232 réponses à ce sujet

[Legion64]

RyuujinZERO wrote...

ME 3 wrote...

Just wandering, does anyone actually know what catalyst does?
It basically speeds up the rate of a chemical reaction.
A bit of an odd thing that no-one ever asks what the word catalyst means, that's the first thing i'd have done.

The expression catalyst is also used outside chemistry too. But yes, it basiclly means "Something that facilities an event without being becoming a direct part of it".

Which, is pretty much what it does in the game; it facilities Shepard's ability to set up a space magic ending of his choice by helping the process along both literally and figuratively... 

...HOWEVER: I still think they could've replaced him with clippy [b] and it would've been no less jarring, and just as useful...



Edit: Just for you guys

I kept pressing 'Don't show this tip again' for some reason.

[gvaveris]

The Indoctrination Theory is proof that fans can write a better ending for ME3 with fewer plot holes than Bioware could.

[The Razman]

gvaveris wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is proof that fans can write a better ending for ME3 with fewer plot holes than Bioware could.

Really? You think Indoctrination Theory doesn't have plotholes?

... really?

[Father_Jerusalem]

The Razman wrote...

gvaveris wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is proof that fans can write a better ending for ME3 with fewer plot holes than Bioware could.

Really? You think Indoctrination Theory doesn't have plotholes?

... really?

To be fair, he said "fewer". To my count, the ending to ME3 had two actual "plot holes" - how your crew got on the ship, and why the Normandy was fleeing. 

Given that IT is simply one giant plot hole, he is, in fact, correct in his assertion. 

One giant plothole is, numerically, fewer than two relatively minor plotholes.

[Squallypo]

i just hear alot of "if" speculations for everyone.. gotta love those comment from people that "think" they know the real answers and their "why" of what happend in the end.

Modifié par Squallypo, 07 mai 2012 - 11:56 .

[gvaveris]

The Razman wrote...

gvaveris wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is proof that fans can write a better ending for ME3 with fewer plot holes than Bioware could.

Really? You think Indoctrination Theory doesn't have plotholes?

... really?

I said fewer plotholes, not no plotholes.  Do I need to list the gaping plotholes you could drive a truck through that the ending opens up?  IT provides is a better ending than the slap in the face we get in the base game.  They should have kept Drew Karphshyn on Mass Effect.  He would never have written that.

[JBONE27]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

The Razman wrote...

gvaveris wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is proof that fans can write a better ending for ME3 with fewer plot holes than Bioware could.

Really? You think Indoctrination Theory doesn't have plotholes?

... really?

To be fair, he said "fewer". To my count, the ending to ME3 had two actual "plot holes" - how your crew got on the ship, and why the Normandy was fleeing. 

Given that IT is simply one giant plot hole, he is, in fact, correct in his assertion. 

One giant plothole is, numerically, fewer than two relatively minor plotholes.

How is IT a plot hole?  Shepard sees this kid, which nobody else seems to from the begining of the game.  Shepard had more exposure to Reaper tech than anyone who isn't either dead or already indoctronated (Mass Effect: Arrival anyone?), Shepard constantly seems to have head aches (facial annimations).  It is pretty clear that, if Bioware choses to use IT then it would not be a plot hole.

[Izhalezan]

The Razman wrote...

gvaveris wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is proof that fans can write a better ending for ME3 with fewer plot holes than Bioware could.

Really? You think Indoctrination Theory doesn't have plotholes?

... really?

If anyone thinks IT is devoid of poltholes they're a little too invested in it...

[gvaveris]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

The Razman wrote...

gvaveris wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is proof that fans can write a better ending for ME3 with fewer plot holes than Bioware could.

Really? You think Indoctrination Theory doesn't have plotholes?

... really?

To be fair, he said "fewer". To my count, the ending to ME3 had two actual "plot holes" - how your crew got on the ship, and why the Normandy was fleeing. 

Given that IT is simply one giant plot hole, he is, in fact, correct in his assertion. 

One giant plothole is, numerically, fewer than two relatively minor plotholes.

There's two more. 

1.  The presence of the Catalyst as a super powerful AI controlling the Citadel begs the question of why it didn't just open the portal into dark space itself.  Why use Sovereign or some other vanguard?  If Shepard is the first organic to step foot in the Catalyst's chambers (as it says), then it should have been working just fine and been able to summon the Reapers the usual way. 

2.  Destroying a Mass Relay was established in Arrival to destroy an entire system.  So every system in the galaxy with a mass relay should be wiped out.  Yet Earth is there in the end, all fine and dandy. 

