inherit
1853
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:28:49 GMT
495
kalreegar
416
Oct 26, 2016 11:04:07 GMT
October 2016
kalreegar
|
Post by kalreegar on Mar 7, 2019 15:13:23 GMT
He urge you to act and warn you that "there is little time". He doesn't shut off the crucible. The crucile probably shut off by itself. Overloading or something like that. Interesting how after it turns around and walks away, the crucible is turned off. As far as the crucible shutting itself off. Did it have a timer on it to turn itself off? Of course Shepard isn't being forced to choose the green, but he/she is forcing the green on the galaxy. 1. but the crucible doesn't turn off as soon as the catalyst walk away. Shepard look around for half a minute, reapers destroying ships etc. And the catalyst say/did nothing about turning off the crucible. He didn't snap the finger. The crucible seems to run out of energy of something like that. Nothing strange. It probably has a "timer", or in other words a limited duration. If the catalyst is in full control of the crucible, why did he: 1. say there is little time 2. say that he can't act and need shepard ? The logic and simple explanation is that the catalyst can't control the crucible, but the crucible must be used now 2. so, it makes sense. Synthesis can be forced because is impossible to "artificially create" someone with Shepard readiness and understanding.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
26,308
themikefest
15,636
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Mar 7, 2019 15:31:20 GMT
So if Shepard were to stand still before reaching the tube to shoot it for x amount of time, the crucible should shut itself off?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2019 15:31:41 GMT
If the catalyst isn't able to activate the crucible, then what shut it off, if refuse is chosen? As far as the thing lying. It says the green isn't something that can be forced yet it's Shepard forcing the green, if chosen The more correct question is what would have activated it if Shepard refused to activate it. Hackett was unable to activate it. The Catalyst did not have to shut anything off if refuse is chosen because, in that case, it is never turned on.
During the discussion leading up to the choice, we are clearly shown things that are not actually happening, such as TIM and Anderson activating the Crucible if either Control or Destroy is chosen. It's a representation of it. Same holds true for the Crucible "shutting off" - It being "on" is a representation for the purposes of showing us the discussion in a visual way. This is not IT theory... it's just game "art/cinematics." We are told point blank that Hackett cannot fire the Crucible and Shepard collapses before he/she is able to reach the console. Therefore, the reality is that unless Shepard acts, the Crucible is never activated.
This, in my belief, is already the canon ending to ME3: Shepard dies reaching for the console after Hackett informs him/her that it's not firing remotely. He/she fails to activate, not for lack of trying or intention, but because he/she dies before he/she could do anything to make it fire. The rest is an artistic representation of what Christians (predominantly) believe happens after death - ascension and last judgment. Whatever actually happens to people after they die is an unknown and does not, in any way, shape or form, change the course of events here on earth. In this story, the only ending is that the galaxy is harvested by the reapers after Shepard fails to activate the Crucible.
|
|
inherit
1853
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:28:49 GMT
495
kalreegar
416
Oct 26, 2016 11:04:07 GMT
October 2016
kalreegar
|
Post by kalreegar on Mar 7, 2019 16:20:42 GMT
So if Shepard were to stand still before reaching the tube to shoot it for x amount of time, the crucible should shut itself off? If shepard stand still, it appears a game over messagge "the crucible has been destroyed". So yes, if you stand still the crucible became useless
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
26,308
themikefest
15,636
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Mar 7, 2019 16:32:28 GMT
So its destroyed, not shutoff.
Does that message appear after the cut was added?
|
|
dmc1001
N7
Biotic Booty
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: ferroboy
Prime Posts: 77
Posts: 9,942 Likes: 17,687
inherit
Biotic Booty
1031
0
Nov 16, 2024 14:01:33 GMT
17,687
dmc1001
9,942
August 2016
dmc1001
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
ferroboy
77
|
Post by dmc1001 on Mar 7, 2019 16:45:01 GMT
Is your phone a super intelligent AI capable of nearly wiping out an entire race from before the Reapers existed? No? I have my doubts about your conclusion. Eveb a super intelligent AI functions within the parameters of its base programming. EDI tells us this directly in ME2. The Catalyst was programmed to exist within hte Citadel and, therefore, it could control the platforms on the Citadel. However, the Crucible was not connected to the Citadel. It was not built by the people who programmed the Catalyst and was expressly developed to by-pass the abilities of the Catalyst. Therefore, the Catalyst had no ability to activate the Crucible because it was not within the parameters of its programming.
Even for humans, some things are just beyond our abilities to control them. Is it so hard to believe that a super-intelligent AI is also limited in similar ways?
