349 réponses à ce sujet

[Tom Lehrer]

The Catalyst destorys the whole plot of ME1 thus the plot of ME2 and ME3 are made pointless. To put it in as simple a form as possiable.

Godchild makes the whole story nonsense.

[WizenSlinky0]

The Angry One wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...


All reasoning and arguments is inherently flawed. That's not my point. My point is that his position has logical basis. His conclusion does not have to be correct for his logic to be sound and for him to make sense.

....... are you kidding? He bases a faulty conclusion based on faulty logic and complete assumptions.
Again, nothing he says is provable. Everything is contradictable.

I will say this in all caps so you notice.
ANSWER THE POINT ABOUT THE PROTHEAN CYCLE HYBRIDS.

Oh I notice what you say. I just don't see much point in discussing this further with you. You're too belligerent in your arguments and I find it destructive to civil discourse and debate. So, my logical conclusion is that is unhealthy for me to continue such a debate as it may lead to anger and a loss of civility. You're welcome to disagree with my conclusion just as you are with the starchilds.

Sorry.

Besides, since you disagree with me my logic must be faulty. So why would you possibility want my answer?

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Thanks for the laugh OP

[CombustiblePanda]

I'm just wondering why you would build something like the Mass Relays if you didn't want organic life to advanced to such a point where the Reapers were necessary...

[xXxPoopballs]

The Geth only attacked because the quarians where trying to exterminate them like a bunch of idiots. The quarians brought it upon themselves im sure if they talked to the geth they would have been able to meet a mutual understanding and no war would have happened.

[Bourne Endeavor]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

thrawn8586 wrote...
The problem with this is that you have to accept the starchild's argument that synthetics have and will be killing organics for all time, when we have one example of this being untrue (see the Geth) and one example of organics being able to stop synthetics from destroying organics (see prothean vs synthetics).  If the starchild had presented some specific examples, then it would be easier to accept his logic, but he doesn't.  He makes a general claim that is disproven based on what we have seen from synthetic life.

Just because synthetics CAN live without organic life is not enough of proof to say that they will try to eliminate all organic life.

See, that comes full circle back to my point. The ending (which I found hugely unsatisfying) does not flush out the point. He never tells you outright that the Geth are irrelevent to the point. It's not a plothole, it's not illogical, it's just sloppily done. There's a big difference. I'm not debating that the catalyst is inherently correct. Only that his position has a logical basis when you approach this problem from a less narrow perspective.

Definition of a plot hole...

A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.

What the Catalyst says is not logical but regardless, by your own admission, he never brings up the Geth. That constitutes a plot hole because he is not refuting established fact. The Catalyst made a blanket statement all synthetics will destroy organics, yet we have evidence to the contrary. Even if the percentage is astronomically low, its logic is no longer absolute.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 27 mars 2012 - 07:06 .

[Iconoclaste]

CombustiblePanda wrote...

I'm just wondering why you would build something like the Mass Relays if you didn't want organic life to advanced to such a point where the Reapers were necessary...

For reproduction purposes, just in case. Read the thread.

[Saul Iscariot]

The Angry One wrote...

Saul Iscariot wrote...

As for Joker fleeing having picked up the remaining crew members the fault is entirely BWs. A few cut scenes and it easily could have made sense.

No it doesn't, it still doesn't explain why he's fleeing, where he is, how he could safely land in a planet and why they apparently forgot that being dragged out of FTL speeds in an uncontrolled manner will, you know, kill the crew.

Before Shepard enters the beam you have a scene where Joker decides to go looking for survivors, when he gets there he finds his squad mates but no Shepard who has now gone to the Crucible.
Game continues as per what we know. Before making his choice Shepard orders Joker too flee in case he fails. Joker argues but relents. Joker being a great pilot manages an emergency landing in the most advanced ship in the fleet.
Tell me why the inclusion of such scenes wouldn't make sense? It doesn't change the story but makes Joker's escape make more sense.

[The Angry One]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Oh I notice what you say. I just don't see much point in discussing this further with you. You're too belligerent in your arguments and I find it destructive to civil discourse and debate. So, my logical conclusion is that is unhealthy for me to continue such a debate as it may lead to anger and a loss of civility. You're welcome to disagree with my conclusion just as you are with the starchilds.