Modifié par gvaveris, 08 mai 2012 - 12:01 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

JBONE27 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

The Razman wrote...

gvaveris wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is proof that fans can write a better ending for ME3 with fewer plot holes than Bioware could.

Really? You think Indoctrination Theory doesn't have plotholes?

... really?

To be fair, he said "fewer". To my count, the ending to ME3 had two actual "plot holes" - how your crew got on the ship, and why the Normandy was fleeing. 

Given that IT is simply one giant plot hole, he is, in fact, correct in his assertion. 

One giant plothole is, numerically, fewer than two relatively minor plotholes.

How is IT a plot hole?  Shepard sees this kid, which nobody else seems to from the begining of the game.  Shepard had more exposure to Reaper tech than anyone who isn't either dead or already indoctronated (Mass Effect: Arrival anyone?), Shepard constantly seems to have head aches (facial annimations).  It is pretty clear that, if Bioware choses to use IT then it would not be a plot hole.

Because if IT is true... how does Shepard defeat the Reapers at the end of ME3? What's the ending? What does the Crucible do? 

Simply put, if IT is true, BioWare shipped the game without any sort of actual ending whatsoever - Shepard is either indoctrinated and... does something to someone somehow somewhere that we never know about, or Shepard breaks free of indoctrination somehow and... stops the Reapers... I guess.. somehow... with something... maybe?

[Izhalezan]

gvaveris wrote...


2.  Destroying a Mass Relay was established in Arrival to destroy an entire system.  So every system in the galaxy with a mass relay should be wiped out.  Yet Earth is there in the end, all fine and dandy. 

Smashing a asteroid into a relay is different from having it take a space magic to the power source.

[Father_Jerusalem]

gvaveris wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

The Razman wrote...

gvaveris wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is proof that fans can write a better ending for ME3 with fewer plot holes than Bioware could.

Really? You think Indoctrination Theory doesn't have plotholes?

... really?

To be fair, he said "fewer". To my count, the ending to ME3 had two actual "plot holes" - how your crew got on the ship, and why the Normandy was fleeing. 

Given that IT is simply one giant plot hole, he is, in fact, correct in his assertion. 

One giant plothole is, numerically, fewer than two relatively minor plotholes.

There's two more. 

1.  The presence of the Catalyst as a super powerful AI controlling the Citadel begs the question of why it didn't just open the portal into dark space itself.  Why use Sovereign or some other vanguard?  If Shepard is the first organic to step foot in the Catalyst's chambers (as it says), then it should have been working just fine and been able to summon the Reapers the usual way. 

2.  Destroying a Mass Relay was established in Arrival to destroy an entire system.  So every system in the galaxy with a mass relay should be wiped out.  Yet Earth is there in the end, all fine and dandy. 

Neither of those are plot holes. At all. The Catalyst is a VI, opening the portal to dark space requires physical contact - as seen in ME1. The Catalyst is incapable of that, thus requiring Soverign.

As for the Relays... the fact that people still assume that just because you slam an asteroid into a Relay and it explodes means that's what ALWAYS happens, no matter what, ever is... too ridiculous for words. Yes, if you slam a planetoid into a Relay it ruptures and explodes. However, nowhere in the ending is there any sort of clue even mentioned that you are destroying the relays in the same way, there is no rupture, and you can clearly see the energy from the Relay being expended to power whichever decision you make.


So... yeah.

Modifié par Father_Jerusalem, 08 mai 2012 - 12:07 .

[Squallypo]

spacey magikz live long an prosper, happy ?

[JBONE27]

gvaveris wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

The Razman wrote...

gvaveris wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is proof that fans can write a better ending for ME3 with fewer plot holes than Bioware could.

Really? You think Indoctrination Theory doesn't have plotholes?

... really?

To be fair, he said "fewer". To my count, the ending to ME3 had two actual "plot holes" - how your crew got on the ship, and why the Normandy was fleeing. 

Given that IT is simply one giant plot hole, he is, in fact, correct in his assertion. 

One giant plothole is, numerically, fewer than two relatively minor plotholes.

There's two more. 

1.  The presence of the Catalyst as a super powerful AI controlling the Citadel begs the question of why it didn't just open the portal into dark space itself.  Why use Sovereign or some other vanguard?  If Shepard is the first organic to step foot in the Catalyst's chambers (as it says), then it should have been working just fine and been able to summon the Reapers the usual way. 

2.  Destroying a Mass Relay was established in Arrival to destroy an entire system.  So every system in the galaxy with a mass relay should be wiped out.  Yet Earth is there in the end, all fine and dandy. 

And another 2.