Were the parameters of the Catalyst to commit genocide against its creators? I actually engaged in the behavior it was supposed to stop. Sounds to me like it had very little in the way of restraint. If my phone were super intelligent and had no constraints, it might well begin to do things that are harmful to us. Think of the AI on the Citadel from ME1. It couldn't do much in the form it had. But it was smart. It funneled money so that it could be taken to geth space and possibly turned into one of them. If Shepard doesn't discover it, presumably it succeeds. My super intelligent phone might be able to do the same, granting it mobility without constraint. It was made for certain functions but, for example, Google Duplex is able to make reservations on your behalf. Once you start giving it the ability to do things on your behalf, you run the risk of it doing things you don't want.
Now take this to a super intelligent AI that can create pawns to use against others. Even if it couldn't turn on its creators (the Catalyst was able to do that), the pawns could. They could be created to do whatever the super AI wants, including building a base over which it has complete control. Not doing so it as bad a flaw as the Leviathan made in creating the Catalyst in the first place.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Mar 7, 2019 16:45:53 GMT
But I don't like destroy. Why would I want to commit a criminal act of mass genocide against untold billions of innocent sentient beings who I helped save earlier in the game? Destroy is an utterly nihilistic, pure renegade option. I'll keep using MEHEM thank you, and if MEHEM were outlawed I'd have to reluctantly go back to choosing the control ending. Yea kind of the point and why the endings are so good. The purely emotional victory comes at the possible cost of millions of lives. Billions if you count the realistic after effects of a total reset of technology as it is implied before the EC took the destroy ending and neutered the hell out of it leaving it the weakest of all the endings. It continues to amaze, confuse and amuse me that in a game about choice and consequences people react to choice and consequences in the same way Superman reacts to kryptonite.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2019 16:48:26 GMT
Eveb a super intelligent AI functions within the parameters of its base programming. EDI tells us this directly in ME2. The Catalyst was programmed to exist within hte Citadel and, therefore, it could control the platforms on the Citadel. However, the Crucible was not connected to the Citadel. It was not built by the people who programmed the Catalyst and was expressly developed to by-pass the abilities of the Catalyst. Therefore, the Catalyst had no ability to activate the Crucible because it was not within the parameters of its programming.
Even for humans, some things are just beyond our abilities to control them. Is it so hard to believe that a super-intelligent AI is also limited in similar ways?
Were the parameters of the Catalyst to commit genocide against its creators? I actually engaged in the behavior it was supposed to stop. Sounds to me like it had very little in the way of restraint. If my phone were super intelligent and had no constraints, it might well begin to do things that are harmful to us. Think of the AI on the Citadel from ME1. It couldn't do much in the form it had. But it was smart. It funneled money so that it could be taken to geth space and possibly turned into one of them. If Shepard doesn't discover it, presumably it succeeds. My super intelligent phone might be able to do the same, granting it mobility without constraint. It was made for certain functions but, for example, Google Duplex is able to make reservations on your behalf. Once you start giving it the ability to do things on your behalf, you run the risk of it doing things you don't want.
Now take this to a super intelligent AI that can create pawns to use against others. Even if it couldn't turn on its creators (the Catalyst was able to do that), the pawns could. They could be created to do whatever the super AI wants, including building a base over which it has complete control. Not doing so it as bad a flaw as the Leviathan made in creating the Catalyst in the first place.
It's base parameter was flawed in such a way that it concluded that killing its Creators was within its prime directive to find a solution. Mass Effect is not the only fiction that has explored that issue.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Mar 7, 2019 16:48:42 GMT
Eveb a super intelligent AI functions within the parameters of its base programming. EDI tells us this directly in ME2. The Catalyst was programmed to exist within hte Citadel and, therefore, it could control the platforms on the Citadel. However, the Crucible was not connected to the Citadel. It was not built by the people who programmed the Catalyst and was expressly developed to by-pass the abilities of the Catalyst. Therefore, the Catalyst had no ability to activate the Crucible because it was not within the parameters of its programming.
Even for humans, some things are just beyond our abilities to control them. Is it so hard to believe that a super-intelligent AI is also limited in similar ways?
Were the parameters of the Catalyst to commit genocide against its creators? I actually engaged in the behavior it was supposed to stop. Sounds to me like it had very little in the way of restraint. If my phone were super intelligent and had no constraints, it might well begin to do things that are harmful to us. Think of the AI on the Citadel from ME1. It couldn't do much in the form it had. But it was smart. It funneled money so that it could be taken to geth space and possibly turned into one of them. If Shepard doesn't discover it, presumably it succeeds. My super intelligent phone might be able to do the same, granting it mobility without constraint. It was made for certain functions but, for example, Google Duplex is able to make reservations on your behalf. Once you start giving it the ability to do things on your behalf, you run the risk of it doing things you don't want.