Sorry.

Besides, since you disagree with me my logic must be faulty. So why would you possibility want my answer?

Really? Who cares about my tone? If your point is sound it doesn't matter.
Not that I've been belligerent in any case, I've just been applying your logic against you.

Regardless, the hybrid point disproves the Catalyst's logic entirely.
Even if they had overcome the Protheans (which they didn't) and destroyed all organic life in the galaxy then destroyed the Reapers, organic life would still exist within them, because they are hybrids.
Therefore organic life is preserved.

[Sett101]

1. Why is he there?
A.TIM is the baddest ass on the citadel. Discounting this or he would have put down his smoke for three seconds and just killed Shepard himself no space ninjas needed.
B.Indoctrination
i. Why wouldn't the Reapers send TIM and Cerberus to just destroy the crucible?
ii. They wanted to try to hug it out and make us cool with being reaped making ME1&2 new logic errors.
a. Of all the people on the citadel he was deemed to be the one we would relate to best.
b. They could take over the citadel with all it's defense but killing a few space geeks in open space was too hard for combined reapers and Cerberus forces.
iii. They need him there.
a. Why if they need someone on the ground would they not send a husk.
b. Not convert someone more suited to this roll freeing TIM as an asset to use in another way.

2. Why is the cycle there?
A. The reapers and space kid are the products of organic creators that evolved after advanced synthetics destroyed all organic life.
i. They never existed.
ii. If they evolved so far after the fact how did they know about it, let alone know that it was a recurring theme.
B. The synthetic parts of the reapers are the first of the synthetics killing all advanced organics. Meaning they are there to make sure what they did doesn't happen again?
i. It was a good idea but only if they are the ones who thought of it.
ii. They merged with their creators becoming the reapers and decided their one time event was the only way things could go. Meaning the first time never really happened either the creators still exist in a form of their own design.
iii. They always were able to just destroy/merge quickly based on the endings but, never used that tech because flying around hand reaping is easier?
iv. Space logic is needed for space magic.


I'm glad you were able to logic around all that and see it as the simple issue it is. Thank you for your post. You fixed it all for me .

[DocDoomII]

Baronesa wrote...

EDI says this about the Human Reaper: "It could be to facilitate the Reaper equivalent of reproduction, or itmay serve another purpose"

Sure it is left open... but the idea of being used for reproduction is still there.

And not a big fan of ultimates universe xD some things have been done a lot better there, mind you, but in general... I think it is a bit meh... and anyway I WAS a DC girl... until that horrible reboot.

Ah yes, I had forgot that dialogue.
That's just a reference to reproduction, I was referring to your suggestion of us being dinner like planets are for Galactus

OT
The ultimate universe has many faults, but I was kinda tired of the calssic one where almost every character had died at least 3 times, so I started with a fresh universe...
DC comics edition in italy are kind of subpar, so I never approached that 'universe'.

[The Angry One]

Saul Iscariot wrote...
Before Shepard enters the beam you have a scene where Joker decides to go looking for survivors, when he gets there he finds his squad mates but no Shepard who has now gone to the Crucible.
Game continues as per what we know. Before making his choice Shepard orders Joker too flee in case he fails. Joker argues but relents. Joker being a great pilot manages an emergency landing in the most advanced ship in the fleet.
Tell me why the inclusion of such scenes wouldn't make sense? It doesn't change the story but makes Joker's escape make more sense.

Shepard has no authority to order a retreat because Normandy is under Hackett's fleet command now, nor is there any reason to as (especially with high EMS one would assume) the fleet is still intact and fighting.
Therefore no matter how you explain it, Joker is guilty of dereliction of duty and cowardice in the face of the enemy.
He's also going to die from radiation poisoning.

[WizenSlinky0]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Definition of a plot hole...

A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.

