23455 réponses à ce sujet

[sdinc009]

Mercedes595 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
In a good story you don't replace either the good or the bad guy at the end and certainly not in the last few moments or pages of a story.

Ehm, Darth Vader in Return of a Jedi...... just a detail. The replacing or changing of a bad guy in the very end has been used and succesfuly in the past.

Incorrect. The Emperor replaced Darth Vader as the primary antagonist in Return of the Jedi during the Rising Action stage of the movie not in the final scene. That's the difference. This allowed the character to properly transition into the story.

[Mercedes595]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Holger1405 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Why should he belive the GlowingBoy? He wants to, thats why. He is near death and no nearer the almost impossible goal of destroying the reaper threat then at the begining of the game. Suddenly he is presented with information and an easy way (well 3 ways exactly) to end it all and either to die or finaly go home. I agree he should argue more and that the endings dont make sense and also that the whole thing leading up to this and the aftereffect and indeed even the discussuin with the BrightChild is nonsensical, but if I were physicaly in that situation I would accept at least parts of what was told to me as true and get on with my choice(remember he is in agony of pain so he might not be thinking that clearly).

As to Sarens motivations, they are clearly stated throughout ME1. he wants to prove to the reapers we are useful and would serve them. He does not even think of controling them. He might "control" Sovereign in a way as a ship, but I dont think he was in any doubt who was the boss.

Modifié par Mercedes595, 04 juin 2012 - 07:45 .

[NovaBlastMarketing]

as above post I actually just wrote a post about what my thoughts were after my first no-spoiler play though and actually reference Return of the jedi in in that post . I see i am one of many that did not like the ending at all.

After all we have been though I was hoping after destroying the reapers for good the ending would have been something similar to the ending of return of the jedi.

[Archonsg]

sdinc009 wrote...

Mercedes595 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
In a good story you don't replace either the good or the bad guy at the end and certainly not in the last few moments or pages of a story.

Ehm, Darth Vader in Return of a Jedi...... just a detail. The replacing or changing of a bad guy in the very end has been used and succesfuly in the past.

Incorrect. The Emperor replaced Darth Vader as the primary antagonist in Return of the Jedi during the Rising Action stage of the movie not in the final scene. That's the difference. This allowed the character to properly transition into the story.

Correct. Actually the Emperor was introduced as a "factor character" in the 5th (2nd) movie "The Empire Strikes Back", and not just as a "flavor character" as he was in the 4th (1st) movie "A new Hope." Thus the Emperor was shown to be the true evil behind Vadar.

Also note that Vadar's turning was also foreshadowed. He was tasked to destroy Luke but instead tried to convinced the Emperor to turn Luke to the Dark Side instead. Knowing the Sith Code, there can be only one master and one apprentice, Vadar must assuredly know that what he is asking for is in essence his own death in place of Luke's. Vadar hid it well but he still did have that little bit of humanity in him, perhaps remnants of the love he had for Padmè.

So in other words, Vadar's turning was ALREADY in the works. And the Emperor had already replaced Vadar as the "true bad" villain.

[Mercedes595]

sdinc009 wrote...

Mercedes595 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
In a good story you don't replace either the good or the bad guy at the end and certainly not in the last few moments or pages of a story.

Ehm, Darth Vader in Return of a Jedi...... just a detail. The replacing or changing of a bad guy in the very end has been used and succesfuly in the past.

Incorrect. The Emperor replaced Darth Vader as the primary antagonist in Return of the Jedi during the Rising Action stage of the movie not in the final scene. That's the difference. This allowed the character to properly transition into the story.

I dont mean this to become a thread about Star Wars, but its a matter of perspective and opinion. For me Darth Vader was still the main threat and making a kinda good guy from him in the last 3 minutes of the movie was kinda what I was saying earlier, but I get it was not so for you.

[Thanatos144]

Who cares its Gorge Lucus

[Archonsg]

Mercedes595 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Holger1405 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Why should he belive the GlowingBoy? He wants to, thats why. He is near death and no nearer the almost impossible goal of destroying the reaper threat then at the begining of the game. Suddenly he is presented with information and an easy way (well 3 ways exactly) to end it all and either to die or finaly go home. I agree he should argue more and that the endings dont make sense and also that the whole thing leading up to this and the aftereffect and indeed even the discussuin with the BrightChild is nonsensical, but if I were physicaly in that situation I would accept at least parts of what was told to me as true and get on with my choice(remember he is in agony of pain so he might not be thinking that clearly).