Now take this to a super intelligent AI that can create pawns to use against others. Even if it couldn't turn on its creators (the Catalyst was able to do that), the pawns could. They could be created to do whatever the super AI wants, including building a base over which it has complete control. Not doing so it as bad a flaw as the Leviathan made in creating the Catalyst in the first place.
Once again you are taking two different arguments and combining them into one. The Catalyst has created an entirely self sufficient solution that requires no effort on it's part. It's only job left is to sit back and continue to observe. So why would it need complete control of the Citadel? Just because something can do something doesn't mean they should or automatically do.
|
|
inherit
Champion of Kirkwall
1212
0
8,026
Sifr
3,737
Aug 25, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
August 2016
sifr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Sifr on Mar 7, 2019 17:37:41 GMT
Yea kind of the point and why the endings are so good. The purely emotional victory comes at the possible cost of millions of lives. Billions if you count the realistic after effects of a total reset of technology as it is implied before the EC took the destroy ending and neutered the hell out of it leaving it the weakest of all the endings. Yeah, it's not the first time we've had to deal with that type of no-win-scenario either, such as in "The Arrival" for ME2 when we had to sacrifice the entire Bahak system so the Reapers couldn't use the Alpha Relay. I prefer the EC ending of Destroy because it seems to imply that only Reaper technology was affected/destroyed, rather than it triggering a technological apocalypse everywhere. Even if all tech in the Milky Way does derive from Reaper tech according to ME1, it's so distantly removed and low-tech in comparison, it might not even be affected at all?
The real tragedy from this is that the Geth may have unwittingly doomed themselves by upgrading with Reaper tech, as that might have been what made them susceptible to the effects of the energy wave triggering the Reaper shutdown/destroy command. EDI on the other hand was always doomed, as Cerberus built her using Reaper tech.
It's base parameter was flawed in such a way that it concluded that killing its Creators was within its prime directive to find a solution. Mass Effect is not the only fiction that has explored that issue. A quote from Age of Ultron that seems very applicable to the Catalyst;
"(Ultron) can't tell the difference between saving the world and destroying it."
|
|
inherit
1853
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:28:49 GMT
495
kalreegar
416
Oct 26, 2016 11:04:07 GMT
October 2016
kalreegar
|
Post by kalreegar on Mar 7, 2019 17:58:56 GMT
So its destroyed, not shutoff.
Does that message appear after the cut was added?
I don't know. I think so. The crucible became usless
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
26,308
themikefest
15,636
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Mar 7, 2019 18:08:11 GMT
So its destroyed, not shutoff.
Does that message appear after the cut was added?
I don't know. I think so. The crucible became usless I have had Shepard stand still a couple of times before shooting the tube while I was doing something else. So if the crucible shuts itself off after a few moments, if Shepard refuses, why doesn't it shutoff when my Shepard was standing around?
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Mar 7, 2019 18:25:53 GMT
Yea kind of the point and why the endings are so good. The purely emotional victory comes at the possible cost of millions of lives. Billions if you count the realistic after effects of a total reset of technology as it is implied before the EC took the destroy ending and neutered the hell out of it leaving it the weakest of all the endings. Yeah, it's not the first time we've had to deal with that type of no-win-scenario either, such as in "The Arrival" for ME2 when we had to sacrifice the entire Bahak system so the Reapers couldn't use the Alpha Relay. I prefer the EC ending of Destroy because it seems to imply that only Reaper technology was affected/destroyed, rather than it triggering a technological apocalypse everywhere. Even if all tech in the Milky Way does derive from Reaper tech according to ME1, it's so distantly removed and low-tech in comparison, it might not even be affected at all?
The real tragedy from this is that the Geth may have unwittingly doomed themselves by upgrading with Reaper tech, as that might have been what made them susceptible to the effects of the energy wave triggering the Reaper shutdown/destroy command. EDI on the other hand was always doomed, as Cerberus built her using Reaper tech.
That is the problem though the entire set up that to destroy the Reapers requires such a great sacrifice to eliminate such a great threat was...well great. The cycle that created the Reapers and that the Reapers maintained had to be completely destroyed to truly start over.
The fate of destruction is also the joy of rebirth.
|
|
inherit
Champion of Kirkwall
1212
0
8,026
Sifr
3,737
Aug 25, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
August 2016
sifr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Sifr on Mar 7, 2019 18:40:20 GMT
That is the problem though the entire set up that to destroy the Reapers requires such a great sacrifice to eliminate such a great threat was...well great. The cycle that created the Reapers and that the Reapers maintained had to be completely destroyed to truly start over.
