Wait... What!!? (Spoilers)

#51TinCynicPosted 2/1/2013 3:44:52 PM
How to force him to do these things? Well, thanks to the power of the Crucible, the Catalyst is, as he said, open to new possibilities. Are these possibilities limited to the only the Crucible? Maybe, maybe not. Shepard could have at least tried.

Besides, the Catalyst has a weird predilection towards Shepard and whatever he wants to do. The fact that the Catalyst is willing to let Shepard destroy millions of years of 'progress' from the cycles demonstrates that the Catalyst is wiling to let Shepard do what he wants. If the Catalyst wasn't open to new ideas and was still set on doing what is best in his opinion then he wouldn't offer any choice in the Crucible besides synthesis.

And as for the Reapers destroying the Crucible...yeah I got nothing. It makes no sense. The Catalyst, who controls the Reapers, wants Shepard to use the Crucible yet allows the Reapers to destroy it. It's an arbitrary time limit that exists because Bioware didn't want you to think about these choices too much lest you notice the cracks in their 'logic'.
#52SageOfLifePosted 2/1/2013 3:52:14 PM
TinCynic posted...
How to force him to do these things? Well, thanks to the power of the Crucible, the Catalyst is, as he said, open to new possibilities. Are these possibilities limited to the only the Crucible? Maybe, maybe not. Shepard could have at least tried.

Besides, the Catalyst has a weird predilection towards Shepard and whatever he wants to do. The fact that the Catalyst is willing to let Shepard destroy millions of years of 'progress' from the cycles demonstrates that the Catalyst is wiling to let Shepard do what he wants. If the Catalyst wasn't open to new ideas and was still set on doing what is best in his opinion then he wouldn't offer any choice in the Crucible besides synthesis.

And as for the Reapers destroying the Crucible...yeah I got nothing. It makes no sense. The Catalyst, who controls the Reapers, wants Shepard to use the Crucible yet allows the Reapers to destroy it. It's an arbitrary time limit that exists because Bioware didn't want you to think about these choices too much lest you notice the cracks in their 'logic'.


The Catalyst is open to the new possibilities provided by the crucible. The energy from the Crucible created a fundamental change in his thought processes, but it still wasn't going to violate its original programing.
---
I am the lizard queen!
#53phoenix52Posted 2/1/2013 4:34:32 PM
As Shepard is talking with the Starboy, the fleet that represented the combined might of every race in the galaxy is being devastated by Reapers, he's injured and losing blood and his window to activate the Crucible, something only he is going to be able to do, is shutting. Even if you assume that the Crucible is in no danger, a belief which is objectively wrong, you still must admit that Shepard is hovering near death or at least unconsciousness. There's no one else who's going to be able to initiate the Crucible, so their window of opportunity is equal to the amount of time he has before being taken out of the action.

Under those circumstances it would be foolish and insanely dangerous to mess around trying to debate a computer that has no interest in hearing alternative explanations. It is not rational or acceptable to risk every living thing in the galaxy when there's absolutely nothing to guarantee that any other choices are available. What would happen if he wasn't able to convince the Catalyst?
---
Its like having a knitting contest between the best regular old lady knitter in the world and a guy who's superpower is specifically to be the best knitter ever
#54LilyxLightningPosted 2/1/2013 4:39:54 PM
TinCynic posted...
And as for the Reapers destroying the Crucible...yeah I got nothing. It makes no sense. The Catalyst, who controls the Reapers, wants Shepard to use the Crucible yet allows the Reapers to destroy it. It's an arbitrary time limit that exists because Bioware didn't want you to think about these choices too much lest you notice the cracks in their 'logic'.

There's nothing that indicates that the Catalyst has direct control over the Reapers—after all, the only way to stop them without destroying them or carrying out Synthesis requires Shepard to take control of the Reapers personally. The cycles were made to be completely autonomous; the Catalyst likely has little to no power over it after it set the cycles in motion.
---
Lightning. It flashes bright, then fades away. It can't protect. It only destroys.
#55M4karovPosted 2/1/2013 5:01:11 PM
Crimsonhead4 posted...
What I find strange is that the reapers say that synthetics and organics will never live together in harmony even though its their fault that geth were converted to heretics and began attacking organics in the first place. According to legion, after the geth were liberated from the quarians they just wanted to advance at their own pace. Any violence that involved the geth was purely defense. It's because of the reapers that geth became hostile. Kind circular logic there


It's not really circular logic at all. The geth are just helping out with the Reaper cycle, which prevents total organic life being wiped out. It just so happens to have genocide as a step in that process.. but it's still different.

It would be circular if the Reapers reprogramed the geth to wipe out all organic life in the galaxy.
#56VG_SoldierPosted 2/1/2013 5:18:05 PM
While we should of been allowed to interject, I believe the main concern was in regards to long-term peace between the organics and synthetics. After all, how long would it be before the Geth and Quarians tried to kill each other again, or their story played out on a greater scale with say, the Asari?
---
If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him. ---
In peace prepare for war, in war prepare for peace.
#57Shaolin015(Topic Creator)Posted 2/1/2013 5:27:56 PM
MurphysGhost posted...
Shaolin015 posted...

