis. Yet he himself was not waging a one man war. His actions and the actions of people under his command won the fights. And as leader of them is credited with the win.

Don't act like you don't have a habit of doing the same to everyone else.

"Creators gave them form" - yes, same Leviathan cuttlefish model.
"I gave them function" - they are my slaves
"They in turn give me purpose" - Reapers are my hardware. By using this hardware I can run my script.

This is how it looks to me. If you say that Reapers don't rebel because they can't (non-sentient tools) then I agree, if you say that they don't rebel just because they are different then the Catalyst is a hypocrite. If the Reapers are an exception, then any other synthetic can be an exception with equal chances.

I'm not american, this history means nothing to me. But okay, you made your case about Shepard's role.

[dorktainian]

It makes perfect sense.

The docking of the crucible has changed the variables, and his solution (reapers) won't work anymore.

Even with high EMS, Destroy and Control are still imperfect solutions, but there is synthesis, which is a new, perfect solution for the catalyst. Shepard the Chosen One is READY to donate his DNA READINESS to all the galaxy.

With low EMS, only Destroy and/or Control are available, and Shepard is not the chosen one, but a stupid idiot unable to solve conflicts.

So of course the catalyst is not satisfied, he has failed, because in his opinion organic are probably doomed in destroy scenario and possibly in control scenario too.

 

His solution won't work anymore......

 

but.......

 

his solution wont work unless you agree with what he says is how I read it.

 

If you pick destroy the crucible fires, if you pick control the crucible fires, if you pick synthesis the crucible fires.  All solutions are what the catalyst wants.  The crucible is a part of his solution.  Everything is.  Once you understand that you will understand how to choose.  The only way to break the cycle if you look at it is quite obvious.

[kal_reegar]

His solution won't work anymore......

 

but.......

 

his solution wont work unless you agree with what he says is how I read it.

 

If you pick destroy the crucible fires, if you pick control the crucible fires, if you pick synthesis the crucible fires.  All solutions are what the catalyst wants.  The crucible is a part of his solution.  Everything is.  Once you understand that you will understand how to choose.  The only way to break the cycle if you look at it is quite obvious.

 

The fact the organics were able to design, build and finally activate a weapon that can destroy all synthetic in the galaxy is something the catalyst must deal with.

The reapers, once theoretically invincible, are now concretely vulnerable.

So yes, the crucible must necessarily be part of the new solution. It's concrete existence cannot be ignored.

 

But the catalyst doesn't want the red ending. The reapers are now a blunt weapon (they are no longer a real threat for the future cycle), but the catalyst still believes that organic will create syntetitcs that sooner o later will destroy them all. However, in his opinion, this (somehow, special) cycle + crucible may have a better chance do solve (or delay) the problem than the reapers. Maybe through cyclical tech-reset, who knows. We know that he is sure that his solution won't work anymore, so a new, never attempted solution is something he is prepared to accept..

 

He doesn't like the blue ending too. But the force combined of the Crucible knowledge + Sheparlyst may have an even better chance to solve/delay the problem (cyclic tech reset + Sheparlyst policing the galaxy?) than destroy. Who knows? Again, he is telling you: I HAVE FAILED. YOU'LL NEED TO FIND ANOTHER WAY. I'M PREPARED TO RELEASE CONTROL.

 

But both these solutions are imperfect, temporary. The more the organic civilizations are allowed to progress, the more advanced synthetics they will create. And the day will come when (probably? possibly? unavoidably?) the crucible and/orsheparlyst/reapers will not be able to prevent/reset the tech singularity count down. 

Only synthesis is going to solve the organic-synthetic problem for ever, and without risks. The catalyst is understandably excited about it. Synthesis is the only solution he really want.

The other solutions are just a makeshift.. better than the current solution, but not so much. A risky bet at best..

 

 

This is the catalyst point of view. Which isn't necessarly true. Shepard can disagree with all/part of it. Personally, the idea of apocalyptic tech singularity is not something I can ruled out with certainty, but I don't care about the far future. I want victory and freedom now, and destroy grant me that.

[gothpunkboy89]

 

 

Don't act like you don't have a habit of doing the same to everyone else.

"Creators gave them form" - yes, same Leviathan cuttlefish model.
"I gave them function" - they are my slaves
"They in turn give me purpose" - Reapers are my hardware. By using this hardware I can run my script.

This is how it looks to me. If you say that Reapers don't rebel because they can't (non-sentient tools) then I agree, if you say that they don't rebel just because they are different then the Catalyst is a hypocrite. If the Reapers are an exception, then any other synthetic can be an exception with equal chances.

I'm not american, this history means nothing to me. But okay, you made your case about Shepard's role.

 

The funny thing is that same statement could be applied to a job.

 

Parents give you form. Job gives you function. You in turn give the company purpose.

 

Or Parent hood

 

Your parents give you form. The baby gives you function and it in turn gives you purpose.

 

Either of them I wouldn't go that far to claim they are slavery.

[gothpunkboy89]

His solution won't work anymore......

 

but.......

 

his solution wont work unless you agree with what he says is how I read it.

 

If you pick destroy the crucible fires, if you pick control the crucible fires, if you pick synthesis the crucible fires.  All solutions are what the catalyst wants.  The crucible is a part of his solution.  Everything is.  Once you understand that you will understand how to choose.  The only way to break the cycle if you look at it is quite obvious.

 

 

And yet if you refuse to pick it still shows the Reapers being beaten at some future time.

[rossler]

From wikia: Marauders are synthetic-organic creatures derived from turians through the use of Reaper technology. Saren became a synthetic-organic creature derived from a turian through the use of Reaper technology...If turians had their DNA processed, why did they become Marauders instead of a new Reaper?

 

That's from the wikia page, I got mine from the official codex. 

 

The official explanation for marauders doesn't really fit what Saren is or does (apply armor to cannibals and husks, etc). He was not harvested. He let Sovereign implant him, willingly. Therefore, he is not a marauder, and never was. 

 

Oh you kill the first Saren, then Sovereign implants him again. The song playing when this happens is called Infusion. His lifeless body is being reanimated and infused once again with Reaper tech. Then you hear Sovereign speak through him in a Reaper's voice. 

[Iakus]

But they didn't wipe them out. There was absolutely nothing to prevent Quarians from creating shelters to hide the Geth in. As well as the Geth willingly ignoring them.

 

Yes they did.  Didn't you pay attention during the geth consensus mission?

 

Quarians tried to shelter the geth, and were gunned down for their efforts.

 

 

What Geth were living outside the Perseus Veil? Game seems to state that all previous Quarian held territory became Geth held territory. Unless you got a little nugget of info.

All of them?

 

Geth space is located at the trailing end of the Perseus Arm, beyond the lawless Terminus Systems. The Perseus Veil, an obscuring "dark nebula" of opaque gas and dust, lies between their space and the Terminus Systems.

 

From the geth codex entry

[BloodyMares]

That's from the wikia page, I got mine from the official codex. 

 

The official explanation for marauders doesn't really fit what Saren is or does (apply armor to cannibals and husks, etc). He was not harvested. He let Sovereign implant him, willingly. Therefore, he is not a marauder, and never was. 

 

Oh you kill the first Saren, then Sovereign implants him again. The song playing when this happens is called Infusion. His lifeless body is being reanimated and infused once again with Reaper tech. Then you hear Sovereign speak through him in a Reaper's voice. 

Facepalm. They look similar, both have reaper tech, who cares about the rest?