The fate of destruction is also the joy of rebirth. I agree, Destroy was the only way to wipe the slate clean and destroy the Reapers for good. Sure it may come with a cost of Shepard bringing about the (unwilling) genocide of all current Synthetic life, but the other two endings would have Shepard let the Reapers off the hook for billions of years of galactic genocide.
I don't see how some people can think Destroy is out-of-character or a renegade choice for Shepard to make, when defeating the Reapers and breaking the Cycle has been Shepard's goal ever since the first game? In all three games, Shepard never sought to control the Reapers like the Illusive Man or attempt to merge with them like Saren did. At most they may have chosen to co-opt the Collector base to gain a technological advantage to better even the playing field, but that's about it.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Mar 7, 2019 19:21:46 GMT
That is the problem though the entire set up that to destroy the Reapers requires such a great sacrifice to eliminate such a great threat was...well great. The cycle that created the Reapers and that the Reapers maintained had to be completely destroyed to truly start over.
The fate of destruction is also the joy of rebirth. I agree, Destroy was the only way to wipe the slate clean and destroy the Reapers for good. Sure it may come with a cost of Shepard bringing about the (unwilling) genocide of all current Synthetic life, but the other two endings would have Shepard let the Reapers off the hook for billions of years of galactic genocide.
I don't see how some people can think Destroy is out-of-character or a renegade choice for Shepard to make, when defeating the Reapers and breaking the Cycle has been Shepard's goal ever since the first game? In all three games, Shepard never sought to control the Reapers like the Illusive Man or attempt to merge with them like Saren did. At most they may have chosen to co-opt the Collector base to gain a technological advantage to better even the playing field, but that's about it.
The lose of the Geth and the countless millions or billions organics that would die is the only way to wipe the old solution off the galaxy and try that new solution that rejects the Catalyst's conclusion. Neither ending lets the Reapers off the hook for their actions. Control directly puts the Reapers to work under the new Catalyst working to improve and protect the galaxy. Even Synthesis has them working with the galaxy to improve and advance the galaxy to new levels of technology. Their penance for their billions of years of destruction and death are rebuilding and working for another billion years to help the galaxy. The idea that they get off the hook if not out right destroyed has always seems a bit disingenuous to me. They are not simply let free to wonder the stars as they choose. Equally they were only killing for a reason. At any point in time they could have wiped all possibility of life from the galaxy. But they always held back to keep the galaxy in a sort of homeostasis between free development of organic life and the eventual development of synthetic life that would wipe it out. Even if you disagree with the Catalyst's conclusion and action taken it doesn't mean the Catalyst was wrong. Nor does it make the Catalyst's actions malicious in intent. It was a pragmatic approach to a problem looking at the big picture millions of years in the future. Something no organic race not even the Asari who can live for over 1,000 years is capable of doing. Hell the game basically set the Catalyst up to be telling 100% the truth and some players can't even comprehend the idea that it is correct. With some even pointing out the 5 or 6 years that the ME trilogy takes place some how undermines and disproves the billions of years of observation and documentation.
It is on par with the real world of people claiming violent video games are making people violent. Never mind that we have always been violent and at one point in time we were torturing and burning people alive for giving the wrong answer to not only WHO do you worship but HOW do you worship them.
Destroy is a perfectly in character choice for a Renegade or Paragon Shepard. Even the right thing to do often entails sacrifices. That said Saren never wanted to merge with them. He only wanted to prove useful to them because in his mind they would keep anything that is useful. They added Reaper tech to him to keep their puppet in stead to their goals.
|
|
inherit
1853
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:28:49 GMT
495
kalreegar
416
Oct 26, 2016 11:04:07 GMT
October 2016
kalreegar
|
Post by kalreegar on Mar 7, 2019 19:51:33 GMT
I don't know. I think so. The crucible became usless I have had Shepard stand still a couple of times before shooting the tube while I was doing something else. So if the crucible shuts itself off after a few moments, if Shepard refuses, why doesn't it shutoff when my Shepard was standing around? come on... it's just gameplay.. Seriously: 1. There are no in-game evidence that the catalyst can control and/or that he shut down the crucible 2. The catalyst controlling and/or shutting down the crucible contradicts the catalyst's own words and actions. So why are you keep saying that the catalyst control thr crucible and shut it down in refusal ending? When there are tons of perfectly coherent alternative explanations? (like the one from upupagain). To demostrate that the ending is flawed? Inventing plot holes?