This may be true, but don't forget that this is a story. There has to be a narrative for this. Without this its like watching the matrix and then at the end find out that he was superman in real life.... Oh wait :P



You'll have to clarify, because I've read that three times and I honestly have no idea what point you're attempting to communicate.


Imagine a movie where the main character learns about his enemy through many different ways. In the end, you know what he will do because you the viewer and the main character went through the same journey. It's what the writer does to educate the reader about the world and plot the writer is writing.

Now what they did in mass effect 3 was make you learn about the world and the main character and how he has grown and then change not only the main character at the last second leaving us bewildered at his decision making, but change the world in which we began to understand. This is like Captain Kirk all of a sudden using the force to defeat khan.

As a writer, these are just things you do not do in order to make a coherent narrative.
#58MurphysGhostPosted 2/1/2013 6:26:00 PM
Shaolin015 posted...

Now what they did in mass effect 3 was make you learn about the world and the main character and how he has grown and then change not only the main character at the last second leaving us bewildered at his decision making, but change the world in which we began to understand. This is like Captain Kirk all of a sudden using the force to defeat khan.



It's not a movie, or a book. It's a video game in which you, the player, make choices for Commander Shepard. He doesn't grow or change in any predetermined way because he's not a traditional character, he's a player avatar. His decision making is your decision making, so there's no avenue for him to 'change' without your agency.

Further, nothing about that player/character dynamic changes in the end. You were merely given another choice, and you happen to dislike this choice.

Your assertion that the main character 'changes' at the end not only ignores that everyone's 'main character' is different, but the critical fact that whatever 'your' Shepard thinks or believes is irrelevant to the Catalyst and the nature of the Crucible device.


Your Shepard is appalled by these choices? Too bad.

If there is a plane crashing that contains 5 passengers and 2 parachutes, someone's gonna get ****ed. Your moral outrage will not lessen the difficulty of the circumstance.

Ever heard of 'being stuck between a rock and a hard place'? Try to appreciate what poor Shep had to face there. ;)
---
"The act of treachery is an art, but the traitor himself is a piece of ****." - Mike Tyson
#59Vaoris_KlawPosted 2/1/2013 6:52:22 PM
Urdnot_Runt posted...
This aspect of the story is actually really cool, even if the whole organics/synthetics thing has been done to death in sci fi.


It's because the three choices have relevance in our lives today. In a way we're heading towards the conflicts like those in the Mass Effect universe today. We have computers putting people out of work making their jobs obsolete(control/destroy) and in a way, we are approaching synthesis because we are using machines more and more to aid our physical bodies. We have robotic components we can implant in someone who is disabled to help them regain some motor-skills back and in the future we will have nano machines that aid our immune system and right now we are on the cusp of having implants we can control with our thoughts.

If the organic/synthetic themes in Mass Effect aren't original, at least they are emotionally charged and relevant.


This is exactly right. I mean, the ME3 ending could have reflected our choices more, but the synthetic vs organic conflict is dead on. And we're heading in that direction already.

We will obtain artificial intelligence sometime in the next century, and when that happens we basically start a countdown to war, which itself is the beginning to our extinction.. We create synthetic life... and what then? First of, why create artificial intelligence? Because some whimsical scientist/engineer decided it'd be cool? No. These projects have to be funded millions, and these investors want something in return. Will the government use them for bomb disposal? The army for disposable shock troops? For situations deemed to unsafe to risk "human life"? Will it have rights similar to humans? Even if it does according to the "government" will people treat them that way?

There will be prejudice and racism, there will be violence. You think racism is bad today? Just wait for synthetic life to start taking jobs because they are more qualified, more intelligent, superior in effectively every way... Marxism states that conflict will always occur when class differences become too great. This doesn't even take religion into consideration, which is a predominant force for war.

I could write a thousand pages on what could happen. It is very likely that, one day, we will be the quarians (if we're lucky enough to achieve space travel before then). People will argue with me and say that humans just need to treat synthetics as equals. I say grow up and look at what our world is really like, read the news, not fantasy. I will treat synthetic life as equal to organic life, but it wont make a difference, there are too many people in the world for it to matter. Making friends =/= stopping war.

/rantingwalloftext
---
Umbasa
www.youtube.com/profile?user=Vaoris
#60MurphysGhostPosted 2/1/2013 7:09:50 PM
@Vaoris_Klaw -

I agree, it is an interesting theme of the trilogy that does predict real dilemmas that humans may encounter going forward.


I've said to my friends for years now that despite the fact that we've got all these books and movies predicting Skynet, we're gonna build the damn thing anyway. In a way it does almost seem inevitable, which is fascinating and scary at once.

Of course, the conceit of all the literature, that we won't know until we get there, is whether or not a 'true' AI is possible, and how would it work?
---
"The act of treachery is an art, but the traitor himself is a piece of ****." - Mike Tyson