As to Sarens motivations, they are clearly stated throughout ME1. he wants to prove to the reapers we are useful and would serve them. He does not even think of controling them. He might "control" Sovereign in a way as a ship, but I dont think he was in any doubt who was the boss.

Isn't that the very definition of giving up / giving in and surrendering to the enemy and accepting suicide?

THAT IS NOT MY SHEPARD.

[3DandBeyond]

Mercedes595 wrote...

Why should he belive the GlowingBoy? He wants to, thats why. He is near death and no nearer the almost impossible goal of destroying the reaper threat then at the begining of the game. Suddenly he is presented with information and an easy way (well 3 ways exactly) to end it all and either to die or finaly go home. I agree he should argue more and that the endings dont make sense and also that the whole thing leading up to this and the aftereffect and indeed even the discussuin with the BrightChild is nonsensical, but if I were physicaly in that situation I would accept at least parts of what was told to me as true and get on with my choice(remember he is in agony of pain so he might not be thinking that clearly).

But the main issue is this:  The kid says that the Citadel is his home and more-they are kind of joined.  The Citadel moved to Earth so the conduit could make it easier to make that human goo stuff.  The kid has been making the human goo and his house is littered with bodies just the way he likes it.

If Shepard makes a choice based on the kid's word, s/he could be making the whole process work faster or be easier.  It's said to take 100 years to complete a cycle.  Maybe they are impatient because this time the galaxy is working together.  Everyone worked and created the Crucible but a logical conclusion might be that they just opened Pandora's box and handed everything over to the devil.  In which case, you equip as many people as possible with Cains and send them out airlocks to the nearest Reapers, you fire up the Thannix cannons and you go to Hackett's plan B.

You also have to note that the Crucible has remained untouched by Reapers who could easily have made straight for it and then ask why. 

I know that everything can be and will be explained away by Shepard's condition, but I am not allowed to expect truly human physical processes can take over and must instead accept the overwhelming amount of space magic it takes for this Crucible to do all the things the imp says it can do.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 04 juin 2012 - 07:55 .

[Mercedes595]

Archonsg wrote...

Also note that Vadar's turning was also foreshadowed. He was tasked to destroy Luke but instead tried to convinced the Emperor to turn Luke to the Dark Side instead. Knowing the Sith Code, there can be only one master and one apprentice, Vadar must assuredly know that what he is asking for is in essence his own death in place of Luke's. Vadar hid it well but he still did have that little bit of humanity in him, perhaps remnants of the love he had for Padmè.

Sorry again but I bag to differ... again. Bad me. Vader tries to turn Luke true, but he plans to kill the emperor with Lukes help and be the master... otherwise, lets just forget I mentioned Star Wars please.

[Holger1405]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Holger1405 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

@Holger,
You have never offered any proof as to why Shepard should believe the kid.  You've offered only what he says which is not proof and the Crucible, which is an unknown entity since no one knows where the plans originally came from.

I did offer an explanation way I think that Shepard could trust the Catalyst. If you don't remember go back and read my post's.

3DandBeyond wrote...
And now you demand proof from me-things that are clearly stated in the game and that I did point out to you several times over?

I like to have proof for your claim that Saren's goal was to control the Reapers. If this is clearly stated in the game than it should be easy to proof. There are thousands of Videos on YouTube about Saren.

Ok, let me state this as succinctly as possible.  I have asked you for proof, not explanations or your belief as to why you can trust the star kid.  I asked for proof.  Now, all of a sudden you want me to prove something to you and yet you have not answered what I have asked of you.  You first.  Proof.

And then even if Saren's goal was not to specifically control the reapers, he did want to assert control-of Krogan on Virmire.  But I have always asserted it is most obvious in TIM and in the star kid himself.  Both of them are tainted and you even believe the star kid may be acting out of good intentions as was TIM at some point in time.  And you do not know when TIM first became indoctrinated.  Sanctuary doesn't point to that at all.

Rofl. No, I asked you for proof. Proof about a claim you made.

3DandBeyond wrote...
Saren was also told he could control them...

 

And your answer made it pretty clear, you simply can't proof your claim.

Btw my proof is on side 871.   

Modifié par Holger1405, 04 juin 2012 - 07:59 .

[Mercedes595]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Mercedes595 wrote...