What the Catalyst says is not logical but regardless, by your own admission, he never brings up the Geth. That constitutes a plot hole because he is not refuting established fact. The Catalyst made a blanket statement all synthetics will destroy organics, yet we have evidence to the contrary. Even if the percentage is astronomically low, its logic is not fact

Well then, every game is pretty much one giant plothole. Because tons of relevant information regarding plots is never brought up. Because it's all contextual. Shepard never brings up the Geth, so why would the starchild? My assertion stands. It is not a plothole but a result of sloppy design. Or perhaps just a controversial design choice. Because Shepard is barely standing at that point. Nevermind thinking critically.

The Catalyst has reached one of many possibily logical conclusions. Logical does not mean "correct". To be logical is to apply the correct methods of reasoning. Those methods can still lead to vastly different conclusions based on experiences and avaliable knowledge.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Jonwes wrote...

I thought it would be good to have a thread to debunk some of the "plot holes" that people keep regurgitating because they saw the Angry Joe video or one of the articles that have ripped it off. The fact of the matter is that while there are surely things to be annoyed/disappointed with as far as the ending goes, there are some things people keep bringing up that really don't seem like an issue. There are two that are driving me nuts reading about again and again:

1. Why did the Illusive Man show up? How did he get to the Citadel?
People keep acting surprised that he showed up and wonder how he got there...

BUT

We are told the Illusive Man has gone to the Citadel. We are told this in the game. I wasn't surprised to see him there in the end because as we are raiding Cronos station we are specifically told that the Illusive Man is gone and that he's gone to the Citadel. I can't remember if Kai Leng or EDI said it in my play through, but it was specifically mentioned. He was there to use the Crucible for his own end game plans.

2. The Catalyst's Logic Makes No Sense

Not sure why people are having trouble understand the cycle thing. People keep saying "why do they use synthetics to kill organics to prevent synthetics from killing organics?" The answer - that's not what the Catalyst is saying at all.

The Reapers are "pruning" the populace and getting rid of only the most advanced civilizations and the synthetics (or taking over the synthetics.) This gets rid of the synthetics to prevent them from destroying ALL life and gets rid of the beings capable of producing more synthetics... for a time. They leave the young races. The idea is that in this way non-synthetics are never totally wiped out. Seems clear enough.

Also, using the possible Geth/Quarian peace as an example to say the Catalyst is wrong is silly. The Geth DID rebel against their creators at one point. The fact that Shepard (might have) brokered a peace doesn't change that, nor does it prevent other organics from making other synthetics in the future  that will rebel and destroy all organic life as the Catalyst fears. The Catalyst has seen this happen over and over. His reference point is not as limited as our experience.

Now, whether Shepard should just believe what the Catalyst says is another matter, but what he actually says is not illogical.

1 I never had a problem with TIM showing up the citadel, but I can see why other people would.

A) For instance how did he get control of it, because last we see C-sec were still in control of it?

Was there another battle fought for control of it?

C) where was the Armada that was left to protect it?

2. If it was me and not Shepard listing to the logic of the star child, I would need proof, I would not make my decisions on the fate of countless numbers of lives based on the word of a the thing I only just met a few minutes ago.

I still don't get why if the starchild can control, merge and destroy the reapers, it can't just tell them to stop srsly have they no wifi?

Modifié par DinoSteve, 27 mars 2012 - 07:12 .

[Baronesa]

The Angry One wrote...

Saul Iscariot wrote...
Before Shepard enters the beam you have a scene where Joker decides to go looking for survivors, when he gets there he finds his squad mates but no Shepard who has now gone to the Crucible.
Game continues as per what we know. Before making his choice Shepard orders Joker too flee in case he fails. Joker argues but relents. Joker being a great pilot manages an emergency landing in the most advanced ship in the fleet.
Tell me why the inclusion of such scenes wouldn't make sense? It doesn't change the story but makes Joker's escape make more sense.

Shepard has no authority to order a retreat because Normandy is under Hackett's fleet command now, nor is there any reason to as (especially with high EMS one would assume) the fleet is still intact and fighting.
Therefore no matter how you explain it, Joker is guilty of dereliction of duty and cowardice in the face of the enemy.
He's also going to die from radiation poisoning.

IF he does not die due to crashing... I mean... you practically broke the poor guy's arms when you tried to save him on the Original Normandy "Ahhh watch the arm"   And crashing on the jungle planet leaves him with no injury... at all????