1.  Why would the Reapers bring the Citidel to Earth instead of Palavan or somewhere in dark space?

2.  How do you gain control if your body is vaporized?

[JBONE27]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

gvaveris wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

The Razman wrote...

gvaveris wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is proof that fans can write a better ending for ME3 with fewer plot holes than Bioware could.

Really? You think Indoctrination Theory doesn't have plotholes?

... really?

To be fair, he said "fewer". To my count, the ending to ME3 had two actual "plot holes" - how your crew got on the ship, and why the Normandy was fleeing. 

Given that IT is simply one giant plot hole, he is, in fact, correct in his assertion. 

One giant plothole is, numerically, fewer than two relatively minor plotholes.

There's two more. 

1.  The presence of the Catalyst as a super powerful AI controlling the Citadel begs the question of why it didn't just open the portal into dark space itself.  Why use Sovereign or some other vanguard?  If Shepard is the first organic to step foot in the Catalyst's chambers (as it says), then it should have been working just fine and been able to summon the Reapers the usual way. 

2.  Destroying a Mass Relay was established in Arrival to destroy an entire system.  So every system in the galaxy with a mass relay should be wiped out.  Yet Earth is there in the end, all fine and dandy. 

Neither of those are plot holes. At all. The Catalyst is a VI, opening the portal to dark space requires physical contact - as seen in ME1. The Catalyst is incapable of that, thus requiring Soverign.

As for the Relays... the fact that people still assume that just because you slam an asteroid into a Relay and it explodes means that's what ALWAYS happens, no matter what, ever is... too ridiculous for words. Yes, if you slam a planetoid into a Relay it ruptures and explodes. However, nowhere in the ending is there any sort of clue even mentioned that you are destroying the relays in the same way, there is no rupture, and you can clearly see the energy from the Relay being expended to power whichever decision you make.


So... yeah.

1.  I'll give you that.

2.  Did you actually see the ending cinematic?  The Mass Relays looked prety explody to me.

[Father_Jerusalem]

JBONE27 wrote...



1.  I'll give you that.

2.  Did you actually see the ending cinematic?  The Mass Relays looked prety explody to me.

And if you believe that the Relays are all destroyed and that the energy blows up everything in the galaxy, then that energy that's being shot between the Relays, zipping along the galaxy map is.....? 

[JBONE27]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...



1.  I'll give you that.

2.  Did you actually see the ending cinematic?  The Mass Relays looked prety explody to me.

And if you believe that the Relays are all destroyed and that the energy blows up everything in the galaxy, then that energy that's being shot between the Relays, zipping along the galaxy map is.....? 

Exactly why it counts as a plot hole.

[Father_Jerusalem]

JBONE27 wrote...

gvaveris wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

The Razman wrote...

gvaveris wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is proof that fans can write a better ending for ME3 with fewer plot holes than Bioware could.

Really? You think Indoctrination Theory doesn't have plotholes?

... really?

To be fair, he said "fewer". To my count, the ending to ME3 had two actual "plot holes" - how your crew got on the ship, and why the Normandy was fleeing. 

Given that IT is simply one giant plot hole, he is, in fact, correct in his assertion. 

One giant plothole is, numerically, fewer than two relatively minor plotholes.

There's two more. 

1.  The presence of the Catalyst as a super powerful AI controlling the Citadel begs the question of why it didn't just open the portal into dark space itself.  Why use Sovereign or some other vanguard?  If Shepard is the first organic to step foot in the Catalyst's chambers (as it says), then it should have been working just fine and been able to summon the Reapers the usual way. 

2.  Destroying a Mass Relay was established in Arrival to destroy an entire system.  So every system in the galaxy with a mass relay should be wiped out.  Yet Earth is there in the end, all fine and dandy. 

And another 2.

1.  Why would the Reapers bring the Citidel to Earth instead of Palavan or somewhere in dark space?

2.  How do you gain control if your body is vaporized?

1. Earth is where the greatest concentration of their forces are. If they want to defend something, wouldn't they bring it right to the middle of where their giant effing army is? The only reason they lost was because of EDI managing to defeat the anti-jamming technology that prevented that Thanix missiles from hitting the destroyer in front of the beam - something they probably didn't even think was possible. 

2. Your consciousness is uploaded, your physical body is vaporized, but your mind now inhabits the Reapers and controls them.

[gvaveris]

At around 2 minutes for this video.

and around 2:35 for this video.

Compared to this video.

Apart from the color, the explosions look pretty similar to me.  It looks like the Earth mass relay is destroyed.  Only in the Control ending are the Mass Relays "less destroyed." 