Why should he belive the GlowingBoy? He wants to, thats why. He is near death and no nearer the almost impossible goal of destroying the reaper threat then at the begining of the game. Suddenly he is presented with information and an easy way (well 3 ways exactly) to end it all and either to die or finaly go home. I agree he should argue more and that the endings dont make sense and also that the whole thing leading up to this and the aftereffect and indeed even the discussuin with the BrightChild is nonsensical, but if I were physicaly in that situation I would accept at least parts of what was told to me as true and get on with my choice(remember he is in agony of pain so he might not be thinking that clearly).

But the main issue is this:  The kid says that the Citadel is his home and more-they are kind of joined.  The Citadel moved to Earth so the conduit could make it easier to make that human goo stuff.  The kid has been making the human goo and his house is littered with bodies just the way he likes it.

If Shepard makes a choice based on the kid's word, s/he could be making the whole process work faster or be easier.  It's said to take 100 years to complete a cycle.  Maybe they are impatient because this time the galaxy is working together.  Everyone worked and created the Crucible but a logical conclusion might be that they just opened Pandora's box and handed everything over to the devil.  In which case, you equip as many people as possible with Cains and send them out airlocks to the nearest Reapers, you fire up the Thannix cannons and you go to Hackett's plan B.

You also have to note that the Crucible has remained untouched by Reapers who could easily have made straight for it and then ask why. 

I know that everything can be and will be explained away by Shepard's condition, but I am not allowed to expect truly human physical processes can take over and must instead accept the overwhelming amount of space magic it takes for this Crucible to do all the things the imp says it can do.

Mostly agreed, but dont forget that the Thanx and Cain solution would be Plan Z for Hackett. Plan B, C, D and all the others would involve sticking your head out of airlock to get a clearer view of the situation, getting stepped on by a random reaper to see if they might slip on your blood and other such briliant ideas as seen from the realy great plan of "Lets run very fast and hope we wont get burned" ....... realy?

[MSandt]

3DandBeyond wrote...

They provide artificial plot points and yet assign no meaning to the fact Shepard shot his/her mentor and father figure?  A slight wince would not have been an inhuman effort.

Maybe you should view the scene again because there's an expression of disappointment and hopelessness. But, as I said, anything beyond that would've been melodramatic and, as such, not very realistic considering the facts of the situation, i.e., their physical and mental state.

In fact, you merely postponed this.  The kid indicates the cycle will begin again, but in preventing that genocide you have become like them in effect.

Yes, as I said it's possible that there might appear another synthetic race that wipes out all life but that's a fact of life that advanced organic civilizations have to live with. In fact, it's a fact of life we too here in real life have to live with, that our technology turns against us. There's nothing Shepard could ever do to make it otherwise, except by denying all civilizations any chance of development. In fact, if you so choose, you can do just this by going for the control option.

You strip away your humanity and do things without protest (adrenaline still works) and impose genocide yourself.  You kill what makes people alive (Shepard consistently says this) and you kill what you helped make or you kill what made people follow you in the first place.

I don't understand any of that. Shepard can choose to destroy the Reapers. Soldiers ending up getting lost in the field of battle does not go against what Shepard worked for. They were there to fight for the survival of their species and that they did.

Then you failed to actually play the game and relationships are not only love affairs, but those with friends and teammates, and so on.  The game was made to have you or your Shepard care about something.

So before it was about giving the player a choice and now you're telling me how I should have approached the game? I chose not to pursue romantic relationships. That's me playing the game.

You are not the intended fan of such a game that involves relationships.  Doesn't mean you can't play it, but it means you don't care that it involves relationships, so you don't care that they exist.  In order to fully buy into the game, you must actually care about these people as if they are people in some way.

Of course I cared about the characters but relationships between me and those around me were infinitely secondary to the objective of stopping a galactic threat. That's real, selfless caring, putting the lives of unknowns before your personal relationships. My friends and the galaxy survived because of my sacrifice and you're suggesting that I should be unhappy because some totally meaningless relationship came to an end as a result? The issues at stake were far more important than some relationship between two individuals.

It is a game about the character rich interaction.

Exactly, and yet you're putting down my way of interacting.

[3DandBeyond]

@MSandt,
I have not put you down at all and you keep snipping the meaning out of what I say. I never said you had to pursue romantic relationships. You keep insisting I am talking about romance when I clearly stated I wasn't. But, fine have a conversation with yourself.

One cannot have a genuine conversation if you continually do this.