[Dendio1]

Heres a question. Anderson and shep were both part of the same run to the citadel where harby blew up hammer squad. Sheps armor is in rags and his face is torn up and bloodied. Anderson is clean as a whistle, no armor damage, no damage at all.

Explain this plot hole
thanks

Indoctrination theory: give it a look

[alx119]

How is this debunking anything? I agree that TIM on the citadel isn't much of a plothole, I mean, he tipped off the Reapers about it, and he wasn't in his base, so it's just obvious to think he was already there. What people wonders is where the **** does he come from, because we don't see him when we enter, and we don't see any other way to get in. But that's a minor minor plothole.

Needless to say, the catalyst logic is still flawed, and you've proven very little, or nothing with your argument. Not saying is bad per see, but it isn't as "easy" as that, and yeah, the geth didn't rebel, they gained consciousness and the creators, scared, attacked them first. But they always looked for coexistence, or at least to be left alone in peace. Now they share that peace with the quarians.

Or they would if you didn't accidentally the whole galaxy.

[OchreJelly]

I would like to point out that a plot-hole is generally considered...

...a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.

[Psychlonus]

Jonwes wrote...



2. The Catalyst's Logic Makes No Sense

Not sure why people are having trouble understand the cycle thing. People keep saying "why do they use synthetics to kill organics to prevent synthetics from killing organics?" The answer - that's not what the Catalyst is saying at all.

The Reapers are "pruning" the populace and getting rid of only the most advanced civilizations and the synthetics (or taking over the synthetics.) This gets rid of the synthetics to prevent them from destroying ALL life and gets rid of the beings capable of producing more synthetics... for a time. They leave the young races. The idea is that in this way non-synthetics are never totally wiped out. Seems clear enough.

Also, using the possible Geth/Quarian peace as an example to say the Catalyst is wrong is silly. The Geth DID rebel against their creators at one point. The fact that Shepard (might have) brokered a peace doesn't change that, nor does it prevent other organics from making other synthetics in the future  that will rebel and destroy all organic life as the Catalyst fears. The Catalyst has seen this happen over and over. His reference point is not as limited as our experience.

Now, whether Shepard should just believe what the Catalyst says is another matter, but what he actually says is not illogical.

It's a plothole because it doesn't fit the story. Given what he explained, where is the need for reaper secrecy? Why not just hang around and communicate with the spacefairing species and patrol the galaxy like galactic spidey shooting webs at AI monsters? Had they done that, catalyst wouldn't've witnessed all these synthetic take overs--he would've stopped them. And if they've gotta be heartless, why not indoctrinate an army of AI hunters to help patrol the galaxy? And how does the Catalyst's explanation fit Sovereign's speech and attitude?

Modifié par Psychlonus, 27 mars 2012 - 07:14 .

[zarnk567]

Well, my thoughts about the non-sensical, deus ex machina ending were completely changed with this thread. (sarcasm)

[Sett101]

The Angry One wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Oh I notice what you say. I just don't see much point in discussing this further with you. You're too belligerent in your arguments and I find it destructive to civil discourse and debate. So, my logical conclusion is that is unhealthy for me to continue such a debate as it may lead to anger and a loss of civility. You're welcome to disagree with my conclusion just as you are with the starchilds.

Sorry.

Besides, since you disagree with me my logic must be faulty. So why would you possibility want my answer?

Really? Who cares about my tone? If your point is sound it doesn't matter.
Not that I've been belligerent in any case, I've just been applying your logic against you.

Regardless, the hybrid point disproves the Catalyst's logic entirely.
Even if they had overcome the Protheans (which they didn't) and destroyed all organic life in the galaxy then destroyed the Reapers, organic life would still exist within them, because they are hybrids.
Therefore organic life is preserved.

Space logic tells us your name should imply you are never belligerent and your tone is always sweet and kind.....  seems like a good time to tell you, I love 90% of your posts 80% of the time. Keep on reaping.

[The Angry One]

Baronesa wrote...

IF he does not die due to crashing... I mean... you practically broke the poor guy's arms when you tried to save him on the Original Normandy "Ahhh watch the arm"   And crashing on the jungle planet leaves him with no injury... at all????

Space magic.