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
26,308
themikefest
15,636
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Mar 7, 2019 20:03:34 GMT
So why are you keep saying that the catalyst control thr crucible and shut it down in refusal ending? Can you tell me how many times I've posted the catalyst controls the crucible?
|
|
inherit
1853
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:28:49 GMT
495
kalreegar
416
Oct 26, 2016 11:04:07 GMT
October 2016
kalreegar
|
Post by kalreegar on Mar 7, 2019 20:08:40 GMT
So why are you keep saying that the catalyst control thr crucible and shut it down in refusal ending? Can you tell me how many times I've posted the catalyst controls the crucible? if he is not able to interact with the crucible, or its primary functions, how can he shut it down at will?
|
|
KrrKs
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
Origin: KrrKs
Posts: 781 Likes: 2,233
inherit
678
0
Nov 26, 2024 22:27:00 GMT
2,233
KrrKs
781
August 2016
krrks
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
KrrKs
|
Post by KrrKs on Mar 7, 2019 20:54:41 GMT
I seem to have too much time at hand, so I want to make some pointless remarks: It continues to amaze, confuse and amuse me that in a game about choice and consequences people react to choice and consequences in the same way Superman reacts to kryptonite. This made me chuckle, but this is actually more like Superman reacting to Lois Lane's death. When the reality is crap, change the reality that is. It's base parameter was flawed in such a way that it concluded that killing its Creators was within its prime directive to find a solution. Mass Effect is not the only fiction that has explored that issue. A quote from Age of Ultron that seems very applicable to the Catalyst;
"(Ultron) can't tell the difference between saving the world and destroying it." To that I raise you one of my favourite Garak quotes, from the DS9 episode "Our Man Bashir":
I don't see how some people can think Destroy is out-of-character or a renegade choice for Shepard to make, when defeating the Reapers and breaking the Cycle has been Shepard's goal ever since the first game? Different mindset? Maybe the motivation is not to destroy the reapers, but to save lives. [...] The Catalyst has created an entirely self sufficient solution that requires no effort on it's part. It's only job left is to sit back and continue to observe. So why would it need complete control of the Citadel? Just because something can do something doesn't mean they should or automatically do. Why would it want the ability control important parts of the station: Because the ability to control important parts of that station directly or via minions would be essential the existence purpose of the catalyst. Because the ability to directly control the important parts of the station would require several steps less than the alternative and make the execution of the catalyst's plans more fail-safe.
The Catalist is located in the Citadel, the heart of the galactic community and seat of its government - as foreseen by the Reapers/Catalist. It can control at least some parts of the Citadel, like the elevator. It states that it controls the reapers. Does that mean on an 'individual' level? Probably not, but it still requires the capability to communicate with individual reapers and to initiate that communication. So the catalyst definitely can control some parts of the station! Imo, the question is not why would the catalyst need / want to control the station, but why would it not want to do that. And, somewhat related to that: Why is a vanguard needed at all? Is a vanguard needed to asses the state of galactic civilisations? No, the catalyst is literally sitting directly on-top of all information needed to do that! All it needs to do is to passively listen in once in a while to get a the same picture as the vanguard could from afar. Is a vanguard needed to 'wake up' the catalyst? This is a bit inconclusive, but why would the catalyst need a reaper to do that from the outside, instead of a simple low power alarm system built into the station the catalyst designed?
Is a vanguard needed to open the relay and let the invasion begin? The catalyst literally commanded the construction of said relay into/around its mainframe as part of its master plan! You might say that the organic civilisations could have evolved and developted along different paths and patterns. But if the catalyst would take such unexpected outcomes into account, it really should take into account events that may require directly controlling all of the citadel's functions. Events like the vanguard getting destroyed before fulfilling its mission. So, if the vanguard is not needed, and the catalyst does control the relay and other parts of the citadel, then the events of ME1 don't make sense and either the catalyst or its inception in ME3 are extremely stupid. If the vanguard is needed, and the catalyst does control the relay and other parts of the citadel, then the vanguard is not actually needed. So this point is either void or we are missing so much important information that the discussion becomes pointless. If the vanguard is not needed, and the catalyst does not control the relay and other parts of the citadel, then the events of ME1 don't make sense and Sovereign's plans and presence are extremely stupid. Though this also means that we are missing too much information to come to a conclusion w.r.t. this topic. If the vanguard is needed, and the catalyst does not control the relay and other parts of the citadel, then the catalyst and its plans is extremely stupid and none of its plans would probably work anyway. So I guess this is an actual possibilty. <Insert Yo Dawg meme>
|
|
dmc1001
N7
Biotic Booty
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: ferroboy
Prime Posts: 77
Posts: 9,942 Likes: 17,687
inherit
Biotic Booty
1031
0
Nov 16, 2024 14:01:33 GMT
17,687
dmc1001
9,942
August 2016
dmc1001
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
ferroboy
77
|
Post by dmc1001 on Mar 7, 2019 21:37:30 GMT
KrrKs: I'm not quoting that post but damn was it well said.