[Father_Jerusalem]

JBONE27 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...



1.  I'll give you that.

2.  Did you actually see the ending cinematic?  The Mass Relays looked prety explody to me.

And if you believe that the Relays are all destroyed and that the energy blows up everything in the galaxy, then that energy that's being shot between the Relays, zipping along the galaxy map is.....? 

Exactly why it counts as a plot hole.

Except it doesn't, because believing that the Relays kill everything is ridiculous. Patrick Weekes even said so - the writers NEVER thought people would jump on this "OMG EVERYONE'S DEAD AND THE GALAXY IS KABLOOIE" wagon because it's so incredibly obvious that there is a difference between what happened in Arrival and what happened in ME3.

[JBONE27]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

gvaveris wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

The Razman wrote...

gvaveris wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is proof that fans can write a better ending for ME3 with fewer plot holes than Bioware could.

Really? You think Indoctrination Theory doesn't have plotholes?

... really?

To be fair, he said "fewer". To my count, the ending to ME3 had two actual "plot holes" - how your crew got on the ship, and why the Normandy was fleeing. 

Given that IT is simply one giant plot hole, he is, in fact, correct in his assertion. 

One giant plothole is, numerically, fewer than two relatively minor plotholes.

There's two more. 

1.  The presence of the Catalyst as a super powerful AI controlling the Citadel begs the question of why it didn't just open the portal into dark space itself.  Why use Sovereign or some other vanguard?  If Shepard is the first organic to step foot in the Catalyst's chambers (as it says), then it should have been working just fine and been able to summon the Reapers the usual way. 

2.  Destroying a Mass Relay was established in Arrival to destroy an entire system.  So every system in the galaxy with a mass relay should be wiped out.  Yet Earth is there in the end, all fine and dandy. 

And another 2.

1.  Why would the Reapers bring the Citidel to Earth instead of Palavan or somewhere in dark space?

2.  How do you gain control if your body is vaporized?

1. Earth is where the greatest concentration of their forces are. If they want to defend something, wouldn't they bring it right to the middle of where their giant effing army is? The only reason they lost was because of EDI managing to defeat the anti-jamming technology that prevented that Thanix missiles from hitting the destroyer in front of the beam - something they probably didn't even think was possible. 

2. Your consciousness is uploaded, your physical body is vaporized, but your mind now inhabits the Reapers and controls them.

1.  According to the Codex Palavan has the greater concentration, and dark space would give the reapers a further advantage.

2.  Consiousness doesn't work that way.  You need a working brain in order to have consiousness.  This was actually adressed within the game itself... again, plot hole.

[Tallin Harperson]

I'm actually fairly certain most of the supposed plotholes are actually either explained by the narrative or else minor inconsistencies which people have blown out of proportion. I mean, if you don't like the ending, that is fine, but don't find plotholes where there aren't any. Personally, I thought the ending was alright. I mean, it didn't blow my mind, but as another Shepherd says: "how you get there is the worthier part."

One of my favourite is the one that goes into how if the Catalyst was there all along, then why didn't he just help the Reapers in ME1. But really, he quite clearly says he created the Reapers for a reason. When you create something, you want to be sure it does the job. There is no logical reason for him to help out a defective creation. If they can't do the job on they were created for then there is no reason for them. Which is why we have ME3.

Modifié par Tallin Harperson, 08 mai 2012 - 12:26 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

gvaveris wrote...

At around 2 minutes for this video.

and around 2:35 for this video.

Compared to this video.

Apart from the color, the explosions look pretty similar to me.  It looks like the Earth mass relay is destroyed.  Only in the Control ending are the Mass Relays "less destroyed." 

The housing is destroyed. The energy is shot off into space. No energy = no kablooie. You can see it yourself at 2:04 in that first video.

[JBONE27]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...



1.  I'll give you that.

2.  Did you actually see the ending cinematic?  The Mass Relays looked prety explody to me.

And if you believe that the Relays are all destroyed and that the energy blows up everything in the galaxy, then that energy that's being shot between the Relays, zipping along the galaxy map is.....? 

Exactly why it counts as a plot hole.

Except it doesn't, because believing that the Relays kill everything is ridiculous. Patrick Weekes even said so - the writers NEVER thought people would jump on this "OMG EVERYONE'S DEAD AND THE GALAXY IS KABLOOIE" wagon because it's so incredibly obvious that there is a difference between what happened in Arrival and what happened in ME3.

The simple fact that Weekes had to try impotantly to explain it proves that, within the game itself, it is a huge plot hole.  The galaxy should have been completely destroyed according to the rules set up by the previous game.