[WizenSlinky0]

The Angry One wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Oh I notice what you say. I just don't see much point in discussing this further with you. You're too belligerent in your arguments and I find it destructive to civil discourse and debate. So, my logical conclusion is that is unhealthy for me to continue such a debate as it may lead to anger and a loss of civility. You're welcome to disagree with my conclusion just as you are with the starchilds.

Sorry.

Besides, since you disagree with me my logic must be faulty. So why would you possibility want my answer?

Really? Who cares about my tone? If your point is sound it doesn't matter.
Not that I've been belligerent in any case, I've just been applying your logic against you.

Regardless, the hybrid point disproves the Catalyst's logic entirely.
Even if they had overcome the Protheans (which they didn't) and destroyed all organic life in the galaxy then destroyed the Reapers, organic life would still exist within them, because they are hybrids.
Therefore organic life is preserved.

I care. I have a certain standard of debate when I discuss things. I don't want to get into pissing contests or arguments. I want to get into debates. So to me tone is very important. Because if someone doesn't respect my opinion enough to engage me civilly I feel no desire to awknowledge theirs, but I still respect it.

You call it whatever you want. It's not about the content but about the contextual attitude I'm reading in every. single. post you make. My conclusion could very well be wrong. In fact, knowing me, it can often be a safe bet. But so long as I see them in that fashion I cannot, or should I say will not, debate you further.

But again, logical does not mean the conclusion is correct.

Modifié par WizenSlinky0, 27 mars 2012 - 07:15 .

[thrawn8586]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

See, that comes full circle back to my point. The ending (which I found hugely unsatisfying) does not flush out the point. He never tells you outright that the Geth are irrelevent to the point. It's not a plothole, it's not illogical, it's just sloppily done. There's a big difference. I'm not debating that the catalyst is inherently correct. Only that his position has a logical basis when you approach this problem from a less narrow perspective.

He is "claiming" that he has enough proof that it WILL happen. Just as ferverently as many people are saying that it WON'T happen. Again, he is the villian. He has always been the villian alongside the reapers when you consider ME3. If you disagree with him you blow up the reapers and allow for self-determination to win the day. I did.

You're asking for the villian to have logic you agree with or in someway prove his position (which again requires agreement if he "proved" it), when it doesn't matter. It has a logical foundation and anything beyond that is just the hero vs the villian. The catalyst controls the reapers to continue the cycle because he believes, or the people who built him believes, based on whatever evidence they had...that this will inevitably happen.

Where did we get this weird idea that the catalyst has to be "right" to make sense?

I don't know if I buy that.  Firstly, agree to agree its not a plot hole.  The issue I have (and I think many other people) is that the ending forces you to accept the catalyst's logic, which I think most people would agree Shepard would never do.  Its not really about the catalyst being right or wrong, its the inability to call the catalyst on out on his faulty logic and being forced into accepting that organics and synthetics will always be fighting.

Maybe thats not much of a plot hole or whatever, but just a bad ending.  But it is entirely unstatisfying and terrible writing regardless: Shepard would have never ceeded to the catalyst's faulty logic with the overbearing amount of proof to the contrary right in front of him.

I can agree with you that the catalyst feels it necessary that the cycle continues (even if I don't feel like its necessarly true, I can understand why he feels so), but it still isn't a good ending/make sense from Shepards point of view.

Modifié par thrawn8586, 27 mars 2012 - 07:16 .

[Aurvant]

Also, how are we suppose to even believe that the Catalyst is somehow remotely sane after everything we saw in ME2? When you go to save your crew at the Collectors Base we are treated to some of the most graphic and cruel death scenes in the entire series. The Reapers were LIQUIFYING organics (namely humans) and then being pumped in to the Human Reaper to power and operate it.

If the Reapers we're somehow collecting organic species to ascend them to a higher form to exist forever as a Reaper, then why was the Human Reaper even violent? Why didn't it just say "Kill me and spare me this horrid existence"? Perhaps it's because when the Reapers converted the humans it's because THEY CEASED BEING ANYTHING MORE THAN FUEL FOR A REAPER CORE.

I can keep going, but I'm tired of having to destroy the defenses of those supporting those shoddy endings.