|
|
dmc1001
N7
Biotic Booty
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: ferroboy
Prime Posts: 77
Posts: 9,942 Likes: 17,687
inherit
Biotic Booty
1031
0
Nov 16, 2024 14:01:33 GMT
17,687
dmc1001
9,942
August 2016
dmc1001
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
ferroboy
77
|
Post by dmc1001 on Mar 7, 2019 21:43:04 GMT
It's base parameter was flawed in such a way that it concluded that killing its Creators was within its prime directive to find a solution. Mass Effect is not the only fiction that has explored that issue. If its programming is flawed, I'd conclude that its solutions are also flawed. That's why Shepard has no choice but to destroy them so that flawed programming is stopped for good. Anything that leaves that program intact risks having the flaw manifest itself in some way. Obvious example: can organic life arise on planets in the future? The building blocks for organic life are inorganic chemicals. Those would still exist and would presumably come together to create organic life. Does the Catalyst decide they need to be wiped out to prevent another war? Are they assimilated against their will - like the entire galaxy? These are important questions to consider.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Mar 7, 2019 22:30:55 GMT
[...] The Catalyst has created an entirely self sufficient solution that requires no effort on it's part. It's only job left is to sit back and continue to observe. So why would it need complete control of the Citadel? Just because something can do something doesn't mean they should or automatically do. Why would it want the ability control important parts of the station: Because the ability to control important parts of that station directly or via minions would be essential the existence purpose of the catalyst. Because the ability to directly control the important parts of the station would require several steps less than the alternative and make the execution of the catalyst's plans more fail-safe.
The Catalist is located in the Citadel, the heart of the galactic community and seat of its government - as foreseen by the Reapers/Catalist. It can control at least some parts of the Citadel, like the elevator. It states that it controls the reapers. Does that mean on an 'individual' level? Probably not, but it still requires the capability to communicate with individual reapers and to initiate that communication. So the catalyst definitely can control some parts of the station! Imo, the question is not why would the catalyst need / want to control the station, but why would it not want to do that. And, somewhat related to that: Why is a vanguard needed at all? Is a vanguard needed to asses the state of galactic civilisations? No, the catalyst is literally sitting directly on-top of all information needed to do that! All it needs to do is to passively listen in once in a while to get a the same picture as the vanguard could from afar. Is a vanguard needed to 'wake up' the catalyst? This is a bit inconclusive, but why would the catalyst need a reaper to do that from the outside, instead of a simple low power alarm system built into the station the catalyst designed?
Is a vanguard needed to open the relay and let the invasion begin? The catalyst literally commanded the construction of said relay into/around its mainframe as part of its master plan! You might say that the organic civilisations could have evolved and developted along different paths and patterns. But if the catalyst would take such unexpected outcomes into account, it really should take into account events that may require directly controlling all of the citadel's functions. Events like the vanguard getting destroyed before fulfilling its mission. So, if the vanguard is not needed, and the catalyst does control the relay and other parts of the citadel, then the events of ME1 don't make sense and either the catalyst or its inception in ME3 are extremely stupid. If the vanguard is needed, and the catalyst does control the relay and other parts of the citadel, then the vanguard is not actually needed. So this point is either void or we are missing so much important information that the discussion becomes pointless. If the vanguard is not needed, and the catalyst does not control the relay and other parts of the citadel, then the events of ME1 don't make sense and Sovereign's plans and presence are extremely stupid. Though this also means that we are missing too much information to come to a conclusion w.r.t. this topic. If the vanguard is needed, and the catalyst does not control the relay and other parts of the citadel, then the catalyst and its plans is extremely stupid and none of its plans would probably work anyway. So I guess this is an actual possibilty. <Insert Yo Dawg meme> Catalyst probably controls the area directly around it. How ever the entire base story of the Citadel is that no race ever explored it fully. Hence why no race realized it was a mass relay. The mechanisms to activate into a mass relay powerful enough to reach beyond the edge of the galaxy would be far larger and more connected to the over all structure then the space it would take for the Catalyst to reside in. If they can't find that them not finding the Catalyst isn't a stretch of the imagination.
The Citadel is bait to the rest of the galaxy kept up by the specifically created Keepers. They maintain the entire station and are the ones that react to the signal to activate the Relay. Literally all the important aspects of the Citadel are already build into the Citadel for self maintenance and secrecy. The Reapers are shown to be capable of independent thought and action even if they are guided by a single mind they are very much like the Rachnni. Each worker is capable of independent thought though they all obey the Queen when she says to do something. That said the Reaper Signal the mode of communication isn't very well understood how ever it is shown to be powerful. Possibly some sort of advanced Quantum Entanglement Communication. It took months and thousands of sacrifices for Cerberus to learn how to just barely over ride control of Husks. And the second the jamming field went down it attracted Reapers from hundreds of light years away. The thought that the Catalyst could have an advanced and miniaturized version that would allow it to communicate across the galaxy while being contained within it's own section without anyone knowing about it makes sense. Particularly since the Protheans didn't even know about the Reaper signal until after the invasion when they were brought out of stasis.