Shepard shoots Anderson and there is no expression of angst over what just happened. None.

[Thanatos144]

3DandBeyond wrote...

@MSandt,
I have not put you down at all and you keep snipping the meaning out of what I say. I never said you had to pursue romantic relationships. You keep insisting I am talking about romance when I clearly stated I wasn't. But, fine have a conversation with yourself.

One cannot have a genuine conversation if you continually do this.

Shepard shoots Anderson and there is no expression of angst over what just happened. None.

He reasonably argued his position and he didn't once snipe at you or
insult you. I am thinking maybe you need to ether get thicker skin or
maybe stop reading others posts.

[sdinc009]

Mercedes595 wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...

Mercedes595 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
In a good story you don't replace either the good or the bad guy at the end and certainly not in the last few moments or pages of a story.

Ehm, Darth Vader in Return of a Jedi...... just a detail. The replacing or changing of a bad guy in the very end has been used and succesfuly in the past.

Incorrect. The Emperor replaced Darth Vader as the primary antagonist in Return of the Jedi during the Rising Action stage of the movie not in the final scene. That's the difference. This allowed the character to properly transition into the story.

I dont mean this to become a thread about Star Wars, but its a matter of perspective and opinion. For me Darth Vader was still the main threat and making a kinda good guy from him in the last 3 minutes of the movie was kinda what I was saying earlier, but I get it was not so for you.

This isn't a matter of perspective or opinion, it's simple storytelling. In SW, the story is told and establishes the primary antagonist= The Emperor (symbolic power of the Empire as a whole), the secondary antagonist= Darth Vader, pitted against the protagonist=Luke. At the end, the secondary antagonist is offered a compelling chance for redemption and aids the protagonist in resolving the conflict with the primary antagonist bring the dramatic action of the story to a resolution. THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN ME 3. The series primary antagonist= the Reapers, in the final scene is replaced as the primary antagonist=The Catalyst, with no logical reason.  The Catalyst supplants the role of antagonist and protagonist as redefine the main driving goal of the entire series in the very final scene of the story. And yes, the Catalyst does replace Shepard as the protagonist since the protagonist is the character in the story that provides the forward dramatic motion of the story. The dialogue is a one sided conversation with the Catalyst and it is that character that is providing all the forward motion of the story in the scene. This is bad writing and this is a broken story. Not perspective or opinion, but the literal definition of poor storytelling. Don't believe me, well there happens to be a forum on this site that has a Professor of Literature explain just how poorly written the ending is. I'd be more than  happy to repost his analysis if you wish

[3DandBeyond]

Holger1405 wrote...


And your answer made it pretty clear, you simply can't proof your claim.

Btw my proof is on side 871.   

If you are saying this is proof, it isn't.

Holger1405 wrote...



If Shepard simply walk up to
the Catalyst you would be right with no doubt. I stated before that
Shepard had to trust unreliable sources before but I admit that this
explanation isn't good enough, not when everything is at stake.

However, just before you met the Catalyst, there is a little sequence:

Shepard
is sitting next to Anderson as he lost consciousness/dies. Then you see
that Shepard is badly bleeding, Hackett radio her/him, then Shepard is
trying to reach the consol, collapse, and lose consciousness.

Thus, Shepard is down, she/he has no chance to achieve anything.

And
then the Catalyst brings her/him up to his level. Why should the
Catalyst do that?  Why did he not let Shepard bleeding to dead? Go on
with his cycle happily?   

However, this thing is still the enemy
(Today I consider him more a ambivalent character than pure evil, but
that was different back then.)

Then the Catalyst stated one thing: "The Crucible changed my, created new possibilities."

And now we are on the cross-way.

Can
I belief that? Can Shepard belief that? Because if the Catalyst speaks
the truth, it means that this new "possibilities" didn't come from him, they come from the Crucible and that the three end choices are not bound to Catalyst logic or his goals.    

And my answer is yes, I can belief this, I can give him the benefit of the doubt, because it would make no sense at all for the Catalyst to bring Shepard up if he hadn't changed.  

I
still would love to kick Catalyst a**, but the goal of my Shepard
wasn't that, she wanted to stop the Reapers, save her friends, humanity
and the other organic races. Now she has the opportunity to do that.   

Remember,
I still think that the end was bad executed, there are plot holes, and
logic gaps the outcome of every choice should be made much more clear
and the Catalyst should be explained better. However, it is possible
that Shepard beliefs what the catalyst says without "meta-gaming" or a
"god's point of view."   

Your belief is that since Shepard is injured and the star kid raises him/her up on the platform that that is proof the kid means no ill will because he could have killed Shepard.  Well, that's not proof.  You don't know that the kid raised the platform at all-it could have been on automatic.  And you don't know that the kid (glowing energy thing) could have hurt Shepard at all.  You have no proof of that. 

And then the kid (whose word you believe) says he needs Shepard to enact his new solution.  Why would you believe this?  The kid has no physical presence so he may not be able to make any of the choices which could be to make harvesting faster and easier.  Maybe he needs someone that can physically do it.  But on face value he has told Shepard he needs Shepard to make it work.

Ok again why on earth would you give the reaper kid the benefit of any doubt?  I can see pushing things to the point where the kid shows he's really Harbinger and says Shepard is forced to make a choice, but not voluntarily.

I don't think you give someone who has killed trillions of people the benefit of any doubt at all.

You also still seem to think the Crucible is a known entity.  No one knows who planned it originally.  No one knows what it will do.  Shepard even tells Liara that-they don't want to be like kids playing with a loaded gun.  You don't know where the plans came from, everyone made it, but no one as yet knows what it will do.  You have only the evil kid's word on what it will do and he is not credible.  The other thing is the kid seems awfully familiar with the Crucible, since he knows what it will do (or what he says it will do).  Isn't that at all strange?  Nobody else knows what it does, but he knows?

I cannot conceive of ever believing someone like that and ever doing anything based upon his word.

And since it is clear I erred in my understanding of Saren, I apologize for that-his was more a problem associated with his desired control of others in order to submit to the reapers, but not control of the reapers.  I still see Control as TIM's choice and not some paragon offering, which still has some basis in the Collector's base, TIM's desires under indoctrination and what the Catalyst represents and what he says about TIM and Control.

But it all goes back to the lack of trustworthiness of the kid.  I can't trust a mass murderer.  Anyone that can without real hard and fast proof is beyond my comprehension.

[3DandBeyond]

Thanatos144 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

@MSandt,
I have not put you down at all and you keep snipping the meaning out of what I say. I never said you had to pursue romantic relationships. You keep insisting I am talking about romance when I clearly stated I wasn't. But, fine have a conversation with yourself.

One cannot have a genuine conversation if you continually do this.

Shepard shoots Anderson and there is no expression of angst over what just happened. None.

He reasonably argued his position and he didn't once snipe at you or
insult you. I am thinking maybe you need to ether get thicker skin or
maybe stop reading others posts.

And who invited you in on this discussion?  I never said that s/he sniped at me.  I correctly stated that s/he keeps snipping my quotes and states things I never said.  I said relationships were not all about romance, but that was ignored and s/he keeps insisting I mean romances.  Snipping and sniping are 2 different words, but in your words, "what are they teaching in schools these days?"

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 04 juin 2012 - 08:38 .

[MSandt]

3DandBeyond wrote...

The "why" does exist within the games-they return from a hibernation outside of the galaxy in order to reproduce (human reaper in ME2 as ugh as that was) and to do that they take in organic goo.

That explains only why the Reapers did what they did but not why they were created. Here's what I wrote: "What remained to be explained was who created them and why." For what purpose were they created in the first place? The ending answered that: to preserve organic life by denying them a chance to destroy themselves.

The glow boy revealed nothing credible.  The only thing of value that he states is that he controls the reapers which may or may not even be true.

Of course it's true. This is demonstrated pretty vividly.

We may think he created them which if we do means he could again, so they are never truly gone.

The Catalyst was probably destroyed along with the Citadel. Because of Shepard the Catalyst believed that the cycle could finally be broken, and with the Catalyst's existence tied to maintaining the cycle, there'd be no need for the Catalyst to exist anymore.

And, as I said, even if the Catalyst survived and wanted to initiate another cycle, it'd take millions of years to assemble another synthetic army capable of mass genocide.
 

He supposedly reveals truths to Shepard but then doesn't reveal himself, so what did we actually learn?

Uh, the Catalyst did reveal itself.
At one point two of the engineering-level crew members were discussing whether EDI is in fact Normandy. This could be an allegory to the Catalyst/Citadel relation. The glowboy was to the Catalyst what the EDI chick was to EDI.

All we still know is that somebody created the reapers, we don't know who did at all.  So the revelation of the kid achieved exactly nothing.