That said the sum total of the state of the galaxy can not be taken just from the Citadel. While it is often the center of power it can vary on the race. During the Protheans they controlled it almost exclusively for the majority of time. Equally a xenophobic race that keeps it self isolated and never goes to the Citadel making a strong push for AI development would never be recorded by the race or races on the Citadel.
If you were doing a study on the political development of the USA or UK or really any nation you wouldn't focus exclusively on the capital city. While that action is important equally important is the actives taking place in Texas or Edinburgh because they are part of the over all nation and changes there can effect changes else were. Equally the entire basis of the Protheans on Ilos is that the data was kept secret and deleted before the Citadel fell. Meaning the Reapers were never able to access it because keep said data on a flash drive and not linking any system to it would keep it a secret. And equally a hammer would delete it and render it unrecoverable.
So Sovereign watching the galaxy is necessary because it is mobile enough to see everything not just a very narrow view. So Sovereign watches the galaxy and when ready signals the keepers. They activate the relay and the Reapers attack wiping out the citadel first. If that doesn't happen as expected then Sovereign builds up an army to manually activate it If that fails still the Reapers are independent enough to come up with their own solution as seen with Harbinger.
The Catalyst doesn't need to act or control everything because every system is already in place and flawless. Even the altering of the Keeper signal would be repaired as soon as the Reapers regained the Citadel. Hell every victory over the Reapers in game defies all logic. And not just real world logic but in game world logic. There is no system in the world that can be prepared for literal divine intervention.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2019 13:32:59 GMT
It's base parameter was flawed in such a way that it concluded that killing its Creators was within its prime directive to find a solution. Mass Effect is not the only fiction that has explored that issue. If its programming is flawed, I'd conclude that its solutions are also flawed. That's why Shepard has no choice but to destroy them so that flawed programming is stopped for good. Anything that leaves that program intact risks having the flaw manifest itself in some way. Obvious example: can organic life arise on planets in the future? The building blocks for organic life are inorganic chemicals. Those would still exist and would presumably come together to create organic life. Does the Catalyst decide they need to be wiped out to prevent another war? Are they assimilated against their will - like the entire galaxy? These are important questions to consider. IMO, Shepard actually had no choice at all. He/she was dead... bled to death reaching for the console as Hackett informed him/her that it was not firing. We are shown this and told this outright by the game itself. We are shown Shepard checking his/her side and shown that he/she is bleeding profusely at that moment. We are shown him/her collapse and not moving at all until after the "Ascension." We are told by Hackett that the firing of the Crucible has failed. What follows is a reconciliation of Shepard's life... deciding only what he/she may have wanted to do only. Going back over what what important to him/her. Regardless of what the player decides what Shepard's morality was all about... the Reapers harvest the Galaxy. That's the only possible and logical canon ending that comes out of ME3. The rest amounts to fans trying to impose their own moral choices on others here.
Bioware allowed us to win the battle against TIM and allowed us to say goodbye to Anderson... but it's up to the "next hero" to win the war. Since the Reapers harvest, leave and don't return for 50,000 years... eventually ME will move 50,000 years beyond the death of Shepard into a new Reaper war... and we can start this process all over again with a "new" Shepard (perhaps the little kid we see in the post-credit slide.
People bemoan that they can't made Ryder a renegade... well, the one thing you can't do with the ending pseudo-choice in ME3 is make Shepard into a true paragon. Every choice is renegade and every choice has very negative consequences within it... but it's a choice he/she never actually made. The Reaper War was simply beyond his/her ability to win. The Reapers are an artistic representation of death... and one thing is eternal in life and that is death.