There is no reason to doubt the validity of its claim that it is the creator of the Reapers. This is the only reasonable conclusion given the facts.

[Thanatos144]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

@MSandt,
I have not put you down at all and you keep snipping the meaning out of what I say. I never said you had to pursue romantic relationships. You keep insisting I am talking about romance when I clearly stated I wasn't. But, fine have a conversation with yourself.

One cannot have a genuine conversation if you continually do this.

Shepard shoots Anderson and there is no expression of angst over what just happened. None.

He reasonably argued his position and he didn't once snipe at you or
insult you. I am thinking maybe you need to ether get thicker skin or
maybe stop reading others posts.

And who invited you in on this discussion?  I never said that s/he sniped at me.  I correctly stated that s/he keeps snipping my quotes and states things I never said.  I said relationships were not all about romance, but that was ignored and s/he keeps insisting I mean romances.  Snipping and sniping are 2 different words, but in your words, "what are they teaching in schools these days?"

I see so you just dont like him debating you point for point.....That is a sign of weak debating.

[UWxMaserati]

I just beat the game as I felt obligated to complete Skyrim first as I don't like to multigame so I apologize if I am way behind on things.

So if the DLC is released and it's just Bioware/EA spoon feeding the same ending and using more last minute made up loop holes to justify and explain the reaper sized plot holes will that just be it or will it just spark up even more outrage? I remember reading something about threats being sent by some fans who were still demanding the end be completely changed.

Just curious as to what the vibe is on that.

[3DandBeyond]

Thanatos144 wrote...

I see so you just dont like him debating you point for point.....That is a sign of weak debating.

You are laughable in your own ability to see yourself in everyone else.

[MSandt]

3DandBeyond wrote...

  I said relationships were not all about romance, but that was ignored and s/he keeps insisting I mean romances. 

I mentioned "romantic relationship" once and "relationship" a lot more. I obviously wasn't talking about romantic relationships only.

[Mercedes595]

@sdinc009
Please, stop it with the Star Wars thing. I know I started it and I am sorry, I screw up. But I never even tried to compare SW and ME, I only gave an example of a plot change including sudden reversal of roles at the end of a story. Thats all. That you dont agree with me on this particular example is totally ok and I respect that.
I even agree that the narrative of the ending of ME3 is broken. The problem of exchanging roles is totaly insignificant if compared with all the stupidity, plot holes and more stupidity.
So please stop arguing with me about things which we both agree on or things that are not relevant...

[Holger1405]

Archonsg wrote...

@3dandbeyond and @holger1405
Peace, take a deep breath now. Sorry I am late of this particular discussion but hear me out please.

In regards to the control option, I think both of you are correct, and wrong.

ROFL ya, thanks for that.

Archonsg wrote...
And that "Synthesis" is just plain bat **** crazy.

Yup agreed.

Archonsg wrote...

Control though, I see both your POVs.
But because the ending does not take into account one of the big game mechanics in the game, the Paragon / Renegade decision tree (yet another reason why this ending IS BROKEN in relation to Mass Effect the series) you are left to interpretation as to what "control" would exactly do.

You see, I do agree with Holger that control is the only option that does not "Mass Genetically rape" every race out there or cause you to betray people who are dying, fighting for you as an ally.
I also happen to agree with 3D that control as an option is no long-term solution or even a solution ON ITS OWN.

Therein lies the problem.
A paragon WOULD take control of the reapers if he or she can be sure he or she actually takes control not just get elecro-fried to death to the background of manical laughing from the catalyst, that those three options were the only available ones, and THEN FLY EVERY SINGLE REAPER AND THE CITADEL INTO THE SUN. After making sure there are no survivors on the citadel of course.


But without that "fly into the sun" option, taking control for control's sake is not just Renegade, its bad in the evil sense, its stupid as again you have every indication that the Catalyst isn't telling you the entire truth. It's in control, thus it CAN stop everything, remove the Reapers from Battle, halt all reaper ground forces in fact, he can end it all right there, but he doesn't and he wants you to die. Again I cannot stress this enough, it tells you to go kill yourself and IS STILL KILLING PEOPLE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO SEE, IN SPACE AT THE TIME, and you (Shepard) thinks it's a good idea to do what it says? <_<

I think that Shepard has a reason to trust the Catalyst, and I pointed this reason out. But I agree the plot holes and logical gaps that made this reasons assailable need be closed.