|
|
dmc1001
N7
Biotic Booty
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: ferroboy
Prime Posts: 77
Posts: 9,942 Likes: 17,687
inherit
Biotic Booty
1031
0
Nov 16, 2024 14:01:33 GMT
17,687
dmc1001
9,942
August 2016
dmc1001
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
ferroboy
77
|
Post by dmc1001 on Mar 8, 2019 14:36:13 GMT
Bioware allowed us to win the battle against TIM and allowed us to say goodbye to Anderson... but it's up to the "next hero" to win the war. Since the Reapers harvest, leave and don't return for 50,000 years... eventually ME will move 50,000 years beyond the death of Shepard into a new Reaper war... and we can start this process all over again with a "new" Shepard (perhaps the little kid we see in the post-credit slide. Doesn't appeal to me and doesn't seem to be the intention of the writers - unless you buy into IT. The Reaper War was simply beyond his/her ability to win. The Reapers are an artistic representation of death... and one thing is eternal in life and that is death. If this is true then the cycles will never end. That makes the entire MET pointless. Why fight an antagonist so powerful that no race, now or 50,000 years from now, can ever beat them? Maybe we can't beat death per se but we can try to stop genocide. People bemoan that they can't made Ryder a renegade... well, the one thing you can't do with the ending pseudo-choice in ME3 is make Shepard into a true paragon. Every choice is renegade and every choice has very negative consequences within it... but it's a choice he/she never actually made. The Reaper War was simply beyond his/her ability to win. The Reapers are an artistic representation of death... and one thing is eternal in life and that is death. I liked Ryder and liked the lighter tone. I've had my Ryder do some pretty Renegade stuff. It just wasn't labeled as such. More in line with motives and actions not being so black and white. I understand that people want their decisions to be clear cut. Not seeing it makes Ryder seem like a wuss. Tbf, Ryder did start out that way. Totally unprepared for the job, ready to take orders from Dad - or even Cora if it came to it. It took time for Ryder to grow into the role but some of those decisions could be harsh. Dealing with the krogan, who to rescue on certain missions, how Tann is dealt with, cheat on LI or not (looking at Keri), dropping that guy into the abyss or not. So easy to overlook that stuff when an opinion has already been made. We're definitely in disagreement about the Crucible but on the same page with Ryder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2019 15:08:06 GMT
Bioware allowed us to win the battle against TIM and allowed us to say goodbye to Anderson... but it's up to the "next hero" to win the war. Since the Reapers harvest, leave and don't return for 50,000 years... eventually ME will move 50,000 years beyond the death of Shepard into a new Reaper war... and we can start this process all over again with a "new" Shepard (perhaps the little kid we see in the post-credit slide. Doesn't appeal to me and doesn't seem to be the intention of the writers - unless you buy into IT. The Reaper War was simply beyond his/her ability to win. The Reapers are an artistic representation of death... and one thing is eternal in life and that is death. If this is true then the cycles will never end. That makes the entire MET pointless. Why fight an antagonist so powerful that no race, now or 50,000 years from now, can ever beat them? Maybe we can't beat death per se but we can try to stop genocide. People bemoan that they can't made Ryder a renegade... well, the one thing you can't do with the ending pseudo-choice in ME3 is make Shepard into a true paragon. Every choice is renegade and every choice has very negative consequences within it... but it's a choice he/she never actually made. The Reaper War was simply beyond his/her ability to win. The Reapers are an artistic representation of death... and one thing is eternal in life and that is death. I liked Ryder and liked the lighter tone. I've had my Ryder do some pretty Renegade stuff. It just wasn't labeled as such. More in line with motives and actions not being so black and white. I understand that people want their decisions to be clear cut. Not seeing it makes Ryder seem like a wuss. Tbf, Ryder did start out that way. Totally unprepared for the job, ready to take orders from Dad - or even Cora if it came to it. It took time for Ryder to grow into the role but some of those decisions could be harsh. Dealing with the krogan, who to rescue on certain missions, how Tann is dealt with, cheat on LI or not (looking at Keri), dropping that guy into the abyss or not. So easy to overlook that stuff when an opinion has already been made. We're definitely in disagreement about the Crucible but on the same page with Ryder. It's not even remotely related to IT. It's death... happens to all of us. I understand that people don't want their Shepard to die or to acknowledge that he/she couldn't succeed in beating death... but this isn't a majority vote, pick your canon situation (even though people here have been trying to force it into being that way for 6 long years now). The story relates Shepard's death very clearly. That the Reapers are a representation of death is also very clear... imbedded even in their name. It's the only ending that makes sense. Death is life's programming flaw to which there is no solution. None of the pseudo-choices beat death either... even the Green "utopian" ending post-EC only suggests that someday they might find a way to become immortal. In control, Shepard's immortality is suggested, but he/she has given up everything... forfeiting contact completely with everything from his/her life. Destroy is outright death... even with a breath scene... it's only a delay. We're told the cycle will reboot. Shepard will die... he/she might create children beforehand, but they too will also die. The cycle cannot be broken and it's a game we cannot win. We are outright TOLD all of this throughout the game. It's not IT. It's how the game foreshadows it's actual ending... Death closes all.
As for the MET being pointless... Just because we ALL die, does that make whatever we do and everything we do in life pointless?
|
|