Archonsg wrote...
Now as for Space Magic, there's space magic as in Biotics, and there's Space Magic as in "Ignore actual physics of how much force it requires to compromise a superstructure like that of a Mass Relay" (please for gods sake DO THE MATH before saying "its a different explosion") which in EVERY scene has an explosion FIRST followed by bits and pieces of a Relay flying outwards from source of kinetic / momentum force. You don't have to be a physicist or even need a degree in advanced physics, just a little common sense and understanding that ;

1) you need xxx amount of kinetic/momentum force to break something apart
2) you need xxx amount of force to not just crack or dent an object but to cause catastrophic damage to an object
3) any less than xxx amount of force even from an explosion would not cause structure to fail

And yes, we are told to ignore that because explosions make for exciting viewing. Now THAT'S Space Magic

Well it wasn't about the Mass Relays, it was about Shepard controlling the Reapers after her/his physical dead...

I can see one explanation. That the Mass Relays did release their energies before they exploded. If you look carefully at the videos, you can see that the energy from the element zero core is release before the explosion happened. It's true, a Mass Relay is a superstructure, but they also have quantum shield's who put them together on a subatomic level. If this shielding is also gone the amount of Energy to destroy such a structure is high, but it should been well under the amount of energy needed to destroy a Planetary system. 

Modifié par Holger1405, 04 juin 2012 - 09:34 .

[3DandBeyond]

MSandt wrote...


That explains only why the Reapers did what they did but not why they were created. Here's what I wrote: "What remained to be explained was who created them and why." For what purpose were they created in the first place? The ending answered that: to preserve organic life by denying them a chance to destroy themselves.


The Catalyst was probably destroyed along with the Citadel. Because of Shepard the Catalyst believed that the cycle could finally be broken, and with the Catalyst's existence tied to maintaining the cycle, there'd be no need for the Catalyst to exist anymore.

And, as I said, even if the Catalyst survived and wanted to initiate another cycle, it'd take millions of years to assemble another synthetic army capable of mass genocide.
 
Uh, the Catalyst did reveal itself.
At one point two of the engineering-level crew members were discussing whether EDI is in fact Normandy. This could be an allegory to the Catalyst/Citadel relation. The glowboy was to the Catalyst what the EDI chick was to EDI.


There is no reason to doubt the validity of its claim that it is the creator of the Reapers. This is the only reasonable conclusion given the facts.

But they are not preserving organic life they are in fact destroying it (some they harvest and some they don't) and they destroy all advanced organic life when only one advanced form actually created synthetics that actually may well have decided to work with organics in the game.  This puts the lie to anything the Catalyst insists must always be true.  He decides to kill all advanced organics even those who have no desire to create AIs.

We have no way of knowing what corporeal form if any the Catalyst takes.  His true nature could lie in redundant code that exists in places other than the Citadel, just as EDI could exist within the EDI body and the Normandy.  You could destroy the body, but her essence would still exist and perhaps at some point she also became EDI within the body as well so that if the Normandy were destroyed, the EDI in the body would live on.

The catalyst never actually revealed himself at all.  He shows up in a form that indicates he has some all powerful ability to read Shepard's thoughts, but has no real ability to know all that Shepard could have done.  Shepard could have rejected one form or another of each of the 3 choices and also even the basis behind what the kid does, but the kid doesn't know that-things that happened repeatedly.  Yet, he grabs one image of a kid that Shepard saw for 10 total seconds.  Anyway, the kid shows up in the non-threatening form but he offers nothing to suggest who or what he really is, so he has not revealed himself.  We have learned nothing about him.  And all that we know is what he says, some of it extremely abhorrent.

We have no idea how long it would take to create more reapers or some other death machines, since we have no idea how long it took to make these.  We may have some clue that they've been doing what they do for a long time, but no idea where they came from or who built them or what.  We have one AI that says a lot of things-that is it.  If TIM or Kai Leng said it, we'd be smashing their faces in.

And sure the kid could have created the reapers.  So?  Who is he?  Well he's the being that created the reapers.  Yes, but who is he?  And I know he says why the reapers were created-they are his solution to chaos.  But, other things point to this as a lie, too. 

Basically, all you know is what he says, but if that's all you know, then you really don't know anything.  He says synthetics and organics will always fight-but Shepard says differently on Rannoch.  And still Shepard also says you do not condemn a race to extinction based upon what might happen.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 04 juin 2012 - 09:35 .